History Channel Movie debunks "1913 seeds" leftist propaganda clip

[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

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

And that is what the PLO, hamas and fatah base their ideologies on, and how the Palestinians think in regards to Israel and the Jews

 

[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.

​

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

Specifically - what sources that are "Islamonazi"? Keep in mind - it is only examining the events of 1913 in one particular area. What do the dhimmi laws have to do with what is being portrayed?

 

[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.

It's admirable to Monte because those children were Joooos and Jooos deserve to die. But hey, Monte keeps telling us that he "doesn't hate Jews". Ha ha ha.

Ya...sometimes I wonder.

Turning children away - knowing it's to certain death, calling for them to be sent to concentration camps - knowing it's to certain death - is not very defensable. I think at the beginning there was some question as to how much the Mufti knew of what was happening but certainly by the end there wasn't. We - the US - turned people away. Along with the Japanese internment that was one of the most shameful periods in our history. Like what the Mufti did - it shouldn't be defended. Acknowledge it, own it, move on - but don't frigging defend the Mufti's actions.

 

[Phoenall]

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

Specifically - what sources that are "Islamonazi"? Keep in mind - it is only examining the events of 1913 in one particular area. What do the dhimmi laws have to do with what is being portrayed?

Where is the Jewish side of the story for starters, the atrocities perpetrated against the Jews when they threw over muslim "protection" that left them starving. The dhimmi laws made it illegal for non muslims to have even a small amount of the freedoms the lowest muslim received. Non muslims where beaten, raped, evicted and had property stolen under dhimmi laws, and their children where sold into slavery as and when the muslims wanted them. Prohibited from repairing their temples and churches, and forced into silence during prayers. Unable to own anything better than a donkey while being forced to walk in the open sewers. There are stories of non muslims being beaten to death for allowing their shadow to fall on a muslim or a mosque under Ottoman rule.

Monte even stated that..........................

Toast, all my claims supported by the source documentation I research in the archives, has been made into a documentary called "1913 Seeds of Conflict". It was aired by PBS for the first time last night. All of your ridiculous Zionist propaganda is exposed and everything I have posted here is now available to a greater audience. Watch it and weep.

And we all know he only posts islamonazi propaganda, mind I still cant find his name in the credits for the film can you

 

[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's admirable to Monte because those children were Joooos and Jooos deserve to die. But hey, Monte keeps telling us that he "doesn't hate Jews". Ha ha ha.

Ya...sometimes I wonder.

Turning children away - knowing it's to certain death, calling for them to be sent to concentration camps - knowing it's to certain death - is not very defensable. I think at the beginning there was some question as to how much the Mufti knew of what was happening but certainly by the end there wasn't. We - the US - turned people away. Along with the Japanese internment that was one of the most shameful periods in our history. Like what the Mufti did - it shouldn't be defended. Acknowledge it, own it, move on - but don't frigging defend the Mufti's actions.

The world leaders knew as early as 1932/1933 and kept a tight lid on the story in case it caused their own people to want the same thing doing.

 

[Coyote]

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

Specifically - what sources that are "Islamonazi"? Keep in mind - it is only examining the events of 1913 in one particular area. What do the dhimmi laws have to do with what is being portrayed?

Where is the Jewish side of the story for starters, the atrocities perpetrated against the Jews when they threw over muslim "protection" that left them starving. The dhimmi laws made it illegal for non muslims to have even a small amount of the freedoms the lowest muslim received. Non muslims where beaten, raped, evicted and had property stolen under dhimmi laws, and their children where sold into slavery as and when the muslims wanted them. Prohibited from repairing their temples and churches, and forced into silence during prayers. Unable to own anything better than a donkey while being forced to walk in the open sewers. There are stories of non muslims being beaten to death for allowing their shadow to fall on a muslim or a mosque under Ottoman rule.

