Reuters silent on Hezbollah's flouting of international law

When the United Nations acts in accordance with Reuters own political persuasions, the news agency lauds and liberally cites the august body as the ultimate arbiter of international law.  Like a fair-weather friend however, Reuters gives the UN the cold shoulder when resolutions passed in the Security Council undermine the agency's agenda.

Take for example, this story by Reuters correspondent Yara Bayoumy reporting on a demonstration in Beirut by thousands of Lebanese calling for the disarmament of the terror group Hezbollah:

(Reuters) - Tens of thousands of supporters of Lebanon's toppled premier Saad al-Hariri rallied in Beirut on Sunday, calling for the Shi'ite group Hezbollah which ousted him to put its weapons under state control.
The demonstration in Martyrs' Square was intended as a show of strength for the billionaire Sunni politician, who has gone into opposition after the collapse in January of his fractious 14-month unity government, which included Hezbollah ministers.
"It is impossible for weapons to stay raised against the will of a democratic people and against the truth," Hariri told the crowd, who waved Lebanese flags and banners of his Future Movement.
"We want to put (weapons) under the control and authority of the state because it's the army which protects us all."

Bayoumy's story gives readers the false impression that the dispute over Hebollah's weapons is purely internal to Lebanese politics and that Hezbollah may have just cause, owing to historical precedent and "defense", to keep its arsenal:  

Hezbollah, the only Lebanese faction allowed to keep its weapons after the 1975-90 civil war, says it needs them to defend Lebanon from possible Israeli attack. Israel and Hezbollah fought to a standstill in a 34-day war in 2006.

Bayoumy entirely omits mention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 following the 2006 war with Israel that forbids the positioning of any weaponry, other than that controlled by the Lebanese army, south of the Litany River and further calls on the Lebanese government to compel the disarmament of Hezbollah.  Nor does Bayoumy mention previous UN resolutions 1559 and 1680 that mandate the disarming and disbanding of all militia groups in Lebanon.

One might think that information relevant in a story on the debate over Hezbollah's weapons.  Not Reuters apparently.

Reuters reverts to "he said/she said" on border incident

For Reuters, facts are an inconvenient thing.  After initially falsely reporting that Israel had crossed the Blue Line with Lebanon to do its maintenance work, Reuters was forced to backpedal ("clarifying") and eventually admit that the IDF was in Israeli territory when the Lebanese army attacked and killed an officer.

Having lost the border propaganda battle, Reuters has since published a series of stories which attempt to mitigate Lebanese culpability by suggesting that the LAF merely fired "warning shots" at the Israeli maintenance crew leading to an Israeli escalation.  This version of events is not even being advanced by the Lebanese army.  Indeed, Major-General Abdul Rahman Chehaitly of the LAF has admitted to Israel and the UN that the lethal sniper attack was planned and authorized by senior Lebanese commanders:

"The sniper was aiming for the most senior IDF officers present, not the person operating the crane where the alleged border infringement took place," the source told the Herald.

"These were not warning shots fired towards the area of the crane. Someone took careful aim at the Israeli commanders who were standing several hundred metres away."

Reuters correspondent Yara Bayoumy is apparently still confused:

The clash -- in which Lebanon and Israel gave different accounts of what happened -- raised fears of wider conflict. Both countries have since worked to calm tension at the border...

By Israel's account of Tuesday's events, a Lebanese army sniper hit two Israeli officers as they watched a tree-pruning operation on the security fence below the U.N. "Blue Line." The Lebanese army said it first fired warning shots, then Israelis fired at their soldiers. Israeli artillery and tank fire followed.

First, note how Bayoumy takes a factual statement, one which neither side disputes, i.e., "a Lebanese army sniper hit two Israeli officers as they watched a tree-pruning operation on the security fence below the U.N. 'Blue Line'", and demotes it to merely an Israeli "account".

(It would probably be too much to ask for Bayoumy to have clearly written, "on the Israeli side of the U.N. 'Blue Line'" rather than the more opaque "below the U.N. 'Blue Line'").

