They could stop persecuting and murdering Palestinians, stop occupying Palestine, and agree to either a one state or two state solution that recognizes Palestinians as human beings with a right to live.
If I were Palestinian and terrified for my family, I could see actively donating to and supporting Hamas, while also absolutely hating them and their methods, and longing for some other option.
Besides, do you think someone in a war zone has the capability to support, or better yet, donate to a militant group when they’re on the brink of starving?
Gaza elects Hamas, whose charter (at least then, 2017 version is toned down) is openly antisemitic, talks about jihad, killing Jews, protocols of elder Zion and Palestine from the river to the sea.
Giving terrorists more power as they actively talking about killing civilians is insane, however bad you feel for Palestinians. That's why the first step is the removal of Hamas, whatever the next steps are.
> Giving terrorists more power as they actively talking about killing civilians is insane
Funny, because that's exactly what Israelis are doing.
(With also the bonus analogy of: would it have helped if the RAF had bombed Dublin during talks?)
[1] https://belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/new-ira-plot...
The opposite approach happened in Gaza - Israel just unilaterally walked away. They then elected Hamas, who is bent on Israel's destruction, and who proceeded to wage war on Israel for twenty years, culminating in the October 7th attacks.
What now?
Edit: I'm not saying I agree with your framing of the question.
eg: As I recall 20 odd years ago perhaps 40% of the eligable voters cast in favour of a Hamas who explicitly ran on a platform of seeking peace with Israel and were considered at the time to be more moderate than the alternatives.
Today almost no one who voted for that Hamas of long long ago is still alive which undermines all arguments of the form "well, they voted for them".
That all said I think you're wrong about the history here. Hamas was always very anti Israel, they specifically stem from an islamist tradition which consideres all of Israel to be occupied territory and that all Jews must be removed. They are one of the big factors in destroying the Peace process by launching many terror attacks to destroy it.
The Hamas founding charter calls for the eradication of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish race, worldwide.
People like to say it does, but this stance is largely based on a single line (up at the very top) which is frequently mistranslated, as in the version you are unfortunately citing.
In particular it mistranslates a key verb as "obliterate". When you yourself can verify, right now, that that verb pretty much only translates as "nullify" or "abolish". It is also clear that this refers to the State of Israel, not the Jewish people.
This far more correct interpretation being much more consistent with Hamas's ideology, which holds that Zionism simply lacks legitimacy, and will eventually be seen as irrelevant.
There's also that line about the Gharqad tree. Say what you want about it, but it unambiguously refers to Islamic eschatology, and Islamic scholars at least say it should be interpreted allegorically (as in a conflict will come between right and wrong, those who defend the truth and those who oppose it and all that).
In any case it doesn't refer to the State of Israel, or present a literal call for extermination.
A disputed translation.
What were the concessions in the 2006 election that Hamas made to form a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas (ie. the declaration by Hamas prior to the election that saw them gain a majority number of seats)?
As I said above, this issue is fraught with problematic framings.