Soccer Dad

See no terror

Friday's NY Times featured "Saudis Join Call for Syrian Force to Quit Lebanon" that tells us, among other things:

The opposition has struggled to woo Hezbollah, a Shiite party labeled a terrorist band by Washington, with little success. Hezbollah is perhaps the best organized party in Lebanon and derives much prestige from having fought Israeli occupation there during the 1980's and 90's.

What's negative about Hezbollah? That it's been "labeled a terrorist band." What's positive? That it "fought Israeli occupation."
Since Hezbollah has continued attacking Israel subsequent to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, let's shed the pretense that it fough Israeli occupation. It's done the bidding of Syria and Iran.
And even if the Times doesn't want to judge Hezbollah a terrorist organization, why not describe it as having participated in terrorisn against Israel?
Then in the very next paragraph we read:

On Wednesday, opposition leaders met with Hezbollah officials to coax the group to join their effort, but to little avail. While not openly advocating continued Syrian dominance of Lebanon, Hezbollah, which relies on Syria and Iran for its support, says it is trying to maintain a dialogue between the Syrian-backed government and the opposition.

"Syrian dominance"? Why not "occupation?"
It seems when the Arab world does something that most of us would object to, there's someone at the Times who'll find a way to euphemize it.

Posted by SoccerDad at March 6, 2005 07:01 AM | TrackBack