December 17, 2013, - 2:37 am

T. E. Lawrence “of Arabia” Demanded Ethnic Cleansing of Jews From Jerusalem & Palestine; Should be “Assimilated” by Arabs?!

By Debbie Schlussel

T.E. Lawrence a/k/a “Lawrence of Arabia” wanted to ethnically cleanse Jerusalem and all of Palestine of the Jews because he feared that the Jews would “get in the way” of the Arab nationalist movement he was leading and the vast Arab empire he was seeking to establish. Lawrence said so in a letter to Britain’s top official in the region. And, according to a Jewish leader at the time, Lawrence told him that Jews should be assimilated by the Arabs, a hilarious concept.

telawrenceyellowstar.jpg

T.E. Lawrence a/k/a “Lawrence of Arabia” Wanted Jerusalem & Palestine Ethnically Cleansed of Jews

When I wrote about T.E. Lawrence’s pan-Arabism yesterday (and the death of Peter O’Toole, the actor who became famous for gushingly depicting him), I received a couple of e-mails and comments from individuals rushing to the defense of this Jew-hater and pioneer of dangerous Arab nationalism.

But here’s a reality check. . .










The Shapell Manuscript Foundation has a letter from Lawrence, dated July 9, 1917, three days after he led a successful assault by Arabs on the City of Aqaba (a coastal city in the Gulf of Aqaba in what is now Jordan but was then Palestine). In the letter, Lawrence tells General Gilbert Clayton–his superior at Britain’s “Arab Bureau” and the British intelligence officer and administrator in Egypt, Palestine and Iraq during WWI–that the “Jewish section” “must” be “cleared up,” as in cleared out. (“One must have the Jewish section cleared up.”) According to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation, Lawrence of Arabia was concerned that the Jewish presence in Palestine would get in the way of the Arab nationalism movement he was leading.

Shapell Manuscript Foundation notes that “What he [Lawrence] wanted, desperately, was Arab hegemony from Damascus all the way down through the Arabian peninsula. Standing in the way of his visionary Kingdom, however, stood the Jews, the French and, as he would ultimately come bitterly to comprehend, the British establishment itself. . . . Were a Jewish state established in Palestine, he feared the Arab movement would come to an end. Hence his intense interest in “clearing up” the Jewish and French “sections”.”

The Foundation goes on to say that Lawrence was in “conflict with the Zionist pioneer Aaron Aaronsohn and, by extension, those Zionist converts within the British establishment.” Here is what Aaronsohn said about Lawrence of Arabia, once again according to Shapell Manuscript Foundation:

Aaronsohn left an account of the meeting at which he made them. “This morning I had a conversation with Capt. Lawrence,” he wrote in his diary on 12 August 1917. “An interview without any evidence of friendliness. Lawrence had too much success at too early an age. Has a very high estimation of his own self. He is lecturing me on our colonies, on the spirit of the people, on the feelings of the Arabs, and we would do well in being assimilated by them, by the sons of Arab etc. While listening to him I imagined to be present at the lecture of a Prussian scientific anti-Semite expressing himself in English. I am afraid that many of the archaeologists and reverends have been imbued by ‘l’esprit boche’. He is openly against us.”

Hmmm . . . the guy supported Judenrein–the ethnic cleansing of Jews–from the region, so they wouldn’t get in the way of Arabism AND said Jews should be “assimilated” by the Arabs. Sound like a defender of Jews and Zionism to you? Only if you choose to dwell in utter denial.

One of T.E. Lawrence’s defenders–one of those who wrongly claim that Lawrence was a philo-Semite and defender of the Jewish presence in the Middle East–cited the many people who’ve merely quoted one unreliable source: Israel’s first President, Chaim Weizmann. But I noted Weizmann’s claims that Lawrence was a supporter of Zionism and a Jewish homeland in Israel are not believable, and he is not a reliable source on Lawrence or any other Brits. Weizmann was a well-known panderer to British Jew-haters. He liked to have them over for tea and fancied himself one of the British intellectual elite (he was an immigrant to England, and it was his country before he moved to the Middle East).

