I wanted to comment on an article in TIME magazine that I saw this past week featuring the aftermath of the Hezbollah and Israeli conflict. Like the rest of the media, TIME has always been very biased against Israel. In fact, in this conflict it has even gone as far as to equate Israeli forces to Hezbollah. In one issue it had a cartoon of two lobster-like, hideous looking creatures viciously going after each other in a jar, and labeled one Hezbollah and the other Israel. This is just an example how biased the media can be. For one thing, Israel doesn't target women and children, and if anything it has risked and even lost the lives of many of its soldiers’ in attempt to avoid harming civilians because Hezbollah uses its civilians as human shields. In addition, Israel is the defender not the agressor. What country in their right mind wouldn’t defend themselves, if they had undergone what Israel has? If anything they surely wouldn’t have put up with it for this long.

So after this war is over, why would anyone expect the media to deliver the news any less prejudiced than it has until now? Northern Israel is plagued with disaster; aside from the death tolls, many people are homeless, and schools, businesses, and stores have been destroyed. But in this weeks issue, TIME features an article discussing the aftermath of the war that discusses the war aftermath in Lebanon and neglects to mention any of the aftermath in Israel, conveniently evoking sympathy among its readers only for the Lebanese civilians. Why not mention the the millions of dollars of damage and devastation in Northern Israel, and its desperate need or financial aid and support? Because unlike Lebanon, Israel hasn't been recieving any.