The word “context” has been given a lot of play since university professors made a point of using the term to answer questions at congressional testimonies as to whether they would enforce discipline on students engaged in antisemitic activities. They claimed those actions needed to be “targeted and persistent” to cross the line into Jew hatred deemed unacceptable.

One has to imagine whether a mirror needs to be held up to media operations – whose job it is top provide context to stories – when they fail to do so when writing stories. If they refuse to provide basic background to stories that could make Israel or Jews appear in a favorable light and do not do so, is that an indication of rank antisemitism?

Another Gaza “Flotilla”

In yet another attempt at seeking publicity, a ship set sail for Gaza in the middle of Hamas’s current war on Israel. The boat was picked up and brought to the Israeli port city of Ashdod for processing without incident.

To read the New York Times’ story, one would imagine that this was an aid boat desperate to bring life saving aid to the people of Gaza amid an illegal blockade of the region, and crushing war that is not popular amongst Gazans.

That’s a complete lie. So let’s unpack the story shared without background, and insert some relevant facts which were omitted.

For starters, Israel’s land-based blockade started in June 2007 after Hamas, a group whose antisemitic foundational charter is sworn to the killing of Jews and destruction of Israel, took over the Gaza Strip. The naval blockade started over a year later, in January 2009, after Hamas started a war with Israel using imported missiles.

In July 2011, the UN released the Palmer Report which attested to the legal nature of Israel’s blockade. Specifically it wrote:

“As this report has already indicated, we are satisfied that the naval blockade was based on the need to preserve Israel’s security.  Stopping the importation of rockets and other weapons to Gaza by sea helps alleviate Israel’s situation as it finds itself the target of countless attacks, which at the time of writing have once again become more extensive and intensive…  We have reached the view that the naval blockade was proportionate in the circumstances… The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal… Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza.  The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.“

This is never mentioned in the article.

The article – over-and-again – states that the boat’s mission is to bring aid to “a population in Gaza facing rising starvation.” If that was the goal, it could have easily set sail directly to Ashdod where the aid would have been processed and thereafter sent by trucks into Gaza. However, the actual aim of the ship was to break Israel’s legal blockade during a war via a publicity stunt. If the world pressured Israel to remove the blockade, more weaponry would be able to flow into the terrorist enclave to continue the genocidal war against Israel.

Yet the Times preferred to write a propaganda piece on behalf of Gaza’s supporters. It continued on “the activist group” narrative:

It was no accident that the article led with “baby formula, diapers” to make the mission appear to be about innocent babies. This was raw propaganda. The blockade isn’t about baby food but weapons used to slaughter Israelis. In 2010, a ship called the Mavi Marmara prepared weapons to kill Israelis when they boarded the boat to escort it to Ashdod. The “activists” had gas masks at the ready with iron bars and knives.

When the article chose to give context to the “flotilla,” it only mentioned the ships which sailed over the past year, making them appear to be in reaction to Hamas’s current war. The various European “aid ships” are marketed as concerned about the situation of civilians during the current battles.

The reality is that these boats have been going on for years. Europeans have constantly tried to end Israel’s blockade of the terrorist enclave, which would open the door for Hamas and the other terrorist groups to stockpile even more weaponry to wage war against Israel.

As described above, the blockade is legal and Israel enforces it with the minimum use of force necessary under the circumstances. Still, the Times only quoted these “activists” saying that Israel was acting in an illegal manner without any background. Zero. Just a quote without explaining the history of the blockade or its legal nature.

The Hamas fluff piece went on to quote “Adalah, an Israeli human rights group,” which advocates for Israeli Arabs. It did not share that the group is funded by Europeans and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. For years – well before the latest Hamas war – the group called Israel “an apartheid state committing genocide,” which should be boycotted. It has even held events with groups affiliated with terrorist groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

But the Times didn’t write any of that. A reader is left to believe that an Israeli human rights group wanted to provide legal services to aid activists and was blocked by the Israeli army. A scripted anti-Israel narrative

With so much fluff, perhaps the editors may have wanted at least a little background for the episode, so in the ninth paragraph (out of twelve) a smidgen of color was given. Just a drop, still never adding that Israel has let in tons of non-military aid to Gaza, and forwards whatever non-military aid the ships bring.

The article states that the blockade started in 2007 which is only partially accurate. as mentioned above, the land blockade began in 2007 while the naval blockade started in 2009.

Remarkably, the most famous of these flotillas, the Mavi Marmara in May 2010, was never mentioned. The nature of the political boat stunts – in this case deadly – was never flagged.

Instead, the legal naval blockade was wrongfully portrayed as an “Israeli military” war against “rights groups.”

Europeans attempting to facilitate the flow of weaponry into the hands of Gazans during a genocidal war is appalling. That it is provided cover by the media is disgraceful.

Antisemitism in universities is punishable when it is “targeted and persistent.” Jew-hatred in the media should be punishable when the basic context of the situation is consistently omitted.