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.

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.

The Reuters virus

Reuters tightly coordinates and sustains its anti-Israel bias and propaganda campaign across its news bureaus by encouraging correspondents to employ identical boilerplate rhetoric when reporting on the Middle East conflict.  For example, at last count, there are over 1,700 instances of the propaganda mantra "occupied West Bank" appearing in Reuters stories over just the last couple of years.

Similarly, like a malignant virus spreading from tissue to tissue, the same pernicious fabrications infecting stories produced in Reuters Jerusalem Bureau are replicated by other bureaus and ultimately transmitted to the public via hundreds of media outlets like the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune. 

In a story for example, about the French government warning pro-Palestinian protesters not to travel to Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") due to potential friction with Israeli authorities, Reuters Paris correspondents Pauline Mevel and Alexandria Sage write:

Palestinians, who want to create their own state together with the Gaza Strip, object to illegal Jewish settlements, trade restrictions and scant water supply, and their limited autonomy.

Note the reference to "illegal Jewish settlements", an unsupported and flagrantly false assertion that nevertheless, gets repeated in story after story after story.

The canard of a "scant water supply" for Palestinians is similarly false and yet reproduced in a host of Reuters stories which clearly seek to demonize the Jews of Israel.

Those in editorial positions at Reuters spearheading and enabling the agency's long-standing propaganda campaign targeting Israel might wish to review their employer's corporate governance charter, as the ethical violations of those "Trust Principles" pile up and for which they will ultimately be held accountable.

There she goes again (Allyn Fisher-Ilan)

Pathological liar Allyn Fisher-Ilan scratches out whatever suits her fancy -- no facts needed:

The United Nations deems all Jewish settlements in the region to be illegal, but Israel backs 120 of the enclaves, home to about 310,000 people.

As we've demonstrated in scores of posts, this is a bald-faced lie.  The Mandate for Palestine, adopted by the League of Nations in 1922 and confirmed within the United Nations Charter, fully permits Jewish settlement anywhere west of the Jordan River:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Only one example of Reuters' abject failure to maintain its own published ethical standards and to punish those journalists who continually violate those standards.

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.

Reuters correspondents still peddling fiction to advance their ideology

A symbolic fiction is a propaganda technique whereby a false claim, endorsed by some reputedly respectable and disinterested party, is advanced by the propagandist (Smith, 1989).

Take for example the propaganda mantra peddled in over 200 Reuters stories within the last couple of years that Jewish settlements in the territories of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") are illegal -- because the World Court says so.

In a story on the Israeli government issuing restraining orders against 12 Jews barring them from the territories, Reuters correspondent Allyn Fisher-Ilan (yes, that Fisher-Ilan) repeats the mantra:

Israel has built more than 100 settlements in the territory, which the World Court has ruled are illegal.

As we've noted here, here, here, and here, Reuters' reference and deference to the World Court, on the question of the legality of Jewish settlements, is irrelevant and deluded.  The court's opinion, actually on the legality of the Israeli separation barrier rather than Jewish settlements, is entirely advisory and non-binding. Fisher-Ilan may as well cite the Organization of Islamic Conference in its opinion on Jewish settlements (this may be her next recourse).

The only binding decision on the legality of Jewish settlements in the original territories of Palestine -- including the West Bank -- resides in the Mandate for Palestine, confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, grandfathered across to the United Nations in 1946, and still legally operative today.  Article VI of the Mandate stipulates:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Reuters Jerusalem Bureau has, to our knowledge, never cited this exclusively authoritative resolution granting Jews the right to settle anywhere in historic Palestine west of the Jordan River.

For Reuters, symbolic fiction trumps tangible truth every time.

Dementia is a terrible thing

Reuters correspondent Dan Williams is losing his mind.  But as in all cases of dementia, the disease proceeds selectively.  Some memories are lost while others remain.

In a story about Israelis and Palestinians agreeing to meet tomorrow in an effort to resume negotiations, Williams recalls Israel's treaty commitments, but not those of the Palestinians:

[Palestinian lead negotiator Saeb] Erekat said the meeting would be "part of ongoing Jordanian efforts to compel Israel to comply with its international legal obligations ... specifically its obligation to freeze all settlement construction."
Most countries deem the settlements illegal. Israel disputes this, and says it would keep settlement blocs under any peace deal in accordance with understandings reached in 2004 with then-U.S. president George W. Bush.

Actually of course, whether or not "most countries" now consider Jewish settlements illegal is irrelevant to whether or not they are in fact, illegal (per League of Nations and United Nations Security Council resolutions, Jewish settlements anywhere west of the Jordan River are entirely legal).  But we digress...

As above, Williams, with the able assistance of Erekat, recalls and reports the Israeli commitment, appearing in the 2003 Roadmap peace plan, to freeze settlement-building in the territories.  Yet, when it comes to reporting on Palestinian commitments in the same document, Williams is at a loss:

For its part, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government criticizes Abbas for seeking a reconciliation with the Islamists of Hamas, who control Gaza and reject permanent coexistence with Israel. Abbas has also balked at Israel's demand that he recognize it as a Jewish state.

Other than the obvious fact that Hamas seeks the liquidation of Israel, Williams apparently cannot recall that, in its embrace and reconciliation with an internationally-recognized terrorist group, the Palestinian Authority is breaching its international legal obligations under the same Roadmap peace plan:

Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.

At RMEW, we're always willing to assist the disabled.

Allyn Fisher-Ilan: polemicist, propagandist, ventriloquist

Deeply dishonest Reuters correspondent Allyn Fisher-Ilan pens a blistering polemic on Jewish settlers who last week attacked an IDF outpost in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and allegedly vandalized an abandoned mosque.

In the handful of incidents where she reports, Fisher-Ilan typically refers to Israelis who stage violent demonstrations against the Israeli separation barrier and throw rocks at soldiers (often seriously injuring them) as merely "pro-Palestinian" or with the genteel sobriquet, "leftists".  But in the case of Israelis protesting against the demolition of their homes in the area, engaging in violence indistinguishable from that of Fisher-Ilan's beloved "leftists", the Reuters correspondent is just a bit more, shall we say, vitriolic:

(Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday approved steps to crack down on violent ultra-nationalist Jewish settlers after a rampage at a West Bank military base and torching of a mosque's facade stirred public outrage.
Radical settlers are bent on foiling government efforts to shut down unauthorized outposts they have set up in occupied West Bank territory where Palestinians seek a state, although Israel has continued to expand larger official settlements.  [...]

On Wednesday, radical Jews burnt the facade of a Jerusalem mosque not recently in use and scrawled "Death to the Arabs" on its walls, an assault blamed on a group that has vandalized other Muslim houses of worship over the past two years.

While we don't condone violence or property damage committed by belligerents on either side of this conflict, we just want to point out Fisher-Ilan's willful, skillful, and hypocritical use of propagandistic rhetoric in an effort to manipulate readers to adopt her own patent political ideology.

Note also, how the Reuters correspondent then falsely attributes her employer's propaganda mantra to the Israeli Prime Minister:

Netanyahu said further that he would increase funding for investigations of violence in occupied territory. But he rejected calls to treat Israelis suspected of violence there as "terrorist targets," as Palestinian militants are handled.

Netanyahu did not say, and would likely never refer to the territory as "occupied".  Fisher-Ilan has simply fabricated the citation out of whole cloth.

For Reuters, history itself begins in 1967

Scan through almost any Reuters story on the Middle East conflict, particularly one that mentions Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"), and you will likely find Reuters correspondents characterizing that settlement as beginning in 1967, when Israel liberated the territory from Jordanian occupation in a defensive war.

The success of Reuters' long-standing propaganda campaign against the Jews and in favor of the Palestinian Arabs depends critically on deceiving readers into believing, not only that Jewish settlement in the territories is illegal, but that Jews only began living in the area following the Six-Day War in 1967.

Of course, both of these notions are utterly false.  As the Mandate for Palestine, resolved by the League of Nations in 1922, and Articles 79 and 80 of the Charter of the United Nations make clear, Jewish settlement in the territories is not only fully legal in international law, it was originally encouraged by the international community:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

International law never gets cited in a Reuters story because to do so would undermine the agency's mendacious and malicious propaganda campaign targeting the Jews, which seeks nothing less than to facilitate ethnic cleansing of the Jewish community from the territories by swaying public opinion in that direction.

Just as Joseph Goebbels and his Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda sought to influence public opinion so as to facilitate ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Europe.

