::::(1) Peters' account relied on all sorts of things; it ignored facts, made sloppy arguments and selective use of sources, used actual information in quite dubious ways, etc.  However, the books most critical reviewers (aside from Finkelstein) didn't, as far as I am aware, go so far as to describe it as a "hoax", no doubt because of the overblown and POV nature of that word.  Also, please not that though I did not express any "pro-Israel" POV in my comment, is quite all right to do on Talk: pages, though not, of course, in articles.  Regardless, it is irrelevant; please focus on article content, not on your continuing crusade to focus attention on me and your misperceptions of my actions. (2) I propose that the periodicals in question did not run correspondence that Finkelstein considered critical.  "Refuse" is another POV word intended to invoke some sort of willful conspiracy of silence on the matter. (3) Your assumption that people agree with Finkelstein's narrative simply because they do not comment on it is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ex silentio.