Non sequitur of the week

We nearly missed this classic non sequitur in a Reuters story about Mohamed Merah, the French-Algerian who murdered a rabbi and three school children in Toulouse last week:

Merah had been under intelligence surveillance and the MEMRI Middle East think tank said he appeared to belong to a French al Qaeda branch called Fursan Al-Izza, ideologically aligned with a movement to Islamise Western states by implementing sharia law.

But he had done nothing especially to arouse suspicion that he was planning an act of violence.

You really can't make this stuff up.

101 Dalmatians

One of Reuters' popular propaganda mantras -- a false, fabricated, or misleading construct appearing repeatedly in the agency's stories -- has made its 101st appearance:

U.S.-brokered peace talks collapsed a year ago after Netanyahu refused to extend a 10-month limited moratorium on construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs did not passively "collapse"; they were unilaterally terminated by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.  Reuters correspondent Dan Williams and Editor-in-Charge Jeffrey Heller are prevaricating here, and in an effort to suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was responsible for the failed negotiations, employ a logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore, because of this).

Those pups reproduce like mad, don't they?

Nakba Quackba

The last we visited with Reuters "special correspondent" Alistair Lyon, he was misrepresenting former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and libeling Israel.  Today, he reappears with a human interest story about those Palestinian Arabs living in Lebanon and their yearning to "return" to their "homeland":

(Reuters) - Like the crowds of Palestinian refugees who rattled Israel's border fences this week, Subhia Loubani yearns to return to the homeland she had to flee when the Jewish state was created in 1948.
Even though, unlike most of them, she has a brand-new house.
Loubani, 72, received a key last month to one of the first few homes built by UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, in north Lebanon's Nahr al-Bared camp, which was utterly destroyed in fighting nearly four years ago.
Still, she said, given a chance, "I'd leave the house and go to Palestine, my country. I can't forget Palestine."
Sunday's border protests, in which Israeli gunfire killed at least 13 people, were a reminder that the plight of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees, often ignored in interim peace deals, lies at the core of an Arab conflict with Israel that has reverberated across the Middle East and beyond for decades.

Of course, there has not ever been a country called "Palestine" and the overwhelming majority of the 4.5 million "refugees" to which Lyon refers have never stepped foot in the territory in which their grandparents and great-grandparents may have resided for two years between June 1946 and May 1948 (the official UNRWA definition of a Palestinian refugee).  But hey, the Arabs and their acolytes at Reuters never let the facts get in the way of a good ole appeal to pity:

"When I left Nahr al-Bared, I felt I was leaving Palestine again," said the elderly widow, recalling that collective trauma known to Palestinians as the Nakba, or national catastrophe, whose anniversary was marked by the border rallies on May 15.
Loubani, only four years old in 1948, says her father had carried her from the village of Saasaa across the frontier into nearby Lebanon and a future of blasted dreams and despair.
The word nakba also springs easily to the lips of Jihad Awad, 49, a shoe-seller among the first refugees to be rehoused. "There's no worse catastrophe than this," he said of his family's flight from Nahr al-Bared and their wrecked home.

Note that at 49 years of age, Jihad Awad was not born until fourteen years after the Arabs living in the territory fled following the advice of those like Azzam Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League, who in preparation for the 1948 invasion of Israel notoriously boasted:

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the crusades".

Try as they may, Alistair and Jihad will not win any sympathy from us.

Conjuring up the jinn

In a story appearing on Reuters' Alernet website, which provides free and unfettered publishing rights for "human rights" racketeers like Human Rights Watch, correspondent Nidal al-Mughrabi employs the logical fallacies appeal to pity, assertion, the red herring and non sequitur, as well as violating the Reuters Handbook of Journalism by failing to "take no side/tell all sides" when he writes that exorcisms and religious charlatans are flourishing in Gaza due to "war and poverty":

There are a lot of demons to chase in this poverty-riddled Palestinian enclave, say a growing number of Koranic exorcists who have set up shop in Gaza, offering to end the torments of their sometimes highly disturbed patients.

