For Reuters, the law is an ass only when it disagrees

As we have noted in previous posts, Reuters correspondents are happy to identify and cite the Israeli High/Supreme Court when it is considering or has ruled on a matter which harmonizes with the Reuters political agenda.  By contrast, when Court rulings fail to comport with that agenda, Reuters stories either demote the High Court to subordinate status or omit mention of the Court entirely.

In a story on Palestinian violence in Jerusalem, Allyn Fisher-Ilan and the Reuters team write:

Israeli and Palestinian protesters have squared off on a weekly basis in the past few months during generally peaceful demonstrations staged against Israel's recent seizure of homes inhabited by Palestinians in parts of East Jerusalem.

Watching the bedlam of Palestinian and left-wing protesters scuffling with police, throwing rocks, and spitting on religious Jews in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem, one may aptly question Reuters' characterization of the demonstrations as "peaceful".  Beyond this however, is Fisher-Ilan's tendentious use of the term "seizure" to describe the recent eviction of Arab squatters from homes owned by Jews in the community and her failure to mention that the eviction orders came from -- yes, the Israeli Supreme Court.

Just an oversight, we're sure.