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.

Whack-A-Mole

With nearly 3,000 staffers worldwide, there are always those at Reuters who appear not to get the memo that the company has been caught out publishing false and fabricated information, employing overt propaganda, and spinning the news, maliciously, to harm national, religious and ethnic groups the agency's journalists hold in contempt.

These writers and editors continue to prepare stories incorporating false and malicious material long ago exposed as such on this website and elsewhere.

In a story appearing yesterday on the Reuters website and syndicated to perhaps hundreds of newspapers worldwide, Reuters correspondents Sebastian Moffett and Daren Butler report on the Turkish government blocking Israel from participating in an upcoming NATO summit:

(Reuters) - Turkey has refused to allow Israel to take part in a NATO summit next month because the Jewish state has not apologized for the 2010 killing of Turkish activists in a raid on a ship taking aid to Palestinians, a Turkish official said on Monday.
Relations between the regional powers deteriorated sharply after Israeli commandos raided the Mavi Marmara aid vessel in May 2010 to enforce a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and killed nine Turks in clashes with activists.
Last September, Turkey expelled Israel's envoy and froze military cooperation after a U.N. report on the raid failed to prompt an apology from Israel.

Independent reports, including that of the United Nations cited by Reuters, concluded that the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian aid whatsoever and that passengers on board the ship, many of whom were members of the terror-linked Islamist group İnsani Yardım Vakfı (IHH), planned and actively sought violent confrontation with Israeli forces:

There were humanitarian supplies and construction materials on board three of the vessels in the flotilla (the Defne Y, Sofia and the Gazze I). No humanitarian supplies were found on the remaining vessels. Weapons and combat equipment were found on board the Mavi Marmara, including flares, rods, axes, knives, tear gas, gas masks, protective vests and night-vision goggles.

It is thus false and willfully misleading for Moffett and Butler to characterize the Mavi Marmara as an "aid vessel", to assert that the ship was "taking aid to Palestinians" and to describe the passengers who attempted to kill Israeli marines boarding the ship with the anodyne term "activists".

To date, Reuters has published some variation of the Mavi Marmara aid ship canard in some three hundred stories. 

UPDATE APRIL 25TH, 2012: Reuters correspondents Edmund Blair and Tom Perry repeat the lie in this story, about Egypt's increasing hostility toward Israel.

He suggested Egypt could follow Turkey's example where once-close ties with Israel had worsened sharply after Israeli naval commandos killed nine Turks in May 2010 in a raid on a ship carrying aid to the Gaza Strip.

Is Perry still employed at Reuters?

Reuters obfuscating international law (again)

Reuters correspondent Noah Browning tells us:

The [Jewish] settlements are considered illegal by the International Court of Justice [ICJ], the highest U.N. legal body for disputes.

What Browning doesn't tell us, is that:

The opinion of the ICJ is strictly advisory and non-binding.

The Charter of the United Nations, the highest authority in international law, confirms the full and irrevocable legality of Jewish settlements as per the San Remo Resolution which preceded it.

Reuters: framing reality to suit its agenda.

773

That's the number of Reuters stories published over just the last couple of years employing the propaganda mantra "the West suspects Iran" (of developing nuclear weapons), in a willful effort by the news agency to conceal and play down damning independent evidence of Iran's comprehensive program to acquire the bomb:

Both sides say they are ready at the meeting to work towards resolving the deepening dispute over the nuclear program which the West suspects is geared towards achieving a nuclear arms capability, but which Iran says has purely peaceful purposes.

In next to none of the 773 stories does Reuters make mention of that independent evidence, as produced for example, by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency:

The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

Reuters: systematically dumbing down the planet.

Tabassum Zakaria at a loss to understand Iran's Supreme Leader

Reuters correspondent Tabassum Zakaria is utterly mystified.  Just what is driving Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

(Reuters) - When U.S. officials join talks this weekend about Iran's nuclear program, they will be armed with profiles developed by intelligence agencies offering insight into what makes foreign leaders tick.  [...]
Former U.S. officials and Iran experts say Khamenei has a deep-rooted suspicion of the West and a streak of insecurity - he rose to power due to his loyalty to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rather than lofty religious credentials.
A sense of inferiority has dogged him over the years and it would be especially important for Khamenei to be seen as not folding under Western pressure to reach an agreement, they said.

