This article epitomizes how the American press deals with every armed conflict that Israel has with its neighbors. In the first sentence it notes that a year ago Israel and Lebanon entered into a cease-fire. But then in the very next sentence it casually mentions that Israel has bombed Lebanese territory "on a near-daily basis."
But does it say that Israel has broken the cease-fire? Or that there isn't a cease-fire anymore? Of course not! The entire thrust of the article is about how Lebanon and Hezbollah must do more the make sure the cease-fire (which hasn't, you know, ceased Israel's fire) holds.
It is pretty clear that the authors of the article know what is going on. At one point it notes that "Hezbollah has said it no longer maintains an 'armed presence' south of the Litani River" but that north of the river, Hezbollah's forces "remain entrenched." What an odd statement, right? Why does the Litani River matter? The article never says what the significance of that river is. It certainly doesn't mention that under the cease-fire agreement Hezbollah was required to withdraw to positions north of that river. So in other words, Hezbollah seems to be abiding by at least some of the cease-fire terms while Israel is not.
Aside mentioning the fact that Israel is killing people in Lebanon on a "near-daily basis", the article also casually drops in that Israel "still occupies several sites inside Lebanese territory, despite having initially agreed to withdraw." Israeli forces haven't left Lebanon and they are still attacking people in Lebanon! I don't think there's any question that if Hezbollah so blatantly violated the terms of a cease-fire agreement that would be the focus of the article. Instead the article is framed by the question of what Hezbollah and the Lebanese government should be doing to make sure this cease-fire (not an actual cease-fire) continues to hold.
Most articles about Israel are like this. Reading them sends me into a weird la-la-land, where Israel freely breaks deals it makes, and the facts of how they have broken that deal are mentioned without every pointing out that Israel has, in fact, broken the deal. Instead, the onus is always on Israel's adversaries. Why aren't they doing more to make sure that Israel, a country that outguns everyone else in the region and is currently being led by a bunch of racist war-enthusiastic zealots, is more safe even as they are being shot by Israel?
