From: tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock)
Subject: Re: was:Go Hezbollah!
Nntp-Posting-Host: orion.oac.uci.edu
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 159

>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.
 
	[The *purpose* of an army's use of military uniforms 
	is *to set its members apart* from the civilians so that 
	civilians will not be thought of by the other side as
	"combatants". So, what do you think is the "meaning behind", 
	the intention and the effect when an "army" purposely 
	*does not were uniforms but goes out of its way to *look 
	like civilians'? *They are judging that the benefit they will 
	receive from this "cover" is more important that the harm
	that will come to civilians.*

This is a comment on the Israeli experience and is saying
that the guerillas *do* have some responsibility in putting civilians
in "the middle" of this fight. By putting on uniforms and living apart
from civilians (barracks, etc.), the guerillas would significantly lower
the risk to civilians.

	But if the guerillas do this aren't *they* putting themselves
	at greater risk? Absolutely, they ask themselves "why set 
	ourselves apart (by wearing uniforms) when there is a ready-made 
	cover for us (civilians)? That makes sense from their point of 
	view, BUT when this cover is used, the guerillas should accept 
	some of the responsibility for subsequent harm to civilians.

> 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.  
>
>|> 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.
>
>But don't you see that the same statement can be made both ways?
>If Lebanon was interested in peace then it should accept the word
>of Israel that the attacks were the cause for war and disarming the
>Hizbollah will remove the cause for its continued occupancy.  

Absolutely, so are the Arabs/Palestinians asking FIRST for the
Israelis "word" in relation to any agreement? NO, what is being
demanded FIRST is LAND. When the issue is LAND, and one party
finally gets HOLD of this "land", what the "other party" does
is totally irrelevent. If I NOW have possession of this land,
your words have absolutely no power; whether Israel chooses to
keeps its word does NOT get the land back.

>Afterall, Israel has already staged two parts of the withdrawal from 
>areas it occupied in Lebanon during SLG.
>
> 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.

> 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.

>Furthermore, with Hezbollah subsequently disarmed, it would not be possible.

There is NO WAY these groups can be effectively "disarmed" UNLESS the state
is as authoritarian is Syria's. The only other way is for Lebanon to take
it upon itself to constantly patrol the entire border with Israel, essentially
mirroring Israel's border secirity on its side. It HAS TO PROVE TO ISREAL that
it is this committed to protecting Israel from attack from Lebanese territory.
>
>|> 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, when is the last time that you recall any trouble on the Syrian border?
> Not lately, eh?

That's what I said, ok? But, doesn't that mean that Syria has to "take over"
Lebanon? I don't think Israel or Lebanon would like that.
> 
What both "sides" need is to receive something "tangible". The Arabs/
Palestinians are looking for "land" and demanding that they receive it
prior to giving anything to Israel. Israel has two problems: 1) if it
gives up real *land* it IS exposing itself to a changed geostrategic
situation (and that change doesn't help Israel's position), and 2) WHEN
it gives up this land IT NEEDS to receive something in return to
compensate for the increased risks

Tim


