What military opposition? Do the Palestinians have tanks? An air force? ANYTHING besides a bunch of poorly trained yahoos with small arms, RPGs and third rate rockets?
Depending on vintage and type, a single rocket-propelled grenade can immobilize a tank or destroy an armored personnel carrier. During close-quarters fighting, HAMAS militants would probably opt for concentrated volley fire, overwhelming countermeasures such as explosive reactive armor or rail-type side-guards. Obviously, the IDF is not as invulnerable as you want us to believe.
For the second time, Mogadishu provided an instructive lesson on the effectiveness of hundreds or thousands of unseasoned, rag-tag militia against special forces operators. Considering Garrison's desire to deliver the strongest possible assistance to his men, and the chaos of the urban battlefield, one wonders how casualties would be reduced. In fact, with Israeli troops at stake, the incentive to fire indiscriminately would be much higher.
And how do you figure that bombing apartment buildings is going to stop the rocket attacks? In fact they've INCREASED since the arial campaign has begun.
They've increased because HAMAS is now fighting for its life. You eliminate a bee's nest by kicking and stomping when nothing else will do. Inevitably, the bees swarm in a finale.
If however their goal is merely to grind the Palestinian infrastructure into the ground and fuck the consequences then arial bombardments will do quite nicely.
The Israelis appear to have three objections: (1) elimination of HAMAS leadership; (2) destruction of HAMAS weapons caches; (3) demonstrative retaliation, primarily for the benefit of the Israeli public, but perhaps on the very "off" chance of souring Palestinian civilians against cooperation with HAMAS (a goal they probably recognize as pie-in-the-sky).
Israel has repeatedly denied the legitimacy of the Gaza government under Hamas. They can't have it both ways: either Hamas is the legitimate government of Gaza or they aren't.
Israel does not recognize the legitimacy of HAMAS. Even if it did, HAMAS would be considered a military antagonist.
If they were making an effort to avoid civilian casualties, they wouldn't be dropping 2,000 bombs on apartment building
If they were making no effort at all, as you claim, they would not telephone anyone ahead of time.
Yes, using commandos would result in more Israeli casualties, but it would also result in far fewer civilian casualties.
This is a fantasy built purely on the facetious premise that the Israelis are sufficiently Schwarzeneggar to get in, "do their thing," and then withdraw, without becoming mired in a terrible firefight.
When the RPGs start flying hot and heavy from windows, how do you think tank commanders and helicopter gunship pilots will react?
Los Angeles is awash with weapons too. The LAPD still somehow manages to avoid obliterating certain neighborhoods.
Because every gangster knows that if they begin using those AK-47s to tear the city apart, the National Guard will be directed to retake whole neighborhoods in Los Angeles. They are sufficiently cowed by the thought of "taking on" a conventional military. HAMAS is not.
Not to mention that the gangs don't have nearly the same kind of organization, numbers, anti-tank capability, or popular support as HAMAS. So, you've made a false analogy. Nobody is going to swallow it.