History Channel Movie debunks "1913 seeds" leftist propaganda clip

[Roudy]

The Ba'ath Party was inspired by the nazis. It's no wonder the moonbats were reluctant to to support it's destruction.

The Baath Party was a Muslim version of Socialism, the opposite of Nazism. Of the two founders of the party one was Christian (Michel Aflaq), one was an atheist (Salah al-Din).

"Baʿth Party, in full Arab Socialist Baʿth Party, or Arab Socialist Renaissance Party, Arabic Ḥizb al-Baʿth al-ʿArabī al-Ishtirākī, Baʿth also spelled Baʿath, Arab political party advocating the formation of a single Arab socialist nation. It has branches in many Middle Eastern countries and was the ruling party in Syria from 1963 and in Iraq from 1968 to 2003.

The Baʿth Party was founded in 1943 in Damascus, Syria, by Michel ʿAflaq and Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn al-Bīṭār, adopted its constitution in 1947, and in 1953 merged with the Syrian Socialist Party to form the Arab Socialist Baʿth (Renaissance) Party. The Baʿth Party espoused nonalignment and opposition to imperialism and colonialism, took inspiration from what it considered the positive values of Islam, and attempted to ignore or transcend class divisions. Its structure was highly centralized and authoritarian."

Ba th Party Arab political party Britannica.com

Bzzzz wrong. There goes Monte with his bullshit and document mutilation again. Facts Monte, those pesky facts keep kicking your antisemtic ass.

The Arab Ba'ath Party established by Zaki al-Arsuzi was according to Sami al-Jundi, one of the co-founders of the party, heavily influenced by fascist and Nazi ideals. The party's emblem was the tiger because it would "excite the imagination of the youth, in the tradition of Nazism and Fascism, but taking into consideration that the Arab is in his nature is distant from pagan symbols [like the swastika]". Arsuzi's Ba'ath Party believed in the virtues of the "one leader", and Arsuzi himself believed personally in the racial superiority of the Arabs. The party members read a lot of Nazi literature, such as The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century for instance, became one of the first to plan the translation of Mein Kampf into Arabic and they were actively looking for a copy of The Myth of the Twentieth Century – the only copy in Damascus was, according to Moshe Maʻoz, owned by Aflaq.Despite his pro-fascist views, Arsuzi did not support the Axis Powers, and refused Italy's advances for party-to-party relations.[60] Arsuzi was also influenced by the racial theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Nazism. Arsuzi claimed that historically Islam and Muhammad had reinforced the nobility and purity of Arabs, which degenerated in purity because of the adoption of Islam by other people. He had been associated with the League of Nationalist Action, a political party strongly influenced by fascism and Nazism with its paramilitary "Ironshirts", that existed in Syria from 1932 to 1939.

Saddam drew inspiration on how to rule Iraq from both Joseph Stalin, a communist, and Adolf Hitler, a Nazi. According to a British journalist who interviewed Barzan al-Tikriti, the head of the Iraqi intelligence services, Saddam had asked Barzan to procure these books not for racist or anti-Semitic purposes, but instead "as an example of the successful organisation of an entire society by the state for the achievement of national goals."

 

[Roudy]

Monte's heroic patriot:

After Saturday, Sunday

According to a publication by the American Foreign Policy Council, the proverb in the form ‘After Saturday, Sunday’, was brandished as a popular slogan among supporters of Haj Amin al-Husseini’s faction during the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. The message is reported to have meant that once the Jews had been driven out, the Christians would be expelled.

 

[Phoenall]

I'm willing to bet that Monti will call this video "Zionist Hasbara propaganda'

No Toast, I will just point out that the Mufti wasn't the Mufti in 1913, the year that the period covered by the documentary ends. There has been no debunking. Just a feeble Hasbara attempt at suppressing the facts.

He was the son of the Mufti destined to become the Mufti. he was a pan-arabist and fought against the British. Sentenced to 10 years in prison for inciting arab violence against the Jews in 1920. He also believed that Palestine was a southern province of Syria once again destroying monte's claims about the Palestinians.

