Which Side is the Dark Side?

On Wednesday, Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim militant group and political party based in Lebanon, effectively dismantled the Lebanese government by resigning from the Lebanese Cabinet of which it composed a significant portion. Hezbollah, considered a largely hostile force by the United States (namely the military), has come under fire from many different publications as "paralyzers" (New York Times) and "Iranian-backed" (Fox News), both images that hold negative connotations in our society. Yet as I have seen this topic, which is of significant global importance, discussed in the media over the last couple of days, the issue of perspective has been prominent in my mind. In Borges's Everything and Nothing, Shakespeare appears a vulnerable and identity-less character, far from the grandiose image his name generally conjures. As Borges's account proves, one's interpretation of Shakespeare depends greatly on the criteria for judging his character. Rather than interpreting him through his work and mental genius, Borges looks at Shakespeare the man through his human quest for self-understanding. In many of the articles I have read on the Lebanon crisis, journalists have chosen to look at Hezbollah's actions through the lens of the United States, and the interests of the U.S. and its allies. The Fox News's website's most prominently displayed article on this matter, entitled "Israel troops on alert after Lebanon government fails," shifts the focus from the actual events in Lebanon to their effects on the U.S. interests in the Middle East. Few, however, take the Borges approach and analyze the reasons behind Hezbollah's actions and their stance.
      I read a book a few years ago called "Dreams and Shadows" by Robin Wright, an eminent journalist who has written for many publications including The New Yorker and Time magazine. In her book, Wright talks about Hezbollah's rise to power in Lebanon. According to her, while Hezbollah began as a radical militant group, it emerged in the mid 2000's as a legitimate grassroots political and social organization. Hezbollah provided healthcare, education, employment, and opportunity for many in Lebanon who otherwise would not have had access to these resources. From the angle of many Lebanese, Hezbollah has been a savior and a foundation in unstable times. Yet most U.S. newspapers choose to focus on the negative and terroristic acts of Hezbollah rather than the good they have done for the country, and while its contribution to the collapse of the Lebanese government over the past few days has significantly decreased Hezbollah's legitimacy, U.S. publications still take an entirely negative perspective on the organization. One of the New York Times's articles is entitled "Hezbollah's Latest Suicide Mission," language charged to invoke the image of an evil terrorist organization in the reader. This kind of charged language, while it is certainly justifiable from the U.S. perspective, takes into account none of the good that Hezbollah has provided for the Lebanese. The article only briefly discusses the reasons for Hezbollahs' withdrawal (objection to U.N. indictments of several members over the murder of prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005), while harping on the militancy and power-hungry nature of the organization, using words like "power-drunk," "militant," and "destabilizing." While Hezbollah has committed its fair share of heinous crimes and contributed to the violence in the Middle-East, these articles present the story as a too one-dimensional occurrence by a too one-dimensional organization. So far, I have seen little evidence that anyone has made any effort to follow in Borges's footsteps and challenge the decidedly wicked presentation of Hezbollah in this story.