BTW, the video I posted is a PBS production, just like the video you posted. Yet you call it Zionist propaganda
That just proved that you don't even bother reading/watching something before calling it propaganda. How incredibly pathetic Monti
1913 Seeds of Conflict finally aired yesterday on PBS
- Thread starter montelatici
- Start date
BTW, the video I posted is a PBS production, just like the video you posted. Yet you call it Zionist propaganda
That just proved that you don't even bother reading/watching something before calling it propaganda. How incredibly pathetic Monti
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,412
- 4,882
- 1,815
I've seen it. What does it refute?
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
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.
Still don't buy your twisted interpretation of that photo. Had no P.Relations purpose to avoid showing somebody's orchards. Those settlers were not fixated on stealing them. Could very well be to express the challenge of building a livable environment in that mostly barren land.
Don't care about the word Colonies. You shouldn't either. Zionism was a NATIONALIST movement. The goal was to unite and eventually build a national entity as your quote says. NO ONE at that time was deluded into thinking that the Turks would bless that venture. HOWEVER -- the Turks were more than pleased to have these settlements as they added largely to the value of their Empire holdings.
A "mayor of Jerusalem" or a representative to the Ottoman Empire is NOT a Palestine government. There was very little "nationalism" or Palestinian identity for the Arab residents in 1913 and no large scale push to form a national government or alliance.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Specifically LIST the things that you think this documentary changed. Other than the things that Coyote listed, I really saw little to change ANY acceptable telling of the story..
You don't get it. Monti posted his video and then kept claiming that it refuted all of the claims that pro Israelis have been making. When I asked him what claims did he/the video refute, he kept ducking the question and saying things like "I won !"
So I figured I could do the same thing. Post a video and tell people that it refutes their claims without backing it up.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
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.
Excuse me Roudy -- but the scope of the documentary didn't really claim to cover the Nazi era -- did it??
The production was sympathetic to the Arab residents as "an indigenous people" but treated them as rather naive about global issues and politics. When you leave unsaid the truth that lack of a national identity cost them their land --- it makes them into victims. And NPT loves victims.. When in truth, any amount of organization and diplomatic skill and worldly knowledge on the part of the resident Arabs --- could have change the very way the British Mandate was written... Qualities that STILL seem to be lacking in the Pali leadership today for the most part.. Better leadership -- better outcomes.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Well let's ask him nicely to slow down and list the important changes that this documentary made to the telling of the history..
I see it as a well crafted piece of work that refused to acknowledge realities of organization, rule of law and the influence that governments have on shaping history.. It's a HUMAN tale rather than a historical document..
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
- Thread starter
- #148
"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."
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
- Thread starter
- #149
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.
Still don't buy your twisted interpretation of that photo. Had no P.Relations purpose to avoid showing somebody's orchards. Those settlers were not fixated on stealing them. Could very well be to express the challenge of building a livable environment in that mostly barren land.
Don't care about the word Colonies. You shouldn't either. Zionism was a NATIONALIST movement. The goal was to unite and eventually build a national entity as your quote says. NO ONE at that time was deluded into thinking that the Turks would bless that venture. HOWEVER -- the Turks were more than pleased to have these settlements as they added largely to the value of their Empire holdings.
A "mayor of Jerusalem" or a representative to the Ottoman Empire is NOT a Palestine government. There was very little "nationalism" or Palestinian identity for the Arab residents in 1913 and no large scale push to form a national government or alliance.
1. It is not my twisted interpretation, it is the historian's interpretation. It wasn't barren land, it was the beach! That's the whole point. Instead of photographing the actual land which was to built on, they had the photo shot on the beach to make it appear that it was a desolate sand dune. In the film they show the actual land to be built on, not the beach side. The point was, the land wasn't barren at all.
2. It was a colonial project. People from another continent fully intended to go another continent and colonize land on that continent. It was what the Zionists intended it to be what they called it and it is what it was. No amount of denying this will change the fact.
3. Up to 1913 the Palestinians were loyal subjects. They were not seditious. When the Young Turks took over, the film reports that the Palestinians began thinking about more autonomy. They read a newspaper called El Palestine, But it really doesn't matter as it doesn't justify the colonization and the establishment of an exclusive Jewish state by people from Europe.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
#1 was a nice treatment of the harmony that seemed to prevailed at the beginning of that period..
#2 is some kind of twisted interpretation of the history of the HolyLand as being conflict free. And if the documentary ever made the claim below --- it wouldn't be supportable. The first killing over WHAT PERIOD?
No Europeans in the Holy Land prior to 1913? No tribal conflict? No domestic disputes? No Honor Killings?
#3 is somewhat supportable. There was very little rule of law in the area. A lot of interactions were based on cultural traditions -- and many of those clashed. Laws -- if they were enforced varied widely. As did land and resource use issues that would normally be handled by a local central authority.
#4 You've failed to show me a valid propaganda purpose for the posing in that picture.. The fact that they chose to pose in a desolate framing of the scene rather than in orchards owned by others MIGHT be to raise more sympathy and money for the cause. But it has NO MEANING about any evil intentions of the people posing for that pic. Like I said -- MORE likely to imply that they were gonna transform that barren land -- then your interpretation of hiding their "desire to steal the land" you can't see. After all, there's lots of farms in Gaza now. And before they were developed -- that portion of Gaza was largely sand dunes like you see here.
4. Zionist propaganda was rampant. Using this photo as an example.
"It all depends on where the photographer aims the camera, right?," she asks the audience in the film. "You have the famous image of shareholders for what would become Tel Aviv in 1905 standing among the sand dunes. Well, the photographer was positioned to their south photographing them to the north in which there were in fact sand dunes. Had he turned 180 degrees to photograph himself behind them they would have seen vast orchard groves of Christian and Muslim landowners."
#5 Only Empires establish colonies. The intention always was "SOME DAY" to have a national Jewish Homeland. The term colony has very little importance in the description of Zionism movement.
If those 5 things are a vindication for you -- you go guy.. Remind me never to try to pick a month of NetFlix with you. The show was pretty well done, but it lacks any historical authority to explain exactly WHY many of those inhabitants eventually chose or had to leave their land. The "expulsion" was a consequence of what those residents valued and what they didn't.. They did not choose a National Identity during that period. Failed to make the case then. And continue to fail to make the case now. Because of lack of focus on nation building and too much focus on tribal differences and insistence on radical leadership
Last edited:
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
- Thread starter
- #151
What does it refute? I agree with the film for the most part. That the Palestinians misjudged the strength of the European invaders is obvious That the Europeans supported the European invaders and screwed the indigenous people is confirmed in the video.
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,216
- 20,389
- 2,250
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.
Still don't buy your twisted interpretation of that photo. Had no P.Relations purpose to avoid showing somebody's orchards. Those settlers were not fixated on stealing them. Could very well be to express the challenge of building a livable environment in that mostly barren land.
Don't care about the word Colonies. You shouldn't either. Zionism was a NATIONALIST movement. The goal was to unite and eventually build a national entity as your quote says. NO ONE at that time was deluded into thinking that the Turks would bless that venture. HOWEVER -- the Turks were more than pleased to have these settlements as they added largely to the value of their Empire holdings.
A "mayor of Jerusalem" or a representative to the Ottoman Empire is NOT a Palestine government. There was very little "nationalism" or Palestinian identity for the Arab residents in 1913 and no large scale push to form a national government or alliance.
Exactly, Monte mutilates and distorts documents, pictures, and videos all so that it fits nicely into the hatred and obsession he has for Jews.
A 364 of 3 September 1947
163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.
166. The desire of the Arab people of Palestine to safeguard their national existence is a very natural desire. However, Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
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.
Still don't buy your twisted interpretation of that photo. Had no P.Relations purpose to avoid showing somebody's orchards. Those settlers were not fixated on stealing them. Could very well be to express the challenge of building a livable environment in that mostly barren land.
Don't care about the word Colonies. You shouldn't either. Zionism was a NATIONALIST movement. The goal was to unite and eventually build a national entity as your quote says. NO ONE at that time was deluded into thinking that the Turks would bless that venture. HOWEVER -- the Turks were more than pleased to have these settlements as they added largely to the value of their Empire holdings.
A "mayor of Jerusalem" or a representative to the Ottoman Empire is NOT a Palestine government. There was very little "nationalism" or Palestinian identity for the Arab residents in 1913 and no large scale push to form a national government or alliance.
1. It is not my twisted interpretation, it is the historian's interpretation. It wasn't barren land, it was the beach! That's the whole point. Instead of photographing the actual land which was to built on, they had the photo shot on the beach to make it appear that it was a desolate sand dune. In the film they show the actual land to be built on, not the beach side. The point was, the land wasn't barren at all.
2. It was a colonial project. People from another continent fully intended to go another continent and colonize land on that continent. It was what the Zionists intended it to be what they called it and it is what it was. No amount of denying this will change the fact.
3. Up to 1913 the Palestinians were loyal subjects. They were not seditious. When the Young Turks took over, the film reports that the Palestinians began thinking about more autonomy. They read a newspaper called El Palestine, But it really doesn't matter as it doesn't justify the colonization and the establishment of an exclusive Jewish state by people from Europe.
