re was go hezbollah in article apr ncsu edu hernlem chess ncsu edu brad hernlem writes in article bce 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 s 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 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 when it gives up this land it needs to receive something in return to compensate for the increased risks tim
