In article <Apr16.190846.63631@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, bh437292@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Basil Hamdan) writes: |> In article <SHAIG.93Apr15220200@composer.think.com>, shaig@composer.think.com (Shai Guday) writes: |>  |> That is what is so hard of South Lebanon, Israel is |> not fighting an army with well drawn battle lines, but a guerilla |> tyoe resistance which by definition and necessity blends with |> the local populace.  Not because they are evil cowards that |> use women and children as shields, but because that is the only |> way one can fight a more powerful better equipped occupying army.  While that is currently true from their perspective, it is also worthwhile to note that in such cases the populace often does suffer from attempts to control the guerillas.  Furthermore, there were cases in the past of Palestinian gun emplacements being situated within villages.  The argument that can be made for small arms fire can not be made for field pieces.  |> Hizbollah and Amal are now the main two militias.  Though |> Hizbollah people tend to be more committed to resistrance |> operation and better motivated by religious conviction.  As I recall, Amal was primarily nationalistically "Lebanon for the Lebanese" motivated.  I think that the difference between them was also a matter of funding and support.  One question does come to mind however,   Given that you claim the Hizbollah to be more committed etc... and that their stated position is: 	1.  No peace talks. 	2.  No peace talks. 	. 	. 	. 	. 	N-1. No peace talks. 	N.  No Israel  if we assume that Lebanon and Syria are sincere in their desire for peace, why hasn't the Hizbollah been disarmed?  |> I hope you are right on Israeli willingness to withdraw, but I still |> contend that withdrawal would be the better course for Israel's |> security, since it would reduce its  military losses, and I claim |> that the Lebanese and Syrian gov'ts would be able to prevent any  |> further attacks on Northern Israel.  Bearing in mind the above and that military losses are more palatable than civilian ones, I am sure you can understand why Israel is slow to act in that manner.  |> |> No, the Syrian gov't is more than happy to have Israel sink into another |> |> Lebanese morass.  I could elaborate if necessary. |>  |> Hmm...  Here we disagree on what serves Syria interests better. |> I think Syria wants to have Lebanon all to itself.  It would |> be willing to guarantee Northern Israel's security in return for |> Israeli withdrawal.  I don't think Syria wants Israel to be |> involved in its protectorate of Lebanon.  Syria is sitting at the |> negotiating table because it has come to accept that and wants |> to get a political resolution.  A renewal of hostilities |> along the Lebanese front could put the whole ME peace negotiations |> back in question.  I agree that Syria wants Lebanon to be part of its greater Syria. I don't necessarily see that the Syrians would be unhappy to see Israel up to its neck in another Lebanese morass afterwhich Syria could continue on its merry schedule when Israeli public opinion would lead to a second pullout.  |> I agree that the loss of any human life is deplorable and regrettable.  <*sigh*>  Why can't some gov'ts negotiate as easily as some people?