Let me be clear about the purpose of this post. It is not to debate the recent Israel/Hezbollah clash. I’ve already made my opinion on that clear. Today though I ran across an article on CNN that is a perfect example of why critical thinking is so important. An excerpt from this article:
"The conflict began July 12, when Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers and killed three others in a cross-border raid into northern Israel. Israel responded with a massive bombardment of Lebanon and a push into the country’s south to root out Hezbollah, which retaliated by firing about 4,000 rockets into northern Israel."
Instead of just telling you what I see, I want to hear from everyone else. What do you see, and what are the implications?
Update: So here is my take on this paragraph. The main flaw I see deals not with the facts, but with the sequence of events. The implication is that it puts Hezbollah in a good light, and makes Israel the bad guy.
The first sentence is entirely factual, but in sentence two there is a big problem. The way it is worded makes it sound like after Hezbollah’s initial action, Israel then bombed and invaded Lebanon. This is true, but is this all that happened? Here’s the kicker: Hezbollah then retaliated against Israel’s bombardment and invasion. Notice the order of events. Minor action by Hezbollah, huge reaction by Israel, and then retaliation by Hezbollah. The problem is that Israel didn’t go into Lebanon until weeks after July 12, and all the while Hezbollah was firing their 4,000 rockets. A more accurate second sentence might read "The cross-border raid was followed by weeks of rocket fire from both sides, and the eventual push by Israel into Southern Lebanon."
The implications from this statement are huge. It makes it sound like after Hezbollah’s first raid they just sat around for weeks! All the while evil Israel was attacking and invading. Finally, poor and helpless Hezbollah’s hand was forced and they fired their rockets. This makes Hezbollah sound passive, like they didn’t want this conflict, which couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Is the paragraph riddled with lies? No, but it is quite misleading, especially if you’ve not followed the conflict closely. The ability to discern something as minor as the sequence of events has a major effect on the understanding of the conflict and who is at fault.
