1913 Seeds of Conflict finally aired yesterday on PBS

[Phoenall]

I don't know why the Zionist continue to deny that the Arabs and Christians outnumbered Jews there, and if not for the money the Jews would not of been able to buy the land.
Even a head Jews in the doc said he referred to himself as a Turk.

We don't even seen what happened after WWI or WWII, it must of been a living nightmare for the Arabs there.

Without money the arabs would not be able to buy the land either, hold on they never bought the land did they it was stolen.

No they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Ownership comes with working and living on the land. Things were different back then. There were empires , not nations, of course the Jews didn't like that did they, going for global communism and socialism.

Now the Jews want a national Jewish state. Go figure.

"""""""Now the Jews want a national Jewish state.""""""

NOW the Palestinians want a NATIONAL Arab state.. Go figure.. Today really is the Arab version of Zionism that we see in the documentary. Except NOW there is a sovereign state there with it's own security and interests to protect. Not a remote Empire that just wants to keep the lid on things and encourage development that they don't have to pay for.

The difference is that the Palestinians do not come from another continent, they are the indigenous people the Europeans colonized. Your dog won't hunt, I'm afraid.

A pity then that the arab muslims came from Saudi Arabia many miles to the south and had less reason to be there than the INVITED JEW OF THE WORLD. So how can invited immigrants have less rights than uninvited immigrants

 

[Phoenall]

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

Yeah, but it's still way behind DanceMoms and America's Funniest Videos.. It was ALMOST objective -- but failed to make a case for the existence of any organized Palestinian state or government.

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.

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

I found this blog about the PBS show very interesting.

Point of No Return Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries Seeds of conflict could sow confusion

And as the report says it is just a theory of one person that the theft of grapes was the start of the problems. Yet fails to mentiont life for these Jews was neither secure nor prosperous, and they subsisted on charitable handouts from abroad. Cruciall, they had to ‘know their place’ under Muslim rule. From time to time, the Arab inhabitants made the Jews ‘understand their ways’ — which could consist of bloody pogroms. For instance, in 1834, the Palestinian Arabs of eastern Galilee took advantage of a regional war between Egypt and Turkey to attack their Jewish neighbours in Safed and strip them of everything they had — clothes, property, homes. Jews were beaten to death, sometimes by their own neighbours, synagogues destroyed and holy books desecrated.


And I believe that this was the cause of the problems

In truth, it could be argued that the breakdown of the traditional dhimmi relationship was one of the root causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Perhaps the decisive incident took place, not in 1913, but in 1908, when the Hashomer Hatza’ir pioneers of Sejera dismissed their Circassian guards — who protected their settlement against Bedouin raids — and replaced them with Jewish guards. For the Jews, this was an ideological statement of self-sufficiency. But for the neighbouring Arab fellaheen, they had crossed a red line. They had reneged on their part of the bargain: the dhimmi, who was not allowed to bear arms, should always look to the Muslim for protection.

 

[Phoenall]

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

Yeah, but it's still way behind DanceMoms and America's Funniest Videos.. It was ALMOST objective -- but failed to make a case for the existence of any organized Palestinian state or government.

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.

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

I found this blog about the PBS show very interesting.

Point of No Return Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries Seeds of conflict could sow confusion

A Zionists blog is not interesting. It is just an attempt to revitalize the Zionist myth (lies) which the film emphatically destroyed once and for all.

Just as islamocatholic LIES, BLOOD LIBELS and PROPAGANDA are just that and attempt to hide the truth and reality of palestine

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

I found this blog about the PBS show very interesting.

Point of No Return Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries Seeds of conflict could sow confusion

A Zionists blog is not interesting. It is just an attempt to revitalize the Zionist myth (lies) which the film emphatically destroyed once and for all.

What's the difference than your opinions and fantasys?

It is the film's scrupulously researched facts, not anyone's opinion that has destroyed the veracity of the Zionist myth you have been spouting for years.

COWFLOP it is one persons views that uses islamocatholic NAZI PROPAGANDA and fails under scrutiny

 

[Coyote]

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

Yeah, but it's still way behind DanceMoms and America's Funniest Videos.. It was ALMOST objective -- but failed to make a case for the existence of any organized Palestinian state or government.

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.

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

It sounds a good bit, imo, like America's westward expansion. American settler's claimed land under the idea of Manifest Destiny. "Land rights" and "ownership" under indiginous people's was ambiguous at best and easily circumvented or overuled by a more powerful American presence who asserted their rules and "rights" over existing peoples. Manifest Destiny seems to me to be the same as Zionism, as practiced in the expansion and founding of Israel. Even the arguments that they made unworked land "productive" - something that they felt reduced any rights for those already existing there. Nomadic people's, sadly - lose when it comes to "land rights" over traditional pathways they followed for generations and that applies to many peoples around the world when faced by dominant, settled cultures. I think there is a lot of parallels between the American westward expansion and sense of entitlement and Israel's own history. Maybe that is one of reasons Americans feel closely bonded to Israel. Manifest destiny = Zionism?

