1913 Seeds of Conflict finally aired yesterday on PBS

[montelatici]

A great American.

A moron propagandist like you.

You are the propagandist. I only post fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

Look it's not rocket science. The land was under the control of the Ottomans for 700 years where the various groups HAD to coexist with each other or else deal with the Ottoman rulers. After World War One, the Ottoman empire collapsed and fell into the hands of the Europeans. The British and the French then started dividing the entire Middle East into little Muslim states, in some cases bringing in rulers from one family to rule a state, to curry favor with another. But as long as it was a Muslim ruling over another Muslim it was okay.

In the case of "Palestine", the plan was to create a state for the Jews, in their ancestral and spiritual homeland. Even though the British and French had Divided 99% of the land in the Middle East into states run by Muslim rulers, the Muslims still weren't happy with having a tiny Jewish state where Muslims were being ruled by Jews. That's a big no no in Islam. The fact that European Jews were invited by the British to join their brethren in establishing this Jewish state is irrelevant. It wasn't up to the Arabs to decide the destiny of those lands. The Arab refusal towards a Jewish homeland continued throughout this entire process. A civil war erupted between the Jews and Muslims internally, while the entire Arab Nation attacked Israel externally in 1948. All efforts failed and the Jews came out on top managing to create the vibrant, democratic state of Israel we see today. And the Arabs and Muslims have continued to try to destroy the Jewish state, and denied its right to exist, mainly due to religious intolerance. They aren't going to stop anytime soon, and Israel isn't going anywhere either.

"Muslim ruling Muslims" is the key.. To get a peace about Palestinian claims -- you really NEED countries like Egypt and Jordan to step up and "foster" the creation of a Palestinian state. Make it a mentoring, secure relationship.. Much like the influence of the Turks in that era.. Turks didn't CARE who was there as long as they were industrious and paying taxes. But they were trusted as a "fair broker"..

Jordan tossed out the PLO -- Lebanon tossed out the PLO -- and they walked away from their "occupied" claims to current Israel.. Jordan is the key to peace -- not Israel.. Jordan/Egypt would be a partner in a peaceful settlement of the issue. Let THEM grant access to infrastructure, security and government resources.

You just got to figure out WHO represents the Intifada-ism.....

At the heart of it, this conflict has always been, and will always be about Islam and religious intolerance. When the land was invaded and ruled by Muslim Arabs, the Arabs were fine with it. When the land was invaded by Ottoman Muslims and ruled for 700 years, the Arabs were fine with it. When the Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years and treated Palestinians like prisoners, not one mention of this "stolen Palestinian land" from a single Arab, they were fine with it. Once it was announced that the land will be be ruled by the Jews, its original inhabitants, on land that has been holy to them for three thousand years, that's when the trouble really started. This is a religious conflict at its core.

It is.. It's not just Israel that has had a "palestinian problem". King of Jordan kicked them out. Then the PLO got exiled from Lebanon. Egypt has a major problem with their new "leadership".

They've been abused because they've never learned to organize LIKE A NATION. Right now has no functional representation at all. Can't agree on perpetual war and resistance and death to Israel or making a future for their abused misplaced people. I'm sure they are moral people, but their strategic planning is still 300 years behind the rest of the world. Until their focus is on building a country and negotiating like a modern entity -- and they can convince the populace of the value for that --- they are just the latest group of popular victims for the leftist hearts that bleed for them. They need responsible LEADERSHIP --- not sympathy and slogans.

 

[montelatici]

Look it's not rocket science. The land was under the control of the Ottomans for 700 years where the various groups HAD to coexist with each other or else deal with the Ottoman rulers. After World War One, the Ottoman empire collapsed and fell into the hands of the Europeans. The British and the French then started dividing the entire Middle East into little Muslim states, in some cases bringing in rulers from one family to rule a state, to curry favor with another. But as long as it was a Muslim ruling over another Muslim it was okay.

In the case of "Palestine", the plan was to create a state for the Jews, in their ancestral and spiritual homeland. Even though the British and French had Divided 99% of the land in the Middle East into states run by Muslim rulers, the Muslims still weren't happy with having a tiny Jewish state where Muslims were being ruled by Jews. That's a big no no in Islam. The fact that European Jews were invited by the British to join their brethren in establishing this Jewish state is irrelevant. It wasn't up to the Arabs to decide the destiny of those lands. The Arab refusal towards a Jewish homeland continued throughout this entire process. A civil war erupted between the Jews and Muslims internally, while the entire Arab Nation attacked Israel externally in 1948. All efforts failed and the Jews came out on top managing to create the vibrant, democratic state of Israel we see today. And the Arabs and Muslims have continued to try to destroy the Jewish state, and denied its right to exist, mainly due to religious intolerance. They aren't going to stop anytime soon, and Israel isn't going anywhere either.

"Muslim ruling Muslims" is the key.. To get a peace about Palestinian claims -- you really NEED countries like Egypt and Jordan to step up and "foster" the creation of a Palestinian state. Make it a mentoring, secure relationship.. Much like the influence of the Turks in that era.. Turks didn't CARE who was there as long as they were industrious and paying taxes. But they were trusted as a "fair broker"..

Jordan tossed out the PLO -- Lebanon tossed out the PLO -- and they walked away from their "occupied" claims to current Israel.. Jordan is the key to peace -- not Israel.. Jordan/Egypt would be a partner in a peaceful settlement of the issue. Let THEM grant access to infrastructure, security and government resources.

