she's a fraud, a liar, a charlatan, and she and you know it. her book "From Time Immemorial" is full of lies and bull(*)(*)(*)(*). she should be forbidden from writing books as she is a racist liar.
This fella is here as a mouth piece with one liners and his target is <Defamation of Israel> I met Joan Peters, I had dinner with this superbly intelligent lady, I was part of a conference where she explained the years and years of research before writing the book and especially what she discovered... Jean Peters is a friend of millions, she really does not need any backing nor insults from anyone... Willing mind this fella is not going to give anyone any evidentiary proof, since what he does he does best is defamation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4hwzoRxSAY (VIDEO)
Joan Peters is a proven liar, fraud, and piece of (*)(*)(*)(*). Her lies have been debunked years ago by modern writers and old British data. She is a racist and deserves no respect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...uestion_of_late_Arab_immigration_to_Palestine
the important statements have sources for their info. British studies show that most Palestinians are not descended from immigrants who came during the British Mandate.
After showing remarkable restraint in the face of continual Arab-Muslim provocations going on for how many hundreds of years?
Nice couple in the Youtube! I'm glad I could make you happy for a few days, Mr. Bendor, but now, I'm afraid, I have to crush your enthusiasm for Ms. Peters. Peters book, published by Harper & Row to great acclaim in 1984, has fallen from grace. Many ravens have picked it apart and more or less shredded it. I will only quote one such source of critique here. You may read the full article provided in the link at the bottom. The perpetration of a fraud Paul Blair minces no words in his conclusions, which warrant extensive quotation:
Frankly I don't think there are any Jews - anywhere who believe Joan Peters , its just another load of crap which the Zionists have in the past succeeded in selling to dumb Goyim and are still peddling it to those stupid enough to swallow it. ...
I know Joan Peters more than anyone here including the two turncoats Chomp-sky and Fink, she has made enough researches to warrant this book... All of you are a bunch of sore losers... BTW they will never be another Palestinian state since one already exist (thanks to perfidious Albion) and it is called Jordan today.... This is the fictitious country you should all be against since it is 77% of the Mandate for Palestine.
Never mind Chomsky + Finklestein, do you think Roberts Sanders Daniel Pipes + Yehoshua Porath also turncoats ? Heres what they said : "The accusations of dishonesty originated with radical-left figures who would naturally seek to discredit a book like Peters'; still, it would be easy enough to determine the truth of their claims with limited research. Such an investigation is all the more worthwhile owing to the fact that scholars who had initially defended the book later indicated that the charges had some merit. Ronald Sanders andDaniel Pipes had both favorably reviewed Peters' book, Sanders inthe New Republic [1] and Pipes in Commentary [2] , both publicationswith a decidedly pro-Israel editorial policy. In responding to anunfavorable review of the book, however, both conceded its poor scholarship. [3] Sanders writes:Mrs. Peters has brought this upon herself to a large extent, for,as I wrote in my review of the book in The New Republic of April23, 1984, "many of its valuable points are buried in passages of furious argumentative overkill," and too much of its more than 600 pages is given over to very conventional polemics. Since then,some patient researchers have found numerous examples of sloppiness in her scholarship and an occasional tendency not tograsp the correct meaning of a context from which she hasextracted a quotation. All in all, her book is marked--and marred--by an over-eagerness to score a huge and definitive polemical triumph, which has caused her too often to leave prudence and responsibility behind.[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5172] According to Pipes, Most early reviewers, including myself, focused on the substanceof Miss Peters's central thesis; the later reviewers, in contrast,emphasized the faults--technical, historical, and literary--inMiss Peters's book.I would not dispute the existence of those faults. From TimeImmemorial quotes carelessly, uses statistics sloppily, and ignores inconvenient facts. Much of the book is irrelevant to MissPeters's central thesis. The author's linguistic and scholarlyabilities are open to question. Excessive use of quotation marks,eccentric footnotes, and a polemical, somewhat hysterical undertone mar the book. In short, From Time Immemorial stands out as an appallingly crafted book.