Sunday, April 29, 2012

Bowing to the Muslims. Defecating on the Jews.

As a company, Reuters is deeply hostile to Jewish nationalism and Jewish claims to Jerusalem.  The agency hires, trains and retains reporters, writers, editors, and managing editors who uphold an agenda intended to undermine Jewish territorial claims, while advocating for Arab Muslim claims, and employing sophisticated propaganda techniques in their stories to advance this agenda with audiences. 

Proof of this can be seen in academic studies which have analyzed Reuters coverage of the Middle East conflict.

Take for example, this Reuters story by Noah Browning about prominent Arabs visiting the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Browning writes about the tension between Arabs from Jordan and other countries who wish to visit the mosque, and those Arabs who argue that doing so implicitly recognizes Israel's claim to sovereignty over the city.

In his lede, Browning writes:
Israel controls access to Islam's 3rd holiest site
While Browning trumpets a claim made by Muslims that the al-Aqsa mosque represents the "3rd holiest site" for their faith, he fails utterly to note that the site is the holiest to Jews and referred to as the Temple Mount.  Indeed, it is not until the 9th paragraph of his story that Browning tells readers, in typically propagandistic fashion:
Jews revere the al Aqsa compound as site of their Biblical Temple, destroyed by Roman troops in the 1st century.  
Actually of course, Jews do not revere the "al-Aqsa compound" -- any more than Muslims revere the Cathedral of Córdoba in Spain, which was converted from a mosque to a Catholic church in the thirteenth century following the Reconquista.  Religious Muslims refer to the latter by its original Islamic name, the Aljama Mosque, just as Jews refer to the al-Aqsa mosque compound as The Temple Mount.

(Of note, Muslims are officially banned from praying in the Cathedral of Córdoba by both the Roman Catholic Church of Spain and the Vatican.  Security guards enforce the ban.  Apparently, "Israeli occupation forces" in Jerusalem are extraordinarily more tolerant of Islamic worship than are "Spanish occupation forces" in al-Andalus).

Browning, who is apparently ignorant of both history and current events and completely unable to do any independent fact-checking as a reporter, then writes: 
Israel says that when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, Jews were prevented from attending their holy places. Now, it says, followers of all the three monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are free to worship in Jerusalem.
Any restrictions placed on access by Palestinians to al-Aqsa are the result of security concerns, Israel says.
It's a well-documented fact that Jews were prevented from attending their holy places, or for that matter, setting foot in Jerusalem when Jordan controlled the city.  And that synagogues were burned to the ground.  And that landmark Jewish cemeteries were routinely desecrated by Arab Muslims.  Browning deliberately structures his report to relegate the 19-year ban on Jewish worship to a mere claim by Israel and predictably mentions none of the other historical detail, essential to an understanding of why Israel seeks to control the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

The Reuters correspondent then parrots the most risible Arab claims about Israeli visitors to the Temple Mount:
Jerusalem's Muslim community says the [Israeli] visits have coincided with a period of tension, as radical Jewish settlers grow increasingly assertive at the site. "Almost every day a group of settlers comes through the Mughrabi gate," said Faisal Mohammed, one of the sanctuary's guards, referring to an entrance under Israeli control through which non-Muslim tourists can access the leafy compound.
"These aren't just ordinary trips, they're invasions."
In reality, hundreds of Israeli Jews of all religious and political stripes, as well as tourists from around the world, visit the site every week.  No political demonstrations of any kind are permitted and Israeli security personnel quickly arrest or usher away any Jew seen as even remotely engaging in prayer.

But for the Palestinian Arabs, and apparently for Reuters' Browning:
"Visits which affirm the Arab and Islamic character of al-Aqsa, even before its liberation, are welcome. My own proclamations affirm this," the Grand Mufti told Reuters. "Those that are aggressive and meant to attack our shrine are not, and Israel must forbid them."
Attacking the shrine, uh-huh.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Israeli authorization of Jewish settlements gives lie to Reuters previous reporting

The Israeli government announced this week that it was going to formally authorize three Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank").

