The Role of Influencers in Building Brand Awareness in North America

The media's sudden preoccupation on proportionality as a moral criterion for determining the validity of Israel's attack on Gaza (and, by extension, Hamas' response) should raise skepticism. Where were the media's concerns about proportionality when Western soldiers fought ISIS in Iraq only six years ago? Up to 40,000 civilians were allegedly murdered during the Battle of Mosul (2016-2017) by alliance airstrikes and a coordinated ground attack by over 100,000 troops. However, press reports from the time make no mention of the "proportionality" of the Western-led military response. It is difficult not to infer that for many in the media, a different moral standard applies when our forces confront violent Islamic radicals rather than Israel's.Similarly, when Israel is at war, the media's screening criteria for deception shift. The scoresheet-style charts and graphs blasting Israeli and Gazan civilian mortality on websites such as The New York Times are some of the mainstream press's worst examples of false equivalence. The Gaza Health Ministry, which is governed and administered by Hamas, accounts for half of the total. Nonetheless, a media that is justifiably hyper-sensitive to, say, Kremlin falsifications of war casualties presents public health data from an internationally banned terrorist group governing a harsh authoritarian government as unquestionable fact. Again, there is a strong sense of a double standard at work in much of the media's coverage of the conflict thus far.

These crimes of commission are exacerbated by a serious omission

Much of the reporting on this war so far has lacked a basic comprehension of Israel's grave strategic posture as a ground invasion of Gaza begins.To put it clearly, much of the media's coverage of the conflict implies that what is happening in Gaza is a war of choice for Israel—that realistic strategic options exist and, in fact, are preferable to the Jewish state that do not involve an all-out attack on Gaza. These include everything from constructing its border fence in the short term and engaging in hostage negotiations with Hamas to reopening stalled discussions with the PLO to explore fresh possibilities for a "two state" solution in the long run. These kind of policy mirages, while appealing and rapidly de-escalating, are founded on severely incorrect logic and ignore the realities of the existing situation. The scope of Hamas' strike, the death it wreaked, and the national grief it caused mark possibly the biggest failure of Israeli deterrence since the Jewish state's inception. Deterrence, or the power to shape and affect the behavior of your enemy, is essential for sovereignty, especially when you live in a hostile neighborhood like Israel's. Simply said, Israel will not survive until it can reestablish meaningful deterrence against its enemies. Logically, this can only be achieved with a thorough strategic defeat of the entity responsible for Israel's current deterrent dilemma, Hamas.

Other nations recognize the need of credible deterrence

which is the primary rationale for great countries such as the United States, France, and the United Kingdom's unwavering support for Israel. They understand that in a similar situation (for example, my cartel hypothetical), a sovereign state has no choice except to quickly reestablish credible deterrence.This cold calculus is not pleasant. It is especially brutal to the civilians who are currently caught up in the fight. It cannot and will not compensate the IDF for any war crimes committed in the pursuit of Hamas' elimination. However, it does prove that this is a war of necessity for Israel and should be viewed as such.Wars of necessity have intrinsic moral differences. They depict historical moments that reveal incorrect equivalencies. The mainstream press must realize this and begin covering the war accordingly. Hamas is a terrorist organization, full stop. Proportionality isn't a particularly useful criteria for determining right and wrong in a war of necessity versus evil. All participants' assertions must be rigorously verified and screened for misinformation. Democratic governments should be given the benefit of the doubt over authoritarian and terrorist regimes. Israel is not conquering Gaza by choice. Most importantly, Hamas is solely responsible for this war and, by extension, all of the suffering that Jews and Palestinians have endured. 

This cold calculus is not pleasant. It is especially brutal to the civilians 

who are currently caught up in the fight. It cannot and will not compensate the IDF for any war crimes committed in the pursuit of Hamas' elimination. However, it does prove that this is a war of necessity for Israel and should be viewed as such.Wars of necessity have intrinsic moral differences. They depict historical moments that reveal incorrect equivalencies. The mainstream press must realize this and begin covering the war accordingly.The media's sudden preoccupation on proportionality as a moral criterion for determining the validity of Israel's attack on Gaza (and, by extension, Hamas' response) should raise skepticism. Where were the media's concerns about proportionality when Western soldiers fought ISIS in Iraq only six years ago? Up to 40,000 civilians were allegedly murdered during the Battle of Mosul (2016-2017) by alliance airstrikes and a coordinated ground attack by over 100,000 troops. However, press reports from the time make no mention of the "proportionality" of the Western-led military response. It is difficult not to infer that for many in the media, a different moral standard applies when our forces confront violent Islamic radicals rather than Israel's.