You just got to figure out WHO represents the Intifada-ism.....

At the heart of it, this conflict has always been, and will always be about Islam and religious intolerance. When the land was invaded and ruled by Muslim Arabs, the Arabs were fine with it. When the land was invaded by Ottoman Muslims and ruled for 700 years, the Arabs were fine with it. When the Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years and treated Palestinians like prisoners, not one mention of this "stolen Palestinian land" from a single Arab, they were fine with it. Once it was announced that the land will be be ruled by the Jews, its original inhabitants, on land that has been holy to them for three thousand years, that's when the trouble really started. This is a religious conflict at its core.

It is.. It's not just Israel that has had a "palestinian problem". King of Jordan kicked them out. Then the PLO got exiled from Lebanon. Egypt has a major problem with their new "leadership".

They've been abused because they've never learned to organize LIKE A NATION. Right now has no functional representation at all. Can't agree on perpetual war and resistance and death to Israel or making a future for their abused misplaced people. I'm sure they are moral people, but their strategic planning is still 300 years behind the rest of the world. Until their focus is on building a country and negotiating like a modern entity -- and they can convince the populace of the value for that --- they are just the latest group of popular victims for the leftist hearts that bleed for them. They need responsible LEADERSHIP --- not sympathy and slogans.

Of course Jordan had a Palestinian problem. Many Palestinians evicted from Palestine by the European Jews were forced into Jordan. Jordanians, who are Arabian Bedouins have very little in common with Palestinian Christians and Muslims. To resist European colonization is nothing new. To build a country, land is needed, when the land is controlled and inhabited by foreign people who demand exclusivity and have the arms and support to impose exclusivity what can a people do?

 

[flacaltenn]

Zionism never was a State Entity that had the ability to Colonize anything. The term implies a Remote semi-autonomous governed area -- Under the laws and jurisdiction of the MOTHER NATION.. There was no Home Nation for Jews.. That's the point.. If you think "colonize" is a worse connotation than "establish" --- You not won much of anything to change hearts or minds or history... But go ahead -- beat your chest some more...

Zionism never was a State Entity that had the ability to Colonize anything.​

Indeed, that is why they recruited the British. Britain provided the military cover the Zionists needed to create their colonies. These colonies were governed together by an administration virtually separate from the rest of Palestine. Britain coined the term "state within a state" to define the Zionist project.

Britain called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. The facts on the ground called it colonialism.

Why should we avoid the term?

Fine with me if you want to the call British Palestine a colony... No problem with that.
But to suggest that Zionists CONTROLLED Britain decisions on their MidEast Empire is pretty whacked.

Actually that was spelled out in my post that was deleted yesterday.

In a nutshell, Britain was losing WWI. There was a deal with the Zionists to give them Palestine if they could use their influence in the US to get the US into the war.

The rest is history.

You are joking right?? The US entry into WW1 was because of Zionist pressure?? Bloody hell --- that's whacked. I'm sure you gotta a link.. But you don't have history on your side..

Like I say, it was laid out in my post that was deleted yesterday. It is mentioned again here @9:45

A SECRET Elitist Society --- How convienient.. Wilson took the US to war in Europe because of secret Zionist society.. OMG -- my education is so lacking..

 

[flacaltenn]

Look it's not rocket science. The land was under the control of the Ottomans for 700 years where the various groups HAD to coexist with each other or else deal with the Ottoman rulers. After World War One, the Ottoman empire collapsed and fell into the hands of the Europeans. The British and the French then started dividing the entire Middle East into little Muslim states, in some cases bringing in rulers from one family to rule a state, to curry favor with another. But as long as it was a Muslim ruling over another Muslim it was okay.

In the case of "Palestine", the plan was to create a state for the Jews, in their ancestral and spiritual homeland. Even though the British and French had Divided 99% of the land in the Middle East into states run by Muslim rulers, the Muslims still weren't happy with having a tiny Jewish state where Muslims were being ruled by Jews. That's a big no no in Islam. The fact that European Jews were invited by the British to join their brethren in establishing this Jewish state is irrelevant. It wasn't up to the Arabs to decide the destiny of those lands. The Arab refusal towards a Jewish homeland continued throughout this entire process. A civil war erupted between the Jews and Muslims internally, while the entire Arab Nation attacked Israel externally in 1948. All efforts failed and the Jews came out on top managing to create the vibrant, democratic state of Israel we see today. And the Arabs and Muslims have continued to try to destroy the Jewish state, and denied its right to exist, mainly due to religious intolerance. They aren't going to stop anytime soon, and Israel isn't going anywhere either.

"Muslim ruling Muslims" is the key.. To get a peace about Palestinian claims -- you really NEED countries like Egypt and Jordan to step up and "foster" the creation of a Palestinian state. Make it a mentoring, secure relationship.. Much like the influence of the Turks in that era.. Turks didn't CARE who was there as long as they were industrious and paying taxes. But they were trusted as a "fair broker"..

Jordan tossed out the PLO -- Lebanon tossed out the PLO -- and they walked away from their "occupied" claims to current Israel.. Jordan is the key to peace -- not Israel.. Jordan/Egypt would be a partner in a peaceful settlement of the issue. Let THEM grant access to infrastructure, security and government resources.

You just got to figure out WHO represents the Intifada-ism.....

