If only Israel's policy planners with nearly 60 years of experience surrounded by neighbours who want to destroy them had thought to hire a real expert (you) on how to deal with the situation.
I think we are talking about different things. Earlier in this thread people were saying that Saddam had to be removed because he has attempted to assassinate a sitting US President, despite the fact that the US has done the same thing several times.
No, we're talking about the same thing. I'm saying it's an attack on the US, and yes, the US has done the same thing.
But the argument "We can't respond to an attack on the US, because at other times we have attacked countries the same way" just doesn't make any sense.
There isn't a huge question on the morality of Saddam trying to assassinate an ex-President, it's just an attack that should be responded to.
I dont think the Lebanese army would be as heavy handed as Israel have been. Afterall if the Lebanese army kill 20 children then they are going to be held accountable for it, whereas Israel will pull out their usual "We will investigate and find that we are not at fault" trick.
I guess the question is, will they be able to maintain a less heavy handed approach and still hold the border?
Especially as it will be in Hezbollah's interests to alienate the Lebanese Army from the rest of the population using the same tactics they have against the Israelis.