Continued from previous: In light of these two points your comparison of post-concert traffic to checkpoiints is trivial and insulting, akin to someone saying "what's all the complaining about that the poor donot getting enough to eat. I'm on a diet and suffering, too."

There are two fundamental problems with your comparison. First of all, being stuck in traffic is an inevitable part of urban life, just like long lines at the checkout or crowded beaches or small apartments. Checkpoints are imposed on Palestinians by Israel. That by itself is a source of humiliation and it is componded by their treatment at the checkpoints themselves, which is arbitrary and often insulting. Secondly, traffic backups, whether they are caused by concerts, poor infrastructure or checkpoints, have an economic cost (high transport costs, reduced labor hours, which is why governments are always widening roads and building bridges), so yes they do strangle the economy of the West Bank. Since there are so many and they operate at all hours of the day (not just at rush hour or when concerts let out) their impact is especially big. Israel has legitmiate reasons for operating the checkpoints (although I suspect there is no need for so many), but that doesn't undercut the argument that they are hurting the West Bank economy or are degrading to Palestinians.

If you are a journalist, and not from the blogosphere, where facts are gathered and manipulated with the sole purpose of supporting a preconceived notion, if takes time and effort to assemble a story. For instance, UNIFIL didn't confirm that it had received notice of the Israeli operation until a day after the incident. Secondly, captions do not constitute a story. They are usually writtten by a photographer who probably assumed the fence was the actual border. Yes, he should have known better or checked first, but that doesn't constitute anti-Israel bias. Finally, journalists are supposed to present all sides of the story that seem plausible and relevant. They publish fact as they get them and don't wait until one side can complete its case (otherwise, the story would have been effectively censored for hours while the media waitedfor everyone to present their sides of the story -- an obviously ridiculous way to report news). Again, only in the blogosphere, as the commentary above exemplifies, do you present a straight, even line of facts that inevitably lead to a single possible conclusion.