The framework also grants Israel the right to attack with the approval of the Lebanese government if Israel assesses there are “hostile intentions” or a risk of imminent threat approaching them. The agreement as well stipulates that Israel will not be pursued for crimes it has committed in the past or may commit in the future.
To the Toronto Star and Associated Press,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East regarding the article titled: “A former prime minister who led Israel out of Lebanon fears mistakes are being repeated.”
Good journalism should strive to present a balanced and contextualized picture of armed groups. This includes not only describing their military actions, but also situating them within their historical context and specifying how they define themselves. In this respect, the article makes a meaningful effort, situating Hezbollah’s formation in the early 1980s within the context of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. It is also significant that the article mentions Israel’s intentions of staying in Lebanon as the Israel-Lebanon framework was being signed in Washington, citing Israeli Defense Minister Katz who mentioned that “they didn’t ask anyone’s permission to enter Lebanon” and that they “don’t need anyone’s permission to stay in Lebanon.
However, I would like to offer some constructive feedback.
The article mentions that Israel signed a framework agreement with the Lebanese government, specifying that Hezbollah was not part of it and has vowed to oppose it, without adding a Lebanese perspective or including Hezbollah’s own statement explaining why it opposed the agreement.
This omission of key information leaves readers with an incomplete understanding of the Israel-Lebanon framework.
Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem opposed the framework agreement signed in Washington claiming it is “a surrender of sovereignty” for Beirut.
This came at the time as Israel continued its attacks on southern Lebanon while the framework was being signed, with an Israeli strike killing one person and injuring two shortly after the agreement was signed. The framework also grants Israel the right to attack with the approval of the Lebanese government if Israel assesses there are “hostile intentions” or a risk of imminent threat approaching them. The agreement as well stipulates that Israel will not be pursued for crimes it has committed in the past or may commit in the future.
All of this is important context that readers ought to be aware of to understand the dynamics at play. Otherwise, as it stands, readers are left without the necessary context to fully understand the implications of the agreement on Lebanon’s sovereignty and for the Lebanese people.
In light of these concerns, we ask that the Associated Press make an effort in future reporting to add Lebanese perspectives and mention Hezbollah’s statement as to why they “vowed to oppose” the Lebanon-Israel framework, as the article states.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you take these concerns into consideration in the interest of fair, accurate, and balanced reporting.
Media Analyst
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East