In addition to a careful censorship of relevant citations of international law, Reuters employs what in propaganda studies is known as historical reconstruction, i.e., fabrication, to falsely depict the Jews as interlopers and colonizers of their own land.  To so portray a people that created and constituted a sovereign state in the area over three millennia ago, rich with culture, language, religious worship, and edifices still in evidence today -- a state that was repeatedly invaded, occupied, and colonized by others (including the Palestinian Arabs) over the last 2,500 years -- is no mean feat.

Reuters seeks to blot out indelible historical and legal Jewish ties to the land by systematically referring to 1967 as the year in which Jews began settling in the territories; hence we see this type of ahistorical and hysterical rhetoric from the keyboards of Reuters journalists like Dan Williams:

The first settlers were viewed by many compatriots as a patriotic vanguard on territory captured in the 1967 Middle East war. But some of their offspring, in the thrall of messianic and supremacist rabbis, combined an ecstatic skullcaps-and-sandals piety with the spurning of secular Israeli rule.

As we noted in a previous post, this handling is reminiscient of the scene in Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winning film Schindler's List where the Nazi commandant Göth addresses the Jews at a concentration camp worksite:

"Today is history. The young will ask with wonder about this day. Today is history and you are a part of it... When, elsewhere, they were footing the blame for the Black Death, Kazimierz the Great, so called, told the Jews they could come to Cracow. They came... They trundled their belongings into this city, they settled, they took hold, they prospered... For six centuries, there has been a Jewish Cracow... By this weekend, those six centuries, they're a rumor. They never happened. Today is history."

Substitute Jerusalem for "Cracow" and thirty-five centuries for "six", and you have a sense of the atrocity Reuters correspondents are contemplating and in which they will be complicit if their propaganda campaign is successful.

Former UNIFIL official refers to Israeli communities targeted by Lebanese rockets as "settlements"

Reuters interviewed Timur Goksel, a former UNIFIL official and "security analyst", about the rockets fired into Israel today from Lebanon.  Here's what Goksel had to say:

This looks more serious. The type of rocket and apparent targeting of settlements suggests they were not noisemakers, they actually hit something and didn't mind causing casualties. This one could have caused huge mayhem.

The area hit by the rockets is in the western Galilee of Israel.

But then, the Arabs and their acolytes consider all of Israel to be a "settlement".

Tom Perry lifts his pen; count the lies

It's another day and another deceit for Reuters propagandist Tom Perry who offers us his unique brand of "analysis" on the current state of Middle East peacemaking as orchestrated by the Quartet (Russia, the EU, the UN, and the US).  So, let's see where Perry seeks to mislead his audience this time:

The immediate obstacle [in the way of negotiations] is the standoff over Israel's expansion of Jewish settlements on the land where the Palestinians aim to found an independent state. World powers view the settlement as illegal under international law.

Er, no.  The immediate obstacle is the utter refusal of the Palestinians to engage in good faith peace talks without dictating the outcome of those talks by obtaining in advance of them, extraordinary unilateral concessions from Israel in the form of, 1) a termination of Jewish settlements on land promised to the Jews in resolutions adopted by the League of Nations and United Nations, and 2) a commitment by Israel to accept a Judenrein Palestinian Arab state on all land, including Jerusalem, liberated by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

And "world powers", like the United States, emphatically do not view Jewish settlements on this land as illegal in international law.  Indeed, as noted above, Jewish settlements in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") are entirely legal in international law.

In Israel, there has been a swing to the political right, a shift helped by the last Palestinian uprising. Add to that the fact that half a million Israelis have now settled in the would-be Palestine, and hopes for a deal seem far fetched.

Ah yes, that euphemistic and nebulous Palestinian "uprising", aka the Palestinian terror war, that killed over 1,000 Israelis in suicide bombings and shootings.  A bit more journalistic transparency in this respect might enable readers to better apprehend the reasons behind that "swing to the political right" in Israel.

Perry's reference to "would-be Palestine" includes the city of Jerusalem, a city built by the Jews over three-thousand years ago and only ever sovereign to the Jewish nation.  Jerusalem, a city where Jews maintained a community despite successive waves of invasion, conquest and occupation until 1967 when it was finally liberated from Arab colonization that had sought to obliterate any Jewish connection to the land and its holy sites.

The deal [to exchange Israeli Gilad Shalit for over 1,000 Hamas terrorists] disheartened Palestinian leaders in the West Bank who, unlike Hamas, oppose armed conflict with Israel and believe peace talks are the way to end the conflict.

