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.

Allyn Fisher-Ilan, the accidental comedien

In a story about imminent national primaries in Israel, Reuters correspondent Allyn Fisher-Ilan suggests Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu favors early elections to "strengthen his hand with Washington":

Many Israelis worry that Obama, in a second term, may exert greater pressure on Israel to yield land for peace with the Palestinians, which could upset Netanyahu's clout in his pro-settler party and its core conservative electorate.

Er, no Allyn.  Many Israelis worry that Obama, in a second term, may exert greater pressure on Israel to yield land for no peace with the Palestinians.

What an unmitigated dingbat.

Netanyahu a hit; Douglas Hamilton depressed

One can almost see Reuters correspondent Douglas Hamilton reaching for his antidepressant medication following Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before Congress yesterday.  Hamilton writes:

Invited by the Republican opponents of President Barack Obama, Netanyahu won standing ovations as he extolled Israel's democracy and military self-reliance while rejecting any Palestinian state based on Israel's pre-1967 borders. 

Hamilton alludes to the notion that it was only Republican opponents of President Obama who cheered Netanyahu but of course, it was nearly everyone in the house:



The fact is, the American people and their representatives in Congress, both Republican and Democrat, support Israel in its quest and formula for peace which, notwithstanding Jeffrey Heller's false assertion, reflect significant concessions to the Palestinian Arabs.

Douglas Hamilton and the anti-Israel crowd at Reuters may have nothing to offer but raspberries for Netanyahu but at the end of the day, media propaganda will not end this ancient conflict.  Only Arab acceptance of a Jewish national presence in the Middle East can achieve that.

The definition of "chutzpah"

As we noted in our post below, Reuters continues to suggest that Obama "endorsed" Palestinian demands that Israel agree to surrender land thus returning the country to the 1949 Armistice Lines ("1967 borders").  We noted that Obama had said nothing of the kind.

Defining the word "chutzpah", Reuters correspondent Matt Spetalnick, who has led the false charge that Obama endorsed Palestinian demands on borders, now wants readers to believe it was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who misconstrued Obama's position:

Obama chided those who he said had "misrepresented" his position, a slap at Netanyahu, who had seized on the notion that he was being asked to return to 1967 lines while ignoring the president's stipulation there would be land exchanges.

Gee, perhaps Netanyahu got that notion reading Reuters' "analysis" of Obama's speech.

Memo to Matt: when you hit bottom, quit digging.

Reuters continues to fabricate

The most recent propaganda mantra repeated in a number of Reuters stories following President Obama's speech on his vision for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, is that Obama:

... endorsed a longstanding Palestinian demand on the borders of their future state.

But did he?

Here's what Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been demanding with respect to those borders:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday laid out his most specific demands for the borders of a future independent state, calling for a full Israeli withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 Mideast war [...]

In a television interview, Abbas said the Palestinians want to establish a state on 6,205 square kilometers (2,400 square miles) of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It was the first time he has given a precise number for the amount of land he is seeking.  "We have 6,205 square kilometers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip," Abbas told Palestine TV. "We want it as it is."  According to Palestinian negotiating documents obtained by The Associated Press, the Palestinian demands include all of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, east Jerusalem and small areas along the West Bank frontier that were considered no-man's land before the 1967 war.

And here's Obama's proposal:

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

This is essentially what Presidents Bush and Clinton before him supported, what former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered in 2008 (rejected by Abbas) and what many believe the Israelis are prepared to accept.  It is quite different from what the Palestinians have been demanding.

Only at Reuters could Obama's words be construed as an "endorsement" of those demands.

UPDATE 4:30 PM: Here's what Obama had to say today in his speech before AIPAC:

... since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

Reuters correspondents are so busy cheering for the Palestinians, they're not listening to the words being broadcast over the P.A. (Public Address not Palestinian Authority) system.

Allyn Fisher-Ilan uses her 3D decoder glasses to reveal Obama's secret message

In his speech on the Middle East yesterday, President Obama used the word "occupation" twice:

"For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own."

"The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation."

Note that the President of the United States (and former President of the Harvard Law Review) was careful not to indicate whose land was under occupation.  The reason being of course, that the sovereign status of the territories is officially in dispute and subject to negotiation.  Individually, both Jews and Arabs own land in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank").

Note also that Obama specifically delineated the Palestinians as "never living in a nation of their own".  So much for the notion that their "country" was taken away from them with the Nakba of 1948.

So whose land, exactly, is under occupation?

The Arabs believe, and want the world to believe, that the Jews are illegally possessing their land.  To "prove" their case, they frequently display their house keys.  The Jews, on the other hand, hold the original title deed and modern rights to settle in the land. Those rights have been paid for many times over in blood, treasure, and toil.

The Arabs, on the other hand, have Reuters:

Obama's blunt language about the need to find an end to Israel's occupation of Arab land looked certain to be the crunch issue in his talks with Netanyahu.

Language so blunt, it was invisible to everyone but Reuters.