In an inadvertently hilarious story, Zakaria spends nearly 1,200 words scratching her head while she cites various intelligence analysts, psychiatrists, and heads of think tanks advising Vice-President Joe Biden, in an effort to divine the mysterious motivations of the Ayatollah:

But even if the United States had great access to Iran, the intentions of one man are not easy to discern.
"It's important to keep in mind that these analysts are trying to assess complex human beings, including all the outside factors that might influence them," the U.S. official said.
One question about Khamenei's intentions is his stated view that nuclear weapons are a sin.
Some experts shrug it off, saying the Iranian leader could issue a new religious edict if it suits a changing circumstance.
But Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA analyst, sees the proclamation as a potentially hopeful sign for nuclear talks.
"It gives him an out," said Pillar, a Georgetown University professor. "He is on record as having made a statement that would not make it shameful or a sign of weakness to come to an understanding with the West ... that clearly rules out a nuclear weapon."
While Khamenei says Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, he has insisted that others respect Iran's civilian nuclear rights.
Standing up for injustice and for Iran's rights is central to how he looks at the nuclear issue and should be considered in how the West frames its approach so that it allows him to save face, a former U.S. government Middle East expert said.  [...] 
"On the one hand we see him as a figure who doesn't really trust the international system, doesn't trust the United States, but he is also not extremely reckless," said Laipson, a former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council.

1,200 words of mental masturbation and nary a mention of Khamenei's many explicit threats to annihilate Israel and exterminate the Jewish people.

Memo to Tabassum and her psychological "experts": sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Dan Williams forgets a little something

In a story about the Netanyahu government staying the eviction of Jews who had purchased and moved into a building in the city of Hebron so they might pursue legal action to protect their rights, Reuters correspondent Dan Williams provides some background on why it is so rare to see Jews buy land in the territories:

But Ramadan Awad, chief of Palestinian police in the city, denied the validity of any such deal, saying the building had more than 50 owners. The Palestinian Authority, which has limited self-rule in the West Bank, outlaws the sale of land to Israelis.

What Williams doesn't tell readers, is that the penalty to Palestinians for selling land to Jews, is death.

Just thought readers might like to familiarize themselves with the progressive Palestinian justice system.  

Jihan Abdalla forgets a little something

In a truly vile demonstration of pro-Palestinian propaganda, Reuters correspondent Jihan Abdalla reports on the Israel Supreme Court's decision to reject claims of ownership by the Husseini family to what remains of the Shepherd Hotel in Jerusalem:

It was declared "absentee property" by Israel after it was captured and annexed to East Jerusalem in 1967. The title was transferred to an Israeli firm, which sold it in 1985 to Irving Moskowitz, a Florida businessman and patron of Jewish settlers.
In 2009, Israel's Jerusalem city hall approved a project to replace the building with a block of 20 apartments. Israeli officials said Washington had voiced its opposition to the plan to Israel's ambassador in the United States.
"This property, which is legitimately ours, represents the Palestinians' rights to their land and to Jerusalem," Mona Husseini, heir to the property and Husseini's granddaughter, said on Monday.

What Abdalla fails to tell readers is that between 1948 and 1967, during which time the property was in the hands of, first, the British and then the King of Jordan, there was absolutely no claim of ownership made by the Husseini family or anyone else.  Only years after Israel took possession of the compound did Husseini and the Palestinians become incensed and seek to obtain title.

Abdalla notes that the original dwelling "served as the home of Jerusalem grand mufti Haj Amin Husseini, who fought the British and Zionists".  

More precisely, Husseini was a Nazi collaborator who exhorted Adolf Hitler not to allow the Jews of Europe to flee to Palestine.  Husseini assured Hitler that the Arabs would, consistent with the Nazi approach in Germany, exterminate those Jews living in Palestine and Arab countries. 

"Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion.  This saves your honor.  God is with you".

--  Haj Amin Husseini

Predictable bias and selective reporting from Reuters

In a story about the deportation to Gaza of previously detained Palestinian, Hana Shalabi, a member of Islamic Jihad, an internationally-recognized terror group responsible for the murder and maiming of hundreds of Israelis, Reuters hardcore propagandists Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan write:

Israel says it uses detention without trial to protect intelligence sources in any legal proceedings against a Palestinian suspect.
The measure has drawn criticism from human rights groups and the European Union.

