The one-sided match

Imagine for a moment you're watching the Wimbledon tennis championships broadcast by the BBC.  The camera is focused intently on Maria Sharapova as she dives to return an ace service traveling at 125 mph.  On the next serve, we see Sharapova successfully return; the ball then comes back to her as a wicked cross-court which she manages to drive across the net with her inimitable two-handed backhand.  The ball once again crosses the net toward Sharapova, this time as a lob to the backcourt.  The camera follows her as she falls back, allows the ball to bounce, and smashes a winner down the line.  All the action captured in breathtaking fashion by the BBC except for one missing element: the opponent.

This is the way Reuters typically covers the Middle East conflict.  Hamas or one of the other Palestinian terror groups in Gaza will fire rockets at Israeli communities.  There may or may not be a direct hit; there may or may not be casualties (although there will always be a terrorized civilian population), yet there will be no mention of the attack on Reuters' website.  Then, perhaps 12 to 24 hours later, Israel will retaliate with a military strike in Gaza and within minutes, Reuters will be reporting prominently on the incident. At this point, the preceding Palestinian attack will sometimes be mentioned (but downplayed), sometimes not.

The intent of this pattern of selective reporting is of course, to draw attention away from acts of aggression by the Palestinian Arabs while highlighting Israeli military force in response. The cumulative effect is an audience which is anesthetized to Palestinian homicidal violence and hypersensitive to a nation defending against it.

The deceptive use (or absence) of quotes

Skim through a series of Reuters articles on the Middle East conflict and you will notice a decidedly asymmetrical use of quotation marks. When Reuters writers and editors wish to create an aura of credibility for an individual or hold the same view as the speaker, remarks made by the person will be cited absent quotation marks -- as if the statement was one of indisputable fact. Conversely, when Reuters disavows the speaker's view or wishes to invite reader skepticism, its writers will invariably employ quotes around the citation.

In a story on Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas meeting with Egyptian president Mubarak, Reuters' Alastair Sharp begins by informing us:

Failure to agree a settlement freeze inhibits the resumption of peace negotiations with Israel...

Almost as an afterthought, Sharp adds:

...Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told Egypt's Hosni Mubarak on Saturday, according to state media.

Note that the statement by Abbas is cited declaratively (as fact) sans quotation marks and with attribution only provided at the end of the paragraph.

Sharp repeats this device later in the story:

Negotiations could not resume because Israel would not consider including Jerusalem in any settlement freeze, nor would it stop building in settlements to accommodate natural growth, MENA quoted Abbas as saying.

Now compare Sharp's treatment of Abbas' statements with those of Israeli officials:

Israel has blamed Abbas for the impasse, saying Palestinian negotiators "showed no flexibility while Israel did".

Here, Sharp uses quotation marks around a truncated statement to assign clear ownership of the statement to Israel and to characterize it as an allegation rather than (as with Abbas' qualitatively equivalent allegations) a fact.

As evidence of Reuter's deliberate use of this device to validate and promulgate Abbas' position blaming Israel, note that in this excerpt from Sharp's story:

Abbas has said he would not agree to renewed negotiations with Israel unless it agreed to a total freeze on settlement expansion and stressed that the United States must push Israel to comply with the 2003 "road map" call for a cessation of all settlement-building.

Sharp fails to inform the reader that the Road Map also calls for the Palestinians to comply with conditions like:

Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption,

which they have utterly refused to do.

Rather than provide a balanced report on the impasse in negotiations, properly and even-handedly citing the positions, allegations, and obligations of each party, Reuters embraces the Palestinian line and constructs a guileful and misleading partisan piece to affix blame to Israel.

Reuters' reversal of reality

In a story appearing on the Reuters' website today, Sylvia Westall reports on a non-binding resolution passed by the UN nuclear assembly urging closer scrutiny of Israel's nuclear program. Pakistan and India, which like Israel are non-signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are not included in the measure nor is Iran -- currently under UNSC sanctions for refusing to terminate its uranium enrichment program. Only Israel is singled out for special treatment.

Near the end of the article, Westall makes this stunning assertion:

Arab diplomats point to an imbalance of power in the Middle East caused by unchecked Israeli might and say it breeds instability and spurs others to seek mass-destruction weapons.

Apparently, this is not a direct quote so Westall is either paraphrasing the Arab position or summarizing her own view. In either case, the notion is stated uncritically as fact when in reality, it is pure nonsense.

