I know that, but since here is talked of on combat, terror and tactics, the two are not so different in these regards. After the last war Hamas saw how successful Hezbollah was with its tactcis and weapons choice, and has started to heavily copy the Hezbollah model.

If you think that Israel can afford to live endless times long with a rattlesnake and a scorpion in its bed, I think you are wrong. Just short time ago I just have said that I take an Israeli victory in the next clash with Hezbollah as anything than granbted, but chances are that sooner or later they have no other choice than to at least try it. they will be better prerpared next time, no doubt, but so is Hezbollah. And if Israel does not decide it cannot afford to just watching how Hezbollah bcomes grater and greater a thread - then sooner or later Hezbollah will start to attack Israel again. It is their nature and self-definition to do so, so it is just a question of time.

Hezbollah has turned out to be an extrmeely dangerous enemy, and Hamas is chnaging its face, too. the siotuation would be defined as an asymmetrical war, but an asymmetrical war in which the "inferior" side has huge stocks of armour-braking hightech weapons and tank-killing capabilities, and already has demonstrated that it can strike at navy units with success, and now is found by observers to have gotten the wepaons to really have an effect in trying to neutralise Israeli air dominance. Add to this their use of guerilla tactics, their implementation of undicriminatory terror, and religiously motivated fanatism, and you have plenty of reasons to conclude that they do not depend to keep this ceize-fire forever.

that Israel performed so poorly last time, will cost them dearly next time, and in the forseeable future with it later conflicts. they have shown how they can be beaten - and that was a lethal mistake. Next time they MUST destroy Hezbollah in the region - no matter the cost. In other words: next time it will become extremely nasty, or Israel will suffer another - this time strategically crushing - defeat. If I were living in Lebanon, I would flee it, no matter where to go. The place is doomed.

Major parts of Beirut fell to Hezbollah after recent fighting, conflict widening:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7391600.stm

not too bad for a militia standing up against a "popular and reliable institution". Maybe that is becasue a great share of weapüons delivered to Lebanon end up not with the army, but in the hands of Hezbollah?!

And must I take something special from reading that unlimited civil war can only be avoided when - the nation's own army remains "neutral"? Which translates into trust being low that it can really defeat Hezbollah, else the threat of civil war could be kept low - by force (which I would consider to be the job of a nation's army).

Nasrallah keeps out of violence. And I am the emperor of China.

Trying to take over a government 8since long) and gain control - what else is that if not open violence towards people and government?! ;) Hezbollah never has hidden that it wants to turn Lebanon into a Shia theocracy, and an attack basis against Israel.

they dont have the numbers? Maybe that is why they have infiltrated the government, education sector (like Hamas did) and are able to split their share from every delivery to the army. some say and estimate it to be up to 40%.

Man you have nerves to say as long as there is no open violence in the streets you are not overly concerned! that would be just the final stage of escalation - do you realise that...? what you say is: I am not concerned as long as it is not too late, and no other path could be tried.

Well, so be it, I cant help it. I just gave an update link to what already again is going on down there. And Iran is supporting, orchestrating and paying for it. This is - by far - not just an internal powerstruggle in Lebanon.

:huh:...!?

Good luck to your friend though. He would be well-advised to get out there, if he can. since his country is just a playball of stronger powers, every investement he makes there will be one investement in vein. I stick to it: Lebanon is doomed, the shining, comfortable past is gone and will never come back.

I see. I still read that in invisible ink written in that sentence. But okay, I understand you claim you meant something different.

Just don't know how that interpretation could be avoided, but maybe that's me.

The comedy, as you call it, and the Saudi, egypt and Israeli views clearly support my own argument: this is, like the Palestinian question as well, not so much an issue regarding the existence of Israel, but a new round in the century-old confrontation between sunnis and shias. that'S why I see Iran having to accept the lion's share of responsibility. Syria wants influence only for suporting it's own agenda: reversing the penalty for being the agressor in the last war with Israel by being given back the Golan.

That's like Germany demanding back Eastern Prussia.