
If you recall, a subject was raised some weeks ago that touched upon
this.  When someone claimed that guerillas were manifestations of
popular sentiment, the topic arose:"When does a civilian stop
becoming a civilian?".  If he houses and shelters guerillas of
his own free will, aiding them, has he violated his "civilian" status?


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


That is not exactly true.  The Hizbollah and their affiliated groups
have made several attempts to infiltrate the border of Israel.


True, but the Syrians did allow (until at least 1984) guerillas to operate
in the areas that were under their control, provided that those guerillas
were attacking Israeli lines.

The problem is that Syria is also not as stable a partner for long term
peace as others in the area might be.
