'The Joys of Selective Outrage' - Peter Hitchens view of the Israel/Gaza flotilla issue

Just read Peter Hitchens' article, it is full of interesting points but it is when he moves away from the flotilla itself that he makes some very key points:

'Then there's the general question of Gaza. I was interested to see the Egyptians opening up their border with Gaza, just for a few days. Normally it's rather more officially shut than the border (thorough which much aid does in fact penetrate) with Israel - though there are so many smuggler's tunnels underneath it that weapons and quite large cargoes constantly make it through. Why is this, since the Gazans are the Arab and Muslim brothers of the Egyptians? Surely they should welcome them with open arms and open borders. Yet they don't. And nobody asks why.

Indeed, Egypt (illegally, but to the protests of nobody) annexed Gaza after it captured it in the failed 1948 Arab war on the nascent state of Israel. And it held on to it without anyone much fussing about its squalor and deprivation, until 1967, when Israel captured it and illegally occupied it, a misdeed that (by contrast) the Jewish state has never been allowed to forget. For me, Israel would have been a lot better off if it had withdrawn from Gaza the moment the war ended in 1967. But that's hindsight. It is and always has been an important invasion corridor.

Don't these facts (in fact any factual knowledge at all ) rather undermine the oversimplified myth that all Gaza's problems arise from its being under a wicked Israeli siege?

...

I have a nagging suspicion that those who now adopt the cause of Gaza (and have swallowed whole the propaganda narrative of the 'Aid Convoy' versus the 'Wicked Zionists') are much, much more interested in undermining Israel's long-term right to exist than they are in the undoubted plight of the Gazans. And why, exactly is that? What is the reason for this selective outrage against one nation among dozens, by no means perfect but also by no means the most oppressive or violent or ill-run state in the world, let alone the Middle East? You tell me.'

However the most interesting views are saved for the end:

'...that gives you a flavour of the passenger lists. These people weren't neutrals, and they certainly weren't benevolent towards the Jewish state. Sure, loathing Israel is a point of view, and a very common one these days now we've all worked out our post-Holocaust guilt. But supposedly impartial news reports should not ignore the fact that these 'activists' could generally be found among the camp of the Israel-haters.

I'd also point out here in passing, because I haven't time to dwell on this at the moment, the very important point that Turkey, until recently a strong ally of Israel, has recently begun a major and significant foreign-policy shift, and is now growing daily closer to its neighbour Iran - which is of course one of the backers of Hamas in Gaza. The Turkish government needs a pretext to scale down its diplomatic ties with Israel, while remaining in NATO, a candidate for EU membership etc. This event has provided that, very neatly.'

It is this point about Turkey that the BBC and most other news agencies seem to be deliberately hiding from general attention, why?