1913 Seeds of Conflict finally aired yesterday on PBS

[Hossfly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Trek 1835-1846 South African History Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tinmore would try the patience of Job.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

I disagree. I think a 2-state solution is still possible. I am not one of those religious fanatics who think that the whole land must remain under our control because it was promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Right now, the settlement blocs still consist of only 6% of the West Bank, which could be swapped for 5 or 6% of the Negev. But an independent Palestine cannot be duplicitous. It must cooperate fully with Israel concerning security, especially on matters pertaining to Iran.

 

[Roudy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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

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

The rest is history.

 

[Roudy]

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

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

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

I disagree. I think a 2-state solution is still possible. I am not one of those religious fanatics who think that the whole land must remain under our control because it was promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Right now, the settlement blocs still consist of only 6% of the West Bank, which could be swapped for 5 or 6% of the Negev. But an independent Palestine cannot be duplicitous. It must cooperate fully with Israel concerning security, especially on matters pertaining to Iran.

Israel will eventually annex the West Bank, and Gaza will probably become an autonomous region of Egypt. They can call it whatever they want, Palestine or Shmalestine. They're mostly Egyptians anyhow. This will take decades but it will happen.

 

[Roudy]

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.

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

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

The rest is history.

That's a nice antisemtic canard, and only believable if you're a Palestinian Hamas terrorist lover on hashish.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

I disagree. I think a 2-state solution is still possible. I am not one of those religious fanatics who think that the whole land must remain under our control because it was promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Right now, the settlement blocs still consist of only 6% of the West Bank, which could be swapped for 5 or 6% of the Negev. But an independent Palestine cannot be duplicitous. It must cooperate fully with Israel concerning security, especially on matters pertaining to Iran.

Right now, the settlement blocs still consist of only 6% of the West Bank, which could be swapped for 5 or 6% of the Negev.​

Indeed, the Palestinians will give up some of the most valuable real estate and get sand.

Is that another of those "generous offers?"

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

I disagree. I think a 2-state solution is still possible. I am not one of those religious fanatics who think that the whole land must remain under our control because it was promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Right now, the settlement blocs still consist of only 6% of the West Bank, which could be swapped for 5 or 6% of the Negev. But an independent Palestine cannot be duplicitous. It must cooperate fully with Israel concerning security, especially on matters pertaining to Iran.

Right now, the settlement blocs still consist of only 6% of the West Bank, which could be swapped for 5 or 6% of the Negev.​

Indeed, the Palestinians will give up some of the most valuable real estate and get sand.

Is that another of those "generous offers?"

The Palestinians want land that is Judenrein. So Israel HAS to give the Negev. Tel-Aviv is full of Jews.

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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

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

The rest is history.

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

 

[montelatici]

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or

unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."


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

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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

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

The rest is history.

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

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

 

[montelatici]

A great American.

 

[Roudy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Roudy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Roudy]

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or

unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."


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

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

 

[Roudy]

A great American.

A moron propagandist like you.

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[montelatici]

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or

unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."


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

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

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