This is a double bald-faced lie from Perry.  First, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas celebrated the release of the Hamas prisoners by paying them stipends.  Secondly, as we've noted dozens of times, Abbas, his Fatah party, and the PLO remain committed in word and deed to the destruction of Israel via armed violence.

A [Jewish] settlement freeze was a requirement of a 2003 peace plan, drawn up by the Quartet and known as the road map for peace.
"If the Quartet is going to play any credible role, it must really be able to enforce the terms of reference, and the compliance with these terms of reference, particularly those that have led to an agreed text, like the road map," said Nabil Shaath, a veteran Palestinian official.

No mention by either Shaath or Perry of Palestinian obligations under the Road Map, like disarming and dismantling all terrorist infrastructure, something the Palestinians have completely failed to do.

Reuters Tom Perry hearts the Palestinians

Reuters correspondent Tom Perry, who appears to be moving through Elisabeth Kubler-Ross' seven stages of grief over the impending death of the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations, has graduated from anger and depression on to hope and acceptance:

(Reuters) - Palestinians expressed a mix of pride and wary anticipation on Friday as their president prepared to present an application for United Nations membership for the state of Palestine in the face of fierce opposition from the United States and Israel.  Flags and portraits of the late Yasser Arafat and President Mahmoud Abbas draped buildings in a central Ramallah square where Palestinians awaited the live broadcast of a speech by Abbas [...]

President Barack Obama has warned the United States would exercise its U.N. veto power to prevent a Palestinian state being declared by the 15-member Security Council.
Backing Israel's insistence the two sides must resume suspended negotiations, Obama this week said there can be "no shortcut" to a Middle East peace that attempts to circumvent a treaty between the Palestinians and Israel.

Perry has so completely lost his integrity (not to mention his mind) as an independent reporter, he adopts the loaded Palestinian term for the Israel Defense Forces:   

There was no sign of organised Palestinian violence in the West Bank as feared by some Israelis, worried Israel's opposition to the biggest Palestinian diplomatic initiative in years could trigger clashes with occupation security forces.

He then parrots Palestinian canards:

Palestinians say they have been patient during 20 years of peace talks that have yielded nothing, while Israel's occupation continues and Jewish settlements grow on West Bank land.

Yielded nothing but a concession by various Israeli governments, including the present one, to accept a second Palestinian state on land promised to the Jews if the Palestinian Arabs will only accept a Jewish state on the land that remains and agree to live in peace.  A condition apparently beyond Perry's "patient" Palestinians.

And there has been absolutely no lateral growth of Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") in years.  Israel continues to suppress Jewish building in the territories in the hope, perhaps futile, that the Palestinians will ultimately come to demonstrate the same fervor for co-existence they currently display for terror and lawfare.

UN doesn't recognize Palestinian state -- but Reuters does

Hezbollah handmaiden and Reuters correspondent Alistair Lyon makes clear that whereas the United Nations views the territories of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"), including the city of Jerusalem, as, literally, no man's land, he and his behemoth media company consider it Palestinian land:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asks the United Nations on Friday to recognise a state for his people, even though Israel still occupies its territory and the United States has vowed to veto the move.

And it doesn't get any better.  Lyon's propaganda piece follows the Palestinian Arab narrative to the letter, censors essential historical detail, and is shamelessly loaded with fabrications, half-truths, and distortions.  Let's take a look:

His [Palestinian President Abbas] appeal to the council reflects a loss of faith after 20 years of failed peace talks sponsored by the United States, Israel's main ally, and alarm at relentless Israeli settlement expansion that is eating into the land Palestinians want for a state.

It's always a work of art when Reuters correspondents speak for the Palestinians.  The failed peace talks Lyon refers to began life as the Declaration of Principles, or Oslo Accords, in the early 1990s and the United States had no hand in them.  It was actually the Fafo Institute in Norway, with its Director Terje Rød-Larsen, that brought Israeli officials and the Palestine Liberation Organization together in an effort to resolve the conflict.  Those Accords, which the Palestinians have violated repeatedly and are now formally annulling with their application for statehood at the UN, fully permitted, consistent with international law, Jewish settlements in the disputed territories.

Lyon continues:

So Abbas, a moderate politician opposed to violence, sees no alternative but recourse to the United Nations, although Israeli and U.S. politicians have threatened financial reprisals that could cripple his Palestinian Authority.

