Another Incident in Lebanon with Malaysian Peacekeepers

Malbatt 850-11 personnel with their Panthera armoured vehicles at a parade on September 4. Myjointforce.

SHAH ALAM: Two Malaysian Battalion 850-11 vehicles -Cendana Auto FFR – part of the UNIFIL peacekeeping force were attacked by Lebanese civilians on September 18. The attack was captured in a viral video published on social media.

The attack occurred as Lebanon were rocked by various explosions involving pagers, walkie-talkies and other items believed to be sabotage by Israel against the Hezbollah group and its supporters.

The Malaysian Armed Forces in a statement said:

The altercation occurred on September 18, 2024, at approximately 11.32pm Malaysian time while the troops were returning to Marakah Camp after completing a mission at Shama Camp, Unifil headquarters.

“Two Fitted for Radio (FFR) vehicles were involved in the incident as they navigated through an unusual traffic jam on the Tes Road-Burj Al Qibli route in Tyre,” it said.

“At the time, civilians were managing traffic due to the influx of ambulances and fire trucks.
The Lebanon Armed Forces (LAF) responded promptly, arriving at the scene to control the situation. They also coordinated a loader to facilitate the safe return of the vehicles and personnel back to Marakah Camp.

“All members of Malbatt 850-11 and their vehicles arrived safely at the camp by 1.39am Malaysian time.

“Fortunately, no injuries were reported among the officers and personnel; however, both vehicles sustained some damage.”


Cendana Auto FFR for the Unifil mission. BTDM

This was the second time Malaysian peacekeepers in Lebanon had an altercation with the locals. The last incident was in March, this year. In that incident, the Malaysian peacekeepers was also in a Cendana Auto FFR vehicle.

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 2314 Articles
Shah Alam

29 Comments

  1. OOT…Our Ringgit (RM) became stronger. Hope it will benefitted us in buying foreing military equipment.

  2. It’s some Lebanese Arab idiots who don’t know the difference between a Jalur Gemilang and the Stars and Stripes. Tara’ sekolah punya olang…

  3. Lmao you know back then we used either indonesian flag or Umno flag on our condor bcoa malaysian flag is too similar to daddy america?

  4. I remember a Petronas friend was telling that 1 time, a Petronas 4×4 was stopped at gun point in Sudan. They were aggressive until 1 of the militia recognises Petronas’ logo. “What Petronas? Mahathir2x”
    Then become very friendly

  5. “difference between a Jalur Gemilang and the Stars and Stripes”
    “malaysian flag is too similar to daddy america?”
    IINM these UN vehicles would not have nationality id/flags so how was it concluded it was due to JG? At best it would have nation shortname but that wouldnt have relate us to USA. I suspect its bcoz people there are getting distrustful even to UN, where its now wholy bandied together with USA. Perhaps we should relook our commitment there if it no longer serves the role of peacekeeper when it now attracts conflict.

    On a side note, these Cendanas are so easily “significant damaged” by sticks & stones, what happens when shooting and grenading starts? Looks tough but paper thin armour?

    And the Hezbollahs really asking for it. I mean wagging war against the West proxy using… Western tech… and not expect it literally blow up in their faces? LOL. Shoulda bought comms gear from Russia/China/NK. Instead they bought from Israel close ally Taiwan. Bodoh betul puak walaun ni. Thats why the West are winning.

  6. Technically the Army never called the cendana an armoured vehicles in the first place.

    Also Hezbollahs ain’t exactly wagging war against the west. It’s mostly Israel and to a certain extent uncle Sam. The rest of the wider West don’t wanna touch the middle east even with a 10 foot pole. Nor Israel are any closer at winning against an ideology. One thing the brits done right during our emergencies is they provide both a carrot and a stick.

  7. Lucky nobody got hurt. Has any investigation done for the attack? Why they occurred and who else is involved?

  8. @Zaft
    Whether it has paper thin armour or not the specs calls for “It shall meet with Malaysian Military environment”. So its obvious should not be your standard Hilux and should be able to withstand rocks & stones thrown at it with minimal surface damage. What was said seems to be worse condition for so called combat vehicle.

