Dementia is a terrible thing

Reuters correspondent Dan Williams is losing his mind.  But as in all cases of dementia, the disease proceeds selectively.  Some memories are lost while others remain.

In a story about Israelis and Palestinians agreeing to meet tomorrow in an effort to resume negotiations, Williams recalls Israel's treaty commitments, but not those of the Palestinians:

[Palestinian lead negotiator Saeb] Erekat said the meeting would be "part of ongoing Jordanian efforts to compel Israel to comply with its international legal obligations ... specifically its obligation to freeze all settlement construction."
Most countries deem the settlements illegal. Israel disputes this, and says it would keep settlement blocs under any peace deal in accordance with understandings reached in 2004 with then-U.S. president George W. Bush.

Actually of course, whether or not "most countries" now consider Jewish settlements illegal is irrelevant to whether or not they are in fact, illegal (per League of Nations and United Nations Security Council resolutions, Jewish settlements anywhere west of the Jordan River are entirely legal).  But we digress...

As above, Williams, with the able assistance of Erekat, recalls and reports the Israeli commitment, appearing in the 2003 Roadmap peace plan, to freeze settlement-building in the territories.  Yet, when it comes to reporting on Palestinian commitments in the same document, Williams is at a loss:

For its part, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government criticizes Abbas for seeking a reconciliation with the Islamists of Hamas, who control Gaza and reject permanent coexistence with Israel. Abbas has also balked at Israel's demand that he recognize it as a Jewish state.

Other than the obvious fact that Hamas seeks the liquidation of Israel, Williams apparently cannot recall that, in its embrace and reconciliation with an internationally-recognized terrorist group, the Palestinian Authority is breaching its international legal obligations under the same Roadmap peace plan:

Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

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.

At RMEW, we're always willing to assist the disabled.

Tom Perry lifts his pen; count the lies

It's another day and another deceit for Reuters propagandist Tom Perry who offers us his unique brand of "analysis" on the current state of Middle East peacemaking as orchestrated by the Quartet (Russia, the EU, the UN, and the US).  So, let's see where Perry seeks to mislead his audience this time:

The immediate obstacle [in the way of negotiations] is the standoff over Israel's expansion of Jewish settlements on the land where the Palestinians aim to found an independent state. World powers view the settlement as illegal under international law.

Er, no.  The immediate obstacle is the utter refusal of the Palestinians to engage in good faith peace talks without dictating the outcome of those talks by obtaining in advance of them, extraordinary unilateral concessions from Israel in the form of, 1) a termination of Jewish settlements on land promised to the Jews in resolutions adopted by the League of Nations and United Nations, and 2) a commitment by Israel to accept a Judenrein Palestinian Arab state on all land, including Jerusalem, liberated by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

And "world powers", like the United States, emphatically do not view Jewish settlements on this land as illegal in international law.  Indeed, as noted above, Jewish settlements in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") are entirely legal in international law.

In Israel, there has been a swing to the political right, a shift helped by the last Palestinian uprising. Add to that the fact that half a million Israelis have now settled in the would-be Palestine, and hopes for a deal seem far fetched.

Ah yes, that euphemistic and nebulous Palestinian "uprising", aka the Palestinian terror war, that killed over 1,000 Israelis in suicide bombings and shootings.  A bit more journalistic transparency in this respect might enable readers to better apprehend the reasons behind that "swing to the political right" in Israel.

Perry's reference to "would-be Palestine" includes the city of Jerusalem, a city built by the Jews over three-thousand years ago and only ever sovereign to the Jewish nation.  Jerusalem, a city where Jews maintained a community despite successive waves of invasion, conquest and occupation until 1967 when it was finally liberated from Arab colonization that had sought to obliterate any Jewish connection to the land and its holy sites.

The deal [to exchange Israeli Gilad Shalit for over 1,000 Hamas terrorists] disheartened Palestinian leaders in the West Bank who, unlike Hamas, oppose armed conflict with Israel and believe peace talks are the way to end the conflict.

This is a double bald-faced lie from Perry.  First, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas celebrated the release of the Hamas prisoners by paying them stipends.  Secondly, as we've noted dozens of times, Abbas, his Fatah party, and the PLO remain committed in word and deed to the destruction of Israel via armed violence.

A [Jewish] settlement freeze was a requirement of a 2003 peace plan, drawn up by the Quartet and known as the road map for peace.
"If the Quartet is going to play any credible role, it must really be able to enforce the terms of reference, and the compliance with these terms of reference, particularly those that have led to an agreed text, like the road map," said Nabil Shaath, a veteran Palestinian official.

No mention by either Shaath or Perry of Palestinian obligations under the Road Map, like disarming and dismantling all terrorist infrastructure, something the Palestinians have completely failed to do.

Alastair Macdonald, historical revisionist (part II)

Continuing with our analysis of Alastair Macdonald's propagandistic "timeline" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and efforts to achieve peace:

1988 - After a year of Intifada (uprising), exiled PLO leader Yasser Arafat, acknowledged as speaking for Palestinians, renounces terrorism and accepts Israel's right to exist. He also that year unilaterally declared Palestinian independence. Since then, more than a hundred countries have recognised Palestine despite the fact it has no defined borders.

