Reuters handles PR for the Muslim Brotherhood

Reuters correspondent Andrew Quinn reports on a charm offensive by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, designed to win over American politicians.

Recall, the Brotherhood is committed to implementing Sharia law in Egypt, is deeply antisemitic, encourages Muslim men to treat women like chattel, advocates death for homosexuals, despises Western democracy, seeks the destruction of Israel, and believes in permanent underclass status for religious minorities.

So how does Quinn characterize the group?

The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928 and seeks to promote its conservative vision of Islam in society, has made dramatic gains since a popular uprising toppled President Hosni Mubarak last year and launched Egypt on an unpredictable political course.

Then, there's this reassuring news:

The FJP candidate, Khairat al-Shater, said in comments reported on Wednesday that introducing sharia law would be his "first and final objective," but the FJP group in Washington sought to dismissed fears this meant they aimed to establish an Islamic theocracy.

And this amusing piece of sophistry:

Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, an FJP lawmaker from Luxor, said the party was dedicated to the principle of a "civil state" and the objectives of sharia law rather than its specific practice.

Leading to this inadvertently hilarious juxtaposition:

The FJP team took pains to appear both reasonable and flexible during their Washington visit, quoting both from the Koran and from the U.S. self-help manual "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," and depicting themselves as the true heirs of the uprising in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

All reported on by Quinn with absolutely no background or critical insight on the Brotherhood, its fanatical founder, its dogma, or its, shall we say, less politically correct spokesmen.

"Conservative".

Reuters still covering for Iran's nukes program

In story after story about Iran and its nuclear weapons medical isotopes program, Reuters correspondents continue to sanitize, downplay, or simply conceal evidentiary assessments by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is illegally engaged in all of the necessary R & D activities associated with building and delivering a nuclear warhead.

Here's Dan Williams trying to shift attention to Israel while framing the crisis with Iran as merely an unsupported claim by "western officials" and commensurate rebuttal from Iran:

But it [Israel] is keen to cast itself as a responsible nuclear player while world powers step up scrutiny of Iran's disputed nuclear energy programme, which Western officials suspect is covertly designed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this.

And Reuters Istanbul correspondent, Alexandra Hudson, portraying Israel as a belligerent loose cannon while characterizing Iran's weaponization efforts as a "nuclear energy programme":

Israel is threatening to take military action, with or without U.S. support, if Iran is deemed to be continuing to defy pressure to curb its nuclear projects. Iran insists its nuclear energy programme is purely non-military.

And Arshad Mohammed and Andrew Quinn suggesting that international sanctions against Iran are actuated by the Iranian regime's "failure to answer questions" directed by "Washington and its allies":  

The United States has tightened sanctions due to Iran's failure to answer questions about its nuclear program, which Washington and its allies suspect is a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says it is solely to generate power supply.

No mention in any of these stories of the United Nations IAEA, the mountain of independent and scientific analysis adjudging Iran, or the regime's many explicit threats to destroy another nation-state and exterminate its people.

Nothing to see here; move along.

Thomson Reuters flushes its Trust Principles down the loo (Part II)

In our post just below, we cited a hysterical and wholly one-sided opinion piece by Reuters correspondents William Maclean, Peter Apps, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, and Tabassum Zakaria prophesying virtual Armageddon should Israel launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities -- er, sorry, disputed energy and medical isotope facilities.

Reuters normally disguises its opinion pieces with the ambiguous and scientific-sounding "Analysis" banner so that de facto propaganda can be sold on to hundreds of other media outlets as dispassionate inquiry, but in the case of the aforementioned story, even that banner is conspicuously missing.  With continuing, flagrant violations of their employer's corporate governance charter and handbook of ethical standards, Reuters correspondents simply have no shame.

Yesterday, we attached a few editorial comments to Reuters' biased litany of prophesied events associated with a possible Israeli military strike against Iran, but the central propagandistic message to which we wish to call attention, a message Reuters is intent on peddling to its audience, is that Israel is alone -- both in its assessment of the danger of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and in the increasingly-evident reality that it (Israel) will have to act to defend itself against Iranian threats of genocide.

Reuters correspondents embed the propagandistic message of Israeli isolation into their reporting with a barrage of entirely one-sided claims and assertions, while willfully omitting essential countervailing evidence from sources other than Israeli officials.

Correspondents Maclean and Co. for example, want readers to believe that an Israeli strike on Iran, with military or moral support from the United States, will unleash a torrent of anti-Israel and anti-American Muslim sentiment in the Middle East:

- Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

- "If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools' paradise," said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.  He said a raid would create "huge anti-Israeli feeling" and an "Islamic backlash" in the region.