At the heart of it, this conflict has always been, and will always be about Islam and religious intolerance. When the land was invaded and ruled by Muslim Arabs, the Arabs were fine with it. When the land was invaded by Ottoman Muslims and ruled for 700 years, the Arabs were fine with it. When the Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years and treated Palestinians like prisoners, not one mention of this "stolen Palestinian land" from a single Arab, they were fine with it. Once it was announced that the land will be be ruled by the Jews, its original inhabitants, on land that has been holy to them for three thousand years, that's when the trouble really started. This is a religious conflict at its core.

It is.. It's not just Israel that has had a "palestinian problem". King of Jordan kicked them out. Then the PLO got exiled from Lebanon. Egypt has a major problem with their new "leadership".

They've been abused because they've never learned to organize LIKE A NATION. Right now has no functional representation at all. Can't agree on perpetual war and resistance and death to Israel or making a future for their abused misplaced people. I'm sure they are moral people, but their strategic planning is still 300 years behind the rest of the world. Until their focus is on building a country and negotiating like a modern entity -- and they can convince the populace of the value for that --- they are just the latest group of popular victims for the leftist hearts that bleed for them. They need responsible LEADERSHIP --- not sympathy and slogans.

Of course Jordan had a Palestinian problem. Many Palestinians evicted from Palestine by the European Jews were forced into Jordan. Jordanians, who are Arabian Bedouins have very little in common with Palestinian Christians and Muslims. To resist European colonization is nothing new. To build a country, land is needed, when the land is controlled and inhabited by foreign people who demand exclusivity and have the arms and support to impose exclusivity what can a people do?

See -- ya got it a bit backwards.. To build a nation --- you don't 1st get land. You get a PLAN and a Leadership and public support for the plan.. This is EXACTLY why the Palestinians suffer so greatly for so long. They need a PARTNER like Jordan or Egypt to show them how responsible nations act and how to be one.

NOT -- just go get land..

 

[Roudy]

Look it's not rocket science. The land was under the control of the Ottomans for 700 years where the various groups HAD to coexist with each other or else deal with the Ottoman rulers. After World War One, the Ottoman empire collapsed and fell into the hands of the Europeans. The British and the French then started dividing the entire Middle East into little Muslim states, in some cases bringing in rulers from one family to rule a state, to curry favor with another. But as long as it was a Muskim ruling over another Muskim it was okay. In the case of "Palestine", the plan was to create a state for the Jews, in their ancestral and spiritual homeland. Even though the British and French had Divided 99% of the land in the Middle East into states run by Muslim rulers, the Muslims still weren't happy with having a tiny Jewish state where Muslims were being ruled by Jews. That's a big no no in Islam. The fact that European Jews were invited by the British to join their brethren in establishing this Jewish state is irrelevant. It wasn't up to the Arabs to decide the destiny of those lands. The Arab refusal for a Jewish homeland continued throughout this entire process, a civil war erupted between the Jews and Muslims internally, while the entire Arab Nation attacked Israel externally in 1948. All efforts failed and the Jews came out on top managing to create the vibrant, democratic state of Israel we see today. And the Arabs and Muslims have continued to try to destroy the Jewish state, and denied its right to exist, mainly due to religious intolerance. They aren't going to stop anytime soon, and Israel isn't going anywhere either.

The local inhabitants had every right to resist their dispossession to make room for Europeans. And, it was a crime against humanity for the European powers to have facilitated the dispossession and to have created the resultant situation the dispossessed and their descendants now find themselves in.

The Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) have every right to continue to seek reparations for the crime perpetrated on them. Israel failed to permit the creation of a sovereign state for the Palestinians and have now settled too much of their population on land available for a second state to make it viable. Hence, there can only be a one-state solution. The nature of that one state is the only question. Demographics are in the Palestinian's favor.

The Arabs weren't "the locals" or "indigenous" people of the land. They were recent migrants and invaders themselves. Israel is surrounded by Arab states, so obviously it waseasier for Arabs to invade in large numbers. The British had no control over the borders, nor did they have the resources to.

The land was ruled by the Ottomans for 700 years, after they defeated the Arab invaders. The Jews were coming back to join their fellow Jews, as they have done for the last 2000 years. So the Jews are the real indigenous people of the land. The Jordanians and Egyptians occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years after their failed attempt to destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Yet for those 20 years not one Arab or Palestinian asked for a Palestinian state to be created. Now why is that? It was never about this mythical Palestine and always about keeping the land under MUSLIM RULE.

Israel was under no obligation to create a Palestinian state, nor to fix a refugee problem the Arabs had created as a result of their failed aggression in 1948. An Arab Palestinian state was created in Jordan, but as I said that was not enough. They were never interested in a Palestinian state, they just wanted the Jewish state destroyed, and the land to fall under Muslim rule, as they do now, so that they can continue to destroy and desecrate what came before Islam in the holy land. That is what Arabs do.

The locals were indigenous and had lived there for generations. No use trying to revive the Zionist myth. The only migrants were the Jews.

Saying insane lies over and over won't make them true. MonteNazi thinks he's Goebbles now.

Only facts Ruddy. You only insult other posters and have no facts.

Get over it, most of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are 20th invaders from neighboring Arab countries. This is all well recorded and documented.

Another record day of Monte spending like 20 hours today spreading his usual bullshit and lies. I left this forum early morning, and you were on it posting false propaganda. I came back on now at night, and here you are.