Here's how Reuters reports on the development:
Peace Now, an Israeli anti-settlement group, said the change of the three outposts' status marked the first time since 1990 that the Israeli government had established a new settlement, adding that the four-man committee did not have the authority to approve the change.
What's fascinating about the statement by Peace Now, is that it gives lie to the hundreds of stories Reuters has published over the last few years suggesting that Israel has been "expanding settlements".

As Reuters itself now reports, there has been absolutely no new Israeli-authorized settlement in the original Palestinian territories for over two decades.

During that period, Israel has approved only the building of additional homes (or additions to homes) within existing and boundary-limited communities, which incidentally, sit atop less than 2 percent of the land.  (Here too, Reuters frequently misleads its readers by suggesting that Israeli-approved settlements consume much of the West Bank).

With news of the first new Israeli settlements in 22 years, we see that Reuters has been systematically prevaricating for nearly as long.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Pravda, anyone?

In an interview with the Haaretz newspaper published yesterday, Israeli Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz was asked his view of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Here are some key excerpts:
"If Iran goes nuclear it will have negative dimensions for the world, for the region, for the freedom of action Iran will permit itself," Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Haaretz in an Independence Day interview. That freedom of action might be expressed "against us, via the force Iran will project toward its clients: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza. And there's also the potential for an existential threat. If they have a bomb, we are the only country in the world that someone calls for its destruction and also builds devices with which to bomb us. [...]
Asked whether 2012 is also decisive for Iran, Gantz shies from the term. "Clearly, the more the Iranians progress the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily 'go, no-go.' The problem doesn't necessarily stop on December 31, 2012. We're in a period when something must happen: Either Iran takes its nuclear program to a civilian footing only or the world, perhaps we too, will have to do something. We're closer to the end of the discussions than the middle."[...]
Iran, Gantz says, "is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't yet decided whether to go the extra mile.  As long as its facilities are not bomb-proof, the program is too vulnerable, in Iran's view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous."
And here are Reuters correspondent Maayan Lubell's headline and lede in her report on the Haaretz/Gantz interview:
Israel army chief says Iran unlikely to make bomb
(Reuters) - Israel's military chief said he does not believe Iran will decide to produce an atomic bomb, describing its leadership as "very rational" in an interview published on Wednesday.
Of course, this is not what Gantz is saying at all.  He is saying that Iran is on the deliberate path toward nuclear weapons but that the regime will not take the final decision to build a bomb until the Supreme Leader "judges that Iran is invulnerable to a response", i.e., foreign attack.  Gantz believes this decision will be taken once Iran's nuclear facilities become bomb-proof.  It is in this sense, that Gantz judges Iran's leadership to be rational.

Lubell and Reuters willfully edit and twist Gantz' words to make it appear that he has said he believes Iran will not produce an atomic bomb, because the leadership is rational.

The depths to which Reuters correspondents will stoop to obfuscate reality are truly astounding.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012


With nearly 3,000 staffers worldwide, there are always those at Reuters who appear not to get the memo that the company has been caught out publishing false and fabricated information, employing overt propaganda, and spinning the news, maliciously, to harm national, religious and ethnic groups the agency's journalists hold in contempt.

These writers and editors continue to prepare stories incorporating false and malicious material long ago exposed as such on this website and elsewhere.