The growth of exorcist clinics is seen by some as a sign of rising religious fervor among ordinary Palestinians. Hamas, the Islamic militant group that runs Gaza, however, is increasingly concerned that many exorcists are simply charlatans [...]

The idea of demonic possession exists in many religions, and belief in the existence of demons and spirits, known as jinns, is widespread among Muslims, but many mainstream clerics doubt they can possess the human body, and disapprove of the work of the so-called Koranic clinics [...]

Sheikh Ahmed Nemir, a Hamas leader and well-known Muslim cleric, believes in the power of possession, unlike some of his peers. He says economic hardship and psychological traumas have encouraged evil spirits.
The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places on earth, with more than 1.5 million people crammed into the 360-square-kilometer, or 140-square-mile, territory, shut off from the rest of the world by Israeli and Egyptian security barriers.
Sheikh Nemir said Muslims with weak faith and values were vulnerable to possession by jinns acting as the agents of hostile religions.
"The spirits are Jewish and Christians," the white-bearded cleric said.
"Spirits who claim to be Muslims are collaborators because they obey the Jewish and Christians masters." Medical experts say Gaza's jinns are what most doctors would diagnose as symptoms of psychological illness [...]

Recent studies have shown that up to 12 percent of people in Gaza suffer from psychological trauma caused by the conflict with Israel, economic troubles and isolation.

Al-Mughrabi's premise here is that the incidence of mental illness in Gaza is due to intensely crowded and impoverished living conditions aggravated by the conflict with Israel.  Reuters has been attempting for years to make the case that Gaza is "one of the most densely populated places on earth" so let's begin there.

A population of 1.5 million people in Gaza over 360 square kilometers represents a density of 4,167 people per square kilometer.  In a comparison with other urban areas around the world, there are fifty-three cities or city-states more crowded than Gaza -- including Taipei, Singapore, and Tel Aviv.

Note also that anxiety disorders, like post traumatic stress disorder, are as prevalent in France and more prevalent in the US than the 12 percent psychological trauma rate for Gaza reported by al-Mughrabi.

On the economic front, many countries with a GDP per capita lower than that in Gaza also have lower reported rates of mental illness.  While as noted, many wealthy societies suffer relatively high rates of mental illness.

Which leaves us with the effects of the military conflict with Israel.  While we have no doubt that this has taken its toll on the civilian population in Gaza, al-Mughrabi is strangely silent on the comparable effects on Israelis who have suffered years of rocket attacks by Palestinian terror groups.  As we noted here, in border communities like Sderot, 45 percent of Israeli children under the age of six, 41 percent of mothers, and 33 percent of fathers suffer from PTSD.

Yet, we haven't read of a boom in exorcism clinics opening in Sderot to purge Israeli patients of Muslim demons and jinns.

Perhaps al-Mughrabi ought to consider the possibility that the Palestinian culture in Gaza encourages this type of irrational thinking.

A Palestinian state -- of despair

An appeal to pity is a logical fallacy and propaganda technique designed to evoke and win over the sympathies of an audience when the facts alone fail to convince.  Reuters has employed this technique over many years and in literally hundreds of stories on the Middle East conflict in an effort to manipulate its readers into adopting patronage toward the Palestinian Arabs.

For example, did you know that the Palestinians and their leader Mahmoud Abbas are:

"dejected... hopeless... despondent... pessimistic... crippled... and helpless"?

Sure, just ask Reuters correspondent Tom Perry who explains why the Palestinians are feeling so... well, depressed:

A resumption of Middle East peace talks inspires little hope among Palestinians who say the prospect of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel seems no more than a dream.

And who or what is to blame for this state of despair?  Perry interprets for us:

They say their hopes have been eroded by Israeli policies, the United States' failure to force Israel into concessions and the failings of their own leaders, who have grown ever weaker and more divided since Yasser Arafat's death in 2004.

