PJ Media: Last month during a conference at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, the State Department’s David Satterfield said the administration would keep “bolster[ing] the elements of state security in Lebanon, with an emphasis on the Lebanese army.”
So reports Eldad Shavit, a researcher at the institute. Yet at the same conference another State Department official, Nathan Sales, argued “that the Lebanese army is currently a tool of Hezbollah and … it is therefore pointless to strengthen it.”
Which of those two diametrically opposed views, coming from the same State Department, is accurate? more …
Opinion: For some reason the US has had a blind spot for Lebanon and the terror proxy Hezbollah which has been occupying the Shiite, Sunni, Druze, Christian and Kurd nation.
This short 2016 video explains:
When trying to decide between the two sides, as to whether the US should continue to pour money into Lebanon, a look at Psalm 83:5-8 provides the answer.
Lebanon is represented twice in verse 7 “Gebal (Northern Lebanon), Ammon, and Amalek;
Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.“
By the gift of prophecy a Temple priest was able to see Lebanon’s role in a war against his people. The fulfillment of Asaph’s occupiers began in the early 1980’s as a militia group was formed by an Iranian effort to aggregate a variety of militant Lebanese Shi’a groups under one roof.
Hezbollah was born in 1985 and began inhabiting southern Lebanon as Asaph had prophesied 3000 years earlier. Northern Lebanon and the inhabitants of Tyre (southern Lebanon) would be in the alliance.
State Department official, Nathan Sales, has it partially right, Hezbollah is a tool of the Lebanese army but it is not just pointless to strengthen it, ii is dangerous to our only ally in the Middle East, Israel.