Reuters puts the "anal" in "analysis"

In a public relations piece on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs labeled and masquerading as "Analysis", Reuters correspondent Tom Perry warns of more violence ahead in the Middle East "unless the United States can instil confidence that it is serious about ending more than 60 years of conflict".

At every opportunity, Perry promotes and parrots the Palestinian line on the causes and effects of the conflict.  Along the way, he recycles several tendentious quotes and mendacious material which appeared in a similar piece he penned last November.

Perry writes:

Clashes this month indicate the rising tension between Palestinians and a right-wing Israeli government which has incensed Palestinians with moves they believe aim to deepen the Jewish state's control of the holy city and its hinterland.

Note the Palestinians are "incensed".  Elsewhere in the story, they are "angry", "frustrated", "have little faith", and "react" to Israel which, for its part, "provokes", "threatens to undermine", and is led by an "extreme right-wing government".

Nowhere in his "analysis", does Perry interview or quote Israelis who might have their own take on which side is doing the provoking and which side is reacting.  Nor does he convey Israeli skepticism of Palestinian motives when the latter stone Jewish worshipers, engage in mob violence, declare war because a 150-year-old Jerusalem synagogue (destroyed by the Arabs) is restored, and threaten Jews with genocide.

Perry does however, quote a Palestinian student:

"It [the US] is Israel's No. 1 ally," said one 20-year-old student, who took part in a protest at an Israeli checkpoint outside Ramallah this week in which seven Palestinians were wounded... "I expect that there will be a third Intifada," added the student, a member of Abbas's Fatah faction. He asked not to be named for fear of arrest over his role in the protest.  [italics ours]

That "protest" involved Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli border police, several of whom were also injured.  Might explain why the student fears arrest.

Perry also quotes Palestinian political "analyst" Hani al-Masri:

"The PA is working to delay an Intifada. If it wanted an Intifada, it would have started.  But it can't prevent it forever. What it is going on in Jerusalem accelerates the move towards an Intifada."

But Perry doesn't mention that al-Masri is on record as actually inciting for an intifada, including terrorism, which Perry masks behind the Arab euphemism "armed struggle" -- a violation of the Reuters Handbook.

Finally, Perry repeats a bald-faced lie for which he has become (in)famous on this site:

The Palestinian Authority, largely funded by Western governments, rules out violence on its part against Israel -- in contrast to the Intifada from 2000, when various forces loyal to Abbas's late predecessor Yasser Arafat fought Israel.

As documented, the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas has decidedly not ruled out violence against Israel, maintaining it as a strategic option when the time is right.

Keep swinging, Tom.

Error of omission

Reporting on the Israel Defense Force (IDF) decision to limit access to the villages of Bilin and Nilin so as to discourage violent protests against the Israeli security barrier, Reuters correspondents Dan Williams and Tom Perry quote Jonathan Pollak, "an Israeli who coordinates anti-barrier protests":

Protesters do not see this decree as legitimate, but it could be a sign of heightened pressure on the popular resistance than we've seen so far.

Readers would have a more complete and balanced perspective on the forces at work inciting violence in these villages if Williams and Perry were more forthcoming on Pollak's background:

Jonathan Pollak (1982-) is an Israeli anarchist and graphic designer who grew up in Tel Aviv and lives in Jaffa. Pollak was amongst the founders of the radical Israeli group Anarchists Against the Wall which is one of the most active and militant groups of the Israeli radical left. Previous to the formation of "Anarchists Against the Wall" Pollak lived for some time in a squatter community at Amsterdam and participated in sometimes wild demonstrations against globalization and against the Dutch Royal Family which eventually resulted in his being arrested and deported from the Netherlands... Pollak was one of the first Israelis to join Palestinians in the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

A little bit of information goes a long way.

Obfuscate and omit

Louis Charbonneau of Reuters uses the occasion of a briefing by Michael Williams (UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon and formerly Ban Ki-moon's personal representative to the Palestine Liberation Organization) to mischaracterize the war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006 and the current state of belligerence between the parties:

Exchanges of threats between Israel and neighboring Lebanon "have generated concerns of a renewed confrontation," Michael Williams told reporters after briefing the 15-nation Security Council on compliance with resolution 1701, which called for an end to Israel's war against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.

Actually, UNSC Resolution 1701 has a slightly different take on ownership of the war: 

Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah’s attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons

It's not until 13 paragraphs down in his story that Charbonneau graciously offers readers some background on the cause of the war and in inimitable Reuters' fashion, the presentation obfuscates the facts and is patently biased:

The 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah broke out after the group captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. Some 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, were killed and 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers, died.

As UNSC 1701 makes clear, the war did not simply "break out".  Hezbollah precipitated it when the group killed 8 Israeli soldiers and launched Katyusha rockets at Israeli border communities.  And note Charbonneau's cagey handling of the death count: Lebanese were "killed"; Israelis "died".  The latter apparently due to natural causes.

Charbonneau happily disseminates Arab propaganda:

Lebanese and Syrian officials have been accusing Israel of pushing for a new war in the Middle East against the backdrop of an Iranian nuclear program that Israel considers a threat to its very survival.

While failing to cite the many instances of overt and not-so-veiled threats against Israel coming from all quarters.

And the Reuters' correspondent parrots Iranian dissembling:

Iran rejects Israeli and Western allegations that its nuclear program is a covert plan to acquire an atomic weapons capability. The oil-producing nation says its nuclear ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity.

While failing to note the latest United Nations' IAEA finding that Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear warhead.

When did Jeffrey Heller, Adam Entous and Tom Perry stop beating their wives?

In a "Q+A" about Israel's announcement to build additional homes in the religious community of Ramat Shlomo, Reuters correspondents Jeffrey Heller, Adam Entous and Tom Perry do their level best to cast suspicions and aspersions on Israel with loaded questions like:

WHAT'S ISRAEL REALLY UP TO?

And:

ARE THE AMERICANS BUYING ISRAEL'S EXPLANATION?

Of course, what Israel is "really up to" is what its Prime Minister has stated plainly all along:

The Palestinians expect a complete halt to building; it is now clear that this will not happen," Netanyahu said, "Jerusalem is not a settlement and the building [there] will continue as normal.  (September, 2009)

So in fact, Israel has been true to her word and consistent in its application.  Though one would never know this reading reports of Palestinian feigned indignation or Reuters' scoffing "questions".

We do hope however, that the three correspondents mentioned above provide an answer to the question in our headline.

Selective amnesia, Part III

Continuing with our analysis of Reuters' mendacious "Timeline: Path to new Israel-Palestinian talks", we move into the last two decades of events Reuters considers key to understanding the history of the Middle East conflict.

1988 - After a year of Intifada (uprising), exiled PLO leader Yasser Arafat, widely acknowledged as speaking for Palestinians, renounces "terrorism" and accepts Israel's right to exist.

As is their custom when referring to Palestinian violence, writers for Reuters bracket the word terrorism in scarequotes so as to express their scorn for the notion that suicide bombings in Israeli restaurants and discotheques could reasonably be classed as, "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" (definition of terrorism from our desktop dictionary).  Reuters has no difficulty however, employing the term terrorism in unqualified fashion when citing references to Israeli actions.  This asymmetric handling betrays Reuters partisanship in the conflict and also represents a violation of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism.

Reuters continues:

2003 - U.S. President George W. Bush sponsors the "road map to peace," binding both sides to curbing violence and Israel to halting Jewish settlement on occupied land.

The Road Map does not simply bind both sides to curbing violence.  It specifically stipulates that:

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. 

Needless to say, the Palestinians have failed or refused to comply with nearly all of the above.

Reuters then completely mischaracterizes the nature and outcome of negotiations between former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas:

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

Apparently, Reuters correspondent Bernd Debusmann and Bureau Chief Alastair Macdonald were catching some winks when Olmert offered Abbas 97 percent of the West Bank (also, Judea and Samaria) during these "desultory" negotiations.  And talks effectively ended when Abbas refused the offer -- not as a result of the war in Gaza.

Finally:

March 5 - Conscious of Palestinian public frustration, Abbas accuses Israel of trying to sabotage peace process by provoking protests at flashpoint Jerusalem mosque. Dozens hurt in clashes.

We examine Reuters distorted reporting and dissemination of Abbas' agitprop here.

Selective amnesia, Part II

In yesterday's post, we noted how Reuters' omission of essential historical detail in its "Timeline: Path to new Israel-Palestinian talks" leaves readers misinformed while facilitating the lie that in 1948, Israel was left with 78 percent of the "land [Palestine Mandate]".

Moving along the Timeline, Reuters correspondent Bernd Debusmann and Bureau Chief Alastair Macdonald continue with the publication of outright falsehoods: 

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.

Israel did not (and did not claim to) preemptively attack Jordan, Syria, nor any of the other Arab states that contributed troops and arms to the Six-Day War in 1967.  Only the Egyptian air force was initially struck by Israel following Egypt's casus belli when it closed the Straits of Tiran, expelled UN peacekeeping forces from the Sinai Peninsula, and massed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border.  Jordan entered the war by shelling Jewish communities in Jerusalem and Syria did the same -- along with air raids -- in northern Israel.

Having misrepresented the relative proportion of Palestine controlled by Israel in 1948, it is a short order for Debusmann and Macdonald to assert this bald-faced lie:

[In 1967] Israeli forces seize rest of British-mandate Palestine

Of course if Israel had "seized" the rest of British-mandate Palestine, she would have controlled all of Jordan!  Apparently, neither history nor geography is Reuters strong suit.

On to the modern era tomorrow...

Selective amnesia, Part I

In the right-hand column of our homepage, we highlight a quote from Sir Harold Evans, a brilliant British journalist with a long, distinguished career and former editor of The Sunday Times of London:

Propaganda is persuading people to make up their minds while withholding some of the facts from them.

Indeed, selective reporting is an indispensable component in the Propagandist's toolkit, enabling him or her to lead the reader to a conclusion that has been determined in advance by the writer.  By omitting or obscuring key information in a story that would otherwise facilitate a more complete understanding of events and independent analysis, the Propagandist hopes to drive us to adopt, in uncritical fashion, his point of view.

Take for example, the "Timeline", prepared by Reuters' correspondent Bernd Debusmann (with reporting by Bureau Chief Alastair Macdonald), covering important historical dates in the Arab-Israeli conflict:

Here are key dates on the path to this point:  

1897 - European Jews in Zionist movement declare goal of creating a Jewish state in Ottoman Turkish-ruled Palestine.

1917 - British forces take Palestine from collapsing Ottoman empire in World War One. British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declares support for Jewish "national home" there.

1945 - Revelation of Nazi Holocaust and new Jewish migration to Palestine bolster Western support for creating Jewish state.

1948 - Britain quits and great powers recognize Israel as U.N. partition plan dissolves in war that leaves Jewish state on 78 percent of land and half of Palestine's Arabs as refugees.

While a 600-word primer cannot possibly do justice to a topic as complex as the Middle East conflict, Debusmann omits a vast reservoir of essential historical detail, the absence of which substantially distorts the record and gives lie to his event summary for 1948.

Although Zionism as an organized political movement arose in Europe in the 19th century, Debusmann makes no mention of the millions of Jews in diaspora -- including some 900,000 Jews living in Arab countries -- who had for centuries, longed for restoration of the ancient Jewish home in and around Jerusalem. Debusmann's note only of "European Jews" is in keeping with the Arab and Reuters narrative of Israel as a product of European colonialism.

Debusmann then leaps from 1917 to 1945, omitting the seminal event of 1922 when Britain reneged on the original terms of the Palestine Mandate (which had called for a Jewish national home and "close settlement of the land" by Jews) simultaneously lopping off 78 percent of the territory and handing it to the Hashemite Arabs as a gift for their support in the war against the Ottoman Empire while banning Jewish immigration there.  That territory -- Jordan today -- has a population which is over 60 percent Palestinian Arab and forbids Jews to reside or own land in the country.

Thus, Debusmann's event summary for 1948 suggesting that Israel retained the bulk of the land is mendacious; indeed it is the Palestinian Arabs who today reside on over 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate, in addition to those Arabs living in Israel.

Along the way to 1948, Debusmann conveniently forgets decades of violent Arab rejection of a Jewish sovereign including events which followed the British Peel Commission call in 1937 for partition of what remained of the Palestine Mandate and of course, the 1948 war which Debusmann refers to in a nondescript passive voice ("U.N. partition plan dissolves in war") making no mention of the declared aim by invading Arab armies to annihilate newborn Israel.

Absent these essential details, it is impossible for readers to fully appreciate the historical context of the conflict -- particularly unyielding Arab hostility to a Jewish state in the region -- and therefore to apprehend the "path to new Israel-Palestinian talks" advertised in Reuters' headline.  But of course, facilitating reader understanding is not Reuters' objective.

Macdonald, the Propagandist

Reuters Bureau Chief (Propagandist) Alastair Macdonald pens a piece on violence in Jerusalem yesterday which serves as a textbook study in media bias and distortion.  Following a brief lede describing the confrontation, Macdonald immediately offers space to broadcast Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' agitprop:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of trying to wreck peace efforts and of risking a "war of religion" across the Middle East by police "provocation" at Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest spot in Islam, which stands on ground also revered by Jews as the site of their biblical Temple.

The Palestinians of course, regularly hurl this type of hyperbolic rhetoric and Reuters dutifully disseminates it as if it were news.  No balance is provided with say, a quote from an Israeli official noting that the incident was initiated by Palestinians stoning Jewish worshipers at the adjacent Western Wall, a Jewish shrine.

Indeed, Macdonald has a long sorry history of dismissing Arab violence and showing deference for Muslim shrines ("the third holiest spot in Islam") while downplaying the significance of Jewish holy sites.  The ground under and around the mosque is called the Temple Mount and is not simply "revered" by Jews, it is Judaism's holiest shrine.

Macdonald then steers into a non sequitur:

Separately, six Palestinian family members were killed in a car collision with an Israeli military vehicle in the occupied West Bank on Friday, Palestinian police and the Israeli army said, in an incident likely to anger Palestinians [italics, ours].

The Palestinians are so predictable and have Macdonald so well-heeled that he no longer waits to report the news but conveniently divines for us, hostile Palestinian reaction to a traffic accident.

Returning to the headlined story, it is not until the 7th paragraph down that Macdonald finally gets around to reporting that a Reuters journalist at the scene of the confrontation in Jerusalem witnessed the incipient violence:

A Reuters journalist at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, which also houses the landmark, gilded Dome of the Rock and is known to Jews as the Temple Mount, said violence began after weekly prayers when youths holding a protest against Israel threw rocks at police who had entered the walled area.

Yet even this is a distortion, for Macdonald fails to disclose that police entered the area precisely because, as noted, Arab "youths" began throwing rocks at Jews worshiping at the Western Wall below.  The ensuing violence between Arabs and Israeli police -- which Reuters admits was initiated by the Arabs -- was secondary to the original Arab assault on Jewish congregants.

Macdonald then runs interference for Abbas:

In an unusually strongly worded statement, Abbas, who is mindful of local criticism of his decision to restart negotiations, said, "The occupation forces are crossing all red lines in an attempt to block the resumption of peace talks."

"Unusually strongly worded statement"?  As noted above, this type of inflammatory rhetoric is standard fare for Abbas.

Macdonald finishes with an ahistorical citation:

Palestinian negotiators say they want to use the four months to narrow gaps on core issues in the six-decade-old conflict, which has eluded resolution despite 20 years of talks.

Although Macdonald wishes readers to view the conflict as originating with creation of the state of Israel in 1948 (the Palestinian "nakba" narrative), he well understands that the roots of the fighting between Arab Muslims and Jews extend back centuries.  Even in the modern era, those Arabs living in the Palestine Mandate formally rejected a two-state solution and Jewish sovereignty as early as 1937.

Error of omission

The Thomson Reuters Foundation maintains a website called AlertNet which, according to the "About Us" section:

aims to keep relief professionals and the wider public up-to-date on humanitarian crises around the globe.

AlertNet content however, is often highly politicized and hundreds of NGOs are provided free and unfettered publishing rights on the site.  Reuters publishes its own stories here which ostensibly carry a humanitarian theme but frequently suffer from the same partisanship and systematic bias we identify in stories appearing on Reuters' main websites.

In a story with material drawn from an op-ed appearing in the International Herald Tribune, Reuters reports on comments by Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin about the situation in the Gaza strip following the war there last year:

Ireland's foreign minister on Friday called the Israeli blockade of Palestinian-ruled Gaza inhumane and unacceptable and he urged the European Union and other countries to increase pressure on Israel to end it.

Reuters commits a serious error of omission by failing to report that the "blockade" (actually a misnomer as thousands of tons of foodstuffs, fuel, medical supplies, and other humanitarian materials pass into Gaza weekly) is not one exercised by Israel alone, but also by Egypt.  By ignoring the Egyptian role in the selective embargo of, for example, metal products which can readily be adapted to war materiel (also not mentioned in the story), Reuters is perpetuating the pernicious myth that Israel is solely responsible for the dearth of certain building materials in Gaza.

Moreover, while Reuters is quick to quote Martin's characterization of the situation in Gaza as a "humanitarian crisis", the news agency fails to provide any balancing perspective.  For example, UN Middle East Envoy, Robert Serry, who visited Gaza just three weeks ago, declared:

There is no humanitarian problem in Gaza.

More Reuters errata and broken boilerplate

In a story about the Arab League agreeing to support "indirect" negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, Reuters digs into the broken boilerplate bin and comes up with:

[PA President] Abbas broke off talks with Israel to protest its offensive in Gaza launched in December 2008.

No.  As we have documented numerous times, negotiations had effectively ended months prior to the war in Gaza when Abbas refused then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's offer of 97% of the "West Bank" (also, Judea and Samaria) for a comprehensive peace settlement; when the Palestinian Arabs were unable to coerce the Quartet to stipulate that a Palestinian state be set up on the 1949 Armistice Lines with Jerusalem as their capital; and due to imminent elections in Israel.  Abbas supported Israel's efforts in Gaza to rid the strip of Hamas:

At the start of Israel's offensive, one of Abbas' top aides said Hamas was "110 per cent" to blame for the Gaza attack — an unpopular, if not suicidal, stance among Palestinians, whose ire was directed at Israel. Even as the civilian death toll climbed, Abbas delayed several days before criticizing the Israeli offensive. In the West Bank, which Abbas controls by dint of the presence of the Israeli army, his security forces cracked down brutally on fellow Palestinians protesting the Israeli offensive. Palestinians ask why Abbas did not go to Gaza during the fighting to show solidarity with its residents, or organize blood or food help for Gaza's victims.

Reuters continues with more false assertions:

He [Abbas] has resisted U.S. and Israeli calls for a resumption of direct negotiations, saying Israel must first halt all Jewish settlement building on occupied lands where the Palestinians aim to establish a state.

No.  Abbas has insisted that Israel halt building on all land outside of the 1949 Armistice Lines including land which is and has been legally owned by Jews going back over eighty years.

Reuters sanitizes and censors anti-semitic ravings of Dubai Police Chief

Reuters reports today on comments by Dubai Chief of Police Dahi Khalfan about steps the UAE will be taking in the future to protect against possible assassination attempts by foreigners in the country:

Khalfan said dual passport holders with Israeli nationality would face extra security procedures in future and predicted the alleged hit team would have problems travelling outside Israel.

"In the future, those we suspect of carrying dual nationality (including Israeli) will be treated very carefully," he said. "If Israel and Mossad mistreated Europeans, we will not... Our treatment of Europeans will not be affected."

In a bit fuller detail, here are Khalfan's comments as reported in the Arab press (hat tip: Elder of Ziyon):

Dahi Khalfan Tamim, Commander in Chief of Dubai Police, said Israel is a rogue state, and that goes beyond international legitimacy and laws. Its leaders have sick mentalities, and they need psychologists, saying that its use of passports shows great arrogance and contempt for the world.

(Tamim said hat) the leaders of "Israel" have blood on their hands the blood of others throughout history, pointing out that the "Israeli" people are human beings like any other people who want to be loved and open to others but that the successive governments, the Governments of bloodshed and assassinations, and wars and the Governments of the occupation and aggression, are not interested in peace in the world at all.

He added that the vanity which haunts the "Israeli" mentality stems from the time of Pharaoh, and their hate comes up to this day and age.

He said that the entire world should study the mentality of the "Israeli" leaders throughout history. Their sick psyches needs to be analyzed by psychology professors, who need to examine why they launch crises, and why they brought on themselves hate from others, since the time of Moses, peace be upon him.

He said we will train our personnel in the passport of the forms and features of the Jewish people and their names, noting that no one can hide their features of Jewishness. He asked the appropriate departments to prepare nationality and residency sessions to familiarize the staff with [Jewish] forms and names, especially since most Jews hold dual passports [with Israel.]

  Sometimes, things get lost in translation.

Reuters adopts, disseminates Palestinian rhetoric

Reuters' Middle East bureau is so entrenched in the Palestinian camp and their correspondents apparently so captivated by the Arab narrative of events, that there is today, little to distinguish between Palestinian rhetoric and that of Reuters.

In a story appearing on its AxisMundi Jerusalem site, Reuters correspondent Erika Solomon -- who has been writing for the media giant for only a short while -- suggests that a third Palestinian intifada may be brewing.  Literally "shaking off", the Arab word "intifada" has become synonymous with the most heinous and bloody acts of savage violence directed at Jewish civilians including suicide bombings, mass shootings, and stonings.

Solomon quotes Palestinian columnist Hani al-Masri, who in a weekend op-ed, incites for another such terror war:

Masri argues that the Palestinian leadership needs “to begin preparing to lead the coming Intifada when the conditions become ripe, because when it happens it will not wait for permission from anyone.”  This is how Palestinian authorities can prevent popular anger from “turning inwards,” he says,  and instead direct it “toward the (Israeli) occupation, in an organised fashion, with specific and realistic political goals that have been agreed upon, or else it will slide into armed confrontation, in which Israel excels.” (Masri would not, however, rule out all forms of armed resistance if an Intifada were to break out).

Note Solomon's unequivocal adoption of the Arab euphemism "armed resistance" -- an Orwellian term if ever there was one -- to describe the kind of wanton murder Palestinians engaged in during the previous intifadas.  Though a clear violation of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, the use of euphemisms that seek to conceal Arab depravity behind a thin veneer of political correctness is standard practice in Reuters' Middle East reporting.

Along the way, Solomon also employs the same logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) we wrote about over the weekend to suggest that the second intifada was caused by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount:   

Some are drawing parallels to flaring passions in Jerusalem’s Old City to events that sparked the second Palestinian Intifada–it broke out in 2000 after Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader, visited al-Aqsa compound.

Further evidence of Reuters wholesale purchase, and due dissemination, of the Palestinian Arab narrative.

First draft (repost)

In honor of the Jewish holiday of Purim and as this story is as topical today as it was four months ago, we repost one of our favorite lampoons of a Reuters piece:

JERUSALEM -- Palestinians have refused to restart peace talks with Israel even as they riot and stone Jewish worshipers at Jerusalem’s holy sites, but for all the mounting fear in Israel, talk of a Third Intifada seems premature to most Palestinians.

A week after Israeli forces clashed with hundreds of Arabs who were incited to violence by Muslim leaders who commanded them to “defend the al-Aqsa mosque”, there were riots again on Sunday and tension will remain high this week during holidays that draw Jewish worshipers to the Western Wall and the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site.

After the violence the previous Sunday, Israeli leaders accused Palestinians of trying to sink U.S. President Barack Obama's efforts to relaunch peace talks and compared the riots to those that followed a visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000 by soon-to-be Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Those riots quickly evolved into the Intifada, a violent uprising which Yassir Arafat and senior Palestinian officials had been planning for months.

However, analysts and officials in the disputed territories and Jerusalem cited a number of factors likely to curb renewed violence in the near term, despite Palestinian hostility directed at new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jews who have the gall choose to live in the disputed territories.

"There is a state of disengagement between the people and its political leadership so the Palestinians are not ready to commit suicide as they did before," said Zakaria al-Qaq of al-Quds University.

"At the same time there is a build-up of anger that is waiting for the spark. No one can predict when the spark will come. But it could take years yet." Factors mentioned include disillusionment that due to the Israeli security barrier, Palestinians have been unable to improve on the over 7,000 Israelis murdered and maimed during the years of the uprising while Israel’s need to protect its citizens has meant a reduction in access to the Israeli job market for Palestinians.

The schism that has seen Islamist Hamas seize the Gaza Strip and being suppressed in the disputed territories by new, Western-trained security forces loyal to Holocaust-denier and Munich massacre mastermind Mahmoud Abbas is also likely to limit organized violence from the disputed territories against Israel. Shucks!

While Netanyahu has limited options in pressing Abbas for a peace deal, few see him turning to an acceptance of the kind of suicide bombings and other attacks seen under Abbas’ late predecessor Yasser Arafat.

Well-planned riots among mobs incited by Muslim leaders may be more likely. Mohammad Dahlan, a senior figure in the “young terrorists” block of Abbas' Fatah party and former terrorism facilitator, said he was wary that a new uprising would only harm Palestinians: "If Netanyahu believes he wants to maintain a Jewish sovereign in the Middle East, to allow Jews to live in the disputed territories and then expect peace from us, then this will not be acceptable," Dahlan told Reuters.

"We may resort to popular action or civil action. We have an open mind on all legitimate methods permitted by international law, Human Rights Watch, and Richard Goldstone. But we won't push the Palestinian people into a disaster."

Political analyst George Giacaman of Birzeit University in the disputed territories said: "If there is no meaningful political track on a specific timeline, a political vacuum will be created. "This will be filled by deadly violence of some kind."

Israeli police hauled away terrorists-in-training, some only in their early teens, after they threw stones and bottles at Jewish worshipers in Jerusalem's Old City on Sunday. But the new generation, successors to the young men who spearheaded the Molotov cocktail-throwing of the First Intifada of the late 1980s and to the gunmen of nearly a decade ago, seem divided.

"Israel is fueling tensions that will explode later," said Raed Abed, a 17-year-old student in the second holiest city for Jews, Hebron. "No one can predict what will happen."

But his schoolmate Husam Sameh forecast no explosions for now: "Enough of fighting. We need to live in peace for awhile. We cannot fight Israel now. We are so weak," he said. "Still, the question is whether the Palestinians are ready for peace."

Analyst Hani Masri said well-planned and incited demonstrations that turn into riots like those this past week in Jerusalem may become more common. But he said: "The wariness among the people about deploying deadly force is greater than before, following the huge losses they suffered in the Second Intifada. "Israel has responded to the Second Intifada by building the security barrier and to avoid making suicidal concessions. Palestinians should not give them this excuse again."

Samir Awad, a political science professor at Birzeit University, said: "It would be a mistake to expect a popular wave of protest. I cannot see it happening. "But if Jews insist on living in homes they own in Jerusalem, we may expect clashes arising from religious and patriotic emotion."
______________________________________
Though this was just parody, it remains much nearer to reality than Reuters actual "analysis" here.

Palestinians stone tourists at Temple Mount; Reuters blames Israel

Christian and Jewish visitors touring the Temple Mount in Jerusalem today were stoned by Palestinians.  While Reuters cites an Israeli police spokesman for clinical details of the confrontation, Allyn Fisher-Ilan and Tom Perry give full voice to the Palestinians to disseminate their agitprop:

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat accused Israel of exacerbating tensions on purpose to undermine U.S. efforts to broker a resumption of peace talks.  "The message is very, very clear: they are trying to sabotage all efforts to revive peace," he told Reuters... Mohammad Hussein, the mufti of Jerusalem, said in a statement Israeli authorities would bear responsibility for the consequences of what he described as the "storming" of the site by "extremist groups".

Got that?  Palestinians stone non-Muslim visitors to Judaism's holiest shrine and Palestinian officials, aided and abetted by Reuters, vilify Israel.

Fisher-Ilan and Perry then employ the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore on account of this) to peddle a canard that has long since been debunked:

The second Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, erupted in 2000 after a visit by then-Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the compound, known by Jews as the Temple Mount and by Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif.

As we noted here, even the Palestinians admit that the bloody war they waged against Israeli civilians (also known as the "intifada") was planned months ahead of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

For Reuters however, as the rooster triggers the sunrise, Israel is always to blame for Arab violence.

More broken boilerplate

Another day, another unarmed African migrant killed by Egyptian police while trying to cross the Sinai border with Israel.  And you know what that means... boilerplate apologetics from Reuters on behalf of Egypt and the insinuation that Israel is to blame for trigger-happy border police:

The man was shot in the stomach and leg on Saturday night by guards stationed on the border. He had refused orders to stop while attempting to cross barbed wire marking the sensitive frontier, the source said... The Sinai border is a major transit route for African migrants and refugees seeking work or asylum in Israel. Egypt has come under pressure from Israel to staunch the flow, while rights groups complain about the methods of the border police... Security forces say they only fire at migrants after repeated orders to stop are disregarded and that smugglers who ferry migrants to the border sometimes fire on security forces.

One can only imagine Reuters offering the same journalistic cover to Israeli security forces operating on the border with Gaza when armed Palestinian terrorists attempt to infiltrate.  Actually, we can't even imagine it.

The other news

Over the last few weeks, Reuters has been running deceptively-worded stories suggesting that bellicose statements from Iran, Syria and Lebanon are simply "warnings" to Israel not to launch military strikes against them.  As we noted here, these stories represent a transparent attempt by Reuters to paint Israel as the belligerent in the region and to portray the Arab and Islamic states as rational and reasonable actors fending off aggression.

As war rhetoric from the terror troika heats up, Reuters' flimsy editorial position is becoming increasingly risible but that doesn't prevent the agency from continued efforts to sanitize or to simply ignore palpable threats of genocide.  At a joint news conference:

The presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East "without Zionists," combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region's defining alliances... Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, spoke of Israel's eventual "demise and annihilation" and said the countries of the region could create a future "without Zionists and without colonialists."  

Those quotes are from a story appearing in the Washington Post.  Reuters correspondents, who covered the same news conference here, apparently had their translating earpieces switched off at the time.

Reuters' editorial slant on this issue becomes easier to fathom when one considers that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's view of "Zionists and colonialists" is shared by Reuters Bureau Chief, Alastair Macdonald.

Another Orwellian inversion

As Palestinian Arabs burn tires and stone Israelis in the town of Hebron, Reuters correspondent Ali Sawafta trumpets the immortal words of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad:

Israel won't drag Palestinians to violence... This is what we call a quiet revolution

Perhaps Fayyad ought to have his chauffeur pull his limo over, snap on a crash helmet, and take a look around the next time he travels to Hebron to pray at the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

In one respect, Fayyad's words ring true: the Palestinians prove time and again they need no external impetus to violence.

Note that Reuters' Sawafta has no difficulty quoting Fayyad in toto:

We will not be dragged to violence by the terrorism of the settlers, and the terrorism of the settlement project [italics, ours]

whereas similar references to "terrorism" are routinely expunged or placed in scarequotes (a violation of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism) when Reuters is citing Israeli sources discussing Palestinian violence.

Sawafta also refers to Hebron as being in the "West Bank" without mentioning Israel's name for the territory, Judea and Samaria (another violation of the Reuters Handbook).  This is of course, to side with the Arabs by assigning title to them prior to final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians (a third violation of the Reuters Handbook).

Reuters corrects error; hopes no one notices

In a prior post, we noted Reuters correspondent Nidal al-Mughrabi erred when he reported that:

Iran says its support for Hamas is diplomatic only.

As documented in our post at the time and as reported by the Associated Press, Iran has, in fact, admitted to bankrolling Hamas.

In violation of its Handbook of Journalism, Reuters fails to correct this error openly but in a story appearing today about Hamas arms trafficker Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, Reuters' al-Mughrabi is careful not to repeat the same mistake:

Both Hamas and Iran have acknowledged Tehran's financial support for the group [Hamas]...

Amusingly however, al-Mughrabi apparently now wishes readers to believe that Iranian financial support for Hamas may be for other than weapons:

... while stopping short of confirming Israel's belief that this includes bankrolling arms smuggled to the Gaza Strip.

Yes, we understand that Hamas has recently agreed to purchase on installment, Persian rugs for the mansion Ismail Haniyeh will be building in Gaza.

The myth of the two-state solution

Erika Solomon of Reuters reports on Israel's efforts to call attention to ongoing Palestinian incitement to violence, a violation of the latter's obligations under the Road Map peace plan.  Solomon writes:

Fatah, the dominant force behind the Palestinian Authority, calls its legislative body the "Revolutionary Council." Its charter still does not recognize Israel, even as its leaders promote a two-state solution and peace with the Jewish state.

On its surface, this statement appears relatively even-handed but is Solomon's assertion that Fatah's leaders "promote a two-state solution and peace with the Jewish state" actually true?

At a celebration to honor Yasser Arafat's memory in 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas:

urged a throng of 50,000 Palestinians to re-aim their guns at the “occupation” (i.e., Israel) instead of turning them on each other: “Fatah,” he promised, “will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation.... We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation....”

Those "principles" Abbas insists Fatah will never surrender call for:

armed struggle until the Zionist entity is wiped out and Palestine is liberated.

Not exactly the two-state Shangri-La to which Solomon suggests the Palestinian leadership is committed.

In 2008, Abbas:

revealed that his current feint at negotiations with Israel is — like his mentor Arafat’s similar tactics — a strategic pause at best. He explained to a Jordanian newspaper that he was not pursuing “the armed struggle” at “this present juncture” only “because we can’t succeed in it.” He was quick to add, though, that “maybe in the future things will be different.”

More recently, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared that any peace settlement with the Palestinian Arabs must entail acceptance by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state.  Here's a video clip of Abbas' position on the matter:



Given the Charters of Fatah and the PLO as well as Mahmoud Abbas' continuing truculence and refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish sovereign (as called-for in the UN Partition Plan), what basis we wonder, does Erika Solomon have for asserting that Palestinian leaders "promote a two-state solution and peace with the Jewish state"?

Yes, we have no bananas

Reuters correspondent Nidal al-Mughrabi tells readers that fish is in short supply in Gaza due to the Israeli "blockade".

No comment on bananas.

World yawns over Middle East conflict; Reuters panics

In a nearly hysterical op-ed loaded with dire warnings and hyperbole, Reuters Bureau Chief Alastair Macdonald frets that the Israel-Palestinian conflict may be losing its audience.  That would obviously be bad for business at Reuters' Middle East bureau so Macdonald launches his arsenal of rhetorical WMDs to recapture our attention:

Here on the ground in this Belgium-size bit of Mediterranean coast a new war is raging, so far of words...

Their [Israelis who do not support "the two-state solution"] critics warn of "rivers of blood" in an "apartheid Israel" made international pariah if the two-state option dies.

Palestinians, too, are sounding more apocalyptic. 

He [Abbas] also warned this week that his people may turn to more violence if they are thwarted.

Yet time for agreement, many officials and diplomats concur, may be running out as frustration breeds radicalism all round.

Along the way, Macdonald reveals his own radical anti-Israel colors referring to Jewish "colonization" of Judea and Samaria and misrepresenting the particulars of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements ("the partition goal enshrined in the 1993 Oslo accords") as well as getting the basic demography of the region wrong ("Israel controls a whole territory where Arabs may soon outnumber Jews").

But what really seems to panic Macdonald is the loss of global interest in the conflict:

As world attention wanes, perhaps with the lack of televised bloodshed and the glacial pace of U.S. President Barack Obama's efforts to get the sides back to even "proximity talks", Israelis and Palestinians are watching anxiously to see whether the 20-year-old "peace process" will now live, or die.

Well, there's always agitprop to increase circulation.

For Reuters, Palestinians are Arabs; Jews are settlers

In a new fallacious "FACTBOX", Reuters Bureau Chief, Alastair Macdonald, offers us some of the "competing visions" for a settlement to the Middle East conflict.  In a section headlined "Who are the people?", Macdonald writes:

Official data shows Israel's population of 7.51 million comprises 5.66 million Jews and 1.53 million Arabs, plus some foreign residents. Of the Jews, some 500,000 are settlers in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Palestinians account for some 1.5 million Arabs in the Gaza Strip and 2.5 million in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

While Macdonald classifies Palestinians as Arabs, note how he guilefully decomposes Israel's Jewish population into Jews and "settlers", the latter being those Jews who live in the West Bank (also, Judea and Samaria) and "East Jerusalem".  That Jews have lived continuously in Jerusalem (including the Old City) for centuries doesn't seem to factor in to Macdonald's rhetorical ploy thinking.

And note that while the Jewish population has risen to over 500,000 in areas where Jews were ethnically cleansed by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, the Arab population in these same areas has grown from less than 500,000 in 1948 to nearly 2.5 million today.  So we wonder: why are recent Jewish arrivals and their children "settlers" while recent Arab arrivals and their children are "Palestinians"?

Selective amnesia

Reuters reports on the arrest of an Egyptian tailor on suspicion of bombing a Jewish synagogue in Cairo "in retaliation for Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza".  Following an historical account of wholly unrelated violence in the 1980s and '90s between the Egyptian government and Islamists, Reuters offers us some background on the Jewish community in Egypt:

Egypt was once home to tens of thousands of Jews, but most left decades ago and only a few dozen live in the Arab state.

Yes, tens of thousands of Jews capriciously packed their bags and left the country.  Thanks to Mitchell Bard's excellent Myths and Facts, here's a synopsis of what actually happened to Egypt's Jews:

Between June and November 1948, bombs set off in the Jewish Quarter of Cairo killed more than 70 Jews and wounded nearly 200.

In 1956, the Egyptian government used the Sinai Campaign as a pretext for expelling almost 25,000 Egyptian Jews and confiscating their property.  Approximately 1,000 more Jews were sent to prisons and detention camps.

On November 23, 1956, a proclamation signed by the Minister of Religious Affairs, and read aloud in mosques throughout Egypt, declared that "all Jews are Zionists and enemies of the state," and promised that they would soon be expelled .  Thousands of Jews were ordered to leave the country.  They were allowed to take only one suitcase and a small sum of cash, and forced to sign declarations "donating" their property to the Egyptian government.  Foreign observers reported that members of Jewish families were taken hostage, apparently to insure that those forced to leave did not speak out against the Egyptian government.

And so on.

A slightly less abbreviated account which may serve to shed some light on the precarious situation for Jews in Arab countries.

The other news

In what can only be described as an extraordinarily important archeological discovery, Dr. Eilat Mazar working under the auspices of the Hebrew University in Israel has unearthed 3,000-year-old stone fortifications outside the walls of Jerusalem's Old City.  The find offers additional supporting evidence for the biblical account of Solomon's Temple:

If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century BCE.  "It's the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel," Mazar said on Monday. "And it means that at that time, the 10th century, in Jerusalem there was a regime capable of carrying out such construction."... "A comparison of this latest finding with city walls and gates from the period of the First Temple, as well as pottery found at the site, enable us to postulate, with a great degree of assurance, that the wall that has been revealed is that which was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem in the latter part of the tenth century BCE," she continued.

 

Photos of the excavations and pottery jars with the Hebrew inscription "To the King" can be seen here.

Reuters of course, does not cover this story because, we assume, it would distract from the Palestinian Arab narrative of a region which has always been part of the "Arab world".

More migrants killed by Egypt; more apologetics from Reuters

In an update to our post on Sunday about Egyptian police killing unarmed African migrants attempting to cross the Sinai border with Israel, Reuters reports today that another migrant was shot (in the back) and killed with two others wounded.  Continuing in its apologetic vein on behalf of Egypt:

Security forces say they only fire at migrants after repeated orders to stop are disregarded and that smugglers who ferry migrants to the border sometimes fire on security forces

Reuters once again seeks to guilefully shift blame for the Egyptian policy of "shoot to kill" to -- who else? -- Israel:

The Sinai border is a main transit route for African migrants and refugees seeking work or asylum in Israel. Egypt has come under pressure from Israel to staunch the flow, while rights groups complain about the methods of the border police.

Why is Reuters not referring to Egypt's "disproportionate force" on the border?

Reuters desperate to blame Israel for assassination, puts words in mouth of EU

It's unclear if we will ever learn the identities of the nations and actors who participated in the killing of Hamas arms trafficker Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.  Though there is much suspicion that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad planned and executed the operation, there is also evidence that Palestinians may have been involved.  What we do know for certain, is that there is currently no proof Israeli agents carried out the apparent assassination.

This is obviously very distressing news for Reuters correspondents who, in a stroke of journalistic malfeasance, fabricate their own innuendo and associate it with a statement earlier today by the EU:

BRUSSELS, Feb 22 (Reuters) - The European Union condemned on Monday the use of fraudulent EU passports by the killers of a Palestinian militant in Dubai, showing its discontent with Israel without referring to it directly. [italics, ours]

The story, headlined:

Unhappy with Israel, EU condemns Dubai killing

acknowledges that the EU statement made no mention, directly or indirectly, of Israel.  But that doesn't prevent Reuters from citing anonymous "European diplomats" who apparently whispered into the ears of the agency's correspondents that the statement was "intended as a rebuke to Israel" and then conflating this hearsay with the official statement.

There you have it.  When the existing facts don't support your agenda, you can always manufacture new ones. 

Reuters selective reminiscence

In a story on Israel's decision to include two Jewish shrines on its list of heritage sites, Reuters correspondents Joseph Nasr, Tom Perry and Mustafa Abu Ganeyeh recall an incident of horrendous violence at one of the sites, the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, where: 

a Jewish settler shot and killed 29 Muslim worshippers in 1994 before being beaten to death at the scene. Some 400 Jewish settlers live in heavily guarded enclaves in the city, which is also home to some 150,000 Palestinians.

Reuters doesn't explain of course, why Jews residing in Hebron must live with an Israeli garrison to protect them, omitting mention of the massacre of 67 Jewish residents by Arabs in 1929.

For the moppets at Reuters, Middle East history only begins in 1967.

Photo of members of the Slonim family, murdered by Arabs in the 1929 Hebron massacre

UPDATE 2/22/10: In the spirit of peace and reconciliation between Arab and Jew, here is how Palestinians in Hebron reacted to the addition of the Tomb of the Patriarchs to Israel's heritage sites:

Earlier Monday in Hebron, a crowd of Palestinian youths pelted IDF soldiers with stones and empty bottles, drawing tear gas and stun grenades.  Hebron merchants shuttered their stores to protest of Sunday's heritage plan decision, and some 100 youths burned tires and threw stones and bottles at IDF troops in the city.

One can only imagine the editorial response from Reuters if Israeli Jews reacted similarly to Palestinian veneration of Muslim holy sites in Israel.

Egyptian police kill African migrants trying to cross border; let us count the ways Reuters apologizes

When Israeli security forces shoot armed Palestinians who have attacked Israeli border positions or attempted to infiltrate the country from Gaza to conduct military operations, Reuters typically reports on the incident in superficial fashion, focusing on the shooting details with little or no background provided on the long history of attempted infiltrations or acts of terror conducted in this way.  In this story for example, Reuters correspondents Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan do not even report on the incident which precipitated the shootings, describing only a "confrontation" between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli troops.

In a story appearing on its website today, Reuters reports on the killing by Egyptian police of two African migrants attempting to cross the border between the Sinai Peninsula and Israel.  Following the lede, note the background detail and extraordinary effort on the part of Reuters correspondents to apologize for the killings:

The source said a police patrol ordered them to stop and opened fire when they did not.

Egyptian police have stepped up efforts in recent months to control the border with Israel, after an increase in human trafficking through Egypt.

Egyptian police say the smugglers who ferry migrants to the border region sometimes fire on security forces.

Egypt, which for years tolerated tens of thousands of African migrants on its territory, fears the unfettered flow of migrants at its Sinai border could pose a security threat in an area where Islamist militants sometimes find refuge.

And of course, what would a Reuters story be without an attempt to blame Israel:

Egypt has faced Israeli pressure to halt the flow.

All very good reasons apparently, for Egyptian police to shoot and kill unarmed migrants.

All the news that's fit to print?

One of the more insidious forms of media bias involves the editorial decision on which stories to carry and which to ignore.  Insidious because the media company can profoundly influence public opinion by drawing attention to certain events, i.e., those that fit the editorial agenda, while disregarding others which are comparably newsworthy but undermine that agenda.  The latter leaves not a trace of bias.

Over the last few weeks, Reuters has run stories on, 1) the Israeli government revoking the residency status of Jerusalem-based Palestinians who have left the country for more than seven consecutive years, 2) a lawsuit filed by the former maid of the wife of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu alleging a salary shortfall and "humiliation" associated with a demand to change clothes during the course of the day, and 3) claims of sexual abuse against an Israeli rabbi.

During that same period, Reuters has chosen not to run stories on, 1) the Jordanian government stripping Palestinian Arabs of their Jordanian citizenship, 2) the purchase of a $4 million property in Gaza by Palestinian leader Ismail Haniyeh, and 3) the suspension of Rafik Husseini, the director of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s bureau, due to alleged sexual and financial misconduct.

Now frankly, we could care less about the tawdry details of a sex scandal involving a high Palestinian official but we wonder, given the wider implications of corruption in the Palestinian Authority and the lethal intimidation employed to silence whistleblowers (the PA executes those convicted of  "collaboration"), is this story any less newsworthy than that of a maid who was asked to change uniforms?

Reuters continues to run interference for Mahmoud Abbas

Reuters continues to peddle the fiction that PA President Mahmoud Abbas:

... broke off negotiations with the previous Israeli government in December 2008 in protest at its offensive in the Gaza Strip

As we've noted several times, Reuters' own stories from the period reveal that the Palestinian Authority had effectively terminated negotiations with Israel in the Fall of 2008 (prior to the Gaza war) following 1) Abbas' refusal of Ehud Olmert's offer of 97% of Judea and Samaria (also, the "West Bank"), 2) an unrequited demand by the PA that the Quartet guarantee that negotiations result in a Palestinian state along the 1949 Armistice Lines including the eastern part of Jerusalem, and 3) imminent elections in Israel.

Far from "protesting" Israel's defensive operation in Gaza, Abbas almost certainly supported and cooperated with Israel in the effort to rid the region of Hamas.