Perry makes no mention of the unprecedented concessions (quoting Hilary Clinton) issued by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in acceding to a Palestinian state and in establishing a moratorium on Jewish residential building outside the 1949 Armistice Lines (a right enshrined in the Palestine Mandate).  Concessions that were met with intransigence and further demands by Abbas.

Nor does Perry reference any of the multitude of other concessions and good-faith efforts by Israel, the US, the UN, or the British over the last 80 years to facilitate Palestinian statehood.  Efforts answered by the Palestinian Arabs with the most heinous and savage acts of violence.

And note the absence of any semblance of personal responsibility for the failure to achieve statehood.  After all, it couldn't possibly be an embrace by the majority of Palestinians of the rejectionism, antisemitism and terrorism as endorsed by their elected leaders that has delayed Palestinian nationhood, could it? 

In a story of over 700 words (which includes interviews with six Palestinians), Perry devotes a total of 3 words to reporting on Israeli sentiment surrounding the talks:

... despondency reflects deep pessimism among Palestinians, mirrored in Israel, on the prospects for a new round of U.S.-mediated peace talks that are due to begin in September.

And of course, there are no interviews with Israeli Jews who, in Reuters universe, remain ever anonymous, faceless, and mute.

The unvarnished truth

Let's be clear: Reuters is an advocacy group masquerading as a news agency.  The evidence for our assertion can be found in the almost 300 posts critiquing Reuters articles and published on our site since August of last year.  Particularly with respect to the Middle East conflict, Reuters correspondents have a very specific and very transparent agenda which manifests in thousands of stories appearing on its website.  That agenda is to discredit and delegitimize Israel while enabling Arab and leftist calls for the Jewish state to be weakened, disarmed, and ultimately, destroyed.

To that end, Reuters currently has three key strategic vectors driving its reporting on the conflict.  The first, which forms the core of its traditional anti-Israel platform, is to demonize Israel for its policy of accommodating and protecting Jews who choose to live in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (also, the "West Bank").  The second vector is to apologize for Arab rejectionism and violent aggression against Jews living in the Middle East.  The third and most recent addition to the Reuters anti-Israel playbook has its origins in the "realist" school peddled by the likes of academics Mearsheimer and Walt who argue that American support for Israel, and by implication, Israel's existence, feed global Islamic terrorism.

This last vector can be seen in a story by Reuters "security correspondent" William Maclean who, armed with a handful of quotes -- one from an Islamic extremist and another from "a former associate of Osama bin Laden" -- argues that outrage at the Gaza flotilla incident could radicalize Muslim youth and:

translate into increased fund-raising for transnational militant groups like al Qaeda or like-minded allies, or foster tolerance or even sympathy for such groups among Muslims who are not otherwise ideological.

Maclean brushes aside the facts and moral legitimacy of the Israeli operation intended to prevent Hamas -- a genocidal movement sworn to the annihilation of the Jewish people -- from obtaining weapons and focuses solely on the death of the flotilla "activists" as a reason for Muslims to radicalize:

Whatever the detailed context and facts of the clash, it is the killing by Israeli forces of nine activists that dominates perceptions of the incident among Muslims.

In this respect, Maclean is pursuing the same line of logic as his colleague Alistair Lyon in a piece last November where the latter suggested that perceived injustice to the Palestinians fuels Islamic terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  We noted the absurdity of this notion at the time.

Neither Lyon nor Maclean broach, nor can they explain, how it is that violent Islamic Jihad has been a cornerstone of the faith preceding the creation of Israel by centuries.  Nor do they have an answer to Muslim "uncompromising opposition to Israel" short of the unstated solution: the eradication of a Jewish sovereign.

And that's what ultimately, Reuters is baying for. 

Paradox and prevarication

Reuters can be so reflexively anti-Israel, the agency sometimes paints itself into a corner and is left looking utterly daft.  On the flotilla fiasco for example, Reuters asserts:

Israel has detained some 700 activists incommunicado, ensuring no contradiction of its version of events.

