Perhaps I wasn't very clear about my inent on the first item. Right now, the official Lebanese army cannot occupy southern Lebanon without having to fight Hezbollah, who wants them to stay out of the fight. So far, they have chosen the option of not getting involved. My suggestion is for Israel to remove that option, and to force their involvement. And, when some force is trying to eradicate you, you have only 2 choices: fight of flight. While flight may actually be something the Lebanese army would chose, fight would require that they meet the enemy where they are, in this case southern Lebanon. So yes, if the Lebanese army does become involved, it will take up positions along the front line, it would have to.

You don't know Herb--the answer is "yes." (Unfortunately, I think he's actually Dick Cheney in disguise.)

Your proposed solution is clever, but seems difficult to orchestrate in practice: Trying to "eradicate" the Lebanese army in order to "give it cover" to occupy south Lebanon, i.e., *closer* to the forces trying to eradicate it, is the first part I have trouble with.

The sad truth appears to be that Israel, with an uncertain gov't after Sharon, is losing its collective mind & lashing out, with no real regard for what actually might work. I'll be happy if events prove me wrong.

The *most* I can come up with is that Israel is *deliberately* crashing any hopes of peace for the next 20 years, just to get that off the table. But I'm not sure anyone's that Machiavellian in real life.

So, I offered a solution. I rather lengthy thought out solution I believed could actually solve the current conflict. Then I sat back, and waited for the detailed analysis of the pros and cons of my proposition, along with possible historic examples, and a counter-proposal.

Herb: "In your last comment entitled 'One Last Thought', I hope it is"

Sigh, is this all I can expect from you?

In your last comment entitled "One Last Thought"

I hope it is, but then again, who ever accused you of "Thinking".

4.) Any aid Israel allows into Lebanon should have to come into Lebanon through Israel, passing through Hezbollah territory before it can get to Beirut. Israeli military would escort the UN convoys to the border, but no further. Could Hezbollah refrain from attacking of diverting these supplies? I doubt it. Let the suffering Lebanese know that Israel sent aid, but Hezbollah stopped it, or worse, stole it from them. More likely the UN won't do it, citing fear of a Hezbollah attack. That kind of makes it hard for the UN to press Israel to make peace with the terrorists if they themselves don't trust Hezbollah not to attack their humanitarian workers. Either way, they get no aid because of Hezbollah, that makes Hezbollah their immediate enemy.

But, you asked for a solution, so I'll give my best suggestion and let others work out the possible outcomes.

1.) Israel officially declares war on Lebanon, and begins a campaign to destroy the Lebanese government and military. Right now the Lebanese military won't interfere with Hezbollah for fear of civil war, but an international war for their very survival would give them political cover to take up positions in southern Lebanon.

2.) Israel aggravates Syria and Syrian interests in Lebanon. Not just Hezbollah, but economic interests of the Syrian government, and more importantly Syrian businesses. The goal would be to make Syrians suffer for their governments support of Hezbollah, while not making them an official party to the conflict, which would give Iran an excuse not to get involved. Even if Syria declares war on Israel, Iran will probably decline to do the same if Syria is voluntarily joining the fight.

3.) Israel needs to make some kind of public concession to the Palestinians. It doesn't have to be much, and it doesn't have to happen soon either. The idea is to wait until Lebanon and Syria have suffered enough that any concession would be spun as a win for the Muslim world so they can sue for peace. Politicians don't like to admit they were wrong or defeated in any way, so the only possibility for a negotiated peace would be to have something they can tout as a victory.

Now keep in mind this is just a way to end the currently conflict without killing millions of people. It won't solve the long term problems Israel will continue to face because of it's very existence. But, as I've stated already in this thread, they can't win that through their military. Israel's only chance for safety and stability is to make themselves a valued partner of the Arab and Muslim populations. Look at Jordan and Egypt, both of which once sought Israel's destruction.

Herb sits at his computer, looking for solutions ...

Then tell everyone the solution.

Do the Israeli es go for a "Cease Fire" and contend with the Homicide Bombings, The Kidnappings, and the always present threats from those who openly preach for the complete distruction and annihilation of Israel.

OR, Go after the "Un Civilized' bastards that started The whole thing in the first place.

You guys remind me of Chamberlain prior to WW11 who thought "appeasement" was the answer to Hitler.

The "Pacifist and Contentious Objectors" who always want appeasement and have been at the root of the worlds greatest conflicts and caused "Millions" to die.

Hey guys, "Don't criticize unless you have the answer" or keep you overloaded mouths shut.

These terrorist organizations only have authority so long as they have the mandate of their members. If the leader of Hezbollah surrenders, the members of Hezbollah would reject it, and select a new leader in his place.

Don't believe me? Look at Hamas. The top Hamas leaders took control of the Palestinian Authority because of a mandate from the population. Now, when they call for restraint and talks of a truce, the militant members of Hamas reject their authority.

That is what makes this enemy so very different from any we have faced before. We can't kill them all, because they recruit faster than we can kill them. We can't decapitate the organization, because the body moves the head, and will simply find a replacement head to move.

So who controls this enemy? Not a person, but an ideology. This militant Islamist ideology is what they follow, the people in charge are just those popular today. Each person takes their orders from their personal interpretation of this ideology, then they select leaders who have the same interpretation as they do.

Now, we are currently involved in killing terrorists, and killing terrorist leaders, but what are we doing to kill the terrorist ideology? Are we doing anything? Is what we are doing weakening the ideology, or only making it stronger and more widespread?