
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.


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?


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.


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.


<*sigh*>

Why can't some gov'ts negotiate as easily as some people?
