| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Yesterday a front-page, above-the-fold LA Times headline read: Israeli Incursion Strains Truce with Hezbollah.
The article is a slam on Israel:
Israel and Lebanon swiftly accused each other of breaking the U.N. Security Council resolution that established the conditions for ending more than a month of cross-border bombing and rocket attacks that left hundreds of people dead.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora called the raid a "naked violation" of the resolution and said he would complain to the United Nations.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a statement later Saturday saying he was "deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities."
Yet, surely the Times knows that Hezbollah has already refused to disarm, and that the disarmament of Hezbollah by Lebanon is one of the conditions of the truce, as described in U.N. resolution 1701. I haven't seen any LA Times front-page headlines about that. Evidently the Times wants to let Lebanon -- but not Israel -- ignore its obligations. The Times doesn't care if Hezbollah is disarmed; it doesn't care if Hezbollah regroups and attacks Israel again, initiating another war.
It appears to be a very biased article. You'd think the Times would want both sides to fulfill their obligations under the resolution, so as to prevent another war.
