Déjà Vu: Reuters’ Fabricated Facts; John Kerry’s Abject Dishonesty

John Kerry, Secretary of State, United States of America

An excellent article by John Podhoretz of the New York Post, on the folly of John Kerry’s recent attack on Israel, rightly describes Kerry’s behaviour as “contemptible”, and at substantive variance with very obvious truths. Past evidence demonstrates that Kerry’s modus operandi was always likely to be thus.

Along with arguably deceptive behaviour, which undermined trust, Kerry went as far as to threaten Israel with a Third Intifada, perhaps forgetting his role as an intermediary. It is surely a testament to Israel’s desperation for a solution, and its extreme willingness to keep the US happy, that it went along with such an overtly prejudicial “peacemaker”, whose bullying went as far to incite an Arab-Palestinian terrorist revolt!

Kerry’s criticisms have been carried by the International media without critique, and, of course, substantively focused on settlement construction, despite these being areas that are to be retained in any envisaged two-state peace agreement. Meanwhile, Abbas’ refusal to acknowledge Israel’s Jewish identity, his continued insistence upon a ‘right of return’, which would of course nullify Israel’s existence, and his refusal to even commit to an end of the conflict, is somehow unworthy of substantive criticism!

Reuters on settlement construction

Kerry’s remarks were reinforced in numerous media reports, with particular reference to data released by the Israeli governmental authority, the ‘Central Bureau of Statistics’. Their report last month, which gained international coverage, noted that settlement construction, in Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank), and East Jerusalem, increased by 123 or 124 percent in 2013, compared to that of 2012.

The data was of course a gift to both the Palestinian Authority and an assortment of anti-Israel NGO’s, with the timing of the announcement used to undermine a critical meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama, despite the fact that the percentage increase merely reflects a movement from the lowest average construction rate since the 1990’s.

Of particular note is a prominent claim that the move to increase settlement construction began during face-to-face peace talks. A typically prejudicial Reuters article, entitled “Israeli minister urges Netanyahu to annex settlements”, by one Crispian Balmer, notes that:

“Settlements have been a constant source of aggravation between Israelis and Palestinians, with construction of new Jewish homes in the West Bank rising 123 percent year-on-year in 2013, a surge that coincided with the resumption of talks.”

However, the Central Bureau of Statistics’, upon which Crispian Balmer relied for his percentile claim, noted that the increase in settlement construction began in the earliest months of 2013, prior to the resumption of talks. Face to face talks began in August 2013, after Israel agreed to the release 104 pre-Oslo prisoners, guilty of some of the most heinous acts of murder.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the Central Bureau of Statistics’ data affirms that:

“full recovery did not occur until 2013, due in part to the authorization of new housing tenders in West Bank settlements. In the first quarter of that year, ground was broken in West Bank settlements for 970 new homes. Since then, there has been a marked decline, with 736 housing starts in the second quarter of 2013, followed by 592 new units in the third quarter and 238 in the fourth quarter”

Clearly the figures demonstrate that construction slowed quite dramatically as the talks began, with a reduction of almost 40 percent from the early 2013 rate. As talks continued into the final quarter of the year, the rate of new homes reduced to a quarter of the early 2013 figure. Surely this is significant?

Interestingly, shortly before talks began, the media made a fuss that Israel was publishing plans for new housing units. Netanyahu refused demands for a total settlement freeze. However, this rejection was not utilised to undermine the talks but more likely to keep the pro-settler elements within Netanyahu’s coalition happy. A compromise solution was offered, whereby the housing rate would be reduced substantially. Israel also agreed to US demands for an informal freeze outside the larger settlement blocks. These conditions appear to have been met.

The data presented by the Central Bureau of Statistics does not undermine any notion that Netanyahu genuinely wished for the talks to succeed. In fact, it indicates that a substantive cut in construction was used to appease Arab-Palestinian demands. Unfortunately, this would never be enough for Palestinian Authority, just as anything other than complete submission to these demands would not appease Kerry.

For further reading on the prevalent bias at Reuters see Something is rotten in Reuters.

Article also published at Crethi Plethi.

Did Hamas Engineer Border Violence to Extract a Dangerous Concession from Israel?

Protest at the Gaza border fence (east of Khan Yunis), 23/11/12

Conflict at the Gaza border on the 23^rd November, in which one Gazan man was shot dead by the IDF, has added to claims by supporters of the Palestinian cause that Israel was aggressor in the November 2012 conflict. The death of a 13 year old boy, supposedly killed by the IDF whilst playing soccer, is credited by pro-Palestinians for instigating the minor war, despite the fact that there were attacks against the IDF earlier that day, and reports indicate events surrounding the boy’s death diverge strongly.

On the 23^rd, a large number of Gazan’s amassed at a particular point by the border fence with Israel. Some claimed they were agricultural workers. Other Palestinian sources claimed these people were in fact on their way to prayer, Friday being the Muslim holy day. Hamas claimed the IDF response was a ceasefire violation but urged terrorist groups within Gaza to remain calm, should further violence harm Hamas’ gains made by Israel’s overly generous concessions in the ceasefire deal, signed two days previously, and put at risk the consolidation of its power in Gaza.

Most online (and broadcast) video of the incident comes from Russian news channel RT, which is not often regarded as an impartial source. The footage is heavily edited but still indicates the Palestinian presence at the border was far from peaceful.