In a story appearing yesterday on the Reuters website and syndicated to perhaps hundreds of newspapers worldwide, Reuters correspondents Sebastian Moffett and Daren Butler report on the Turkish government blocking Israel from participating in an upcoming NATO summit:
(Reuters) - Turkey has refused to allow Israel to take part in a NATO summit next month because the Jewish state has not apologized for the 2010 killing of Turkish activists in a raid on a ship taking aid to Palestinians, a Turkish official said on Monday.
Relations between the regional powers deteriorated sharply after Israeli commandos raided the Mavi Marmara aid vessel in May 2010 to enforce a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and killed nine Turks in clashes with activists.
Last September, Turkey expelled Israel's envoy and froze military cooperation after a U.N. report on the raid failed to prompt an apology from Israel.
Independent reports, including that of the United Nations cited by Reuters, concluded that the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian aid whatsoever and that passengers on board the ship, many of whom were members of the terror-linked Islamist group İnsani Yardım Vakfı (IHH), planned and actively sought violent confrontation with Israeli forces:
There were humanitarian supplies and construction materials on board three of the vessels in the flotilla (the Defne Y, Sofia and the Gazze I). No humanitarian supplies were found on the remaining vessels. Weapons and combat equipment were found on board the Mavi Marmara, including flares, rods, axes, knives, tear gas, gas masks, protective vests and night-vision goggles.
It is thus false and willfully misleading for Moffett and Butler to characterize the Mavi Marmara as an "aid vessel", to assert that the ship was "taking aid to Palestinians" and to describe the passengers who attempted to kill Israeli marines boarding the ship with the anodyne term "activists".

To date, Reuters has published some variation of the Mavi Marmara aid ship canard in some three hundred stories. 

UPDATE APRIL 25TH, 2012: Reuters correspondents Edmund Blair and Tom Perry repeat the lie in this story, about Egypt's increasing hostility toward Israel.
He suggested Egypt could follow Turkey's example where once-close ties with Israel had worsened sharply after Israeli naval commandos killed nine Turks in May 2010 in a raid on a ship carrying aid to the Gaza Strip.
Is Perry still employed at Reuters?

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Iranian cleric insists on uranium enrichment, end to sanctions; Reuters trumpets breakthrough

Only a media company shilling for Iran could suggest the following reflects the regime is "softening its stance" in negotiations over its nuclear weapons program:
Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, secretary of the powerful Guardian Council, said the talks showed "success and progress" but added Tehran would break off the negotiations if Western countries carried on imposing sanctions while negotiating. [...]
Addressing Friday prayers, Jannati said the talks showed "success and progress", adding: "They (western countries) are ready to accept that enrichment is Iran's right," state media reported. He added Iranians needed assurances from the West that it would no longer be their enemy. "The West should lift sanctions against Iran but if they continue to insist on sanctions and then say they are negotiating with Iran, it is clear that this talks will be halted," he warned.
So, let's see if we have this right:

Speaking on behalf of the Iranian regime, a cleric threatens that Iran will terminate negotiations if sanctions are not removed while talks are ongoing, and that the world must accede to Iran's illicit uranium enrichment activities.

And this is represented by Reuters correspondent Marcus George as "a further sign of a changing attitude within the Iranian leadership". 

One can only wonder what an Iranian cleric would have to say for George to consider it a further sign of intransigence.

Friday, April 20, 2012

AP journalists prevented from entering Bahrain to cover Grand Prix; Thomson Reuters sponsoring team

Two writers for the Associated Press (AP) are being prevented by the Bahraini government from entering the country to cover the Grand Prix scheduled for Sunday:
The two writers, based in Dubai, were expected to cover practice and qualifying along with Sunday's race. They have been granted accreditation to cover the race by the sport's governing body, the Paris-based International Automobile Federation. But they have been told by Bahrain's Information Affairs Authority that their visa applications to enter the kingdom are pending approval.
Other Gulf-based journalists working for international news organizations also had not received visas in time to cover Thursday's practice.
"We cover sports events throughout the world, under all kinds of circumstances, and we see no reason that journalists should be prevented from coverage in Bahrain," AP Managing Editor for Sports Lou Ferrara said. "The government should not dictate or prohibit sports coverage in any way."
The Bahrain GP was canceled last year because of anti-government protests, which have left nearly 50 dead since February 2011. But last week, Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone declared the Gulf kingdom safe and decided to go ahead with the race.
Ecclestone said all 12 teams told him they were happy to travel to the island nation despite almost daily violent clashes between security forces and protesters.
Bahrain's Information Affairs Authority, which governs press issues in Bahrain, claims that the visas are being held up by "logistics."
Bahrain last year tightened its visa rules, including requiring advance clearance for journalists. Previously, journalists and others from many Western countries could receive visas upon arrival.
The AP and other news organizations have come under pressure from Bahraini officials and public relations consultants for extensive coverage of the uprising and anti-government groups.
Reuters maintains offices at Bahrain's $1.5 billion Bahrain Financial Harbour, but in May of last year, the Bahraini government expelled the one Reuters correspondent assigned to cover the country.