Of course, the United States and Israel have long been considered "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" by Muslims in the Middle East, and Israel in particular, is not interested in winning any popularity contests with Hamas, Hezbollah or Syria.  But the 72 percent of Lebanon's population not Shia would likely be thrilled with the decapitation of Hezbollah's patron.

Moreover, Reuters completely ignores the fear and loathing of Shi'ite Iran demonstrated by Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia and Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, where officials have not only endorsed punishing economic sanctions against Iran but actively solicited the U.S. to pursue military action, i.e., "cut off the head of the snake".

We know that Arab states, including Egypt, have tacitly accommodated the movement of Israeli warships as a signal to Iran and reportedly provided Israel with permission to use their air space in an attack on Iran.

Maclean and Co. predictably mention none of this, cite none of this, in their agitprop because it would distract from their campaign to brand Israel as a lone loose cannon and to solicit public condemnation of the Jewish state for seeking to survive in the face of palpable threats of genocide.

Thomson Reuters flushes its Trust Principles down the loo (Part I)

In a desperately hysterical piece of agitprop and fear mongering engineered to stir up anti-Israel sentiment, Reuters correspondents William Maclean, Peter Apps, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, and Tabassum Zakaria don't even feign impartial reporting as they assemble every catastrophic scenario ever imagined, a host of inveterate Israel-haters, and a variety of cherry-picked quotes to warn that:

An Israeli raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would deliver a painful shock to the global economy, revive flagging Islamist militancy and possibly drag the United States into a regional war whether it backed its ally's attack or not.

Here's the list, not exhaustive, compiled by Reuters correspondents of those events prophesied to occur if Israel launches a military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons program:

- any doubts Tehran entertained about the wisdom of building a nuclear weapon would vanish the moment the strike occurred [we couldn't agree more, ed].

- Iran would expel International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ending any possibility of a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue [and after all, negotiations have been so fruitful, ed].

- a raid would only delay, not destroy Iran's program. And once it had recovered, Iran would probably seek to develop nuclear weapons [as if they're not doing this now, ed].

- A strike on Iran and Iran's response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, or an attack on Saudi oilfields, would lead to a sharp rise in oil prices that could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama's chances for re-election [yes, we're certain Reuters correspondents are very much concerned about that, ed].

- Saudi Arabia would be forced to use all its spare output capacity, a crucial safety cushion for oil markets.

- the possibility of Iran mining the straits, attacking ships as it did during the Iran-Iraq war, or challenging the legality of the passage of some vessels through its territorial waters.

- Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, choking the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

- Possible Iranian actions could include harrying tanker traffic in the Gulf with fast attack boats, seizing uninhabited Gulf islands claimed by other states or grabbing hostages from passing civilian or military ships, stoking trouble in Sunni Muslim-ruled Arab states with restive Shi'ite Muslim communities and orchestrating attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere using militant "proxies" such as Hezbollah.

- If the Iranian government interprets the strike as a fully-fledged attempt at regime change, it might adopt a more muscular response could include ballistic-missile salvos on civilian and military targets in the Gulf.

- A study by former senior British intelligence official said the "The US would be assumed complicit, and would become embroiled in defending Israel against a counter-attack. This would stretch the U.S. military."

- In an indication of a divergence in Israeli and Western views, a senior former British intelligence official wrote in a private analysis in 2011 that the West had two objectives: prevent the Iranian bomb, and also "prevent Iran being bombed.  Both outcomes would be potentially disastrous for our national security," he wrote.  Referring to a strike, he went on, "the likely damage (to Iran's program) would outweigh the benefits" [now there's a cogent argument, ed.]

- Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

- "If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools' paradise," said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.  He said a raid would create "huge anti-Israeli feeling" and an "Islamic backlash" in the region.

- Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in a January interview with The Real News website a strike would be a "disaster for us more than for Israel in the short run, and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run."  Neither the Russians or Europeans would side with America in any resulting conflict. He said that the United States could be "forced out of the region," a development he suggested would imperil Israel's existence.

My, we're breathless.  The only analysis provided by Maclean and Co. to ostensibly balance their frantic handwringing, is that of Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, a piece of journalistic legerdemain executed quite deliberately of course, to give readers the false impression that Israel stands alone against Iran.

We'll tackle that fabrication in Part II.

Reuters enabling the Palestinians to cook the books?

Reuters correspondent Andrew Quinn reports that the Palestinian Authority is "cash-strapped" and the push is on to bring in an additional $500 million from Arab donors to enable the PA to balance its books and ostensibly prepare the Palestinians for statehood:

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, speaking after a meeting with Gulf Arab ministers, said the Palestinian Authority still needed about $500 million this year to fund everything from salaries to infrastructure...

[Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr] Stoere said the Palestinian Authority's efforts both to improve fiscal management and boost basic security were having a real impact on the ground -- a fact he said should persuade Israel to further reduce restrictions on Palestinian movement and trade in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere.

But based on the analysis of Elder of Ziyon, there are a few accounts on the PA's books which go unmentioned in Reuters' story:

These numbers can be adjusted somewhat lower if the salaries are going to former policemen who are being paid to do nothing. But on the surface, this is part of the security budget, and any way you slice it, hundreds of millions of dollars of the PA security budget is being spent in Gaza, ostensibly for security. This may be why Hamas maintains a legal fiction between the al-Qassam Brigades and the police - because they are being paid out of different pockets, and this way Hamas terrorists can draw a second salary, courtesy of the world's nations.  If my assumptions are correct, then the World Bank may even be complicit in this scheme. They do not break down how much of the budget is being spent in Gaza versus the West Bank, and this is a critical question that all international donors should be asking.

Well, we suppose that if the World Bank is failing to report on the diversion of foreign funding to Hamas, we can't really expect Reuters to perform that due diligence.

Whac-A-Mole

In a story on the US asking the Israelis and Palestinians to formally resume direct peace talks in September, Reuters correspondents Douglas Hamilton and Andrew Quinn tell us of the dictates imposed on Israel by the Quartet:

The Quartet has repeatedly said Israel should stop building settlements in the West Bank and agree to a Palestinian state within the borders of land it has occupied since the 1967 Middle East war -- points the Palestinians view as a minimum guarantee of the terms of reference for the talks

We've boldfaced the word "within" because over the last several weeks, Reuters has been falsely asserting that the Quartet had insisted Israel agree to a Palestinian state "on the basis of the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war".  A state within those borders (or to be more precise, armistice lines) is obviously a horse of a different color and far nearer to the truth.  As Reuters almost never openly corrects its errors as prescribed by its Handbook of Journalism, we'll accept the new and improved language as an acknowledgment of Reuters being caught-out. 

Regrettably, correcting Reuters is a bit like playing whac-a-mole: dispense with one gnawing rodent and another quickly rears its ugly head.  In this case, note that while Hamilton and Quinn are quite certain of the Quartet's directives to Israel, they apparently haven't a clue as to anything the same world powers have requested of the Palestinians.  

So, let's have our own look at a few things the Palestinians have been asked to do and how they've responded:

Noting the significant progress on security achieved by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, the Quartet calls on the Palestinian Authority to continue to make every effort to improve law and order, to fight violent extremism, and to end incitement.

Improve law and order?  Check.

Fight violent extremism?  Check.

End incitement?  Check.

Yep, nothing -- nothing at all -- for Hamilton and Quinn to report on with respect to expectations the Quartet and the Israelis might have of the Palestinians going into peace talks.

Reuters running interference for Abbas yet again (updated)

Yes, Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead and Reuters is still apologizing for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.  Correspondent Douglas Hamilton, who should be condemned by Human Rights Watch for torturing the English language, tells us that the Quartet is preparing a written statement to usher in direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians.  However, according to Hamilton:

Abbas refuses to engage in direct talks unless [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu agrees to a clear agenda. Without one, say the Palestinians, Netanyahu may propose terms for a peace treaty that are completely unacceptable, and leave Abbas looking like a rejectionist when he turns them down.

Abbas' stated dictate, that Israel accept, ex ante, the 1949 Armistice Lines (1967 "borders") as the Israeli frontier, is laundered here to become a "clear agenda" for the talks.  And note how Hamilton speaks for the Palestinians while apologizing, in advance, for Abbas if he doesn't get all of his demands met.  A rejectionist?  Where would one ever get such an outrageous idea?

Hamilton then degenerates from euphemisms to out-and-out lies:

The Quartet says Israel should halt settlement building in the West Bank and reach a full peace agreement with the Palestinians within 24 months, creating a state on the basis of the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

The Quartet has absolutely not stated that a Palestinian state be created "on the basis of the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war".  Rather, the group has always left the contour of future borders to be negotiated between the parties.  But as we've demonstrated many times, Hamilton is not known for his veracity.

UPDATE AUGUST 13, 3:10 PM: In another story on US Secretary of State Clinton's efforts to coerce direct talks, Reuters correspondent Andrew Quinn repeats the lie that, per the the Quartet, a Palestinian state should be created, "on the basis of the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war".  Reuters apparently hopes that by repeating this canard often enough, its global audience will come to believe it -- and blame Israel for not capitulating to a demand which has been fabricated out of whole cloth by the news agency.

Did they or didn't they?