 

[Roudy]

"This astonishing booklet, written by one of Britain's leading Zionists in the 1930s, shows how the Zionist lobby manipulated America into the First World War against Germany in exchange for the promise to give Palestine to the Jews as a homeland.This work was originally directed as a complaint against the British government for failing to live up to its promise after the Jewish lobby had lived up it to its promise. It lists the names, dates and places of how these remarkable events occurred, and even accused the British of endangering Jews in Germany at the time, where the Jewish role in bringing the U.S. into the war was well-known and one of the major causes of anti-Semitism in Germany. This is the original text along with a new introduction which provides a complete historical background and summary."



You will have to buy the book, but this is what Landman wrote:



"During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a

whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would

in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the

War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had

failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to

secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French

démarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good

and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of

a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court) ; and was in

close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London) ; and knew that

several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the

Continent on the qui vive awaiting events ; and appreciated and realised the depth and

strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first

of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet,and afterwards Monsieur

Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Goût of the Quai

d'Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to

be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-

operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the

hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in

favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists,

having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour

Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "

gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence

and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied

Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of

Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or

unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."


Amazon.com Great Britain the Jews and Palestine 9781471799136 Samuel Landman Books

Yeah, after all, blaming Jews for all the wars is a very popular antisemtic canard. I think it's number one or two on the antisemite hit list.

Just a fact Ruddy. Keep lying, that's all you do.

It is a fact that the U.S. went to war because of the Jews? Somehow we missed that one when the U.S. Turned back a boatload of Jews escaping concentration camps. You are an antisemtic nut.

 

[montelatici]

The local inhabitants had every right to resist their dispossession to make room for Europeans. And, it was a crime against humanity for the European powers to have facilitated the dispossession and to have created the resultant situation the dispossessed and their descendants now find themselves in.

The Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) have every right to continue to seek reparations for the crime perpetrated on them. Israel failed to permit the creation of a sovereign state for the Palestinians and have now settled too much of their population on land available for a second state to make it viable. Hence, there can only be a one-state solution. The nature of that one state is the only question. Demographics are in the Palestinian's favor.

The Arabs weren't "the locals" or "indigenous" people of the land. They were recent migrants and invaders themselves. Israel is surrounded by Arab states, so obviously it waseasier for Arabs to invade in large numbers. The British had no control over the borders, nor did they have the resources to.

The land was ruled by the Ottomans for 700 years, after they defeated the Arab invaders. The Jews were coming back to join their fellow Jews, as they have done for the last 2000 years. So the Jews are the real indigenous people of the land. The Jordanians and Egyptians occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years after their failed attempt to destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Yet for those 20 years not one Arab or Palestinian asked for a Palestinian state to be created. Now why is that? It was never about this mythical Palestine and always about keeping the land under MUSLIM RULE.

Israel was under no obligation to create a Palestinian state, nor to fix a refugee problem the Arabs had created as a result of their failed aggression in 1948. An Arab Palestinian state was created in Jordan, but as I said that was not enough. They were never interested in a Palestinian state, they just wanted the Jewish state destroyed, and the land to fall under Muslim rule, as they do now, so that they can continue to destroy and desecrate what came before Islam in the holy land. That is what Arabs do.

The locals were indigenous and had lived there for generations. No use trying to revive the Zionist myth. The only migrants were the Jews.

Saying insane lies over and over won't make them true. MonteNazi thinks he's Goebbles now.

Only facts Ruddy. You only insult other posters and have no facts.

Get over it, most of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are 20th invaders from neighboring Arab countries. This is all well recorded and documented.

Another record day of Monte spending like 20 hours today spreading his usual bullshit and lies. I left this forum early morning, and you were on it posting false propaganda. I came back on now at night, and here you are.

No one believes Zionist propaganda anymore. Give it up liar.

 

[montelatici]

"This astonishing booklet, written by one of Britain's leading Zionists in the 1930s, shows how the Zionist lobby manipulated America into the First World War against Germany in exchange for the promise to give Palestine to the Jews as a homeland.This work was originally directed as a complaint against the British government for failing to live up to its promise after the Jewish lobby had lived up it to its promise. It lists the names, dates and places of how these remarkable events occurred, and even accused the British of endangering Jews in Germany at the time, where the Jewish role in bringing the U.S. into the war was well-known and one of the major causes of anti-Semitism in Germany. This is the original text along with a new introduction which provides a complete historical background and summary."



You will have to buy the book, but this is what Landman wrote:



"During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a

whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would

in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the

War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had

failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to

secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French

démarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good

and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of

a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court) ; and was in

close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London) ; and knew that

several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the

Continent on the qui vive awaiting events ; and appreciated and realised the depth and

strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first

of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet,and afterwards Monsieur

Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Goût of the Quai

d'Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to

be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-

operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the

hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in

favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists,

having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour

Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "

gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence

and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied

Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of

Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or

unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."


Amazon.com Great Britain the Jews and Palestine 9781471799136 Samuel Landman Books

Yeah, after all, blaming Jews for all the wars is a very popular antisemtic canard. I think it's number one or two on the antisemite hit list.

Just a fact Ruddy. Keep lying, that's all you do.

It is a fact that the U.S. went to war because of the Jews? Somehow we missed that one when the U.S. Turned back a boatload of Jews escaping concentration camps. You are an antisemtic nut.

I posted the link to the Zionist who confirmed it. Deny it if you must.

 

[toastman]

#1 was a nice treatment of the harmony that seemed to prevailed at the beginning of that period..

