Founder of Islamic Movement in Israel slams Holocaust denial

[Behind the Aegis]

The founder of the Islamic Movement in Israel condemned Holocaust denial in the Muslim world on Sunday, rejecting statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In an appearance before the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem, Sheikh Abdullah Nimr Darwish said: "Tell all who deny the Holocaust to ask the Germans what they did or did not do."

Also, Darwish accused his audience of not understanding Muslims or their concerns, and he protested Israel's refusal to support the recent Saudi Arabian peace initiative involving Hamas and Fatah. "Why are you trying to distance yourselves from Muslims as if they were the devil?" he said.

The fourth Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, which opened Sunday in Jerusalem and was sponsored for the first time by the Foreign Ministry, drew 160 participants from Israel and abroad. Among them are politicians and foreign diplomats who deal with the problem of anti-Semitism.


more...

[Lithos]

1. A rather interesting individual

I've not heard of him before, I think I need to.

L-

[Englander]

3. Here's something -

"Where To Now?
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002 By MATT REES/BEIT JALA

>snip

The Convert to Peace
Sheik Abdullah Nimr Dar-wish knows that hate can be overcome. Charming and intense, he offers himself as an example. Hate was the cocoon that nurtured him, until he flew free of it. Darwish, 54, believes his personal history is an illustration of why no one should give up on the Palestinians, even now when they have drifted so far from where the world thought they were headed.

When Israel was founded in 1948, Darwish's family remained in their village, Kafr Qassem, though it had become a part of the Jewish state. Darwish grew up with Israeli citizenship, though his village, like the other Arab communities within Israel, lived under military law for the first 20 years of the new state's existence. One day when he was 9, Darwish was riding home from the cabbage fields with three other relatives on a small donkey cart led by his Uncle Ghazi. While they had been tending their crops, Israeli authorities had placed a curfew on Kafr Qassem; unknown to the farmers, the deadline for the curfew had passed before their cart approached some Israeli soldiers in the twilight. The soldiers did not say anything; as Darwish remembers it, they simply shot Uncle Ghazi and the two other men. The donkey bolted for home, and Darwish fell back among the cabbages in the cart. That's how he survived. When he got home, the terrified boy sobbed to his father: "The Jews killed Uncle." There were 47 villagers slain that day in similar circumstances. Even now, Darwish says, "I live through that massacre every day."

Revenge was the future Darwish saw for himself. In 1971 he formed the Islamic Movement, a group of Arab Israelis that advocated armed struggle against the state. Israeli authorities threw him in jail, where, he says, he was tortured. But when he was released he faced the same dilemma that confronts Palestinians now: accommodate Israel or face ceaseless suffering. In the early 1980s Darwish began making contact with Israeli peace activists; those relationships, he says, helped him take on "the mentality of coexistence." Now he lectures three times a week to Israelis, advocating greater tolerance between the country's 1.2 million Arab citizens and the Jewish majority of 5.3 million. Frequently, he visits Arafat and urges him to conciliate, just as the sheik himself did years ago. Arafat recently asked Darwish how he could get the Israelis to trust him again. "Well," Darwish said, "you could stop shouting about a million martyrs marching on Jerusalem." Darwish says Arafat's aides were angered by his criticism, but within a week Arafat had dropped the martyrdom mantra from his public addresses.

Sheik Darwish has learned to live with the ghosts of the massacre that haunt him. He looks them in the eye and respects the role they played in his journey, but they don't rule his life. Now an entire people faces that same challenge — to succumb to the hateful anguish of loss, or to honor the sacrifice of the departed with peace.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,335996-4,00.html

[papau]

2. The same Israeli paper that had that story also had an editorial saying Israel should

www.haaretz.com

work to lift the embargo and start to work with new governmen.

Was this liberal Israeli wishful thinking - or real good idea? I think Israeli should test the water with a simple little agreement for Hamas to sign - and see if they sign it.

[calzone]

4. You are pre-supposing that.....

....Israel wants peace.

Israel rejects peace offer from Hezbollah
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/62/21470

Israel rejects peace offer from Hamas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400696.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/25/ap/world/mainD8LJOJG00.shtml

Israel rejects offer of international observers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,524276,00.html

Israel rejects peace offer from Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and the PFLP
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12813

Israel rejects peace plan by Spain, France and Italy
http://www.mideastdaily.org/entry/israel-rejects-proposed-middle-east-peace-plan/

The Iranian prez didn't "deny the holocaust", he said it was a "myth". There's a difference.
He's on record as admitting that the Jews were killed en masse, he disputes the numbers, the supposed obscurement of recognition of the other victims, and feels that the holocaust was used by zionists to garner sympathy to further an agenda. Whether or not you or I agree with that or feel it's disrespectful and counter-productive, it's a far cry from denying the holocaust occurred.