According to: 1913 Seeds of Conflict Atlanta Jewish Film Festival

The film’s storytellers – a Jew, a Muslim, a European Zionist and a Christian – provide unique eyewitness accounts of corresponding events. Their narrative is supported by the rigorous new research of historians working in Ramallah, Tel Aviv and the United States, who are each investigating the period before the British conquest of Palestine in 1917.
​

The film included Jewish viewpoints and Zionist viewpoints. That certainly provided a Jewish "side of the story" from two different Jewish groups. The purpose of the film was not an overview of the Ottoman Empire and it's historical treatment of non-Muslim citizens - it's focus was on the events of 1913 "...1913 is a moment of transformation in the Middle East. Ottoman rule in Palestine is strong but waning, and peaceful coexistence among familial and religious groups starts to fray. With Ottoman sovereignty threatened, and the nascent forces of Zionism and Arabism on the rise, the region struggles under the forces of change..." and how these events were the start of later conflicts. Rather than looking at the film and it's stated purpose you are blaming it for not being what you want it to be - which is something completely different.

On the issue of dhimmi - you go on about that, but in the Ottoman Empire, it doesn't sound as black and white as people make it. I found this article (and there is no evidence it's an "Islamonazicatholic propoganda" source, it gives an interesting description of dhimmi under the Ottomans:
The Fountain Magazine - Issue - The Status of Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire recognized three groups of non-Muslim minorities: ahl al-kitab (People of the Book), ahl al-dhimma (protected minorities), and non-Muslims. They are not forced to follow Islamic law, have considerable freedom of choice, and have their own religious organizations.(1) This system has been considered the Ottoman Empire's greatest strength and weakness.(2)

Historical background

Dhimmi designates an indefinitely renewed contract through which non-Muslims have a specific status (but are not full citizens), have their property protected, and are ensured safe conduct in return for acknowledging Islam's domination and paying the jizya (poll tax).(3) In early Islam, they were Christians, Jews, Magians, Samaritans, and Sabians.(4) The Prophet and the early caliphs showed religious tolerance and caution toward religious minorities.(5) The Ottoman sultans made slight changes, but basically followed the same attitude in a more structured fashion.​

Dhimmis in the Ottoman State

Some assert that Ottoman society was divided into ruling (Muslim) and (non-Muslim) raaya classes. But it was more complicated than that, for Muslims and non-Muslims were referred to as raaya (followers, the ruled, or non-participants in government). As the Ottoman State was semi-theocratic, raaya should be understood in the biblical sense as the shepherd and the flock.(6)

Government personnel worked in three areas: religion and law, war and statecraft, and the bureaucracy. The first branch was restricted to Muslim-born subjects. The ulema devoted long years to theological, scholastic, and legal studies in order to become judges and professors. The latter two branches were reserved mainly for non-Muslims. Neither group was inferior to the Muslims.

The Ottoman system was so complex that we cannot determine whether there was religious or racial discrimination. After reforms during the nineteenth century, many intellectuals and ecclesiastics argued that applying a unified law would deprive them of their privileges.(7) The Ottoman system of government was holistic, considered all branches interwoven and interconnected, and was fairly well integrated, in socioeconomic matters but not in religious matters, at least in Turkish-majority areas.

...Conclusion

The Ottoman State acted according to Islam and its own interests. It recognized each community's rights and frequently protected them at the expense of its own citizens. It opened up state offices to non-Muslims as an incentive to become Muslim. Such a policy was unknown to the Europe of that time. However, the Ottomans did not spread the Islamic educational system among the non-Muslims to encourage their conversion, which constituted the state's very raison d'etre.​

I admit - I don't know a lot about the Ottoman's - and until this film, haven't really looked - but they sound in some ways very advanced for their time and like any other empire had their golden age and times of strife, decay and dissolution. If you compare the dhimmi system to modern systems - it is unequal, undemocratic but that's an unfair comparison. A better comparison might be to the way religious minorities were treated in the European Empires - which was pretty sucko too.

Monte even stated that..........................

Toast, all my claims supported by the source documentation I research in the archives, has been made into a documentary called "1913 Seeds of Conflict". It was aired by PBS for the first time last night. All of your ridiculous Zionist propaganda is exposed and everything I have posted here is now available to a greater audience. Watch it and weep.

And we all know he only posts islamonazi propaganda, mind I still cant find his name in the credits for the film can you

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, you are correct, he was not a MUFTI.

