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: 92

In article <1993Apr17.153728.12152@ncsu.edu> hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu 
(Brad Hernlem) writes:
>
>In article <2BCF287A.25524@news.service.uci.edu>, tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu 
(Tim Clock) writes:
>|
>|> "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".
>
I will again *repeat* my statement: 1) I *do not* condone these 
*indiscriminate* Israeli acts (nor have I *ever*, 2) If the villagers do not know who these "guerillas" are (which you stated earlier), how do you expect the
Israelis to know? It is **very** difficult to "identify" who they are (this
*is why* the "guerillas" prefer to lose themselves in the general population 
by dressing the same, acting the same, etc.).
>
>|> The "host" Arab state did little/nothing to try and stop these attacks 
>|> from its side of the border with Israel 
>
>The problem, Tim, is that the original reason for the invasion was Palestinian
>attacks on Israel, NOT Lebanese attacks. 
>
I agree; but, because Lebanon was either unwilling or unable to stop these
attacks from its territory should Israel simply sit quietly and accept its
situation? Israel asked the Lebanese government over and over to control
this "third party state" within Lebanese territory and the attacks kept
occuring. At **what point** does Israel (or ANY state) have the right to do
something ITSELF to stop such attacks? Never?
>|> >
>|> 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.
>
It is also the responsibility of *any* state to NOT ALLOW *any* outside
party to use its territory for attacks on a neighboring state. If 1) Angola
had the power, and 2) South Africa refused (or couldn't) stop anti-Angolan
guerillas based on SA soil from attacking Angola, and 3) South Africa
refused to have UN troops stationed on its territory between it and Angola,
would Angola be justified in entering SA? If not, are you saying that
Angola HAD to accept the situation, do NOTHING and absorb the attacks?
>|> 
>|> 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.
>
I refered above *at all times* to the Palestinian attacks on Israel from
Lebanese soil, NOT to Lebanese attacks on Israel. 

One hopes that a Lebanese government will be strong enough to patrol its 
border but there is NO reason to believe it will be any stronger. WHAT HAS 
CHANGED is that the PLO was largely *driven out* of Lebanon (not by the 
Lebanese, not by Syria) and THAT is by far the most important making it 
EASIER to control future Palestinian attacks from Lebanese soil. That
**change** was brought about by Israeli action; the PLO would *never*
have been ejected by Lebanese, Arab state or UN actions. 
>
>Please, Tim, don't fall into the trap of treating Lebanese and Palestinians
>as all part of the same group. There are too many who think all Arabs or all
>Muslims are the same. Too many times I have seen people support the bombing
>of Palestinian camps in "retaliation" for an IDF death at the hands of the
>Lebanese Resistance or the shelling of Lebanese villages in "retaliation" for
>a Palestinian attack. 
>|>
I fully recognize that the Lebanese do NOT WANT to be "used" by EITHER side,
and have been (and continue to be). But the most fundamental issue is that
if a state cannot control its borders and make REAL efforts to do so, it
should expect others to do it for them. Hopefully that "other" will be
the UN but it is (as we see in its cowardice regarding Bosnia) weak.

Tim