LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
July 16/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 11,20-24. Then he began to reproach the towns where most of his mighty deeds had been done, since they had not repented. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And as for you, Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports

Shame on the Lebanese Government. Dr. Joseph Hitti 16/07/08
FACTBOX-What is Hezbollah?Reuters 16/07/08
U.S. support for the Lebanese army. By: David Schenker 15/07/08
With whom will Syria make peace/Ha'aretz 15/07/08
Salloukh's job is to speak - and act - for all Lebanese- The Daily Star 15/07/08
Nicolas Sarkozy's foreign policy: old wine in new bottles-By Anouar Boukhars 15/07/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 15/08
France Backs U.N. Control over Shebaa Farms-Naharnet
PM: Hezbollah's Arad report unsatisfactory-Ha'aretz
U.S. Increased Support for Lebanese Army by $32.5 Million-Naharnet
Victorious Hizbullah Leads Lebanon in Prisoner Swap Celebrations-Naharnet
MP Kanaan for Ratifying Election Law Prior to a Vote of Confidence-Naharnet
PSP for Popular Participation in Welcoming Freed Prisoners-Naharnet
Israel Pushes the Prisoner Swap Button-Naharnet
Skaff: No Stability Without Improved relations with Syria-Naharnet
MP Saad: Doha Accord is the Base for Cabinet Policy-Naharnet
Hizbullah: Prisoner Swap Would Dictate Policy-Naharnet
Ban Raises with Assad the Lebanon-Syria Ties and UNSCR 1701-Naharnet
Assad Backs International Tribunal Without Giving Up Syria's Sovereignty
Hizbullah Radar-Guided Missile Base in Sannine, Report-Naharnet
ICC prosecutor presents case for arrest of Sudanese president-AFP
Iranian official fires shot across Syria's bow over Israel talks-Daily Star
Israel Minister Calls UNCSR 1701 a Failure-Naharnet
March 14 leaders doubt Syria is serious about forging new ties
Germany presses Syria on arms smuggling-AFP
Crisis far from over despite unity Cabinet formation - analysts-AFP
Aoun: Differences on Cabinet Policy Statement are Unlikely-Naharnet
Crossfire War - Israel Increases Units on Northern Front-Lebanon-Syria-NewsBlaze
Olmert, Assad a touch away on Champs-Elysees-Ynetnews
Lebanon to celebrate prisoners' return from Israel-The Associated Press
Olmert says report on Ron Arad "patently unsatisfactory"-Jerusalem Post
Lebanese and Israelis regard expected swap very differently-Daily Star
Bassil for Lebanese telecom privatization - at right price-Daily Star

Shame on the Lebanese Government
Dr. Joseph Hitti
July 15, 2008
As reported by Naharnet today, and with the Israeli government's approval of the swap with Hezbollah, preparations are underway by Hezbollah to organize a popular welcome to the prisoners and "martyrs" at Naqoura, close to headquarters of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The freed prisoners would be later flown by a presidential helicopter to Beirut Airport for an official welcome by senior government and Hezbollah officials. Hezbollah also is sponsoring a popular rally in south Beirut to celebrate the swap, during which its leader Hassan Nasrallah would deliver a speech.
This is what the majority of the Lebanese people feel at this news:
1. It is shameful for the Lebanese government to glorify murderers and make heroes out of scum killers like Kuntar.
2. Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into a war in July 2006 in which the country was destroyed and 1,200 Lebanese civilians were killed, just to recover a criminal like Kuntar. This is not a military victory for Lebanon. This is a moral defeat for Lebanon. We lost 1,200 innocent and good citizens of Lebanon to rescue one criminal killer of children and make a hero out of him.
3. How can Hezbollah claim Kuntar as one of its own when he did his "operation" [killing a 4-year old girl by smashing her head repeatedly with a rock] in 1979, long before the creation of Hezbollah itself and long before any Israeli occupation of the south? This goes only to show that Hezbollah is using Kuntar as a mere tool with which to provoke Israel and thus maintain the justification for Hezbollah's illegal stranglehold over Lebanon under the guise of a "resistance".