Indeed, a provocative element within the gathering is at least partially acknowledged by the comments of a relative of the deceased man, who was present during the Israeli gunfire. To quote Reuters:

“Anwar [Qdeih] was trying to put a Hamas flag on the fence,” said Omar Qdeih, a relative of the man killed who was at the scene.

“The army fired three times into the air. Anwar shouted at them ‘Jaabari is behind you’, then they shot him in the head,” he told Reuters.

Thus the intensity of the Palestinian presence seems to have been significant. Many sources also refer to the fact that the border area has long been understood to be a closed zone due to terrorist attacks, e.g:

Health officials said Anwar Qdeih, 23, was hit in the head by Israeli gunfire after he approached the security fence that runs between Israel and Gaza — an area that Israel has long declared a no-go zone for Palestinians.

It would seem probable that a significant portion of the three hundred or more Palestinians present tried to damage and/or cross the border, which is a common activity when protests at the border occur.

Warning shots were fired into the air to distance the crowd from the fence but some kept coming or remained on scene as the video footage suggests. The IDF claim that shots were also fired at the legs of some protestors after they continued their apparent attempt to cross into Israel. Such actions tally with standard IDF procedure at the border — an area that has long been a source of conflict. Reportedly, a Gazan man infiltrated Israeli territory in the course of the border commotion but was promptly sent back to Gaza.

Furthermore, the fact that a significant number of people gathered in one place along many miles of border suggests a level of planning prior to the confrontation. There are no reports of similar incidents involving casualties at other parts of the border.

Although accounts vary on the way in which a Gaza-based Palestinian man got through the border in the early hours of the following Monday, to then commit a knife attack against an Israeli woman and her children in their home, some reports state that it occurred after he was able to infiltrate the border due to damage caused by the events of November 23^rd.
 

Showing little fear of their supposed oppressors

It is notable that the trouble at the Israeli-Gazan border occurred at the same sort of location to that of several other significant flash-points of conflict, which led to Operation Pillar of Cloud. Moreover, there were reports of further demonstrations in the area after the death of Anwar Qdeih was known.

Protest at the Gaza border fence (east of Khan Yunis), 23/11/12

On the one hand, this behaviour suggests that many Palestinians do not take the risk of confronting the IDF seriously. This is a definite possibility, when considering the spectacle of children attempting to provoke armed soldiers, in collusion with older Palestinians shooting video nearby. Such behaviour does not neatly fit the common anti-Israeli portrait of the IDF as barbaric genocidal Nazi-like killers.

However, background to this post-Pillar of Cloud border conflict suggests a complex political intent.

An article by the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency states there was a little-reported incident at the Gaza border one day after the ceasefire (Thursday the 22^nd), where it was claimed some two hundred protestors tried to break through the border. The Times of Israel also alludes to the event, stating two Palestinians were injured by Israeli gunfire when “marching” near the same area as the bigger protest the next day.

The common and repeated nature of these two confrontations may well suggest that Hamas was involved in the incidents. Hamas is noted for ruling Gaza with an iron grip and a watchful eye, to the extent that its crackdowns on dissent have harmed its popularity in Gaza to a significant degree. The very high sensitivity of the border area, especially in the immediate aftermath of outright war, would of course be obvious to the group. There is a high probability that the group engineered or at least gave their assent to the border confrontations.

Hamas having such an intent would be far from unprecedented, as the Nabka Day border attacks attest. In 2011, 45 Palestinians were injured attempting to break through the border. There were a number of casualties in similar protests this year, and the Gaza-Egyptian border has not been exempt from similarly well organised violent protests/riots either.

At this time, engineering confrontations at very sensitive border areas has a positive political benefit for Hamas. In the short term, direct terrorist attacks are no longer a viable political option, after having agreed to the ceasefire. It would lead to criticism of their stance, and also place at risk the significant political gains they have obtained in the ceasefire agreement. Hamas also have cause to complain to their clearly sympathetic Egyptian mediators by claiming Israel were the first to break the ceasefire.

According to the Ma’an News Agency, Hamas have since deployed “security forces” nearer the border with Israel in the aftermath of the border incidents. Reports suggest the conflict at the border would seem to have legitimised such a move, perhaps even in Israel’s eyes.

The increased vulnerability of the border has already been exposed with the crossing of a Gazan terrorist, who stabbed a woman in her family home whilst she was attempting to defend her four children, before fleeing and being shot. The event echoed the savage attack on the Fogel family last year, and could have been just as destructive if it were not for the fact the woman in question was a martial arts expert [h/t AnneinPT]. However, such a significant violation has been largely ignored by the international media, after they produced a high volume of content over the November 23^rd border shooting, and a substantial reportage critical of Israel’s border buffer zone.

The loss (or compromise) of the buffer zone will also make Israeli forces more vulnerable to attack and kidnap, a stated aim of Hamas’ leaders, with tunnelling made easier. Hamas has openly refused to stop re-arming because it claims it can only extract concessions from Israel with violence.

If Hamas poses a medium-term risk, there is still reason to think there may be a more imminent risk of hostilities re-commencing, with Islamic Jihad’s deputy-leader, Ziad Nakhalah, describing the ceasefire as “temporary and partial.”

 


Also published at Crethi Plethi.

Something is rotten in Reuters

With the comedy of the UN obsessing over Israel this week, and the Durban III Conference, where the acceptable face of racism will hold sway, it is perhaps appropriate to look at the anti-Israel bias of the biggest international news agency in the world, namely Reuters, which in its own small way helped bring Israel to this unfortunate impasse.

Reuters’ bias has been well documented. It features prolificially on websites such as Honest Reporting and Camera and manifests itself not in isolated circumstances but rather as a continual prejudice, which suggests it is endemic at the institution. As the primary news agency, Reuters coverage of international events is beamed across the world, and their articles feature in a vast number of media outlets. Even when not cited, the line they take influences the coverage of more local news organisations, as is often clear when comparing and contrasting articles.

If Reuters displays a consistent bias on a certain issue it has serious ramifications. Here are examples covering the Egyptian assault on the Israeli Embassy and the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN.

An article on the 10^th September 2011, features a peculiar effort to justify the violence against the Israeli Embassy in Cairo as anger over the treatment of Palestinians:

“Our dignity has been restored,” said Mohi Alaa (24), a protester who was speaking near the site of overnight clashes with police around the building that houses the Israeli embassy. … “We don’t want the Americans’ money,” he said, reflecting a growing readiness among many Egyptians to express anger at Israel and the United States over Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, after decades of pragmatic official relations.

Continuing this theme, the reasons for several states explicitly turning against Israel are whitewashed:

Israel is finding itself increasingly at odds with formerly sympathetic states in the region. It is already embroiled in a feud with Turkey, once the closest of its few Muslim allies, over its treatment of the Palestinians.

Principle blame is placed at the feet of Israel. By suggesting that certain previously “sympathetic” neighbouring states like Egypt have turned away from Israel over the treatment of the Palestinians, Reuters thinly justifies an extreme diplomatic hostility that could have a gravely destabilising impact.

The truth is that Turkey gradually turned away from Europe, which was frustrating their application to the EU. Turkey gradually moved into an alliance with Iran and Syria during the mid-2000’s after Erdogan came to power. These states have a very hard-line anti-Israel policy. Egypt never had anything other than a cold peace with Israel after Sadat was murdered. Mubarak honoured peace agreements but was hardly a “sympathetic” ally, nor was Jordan. Egypt became more explicitly hostile after Mubarak was toppled because the civilian populace is resolutely against peace with Israel. Thus the connection between Palestinian treatment and these former allies distancing themselves from Israel is weak at best.

Another example is two of the first three paragraphs of a report by the same authors on Friday the 23^rd — the day of Abbas’ application for recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked the United Nations on Friday to recognize a state for his people, even though Israel still occupies its territory and the United States has vowed to veto the move. […]

His 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 eating into the land Palestinians want for a state.

The question of the land being “occupied” is of course quickly put to rest in the piece even though Article Six of the British Mandate, which is still in effect, permits close settlement. Melodramatic language such as “relentless” is used when most settlement since 1993 has been natural growth. Reuters articles can often sound quite unashamedly like the mouthpiece of Abbas, Fatal/PLO and the Palestinian Authority:

…he [Barack Obama] said only Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, not actions at the United Nations, could bring peace. “I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades,” he declared.

But the notion that more talks in the familiar format can succeed where so many have failed seems implausible.

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

The authors implicitly blame Israel for the failure of the peace process, and then engage in what can only be mind reading when they judge that Abbas has experienced “a loss of faith” over said process.

By describing Abbas with wording such as “moderate… opposed to violence”, and variants such as “long opposed to violence”, is peculiar as the PA is still openly involved in inciting hatred and violence such as naming a Ramallah square after a terrorist that led an attack killing 37 Israelis on the same day in March that the Fogel family was buried. It can also be said that Abbas promotes terrorism directly, for example when it was discovered in January that a $2,000 payment was made to the family of a deceased terrorist in his name.

In stark contrast Avigdor Lieberman is described as “far-right”, e.g. “Israel’s far-right foreign minister” which seems a little odd since one would think the label “far-right” (fascist by another name) would be better suited for a Holocaust denier like Abbas!

Our lesson in history, Reuters style!

A history section within the above quoted article demonstrates how prejudicial Reuters coverage can be

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.

Here we have no mention of the fact that three Arab states initiated conflict, which resulted in Israel taking said territory, and neither is there any mention that Israel has returned the vast majority of the land taken in that war such as in the historic peace deal with Egypt. The PLO’s demand for territories is also misrepresented, and given a positive spin. Although Arafat made some positive sounds, ultimately, by repeatedly fudging the issue, they did not amend their charter calling for Israel’s annihilation.

Also notable is the big jump in history from 1967 to 1993! There is no mention of the 1973 war against Israel, which led to the International Oil Crisis, nor the expulsion of the PLO to Lebanon that helped instigate a vicious civil war on a far more deadly scale than any conflict over Israel, the repercussions of which are still being felt today, where Hizbullah effectively rules a state within the State itself.

A 1993 agreement signed by PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin set out a plan for Palestinian self-rule, which was never fully implemented.

Whilst it would of course be impossible to go into a lot of detail in such an article, it fails to mention even briefly why full Palestinian self-rule was never implemented. Palestinian terror attacks actually intensified substantially during the Oslo talks which the PA/PLO had been entrusted to prevent but systematically avoided doing so. Neither did they amend their charter calling for Israel’s annihilation, which was a key requirement in Oslo. Finally Arafat walked away from the 2000 Camp David talks and called the Second Intifada.

Israel has continued to expand settlements in the West Bank, although it dismantled them in the Gaza Strip.

The expansion of settlements only refers to the natural growth of communities. Israel hasn’t recognised a new settlement since the mid 1990’s during the Oslo process. Put in some perspective, settlement territory in the West Bank just constitutes 2% of the land.

Two Palestinian uprisings erupted in 1987 and 2000, but failed to end Israeli occupation or bring statehood closer.

These “uprisings” are justified as attempts to “end Israeli occupation”, presumably in the post June 1967 borders but that view is dubious at best. Moreover these “uprisings” intentionally caused high levels of death amongst Israeli civilians, which surely qualifies as terrorism, whether morally justifiable or not? The use of the word “uprising”, as a substitute for waves of Palestinian terrorism, is a persistent issue at Reuters where even Hamas’ activities are lumped in as part of the effort to gain Palestinian statehood in the West Bank and Gaza, even though Hamas repeatedly call for the full destruction of Israel. To quote Camera:

Contrary to Jukes’ assurances that his news agency’s stories do indicate Hamas’ stated aim of destroying Israel, Reuters articles in fact continue to falsely portray the terrorist group’s campaign of violence as part of an “uprising for statehood.” A recent example:

Israeli security sources said he was chief commander of Hamas militants in the northern West Bank and responsible for the deaths of dozens of Israelis in suicide bombings in a three-year-old Palestinian uprising for statehood. (“Israel Kills Senior Hamas Commander in West Bank” by Nadia Sa’ad, September 5, 2003)

In another example of a highly selective timeline, which seems to be something of a Reuters speciality:

1967 — In what it calls pre-emptive strikes on Arab states, Israeli forces seize rest of British-mandate Palestine, taking West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and Gaza Strip from Egypt. Israel captures Golan Heights from Syria.

Of course Israel never possessed more than a quarter of the British Mandate, and to make such a claim illustrates either a remarkable dishonesty or a startling ignorance. Furthermore, Israel did not make “pre-emptive strikes on Arab states”. Israel only struck after Egypt committed an effective act of war by pushing UNIFIL peacekeeping troops out of the demilitarised Sinai, mobilising a huge number of troops to Israel’s border, and closing the Straits of Tiran. Note also the implied scepticism by using the words “In what it calls pre-emptive strikes” for what is a clearly a widely acknowledged historical fact!

December 2008 — After years of desultory talking, Abbas quits negotiations when Olmert launches offensive on Hamas-run Gaza.

In actual fact Abbas walked away from the most generous deal yet made by Israel, where Olmert promised effectively 100% of the territory the PA demanded with modest land swaps.

A paragon of balance or slightly less even-handed than Hitler when having a bad hair day?

Reuters goes over and above the noble endeavour of merely reporting the news. Their coverage always adds a substantial component of opinion, which in reality is only fitting in opinion pieces. In an article published last Wednesday, featuring the prejudicial title “Obama tries to derail Palestinian U.N. bid”, and an unrelated picture of an Israeli soldier holding a Palestinian in a headlock, Reuters Mid-East hack Alistair Lyon wrote:

Whatever happens at the United Nations, Palestinians will remain under Israeli occupation and any nominal state would lack recognized borders or real independence and sovereignty.

It is a measure of their desperation that they are pressing on with an initiative that could incur financial retribution from Israel and the United States.

Coverage of the conflict by Reuters can border on an appeal for conflict, as this aimless “will they, won’t they?” piece attests from the 18^th of August, leading to the Palestinian statehood bid:

With faith in the peace process non-existent — Abbas himself says talks have hit a dead end — observers have for some time warned of a vacuum that could be filled by turmoil.

Mahmoud al-Aloul, a veteran in the Fatah party led by Abbas, confidently expects widespread protests in support of the U.N. bid. “It is a declaration of a loss of hope,” Aloul told Reuters. “This will lead to a continuous escalation. […]

On the ground, there are few signs of preparation. Headlines in Palestinian papers focus more on protests against the high cost of living and on the uprising in Syria than on any thoughts about Palestinians’ own possible demonstrations in September. […]

At the local Fatah headquarters, Abbas loyalists forecast a large turnout for protests when Abbas asks the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state. But they could not say what, if anything, was being done to organize that.

Such articles turn the conflict into a spectator sport. Yet again Lieberman is described as “far-right” whilst the article praises the notorious terrorist Marwan Baghouti, who is reputed to have murdered many people, five of which he was convicted in 2004 of killing, including three people murdered at a restaurant in Israel.

Marwan al-Barghouti, a charismatic leader in the last two Intifadas and now jailed for life in Israel, was among the first to call for protests to add popular weight to President Mahmoud Abbas’s bid to secure a U.N. seat for a new state of Palestine.

Reuters also blamed Israel for the Christian migration from the Palestinian territories. Reuters prolific “special correspondent”, Alistair Lyon, opened his article with this show stopping sentence:

Despairing of life under Israeli occupation, many Palestinian Christians are moving abroad, threatening their ancient links to Bethlehem and the land where Jesus was born.

It is well known that Islamic intimidation has resulted in towns like Bethlehem turning from Christian majorities to modest minorities while Israel’s Christian populace is larger than ever.

