1913 Seeds of Conflict finally aired yesterday on PBS

[P F Tinmore]

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..

The Zionist project was a colonial project. It was open knowledge at the time.

Approximately 800,000 dunums have passed into Jewish hands since 1920. Long leases of State Domain have been granted to the colony of Petach-Tikvah, to the Township of Tel-Aviv and the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association.

There are sealed armouries, for use by the colonists themselves in case of sudden attack, in every isolated Jewish colony. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930 ​

The Zionist project was not to have the Jews "live in Palestine" but to form colonies that would be bigger and more numerous with time to eventually take over the entire country. Those colonies were virtually separate from Palestine. That colonizing process continues today with more and bigger colonies in the West Bank.

 

[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.

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.

Indeed, it was a big clusterfuck but the bottom line was that the people were the ones who actually owned the land.

 

[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.

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.

Not really.

The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

 

[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.

Nothing stopped them from doing this apart from themselves.

do you think the Ottoman empire would of let them, they were farmers not fighters. If you had watched the video you would of seen that.

It was not a land without people.

 

[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..

The Zionist project was a colonial project. It was open knowledge at the time.

Approximately 800,000 dunums have passed into Jewish hands since 1920. Long leases of State Domain have been granted to the colony of Petach-Tikvah, to the Township of Tel-Aviv and the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association.

There are sealed armouries, for use by the colonists themselves in case of sudden attack, in every isolated Jewish colony. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930 ​

The Zionist project was not to have the Jews "live in Palestine" but to form colonies that would be bigger and more numerous with time to eventually take over the entire country. Those colonies were virtually separate from Palestine. That colonizing process continues today with more and bigger colonies in the West Bank.

Then the use of "colony" is more like the 1st definition that I gave. NOT a Empire impressing their power and rule over a "colony".. More like ---- There are "colonies" of Mennonites in the Poconos of Penn. Says right in your quote -- "Long Leases of STATE DOMAIN have been granted" to the Jews.. Empires LOVE settlers that will enhance THEIR land on the settlers nickel..

And what I saw in that documentary -- were many shots of gates into these "colonies" or settlements flying Turkish flags. That's NOT "virtually separate" from the entity that held title to the bulk of the land.

Finally -- you against the right to bear arms?? Did the Turks or Brits have an issue with it?? Armories existed in the American colonies under the Brits. Literally by township or county.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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..

The Zionist project was a colonial project. It was open knowledge at the time.

Approximately 800,000 dunums have passed into Jewish hands since 1920. Long leases of State Domain have been granted to the colony of Petach-Tikvah, to the Township of Tel-Aviv and the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association.

There are sealed armouries, for use by the colonists themselves in case of sudden attack, in every isolated Jewish colony. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930 ​

The Zionist project was not to have the Jews "live in Palestine" but to form colonies that would be bigger and more numerous with time to eventually take over the entire country. Those colonies were virtually separate from Palestine. That colonizing process continues today with more and bigger colonies in the West Bank.

Then the use of "colony" is more like the 1st definition that I gave. NOT a Empire impressing their power and rule over a "colony".. More like ---- There are "colonies" of Mennonites in the Poconos of Penn. Says right in your quote -- "Long Leases of STATE DOMAIN have been granted" to the Jews.. Empires LOVE settlers that will enhance THEIR land on the settlers nickel..

And what I saw in that documentary -- were many shots of gates into these "colonies" or settlements flying Turkish flags. That's NOT "virtually separate" from the entity that held title to the bulk of the land.

Finally -- you against the right to bear arms?? Did the Turks or Brits have an issue with it?? Armories existed in the American colonies under the Brits. Literally by township or county.

The Zionist's stated goal was to colonize Palestine until the had the means to take over the entire country for their Jewish state. What they said matches the facts on the ground so I do not dispute them.

 

[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.

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..

The Zionist project was a colonial project. It was open knowledge at the time.

Approximately 800,000 dunums have passed into Jewish hands since 1920. Long leases of State Domain have been granted to the colony of Petach-Tikvah, to the Township of Tel-Aviv and the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association.