 

[Phoenall]

As far as the Mufti, he was a Palestinian patriot who tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the European colonization of Palestine and the dispossession of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Jews and their British facilitators. He knew that if the British won the war his people would be expelled from Palestine and/or become subservient to the European colonists. It is exactly what happened. So, how can you fault him for trying to prevent a disaster for his people by supporting the enemies of Britain? Many other leaders of people seeking independence from Britain (or other allied powers) sought support from Germany.

he was a terrorists and islamonazi Jew hater

 

[Phoenall]

As far as the Mufti, he was a Palestinian patriot who tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the European colonization of Palestine and the dispossession of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Jews and their British facilitators. He knew that if the British won the war his people would be expelled from Palestine and/or become subservient to the European colonists. It is exactly what happened. So, how can you fault him for trying to prevent a disaster for his people by supporting the enemies of Britain? Many other leaders of people seeking independence from Britain (or other allied powers) sought support from Germany.

I don't know that "patriot" is the right word.

ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST is a better description

 

[Phoenall]

I suspect that the Mufti would have been against any people of any religion that intended to displace the Palestinians and create their own state. If the British had made a declaration that Indian Muslims (before the Indian partition) would be transferred to Palestine, he would have acted in the same manner. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with people from somewhere else going to Palestine with the intention of removing the people living there to make room for people from somewhere else.

His own words say he was a NAZI JEW HATER acting on the commands in the Koran and hadiths. It had everything to do with religion, just as Catholic Jew hatred is all about religion and the Catholic teaching of the Jews killing Jesus

 

[Phoenall]

I suspect that the Mufti would have been against any people of any religion that intended to displace the Palestinians and create their own state. If the British had made a declaration that Indian Muslims (before the Indian partition) would be transferred to Palestine, he would have acted in the same manner. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with people from somewhere else going to Palestine with the intention of removing the people living there to make room for people from somewhere else.

His own words say he was a NAZI JEW HATER acting on the commands in the Koran and hadiths. It had everything to do with religion, just as Catholic Jew hatred is all about religion and the Catholic teaching of the Jews killing Jesus

 

[Phoenall]

I suspect that the Mufti would have been against any people of any religion that intended to displace the Palestinians and create their own state. If the British had made a declaration that Indian Muslims (before the Indian partition) would be transferred to Palestine, he would have acted in the same manner. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with people from somewhere else going to Palestine with the intention of removing the people living there to make room for people from somewhere else.

He turned away children to certain death. I'm trying to figure out how that is in any way admierable.

It isn't to a normal person, but then monte is not a normal person.

 

[Phoenall]

I suspect that the Mufti would have been against any people of any religion that intended to displace the Palestinians and create their own state. If the British had made a declaration that Indian Muslims (before the Indian partition) would be transferred to Palestine, he would have acted in the same manner. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with people from somewhere else going to Palestine with the intention of removing the people living there to make room for people from somewhere else.

He turned away children to certain death. I'm trying to figure out how that is in any way admierable.

Well, you have to consider that accepting Europeans in Palestine was a death sentence for Christian and Muslim children. Which actually happened. It is obviously a dilemma.

Read the article again dumbo, he was against all the Jews including those that where Ottoman subjects of long standing. He was no different to your other communist hero Mandella in being a mass murderer.

 

[Roudy]

Point is, how could someone make a movie about "the seeds" of the Arab Israeli conflict without mentioning the Nazi Mufti of Palestine? It's like making a movie about Nazi Germany without mentioning Hitler. The Mufti merged Nazism with Arab Islamic nationalism and convinced almost all the Muslim countries in the region to start implementing the Muslim version of The Final Solution.

 

[Roudy]

I suspect that the Mufti would have been against any people of any religion that intended to displace the Palestinians and create their own state. If the British had made a declaration that Indian Muslims (before the Indian partition) would be transferred to Palestine, he would have acted in the same manner. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with people from somewhere else going to Palestine with the intention of removing the people living there to make room for people from somewhere else.

He turned away children to certain death. I'm trying to figure out how that is in any way admierable.

Well, you have to consider that accepting Europeans in Palestine was a death sentence for Christian and Muslim children. Which actually happened. It is obviously a dilemma.