And then proceeds to publish statements from passengers contradicting Israel's version of events!

One of those statements comes from Aris Papadokostopoulos:

"We took part in the mission 'one ship for Gaza', carrying humanitarian aid ... wheel chairs, pharmaceutical supplies, building materials and nothing else".

Similarly, Mutlu Tiryaki comments:

"We told them we were unarmed. Our sole weapon was water."

Apparently, Aris and Mutlu didn't notice the other cargo:

Alistair Lyon and Joseph Goebbels best of friends?

Reuters hardcore propagandist and "special correspondent" Alistair Lyon pens a foul piece of moral equivalency attempting to associate in the minds of readers, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Lyon's op-ed of over 800 words seeks to conflate both the political objectives and tactics of the two leaders by employing a host of logical fallacies and masking in euphemisms, Arab and Iranian designs for the destruction of Israel:

The hardline Israeli prime minister and the fiery Iranian president seem to feed each other rhetorical ammunition to whip up fears that bolster them in domestic politics and beyond.  Between them, they are stubbornly testing the limits of U.S. power in the Middle East and undermining the "new beginning" in relations between America and Muslims that President Barack Obama proposed in an eloquent Cairo speech nine months ago.  Netanyahu contends that Iran is seeking a nuclear bomb to fulfill Ahmadinejad's declared wish for Israel's destruction. Confronting it, he argues, eclipses the importance of U.S.-led attempts to revive peacemaking with Palestinians and Arabs.  For Ahmadinejad, who says Iran's nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful, any breakdown of U.S. mediation backs up his doctrine that armed resistance, not negotiations, is the only way to regain Israeli-occupied land, especially Jerusalem.  [bold ours]

One may wish to remind Lyon that the "hardline" Israeli Prime Minister was democratically elected and commands the highest level of popular support of any Israeli leader in years while the "fiery" Iranian President holds power following a rigged election and murderous oppression of his opposition.  Indeed, Netanyahu was asked to form the government mainly because the Israeli public -- from one end of the political spectrum to the other (with the possible exception of Akiva Eldar and the rest of the crew at Ha'aretz) -- does feel threatened by repeated Iranian calls for genocide of the Jews ("armed resistance" in Reuters parlance) backed by a nuclear weapons program.  And of course, it's not just Netanyahu that "contends" Iran is seeking the bomb; even the traditionally pussyfooting United Nations IAEA has indicated as much in its latest report.

In an effort to argue that Israel's prioritizing of the Iranian nuclear threat is throwing a spanner in the (Obama)works, Lyon suggests:

a flare-up over Jerusalem can only make it harder for Washington to canvas Arab support for tougher sanctions on Iran. 

No evidence is offered for this assertion; however, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, i.e., the Arab states are clearly just as intent on seeing sanctions enacted which will dissuade Iran from producing a bomb -- irrespective of what is occurring in Jerusalem.

Lyon then attempts once again to paint the Israeli Prime Minister and Iranian dictator with the same brush:

But a row over Jerusalem that fuels the wider confrontation between Iran and Israel may suit Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad.  It may help the Israeli leader keep his rightwing coalition afloat and boost his appeal to Israelis who fear Iran -- though many would be alarmed if his policies damage ties with America.

Lyon's argument is utterly daft as the Israeli government, dependent on US goodwill and military cooperation, clearly has nothing to gain by inviting a dispute with the Obama administration.  Moreover, even if Netanyahu's rightist coalition partners were to bolt from the government, a new coalition with the leftist Kadima party would support the same priorities of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and maintaining a united Jerusalem.

Finally, Lyon concludes with this whopper:

Netanyahu has also proved unbending. His stonewalling of Obama's demand last year that Israel halt all settlement building, in the interests of peace, only confirmed for many Arabs that the United States would not stand up to Israel.

With his acquiescence to a Palestinian state and unilateral concession to freeze all settlement-building in Judea and Samaria (also, the "West Bank") for 10 months, Netanyahu has amply demonstrated his flexibility.  Even while Lyon demonstrates his mendacity.

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.

Propagandists at Reuters launch appeal to pity laden with errors of omission and of commission

An appeal to pity is a logical fallacy and propaganda technique designed to persuade by exploiting the natural tendency to sympathize with human beings who are ill, impoverished or downtrodden.  Rather than provide facts or evidence which would enable a reader to form a dispassionate and informed view on the authenticity, extent, and cause of the adversity, highly emotive stories and photos are deliberately deployed to manipulate the reader into docilely embracing the propagandist's advocacy agenda.  When it comes to the Palestinian Arabs, Reuters has elevated the appeal to pity to a rare art form.

In a story on a report by the Association for International Development Agencies (AIDA), a forum of international NGOs operating in the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank (also, Judea and Samaria), Reuters correspondents Nidal al-Mughrabi and Douglas Hamilton quote Max Gaylard, United Nations "resident Humanitarian Coordinator for the Palestinian territories", complaining that Israel is not providing Gazan Arabs with advanced medical care on a timely basis:

"It is causing on-going deterioration in the social, economic and environmental determinants of health," he said. "It is hampering the provision of medical supplies and the training of health staff and it is preventing patients with serious medical conditions getting timely specialized treatment."

Presumably, the "it" being referred to by Gaylard is the state of war between the Gaza-ruled terrorist group Hamas and Israel.  And yes, one might expect that given the firing of over 8,000 Hamas rockets and mortars into Israeli civilian communities and a religious mission to exterminate every last Jew, Israel might be somewhat guarded about allowing supplies into Gaza which could be converted into war materiel or throwing open its borders to Gazans seeking free medical care in Israel.

More flagrant however, is Reuters' uncritical parroting of this bald-faced lie:

"The humanitarian community is gravely concerned about the future of this generation whose health needs are not being met. The decline in infant mortality, which has occurred steadily over recent decades, has stalled in the last few years."

In fact, infant mortality in Gaza has declined 25 percent in recent years, from over 24 per thousand live births in 2003 to just over 18 per thousand in 2009:

Not only that, but life expectancy has been steadily increasing:

And the death rate has been falling:

Hmmm.  Quite odd for a territory AIDA suggests is suffering from "on-going deterioration in the social, economic and environmental determinants of health".

If Hamas used its ambulances to transport the sick rather than terrorists, the numbers might be even better.

Anatomy of a lie

Reuters' correspondents like Jeffrey Heller have been writing on the Middle East conflict for years.  Their technique and boilerplate have been honed to perpetuate particular myths that form a part of the Reuters' advocacy agenda consistent with the Arab agenda.  Take for example, the following logical fallacy: 

1) Jerusalem is part of the "West Bank".
2) The West Bank is "occupied" land.
3) "Occupied" land is synonymous with Palestinian land.
Therefore,
4) Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian land.

This fallacy is a form of begging the question/circular reasoning where the conclusion, while following logically, is based on faulty premises intended to lead inexorably to the conclusion (implicitly embedded in the premises) which the writer wishes the reader to reach.

Here is how Heller constructs his logical fallacy in a story appearing on the Reuters website today.  He begins by telling us that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu intends to announce a formal plan to limit settlement construction for 10 months:

Netanyahu's offer will exclude areas of the West Bank that Israel annexed to its Jerusalem municipality after capturing the territory in a 1967 war, the sources said.

Note how Heller slyly slips in his first faulty premise, i.e., areas annexed to Jerusalem constitute a part of the West Bank.  In fact, Jewish communities formally annexed by Israel, like Gilo for example, are geographically adjacent to the western part of Jerusalem and sit atop land purchased by Jews prior to WWII.  Indeed, this land was owned by Jews even before the Jordanians labeled the area the "West Bank" following their invasion and ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities in 1948.