Reuters misrepresents Obama

In our post just below, we noted the way Reuters correspondents regularly fabricate so as to advance their personal, and perhaps as well, corporate political agenda.  Central to the media giant's efforts to assign ownership of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and Jerusalem to the Arabs has been to deliberately and regularly mischaracterize Jewish settlements there as "illegal".  Consistent with international law as resolved by both the League of Nations and United Nations, Jewish settlements anywhere west of the Jordan River are in fact, fully legal.

Reuters correspondents clearly believe however, that by repeatedly drumming into the minds of their readers, in story after story, and in various incantations, an utterly false message, i.e., Jewish settlements are "illegal", they will win the day in the forum of public opinion.

Mohammed Assadi, Louis Charbonneau, Crispian Balmer, Douglas Hamilton and editor Peter Graff have another go on the fabrication carousel with this false citation:

Obama, who has said Israeli settlements in territories it captured in a 1967 war are illegal and unhelpful to the peace process, is opposed to a U.N. move that in Washington's view could shatter hopes of reviving the stalled talks.

So, has President Obama ever publicly asserted that the settlements are "illegal"?  No.  And of course, this is deliberately the case because Obama, advised by scores of international lawyers and State Department officials, knows very well that the settlements are, as noted above, entirely legal.  To assert otherwise, in a speech or other public forum, would be to contravene international law.

If only Reuters correspondents had as much respect for their own code.

"Deep-pocketed Jewish donors"

That's how Reuters correspondent Crispian Balmer refers to Obama supporters who may be having, according to Balmer, second-thoughts about funding Democratic politicians due to Obama's policies on Israel:

Israeli media has also reported that deep-pocketed Jewish donors have been reluctant to fund the Democrats this time around and analysts doubt whether Obama will risk antagonizing such a vital constituency ahead of any 2012 re-election bid.

Of course, like all Reuters correspondents writing on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Balmer is careful to deflect responsibility for his personal speculation, bias, and borderline antisemitism onto anonymous "media" and "analysts" (a violation of the agency's Handbook of Journalism).

Why do we say bias?  Well for example, in a story on the impact of interest groups on American politics and the situation in the Middle East, Balmer could have also explained to readers that Obama and Congressional Democrats received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Palestinian advocates like George Soros and MoveOn.org -- not to mention numerous illegal foreign donations like the $29,521 from Palestinian brothers living in Gaza.  And that these contributions may well have influenced Obama's foreign policy decisions with respect to the Middle East conflict.  But Balmer doesn't discuss any of this.

And whereas Balmer refers to Israel's "powerful supporters" in Congress that provide about $2.5 billion a year in aid (70 percent of which, incidentally, must be spent in the US on military equipment), the Reuters correspondent doesn't tell readers that Congress provided 40 percent more than that in aid to Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians.

Nor does Balmer mention that Saudi Arabia, officially at war with Israel, just received Congressional approval to acquire more than $60 billion in advanced weaponry from US manufacturers.

Apparently, Balmer doesn't view MoveOn.org or Saudi Arabia as having an interest in the situation in the Middle East, influence in American politics, or "deep pockets".

Oh-oh, Reuters is interpreting surveys again

Reuters correspondents are notoriously inept at accurately conveying the results of polls taken by various think tanks on issues pertaining to the Middle East conflict.  Or perhaps they're just notoriously skilled at card stacking.  In either event, the media giant can be relied upon to play up those poll results which bolster its own worldview and downplay or ignore those results which undermine the same.

Reuters reports today on a poll by the New America Foundation (NAF) where 1,000 Israelis were asked a series of questions about the conflict, their feelings towards key players like Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and their views on a variety of possible outcomes surrounding the peace process.

Reuters leads with:

U.S. President Barack Obama has a higher approval rating among Israelis than is widely believed, undercutting arguments he has lost Israeli public support for new peace efforts, a poll said on Thursday.

Given that other polls indicate only 4% -- 6% of the Israeli public see Obama's policies as pro-Israel, almost any improvement over figures in the cellar would be applauded by the pro-Obama crowd.  But there are serious problems associated with both the NAF survey methodology and the way Reuters reports the results.

First off, while the NAF survey doesn't tell us how they selected their respondents, we do know that of 1,000 people interviewed, 160 were Israeli Arabs.  This demographic group is likely to have a very different perspective on US Middle East policy than that of Israeli Jews.  Yet sentiments of the former are conflated with sentiments of the latter, almost certainly skewing putative support for Obama upward.

Secondly, while the NAF poll suggests that 41% of Israelis rate their feelings toward Obama as "warm", 55% say that he does not support Israel, 54% say that he does not share their values, and 43% say that he is naive.  Not exactly the vote of confidence Reuters suggests in their lead.  So we see that while a portion of the Israeli public may generally like Obama (in a warm and fuzzy way), they clearly do not identify with him nor do they believe that he can be relied upon to protect Israeli lives and interests.  Thus, while Israelis may show "support and solid backing for a possible future U.S.-brokered peace deal with the Palestinians", it ain't with Obama at the helm.

