In article <2BCF287A.25524@news.service.uci.edu>, tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes: | |> >In article <1993Apr16.130037.18830@ncsu.edu>, hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu  |>  (Brad Hernlem) writes: |> >|>  |> >|> In article <2BCE0918.6105@news.service.uci.edu>, tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu  |>     (Tim Clock) writes: |> >|>  |> >|> 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? |>  |> > Tell me Tim, what are these guerillas doing wrong? Assuming that they are  |> > using civilians for cover,  |>  |> "Assuming"? Also: come on, Brad. If we are going to get anywhere in  |> this (or any) discussion, it doesn't help to bring up elements I never  |> addressed, *nor commented on in any way*. I made no comment on who is  |> "right" or who is "wrong", only that civilians ARE being used as cover  |> and that, having been placed "in between" the Israelis and the guerillas, |> they *will* be injured as both parties continue their fight.  Pardon me Tim, but I do not see how it can be possible for the IDF to fail to detect the presence of those responsible for planting the bomb which killed the three IDF troops and then later know the exact number and  whereabouts of all of them. Several villages were shelled. How could the IDF possibly have known that there were guerrillas in each of the targetted villages? You see, it was an arbitrary act of "retaliation".   |> > If the buffer zone is to prevent attacks on Israel, is it not working? Why |> > is it further neccessary for Israeli guns to pound Lebanese villages? Why  |> > not just kill those who try to infiltrate the buffer zone? You see, there  |> > is more to the shelling of the villages.... it is called RETALIATION...  |> > "GETTING BACK"..."GETTING EVEN". It doesn't make sense to shell the  |> > villages. The least it shows is a reckless disregard by the Israeli  |> > government for the lives of civilians. |>  |> I agree with you here. I have always thought that Israel's bombing |> sortees and bombing policy is stupid, thoughtless, inhumane AND |> ineffective. BUT, there is no reason that Israel should passive wait  |> until attackers chose to act; there is every reason to believe that |> "taking the fight *to* the enemy" will do more to stop attacks.  |>  |> As I said previously, Israel spent several decades "sitting passively" |> on its side of a border and only acting to stop these attacks *after* |> the attackers had entered Israeli territory. It didn't work very well. |> The "host" Arab state did little/nothing to try and stop these attacks  |> from its side of the border with Israel so the number of attacks |> were considerably higher, as was their physical and psychological impact  |> on the civilians caught in their path.    The problem, Tim, is that the original reason for the invasion was Palestinian attacks on Israel, NOT Lebanese attacks.   |> > |> >|> 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". |> >|>  |> > If Israel is not willing to accept the "word" of others then, IMHO, it has |> > no business wasting others' time coming to the peace talks.  |>  |> This is just another "selectively applied" statement. |>   |> The reason for this drawn-out impasse between Ababs/Palestinians and Israelis |> is that NEITHER side is willing to accept the Word of the other. By your |> criteria *everyone* should stay away from the negotiations. |>  |> That is precisely why the Palestinians (in their recent PISGA proposal for  |> the "interim" period after negotiations and leading up to full autonomy) are |> demanding conditions that essentially define "autonomy" already. They DO |> NOT trust that Israel will "follow through" the entire process and allow |> Palestinians to reach full autonomy.  |>  |> Do you understand and accept this viewpoint by the Palestinians?  |> If you do, then why should Israel's view of Arabs/Palestinians  |> be any different? Why should they trust the Arab/Palestinians' words? |> Since they don't, they are VERY reluctant to give up "tangible assets  |> (land, control of areas) in exchange for "words". For this reason, |> they are also concerned about the sorts of "guarantees" they will have  |> that the Arabs WILL follow through on their part of any agreement reached.  First, I believe that my statement applies to both sides.  Having said that, I think it is neccessary to separate what is legitimately negotiable and what is not. For example, no country has the right to abuse one's human rights. Deciding whether there will be one or two states in Palestine is a legitimate question. While de facto one state exists, Israel  must treat all within its domain equitably.  |> > Tim, you are ignoring the fact that the Palestinians in Lebanon have been |> > disarmed. Hezbollah remains the only independent militia. Hezbollah does |> > not attack Israel except at a few times such as when the IDF burned up |> > Sheikh Mosavi, his wife, and young son.  |>  |> While the "major armaments" (those allowing people to wage "civil wars") |> have been removed, the weapons needed to cross-border attacks still |> remain to some extent. Rocket attacks still continue, and "commando" |> raids only require a few easily concealed weapons and a refined disregard |> for human life (yours of that of others). Such attacks also continue.  Yes, I am afraid that what you say is true but that still does not justify occupying your neighbor's land. Israel must resolve its disputes with the native Palestinians if it wants peace from such attacks.  |> > Of course, if Israel would withdraw from Lebanon |> > and stop assassinating people and shelling villages they wouldn't |> > make the Lebanese so mad as to do that. |>  |> Bat guano. The situation you call for existed in the 1970s and attacks |> were commonplace.  Not true. Lebanese were not attacking Israel in the 1970s. With a strong Lebanese government (free from Syrian and Israeli interference) I believe that the border could be adequately patrolled. The Palestinian heavy weapons have been siezed in past years and I do not see as significant a threat as once existed.