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, but it's still way behind DanceMoms and America's Funniest Videos.. It was ALMOST objective -- but failed to make a case for the existence of any organized Palestinian state or government.

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.

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

I found this blog about the PBS show very interesting.

Point of No Return Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries Seeds of conflict could sow confusion

A Zionists blog is not interesting. It is just an attempt to revitalize the Zionist myth (lies) which the film emphatically destroyed once and for all.

Just as islamocatholic LIES, BLOOD LIBELS and PROPAGANDA are just that and attempt to hide the truth and reality of palestine

Can you expand your vocabulary a bit Phoenall? Otherwise...the only image I can conjur up is a red faced, sweaty man pounding his fists and hurling spittle-inflected pronouncements. What "truth and reality"? Do you have some sources - to use your demand "unbiased sources" to show this "truth and reality"?

See if you can provide an answer without "islamochatholic, blood libel (which this is not by the way), islamonazi, or nazi".

 

[montelatici]

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

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 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?

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

#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.

3. The Europeans mistreated the locals.

#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.

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 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.

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."

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

 

[there4eyeM]

It was a well-done little documentary with much to teach about the origins of the situation.

 

[montelatici]

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

Yeah, but it's still way behind DanceMoms and America's Funniest Videos.. It was ALMOST objective -- but failed to make a case for the existence of any organized Palestinian state or government.

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.

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

It sounds a good bit, imo, like America's westward expansion. American settler's claimed land under the idea of Manifest Destiny. "Land rights" and "ownership" under indiginous people's was ambiguous at best and easily circumvented or overuled by a more powerful American presence who asserted their rules and "rights" over existing peoples. Manifest Destiny seems to me to be the same as Zionism, as practiced in the expansion and founding of Israel. Even the arguments that they made unworked land "productive" - something that they felt reduced any rights for those already existing there. Nomadic people's, sadly - lose when it comes to "land rights" over traditional pathways they followed for generations and that applies to many peoples around the world when faced by dominant, settled cultures. I think there is a lot of parallels between the American westward expansion and sense of entitlement and Israel's own history. Maybe that is one of reasons Americans feel closely bonded to Israel. Manifest destiny = Zionism?

Same with the Voortrekkers.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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 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?

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

#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.

3. The Europeans mistreated the locals.

#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.

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 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.

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."

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.

The Boers were a nationalistic group -- not a nation.. They were PUSHED into settling new areas and conflict by the TRUE colonization of the British and the Dutch.

From Miriam-Webster --- " control by one country over another area and its people". Nationalistic movements searching for territory are yet to have the legal system, international recognition and access to diplomacy, standing militaries and such to IMPOSE on a colony..

Settlements <==> colonies, what difference is that to the facts of HOW they were governed or subsisted???

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

Nice (and polite) attempt at damage control. But, no cigar I'm afraid.

1. The Zionists self described their adventure in Palestine as the building of a colony which would eventually become a Jewish state. They said this many times after 1913, but also before, if you read the article below, you can see that there is no question as to what their intent was.

NYT 1899

2. You did not read or believed it was my editorializing with respect to the photo. The text was what was said by one of the historians in the film, pointing to the fact that the photo was taken to include the beach sand dunes and specifically avoided the Christian and Muslim owned orchards and the city of Jaffa which was just 180 degrees to the left or right. Tel Aviv was built on the fertile land that supported the orchards and olive groves previously owned by the Christians and Muslims.

3. I have never understood why Zionists put such importance on "Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time."

I have seen this on many of the Hasbara sites which teach Zionists how to respond to critics of Israel, but i don't understand its significance. After all, there was no European rule during this period either.

Perhaps you can explain to me why the many elected Palestinian leaders such as the mayor of Jerusalem, featured in the film, and the elected representatives for Palestine, that the film indicated spent much of their time representing the Palestinian people in Istanbul, the capital, do not represent governing within the auspices of Ottoman Empire.

Still don't buy your twisted interpretation of that photo. Had no P.Relations purpose to avoid showing somebody's orchards. Those settlers were not fixated on stealing them. Could very well be to express the challenge of building a livable environment in that mostly barren land.

Don't care about the word Colonies. You shouldn't either. Zionism was a NATIONALIST movement. The goal was to unite and eventually build a national entity as your quote says. NO ONE at that time was deluded into thinking that the Turks would bless that venture. HOWEVER -- the Turks were more than pleased to have these settlements as they added largely to the value of their Empire holdings.

A "mayor of Jerusalem" or a representative to the Ottoman Empire is NOT a Palestine government. There was very little "nationalism" or Palestinian identity for the Arab residents in 1913 and no large scale push to form a national government or alliance.

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?

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Yeah, but it's still way behind DanceMoms and America's Funniest Videos.. It was ALMOST objective -- but failed to make a case for the existence of any organized Palestinian state or government.

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.

