Lebanese Army to Confront Hizballah?
Interestingly, he refers to a Washington Post article titled Attacks Could Erode Faction's Support, where Anthony Shadid writes:
Lebanese critics as well as allies of Hezbollah insist that the Israeli response was disproportionate. But at the same time, in meetings Thursday, Lebanese officials began to lay the groundwork for an extension of government control to southern Lebanon. Hezbollah largely controls southern Lebanon, where it has built up a network of schools, hospitals and charities.
"To declare war and to make military action must be a decision made by the state and not by a party," said Nabil de Freige, a parliament member. He belongs to the bloc headed by Saad Hariri, whose father, Rafiq, a former prime minister and wealthy businessman, was assassinated in 2005, setting off a sequence of events that forced the Syrian withdrawal. "It's a very simple equation: You have to be a state." [Emphasis added.]
This is interesting on its own merit.
But consider an article from Britain's Telegraph today. We used it to reference a quote today from Dan Gillerman, Israel's UN ambassador. But the headline (Israel claims Beirut 'secretly backs' its actions) seemed quite sensational considering the textual content that lay beneath it.
But in light of at least some members of the Lebanese government planning to take control of Hizballah's domain in the south, to make such a move without communicating (and coordinating and potentially cooperating...even with passivity) with an angry army coiled along that border with intentions of rolling over the same turf is simply impossible to imagine.
This communication would have to take place well before any publicly disclosed meetings about troop movements and taking territory, which means it has already occurred, or at least begun.
Suddenly, the British Telegraph's headline may not have been as sensational in fact as it appeared in original print context.