Alistair Lyon tries his hand at the Reuters "FACTBOX" format

Reuters "Special Correspondent" Alistair Lyon, who gave us love for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and enmity for Israel, seeks now to alert us to the uncertainties and potential dangers lurking in the Middle East for 2010.

Employing the risible Reuters "FACTBOX" format, Lyon suggests:

Prospects for progress toward peace look bleak, with a weak and divided Palestinian leadership, a hardline rightwing Israeli government and few signs of decisive United States involvement.

The use of pejorative name calling ("hardline rightwing") is a well-recognized propaganda technique intended to instill in the mind of the reader the scorn the writer holds for the subject.  By the same token, Lyon wants his audience to view the Palestinian leadership as "weak".  We wonder if Lyon noticed the Hamas rally on Monday:

True to form, Lyon then blames Israel for the risk of war with Hamas and Hezbollah:

Israel may have bought respite from direct attack from Hamas and Hezbollah with devastating assaults on the Gaza Strip nearly a year ago and Lebanon in 2006, but the risk of violence is high given Palestinian frustration and Israeli settler activity.

Ah yes, Palestinians are "frustrated" while Israeli setters are "active".  The risk of war couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Hamas Mission:

For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.

Or the sentiments of Hezbollah's leader:

If [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.

Or the 40,000+ rockets the group now has aimed at Israel in violation of UNSC resolution 1701.

Nah, all of this would be mere speculation as compared to Lyon's "facts".

It's cherrypicking season

In a "Q+A" published on Reuters' website today, Alastair Macdonald asks the question that everyone from Russian president Dmitri Medvedev to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is asking: could Israel strike Iran over nuclear concerns?

As evidence that Israel might not attack Iran, Macdonald cites a poll taken in June that, "showed Israelis would not expect a nuclear Iran to attack".  Though he provides no numbers, the poll to which Macdonald refers also indicates that 21% of Israelis believe "Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons with the objective of destroying it".

The poll further indicates that a nuclear-armed Iran would drive 11% of Israelis to consider emigrating.  Of a Jewish population numbering about 6 million, that figure represents over 600,000 people.  The political, social, and economic upheaval associated with this level of mass exodus would clearly be devastating for Israel. For some perspective, consider the impact on the US if over 30 million people suddenly chose to flee the country. 

And of course, the poll in question was taken in June.  As Iran approaches nuclear mastery, it is probably safe to assume that the number of Israelis wishing to leave the country will rise -- particularly as Iran would soon be free to order its terror proxies, Hamas and Hizbullah, to attack Israel with the impunity provided by a nuclear umbrella.

Macdonald suggests that Israelis would have to weigh several risks before deciding to strike Iran: 1) military retaliation by Iran, Hamas, and Hizbullah, 2) economic and diplomatic retaliation by the US and/or Europe, and 3) the possibility of mission failure accompanied by numbers 1 and 2.

Yet the poll cited found that 59% of Israelis would support a pre-emptive attack on Iran should Western diplomacy fail to curb its uranium enrichment (this too, goes unmentioned by Macdonald). If Reuters has considered the risks associated with an Israeli strike, it is likely that Israelis have as well and notwithstanding, they overwhelmingly support pre-emptive defense.