Everyone on the planet seems to agree 600 civilians deaths are too many in this two-week-long war.
The condemnation certainly suggests a step forward for humanity: The global community doesn't have much -- or sufficient -- stomach for war.
But there's another possibility. Perhaps the dominant view of the Lebanon war and expectations about war itself are clouded by innumerable subtexts -- anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-Bush, ...
Full Story »
:
6
:
2
:
2
:
3
:
8
:
3
:
4
:
7-9
Arkin deftly weaves his bias into a false quest for unbiased reporting. By including the Israel--Lebanon conflict in his National and Homeland Security column, Arkin plants a seed of fear to justify our passive support for yet another war. After a seductively balanced beginning, Arkins language enlists the reader on his side in an us vs. them exposition: "First, we have to dispense with a core fallacy suggested by those who consider Israel's military campaign excessive and see it as a "failure" ...and misleading rhetorical questions: If Israel were militarily "successful" against Hezbollah because of different tactics, would the hatred on both sides really have dissipated? Columnists are paid to ... More »
Mr. Arkin makes a poorly disguised attempt to sound neutral in his article but is clearly an apologist for the aggression by Israeli forces in Lebanon. The article is constructed of aguments posed and answered by the author. For the most part, these arguments - attributed to "them" and "they" and "the world" are neither true nor accurate.
This article provided no new insights but rather more right-wing spin. The article is full of false logic: the Republican penchant for straw men and red herrings. A leading question does not "dispense the core fallacy", and personally belittling the "chattering classes" proves that he has no valid arguments.
Retrieving Comments