Thomson Reuters is a sponsor of the Williams team which is entered for Sunday's race.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Reuters obfuscating international law (again)

Reuters correspondent Noah Browning tells us:
The [Jewish] settlements are considered illegal by the International Court of Justice [ICJ], the highest U.N. legal body for disputes.
What Browning doesn't tell us, is that:

The opinion of the ICJ is strictly advisory and non-binding.

The Charter of the United Nations, the highest authority in international law, confirms the full and irrevocable legality of Jewish settlements as per the San Remo Resolution which preceded it.

Reuters: framing reality to suit its agenda.

Monday, April 16, 2012


Our post just below reminded us of the extraordinarily superfluous staffing seen in Reuters Jerusalem Bureau and the ravenous appetite of those staffers for any morsel of news.

Thomson Reuters employs a total of 2,700 journalists across 200 news bureaus globally, 70 of whom are based in Jerusalem.  In a country of 7 million people, one-tenth of one percent of the world population, we would expect a representative crew of 2 journalists.

Rather, Reuters maintains an army 35 times that size, with every reporter, writer, editor, and photographer dependent for his or her living on getting a story or picture published by Reuters and its network of hundreds of media outlets.

With that kind of mad, competitive scramble for news combined with an institutionally-endorsed propaganda campaign targeting the Jews of Israel, one could well predict the enormous volume of biased rubbish produced by Reuters Jerusalem Bureau we see in an average week.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Reuters runs six "updated" stories on pro-Palestinian activists flying into Israel

In what was obviously a slow news day for the 70+ journalibelers Reuters stations in its Jerusalem Bureau, correspondent Maayan Lubell and Editor in Charge Jeffrey Heller run no fewer than six essentially identical iterations of the same non-story of 40 European anarchists flying into Tel Aviv International Airport calling for the liquidation of the state of Israel.

Nothing like lots of free publicity for comrades in arms, eh Jeff?

Bias? What bias?

We don't usually focus on Reuters bias in areas outside of the agency's Middle East reporting.  But we happened across the Reuters home webpage this evening and found the following lineup of stories under the Politics header (this is as it appears verbatim at 10:02 pm CDT):
Obama calls on Romney to release tax returns: Univision
Obama calls Romney's immigration stance "troublesome"
Obama: Romney claim about women job loss is "bogus"
Perhaps it was actually the DNC website we stumbled upon.

Saturday, April 14, 2012


That's the number of Reuters stories published over just the last couple of years employing the propaganda mantra "the West suspects Iran" (of developing nuclear weapons), in a willful effort by the news agency to conceal and play down damning independent evidence of Iran's comprehensive program to acquire the bomb:
Both sides say they are ready at the meeting to work towards resolving the deepening dispute over the nuclear program which the West suspects is geared towards achieving a nuclear arms capability, but which Iran says has purely peaceful purposes.
In next to none of the 773 stories does Reuters make mention of that independent evidence, as produced for example, by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency:
The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).
Reuters: systematically dumbing down the planet.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Tabassum Zakaria at a loss to understand Iran's Supreme Leader