    “Hezbollahs ain’t exactly wagging war”
    They are fighting against the West proxy, Israel, so indirectly they are as you know who backs the Zionists. In turn Israel are leveraging other West proxies ie Taiwan to gain such an advantage as the latest incident shown.

    “the situation in Lebanon not getting friendly.”
    Then its time for us to leave, havent we learn anything from Somalia? When the populace no longer wants us around, UN charter doesnt allow us to go on offensive before shit gets worse. Let the rest of UN to sort out the Lebs. We dont need new generation of heroic deaths. Back to Somalia, it was so unnecessary, eventually UN also left but they should have done that earlier and avoided all those casualties, inc ours.

  9. @joe “Whether it has paper thin armour or not the specs calls for “It shall meet with Malaysian Military environment”.”

    Well the army do owned a lot of standards hilux as well and the cendana as we know is just a hilux with a fancy skin. Obviously it’s not designed to operate in the environments it’s currently being used in but it’s being used nonetheless as the 4×4 acquisitions is delayed.

    “They are fighting against the West proxy, Israel”

    A proxy by definition is a person authorized to act on behalf of another. And what the Israeli (or rather the Israeli current leadership) is doing is self serving and not to the interests of the wider West. Nor to the Israeli state as a whole either. Israel are no closer to securing themselves as they did years prior.

  10. LOL. Shoulda bought comms gear from Russia/China/NK. Instead they bought from Israel close ally Taiwan. Bodoh betul puak walaun ni. Thats why the West are winning.(joe)

    This … I agree. I always have this ambivalence towards Pak Arab military undertakings…they are smart but again, aren’t So Smart! And this is one of the latter examples.
    Can’t they see that Taiwan isn’t exactly a neutral party and that the US and its beloved ally Israel has Taiwan in their pockets? It shows how DUMB Hezbollah is at Asian politics, ergo facto, all muscle minus real brains.
    And please, lump Iran, Pakistan and India in that same basket!

  11. Heck, there’s even a video on YouTube shorts a US black guy calling our flag their own when interviewed. Nuff said!!

  12. These Cendanas looks tough even spaced bulletproof glasses but actually just a paper tiger. Based on the vehicle requirement its wholy unsuitable. It really shouldnt be where even civvie hostilities are a threat whatmore when shooting starts.

    Knowing how bad the situation why didnt the commanders use newly delivered Ejder Yalcins? At least even as escorts to the FFRs still not too bad, at least not leave them exposed like that.

  13. Ideally yes, The cendanas shouldnt be where civvie hostilities are a threat as much as the laksamana and LMSb1 shouldn’t be in SCS.

    But unfortunately, money doesn’t grow on tree.

  14. Come to think of it, we’re not poor and also inflated prices then money not well spent on the proper equipment needed. In terms of equipment may become something of a laughing stock if not properly addressed.

    Big bully will not hesitate to take advantage of this situation in the big sea.

  15. The question that should be asked

    Why do we spend so much on a fancy reskin of the Hilux with no apparent advantages when a normal Hilux/Fortuner can do the job?

    The appearance of the vehicle as if it is an armored vehicle but in reality with zero armor is extremely dangerous for the user of the vehicle. This is not a parade where optics is better than substance. Who approved this, thinking that this is a great idea?

  16. @ zainal abidin

    “Come to think of it, we’re not poor and also inflated prices then money not well spent on the proper equipment needed. In terms of equipment may become something of a laughing stock if not properly addressed”

    While it is true that our budget is quite low when compared to most of our neighbours, i totally agree with you that we don’t get our money’s worth when getting equipments, and we still waste our budget buying equipments that is not proper for the task.