As we noted in our post yesterday, whereas Reuters continues to peddle the canard that Abbas is opposed to violence, the facts say otherwise.  Abbas makes clear in his interviews and speeches, particularly in Arabic, that the Palestinian suspension of violence is tactical and temporary and that terrorism may be reprised any time it once again becomes opportune.

The United Nations partitioned Palestine in 1947, but Arab states rejected that and declared war on the new state of Israel, which then captured more territory than it had been allotted under the U.N. plan and dispossessed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who became refugees.

With his selective and heavily biased historical excerpt, Lyon wants readers to believe that it was Israel which "dispossessed" the Palestinian Arabs when in reality, it was the leaders of those Arab states that declared war on Israel and also encouraged the local Arab population to clear the way for their armies.  Proof of this lies in the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who remained in their homes in 1948 and who are today, along with their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, full citizens of the state of Israel.

Two decades after Israel seized the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war, the Palestine Liberation Organisation effectively reduced its demands to a state on those territories.

This is a complete fabrication.  The PLO has never formally rescinded its charter to obliterate Israel and replace the Jewish state, in its entirety, with a Palestinian Arab state.  Indeed, Article 9 of that document makes clear precisely what that "moderate politician opposed to violence", Mahmoud Abbas, is really up to:   

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

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

In yet another op-ed, misleadingly packaged as "Analysis", Reuters Jerusalem Bureau Chief Crispian Balmer opines:

Israel fears it could use the ICC [International Criminal Court] to take action against some 500,000 Israelis who live in territory seized in 1967 and whose settlements most world powers regard as illegal.

Like his adolescent colleagues at Reuters, Balmer's memory spans a mere 44 years.  In an effort to portray Israelis living in the disputed territories as interlopers, he fails to inform readers that Jews had made their home in these lands for thousands of years before they were ethnically cleansed from the area by the Arab Legion in 1948-49.

Balmer asserts that most world powers consider settlements illegal, but this is false.  In fact, even officials at the U.S. State Department, not known for their pro-Israel sentiment, go to great pains to avoid using the word "illegal" when describing Jewish communities in the territories, opting instead for rhetoric like "unhelpful" or "an obstacle to peace".

This is by design because these officials know, as does Balmer, that Jews have every right in international law to settle in the territories:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

But when you're committed to advocacy journalism, rather than to your company Mission Statement, propaganda will always win the day.

Jeffrey Heller forgets a little something

The Israeli parliament passed legislation today allowing parties to sue for financial damages when they are injured by boycott campaigns. In an eleven-paragraph story on the bill, Reuters Jerusalem Bureau Editor-in-Charge Jeffrey Heller devotes seven paragraphs to citing opponents of the bill, two paragraphs violating the Reuters Handbook by refusing to provide the dual names of politically disputed territory at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Judea and Samaria/the West Bank), and one paragraph attempting to portray the Israeli government as extremist by employing a cheap political label.

What Heller fails to do in all eleven paragraphs, is report the truth. He tells readers:

Supporters of the bill said its reference to boycotts based on "geography" was aimed at countering calls in Israel and abroad for cultural and economic boycotts against settlements in the West Bank, occupied land Palestinians want for a state.

But the legislation has been written to protect not just those who are financially injured by boycotts aimed at settlements in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") but also those who are injured by boycotts aimed at Israelis in Israel.  Absent such legal protections, Israelis would have little recourse against those who seek to eradicate the Jewish state via Nazi-inspired economic and cultural boycotts.

Heller misses the point of these boycotts -- and wants his readers to miss the same point.

Israel announces new settlement construction in the wake of family massacre; Jeffrey Heller springs into action

Jeffrey Heller is Editor-in-Charge of Reuters Jerusalem Bureau.  Googling his name and the word "settlements" produces over 70,000 results.  This is a man literally driven to the core of his soul, by an obsession with Jews who choose to exercise their rights, in international law, to live beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines in the disputed territories constituting the original Mandate of Palestine.

Heller is not bothered much by murderous Palestinian terrorism, which he never characterizes as such, nor even by Palestinian incitement to murder Jews, which he only reports offhand and as noted by others (as if Heller is personally unaware of the barbarous incitement permeating all facets of Palestinian society):

Netanyahu, who spoke with Abbas by phone, said the statements by the Palestinian leadership were not strong enough and it must move to end what he termed incitement against Israelis in Palestinian schools, mosques and media.