Reuters correspondent Tabassum Zakaria is utterly mystified.  Just what is driving Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?
(Reuters) - When U.S. officials join talks this weekend about Iran's nuclear program, they will be armed with profiles developed by intelligence agencies offering insight into what makes foreign leaders tick.  [...]
Former U.S. officials and Iran experts say Khamenei has a deep-rooted suspicion of the West and a streak of insecurity - he rose to power due to his loyalty to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rather than lofty religious credentials.
A sense of inferiority has dogged him over the years and it would be especially important for Khamenei to be seen as not folding under Western pressure to reach an agreement, they said.
In an inadvertently hilarious story, Zakaria spends nearly 1,200 words scratching her head while she cites various intelligence analysts, psychiatrists, and heads of think tanks advising Vice-President Joe Biden, in an effort to divine the mysterious motivations of the Ayatollah:
But even if the United States had great access to Iran, the intentions of one man are not easy to discern.
"It's important to keep in mind that these analysts are trying to assess complex human beings, including all the outside factors that might influence them," the U.S. official said.
One question about Khamenei's intentions is his stated view that nuclear weapons are a sin.
Some experts shrug it off, saying the Iranian leader could issue a new religious edict if it suits a changing circumstance.
But Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA analyst, sees the proclamation as a potentially hopeful sign for nuclear talks.
"It gives him an out," said Pillar, a Georgetown University professor. "He is on record as having made a statement that would not make it shameful or a sign of weakness to come to an understanding with the West ... that clearly rules out a nuclear weapon."
While Khamenei says Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, he has insisted that others respect Iran's civilian nuclear rights.
Standing up for injustice and for Iran's rights is central to how he looks at the nuclear issue and should be considered in how the West frames its approach so that it allows him to save face, a former U.S. government Middle East expert said.  [...] 
"On the one hand we see him as a figure who doesn't really trust the international system, doesn't trust the United States, but he is also not extremely reckless," said Laipson, a former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council.
1,200 words of mental masturbation and nary a mention of Khamenei's many explicit threats to annihilate Israel and exterminate the Jewish people.

Memo to Tabassum and her psychological "experts": sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Reuters new shill for Iran

Despite being tossed out of the country for a story headline that the Iranian mullahs found not to their liking, Reuters continues to obfuscate and censor news of Iran's drive for nuclear weapons as documented by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and respected intelligence think tanks.

The Reuters correspondent most responsible for shilling on behalf of the Iranian regime at the present time, is Marcus George.

In a story published this morning for example, about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasting that his country can withstand a total embargo on its oil sales for 2-3 years, George repeats the long-standing Reuters fallacy that the battle over Iran's nuclear program is merely a he said/she said between that country and the amorphous "West":
The United States and its allies hope the sanctions on Iran's energy and financial sectors will force it to abandon uranium enrichment which they suspect is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its goals are entirely peaceful.
Note George's duplicitous handling of the dispute as merely one of (unproven) claim and denial: the United States and its allies "suspect"; Iran clarifies that this is not the case.

George makes no mention whatsoever of any of the long series of UN IAEA reports documenting Iranian efforts on all fronts -- uranium enrichment, weaponization, delivery --  to build a nuclear weapon.  Thus, his audience is systematically denied the facts needed to understand that Iran is in violation of its NPT obligations and that this is the driver behind punitive United Nations Security Council resolutions (which also go unmentioned).

Rather, readers are given the false impression that the United States, the EU and Israel are acting capriciously and in concert to punish Iran with sanctions for mere suspicion the regime is developing nuclear weapons.

Reuters: systematically dumbing down the planet.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Palestinian terrorist sues Reuters for defamation

