Israeli authorization of Jewish settlements gives lie to Reuters previous reporting

The Israeli government announced this week that it was going to formally authorize three Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank").

Here's how Reuters reports on the development:

Peace Now, an Israeli anti-settlement group, said the change of the three outposts' status marked the first time since 1990 that the Israeli government had established a new settlement, adding that the four-man committee did not have the authority to approve the change.

What's fascinating about the statement by Peace Now, is that it gives lie to the hundreds of stories Reuters has published over the last few years suggesting that Israel has been "expanding settlements".

As Reuters itself now reports, there has been absolutely no new Israeli-authorized settlement in the original Palestinian territories for over two decades.

During that period, Israel has approved only the building of additional homes (or additions to homes) within existing and boundary-limited communities, which incidentally, sit atop less than 2 percent of the land.  (Here too, Reuters frequently misleads its readers by suggesting that Israeli-approved settlements consume much of the West Bank).

With news of the first new Israeli settlements in 22 years, we see that Reuters has been systematically prevaricating for nearly as long.

Pravda, anyone?

In an interview with the Haaretz newspaper published yesterday, Israeli Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz was asked his view of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Here are some key excerpts:

"If Iran goes nuclear it will have negative dimensions for the world, for the region, for the freedom of action Iran will permit itself," Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Haaretz in an Independence Day interview. That freedom of action might be expressed "against us, via the force Iran will project toward its clients: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza. And there's also the potential for an existential threat. If they have a bomb, we are the only country in the world that someone calls for its destruction and also builds devices with which to bomb us. [...]

Asked whether 2012 is also decisive for Iran, Gantz shies from the term. "Clearly, the more the Iranians progress the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily 'go, no-go.' The problem doesn't necessarily stop on December 31, 2012. We're in a period when something must happen: Either Iran takes its nuclear program to a civilian footing only or the world, perhaps we too, will have to do something. We're closer to the end of the discussions than the middle."[...]

Iran, Gantz says, "is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't yet decided whether to go the extra mile.  As long as its facilities are not bomb-proof, the program is too vulnerable, in Iran's view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous."

And here are Reuters correspondent Maayan Lubell's headline and lede in her report on the Haaretz/Gantz interview:

Israel army chief says Iran unlikely to make bomb

(Reuters) - Israel's military chief said he does not believe Iran will decide to produce an atomic bomb, describing its leadership as "very rational" in an interview published on Wednesday.

Of course, this is not what Gantz is saying at all.  He is saying that Iran is on the deliberate path toward nuclear weapons but that the regime will not take the final decision to build a bomb until the Supreme Leader "judges that Iran is invulnerable to a response", i.e., foreign attack.  Gantz believes this decision will be taken once Iran's nuclear facilities become bomb-proof.  It is in this sense, that Gantz judges Iran's leadership to be rational.

Lubell and Reuters willfully edit and twist Gantz' words to make it appear that he has said he believes Iran will not produce an atomic bomb, because the leadership is rational.

The depths to which Reuters correspondents will stoop to obfuscate reality are truly astounding.

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.

Reuters new shill for Iran

Despite being tossed out of the country for a story headline that the Iranian mullahs found not to their liking, Reuters continues to obfuscate and censor news of Iran's drive for nuclear weapons as documented by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and respected intelligence think tanks.

The Reuters correspondent most responsible for shilling on behalf of the Iranian regime at the present time, is Marcus George.

In a story published this morning for example, about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasting that his country can withstand a total embargo on its oil sales for 2-3 years, George repeats the long-standing Reuters fallacy that the battle over Iran's nuclear program is merely a he said/she said between that country and the amorphous "West":

The United States and its allies hope the sanctions on Iran's energy and financial sectors will force it to abandon uranium enrichment which they suspect is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its goals are entirely peaceful.

Note George's duplicitous handling of the dispute as merely one of (unproven) claim and denial: the United States and its allies "suspect"; Iran clarifies that this is not the case.

George makes no mention whatsoever of any of the long series of UN IAEA reports documenting Iranian efforts on all fronts -- uranium enrichment, weaponization, delivery --  to build a nuclear weapon.  Thus, his audience is systematically denied the facts needed to understand that Iran is in violation of its NPT obligations and that this is the driver behind punitive United Nations Security Council resolutions (which also go unmentioned).