Bayoumy then reverts to the canard that, "the Lebanese army said it first fired warning shots".  As noted above, the Lebanese army is not asserting this; it has admitted to premeditating the attack and taking aim directly at the Israeli officers as the attack commenced.

For Reuters however, even an open admission of culpability by Lebanon is not enough to distract the agency from its anti-Israel agenda.

Weasels at Reuters still struggling to blame Israel for border clash

In an update to the Reuters story noted in our previous post, Reuters writes:

A Lebanese army official said the military had had prior notice of Israel's planned activity but it had been agreed on condition that it took place under UNIFIL's supervision, adding that said the Israelis had gone ahead without this.

So, there is no dispute that both UNIFIL and the Lebanese army had been notified of the maintenance work in advance.  Given that UNIFIL is based on the Lebanese side of the border, how exactly would routine maintenance on the Israeli side of the border be under UNIFIL "supervision"?  Moreover, the photographic evidence demonstrates that UNIFIL soldiers were embedded with the Lebanese army and carefully observing the Israeli maintenance activity at the time of the attack.

Reuters then sneaks in a suggestion:

The UNIFIL statement did not say whether the Israeli army had coordinated with the peacekeepers.

No, and it didn't say whether Castro had Kennedy killed either.  The UNIFIL statement speaks for itself; it didn't say whether the Israeli army had coordinated with the peacekeepers because the assertion that this had been agreed (or was required) has no basis in reality.  It is simply a red herring tossed in by the Lebanese army to draw attention away from its own culpability.

And Reuters of course, happily takes the bait and feeds it to its readers.

Reuters reports on UN finding regarding border clash; expediently switches photos

In what must be quite distressing for the agency, Reuters has had to acknowledge that, per the UN, Israel was within its own borders when the Lebanese army opened fire killing an Israeli Lieutenant Colonel and critically wounding another officer.  After reporting on this definitive finding however, Reuters returns to its usual "he said/she said" account of the incident with an amusing non sequitur from the Lebanese Information Minister:

Tareq Mitri said the area where Israel's activity took place was south of the Blue Line "but is Lebanese territory".

Makes perfect sense.

On the same URL where Reuters had published a picture of the Israeli army crane with a caption indicating the agency was in the process of "clarifying" the border location, Reuters has now removed the picture and replaced it with a photo of the crying daughter of a Lebanese soldier killed in the clash.  The not-so subliminal message: The Israelis were technically justified in defending against an unprovoked attack by the Lebanese army BUT... look at the pain and suffering they've caused.

Upstanding journalism.

UPDATE 11:20 AM: In an effort to rationalize the non sequitur above, Reuters edits the original story, adding:

Israel and Lebanon dispute parts of the Blue Line.

To be clear, there is no formal dispute with respect to the UN-drawn border at the point where the violence took place.

Reuters publishes Q+A on Syria's "interests" in Lebanon; no mention of Hezbollah and Assad efforts to kill UN investigation

Compiled by Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Yara Bayoumy and David Cutler with editing by Alistair Lyon, Reuters runs one of its execrable "Q+A" series, this time on Syria's stranglehold interest in Lebanon.  After mischaracterizing Syria's 29-year military occupation in Lebanon as a "presence", the Reuters team notes that the UN originally implicated Syria in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri but is now expected to indict several members of Hezbollah for the killing.

News of the indictments last week led to a televised rant by Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah where he warned on the implications: "we won't allow the resistance to be degraded".

Reuters doesn't cite this veiled threat against the UN tribunal but does inform us:

Nasrallah's condemnation of the tribunal as "an Israeli project" drove up tensions in Lebanon.

Sure, it's always the Israelis who are creating tensions while the Lebanese government has:

advocated calm in an effort to avoid a repeat of the divisions that led to violence in 2008.

And no mention by Reuters in this trenchant analysis of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's call to quash the UN investigation as well.  Apparently, that doesn't fall under the umbrella of a Q+A on Syria's (imperial) interests in Lebanon.

We do learn however, that Reuters specializes in unsupported assertions and red herrings:

Syria, which has lost several wars with Israel, relies on Hezbollah guerrillas to thwart Israel's ambitions in Lebanon and fight a proxy conflict with the Jewish state.