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

It sounds a good bit, imo, like America's westward expansion. American settler's claimed land under the idea of Manifest Destiny. "Land rights" and "ownership" under indiginous people's was ambiguous at best and easily circumvented or overuled by a more powerful American presence who asserted their rules and "rights" over existing peoples. Manifest Destiny seems to me to be the same as Zionism, as practiced in the expansion and founding of Israel. Even the arguments that they made unworked land "productive" - something that they felt reduced any rights for those already existing there. Nomadic people's, sadly - lose when it comes to "land rights" over traditional pathways they followed for generations and that applies to many peoples around the world when faced by dominant, settled cultures. I think there is a lot of parallels between the American westward expansion and sense of entitlement and Israel's own history. Maybe that is one of reasons Americans feel closely bonded to Israel. Manifest destiny = Zionism?

It is very similar. And the outcome for SOME of the indigenous folks was similarly crappy. But the difference was that US expansion was DRIVEN by an existing govt both thru strength and law and financing. Zionism was a populist movement -- even at times communistic once land was acquired. With no real central govt or diplomatic issues until the 20th century. In both cases, the clash was between cultures that were CENTURIES apart in organization and values. Not MORAL values, as those were extremely similar between Jew and Arab -- but values placed on development, trade, world participation, and technology that were attenuated or even suppressed in the values lists of Arabs. Made it hard to make ASSIMILATION and dialogue and cooperation a part of the plan.

All that reconcilation would take patience and tolerance. And the world was changing too quickly back then for patience and tolerance. Especially when you arrive in the HolyLand a week after your village in Russia had been used for sword practice by mounted Cossacks..

The only difference between Zionism in 1913 and the Palestinian movement today -- is that Palestinians are attempting the REVERSE conquest. Instead of searching out a void for their "Manifest Destiny", they are violently attempting to displace an ESTABLISHED power with a nationalism that doesnt include valuing infrastructure, governance, or diplomacy. The Pali Movement is an "ism" also...

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW: One of my whackier personal convictions is that the US should 'Re-Deed" all those 10s of millions of acres of poorly managed BLM and Forestry land in the west BACK to the indigenous Indians. THEY would be better stewards of the land because it MATCHES their cultural lifestyle and they CARE for it.. Israel might take a note on that concept when talking with Abbas about peace. Because in 1913 -- the MAJORITY of the Arabs lived in the hills that are still pretty vacant areas of Israel proper.

 

[toastman]

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

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 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?

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

#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.

3. The Europeans mistreated the locals.

#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.

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 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.

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."

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Decided to go fetch other pictures of Ahuzat Bayit -- that disputed founders pictures in the NPT film..
Just to see WHERE the settlement actually was. Because the Southern Tel Aviv that I strolled thru WAS built on mostly sand dunes.. So it's interesting if you look just TWO YEARS LATER -- how much was accomplished..

And here is the map of the settlement grants. and the street plans.. To see Jaffa -- you would have needed binoculars. I think the producers were taking a little flight of literary fancy with that emotional claim..

Even has the DEED from the absentee ARab landowner that SOLD THEM the land.. Take a look at the Stanford website..

Ahuzat Bayit and the Founding of Tel Aviv in 1909 SUL

I don't see nothing but dunes under HertzlStrasse.. Do YOU???

 

[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.

 

[montelatici]

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

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 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?

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

#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.

3. The Europeans mistreated the locals.

#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.

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 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.

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."

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

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Don't think I have a problem with your 5 points. I'd dispute "colony" because it's ambiguous. Can mean a cloistered and isolated group within in larger sovereign nation or the totally dominated product of Colonial adventurism. But you put way too much meaning into photos that isn't fully in evidence.

Perhaps this "propaganda picture" is correct in that THIS group of immigrants intended to CLAIM those sand dunes and make them productive. Much like the process went for the Arab/Christian land in front of them.
This picture says NOTHING about intent to take or steal others property..

And so --- the production crew left the picture to be interpreted as a ransacking horde of immoral foreigners.
Much like the producers never actually stated that there was no government or Palestinian rule of the land during this period of time..

I found this blog about the PBS show very interesting.

Point of No Return Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries Seeds of conflict could sow confusion

A Zionists blog is not interesting. It is just an attempt to revitalize the Zionist myth (lies) which the film emphatically destroyed once and for all.

Just as islamocatholic LIES, BLOOD LIBELS and PROPAGANDA are just that and attempt to hide the truth and reality of palestine

Can you expand your vocabulary a bit Phoenall? Otherwise...the only image I can conjur up is a red faced, sweaty man pounding his fists and hurling spittle-inflected pronouncements. What "truth and reality"? Do you have some sources - to use your demand "unbiased sources" to show this "truth and reality"?

See if you can provide an answer without "islamochatholic, blood libel (which this is not by the way), islamonazi, or nazi".

When team Palestine can refrain from claiming everything is Zionist hasbara propaganda then I might. But until that time I will call it as I see it and give back what is dished out. Don't like it take it up with the propagansists that spamm and troll the board.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

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 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?

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

#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.

3. The Europeans mistreated the locals.

#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.

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 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.

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."

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 alot more patience than I do, toast. Especially when it comes to you and Tinmore.

 

[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 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.