WWII based military armies seem to have done better against a more consolidated foe...from my armchair perspective.
The real downside for the IDF and those of us who support them is the increased danger of larger non-combatant casulaties which of course the Pali loving media will trumpet incessantly.
As an analogy. Would you prefer to fight a scattered foe in say Utah or a concentrated foe in 10X13 mile dense urban area? If the IDF were not held to such lofty "humanitarian" restrictions and were able to fight total war fashion then I believe the answer is obvious. Under this new PC form of war against the PA and Hamas, it will be more difficult but in my view I think easier than the West Bank (which is hardly conquered btw)
Just my 2 cents...I still hold to the view of massive deportation and partition as the only answer with any legs of the long variety.
Regards.
Deport to where? Who would have them? Most of the Arab states have kicked them out already. Egypt could have had the Gaza Strip back, and didn't want it because it already had a lot of bad tenants on it. Better to build their resorts on the nice, quiet Sinai rather than below cliffs full of troublesome Palestinians.
Jordan, after bloodily evicting thousands of Palestinians, renounced any claim on the West Bank. They wouldn't take it back if the Israeli's gave it to them.
Lebanon and Tunisia breathed sighs of relief after the PLO left their shores.
No, I'm afraid that mass deportation is no solution, unless we put highrises in Camp X-Ray.
As for how the world believes Israel should confront Hamas, I'm sure their preference would be that Israel politely request that the PA conduct a proper investigation, and get back to Sharon when they have something to report-"if that wouldn't be to much to ask for, Mr. General Yassir Arafat, sir."