And now for some more insipid and superficial reporting by the Independent's pipsqueak reporter... The first sentence:

The Israeli authorities are giving little away on how they will handle a planned sea voyage by some 40 pro-Palestinian activists from Cyprus to Gaza in an effort to "break the siege" of the blockaded Strip.

The issue for MacIntyre is not that a group of courageous individuals is trying to break the siege and deliver some hope to the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza. For MacIntyre, it is an issue about how the Israeli "authorities" will respond. Furthermore, the word "siege" appears in quotation marks and MacIntyre uses his weasel journospeak "blockade". It is a fact that a "siege" is part of warfare or to obtain political goals. On the other hand, the neutral term "blockade" simply implies a closure without any further consequences or intent. It is for this reason that "siege" is the correct term to use. When Dov Weisglas states that Israel is going to put the Palestinians in Gaza "on a diet", well, this proves that what the Israelis are applying is a siege. If "siege" is a term used by Akiva Eldar, then why can't MacIntyre do the same?

MacIntyre adds a bitsy of info from the people aiming to break the siege, then a quotation from the foreign ministry spokesman, and in an inert monotone style sums up with "Part of the purpose of the voyage is to focus international attention on Israel's blockade of Gaza imposed after Hamas's takeover of the Strip 13 months ago". This is "balanced reporting" at its worst. It is bereft of empathy, it doesn't focus on the real reasons the campaigners are engaging in this action, it uses weasel journospeak, and, of course, it asks foreign ministry spokesmen for their input. It doesn't provide any context and it doesn't indicate the situation in Gaza is awful for 1.5 million people – human beings.