Media Madness

There's a "mixed bag" here.

Let's start with the good. The LA Times gives an editorial, which very clearly blames the Arabs for the present war:

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: Responsibility for the escalating carnage in
Lebanon and northern Israel lies with one side, and one side only. And that is
Hezbollah, the Islamist militant party, along with its Syrian and Iranian
backers. Reasonable minds can differ on the strategic wisdom of the Israeli
response, but there can be no doubt about the blame for the mounting death toll
on both sides of the border.

Of course the picture on today's homepage (LA Times) shows sympathetic-looking foreigners leaving Lebanon. Disregard the byline-location, it's clear that their journalists are more connected with what's happening in Lebanon than Israel.



That's nothing compared to the pictures accompanying Diplomats Seek Foreign Patrols for Mideast in The New York Times. I don't even want to get into that issue, since history has shown that all the "peace-keeping forces" and whatever euphemisms used don't protect Israel's interets or citizens. They've always identified with the Arabs. I'll never forget how quickly the UN fled the area in 1967, when Nassar ordered it to before Israel was attacked. And nothing has changed in the last 40 years.

The New York Times is also very strongly stressing how disproportionate the destruction is, ignoring who is the agressor.

The New York Times does have an article about Israelis holing up in shelters. Notice that there's a TV-VCR in the picture.


From these two prestigious papers, you'd have no idea that Israel is suffering. The pictures show mostly Arabs, and that's where their sympathies lie.