Zionism never was a State Entity that had the ability to Colonize anything. The term implies a Remote semi-autonomous governed area -- Under the laws and jurisdiction of the MOTHER NATION.. There was no Home Nation for Jews.. That's the point.. If you think "colonize" is a worse connotation than "establish" --- You not won much of anything to change hearts or minds or history... But go ahead -- beat your chest some more...
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,216
- 20,389
- 2,250
#1 was a nice treatment of the harmony that seemed to prevailed at the beginning of that period..
#2 is some kind of twisted interpretation of the history of the HolyLand as being conflict free. And if the documentary ever made the claim below --- it wouldn't be supportable. The first killing over WHAT PERIOD?
No Europeans in the Holy Land prior to 1913? No tribal conflict? No domestic disputes? No Honor Killings?
#3 is somewhat supportable. There was very little rule of law in the area. A lot of interactions were based on cultural traditions -- and many of those clashed. Laws -- if they were enforced varied widely. As did land and resource use issues that would normally be handled by a local central authority.
#4 You've failed to show me a valid propaganda purpose for the posing in that picture.. The fact that they chose to pose in a desolate framing of the scene rather than in orchards owned by others MIGHT be to raise more sympathy and money for the cause. But it has NO MEANING about any evil intentions of the people posing for that pic. Like I said -- MORE likely to imply that they were gonna transform that barren land -- then your interpretation of hiding their "desire to steal the land" you can't see. After all, there's lots of farms in Gaza now. And before they were developed -- that portion of Gaza was largely sand dunes like you see here.
4. Zionist propaganda was rampant. Using this photo as an example.
"It all depends on where the photographer aims the camera, right?," she asks the audience in the film. "You have the famous image of shareholders for what would become Tel Aviv in 1905 standing among the sand dunes. Well, the photographer was positioned to their south photographing them to the north in which there were in fact sand dunes. Had he turned 180 degrees to photograph himself behind them they would have seen vast orchard groves of Christian and Muslim landowners."
#5 Only Empires establish colonies. The intention always was "SOME DAY" to have a national Jewish Homeland. The term colony has very little importance in the description of Zionism movement.
If those 5 things are a vindication for you -- you go guy.. Remind me never to try to pick a month of NetFlix with you. The show was pretty well done, but it lacks any historical authority to explain exactly WHY many of those inhabitants eventually chose or had to leave their land. The "expulsion" was a consequence of what those residents valued and what they didn't.. They did not choose a National Identity during that period. Failed to make the case then. And continue to fail to make the case now. Because of lack of focus on nation building and too much focus on tribal differences and insistence on radical leadership
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,216
- 20,389
- 2,250
You keep yapping and repeating the same propaganda line over and over like a friggin parrot.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
That's actually not a bad interpretation there MOnte.. Pretty much what I've been telling you that the show left out.
And that is that government, infrastructure, diplomacy, and the like -- were never on the radar of the inhabitants. They lived in a place that had been roadkill for 4 Empires.. And STILL didn't get the message that they needed to organize a national identity. Not the STRENGTH of the Euros, but the lack of "worldliness" (for lack of a better word) of the residents.
"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."
I just got through proving that the first armed attack was Arabs against Jews, yet you still claim the opposite. You seriously cannot handle the truth. It's incredible.
1834 is BEFORE 1913. Also, you didn't even provide evidence of a documented attak that happened in 1913.
BTW, what was the point of posting any of this ? What does this picture have to do with anything ? It's just a picture. No one was claiming that all of Palestine looked like that.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
- Thread starter
- #158
#1 was a nice treatment of the harmony that seemed to prevailed at the beginning of that period..
#2 is some kind of twisted interpretation of the history of the HolyLand as being conflict free. And if the documentary ever made the claim below --- it wouldn't be supportable. The first killing over WHAT PERIOD?
No Europeans in the Holy Land prior to 1913? No tribal conflict? No domestic disputes? No Honor Killings?
#3 is somewhat supportable. There was very little rule of law in the area. A lot of interactions were based on cultural traditions -- and many of those clashed. Laws -- if they were enforced varied widely. As did land and resource use issues that would normally be handled by a local central authority.
#4 You've failed to show me a valid propaganda purpose for the posing in that picture.. The fact that they chose to pose in a desolate framing of the scene rather than in orchards owned by others MIGHT be to raise more sympathy and money for the cause. But it has NO MEANING about any evil intentions of the people posing for that pic. Like I said -- MORE likely to imply that they were gonna transform that barren land -- then your interpretation of hiding their "desire to steal the land" you can't see. After all, there's lots of farms in Gaza now. And before they were developed -- that portion of Gaza was largely sand dunes like you see here.
