It wasn't an argument that one side should allow people to die, it was an argument that high mutual cost deters conflict and encourages diplomatic engagement. Which is true, see: nukes.
Sometimes, it is really impossible to talk some sense to some people. It’s just very hard to accept for us, but it just is, and history has proved that sometimes force is , unfortunately, the wisest choice.
You also clearly don't understand what path would lead someone to resort to suicide bombing if you think you can reduce it to "a pure act of hate". These are desperate people who have been brainwashed to the point that they think they would bring more net worth to the world by blowing themselves and their surroundings up than living on. What would help "talk sense" to people is to stop engaging in illegal invasive wars that (intentionally or unintentionally) destabilise their region.
Enemy may call you terrorist, but if it is your country you are freedom fighter.
Not continue to take other people's land and not making their live worse in cunning way is also wise.
Aside from that, the real issue is that the irrational side has not yet conceded that they lost their war, 70+ years ago, against the rational actor, who had established a state. They instigated that war, as they did not wish the rational actor to have that state. They are aided in their irrationality by various NGOs, and have managed to perpetuate and sustain their presumed victimhood, by attacking, with literal impunity, the rational actor.
Now, here, you are suggesting that maybe, the rational actor should be restricted in their response to the irrational actor as it may bring the rational actor to the negotiating table. Which of course, completely neglects all the times the rational actor sat at the negotiating table with the irrational actor, hammered things most of the way out, and watched the irrational actor breach every single agreement.
So ...
What we have here has nothing to do with rational actor deciding enough is enough, and developing tech to reasonably neutralize the threat the irrational actor poses. Arguing against this de minimus effort, as it might bring the rational actor back to the table (in your mind) if they had to rely on sticks and stones ... is pretty much the definition of ludicrous.
The rational actor has tried, for 70+ years, to get the irrational actor to work with it. And has been met with bloodshed, the irrational actor targeting civilians, which, is a real war crime, as compared to the BS alleged by the irrational actor, in their attempt to get the world to ostracize the rational actor.
Exactly how, would this time be different? What would the irrational actor offer to jump start discussions? Because it is obvious from the last 70+ years that the underlying thesis of "land for peace" has not worked.
A different approach was, and is needed. As much as I hate giving Trump credit, what he did was to change the parameters, which allowed other nations to get off the ledge with the irrational actor. This is, in turn, putting pressure on the irrational actor to begin acting rationally. Those actions need to continue.
This all said, implying you wish to disarm a people who have armed themselves specifically to prevent mass slaughter at the hands of a losing side irrational non-nation state actor ... yeah ... not really a sound argument in any context.
The one response I'll give your perspective is: I think a better way of framing it is organized vs fragmented as opposed to rational vs irrational. Israel has a stable, empowered, central authority, while Palestine does not. To call the latter simply 'irrational' ignores the fact that it isn't a single entity, and may be composed of many rational actors with differing incentives. Even a single person can act rationally at all points in time and still appear irrational over some window. The more chaotic an environment, the less rational it's constituents will appear over a given window of time or geography.
Israel depends on several things to be true and any one or two of them being false probably means end of state
1. Israel has much stronger economy than neighboring states. Hi tech army is expensive 2. Strong internal cohesion with no widespread protests/division or civil war. 3. Modern weapons systems are exclusively available to Israel 4. Strong US support with both money and political cover 5. Arabs not becoming majority in Israel thru demographics 6. Arab states continue to be in shitty state
Specifically
3 may not be true for long with China investing in military capabilities 4 is not assured with woke anti-colonialism ideology and AOC/Tlaib/Ilhan increasing influence on Dem party.
All Palestinians need to do is not to give up. Israel need to win every single time as there is no recovery from loss.
There is argument that strategically Israel is at the strongest moment and it can get most concessions from Palestinians now. In future it may end up in much worse bargaining position.