I have no idea what you mean, but regardless here is how I see it.
For argument's sake I'll take the (rational) anti-Israel pov:
Gaza started a war on Israel, which included wholesale rape/murder, and the capturing of hundreds of innocents. Israel has decided it's going to win this war once and for all, rather than prolonging suffering with ceasefires as it has done in the past, basically ever since it's inception.
This actually makes sense, as ceasefires in the past have only served to allow the enemy to regroup and rearm, leading to more bloodshed. On both sides, but Israel's primary concern is the bloodshed of its own people.
Israel started the offensive very legitimately, and pretty soon it was clear this isn't a war that Gaza can win. Ideally that was when Gaza should have surrendered - if it at all cared about its people.
Their pride and culture didn't allow them to do so, and they continued fighting in spite of suffering heavy losses.
At some point Israel stepped up its offensive - using tactics which some might argue constitute war crimes. For argument's sake, let's say it is so. All this means is that Israel might have a case to answer once the war is over.
However, it is still Gaza which is prolonging the war despite the terrible conditions. It's pretty clear Israel is intent on winning, so at this point, the only rational solution is for Gaza to surrender. If instead they want to continue fighting the senseless war they started, to the last man standing, it appears Israel is willing to accept their terms.
Which brings me back to my original question, why not surrender? Is Gaza really intent on sacrificing every man, woman and child for a war they'll inevitably lose? Just admit defeat, surrender and return the hostages. Anything else is pure idiocy.