Actually, I am going to make three comments.
First comment. "The people of the Gaza Strip are suffering from extreme poverty".
In that case, why do I count three satellite dishes in the photo below? Either they are not suffering that badly, or they are suffering because the Big Men have siphoned off all the money and lavished it on themselves, allowing the peasants to starve. [I take it this house was bombed because a Hamas Big Man lived here.] Or they've lavished it on rockets.
Guns or butter, guys. Guns or butter. Take your pick. You choose guns? Then stop crying about the lack of butter.
I guess with all those dishes, they can watch themselves being bombed on TV.
The caption on this photo states that it is a "targeted location". I saw the same photo elsewhere described as a Hamas rocket launching site. Calling it a "targeted location" kind of takes all the sting out of the reason why the site was hit. Those evil Israelis might have decided to "target" a baby milk factory - the phrase "targeted location" leaves it open to interpretation, whilst the phrase "rocket launching site" leaves no ambiguity as to why the site was whacked.
Having written that, I can't remember what my third comment was going to be.
Now I remember. The top photo shows a blitzed house. However, when I see a closely framed photo like this, I wonder what it would look like if the photographer walked backwards a bit and took a more widely framed shot. They always take closely cropped photos to give you the impression the place has been more blown up than Stalingrad, when the truth is often that one house has been flattened and the rest around it are intact. I remember that trick from the whatever-it-was "massacre" of a few years ago.
It's interesting how the media likes to distort and manipulate the images that we are shown. However, I doubt my kids will learn about this sort of distortion in media studies classes at school. Nooooo. Because it is the right sort of distortion.