"Arafat recently asked Darwish how he could get the Israelis to trust him again. "Well," Darwish said, "you could stop shouting about a million martyrs marching on Jerusalem." Darwish says Arafat's aides were angered by his criticism, but within a week Arafat had dropped the martyrdom mantra from his public addresses."

So much for the mantra that Arafat was an intractable terrorist bent on nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

"I turn to Olmert to think anew," Sheikh Abdallah Nimr Darwish, head of Israel's Islamic Movement, told Israel Radio.

"Whoever wants to speak about peace does not excavate anywhere in the area around the holy al-Aqsa mosque," Darwish said, referring to Olmert's planned February 19 peace talks with Abbas and Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state."

Ouch, huh?

[papau]

5. Israel wants peace - that is obvious despite your headlines - in the actual stories facts the PA 's

problem with peace is obvious.

The PA/Hamas rejects a total truce as offered by Israel, and only offers no rockets - something offered/tried before with no real change in PA rocket attacks. But the headline writer puts this as "Israel rejects peace offer from Hamas".


"Israel rejects peace plan by Spain, France and Italy" was not a rejection of a peace plan - it rejection of an undefined immediate ceasefire. It called for a ceasefire (but we have all heard how a PA/Hamas government ceasefire can not be expected to hold back the legitimate anger of individual citizens - haven't we?). It also called for a Palestinian unity government - and now we have that. We do not have that exchange of prisoners that it called for, nor either the talks between Israel's prime minister and the Palestinian Authority president nor an international mission in Gaza to monitor a "ceasefire". Did Hamas ever agree to international monitors in Gaza that would stop the rockets and kidnapping - or even the having as guests the usual UN type monitoring where UN folks rarely note and publicize any PA breaking of that ceasefire?

The Iranian president does indeed "deny the holocaust" - he accepts Jews died - everybody dies in war - but he rejects the special effort and the success of the effort of the Nazi murderers. The gas pipes too small and all the other crap was long ago disproved. The only Iranian point is to say "why feel anything but hate toward Israel" as they push for the end of the Jewish State of Israel, and while like the Saudis, pushing for the death of Jews, teaching children that Jews are the scum of the earth.

The Arabs are the ones that refused a fair two state solution - namely Taba. And Now Geneva has put details into Taba - but I do not hear Hamas saying that it is even a start on the road to a two state solution. Instead Hamas rejects the secular state, Hamas rejects the Jewish State of Israel, and Hamas vows war forever.

The new unity government agreement is interesting in that it may be an indicator that Hamas is willing to go to a two State solution - and I think should be tested on that basis.

Olmert's governments response has been that it is pointless to test - and that Israel will wait until the PA under Hamas starts to act like a government - rather than terrorists - and actually states that it honors - not just respects - prior agreements, including the two state solution.

I think Hamas might be signaling that while it can't say "two-state solution" it might be ready to act like that was the direction for the future. Israel appears to think that that view is "wishful thinking.

I do not know if they are correct.

I do know that it has been the Arabs that have rejected any 2 state solution that includes one of the states as the Jewish State of Israel.

[calzone]

6. Nothing you have posted contradicts....

...any of the points I made and backed up.
To say "yeah Israel rejected peace from the Palestinians, the UN, and the Euro country's plans, but that's because..........................................you can't trust those cockroach Arabs to keep their end of the bargain. Empty, blind, reactionary logic. The FACT is time and time again the victim, the underdog, the oppressed, offered truces to Israel and Israel told them to F.O.. That's called rejecting peace, which translates nicely to "not wanting peace", which translates to "aggressor". Bringing up Taba and portraying it as Arab intransigence is about as relevant as bringing up the screenplay for Fiddler on the roof.

The Israelis have broken every truce and ceasefire with Hamas. You call them terrorists, yet portray the Israelis not as terrorists, but reasonable, well-meaning victims. Complete horse-manure.

Ahmadinejad (who btw is only a figurehead) never "denied the holocaust".
Papau wrote:
"he rejects the special effort and the success of the effort of the Nazi murderers. The gas pipes too small and all the other crap was long ago disproved."

Where, oh where, does he say this?
Here's an article titled "Putting Words In Ahmadinejad's mouth". It should be interesting to you if you genuinely care about the truth.

http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

Papau wrote:
"The only Iranian point is to say "why feel anything but hate toward Israel" as they push for the end of the Jewish State of Israel, and while like the Saudis, pushing for the death of Jews, teaching children that Jews are the scum of the earth."

You really feel no responsibility whatsoever to adhere to the truth, do you?
From where do you get this paranoid, hate-filled propaganda?

"I do know that it has been the Arabs that have rejected any 2 state solution that includes one of the states as the Jewish State of Israel."

I would also reject a "Jewish state of Israel". I realize that there's a brutal apartheid going on within Israel and that many zionists would like to expel all Arabs, all Muslims, but the 1/3 of the population that aren't the "right religion" don't feel like being tossed out and terrorized from their land like the 750,000 other Palestinians, and I don't blame them.
I'm afraid you don't know the facts, and I suspect you have no interest in knowing the facts.

Time after time the Palestinians have offered to recognize and co-exist with Israel, but Israel always tells them to stuff it. Truce after truce has been violated by the Israelis. There's an occupation going on, you wouldn't know it from the U.S. press, but there is. All you hear about in our press is when a suicide bomber blows himself up on a bus, but you don't hear squat about a brutal occupation.

If you want to know who's "rejecting peace" just google the friggin' Amnesty International site and enter Israel and/or Palestinian into the search engine, then sit back and read for about 6 hours.

[papau]

8. I said your headlines do not sum up the actual reports - and mislead w/anti-Israeli bias

As you note, when handed crap and told it is pie, I claim the right to say - "this is crap" - or in your words "To say "yeah Israel rejected peace from the Palestinians, the UN, and the Euro country's plans, but that's because......"

I never said you can't trust Arabs to keep their side of the bargain - but I did note the FACT that they have played games with the term "ceasefire" (while I should have noted, but didn't, that for some reason they do not play games with truce, and that some ceasefires have actually been real with only a few violations).

It is you that throw in the reactionary crap "you can't trust those cockroach Arabs to keep their end of the bargain" - not myself. As I do not know what you are talking about when you say that time and time again the PA "offered truces to Israel and Israel told them to F.O." could you list out those truces and their terms. What were the "peace efforts" that the Israeli side have rejected - were they they the "right of return to destroy the Jewish state of Israel via arab population majority so as to have an Islamic Israel" peace efforts. Sounds a bit like being offerred crap and told it was cherry pie.

Bringing up Taba is not relevant for what reason? Taba was the first fair to the Arabs peace plan (Camp David Cantons was not fair to the Arabs in my opinion and rightly rejected by the Arabs/Arafat). To note that Taba is still on the table (and via Geneva now enhanced and made clear and indeed very clear as to being fair) is only to note how stupid the Hamas position of total destruction of the Jewish State of Israel is.

Hamas are terrorists - and Israel is not. Suicide bombs, car bombs, killing the innocent are the weapons of terror - and Hamas and the other arab para-military groups have embraced them - and the Israeli's have not used planned mass death of civilians as a policy. Israeli has been brutal occupier of the West Bank and Gaza, and responds with little care for civilian casualties with force to attacks by Hamas or anyone using force to try to remove them from the West Bank/Gaza - and means innocents are killed. War and security after a war has innocents being killed because the action is not police work - but it is not terror unless the intent is the murder of innocents and there is an attack that is being responded to.

The "Complete horse-manure" is equating terror to innocents to responding to attacks on an army doing security. Innocents killed in both cases, but to plan to kill innocents is disgusting, in my opinion. That planning to kill innocents is coming only from Hamas - not Israel.

Ahmadinejad (who btw is not only a figurehead - he is elected and represents the opinion of that council of the wise that must approve everything) held a "deny the holocaust" party, for goodness sakes - what does take for you to label a person denier? To say that while a few Jews were killed it was not a big deal, claiming that the dead total less than a million (800,000 was his number if I recall correctly) is to be a denier. To say that that those who claim lack of gas to kill all that many are "scholars" is to endorse their position - if you say a denier's logic is scholarly, you give credence to his position. As I said "The gas pipes too small and all the other crap was long ago disproved."

http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html is Cockburn's anti-Israeli platform, but even so, read carefully, he says what I have been saying about destruction of the Jewish State of Israel being the only acceptable result to some on the Arab/Farsi side- people living there under Islamic rule calling the place Israel is no problem. We just need to wipe from history the evil time that Jews had control of their own religious areas.

I wrote:"The only Iranian point is to say "why feel anything but hate toward Israel" as they push for the end of the Jewish State of Israel, and while like the Saudis, pushing for the death of Jews, teaching children that Jews are the scum of the earth.".. and you called that not the truth and hate filled - why - how is it hate filled? Do you need posting of photo's of the books given children in schools, the TV movies for children - heck I doubt you'd even accept that as fact when you saw it. Israeli schools do not teach hate for the Arabs to 6 to 12 year olds - but the Arab schools teach hate of the Jew to 6 to 12 year olds.

I could validly repeat your "you really feel no responsibility whatsoever to adhere to the truth, do you? From where do you get this paranoid, hate-filled propaganda?", but I won't because I believe when you do your research you will use the actual facts in the future - I doubt you will change your mind as to who is right or who is wrong in the conflict. However, I don't believe, don't want to believe, you are just into propaganda.

President Carter of the word "apartheid" fame calls the oppression in the West Bank/Gaza "apartheid" - and then goes on to say that there NO APARTHEID BEING PRACTICED IN ISRAEL ITSELF - are you calling Carter a liar?

You reject a "Jewish state of Israel". So you reject the two state solution where one of the surviving states is the Jewish State of Israel? I ask you to reconsider since that I think is the only solution that will end the pain and bloodshed.

There is indeed an occupation going on, it is brutal and the Palestinian pain - a great deal caused by incompetent leaders - is made worse by the brutal way that occupation is being carried out. Israel needs to toss the "rights" of the settlers, and get on with giving rights to the Palestinians - as they were doing at Taba. But it requires two sides agreeing to get there - and at the moment, the Palestinian side will not come to the table.

[calzone]

7. One more link, to an article that sums it up....

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1104-26.htm

[papau]

9. On Hamas, Hunda, peace, and the recognition of Israel - from the web

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp

Hudna has a distinct meaning to Islamic fundamentalists, well-versed in their history: The prophet Mohammad struck a legendary, ten-year hudna with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the seventh century. Over the following two years, Mohammad rearmed and took advantage of a minor Quraysh infraction to break the hudna and launch the full conquest of Mecca, the holiest city in Islam.

When Yassir Arafat infamously invoked Mohammad's hudna in 1994 to describe his own Oslo commitments "on the road to Jerusalem," the implication was clear. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes explained, Arafat was asserting to his Islamic brethren that he will, "when his circumstances change for the better, take advantage of some technicality to tear up existing accords and launch a military assault on Israel." Indeed, this is precisely what occurred in Sept. 2000 when Arafat & Co. launched a terror assault upon Israeli citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna

Despite the Israeli government's rejection of the idea, in summer 2003 — following pressure from Abu Mazen and Egypt — Hamas and Islamic Jihad unilaterally declared a 45-day ceasefire, or hudna. Its proponents commonly argued that such a cease-fire would allow hostility to die down and make a full reconciliation possible; its opponents commonly argued that it would be a mere tactical maneuver enabling Palestinian groups to re-group and muster their strength in preparation for further attacks on Israelis, or Israel to continue expanding settlements, blockading Palestinian towns, and arresting members of such groups<1>. The hudna started in late June 2003.

Israel — which had not made any agreement — continued to hunt down militant opponents, while Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade continued a series of attacks on Israeli citizens throughout the month of July. Hamas, claiming to have no involvement in the attacks, officially observed the hudna until, on August 8, an IDF operation to arrest Hamas bombmakers resulted in an gunfight in which an Israeli soldier and two Hamas militants were killed. Hamas responded with a suicide bombing on August 12, killing one Israeli civilian. Fatah claimed responsibility for a second suicide bombing on August 12 killing another Israeli citizen. Despite this de facto violation of the hudna, Hamas stated that the cease-fire would continue. Hostilities then escalated: the Israeli army killed Islamic Jihad's Muhammad Seeder on August 14; the Jerusalem bus 2 massacre by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on August 19, killed 23 and wounded 136 people ; and Israeli forces killed Hamas's Isma'il Abu-Shanab on August 21. After the killing of the two high-ranking leaders, Hamas eventually called off the hudna<2>.

In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six Day War, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Rantissi said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel." Hamas' former spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin made similar statements at this time, including a one hundred year Hudna. Israel characterised the offer as ridiculous and a "smoke screen for military preparations". Both Israel and the United States insist that Hamas is "an enemy of peace" that must be disarmed and dismantled<3>. Yassin was killed by Israel in March 2004, Rantissi in April<[br />
As for Hamas, they have proven time and again their commitment to a tactical hudna — replenishing their strength during the quiet periods, then returning with increased deadliness. As recently documented by The Washington Institute, Hamas agreed to no less than ten ceasefires in the past ten years, and after every single one returned freshly armed for terror. Hundreds of Israeli citizens have paid for these hudnas with their lives.


http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2006/02/hamas-and-hudna-caveat-emptor/


What is a long-term truce to Hamas? They have stated that the ultimate recognition of Israel is wholly out of the question and repeatedly reasserted without question their belief that Palestine is a Muslim land that stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Just yesterday from Cairo, the words of Khaled Mashal’s own deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk, should have removed any doubt when he said, “When historic Palestine is reinstated, they can come and live among us. They will have a Palestinian nationality.”

Perhaps Hamas could offer ‘such a peaceful move’ themselves by renouncing terrorism and disarming its terrorist factions. Surely even they can recognize that the international community they so look to for ‘a solution for all of the region's problems’ would embrace them with such affection, generosity and support that the quality of the lives of Palestinians would increase exponentially almost immediately. That, of course, assumes that Hamas’ aim is indeed peace and not the conquering and elimination of the state of Israel.

Much is made of Hamas’ observance of the informal truce with Israel. However, it is important to note that, while claiming no responsibility for attacks under their own name, their members comprise a significant membership in the Popular Resistance Committees, which in the past and even today claimed responsibility for numerous attacks since the informal truce between Hamas and Israel. Does Hamas bear no burden of responsibility for these attacks carried out under the banner of a terrorist cooperative? Does the cooperative serve Hamas’ need for the perception of non-aggression while simply maintaining aggression under another name?

Consider that Hamas’ short-term objectives are to secure the international funds, exceeding $1 billion annually, now in question. While they work their public image and perception, they are on a regional tour of Muslim nations seeking new donors to replace the Western funds. Consider also the very real possibility that the West acquiesces and permits funding Hamas while they also receive (long overdue) support from within their own region. This would result in a terrorist windfall for Hamas, and every extra dollar netted proportionally shortens the amount of time they must observe a hudna they detest.

So, while overtures for public consumption by Hamas are made and others assert to varying degrees for them that Hamas is prepared to discuss peace with Israel, it should be consumed in context with Hamas’ fervent belief that Palestine stretches ‘from the River to the Sea’ and that the Israeli people will one day have ‘a Palestinian nationality’.

With regards to Hamas and their public hints of hudna, the absence of war is not peace.

[calzone]

10. Papau, what are you doing?

Do you even stop to examine the links you use? Good grief.
The text of the excerpts you printed don't stand up to analysis, and are selectively biased.
Let me tell you something about "honestreporting". The first time I came across it last year I thought "great, a site dedicated to honest reporting. Yeah, like Fox news is "fair and balanced".
Turns out "honestreporting" is a far right, zionist propaganda site with ties to the Israeli govt. and information ministry. They have the dishonest effrontary to call themselves "honestreporting", a fraud and cover meant to do ONE THING...decieve the readers. That's nasty. That's....manipulative and exploitative. The wikipedia article is based on the distorted, biased, dishonest reporting of honestreporting.com and Threatswatch. I'll get into threatswatch in a moment.
Your selective extractions actually reference an article by counterpunch (that must've been a mistake). Here it is. It paints a genuinely accurate picture of the real Hudna and peace which Israel rejects.
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08252003.html

I invite any reader to read it. It's revelatory and spot on. I know this because when I evaluate an article I rely on numerous other, corroborative articles which I've read from various wide-ranging sources over a period of years, along with personal experience. I think I know what you did Papau, you found these sites and were so delighted to find opinions that mirrored and reinforced your own that you failed to check them out thoroughly.

Now who is honestreporting?
"HonestReporting has been criticised over its aggressive approach to media reports. In September 2006, HonestReporting issued a critique of the South African newspaper, the Mail&Guardian, for publishing an opinion article by a South African government minister that was critical of Israel. HonestReporting took issue <4> with contents of the article and encouraged its' readers to write to the newspaper. The Mail&Guardian received what it called a "barrage of hysterical invective" full of "bigotry and anti-democratic instincts". HonestReporting has been criticized by the Guardian as a "pro-Israeli lobby".<1>, which in turn is monitered by HonestReporting for what it alleges is the papers tendency for taking a one-sided anti-Israel line.

Yarden Frankl (Senior Editor) worked for ten years as a senior aide to Congresswoman Nita Lowey of New York and as the Strategic Affairs Lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_Reporting

AIPAC, which is not actually a mere "lobbying group" (our nation's 2nd most powerful), but an agent of a foreign power...it along with the ADL and other so-called Jewish advocacy groups are riddled with intelligence agents, and AIPAC is about to be reamed in trials involving the passing of secret documents to Israel by spies, tied in with Doug Feith and other dual-citizenship zionist neo-cons within the presidents staff and the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon, the group that lied us into the Iraq war.

Who is Rabbi Ephraim Shore?
A fiercly pro-Israel, militant zionist.....

"Rabbi Ephraim Shore (President) took over HonestReporting in 2000 after it was founded by a group of students in England. In late 2001, he organized an independent USA board of directors and established HonestReporting as a registered non-profit (501c3) organization. He is also a co-director of Hasbara Fellowships."

What is the Hasbara Fellowship?

"Hasbara Fellowships is an organization that brings students to Israel and trains them to be "effective pro-Israel activists on their campuses". Based in New York, it was started in 2001 by Aish HaTorah in conjunction with the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Activists trained by Hasbara Fellowships have been involved in several notable campus demonstrations. In 2002, Hasbara Fellowships organized a rally at the National Student Palestinian Conference at the University of Michigan. <4> In 2007, Hasbara Fellowships members at Brandeis University protested against former US President Jimmy Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara_Fellowships

So the Hasbara fellowship and the honestreporting president are tied in with the Israeli govt.s intelligence and disinformation ministry. So much for "honestreporting".
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Who is Threatswatch?
3 guys, all extreme rightwing military nutcases and republican activists and lobbyists, 2 of which who are tied together through tellicomminications corruption. I read some of their stuff, it was offensive and uncomfortably bigoted IMO towards Muslims and Arabs.
Leo Giacometto, President, Bill Roggio and Marvin Hutchens

Who is Leo Giacometto?
Lt. Colonel in the Army reserves, Rightwinger, pro-Iraq war....

"It doesn't get much more devious than this. Last month, on the 30 of October, Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana held a little "NASCAR Fundraiser" in Atlanta, Georgia. The cause and locale were far from Big Sky Country. Attendees of the benefit forked over $2,500 a piece to eat breakfast at the lavish Ritz-Carlton Hotel and spend an afternoon at the Atlanta Motor Speedway.

The brains behind the peddle-to-the-metal fundraiser belonged to Leo Giacometto, a sleazy Republican operative who served as Montana Republican Senator Conrad Burns' Chief of Staff during the latter part of the 1990s. Giacometto was one of the key architects of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and has since enjoyed the turnstile environment of Washington politics and now heads up Gage LLC, a corporate lobbying firm based in DC."

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank11092005.html

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_159.shtml

Extensive corruption of Giacometti:

"Burns Formed Non-Profit With Lobbyist, Took Taxpayer Funded Trips To Benefit Lobbyist Clients. In 2003, Conrad Burns and former staffer turned lobbyist Leo Giacometto formed a non-profit group called the U.S. Asia Network. While run out of Giacometto’s firm, Gage, the network’s events are paid for by cellular phone and communications giant Qualcomm. In 2004, Burns led a trade delegation to Kazakhstan that was arranged by Giacometto’s lobbying firm and included almost exclusively Giacometto clients and Qualcomm lobbyists. < Helena IR, 3/5/06; Billings Gazette, 5/29/04>

Burns History Of Racist Remarks Makes Him The Poster Child For Republicans Being Out Of Touch. Conrad Burns history of racial insensitivity is legendary. It includes telling civil rights lobbyists he was going to a “slave auction,” agreeing it was “a hell of a challenge” living with “niggers” in Washington, calling Arabs “ragheads,” and telling a woman worried about losing her job to outsourcing that she could stay home and be a mother. All too often, Burns has backed up his racial insensitivity with actions, including being the only member of the Senate to oppose the Martin Luther King Jr., Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2002. < AP, 12/18/02; Great Falls Tribune, 10/26/05>"

http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20060404_burns/index.htm

"Leo Giacometto is to Montana what Jack Abramoff was to Washington, DC. Giacometto was the long-time Chief of Staff for Senator Burns, during which time he was know as the champion staff traveler for going on more junkets than anyone else on the Hill. The tale is that Giacometto abruptly resigned from Burns' office when a Washington Post reporter began looking into complaints from lobbyists concerning Giacometto's habit of running up enormous bar tabs and then sticking them with the bill. So Giacometto became a lobbyist.

But when the Montana GOP need a slush fund to keep operatives happy between campaigns, Leo Giacometto helped set it up and served as Vice President of the Montana Majority Fund. However, Giacometto was fingered in a suspected coverup of the death of House Majority Leader Paul Sliter following a MMF meeting and the press started looking into the organization. The resulting scandal brought down the Administration of then Republican Governor Judy Martz. In this scandal, Giacometto and company were busted for fundraising using the state capitol. Instead of ceasing to use slush funds, they ceased the fundraising and turned to earmarks from Conrad Burns to finance the GOP infrastructure."

http://robertbrigham.blogspot.com/2006/06/john-morrison-and-cultures-of.html

Who is Bill Roggio

"BAGHDAD -- Retired soldier Bill Roggio was a computer technician living in New Jersey less than two months ago when a Marine officer half a world away made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Frustrated by the coverage they were receiving from the news media, the Marines invited Roggio, 35, who writes a popular Web log about the military called "The Fourth Rail" ( http://www.billroggio.com/ ), to come cover the war from the front lines.

"I was disenchanted with the reporting on the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror and felt there was much to the conflict that was missed," Roggio, who is currently stationed with Marines along the Syrian border, wrote in an e-mail response to written questions. "What is often seen as an attempt at balanced reporting results in underreporting of the military's success and strategy and an overemphasis on the strategically minor success of the jihadists or insurgents."

Roggio's arrival in Iraq comes amid what military commanders and analysts say is an increasingly aggressive battle for control over information about the conflict. Scrutiny of what the Pentagon calls information operations heightened late last month, when news reports revealed that the U.S. military was paying Iraqi journalists and news organizations to publish favorable stories written by soldiers, sometimes without disclosing the military's role in producing them

In addition, the military has paid money to try to place favorable coverage on television stations in three Iraqi cities, according to an Army spokesman, Maj. Dan Blanton. The military, said Blanton, has given one of the stations about $35,000 in equipment, is building a new facility for $300,000 and pays $600 a week for a weekly program that focuses positively on U.S. efforts in Iraq. The names of the city and the television station are being withheld because the producer of the show said he and his staff would be seen as collaborators and endangered if identified.

He said he recently began distributing his news releases to military bloggers and organizations such as veterans associations. The Marines also took a more direct approach by inviting Roggio to cover their operations.

<<snip>>

"A thorough review of his work was taken into account before authorizing the embed," said Pool. "Overall, it has worked out really well."

After military officials in Baghdad said Roggio could not be issued media credentials unless he was affiliated with an organization, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization in Washington, offered him an affiliation, according to an entry on Roggio's blog. He and two other bloggers launched a new Web site a month ago ( http://threatswatch.com/ )

When news organizations began reporting about the insurgent activity in Ramadi on Dec. 1, Roggio posted "The Ramadi Debacle: The Media Bites on Al Qaeda Propaganda."

On Dec. 15, when Iraqis voted in nationwide elections, Roggio reported from Barwana, a Western town where turnout was far heavier than in Iraq's constitutional referendum held Oct. 15.

"Barwana, once part of Zarqawi self declared 'Islamic Republic of Iraq,' " he wrote, "is now the scene of al-Qaeda's greatest nightmare: Muslims exercising their constitutional right to chose their destiny."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500659.html

A pro-war, rightwing, paid military propagandist. Nice.

Marvin Hutchens is a rightwing ex-military blogger who along with Roggio, is carried regularly on frontpagemag which, along with worldnetdaily, is neo-con entertainment central.

You should exercise more care in your choice of sources.

[papau]

11. All true as to their slant - very biased toward Israel - but the facts as to hunda are correct as

far as I can see

The term hunda does indeed mean a non-peace and has often been used to describe a period of rebuilding the military and when rebuilt, finding a reason to break the hunda and getting back to the war.