4. The Lebanese government of Sleiman and Siniora is wrong to go out of its way to "welcome the heroes and the martyrs", out of fear of Hezbollah and in total disregard for the message it sends the world about Lebanon, a country that glorifies killers and hijackers and criminals. Maybe Kuntar will one day be a member of Parliament or the Siniora government. Other killers like him sit today in the Lebanese Parliament and in other government posts and leadership roles.
On days like today, I am ashamed to be a Lebanese. The behavior of Hezbollah and the Siniora government is not representative of the Lebanese people. In their vast majority, the Lebanese people are thinking exactly what this article is voicing, but they are afraid to voice their true opinion. Only the stooges of Hezbollah and those who have become Dhimmis to the Hezbollah regime in Lebanon will go celebrate the return of the criminal Kuntar.
Like it did in the 1980s with the kidnappings of innocent Westerners (teachers and clergymen), unarmed peacekeepers (US and French marines), hijacking planes (TWA847) and many many other acts of pure terrorism, Hezbollah is further staining the reputation of the good country that Lebanon was.

Salloukh's job is to speak - and act - for all Lebanese
By The Daily Star
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Editorial
Fawzi Salloukh was recently reinstalled as foreign minister in Lebanon's new Cabinet of national unity, but he has begun his second stint in office with a glaring faux pas. Even as President Michel Sleiman and his Syrian counterpart, Bashar Assad, met in Paris over the weekend as part of establishing long-overdue diplomatic relations between their two countries - 64 years after both gained independence - Salloukh's body language was all wrong. As a member of the aforementioned unity government, this country's chief diplomat, and representative of a party that has benefited from considerable support in Damascus, he should have known better than to be seen bowing before a Syrian president. Lebanon and Syria are still in the early stages of re-defining a relationship in which the latter was the dominant partner for decades. The result was a lopsided arrangement which, while very useful in terms of helping Lebanon to recover territory occupied by Israel, ended up warping the political practices of both partners. Yes, the Syrians were only too willing to play the role of "tutor," but Lebanese officials of many stripes - including many of those who now profess to be "anti-Syrian" - were all too willing to abdicate their responsibilities by, inter alia, allowing their own internecine disputes to be adjudicated in Damascus. It is not a foreign minister's job to publicly express gratitude to his party's benefactor in a manner that communicates subservience to a foreign power. Salloukh's task is instead to represent this country's interests by walking tall and standing straight - as he did so ably when he was heckled by an Israeli official during the 2006 war. Forgetting to do so in the presence of a man he regards as a friend is to overlook the fact that many Lebanese see Assad very differently, and so to deny them representation as their foreign minister.
Only by remembering the many hats he wears can Salloukh fill the requirements of his foremost position. Reconciliation has to be a priority in the wake of clashes that rocked Lebanon in early May, and this country's foreign policy remains very much a bone of contention. Furthermore, the mere appearance of returning to Lebanon's old ways might encourage Syria to do the same - and that would be in neither side's interests. Only when both countries' governments behave as equals can each begin to regard the other as a worthy partner. Unless both sides do this, neither can feel comfortable relying on the other. Assad and his regime put their country's interests above all else: Doesn't Lebanon deserve the same

March 14 leaders doubt Syria is serious about forging new ties
By Hussein Abdallah -Daily Star staff
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
BEIRUT: Senior Lebanese politicians voiced mixed reactions Monday to the announcement that Syria and Lebanon have agreed to establish formal diplomatic relations, with some leaders from the March 14 coalition voicing skepticism about Damascus' intentions. The announcement was made Sunday after a meeting between Lebanese President Michel Sleiman and his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad in Paris, where the two leaders were participating in the Mediterranean Union summit. Sleiman is due to return to Beirut on Tuesday, one day ahead of the new cabinet's inaugural meeting which will be headed by the president at the Presidential Palace. Sleiman attended on Monday France's Bastille Day ceremony along with Assad and the leaders of more than 40 other states that participated in the summit on Sunday. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem is expected to visit Beirut in the coming days to deliver an invitation for Sleiman to visit Damascus.
But Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said Monday he doubted Syria's seriousness in establishing diplomatic ties with Lebanon.
In his regular commentary to his party's Al-Anbaa weekly, Jumblatt criticized Syria for raising the issue of establishing diplomatic relations with Lebanon as if it were a technical and not a political matter. Jumblatt also questioned how the Syrian regime would be held accountable if it wasted time and delayed the establishing of diplomatic ties with Lebanon.The PSP leader also said hoped that the formation of the new government would pave the way to a calm discussion on the issue of agreeing on a defense strategy for Lebanon.
"The most important of all is that all political discussions can now take place within the state's constitutional institutions," he said. Echoing Jumblatt, Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea said Syria's pledge at the Mediterranean Union summit "lacked seriousness." "Anyway, we ought to wait and see how things will come about ... we need to see practical measures toward establishing diplomatic ties between Beirut and Damascus," he said.
Geagea was speaking after meeting with the newly appointed LF ministers in the unity Cabinet, Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar and Environment Minister Antoine Karam. Geagea said that the LF's main mission in the new government was to find ways to facilitate the lives of people in Lebanon. "We all know that the new Cabinet includes different parties that have contradicting political views, but this should not be used as a pretext for not allowing the different ministries to function properly, thus facilitating the lives of people," he said. The LF boss recommended adopting Sleiman's inaugural address as the ministerial program of the new government. "The government can adopt Sleiman's speech and add other relevant issues that the president did not mention," he said.
For his part, Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun welcomed the thaw between Lebanon and Syria. "We were the first to demand such a relationship between Beirut and Damascus ... it took both states a long time to agree on establishing diplomatic relations, but late is better than never," Aoun said after a meeting of his Reform and Change bloc at his residence in Rabieh. Aoun said he hoped that the performance of the ministers affiliated to the Reform and Change bloc would contribute to improving the performance of the entire cabinet.
He added that he expected that the Cabinet will not face problems drafting its ministerial program. "There will be no disagreements about the ministerial program, particularly regarding the issue of the resistance," he said, referring to the ongoing debate on Hizbullah's weapons.
Aoun also voiced agreement with remarks made by Sleiman, who told reporters in Paris on Sunday that the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms should be liberated militarily if diplomatic means fail to achieve an Israeli withdrawal from the territory, "Diplomacy is indeed the best way to liberate the Shebaa Farms, but if diplomatic means fail to achieve our desired goal, we should resort to arms," Aoun said, echoing Sleiman's position.
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Elias Murr told reporters after visiting Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Monday that Lebanon "cannot live at odds with Syria."
Murr praised the meetings between Sleiman and Assad in Paris and said that both Lebanon and Syria were deeply in need of opening a new page of ties.
"What happened in Paris cannot be but in the interest of both Beirut and Damascus," he said. Also on Monday, the Phalange Party of former President Amine Gemayel issued a statement saying described the meetings between Sleiman and Assad as a positive step toward improving bilateral ties.
For his part, newly appointed Minister of State Nassib Lahoud, leader of the Democratic Renewal Movement, said the Paris meetings were a good step toward "correcting Lebanese-Syrian relations, which should be based on mutual respect for the sovereignty of both states." Separately, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora discussed the "financial situation" with newly appointed Finance Minister Mohammad Shattah. Siniora also received at the Grand Serail Minister of State for Administrative Development Ibrahim Shamseddine and Minister of State Jean Hogassapian. The premier also received a phone call from his Kuwaiti counterpart, Sheikh Nasser Mohammad al-Ahmad al-Sabbah, who congratulated him on the formation of the new Cabinet

Germany presses Syria on arms smuggling
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
BERLIN: Syria must stop arms smuggling across its border with Lebanon if it wants to continue to emerge from international isolation, Germany's deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg said Monday. Steg said German Chancellor Angela Merkel held impromptu talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad on the sidelines of a Mediterranean summit Sunday as a result of Damascus's announcement it would open diplomatic ties with Lebanon. He said Berlin and the international community were now waiting for Syria to follow through on its pledge and to address other issues that had led the West to isolate the country. "If Syria aims to show its good will with this announcement then it could also follow up with good deeds and that would include, for example, a readiness to ensure that the alleged - at least never ruled out - weapons smuggling over the land route to Hizbullah is stopped," Steg said. Syria and Lebanon announced Saturday their decision to establish diplomatic relations, a first since their independence from colonial rule. "We want to see actions now because enough words have been exchanged," Merkel told reporters after her talks with Assad in Paris. Steg said Syria's declarations were grounds for hope that it was ready to end its "in part self-imposed isolation." "Now the Syrians must prove that they truly intend to play a responsible role to bring about peace and security in the Middle East and that they want to work together constructively," he said. Assad broke out of international isolation by attending the summit, which included indirect talks through Turkey between him and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Arms smuggling between Lebanon and Syria's 170-kilometer long border is believed by some to be rampant. Israel accuses Syria of supplying weapons Hizbullah, a charge Damascus and the resistance group deny. - AFP

With whom will Syria make peace?