Read the article again dumbo, he was against all the Jews including those that where Ottoman subjects of long standing. He was no different to your other communist hero Mandella in being a mass murderer.

While serving in the Ottoman army, the Mufti also learned the art of slaughtering Christians in the name of Islam during the Armenian genocide. In fact, due to the close ties between the Germans and Ottomans, many historians believe the Armenian genocide was the precursor the the Holocaust.

"In 1898, visiting Damascus, Kaiser Wilhelm II declared himself to be the protector of the cause of 300 million Muslims worldwide. Wilhelm was passionately convinced by the teachings of Baron Max von Oppenheim, who championed Islam as an ideology and a socio-political system experiencing a renaissance of power and vitality. In Wilhelmine Germany with its cult of Nietzsche, Christianity was widely perceived as soft, needing to be liberated from effeminate Judaism with its weak values of compassion. Germany had a commitment ‘to arouse the fanaticism of Islam’ and ‘panislamic sentiment against England’. Some thinkers, including von Oppenheim, looked east to Islam as a more masculine model of power. This pro-Muslim bias reinforced ‘a tradition of German anti-Armenian propaganda that emerged in response to German foreign-policy needs after the 1880s’ and which endured until after World War I (quoted in Hilmar Kaiser’s Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories). Unsurprisingly, von Oppenheim supported the liquidation of the Christian Armenians. Moreover, General Bronsart von Schellendorff, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, forbade German consuls from helping Armenian refugees during the massacres and in 1921 blamed Armenians themselves for the genocide which he had failed to prevent:

The Armenian is like the Jew, a parasite outside his homeland, who sponges off the wealth of another country . . . Hence, the hate that discharges itself in mediaeval style through the murder of disagreeable Armenians (quoted in Peter Stine, ‘German Complicity in the Armenian Genocide’, Witness VI, 1992).

In 1915 Morgenthau told the German Ambassador:

You are a Christian people and the time will come when Germans realize that you have let a Mohammedan people destroy another Christian nation . . . The world will always hold Germany responsible; the guilt of these crimes will be your inheritance forever (Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, 28.8).

The Armenian genocide as precursor of the Shoah

Hajj Amin was close to the Armenian genocide and clearly knew of the deportations and mass murders both in Constantinople and within the army itself. He was already a radical Islamist when in Constantinople from late 1914 to mid-1915, training in the Ottoman Military Academy. He served at least until November 1916 as a junior officer in the Ottoman army, including on the Black Sea coast, the scene of major atrocities against Armenians. In 1919 he spent several months in Damascus, where hundreds of thousands of deported Armenians had died in the previous three years. So Hajj Amin was aware that a hated dhimmi people can be eradicated and that violence can be rewarded politically."

The Jewish Quarterly

 

[toastman]

I'm willing to bet that Monti will call this video "Zionist Hasbara propaganda'

No Toast, I will just point out that the Mufti wasn't the Mufti in 1913, the year that the period covered by the documentary ends. There has been no debunking. Just a feeble Hasbara attempt at suppressing the facts.

You posted a video, and then kept repeating how the video refutes every thing pro Israelis have been saying blah vlah. But every time I asked you to back that claim up, you would just say things like " I win you lose"

So I suppose I can post a 2 hour video and then claim it refutes all of your claims, without having to back up the claim.
Regardless, it's getting boring refuting your posts so often. No challenge at all.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I'm willing to bet that Monti will call this video "Zionist Hasbara propaganda'

No Toast, I will just point out that the Mufti wasn't the Mufti in 1913, the year that the period covered by the documentary ends. There has been no debunking. Just a feeble Hasbara attempt at suppressing the facts.

You posted a video, and then kept repeating how the video refutes every thing pro Israelis have been saying blah vlah. But every time I asked you to back that claim up, you would just say things like " I win you lose"

So I suppose I can post a 2 hour video and then claim it refutes all of your claims, without having to back up the claim.
Regardless, it's getting boring refuting your posts so often. No challenge at all.

toast, actually the video is about 50 minutes long. I wasn't cowed by the video. I watched it, and now I know how to refute their claims better.