Heller then proceeds with his second faulty premise, i.e., the West Bank is occupied land:

That would fall short of a Palestinian demand that Netanyahu freeze settlement on all occupied land before peace negotiations, suspended since December, can resume.

As we noted here, the term "occupied" is drawn from the Fourth Geneva Convention which applies only to land formerly part of a sovereign state and contracting party to the Conventions -- neither of which pertains to the West Bank.

The third faulty premise, i.e., "occupied" land is synonymous with Palestinian land, is introduced in the form of a quote by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, cited by Heller fully and uncritically:

We do not believe we can restart the negotiations with them [Israel] while they are continuing building in our territories, Abbas said. [italics, ours]

Note the absence of scare quotes -- frequently employed by Reuters correspondents to express their skepticism or disdain for Israeli positions -- around Abbas' assertion of the territories as Palestinian.  In other words, Reuters plainly accepts Abbas' assertion that the territories belong to the Palestinian Arabs.  In reality, as per international law, the territories remain formally unallocated.

Having guilefully embedded three false premises, Heller leads the reader to the only "logical" conclusion: Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian land.  If there were any doubt, Heller pastes in a bit of standard Reuters' boilerplate:

Some 500,000 Jews live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem alongside 2.7 million Palestinians. The settlements, Palestinians fear, could deny them a viable state.

Mission accomplished, Jeffrey.

Reuters Tom Perry hits bottom, keeps digging

Earlier this week, we noted the serial misrepresentations, obfuscations, canards, logical fallacies, and patent propaganda deployed by Reuters' correspondent Tom Perry in an effort to makeover Palestinian terrorist mastermind Marwan Barghouti and to justify Arab violence.  In another story appearing on the Reuters website on Wednesday, Perry targets a New York state Assemblyman as well as American Jews for their interest in purchasing homes in the community of Nof Zion.

Here's Perry describing the visit to Israel by Assemblyman Dov Hikind:

He urged fellow American Jews to buy homes on occupied land rather than in traditional U.S. vacation spots...

... Palestinians, whose leaders declared this week's Israeli government approval for more settlement building near Jerusalem a killer blow to peace, reject Hikind's description of Nof Zion as "Israel", as it lies on occupied land they want for a state.

Beyond the use of uncited, inflammatory language to characterize Palestinian Arab reaction to Israel's decision to build in the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo, note how Perry also puts words in Hikind's mouth.  Hikind did not of course, refer to Nof Zion as being on "occupied land" and improbably would ever do so because in fact, the community is built on land that either remains unallocated as per international law since being surrendered by the Ottoman Empire or, as in a minority of cases, land that has been purchased from its previous Arab owners.

UPDATE 11/23/09: As Maurice Ostroff notes in today's Jerusalem Post, Gilo is built on land purchased by Jews prior to WWII and there is no suggestion that it belongs to the Arabs.

Perry then mendaciously asserts:

Hikind's active participation in the settlement policy that has seen Israel move close to a tenth of its Jewish population onto land captured from the Arabs in the 1967 war...

No one has "seen" Israel "move" its population onto captured land because Israel has not moved anyone.  As Perry himself admits, homes built in the disputed territories have been purchased by a significant number of immigrants from outside of Israel as well as by Israelis themselves freely choosing to live there -- just as people come to independent decisions to live elsewhere in the world.

Perry calls attention to:

... financial support from Americans, some benefiting from U.S. tax relief on charity, is a significant source of funding for West Bank settlements,

but makes no mention of the millions of dollars coming from US taxpayer-funded organizations like US AID that subsidize and support illegal Arab building in Jerusalem and the disputed territories ("West Bank").

In an effort to portray Jews who choose to live in the disputed territories as interlopers, Perry then gets confused:

Yet Palestinians in the city feel that is exactly what Israel and its international supporters are trying to do, displacing today's inhabitants with foreign-born Jews who claim an ancestral and religious right to land going back 2,000 years.

