The Promise........

[discman]

Watched the first two episodes and find it interesting,wondering what other people make of it?

[Don Giovanni]

Watched the first two episodes and find it interesting,wondering what other people make of it?

Yes, I've been watching.

It is a story seldom told IMO and whether the programme is factually correct or not it will have raised interest, and is an enjoyable watch to boot.
Ultimately, this is set around the beggings of the modern Middle East conflict and the creation of Isreal which we "the British" were complicit in.

I am surprised noone else has replied - I was under the impression there was a number of Middle East experts on here!? ;-)

[Betty Boop]

Yes, I've been watching.

It is a story seldom told IMO and whether the programme is factually correct or not it will have raised interest, and is an enjoyable watch to boot.
Ultimately, this is set around the beggings of the modern Middle East conflict and the creation of Isreal which we "the British" were complicit in.

I am surprised noone else has replied - I was under the impression there was a number of Middle East experts on here!? ;-)

I watched the first two episodes on C4 on demand, and then the third last night. A powerful drama, which is definitely worth watching. Last night's episode was especially good, the tar and feathering scene was dramatic to say the least. I wonder if that is where the Irish got the idea from, or if all women who collaberated with enemy soldiers in other countries got this treatment ?

[bod]

planning to watch all of them 1 after the other

[stoneyburn hibs]

been watching it , its quite good viewing and i have learned a few things i didnt know about the history there , is most/all of it that has been aired actually spot on as to what is factual ?

[Betty Boop]

been watching it , its quite good viewing and i have learned a few things i didnt know about the history there , is most/all of it that has been aired actually spot on as to what is factual ?

The bombing of the King David Hotel is described in this article.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4667.htm

[(((Fergus)))]

The bombing of the King David Hotel is described in this article.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4667.htm

You really believe that information clearing house is the best place to find the truth about the arab/jewish conflict?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Found it to be a good watch so far, just stumbled across it on catch up.

[stoneyburn hibs]

You really believe that information clearing house is the best place to find the truth about the arab/jewish conflict?

Why would you ask that ?

[khib70]

Why would you ask that ?
It's a legitimate question. ICH is blatantly anti-Israel. A bit like "The Promise", really. An undoubtedly skilful and well-made drama, but a piece of historical revisionism none the less.

[Betty Boop]

You really believe that information clearing house is the best place to find the truth about the arab/jewish conflict?

:greengrin You're paranoid ! Here you go then from the Age of Terror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gaMNApYKtU

[discman]

It's a legitimate question. ICH is blatantly anti-Israel. A bit like "The Promise", really. An undoubtedly skilful and well-made drama, but a piece of historical revisionism none the less.

why do you think this?

what has been revised? In what you've seen so far?

[libernian]

just watched the final part there on internet.

class drama altogether. was pretty anti-jew tho i thought. were they really that bad?

[khib70]

just watched the final part there on internet.

class drama altogether. was pretty anti-jew tho i thought. were they really that bad?
:agree:On both counts.

In answer to your question, yes, some really were that bad. But not all of them. Just as, unbeknown, it would appear to the makers of this sort of programme, not all Palestinians were saintly victims of oppression. Demonising Israel and canonising Palestine makes life nice and simple for some people.

Some of the founders of Israel were unspeakable racially-motivated terrorists. The majority, however, were genuinely visionary and idealistic. Most of that spread still exists. And does in most peoples, including the Palestinians, who have had their share of racists and murderers, as well as humanitarians and pacifists.

That's the way it is. But it's easier to make dramas where the villain wears a black hat and is irredeemably evil. It's also easier to write history in the same black and white, four legs good manner. It's called revisionism, which answers another question above.

[libernian]

:agree:On both counts.

In answer to your question, yes, some really were that bad. But not all of them. Just as, unbeknown, it would appear to the makers of this sort of programme, not all Palestinians were saintly victims of oppression. Demonising Israel and canonising Palestine makes life nice and simple for some people.

Some of the founders of Israel were unspeakable racially-motivated terrorists. The majority, however, were genuinely visionary and idealistic. Most of that spread still exists. And does in most peoples, including the Palestinians, who have had their share of racists and murderers, as well as humanitarians and pacifists.

That's the way it is. But it's easier to make dramas where the villain wears a black hat and is irredeemably evil. It's also easier to write history in the same black and white, four legs good manner. It's called revisionism, which answers another question above.

thats what i would have thought too. surely they wouldnt just clear people out their houses and move in themselves tho? maybe the director was trying to show that despite hitler being a baddie, all people can behave like that even the victims.

tho that kayal for celtic is muslim and hes played for israel and he said berkovic was his hero growing up... so maybe they're not as bad as made out.

is it just like a bigger version of northern ireland troubles?

still a great drama anyway!

[(((Fergus)))]

thats what i would have thought too. surely they wouldnt just clear people out their houses and move in themselves tho? maybe the director was trying to show that despite hitler being a baddie, all people can behave like that even the victims.

tho that kayal for celtic is muslim and hes played for israel and he said berkovic was his hero growing up... so maybe they're not as bad as made out.

is it just like a bigger version of northern ireland troubles?

still a great drama anyway!

You've reminded me of a very pertinent quote from Kayal when he signed for Celtic:


Kayal is an Arab. He knows that for many who are unfamiliar with Israeli society it is surprising, even startling, that an Arab could integrate and prosper so successfully there. “People see too much television,” he said, alluding to years of coverage of cross-border violence between Israel and Palestine.

