Take a look at the number of articles appearing in today’s NYT alone on what happened in Qana:
As I noted yesterday, the ‘outrage’ over what happened in Qana (and there is a debate bubbling up in the air as to what exactly DID happen) is not so much about the fact that civilians were killed, but the fact that they may be dead as a result of an Israeli airstrike. What I wrote yesterday bears repeating again today:
As it’s done in Afghanistan and Iraq, the media has jumped on the “evil US/Israel attacks have killed scores of civilians!!!!” bandwagon, without examining why the civilians (in most instances) were caught in the crossfire in the first place. I suspect the reason why they don’t examine that aspect of civilian deaths because that would mean the angle that they push – which is that the west, in particular the US and Israel, are bloodthirsty empirical warmongers, while those battling them are â€˜freedom fighters’ – couldn’t be credibly pushed.
Now we’ve got ‘leaders’ calling for cease-fires and whatnot in light of what happened in Qana and the ‘outrage’ that it sparked. Now, assuming for purposes of discussion that the deaths in Qana were as a result of an Israeli airstrike (and for any moonbats out there reading, I left out the word “deliberately targeted’ for a reason) this would take us back to the debate John Podhoretz brought up last week on whether or not we can effectively fight and win modern-day wars because of concerns over civilian casualties. That debate, as does the war between Israel and Hezbollah, rages on.