Weizmann attacked Jewish immigrants to Palestine in the early 1920s with anti-Semitic slurs used by Poles against Jews–slurs that echoed the anti-Semitic tone of the British in the Near East. Weizmann is also well known for being extremely accommodating to the British both on the eve of–and after–the Holocaust as they sought to keep Jews out of Palestine and out of England. Weizmann, who collaborated with the British Arabists for years, defended Sir William Evans Gordon and Gordon’s “Aliens Bill,” an anti-Semitic law to keep Jewish immigrants out of England. Weizmann said Britain shouldn’t become too “saturated” with Jews.

So, anyone who cites Chaim Weizmann’s defense and praise of T.E. Lawrence should know that Weizmann had a history of Anglo-pandering, particularly in defending the Brits against the Jews, whether it was in England or pre- and post-Holocaust Palestine. Zionist leader Aaronsohn’s description of Lawrence is far more credible.

It’s pretty clear: Lawrence of Arabia wanted the Jews out of Palestine (again, “One must have the Jewish section cleared up.”). With “Jew-lovers” like that, who needs enemies?

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

78 Responses

Very interesting history lesson, Debbie.

Lawrence was the scumbag who is directly responsible for the threat that the entire civilized world must now, and for perhaps centuries to come, endure from the muslim middle east.

DS_ROCKS! on December 17, 2013 at 3:00 am

And as noted in the “Responses” section to the Peter O’Toole piece, the man perhaps most responsible for publicizing Lawrence’s pan-Arabist agenda – and making him the media celebrity he became, albeit undeservedly – was Lowell Thomas, as a foreign correspondent in World War I when Lawrence was working to change the world for (as it would turn out) the worst. As was noted, Thomas was a forerunner of the media frauds who have also poisoned the landscape of the world for their own benefit (and continue to do so to this day). He wrote countless books about Lawrence’s exploits (including one in 1924, “With Lawrence in Arabia”), and even made a film way back in 1919, “With Allenby in Palestine and Lawrence in Arabia.” However, while Thomas continued to cheerlead the blue-eyed idiot, Lawrence ended up resenting Thomas’ “exploitation” of him, never mind no one would have even heard of him if not for Thomas who, in turn, became a worldwide celebrity for his publicizing Lawrence’s pan-Arabist, Jew-hating exploits. Thomas had been the basis for the fictional “Jackson Bentley” character played by Arthur Kennedy in the “Lawrence of Arabia” movie, which brings us back to actors who became famous for nefarious reasons. I’d think Thomas deserves an article about this dubious aspect of his globe-trotting career for all the above reasons.

ConcernedPatriot on December 17, 2013 at 4:08 am

    Journalism’s attitude towards the Jews and Israel hasn’t changed at all for the last century. And Lawrence has had many advocates and imitators and the Jews have had few friends. I think its telling that there was no major world figure as sympathetic to the Jews as Lawrence was to the Arabs.

    In spite of all the flattery and attempts to win over the Arabs, they still hate us. People today have still not learned who they really are. We should be glad in retrospect that nothing came of Lawrence’s plans to unify them. The world is a much better place without him around in it. Moreover, his fame was entirely unjustified. It was not his contribution that led the British to defeat the Ottoman Turks in World War I.

    NormanF on December 17, 2013 at 7:31 am

      lol, First, I must apologise for the intrusion into this blog. I was interested in knowing a bit more about LOA and landed here to see some information that I was not aware of (not to say that I entirely trust it at the moment). However, what stopped me to comment is the irony of the subject and the comments. There is a lot of hostility against Muslims (understandably), but Arabs seem to be included indiscriminately. I love that by the way, it shows how semitic the commentators are lol. Some included elements of survival and ‘divine punishment’ for the past. Was noteworthy even if I am not going into that.

      Just wanted to say thank you for your ‘civil’ semitic views that show how anti-semitic you guys are. And please don’t lecture me about the threats from those radical people, I am well aware of it. It is just a shame to include all by the guilt of many. The sad thing about this is that there is a good portion of muslims and arabs who do EXACTLY the same mistake by equating zionism and Judaism as one. Fortunately, newer generations began to know the difference now. I won’t say anything any further and good luck.

      An arab from the Arabian Peninsula.

      Arab on April 19, 2014 at 1:21 am

Thanks so much Debbie. You’re the only one who published the truth. I am sharing this on my FB because someone found the Weitzman quotes and some tripe from Sam Siegel, who produced the film and has the Film School at Hebrew U named after him.

