Under international law Israel has the right to blockade Gaza and stop any flotilla or boats heading there because Hamas has created a state of armed conflict by launching more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel targeting and killing civilians. Despite this, Israel still allows inspected food and other humanitarian goods into Gaza.
For The New York Times bureau chief, the latest flotilla campaign organized by terrorist groups and anti-Israel radicals brought to mind, amazingly, Holocaust survivors seeking refuge in pre-state Israel on the Exodus. The sum of the "news analysis" was one more example of fact-anemic bias by the paper.
In its reporting on the abortive Gaza flotilla, The New York Times whitewashes the extremist affiliations of the flotilla organizers and conceals the harsh rhetoric of noted participants.
An AFP article today about Geoffrey Palmer's U.N. report on the 2010 flotilla highlights aspects of the document critical of Israel, but ignores parts that uphold Israel's position. When "man bites dog" is just not a story.
The Washington Post's reputation for investigative journalism, from 1970s Watergate coverage on, is well known. But when it comes to the story behind the much-hyped "Gaza aid flotilla II," The Post doesn't want to know. Late June reporting was a poor example for journalists and a disservice to readers.
The Los Angeles Times, which recently gave a platform to a Hamas leader, now gives space to a passenger in the impending Gaza flotilla. Only through Hagit Borer's selective vision does "getting on board" with Hamas mean "true peace."
The Juilliard Journal is not known for hosting heated discussions about the Middle East. But it recently published a defamatory piece on Israel along with several letters from a group of connected anti-Israel activists lauding the piece.
After the publication of the Human Rights Council report on Israel's interception of the Mavi Marmara, the US ambassador to the HRC criticized the report's "unbalanced language, tone and conclusions." This article explains why the ambassador's assessment is correct.