Context removed.
In this particular case, I don't think it's such a big deal.
Yes, the pictures appear to be spotless in an area covered in dust. There's probably a reason for it, though—The pictures were most likely picked up and cleaned by Mushir al-Masri, who is standing in the same frame.
To me, this seems to be a far cry different than fauxtography from the past. Take, for instance, the incident with toys in Lebanon, which we briefly discussed back when this blog first launched in 2006. In each and every one of the photographs in that particular series, the toy was presented completely devoid of context, leaving the viewer with the distinct impression that the dastardly Israeli military was intentionally aiming for children.
Compare that to now, when most readers already know that Hamas buildings were targets, and that Hamas-supporting legislators would most likely be back around to assess the damage (even if they're acting). I would suggest that showing these legislators in action is not intentionally misleading to the same level as the toys were, since we can see the context in which the photograph was taken.
As a side note, someone made an interesting comment on Carl in Jerusalem's post, reportedly passed on from an incoming photojournalist in the Gaza Strip:
... I would've thought there'd be more damage - true, all the Hamas buildings are destroyed - but that's maybe four streets in total and a building here, a building there.
So, my impressions are that the place is not nearly so destroyed by Israel as I was expecting it to have been from the pictures I saw.
I think it would be very enlightening to see aerial photographs of Gaza City, if the IDF were up to it.
(Oh, and yes: The title is a bad play on "Fauxtography." Seaux sue me. ;) )
Tags: kevin frayer AP #Intifada
Looks like it was just shaken up a bit.
And I agree with the commenter. If there is more than one stone on top of another, then Israel failed in its duty to destroy terrorists and their supporters.