Rather, readers are given the false impression that the United States, the EU and Israel are acting capriciously and in concert to punish Iran with sanctions for mere suspicion the regime is developing nuclear weapons.

Reuters: systematically dumbing down the planet.

Reuters handles PR for the Muslim Brotherhood

Reuters correspondent Andrew Quinn reports on a charm offensive by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, designed to win over American politicians.

Recall, the Brotherhood is committed to implementing Sharia law in Egypt, is deeply antisemitic, encourages Muslim men to treat women like chattel, advocates death for homosexuals, despises Western democracy, seeks the destruction of Israel, and believes in permanent underclass status for religious minorities.

So how does Quinn characterize the group?

The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928 and seeks to promote its conservative vision of Islam in society, has made dramatic gains since a popular uprising toppled President Hosni Mubarak last year and launched Egypt on an unpredictable political course.

Then, there's this reassuring news:

The FJP candidate, Khairat al-Shater, said in comments reported on Wednesday that introducing sharia law would be his "first and final objective," but the FJP group in Washington sought to dismissed fears this meant they aimed to establish an Islamic theocracy.

And this amusing piece of sophistry:

Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, an FJP lawmaker from Luxor, said the party was dedicated to the principle of a "civil state" and the objectives of sharia law rather than its specific practice.

Leading to this inadvertently hilarious juxtaposition:

The FJP team took pains to appear both reasonable and flexible during their Washington visit, quoting both from the Koran and from the U.S. self-help manual "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," and depicting themselves as the true heirs of the uprising in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

All reported on by Quinn with absolutely no background or critical insight on the Brotherhood, its fanatical founder, its dogma, or its, shall we say, less politically correct spokesmen.

"Conservative".

Rest easy: Reuters promises "Iran nuclear threat not imminent" (updated)

In previous stories, Reuters correspondents Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball (the latter having joined Reuters recently from the self-acknowledged left-wing and bankrupt Newsweek magazine), have gone to extraordinary lengths to assure the public that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons and that the real danger to peace and global security is an unpredictable and belligerent (shitty little?) country whose leaders go around making "provocative public comments" about Iran's nuclear program.

Zakaria and Hosenball are back today with yet another completely unsubstantiated story, drawn they say, "from extensive [anonymous] interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran", in an effort to once again downplay the Iranian threat:

(Reuters) - The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead. 
Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran's nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.
That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had "high confidence" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.
Current and former U.S. officials say they are confident that Iran has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of U.N. nuclear inspections.
They also have confidence that any Iranian move toward building a functional nuclear weapon would be detected long before a bomb was made.
These intelligence findings are what underpin President Barack Obama's argument that there is still time to see whether economic sanctions will compel Iran's leaders to halt any program.

Unfortunately for Zakaria and Hosenball, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), cited by the pair of Reuters correspondents in a previous story when they felt the organization was officially dubious of Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb, has just published a new paper arguing that National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program are today far more comprehensive in their methodology and scope than they were in 2007, when Iran was assessed to have suspended its drive for the bomb:

ISIS has learned in researching and discussing the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran that important differences exist from the 2007 NIE on Iran’s capability to make a nuclear weapon.  The 2007 declassified NIE specifically noted that it did not take into account Iran’s “declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment” when assessing the status of its nuclear weapons program.  The new NIE does not distinguish between declared and undeclared enrichment activities when considering Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.  In doing so, the new NIE more accurately values the impact that Iran’s advancements in its gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program, declared or otherwise, have on its capability to decide to make highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.  This acknowledges that Iran’s capability to make highly enriched uranium, as represented by the declared elements of its uranium enrichment program, influences any political decision to make nuclear weapons. The new NIE includes that Iran could be furthering its development of components for nuclear weapons while reportedly assessing that not enough activity has occurred on weaponization to justify a determination that Iran has made a decision to restart its nuclear weaponization program or build a bomb [...]
Emphasizing the old approach of whether Iran’s nuclear weaponization program has restarted appears more aimed at defending the poor methodologies popularized in the declassified 2007 NIE. This approach also ignores that Iran is judged by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (and stated in internal IAEA documents) to have likely accumulated enough knowledge prior to 2004 to be able to construct a crude nuclear explosive device, suitable for underground testing and simple delivery systems. This capability would mean that the time is relatively short between when a nuclear weaponization program would take possession of enough weapon-grade uranium for a device and when a crude device could be assembled—on order of six months or less.