The Turks are not Arabs of course, but they enjoy telling how they tricked the Christians at Constantinople - following all agreements with the eastern pope that ended the attacks on Constantinople, yet taking land under those agreements to set the stage for the latter attack (the small trading area that was given them under that "peace" agreement was to be of a size that could be surrounded by strips taken from a given amount of hides. They cut the hides into extremely thin strips and took a much larger area that was then used to plan the assault on the walls and death of the eastern pope and his bishops and priests and the conversion of Sofia from church to mosque).

The count of the hunda offers is correct, as is the required concession by Israel before such offer became a hunda - in all cases it was withdrawal - until they were ready to find a reason to break the hunda and attack in the name of restoring a single Islamic state over the area - there is no talk of a secular state, as this is a religious war. The last part is sad, because over 10% of the Palestinians fighting Israel at one point were Christian. Most of these have now fled to Lebanon, so I am told by those calling themselves Lebanese Palestinians who are friends - and still support the Palestinians against Isreal - but in a 2 state solution. Indeed I support the Palestinians against Israel. but in a 2 state solution.

As to sources, your using Counterpunch and Cockburn's attack articles that try to sell the Hamas goals of the end of the Jewish State of Israel as the reasonable compromise that the west should push for I thought meant that slanted sites were permitted as long as the facts were correct. Indeed it is hard to use sources that are not self-identified as on one side or the other - two state solution or one state solution - that are not also identified as far left or far right.

The Washington Post story on bloggers that were refused entry to Iraq as journalists unless the became affiliated with an organization- and who were offered that affiliation by the Weekly Standard (a far right wing group of the GOP to be sure)- and requested to cover the Iraq activity because of their being veterans and not anti-US military (again a far right credential under the Bush administration) - which seems to have had more errors in it than anything the bloggers write (a bit amusing to me) - like Roggio and Threatwatch.com - does not say they lie. But they are indeed as pro-Israel as Counterpunch is pro-Hamas.

We agree Leo Giacometto is a piece of crap - but again there is nothing on lies in Threatwatch. I agree with you assessment that those in Threatwatch do not trust folks and governments in that part of the world until they see an agreement that has been translated to English and the English translation agreed to. Indeed most folks feel that way, having been burned by the "poetic Arabic" than Juan Cole (who I admired a great deal) translates so well - telling us statements in Arabic or Farsi do not say what we thought they said. I can still recall my shock when a friend, who is still a friend, told me he had lied to me because otherwise I would not have done what he wanted me to do. It is a different culture - and I trust only the agreed English translation. Indeed I do not recall an agreement to date that does not have the English translation formally agreed to by both parties as the controlling wording to be discussed in all disputes.

And I like Uri Avnery. While I reject his right of return for some of the renters - and they were renters in general as most did not own the property they lived in - and I do not appreciate his Arafat is always the truth teller assumption - even when obviously false, I like his dogged determination and generally reasonable tone - "reasonable" perhaps to me because in "What Makes Sammy Run?") he pushed for Israel as "a state of all its citizens", although still retaining a large Jewish majority. He is a great liberal and his sincerity can not be doubted. He is a nice contrast to Ilan Pappe and his The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine where one finds that it is Arab media and Arab pr persons that are always the truth teller while any Jew is a liar until proven otherwise.

[calzone]

12. While not the usual over-the-top pro-Israel....

....reflexive ranting I see so much of here, you're still over-embellishing and reducing at the same time. Over-embellishing the goals of the Palestinians, and making this a religious struggle when it is not. You portray the Muslims, according to their religion, as having negative qualities...such as violating the spirit of all treaties and truces, and of lying by nature. Then you condemn the supposed attitude of non-Israelis that all "Arabs" are scrupulously honest while all "Jews" are dishonest. That is a gross and prejudicial assessment. Introspection my cyber friend...introspection.
I have spent time in Muslim countries, I have some knowlege of the culture.
This is a struggle against illegal, brutal occupation and displacement, and apartheid ethnic cleansing. There are no universal qualities which run through any religion or race. People are individuals everywhere, even in Iran and Syria and N. Korea. There's a sense of communal outrage, to be sure. That's commendable IMO.
The fact remains that Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah have repeatedly offered not only long-term truces, but a de-facto recognition of the state of Israel. In return, they've been spurned. That cannot be mitigated or downplayed with excuses like "They wouldn't honor their side of the bargain". Bull.
No side can exert complete, 100% control over their population. An occasional, isolated violent act in a region with so much hatred and resentment is inevitable and uncontrollable. All involved parties know and recognize this, but Israel has used this fact to it's advantage.