But given an announcement by the Israeli government to build additional homes in the disputed territories, Heller burns the midnight oil to report the move:

With anger high in Israel and among settlers, Netanyahu's office said in a statement that "ministers decided to authorize construction" of several hundred housing units in the Etzion bloc of settlements and in Maale Adumim, Ariel and Kiryat Sefer.
The move was likely to draw international dismay and harden Palestinian resolve not to return to peace talks frozen over Netanyahu's refusal to extend a 10-month moratorium that expired in November on housing starts in West Bank settlements.
"This decision is wrong and unacceptable and will only create problems," said Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Expanded construction in West Bank settlements could bolster Netanyahu within his governing coalition, which is dominated by pro-settler parties, including his own right-wing Likud [...] 

The World Court has deemed illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank, territory captured along with the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem in a 1967 war.
Some 500,000 settlers live among 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinians fear the enclaves will deny them a viable state.
Violence in the West Bank has dropped significantly since its peak during a Palestinian uprising a decade ago, although tensions had risen earlier in the week when Israeli troops fired live rounds at Palestinians after they clashed with settlers.
Ten Palestinians and one Israeli were wounded in the confrontation.

Heller repeats the symbolic fiction suggesting, falsely, that settlements are illegal because the utopian-sounding but irrelevant World Court opined such; he refers to the fictitious city of "East Jerusalem", he violates the Reuters Handbook of Journalism by failing to provide Israel's appellation for the "West Bank" (Judea and Samaria); and he further violates the Reuters Handbook by employing a euphemism ("uprising") to conceal the violent horror of the Palestinian terror war that killed over 1,000 Israelis.

Otherwise, Heller continues to carry out his duties in exemplary fashion for the most biased and propagandistic news agency in the world.

Breaking

A family of five Israeli Jews including an eleven-year-old child, a toddler, and a one-month-old infant were stabbed to death early this morning.   Fatah's "military wing", al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, took responsibility for the killings.  One of our colleagues found the following crumpled-up draft in the trash bin behind Reuters Jerusalem Bureau offices:

(Reuters) - 5 Israeli Settlers Found Dead in Occupied West Bank

Five Israeli settlers, including a settler toddler and settler infant living in a settler home built on occupied Palestinian land, were found dead early this morning by the Israeli occupation authorities. The settlers apparently died of wounds sustained by a blunt instrument.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas expressed his condolences for the settler deaths and said the incident must not be allowed to damage Palestinian interests including the formation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital before the end of the year. Abbas also explained that the incident illustrated why it was imprudent for there to be any Jews living in a Palestinian state.

Within hours of the news of the deaths, the human rights group Peace Now published a report containing satellite imagery of the settler house showing it to have been built on land once owned by a Palestinian Arab that had been sold, under conditions of oppressive bargaining, to the deep-pocketed Jewish family. The settler family had no comment.

In a related development, the Palestinian national soccer team lost its first home match on Wednesday but celebrated the symbolic step towards statehood.

UPDATE MARCH 13, 2011: In our depressing satire above, we suggested Reuters might refer to Israeli security forces as the Israeli occupation authorities.  We didn't know at the time that in early versions of its story on the incident, Reuters did indeed refer to the "Israeli occupation forces". 

A link to photos of the murdered family published by Arutz Sheva.  Their website notes:

These photos were released by the family. They have given full permission for their use in order to report on the horrific reality of murdering children and babies in their sleep, "simply because they are Jewish."

WARNING: THESE PHOTOS ARE EXTREMELY GRAPHIC AND NOT INTENDED FOR CHILDREN.

Reuters (inadvertently) comes clean

In our post just below, we noted that despite the fact the Utopian-sounding World Court has no binding authority to rule on the legality of Jewish settlements, Reuters repeats ad nauseam, the propaganda mantra that the body considers Jewish settlements illegal.  This, in an effort to give weight to the agency's own partisan political views.

Ironically, just a few hours ago, Reuters published a story by correspondent Patrick Worsnip which cedes to and underscores our point.

Writing about British and French efforts to impose a "no-fly" zone over Libya and the length of time it takes to to get such a resolution through the United Nations Security Council, Worsnip is quite clear on international law:

Here are some facts about the council and its resolutions to help explain why the procedure can be so cumbersome.  

