This congressional staffer represents the opinion of many US congressmen who might be thinking of reducing military aid to Lebanon:
Whenever there’s somebody who receives foreign aid of any kind from the United States who has a conflict with any of our close allies, especially in the Middle East, which is such a volatile region, you absolutely rethink US support
But that would be a mistake. That would send a message that it’s okay to shoot at fellow Arabs and Lebanese, but not at the Israelis.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Objection, it sends a different message: Whenever Hezbollah manage to infiltrate the LAF and is able to provoke a skirmish between LAF and IDF at the Lebano-Israeli border, it will increase the likelihood that the US cuts their aid for the LAF. That means Hezbollah could deteriorate the Lebanese-US-American relationship by executing similar operations. This would have severe influence on the foreign politics. Therefore, the LAF need to be on guard to avoid similar skirmishs at the boarder. Instaed of blaming UNIFIL, the LAF should learn their lessons. Another item for lessons learned is the fact that the Israeli Defense Minister Barak immediately stated after the incident that this skirmish was a deed of a single Lebanese officer (probably a Shia) and not an act by decision of the Central command of the LAF or Hezbollah. The idots did not hesitate to contradict Barak by stating no shoting of a single Lebanese soldier without LAF command. We can be happy that Barak ignored this stupid statement, otherwise would have been forced to retaliate much harder.
There are many smart Lebanese in the world, but when it comes to border issues with Israel, the brain is out of service.
these discussions reveal that, for many in the west, and certainly in the US, it is impossible to even imagine a scenario in which the lebanese army would be justified in turning its weapons against israel. ergo, conflict between the LAF and israel must be due to a) HA’s power over the lebanese army; b) HA’s infiltration and cooption of the lebanese army; or c) the fact that all lebanese are actually evil, evil terrorists.
the commenter above me seems to be illustrative of this kind of deep-rooted, ‘truthy’ bias, which eschews rational thinking and logic. but random blog comments are one thing — it is very worrying to see the extent to which it is present among foreign policymakers.
@ f
Sorry I cannot follow your thoughts. What do you want to say? Please could you give some clear proofs for your ‘revelation’?
But please provide only proofs which are conform with rational thinking and logic and which are free of bias.
There are clear rules for international borders. And there are, of course, cases in which turning of weapons against the invader is justified! This recent incident does not count to the group of cases which are justified. It was an own goal and your statement probably too.
i’m not talking about the incident this week, info, which may yet prove to have involved HA in one way or another.
i’m talking about the general resistance by foreign powers to providing the LAF with serious weaponry, lest it be used against Israel. as you state, there are cases when such use may be justified.
http://mideastwire.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/support-for-the-laf-on-its-way-out-was-it-ever-really-there/
You are evading the reply to my questions. I am still waiting for a reply.
I add one more question:
Why should the foreign powers give serious weaponry to an army which may be undermined by HA and to a country where the persons reponsible are not using their brain with regard to border issues with Israels?
@f
I am somewhat surprised to see a comment (with the Link) posted later than my last post but in reverse chronical order. I suppose that ”f” has administrator rights in this blog or is even the blogmaster.
Look, I am not working in politics or in the military or any other public organisation. I have no authority to speak on behalf of the western world. I think that the western politicians should explain their politics to people who are effected by their policies. Therefore, I encourage you to write to the French president, the British Premier minister or the German Chancellor, US President and others, in order to get answers to your questions. It should be your right to questions them, if you feel treated unfair. But I suppose probably your administration does know already the answer.
Look if you want an honest reply to questions or when you want to prove something, please do not send a link to a post from a newspaper or webblog. These things are annoying. Please use your own arguments and words.
I have some ideas about why the western administrations are doing this or that, we can argue about it, but please reply first to my questions. This is also a question of mutual respect. Otherwise you can never into an honest dialogue.
I have read the comment on the mideast blog, I have my critique on it formulated, I can comment on it, but I will only do this if you are replying my questions about first. This is my right in this exchange of standpoints in this blog.