Fri 4 Aug 2006
War: What Is It Good For? Partisan Reporting, Of Course
Posted by Dave Mandell | [2] CommentsIsrael/Hezbollah. Neither side is right, both sides have reasons (which they call “justification”), and really, both are led by liars and murderers. So screw the conflict (and, sadly, the innocent people dying in scores, but you’re most likely an American if you’re reading this, so there is only a 47% chance you even care about them), and let’s compare two news services: the BBC, an arguably “neutral” state-run news service, has as its headlining RSS article “Israeli border strike ‘kills 26′”, while FOX news, which is essentially Bush’s Aljazeera, ran with “Hezbollah Launches Deep Rocket Strike on Israel”. Now, the irony? They are the same report.
Yes, the report is on the same news item, an item that MSNBC saw fit to title “Israeli Strikes Reportedly Trap Up To 50 In Rubble”. MSNBC focused on the damage in Lebanon. MSNBC. The corporation who owned Seinfeld and, if you’ll notice, whose tenth anniversary candles look suspiciously like those found in a menorah.
Meanwhile, more dead in Iraq, and where is the focus of the nation, including our president? On Castro’s tummy ache.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Oh my god… is this… an american who actually _gets it_???
Besides, the attitude the US has to Cuba really is kinda silly. But that’s history-
Of course, I say that Nasrallah isn’t much of a cheat and a liar, but I _am_ biased. And I would argue that Lebanon was hit first, thus is the innocent [and since almost all of lebanon, including cristian and non-shia muslims has pledged support for hizb'allah since Qana, hizb'allah is now standing for all of lebanon], but if I was to argue that it would detract from the beautiful neutrality of your post.
And I _am_ biased.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Well, first is a difficult thing to establish. Even many middle eastern leaders are saying that Hezbollah acted irresponsibly and, essentially, drew first blood. However, Lebanon itself did nothing to provoke Israel, so crossing the Lebanese border was essentially an illegal act, and one of war, really.
So if you look at it as Lebanon vs. Israel, than absolutely, Israel struck first. If you look at it as Israel vs. Hezbollah, it’s a bit more difficult to support either side. The whole thing is basically a clusterfuck mired in so much history (as you rightly pointed out) that it makes it nearly impossible for anyone living in the west to understand it. So much so that we could write volumes on it, if we wished. As for Cuba, that’s a whole nother ridiculous issue, and a huge condemnation for every president in my lifetime, including Clinton. But again, another issue entirely. And one I hope to not have to tackle anytime soon, but we’ll see what Bush and Co. have in store, won’t we?
Personally, I am just amazed at how much I miss Sharon. Even in his more militant days, he handled things far better than this, and his last few years were so growingly progressive that it really gave me hope for some stability between Israel and its neighbors.