There are sealed armouries, for use by the colonists themselves in case of sudden attack, in every isolated Jewish colony. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930 ​

The Zionist project was not to have the Jews "live in Palestine" but to form colonies that would be bigger and more numerous with time to eventually take over the entire country. Those colonies were virtually separate from Palestine. That colonizing process continues today with more and bigger colonies in the West Bank.

Then the use of "colony" is more like the 1st definition that I gave. NOT a Empire impressing their power and rule over a "colony".. More like ---- There are "colonies" of Mennonites in the Poconos of Penn. Says right in your quote -- "Long Leases of STATE DOMAIN have been granted" to the Jews.. Empires LOVE settlers that will enhance THEIR land on the settlers nickel..

And what I saw in that documentary -- were many shots of gates into these "colonies" or settlements flying Turkish flags. That's NOT "virtually separate" from the entity that held title to the bulk of the land.

Finally -- you against the right to bear arms?? Did the Turks or Brits have an issue with it?? Armories existed in the American colonies under the Brits. Literally by township or county.

Yes, I saw alot of Turkish flags in the documentary as well. And the local Arabs were upset that the Jews did not salute the Turkish flags. So where was this Palestinian identity?

At least now I know where the term "Young Turks" comes from.

 

[Penelope]

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..

The Zionist project was a colonial project. It was open knowledge at the time.

Approximately 800,000 dunums have passed into Jewish hands since 1920. Long leases of State Domain have been granted to the colony of Petach-Tikvah, to the Township of Tel-Aviv and the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association.

There are sealed armouries, for use by the colonists themselves in case of sudden attack, in every isolated Jewish colony. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1930 ​

The Zionist project was not to have the Jews "live in Palestine" but to form colonies that would be bigger and more numerous with time to eventually take over the entire country. Those colonies were virtually separate from Palestine. That colonizing process continues today with more and bigger colonies in the West Bank.

Then the use of "colony" is more like the 1st definition that I gave. NOT a Empire impressing their power and rule over a "colony".. More like ---- There are "colonies" of Mennonites in the Poconos of Penn. Says right in your quote -- "Long Leases of STATE DOMAIN have been granted" to the Jews.. Empires LOVE settlers that will enhance THEIR land on the settlers nickel..

And what I saw in that documentary -- were many shots of gates into these "colonies" or settlements flying Turkish flags. That's NOT "virtually separate" from the entity that held title to the bulk of the land.

Finally -- you against the right to bear arms?? Did the Turks or Brits have an issue with it?? Armories existed in the American colonies under the Brits. Literally by township or county.

Yes, I saw alot of Turkish flags in the documentary as well. And the local Arabs were upset that the Jews did not salute the Turkish flags. So where was this Palestinian identity?

At least now I know where the term "Young Turks" comes from.

Incognito jews mainly.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not agree. Whatever you may think of the Courts decision, it was not talking about the political entities arising new. It was referring to the government debt. And that the successor government assumed the debt. Thus you will notice that the Arabs (or Jews) of Palestine did not assume the debt. The Mandatory was ordered to assume the debt because it was the government. Nowhere in Judgment #5 is the phrase "State of Palestine" used; rather it uses (which is very important distinction) the Phrase "Government of Palestine" (meaning the Mandatory Power). What the Judgment said was this:

Judgment #5​

The Court, composed as above, having heard the observations and conclusions of the Parties, delivers the following judgment:

The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman
authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to be constructed in Palestine.

This application concludes with a request that the Court may be pleased to give judgment to the effect that i:he Government of Palestine and consequently also the Government of His Britannic Majesty have, since 1921, wrongfully refused to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis under the contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities in regard to the works specified above, and that the Government of His Britannic Majesty shall make reparation for the consequent loss incurred by the said Greek subject, a loss which is estimated at £234.339 together with interest at six percent. as from July 20th, 1923, the date on which this estimate was made.
​

Not really.

The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

(COMMENT)

The Court said that the Mandatories, when they assumed control, were responsible for the debts incurred by the previous government, as the successor to that previous government.

It must be understood that neither the Arab or the Jewish (or any other inhabitant) had the competency to enter into a governmental contract. And that under both the Treaty of Sevres and the Mandate itself, hold the Mandatory (the Government of His Britannic Majesty). Had the Palestine been a sovereign state, it would have been held accountable for the debt. Article 22 of the Covenant requires the "Provisional" candidate to be able to stand alone. While Transjordan had working financial system, the inhabitants of the remainder of the territory did not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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..

