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.

A distinction with a difference: update to our post "Lost in Translation"

In our previous post, "Lost in Translation", we pointed out that Reuters had gotten it wrong when they quoted Russian president Medvedev as saying that Israeli president Peres had "promised" that Israel would not attack Iran.

In an interview on Monday, Reuters asked Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon about Peres' alleged "guarantee". Ayalon replied:

It is certainly not a guarantee. I don't think that, with all due respect, the Russian president is authorized to speak for Israel and certainly we have not taken any option off the table.

As importantly, Reuters backs off from their previous story containing the misquote (which included a thunderous but fallacious headline) and provides a correct translation of what Medvedev actually said:

"Israeli President Peres said something important for us all: Israel does not plan to launch any strikes on Iran, we are a peaceful country and we will not do this."

This is essentially identical to our earlier translation from the Kremlin transcript.

Some of our readers have argued that although Medvedev did not use the word "promise" or "pledge", Reuters' characterization as such is essentially a distinction without a difference. We disagree. Although we don't know exactly what Peres said to Medvedev in their meeting (nor does Reuters), we do know what Medvedev said to CNN and there was clearly no explicit reference to a "promise", "pledge", "covenant" or other synonym. Reuters has now implicitly acknowledged this by dropping their earlier misrepresentation in subsequent articles on the matter.

As we suggested in our original post, representations of an Israeli covenant -- subsequently violated -- made with a Head of State and member of the UN Security Council would provide added fuel to an effort, perhaps by Russia, to whip up international support for sanctions following an Israeli strike on Iran. It could also provide diplomatic cover and justification for Russia to intervene in any ensuing military conflict.

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.

Misplaced authority

In a story appearing on the Reuters website yesterday, Jeffrey Heller repeats the "Arab East Jerusalem" canard we commented on in our previous post and then avers:

"The World Court calls the settlements illegal and Palestinians say the enclaves could deny them a viable state".

Heller's mention of the World Court is actually a reference to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2004 that the Israeli security barrier -- which has saved countless lives from the ravages of Palestinian terrorism -- be removed.

As the Palestinian Authority does not represent a state, the matter was submitted to the court by the UN General Assembly and the court's decision is non-binding. Still, the opinion is often cited by Palestinian advocates as evidence that Jewish settlement-building in the disputed territories is "illegal". Heller clearly falls into this group.

While the World Court does not have authority to decide in binding fashion on the matter of the legality of Jewish settlements, there is a body which does: the United Nations Security Council. And it has spoken definitively. Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations and grandfathered across as a United Nations resolution, stipulates:

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.

The Mandate for Palestine -- granting Jews the right to settle anywhere in historic Palestine -- is the last governing document on the matter, has never been successfully challenged or revoked, and is still in effect.

Notwithstanding Jeffrey Heller's facile appeal to authority, it is the UNSC, not the World Court, which has the authoritative and binding say on Jewish settlements.