In an attempt to sanitize the PLO-orchestrated attempt to kill Jews and produce anarchy in Israel, Macdonald parrots the Arab-ethnocentric and euphemistic term "uprising", actually a mistranslation of the Arabic word intifasza, or "revolt", to describe this period of street violence and terror attacks.  The former Reuters Bureau Chief also fails to indicate anywhere in his piece that while Arafat nominally repudiated terrorism in 1988 in an effort to persuade the US to include him in negotiations, he was the architect, along with Hamas, of nearly all Palestinian terror campaigns waged against Israel in subsequent years.

2003 - "Road map" for peace -- drafted by the Middle East Quartet, comprising the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia -- binds both sides to curbing violence and Israel to halting Jewish settlement on occupied land.

The Road Map doesn't simply bind both sides to "curbing violence"; it obligates the Palestinians to disarm and dismantle all terrorist infrastructure, something they have utterly failed to do.

2005 - After Arafat's death in 2004, Mahmoud Abbas elected Palestinian president. Right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pulls settlers and troops out of the Gaza Strip.
2006 - Hamas wins Palestinian parliamentary election, forms government that is boycotted by Israel and Western powers.
2007 - Citing fears of U.S.-backed plan to oust Hamas from government, Islamists seize control in Gaza from Abbas's forces. Months later, Bush brings Abbas and Sharon's successor Ehud Olmert together at Annapolis to launch new bid for peace deal.
December 2008 - After a year of desultory talks, Abbas quits negotiations when Olmert launches offensive on Hamas-run Gaza.

No mention whatsoever, of the more than 10,000 rockets and mortars launched by Hamas into Israeli civilian communities during this period which led to Israel's "offensive" in the Gaza Strip in 2008.

And Abbas did not quit negotiations following "desultory" talks or because of the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza; he refused yet another settlement offer from the Israeli government resulting from those talks, an event which occurred months prior to the war.

TO BE CONTINUED

Abbas makes demands and misrepresents the facts; Reuters parrots

In a story on the latest demands by PA President Mahmoud Abbas for restarting peace talks with Israel, Reuters correspondent Dave Graham writes:

Abbas said Israel would need to accept its June 1967 borders as the basis for any land swaps.

Graham uncritically paraphrases Abbas in referring to the "1967 borders" but in reality of course, there are no 1967 borders.  There are only armistice lines drawn on a map in green ink in 1949 (hence, the "Green Line") which represent the geographical divide between the Israeli army and the Arab Legion where fighting halted during Israel's War of Independence.  This line served to separate opposing forces until the Jordanian Army attacked Israel in the subsequent 1967 War.  In short, the 1949 armistice lines have never been recognized as an international border.

Graham leaps from uncritically paraphrasing Abbas to uncritically parroting him in the very next sentence:

"These are not preconditions, they are requirements in the road map. If they are not prepared to do that, it means they don't want a political solution," he told the newspaper.

In fact, the Road Map peace plan -- which has long been a dead letter -- does not require Israel "to accept its June 1967 borders" or more accurately, the 1949 armistice lines.  What the Road Map actually stipulates (in Phase III) is this:

Second international conference: Convened by Quartet, in consultation with the parties, at beginning of 2004 to endorse agreement reached on an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and formally to launch a process with the active, sustained, and operational support of the Quartet, leading to a final, permanent status resolution in 2005, including on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements; and, to support progress toward a comprehensive Middle East settlement between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria, to be achieved as soon as possible. 

In other words, provisional borders between Israel and a nascent Palestinian state were to be negotiated and agreed between the parties and subsequently endorsed at an international conference hosted by the Quartet at which time the matter of permanent borders would be taken up along with the issues of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, and progress towards peace agreements between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria.

A reality quite different than the false assertion issued by Abbas and parroted blindly by Reuters.

Reuters, the illusionists

See if you can catch this masterful sleight of hand by Mohammed Assadi & Company...

Reuters quotes Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat speaking to Voice of Palestine radio:

The gap is still wide and Israel does not give a single sign of meeting its obligations under the road map, halting settlement activities and resuming negotiations where they left off.

I do not see any possibility for restarting peace talks in the near future, he said, in an assessment echoed by Israeli government officials.

Voila! The Palestinians blame Israel for the lack of peace talks -- and Israel agrees. There is no mention of the Israeli position (and de facto reality) that peace talks are suspended solely because the Palestinians have rejected them.

Having cited the Palestinian position that Israel has failed to meet its commitments under the Road Map and then making it appear as if Israel concurs, Reuters seeks to eliminate any lingering doubt in the mind of the reader by citing (in one-sided fashion) the Road Map:

The U.S.-backed peace "road map" of 2003, which charts a course to Palestinian statehood, commits Israel to halting settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

Reuters makes no mention of Palestinian obligations under the Road Map until the 7th paragraph:

Israel also accuses Palestinians of failing to meet their road map commitments to curb violence and incitement against Israel, notably by Hamas Islamists who control the Gaza Strip.

