Proven liars at Reuters double-down with more mendacious propaganda

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

Let's follow the agit-prop:

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

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

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

Continuing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solomon vs Solomon

In January, we critiqued a story by Reuters correspondent Erika Solomon where she facilely assigns historical ownership of the Jaffa region of Israel to the Arabs, ignoring centuries of control under many other civilizations including of course, the Jews, who Solomon relegates to 20th century "settlers".  We noted that this is consistent with the Reuters/Arab narrative of Jews as modern Western interlopers "colonizing Arab land" in what is today Israel.  In our original post, we called attention to the archeological record which clearly demonstrates Jewish civilization and culture in the area predating any Arab presence by millennia.

In a new "feature" story, Solomon (one can only chuckle at the irony reflected in that surname) attempts to disparage archaeological digs in the Jerusalem area that continue to uncover evidence of the ancient Jewish Kingdoms:

Archaeologists in Jerusalem are competing to unearth artefacts[sic] pointing to the ancient city's Jewish past, which are used to justify Israel's claim to all of it as the indivisible capital of the modern Jewish state. But critics say some of "finds" are really just bending science to prove a "Biblical heritage" that is open to dispute.

Solomon quotes an Israeli archaeologist as suggesting that the excavations do not reflect "best practices" but no supporting evidence for this assertion is provided.  Indeed, even Hani Nur al-Din, a Palestinian Arab archaeologist interviewed by Solomon (the writer) does not refute the importance of the recent discovery of elaborately-designed fortifications dating to the era of Solomon (the King) as documented in the Old Testament.  The best that can be mustered is: 

The Bible should be put aside. It's not a history book.

(We wonder if al-Din and Solomon would say the same of the Qur'an).

The fact is, Solomon's entire story is actually a straw man which seeks to undermine Jewish claims to Jerusalem by suggesting that the archaelogical finds are subject to interpretation and the Bible subject to dispute.  But the issue is not whether the Bible can be considered an immaculate historical archive but rather whether the archaeological record confirms the existence of an advanced Jewish civilization and city centuries before the arrival of Arab invaders.

On that count, there is no dispute.

UPDATE 3/28/2010: A reader notes that whereas Solomon invites skepticism for Israeli archaeological methods and objectives, she is silent on the long-standing wholesale destruction of antiquities on the Temple Mount under the direction of the Waqf (Islamic Authority).  This, in the service of denying a historical Jewish connection to the site.

Reuters: antisemitic or simply asinine?

We're returning to a Reuters AxisMundi post from July because it would be difficult to find a more breathtaking example of both the ignorance and conceit demonstrated by their Middle East correspondents.

In "Insulting the Intelligence", Douglas Hamilton patronizes readers by assuming the role of teacher who is going to demonstrate to his students the "rhetorical tricks" of disingenuousness and the straw man argument. Hamilton's teaching exhibit: Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hamilton cites Netanyahu's reply to demands by the Obama administration that Israel halt construction of 20 apartments in eastern Jerusalem as an illustration of these "rhetorical tricks":

“We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and buy (homes) anywhere in Jerusalem... I can only imagine what would happen if someone would suggest Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods of New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a great international outcry.”

Hamilton admits that discrimination against Jews, i.e., preventing them from building or living in these Western cities, would indeed be proof of antisemitism but that because Jerusalem is a disputed city claimed also by the Palestinian Arabs, such an injunction is perfectly acceptable. For Hamilton, Netanyahu is employing a straw man, and (because Hamilton presumes Netanyahu accepts his distinction between Jerusalem and London) is further guilty of being "disingenuous".

Of course, it is Hamilton who is actually being disingenuous or simply ignorant of the historical facts. As we replied in the comments section to Hamilton's post, at various times in the past, sovereignty over New York, London, Paris, and Rome was also in dispute. The same holds true with Prague, Toronto, Istanbul, Pittsburgh, and today, Belfast, Gibraltar, and Jerusalem.

Competing claims did not prevent the English, the French, the Czechs, or the Catholics from living or building in their cities while borders were tussled with. Competing claims have not compelled the UK government to block condominium construction for British pensioners in Gibraltar. And competing claims have not prevented Arab governments from spending hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize and encourage Palestinian Arab construction in Jerusalem.

Only the Jews it seems, are to be singled out for special treatment.