Pretty ironic, given that many countries in the European Union employ their own "administrative detention" for a host of reasons, including efforts to curb illegal immigration:

Ireland utilizes administrative detention to control illegal immigration. Beginning in 1996, a legal framework was put in place to authorize the use of administrative detention for this purpose. This legal framework includes the Refugee Act, 1996, the Immigration Acts, 1999, 2003 and 2004, and the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. According to official Irish government statistics, in 2003-2004, a total of 2,798 people were administratively detained for immigration-related reasons, two thirds of whom were held in prison for periods of longer than 51 days. The vast majority (more than 90%) of detainees are held in one of two Dublin prisons, Cloverhill Prison (male detainees) and the Dóchas Centre at Mountjoy Prison (female detainees). The rest are held in prisons as well as border control (Garda Síochána) stations.  The UK has maintained many forms of Administrative detention over the years. The most recent forms were a series of Acts intended to introduce a form of administrative detention to Northern Ireland under the auspices of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1973. This Act allowed the security forces to apprehend and detain persons suspected of terrorist activities without trial for an unlimited period. The introduction of the Act led directly to the creation of internment camps (particularly Long Kesh (the Maze) and the prison ship Maidstone where suspects were detained, some for protracted periods.

No word from al-Mughrabi, Fisher-Ilan, or anyone else at Reuters on the EU's detention policies.

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.

Advocate for ethnic cleansing of the Jews still working for Reuters

Reuters correspondent Maayan Lubell, who personally advocates for the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from their homes and property in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") reports on an agreement between the Israeli government and residents of the community of Migron for the latter to relocate to another settlement nearby:

(Reuters) - Jewish settlers signed an agreement with the Israeli government on Sunday to leave the biggest illegal outpost in the occupied West Bank and move to a nearby site after months of negotiations to avoid their forced removal.

In a relatively brief piece of 463 words, Lubell manages to demonstrate her inane logic, quotes as an authoritative source on Jewish settlements a political group convicted in court of libeling settlers, and asserts one of the most pernicious lies surrounding the Middle East conflict.

Let's begin with Lubell's logic (or lack thereof).  She writes:

The long dispute over Migron has revealed a contradiction at the heart of the Jewish state - despite publicly endorsing the notion of an independent Palestinian nation, successive Israeli governments have nurtured settlements on the very land that the Palestinians claim as theirs.

There is no contradiction between endorsement by successive Israeli governments of a Palestinian Arab state in the territories and the support and protection of Jewish communities in the area.  Jews are the aboriginal people on the land and lived there for centuries before being ethnically cleansed by the Arab Legion under the command of Transjordan in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.  In the modern era, much of the land was purchased and titled to individual Jews who were subsequently chased off or killed by marauding Arabs.

Notwithstanding this history of persecution and expulsion at the hands of the Arabs, most Israeli Jews are willing to accept a 22nd Arab state on public and private Jewish land in the territories, but not if it means further ethnic cleansing of their communities.  Since Jewish settlements reside on a mere 2 percent of total land in the area, it is utterly absurd (and utterly racist) for Lubell to suggest that Jews living there must be removed for a Palestinian state to come into being.

But that is the inane logic of the radical left in Israel.

Lubell then gives full voice to Peace Now on the matter:

A spokeswoman for the anti-settlement advocacy group Peace Now called the agreement "a disgrace".
"This agreement is no less than a disgrace. The government of Israel is actually saying 'We will not evict Migron, we will not do what the Supreme Court told us. And we will give in to any settlers' threat ... It sends a message that Israel (does not want) peace (and will) build more settlements," Peace Now's Hagit Ofran said.

What Lubell conceals from her readers is that Peace Now is not simply an "anti-settlement advocacy group" but a fringe organization convicted of publishing false and defamatory information about Jews living in the territories.

Seeking comment from Peace Now on the rights of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria would be like seeking comment from the Ku Klux Klan on the rights of African-Americans to live in Mississippi.

But such is the institutional mindset of Reuters correspondents.

Finally, Lubell perpetuates a piece of pernicious propaganda by asserting that:

While the United Nations deems all Jewish settlements in the region to be illegal, Israel backs 120 official settlements, home to about 310,000 people.

In fact, Jewish settlements in the territories are entirely legal in international law per the League of Nations adoption of the San Remo Agreement and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Maayan Lubell is a racist and bald-faced liar.

The question is:

Why is she still employed at a public company committed in writing to a policy of integrity, independence and freedom from bias?

Another application of Reuters fauxtography

Reuters is notorious for its fauxtography scandals, where photos published by the agency have been doctored in an effort to conceal or distort the facts associated with the incident portrayed (see our right side panel).