    For example, the current main challenge is to counter the Chinese Coast Guard. But our answer to the challenge is to buy expensive LMS 68 and now ADA-class corvettes to counter the Chinese Coast Guard.
    https://www.malaysiandefence.com/lms-batch-2-is-the-result-of-chinas-intrusion-into-malaysias-eez/

    Each LMS 68 (68m, 700 ton displacement) from china costs about USD62 million. A large OPV (115m, 3220 ton displacement) for APMM from South Korea would cost around USD58 million. Each ADA-class corvette could buy 4 of this Korean OPV…
    https://t.co/OeMK1jM9IL

    A strong APMM to counter China Coast Guard means freed budget for TLDM to get more submarines as a deterrence in case of a war in South China Sea.

  17. @Cheekuchai
    “Why do we spend so much on a fancy reskin”
    Because it was a ‘product’ pushed by Cendana to fill a TDM need, Whether all those critical requirements were met, lain cerita. Important is to feed the new players (Cendana, Mildef, Kembara, etc)

    “extremely dangerous for the user of the vehicle”
    Eaxctly! A paper tiger which give wrong impression to users thinking their safe from small arms.

  18. And what we going to do with the OPV? Hit Chinese CG ship with it? How exactly that’s going to help with anything when our major objectives are continued extraction of resources of the EEZ? The moment ship on ship violence happens is the moment the oil stop flowing, the longer it’s goes on the longer the downtime is which hurt our economy but not the Chinese. Not to mention no matter how much OPV we have the Chinese gonna have more and if the idea is to hit ship with another ship we going to run out of ship first.

    The Chinese aren’t gonna be deterred by a small country OPV or submarine because they going to have more. What would deterred them is escalation. And one can’t pull off an escalation if all we have are OPV, missile boat, bigger army etc etc.

    The Chinese never make any claim nor interested in making landfall. So why exactly we spending money and concentrating forces for something with low probability? They always said they wanted our EEZ and that’s exactly what our defence planner are planning against.

  19. We need to have OPVs 24/7 at the area (which are deep waters, not on a reef like sabina shoal) not to play bumper cars with CCG.

    We need to have OPVs 24/7 at the area to demonstrate effective occupation / control of the area. That is what China is now trying to do, which is to show effective control by constantly having their OPVs in Malaysian EEZ.

    If Chinese Coast Guard OPVs are there more than our own APMM OPVs are there, they can in long term prove (by force or not) that they have de facto control of the area, no matter what UNCLOS law says.

    Just being out there, does not need a ship armed with missiles or such. Just need a stable, seaworthy ship with good endurance (both fuel and food), in enough numbers to constantly rotate to always be out there 24/7/365.

  20. We are not buying the Ada or anything else specifically to ”counter” the Chinese …
    One of the roles RMN assets perform are patrols in the EEZ; like all navies the RMN has peacetime constabulary roles but continued notions that anything is being bought specifically to counter the Chinese is sensationalist hogwash. Naturally, to justify spending; the RMN will say that certain things are for the Spratlys but the Adas are being bought not mainly or only because they are needed in the Spratlys.

    Amidst all this continued fanboyish talk on subs; yes we do need subs but so do we need various other things; nothing operates in a vacuum. Subs have great war time potential but they aren’t invincible or a panacea and have little peacetime utility. They also aren’t – in reality – more survivable than a ship because it depends on the circumstances. In an area where an opponent has his own subs and surface and air units in place; as well as mines and sensors; a subs won’t be more survivable. As shown in WW1/2 one also has to deny subs the ability to doi their job; as opposed to physically destroying them.

    If we do buy more subs we also have to ensure we have the needed sustainment funds. As it is; a reason why the RMN is so underfunded is because a lot of its already limited/stretched budget is going towards the subs. Subs are inherently expensive to operate and sustain; getting added subs sounds great on paper but in reality will we allocate the needed funding for the RMN and will we be able to get the best of what subs can offer by ensuring the subs can work alongside other assets. We have the same situation with RMAF; getting the used [30 odd year and getting older] Hornets is the easy part. The hard part is what comes after that. We barely have enough funding to operate the little we have; everything; from the Hawks, Fulcrums, Hornets and MKMs have been affected by funding issues over the years; upgrades, overhauls and spares delayed and the result is low readiness rates; not as if we don’t have a history of buying new stuff but not ensuring we allocated extra funding for the new stuff.

    Comparing the cost of a OPV meant for the MMEA and a corvette meant for the RMN is a silly comparison. Both are for different things; for different entities. Must as well compare the price of a APC intended for a paramilitary unit and a IFV meant for a combined arms mechanised unit…

    Irrespective of where Hezbollah bought the pagers from; they would have been compromised. Those who have observed Israeli ops over the decades will not be surprised what happened. In the past the Israelis killed the ”bombmaker” by planting a few grammes of explosives in his phone and have resorted to various other innovative means to kill/murder/assassinate people.

    As a whole; the presence of UNIFL in Lebanon is not unwelcomed by the locals. The Malaysians were travelling in a area where they hardly have a presence; in areas where they have a presence; there are no issues with the locals. BTW the locals did not mistake the flag for a U.S. one [a similar incident happened in Somalia]; the locals are aware that the Americans are not in UNIFIL.

    We often think about Bosnia and Somalia but in the Congo our troops came under fire and engaged in firefights on dozens of occasions [against Congolese troops, Kantanganese rebels, white mercenaries, etc].

    As for the proposal to lease V-SHORADS; a silly proposal but if it happens quite obviously the local company will not be in possession of the V-SHORADS … As it stands; within the army there are very strict SOPs in place which govern how V-SHORADS are stored; transported and operated. Thus; notions/concerns that a ”terrorist” situation might arise because of a local company being in possession of the V-SHORADS is hogwash.

    On NASAMS; we might not have large stocks of AMRAAM but if we do get NASAMS for GAPU the fact that we have experience in operating and maintaining AMRAAM; as well as a pool of trained people [even if in another service]; will be an added bonus. Also; the issue of AMRAAM stocks being held in Guam was almost 20 years ago and it wasn’t our AMRAAMS which were stocked there …

  21. Zainal – ”Big bully will not hesitate to take advantage of this situation in the big sea.”

    You do understand [or not] that …

    – If the ”big bully” wanted to grab all of the Spratlys; that there’s nothing any claimant could do about it that would actually make a difference?
    – If you look at a map it would be obvious that for China the areas held/claimed by Vietnam and the Philippines are far more strategic than the are claimed by us.
    – A reason the Chinese want the Spratlys is also because it help if they intend on going for Taiwan and that it also helps them break out of the 1st Island Chain.
    – Putting aside what makes it on the news and claims and doomsday exaggeration by fanboys; a lot also happens behind the scenes. There is dialogue and horse trading. A lot of what China does is not solely intended to send a message to the other claimants but also to its domestic populace and to ”outside” countries.

    zaft – ”And what we going to do with the OPV?”

    Having the needed numbers better enables us to maintain a presence and to have ships on standby. At the moment we are running things on a string due to a scarcity of assets. Yes the MMEA is the primary entity but as it stand the RMN is the only entity able to help carry the burden [it would seem this simple fact is poorly understood] and like all navies the RMN will always have a peacetime constabulary role.

    Zaft – ”The Chinese aren’t gonna be deterred by a small country OPV or submarine ”

    This topic has been done to death but yes. The Chinese aren’t deterred by the likes of America, Japan an Australia; thus the notion that they’d be deterred by a much smaller country is cloud cuckoo land delusion. Also, if shite does happen; our main concern would be the economy; not whether KD Lekiu is sunk. Most of our exports go to China an China is one of the largest FDIs here. We are also dependent on oil/food and various other critical things coming into the country. We often hear the ”deterrence” cliche and about ”asymmetric tactics” but what happens when someone is not ”deterred’ by our ”deterrence” and what happens when someone else is also able to adopt ”asymmetric tactics” but on a much larger and more sustainable level? On ”deterrence” Vietnam has 6 subs and the USN always has a SSN in the area; the Chinese ”deterred”? One would think China has no subs of its own; has a poor understanding of SSK limitations and of ”asymmetric tactics” – poppycock. Unless of course one wants to again make the suggestion that our subs surface near a Chinese shop as a warning [doing so does away with a sub’s main advantage; being unseen. It would however get us into the Malaysian book of records; given our tendency to blow our own trumpets].

