Al Nakba

[Karlis]

~~~...

... You are just hung up on this as a talking point. If we stopped giving Egypt, Jordan, and Israel aid, what non sequitor would you complain about then?

RavenHawk and everyone: please note,

Do not make personal challenges in your posts. ... Especially in the Middle East threads.

Karlis -- mod team member

[buckskin scout]

I'm just now watching this film. I've only got 20mins into it and I find it very interesting. I already see how this is an anti Jewish/Israeli propaganda piece – that’s ok. Filled with facts and key ones twisted. The Rothschilds are behind it so it must be evil Zionism. But in the 8th min it says that in 1910, lands were purchased in Marj Bin Amer and the Palestinians were removed. This is prior to WWI and it already tells you that it is not Palestinian lands. They are nothing more than squatters. They have no legal status. In the final analysis, there is no injustice of the Zionist Program. Most land owners lived elsewhere and that is why you see on maps after 1920 Palestine is labeled as unorganized territory. This means that the land was wide open. Time to get back to the film.

It is a historic fact, Edmond de Rothschild (of the French family branch) and Walter Rothschild both strongly supported Chaim Weizmann and both Rothschilds believed in Zionism. The Balfour Declaration was personally addressed to Walter Rothschild, are you aware of that?

[RavenHawk]

It is a historic fact, Edmond de Rothschild (of the French family branch) and Walter Rothschild both strongly supported Chaim Weizmann and both Rothschilds believed in Zionism. The Balfour Declaration was personally addressed to Walter Rothschild, are you aware of that?

I’m not disputing the facts just the lose way they are presented, leading the watcher to conclude a particular outcome. Just because the Rothschilds were involved initially doesn’t mean that there is some Bavarian Illuminati Conspiracy thingy targeting the Palestinian. The question plaguing the British was what to do with the land? Absentee ownership made the issue a holy nightmare. They certainly could have walked away and left it to whomever. In time, Palestine would have been partitioned between the neighbors and the same thing would have happened to the Palestinian as it did in Jordan in September of 1970. But the Brits do things in a proper manner. When the Balfour Declaration was presented, it was a very logical answer. The Palestinian for the most part were squatters or a unwanted population even in the Arab world. Palestine contained outcast semi nomadic tribes from Arabia or overflow population from Syria. But that was nothing special; there are unwanted populations all over the globe. In this world of 7 billion, not everyone can be made happy. The Fates can be cruel. That is a hard cold fact and it is perhaps Rule #1. Rule #2 is that you can’t change Rule #1. The Palestinian is an evolutionary extinct culture. It’s time for the people to move on. After 60 years, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon still don’t have citizenship. If they were a wanted people, don’t you think they would have citizenship already? They are shunned by their own race. The health of civilization is dependent on the weak and sick cultures dying out to make way for stronger ones. The majority of Israelis believe in Zionism or they wouldn’t be there. An Israeli not believing in Zionism is like an American not believing in Manifest Destiny.

[Stellar]

What are you advocating here, Raven?

[RavenHawk]

What are you advocating here, Raven?

I’m advocating that although the film is very interesting, it is also very dishonest. Careful now, that is getting real close to being a personal challenge.

[Karlis]

I’m advocating that although the film is very interesting, it is also very dishonest. Careful now, that is getting real close to being a personal challenge.

To stop this thread turning into a flame-fest, stating that the film is "very dishonest" should be supported by logical argument -- * without* emotional input.

Argue for or against the view/s presented. Do *not* denigrate your opposing poster.

Karlis -- mod team member

[RavenHawk]

I finished part one and in that last half hour, blame was being thrown at the Jews, then the British, then back to the Jews. The Palestinian is the perfectly little innocent victim. It never mentioned any atrocities of the Arab Revolution. And that the Brits were fighting the Palestinians as well as the Jews. This is being dishonest.

[RavenHawk]

To stop this thread turning into a flame-fest, stating that the film is "very dishonest" should be supported by logical argument -- * without* emotional input.

What flame-fest? I think you are the one being emotional thinking that this is some kind of FF. I’ve been involved in some of the historic FFs from the early days when Al Gore created the internet. This is nothing compared to those. “Very dishonest” is the logical argument because it is. The film is very one sided, blaming everyone else for the plight of the Palestinian except for where the blame truly lies and that is with the Palestinian themselves. I’m sorry but that is dishonesty in my book. And that’s not being emotional. I’m very skeptical by nature. I don’t believe everything I see. And I know a snakeoil pitch when I see it.

Argue for or against the view/s presented. Do *not* denigrate your opposing poster.

Karlis -- mod team member

I have been arguing against the views presented; have you not been paying attention? There isn’t really that much to establish here. Did it ever occur to you that it is my opposing poster that was denigrating me? This is not the NFL where the ref always seems to throw the flag on the one throwing the second punch. Plus, it is your post that is denigrating me. You could have left it alone and I would have eventually gotten more into other points. Now I can take that from Stellar because that is the nature of the beast. But what recourse do I have to tell a moderator that he is full of it? I’m as honest as I can be, but I guess you want everyone to just praise this film?? Sorry, I can’t do that. I still have part 2 to view.