Advocate for ethnic cleansing of the Jews obfuscates international law

Reuters correspondent Maayan Lubell, who personally advocates for ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homes and property, reports on a decision by the Israeli Foreign Ministry to cut ties with the discredited U.N. Human Rights Council following that body's decision to launch a new probe into Jewish settlements:

The decision, announced by a Foreign Ministry spokesman, meant that the fact-finding team the council planned to send to the West Bank will not be allowed to enter the territory or Israel, said the spokesman, Yigal Palmor.
"We are not working with them any more," Palmor said about the Geneva-based forum. "We had been participating in meetings, discussions, arranging visits to Israel. All that is over."

Employing a propaganda technique known as symbolic fiction, Lubell seeks to convince readers that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") are illegal:

Palestinians say settlements, considered illegal by the International Court of Justice [ICJ], the highest U.N. legal body for disputes, would deny them a viable state.

Left unmentioned, is the fact that the ICJ opinion cited by Lubell (actually on the Israeli security barrier) was merely advisory and non-binding.  Indeed, the only authoritative and binding resolution on the legality of Jewish settlements is that of the never-abrogated Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations in 1922 and confirmed by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

As preeminent provisions of international law, these make clear that Jewish settlements in the territories are entirely legal.

But of course, justifying an atrocity like ethnic cleansing requires the perpetrator, and his enablers, to obfuscate and subvert international law.

Maayan Lubell shows us how.

Reuters correspondents still peddling fiction to advance their ideology

A symbolic fiction is a propaganda technique whereby a false claim, endorsed by some reputedly respectable and disinterested party, is advanced by the propagandist (Smith, 1989).

Take for example the propaganda mantra peddled in over 200 Reuters stories within the last couple of years that Jewish settlements in the territories of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") are illegal -- because the World Court says so.

In a story on the Israeli government issuing restraining orders against 12 Jews barring them from the territories, Reuters correspondent Allyn Fisher-Ilan (yes, that Fisher-Ilan) repeats the mantra:

Israel has built more than 100 settlements in the territory, which the World Court has ruled are illegal.

As we've noted here, here, here, and here, Reuters' reference and deference to the World Court, on the question of the legality of Jewish settlements, is irrelevant and deluded.  The court's opinion, actually on the legality of the Israeli separation barrier rather than Jewish settlements, is entirely advisory and non-binding. Fisher-Ilan may as well cite the Organization of Islamic Conference in its opinion on Jewish settlements (this may be her next recourse).

The only binding decision on the legality of Jewish settlements in the original territories of Palestine -- including the West Bank -- resides in the Mandate for Palestine, confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, grandfathered across to the United Nations in 1946, and still legally operative today.  Article VI of the Mandate 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.

Reuters Jerusalem Bureau has, to our knowledge, never cited this exclusively authoritative resolution granting Jews the right to settle anywhere in historic Palestine west of the Jordan River.

For Reuters, symbolic fiction trumps tangible truth every time.

Fisking Tom Perry (part III)

Continuing with our "Fisk" of Perry's propaganda:

Israel says the [security] barrier was aimed at stopping suicide bombings and other militant attacks and says it is working.   
But Palestinians say it is aimed at seizing control of land. The section that has cut Nabi Samuel off from the rest of the West Bank for example, also loops around nearby Jewish settlements deemed illegal by the world court, anchoring them to Israel.

Perry cites contentious Palestinian claims and then attempts to support those claims with a spurious example and symbolic fiction he wants readers to believe is authoritative and relevant, though the world court's advisory opinion is neither.  At the same time, the Reuters reporter is apparently at a complete loss to verify the simple fact that the Israeli security barrier has indeed reduced, by 99 percent, the number of Palestinian terror attacks in the country.  

Critics say the PA has focused too much attention on the city [Ramallah], turning it into a de facto capital that is taking the place of East Jerusalem, now beyond the West Bank barrier and part of what Israel calls its indivisible capital.

There's that fictional "East Jerusalem" again, which Perry (and his anonymous "critics") lament is being forgotten as aspired-to capital of an aspired-to Palestinian state.  

The [Palestinian] authority points at two major differences between the institutions it has built and a similar project led by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the 1990s.
Now, there is a transparent system of financial management which has trimmed its reliance on donor support.
The World Bank, in a report published this month, said PA public institutions now compared favorably to other countries in the region and beyond -- another reason Palestinian officials say they are ready to lead a real country.

In actual fact, the World Bank confirmed in its most recent report that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is as dependent as ever on the dole, making the Palestinians the largest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world.