As documented in the CIA World FactBook, while Israel is sixth in military expenditures as a percentage of GDP, the five countries which precede her and thirteen of the top twenty countries in the table are Arab and/or Muslim. Eleven of these countries do not recognize Israel as a state and several are officially at war with Israel. This includes of course, Saudi Arabia, which alone, spends two to three times more on weapons than does Israel.

Arab troops outnumber that of the Israel Defense Forces by a conservative factor of 20:1. As the US has increasingly supplied technologically advanced weapons to the Saudis and Egyptians while Russia has done the same for Iran and Syria, Israel's traditional qualitative military advantage has also been eroded.

That Israel has defied the odds by emerging victorious in all previous wars with the Arabs may have led to the perception of the country as a comparative military giant but that is no excuse for Reuters to parrot ludicrous Arab propaganda or to disseminate its own.  If there is an "imbalance of power" in the Middle East, the advantage in troops, materiel, natural resources, and money lies clearly with the Arabs.  And Iran is not seeking weapons of mass destruction because Israel's military strength "breeds instability".  Iran is inherently unstable and is seeking WMDs to achieve its goal of eradicating a Jewish sovereign.

Reuters serving as mouthpiece for discredited HRW

Following their usual tidy disclaimer,

Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone,

Reuters acts as a mouthpiece for the corrupt and Nazi-infatuated rights "experts" at Human Rights Watch by publishing an HRW press release which urges the UN to implement the recommendations of the Goldstone report on the war in Gaza.

We won't fully critique the Goldstone report which despite its 575 pages has, within hours of publication, already been stripped of all credibility by other readers 1) here, 2) here, 3) here, and especially comprehensively 4) here, 5) here, 6) here, 7) here, 8) here, 9) here, 10) here, 11) here, and 12) here.

We do however, need to point out a couple of inanities in the press release by HRW which as a result of its partnership with Reuters as an AlertNet member, obtains free and unfettered publishing rights on the Reuters/AlertNet website.

The essence of the press release is to urge the US government, "not to stand in the way of the recommended Security Council action that would for the first time address the conduct of both Israel and Hamas". HRW goes on to aver that:

The Human Rights Council alone is no substitute for the Security Council because Israel has dismissed the council as biased and because the Security Council can refer the situation in Gaza to the International Criminal Court (ICC)... The ICC, the only permanent international criminal court, is the obvious international tribunal for war crimes committed during the Gaza conflict.

Of course, the International Criminal Court has no power whatsoever to successfully prosecute Hamas leaders for war crimes who after all, represent an outlaw terror group -- not a state -- and are answerable to no international body or legal authority. Thus, only Israeli military officials and/or government leaders would be subject to the prosecution for which HRW bays.

Even Arab states traditionally ignore the ICC. Remember Sudan's president, Omar Al-Bashir? While he tours the Arab/Muslim world freely, the ICC is still trying to enforce the warrant it issued for his arrest on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Good luck arresting Hamas' Khaled Meshal; we're sure the Syrian authorities will be right on the case.

The UN Security Council is similarly helpless to punish Hamas for war crimes as any international sanctions aimed at ejecting them from power would almost certainly impact negatively on the Palestinian population in Gaza. We wonder if the United Nations, assisted by HRW, would then accuse itself of "collective punishment" and "crimes against humanity" as Goldstone has labeled the Israeli blockade.

HRW then goes on to promote some of its previous accusations of war crimes against Israel, like "shooting civilians who were waving white flags".

Yes, we remember that.

Reuters "trenchant" analysis

In a story on the latest meeting between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and US envoy George Mitchell, Jeffrey Heller is interpreting body language:

"A photo opportunity at the start of the meeting appeared to speak volumes. After a stiff handshake for the media, Netanyahu turned his back on Mitchell with scarcely a word and strode into his office, leaving Obama's envoy to follow behind."

We'd be speculating of course, but perhaps the Israeli PM had politely suggested that Mitchell follow him into his office. Nah! That would be just so jejune for Reuters.

Heller can barely conceal his contempt for Netanyahu:

"Mitchell has been trying to work out a deal with a defiant Netanyahu over Washington's demand that he halt construction in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank."

Yes, Benjamin Netanyahu is just a rebellious teenager audaciously defying the will of The President of the United States of America while the Palestinian Arabs (who have refused to even talk to the Israelis) are maturely setting conditions:

"Abbas has made a resumption of peace negotiations with Israel, suspended since December, conditional on halting settlement activity as stipulated by a U.S.-backed 2003 peace "road map" charting a course toward Palestinian statehood."

No word from Reuters on how well the Palestinians are doing in meeting their stipulated obligations in the Road Map.

And:

"Obama also wants Arab nations to take steps toward recognising Israel. They have so far expressed reluctance."

