Reuters, the definition of insanity

Well, it was just a week ago that Reuters correspondents were busy, en masse, misrepresenting President Obama's speech on the Arab-Israeli conflict.  We highlighted some of those misrepresentations here, here, and here.

Reuters correspondents demonstrate their sheer arrogance and unflappable commitment to deceive their audience by continuing, in several stories today, to misrepresent Obama's proposal for a negotiated peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians:

In a bid to break the deadlock, Obama said in a major policy speech last week that a future Palestinian state should be based on the borders as they existed on the eve of the 1967 Middle East, with land swaps mutually agreed with Israel.

No he didn't.  As we've noted too many times to recount, Israel had no borders prior to the 1967 war and, in conjunction with a territorial neck only 9 miles wide, this lack of recognized borders encouraged the surrounding Arab states to prepare an invasion in June of 1967.

Reuters is deliberately misleading readers by misquoting Obama, who actually referred to the 1967 "lines".

Nor is this simply a semantic distinction.  Reuters correspondents are attempting, via the propaganda technique of repetition, to implant the suggestion that, in rejecting the 1967 lines (actually 1949 Armistice Lines) as an international border, Israel is rapaciously seeking to expand its territory beyond an official "border" and devour land belonging to another country.

Of course, this is an utterly false allusion as there is no country east of the 1967 lines -- until one reaches Jordan.

So, we have a settlement offer of our own for Reuters, whose writers and editors frequently visit and comment on our site: when you guys get with the program and decide to write a straight story on the Arab-Israeli conflict, we'll give up the criticism and resume our day jobs.

Until then, talleyho!