Newsroom editorials mirrored Israeli policy framing during the Lebanon invasion

Evidence

In a clear victory of ideology over facts, the Times’s editorial on the same day was called “Israeli’s Answer to Terror,” and alleged that “Israel’s air strikes against terrorist targets in Lebanon were justified and limited…. Responsibility for yesterday’s raids in Lebanon and the week’s senseless casualties on both sides of the border lies squarely with Hizbollah’s terrorists and the governments in Beirut and Damascus. Mr. Peres, in this case, only exercised Israel’s right to self-defense.” These statements were made when the Israeli army was also in the process of displacing 200,000 residents of South Lebanon, having already bombed the area from the air, land, and sea, and — it needs to be recalled — remained in military occupation, which the laws of war allow the inhabitants to resist. — Edward W. Said, Covering Islam, 60

Categorization

• SEED: A usable case study: how ‘self-defense’ framing in one editorial justified what laws of war define as occupiable resistance.