Uh-huh, "reluctance".

Heller finishes with the usual flurry of Reuters boilerplate falsehoods: "Arab East Jerusalem"; "illegal settlements"; yada-yada et al.

The artful use of the adjective; the verbose use of the verb

Yesterday, we commented on the highly politicized NGO press releases appearing on Reuters AlertNet website. Digging into the "related articles" section of the Palestinian territories portion of the site, we find this whopper propaganda piece from June written by Katie Nguyen. (Note that Nguyen is not an aid worker but a Reuters AlertNet correspondent based in London).

A revealing and informative way to analyze Reuters' handling and perspective on the conflict is to simply list the descriptive terms employed by the writer to advance her story. Let's have a look.

For Nguyen, Israel:

thwarts
flattened
damaged
blockades
frustrates
strangles
forces
restricted
tightened
bombed
invaded
devastated
barred
prohibited
punishes,

while the Palestinians:

struggle
suffer
depend

and are:

traumatized
tired
depressed

In an article of over 800 words, Nguyen devotes five -- "militants firing rockets into Israel" -- to contextualize the war in Gaza which was actually preceded by more than 3,000 rockets and mortars launched against Israeli civilian communities by Palestinian terrorists in 2008 alone.

We can think of a few adjectives to describe that side of the story.

Hugo Chavez uses the "G"-word, Reuters reports with all sobriety

Taken from an interview with French magazine La Figaro, Reuters quotes Hugo Chavez:

"The question is not whether the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians. They're doing it openly... What was it if not genocide?"

According to the CIA World Fact Book for 2009, Gaza has a population growth rate of 3.35% (the fifth fastest in the world); life expectancy of 73.42 years, approximately equal to that in Venezuela; and a death rate of 3.44 per 1,000 population (one-third lower than that of Venezuela).

If Israel is attempting to "exterminate" the Palestinians, it's doing a lousy job.

Perhaps for their next article, Reuters will call attention to Hugo Chavez' genocide of the people of Venezuela.

Insinuate and inflame

In our post yesterday which looks at Reuters' story on the death of Ghazi al-Zaaneen, we noted Reuters' fatuous claim that Israeli-Palestinian violence in Gaza has been "minimal" since the war ended in January. As demonstrated, the Palestinians have in fact, fired over 200 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilian communities since that time.

Currently featured prominently on the front page of Reuters' AlertNet Middle East website (dedicated to "alerting humanitarians to emergencies") is a highly emotive photo of a young Palestinian girl crying. The caption reads:

"The sister of Palestinian boy Ghazi al-Zaaneen cries during his funeral in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip September 5, 2009. Al-Zaaneen, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, died on Saturday after being wounded in a shooting incident involving Israeli soldiers in the northern border town of Beit Hanoun, Palestinian medical workers said. A military official, who declined to be named, said soldiers had fired warning shots in the Beit Hanoun area on Friday night after spotting Palestinians approaching Israel's border."

Though the loss of a 14-year-old is always tragic, it's fascinating to watch Reuters string together nothing but innuendo in an effort to affix blame to Israel for his death. Note the equivocal language in the caption above: "a shooting incident involving Israeli soldiers"; a "military official who declined to be named"; "soldiers had fired warning shots in the Beit Hanoun area". Reuters actually tells us nothing conclusive about the incident but of course, there is plenty of guilt by association accompanied by an inflammatory photo which betrays an appeal to pity.

If we were reporting on this incident, we would want to know if al-Zaaneen was armed. We would try to determine if he had approached or breached the Israel-Gaza border. We would investigate whether there were other armed Palestinians in the area at the time. If so, we would want to know whether those Palestinians had also fired shots. We would ask the Palestinian medical workers who examined al-Zaaneen to identify the caliber of the bullet which killed him. In other words, we would investigate and report, rather than insinuate and inflame.

But then, we don't work for Reuters.

Peace talks impasse: Reuters absolves Palestinians

When someone has the power to do something but chooses not to and then abdicates responsibility for his decision, we may hear him say he "cannot" when the truth is, he will not.

"I cannot get up in the morning."
"I cannot stop overeating."
"I cannot stop beating my wife."

You get the idea.

In our previous post, Reuters blames Israel for talks impasse, we noted that while Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly offered to resume peace talks with the Palestinians, PA president Mahmoud Abbas has refused, adopting as an excuse, Israel's decision to resist a complete moratorium on settlement-building. Reuters of course, sides with Abbas.