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.

 

[montelatici]

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.

 

[Hossfly]

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

 

[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..

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.

 

[Hossfly]

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.

What's the difference than your opinions and fantasys?

 

[montelatici]

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.

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.

 

[Roudy]

And still no word on the Homeless jewish illegal immigrants who took over Part of Palestine

I need to block out 2 hours of my time to watch it. Probably tonite. But my mom's family WERE homeless immigrants from war-torn Poland when they moved to the newly-created State of Israel.

Well, I watched it and 2 things stood out in the film:

1) In a letter from one Arab official to a Jewish official, the Arab wrote, "Who can deny that in terms of history, the land really belongs to the Jews?"

2) The Arabs were upset that the new Jewish immigrants wouldn't salute the Ottoman flag. So it seems that they thought of themselves as Turks, instead of as Palestinians. So why didn't they move to Turkey in that case?

OMG OMG OMG...so not only does Monte mutilate documents on a regular basis, but he mutilated the message of the documentary?! Wow, I am like soooo surprised.

 

[Roudy]

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.

Again, the film does not mention the Nazi Mufti of Palestine, that's like having a documentary about Nazi Germany and not mentioning Hitler.

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

Recent work by historians and apologists has revealed that an influential, international religious leader was also an ardent supporter of Adolf Hitler. His name was not Pope Pius XII but Hajj Amin al-Husseini. This Grand Mufti of Jerusalem recruited whole divisions of fanatics to fight and kill in the name of extremism.

Revered in some circles today as one of the fathers of modern radical Islam, al-Husseini has been the subject of a number of modern studies. Scholars such as David Dalin, John Rothmann, Chuck Morse, and others have courageously brought al-Husseini’s actions to light. "Hitler’s Mufti," as many have called him, had a direct hand in some of the darkest moments of the Holocaust, the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians, and the formation of some of the most hate-filled generations of modern history. Al-Husseini is a testament to the way that evil finds evil.

 

[montelatici]

And still no word on the Homeless jewish illegal immigrants who took over Part of Palestine

I need to block out 2 hours of my time to watch it. Probably tonite. But my mom's family WERE homeless immigrants from war-torn Poland when they moved to the newly-created State of Israel.

Well, I watched it and 2 things stood out in the film:

1) In a letter from one Arab official to a Jewish official, the Arab wrote, "Who can deny that in terms of history, the land really belongs to the Jews?"

2) The Arabs were upset that the new Jewish immigrants wouldn't salute the Ottoman flag. So it seems that they thought of themselves as Turks, instead of as Palestinians. So why didn't they move to Turkey in that case?

OMG OMG OMG...so not only does Monte mutilate documents on a regular basis, but he mutilated the message of the documentary?! Wow, I am like soooo surprised.

You lost big time Ruddy. More lying won't help. LOL

 

[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.

Again, the film does not mention the Nazi Mufti of Palestine, that's like having a documentary about Nazi Germany and not mentioning Hitler.

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

Recent work by historians and apologists has revealed that an influential, international religious leader was also an ardent supporter of Adolf Hitler. His name was not Pope Pius XII but Hajj Amin al-Husseini. This Grand Mufti of Jerusalem recruited whole divisions of fanatics to fight and kill in the name of extremism.

Revered in some circles today as one of the fathers of modern radical Islam, al-Husseini has been the subject of a number of modern studies. Scholars such as David Dalin, John Rothmann, Chuck Morse, and others have courageously brought al-Husseini’s actions to light. "Hitler’s Mufti," as many have called him, had a direct hand in some of the darkest moments of the Holocaust, the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians, and the formation of some of the most hate-filled generations of modern history. Al-Husseini is a testament to the way that evil finds evil.

That's stale Ruddy, you lost. Posting more propaganda won't help. Watch "1913: Seeds of Conflict."

 

[Roudy]

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.

Nobody has denied that Muslims outnumbered the Jews in the REGION. But in the 1800's Jerusalem the capital of "Palestine" had more Jews than both Muslims and Christians, and this majority had built up for 500 years by gradual Jewish migration into Ottoman lands, of which Palestine was part of.