Oh my.  All of Reuters former friends appear to be turning on the news agency.  First, Reuters is thrown out of Iran for headlining a story, "Thousands of female Ninjas train as Iran's assassins".  Now comes word that a Palestinian terrorist is suing the company:
Terrorist Salah Hamuri, who was convicted of planning to assassinate Rav Ovadia Yosef but was freed in the Shalit deal, has sued Reuters and Arutz Sheva over what he says was an interview that "besmirched his name and portrayed him in an unfavorable light." 
According to ICE, a site that specializes in Israeli media, Hamouri was arrested in 2005 on suspicion that he had planned to assassinate the former Chief Sephardic Rabbi and Shas's spiritual leader. In 2009 he was convicted and sent to seven years in jail. On December 18, 2011, Hamouri – who has French citizenship – was included in the Shalit deal after the French government interceded on his part.
A day after his release he was interviewed on Reuters by reporter Jihan Abdullah. On December 20, the interview was published and he was quoted as saying "I and my two friends were right to try and eliminate Rav Ovadia Yosef," and that the rabbi "deserves to die." [...] 
The lawsuit claims that the publication constituted libel, and came close to being a racist hate crime. Yunes demands 900,000 shekels compensation for his client, 300,000 of them for "dissemination of libel and damage to the plaintiff's good name in the eyes of the world's populace," and 500,000 shekels for "pain, suffering and sadness, psychological damage and anxiety."
Reuters has issued no comment but we understand the agency has promised the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine that it will never again question the good name of any of its operatives.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Acquiring the critics

As per his bio on Facebook, Sir Harold Evans is a celebrated author, historian and journalist.  Evans was Editor of The Sunday Times of London from 1967 to 1981 and has written extensively on the turpitude of media propaganda.  Indeed, we quote Evans in our right sidebar:
"Propaganda is persuading people to make up their minds while withholding some of the facts from them."
On December 11th of last year, The Daily Beast published an article-cum-book review by Evans highlighting the duplicity and use of propaganda by the Palestinian Authority:
Leaders of the Palestinian Authority (PA), including its chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, and prime minister, Salam Fayyad, stand accused of systematically deceiving the international community by portraying themselves in English as pursuing peace while in their Arabic-language media they relentlessly propagate hate speech and venerate terror.
The overall tone of the piece is one of shock and dismay and Evans posted a link to the article on his Facebook page at the time of publication.

We posted a comment under Evans' link noting that Reuters too, deceives its audience by employing propaganda to advance Palestinian interests and we linked to an academic study by Roosevelt University documenting Reuters use of propaganda and its powerful effect on readers.

Our comment has now been deleted from Evans' Facebook page.

Of interest: Evans was recently hired as Editor at Large for Reuters.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

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.


Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Reuters Jewish problem

Reuters reports that German author, Guenter Grass, has published a "poem" accusing Israel of threatening world peace.  

Grass is a former Nazi who served in Hitler's Waffen SS.


Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Dan Williams blatantly lies about the Muslim Brotherhood's position on Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty

Reuters correspondent Dan Williams wants readers to believe:
Egypt's interim military rulers have repeatedly pledged to honour international obligations including the 1979 peace pact [with Israel], which marked the first Arab recognition of the Jewish state [...]
The [Egyptian Muslim] Brotherhood, whose Freedom and Justice Party controls the biggest bloc in parliament has regularly censured Israel for the way it deals with Palestinians - especially in the Gaza Strip, which is governed by kindred Hamas Islamists but it has echoed the interim military rulers' line on keeping the [Egyptian-Israeli peace] treaty.
Here's what the Brotherhood has actually said about the treaty:
According to Essam al-Erian, deputy head of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party, the accords "are under the responsibility of the people and state institutions, and it would not be right for anyone to speak on behalf of the Egyptian people."
Speaking to the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat, al-Erian said, "We are not in a position to give assurances."
Rashad al-Bayoumi, the Brotherhood's second in command, told Al-Hayat last week that "the Muslim Brotherhood will not recognize Israel under any circumstances and might put the peace treaty with the Jewish state up to a referendum."
The Brotherhood, he added, "did not sign the peace accords… We are allowed to ask the people or the elected parliament to express their opinion on the treaty, and (to find out) whether it compromised the people's freedom and sovereignty. We will take the proper legal steps in dealing with the peace deal. To me, it isn't binding at all. The people will express their opinion on the matter."
It's difficult to believe Williams retains his press credentials.

