Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fake History on the History Channel
B blog ^ | 7/12/06 | Eliyahu m'Tsiyon

Posted on 01/16/2007 1:18:24 PM PST by Thywillnotmine

Fake History on the "History Channel"

The History Channel in Israel [channel 42 on `Arutsey Zahav] gets most of its broadcast material from American and British sources, unfortunately. It seems that most comes from the American History Channel. This material --these "historical" films-- reflect the biases and conventional lies of American Establishment and British propaganda. And this includes treatment of Jewish and Israeli historical matters. The problem for us in Israel is that this Anglo-American material is used uncritically, broadcast uncritically, without correction. The films are broadcast with the original English-language narration, plus Hebrew subtitles which do not diverge from the original. A case in point was broadcast this morning 12-17-2006 on the Israeli History Channel.

The film told the story of Allenby's campaign in Israel in 1917-1918, particularly a September 1918 battle. Lie # 1 - The narration took pains to point out the diverse ethnic and geographic origins of Allenby's forces, British, Indians, Gurkhas, Australians and New Zealanders. However, no mention was made of the Jewish Legion which took part in Allenby's battles for the Land of Israel [called "palestine" in the film]. The Legion was made up of the 38th, 39th, and 40th regiments of Royal Fusiliers and had been recruited among Jews from America, Britain, Canada, Israel and Egypt. This seems to have been a sizable force. Why was it not mentioned in the film? Probably for political reasons in order to efface the memory of the Jewish/Zionist contribution to the British war effort. The film seems to have been American-made however, since the narrator spoke with an American accent. But Americans usually follow the British lead in historical distortions. Lie # 2 - The narrator claimed that Arabs in "palestine" and Syria, etc., were becoming tired of "Turkish" rule and were inclined to support the British. In fact, many many Arab troops fought in the Ottoman ranks, while only a relative handful fought in the bands of Amir Faysal bin Husayn [Emir Feisal bin Hussein] who was accompanied and aided by TE Lawrence. The Arabs overwhelmingly fought for the Ottoman Empire, which was a Sunni Muslim state, indeed the Ottoman sultan was also called Caliph [khalif ul-Islam]. At that time the Empire had many Arabs in positions of authority, in the diplomatic service, in the Ottoman parliament. These Arabs prominent in the Ottoman government included members of leading Arab Muslim families in what later became the Jewish National Home with the territorial designation of "palestine" which did not exist under the Ottoman state, neither as a name nor as a territorial entity by any other name. The leading Arab "palestinian" families that contributed members to the Ottoman service included the Husseinis [Husaynis] and al-Khalidis of Jerusalem and the Abdul-Hadi family of Sh'khem [Nablus]. Lie # 3 - That there was a territorial entity at that time called "palestine." The previous paragraph describes why this was wrong, although in the West, the name "palestine" was often used for the country along with other names such as "Holy Land," "Judea," "the Land where Jesus Trod," etc.


TOPICS: History; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: historychannel; israel; lies; propaganda; revisionisthistory
very knowledgeable blogger
1 posted on 01/16/2007 1:18:27 PM PST by Thywillnotmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nanster

"Lie #1" was hardly a lie. An omission of relevent information is no lie.


2 posted on 01/16/2007 1:23:19 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

But it certainly signals a bias. You are right: lie is taking it too far. Obfuscation?


3 posted on 01/16/2007 1:24:46 PM PST by Thywillnotmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nanster

Interesting article.

I just finished reading "The Rise and Fall of Israel" by William Hull. I was surprised to see how much this book differed from what I thought I knew about the nation of Israel becoming a state. Do you know if this book fairly accurate in it's historical representation? Please let me know. Thanks.


4 posted on 01/16/2007 3:00:50 PM PST by Sopater (Creatio Ex Nihilo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nanster

History International is much worse in its biases. Che was a tireless reformer, Israel has no right to exist, Germany was the victim in WWI, and the Communist Russians were freakin righteous geniuses.


5 posted on 01/16/2007 4:14:38 PM PST by sully777 (You have flies in your eyes--Catch-22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
An omission of relevent information is no lie.

Uh... sure it is, or can certainly be.

6 posted on 01/16/2007 4:18:29 PM PST by Ramius ([sip])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"Lie #1" was hardly a lie. An omission of relevent information is no lie.
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin

7 posted on 01/16/2007 6:33:38 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson