"Common sense" suggests that elections have consequences and that Hamas was
elected. Now, by that I don't mean nor imply that there should be any attempt to intentionally target civilians, but Israel has the problem of trying to take out missiles that are launched from heavily-populated civilian areas.
Secondly, Israel has been warning people in targeted areas to leave if they plan to attack, which is not commonplace with most countries when they retaliate. Also, they have warned people to leave any area whereas they see missiles from being fired from.
I would suggest that real "common sense" would have it that Hamas is the aggressor, Israel has the full right to defend itself, and that it's unfortunate that civilians in both areas are getting killed. But where your supposed "common sense" has seemingly left you is that I don't see any concern in your post about Israeli civilians being target, plus you don't quite seem to understand "cause and effect". Israel only response when attacked, so true "common sense" should have it that you should understand that maybe Hamas should stop their attacks so that Israel doesn't have to retaliate.
Since you're supposedly so heavy into "common sense"
, can you name any country when attacked as Israel has been that has used as much restraint as Israel has? If you actually followed this and related events on a daily basis, you would know that most of the time when attacked, Israel actually doesn't respond. For example, one day last week missiles were launched into Israel from both southern Syria and southern Lebanon. Did Israel attack back? No. Has Israel attacked back with every assault from missiles out of Gaza? No. How many countries do you actually believe would take fire like this and not respond?