In what can only be described as a confused and confusing story, Reuters correspondent Andrew Quinn reports on the apparent transfer of Scud missiles from Syria to Hezbollah cites a statement by the US State Department yesterday:

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms the transfer of any arms, and especially ballistic missile systems such as the SCUD, from Syria to Hezbollah," the statement, issued by State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid, said.

Quinn follows with:

The U.S. statement stopped short of confirming the alleged transfer of long-range Scud missiles to Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, which if true could cast doubt on U.S. President Barack Obama's diplomatic outreach to Syria.

Is it just us, or does the statement by Duguid speak for itself?

And in a related story, Reuters Special Propagandist Correspondent Alistair Lyon runs interference for Hezbollah by suggesting that the Scud is an "unlikely choice" for a "nimble guerrilla outfit".  Lyon cherry-picks quotes from various "specialists" and "experts" who of course, concur -- with no mention of the fact that Hezbollah itself has refused to deny its acquisition of the missiles.  

Lyon then demonstrates his craft:

Israeli warplanes fly daily into Lebanese airspace, although the border has been mostly quiet since the 2006 war, with U.N. and Lebanese army troops patrolling an enclave where Hezbollah has no visible armed presence. Israel complains the peacekeepers do too little to prevent the Shi'ite guerrillas from rearming.

Note the declarative statement of Israeli military surveillance combined with the cagey characterization, "Hezbollah has no visible armed presence" along with a mere allegation ("Israel complains") that UN peacekeepers have failed to prevent Hezbollah from rearming [italics ours].  As the AP reports, Hezbollah itself has admitted rearming to the tune of tens of thousands of missiles aimed at Israel.  The US Pentagon has confirmed the rearming.

Lyon reports out of Beirut so we understand why he might be concerned with a casus belli provided to Israel by Hezbollah and the Lebanese government but that is no excuse for shoddy, partisan reporting.

For Reuters, Israel = omnipotence; Palestinians = impotence

One of the great myths associated with the Middle East conflict as perpetuated by the mainstream media led by Reuters, is that Israel is the recalcitrant party dictating the rules and the Palestinian Arabs (who are simply yearning for self-determination according to the conventional wisdom) are at the mercy of Israel's obduracy.

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.

And:

...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.

Obama backs off settlement freeze demand; Reuters redoubles its efforts to advance Arab interests

Reuters correspondents have been pounding the table over Jewish settlements for years, particularly so in their reporting since President Obama made a settlement freeze a cornerstone of his Middle East policy. Yesterday, after months of arm-twisting which has failed to bow Israel and similarly failing to persuade the Arab states to proffer any good-faith gestures toward Israel, Obama and his Secretary of State apparently reconsidered their absolutist demand for a complete halt to settlement activity.

Reuters reacts by misstating Israel's position and mischaracterizing the status of Jerusalem:

Hillary Clinton turned U.S. pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday when she endorsed Israel's view that its expansion of settlements on occupied land should not be a bar to resuming peace talks.

Actually, Israel has committed to not expand settlements; i.e., to limit construction to homes already approved.

A spokesman for Abbas, who faces intense domestic pressure from Hamas Islamists who say he is selling out, insisted that he would not resume suspended negotiations as long as Israel went on building in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Note how Reuters' Quinn and Macdonald deliberately conflate the West Bank (also Judea and Samaria) and Jerusalem, characterizing the two as "occupied". The reality of course, is very different. Here's what Arthur J. Goldberg, US representative to the United Nations in 1967 and framer of UN Resolution 242 (ending the Arab-Israeli war) told the New York Times in 1980:

Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. I wanted to make clear that Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank.

In a number of speeches at the U.N. in 1967, I repeatedly stated that the armistice lines fixed after 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem. At no time in these many speeches did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.

But Reuters correspondents know better.

Quinn and Macdonald continue with their fabrications:

Six decades after Israel was established in 1948, four [decades] since it occupied the remaining Arab lands of what was British-ruled Palestine and nearly 20 years since the first glimmerings of a peace process, a final agreement on core conflicts over borders, refugees and control of Jerusalem remains stubbornly elusive.

Uh-huh. "Arab lands". By whose edict? The disposition of British-ruled Palestine was governed by the Mandate for Palestine which, as we have previously noted called for:

...close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

78% of original Palestine -- what is today Jordan -- was lopped off and handed to the Arabs by Britain; the remainder was to serve as a national home for the Jews. In other words, the remaining 22% of the Palestine Mandate represents not "Arab lands" but, by international accord, Jewish lands.

Wake up call for Reuters: that the Palestinian Arab population not residing in Jordan (70% of the population in Jordan is Palestinian) has repeatedly been offered -- and violently refused -- a share of the land with the Jews, does not make it theirs.