I'm not sure I understand your point or question. If your question is whether the statement yesterday by state might have angered our muslim allies -- I'm sure it probably did to some extent, but I've never claimed it can be avoided. My only point is that there is no NEED for the USA to use unrestrained hostile language now, as it will accomplish NOTHING but angering our muslim allies MUCH MORE. Israel is perfectly capable of handling this thing, and will.
No one has suggested using unrestrained, hostile language. The topic on this thread is whether it makes sense to acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself, while requesting Israel not weaken the...government in Lebanon, an impossibility. The current government will be weakened, could even fall.
My point was slightly different. The major issue here isn’t the statement, as you correctly note we may be delivering Israel a different message privately. I think it’s a mistake to publicly pander to the terrorists, it displays weakness which Arabs are sensitive to, but that’s not my decision.
More important is the continuing public battle between the WH. Read the statements yesterday. The White House makes a straightforward, direct statement acknowledging Israel’s right to defend itself. Followed by State with an oops, you forgot the restraint. And this morning, the WH adds Israel please don’t harm the Lebanese government, even though you were attacked.
The WH and State need to get their act together privately before they start speaking publicly.