 

[Coyote]

I suspect that the Mufti would have been against any people of any religion that intended to displace the Palestinians and create their own state. If the British had made a declaration that Indian Muslims (before the Indian partition) would be transferred to Palestine, he would have acted in the same manner. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with people from somewhere else going to Palestine with the intention of removing the people living there to make room for people from somewhere else.

He turned away children to certain death. I'm trying to figure out how that is in any way admierable.

Well, you have to consider that accepting Europeans in Palestine was a death sentence for Christian and Muslim children. Which actually happened. It is obviously a dilemma.

Read the article again dumbo, he was against all the Jews including those that where Ottoman subjects of long standing. He was no different to your other communist hero Mandella in being a mass murderer.

While serving in the Ottoman army, the Mufti also learned the art of slaughtering Christians in the name of Islam during the Armenian genocide. In fact, due to the close ties between the Germans and Ottomans, many historians believe the Armenian genocide was the precursor the the Holocaust.

"In 1898, visiting Damascus, Kaiser Wilhelm II declared himself to be the protector of the cause of 300 million Muslims worldwide. Wilhelm was passionately convinced by the teachings of Baron Max von Oppenheim, who championed Islam as an ideology and a socio-political system experiencing a renaissance of power and vitality. In Wilhelmine Germany with its cult of Nietzsche, Christianity was widely perceived as soft, needing to be liberated from effeminate Judaism with its weak values of compassion. Germany had a commitment ‘to arouse the fanaticism of Islam’ and ‘panislamic sentiment against England’. Some thinkers, including von Oppenheim, looked east to Islam as a more masculine model of power. This pro-Muslim bias reinforced ‘a tradition of German anti-Armenian propaganda that emerged in response to German foreign-policy needs after the 1880s’ and which endured until after World War I (quoted in Hilmar Kaiser’s Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories). Unsurprisingly, von Oppenheim supported the liquidation of the Christian Armenians. Moreover, General Bronsart von Schellendorff, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, forbade German consuls from helping Armenian refugees during the massacres and in 1921 blamed Armenians themselves for the genocide which he had failed to prevent:

The Armenian is like the Jew, a parasite outside his homeland, who sponges off the wealth of another country . . . Hence, the hate that discharges itself in mediaeval style through the murder of disagreeable Armenians (quoted in Peter Stine, ‘German Complicity in the Armenian Genocide’, Witness VI, 1992).

In 1915 Morgenthau told the German Ambassador:

You are a Christian people and the time will come when Germans realize that you have let a Mohammedan people destroy another Christian nation . . . The world will always hold Germany responsible; the guilt of these crimes will be your inheritance forever (Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, 28.8).

The Armenian genocide as precursor of the Shoah

Hajj Amin was close to the Armenian genocide and clearly knew of the deportations and mass murders both in Constantinople and within the army itself. He was already a radical Islamist when in Constantinople from late 1914 to mid-1915, training in the Ottoman Military Academy. He served at least until November 1916 as a junior officer in the Ottoman army, including on the Black Sea coast, the scene of major atrocities against Armenians. In 1919 he spent several months in Damascus, where hundreds of thousands of deported Armenians had died in the previous three years. So Hajj Amin was aware that a hated dhimmi people can be eradicated and that violence can be rewarded politically."

The Jewish Quarterly

I think a more accurate term for the Mufti is not "patriot" but "racist" - he's really not very defensable.

 

[Coyote]

I suspect that the Mufti would have been against any people of any religion that intended to displace the Palestinians and create their own state. If the British had made a declaration that Indian Muslims (before the Indian partition) would be transferred to Palestine, he would have acted in the same manner. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with people from somewhere else going to Palestine with the intention of removing the people living there to make room for people from somewhere else.

He turned away children to certain death. I'm trying to figure out how that is in any way admierable.

Well, you have to consider that accepting Europeans in Palestine was a death sentence for Christian and Muslim children. Which actually happened. It is obviously a dilemma.

Read the article again dumbo, he was against all the Jews including those that where Ottoman subjects of long standing. He was no different to your other communist hero Mandella in being a mass murderer.

