Reuters adopts, disseminates Palestinian rhetoric

Reuters' Middle East bureau is so entrenched in the Palestinian camp and their correspondents apparently so captivated by the Arab narrative of events, that there is today, little to distinguish between Palestinian rhetoric and that of Reuters.

In a story appearing on its AxisMundi Jerusalem site, Reuters correspondent Erika Solomon -- who has been writing for the media giant for only a short while -- suggests that a third Palestinian intifada may be brewing.  Literally "shaking off", the Arab word "intifada" has become synonymous with the most heinous and bloody acts of savage violence directed at Jewish civilians including mass shootings, stonings, and suicide bombings:

Solomon quotes Palestinian columnist Hani al-Masri, who in a weekend op-ed, incites for another such terror war:

Masri argues that the Palestinian leadership needs “to begin preparing to lead the coming Intifada when the conditions become ripe, because when it happens it will not wait for permission from anyone.”  This is how Palestinian authorities can prevent popular anger from “turning inwards,” he says,  and instead direct it “toward the (Israeli) occupation, in an organised fashion, with specific and realistic political goals that have been agreed upon, or else it will slide into armed confrontation, in which Israel excels.” (Masri would not, however, rule out all forms of armed resistance if an Intifada were to break out).

Note Solomon's unequivocal adoption of the Arab euphemism "armed resistance" -- an Orwellian term if ever there was one -- to describe the kind of wanton murder Palestinians engaged in during the previous intifadas.  Though a clear violation of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, the use of euphemisms that seek to conceal Arab depravity behind a thin veneer of political correctness is standard practice in Reuters' Middle East reporting.

Along the way, Solomon also employs the same logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) we wrote about over the weekend to suggest that the second intifada was caused by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount:   

Some are drawing parallels to flaring passions in Jerusalem’s Old City to events that sparked the second Palestinian Intifada–it broke out in 2000 after Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader, visited al-Aqsa compound.

Further evidence of Reuters wholesale purchase, and due dissemination, of the Palestinian Arab narrative.