4. Zionist propaganda was rampant. Using this photo as an example.
"It all depends on where the photographer aims the camera, right?," she asks the audience in the film. "You have the famous image of shareholders for what would become Tel Aviv in 1905 standing among the sand dunes. Well, the photographer was positioned to their south photographing them to the north in which there were in fact sand dunes. Had he turned 180 degrees to photograph himself behind them they would have seen vast orchard groves of Christian and Muslim landowners."
#5 Only Empires establish colonies. The intention always was "SOME DAY" to have a national Jewish Homeland. The term colony has very little importance in the description of Zionism movement.
If those 5 things are a vindication for you -- you go guy.. Remind me never to try to pick a month of NetFlix with you. The show was pretty well done, but it lacks any historical authority to explain exactly WHY many of those inhabitants eventually chose or had to leave their land. The "expulsion" was a consequence of what those residents valued and what they didn't.. They did not choose a National Identity during that period. Failed to make the case then. And continue to fail to make the case now. Because of lack of focus on nation building and too much focus on tribal differences and insistence on radical leadership
1. Only empires establish colonies? Where do you get that from? Pathetic. The Boers were not an empire yet they colonized the interior of South Africa. And that is just one example. I don't think the native people in the interior cared that the Boers were not an empire. They were colonists.
"The Great Trek was a movement of Dutch-speaking colonists up into the interior of southern Africa in search of land where they could establish their own homeland, independent of British rule. The determination and courage of these pioneers has become the single most important element in the folk memory of Afrikaner Nationalism. However, far from being the peaceful and God-fearing process which many would like to believe it was, the Great Trek caused a tremendous upheaval in the interior for at least half a century..."
Great Trek 1835-1846 South African History Online
2. The Palestinians left to avoid being slaughtered by the Europeans.
But, at the end of the day, Europeans invaded Palestine, evicted the inhabitants people and set up a Jewish state.
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
- Thread starter
- #159
"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."
I just got through proving that the first armed attack was Arabs against Jews, yet you still claim the opposite. You seriously cannot handle the truth. It's incredible.
1834 is BEFORE 1913. Also, you didn't even provide evidence of a documented attak that happened in 1913.
BTW, what was the point of posting any of this ? What does this picture have to do with anything ? It's just a picture. No one was claiming that all of Palestine looked like that.
You proved nothing Toast. Go to bed.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,412
- 4,882
- 1,815
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.
Still don't buy your twisted interpretation of that photo. Had no P.Relations purpose to avoid showing somebody's orchards. Those settlers were not fixated on stealing them. Could very well be to express the challenge of building a livable environment in that mostly barren land.
Don't care about the word Colonies. You shouldn't either. Zionism was a NATIONALIST movement. The goal was to unite and eventually build a national entity as your quote says. NO ONE at that time was deluded into thinking that the Turks would bless that venture. HOWEVER -- the Turks were more than pleased to have these settlements as they added largely to the value of their Empire holdings.
A "mayor of Jerusalem" or a representative to the Ottoman Empire is NOT a Palestine government. There was very little "nationalism" or Palestinian identity for the Arab residents in 1913 and no large scale push to form a national government or alliance.
1. It is not my twisted interpretation, it is the historian's interpretation. It wasn't barren land, it was the beach! That's the whole point. Instead of photographing the actual land which was to built on, they had the photo shot on the beach to make it appear that it was a desolate sand dune. In the film they show the actual land to be built on, not the beach side. The point was, the land wasn't barren at all.
2. It was a colonial project. People from another continent fully intended to go another continent and colonize land on that continent. It was what the Zionists intended it to be what they called it and it is what it was. No amount of denying this will change the fact.
3. Up to 1913 the Palestinians were loyal subjects. They were not seditious. When the Young Turks took over, the film reports that the Palestinians began thinking about more autonomy. They read a newspaper called El Palestine, But it really doesn't matter as it doesn't justify the colonization and the establishment of an exclusive Jewish state by people from Europe.
Zionism never was a State Entity that had the ability to Colonize anything. The term implies a Remote semi-autonomous governed area -- Under the laws and jurisdiction of the MOTHER NATION.. There was no Home Nation for Jews.. That's the point.. If you think "colonize" is a worse connotation than "establish" --- You not won much of anything to change hearts or minds or history... But go ahead -- beat your chest some more...
Zionism never was a State Entity that had the ability to Colonize anything.
Indeed, that is why they recruited the British. Britain provided the military cover the Zionists needed to create their colonies. These colonies were governed together by an administration virtually separate from the rest of Palestine. Britain coined the term "state within a state" to define the Zionist project.
Britain called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. The facts on the ground called it colonialism.
Why should we avoid the term?
Similar threads
