So why can't currently active politicians say this

Common sense no currently active American politicians will say: Jimmy Carter on Israel and Palestine. As a Jew, I think a small, vociferous coterie of extremists has usurped the voice of the large number of moderate, liberal or progressive Jews, and politicians currently active in the US have taken the easy cowardly route of not opening up the debate. And double that charge for the mainstream media. There are real issues that need to be thrashed out, like whether Israel can survive if it is anything but aggressive as hell, which is the question most hardliners pose when challenged. I think it can because reduction in the excess retaliatory violence provoked by the aggressive stance could counterbalance risks in carefully considered peace overtures, but what constitutes a credible, effective,just, measured approach to survival?. Or, how can the history of literal and economic colonization by Europe and the West in the Middle East be addressed - a truth commission?

Nature Study: Wikipedia vs. Britannica

KInda been waiting for this study.

4 inaccuracies vs 3 - and we know less breadth in Britannica, though one hopes the study includes science items not in Brittanica. On the other hand the likelihood of out and out hoaxes or rants low in Britannica. But most non-controversial topics very unlikely to attract such abuses, and wikipedia shines on obscure topics where both academics and enthusiasts are happy to have a platform, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_in_the_High_Middle_Ages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Hurling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitesurfing