Barry Rubin has some interesting cultural analysis stemming from the photos incident.

Clash of Perceptions: A Picture is Worth 10,000 Academic Theories:

What if two groups are in conflict and have a completely different way of looking at the world, thus often misperceiving each other? Many Westerners say nowadays that their societies misunderstand the Middle East or Muslim-majority societies and the correct response is to apologize humbly, make amends through unilateral concessions that will prove they are nice, and avoid any possible offense.

But maybe the misunderstanding is in the opposite direction from what they think.

Consider this small example with big implications.

Hurriyet, a Turkish newspaper, ran as its lead article on page one a story about what it called photos the Israelis didn’t want the world to see. Many Westerners who read these words would expect to see some kind of atrocity—Israelis murdering or injuring people—that Israel wanted to hide. That’s the implication in a Western context.

In other words, a large portion of Western intellectuals, media, academics, opinion-makers and policymakers are portraying the following image: Israel is too tough, cruel, and violent.

But that is not what Hurriyet is talking about, nor is it the perception of Israel’s actual enemies. For the picture doesn’t show Israeli soldiers shooting or beating. No, not at all.

It shows Israeli soldiers, beaten and captured by the Jihadis as crying.

Hurriyet claims that Israel somehow hid or erased these pictures “because the images of desperate, scared, and weeping soldiers would have harmed the image of the troops.” [Incidentally, that’s untrue. Soldiers can be seen crying in the TV news coverage of almost every military funeral.]
…
Here’s what is important to understand:

The Western anti-Israeli narrative views Israel as bad because it is too violent, tough, unyielding, and so on. In contrast, it portrays those captured as victims, humanitarians, underdogs.

Israelis: tough; Flotilla activists: weak. It finds the latter more appealing.

But this Islamist and Middle Eastern narrative views Israel as bad because it is too weak, sentimental, yielding. In contrast, it portrays the flotilla warriors as courageous, macho, violent, and tough.

Israelis, weak; Flotilla activists: strong. It finds the latter more appealing.
…

Read The Whole Thing