WHAT IS THE SECURITY COUNCIL?

The council is the only U.N. body whose resolutions have the force of international law and is mandated to tackle situations deemed to threaten international peace and security. It can impose sanctions on countries or send in peacekeeping forces with varying rules of engagement.

Thank you, Patrick, for acknowledging the facts.  Now, if only your colleagues in Jerusalem would do the same with respect to Jewish rights in international law.

The symbolic fiction

When the facts belie Reuters partisan political views, you can be sure the agency's correspondents will offer readers one of their own invented notions supported or voiced by another party whom Reuters cites as an independent and usually expert source.

Indeed, a symbolic fiction is a propaganda technique whereby a false claim, endorsed by some reputedly respectable and disinterested party, is advanced by the propagandist (Smith, 1989).

Take for example the propaganda mantra peddled in nearly 100 Reuters stories over the last couple of years that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") are illegal -- because the World Court says so.

In a story on the Palestinian Arabs rejecting an interim peace plan rumored to be coming from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Reuters correspondent Mohammed Assadi and Jerusalem Bureau Editor-in-Charge Jeffrey Heller repeat the mantra:

Palestinians say the settlements, deemed illegal by the World Court, will deny them a viable state.

As we've noted here, here, here, and here, Reuters' reference and deference to the World Court, on the question of the legality of Jewish settlements, is irrelevant and deluded.  The court's opinion, actually on the legality of the Israeli separation barrier rather than Jewish settlements, is entirely advisory and non-binding.  Assadi and Heller may as well cite the Organization of Islamic Conference in its opinion on Jewish settlements (this may be Reuters next recourse).

The only binding decision on the legality of Jewish settlements in the original territories of Palestine -- including the West Bank -- resides in the Mandate for Palestine, confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, grandfathered across to the United Nations in 1946, and still legally operative today.  Article VI of the Mandate stipulates:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Reuters Jerusalem Bureau has, to our knowledge, never cited this exclusively authoritative resolution granting Jews the right to settle anywhere in historic Palestine west of the Jordan River.

For Reuters, symbolic fiction trumps tangible truth every time.

Fisher-Ilan caught card stacking again

Admitted radical leftist and Reuters correspondent Allyn Fisher-Ilan reports on efforts by Israeli lawmakers to launch an investigative probe into foreign funding of Israeli NGOs:

(Reuters) - Right-wing lawmakers have ignored the concerns of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and rescheduled a vote on a proposed parliamentary probe of foreign funding for Israeli groups critical of Israel's policies.
Amid public criticism of around a half-dozen proposed measures in parliament widely viewed as targeting left-wing groups, Netanyahu had taken action that effectively put off a vote last week on setting up the legislative inquiry panel [...]

Fisher-Ilan, known for her deeply dishonest reporting on the Middle East conflict and prolific use of propaganda devices to deceive readers into unwittingly accepting her personal political views, selectively highlights Israeli NGOs which are fighting the probe:

Among groups likely to come under scrutiny are Peace Now, which vocally opposes Jewish settlement on occupied land that Palestinians want for a state. Another is the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which campaigns for democratic values, freedom of speech, equal rights and "the end of occupation."

Fisher-Ilan doesn't mention that Peace Now "vocally opposes Jewish settlement" by liberally lying and libeling its targets.  Nor does she identify some of the other NGOs likely to come under scrutiny, like Adalah which is heavily funded by the European Union and advocates for the eradication of a Jewish nation-state.

The Reuters correspondent then attempts to draw an utterly absurd parallel between on the one hand, Saudi Arabia financing Arab land acquisitions in Israel, and on the other, individuals buying land in Jerusalem and the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"):

Danon asserted that investors in Saudi Arabia had been funding offers to buy land at above market value in northern Israel, where a majority of Israeli Arab citizens live.
In turn, Palestinians have been critical of funding that Israeli pro-settlement groups receive from private donors overseas to buy land for settlers in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, territory captured in a 1967 Middle East war.

Apparently lost on Fisher-Ilan is the key distinction between the two projects: in the former case, a foreign government is engaged in a systematic effort to alter the demographic balance of another sovereign by funding land purchases (illegal in most countries); in the latter case, private individuals are financially supporting housing in a territory which remains formally unallocated and into which Jewish settlement was officially sanctioned by the international community nine decades ago.

Critical thinking however, has never been a strong suit of the radical left.