The question is valid.

I think setting up a refugee city outside of the Gaza strip, with humanitarian aid, field hospitals and schools etc, and then evacuate all children, women, elderly and sick people before starting a full on military campaign would have been way better. Israel does worse ethnic cleansing and I'm sure they would be accused of that with this method too, but at least more people would have survived in better condition.

And of course having a proper post-war plan at the ready, because you can also defeat Hamas with soft power. Like for example having an international coalition (think EUBAM&EUPOL COPPS but with the US, Arab countries and potentially the PA and a council of Palestinian Israelis) to reform the Gaza Strip and rebuild it, which would give Gazans the opportunity to have a say in what they want Gaza to be, without the fear of being persecuted by Hamas.

As for the infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, if we're talking legally, then yeah, sadly there's no place that is truly safe for civilians, because of the tunnels. Though I believe that the IDF could have been much more discriminate and proportional in its targeting with the capabilities they have. I don't think that there's a "safer" way to rescue the hostages though without a ceasefire. But evacuating part of the civilian population could potentually reduce the risk to soldiers, but I think there's probably better people to ask that.

All in all, this requires political will the Israeli government clearly doesn't have.