Targeting infrastructure or targeting people? It depends who's doing it.
Before you scroll past, consider: Russia's recent strikes on Ukraine's energy sector, causing outages and at least one death, are rightly condemned in Western headlines. The destruction of vital infrastructure, the disruption of civilian life, the human cost, it's all par for the course in reporting on this conflict. The narrative is clear: Russia is the aggressor, deliberately targeting civilian
life support. Yet, an inconvenient truth lingers: this outrage evaporates when the perpetrators are Western allies. Just last week, reports emerged that Israeli forces had destroyed or severely damaged over 80% of Gaza's essential infrastructure, including water treatment plants, hospitals, and power grids, displacing nearly 2 million people. Since October 2023, the Palestinian Bureau of
Statistics estimates that 320,000 housing units have been destroyed in Gaza, rendering entire neighborhoods uninhabitable. This isn't an accidental outcome of conflict; it is a stated policy to make Gaza uninhabitable. When Gaza's entire electric grid was bombed into oblivion, there wasn't a single headline screaming about war crimes or civilian suffering. Instead, it was framed as necessary
security measures. This glaring double standard exposes the true nature of Western journalism. It's not about the moral implications of targeting infrastructure, but about who benefits from the prevailing narrative. One act is an atrocity, the other a regrettable necessity, simply because one aligns with geopolitical interests and the other doesn't. The selective indignation is not just