Encouraging Hezbollah

Thank—you, New York Times. Poeple throughout the world, including the Arab world, will see this headline and truly believe Hezbollah is winning its fight against America.

"A New Enemy Gains on the U.S."

A group of fanatical terrorists, who shield themselves with civilians, who raise their children to hate and become martyrs, is equated with America and the American military and are judged the winners. By the way, Hezbollah — which you credit with crippling an Israeli ship with a missile — did not develop or build that missile. It was from Iran, a nation—state.

So where does the characterization of "Hezbollah, with the sophistiacation of a national army" come from, when they fire an Iranian missile that was purportedly fired by Iranian Revolutionary Guards?

Even worse is another article, this one by John Kifner:

The very clear winner, for the moment at least, was Hezbollah and its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. (Unless, of course, Israel succeeds in its efforts to assassinate him.) As the only Arab leader seen to have defeated the Israelis — on the basis of their withdrawal in 2000 from an 18—year occupation — he already enjoyed wide respect. Now, with Hezbollah standing firm and inflicting casualties, he has become a folk hero across the Muslim world, apparently uniting Sunnis and Shiites.

The standoff stunned Israel, whose offensive came in response to a Hezbollah cross—border raid that resulted in the death of eight Israeli soldiers and the capture of two others. Central to the embattled nation's sense of survivability is the idea of its invincibility. Its intelligence knows everything, the mythology goes, and no army dare stand against it. In truth, Israel has, in part, been lucky in its enemies, mostly Arab regimes with armies suitable mainly for keeping their own populace in check.

What was clearly conceived two weeks ago as a quick battle using air power and strikes on specific targets with commando raids to degrade Hezbollah's resources, particularly its stores of thousands of rockets, has turned into a crisis. 'Israel is far from a decisive victory and its main objectives have not been achieved,' wrote the country's most respected military analyst, Zeev Schiff, in the daily Haaretz.

Hezbollah, Sheik Nasrallah has said, 'needs only to survive to win.' That seemed increasingly likely by week's end

I think we know the New York Times does choose sides. And it is not one on this side of the Atlantic.

Ed Lasky   7 30 06

Thank—you, New York Times. Poeple throughout the world, including the Arab world, will see this headline and truly believe Hezbollah is winning its fight against America.

"A New Enemy Gains on the U.S."

A group of fanatical terrorists, who shield themselves with civilians, who raise their children to hate and become martyrs, is equated with America and the American military and are judged the winners. By the way, Hezbollah — which you credit with crippling an Israeli ship with a missile — did not develop or build that missile. It was from Iran, a nation—state.

So where does the characterization of "Hezbollah, with the sophistiacation of a national army" come from, when they fire an Iranian missile that was purportedly fired by Iranian Revolutionary Guards?

Even worse is another article, this one by John Kifner:

The very clear winner, for the moment at least, was Hezbollah and its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. (Unless, of course, Israel succeeds in its efforts to assassinate him.) As the only Arab leader seen to have defeated the Israelis — on the basis of their withdrawal in 2000 from an 18—year occupation — he already enjoyed wide respect. Now, with Hezbollah standing firm and inflicting casualties, he has become a folk hero across the Muslim world, apparently uniting Sunnis and Shiites.

The standoff stunned Israel, whose offensive came in response to a Hezbollah cross—border raid that resulted in the death of eight Israeli soldiers and the capture of two others. Central to the embattled nation's sense of survivability is the idea of its invincibility. Its intelligence knows everything, the mythology goes, and no army dare stand against it. In truth, Israel has, in part, been lucky in its enemies, mostly Arab regimes with armies suitable mainly for keeping their own populace in check.

What was clearly conceived two weeks ago as a quick battle using air power and strikes on specific targets with commando raids to degrade Hezbollah's resources, particularly its stores of thousands of rockets, has turned into a crisis. 'Israel is far from a decisive victory and its main objectives have not been achieved,' wrote the country's most respected military analyst, Zeev Schiff, in the daily Haaretz.

Hezbollah, Sheik Nasrallah has said, 'needs only to survive to win.' That seemed increasingly likely by week's end

I think we know the New York Times does choose sides. And it is not one on this side of the Atlantic.

Ed Lasky   7 30 06