Less well-recognized is that Reuters editors frequently select photos for publication that only tell one side of a story.  Even more egregious, are those times when editors select photos which are entirely unrelated to the associated story.

Consider this story by Reuters historical fabricators Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan about the latest round of (92) (180) (200) Palestinian rockets and mortars launched at civilian communities in Israel and the targeted killing of Palestinian terrorists by the Israeli military.

Reuters runs two photo slides with the story; one, of a woman in distress being supported by a man with the caption:

A Palestinian woman reacts at a hospital after an Israeli targeted attack on a car in Gaza City March 9, 2012.

The second photo is captioned:

Palestinian demonstrators run away from tear gas fired by Israeli security officers during clashes at a weekly protest against a nearby Jewish settlement, in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, near Ramallah, March 9, 2012.

A glaring illustration of a non sequitur in the context of a story about the exchange of aerial missiles between Israeli forces and Palestinian terror groups in Gaza. 

No photos are provided depicting the psychological effects, property damage, or injuries sustained by  Israeli civilians as a result of the Palestinian attacks.

Reuters the recidivists.

UPDATE MARCH 11, 2012:

Reuters runs another unrelated photo in this update.

Moreover, note how al-Mughrabi (please tell us why this pathological liar is still employed at the agency) obfuscates on the number of Palestinian combatants killed versus civilians:

Israeli aircraft have continued to fly attacks over the Gaza strip, killing at least 16 people, including militants, since Friday.

Depending upon source, between 94 percent and 100 percent of Palestinians killed in this exchange of fire were combatants.

By comparison, the United Nations estimates that the average ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in similar conflicts worldwide is 3:1 -- three civilians for every combatant killed.

Crispian Balmer attempts to show Israelis oppose strike on Iran, wrenches neck

Last week, we commented on a story by Reuters correspondent Maayan Lubell where she massaged the results of a survey which had asked Israelis whether they supported a military attack on Iran to prevent that country from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Lubell obfuscated the finding that, when U.S. moral support is provided, a wide majority of Israelis (61 percent) favor an attack.  Indeed, only 34 percent said Israel should not strike Iran with or without American accord.

Today, Reuters Jerusalem (France) Bureau Chief, Crispian Balmer, attempts to duplicate Lubell's heavily biased interpretation of the same poll, conveniently omits report of the 42 percent of Israelis who favor an attack with U.S. moral support, and ends up tying himself (and his readers) into knots:

An opinion poll published last week said just 19 percent of Israelis thought their nation should attack Iran, even if they did not first get the support of Washington.

Huh?  According to the poll, 19 percent of Israelis support a military strike against Iran absent any support from the U.S. and 42 percent support a military strike against Iran with moral support from the U.S. for a total conditional support base of 61 percent.

Memo to Crispian: reporting the facts straightforwardly is an obligation as a Reuters Bureau Chief -- and doesn't result in neck cramps.

Reuters quotes as expert on Israeli security concerns, individual who believes "Israel ain't a very good idea"

It's always amusing when Reuters correspondents cherry-pick and quote "analysts" and other "experts" in an effort to advance their personal editorial agendas under the guise of independent and impartial reporting.

In today's illustration, Matt Spetalnick, whose traditional reporting agenda has been to pit Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against U.S. President Barack Obama and play up differences between the two, calls attention to the current debate between Israel and the U.S. on how best to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions:

Still, Obama - in an Atlantic magazine interview published on Friday - insisted that Iran "is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt."
And Obama warned in Washington on Sunday against "loose talk" of war with Iran, saying such "bluster" was counterproductive because it has been driving up global oil prices and boosting demand for Iran's oil exports.
That may have been a message to Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, whose have engaged in a strident exchange of recriminations with Iranian officials in recent months.
Daniel Levy, an analyst at the New America Foundation think tank, said Obama had "offered clarity and commitments on mainstream Israeli concerns without capitulating to the Netanyahu narrative, which is far more dismissive of diplomacy."
Speaking in Ottawa, the right-wing Israeli leader ignored Obama's appeal to let sanctions run their course and focused on the president's insistence on keeping the military option open and backing Israel's right to defend itself.