#2 is some kind of twisted interpretation of the history of the HolyLand as being conflict free. And if the documentary ever made the claim below --- it wouldn't be supportable. The first killing over WHAT PERIOD?
No Europeans in the Holy Land prior to 1913? No tribal conflict? No domestic disputes? No Honor Killings?

#3 is somewhat supportable. There was very little rule of law in the area. A lot of interactions were based on cultural traditions -- and many of those clashed. Laws -- if they were enforced varied widely. As did land and resource use issues that would normally be handled by a local central authority.

#4 You've failed to show me a valid propaganda purpose for the posing in that picture.. The fact that they chose to pose in a desolate framing of the scene rather than in orchards owned by others MIGHT be to raise more sympathy and money for the cause. But it has NO MEANING about any evil intentions of the people posing for that pic. Like I said -- MORE likely to imply that they were gonna transform that barren land -- then your interpretation of hiding their "desire to steal the land" you can't see. After all, there's lots of farms in Gaza now. And before they were developed -- that portion of Gaza was largely sand dunes like you see here.

#5 Only Empires establish colonies. The intention always was "SOME DAY" to have a national Jewish Homeland. The term colony has very little importance in the description of Zionism movement.

If those 5 things are a vindication for you -- you go guy.. Remind me never to try to pick a month of NetFlix with you. The show was pretty well done, but it lacks any historical authority to explain exactly WHY many of those inhabitants eventually chose or had to leave their land. The "expulsion" was a consequence of what those residents valued and what they didn't.. They did not choose a National Identity during that period. Failed to make the case then. And continue to fail to make the case now. Because of lack of focus on nation building and too much focus on tribal differences and insistence on radical leadership

1. Only empires establish colonies? Where do you get that from? Pathetic. The Boers were not an empire yet they colonized the interior of South Africa. And that is just one example. I don't think the native people in the interior cared that the Boers were not an empire. They were colonists.

"The Great Trek was a movement of Dutch-speaking colonists up into the interior of southern Africa in search of land where they could establish their own homeland, independent of British rule. The determination and courage of these pioneers has become the single most important element in the folk memory of Afrikaner Nationalism. However, far from being the peaceful and God-fearing process which many would like to believe it was, the Great Trek caused a tremendous upheaval in the interior for at least half a century..."

Great Trek 1835-1846 South African History Online

2. The Palestinians left to avoid being slaughtered by the Europeans.

But, at the end of the day, Europeans invaded Palestine, evicted the inhabitants people and set up a Jewish state.

An invasion is a military offensive. Another repetitive lie of yours that I have refuted 100 times. Keep it up Monti.

Refuting, by you especially, does not make a fact untrue. An invasion need not be military, but the use of armed Russians, as described in the documentary fills the bill. In fact, others are of the same opinion:

"1913: Seeds of Conflict' looks at the invasion of European Jews to Palestine"

"At the beginning of the documentary, the subtitle announces that "The dialogue spoke by the actors is drawn directly from the historical record" and the dialogue referenced is in different languages (French, German, Arabic, etc.) with English subtitles."

1913 Seeds of Conflict looks at the invasion of European Jews to Palestine - National Video on Demand Examiner.com

An invasion technically has several definitions, non of which apply to European Jews migrating to the region. If you really want to fully debate the definition again, I have no problem showing you for the 100th time, that you are wrong.

You have never shown that I am wrong. You do your usual clown dance and claim victory. Masses of people going to another place (a continent away) to expel the local inhabitants in order to create their own state is an invasion. Just as the westward expansion of the Europeans in the North America was an invasion. As in:

"In the early 1860s miners were invading the Rocky Mountains and the plains in the thousands, and they clashed with the Indians."

America Indians and Western Expansion 1850 to 1881

Yes, I have shown you that you are wrong. On many many occasions.. First off, that's not what happened. European Jews immigrated to the region and were attacked/massacred several times before any Arab was killed. After being attacked by 5 Arab nations who tried to expel Jews, the Jews fought back and gave the Arabs a taste of their own medicine.

Here are the three definitions of invasion with examples:

an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"the Allied invasion of Normandy"
synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover; More

• an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
  "stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
  synonyms: influx, inundation, flood, rush, torrent, deluge, avalanche, juggernaut
  "an invasion of tourists"
• an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
  "random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"

So I just refuted your invasion lie, AGAIN you lying clown. Monti, my 7 year old cousin was able to understand this simple concept. Yet you, a fully grown adult still cannot comprehend it. This shows us just how stupid you really are. ...

Next, you are still peddling the lie that the first armed attack consisted of Jews killing Arabs. I have provided evidence of a documented attack that took place in 1834. Therefore I have refuted this lie as well.
The fact that you cannot accept that I have refuted them further proves what I have always been saying about you; you cannot accept the truth.

 

[theliq]

1. It is not my twisted interpretation, it is the historian's interpretation. It wasn't barren land, it was the beach! That's the whole point. Instead of photographing the actual land which was to built on, they had the photo shot on the beach to make it appear that it was a desolate sand dune. In the film they show the actual land to be built on, not the beach side. The point was, the land wasn't barren at all.

2. It was a colonial project. People from another continent fully intended to go another continent and colonize land on that continent. It was what the Zionists intended it to be what they called it and it is what it was. No amount of denying this will change the fact.