    A reminder : Chia has a far larger population; a far larger economy; a far larger defence budget and military; the largest industrial capacity in the world; a large and advanced tech base; we are a country of 30 odd million with a relatively small economy; hardly much of a tech base and an all volunteer military which can barely sustain what little it has.

    The notion that buying more subs [we barely afford sustaining the 2 we have] will ”deter” China is fantasy. Lot of things China can do to prevent our subs from operating; we might not even deploy our subs to the Spratlys given the high level of threat and the fact that many subs from various countries will be there. Often overlooked is that like everything else; one only deploys subs in circumstances which are advantageous as possible.

    Should we get more subs? Yes but not wholly at the expense of other things and only if we can adequately sustain them. We need a mix of things to operate effectively; not a single thing or asset like it was a silver bullet or a panacea for various inadequacies/limitations.

  22. … – ”Just being out there, does not need a ship armed with missiles or such.”

    As obvious as night will turn into day at dawn or that Penguins like fish or Superman is allergic to kryptonite but the primary purpose of the LMS [despite political marketing to justify funding] and despite personal insistence; is not to deal with the Chinese Coast Guard/maritime militia. Again; the LMS [like all assets] is intended to have both a peace and war time utility. Again : patrols in the EEZ are merely one of the various roles the LMS will perform and even if the MMEA had 2,000 OPVS the RMN would still be there.

    There is also the highly pertinent issue that MMEA and RMN requirements should not be conflated as both are different entities which are budgeted from different areas. Both are also under different commands. More pertinently; instead of perpetually spinning the same angle; is how both can better cooperate; i.e. how will a RMN UAS pass data to a MMEA ship. I can expand on this but this is a public forum.

    … ”Just being out there, does not need a ship armed with missiles or such.”

    The problem with the MMEA is not only is it underfunded and over stretched but it need an improved shore support infrastructure. On top of that it operates a hodgepodge of assets of varying ages and condition – a support nightmare. For want of anything else it has to resort to getting decades old American ships. Not something to blow trumpets about. To me; at present the MMEA needs MPAs and UASs; rather than OPVs; in that order. That however is only my opinion and I won’t keep regurgitating it as if it was holy writ.

    … ”If Chinese Coast Guard OPVs are there more than our own APMM OPVs”
    Given that they have a numerical superiority and that unlike in the past they don’t come all the way from Hainan anymore; they will always have a presence there.

  23. Hulubalang “If Chinese Coast Guard OPVs are there more than our own APMM OPVs are there, they can in long term prove (by force or not) that they have de facto control of the area, no matter what UNCLOS law says.”

    The actual organisations that going to give China the de facto control is their military. Not their CG or maritime militia.

    The moment they have overwhelming A2/AD capability that makes it’s almost impossible for other navies from operating there is the moment they have de facto control just like they currently do on the taiwan straits.

  24. zaft – ”they can in long term prove (by force or not) that they have de facto control of the area”

    Perhaps re-read his post to gain a better understanding of the point he was driving at.

    zaft – ”The moment they have overwhelming A2/AD capability that makes it’s almost impossible for other navies from operating”

    ”A2/AD” is a term coined by China watchers/observers in the early 2000’s. Do you actually know what it means? Hint; it’s nothing new.

    zaft – ”The moment they have overwhelming A2/AD capability ”

    Who says they don’t have ”overwhelming A2/AD capability” now and in this regard what’s your definition of ”overwhelming”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*