By Haaretz- Editorial
The peace between Israel and Syria has in the past few days seemed closer and farther away than at any other time. Each side has passed messages to the other that bear witness to the seriousness of their intentions, the teams have been in contact for several months through Turkish mediation, and in Paris this week, Syrian and Lebanese journalists spoke with Israeli journalists almost without any interference. At the same time, Ehud Olmert was striving for personal contact with Bashar Assad, but to no avail - because the Syrian president considers Olmert a weak prime minister, and he does not sell his gestures on the cheap.
The Paris summit convened by the French president this week perhaps did not strengthen the Olmert government, but it definitely allowed the Syrian president to enter Europe by the front door. That is what Assad said in an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro, and it seems that his assessment was not incorrect. Advertisement
The isolated Assad arrived in Paris like a hero, even though he had not changed anything substantive in his diplomatic conduct. The disdainful attitude shown by Israel with regard to Assad's leadership ability, at the inspiration of the Americans, apparently came to an end, along with the conclusion of George W. Bush's term.
Assad demonstrated control of the situation, and with perfect timing brought about the establishment of a unity government in Lebanon a few days before he was invited to attend the Bastille Day military parade. In the eyes of the Europeans, he is perceived today as a leader who can mediate between them and Iran, who can make decisions and put them into effect. The aim is to get him to lead Syria in a direction that fits both his own interests and those of the West.
Syria's serious attitude toward peace talks with Israel found expression in Paris this week in Assad's public declarations of peace, in the indirect talks that are continuing through Turkey, and in the fact that the Israeli attack on nuclear facilities in Syria and the assassination of Imad Mughniyah did not make Assad change direction. Syria has apparently decided that it is in its interest to join the West, and peace talks with Israel are one of many means of doing so.
More than at any other time in the past, it seems the ball is in Israel's court - but this court is covered in thick political mud. In actual fact, there is no government right now in Israel. The government in Jerusalem is a transition government with which it is possible to hold talks, but difficult to reach arrangements. The talks with Syria through the offices of the Turks are being conducted by the prime minister's bureau. Yoram Turbowicz and Shalom Turgeman are Olmert's personal confidants, who will be replaced in two months by the personal aides of the next prime minister. This unfortunate fact is also known to the Syrian president.
All one can demand now is that all those who aspire to be elected prime minister of Israel - whether in Kadima, the Labor Party or Likud - should reveal publicly what their current position is on the continuation of talks with Syria. It is worthwhile reminding them that it is forbidden to miss chances for peace, and that the price for peace with Syria is clear.
The price for not having peace with Syria became clear in the Second Lebanon War, and it is likely to become clear in the third and fourth war in the region. An improvement in relations with any of the Arab countries contributes to Israel's security more than any reservoir of weapons that Israel has at its disposal

85 Victims of Hizbollah Terrorist Rocket Attacks File Unprecedented Civil Suit Against American Express Bank in New York Court/First American Correspondent Bank to be Sued for Aiding Terrorist Organization Facing $650 Million in Damages
Last update: 6:57 a.m. EDT July 14, 2008
NEW YORK, July 14, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Eighty five American, Israeli and Canadian victims of Hizbollah terror attacks have filed an historic civil action in the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan against American Express Bank Ltd. ("AMEX Bank") and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank SAL ("LCB"). The suit, Licci v. American Express Bank, requests $650 million in compensatory damages and an unspecified sum of punitive damages.
