I spotted a couple of new incoming links to my blog. One is a blogroll from UBIsraeli, an Israeli girl studying in the US but currently visiting home. In her latest article, she writes about her chance to explain her viewpoint to a reporter.
The other is from Planck’s Constant, in an article about why Israel did not lose the war. The article makes some good points, mainly that the real goal was to stop the rocket attacks and that has been achieved. At the end of the post, a photo I took of downtown Jerusalem is compared to one of rubble in Beirut. I’m flattered that my photo was used, but I think it’s a weak argument: showing photos of destruction in Beirut without mentioning that most of the city is unharmed is something bloggers have been accusing the press of, recently.
Oh, by the way, my recent trip to Israel has made this a flash animation about driving in Israel all the more poignant to me.
You are right, most people think it’s the whole city that got leveled. Ten days earlier I wrote an article Liberals blind to Islamic Danger: High Dynamic Range Photography which had a map showing the actual area bombed was very small indeed.
I will add a disclaimer for the devastation depicted with the same link you noted in your article above.
Thanks for reminding me one should always show the whole picture.
Driving in Israel is hilarious precisely because it is true.