Generally before showing the pictures of dead Palestinians or criticizing Israel for the civilian deaths a media commentator or Administration official will admit that "Israel has the right to defend themselves," "Hamas started the conflict by sending rockets and building tunnels into Israel," "Hamas uses it citizens as human shields," and Israel "Goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. Usually those words are followed with a "but," statement such as, Israel's response is disproportionate, "it's slaughter" as Juan Williams called it on The Five Thursday, or even it's appearing "to be indiscriminate, is asinine," which were Joe Scarborough's words on Thursday's Morning Joe.
Now examine those typical phrases for a moment. If Israel has the right to defend itself, Hamas is using Gaza civilians as human shields and Israel goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties they still occur, the logical conclusion is that Israel shouldn't be bashed for the civilian deaths--Hamas should.
Similarly, if one believes Hamas started the conflict by sending rockets and building tunnels into Israel, and Israel has the right to defend itself than calling an operation to destroy the rockets and tunnels disproportionate is absurd.
Some would say Israel should concentrate on negotiations. But they never explain how Israel can negotiate with an entity that believes it should be destroyed and all its Jewish citizens destroyed. What would a compromise look like? Kill every other Jew? They, never explain how Israel negotiates with an entity which on Friday morning broke a cease-fire with a a kidnapping of an Israeli soldier? That's the eighth cease-fire broken by Hamas in the 24 days of Operation Protective Edge.
With the bashing Israel over the civilian casualties President Obama and his administration, as well as the mainstream media is appeasing Hamas and encouraging its use of human shields. They are proving the Hamas strategy works. After all the focus should on the Hamas aggression instead blaming Israel for the Hamas-caused civilian deaths. If Hamas believes their strategy they are going to do it even more. The deaths of civilians on either side is horrible and should be criticized, but the blame is being placed on the wrong party.
Finally, whether or not it is meant that way, the hyper-focus on civilian casualties is an indication of Antisemtism.
Two weeks ago Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch said to U.N. critics of Israel:
If in the past year you didn’t cry out when thousands of protesters were killed and injured by Turkey, Egypt and Libya, when more victims than ever were hanged by Iran, women and children in Afghanistan were bombed, whole communities were massacred in South Sudan, 1800 Palestinians were starved and murdered by Assad in Syria, hundreds in Pakistan were killed by jihadist terror attacks, 10,000 Iraqis were killed by terrorists, villagers were slaughtered in Nigeria, but you only cry out for Gaza, then you are not pro human rights, you are only anti-Israel.In one hour there is more attention by Israel's critics in the administration and the media given to the Gaza civilian casualties, than those same critics give to the civilian casualties mentioned above in an entire year. All civilian casualties are horrible. Those casualty numbers are much larger than the Palestinian casualties during the past 23 days.
So why would do they select Israel for their censure? Well Israel is different from the nations mentioned above in two distinct ways. It is only true democracy in the area and it is a homeland for the Jewish people. I doubt very highly that Israel's critics in the mainstream media and the Obama administration hate democracy.