Amex Bank, headquartered in New York, serves as one of LCB's correspondent banks the United States, and in that capacity processes LCB's dollar transactions. LCB's main office is in Beirut, and it has branches throughout Lebanon and a branch in Canada.
The plaintiffs, whose family members were killed or who were themselves injured by rocket attacks fired at northern Israel by Hizbollah in the summer of 2006, allege that AMEX Bank and LCB unlawfully executed millions of dollars in wire transfers for Hizbollah between 2004 and 2006. The plaintiffs assert that Hizbollah used the funds transferred by Amex Bank and LCB to prepare and carry out the rocket attacks which the terrorist organization rained on Israeli cities between July 12 and August 14, 2006.
The plaintiffs rest their claims in part on written findings issued by the New York State Banking Department last year, which determined that AMEX Bank had failed to establish adequate procedures to prevent terrorism financing as demanded by state and federal law. This is the first lawsuit brought by terror victims against an U.S. financial institution that serves as a correspondent for a bank in Lebanon.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Robert J. Tolchin Esq. of New York City, and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Esq. of Israel.
Attorney Darshan-Leitner stated that: "Hizbollah is a financial giant which is deeply entrenched in the Lebanese banking system. Any U.S. bank that serves as correspondent for a Lebanese bank may well be aiding and abetting Hizbollah terrorism, and runs the risk of serious civil liability. U.S. correspondents for Lebanese banks owe it to themselves and to their shareholders to carefully examine and re-evaluate their relationships with banks in Lebanon."
According to attorney Tolchin: "There will be more suits to come against Lebanese banks and their U.S. correspondents."
A copy of the complaint is available here:
http://www.snapdrive.net/public.php?action=download&id=33e970e810c4

U.S. support for the Lebanese army
Jul 14th, 2008
From David Schenker
Middle East Strategy at Harvard
A lot of people have asked me lately about U.S. funding of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). The current interest in U.S. assistance to the LAF comes as little surprise: Congress is currently reviewing the FY09 budget, which is said to include a significant aid package for the LAF.
From 2005 to 2008, the U.S. Government provided over $1 billion to Lebanon, including nearly $380 million in assistance to the LAF. During this time, Washington’s generosity toward the LAF made Lebanon the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign military assistance per capita, after Israel.
Several recent developments have sparked the debate about this previously uncontroversial U.S. assistance provided to the military of the only pro-West, democratically elected Arab government. First, as a result of Hezbollah’s May 2008 blitz on Beirut, the Shiite militia cum terrorist organization has rejoined the Lebanese government, with important de jure powers (i.e., the blocking third in the parliament). Questions are also being raised about the utility of funding the LAF, particularly following the organization’s actions—or inactions—this past May. Essentially, the LAF was missing in action. At a minimum, the army did not protect national institutions; some accuse the LAF of colluding with Hezbollah in the raid.
At the same time, statements made by March 14th ruling coalition leaders in July regarding Samir Kuntar have eroded some of their government’s appeal. In particular, in the run-up to the impending prisoner exchange between Hezbollah and Israel, several top leaders of March 14th have indicated that they will join Hezbollah at the hero’s welcome for Kuntar—the terrorist best known for crushing the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl in 1979. In the process, March 14th has seemingly blessed Hezbollah’s continued possession of weapons.
The debate regarding U.S. support for the LAF has been fueled by a contentious and factually inaccurate op-ed in the New York Times written by Nicholas Noe in mid-June. In his article, “A Fair Fight for the Lebanese Army,” Noe claimed that Israel was preventing the LAF from acquiring the type of armaments—advanced anti-tank weapons, armed attack helos, and intelligence gathering equipment—it requires.
Because the Bush Administration caved to Israeli demands, Noe claims, “the army was left without the equipment that would have enabled it to be a more forceful mediator in the street battles involving Hezbollah and its rivals” in May. Noe likewise claims,
this lack of equipment also contributed to the military’s inability last summer to quickly roust a group of [Fatah al-Islam] Islamist militants from a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon.
Finally, Noe argues that if the LAF receives this kind of advanced equipment in future, it will help Lebanon to solve the problem of Hezbollah’s weapons:
Give the Lebanese an army able to meet the perceived threats emanating from Israel (primarily involving water, territory and a possible future expulsion of Palestinians to Lebanon), and then, Hezbollah has said, its independent weaponry can be tackled.
No doubt, the Times received a flood of critical letters about Noe’s article. Not surprisingly, it did not run any. Nevertheless, I still think it’s worth debunking some of the more egregious inaccuracies and bad thinking in Noe’s piece.
Prima facie, Noe’s article neglects to even mention the deep divisions in the LAF that are the primary constraint on the long-term prospects for making the military an effective national institution. Yet despite these limitations, Washington has fully backed the LAF. Indeed, contrary to Noe’s assertion, the United States expedited the shipment of over 40 C-130 transport planes brimming with military materiel to Beirut immediately after the outbreak of fighting in Nahr el Bared. This was no mean feat. It required a lot of creative thinking—the United States used an ACSA mechanism to dispatch the weapons and ammo quickly—and a real effort to cut through standard timelines and procedures.
The materiel provided by the United States was what was required for the operation and what could be absorbed by the LAF. Shipments at the time included over 10 million rounds of all types of ammunition, as well as—according to the State Department—”the same front-line weapons that the U.S. military troops are currently using, including assault rifles, automatic grenade launchers, advanced sniper weapons systems, anti-tank weapons, and the most modern urban warfare bunker weapons.” This and subsequent assistance has not been subject to Israeli veto, but rather is based on a careful assessment of LAF operational requirements carried out by the United States and France.
Moreover, Noe falsely claims that the United States blocked the transfer of rockets to be employed by UAE-donated Gazelle attack helicopters, and that, “As a result, soldiers were forced to drop shells from the helicopters by hand, destroying much of [Nahr el Bared].” What actually happened was that the LAF ingeniously retrofitted their U.S.-made Bell UH-I “Huey” helicopters—with Washington’s blessing—with hydraulic systems to drop their own retooled bombs targeting Fatah al-Islam terrorists. Here is how it was done (click on thumbnails for images):
So Noe gets it wrong on the helos and the arms transfers. His assessment that, once the LAF is “able to meet the perceived threats emanating from Israel,” Hezbollah’s weapons “can be tackled,” also strains credulity. Hezbollah has an ever-expanding list of prerequisites for disarmament, ranging from the liberation of Jerusalem to the end of Lebanese government corruption. Noe’s supposition that Hezbollah’s weapons will be on the table when the LAF is better armed is more wishful thinking than reality.
No doubt, Israel has some concerns about the LAF. Based on the LAF’s apparent collusion with Hezbollah in the firing of the Chinese-made Iranian-provided C-802 land-to-sea missile—which hit and almost sank an Israeli SAAR 5-class warship during the summer 2006 war—these concerns are well founded. But the fear that the LAF would somehow transfer U.S.-made weapons to the Shiite militia is likely not at the top of the Israelis’ list. First, the LAF has a very good record in this regard; and second, Hezbollah has received an arsenal from Moscow, Syria, and Iran that is so highly advanced, that it need not covet LAF stocks.
In the coming weeks, Washington may choose to modify its aid package to the LAF. If this occurs, it will be because of Hezbollah’s recent political and military gains, not Israeli complaints. By blaming Israel for a weak LAF, Noe is essentially repeating Hezbollah’s justification for retaining its army and arsenal.
It is in Washington’s long-term interest to see the LAF develop into a strong national institution. But it’s important to understand that the strength of this institution does not primarily rely on its capabilities, but rather on its will to take on difficult missions on orders from the democratically-elected government of Lebanon. No amount of U.S. military assistance will change this current dynamic.
**Posted in David Schenker, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Military |