Spetalnick cites a "strident exchange of recriminations" between Netanyahu and Iranian officials in recent months.  Hmm, let's see... the Reuters correspondent must be referring to that even-handed exchange between Netanyahu and Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei where the former stated:

"As for Israel, like any sovereign country, we reserve the right to defend ourselves against a country that calls and works for our destruction."

in response to Khamenei's suggestion that:

"It is legally and morally justified to commit genocide and wipe Israel off the map."

Because after all, Spetalnick is constitutionally unable to distinguish between threats of genocide by one party, and assertions to the right of self-defense by the other.

But what truly exposes Spetalnick as a dishonest hawker of anti-Israel propaganda is, on the one hand, his stale approach of labeling Netanyahu as "right-wing" in order to dismiss the Prime Minister's focus on the need for a credible military threat to dissuade Iran from consummating its nuclear weapons program, and on the other, the correspondent's employ of "analyst" Daniel Levy to suggest that Obama had put to rest Israeli concerns without committing to that military threat.

Because beyond what little Spetalnick wants his audience to know, Levy is someone who believes that if Israel should have to resort to military force to defend its survival, then perhaps the country "ain't a very good idea".



Certainly a chap whose assurances on behalf of Obama Israelis can believe in.

Nidal al-Mughrabi and Crispian Balmer searching for fuel

In a wildly off-base effort to blame Israel for fuel shortages and blackouts in Gaza, Reuters correspondent Nidal al-Mughrabi, who is apparently vying for title of Reuters Dishonest Reporter Of The Week, along with Reuters Jerusalem (France) Bureau Chief, Crispian Balmer, neglect to inform readers that Palestinians in Gaza could receive fuel from Israel by simply requesting it:

Israel provides the Mediterranean territory with at least 35 percent of its energy needs, but closed off its own fuel pipeline into the enclave in January 2010.
Abu Al-Amrain said Israel bore overall responsibility for the ongoing crisis, but Mustafa Ibrahim, a human rights researcher and writer, said Hamas's administration had failed to provide the territory with an energy safety net.

As noted by Elder of Ziyon:

This is an artificial problem. Gaza can get fuel for the power plant today. Hamas refuses to accept fuel from Israel for whatever reason (it still accepts tons of aid coming from Israeli crossings every day.) As a result, Hamas is purposefully endangering its own people.

We understand that Reuters will be correcting this story as soon as the agency has cleaned up what remains of Nidal and Crispian following their spontaneous combustion.

Reuters issues appeal to pity for Islamic Jihad member; dehumanizes group's victims

Reuters correspondents frequently write sympathetic human interest stories about Palestinian Arabs -- and almost never do the same about Israeli Jews.

In an often savage Arab war of attrition over the past century which has sought to kill and displace as many Jewish families in the region as possible, the public rarely hears from Reuters about Israeli suffering.  Other than quotes from government officials, maliciously adulterated by Reuters correspondents, Israeli Jews typically remain voiceless, nameless, faceless.  This alone, graphically demonstrates Reuters relentless reporting bias.

This bias can be particularly vile.

Take for example, this Reuters story about a member of the Palestinian terror group, Islamic Jihad, currently held in detention in Israel and on a hunger strike:

Khader Adnan, 33, a member of the Islamic Jihad militant group, has been refusing to eat since mid-December, shortly after his arrest in the occupied West Bank, and has only drunk liquids since then." He is not in good shape. People on a hunger strike for more than 50 days are in real danger. [...]

Randa told Reuters she had visited her husband on Tuesday and that he was shackled to his hospital bed and had lost 35 kg (77 lb). She said his skin was discolored, his hair had fallen out and he had sores around his mouth. "He couldn't pick up our daughter. He has no strength in his arms," she said, adding that he had started to vomit blood.

Reuters of course, barely mentions the bloody history of Islamic Jihad, referring only to the fact that "the group is committed to Israel's destruction and has been involved in numerous attacks on Israeli targets".