3. Up to 1913 the Palestinians were loyal subjects. They were not seditious. When the Young Turks took over, the film reports that the Palestinians began thinking about more autonomy. They read a newspaper called El Palestine, But it really doesn't matter as it doesn't justify the colonization and the establishment of an exclusive Jewish state by people from Europe.

Zionism never was a State Entity that had the ability to Colonize anything. The term implies a Remote semi-autonomous governed area -- Under the laws and jurisdiction of the MOTHER NATION.. There was no Home Nation for Jews.. That's the point.. If you think "colonize" is a worse connotation than "establish" --- You not won much of anything to change hearts or minds or history... But go ahead -- beat your chest some more...

Zionism never was a State Entity that had the ability to Colonize anything.​

Indeed, that is why they recruited the British. Britain provided the military cover the Zionists needed to create their colonies. These colonies were governed together by an administration virtually separate from the rest of Palestine. Britain coined the term "state within a state" to define the Zionist project.

Britain called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. The facts on the ground called it colonialism.

Why should we avoid the term?

Call it whatever you want. Jews were going back to their physical and spiritual homeland. The land was under Ottoman control for 700 years and then fell under British control. The Arabs had absolutely no say whatsoever, as the British had allocated 99.9999% of the land in the Middle East to be under Muslim control. They didn't agree that Jews should have their own state in their ancestral homeland? TOUGH SHIT.

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.


6. Your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

" These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.

Call it whatever you want.​

I call it what it is. Your issue with the facts does not concern me.

Jews have been going back to their holy land for 2000 years. The fact that you have an issue with that does not concern me either.

Well they should have gone back to Babylon..their place of origin

 

[theliq]

I've seen it. What does it refute?

You don't get it. Monti posted his video and then kept claiming that it refuted all of the claims that pro Israelis have been making. When I asked him what claims did he/the video refute, he kept ducking the question and saying things like "I won !"

So I figured I could do the same thing. Post a video and tell people that it refutes their claims without backing it up.

"The objective of the documentary was to set the facts straight regarding pre-Mandate Palestine. The case for an independent state for the inhabitants of Palestine was made by the Covenant of the League of Nations, which was written and signed years later. Through rigorous research, as most of the reviewers have written, the film makes clear quite a number of facts some of which include the following:

1. Before the Europeans arrived, Palestine was inhabited by a large majority of Christian and Muslim and a small number of recently arrived Sephardic Jew Arab. (Arab culture and spoke Arabic.). And, they got along just fine.

2. The first conflicts were instigated by the Europeans and the first verifiable killing was of a local by a European.

3. The Europeans mistreated the locals.

4. Zionist propaganda was rampant. Using this photo as an example.

"It all depends on where the photographer aims the camera, right?," she asks the audience in the film. "You have the famous image of shareholders for what would become Tel Aviv in 1905 standing among the sand dunes. Well, the photographer was positioned to their south photographing them to the north in which there were in fact sand dunes. Had he turned 180 degrees to photograph himself behind them they would have seen vast orchard groves of Christian and Muslim landowners."

5. Asserts that it was a Zionist self-described colonial project, using the term colony in the film for the Zionist end-product.

I have been posting these facts and others (providing links to the source documentation much of which is the same used in the film) since I joined this forum and have received abuse, have been derided, have been threatened physically (by one poster who continues to do so), have been called a liar, have been called a propagandist and have been called every name in the book for posting these facts. That's why I feel vindicated."

I just got through proving that the first armed attack was Arabs against Jews, yet you still claim the opposite. You seriously cannot handle the truth. It's incredible.
1834 is BEFORE 1913. Also, you didn't even provide evidence of a documented attak that happened in 1913.

BTW, what was the point of posting any of this ? What does this picture have to do with anything ? It's just a picture. No one was claiming that all of Palestine looked like that.

You proved nothing Toast. Go to bed.

Oh really? Lets review what happened here. You claimed that Jews were the first ones to attack Arabs in 1913. Now, you didn't even post a documented attack that took place in 1913, but lets assume that you did.
I posted a documented attack that took place in 1834 that clearly describes how Jews were massacred by local Arabs in Safed.

Then of course there is the Hebron massacre of 1929. So yes, I did prove that your claim was wrong. A 5 year old could understand such a simple concept.

Go to bed Monti.

Whatever....but you Zionists have more blood on your hands since 1940....something you omitted to mention

 

[toastman]

The Arabs weren't "the locals" or "indigenous" people of the land. They were recent migrants and invaders themselves. Israel is surrounded by Arab states, so obviously it waseasier for Arabs to invade in large numbers. The British had no control over the borders, nor did they have the resources to.

The land was ruled by the Ottomans for 700 years, after they defeated the Arab invaders. The Jews were coming back to join their fellow Jews, as they have done for the last 2000 years. So the Jews are the real indigenous people of the land. The Jordanians and Egyptians occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years after their failed attempt to destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Yet for those 20 years not one Arab or Palestinian asked for a Palestinian state to be created. Now why is that? It was never about this mythical Palestine and always about keeping the land under MUSLIM RULE.

Israel was under no obligation to create a Palestinian state, nor to fix a refugee problem the Arabs had created as a result of their failed aggression in 1948. An Arab Palestinian state was created in Jordan, but as I said that was not enough. They were never interested in a Palestinian state, they just wanted the Jewish state destroyed, and the land to fall under Muslim rule, as they do now, so that they can continue to destroy and desecrate what came before Islam in the holy land. That is what Arabs do.

The locals were indigenous and had lived there for generations. No use trying to revive the Zionist myth. The only migrants were the Jews.

Saying insane lies over and over won't make them true. MonteNazi thinks he's Goebbles now.

Only facts Ruddy. You only insult other posters and have no facts.

Get over it, most of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are 20th invaders from neighboring Arab countries. This is all well recorded and documented.

Another record day of Monte spending like 20 hours today spreading his usual bullshit and lies. I left this forum early morning, and you were on it posting false propaganda. I came back on now at night, and here you are.

No one believes Zionist propaganda anymore. Give it up liar.

Yesterday I uploaded a PBS video about the conflict. You immediately called it 'Zionist propaganda', even though in the same thread I posted it, you posted a video from the same organization, PBS.

In other words, your accusations of "Zionist propaganda" have no credibility. As a matter of fact, you have no credibility any more concerning the I/P conflict
You have now joined the ranks of posters like Tinmore, Sunni Man, fanger.

 

[toastman]

You don't get it. Monti posted his video and then kept claiming that it refuted all of the claims that pro Israelis have been making. When I asked him what claims did he/the video refute, he kept ducking the question and saying things like "I won !"

So I figured I could do the same thing. Post a video and tell people that it refutes their claims without backing it up.

"The objective of the documentary was to set the facts straight regarding pre-Mandate Palestine. The case for an independent state for the inhabitants of Palestine was made by the Covenant of the League of Nations, which was written and signed years later. Through rigorous research, as most of the reviewers have written, the film makes clear quite a number of facts some of which include the following:

1. Before the Europeans arrived, Palestine was inhabited by a large majority of Christian and Muslim and a small number of recently arrived Sephardic Jew Arab. (Arab culture and spoke Arabic.). And, they got along just fine.

2. The first conflicts were instigated by the Europeans and the first verifiable killing was of a local by a European.

3. The Europeans mistreated the locals.

4. Zionist propaganda was rampant. Using this photo as an example.

"It all depends on where the photographer aims the camera, right?," she asks the audience in the film. "You have the famous image of shareholders for what would become Tel Aviv in 1905 standing among the sand dunes. Well, the photographer was positioned to their south photographing them to the north in which there were in fact sand dunes. Had he turned 180 degrees to photograph himself behind them they would have seen vast orchard groves of Christian and Muslim landowners."

5. Asserts that it was a Zionist self-described colonial project, using the term colony in the film for the Zionist end-product.

I have been posting these facts and others (providing links to the source documentation much of which is the same used in the film) since I joined this forum and have received abuse, have been derided, have been threatened physically (by one poster who continues to do so), have been called a liar, have been called a propagandist and have been called every name in the book for posting these facts. That's why I feel vindicated."

I just got through proving that the first armed attack was Arabs against Jews, yet you still claim the opposite. You seriously cannot handle the truth. It's incredible.
1834 is BEFORE 1913. Also, you didn't even provide evidence of a documented attak that happened in 1913.

BTW, what was the point of posting any of this ? What does this picture have to do with anything ? It's just a picture. No one was claiming that all of Palestine looked like that.

You proved nothing Toast. Go to bed.

Oh really? Lets review what happened here. You claimed that Jews were the first ones to attack Arabs in 1913. Now, you didn't even post a documented attack that took place in 1913, but lets assume that you did.
I posted a documented attack that took place in 1834 that clearly describes how Jews were massacred by local Arabs in Safed.

Then of course there is the Hebron massacre of 1929. So yes, I did prove that your claim was wrong. A 5 year old could understand such a simple concept.

Go to bed Monti.

Whatever....but you Zionists have more blood on your hands since 1940....something you omitted to mention

Is this some sort of competition?

 

[Votto]

1913 Seeds of Conflict is a huge hit in the U.S.

Seeds of conflict?


Why was there no mention of this?

 

[Roudy]

Look it's not rocket science. The land was under the control of the Ottomans for 700 years where the various groups HAD to coexist with each other or else deal with the Ottoman rulers. After World War One, the Ottoman empire collapsed and fell into the hands of the Europeans. The British and the French then started dividing the entire Middle East into little Muslim states, in some cases bringing in rulers from one family to rule a state, to curry favor with another. But as long as it was a Muslim ruling over another Muslim it was okay.

In the case of "Palestine", the plan was to create a state for the Jews, in their ancestral and spiritual homeland. Even though the British and French had Divided 99% of the land in the Middle East into states run by Muslim rulers, the Muslims still weren't happy with having a tiny Jewish state where Muslims were being ruled by Jews. That's a big no no in Islam. The fact that European Jews were invited by the British to join their brethren in establishing this Jewish state is irrelevant. It wasn't up to the Arabs to decide the destiny of those lands. The Arab refusal towards a Jewish homeland continued throughout this entire process. A civil war erupted between the Jews and Muslims internally, while the entire Arab Nation attacked Israel externally in 1948. All efforts failed and the Jews came out on top managing to create the vibrant, democratic state of Israel we see today. And the Arabs and Muslims have continued to try to destroy the Jewish state, and denied its right to exist, mainly due to religious intolerance. They aren't going to stop anytime soon, and Israel isn't going anywhere either.

"Muslim ruling Muslims" is the key.. To get a peace about Palestinian claims -- you really NEED countries like Egypt and Jordan to step up and "foster" the creation of a Palestinian state. Make it a mentoring, secure relationship.. Much like the influence of the Turks in that era.. Turks didn't CARE who was there as long as they were industrious and paying taxes. But they were trusted as a "fair broker"..