Dan Williams forgets a little something

In a story about the Netanyahu government staying the eviction of Jews who had purchased and moved into a building in the city of Hebron so they might pursue legal action to protect their rights, Reuters correspondent Dan Williams provides some background on why it is so rare to see Jews buy land in the territories:
But Ramadan Awad, chief of Palestinian police in the city, denied the validity of any such deal, saying the building had more than 50 owners. The Palestinian Authority, which has limited self-rule in the West Bank, outlaws the sale of land to Israelis.
What Williams doesn't tell readers, is that the penalty to Palestinians for selling land to Jews, is death.

Just thought readers might like to familiarize themselves with the progressive Palestinian justice system.  

The Reuters virus

Reuters tightly coordinates and sustains its anti-Israel bias and propaganda campaign across its news bureaus by encouraging correspondents to employ identical boilerplate rhetoric when reporting on the Middle East conflict.  For example, at last count, there are over 1,700 instances of the propaganda mantra "occupied West Bank" appearing in Reuters stories over just the last couple of years.

Similarly, like a malignant virus spreading from tissue to tissue, the same pernicious fabrications infecting stories produced in Reuters Jerusalem Bureau are replicated by other bureaus and ultimately transmitted to the public via hundreds of media outlets like the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune

In a story for example, about the French government warning pro-Palestinian protesters not to travel to Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") due to potential friction with Israeli authorities, Reuters Paris correspondents Pauline Mevel and Alexandria Sage write:
Palestinians, who want to create their own state together with the Gaza Strip, object to illegal Jewish settlements, trade restrictions and scant water supply, and their limited autonomy.
Note the reference to "illegal Jewish settlements", an unsupported and flagrantly false assertion that nevertheless, gets repeated in story after story after story.

The canard of a "scant water supply" for Palestinians is similarly false and yet reproduced in a host of Reuters stories which clearly seek to demonize the Jews of Israel.

Those in editorial positions at Reuters spearheading and enabling the agency's long-standing propaganda campaign targeting Israel might wish to review their employer's corporate governance charter, as the ethical violations of those "Trust Principles" pile up and for which they will ultimately be held accountable.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Penning propaganda can be perplexing

One of the many ways Reuters acts as advocate for the Palestinian Arabs is to risibly grant them authority to appoint the mayor of Jerusalem -- or is that governor?

From the Jihan Abdalla story we commented on below:
"The court clearly sided with the other party, and this proves that the Israeli courts have never been fair to Palestinians," said Adnan Husseini, the Palestinian Authority-appointed mayor of Jerusalem and a member of the extended family.
 And from a Reuters story written by Tom Perry last year:
More investment is crucial to sustaining Palestinian life in East Jerusalem and combating Israel's efforts to deepen its control of the city, said Adnan al-Husseini, the Palestinian Authority-appointed governor of Jerusalem.
Too funny.

There she goes again (Allyn Fisher-Ilan)

Pathological liar Allyn Fisher-Ilan scratches out whatever suits her fancy -- no facts needed:
The United Nations deems all Jewish settlements in the region to be illegal, but Israel backs 120 of the enclaves, home to about 310,000 people.
As we've demonstrated in scores of posts, this is a bald-faced lie.  The Mandate for Palestine, adopted by the League of Nations in 1922 and confirmed within the United Nations Charter, fully permits Jewish settlement anywhere west of the Jordan River:
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
Only one example of Reuters' abject failure to maintain its own published ethical standards and to punish those journalists who continually violate those standards.

Jihan Abdalla forgets a little something

In a truly vile demonstration of pro-Palestinian propaganda, Reuters correspondent Jihan Abdalla reports on the Israel Supreme Court's decision to reject claims of ownership by the Husseini family to what remains of the Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalem:
It was declared "absentee property" by Israel after it was captured and annexed to East Jerusalem in 1967. The title was transferred to an Israeli firm, which sold it in 1985 to Irving Moskowitz, a Florida businessman and patron of Jewish settlers.
In 2009, Israel's Jerusalem city hall approved a project to replace the building with a block of 20 apartments. Israeli officials said Washington had voiced its opposition to the plan to Israel's ambassador in the United States.
"This property, which is legitimately ours, represents the Palestinians' rights to their land and to Jerusalem," Mona Husseini, heir to the property and Husseini's granddaughter, said on Monday.
What Abdalla fails to tell readers is that between 1948 and 1967, during which time the property was in the hands of, first, the British and then the King of Jordan, there was absolutely no claim of ownership made by the Husseini family or anyone else.  Only years after Israel took possession of the compound did Husseini and the Palestinians become incensed and seek to obtain title.

Abdalla notes that the original dwelling "served as the home of Jerusalem grand mufti Haj Amin Husseini, who fought the British and Zionists".  

More precisely, Husseini was a Nazi collaborator who exhorted Adolf Hitler not to allow the Jews of Europe to flee to Palestine.  Husseini assured Hitler that the Arabs would, consistent with the Nazi approach in Germany, exterminate those Jews living in Palestine and Arab countries. 
"Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion.  This saves your honor.  God is with you".
--  Haj Amin Husseini

Reuters whitewashes Barghouti call for new terror war

On Saturday, we noted how Reuters had slyly edited its story on the Arab "Land Day" marches to exonerate Palestinian kingpin terrorist Marwan Barghouti, who is currently serving five life terms and 40 years for masterminding and funding multiple murders in Israel.

Last week, Barghouti had a letter smuggled out of his prison cell which, as part of a call to end peace negotiations with Israel, proclaimed:
"It is the Palestinian people's right to oppose the occupation in all means, and the resistance must be focused on the 1967 territories."
Barghouti also wrote that Israel had been forced to withdraw from Gaza in 2005 due to the “intifada and resistance”, a reference to the Palestinian terror war between 2000 and 2005, which killed more than 1,000 Israelis.

So, how do Ori Lewis and Reuters characterize Barghouti's letter?
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has placed a high-profile Palestinian prisoner in solitary confinement for a week after he called from his cell for a new wave of civil resistance, the Prisons Authority said on Monday.
Right, "civil resistance".

Nudge nudge; wink wink.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Predictable bias and selective reporting from Reuters

In a story about the deportation to Gaza of previously detained Palestinian, Hana Shalabi, a member of Islamic Jihad, an internationally-recognized terror group responsible for the murder and maiming of hundreds of Israelis, Reuters hardcore propagandists Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan write:
Israel says it uses detention without trial to protect intelligence sources in any legal proceedings against a Palestinian suspect.
The measure has drawn criticism from human rights groups and the European Union.
Pretty ironic, given that many countries in the European Union employ their own "administrative detention" for a host of reasons, including efforts to curb illegal immigration:
Ireland utilizes administrative detention to control illegal immigration. Beginning in 1996, a legal framework was put in place to authorize the use of administrative detention for this purpose. This legal framework includes the Refugee Act, 1996, the Immigration Acts, 1999, 2003 and 2004, and the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. According to official Irish government statistics, in 2003-2004, a total of 2,798 people were administratively detained for immigration-related reasons, two thirds of whom were held in prison for periods of longer than 51 days. The vast majority (more than 90%) of detainees are held in one of two Dublin prisons, Cloverhill Prison (male detainees) and the Dóchas Centre at Mountjoy Prison (female detainees). The rest are held in prisons as well as border control (Garda Síochána) stations.  The UK has maintained many forms of Administrative detention over the years. The most recent forms were a series of Acts intended to introduce a form of administrative detention to Northern Ireland under the auspices of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1973. This Act allowed the security forces to apprehend and detain persons suspected of terrorist activities without trial for an unlimited period. The introduction of the Act led directly to the creation of internment camps (particularly Long Kesh (the Maze) and the prison ship Maidstone where suspects were detained, some for protracted periods.
No word from al-Mughrabi, Fisher-Ilan, or anyone else at Reuters on the EU's detention policies.