Since Reuters refuses to identify or humanize those Israeli "targets", even as the agency identifies and seeks audience sympathy for Adnan and his family, we will provide this information.  Here's a partial list of Israelis (and other nationals) murdered by Islamic Jihad over the years.  (Our apologies to the families of the hundreds of other victims, killed or maimed, not included in the list below):

Shlomo Atzmon, 60, of Lod

Kinneret Cohen, 14, of Jerusalem

Shimon Dahan, 27, of Herzliya

Emil Gorbman, 54, of Jerusalem

Dr. Shelley Volokov Halpenny, 32, of Vancouver, Canada

Rita Susan Levin, 39, of Philadelphia, United States

Tova Maimon, 19, of Or Yehuda

Nahum Mizrahi, 63, of Tel Aviv

Isaac Na'im, 47, of Holon

Esther Na'im, 45, of Holon

Matityahu Gershon Resnik, 25, of Givat Haim

Mordechai Rosenberg, 50, of Sha'arei Tikva

Fern Rykiss, 17, of Winnipeg, Canada

Ya'akov Shapira, 73, of Jerusalem

Shaul Chai Tzur, 21, of Netanya

Miriam Tzerafi, 41, of Jerusalem

Vered Mordechai, 13, of Afula

Asher Attia, 48, of Afula

Maya Elharar, 17, of Afula

Ilana Schreiber, 45, from Kibbutz Nir David

Meirav Ben-Moshe, 16, of Afula

Ayala Vahaba, 40, from Afula

Fadiya Shalabi, 25, of Iksal

Ahuva Cohen Onalla, 37, of Afula

Yehazkel Sapir, 36, of Kfar Sava

Yotam Rahat, 31, of Tel-Aviv

Elad Dror, 24, of Kibbutz Nahshon

David Ben-Zino, 20, of Ashdod

Adi Rosen, 20, of moshav Bitzaron

Yuval Tuvya, 22, of Jerusalem

Anan Kadur, 24, of Daliyat al-Karmel

Damian Rosovski, 20, of Kadima

Yehiel Sharvit, 21, of Haifa

Yaron Blum, 20, of Jerusalem

Maya Kopstein, 19, of Jerusalem

Daniel Tzikuashvili, 19, of Jerusalem

Avi Salto, 19, of Rishon Lezion

Rafael Mizrahi, 19, of Ramat Gan

Eran Gueta, 20, of Ashkelon

Soli Mizrahi, 18, of Ramat Gan

David Hasson, 18, of Ashkelon

Amir Hirschenson, 18, of Jerusalem

Gilad Gal-On, 18, of Herzliya

Ilie Dagan, 18, of Kochav Yair

Eitan Peretz, 18, of Nahariya

Eyal Levy, 20, of Ashdod

Yaniv Weiser, 18, of Givatay

Shabtai Mahpud, 34, of moshav Tnuvot

Giora Balash, 60, from São Paulo, Brazil

Zvika Golombek, 26, from Karmiel

Shoshana Yehudit (Judy) Greenbaum, 31, from Passaic, New Jersey, USA

Tehila Maoz, 18, from Jerusalem

Frieda Mendelsohn, 62, from Jerusalem

Michal Raziel, 16, from Jerusalem

Malka Chana (Malki) Roth, 15, from Jerusalem

Mordechai Schijveschuurder, 43, from Neria

Tzira Schijveschuurder, 41, from Neria

Ra'aya Schijveschuurder, 14, from Neria

Avraham Yitzhak Schijveschuurder, 4, from Neria

Hemda Schijveschuurder, 2, from Neria

Lily Shimashvili, 33, from Jerusalem

Tamara Shimashvili, 8, from Jerusalem

Yocheved Shoshan, 10, from Jerusalem

Samuel Miloshevsky, 45, of Herzliya

Yehiav Elshad, 28, of Tel Aviv

Inbal Weiss, 22, of Zichron Ya'akov

Mogus Mahento, 65, of Holon

Bella Schneider, 53, of Hadera

Alon Goldenberg, 28, of Tel Aviv

Aharon Revivo, 19, of Afula

Shimon Edri, 20, of Pardes Hanna-Karkur

Mikhael Altfiro, 19, of Pardes Hanna-Karkur

Meir Fahima, 40, of Hadera

Keren Franco, 18, of Kiryat Yam

Noa Shlomo, 18, of Nahariya

Shlomi Ben-Haim, 26, of Kiryat Yam

Nir Danieli, 24, of Kiryat Ata

Ze'ev Henik, 24, of Karmiel

Michael Weissman, 21, of Kiryat Yam

Shimon Stelkol, 34, of Kiryat Yam

Avinoam Alafia, 26, of Kiryat Ata

Liron Avitan, 19, of Hadera

Avraham Barzilai, 19, of Netanya