Or, if you put it that way - your hero "Menachem Begin". The thing is, Mandella, like Begin, moved beyond violence into peace. Mandella, in particular, called for peace and for truth and reconciliation seeking a united country for both races.

Call him what you want but be honest then about your own "heros".

 

[Coyote]

I'm willing to bet that Monti will call this video "Zionist Hasbara propaganda'

No Toast, I will just point out that the Mufti wasn't the Mufti in 1913, the year that the period covered by the documentary ends. There has been no debunking. Just a feeble Hasbara attempt at suppressing the facts.

He was the son of the Mufti destined to become the Mufti. he was a pan-arabist and fought against the British. Sentenced to 10 years in prison for inciting arab violence against the Jews in 1920. He also believed that Palestine was a southern province of Syria once again destroying monte's claims about the Palestinians.

Whatever he was he had nothing to do with the events of 1913 - the director of the film was very specific in that his intention for the film was a brief snapshot of history - 1913. Folks start complaining about why isn't the Mufti in it - he had nothing to do with it - continuing on that line is a derailment.

 

[Coyote]

I'm willing to bet that Monti will call this video "Zionist Hasbara propaganda'

No Toast, I will just point out that the Mufti wasn't the Mufti in 1913, the year that the period covered by the documentary ends. There has been no debunking. Just a feeble Hasbara attempt at suppressing the facts.

You posted a video, and then kept repeating how the video refutes every thing pro Israelis have been saying blah vlah. But every time I asked you to back that claim up, you would just say things like " I win you lose"

So I suppose I can post a 2 hour video and then claim it refutes all of your claims, without having to back up the claim.
Regardless, it's getting boring refuting your posts so often. No challenge at all.

It would be more interesting to actually discuss what is in the video - specifically what events support Monte's claims and why? Same for the other side that decries it, and hopefully both sides will consider the context the director provides. There was more genuine discussion from the members of the synagogue who watched the screening than there is in this thread

It's an interesting video but I need to watch it a second time.

 

[Coyote]

I'm willing to bet that Monti will call this video "Zionist Hasbara propaganda'

No Toast, I will just point out that the Mufti wasn't the Mufti in 1913, the year that the period covered by the documentary ends. There has been no debunking. Just a feeble Hasbara attempt at suppressing the facts.

You posted a video, and then kept repeating how the video refutes every thing pro Israelis have been saying blah vlah. But every time I asked you to back that claim up, you would just say things like " I win you lose"

So I suppose I can post a 2 hour video and then claim it refutes all of your claims, without having to back up the claim.
Regardless, it's getting boring refuting your posts so often. No challenge at all.

toast, actually the video is about 50 minutes long. I wasn't cowed by the video. I watched it, and now I know how to refute their claims better.

Why would you even think one would be "cowed"? Maybe it should be approached with an open mind. Few have really looked at this period and the video brings it to life imo - as something beyond black/white propoganda infesting the narratives of both sides.




1913 Seeds of Conflict PBS Programs PBS

Our story’s setting is multi-cultural, multi-lingual Ottoman Palestine, a colorful society being pulled between medieval and modern influences, with community alliances built on personal ties. The district of Jerusalem (later southern Palestine) is sensing growing nationalism and perceived threats to Ottoman sovereignty by European "foreigners." Zionism, the European-based movement for a Jewish homeland, and Arab nationalism — still nascent — are the forces that propel our narrative.

We explore this seminal moment in history through the eyes of those who helped shape it first hand. By constantly shifting the story’s point of view, our audience will be drawn into the promises and challenges of the period.

Through the diaries of our characters and fresh scholarship on the period, we come to better understand and feel Palestine of the early 20th century. There’s a land boom afoot, as Jewish Zionists and Christian pilgrims eagerly buy up property. The outrageous prices they pay fuel absentee landowners’ willingness to sell. The result pulls the land out from under the feet of tenant farmers who work on it just as their ancestors have for generations. They are suddenly thrown off by Jewish Europeans who understand neither their language nor their culture. These fellahin (peasants) are the first Arabs to clash with the Zionist settlers. Their experiences promote a new Arab national consciousness.

Meanwhile, the prosperity of Ottoman Jews is a welcome contrast to the persecution, pogroms and anti-Semitic violence that is driving European Jews in growing numbers to seek refuge in Palestine. Devoted equally to his Ottoman citizenship and his Jewish identity, Albert Antebi is forced by 1913 to choose between the two. The overlapping identities Jews have comfortably held are becoming suddenly mutually exclusive.

1913: Seeds of Conflict is an admittedly arbitrary glimpse that captures the Palestine of a hundred years ago. Scholars are looking at it as the key to understanding what has happened since, and to rethink issues that today seems so mired and intractable.

​

 

[Coyote]

As far as the Mufti, he was a Palestinian patriot who tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the European colonization of Palestine and the dispossession of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Jews and their British facilitators. He knew that if the British won the war his people would be expelled from Palestine and/or become subservient to the European colonists. It is exactly what happened. So, how can you fault him for trying to prevent a disaster for his people by supporting the enemies of Britain? Many other leaders of people seeking independence from Britain (or other allied powers) sought support from Germany.

I don't know that "patriot" is the right word.

ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST is a better description

Actually, for that particular person - you are finally right.

 

[Phoenall]

I'm willing to bet that Monti will call this video "Zionist Hasbara propaganda'

No Toast, I will just point out that the Mufti wasn't the Mufti in 1913, the year that the period covered by the documentary ends. There has been no debunking. Just a feeble Hasbara attempt at suppressing the facts.

You posted a video, and then kept repeating how the video refutes every thing pro Israelis have been saying blah vlah. But every time I asked you to back that claim up, you would just say things like " I win you lose"

So I suppose I can post a 2 hour video and then claim it refutes all of your claims, without having to back up the claim.
Regardless, it's getting boring refuting your posts so often. No challenge at all.

toast, actually the video is about 50 minutes long. I wasn't cowed by the video. I watched it, and now I know how to refute their claims better.

Why would you even think one would be "cowed"? Maybe it should be approached with an open mind. Few have really looked at this period and the video brings it to life imo - as something beyond black/white propoganda infesting the narratives of both sides.




1913 Seeds of Conflict PBS Programs PBS

Our story’s setting is multi-cultural, multi-lingual Ottoman Palestine, a colorful society being pulled between medieval and modern influences, with community alliances built on personal ties. The district of Jerusalem (later southern Palestine) is sensing growing nationalism and perceived threats to Ottoman sovereignty by European "foreigners." Zionism, the European-based movement for a Jewish homeland, and Arab nationalism — still nascent — are the forces that propel our narrative.

We explore this seminal moment in history through the eyes of those who helped shape it first hand. By constantly shifting the story’s point of view, our audience will be drawn into the promises and challenges of the period.

Through the diaries of our characters and fresh scholarship on the period, we come to better understand and feel Palestine of the early 20th century. There’s a land boom afoot, as Jewish Zionists and Christian pilgrims eagerly buy up property. The outrageous prices they pay fuel absentee landowners’ willingness to sell. The result pulls the land out from under the feet of tenant farmers who work on it just as their ancestors have for generations. They are suddenly thrown off by Jewish Europeans who understand neither their language nor their culture. These fellahin (peasants) are the first Arabs to clash with the Zionist settlers. Their experiences promote a new Arab national consciousness.

Meanwhile, the prosperity of Ottoman Jews is a welcome contrast to the persecution, pogroms and anti-Semitic violence that is driving European Jews in growing numbers to seek refuge in Palestine. Devoted equally to his Ottoman citizenship and his Jewish identity, Albert Antebi is forced by 1913 to choose between the two. The overlapping identities Jews have comfortably held are becoming suddenly mutually exclusive.

1913: Seeds of Conflict is an admittedly arbitrary glimpse that captures the Palestine of a hundred years ago. Scholars are looking at it as the key to understanding what has happened since, and to rethink issues that today seems so mired and intractable.

​

And the film only uses islamonazi propaganda sources for its material, making it biased. It misses the many instances of muslim atrocities against the Jews, and omits to mention dhimmi laws