In the last three months, the PA has twice failed to pay its 150,000 employees their salaries on time and in full, damaging its public standing.

Though the PA has not been remiss in meeting its salary commitments to those Palestinians responsible for the murder of Israelis.

The PA's critics say its strategy of negotiating peace with Israel has been a complete failure.

A complete failure because the Palestinian Authority refuses to enter into negotiations with Israel.

In Gaza, Hamas faces its own dilemma as it tries to reconcile its stated commitment to armed struggle against Israel with its responsibilities as a government eager to avoid punishing Israeli reprisals.

In violation of the Reuters Trust Principles and Handbook of Journalism, Perry employs yet another euphemism ("armed struggle") to conceal the Hamas commitment to genocide of the Jews.

Many argue that the time for a two-state solution has passed. Perhaps. But the Arab Spring might provide new momentum. If Arab governments begin to reflect popular sympathy with the Palestinian cause, then Israel could come under more pressure than ever.

The "Palestinian cause", indeed.

Israel announces new settlement construction in the wake of family massacre; Jeffrey Heller springs into action

Jeffrey Heller is Editor-in-Charge of Reuters Jerusalem Bureau.  Googling his name and the word "settlements" produces over 70,000 results.  This is a man literally driven to the core of his soul, by an obsession with Jews who choose to exercise their rights, in international law, to live beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines in the disputed territories constituting the original Mandate of Palestine.

Heller is not bothered much by murderous Palestinian terrorism, which he never characterizes as such, nor even by Palestinian incitement to murder Jews, which he only reports offhand and as noted by others (as if Heller is personally unaware of the barbarous incitement permeating all facets of Palestinian society):

Netanyahu, who spoke with Abbas by phone, said the statements by the Palestinian leadership were not strong enough and it must move to end what he termed incitement against Israelis in Palestinian schools, mosques and media.

But given an announcement by the Israeli government to build additional homes in the disputed territories, Heller burns the midnight oil to report the move:

With anger high in Israel and among settlers, Netanyahu's office said in a statement that "ministers decided to authorize construction" of several hundred housing units in the Etzion bloc of settlements and in Maale Adumim, Ariel and Kiryat Sefer.
The move was likely to draw international dismay and harden Palestinian resolve not to return to peace talks frozen over Netanyahu's refusal to extend a 10-month moratorium that expired in November on housing starts in West Bank settlements.
"This decision is wrong and unacceptable and will only create problems," said Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Expanded construction in West Bank settlements could bolster Netanyahu within his governing coalition, which is dominated by pro-settler parties, including his own right-wing Likud [...] 

The World Court has deemed illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank, territory captured along with the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem in a 1967 war.
Some 500,000 settlers live among 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinians fear the enclaves will deny them a viable state.
Violence in the West Bank has dropped significantly since its peak during a Palestinian uprising a decade ago, although tensions had risen earlier in the week when Israeli troops fired live rounds at Palestinians after they clashed with settlers.
Ten Palestinians and one Israeli were wounded in the confrontation.

Heller repeats the symbolic fiction suggesting, falsely, that settlements are illegal because the utopian-sounding but irrelevant World Court opined such; he refers to the fictitious city of "East Jerusalem", he violates the Reuters Handbook of Journalism by failing to provide Israel's appellation for the "West Bank" (Judea and Samaria); and he further violates the Reuters Handbook by employing a euphemism ("uprising") to conceal the violent horror of the Palestinian terror war that killed over 1,000 Israelis.

Otherwise, Heller continues to carry out his duties in exemplary fashion for the most biased and propagandistic news agency in the world.

Reuters (inadvertently) comes clean

In our post just below, we noted that despite the fact the Utopian-sounding World Court has no binding authority to rule on the legality of Jewish settlements, Reuters repeats ad nauseam, the propaganda mantra that the body considers Jewish settlements illegal.  This, in an effort to give weight to the agency's own partisan political views.

Ironically, just a few hours ago, Reuters published a story by correspondent Patrick Worsnip which cedes to and underscores our point.

Writing about British and French efforts to impose a "no-fly" zone over Libya and the length of time it takes to to get such a resolution through the United Nations Security Council, Worsnip is quite clear on international law:

Here are some facts about the council and its resolutions to help explain why the procedure can be so cumbersome.  

WHAT IS THE SECURITY COUNCIL?

The council is the only U.N. body whose resolutions have the force of international law and is mandated to tackle situations deemed to threaten international peace and security. It can impose sanctions on countries or send in peacekeeping forces with varying rules of engagement.

Thank you, Patrick, for acknowledging the facts.  Now, if only your colleagues in Jerusalem would do the same with respect to Jewish rights in international law.

The symbolic fiction

When the facts belie Reuters partisan political views, you can be sure the agency's correspondents will offer readers one of their own invented notions supported or voiced by another party whom Reuters cites as an independent and usually expert source.

Indeed, a symbolic fiction is a propaganda technique whereby a false claim, endorsed by some reputedly respectable and disinterested party, is advanced by the propagandist (Smith, 1989).

Take for example the propaganda mantra peddled in nearly 100 Reuters stories over the last couple of years that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") are illegal -- because the World Court says so.

In a story on the Palestinian Arabs rejecting an interim peace plan rumored to be coming from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Reuters correspondent Mohammed Assadi and Jerusalem Bureau Editor-in-Charge Jeffrey Heller repeat the mantra:

Palestinians say the settlements, deemed illegal by the World Court, will deny them a viable state.

As we've noted here, here, here, and here, Reuters' reference and deference to the World Court, on the question of the legality of Jewish settlements, is irrelevant and deluded.  The court's opinion, actually on the legality of the Israeli separation barrier rather than Jewish settlements, is entirely advisory and non-binding.  Assadi and Heller may as well cite the Organization of Islamic Conference in its opinion on Jewish settlements (this may be Reuters next recourse).

The only binding decision on the legality of Jewish settlements in the original territories of Palestine -- including the West Bank -- resides in the Mandate for Palestine, confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, grandfathered across to the United Nations in 1946, and still legally operative today.  Article VI of the Mandate 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.

Reuters Jerusalem Bureau has, to our knowledge, never cited this exclusively authoritative resolution granting Jews the right to settle anywhere in historic Palestine west of the Jordan River.

For Reuters, symbolic fiction trumps tangible truth every time.

The curly-haired perfume peddler has another go

The last time we visited Reuters correspondent Crispian (curly-haired) Balmer (peddler of aromatic resins), he was exhausting the "D" entries in his thesaurus in an effort to sell us on the notion that the Palestinians are positively desperate for their own state -- even as he failed to acknowledge the simple truth that the Palestinians could have their purportedly longed-for state tomorrow if they would only accept UN resolution 181 which formally created a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state 63 years ago.

Balmer now tries his hand at some "analysis", Reuters parlance for an op-ed, dredging up a host of Reuters boilerplate propaganda in the process.  Focusing on the question of whether Israel's relationship with the United States is on the rocks, Balmer cites the reaction of Palestinian Arabs and Middle East diplomats to the incentives reportedly promised to the Israelis in exchange for their agreement to extend a building moratorium in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"):

The Palestinians scoff at the idea that the United States might be losing its ardor for Israel, saying the U.S. promise of inducements, including $3 billion worth of fighter jets, is evidence of the Jewish state's privileged status in Washington.
The enticements have also raised eyebrows in the United States, with analysts doubting the wisdom of offering Israel incentives to get it to introduce a temporary halt to settlement building that is deemed to be illegal by the World Court.

Note how Balmer tosses in as a red herring, the opinion of the World Court, something the analysts he cites do not actually mention and an opinion that is entirely advisory and therefore non-binding on the issue of the legality of Jewish settlements (League of Nations and United Nations resolutions permit Jews to settle anywhere in the original Palestine Mandate).

Balmer then rehashes the argument made back in April by his colleague at Reuters, Bernd Debusmann, that resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict is essential to American military interests in the Middle East and beyond:

At a deeper level, the on-going sense of uncertainty in Israeli circles is fueled by evolving U.S. military objectives.
General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, launched a debate in March when he said that Israeli-Palestinian tensions had had an "enormous" impact in the Muslim world where his troops were based.
Petraeus said the Middle East peace process had to keep moving forward to help the U.S. military position -- an assertion quickly challenged by Israeli rightists who denied any such linkage.
His stance explains why Obama has put enormous emphasis on restarting the stalled peace talks despite obvious pessimism on both the Palestinian and Israeli side, not to mention at home.

As we noted at the time, Debusmann conveniently omitted several items Patraeus indicated were far more critical to American interests than resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict, including for example, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons which as we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks, has also been the priority for the Arabs themselves.

Moreover, Obama had been pushing madly for a Palestinian state long before Patraeus filed his report in March of this year (Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas was the first foreign leader Obama phoned after taking office, and pressure from the White House to freeze Jewish settlements began publicly in May of 2009).  Thus, Balmer's suggested linkage between Patraeus' testimony and Obama's obsessive drive for a Palestinian state is specious.

The larger point, that US-Israeli relations may be suffering, is clear enough but the reason is also clear: this is the first American administration in over 40 years that has held peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Arabs hostage to an Israeli concession to completely halt building in its capital city.  A strategy that has failed to bring a Palestinian state and simultaneously alienated 97 percent of the Israeli public.

Now, that's something to fret about.

The latest Reuters propaganda mantra

Repetition is a propaganda device designed to:

drum the message into the target audience's subconscious by repeating keywords or phrases over and over until resistance to the message weakens. The target audience eventually accepts the message often without even realizing it. Adolph Hitler emphasized the need for repetition in propaganda.

This technique forms one of the cornerstones of Reuters Middle East reporting.  As an example, a phrase like "occupied West Bank" -- which reflects a biased political view and violates the Reuters Trust Principles and Handbook of Journalism -- has appeared in over 1,600 Reuters stories over the last couple of years. 1,600.

The latest propagandistic phrasing to be adopted by Reuters and repeated in scores of stories on its website goes something like this:

The settlements are on territory captured by Israeli forces from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East war and are deemed by the World Court to be illegal, a finding disputed by Israel.

As we noted here, the reference to the World Court is irrelevant to the question of the legality of Jewish settlements as the court's rulings are merely advisory and non-binding.  One could just as well argue that settlements are illegal because the Organization of the Islamic Conference deems them so.  In fact, Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are entirely legal as per international law enshrined in the UN-adopted and never-abrogated Mandate for Palestine:

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.

Reuters truncated characterization of the settlements as being "on territory captured by Israeli forces from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East war" reflects an attempt by the news agency to suggest that the land properly belonged to the Jordanian Arabs which of course, is not accurate.  Jordan invaded and conquered this portion of the Palestine Mandate during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and its occupation of the area was never recognized internationally.  Jordan then ethnically cleansed the territory -- including the eastern portion of Jerusalem -- of all Jews living there.

With these key omissions, Reuters is willfully distorting the historical record.  By repeating the distorted message in scores of stories, the agency is demonstrating its intent to compel its audience to accept, uncritically, a propagandistic mantra.

Just the facts?

Following our post yesterday and right on cue, Reuters updates its "FACTBOX" on Israeli settlements. Let's see how Reuters views the "facts":

"Some 300,000 Israelis live in more than 100 settlements Israel has built in the West Bank, and another 200,000 live in Arab East Jerusalem..."

There's that historically inaccurate and racially-loaded sop to Arab aggression again.  Jews living in their historic birthplace -- where they have had a presence for 3,000 years -- are "settlers".  Got that?

"Abbas cites a 2003 U.S. and European-backed peace "road map" that calls for a stop to settlement building alongside parallel steps by the Palestinians to curb violence against Israel."

Reuters again willfully and woefully misrepresents the obligations of the Palestinian Arabs as we discuss here.

"Benjamin Netanyahu, a right-wing prime minister who took office in March backed by a coalition of pro-settler parties who want Israel to keep much of the West Bank under any peace deal."

We see; Netanyahu is "right-wing" while PA president Mahmoud Abbas is "moderate".  And let's not forget that Netanyahu's coalition also includes the "left-wing" Labour Party led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak who offered the equivalent of 97% of the West Bank to Yasser Arafat nine years ago at Camp David.  For Reuters, a trifling detail unworthy of mention.

"The World Court deems settlements as illegal under international law, including the Geneva Conventions, a ruling Israel disputes."

Er, as we pointed out yesterday, the World Court has no binding authority to decide whether Jewish settlements are illegal and its advisory opinion was just that: an advisory opinion. Perhaps that's why Israel disputes it.

"The United States and European Union have commonly viewed the settlements as obstacles to peace and urged their cessation."

Then why haven't they submitted the matter for a vote in the UN Security Council? This is the $64,000 question which neither Reuters nor any of the other Palestinian advocacy groups wish to address. If Jewish settlements in the disputed territories are "illegal" why not simply put the question before the UNSC and vote to effectively reverse the terms of the Mandate for Palestine?

The answer of course, is that to reverse a cornerstone of international law like the Mandate for Palestine would be to open a Pandora's box of other legal campaigns and establish a precedent for overturning other UN resolutions -- including those that created modern Syria and Lebanon, for example. We're not certain the Syrians, the Lebanese, the US or Europe would relish this prospect.

Better to leave international law as it stands and simply bring intense political pressure to bear on the Jews to surrender their rights.

"Netanyahu insists the settlements are not the "heart" of the conflict, and wants Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state before they may achieve statehood."

Given all of the above, one might think Reuters and its readership would see the logic of Netanyahu's position.

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.