>Nobody reports that Hamas was shooting for a "get out pillaging free" card

'Israel to withdraw and grant all other Hamas demands' is a 'get out free' card.

> they tried to return 3 hostages to show good faith who the IDF proceeded to kill.

These hostages _escaped_ and were shot in error. Not 'tried to return'. Note that there was a week's ceasefire a month earlier and Hamas could have returned everyone then if they cared to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_war_ceasefire

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/21/world/israel-hostages-cam...

>Hamas, on multiple occasions, agreed to all the terms only for Israel to reject the terms.

You mean all of 'Hamas's terms'. Right. The Israeli government had very different terms as the final deal (very different from what Hamas demanded) shows. The Israeli gov insisted on controlling the Egyptian border, Gaza demilitarization, etc.

>It's why the hostage families became really mad at the government.

Of course. They wanted the hostages out ASAP, and could only pressure the Israeli government (obviously Hamas wouldn't care for the families).

>Two wrongs don't make a right

Right, but there's such a thing as hypocrisy. One could make a 'genocidal' case against the country who started a war by bombing a schoolhouse and spoke of 'destroying an entire civilization' (it would still be wrong though). But they're a little too strong, and it's easier to pick on Israel.

>That's what world leaders should have done.

Most world leaders want to be reelected (or not be overthrown if they're dictators). Sending out troops to die in a foreign land for an arguably hopeless cause is not very helpful to that end. They're likely aware of the history of military involvement in the Middle East.

>The likes of AIPAC and CUFI get around campaign finance restrictions because they are operated by US citizens

Qatar etc. gets around it by donating billions to US universities or using organizations like ISNA. Everyone seems to have found a way.