Summer, 2007

It’s summer, 2007. The Lebanese government has decided that terrorists who pose a threat to Lebanon's national security must be stopped. To accomplish this they have waged an eight-week assault on the “Palestinian Refugee Camp” in Nahr al Bared Lebanon. At least 210 people have been killed.

Reuters reports

Witnesses said the army was bombarding the camp, often at a rate of 7 to 10 artillery shells per minute. Black smoke billowed from the camp's battered buildings, most of which have been reduced to rubble. Lebanese navy gunboats also took part in the shelling.

Bulldozers cleared the rubble and soldiers erected barricades at the camp's edges, creating fortified army positions. Security sources said a Lebanese civilian was killed by a stray bullet a few kilometers away from the camp.

Although reports of this action have appeared in the MSM, there has been no breathless outrage and condemnation of the Lebanese army. There are few pictures of civilians killed as part of collateral damage, few (staged) images of wailing Palestinians in front of building reduced to rubble, almost no op-ed pieces decrying “disproportionality” when tanks and heavy artillery are used against “militants” with rifles and grenade launchers.

Now, think Hizballah and the summer of 2006. Why is it that the Lebanese get a pass and the Israelis were the target of most of the MSM and many human rights organizations? Interesting, huh?

Amnesty International, whose main headline today is: “Israel/Hizballah war casualties await justice” makes no mention of the 2007 Lebanese action on their Web site home page. The NYT has no editorials, CNN mentions the action in passing, but without any real negative spin against the Lebanese.

But Lebanon is protecting their own country, you might protest. Israel wasn’t? But there are real grievances here. Were 2,000 rockets crossing an international border not a real grievance?

Could it be blatant media bias against the Israelis? Could it be that human rights groups look at the world through a lens that is grossly distorted? Nah, those things would be despicable, unprofessional, and wrong.