Bowing to the Muslims. Defecating on the Jews.

As a company, Reuters is deeply hostile to Jewish nationalism and Jewish claims to Jerusalem.  The agency hires, trains and retains reporters, writers, editors, and managing editors who uphold an agenda intended to undermine Jewish territorial claims, while advocating for Arab Muslim claims, and employing sophisticated propaganda techniques in their stories to advance this agenda with audiences. 

Proof of this can be seen in academic studies which have analyzed Reuters coverage of the Middle East conflict.

Take for example, this Reuters story by Noah Browning about prominent Arabs visiting the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Browning writes about the tension between Arabs from Jordan and other countries who wish to visit the mosque, and those Arabs who argue that doing so implicitly recognizes Israel's claim to sovereignty over the city.

In his lede, Browning writes:

Israel controls access to Islam's 3rd holiest site

While Browning trumpets a claim made by Muslims that the al-Aqsa mosque represents the "3rd holiest site" for their faith, he fails utterly to note that the site is the holiest to Jews and referred to as the Temple Mount.  Indeed, it is not until the 9th paragraph of his story that Browning tells readers, in typically propagandistic fashion:

Jews revere the al Aqsa compound as site of their Biblical Temple, destroyed by Roman troops in the 1st century.  

Actually of course, Jews do not revere the "al-Aqsa compound" -- any more than Muslims revere the Cathedral of Córdoba in Spain, which was converted from a mosque to a Catholic church in the thirteenth century following the Reconquista.  Religious Muslims refer to the latter by its original Islamic name, the Aljama Mosque, just as Jews refer to the al-Aqsa mosque compound as The Temple Mount.

(Of note, Muslims are officially banned from praying in the Cathedral of Córdoba by both the Roman Catholic Church of Spain and the Vatican.  Security guards enforce the ban.  Apparently, "Israeli occupation forces" in Jerusalem are extraordinarily more tolerant of Islamic worship than are "Spanish occupation forces" in al-Andalus).

Browning, who is apparently ignorant of both history and current events and completely unable to do any independent fact-checking as a reporter, then writes: 

Israel says that when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, Jews were prevented from attending their holy places. Now, it says, followers of all the three monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are free to worship in Jerusalem.
Any restrictions placed on access by Palestinians to al-Aqsa are the result of security concerns, Israel says.

It's a well-documented fact that Jews were prevented from attending their holy places, or for that matter, setting foot in Jerusalem when Jordan controlled the city.  And that synagogues were burned to the ground.  And that landmark Jewish cemeteries were routinely desecrated by Arab Muslims.  Browning deliberately structures his report to relegate the 19-year ban on Jewish worship to a mere claim by Israel and predictably mentions none of the other historical detail, essential to an understanding of why Israel seeks to control the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

The Reuters correspondent then parrots the most risible Arab claims about Israeli visitors to the Temple Mount:

Jerusalem's Muslim community says the [Israeli] visits have coincided with a period of tension, as radical Jewish settlers grow increasingly assertive at the site. "Almost every day a group of settlers comes through the Mughrabi gate," said Faisal Mohammed, one of the sanctuary's guards, referring to an entrance under Israeli control through which non-Muslim tourists can access the leafy compound.
"These aren't just ordinary trips, they're invasions."

In reality, hundreds of Israeli Jews of all religious and political stripes, as well as tourists from around the world, visit the site every week.  No political demonstrations of any kind are permitted and Israeli security personnel quickly arrest or usher away any Jew seen as even remotely engaging in prayer.

But for the Palestinian Arabs, and apparently for Reuters' Browning:

"Visits which affirm the Arab and Islamic character of al-Aqsa, even before its liberation, are welcome. My own proclamations affirm this," the Grand Mufti told Reuters. "Those that are aggressive and meant to attack our shrine are not, and Israel must forbid them."

Attacking the shrine, uh-huh.

Palestinian who attempted to murder Israeli on train influenced by CNN

Two weeks ago, a Palestinian Arab attempted to murder a female Israeli soldier traveling on the Jerusalem light rail by stabbing her within inches of her heart.  We covered it... Reuters didn't.

We now know more about the suspect's motivations:

According to the charge sheet, Shuman was motivated to murder after he "watched news reports on Al Jazeera, Al Manar, Al Quds, Al Aqsa and CNN over the last three years, and felt great frustration from the situation of the Palestinians and the security checks at Kalandia crossing." He "felt that he had to 'do a deed' and stab the soldier so as to cause her death."

