The Critique Of The World Press - Review of the Israel-Lebanon War

Nov 1
17:06

2006

Ran Farhi

Ran Farhi

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

Most commentators in the world press remain unconvinced that Israel has obtained a diplomatic triumph over Hezbollah. Their familiarity with the situation rivals and perhaps surpasses that of the Israeli media

mediaimage

The Associated Press (AP)

"An Imperfect Deal",The Critique Of The World Press - Review of the Israel-Lebanon War Articles this is the headline that ran in an article by Karen Laub, a writer for the American news agency Associated Press (AP), regarding the cease-fire agreement percolating in the U.N. corridors. Laub identifies the difficulties which the U.N. forces deployed in South Lebanon will encounter in attempting to prevent the smuggling of arms to Hezbollah from Iran. In light of the failures of the U.N. peace forces in the past, the agreement may afford a temporary respite, but she believes that the following war with Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, is unavoidable. Laub drew the conclusions that a reinforced UNIFIL, and a half Shiite Lebanese Army, will not do the job in optimal fashion. Some of her conclusions are drawn apparently on interviews which she conducted with Israeli experts such as a Ehud Yaari, Brigadier General Israel Brom and Boaz Ganor

The New York Times

In his article "Israel is Seeking a Hint of Victory" reporter Steven Erlanger, from the liberal newspaper the "New York Times" referred to the ground attack which Israel launched during the weekend, when it already began moving towards Litani. He believes that the attack was intended not only to damage Hezbollah but also to enable the Government of Israel which "is under pressure at home" to sum up the campaign as a victory. Ehud Olmert, notes Erlanger, who went to war with a declaration regarding the liquidation of Hezbollah will only be able to contend at the end of the campaign that Hezbollah was severely damaged. The prevailing opinion in Israel (which has indeed become a commonplace) per Erlanger, is that Israel did not utilize ground forces at the beginning of the campaign, when it had plenty of time at her disposal.

He argues that this opinion confirms that "time is running out on the Olmert Government". Erlanger also notes that the mutual accusations between the political echelon and the military echelon and vice versa attest that the war was not properly managed. Nonetheless, he emphasizes that since the IDF despite its failings in the campaign, is more popular in Israel than the politicians, it apparently will win the confrontation against the political echelon.

The New York Post

The New York Post a pro-Israel and conservative newspaper believes that Israel is not winning, but this time the tone is a bit different. Ralph Peters author of the book "Never Quit The Fight, believes that the situation where Israel wins on the ground but still loses the war is disheartening. Peters notes that the Government of Israel wanted to wage war "on the cheap", and that at the last moment it tried to accelerate its activities. In his opinion this is a recipe for reaching a tie if not defeat. "If you're already going to war, give it all you've got from day one. Victory is the only deal which you have to obtain at any price."

He criticizes the fact that the IDF was not allowed to conduct a "serious" war from the very first day, and therefore the missiles continued to fly in the direction of Israel and this aided Hezbollah in his opinion to win the propaganda war. He also criticizes the "disparagement of the enemy" which Israel displayed towards Hezbollah, which resembled the attitude which the United States displayed after the fall of Baghdad; "This is not the West Bank" but a war to "the death" and the IDF has to stop looking back on its glorious heritage but to honestly level its gaze towards the next war which must be decided. Peters' criticism which expresses Bush's attitude towards Islamic terror is not surprising, given the absence of a final decision between Israel and Hezbollah.

Time Magazine with its liberal approach, also reaches similar conclusions regarding Israel's success in the war in Lebanon. The recurring theme is that Israel in the last few days before the cease-fire was in a race against time, in an attempt to determine the optimal conditions in order to obtain what had not been realized during the course of the entire first month. "After it failed in delivering a knockout in Lebanon Israel is smiting Hezbollah in the hope of creating a concept of victory", is the way Time reporter Tony Caron characterizes the situation and he notes that presently the situation the war is going in the direction of a draw, when in the last round a campaign is being waged to decide who's going to win on points. Caron refers to the image of a tearful or dead Nasrallah as the image that the Israeli leadership marketed as a victory picture (primarily by leaks to the media). But in his opinion, given the inability to stop the Hezbollah rockets the Government of Israel will have to persuade a skeptical citizenry that Israel did win. The writer is dubious if the current measures will internalize a sense of victory amongst the Israeli public. Caron mentions Olmert's drop in the polls from 70% to 40% and cites in detail from Ari Shavit's article that "Olmert Must Go" On the other hand, Hezbollah in Caron's opinion scored a victory by the very fact of surviving the Israeli attack while in tandem delivering counter blows. Nonetheless, he believes Hezbollah also sustained a blow, as represented by the fact that the Lebanese Army is deploying in the South as opposed to its previous posture and that the calls on Hezbollah to deposit its arms in the hands of the Lebanese Army will continue to intensify. Likewise, he notes that if the cease-fire decision will be implemented in full then the deterrent power of Iran, exercised via Hezbollah as a lever against Israel in the case of an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations will be weakened.

The British Guardian defines the Israeli attack as an evasion of the cease-fire agreement. After a comprehensive and realistic survey of the backing which Condoleezza Rice awarded to the last attack as well, the reporters (Conal Urquhart and Mitchell Prothro) conclude that Israel despite her military superiority did not manage to stop the firing of missiles at her citizens or to disarm Hezbollah even in locations that were close to the Israeli border.

Le Monde

As opposed to the world papers hitherto surveyed, Alain Gresh Le Monde's reporter drops the mask and adopts a sympathetic stance towards Hezbollah in an anti-American in anti-Israeli article. He is not precise about the details either. Take for example his assertion that Hezbollah is the largest party in the Lebanese Parliament. He also cites an expert who contends that there is no proof that Hezbollah is controlled by Iran. Gresh also accuses Israel of liquidating the leader of Islamic Jihad in Beirut (Israel never took responsibility for the action) and argues that "Israel violates Lebanese aerial sovereignty on a daily basis (!)" in an attempt to find an alibi for Hezbollah's attack.

The Daily Telegraph

The editorial in the Daily Telegraph has the double entendre caption "UNfit for purpose" is primarily devoted to the failure of the U.N. forces who were presumed to be supervising the cease-fire. The author of the article refers to UNIFIL's failure over the years, and to the problems in Koffi Annan's conduct especially concerning what later emerged in the story about the accidental deaths of four U.N. soldiers. They in fact served as human shields for Hezbollah who fired upon Israel while adjacent to U.N. positions.

In the paper they surveyed the arousal of opposition against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the end of the campaign, especially on the part of the Likud and the Right.

Niall Ferguson surveys, in an excellent article, the failure of the U.N. over the years, and the failure Koffi Annan in confronting the terror organizations operating within states. It's not clear what is the U.N.'s role in the struggle against such malignant phenomena as "non-state actors" on the order of Hezbollah.

In Summation

The bottom line is that the world press is not extremely anti-Israeli excepting the French Press. It fully understands the reason why Olmert chose to act on the last day, but it does not give Israel and the Government of Israel any discounts. On the other hand the world press does not present a one-sided picture of a total Israeli defeat.

Like a large percentage of Israeli public opinion, which feels dissatisfaction regarding the problems that confront Israel in implementing U.N. resolution 1701, the world press raises voices which reach similar and surprising conclusions

The United Nations as a weak body that did not prevent terrible acts of slaughter throughout the world, does not come off well. The attitude evinced towards that body tend to belittle its ability.