[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5172] Such embarrassing concessions by the book's prominent defendersraise valid doubts about its integrity. Yehoshua Porath says : I will deal here only with the main historical questions raised in Mrs. Peterss book. No doubt, as she claims, the Jews in Muslim countries were neither regarded nor treated as fellow countrymen and equal citizens. Islam protected their lives and most of their religious rights but also kept them in a distinctively inferior position. Legally, their status was defined by the famous Covenant of Umar, which listed the various restrictions and special taxes imposed on the people of the book. But the true historical situation cannot be described simply by referring to that covenant, as Mrs. Peters does, or by citing the occasions and places where its provisions were most severely carried out. There was better and worse treatment, and local considerations usually influenced the policy pursued by various rulers. It is typical of Mrs. Peterss methods that she largely overlooks the position of the Jews under the Ottoman Empireone of the most important phases of all Islamic history. The reason would seem a simple one: the attitude of the Ottoman authorities toward the Jews was generally fair and decent, and in some parts of the empire many Jews held prominent positions.2 This could not be squared with her description of the oppression of Jews under Islam. (The few references Mrs. Peters makes to the Ottoman rulers emphasize their anti-Jewish activities and give a distorted impression of conditions under the Ottomans.) Part of Mrs. Peterss confusion derives from her misunderstanding of Zionist history. Zionism was basically a modern secular ideology and movement, a response to the situation of European Jews after their emancipation early in the nineteenth century. Although they had been promised equality as fellow citizens many of them found themselves rejected. That they were ready to adopt their countries languages and cultures and sometimes even religions did not help them. Instead ofor in addition tobeing rejected on religious and cultural grounds, as they had been since the end of the eleventh century, they were now rejected racially. Zionism offered an alternative. Its ideologists stressed that although in the post-emancipation period most Jews had stopped practicing their religion, they still remained a corporate unit, a distinct people. In order to safeguard their national identity and defend themselves from anti-Semitism the Jews had to return to their ancestral land, restore their national independence, and revive their language and culture. This position was directly opposed both to the traditional religious attitude of waiting for the Messiah and to the belief in Gods miraculous intervention in history that produced such false messianic movements as Shabbetai Zevis. Because Zionism was predominantly a European and secular phenomenon, many Oriental Jews in the Middle East and North Africa have never felt at ease with it and have tried to derive their own sense of Jewish history and identity. In Israel, under the guidance of the former Israeli minister of education, Zevulun Hammer, they have formulated a new Zionism that belittles the ideological and political revolution of European secular Zionism and argues that Theodor Herzl and the Zionist organization had hardly any effect on Jewish history. According to this interpretation Zionism began with Abraham and has been continued by practically all the Jews who have come to the Holy Land, whether to spend their old age and be buried there, or to engage in study or in business. All these are now regarded as Zionists in Oriental Jewish religious circles. Most historians now consider this view as in fact the opposite of Zionism, but, astonishingly, it has been adopted in its entirety in Mrs. Peterss book without any serious discussion of its implications. What seems to have been decisive for Mrs. Peters is that the conception fits the myth of Oriental and religious Jewish history she has adopted: since in her view Oriental Jews were always persecuted, they must always have been active Zionists. For her there was no fundamental difference between, on the one hand, a prayer to return to Zion made in Wilna or Marrakesh or the messianism of Shabbetai Zevi, and, on the other, a modern movement that actively organized immigration, established youth organizations, and launched a political struggle for getting political rights in Palestine. Much of Mrs. Peterss book argues that at the same time that Jewish immigration to Palestine was rising, Arab immigration to the parts of Palestine where Jews had settled also increased. Therefore, in her view, the Arab claim that an indigenous Arab population was displaced by Jewish immigrants must be false, since many Arabs only arrived with the Jews. The precise demographic history of modern Palestine cannot be summed up briefly, but its main features are clear enough and they are very different from the fanciful description Mrs. Peters gives. It is true that in the middle of the nineteenth century there was neither a Palestinian nation nor a Palestinian identity. But about four hundred thousand Arabsthe great majority of whom were Muslimslived in Palestine, which was divided by the Ottomans into three districts. Some of these people were the descendants of the pre-Islamic population that had adopted Islam and the Arabic language; others were members of Bedouin tribes, although the penetration of Bedouins was drastically curtailed after the mid-nineteenth century, when the Ottoman authorities became stronger and more efficient." MORE here abt - Mrs Peters's book which is thoroughly debunked by Yehoshua Porath (Hebrew: יהושע פורת‎ an Israeli historian and professor emeritus of Middle East history .read and learn : http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/jan/16/mrs-peterss-palestine/?pagination=false tata.....
Im sorry, but when it comes to Joan Peter's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) assertion that most Palestinians came to Palestine after 1922, she has been proven to be a liar and a fraud.