Reuters, as with other news operations, label all groups that express concern over Islam as “far-right” whether or not they strongly advocate religious freedom, and forcefully reject race-based prejudice. They are strongly linked with Israel and pro-Israeli views, probably as a smear, when put in perspective, the zeitgeist of today involves the genuine far-right aligning itself increasingly with Islam and the left in a spirit of anti-Zionism/Americanism that Reuters never address.

Reuters is not immune to the rushing-to-judgement media phenomenon either. For example, they blamed Israel for a 2010 border ambush by Lebanese troops.

It can be suggested that Reuters attitude toward Judaism is also problematic. For example, Reuters celebrated the work of pro-Palestinian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, who has scraped the barrel in terms of Holocaust themed propaganda. Many of his cartoons celebrate terrorism and often include a good dose of anti-Semitism.

Issues of anti-Semitism that arise with certain favoured individuals are downplayed, for example Hugo Chavez and George Soros oddly is described as a “Holocaust survivor”, when in fact he has acknowledged that he collaborated with the Nazis!

Reuters also give greater emphasis to the Islamic claim over the Temple Mount/Haram than the Jewish equivalent. For example, in an article covering the 2010 Muslim assault on Jews as they prayed at the Western Wall, Reuters described the Temple Mount/Haram as “the third holiest site in Islam in an area that Jews also revere as the site of their biblical Temple.” From that description one would think it was less important to Jews, not significantly more so! Of course Reuters couldn’t resist putting the boot in, even with a savage attack on Jewish worshippers! They glossed over the fact that Palestinians launched an unprovoked religious attack, whilst giving prominence to Abbas’ appeal to prevent Israel from starting a new religious war!

It is especially revealing that in Reuters own opinion pieces the prejudice against Israel reads like it was lifted from an extreme pro-Palestinian website, and in fact Reuters have also been found to promote dedicated anti-Israel websites.

Scandals ahoy!

Reuters has been involved in a number of minor and more notable controversies over anti-Israeli bias.

Last year Reuters cropped photographs of the conflict on the “Mavi Mariner” flotilla ship. In several photographs knives held by the activists were edited out of the pictures published by Reuters whilst the arms held by the Israeli troops were not.

The issue of doctoring photographs also arose during the 2006 Lebanon War, where a photographer called Adnan Hajj crudely photo-shopped images to worsen Israel’s portrayal. The manipulations were only discovered by internet bloggers due to the sheer crudity of the alterations. As a result a top editor was quietly dismissed. Reuters also published an image of a triple duplicated IDF flare which they then termed “missiles”.

In 2006 a Reuters cameraman called Imad Muhammad Intisar Boghnat, was caught participating in the direction of riots in the Arab village of Bil’in where there is violence each Friday after Mosque, that involves so-called pro-Palestinian internationals.

The owner of the Little Green Footballs website was sent a death threat by a Reuters employee who stated “I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut.” The message was probably sent by Inayat Bunglawala, the Media Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, who has been prone to anti-Semitic outbursts in the past.

In 2009, during the war in Gaza, one of the Reuters own articles addressed the controversy over bias. The article used the old tactic of citing criticism from both sides as an example of how balanced they are, for if they are criticised by both sides they must surely be neutral? However, even in that very report the greatest blame is placed with Israel whilst Hamas is described as largely being on the level in allowing Reuters journalists to report unencumbered. Could this be because Reuters is well known to favour the Palestinian side of the conflict, forming a large element of the critical propaganda war against Israel?

An allergy to the word “terrorist”

Whilst the controversies flare up occasionally, it is the continual day by day bias in Reuters’ reporting which does the most damage to Israel’s reputation.

A highly selective use of terminology is a significant element of the complaints over Reuters’ bias. In particular, the word “terrorist” is always avoided when reporting on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

After a terrorist attack on Jerusalem in March 2011 an article by Reuters stated:

Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike

Reuters not only refuse to use the word “terrorist”, preferring misleading words like “gunman” and “militant” but it would seem they also pour scorn on the authorities that do, or at least in Israel’s case.

Whilst many seek to obfuscate the words terrorist and terrorism by entering into quasi-philosophical discussions on the meaning of terror, the definition of the word “terrorist” is clear enough. Terrorist activity is the use of or threat of violence in order to coerce for political motives. It is principally aimed at civilian targets and infrastructure. Obviously terror can have other meanings but the political definition is clear and not necessarily prejudicial. When a bomb was placed by a bus stop with the clear intent of targeting civilians, leading to the death of one civilian and also the injury of a large number, it is quite simply perverse in extremis to question its use.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Reuters outrageous policy over terminology was made apparent. To quote a statement:

…in an internal memo reminding our journalists of our policy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a statement was made that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” This wording caused deep offense among members of our staff, our readers and the public at large, many of whom felt this meant Reuters was somehow making a value judgment concerning the attacks.

The extremely callous comment in the memo was clearly a value judgement, regardless of what the statement asserts. It points to an underlying anti-Americanism which is often quite mild but nonetheless common in British and European culture. Readers have noticed this apparent anti-Americanism too which leads to the uncomfortable view that the attacks may have been seen as politically legitimate in some respects by a number of senior staff in Reuters shortly after the shocking images were relayed on television screens around the world.