Exposure to reports produced by Reuters is not mentioned in the charge sheet, but given the enormous size of Reuters' syndication network, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to imagine that Shuman, as well as millions of other Arabs like him, have at one time or another come across examples of Reuters anti-Israel agitprop.  Indeed, CNN publishes Reuters material.

We suggested in our posts following the murder of a rabbi and three Jewish schoolchildren in France last week, that exposure to agitprop is likely to influence audiences to take action consistent with Reuters propaganda campaign and institutional ideology.

By his own admission, this is what occurred with Shuman resulting from his viewing of stories on the Middle East conflict broadcast by CNN and other media outlets over the last three years.

Raising an interesting legal question on the possible role and liability of media companies in the deaths of Israelis and others at the hands of those who are incited to kill by false and misleading news reports.

Agitprop kills

Further to our post yesterday asking whether Reuters and its correspondents could be seen as being complicit in the murders of three Jewish children and a rabbi in Toulouse France due to the agency's long-standing agitprop campaign targeting Israel, Haaretz reports that a French woman warned police about the suspect as far back as 2010:

A local French newspaper published on Thursday an in-depth testimony of a woman claiming that she had warned authorities multiple times that the suspect in the Toulouse killings, Mohamed Merah, was a danger to the public.

Included in the woman's account of Merah's behavior and attempts to indoctrinate her son into the world of Islamic fundamentalism and jihad, is this revealing comment:

Merah claimed he would “wipe out all those who kill Muslims.”

Such a motive being entirely consistent, indeed incited and rationalized by the many instances of Reuters tendentious reporting and outright fabrications suggesting the Jews of Israel kill Muslims indiscriminately.

Words matter.  And it takes no great leap of faith to appreciate that false and misleading messages, appearing in thousands of news outlets every day and read by millions of Arab Muslims, intended to portray Jews as cold-blooded killers and to arouse reader passions, can incite the murders we witnessed in Toulouse.

Are Reuters and its correspondents complicit in the murders of the Jewish children in France?

As our more than 700 posts since August 2009 demonstrate, Reuters, the largest multimedia news agency in the world, is heavily engaged in a systematic, mendacious, and malicious propaganda campaign intended to demonize and delegitimize the Jews of Israel for choosing to defend themselves in the face of 64 years of Muslim calls for annihilation of the Jewish state and its inhabitants.

That campaign involves the publication of hundreds of stories, disseminated to thousands of media outlets, each employing scores of propaganda techniques and fallacies, ethical and professional breaches, and outright lies designed to manipulate reader opinion and emotions so as to compel the audience to adopt Reuters' own anti-Israel institutional ideology and political view.

It also involves the hiring, training, and tight coordination of a team of propagandists, masquerading as independent journalists, who either subscribe to the same ideology or enthusiastically serve as foot soldiers in the propaganda campaign so as to advance their careers.

Take for example, Reuters correspondent Dan Williams who, in September of 2011 conveyed the blood libel that Israelis have a "shoot-on-sight" policy against Palestinians.

Or Nidal al-Mughrabi, who, in dozens of stories about the 2008-09 Gaza war, reports that some 1,400 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces, without revealing that most of these casualties were members of Hamas, sworn to genocide of the Jews, and their human shields.

Or Allyn Fisher-Ilan, who suggested, falsely, that Israel was to blame for the lack of basic medicines in Gaza.

Or Crispian Balmer, who duplicated, verbatim and absent criticism, a Twitter feed post by a former Egyptian foreign minister portraying Israel as a killer of children.

This afternoon, the French authorities arrested an Algerian-born Muslim man suspected of killing the Jewish children in Toulouse.  (See update below).

Haaretz reports the suspect said he wanted revenge for "Palestinian children".

We don't know if the suspect was a reader of any of the thousands of newspapers or news websites that publish Reuters stories on the Middle East conflict.

But given Reuters global reach and the frequency with which the agency's anti-Israel propaganda appears, it's entirely possible, indeed likely, the suspect had come across one or more of these stories at some point.

We also know that Reuters successfully influences readers to alter their behavior in a manner consistent with the agency's propaganda campaign and institutional ideology.

As the investigation proceeds, it will be very interesting to learn more about the suspect's motivations and mentors.

UPDATE: Earlier reports of the arrest of the suspect were incorrect and a stand-off continues.

UPDATE 2: Following a shoot-out with police, the murder suspect, Mohamed Merah, reportedly jumped from a window to his death.

Thomson Reuters flushes its Trust Principles down the loo (Part II)

In our post just below, we cited a hysterical and wholly one-sided opinion piece by Reuters correspondents William Maclean, Peter Apps, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, and Tabassum Zakaria prophesying virtual Armageddon should Israel launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities -- er, sorry, disputed energy and medical isotope facilities.

Reuters normally disguises its opinion pieces with the ambiguous and scientific-sounding "Analysis" banner so that de facto propaganda can be sold on to hundreds of other media outlets as dispassionate inquiry, but in the case of the aforementioned story, even that banner is conspicuously missing.  With continuing, flagrant violations of their employer's corporate governance charter and handbook of ethical standards, Reuters correspondents simply have no shame.

Yesterday, we attached a few editorial comments to Reuters' biased litany of prophesied events associated with a possible Israeli military strike against Iran, but the central propagandistic message to which we wish to call attention, a message Reuters is intent on peddling to its audience, is that Israel is alone -- both in its assessment of the danger of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and in the increasingly-evident reality that it (Israel) will have to act to defend itself against Iranian threats of genocide.

Reuters correspondents embed the propagandistic message of Israeli isolation into their reporting with a barrage of entirely one-sided claims and assertions, while willfully omitting essential countervailing evidence from sources other than Israeli officials.

Correspondents Maclean and Co. for example, want readers to believe that an Israeli strike on Iran, with military or moral support from the United States, will unleash a torrent of anti-Israel and anti-American Muslim sentiment in the Middle East:

- Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

- "If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools' paradise," said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.  He said a raid would create "huge anti-Israeli feeling" and an "Islamic backlash" in the region.

Of course, the United States and Israel have long been considered "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" by Muslims in the Middle East, and Israel in particular, is not interested in winning any popularity contests with Hamas, Hezbollah or Syria.  But the 72 percent of Lebanon's population not Shia would likely be thrilled with the decapitation of Hezbollah's patron.

Moreover, Reuters completely ignores the fear and loathing of Shi'ite Iran demonstrated by Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia and Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, where officials have not only endorsed punishing economic sanctions against Iran but actively solicited the U.S. to pursue military action, i.e., "cut off the head of the snake".

We know that Arab states, including Egypt, have tacitly accommodated the movement of Israeli warships as a signal to Iran and reportedly provided Israel with permission to use their air space in an attack on Iran.

Maclean and Co. predictably mention none of this, cite none of this, in their agitprop because it would distract from their campaign to brand Israel as a lone loose cannon and to solicit public condemnation of the Jewish state for seeking to survive in the face of palpable threats of genocide.

Thomson Reuters flushes its Trust Principles down the loo (Part I)

In a desperately hysterical piece of agitprop and fear mongering engineered to stir up anti-Israel sentiment, Reuters correspondents William Maclean, Peter Apps, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, and Tabassum Zakaria don't even feign impartial reporting as they assemble every catastrophic scenario ever imagined, a host of inveterate Israel-haters, and a variety of cherry-picked quotes to warn that:

An Israeli raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would deliver a painful shock to the global economy, revive flagging Islamist militancy and possibly drag the United States into a regional war whether it backed its ally's attack or not.

Here's the list, not exhaustive, compiled by Reuters correspondents of those events prophesied to occur if Israel launches a military strike against Iran's nuclear weapons program:

- any doubts Tehran entertained about the wisdom of building a nuclear weapon would vanish the moment the strike occurred [we couldn't agree more, ed].

- Iran would expel International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ending any possibility of a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue [and after all, negotiations have been so fruitful, ed].

- a raid would only delay, not destroy Iran's program. And once it had recovered, Iran would probably seek to develop nuclear weapons [as if they're not doing this now, ed].

- A strike on Iran and Iran's response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, or an attack on Saudi oilfields, would lead to a sharp rise in oil prices that could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama's chances for re-election [yes, we're certain Reuters correspondents are very much concerned about that, ed].

- Saudi Arabia would be forced to use all its spare output capacity, a crucial safety cushion for oil markets.

- the possibility of Iran mining the straits, attacking ships as it did during the Iran-Iraq war, or challenging the legality of the passage of some vessels through its territorial waters.

- Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, choking the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

- Possible Iranian actions could include harrying tanker traffic in the Gulf with fast attack boats, seizing uninhabited Gulf islands claimed by other states or grabbing hostages from passing civilian or military ships, stoking trouble in Sunni Muslim-ruled Arab states with restive Shi'ite Muslim communities and orchestrating attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere using militant "proxies" such as Hezbollah.