In other words, while U.S. intelligence agencies may not formally declare that Iran has taken a decision to build a bomb, that doesn't mean the regime is not in the process of continuing to develop components for the bomb -- which could lead to the assembly and delivery of a bomb within six months.

Now, don't you feel better?

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 Newspeak: Arab or Muslim occupation of another sovereign state = "presence"

In 2005, Syria finally ended its nearly three-decade occupation of Lebanon that had involved the illegal stationing of thousands of troops, tanks, and warplanes in the country for the explicit purpose of suppressing anti-Syrian sentiment, securing geopolitical leverage against its enemies in the Middle East, and providing economic gains for the Syrian population.

So how does Reuters characterize 30 years of Syrian systematic and structural occupation of Lebanon?

Lebanon's Maronite leaders have had tense relations with Syria and led calls for an end to its military presence in Lebanon in 2005.

Reuters correspondents demonstrate the same obfuscatory rhetoric when describing the nearly four-decade Turkish occupation of Cyprus:

Cyprus has been split since the 1974 invasion in the aftermath of a brief Greek-inspired coup in Nicosia, and Turkey maintains a military presence in the Turkish Cypriot state.

For its control over a tiny unallocated swathe of territory, originally pledged in international law for a Jewish state, won in a defensive war against its marauding neighbors, only one country in the entire world apparently warrants use of the "O"-word by Reuters.

Yep, you guessed it.

The West, yada, suspects, yada, Iran, yada

In a nearly 1,700-word magnum opus about Iran and the impact international sanctions are having on its economy, Reuters correspondents Niluksi Koswanage and Parisa Hafezi tell us:

The sanctions have been imposed to halt Iran's nuclear programme, which the West believes is being used to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran's leadership says the nuclear programme is peaceful, and it is willing to endure sanctions to maintain it as a national right.
Last month, Iran took the important step of beginning production of highly enriched uranium at a new facility hidden deep under a mountain, where it would be difficult for U.S. or Israeli warplanes to destroy it.
Israel and Western countries have accused Iran of working to develop a nuclear bomb, a charge dismissed by Tehran.

For the 700th+ time, Reuters attempts to obfuscate reality by stating that Israel and the amorphous "West" merely suspect Iran is developing a nuclear bomb and that of course, Iran denies this.  To Reuters, a perfectly symmetrical claim and rebuttal between two partisans.

Nearly 1,700 words of blather and nary a mention of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and its many independent reports concluding that Iran has engaged in all aspects of developing nuclear weapons:

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).

These are the facts Reuters correspondents are desperate to conceal from public view, even as they drum into the minds of their readers, a stale and meaningless propaganda mantra intended to misinform and confuse.

This is one sick media company.

Reuters finally admits everyone hates the Jews

After years of obfuscating and denying, Reuters is finally on-board the reality wagon that Iran has a long history of supporting Hamas with money and weapons:

Hamas, founded in 1987 and regarded by Israel and the West as a terrorist organization, has long been backed by Iran, a strong ally of Syria's Assad. But funding has apparently stalled in the past four months, the diplomat said.
"Iran used to give $250 million to $300 million to Hamas but there have been interruptions in the payments in past year. Our understanding is that there has been no payment since August 2011," he said.

The agency wasn't quite so forthcoming here, here, here, and here. 

In the topsy-turvy world of Middle Eastern religio-politics, we have the Shi'ite regime (Mullahs) in Iran supporting the Alawite regime (Assad) in Syria and the Sunni regime (Hamas) in Gaza, the latter of which is also supported by the Sunni regime (Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, which is warming to the Shi'ite regime (Mullahs again) in Iran.

All of course, are united in their genocidal hatred of the Jews.

Well after all, "International Brotherhood Week" is coming in February.

Reuters quotes former KGB-head: no proof Iran near nuclear weapons

Filed under, "Well Then It Must Be True", Reuters uses an interview with former KGB-head and Putin buddy Nikolai Patrushev to peddle the fatuous notion that there is no independent evidence of Iran being close to acquiring nuclear weapons:

Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful while Western powers believe it has military aims. Israel, which sees an Iranian atom bomb as a threat to its existence, is willing to attack Iranian nuclear sites with or without U.S. backing.
However, Patrushev said there was still no proof that Iran was on the brink of creating nuclear weapons.