Another revealing view into the Reuters thought process over word use occurred when CanWest, Canada’s largest newspaper chain, started altering some Reuters content published in their newspapers. The mild terminology Reuters used was replaced with words such as “terrorist”. David Schlesinger, Reuters then Editor-in-Chief, told CanWest to remove the writers’ names to conform to their guidelines for articles that make such changes. Reuters has also asked that CanWest add its name to that of Reuters as the source of revised articles, and to display such information at the end of the articles instead of the top. Alternatively, Reuters suggested that its name not be used at all! To quote the New York Times:

Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to ”confusion” about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

”My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity,” he said.

Schlesinger’s statement amounts to an admission that they tow the line when dealing with extremists.

Journalist Jeff Golderb harshly criticised Reuters anti-Israel/US bias and selective use of terminology:

Those Israelis and their crazy terms! I mean, referring to a fatal bombing of civilians as a “terrorist attack”? Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that a fatal bombing of Israeli civilians should be referred to as a “teachable moment.” Or as a “venting of certain frustrations.” Or as “an understandable reaction to Jewish perfidy.” Or perhaps as “a very special episode of ‘Cheers.’” Anything but “a terrorist attack.” I suppose Reuters will mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by referring to the attacks as “an exercise in urban renewal.”

The bottom line is that when Reuters refuses to use common words which accurately describe certain activities (e.g. “terrorist”) on one side of a conflict, whilst using highly prejudicial terms about the opposing side, for example calling the IDF the “Israeli occupation forces”, or IOF as many vehement pro-Palestinians use as a substitute for the IDF, not only harms the truth, it aids militancy and terrorism by subtly legitimising it internationally.

Some conclusions

The many examples listed should illustrate that Reuters, the media empire, is indeed rotten, and to extend the metaphor, perhaps to its very core! This has extremely serious consequences which are ignored most of the time. A major news agency that pumps news out all over the world should be the focus of interest if it is shown to display an intensive politically prejudicial bias over a serious conflict.

Whilst Reuters is the focus in this article, anti-Israeli bias has been apparent in the media generally, for a considerable amount of time. It has become something of a cultural zeitgeist, can be shocking in its extremism and occasionally blows into controversy, such as the intentionally faked death of Muhammad al Durrah for French TV that led to an outbreak of anti-Semitic violence. A few months later, senior BBC journalist Fayad Abu Shamala told a Hamas rally in Gaza that journalists and media institutions are “waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.” He had the misfortune of having his name listed on Hamas’ website, yet for all their apparently lofty journalistic values, the BBC declined to dismiss him!

Yet when these institutions are not sufficiently critical or carry a very rare piece which is supportive of Israel’s position, the cries of bias from pro-Palestinians are indeed loud, e.g. the Amnesty debate entitled “Complicity in Oppression: Does the Media Aid Israel”. An example is the BBC Panorama documentary Death in the Med which was critical of the Gaza Flotilla. This led to protests and charges racism, Islamophobia, and even criticism of its scheduling during the month of Ramadan!

Reuters, and much of the rest of the mainstream media, is doing more than reporting the news. They could be forgiven if they were reporting the news poorly. They could even be forgiven if the bias that manifests itself was merely an unknowing part of a common social prejudice. However, Reuters et al have been criticised strongly for this bias over the years. They have never seriously addressed it. In fact this prejudice is more evident than ever. One can only come to the conclusion that it is quite deliberate.

The issue of towing the line with extremists has been raised as one reason for bias at Reuters. However it would seem the core problem is not moral cowardice. Broadly speaking the media, especially with the increase in advocacy journalism, appears to be attempting to shape our understanding of reality itself with a quantifiably left-wing message which seriously hampers the natural societal discourse on politics. More gravely, with serious conflicts where the stakes are extremely high, this prejudice is being unashamedly directed in a fashion resembling obsessive demonisation toward one party in particular. Over several decades this has had a transformative effect.

The basic rules on journalistic balance should not be thrown out the window on a whenever it is incompatible with one’s own ideology or an inconvenience when dealing with extremists. Whether one is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, this should not be acceptable to anyone who cares about fairness and justice. If the Palestinian case against Israel is so strong there should be no need to distort and fabricate.

Ireland got a blast of these demonising forces late last year when the international media portrayed the Irish as starving soup-kitchen dependent leprechauns living in the 19^th Century. It wasn’t pleasant but at least it was brief. With the corruption of the most elemental journalistic ethics, which has led to such a damaging precedent with Israel, surely the question should be “who on the media hate list next?”

This article is also available at Crethi Plethi

Jesus Christ: The (politically correct) Way

A widely syndicated article by Reuters — a rather daft non-news piece about a feminist ultra politically correct effort to rewrite the story of Jesus as an androgynous girl, by the similarly androgynous Kristen Wolf raises a number of important ethical questions about the media today. To quote the article:

Decades later, after… studying the Bible and mythology, as well as reading retellings of once-male stories from a female point of view, Wolf thought there was a need for a new take on the Biblical tale of the Messiah… The result was the story of Anna, a tomboy in ancient Palestine whose androgynous appearance leads to her being disguised as a boy and sold to shepherds.

This “story” not only changes of gender of Jesus Christ but evidently appears to disassociate the ancient Christian links with Judaism by citing a female-only cult living by an ancient philosophy.

Captured and taught by a group of women who live according to an ancient philosophy, she tries to spread their teachings to ordinary people.

Regardless of one’s belief in the truth of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, the work relativises the figure of Jesus to that of a myth with no genuine historic content:

Wolf said that she didn’t want to be critical of any religion, but instead sought to tap into one of the major stories still told in modern society — just from a slightly different angle.