Recall just above, Perry was claiming that Israel had "moved" its population into the "settlements"; here he reverses himself and characterizes the community as composed of "foreign-born Jews".  (Over 70% of Israelis are native-born).  Penning propaganda can be bewildering.

Perry then attempts to make a case based on one-sided anecdotes that Palestinian Arabs are discriminated against by the Israeli building authorities:

Arabs complain that they are denied permission to build for growing families.

"The difference between us is clear," Darry said. "There are plans to build 900 housing units in Gilo, in order to accommodate their so-called population growth, while our growth is not taken into account, and we have to make-do with what we have. I have no idea where the Palestinians should go."

No line space is provided by Perry to allow for an Israeli perspective on these allegations including for example, this study by human rights lawyer Justus Reid Weiner which notes that the Jerusalem building authority, "has authorized more than 36,000 permits for new housing units in the Arab sector, more than enough to meet the needs of Arab residents through legal construction until 2020".

Perry finishes with an oft-repeated Reuters' canard:

Other Arabs in the city make complaints, endorsed by the United Nations and world powers, that they are unfairly evicted by courts from homes where ownership is in dispute, while Arabs have little chance of recovering property occupied by Jews.

As we noted here, eviction orders are typically handed down by the Israel Supreme Court following lower court decisions which can take years to wind their way through the system.  Even Palestinian advocates have great difficulty accusing the leftist High Court of unfairly favoring Israeli interests.  And the United Nations and "world powers" have never "endorsed" Arab complaints alleging inequity in the Israeli legal system.  Rather, they have issued pleas for the Israeli government to supersede Israeli law in deference to what they consider a higher priority: blocking Jews from living in the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

Oh no; another Reuters "FACTBOX"!

Following Israel's announcement that it intends to build additional homes in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, housing authority officials writers at Reuters publish one of their fallacious "FACTBOX" series on Jewish communities beyond the Green Line (the armistice line following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war).  As usual, the "factbox" is anything but -- containing a host of falsehoods, unsupported assertions, bandwagon propaganda, and the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.  Reuters begins with its first "fact":

Israel dismisses international findings that the communities it has been building since the 1980s in the West Bank, on land occupied by the Israeli military since 1967, constitute a violation of international law.

Note the vague reference to "international findings"; no authority is identified because in reality, no body with the power to decide on international law has found Jewish communities beyond the Green Line to "constitute a violation of international law".  As we have demonstrated, these communities are, in fact, entirely legal in keeping with United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Reuters then goes on to conflate Jews living in communities in Judea and Samaria (also, the "West Bank") with Jews living in Jerusalem:

Some 200,000 of the half million settlers live in East Jerusalem and adjoining areas of the West Bank that Israel annexed to its Jerusalem municipality in a move not recognized by world powers.

Jews of course, lived in and around Jerusalem for over 3,000 years until they were ethnically cleansed by the Arab Legion in 1948 but for Reuters, they were, are, and always will be "settlers".

Reuters not only lumps together as settlers all Jews living beyond the 1949 Armistice lines, it attempts to pigeonhole them for choosing to live in these areas:

Many settlers living in enclaves nearest to the cities of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem cite cheaper housing costs as a motive. Others see themselves as pioneers exercising a biblical right of Jews to lands they call Judea and Samaria.

For Reuters, it couldn't possibly be the case that Jews are living in these communities to be closer to family members or to work or that they are simply exercising their rights according to international law.  It must be due to government incentives or religious fervor.

Then there is the padded Palestinian population figure to give weight to Arab claims to territory beyond the Green Line:

The Palestinians, who number some 3 million in the West Bank and East Jerusalem...

As demonstrated here, the number of Arabs living in these areas has almost certainly been inflated by Palestinian authorities in an effort to build a case for a separate Palestinian state and to boost foreign aid. 