"Talk about Iran creating an atomic bomb by next week we have heard for many years," he said, adding that the United States was trying to topple the Iran's leadership using "all available means" to make the country into "a loyal partner".
Russia, the world's biggest energy producer, opposes further U.N. Security Council sanctions over Tehran's nuclear programme and has sharply criticised U.S. and European Union sanctions.

Again, note how Reuters disappears any trace of the United Nations IAEA reports on Iran's nuclear weapons program, framing the situation as merely a he said/she said between Iran and "Western powers" with Israel as the spoiler.

What do they teach these guys at Reuters School?

Reuters still covering for Iran

What's wrong with this paragraph?

Iran has said it is only developing nuclear capabilities for energy and other peaceful purposes, but the United States and its allies accuse it of wanting to create a nuclear weapon.

Reuters correspondent Jeff Frank makes no mention here or anywhere in his story, of the independent report produced by scientists at the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, evidencing and concluding that Iran has been engaged in all phases of developing a deliverable nuclear bomb:

• 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).

After all, that is merely hard evidence of international renegade behavior; Reuters only draws robust conclusions when its information is based solely on the personal animus of its reporters.

Reuters' broken record -- broken record -- broken record

For years, and across hundreds of stories, Reuters Middle East-based correspondents have been covering for Iran's drive to obtain the bomb, characterizing it innocuously as a "nuclear program" (no reference to weapons) and framing it merely as a he said/she said dispute between Iran and the amorphous "West".

That may have been a prudent and journalistically defensible approach to covering the story several years ago when much of the forensic evidence of Iran's covert nuclear enrichment, fission experiments, and weaponization efforts had yet to come to light.

With the November 2011 release of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency report documenting, in meticulous detail, Iran's advanced activities in these areas, Reuters obdurate editorial position on this issue is simply an embarrassment for the agency.  Yet, it persists:

TEHRAN, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Iran announced on Monday it had sentenced a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen to death for spying for the CIA, creating fresh grounds for hostility with Washington at a time when Tehran has responded to new U.S. sanctions with military threats.

The sentence comes at a time when tension between Iran and the West over Tehran's nuclear programme has reached a new high, rattling global oil markets. The West fears the work is a secret atomic weapons programme, while Iran says it is purely peaceful.

No mention of the UN report, no mention of the mountains of forensic evidence of Iran's covert nuclear weapons program, and no mention that it is not just the "West" that fears Iran's directive, but dozens of other countries in the Middle East and around the world that share the same concern.

All part and parcel of Reuters obfuscation efforts to conceal and cover for the Iranian regime.

Reuters still downplaying IAEA report on Iran's nuclear weapons program

In our post on November 8, 2011 following the release of the latest United Nations IAEA report on Iran's nuclear weapons program, we noted Reuters long-standing efforts to downplay overwhelming evidence of that program and asked whether the news agency would continue in that vein, notwithstanding the IAEAs damning findings.  Robin Pomeroy, Reuters man in Iran, provides the answer to our question:

Britain last week banned all its financial institutions from any dealings with Iran, including its central bank, after a report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency suggested Iran may have worked on developing a nuclear arsenal.

The IAEA report "suggested" Iran "may have" worked on developing a nuclear arsenal??

Er, no.  Here's a key section of the report:

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).

Nice try though, Robin.

Reuters: Muslim Brotherhood is "spiritual guide" for Hamas

Reuters reports that officials of the Obama administration have met with members of the Egyptian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.  If true, this would be a break with long-standing US policy to shun contacts with the Brotherhood, although there was an announcement in June that such contacts would now be permitted.  With no hint of irony, Bureau Chief Edmund Blair writes:

The contacts may unsettle Israel and its U.S. backers. The Brotherhood renounced violence as a means to achieve political change in Egypt years ago. But groups like Hamas, which have not disavowed violence, look to the Brotherhood as a spiritual guide.

Blair is prevaricating here.  Per its own founding doctrine, the Brotherhood is an Islamic jihad group, committed to waging warfare to liberate what it considers Islamic lands and to rid the world of secular laws and governance.

And Hamas does not see the Brotherhood simply as a "spiritual guide'; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nice try though, Edmund.

