

In the South Lebanon area, only Israeli (and SLA) and Lebanese troops 
are present.
Syrian troops are deployed north of the Awali river.  Between the 
Awali river and the "Security Zone" only Lebanese troops are stationed.


That is your opinion and the opinion of the Israeli government.
I agree peace guarantees would be better for all, but I am addressing
the problem as it stands now.  Hopefully a comprehensive peace settlement
will be concluded soon, and will include security guarantees for
both sides.  My proposal was aimed at decreasing the casualties
in the interim period.  In my opinion, if Israel withdraws
unilaterally it would still be better off than staying.
The Israeli gov't obviously agrees with you and is not willing
to do such a move.  I hope to be be able to change your opinion
and theirs, that's why I post to tpm.


As I explained, I contend that if Israel does withdraw unilaterally
I believe no attacks would ensue against northern Israel.  I also
explained why I believe that to be the case.  My suggestion
is aimed at reducing the level of tension and casualties on all sides.
It is unfortunate that Israel does not agree with my opinion.




That is too bad.
 

Because Israel is not occupying the "Security Zone" free of charge.
It is paying the price for that.  Once Israel withdraws it may have
lost a bargaining chip at the negociating table but it would save
some soldiers' lives, that is my contention.

  If Lebanon were willing to agree to

That is completely untrue.  Hizbollah is now a minor force in Lebanese
politics.  The real heavy weights are Syria's allies.  The gov't is 
supported by Syria.  The Lebanese Army is over 30,000 troops and
unified like never before.  Hizbollah can have no moral justification
in attacking Israel proper, especially after Israeli withdrawal.
That would draw the ire of the Lebanese the Syrian and the
Israeli gov'ts.  If Israel does withdraw and such an act 
(Hizbolllah attacking Israel) would be akin to political and moral 
suicide.

Basil