“The stories need to be dusted off and re-invigorated. My intention was to create a new story that we tell differently, that brings out the timelessness of this story, this person Jesus,” she said.

Whilst no religion should be given exclusive domain over the control of ideas appertaining to works upon which its faith are based, questions could nonetheless be asked about the intent of promoting an ultra politically correct revisionist book, which would no doubt be disturbing or offensive to many Christians across the globe. It would be difficult to conceive of the media doing anything remotely similar with a book that challenges the established orthodoxy of Islam, even in a work of fiction.

Questions could be asked as to why a major international media institution would seek to broadcast this book around the world. Clearly the free publicity of a syndicated international story would be immense.

What is it that causes the media to take the unusual step of promoting such a book in this fashion?

The answer may lie in established social trends that originated in moral relativism and cultural changes especially from the 1960s onward. At the root of these developments is a hostility towards Judeo-Christianity and the West itself, leading to a deep emotive romanticisation of all that is alternative, and non-western. This is an undercurrent in academia that reveals itself in subtle and sometimes overt ways. Truth is diminished and seen as something that ought to be overcome in the pursuit of a certain ideal, a notion advanced by academics and philosophers like Richard Rorty. Indeed Wolf cites her time in academia as a major source of inspiration for the book.

In keeping with the effort to subsume the truth in the name of achieving political goals, the piece continues the disturbing trend of calling the region of ancient Israel and Judea “Palestine”. In fact it is a quite well known historic fact that Hadrian actually renamed Judea as “Syria Palaestina” in 135 AD in an effort to disenfranchise the Jews of their homeland as part of a great effort to root them out of the area, after the Simon Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135 AD against the occupation of the Roman Empire, which trampled on their rights. The Romans brutally crushed the revolt, killing in excess of half a million Jews, prohibited Torah law, the Hebrew calendar, destroyed precious religious objects, and Jews were forbidden from entering their capital.

The name change was intended as a mockery as it related to the Philistines, an ancient enemy of the Jews that disappeared from history more than 600 years previously. The new moniker was part of the gradual process of erasing the Jewish presence from Judea which was considered troublesome. Ironically the strategy has found new expression after Arafat adopted the Palestinian moniker for local Arab peoples as a propagandistic stunt, and even labelled Jesus the first Palestinian terrorist! For people to use that name for an era when it was not historically applicable reinforces the myth that the Jews have no meaningful tie with Israel.

In the case of “The Way”, it is clear the author similarly intends to set forth a new myth for political reasons. To quote the FAQ on the author’s own website:

Years later, my youthful discontent would mix with a variety of influences — my own personal experiences, college studies with Jesuits, independent study of prehistoric cultures, mythology, ancient and modern spiritual traditions, and the leading-edge scholarship that had uncovered efforts throughout history to remove the feminine from the spiritual domain.

Having felt the negative impacts of living under a religion that sets the male higher than the female, and having seen the disastrous effects such an imbalanced belief system has on humanity, our world, and all of creation, I decided to try and instigate change.

Whilst identified as fiction, the book’s unusual purpose, other than simply to tell a story, is repeatedly affirmed in the article and on her website. It is clearly intended to become a sort of liberal-left political myth, bizarrely intended to be utilised in the same way as the old version of the story of Jesus Christ:

The New Testament also depicts Jesus as a revolutionary, but there is no account of where he would have learned his revolutionary, counter-culture philosophies. Moreover, in the biblical texts, there is no mention or record of him from age twelve when he appears at the Temple to age thirty when he begins his ministry. It is therefore conceivable that during his Missing Years, he encountered and studied a spiritual philosophy that was highly different from, even opposed to, the prevailing one. This is the possibility that THE WAY explores.

THE WAY is, at its heart, an attempt to breathe new life into our collective mythology, our collective conscience. It is a tale that asks, “If it were thought possible that one of history’s greatest spiritual leaders had been female, how might women and men feel differently about themselves, one another, and the world?”

The Way is another manifestation of the sometimes bizarre credo that academia and the mainstream media pushes onto the world, as illustrated in an extract from Peter Sissons’ recent book about the BBC. The unjustified assumptions at the core of this broad liberal-left movement have taken on the demeanour of a religion as many have observed, where it can be near impossible to address controversial truths without very severe censure. A prevalent example is having any criticism of Islam labelled “Islamophobic” or “racist”, whether justified by facts or not. Accordingly, all Western values, be they good or bad, have been undermined.

In this respect, it is entirely appropriate for the media to advance a book like The Way, for it represents a religious mythology intended to advance the values of a near religious but ironically secular ideology.


This article is also posted at http://www.crethiplethi.com/jesus-christ-the-politically-correct-way/media/2011/

Eilat Terror Attack: A most peculiar use of language

With the recent tragic events where Palestinian terrorists killed nine Israeli civilians, one cannot help but be reminded of the peculiar terminology that the mainstream media uses when reporting such events. International media outlets like Reuters, and local media outlets like the Irish Times and Irish national broadcaster RTE used strangely neutral words like "gunmen" in their respective reports.

From Reuters, syndicated by the Irish Times:

A damaged civilian bus ambushed by gunmen… [image caption]

Gunmen killed at least seven people and injured 30 others in attacks on vehicles in southern Israel today…  

…special forces were called in and engaged the gunmen as police and military closed roads around Eilat, a popular Red Sea resort. The military said between two and four gunmen were killed…. 

A senior Israeli official said the gunmen, unable to cross into Israel through the heavily patrolled border with the Gaza Strip…

The politically neutral term "gunmen" was used no less than six times in the article, which was revised. Similarly RTE also made repeated use of the word:

In the first incident, gunmen opened fire a bus. Minutes later, an improvised explosive device detonated beneath a military vehicle.

It is indeed bizarre to use such a word for a highly organised and sustained assault on civilians and their infrastructure, in a region famed for such activity, where heavy weaponry was used. The mild word use is peculiar especially after Palestinian terrorist activity has been widely reported in the Sinai in recent months, up until a few days ago – Indeed the authors of these articles are aware of this fact, to quote the Reuters piece:

…a senior Israeli official said they had infiltrated from the Gaza Strip through Egypt's Sinai desert. Israel's military said the incident began when "terrorists shot at a bus on its way [to the city of] Eilat and then fired an anti-tank rocket at another vehicle.

It was a grave terrorist incident that took place in several locations," defence minister Ehud Barak said in a statement. "It reflects the weakening of Egypt's hold in the Sinai and the broadening of activities by terror elements.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Israel "has specific and precise information that these terrorists who targeted Israelis today came out of the Gaza Strip".

Whilst it is correct for journalists to reserve some judgement without verification, the use of heavy weaponry aimed at civilian targets in that region could only result in one belief: a heavy suspicion of a terrorist attack. Yet the reader has to rely on the Israeli government quotes to get a sense of that view.

The RTE article goes on to state:

It was later confirmed that seven Palestinians were shot and killed in the area after the attacks.

Whilst the icons for clicking on video footage of the televised news reports carried the text:

Six One News: Multiple casualties in Israeli violence

Nine News: 20 killed in Israeli violence

The report fails to state that the "gunmen" are likely to be terrorists. It also misleadingly identifies the violence as "Israeli", which is rather ambiguous because although the violence occurred in Israel, the source of that violence was very likely not to be Israeli. Moreover, it is remarkable that both articles failed to mention that the people attacked, injured and killed on the buses were actually Israeli civilians. There was also a notable failure to mention that children were amongst the dead on the Israeli side whist mention of the death of a Palestinian boy in Gaza was prevalent.

Unfortunately the selective use of terminology which reflects political bias is nothing new. News agencies commonly characterise Mahmoud Abbas, King Abdullah of Jordan and other Arab leaders as "moderate" even though they lead rather oppressive regimes where incitement to violence is accepted, whilst they refer to Avigdor Lieberman as "far-right" or an "ultra-nationalist". Similarly Benjamin Netanyahu is often described as a "hawk", a remarkably strong term to use for a mainstream politician.

Worse still is the failure to characterise obvious terrorism as terrorism, whilst often inferring blame on Israeli activities, which results in a clear legitimisation of Palestinian terrorism even against civilians.

This media bias has existed for a considerable time. Websites like Camera, Honest Reporting, Just Journalism, and CIF Watch feature extensive examples of systematic bias going back many years.

One example of the contrasting use of language is a New York Times piece that asserted "Jewish terror is not new" by citing two relatively rare examples of killings from the mid 1990’s. The use of such strong language was peculiar in this instance. To quote Honest Reporting:

 …the examples cited above were acts of violence that stand out precisely due to the unusual scenario of Jews initiating such acts. But while the NY Times refers to "Jewish terror", the thousands of acts of violence carried out by Palestinians against Israeli civilians are carried out by "militants," "fighters" or "gunmen" according to the newspaper. […] So, while Palestinian acts of violence against Israeli civilians are not "terror" according to the NY Times, this term is abused to describe a scenario where it loses its real meaning.

Another contrast in the selective use of terminology with regard to this story was found in the Wall Street Journal. Their treatment of the Norwegian atrocity led with the headline "Savage Terrorist Attacks". By contrast the headline in the same publication, less than a month later, stated "Militants Kill Civilians In Israel Near Egypt". Whilst the terrorist killings in Norway was of course on a much larger scale, the events in Israel did constitute the same type of activity, and it was only with the bravery of the bus driver, and the swift response of Israeli forces, that a far larger number of civilians weren’t killed there.

The failure for the media to mention terrorism regarding Israel takes on other forms. For example an Irish Times article from late last year about Shawan Jabarin failed to mention or allude even briefly to  his well known terrorist links. He is known to be a senior member of the terrorist organisation, PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), for which he has been imprisoned several times and even denied entry into Jordan

Like other tragic events in Israel, the reporting of the latest terrorist incident there has been filtered and toned down by a very real prejudice. This is continually revealed by the now very common double standards in which a highly moderated language is applied for one side of the conflict alone, whilst the media embraces the ever fashionable Palestinian cause with little compunction.

The moral of this story should be clear. Put bluntly, the international media values the lives of Palestinians more than Israeli’s. Palestinians have personal stories while Israeli’s are barely even civilians. The mainstream media throughout the world bears a great deal of responsibility for a subtle legitimisation of the violence of the Palestinian movement at the expense of Israeli civilians. It screens the impact of this violence, whilst every step of the way waxing lyrically about the Palestinian cause.

Also posted at http://www.crethiplethi.com/eilat-terror-attack-a-most-peculiar-use-of-language/israel/2011/