Futher, Reuters fails to mention that 55% of Israeli respondents don't believe that Fatah is capable of enforcing a peace agreement if one were signed and -- get this -- 82% of Jewish Israelis think it likely that, "the Palestinians will not be able to control the extremists on their side who will continue to launch attacks on Israel".  Ouch!  We can certainly understand why Reuters would omit those unpleasantries.

Take no side, tell all sides*

Following the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, Reuters hits the pavement to gauge sentiment in the Middle East from Gaza to Iran. Though mixed overall, opinion is decidedly negative in Gaza with featured responses like this quote from Jehad Al-Rayes:

"He does not deserve anything. He deserves to be brought to trial just like the Jews on charges of war crimes. He backs Israel and whoever backs Israel is a partner in the crime."

We would have liked to compare this view with that of an Israeli but alas, Reuters doesn't interview any.

*From Reuters Handbook of Journalism.

Reuters AWOL

Further to our previous post on president Obama's refusal to bring Iran's latest violation of the NPT before the UN Security Council and Reuters' embarrassing and misplaced adulation of Obama, we learn that French president Nicolas Sarkozy was not similarly enamored with Obama's complacency at the UN (Hat Tip Israel matzav):

President Sarkozy (spoke in French): France fully supports your initiative to hold this meeting, Mr. President, as well as the efforts you have made with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals. However, let us speak frankly. We are here to guarantee peace. We are right to talk about the future. But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises. The peoples of the entire world are listening to what we are saying, including our promises, commitments and speeches. But we live in the real world, not in a virtual one.

We say that we must reduce. President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. A proposal for dialogue was made in 2005. A proposal for dialogue was made in 2006. A proposal for dialogue was made in 2007. A proposal for dialogue was made in 2008. And another was made in April 2009. President Obama, I support America’s extended hand. But what have those proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusion are we to draw? At a certain moment, hard facts will force us to take decisions. If we want a world without nuclear weapons in the future, we must not accept violations of international rules. I completely understand the differing positions of others. But all of us may one day be threatened by a neighbour that has acquired nuclear weapons.

If we may characterize, a remarkable dressing-down and urgent plea by an allied world leader ignored by president Obama and completely unreported by the Obama cheerleaders at Reuters.

Reuters and its Obama pom-poms

In a fawning puff piece, Steve Holland of Reuters writes:

"President Barack Obama scored twin diplomatic coups on Friday, seizing the world stage to forge a new allied call for action against Iran and a framework for global economic growth."

And:

"From the United Nations in New York to a Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, it was all Obama all the time."

While Holland hyperventilates with Obamania, Politico reports that the Obama administration was only forced to announce the latest example of Iranian violations of the NPT when it learned (probably via the Associated Press) that Iran had just sent a letter to the IAEA acknowledging existence of its uranium enrichment facility near Qom.

Whereas Holland describes the intelligence data as "fresh", AP indicates that the US, French, and British have actually known about the facility for years. Notwithstanding, Obama specifically chose not to place Iran in the dock by refusing to bring the matter before the UN Security Council when he had a golden opportunity to do so as recently as Thursday.

Why? Well, rather than taking effective action to prevent a regime which threatens its neighbors with destruction from obtaining nuclear weapons, perhaps what is important to this president (as Holland inadvertently suggests) is "dramatic effect" and "shoring up his standing among Americans".

At least we know the strategy is working on the cheerleaders at Reuters.

Missing ingredients

Compare this paragraph:

To all but the terminally obtuse, the chances of a deal right now are about zero. Even if Obama could deliver a freeze on Israeli settlement building in the West Bank that Abbas has again demanded and Netanyahu has again refused, Miller says, the fact remains that the Palestinian national movement is divided and Israel "still doesn't know what price it's prepared to pay" for peace,

with this one:

To all but the interminably obtuse, the prospects of a conflict-ending solution between this Israeli government and this Palestinian Authority are slim to none. And the way to get there (if there is a way) isn’t through the confidence-building measures that the administration has pursued since the spring. Even if Obama were to succeed in delivering these (a partial settlements freeze and partial normalization by the Arabs toward Israel), it would likely have little effect on the galactic task at hand: negotiating an agreement on borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees between a divided Palestinian national movement (a Palestinian Humpty Dumpty, really) and an Israel that still doesn’t know what price it’s prepared to pay to end its conflict with the Palestinians.

The first paragraph was written by Reuters' Douglas Hamilton paraphrasing Aaron David Miller in Politico. (Hamilton doesn't link). The second is drawn from Miller's original piece. While the theme of Reuters' story is the pessimism surrounding the ostensible failure of early round discussions between Abbas, Obama and Netanyahu, notice that Hamilton chooses to omit the portion of the Miller quote which argues that even if it were possible for the parties in power to end the conflict (which Miller doubts), Obama's demand for a settlement freeze is not the way to Oz.

Miller's point is that the issue of Jewish settlements is actually inconsequential (we would say a red herring) in achieving a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Which, while Reuters has been elsewise pounding the table here, here, here, and here, is exactly what Netanyahu has been saying all along.