The San Francisco Chronicle published the following op-ed by legal scholar George Bisharat today detailing the illegality of Israel's murderous siege of Gaza and attacks on the humanitarian aid flotilla 'Gaza occupation and siege are illegal' (6/4).  At this time of crisis, when Israel 's spin machine is in overdrive, please take a minute to thank the San Francisco Chronicle for making space for this voice of reason.

Today, the New York Times recycled a heavy dose of Israeli propaganda in their two featured guest op-eds on the Gaza flotilla attack -- one was written by Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the US, 'An Assault, Cloaked in Peace' and the second is authored by Daniel Gordis, Vice President of the Shalem Center, 'A Botched Raid, a Vital Embargo' (6/3).   

Both op-eds ignore the devastating impact of Israel's blockade on Gaza with Mr. Gordis denying that there is any humanitarian crisis -- Amb. Oren mistakenly claims that there is no shortage of food or medicine there.   

The authors attribute false motives to the participants of the flotillas with Amb. Oren making the absurd assertion that the real intent of breaking the embargo is to allow rockets to be transported to Gaza.   

The op-eds repeat false claims about Israeli proposed coodination of the humanitarian aid -- leading readers to believe that all of the cargo would have been transferred to Gaza after Israeli inspection (avoiding any mention of Israel's pre-approved list of goods).  In addition, the claim that aid packages for Gilad Shalit were rebuffed by flotilla organizers is not accurate.   

Finally, while Mr. Gordis repeats the cliche of no partner for peace along with the decade old myth of Barak's generous offer, Amb. Oren insists that Israel is ready to vigorously pursue peace with the Palestinian Authority -- while the Netanyahu government vigorously expropriates Palestinian land and arrests nonviolent protestors in East Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank.         

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03oren.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03gordis.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print 

In a bizarre opinion piece on 'Semantic Minefields' (5/16) covering a wide range of topics, the New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt explains that the use of the term 'Israeli settlement construction' in the context of East Jerusalem settlements is a 'charged' word -- 'because it suggests something less than permanent on someone else's land' and that a NY Times reporter (Helene Cooper) who used the word settlement should have chosen a more neutral term like 'housing construction.'  

Once again, Hoyt and the NY Times's reporting fails to acknowledge the overwhelming international consensus position among nations, human rights groups, and international institutions that East Jerusalem is occupied territory and that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.  To his credit, Hoyt acknowledges that no one in the world recognizes Israel's claim to East Jerusalem, including the United States -- yet he still recommends deference to a 'neutral' position -- effectively granting a unilateral Israeli veto over the reporting of news. 

USA Today has published an important opinion piece by Mustafa Barghouthi 'Latest Israel-Palestinian talks hold little help' (5/7).  In the op-ed, Barghouthi is not at all optimistic that the upcoming Palestinian-Israeli peace talks will be successful given Netanyahu's previous statements and actions on the ground.  He would like to see the Obama administration 'stand up to Israel' in order to save the two state solution -- but fears it may already be too late.   

Barghouthi argues that "Israel has a fateful decision before it: Comply with international law and achieve a just two state solution, or reject the logic of peace and face a determined non-violent movement against apartheid that will (has) spread from the West Bank to Gaza to within Israel itself."  He also questions the continued purpose and wisdom of US military aid to Israel -- especially coming from American taxpayers -- as it "destabilizes the region and endangers Palestinians daring to protest an occupation that attempts to reduce us to an inferior status."