1913 Seeds of Conflict finally aired yesterday on PBS

[P F Tinmore]

I watched the first 1/2 or so.. Made it perfectly clear there was no "government" of Palestine established in that era.
That law and rights and justice were whatever the Turks or later British decided it would be.. An area of autonomous city-states who served as appointees by the ruling party..

Had there BEEN a unified governed Palestine -- the outcome might have been different.. But it's not..

Indeed, the British were charged with developing an independent state but in reality they prevented that from happening.

PROOF as they eventually managed to develop Jordan, Iraq and Israel the only 3 states that where envisaged by the LoN in their covenant and mandates

The British had nothing to do with Israel's declaration.

 

[Penelope]

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.

 

[Phoenall]

Does any of that conflict with this brief history given several years before?

Reality conflicts with the islamonazi propaganda every time, no matter how many cyber terrorists you can muster to alter the history there are always the UN archives that paint the truth

Of course you will not mention what she said that was not true.

What did she say that was proven true ?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

The Arab thief had stolen a vast amount of grapes from a Jewish farmer, which caused the killing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Does any of that conflict with this brief history given several years before?

Reality conflicts with the islamonazi propaganda every time, no matter how many cyber terrorists you can muster to alter the history there are always the UN archives that paint the truth

Of course you will not mention what she said that was not true.

What did she say that was proven true ?

You are the one claiming the information to be false.

It is up to you to prove your point.

 

[Phoenall]

I watched the first 1/2 or so.. Made it perfectly clear there was no "government" of Palestine established in that era.
That law and rights and justice were whatever the Turks or later British decided it would be.. An area of autonomous city-states who served as appointees by the ruling party..

Had there BEEN a unified governed Palestine -- the outcome might have been different.. But it's not..

Indeed, the British were charged with developing an independent state but in reality they prevented that from happening.

PROOF as they eventually managed to develop Jordan, Iraq and Israel the only 3 states that where envisaged by the LoN in their covenant and mandates

The British had nothing to do with Israel's declaration.

It was made under the Mandate and was triggered by the British cutting their losses and leaving Palestine, so it had every thing to do with the declaration. But I note you ignore the truth regarding Palestine, why is that ?

 

[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.

 

[montelatici]

Another interesting part of the movie is that the major Arab newspaper they show being read is called La Palestine or in English "Palestine". This is before 1913. Proving that the claim that there was no concept of Palestine until the 1960s, is simply Zionist propaganda. Let's see if our resident Zionists try pouting that piece of Hasbara propaganda again on this forum.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I watched the first 1/2 or so.. Made it perfectly clear there was no "government" of Palestine established in that era.
That law and rights and justice were whatever the Turks or later British decided it would be.. An area of autonomous city-states who served as appointees by the ruling party..

Had there BEEN a unified governed Palestine -- the outcome might have been different.. But it's not..

Indeed, the British were charged with developing an independent state but in reality they prevented that from happening.

PROOF as they eventually managed to develop Jordan, Iraq and Israel the only 3 states that where envisaged by the LoN in their covenant and mandates

The British had nothing to do with Israel's declaration.

It was made under the Mandate and was triggered by the British cutting their losses and leaving Palestine, so it had every thing to do with the declaration. But I note you ignore the truth regarding Palestine, why is that ?

Israel's declaration was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with anything else.

 

[Phoenall]

Does any of that conflict with this brief history given several years before?

Reality conflicts with the islamonazi propaganda every time, no matter how many cyber terrorists you can muster to alter the history there are always the UN archives that paint the truth

Of course you will not mention what she said that was not true.

What did she say that was proven true ?

You are the one claiming the information to be false.

It is up to you to prove your point.

Have done many times only for you to claim it is hasbara propaganda

 

[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.

The Arab thief had stolen a vast amount of grapes from a Jewish farmer, which caused the killing.

Can you believe this clown. The film says a "bunch" of grapes, and he says "a vast amount" not realizing what a "bunch" means in terms of grapes. Or playing dumb.

Now that these lying Zionists can't claim that it was the terrible Arabs that started the murdering, they now try to justify the death penalty for Arabs that steal a "bunch" of grapes. This film has been a Godsend, pardon the pun.

 

[Phoenall]

I watched the first 1/2 or so.. Made it perfectly clear there was no "government" of Palestine established in that era.
That law and rights and justice were whatever the Turks or later British decided it would be.. An area of autonomous city-states who served as appointees by the ruling party..

Had there BEEN a unified governed Palestine -- the outcome might have been different.. But it's not..

Indeed, the British were charged with developing an independent state but in reality they prevented that from happening.

PROOF as they eventually managed to develop Jordan, Iraq and Israel the only 3 states that where envisaged by the LoN in their covenant and mandates

The British had nothing to do with Israel's declaration.

It was made under the Mandate and was triggered by the British cutting their losses and leaving Palestine, so it had every thing to do with the declaration. But I note you ignore the truth regarding Palestine, why is that ?

Israel's declaration was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with anything else.

And would not be accepted unless it was founded on the Mandate principles and UN charter,

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Most of the cities, towns, and agricultural villages predate the Ottoman period. The Ottomans claimed the native's land because that is what empires do. They did, however, grant perpetual lease rights to the real owners. The rights could be bought, sold, or inherited.

It was not much different than in the US where you "lease" the right to own property by paying property taxes.

It was just a different way of wording the system. Once the empire dissolved the original owners reclaimed their land.

 

[Penelope]

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.

 

[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..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

 

[Penelope]

Who is to say the Palestinians would not of had one a long time ago IF the Jews, mainly Russian Jews had not immigrated to the area and with all their money and bought some land.

 

[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.

Most of the cities, towns, and agricultural villages predate the Ottoman period. The Ottomans claimed the native's land because that is what empires do. They did, however, grant perpetual lease rights to the real owners. The rights could be bought, sold, or inherited.

It was not much different than in the US where you "lease" the right to own property by paying property taxes.

It was just a different way of wording the system. Once the empire dissolved the original owners reclaimed their land.

Yet very few arab muslims took up the offers because it meant paying taxes and doing army service. So the rich Ottoman landlords bought up the land and leased it to whoever. The original owners still owned the land as late as 1947 and were trying to sell it as fast as they could before the British left and it became a free for all, The Mandate allowed for this by having a clause along the lines of once independence was achieved the land reverted to state land of the Jews.

 

[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.

Then the Jews could do the same thing, or were the rules different. The land owners were Ottoman landlords who lived elsewhere, so ownership came with being able to buy the land from them. That is why the Jews owned so much of the land and the arab muslims so little.

 

[Phoenall]

Who is to say the Palestinians would not of had one a long time ago IF the Jews, mainly Russian Jews had not immigrated to the area and with all their money and bought some land.

Nothing stopped them from doing this apart from themselves.