Alastair Macdonald, historical revisionist (part III)

Continuing with our analysis of Alastair Macdonald's propagandistic "timeline" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and efforts to achieve peace:

November [2009] - Clinton hails [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu's partial, 10-month halt on building permits in West Bank settlements as "unprecedented." [Palestinian President] Abbas demands similar freeze in East Jerusalem. Israel refuses.

Sept 2010 - Direct peace talks finally resume but they end after just a couple of weeks when Israel refuses to extend its partial settlement freeze.

Palestinians waited nearly nine and a half months after Netanyahu's unprecedented concession to freeze building in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") before agreeing to return to peace talks.  The Palestinians unilaterally abandoned talks three weeks later.

May [2011] - Israeli troops kill at least 13 Palestinians who surged towards its frontiers with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza on May 15, the day Palestinians mourn the establishment of Israel in the deadliest confrontation in years of anniversary clashes.

Macdonald obfuscates both the nature and magnitude of this incident which involved the transportation of over a thousand Palestinian Arabs to the Syrian, Lebanese and Gaza borders with Israel, where they were encouraged by Arab governments to rush and breach Israeli border fences.  One wonders as well, what this incident has to do with a timeline entitled: "milestones in Middle East peace moves".  Why not provide an account for example, of the eight Israelis who were gunned-down at point-blank range by Palestinians dressed as Egyptian security personnel in August of this year?  An incident which, owing to its impact on Israeli-Egyptian relations, is at least as relevant to the question of peace in the region as Macdonald's historical marker.

-- Obama's call for Israel to give Palestinians territory it has occupied since 1967 stuns visiting Prime Minister Netanyahu and pushes their thawing relationship back into the freezer.

This is an historical fabrication.  What President Obama actually said was that "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states" [italics ours].  This advice is consistent with the position of nearly every US administration over the last two decades and not inconsistent with Israeli policy and offers to the Palestinians over the same period.

And finally:

September 23 - Abbas to ask the U.N. to recognise a state for his people, even though Israel still occupies its territory and the United States has vowed to veto the move.

The territories of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") remain officially unallocated and disputed between Jews and Arabs.  Per international law, they do not belong to the Palestinians, although by virtue of international law, Jews are fully entitled to settle there.

As evidenced by our three-part critique, Macdonald's timeline is fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, and heavily propagandistic.  It distorts history beyond all recognition and omits essential context necessary to understand what the former Reuters bureau chief is purportedly attempting to provide: a faithful account of the Middle East conflict and efforts to resolve it.

Crispian Balmer goes to bat; count the canards (part II)

Yesterday, we wrote about the many canards and obfuscations appearing in a September 8th op-ed ("Analysis" in Reuters parlance) written by Jerusalem Bureau Chief Crispian Balmer.  We noted for example, Balmer's selective omission of any reference to the 10-month settlement moratorium conceded by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a good-faith but futile effort to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.  Rather, Balmer refers only to Netanyahu's subsequent decline to extend the settlement freeze and then asserts that U.S. President Barack Obama was "deeply frustrated" by this decision, leading to frosty relations between Obama and Netanyahu.

As it happens, The New York Times just published a piece on the even icier relationship between Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas which notes that the two have not spoken since February when Abbas failed to heed Obama's advice not to pursue an anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations.  Balmer, it seems, only plays relationship counselor when Israel is the jilted party.

In a follow-up editorial of September 9th, "Turkey to complicate life for Israel, but avoid war", Balmer continues with his liberal use of canards and propaganda devices in an effort to advance, in the domain of public opinion, the interests of Israel's enemies.  Writing about the recent threat by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide a military escort for any future flotilla to Gaza, Balmer reports:

Indicating there is no imminent danger of a clash, the charity that organised last year's convoy to the Gaza Strip said on Friday it had no plans for now for another flotilla.

In his previous editorial, Balmer attempted to conceal the hostile nature of the Turkish flotilla which sought to breach the Israeli naval embargo of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip by referring to it innocuously as "an aid flotilla" and here, he continues in that vein by characterizing the flotilla sponsor as a charity.  That "charity", the Turkish Islamist group, İnsani Yardım Vakfı (IHH), has documented ties to terror groups around the world, having raised funds for many of them.  Balmer, intent on sanitizing the group's public image, fails to mention this.

Moving on to a discussion of the threat to Israel's newfound offshore gas fields implicit in a Turkish naval presence in the area, Balmer writes:

Israel has sought to play down the diplomatic crisis, with officials pointing out that the two countries had already overcome previous rows, such as in 1980 when Turkey curbed ties to protest at Israel's annexation of Arab East Jerusalem.

The use of the phase Arab East Jerusalem is both ahistorical and racist, referring to the eastern portion of the city of Jerusalem as it was known for only 19 years, of its 3,000-year history, following the invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population by the Arab Legion in 1948.  Balmer is employing a propaganda device here known as historical reconstruction, i.e., a fabrication, in an attempt to assign ownership of Jerusalem, in the minds of his readers, to the Arabs and suggest that Israel was usurping Arab land in 1967 when it liberated the city or in 1980 when it formally annexed it.

       Jewish Jerusalem prior to and following looting and destruction by the Arab Legion in 1948.

Crispian Balmer goes to bat; count the canards (part I)

Last year following one of Reuters many doctored photo scandals associated with its coverage of the Middle East conflict, the media behemoth sent its Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Alastair Macdonald, packing to a desk job in London.  Macdonald was subsequently replaced by Crispian Balmer, who has already distinguished himself as, incredible as it may seem, more anti-Israel and agenda-driven than his predecessor.

In a pair of op-eds ("Analysis" in Reuters parlance) published on the 8th and 9th of September respectively, Balmer writes about the new regional dangers facing Israel due to increasing tensions with Egypt following the fall of the Mubarak regime and hostility emanating from the Erdogan government in Turkey.

Balmer's stories are replete with obvious canards, insidious propaganda devices, and racist epithets designed to peddle his editorial agenda and dupe readers into embracing his anti-Israel narrative.  In his story, "Israel faces perfect storm in shifting region" for example, Balmer writes:

Israel is the only country in the Middle East assumed to have a nuclear arsenal. Along with Western powers, it believes Iran is seeking an atomic capability, something Tehran denies.

It is not simply Israel and Western powers that believe, based on the evidence, that Iran is seeking "an atomic capability" (Balmer's euphemism for nuclear weapons), but the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well that has repeatedly advanced this view.  On most other matters, Reuters correspondents worship at the altar of the United Nations as the ultimate symbol of transnational accord but in the matter of the august body's case against Iran, Reuters is conspicuously silent.  This, to deliberately frame the dispute over Iran's nuclear program as merely a "he said/she said" between Iran and the West, with no objective findings.

Balmer then employs the lather-rinse-repeat sophistry Reuters has been embedding in its stories for over a year now to conceal the hostile nature of the Turkish flotilla trying to run the Israeli maritime embargo of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip:

Turkey was the first Muslim state to recognize Israel, in 1949, but relations nosedived last year when Israeli commandos boarded an aid flotilla challenging a naval blockade of the Palestinian enclave Gaza, killing nine Turks in ensuing clashes.

As we've noted too many times to recount, there was no "aid" on board the Mavi Marmara, where the violence occurred.  Reuters repeated reference to an "aid flotilla", "aid ship", or other such contrivance is deliberately misleading and intended to elicit reader sympathy for the Turkish Islamists manning the ship who, the Palmer report concluded, specifically sought conflict and fought furiously with metal bars, slingshots, chains, staves, and guns in an attempt to lynch Israeli marines, many of whom were seriously injured.

Balmer predictably mentions none of this.

Shifting to a discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Balmer suggests, and employs the assistance of an Israeli academic to second the idea that much of Israel's security dilemma stems from its alleged "failure to articulate a coherent Palestinian policy".  Given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's many public statements since taking office, accepting and specifically outlining his view of the contours of a Palestinian state, and continuing Palestinian rejection of bilateral peace talks to negotiate those contours, it is simply not credible for Balmer (or an academic) to assert an Israeli diplomatic failure to articulate policy on the matter, short of utter surrender -- which likely is what Balmer would wish to hear.

Here too, there is an attempt to obfuscate the historical record:

Diplomats in Jerusalem have said the Obama administration was deeply frustrated by Israel's refusal to freeze settlement building in the West Bank as a way to kick start peace talks.

Balmer fails to mention that Israel did in fact, freeze Jewish settlement building in Judea and Samara (the "West Bank") for ten months in an effort to bring the Palestinian Arabs back to the negotiating table.  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dallied for nine and a half of those ten months, refusing to talk and making it impossible to progress on a peace deal.

Part II on Balmer's canards tomorrow.