Reuters demonstrates its devotion to this narrative with a story on Arab reaction to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's comment yesterday that a complete settlement freeze should not be a prerequisite to a return to peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Reuters' correspondents Andrew Quinn and Christian Lowe write:
Palestinians have accused Washington of pressuring them to accommodate Israeli intransigence, effectively shutting the door to future talks.
Note the absence of quotation marks around the characterization of Israel as intransigent, a characterization which is repeated in the next paragraph with a direct quote from Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah. In other words, Reuters has adopted and is asserting on behalf of the Palestinians, the notion of Israeli intransigence and that Israel is therefore responsible for the lack of peace talks.
The Palestinians on the other hand, are portrayed by Reuters as powerless to affect their destiny:
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said Arab states shared the Palestinian position that resuming negotiations was futile without a halt on settlement expansion.
...there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon, Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah said on Sunday.
The poor Palestinians are always unaccountable and inert; events simply overtake them. The obvious truth that they (the Palestinians) are the intransigent party, that they could agree to accept Israel's offer of negotiations sans preconditions while limited building in the disputed territories continues (as has always been the case in the past) apparently does not occur to Reuters.