In 1913 the Mufti wasn't the Mufti, he was an 16-18 yr old youth of no importance in Ottoman regime. Haj Amin al-Husseini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Form Wikipedia:
"With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer and was assigned to the Forty-Seventh Brigade stationed in and around the city of Izmir."

He was a little older than you might expect. And, like many of the future rabble rouses and Axis sympathizers --- he was a former enemy combatant under the two years the Enemy Territory Occupation Administration (ETOA) was in businesses. He was, throughout is life, always on the wrong side of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

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

Specifically - what sources that are "Islamonazi"? Keep in mind - it is only examining the events of 1913 in one particular area. What do the dhimmi laws have to do with what is being portrayed?

Where is the Jewish side of the story for starters, the atrocities perpetrated against the Jews when they threw over muslim "protection" that left them starving. The dhimmi laws made it illegal for non muslims to have even a small amount of the freedoms the lowest muslim received. Non muslims where beaten, raped, evicted and had property stolen under dhimmi laws, and their children where sold into slavery as and when the muslims wanted them. Prohibited from repairing their temples and churches, and forced into silence during prayers. Unable to own anything better than a donkey while being forced to walk in the open sewers. There are stories of non muslims being beaten to death for allowing their shadow to fall on a muslim or a mosque under Ottoman rule.

According to: 1913 Seeds of Conflict Atlanta Jewish Film Festival

The film’s storytellers – a Jew, a Muslim, a European Zionist and a Christian – provide unique eyewitness accounts of corresponding events. Their narrative is supported by the rigorous new research of historians working in Ramallah, Tel Aviv and the United States, who are each investigating the period before the British conquest of Palestine in 1917.
​

The film included Jewish viewpoints and Zionist viewpoints. That certainly provided a Jewish "side of the story" from two different Jewish groups. The purpose of the film was not an overview of the Ottoman Empire and it's historical treatment of non-Muslim citizens - it's focus was on the events of 1913 "...1913 is a moment of transformation in the Middle East. Ottoman rule in Palestine is strong but waning, and peaceful coexistence among familial and religious groups starts to fray. With Ottoman sovereignty threatened, and the nascent forces of Zionism and Arabism on the rise, the region struggles under the forces of change..." and how these events were the start of later conflicts. Rather than looking at the film and it's stated purpose you are blaming it for not being what you want it to be - which is something completely different.

On the issue of dhimmi - you go on about that, but in the Ottoman Empire, it doesn't sound as black and white as people make it. I found this article (and there is no evidence it's an "Islamonazicatholic propoganda" source, it gives an interesting description of dhimmi under the Ottomans:
The Fountain Magazine - Issue - The Status of Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire recognized three groups of non-Muslim minorities: ahl al-kitab (People of the Book), ahl al-dhimma (protected minorities), and non-Muslims. They are not forced to follow Islamic law, have considerable freedom of choice, and have their own religious organizations.(1) This system has been considered the Ottoman Empire's greatest strength and weakness.(2)

Historical background

Dhimmi designates an indefinitely renewed contract through which non-Muslims have a specific status (but are not full citizens), have their property protected, and are ensured safe conduct in return for acknowledging Islam's domination and paying the jizya (poll tax).(3) In early Islam, they were Christians, Jews, Magians, Samaritans, and Sabians.(4) The Prophet and the early caliphs showed religious tolerance and caution toward religious minorities.(5) The Ottoman sultans made slight changes, but basically followed the same attitude in a more structured fashion.​

Dhimmis in the Ottoman State

Some assert that Ottoman society was divided into ruling (Muslim) and (non-Muslim) raaya classes. But it was more complicated than that, for Muslims and non-Muslims were referred to as raaya (followers, the ruled, or non-participants in government). As the Ottoman State was semi-theocratic, raaya should be understood in the biblical sense as the shepherd and the flock.(6)

Government personnel worked in three areas: religion and law, war and statecraft, and the bureaucracy. The first branch was restricted to Muslim-born subjects. The ulema devoted long years to theological, scholastic, and legal studies in order to become judges and professors. The latter two branches were reserved mainly for non-Muslims. Neither group was inferior to the Muslims.

The Ottoman system was so complex that we cannot determine whether there was religious or racial discrimination. After reforms during the nineteenth century, many intellectuals and ecclesiastics argued that applying a unified law would deprive them of their privileges.(7) The Ottoman system of government was holistic, considered all branches interwoven and interconnected, and was fairly well integrated, in socioeconomic matters but not in religious matters, at least in Turkish-majority areas.

...Conclusion

The Ottoman State acted according to Islam and its own interests. It recognized each community's rights and frequently protected them at the expense of its own citizens. It opened up state offices to non-Muslims as an incentive to become Muslim. Such a policy was unknown to the Europe of that time. However, the Ottomans did not spread the Islamic educational system among the non-Muslims to encourage their conversion, which constituted the state's very raison d'etre.​

I admit - I don't know a lot about the Ottoman's - and until this film, haven't really looked - but they sound in some ways very advanced for their time and like any other empire had their golden age and times of strife, decay and dissolution. If you compare the dhimmi system to modern systems - it is unequal, undemocratic but that's an unfair comparison. A better comparison might be to the way religious minorities were treated in the European Empires - which was pretty sucko too.

Monte even stated that..........................

Toast, all my claims supported by the source documentation I research in the archives, has been made into a documentary called "1913 Seeds of Conflict". It was aired by PBS for the first time last night. All of your ridiculous Zionist propaganda is exposed and everything I have posted here is now available to a greater audience. Watch it and weep.

And we all know he only posts islamonazi propaganda, mind I still cant find his name in the credits for the film can you

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

MEANING ?

 

[Coyote]

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

Specifically - what sources that are "Islamonazi"? Keep in mind - it is only examining the events of 1913 in one particular area. What do the dhimmi laws have to do with what is being portrayed?

Where is the Jewish side of the story for starters, the atrocities perpetrated against the Jews when they threw over muslim "protection" that left them starving. The dhimmi laws made it illegal for non muslims to have even a small amount of the freedoms the lowest muslim received. Non muslims where beaten, raped, evicted and had property stolen under dhimmi laws, and their children where sold into slavery as and when the muslims wanted them. Prohibited from repairing their temples and churches, and forced into silence during prayers. Unable to own anything better than a donkey while being forced to walk in the open sewers. There are stories of non muslims being beaten to death for allowing their shadow to fall on a muslim or a mosque under Ottoman rule.

According to: 1913 Seeds of Conflict Atlanta Jewish Film Festival

The film’s storytellers – a Jew, a Muslim, a European Zionist and a Christian – provide unique eyewitness accounts of corresponding events. Their narrative is supported by the rigorous new research of historians working in Ramallah, Tel Aviv and the United States, who are each investigating the period before the British conquest of Palestine in 1917.
​

The film included Jewish viewpoints and Zionist viewpoints. That certainly provided a Jewish "side of the story" from two different Jewish groups. The purpose of the film was not an overview of the Ottoman Empire and it's historical treatment of non-Muslim citizens - it's focus was on the events of 1913 "...1913 is a moment of transformation in the Middle East. Ottoman rule in Palestine is strong but waning, and peaceful coexistence among familial and religious groups starts to fray. With Ottoman sovereignty threatened, and the nascent forces of Zionism and Arabism on the rise, the region struggles under the forces of change..." and how these events were the start of later conflicts. Rather than looking at the film and it's stated purpose you are blaming it for not being what you want it to be - which is something completely different.

On the issue of dhimmi - you go on about that, but in the Ottoman Empire, it doesn't sound as black and white as people make it. I found this article (and there is no evidence it's an "Islamonazicatholic propoganda" source, it gives an interesting description of dhimmi under the Ottomans:
The Fountain Magazine - Issue - The Status of Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire recognized three groups of non-Muslim minorities: ahl al-kitab (People of the Book), ahl al-dhimma (protected minorities), and non-Muslims. They are not forced to follow Islamic law, have considerable freedom of choice, and have their own religious organizations.(1) This system has been considered the Ottoman Empire's greatest strength and weakness.(2)

Historical background

Dhimmi designates an indefinitely renewed contract through which non-Muslims have a specific status (but are not full citizens), have their property protected, and are ensured safe conduct in return for acknowledging Islam's domination and paying the jizya (poll tax).(3) In early Islam, they were Christians, Jews, Magians, Samaritans, and Sabians.(4) The Prophet and the early caliphs showed religious tolerance and caution toward religious minorities.(5) The Ottoman sultans made slight changes, but basically followed the same attitude in a more structured fashion.​

Dhimmis in the Ottoman State

Some assert that Ottoman society was divided into ruling (Muslim) and (non-Muslim) raaya classes. But it was more complicated than that, for Muslims and non-Muslims were referred to as raaya (followers, the ruled, or non-participants in government). As the Ottoman State was semi-theocratic, raaya should be understood in the biblical sense as the shepherd and the flock.(6)

Government personnel worked in three areas: religion and law, war and statecraft, and the bureaucracy. The first branch was restricted to Muslim-born subjects. The ulema devoted long years to theological, scholastic, and legal studies in order to become judges and professors. The latter two branches were reserved mainly for non-Muslims. Neither group was inferior to the Muslims.

The Ottoman system was so complex that we cannot determine whether there was religious or racial discrimination. After reforms during the nineteenth century, many intellectuals and ecclesiastics argued that applying a unified law would deprive them of their privileges.(7) The Ottoman system of government was holistic, considered all branches interwoven and interconnected, and was fairly well integrated, in socioeconomic matters but not in religious matters, at least in Turkish-majority areas.

...Conclusion

The Ottoman State acted according to Islam and its own interests. It recognized each community's rights and frequently protected them at the expense of its own citizens. It opened up state offices to non-Muslims as an incentive to become Muslim. Such a policy was unknown to the Europe of that time. However, the Ottomans did not spread the Islamic educational system among the non-Muslims to encourage their conversion, which constituted the state's very raison d'etre.​

I admit - I don't know a lot about the Ottoman's - and until this film, haven't really looked - but they sound in some ways very advanced for their time and like any other empire had their golden age and times of strife, decay and dissolution. If you compare the dhimmi system to modern systems - it is unequal, undemocratic but that's an unfair comparison. A better comparison might be to the way religious minorities were treated in the European Empires - which was pretty sucko too.

Monte even stated that..........................

Toast, all my claims supported by the source documentation I research in the archives, has been made into a documentary called "1913 Seeds of Conflict". It was aired by PBS for the first time last night. All of your ridiculous Zionist propaganda is exposed and everything I have posted here is now available to a greater audience. Watch it and weep.

And we all know he only posts islamonazi propaganda, mind I still cant find his name in the credits for the film can you

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

MEANING ?

I addressed your points so...my meaning is in my post.

 

[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.

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".

I totally agree. The reason Rabin shook hands with Arafat was because he supposedly had denounced his terrorist ways. Both later received the Nobel peace prize for this.

 

[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.

It's admirable to Monte because those children were Joooos and Jooos deserve to die. But hey, Monte keeps telling us that he "doesn't hate Jews". Ha ha ha.

Ya...sometimes I wonder.

Turning children away - knowing it's to certain death, calling for them to be sent to concentration camps - knowing it's to certain death - is not very defensable. I think at the beginning there was some question as to how much the Mufti knew of what was happening but certainly by the end there wasn't. We - the US - turned people away. Along with the Japanese internment that was one of the most shameful periods in our history. Like what the Mufti did - it shouldn't be defended. Acknowledge it, own it, move on - but don't frigging defend the Mufti's actions.

Agreed.

 

[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".

I totally agree. The reason Rabin shook hands with Arafat was because he supposedly had denounced his terrorist ways. Both later received the Nobel peace prize for this.

Ya...initially I didn't see it - or wouldn't but in a discussion with Rocco I think, I could see how that can make a difference. It doesn't change the fact that at one time they were terrorists - that's something they will have to live with. But they transcended the violence to forge something greater. We need more people like that but they are few and far between.

 

[montelatici]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, you are correct, he was not a MUFTI.

In 1913 the Mufti wasn't the Mufti, he was an 16-18 yr old youth of no importance in Ottoman regime. Haj Amin al-Husseini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Form Wikipedia:
"With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer and was assigned to the Forty-Seventh Brigade stationed in and around the city of Izmir."

He was a little older than you might expect. And, like many of the future rabble rouses and Axis sympathizers --- he was a former enemy combatant under the two years the Enemy Territory Occupation Administration (ETOA) was in businesses. He was, throughout is life, always on the wrong side of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Axis was a WW2 alliance. In World War 1, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire etc. were called the Central Powers. Calling leaders that resist colonialism, foreign occupation and seek national liberation "rabble rousers" is just idiotic. People like you would have called our founding fathers rabble rousers.

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, you are correct, he was not a MUFTI.

In 1913 the Mufti wasn't the Mufti, he was an 16-18 yr old youth of no importance in Ottoman regime. Haj Amin al-Husseini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Form Wikipedia:
"With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer and was assigned to the Forty-Seventh Brigade stationed in and around the city of Izmir."

He was a little older than you might expect. And, like many of the future rabble rouses and Axis sympathizers --- he was a former enemy combatant under the two years the Enemy Territory Occupation Administration (ETOA) was in businesses. He was, throughout is life, always on the wrong side of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Axis was a WW2 alliance. In World War 1, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire etc. were called the Central Powers. Calling leaders that resist colonialism, foreign occupation and seek national liberation "rabble rousers" is just idiotic. People like you would have called our founding fathers rabble rousers.

They where invaders and colonisers, the very people you hate when they are Jews. So when will you give up your stolen land ?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I think you will find that I was speaking to the future; as in "future rabble rouses and Axis sympathizers." But yes, I agree the WWI opponents were called the "Central Powers."

Coyote, et al,

Yes, you are correct, he was not a MUFTI.

In 1913 the Mufti wasn't the Mufti, he was an 16-18 yr old youth of no importance in Ottoman regime. Haj Amin al-Husseini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Form Wikipedia:
"With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer and was assigned to the Forty-Seventh Brigade stationed in and around the city of Izmir."

He was a little older than you might expect. And, like many of the future rabble rouses and Axis sympathizers --- he was a former enemy combatant under the two years the Enemy Territory Occupation Administration (ETOA) was in businesses. He was, throughout is life, always on the wrong side of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Axis was a WW2 alliance. In World War 1, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire etc. were called the Central Powers. Calling leaders that resist colonialism, foreign occupation and seek national liberation "rabble rousers" is just idiotic. People like you would have called our founding fathers rabble rousers.

(COMMENT)

The point being made was that --- not only did Captain al-Husseini play a role in the Great War; but, was also involved with the Axis Powers in WWII to a significant degree.

Any organization that uses the camouflage of being a "national liberation movement" is suspicious already. When the Israelis completed the disengagement process from the Gaza Strip (September 12, 2005).

After the 1996 Security Containment Barrier around Gaza was established, it proved to be and effective countermeasure in minimizing Palestinian infiltration and suicide bombings.

During the period of September 05 (Disengagement) to mid--2006, over 700 rockets, missiles, and mortars had been fired from Gaza. It was on 28 March 2006, during Israelis general elections, that HAMAS fired the first Katyusha Rocket (World War II-era Soviet rocket) from Gaza into Israeli sovereign territory. IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit was captured by HAMAS infiltrators, 25 June 2006, in a cross-border Kidnapping and Abduction Operation using underground tunnels into Israel. Operation "Summer Rains" (June 28 – November 26, 2006) and later Operation "Autumn Clouds" (31 October – 7 November 2006) were launched to counter the gradually increasing numbers of Palestinian rocket attacks into Israel. After the withdrawal of the "Autumn Clouds" force, HAMAS irregular paramilitary forces --- together with --- a terrorist contingent of Islamic Jihad militants began launching (16 November) Qassam Rockets at the Israel; as part of a coordinated attack.

After the elections and the rise status of HAMAS, it became obvious that HAMAS was:

• Refusing to refrain in the use of violence to achieve political end.
• Respecting previous agreements to which Palestine agreed.
• Refusing to honor recognition of Israel.

All this and more lead the Israelis to establish the Gaza Blockade of 2007. Gaza and HAMAS have done everything they could to get themselves quarantined-off. There was a time that the Palestinians of Gaza were free and without the land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip, from 2007 to present. But then, they proved themselves to be too barbaric and dangerous to allow the normal freedoms that civilized nations enjoy.

They are not fighting a war of liberation --- this is about power and influence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

Well, to create a movie like this which at best is a historical snapshot, and call it "the seed" of the Arab Israeli conflict is a gross misrepresentation of the situation and history of the region, both before and after 1913.

 

[Coyote]

Well, to create a movie like this which at best is a historical snapshot, and call it "the seed" of the Arab Israeli conflict is a gross misrepresentation of the situation and history of the region, both before and after 1913.

What would you consider "the seed"? There seems to have been a lot going on - no clear cut good and evil - but the dissolution of empires leading to a loss of social cohesion and multiple nationalist movements. Many different factors at play. It intrigues me enough to learn a bit more about the Ottoman Empire - like I said, it's not a period of history I've learned much about.

 

[Roudy]

The seed is religion and its effects on people, especially in a land has been the epicenter of religious wars. You look at the history of the land and how it has been the focus of so many wars, invasions, crusades, jihads, etc. and begin to realize every ruler or empire would make their statement on the world stage by capturing Israel and Jerusalem and doing their victory march there. Jerusalem was the big prize. They would call the land theirs from that point in time, until another army marched in to defeat them. It's good to talk about the history, but the realities on the ground now and the surrounding political environment will dictate the future.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Maybe there will be a sequel.. So let's discuss the Mufti --- but that wasn't in the scope of the documentary.

What I saw was the typical NPT style emotional appeals. Like that flight of fantasy about that picture of the founding settlement for Tel Aviv -- and "being able to see Jaffa if you just turned around".. That settlement WAS built on largely bare dunes. And the picture I posted of what the settlers accomplished in just 2 years is amazing. THAT should have included in such a documentary. But instead, we got exaggerated emotional commentary.

I liked it. Historical dialogue was interesting. The fact that there WERE Pali leaders of statesmanship class was great. Unfortunately, it was demonstrated, but never actually stated in the film that there was no large nationalist movement for the Palis back then and certainly not anything close to national govt with a Palestinian identity. That's my other beef with the film. NPT actually ended the film with a statement like -- "This is where is all went wrong".. Tipped their hand and hearts a bit there --- didn't they? I can live with some compassion for a doomed displaced people who didn't adapt to the situation.. And you kinda EXPECT that bias from a "prog-lite" TV network anyway.

So what did Mr. Mufti DO to move the cause of Palestinian governance and statehood forward? Is this the analogue of Monte's "Zionist conspiracy caused Wilson to enter WW1" theory? Where I could claim that the Mufti advised on Hitler's war on Jews in order to get a favorable land grant when Germany won the war??

 

[Roudy]

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.

Maybe there will be a sequel.. So let's discuss the Mufti --- but that wasn't in the scope of the documentary.

What I saw was the typical NPT style emotional appeals. Like that flight of fantasy about that picture of the founding settlement for Tel Aviv -- and "being able to see Jaffa if you just turned around".. That settlement WAS built on largely bare dunes. And the picture I posted of what the settlers accomplished in just 2 years is amazing. THAT should have included in such a documentary. But instead, we got exaggerated emotional commentary.

I liked it. Historical dialogue was interesting. The fact that there WERE Pali leaders of statesmanship class was great. Unfortunately, it was demonstrated, but never actually stated in the film that there was no large nationalist movement for the Palis back then and certainly not anything close to national govt with a Palestinian identity. That's my other beef with the film. NPT actually ended the film with a statement like -- "This is where is all went wrong".. Tipped their hand and hearts a bit there --- didn't they? I can live with some compassion for a doomed displaced people who didn't adapt to the situation.. And you kinda EXPECT that bias from a "prog-lite" TV network anyway.

So what did Mr. Mufti DO to move the cause of Palestinian governance and statehood forward? Is this the analogue of Monte's "Zionist conspiracy caused Wilson to enter WW1" theory? Where I could claim that the Mufti advised on Hitler's war on Jews in order to get a favorable land grant when Germany won the war??

The Mufti encouraged Hitler to do to the Jews, what the Ottomans (the army he served in) did to the Armenian Christians. His goal was to create a Jew and Christian free Middle East.