Anyone on this site knows the first part of Lipkin’s statement is
hogwash, even if secular people don’t – and they might, too. This is not about children. Even if it was somehow certain that the paper would never end up in a child’s hands, they wouldn’t print pictures of women. But if the world will take it, fine…
The second part:
Presumably, the logic is “Martyrs = holy, pictures of women = immodesty, and thus coverage of the former should not include the latter.”
I had to work to figure that out, instead of taking it as
“Women are unholy.” I can easily imagine people taking it that way,
and I think it was a bad idea to say it to a secular news source.
(It could even be interpreted as saying that the world desecrated
the memory of the “martyrs” with their coverage…)
Also, it’s irrelevant.
Does the paper print pictures of women in any other context?
No, it doesn’t, so this particular context doesn’t matter
(unless this is meant as further reason not to bend the
rules for this specific picture).