Reuters then trots out a complete falsehood:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition is backed by pro-settler parties who want to keep much of the West Bank under any peace deal.

In fact, the current Israeli government is composed of and supported by political parties which favor a two-state solution where the Palestinian Arabs could be expected to receive between 90% and 97% of territory comprising what is commonly referred to as the West Bank.  Political parties which oppose ceding land to the Palestinians generally also oppose Natanyahu.

Classic Reuters

In an appeal to pity and what can also be viewed as an anticipatory effort to justify Arab violence, Reuters' Tom Perry pens a piece discussing Palestinian melancholy and "desperation" in their purported efforts to achieve statehood.  Perry writes:

The risk of violence could turn into near-certainty in time, some Palestinian analysts add, even if there are at present few signs of an appetite for a third Intifada, or uprising, among Palestinians who have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967.

Reuters correspondents frequently serve as apologists for Arab violence and here, Perry is paving the way for precisely that outcome.

Perry quotes one of those "Palestinian analysts":

"Either there is a resumption of negotiations, which requires an American initiative, or there will be a political vacuum, which is dangerous because it will most likely be filled at some point by conflict," said George Giacaman, a political science professor at Birzeit University near Ramallah.

Perry fails to explain here that the only thing preventing a resumption of negotiations is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' utter refusal to accept them.

Perry continues:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ruled out more than a partial limitation on settlement building in areas of the occupied West Bank not annexed to its Jerusalem municipality.

Actually, Netanyahu has said that Israel has "no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements" (June 14, 2009).

Perry then does comedy:

Abbas, who has built his career around negotiating peace, remains committed to the "two-state solution" at the core of the 20-year-old peace process.

As we noted here, Abbas has built his career around many things but they have had little to do with "negotiating peace".

Perry quotes Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad as saying that Israel has "a Mickey Mouse state" in mind for the Palestinians and then suggests:

It would deny them not only an army -- an idea they might accept -- but also a viable, contiguous territory, due to settlements.

We wonder how Perry knows what the Palestinians "might accept" and also note that as Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) compose less than 2% of available land, Perry's assertion that these would "deny" the Palestinians a viable, contiguous territory is simply ludicrous.

Perry then obfuscates history and geography:

Officials are making increasing references to an alternative -- that Palestinians be citizens of a single state governing all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, or all of what was British-ruled Palestine from 1917 to 1948.

The territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean represents only 22% of British-ruled Palestine.  The other 78% consists of what is today Arab Jordan.  This is clearly not an oversight by Reuters which does not wish to remind its readers that despite the promise of a Jewish national home and "close settlement by Jews on the land" across the entire Palestine Mandate, the British subsequently lopped off the vast majority of the territory (in 1922), handing it to the Hashemite Arabs as a gift for their support in the war against the Ottoman Empire.  At four times the geographical size of Israel, Jordan today has a population which is roughly 70% Palestinian Arab.  Jews are banned from owning property.

Perry then argues ("the argument runs") that:

without a Palestinian state... Jewish statehood would entail South African-style apartheid in which Jews rule over a disenfranchised Arab majority in the occupied territories.

The suggestion that one state composed of Jews and Arabs would result in "South African-style apartheid" is of course, a classic example of the logical fallacy/propaganda technique of the false dilemma.  Indeed, there is evidence that the number of Arabs residing in the territories has been significantly overstated and that a single state consisting of Israel plus Judea and Samaria (West Bank) would retain a Jewish majority for the foreseeable future.

Perry concludes with another canard:

Alarmingly for international powers looking with concern at the way the six-decade-old conflict destabilizes the world's main oil-producing region, the way ahead is shrouded in fog.

In fact, other than the five-month Arab oil embargo in the 1970s following the Yom Kippur war, the Arab-Israeli conflict has had little effect on the flow of oil.  For countries like Saudi Arabia where oil accounts for 90% of export earnings and 45% of GDP, there is little choice but to keep pumping whether or not the Palestinians get their state.