Friday, August 18, 2006

Scared to send International troops to Lebanon?

What is the reason behind the declination of Germany and The Netherlands from sending their troops to Lebanon?

Moreover France has decreased the number of the troops they want to send to Lebanon from thousands to just 200.

UNIFIL forces said that they will not be involved with any disarming of the resistance, but just help the Lebanese troops.

Many explanations can be given to this behavior, either they're afraid from the whole "disarming" the resistance deal in the South, although the Lebanese army General has specified no disarming will occur saying: "if Israel wasn't able to do it, we will not do their job".

The second explanation is that, perhaps they are predicting another war, a round two, to happen again soon and they do not want to be on Lebanese lands when it happens.


  1. The reason for the German decline to send ground troops was because of sensitivities relating to Germany's relationship with Israel and Germany's past. They will however send maritime units to help us patrol our coast and national waters. An important step if you consider the incursions and illegal detensions of our fisherman by both the Israelis and the Syrians over the past year.

    To better understand perceptions across the german speaking world I recommend you read this firsthand account of the media in those countries throughout this July war:

    Please feel free to read other comments and analysis on:

  2. Well I understand that the media in Germany don't have an good background on what was happening in Lebanon and showing everything to look in favor to Israel to a certain extenst. However, as I recall (probably am mistaken) germany were going to send troops, what happened? Why did they change their minds? Or was it that in the first places they didn't want to send?

  3. As far as I know they didn't really want to send troops because of the sensitivities between Germany and Israel. Pressure was put on them the EU and France to step and to give Europe the lead in the situation and they succumbed.

    But basically they were looking for a role with the least possibility of friction with the Israelis, so a) Patrolling the Leb-Syrian border; b) Maritime patrolling.

    Like I said before I'm really happy about this maritime patrolling because the Syrians and Israelis were treating our fisherman terribly!

  4. Long live the Resistance

  5. Maybe because Hezb'allah has a habit of murdering peacekeepers from countries Iran isnt getting along with ?

  6. To blacksmith jade,

    How were they treating the fisherman badly, I don't know about this, can you elaborate please?

    To mikealpha,

    Hmmm when did Hezballa murdered peacekeepers? If you are referring to the war, it was Israel who killed for UN peacekeepers!

  7. Every year there are reports of Lebanese fisherman 'abducted' from Lebanese waters by both the Israelis and the Syrians who return the fishermen after a few days or weeks. Also, both the Syrians and the Israelis generally tend to cut fishermen's nets costing them hundreds of dollars in repairs. In the north, these actions were seen as retribution for the north's support for Hariri in the last elections.

    I've attached links to news stories about such attacks:

    There are more, just google lebanese fishermen and u'll find them.

  8. Think back. The year is 1983. The Lebanese civil war is in progress. Multinational troops are present in Beirut in attempt to stabilize the country. Hezb'allah, utilizing the suicide bombing techniques which were to become so fashionable in latter years, crashes 2 explosive laden trucks into barracks housing American Marines and another such truck into the barracks of French paratroops. Many are killed outright in the blast, Hezballah snipers shoot at those attempting to evacuate the wounded. The death toll was :
    241 US service men, mostly marines.
    58 french paratroopers.
    The wife and four children of the lebanese caretaker of the French barracks .

    Who said:
    'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' ?

    Should he instead have been more explicit and said:
    'Those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it.' ?

  9. To mikealpha: In general I'd be the last to defend Hizballah. But I do feel that I should interject a little in this case, not to defend but maybe to shed a bit of light.

    I'll start by saying that there is a grave danger to the MNF that is due to come into Lebanon from Hizballah. The Syrian/Iranian regimes could at any point order Hizballah to hit those forces to force them out and to destabilize Lebanon, thereby disrupting any plans for Lebanon's advancement.

    With respect to your comment, theres two points I take issue with:
    1) "Hizballah has a habit..."

    In order to for an action to be a habit it must be done regularly. The 1983 strike was a one-time affair. Since the deployment of UNIFIL to southern Lebanon it has been the IDF/IAF that have repeatedly hit UN positions causing the deaths of dozens of UN troops and hundreds of civilians. Hizballah, on the other hand, has refrained from attacking those positions.

    The Hizballah of today is different from the group of Iranian-trained fighters who attacked the barracks in 1983. The main difference is the emergence of this domestic, political, and charitable branch of the group in Lebanon. With respect to their regional dealings with Syria and Iran that group has remained the same, but the presence of this domestic branch should in theory temper their regionally-inspired actions...although to some extent that might just be wishful thinking.

    So yeah, I agree with u that the MNF will face serious dangers when it comes in but it won't be due to a 'habitual' urge to attack UN troops...well...from Hizballah's side at least.

  10. In 1983 Iranian revolutionary guards were in the Bekka valley. Are they still there today ?

  11. Blacksmith Jade,

    I used with the word habit previously both for effect and because I think many on the blog don't believe that Hezb'allah is an Iranian run organization. If you think that Hezb'allah is purely or even primarilly Lebanese then it's actions are difficult to understand (for example why blow up a building in Argentinia in 1994 ?).

    I don't wish to suggest that Hezb'allah kills out of habit. Hezb'allah is an Iraian proxy army established at great cost. Iran is not going to allow such a force to be neutralized without a fight and that is why Hezb'allah will attack anyone who tries to enforce 1559 or 1701. That is why the multinational forces were atacked in 1983 (the Iranian proxy forces were just being established then). That is why a multinational force with any military power will be attacked if they show up now. That is why such a force wont show up . And that is why eventually there will be a second, more decisive, war.