I found this article to be a good read:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hamas-timed-attack-deliberately-now-151255255.html
A few snippets:
Until this weekend, Israelis seemed confident that Hamas was not looking for another large-scale conflict. Some observers have speculated that this attack has something to do with a normalization deal in the works between Saudi Arabia and Israel. The two countries have been negotiating over opening up diplomatic relations. Maybe Hamas’ goal was to whip up tension and disrupt those talks?
Gregg Carlstrom: I think it will certainly delay efforts at a normalization deal, and that is not for Hamas an unwelcome side effect of this, but I think their considerations are much more local or are domestic. If you look at the situation in the Palestinian territories, you have a succession crisis brewing in the West Bank, where the president—Mahmoud Abbas, 87 years old, not in great health—doesn’t have a clear successor, but there’s going to be a change of power soon. There haven’t been elections in Palestine in almost 18 years now, but there’s a moment where it seems like a political change is coming. And to me, a lot of this has to do with those domestic politics, with Hamas trying to do something that boosts its popularity amongst Palestinians ahead of a political change.
You’ve called attention to this analysis in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, saying that Israel’s got four bad options. Now, can you just lay out what those options are?
The first one is not a military option. It’s to make a deal, a prisoner swap with Hamas [around] these dozens of Israelis who’ve been taken hostage and brought back to Gaza. The point of capturing them was obviously to exchange them, as Israel has done in the past. In 2011, for example, [Israel] freed about 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who had been held in Gaza for five years. Hamas would like to make a similar deal and hand over these hostages in exchange for thousands of Palestinians who were being held in Israel.
That does not seem likely, given how brutal the attack was.
No, it doesn’t. I think neither the political class nor the public right now is in any mood to make a deal.
So that leaves you with more-military responses, one of which is what Israel has done in past wars, which is a campaign of aerial bombing against Gaza, which has already started. That has been in the past, and that will be, again, devastating for Palestinians. In 2014, during that long war, you had thousands of people killed. You had tens of thousands of people who were left homeless afterwards. And at the end of that, the concern in Israel is that you do all of that and you don’t actually change the status quo. In Gaza, you don’t remove Hamas from power by doing that. You don’t, perhaps, seriously degrade its military capabilities, and so this cycle might continue to repeat.
So then, the other two options that have been floated, one of them is to tighten even further this blockade of Gaza and essentially try to starve not just Hamas but 2 million people into submission. That is more or less what Israel has been doing for the past 16 or 17 years, and it hasn’t worked. The blockade has immiserated Gaza. It has left it at a point where two-thirds of the population is unemployed; 80 percent of people need humanitarian aid to survive. It has destroyed the economy, but it has not brought political change. So that’s not really a viable option either.
And the last is to go ahead with a ground offensive, which will be devastating for everyone involved.