I find it frustrating that on this thread it's hard to find fault with Hamas without being derided as a genocide apologist. Personally I don't support what Israel is doing, but does that mean there must be no criticism of Hamas?
This is the view of the Economist correspondent on their Q&A today:
The civilian toll of nearly 2000 dead, 10,000 injured and some half a million people displaced in a population of 1.8m in Gaza makes many, perhaps most people there ask whether the war was worth the price. Almost everyone in Gaza is either homeless or is sheltering people who are. Most have lost access to all but occasional running water and electricity. Some 250,000 have sought shelter in schools, where many sleep on the floor, often without mattresses, 70 to a classroom. Israel bombed Gaza’s Hamas-linked insurance company, so many will lack the means to rebuild the more than 5,000 homes that have been destroyed.
At times of intense bombardment, criticism of Hamas by Gazans seemed to rise. As in Israel, many fear that speaking out will be considered treachery, but one young man I spoke to in Gaza City said he would protest with his friends in the streets if the militant factions continued the war.
In the longer term, if the war does result in the lifting of Gaza’s eight-year blockade and the enclave is reconnected to the outside world, many in Gaza will consider the toll in human suffering worth the reward. But with the positions of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating parties still far apart there is no guarantee that the political process under way in Cairo will deliver the gains that Hamas has promised. If the blockade in some shape or form continues, criticism of Hamas will mount, for pursuing a war in which the population, not Hamas itself, will have paid the highest price.