“What the television shows about Israel is totally different to what happens. The life between the Jews and the Arabs is very good. I’m an Arab and my agent if Jewish but we’re like family. The Jews and the Arabs live together in Haifa, which is a mixed city. Maccabi Haifa has seven or eight Arab players and that’s normal. The only difference is their religion, but there’s no conflict.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/celtic/celtic-s-new-israeli-midfielder-beram-kayal-will-find-similarities-between-glasgow-and-haifa-1.1045146

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

:agree:On both counts.

In answer to your question, yes, some really were that bad. But not all of them. Just as, unbeknown, it would appear to the makers of this sort of programme, not all Palestinians were saintly victims of oppression. Demonising Israel and canonising Palestine makes life nice and simple for some people.

Some of the founders of Israel were unspeakable racially-motivated terrorists. The majority, however, were genuinely visionary and idealistic. Most of that spread still exists. And does in most peoples, including the Palestinians, who have had their share of racists and murderers, as well as humanitarians and pacifists.

That's the way it is. But it's easier to make dramas where the villain wears a black hat and is irredeemably evil. It's also easier to write history in the same black and white, four legs good manner. It's called revisionism, which answers another question above.


I agree with that to an extent, and i did wonder to myself while i was watching it.

However, did the programme really make out the Palestinians were saints? Or did it portray a time when, regardless of what went on before or has happened since (on which i am far from an expert), the Palestinians got crapped upon from a great height. Obviously there is a wider debate around these issues, but the facts on the ground as it were, at that time seem to have been that they got booted off their land and subjected to a pretty rough deal.

I really enjoyed the series, and though im far from a UK jingoist, i found myself getting quite defensive of the UK soldiers. Since watching in fact i have begun reading a lot more about it, and i also watched the film defiance the other night.

Personally, my instinct was always to side with the Israeilis, having been generally brought up to believe that they were our friend and the arabs our enemy (in very general, simplistic terms).

The more i read though, the more i think the Israelis are very good at PR, and that the leaders of the Zionist movement were pretty conniving and duplicitous.

It seems that, as is so often the case, the more the two sides have fought, the more entrenched they have become, although i do find it strange that when the Palestinians seemd to be coming on board and taking a more collegiate approach, the israelis have been getting even more hardline.

Interested to see others points of view on this (i think the analogy with NI is a pretty valid one).

The more i think about it, the more i think the idea of giving 'a people' a land that was 'promised' to them by a God that almost certainly doesnt exist that was written in a book that was almost certainly made up seems a bit daft.

[LiverpoolHibs]

just watched the final part there on internet.

class drama altogether. was pretty anti-jew tho i thought. were they really that bad?

I've also just finished watching this on 4od, to call it 'anti-Jew' is an absolutely ludicrous slur.


:agree:On both counts.

In answer to your question, yes, some really were that bad. But not all of them. Just as, unbeknown, it would appear to the makers of this sort of programme, not all Palestinians were saintly victims of oppression. Demonising Israel and canonising Palestine makes life nice and simple for some people.

Neither the programme nor anyone else makes the Palestinians out to be 'saintly'. You keep claiming revisionism but you haven't provided any evidence for any innacuracies in the programme.


Some of the founders of Israel were unspeakable racially-motivated terrorists. The majority, however, were genuinely visionary and idealistic. Most of that spread still exists. And does in most peoples, including the Palestinians, who have had their share of racists and murderers, as well as humanitarians and pacifists.

But this is all meaningless. What matters is the ideology and the manner in which this ideology was instituted 'on the ground'. In the period being discussed, that is the War of Independence and the foundation of the Israeli state, authority over the territory was achieved through the implementation of the Plan Dalet by the Zionist paramilitaries - and remember that the Haganah (led by Ben-Gurion; was he one of the unspeakable racially motivated terrorists or one of the visionary idealists?) instituted a policy of consciption amongst Jews in the Mandate.

The Plan explicitly detailed the aim of the Zionist organisations to ethnically cleanse the Mandate in order to create a exclusive and viable state. This was put into practice through a number of planned massacres and the destruction of every Arab village encountered leaving over half the Palestinian population as refugees by the end of 1948.


That's the way it is. But it's easier to make dramas where the villain wears a black hat and is irredeemably evil. It's also easier to write history in the same black and white, four legs good manner. It's called revisionism, which answers another question above.

There's nothing wrong with revisionism when it concerns questioning and revising the orthodox narrative of historical events that were themselves one of the most criminal acts of historical negationism ever. You will not find a single serious and respected historian of the conflict who would claim the historical narrative behind The Promise is innacurate. You can not and do not alter historical fact because it does not suit your political position.

[libernian]

I've also just finished watching this on 4od, to call it 'anti-Jew' is an absolutely ludicrous slur.

I meant it showed jews in a very unfavourable light wheras it showed palestinians and british in a good light. i dont know whether that is historically correct or not and not saying it is or isnt. it just seemed to partray the jews as the baddies (to quite a great extent) and i wonder if this was the reality of the situation.

you say slur which implies im slagging off the program which i am not. i found the whole program interesting and am now keen to know more about the history.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I meant it showed jews in a very unfavourable light wheras it showed palestinians and british in a good light. i dont know whether that is historically correct or not and not saying it is or isnt. it just seemed to partray the jews as the baddies (to quite a great extent) and i wonder if this was the reality of the situation.

you say slur which implies im slagging off the program which i am not. i found the whole program interesting and am now keen to know more about the history.

Ok, saying something is 'anti-Jew' has certain connotations but I realise you just meant that the programme depicted the Zionist movement in a poor(ish) light.