"Pity your author is dead."
As far as I know The Los Angeles Times is alive and Kicking
"Michael Anthony Hoffman II is an American Holocaust denier and conspiracy researcher/theorist."
I have no doubt you are right Bobad, but if you care to check, his quote was also a direct lift from the Los Angeles Times - perhaps you might like to join one of Keith's literacy classes? - On second thoughts, maybe not.

Press on.
Distract, delay, derail
Arab members of the UN Security Council, pressed to act by the exploding mass movements in their own streets, as a bloc proposed a resolution that called for sending a multinational force to defend the Palestinians from the Israeli onslaught throughout the occupied West Bank. They also proposed organizing an inquiry into Israeli occupation crimes in the West Bank. Clearly the resolution would be a major embarrassment unacceptable to the United States.
The U.S. government financially, militarily, politically and diplomatically supports Israel and its continuing attacks on the Palestinian people. That's because Washington considers Israel one of the best defenders of U.S. corporate interests in the region.
On April 4, the U.S. pushed through UN Security Council Resolution 1403, "welcoming the mission of the U.S. Secretary of State to the region as well as efforts by others... to bring about a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
Washington claimed it was brokering a deal to end the Israeli siege. U.S. Special Envoy General Anthony Zinni was in Israel during the entire Israeli offensive. Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Israel supposedly to discuss 'peace' as news coverage of Jenin reached world attention. Although both U.S. officials attended commemorations of Israeli casualties, neither made any attempt to go to Jenin. Israel could hardly have denied either of them the access it denied the UN.
Arab countries called on the Bush administration to intervene to restrain Israel. Washington did not want to be in the position of publicly vetoing an Arab resolution in the UN Security Council that called for strong UN action at a time of international outrage. So a backroom deal was made to avoid a U.S. veto, give the appearance of some movement and yet ensure that no significant action was authorized. The stronger Security Council resolution of the Arab Group was withdrawn and the U.S. crafted the watered-down Resolution 1405 that passed with unanimous support on April 19.
Israeli leaders initially claimed they welcomed the U.S.-worded resolution because their hands were "clean," they had acted in "self-defense." While Israel stalled, Secretary of State Colin Powell publicly backed up the Israeli claim that no massacre had taken place. On April 24, speaking before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Powell said, "clearly people died in Jenin... I've seen no evidence that would suggest a massacre took place."[6]
This became the official position. No investigation was needed because no massacre had taken place. While the outside world, even relief agencies, were barred from the camp the Israelis began a series of demands. They demanded further changes in the composition of the delegation for "balance," the addition of military personnel, and insisted that no interviews or interrogation of any Israeli troops could take place. Finally they decreed that the fact-finding team could reach no conclusions, nor call for any specific action. While these issues were debated, all members of the expanded fact-finding team were put on hold.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan acquiesced to each new Israeli demand. Yet Israel still denied the UN team entry into the refugee camp. Israel could not have taken any of these actions without the full support of Washington.
Even UN members who had initially made very strong reports, such as UN Special Envoy Terje Roed-Larsen began to backtrack under heavy pressure.
I have been totally misrepresented in parts of the Israeli media, evidently quoting me wrongly, saying that I stated that there was a massacre in Jenin. I said nothing of the sort... There was a stench of decaying bodies there which was absolutely awful. But that does not imply that I said that there was a massacre there. These are horrors of war, and I cannot judge if there was a massacre or not. And this is why everybody should now be relieved that there will be a fact-finding mission which will find out what happened there. And after that we will all judge.[7]
Finally, on May 3, two weeks after the unanimous passage of the U.S.-drafted resolution, Kofi Annan officially disbanded the "fact-finding" team because Israel would not allow entry even after every Israeli demand had been accepted.
Tunisian representative to the UN Noureddine Mejdoub stated in a special Security Council session on May 3,
Let us imagine that an Arab state had committed an act many times less grave than those perpetrated by Israel. Immediately a coalition force would have been formed, the rule of law would have been invoked, the binding nature of council resolutions would have been reaffirmed and sanctions would have been imposed.[8]
The Bush administration, which scripted and then dropped its mild resolution on Jenin after just two weeks, is nevertheless still demanding full enforcement of sanctions resolutions imposed on Iraq – 12 years after Iraqi troops left Kuwait.
Yet even after the UN disbanded the fact-finding team and dropped any implementation of its resolution, the U.S. was faced with a political problem. It was beyond dispute that the Palestinian refugees in the densely populated cinder block housing in the center of Jenin had been attacked with tanks and missiles and their homes then bulldozed into rubble. And there was still the stench of the charge that Israeli troops had committed "massacres" in Jenin and in other camps. This is where another arm of U.S. policy comes in.

Enter Human Rights Watch
On the very day that the UN Secretary General moved to disband the fact-finding team, it was hardly treated as news. All the corporate media were conveniently running banner headlines stating that "no massacre" had taken place in Jenin. They gave as the objective authority for this finding the organization Human Rights Watch.
This let the IDF and the U.S. – which was author of the Security Council resolution and primary supporter of Israel – off the hook.
In fact, the Human Rights Watch report identifies 52 Palestinians killed during the Israeli operation and devotes 42 pages to describing a whole series of "possible" war crimes and violations of international law that the Israeli forces committed. But all this is buried in a report on their web site that few will ever see.
The story that CNN, BBC, AP, AFP, network TV, news magazines and all the other corporate media reported globally in bold headlines and sound bites was that a Human Rights Watch investigation had confirmed "No Jenin massacre." As CNN reported on May 3, "Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Israeli troops massacred Palestinian civilians in Jenin... said Peter Bouckaert, senior researcher for the group and a member of the investigative team." This was the news in a sound bite. It was reinforced in countless articles.
The news reports were based on an interview which Peter Bouckaert gave to the Washington Post on April 26, live from Jenin as he released the report. His words exactly echoed Colin Powell's statement the week before and Israel's position.
In the news coverage this sounded like it was the finding of an "official" inquiry, with no further investigation needed. This was not the first time HRW has stepped in to reinforce U.S. policy with a veneer of apparently unbiased non-governmental judgment.
Who is Human Rights Watch and how were they able to gain access to Jenin for an inquiry at the very time that Israel was denying entry to a delegation chosen by the UN Security Council?
Human Rights Watch was supposedly created to monitor "human rights abuses" worldwide. In reality, it is an institution that has acted at every turn to reinforce the policies of the United States and justify its "humanitarian interventions." It is composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens and its board includes multimillionaires, former U.S. government officials and mainstream academics.
Human Rights Watch began as Helsinki Watch in 1975. It was a powerful Cold War instrument against the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc countries of Eastern Europe. Its network became a web of support for pro-capitalist forces and political dissidents in every country.
Multibillionaire George Soros has played a major role in the development of Human Rights Watch and in linking it with his own personal NGO network, Open Society Institute. Aryeh Neier, the director first of Helsinki Watch and then Human Rights Watch moved on to head the Open Society Institute. Many other directors share positions and change titles within a small world of U.S.-based NGOs.
HRW's Middle East North Africa division has used its position to build support for the continuing U.S. war and sanctions against Iraq. According to the reports of four major UN agencies (WHO, FAO, UNICEF, WFP), UN Security Council sanctions, kept in place at U.S. insistence, have caused the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis. Withholding food and civilian supplies is a war crime. However, Human Rights Watch has proposed that to help weaken Saddam Hussein and "encourage Iraqi officials to overthrow him. Saddam Hussein be indicted by an international court for war crimes." (HRW press release, January 5, 2000). If the U.S. objective is an invasion of Iraq, Human Rights Watch is only too happy to oblige with reports and suggestions.
Human Rights Watch claims its reports are objective, balanced and evenhanded. When it comes to Palestine this has meant equating the violence of the illegal Israeli occupation with the resistance of Palestinians to overwhelming military force. Once Human Rights Watch declared that "no massacre" had occurred in Jenin, the demand for an inquiry and international action against Israeli crimes virtually disappeared. Media coverage shifted sharply. The Bush administration made a new round of demands on the Palestinians to condemn violence while calling Ariel Sharon "a man of peace" and expressing sympathy for Israeli "self-defense" measures. HRW statements echoed these shifts.
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0003220.html