Incidentally, note how in his statement to Voice of Palestine radio, Saeb Erekat (no stranger to ruse de guerre, bald-faced lies, and malicious propaganda) deliberately conflates "resuming negotiations where they left off" with Israel's responsibilities under the Road Map as if Israel is compelled by the latter to comply with the former.

An adroit maneuver ably assisted by the illusionists at Reuters.

The Heller dessert topping

Following the numerous errors of commission and errors of omission which went into his cake-baking effort earlier today, Reuters' Jeffrey Heller seeks to ice his cake with a report on Binyamin Netanyahu's policy speech at the opening session of the Israeli parliament.

After quoting Netanyahu as saying:

"There is no alternative to Palestinian leaders showing courage by recognizing the Jewish state. This has been and remains the true key to peace",

Heller retorts on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs with:

"He [Netanyahu] made no mention of a main issue holding up a return to talks on Palestinian statehood -- building in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank that Palestinians say must stop in accordance with a 2003 peace "road map."

While Heller takes note of that which he believes was conspicuously missing from Netanyahu's comments, we take note of what was conspicuously missing from Heller's editorial, namely, that the Palestinian Arabs have failed to meet their commitments under the same Road Map plan. As a reminder, the Road Map stipulates that at the outset of Phase I:

All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel,

and

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.

Not only has the above not occurred but at its most recent party congress, PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party officially endorsed the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as the "military wing" of the party. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is a terrorist group designated as such by the US, Europe, and Canada.

Heller also continues to insist (on behalf of the Palestinians) that Jewish settlement-building is "holding up" peace talks but as we noted the obvious here, the decision on whether or not to return to negotiations rests entirely with Mahmoud Abbas. No one and no thing is preventing him from doing so.

More cherry-picking from Reuters

Reuters' writers love to cherry-pick poll results in an effort to prop up their perspective on the Middle East conflict as we documented here, and following his recent pessimism that Obama will be able to achieve a peace agreement with a snap of his fingers, Douglas Hamilton displays a newfound, albeit tentative, optimism based on a poll conducted by the International Peace Institute.

First, some introductions are in order. The president of the IPI is none other than Terje Roed-Larsen who has a long history of official and semi-official diplomatic involvement in the Middle East conflict going back to his role in the ill-fated Oslo Accords in the early 1990s. Roed-Larsen is perhaps best known for famously describing Yasir Arafat as someone who "embodies Palestinian identity and aspirations". Ouch!

Moving along, the first figure from the poll which stands out (but goes unmentioned by Reuters) is that contrary to the heavily promoted clamor for a Jewish settlement freeze, only 7% of Palestinians actually feel that halting settlement building activity and house demolitions would advance the peace process. So much for that notion.

While the IPI finds that a majority of Palestinians now support a "two-state" solution, Reuters erroneously reports this as being based on the 2003 Road Map when in fact, the two-state solution envisioned by respondents is one based on the Arab Peace Initiative. (See poll results).

As a reminder, the "Arab Peace Initiative" calls for Israel to withdraw from all land liberated in the 1967 war, the creation of a Palestinian state on that land, and a return of Palestinian refugees (and their descendants) consistent with UNGA resolution 194, i.e., to their former homes in Israel. In other words, the Palestinians are willing to agree to two states as long as they obtain 100% of the disputed territories and the right to flood Israel with several million 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation denizens. Not exactly an embrace of Obama's call for "two states for two peoples".

Moreover, a majority of Palestinians reject dividing Jerusalem where Jewish neighborhoods, the Jewish Quarter, and the Western Wall would go to Israel. Apparently, Reuters correspondents felt this result too trivial (or too disheartening) for their readers so they decided to omit it from their report.

Also unreported is the fact that while 44% of Palestinians consider internal political divisions to be their biggest problem, only 30% consider the "Israeli occupation" as such and just 23% identify the "blockade of Gaza". (It would be interesting to measure this result against the relative number of articles Reuters devotes to each concern).

Reuters does report however, Terje Roed-Larsen's breathless conclusion that:

"Palestinians as a people are ready to be a peace partner for Israel."

We think Roed-Larsen (and Reuters) ought to have a closer look at his poll results.

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 "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.

More Reuters errata

In the article discussed just below, Jeffrey Heller continues in the fine Reuters tradition of misrepresenting the obligations of the warring parties as specified in the Road Map:

"Netanyahu, who holds further talks on the settlement issue later this week with U.S. envoy George Mitchell, has resisted a total freeze stipulated by a U.S.-backed 2003 peace "road map" that also commits the Palestinians to reining in militants."

See our criticism of Reuters' handling of this crucial point in Reuters' broken boilerplate.

Heller also awards the Arabs sovereignty over the eastern portion of Jerusalem with a factually incorrect and racially-loaded epithet:

"Some 300,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and another 200,000 in Arab East Jerusalem..."

See our post: Reuters continues to advocate for evicted Palestinian squatters.

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.