A little observation on the media coverage.
Since the rise of the social media people have been talking about the death of journalism, and how modern journalism/mainstream media is substandard relative to what it was before... and so on and so forth. I've been borderline obsessively watching the Western media coverage of the Israeli affairs since the Second Intifada. My personal conclusion is that, whilst there is some truth in this (e.g. journalism as profession undoubtedly became less prestigious), the reality is pretty much the opposite.
The truth is, that the social media with all its problems provides a very serious counterweight to the mainstream media and de-facto represents the system of journalistic checks and balances, which simply didn't exist before. Case in point, twenty years ago the incident above would be presented by BBC/CNN/NYT as Israel just "ruthlessly attacking the hospital" and this would be the end of it. All the official protests and explanations, even accompanied by actual evidence, would have never reached the wider audience, simply out of lack of alternative medium (e.g. the infamous Muhammad Al-Durrah case). I've seen it all happening thousands of times.