Dennis Blumin, 20, of Hadera

Eliran Buskila, 21, of Hadera

Zvi Gelberd, 20 of Hadera

Violetta Hizgayev, 20, of Hadera

Ganadi Issakov, 21, of Hadera

Sariel Katz, 21, of Netanya

Vladimir Morari, 19, of Hadera

Yigal Nedipur, 22, of Netanya

Dotan Reisel, 22, of Hadera

David Stanislavksy, 23, of Netanya

Sivan Wiener, 19, of Holon

Zion Agmon, 50, of Hadera

Adi Dahan, 17, of Afula

Shimon Timsit, 35, of Tel-Aviv

Eliyahu Timsit, 32, of Sderot

Sharon Tubol, 19, of Arad

Aiman Sharuf, 20, of Isfiya

Nir Nahum, 20, of Carmiel

Eliezer Moskovitch, 40, of Petah Tikva

Ilona Hanukayev, 20, of Hadera

Liat Ben-Ami, 20, of Haifa

Esther Pesachov, 19, of Givat Olga

Ofra Burger, 56, of Hod Hasharon

Iris Lavi, 68, of Netanya

Suad Jaber, 23, of Taibe

Indelou Ashati, 54, of Hadera

Anat Shimshon, 33, of Ra'anana

Osnat Abramov, 16, of Holon

Sergei Shavchuk, 35, of Afula

Mazal Orkobi, 20, of Azor

Mordechai Evioni, 52, of Holon

Moshe (Maurice) Aharfi, 60, of Tel-Aviv

Igor Zobokov, 32, of Bat Yam

Lilya Zibstein, 33, of Haifa

Amiram Zmora, 55, of Holon

Meir Haim, 74, of Azor

Hannah Haimov, 53, of Tel Aviv

Boris Tepalshvili, 51, of Yehud

Sapira Shoshana Yulzari-Yaffe, 46, of Bat Yam

Ramin Nasibov, 25, of Tel-Aviv

Ilanit Peled, 32, of Azor

Andrei Friedman, 30, of Tel-Aviv

Avi Kotzer, 43, of Bat Yam

Viktor Shebayev, 62, of Holon

Ion (Nelu) Nicolae, 34, of Romania

Mihai Sabau, 38, of Romania

Li Peizhong, 41, of China

Steven Arthur Cromwell, 43, of Ghana

Krassimir Mitkov Angelov, 32, of Bulgaria

Ivan Gaptoniak, 46, of Ukraine

Guo Aiping, 47, of China

Zhang Minmin, 50, of China

Nir Regev, 25, of Nahariya

Zvi Bahat, 35, of Haifa

Mark Biano, 29, of Haifa

Naomi Biano, 25, of Haifa

Hana Francis, 39, of Fassuta

Sharbal Matar, 23, of Fassuta

Mutanus Karkabi, 31, of Haifa

Osama Najar, 28, of Haifa

Irena Sofrin, 38, of Kiryat Bialik

Lydia Zilberstein, 56, of Haifa

George Matar, 58, of Haifa

Ze'ev Almog, 71, of Haifa

Ruth Almog, 70, of Haifa

Moshe Almog, 43, of Haifa

Tomer Almog, 9, of Haifa

Assaf Staier, 11, of Haifa

Brurua Zer-Aviv, 59, of Kibbutz Yagur

Bezalel Zer-Aviv, 30, of Kibbutz Yagur

Keren Zer-Aviv, 29, of Kibbutz Yagur

Liran Zer-Aviv, 4, of Kibbutz Yagur

Noya Zer-Aviv, 1, of Kibbutz Yagur

Rachel Ben Abu, 16, of Tel Aviv

Nofar Horowitz, 16, of Tel Aviv

Julia Voloshin, 31, of Netanya

Anya Lifshitz, 50, of Netanya

Moshe Maor Jan, 21, of Tel Aviv

Michael Koifman, 68, of Hadera

Perahiya Makhlouf, 53, of Hadera

Sabiha Nissim, 66, of moshav Ahituv

Jamil Mohammed Ka'adan, 48, of Baqa al-Gharbiyye

Ya'akov Rahmani, 68, of Hadera

Genia Poleis, 66, of Hadera

Larissa Grishchenko, 39, of Hadera

Daniel Golani, 45, of Nahariya

Alexandra Garmitzky, 65, of Netanya

Haim Amram, 26, of Netanya

Keinan Tsuami, 20, of Petah Tikva

Elia Rosen, 38, of Bat Hefer

Philip Balhasan, 45, of Ashdod

Rozalia Beseneyi, 48, of Romania

Piroşca Boda 50, of Romania

Marcel Cohen, 73, of Nice, France

Ariel Darhi, 31, of Bat Yam

Victor Erez, 60, of Givatayim

Binyamin Haputa, 47, of Lod

David Shaulov, 29, of Holon

Lily Yunes, 43, of Oranit

Lior Anidzar, 26, of Tel Aviv

Daniel Wultz, 16, of Weston, Florida, USA

Our understanding is that the above individuals will be, as is apparently the case with Islamic Jihad member Khader Adnan, unable to pick up their daughters.