In an article today, Jeffrey Heller of Reuters continues as apologist for the Palestinians:

"The settlement issue is a major obstacle in the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process... Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said peace talks suspended since December and which Washington seeks to restart, cannot resume without a [settlement] freeze."

There's that slippery "cannot" again.

Now imagine if Netanyahu refused to engage in negotiations and similarly abdicated responsibility for his rejectionism. "Peace talks cannot resume without...

... Arab governments agreeing to cease their funding of illegal construction in Jerusalem.

... Arab governments agreeing to end their boycott of Israel.

... Arab governments agreeing to full diplomatic relations with Israel.

... The Palestinian Authority dismantling all terrorist infrastructure.

... The Palestinian Authority ending all incitement against Israel.

... The PLO and Fatah renouncing their Charters to liquidate Israel."

Would Reuters uncritically adopt and promote Israel's rationale for refusing negotiations? Somehow, we think not.

Reuters: violence is only violence when Israel defends

In a story today about the death of a Palestinian teenager in Gaza, Reuters wants us to know that:

"Israeli-Palestinian violence in the Hamas-controlled enclave has been minimal since Israel ended a military offensive there in January."

There have of course, been over 200 Palestinian rockets and mortars fired at Israel since that time, but who's counting? Clearly not Reuters.

Thanks to Elder of Ziyon, who is (counting).

Reuters' broken boilerplate

Peruse almost any Reuters article on the Middle East conflict where the Road Map peace plan is discussed -- like here, here, and here -- and you will find virtually the same boilerplate used to describe the responsibilities of the Israelis and Palestinians, respectively. Per Reuters, Israel is required to definitively "end all settlement activity" while the Palestinians are merely asked to "crack down on militants" or "rein in attacks". Let's see how well this represents the reality as specified in the Road Map.

Dusting off a copy of the 2003 plan, we read in the overture:

As a performance-based plan, progress will require and depend upon the good faith efforts of the parties, and their compliance with each of the obligations outlined below.

Taking a look at what is required of the parties in the first phase of the plan:

GOI [Government of Israel] immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001. Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

Fair enough; Reuters seems to capture the Israeli commitment with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Although to be precise, Israel is actually only required to "freeze" not "end" all settlement activity. Now, let's compare the Reuters' translation of Palestinian commitments above with their actual obligations as stipulated in the Road Map:

Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.

Hmm, "rein in attacks" in Reuters' parlance doesn't exactly equate to "dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure". In fact, it's not even in the ballpark. As for confiscation of illegal weapons, or a security authority free of association with terror and corruption, well, Reuters is silent on these Palestinian commitments.

By repeatedly misrepresenting Palestinian obligations in each of its relevant articles, Reuters is clearly engaged in an effort to drum into the minds of its readers a false understanding of the facts and diminish public expectations of Palestinian performance while holding Israel to a strict, and much higher, standard.

Reuters: Israelis are racist, gun-toting thrill-seekers (but we didn't say it)

Reuters Middle East correspondents frequently pen “human interest stories” in an effort to peddle their own point of view without having to declare their work as an op-ed. We have previously linked to several examples of such stories clearly intended to paint the Palestinian Arabs as oppressed victims of Israeli aggression and inequity and to elicit sympathy from the reader.

While Reuters’ consistently fails to report on the culture of violence endemic in Palestinian Arab society and ingrained in Palestinian children, its correspondents diligently pursue opportunities to portray Israeli society in this light from a variety of angles including the human interest format.

In "Terrorist" targets popular at West Bank gun range, Erika Solomon tells the tale of an Israeli anti-terrorism course in Gush Etzion where Israelis, Americans, and Europeans learn to shoot “everything from handguns to M-16 combat rifles”.

Through her storytelling, Solomon wants the reader to buy several notions she is peddling. First, that Israel is teaching its children to use violence:

“Sharon Gat… steadies a little girl who comes up to his gunbelt. They're holding a rifle almost as big as she is.”

Second, that Israelis are racists. Here, Solomon cherry picks a quote from one of the participants:

"It could indoctrinate children with racist beliefs. It was sad to hear young kids express such racism."

Next, is an association between Zionism and the use of violence:

“… Gat says his course is not just about shooting guns; it also teaches "Zionist values."

Finally, that the Israelis consider this a lot of fun:

"Gat says his anti-terrorism theme is mostly for excitement."

Conspicuously missing from Solomon's story on the weapons training at Gush Etzion is any account of the devastating history of that community which amongst other appalling events, includes the massacre of 240 Jewish residents who had surrendered to an Arab army in May of 1948.

Perhaps the significance -- and irony -- is lost on her.