'Hezbollah-land' attracting jihad tourists

ABC news reports that the jihad terror group Hezbollah has opened a family amusement park in Lebanon with the theme of "resistance".  Dubbed "Hezbollah-land", the park is designed to be the centerpiece of a massive tourist development:

At Hezbollah's "Museum for Resistance Tourism" on the mountain stronghold of Mleeta, war is celebrated, glamorized, and fashioned into an interactive display...

“We’re going to build motels, playgrounds, camping areas, even spas or swimming pools so that all of the visitors — especially our people — can come here and spend their weekends or vacations,” the guide says.

Reuters correspondent Yara Bayoumy appears to have missed this hot spot in her recent promotional travelogue for Lebanon.

Visit Lebanon! (Just not as a foreign worker)

Yara Bayoumy is positively giddy about Lebanon.  In an over-the-top public relations piece for the country, "Resilient Lebanon attracts tourists, money, glamour", the Reuters correspondent shares her unbridled enthusiasm for economic prospects this year:

Already Arab Gulf tourists fill the capital's five-star hotels, their gas-guzzling Hummers choke Beirut's narrow streets and their Asian staff struggle to carry dozens of shopping bags emblazoned with the names of top international brands. 

Beaches brim with bikini-clad, tanned women and come nighttime, clubs host Europe's top DJs who play to audiences of thousands, many of whom are flush with cash from jobs abroad and are happy to spend hundreds of dollars on food, drink and music.

Sadly, we're not on the A-list nor have we personally benefited from $80/barrel oil so we won't be throttling our Hummer through Beirut or doing the Surra de Bunda in the discos anytime soon.  We do know however, that while foreign female tourists may be living it up on the beaches and in the clubs, foreign female workers, 15 percent of whom are beaten and many of whom are murdered each year by their employers, will not be similarly enjoying the good life.  Nor will gays incidentally, for whom homosexuality is still a crime.  However, we don't want to rain on Bayoumy's parade:

Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri's government has also pledged to implement reforms, from privatization to slashing debt, and the IMF predicts another year of economic growth of 8 percent.

Lebanon's resilience and ability to rebound from crises is what encourages many people to visit and spurs investors to pour millions of dollars in real estate projects, one of the country's biggest money-making sectors...

Now it's skyline is dotted with cranes working to build multi-million dollar skyscrapers and five-star hotels.

Actually, the IMF has forecast economic growth for Lebanon of 6 percent in 2010 and 4.5 percent in 2011 but hey, per capita wealth in the country still edges out Botswana.

Bayoumy again:

The influx of cash is also apparent in lavish schemes. For $250 per person, a crane will lift you and 21 others 50 meters above ground to enjoy dinner while taking in Beirut's sights. Just want to watch the sunset? That'll be $120.

Now this bit of information certainly won't attract tourists.  Why pay $250 to be hung from a crane when Lebanon's benefactor Iran offers that at no charge?

Sorry, we're feeling a bit cheeky today.

Still no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; Reuters falls back to secondary sources

Reuters correspondent Yara Bayoumy, who fatuously characterizes the jihadists aboard the Mavi Marmara as "activists" while fastidiously referring to the "unsubstantiated Israeli allegations" of the transfer of Scud missiles from Syria to Hezbollah (right!), apparently has no difficulty parroting the Big Lie reportedly advanced by Filippo Grandi, the head of the UN Relief Works Agency:

Israel denies there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, as Palestinians, UNRWA officials and rights advocates maintain.

Notice that Reuters has backed-off the false assertion, appearing in several of its previous stories, that the United Nations itself had accused Israel of causing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.  The news agency is now relying instead on the opinions of "rights advocates" and Filippo Grandi who has also hysterically referred to Gaza as "the world's largest outdoor prison".