Meanwhile, in Jerusalem....

Even as Reuters refuses to report on Iran's call and religious justification for the annihilation of Israel and genocide of the Jews as disseminated on the regime's website, the agency's correspondents are busy condemning the Jews for graffiti spray painted in Jerusalem:

(Reuters) - A Jerusalem monastery, built on the site where tradition says the tree used in the making of Jesus's cross once stood, was defaced with "Death to Christians" graffiti on Tuesday.
The words "Price Tag" daubed on a vandalised car parked outside the 11th-century Monastery of the Cross suggested that militant Jewish settlers were responsible and police said they were investigating that possibility as well as other angles.

Keep in mind that Reuters was similarly quick to accuse Jewish settlers of vandalism in the Arab village of Tuba Zangaria last October but has failed to follow up with reported evidence that it was local Arab villagers, not Jewish settlers, who likely committed the crime.

So, all a Muslim has to do to convince Reuters that Jews have vandalized property, and to persuade the agency to commit line space and three correspondents to report on this, is to spray paint "price tag" somewhere -- anywhere.

Whereas, if an Islamic government, heavily engaged in developing nuclear weapons, calls for the genocide of six million people on religious grounds and provides targeting maps pinpointing the greatest population density of that people for maximum kill ratios, Reuters correspondents are out to lunch.  

This is one sick media company.

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: Israeli leaders making 'provocative' comments about Iran

Formerly with Newsweek magazine and Dateline NBC, correspondent Mark Hosenball was hired by Reuters in September of 2011.  Hosenball, who is described in bios as an "investigative reporter" is covering international politics for Reuters and has already penned several tendentious stories about Iran where he has sought to shift attention away from that country's clandestine and illegal nuclear weapons program, and onto the country being targeted by it.

In a conflict which has seen the International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran has engaged in all aspects of developing and delivering a nuclear bomb, the United Nations impose sanctions against Iran for defiantly refusing to cease uranium enrichment and open its nuclear sites to inspection, and explicit American and European threats to pursue military action against Iran if it continues on its path to nuclear weapons, Hosenball attempts to portray Israel as a loose cannon and spoiler:

(Reuters) - The Obama administration is increasingly anxious about Israeli leaders' provocative public comments on Iran's nuclear program but does not have hard proof that it will strike Iran in the next few months, U.S. and European officials said.

Right.  It is Israeli leaders who have been making "provocative" public comments about Iran.

Apparently, Hosenball was busy checking out the employee cafeteria yesterday when Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated:

The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.

Hosenball looks to fit right in with the Reuters Trust Principles.

The exception that proves the rule

In a "man bites dog" story, Reuters correspondents Jihan Abdalla and Allyn Fisher-Ilan tell the tale of an Israeli soldier, inadvertently separated from his battalion in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") where they had been confronting Palestinians throwing rocks.  The soldier was apparently escorted out of the territory by a local villager:

In the stormy weather, a soldier charged with guarding a street ended up isolated from his peers and was unaware when they withdrew from the area, reports and witnesses said.
A Palestinian man identified as Mohammed said he went to tell a soldier he noticed standing alone on a village road that the others had withdrawn.
The soldier "seemed confused and his face turned red," Mohammed said, adding he then escorted the soldier toward his own home where other soldiers later picked him up.
Israeli media said the soldier, armed with a personal weapon, had been isolated from his unit for half an hour. A military spokeswoman called it "a matter of minutes" before he was reunited with other troops.
Ayyed Morrar, a local activist in Boudros, told an Israeli television station of the assistance given the soldier:
"We oppose the occupation and are willing to pay the price for freedom, but not in a way that leads to killing."

Abdalla and Fisher-Ilan don't disclose why such a mundane occurrence is worthy of a column by the largest multimedia news company in the world.

So we will.

It's because this story belies all of the "dog bites man" stories Reuters correspondents have witnessed over the years and deliberately hidden from public view: