18. This letter was e-mailed to the KBRM 19 January 2010 in response to their advertisment in the Christchurch Press some days before.
Before starting accusing me of anti-Semitism, let me tell you that during WW 2 and in fear of our own lives, we saved many Jewish families from the Nazi deathcamps, by hiding and providing them safe haven for them in our homes. Also if you care to read my blogspot Contraviews (Post 5) you will see that I couldn't possibly be be ant-Semitic, because Jews and Palestinian Arabs are ethnically of the same race; they are both Semites. I am against Zionism as it is practiced to-day, which is quite different from being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. I am against Zionism because it brings back personal memories of occupation and resistance. We were the "terrorists" in those days.So if you wish to call me something, it would be mote appropriate to call me anti-Zionist.
You have taken it on you to "inform" the public of the truth, well let's call it "your truth" of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. However taking note of your unsubstantiated arguments and the rather aggressive ways you are conducting your crusade of bringing your "truth" (by placing expensive advertisements) it is not too difficult fro the discerning reader what your real intentions are.
I for one have also taken it on me to find the truth and in the pursuit to do so I have read numerous books on the history of the "creation" (!) of Israel: literature written by renowned and reputable historians, many of them even Jewish. Although historians sometimes differ in their findings on particular details, the general picture that emerges is nevertheless by and large fairly consensual and in fact in complete variance of the picture that you are trying to sell to an unsuspecting public. The truth is that you are in the business of selling the public a Zionist and historically completely distorted version of events as they have happened over the last sixty years and over. You are making propaganda for a cause, which means you cannot be taken seriously. So if one has to make a choice whose version of history we should believe than of course that choice is not so difficult to make. You must come up with some very convincing arguments why we should ignore he research findings of renowned and reputable historians. I shall not mention any names, because I know from personal experience that the anwer is always the same: anti-Semitic, biased, controversial, outdated, refute (by whom the KBRM) and so on, even if they have never read any of these books themselves.
You are in complete denial of historical facts. By denying the NABKA, you are doing exactly the same as the ones who are denying the Holocaust. Not a very honest standpoint to adopt.
Hence to the intelligent student of history desirous to know how the creation of Israel came about I suggest to make a serious effort to do some research yourself. Go to the libraries and read, read and still read more. Not one book, not two, but scores of them. You can also peruse and verify in the "Chronicles of the 20th Century" (brief excerpts of newspaper reports)
Once you have done that, than you can judge for yourself who is making propaganda and who is telling the truth.
Unfortunately most people choose the lazy way out and do not bother to make that effort. They rely on the very scant, biased reports, comments and articles of the western newsmedia so amenable to the Zionist point of view and in which you have a strong ally disseminating propaganda and half truth (see bottom quote of Contraviews) preying and targeting the ignorant and uninformed.