With all but weapons and war materiel now making its way through the border with Israel, we expect Reuters will next be consulting with Ismail Haniyeh and Lauren Booth for their views on whether there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

For Reuters, only Israel is subject to international law

Reuters correspondents seem to relish the citing of non-binding findings in international law that disfavor Israel -- like the ICJs advisory opinion on the security fence in 2004.  They are much more circumspect however, to note authoritative resolutions issued by bodies like the UN Security Council that find for Israel and/or condemn Arab violations of international law.  Take for example, the UNSC ruling in June of 2000 that Israel had completely withdrawn from Lebanese territory and that the Shebaa Farms area belongs not to Lebanon, but to Syria.  Reuters correspondent Yara Bayoumy appears to be confused about the independence of this determination:

Israel and Hezbollah have traded threats, even though each insists it is not seeking another conflict. One potential flashpoint is Shebaa Farms, a tiny area claimed by Lebanon but still occupied by Israel, which says it was Syrian territory.

For Bayoumy, it is only Israel that is asserting Shebaa Farms is not a part of Lebanon; there is no mention of the UNSC ruling confirming the same.  Thus, it's reported as simply a "he said-she said" between Israel and Lebanon with no reference to international law that upholds Israel's view.

In suggesting that the belligerent parties may be moving toward another war, Bayoumy cites the "unsubstantiated" allegation of the transfer of Scud missiles from Syria to Hezbollah:

The region has stayed largely quiet since 2006 with U.N. and Lebanese army troops monitoring the border. But unsubstantiated Israeli allegations that Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah have caused rumors of war to swirl.

In fact, Hezbollah has confirmed receiving the Scuds and Bayoumy fails to make any mention of Hezbollah's rearming with tens of thousands of other rockets in violation of UNSC Resolution 1701.

Just another Swiss cheese sandwich prepared by Reuters.

The Scud shell game continues

As we noted previously, Hezbollah has reportedly admitted taking delivery of Scud missiles from Syria.  Reuters continues to ask everyone about the alleged missile transfer:   

Lebanon's army chief said he is convinced there are no scud missiles in the country...

The commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was also quoted as saying he had not seen any Scuds in the southern region bordering Israel...

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit who was visiting Beirut, also dismissed the allegations. "Whoever knows about these rockets, knows that these (allegations) are all laughable lies.

Yes, Reuters asks everyone about the Scuds; everyone, that is, except Hezbollah.

More Orwellian inversion

In our post from last Thursday, we noted how Reuters has been presenting a series of stories of late which attempt to build a case that Israel is banging the drums of war in the Middle East while Iran, Syria, and Lebanon are defensively "warning" Israel off the warpath.  Reuters correspondent Yara Bayoumy (with help from Allyn Fisher-Ilan) continues in that vein with a story on yesterday's video-linked speech by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.  Note the headline:

Hezbollah warns Israel over future war

Nothing threatening here; just a friendly warning that if Israel hits Beirut, Hezbollah will hit Tel Aviv.  All very defensive, you see.  Bayoumy then goes on to describe the events which led up to the last war between Israel and Hezbollah and the war itself:

Hezbollah fought against Israel in a 34-day war in 2006 after the group captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.  Some 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, were killed and 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers, died... Israel pounded Beirut's southern suburbs as well as mainly Shi'ite southern Lebanon where Hezbollah maintains a stronghold and from which Israel withdrew in 2000... Israeli bombing also hit bridges, roads, airport runways, ports, factories, power and water networks, and military installations, and the eastern Bekaa Valley.

Apart from the asymmetrical use of weasel-words to describe the Israelis who "died" (while the Lebanese were "killed"), notice anything missing from Bayoumy's otherwise detailed account? How about the eight Israeli soldiers killed by Hezbollah when the other two soldiers were "captured"?  Or the Katyusha rockets fired by Hezbollah at Israeli border communities at the time of the initial attack.  Or the 4,000 rockets Hezbollah launched at Israeli communities during the course of the war.  The thousands of Israeli homes taking direct hits; the 300,000 residents displaced; and the more than one million Israelis forced to live in bomb shelters for weeks.   Bayoumy is conspicuously silent on these details.

So does Reuters -- with guileful wording and selective omission -- seek to portray Israel as warmonger and the Arab states and terrorist militias as rational actors responding defensively to threats against them.