Glenn Kessler’s “analysis” of the implications of the Israeli conflict with the flotilla headed for the Gaza strip (entitled “Condemnation of Israeli Assault Complicates Relations with U.S.”) leaves out so many critical facts and background that readers are left with a skewed and inaccurate sense of the event. Kessler writes:

The worldwide condemnation of the deadly Israeli assault on the Gaza aid flotilla will complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to improve its tense relations with Jerusalem and will probably distract from the push to sanction Iran over its nuclear program.

Kessler highlights numerous criticisms of Israel from world leaders, and criticisms of the U.S. for offering only a tepid statement on the situation. It’s legitimate for Kessler to focus on the diplomatic fallout from an event like the conflict that occurred over this weekend. Yet his failure to provide any background on the event itself, leaves readers without the ability to themselves analyze the situation and the diplomatic response.

Kessler references the “assault” on the “aid flotilla,” but doesn’t explore why Israel felt the need to board the ship and the actions they took to avoid conflict. National Review’s Mona Charen provides an in-depth analysis of the facts that are being routinely left out of reporting on this situation. For example she writes:

Upon learning of the intentions of the Gaza flotilla, the Israeli government asked the organizers to deliver their humanitarian aid first to an Israeli port where it would be inspected (for weapons) before being forwarded to Gaza. The organizers refused. “There are two possible happy endings,” a Muslim activist on board explained, “either we will reach Gaza or we will achieve martyrdom.”

Charen also details the ongoing humanitarian relief efforts of the Israelis to those in Gaza, and how groups associated with Hamas, including those who have given aid to terrorists, were involved in the “humanitarian” efforts on the flotilla. Charen’s piece is a must read.

There are few subjects as difficult and politically charged as the situation in the Middle East. Reporting or even “analyzing” events without providing appropriate background and context is a disservice to readers.