In article <Apr15.175334.72079@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bh437292@lance.colostate.edu writes: > >It is NOT a "terrorist camp" as you and the Israelis like  >to view the villages they are small communities with kids playing soccer >in the streets, women preparing lunch, men playing cards, etc..... >SOME young men, usually aged between 17 to 30 years are members of >the Lebanese resistance.  Even the inhabitants of the village do not  >know who these are, they are secretive about it, but most people often >suspect who they are and what they are up to.  These young men are >supported financially by Iran most of the time.  They sneak arms and >ammunitions into the occupied zone where they set up booby traps >for Israeli patrols.  Every time an Israeli soldier is killed or injured >by these traps, Israel retalliates by indiscriminately bombing villages >of their own choosing often killing only innocent civilians.    This a "tried and true" method utilized by guerilla and terrorists groups: to conduct operations in the midst of the local populace, thus forcing the opposing "state" to possible harm innocent civilians in their search or, in order to avoid the deaths of civilians, abandon the search. Certainly the people who use the population for cover are *also* to blaim for dragging the innocent civilians into harm's way.  Are you suggesting that, when guerillas use the population for cover, Israel should totally back down? So...the easiest way to get away with attacking another is to use an innocent as a shield and hope that the other respects innocent lives?  >If Israel insists that >the so called "Security Zone" is necessary for the protection of  >Northern Israel, than it will have to pay the price of its occupation >with the blood of its soldiers.    Your damn right Israel insists on some sort of "demilitarized" or "buffer" zone. Its had to put up with too many years of attacks from the territory of Arab states and watched as the states did nothing. It is not exactly surprizing that Israel decided that the only way to stop such actions is to  do it themselves.  >If Israel is interested in peace, than it should withdraw from OUR land.    What? So the whole bit about attacks on Israel from neighboring Arab states  can start all over again? While I also hope for this to happen, it will only occur WHEN Arab states show that they are *prepared* to take on the  responsibility and the duty to stop guerilla attacks on Israel from their  soil. They have to Prove it (or provide some "guaratees"), there is no way Israel is going to accept their "word"- not with their past attitude of  tolerance towards "anti-Israel guerillas in-residence". > >I have written before on this very newsgroup, that the only >real solution will come as a result of a comprehensive peace >settlement whereby Israel withdraws to its own borders and >peace keeping troops are stationed along the border to insure >no one on either side of the border is shelled.  Good lord, Brad. What in the world goves you the idea that UN troops stop anything? They are ONLY stationed in a country because that country allows them in. It can ask them to leave *at any time*; as Nasser did in '56 and '67. Somehow, with that "limitation" on the troops "powers" I don't think that Israel is going to be any more comfortable. Without a *genuine* commitment to peace from the Arab states, and concrete (not intellectual or political exercises in jargon) "guarantees" by other parties, the UN is worthless to Israel (but, perhaps useful as a "ruse"?).  >This is the only realistic solution, it is time for Israel to >realize that the concept of a "buffer zone" aimed at protecting >its northern cities has failed.  In fact it has caused much more >Israeli deaths than the occasional shelling of Northern Israel >would have resulted in.    Perhaps you are aware that, to most communities of people, there is the feeling that it is better that "many of us die fighting against those who attack us than for few to die while we silently  accept our fate." If,however, you call on Israel to see the sense of  suffering fewer casualties, I suggest you apply the same to Palestinian, Arab and Islamic groups.  >If Israel really wants to save some Israeli lives it would withdraw  >unilaterally from the so-called "Security Zone" before the conclusion >of the peace talks.  Such a move would save Israeli lives, >advance peace efforts, give Israel a great moral lift, better Israel's  >public image abroad and give it an edge in the peace negociations  >since Israel can rightly claim that it is genuinely interested in  >peace and has already offered some important concessions. >Along with such a withdrawal Israel could demand that Hizbollah >be disarmed by the Lebanese government and warn that it will not  >accept any attacks against its northern cities and that if such a >shelling occurs than it will consider re-taking the buffer zone >and will hold the Lebanese and Syrian government responsible for it.  From Israel's perspective, "concessions" gets it NOTHING...except the  realization that it has given "something" up and now *can only  hope* that the other side decides to do likewise. Words *can be taken back* by merely doing so; to "take back" tangible items (land, control of land) requires the sort of action you say Israel should stay away from.   Israel put up with attacks from Arab state territories for decades  before essentially putting a stop to it through its invasion of Lebanon. The entire basis of that reality was exactly as you state above: 1) Israel  would express outrage at these attacks and protest to the Arab state  involved, 2) that state promptly ignored the entire matter, secure  in the knowledge that IT could not be held responsible for the acts  committed by "private groups", 3) Israel would prepare for the next  round of attacks. What would Israel want to return to those days (and don't be so idiotic as to suggest "trust" for the motivations of present-day Arab states)?  >There seems to be very little incentive for the Syrian and Lebanese >goovernment to allow Hizbollah to bomb Israel proper under such  >circumstances,  > Ah, ok...what is "different" about the present situation that tells us that the Arab states will *not* pursue their past antagonistic  policies towards Israel? Now, don't talk about vague "political factors" but about those "tangible" (just like that which Israel gave up) factors that "guarantee" the responsibility of those states. Your assessment of "difference" here is based on a whole lot of assumptions, and most states don't feel confortable basing their existence on that sort of thing.  >and now the Lebanese government has proven that it is >capable of controlling and disarming all militias as they did >in all other parts of Lebanon. > >Basil  It has not. Without the support, and active involvement, of Syria, Lebanon would not have been able to accomplish all that has occurred. Once Syria leaves who is to say that Lebanon will be able to retain  control? If Syria stays thay may be even more dangerous for Israel. >   Tim