- If the Iranian government interprets the strike as a fully-fledged attempt at regime change, it might adopt a more muscular response could include ballistic-missile salvos on civilian and military targets in the Gulf.

- A study by former senior British intelligence official said the "The US would be assumed complicit, and would become embroiled in defending Israel against a counter-attack. This would stretch the U.S. military."

- In an indication of a divergence in Israeli and Western views, a senior former British intelligence official wrote in a private analysis in 2011 that the West had two objectives: prevent the Iranian bomb, and also "prevent Iran being bombed.  Both outcomes would be potentially disastrous for our national security," he wrote.  Referring to a strike, he went on, "the likely damage (to Iran's program) would outweigh the benefits" [now there's a cogent argument, ed.]

- Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

- "If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools' paradise," said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.  He said a raid would create "huge anti-Israeli feeling" and an "Islamic backlash" in the region.

- Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in a January interview with The Real News website a strike would be a "disaster for us more than for Israel in the short run, and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run."  Neither the Russians or Europeans would side with America in any resulting conflict. He said that the United States could be "forced out of the region," a development he suggested would imperil Israel's existence.

My, we're breathless.  The only analysis provided by Maclean and Co. to ostensibly balance their frantic handwringing, is that of Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, a piece of journalistic legerdemain executed quite deliberately of course, to give readers the false impression that Israel stands alone against Iran.

We'll tackle that fabrication in Part II.

Reuters rooting for war between Israel and the Palestinians

War is good for business.  At least in the media industry.  Just ask Reuters correspondent Dan Williams, who maintains a personal social network called "MideastWarWatch".  Or disgraced former Jerusalem Bureau Chief Alastair Macdonald who, before he was sent packing to a desk job in London, penned an hysterical piece of agitprop seeking to stir up trouble and lamenting the public's waning interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Reuters continues in that vein with a story today, written anonymously but in the unmistakable hand of kingpin propagandist Tom Perry.  Edited by Macdonald and current Jerusalem Bureau Chief Crispian Balmer, one can sense the author's wistful yearning for a new Palestinian terror war, and the disappointment that it may not materialize:

(Reuters) - Calls for Palestinian protests to back a diplomatic push for statehood at the United Nations next month have put Israel on guard; the peace process in deep crisis, some see a violent September, inspired by the Arab Spring.

Yet to many, a sustained Intifada, or uprising, appears unlikely, at least for now. To ordinary Palestinians, the significance of U.N. maneuvers in New York is hard to fathom, their leaders in the West Bank are wary of violence with Israel and their national movement remains weakened by a deep schism.

"There might be some protests," said Zakaria al-Qaq, a Palestinian political analyst. "But not with the size that the Palestinian leadership expects because the people feel they are marginalized. There is a great lack of confidence."

Marwan al-Barghouti, a charismatic leader in the last two Intifadas and now jailed for life in Israel, was among the first to call for protests to add popular weight to President Mahmoud Abbas's bid to secure a U.N. seat for a new state of Palestine.

With memories of protests on its borders this spring still fresh, Israel is deploying extra forces in preparation for trouble. In the opinion of Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right foreign minister, the Palestinians are planning violence.

In Jalazone, a refugee camp a short drive from the center of Ramallah, Mohammed Nakhla, 23 years old and unemployed, believes the failure of diplomacy means more confrontation is inevitable.

"There's no alternative," he said. "You need to resist."

With faith in the peace process non-existent -- Abbas himself says talks have hit a dead end -- observers have for some time warned of a vacuum that could be filled by turmoil.

Mahmoud al-Aloul, a veteran in the Fatah party led by Abbas, confidently expects widespread protests in support of the U.N. bid. "It is a declaration of a loss of hope," Aloul told Reuters. "This will lead to a continuous escalation.

"They will be peaceful protests. But will they stay peaceful? This will depend on how the Israelis act."

LITTLE APPETITE

Yet to many Palestinian analysts, the idea of an imminent outbreak of widespread insurrection, similar to those that are reshaping the rest of the Arab world, seems fanciful.

Some question whether Abbas is even serious in calling for the protests. He has long been opposed to violence and may fear that protests will spiral out of control.

Threaded throughout the story are a series of carefully contrived propaganda devices intended to sanitize Palestinian violence and demonize Israel.  A terror war aimed at civilians is merely an "uprising".  Marwan al-Baghouti, convicted on five counts of murder for a terror attack at a seafood restaurant in Tel Aviv, is a "charismatic" leader.  The Israeli foreign minister is "far right".  Arab violence is only and always a need to "resist".  Palestinian protests may turn violent depending on "how the Israelis act".  And of course, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who told interviewers as recently as 2008 that Palestinians may once again launch violent attacks when the time is right, is described, risibly, as being "long opposed to violence".

