1913 Seeds of Conflict finally aired yesterday on PBS

[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.

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.

Only in your propaganda. "Watch 1913: Seeds of Conflict" they did the research.

 

[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.

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

The filmmaker didn't mention the Nazi Mufti, therefore making it worthless. Sure, there may be truthful mementos, photos, and tidbits here and there, but as a reference point for what actually happened, it has zero historical value.

 

[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."

The filmmaker didn't mention the Nazi Mufti, therefore making it worthless. Sure, there may be truthful mementos, photos, and tidbits here and there, but as a reference point for what actually happened, it has zero historical value.

It has absolute historical value. It erases the Zionist myth. Even Jewish sites reluctantly agree.

 

[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.

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.

Once the Ottoman Empire collapsed the Arabs did start murdering, get it right IslamoNazi liar.

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

This was described by al-Husseini in his own memoirs:

Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish people in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: "The Jews are yours." (Ami Isseroff and Peter FitzGerald-Morris, "The Iraq Coup Attempt of 1941, the Mufti, and the Farhud")

 

[montelatici]

Just propaganda, that's all you have ever posted.

"Jewish people have prided themselves on holding ourselves — and Israel — to a higher standard, and are willing to cling to their mythology in the face of history."

1913 Seeds of Conflict traces the roots of Arab-Israeli unrest Hollywood Jewish Journal

 

[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.

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.

More stale repetitive propaganda. Jews have been contiually going back to their ancestral and religious homeland for 2000 years.

 

[montelatici]

You have been posting the same lies, now exposed by the film, for years. You have been shown to be a liar and a propagandist. You lost big time Ruddy. Your posts have non relevance.

 

[Roudy]

Just propaganda, that's all you have ever posted.

"Jewish people have prided themselves on holding ourselves — and Israel — to a higher standard, and are willing to cling to their mythology in the face of history."

1913 Seeds of Conflict traces the roots of Arab-Israeli unrest Hollywood Jewish Journal

Leftist propaganda. The director is a spoiled brat Hollywood movie maker, not a historian. Just like Michael Moore movies, he was out to create a false narrarative and accomplished it.

 

[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.

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

Exactly.

 

[montelatici]

Just fact as all the reviews have confirmed. It's the end of the Zionist myth (lie).

Breaking new ground and laying bare old myths, 1913: Seeds of Conflict explores the little-known history of Palestine during the latter part of the Ottoman Empire. Living side by side in the multi-lingual, cosmopolitan city of Jerusalem, Jews, Christians and Muslims intermingled with a cultural fluidity enjoyed by all. How did this land of milk and honey, so diverse and rich in culture, become the site of today’s bitter and seemingly intractable struggle? Was there a turning point when things could have been different? Weaving the raveled threads of Arab and Jewish narratives back together, 1913: Seeds of Conflict provides new and fascinating insights into events that took place in Palestine which presaged a century of unrest.

1913 Seeds of Conflict WXXI

 

[Roudy]

You have been posting the same lies, now exposed by the film, for years. You have been shown to be a liar and a propagandist. You lost big time Ruddy. Your posts have non relevance.

You just described yourself to the T, mr. 24/7 false propagandist on the Internet

It's fun watching you salivate over this meaningless film though. It takes so little for you antisemites to poop in your pantalones.

 

[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

Exactly.

You mean that you would have us believe that a Zionist blog is not promulgating damage control propaganda. LOL

 

[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.

Only in your propaganda. "Watch 1913: Seeds of Conflict" they did the research.

Research that leaves out the Nazi Mufti, the most central figure of conflict in the region at the time? Ha ha ha. Oh please, you are pathetic.

 

[Hossfly]

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.

If they did look into the facts and researched some more, they would have found that Winston Churchill said that the Arabs were coming into the area in hordes from their impoverished countries because the Jews had jobs for them. Don't you think the British officials in the area saw what was going on? I don't know if you have been living in a cave even though it is obvious that you live on this forum, but we in America are able to see how the U.S. population has changed and is still changing and one of the reasons is that people have come to America because their own countries can't seem to help them live a decent life. So you can spit out "zionist" this and "zionist" that as if nothing is worth anything if written by someone whose opinion you don't want to hear, but the people reading here are smarter than that and can see what you are up to. Maybe Monte can tell us why a couple of years back an Egyptian leader said for the people in Gaza to come back to Egypt where they belong. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people in Israel of all religions who can tell which country the last name of individual Arabs derived from -- Egypt, Syria, etc, I am beginning to wonder what Monte's roots are.