Jordan tossed out the PLO -- Lebanon tossed out the PLO -- and they walked away from their "occupied" claims to current Israel.. Jordan is the key to peace -- not Israel.. Jordan/Egypt would be a partner in a peaceful settlement of the issue. Let THEM grant access to infrastructure, security and government resources.

You just got to figure out WHO represents the Intifada-ism.....

At the heart of it, this conflict has always been, and will always be about Islam and religious intolerance. When the land was invaded and ruled by Muslim Arabs, the Arabs were fine with it. When the land was invaded by Ottoman Muslims and ruled for 700 years, the Arabs were fine with it. When the Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years and treated Palestinians like prisoners, not one mention of this "stolen Palestinian land" from a single Arab, they were fine with it. Once it was announced that the land will be be ruled by the Jews, its original inhabitants, on land that has been holy to them for three thousand years, that's when the trouble really started. This is a religious conflict at its core.

It is.. It's not just Israel that has had a "palestinian problem". King of Jordan kicked them out. Then the PLO got exiled from Lebanon. Egypt has a major problem with their new "leadership".

They've been abused because they've never learned to organize LIKE A NATION. Right now has no functional representation at all. Can't agree on perpetual war and resistance and death to Israel or making a future for their abused misplaced people. I'm sure they are moral people, but their strategic planning is still 300 years behind the rest of the world. Until their focus is on building a country and negotiating like a modern entity -- and they can convince the populace of the value for that --- they are just the latest group of popular victims for the leftist hearts that bleed for them. They need responsible LEADERSHIP --- not sympathy and slogans.

Exactly, then they went into Lebanon and killed 150,000 Christians, and were instrumental in turning Lebanon a haven for Christians, into an oppressive Islamist terrorist regime.

 

[flacaltenn]

"This astonishing booklet, written by one of Britain's leading Zionists in the 1930s, shows how the Zionist lobby manipulated America into the First World War against Germany in exchange for the promise to give Palestine to the Jews as a homeland.This work was originally directed as a complaint against the British government for failing to live up to its promise after the Jewish lobby had lived up it to its promise. It lists the names, dates and places of how these remarkable events occurred, and even accused the British of endangering Jews in Germany at the time, where the Jewish role in bringing the U.S. into the war was well-known and one of the major causes of anti-Semitism in Germany. This is the original text along with a new introduction which provides a complete historical background and summary."



You will have to buy the book, but this is what Landman wrote:



"During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a

whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would

in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the

War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had

failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to

secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French

démarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good

and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of

a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court) ; and was in

close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London) ; and knew that

several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the

Continent on the qui vive awaiting events ; and appreciated and realised the depth and

strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first

of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet,and afterwards Monsieur

Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Goût of the Quai

d'Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to

be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-

operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the

hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in

favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists,

having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour

Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "

gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence

and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied

Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of

Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or

unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."


Amazon.com Great Britain the Jews and Palestine 9781471799136 Samuel Landman Books

Yeah, after all, blaming Jews for all the wars is a very popular antisemtic canard. I think it's number one or two on the antisemite hit list.

Just a fact Ruddy. Keep lying, that's all you do.

It is a fact that the U.S. went to war because of the Jews? Somehow we missed that one when the U.S. Turned back a boatload of Jews escaping concentration camps. You are an antisemtic nut.

I posted the link to the Zionist who confirmed it. Deny it if you must.

No Zionist confirmed any such thing. You need a member of the Wilson Adminstration stating that the USA didn't want to go to war in Europe, but a secret Zionist Society needed a favor --- so Wilson AND CONGRESS complied. Do you know the ACCEPTED historical reason for the US decision?

Your's is just never gonna fly except in those air-tight circles of hatred that you rely on for convienience.

 

[flacaltenn]

Monte:

Please find the phrase "secret Zionist conspiracy" in the following US Dept of State explanation of our entry in WW1.

U.S. Entry into World War I 1917 - 1914 1920 - Milestones - Office of the Historian

I do think you need to revise your reading list. You could find a whole new world out there.

 

[Votto]

1913 Seeds of Conflict is a huge hit in the U.S.

Seeds of conflict?


Why was there no mention of this?

To understand the Israeli conflict you must understand the roots of Palestinian resistance in one Al Amin Husseini.

Yassar Arafat was his nephew and successor.

 

[Roudy]

The locals were indigenous and had lived there for generations. No use trying to revive the Zionist myth. The only migrants were the Jews.

Saying insane lies over and over won't make them true. MonteNazi thinks he's Goebbles now.

Only facts Ruddy. You only insult other posters and have no facts.

Get over it, most of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are 20th invaders from neighboring Arab countries. This is all well recorded and documented.

Another record day of Monte spending like 20 hours today spreading his usual bullshit and lies. I left this forum early morning, and you were on it posting false propaganda. I came back on now at night, and here you are.

No one believes Zionist propaganda anymore. Give it up liar.

Yesterday I uploaded a PBS video about the conflict. You immediately called it 'Zionist propaganda', even though in the same thread I posted it, you posted a video from the same organization, PBS.

In other words, your accusations of "Zionist propaganda" have no credibility. As a matter of fact, you have no credibility any more concerning the I/P conflict
You have now joined the ranks of posters like Tinmore, Sunni Man, fanger.

I'm surprised that you used the word "now" he's just as bad if not worse.