But mostly, the writer reveals his own melancholy that a reporting opportunity with violent confrontations may simply not be in the cards:

Yet if the experience of May and June is anything to go by, the participation will not be large. Protests called to mark major anniversaries in the conflict with Israel failed to galvanize large numbers in the Palestinian territories.
More attention focused on Israel's northern frontiers, where thousands of refugees gathered. Some crossed the frontline from Syria, delighting Palestinians and giving Israel's heavily armed troops the problem of dealing with unarmed mass protests.
The head of the Israeli army, looking ahead to next month, has said he does not see "strong energy" among the Palestinians. Unlike foreign minister Lieberman, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says he expects events to unfold quietly.
On the ground, there are few signs of preparation. Headlines in Palestinian papers focus more on protests against the high cost of living and on the uprising in Syria than on any thoughts about Palestinians' own possible demonstrations in September.

Since Perry, Macdonald, and Balmer obviously thirst for stories about Arab violence targeting Jews eating dinner or riding on buses, perhaps they can focus on the latest example of that today.

Proven liars at Reuters double-down with more mendacious propaganda

Reuters correspondent Stephanie Nebehay, whom we last caught misrepresenting both the Geneva Conventions and a statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross, now turns to "U.N. human rights expert" Richard Falk to demonize Israel for razing 20 Palestinian homes in the Silwan community of Jerusalem and the possible expulsion of 4 Hamasniks.

Let's follow the agit-prop:

Israel's plan to demolish some 20 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is illegal and reflects its systematic bid to drive Palestinians out of the holy city, a U.N. human rights expert charged on Tuesday.

Here are the facts: Palestinian Arabs have built a number of homes in the area without permits.  As part of a plan to redevelop the community, the Jerusalem municipality has agreed to retroactively approve about 60 illegally built Palestinian dwellings and to provide land and permits to the 20 Palestinians whose homes will alternatively be razed.

And as we noted here, if Israel is engaged in a systematic effort to drive Palestinians out of Jerusalem, she's clearly doing a lousy job of it: the Palestinian Arab population has quadrupled since Israel liberated the city in 1967.

Continuing:

Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, said its separate intent to forcibly transfer four Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to the West Bank could constitute a war crime.

We have to wade through 9 paragraphs of this muck before Nebehay finally gets around to disclosing that the four Palestinians are members of the terrorist group Hamas.  Uh-huh, a "war crime".  And by the way, Israel is considering waiving the expulsions if the Hamasniks sever their ties to the terror group.

But for Falk and Nebehay, this requirement also constitutes a war crime:

"Israel, as an occupying power, is prohibited from transferring civilian persons from East Jerusalem and is prohibited from forcing Palestinians to swear allegiance or otherwise affirm their loyalty to the State of Israel," he said.

Notice that no one has suggested anything about "forcing Palestinians to swear allegiance or otherwise affirm their loyalty to the State of Israel".  A red herring and a straw man in one sentence -- a record even for the UN.

In a bid to immunize herself and Falk from allegations of antisemitism due to consistently anti-Israel bias and coverage, Nebehay plays the race card:

Falk, who is Jewish, was detained and turned back from Israel while trying to carry out an official U.N. mission to Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem in Dec. 2008

Not to worry Stephanie, some of the Jewish state's most overwrought and mendacious critics are Jewish.

Macdonald, the Propagandist

Reuters Bureau Chief (Propagandist) Alastair Macdonald pens a piece on violence in Jerusalem yesterday which serves as a textbook study in media bias and distortion.  Following a brief lede describing the confrontation, Macdonald immediately offers space to broadcast Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' agitprop:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of trying to wreck peace efforts and of risking a "war of religion" across the Middle East by police "provocation" at Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest spot in Islam, which stands on ground also revered by Jews as the site of their biblical Temple.

The Palestinians of course, regularly hurl this type of hyperbolic rhetoric and Reuters dutifully disseminates it as if it were news.  No balance is provided with say, a quote from an Israeli official noting that the incident was initiated by Palestinians stoning Jewish worshipers at the adjacent Western Wall, a Jewish shrine.

Indeed, Macdonald has a long sorry history of dismissing Arab violence and showing deference for Muslim shrines ("the third holiest spot in Islam") while downplaying the significance of Jewish holy sites.  The ground under and around the mosque is called the Temple Mount and is not simply "revered" by Jews, it is Judaism's holiest shrine.

Macdonald then steers into a non sequitur:

Separately, six Palestinian family members were killed in a car collision with an Israeli military vehicle in the occupied West Bank on Friday, Palestinian police and the Israeli army said, in an incident likely to anger Palestinians [italics, ours].

The Palestinians are so predictable and have Macdonald so well-heeled that he no longer waits to report the news but conveniently divines for us, hostile Palestinian reaction to a traffic accident.

Returning to the headlined story, it is not until the 7th paragraph down that Macdonald finally gets around to reporting that a Reuters journalist at the scene of the confrontation in Jerusalem witnessed the incipient violence:

A Reuters journalist at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, which also houses the landmark, gilded Dome of the Rock and is known to Jews as the Temple Mount, said violence began after weekly prayers when youths holding a protest against Israel threw rocks at police who had entered the walled area.

Yet even this is a distortion, for Macdonald fails to disclose that police entered the area precisely because, as noted, Arab "youths" began throwing rocks at Jews worshiping at the Western Wall below.  The ensuing violence between Arabs and Israeli police -- which Reuters admits was initiated by the Arabs -- was secondary to the original Arab assault on Jewish congregants.

Macdonald then runs interference for Abbas:

In an unusually strongly worded statement, Abbas, who is mindful of local criticism of his decision to restart negotiations, said, "The occupation forces are crossing all red lines in an attempt to block the resumption of peace talks."

"Unusually strongly worded statement"?  As noted above, this type of inflammatory rhetoric is standard fare for Abbas.

Macdonald finishes with an ahistorical citation:

Palestinian negotiators say they want to use the four months to narrow gaps on core issues in the six-decade-old conflict, which has eluded resolution despite 20 years of talks.

Although Macdonald wishes readers to view the conflict as originating with creation of the state of Israel in 1948 (the Palestinian "nakba" narrative), he well understands that the roots of the fighting between Arab Muslims and Jews extend back centuries.  Even in the modern era, those Arabs living in the Palestine Mandate formally rejected a two-state solution and Jewish sovereignty as early as 1937.

Palestinians stone tourists at Temple Mount; Reuters blames Israel

Christian and Jewish visitors touring the Temple Mount in Jerusalem today were stoned by Palestinians.  While Reuters cites an Israeli police spokesman for clinical details of the confrontation, Allyn Fisher-Ilan and Tom Perry give full voice to the Palestinians to disseminate their agitprop:

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat accused Israel of exacerbating tensions on purpose to undermine U.S. efforts to broker a resumption of peace talks.  "The message is very, very clear: they are trying to sabotage all efforts to revive peace," he told Reuters... Mohammad Hussein, the mufti of Jerusalem, said in a statement Israeli authorities would bear responsibility for the consequences of what he described as the "storming" of the site by "extremist groups".

Got that?  Palestinians stone non-Muslim visitors to Judaism's holiest shrine and Palestinian officials, aided and abetted by Reuters, vilify Israel.

Fisher-Ilan and Perry then employ the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore on account of this) to peddle a canard that has long since been debunked:

The second Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, erupted in 2000 after a visit by then-Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the compound, known by Jews as the Temple Mount and by Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif.

As we noted here, even the Palestinians admit that the bloody war they waged against Israeli civilians (also known as the "intifada") was planned months ahead of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

For Reuters however, as the rooster triggers the sunrise, Israel is always to blame for Arab violence.

Dan Williams sanitizes Islamic fanatic

In a story on the jailing of Islamic Movement leader Sheik Raed Salah following Arab riots at the Temple Mount/al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Reuters' Dan Williams characterizes Salah as "an outspoken cleric".  In defense of Salah, Williams gives full voice to Salah's lawyer:

"The Israeli state, which is occupying al-Aqsa, is trying to distract from its real crime and to satisfy the mood in Israel by convicting the honourable Sheikh Salah".

Readers are not similarly treated however, to examples of the outspoken cleric's oratory:

"They [the Jews] want to build their temple at a time when our blood is on their clothes, on their doorsteps, in their food and in their drinks. Our blood has passed from one general terrorist to another general terrorist... We are not those who ate bread dipped in children's blood."

That from a Salah sermon in 2007 at which time he also urged Palestinians to start a third intifada in order to "save al-Aksa Mosque, free Jerusalem and end the occupation".

Salah was subsequently indicted for incitement to violence and racism.