 

[montelatici]

You have been posting the same lies, now exposed by the film, for years. You have been shown to be a liar and a propagandist. You lost big time Ruddy. Your posts have non relevance.

You just described yourself to the T, mr. 24/7 false propagandist on the Internet

It's fun watching you salivate over this meaningless film though. It takes so little for you antisemites to poop in your pantalones.

What's fun is watching wriggle. You have been exposed as a consistent liar and propaganda monger. The film, essentially puts into film what I have been posting. I have been vindicated Ruddy. Get it.

 

[Roudy]

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

Exactly.

You mean that you would have us believe that a Zionist blog is not promulgating damage control propaganda. LOL

Nope, the writer is telling the truth, and obviously, you can't handle it. Braying "Zionist" or "Hasbara" won't help either.

 

[Roudy]

You have been posting the same lies, now exposed by the film, for years. You have been shown to be a liar and a propagandist. You lost big time Ruddy. Your posts have non relevance.

You just described yourself to the T, mr. 24/7 false propagandist on the Internet

It's fun watching you salivate over this meaningless film though. It takes so little for you antisemites to poop in your pantalones.

What's fun is watching wriggle. You have been exposed as a consistent liar and propaganda monger. The film, essentially puts into film what I have been posting. I have been vindicated Ruddy. Get it.

Yes, you are a legend in your own mind. Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

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.

If they did look into the facts and researched some more, they would have found that Winston Churchill said that the Arabs were coming into the area in hordes from their impoverished countries because the Jews had jobs for them. Don't you think the British officials in the area saw what was going on? I don't know if you have been living in a cave even though it is obvious that you live on this forum, but we in America are able to see how the U.S. population has changed and is still changing and one of the reasons is that people have come to America because their own countries can't seem to help them live a decent life. So you can spit out "zionist" this and "zionist" that as if nothing is worth anything if written by someone whose opinion you don't want to hear, but the people reading here are smarter than that and can see what you are up to. Maybe Monte can tell us why a couple of years back an Egyptian leader said for the people in Gaza to come back to Egypt where they belong. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people in Israel of all religions who can tell which country the last name of individual Arabs derived from -- Egypt, Syria, etc, I am beginning to wonder what Monte's roots are.

Which Monte, 1, 2, or 3? Like I said the film has more historical holes than Swiss cheese.

 

[toastman]

You have been posting the same lies, now exposed by the film, for years. You have been shown to be a liar and a propagandist. You lost big time Ruddy. Your posts have non relevance.

What did Roudy say that you refuted?

 

[montelatici]

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.

If they did look into the facts and researched some more, they would have found that Winston Churchill said that the Arabs were coming into the area in hordes from their impoverished countries because the Jews had jobs for them. Don't you think the British officials in the area saw what was going on? I don't know if you have been living in a cave even though it is obvious that you live on this forum, but we in America are able to see how the U.S. population has changed and is still changing and one of the reasons is that people have come to America because their own countries can't seem to help them live a decent life. So you can spit out "zionist" this and "zionist" that as if nothing is worth anything if written by someone whose opinion you don't want to hear, but the people reading here are smarter than that and can see what you are up to. Maybe Monte can tell us why a couple of years back an Egyptian leader said for the people in Gaza to come back to Egypt where they belong. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people in Israel of all religions who can tell which country the last name of individual Arabs derived from -- Egypt, Syria, etc, I am beginning to wonder what Monte's roots are.

Proven to be a lie. As the carefully researched film substantiates. There is no way out for you propagandists. You have been exposed, big time. And, I am loving it.

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

"The documentary "The Life of the Jews in Palestine" is integral to understanding the conflict not because of what we see, but what we don't see. As part of the Zionist movement, the documentary ignores the presence of Arabs. The slogan of "A Land Without a People for People Without a Land" arises, reducing the Arabs of any religion to the same level as a rock or tree--part of a land. Yet the Arab is not a donkey and they had a much longer history on the land than the Russian and European immigrants."

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