I'm assuming you didn't read the whole Davis article. I'll help you out.
Quote:
I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution, consistent with Israel's security requirements, and for justice for disenfranchised and stateless Palestinians. However, I am objective enough to read, and not obscure, indisputable historical facts. I grieve for the suffering of generations of stateless Palestinian families. But I also know, as an indisputable historical fact, that Arab nations between 1947-1967 could have given Palestinians an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, but did not. Why? And why did not Mr. Freeman, so far as I know, ever criticize Saudi Arabia and other Arab states for not doing so? Why?
Mr. Freeman's biased and inaccurate writings concerning basic historical facts concerning the tragic continued tension between Israel and its Arab neighbors is just one reason Mr. Freeman was not well-suited for this particular job -- not some dark conspiracy "orchestrated" by the Israel lobby.
|
If you believe Davis, it seems Freeman's problem was not that he was critical of Israel, but that he's dishonest about the facts.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?"
"And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..."
- Cali Coug
"Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got."
- Brigham Young
|