Just remember folks, all it takes to get something named after you is to do something noteworthy and sometimes not even that but mainly to give huge amounts of money to it so it can promote your agenda.

Meira on December 17, 2013 at 6:52 am

    Chaim Weizmann and his newphew Ezer Weizman were both besotted by the Arabs and were enthusiastic supporters of the most extreme Arabs in the Middle East. Their place as leading figures of the Zionist establishment were overblown. I think their being in the limelight made lose their heads and their better judgment. Chaim’s Anglophilia and Ezer’s Americanophibila led them completely astray. There is much more to be said about them and Debbie barely touched all of it in her post this morning.

    Here’s a tip – just because anti-Semites and Israel haters have Jewish friends doesn’t give them stature and that is even more true today.

    NormanF on December 17, 2013 at 7:37 am

I’d like to think that I’m pretty well versed in history, but I never ceased to be amazed by how much I DON’T know. THANK YOU, Miss Debbie, for posting this! I had no idea about Lawrence’s antisemitism.

Cicero's Ghost (NB) on December 17, 2013 at 9:17 am

Jews should be “assimilated” by Arabs, eh? Kind of like asking a herd of wildebeeste to move in with and be assimilated by a family of hungry crocodiles.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 9:50 am

‘Lawrence of Arabia’ was produced by a Jew…Sam Spiegel. He was a great friend of Israel and donated to various Zionist causes. His massive Art collection was transfered to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Since 1996, his family have made an annual contribution, through the Jerusalem Foundation, to the film school in Jerusalem bearing his name since that time — the Sam Spiegel Film and Television School, Jerusalem. This annual contribution is the largest in the history of Israeli cinema.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 9:57 am

    And of course the Israeli films produced there are pro-Israel, and do not extend any sympathy to Arabs/Muslims/terrorists. They clearly point out that the Muslims are the aggressors. We all know the patriotism of the Israeli film industry.

    Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 10:11 am

Annnnnnnnnnndddddd, the point is? Debbie has on innumerable occasions pointed to Jews who cover themselves with ceremonial, worldly gestures and accolades to mask their hypocrisy. I’m not calling Mr. Spiegel a hypocrite, but what’s the point, after all the food for thought Debbie has provided about T.E. Lawrence and the movie Lawrence Of Arabia.

I’ll stop here, because after nearly a year on this site, I’m still just fitting in around here, and not nearly knowledgeable enough to address this at length.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 10:05 am

    Al and Alfredo, you are both completely correct. As I noted, all it takes to get a Film School or anything named for you is money. Lots and lots of money. This is one of Israel’s less charming attempts to “be like America.”

    Meira on December 17, 2013 at 12:24 pm

The point is that it’s an interesting fact. In any case the film does NOT glorify Arabs and their cause at all and is certainly ambiguous about Lawrence’s motives and personality. That’s part of why it was unique…a huge epic built on ambiguity. It paved the way for ’2001 A Space Odyssey’. It’s importance is aesthetic and not as a ‘history’.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 10:08 am

    Ambiguous about anti-semitism? That is certainly artistic, isn’t it?

    The merits of ambiguity depend on its context, but you know that, don’t you?

    Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 10:12 am

Ah, an epic built on ‘ambiguity,’ just what we need more of in this world.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Vivian 0, Al and Alfredo 2. You guys are saving me a lot of effort tonight, thanks!

    Meira on December 17, 2013 at 12:26 pm

Yes all Art should be clear as a bell and easy to understand. lol

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 10:11 am

    An example of how sarcasm masks deceptiveness.

    Of course art can be complex, but ambiguity in and of itself does not make art great, as I’m sure you know.

    Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 10:16 am

Of course, “art.” Yes, my mistake. Art that goes such a long way to sway minds and captivate cultures. “Art,” indeed.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 10:13 am

Sure it’s Art. LOA is a physically beautiful film.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 10:16 am

    Yes, an example of Form over Substance. (I guess I can capitalize those two words since you capitalize ‘Art’ [sic!]).

    Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 10:18 am

Style over Substance would be better. People have been debating what LOA is ‘about’ since it came out. Same with 2001.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 10:22 am

I said (FoRm) because of the superficiality of the physical setting.

Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 10:25 am

Little Al, anti-antisemitism isn’t broached in the film at all. It’s entirely about the so called ‘Revolt in the Desert’. By the ‘guilty by omission’ standard we can say ‘The Sound of Music’ is anti-Semitic by the way it white washes Austria’s attitude towards the Nazis.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 10:25 am

I guess your understanding of art doesn’t extend to grammar. ‘Whitewash’ is one word, not two. And so-called is hyphenated. But, of course, grammar is only form, not substance. (or is it style?)

I don’t know about anti-anti-semitism, but certainly the film by glorifying anti-semitic savages is anti-semitic.

And Sound of Music isn’t exactly sympathetic to the Nazis.

Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 10:35 am

LOA isn’t sympathetic to the Arabs either. At least not based on how they are depicted – as blood thirsty savages. Even the Omar Shariff is introduced as someone who kills an innocent man for drinking from his well. You’re conflating the historical Lawrence with the film.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 10:38 am

Duh, the film is about him — already conflated. (and ‘bloodthirsty’ is one word.)

And ‘Omar Shariff’ doesn’t have an article before his name. The view of Arabs is dynamic, not static, as you would know if you read the posts carefully. Presumably they would be ‘uplifted’ when the area became Judenrein.

Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 10:51 am

I am beginning to wonder if some of the recent posts are showing us the re-emergence of Italkit.

Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Little Al, I’m pretty sure Italkit re-debuted as “Meira”. Am I the only one who caught that?

    Also, “Paris, Texas” is a visually gorgeous film but it it beyond, beyond boring. I’ve never seen such a flawed film filmed so gorgeously. Like “The Cell” it should only be viewed with the sound down. Visually gorgeous films that don’t have the rest of the package will always remain lacking.

    Skunky on December 17, 2013 at 11:00 am

      You caught it, Skunky, because I stated it very clearly that I was doing so. I realized that transparency is the best course in these matters. So, I am Meira, really and truly. It’s on my Israeli i.d. card, passport and driver’s license and Meira I shall remain.

      Meira on December 17, 2013 at 12:46 pm

        Also, Skunky, et al, I never used those other names in a deceptive way. I was trying to find my screen persona and that’s what didn’t work. I have always been very true to myself and trying to create something that maybe was only a small part of myself didn’t work. That’s why I mentioned “transparency” above.

        Meira on December 17, 2013 at 12:50 pm

        I knew a Meira, young actress, back when a friend and I had a resume service. Her resume said that she served six months in the Israeli Army. She was a slightly built, nice looking young lady, but her attitude certainly underscored the army stint.

        Unless that attitude was a great acting job, she could be scary. Ziva David before there was one. I’ve met plenty of Israelis before, mostly men, never a young lady who threw a scary attitude, though. She didn’t really do or say anything, it was just the way she was.

        Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 12:54 pm

          Alfredo, to live in Israel, you definitely have to have attitude and since I’m a New Yawkah, I came prepared. ;)

          Meira on December 18, 2013 at 3:28 am

        Agreed, but being careful on the net should be a priority. Many of us here would prolly prefer to be as open as we can but it’s really not worth it because there have been some very bad players here (mostly Moooooslims) who have harassed and posted things using regular’s real name. If we were all in a room than individuals would have to fend for themselves but on the net you don’t always know if you’re dealing with a freak, a kook or an insane malignant sort.

        I’m all for it if one can protect themselves and is up for the fight but I still think caution is first and foremost. Especially here where truth is told and it’s not always welcome.

        Skunky on December 17, 2013 at 12:59 pm

          In perusing the archives several months ago, when I was quite new, I discovered an article which had people logging on recently, claiming to be Debbie’s mother and sister, and actually using real “American” sounding first names, and the last name “Schlussel.” They were saying vile things about Debbie, and expressing shame. You certainly cannot be too careful on the internet.

          To revisit a thread long after it has run its course to blast the host using phony screen names and masquerading as member’s of that host’s family is beyond vile. It’s desperate and stupid, because no one’s reading the thread anymore. And it also shows how many desperate people out there exist. And desperate people, . . .

          can be real freaking low lives.

          Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 1:05 pm

          Skunky, I agree with that in principle but it hasn’t worked for me. I find on FB, where, in my circle anyway, we get into some really heavy discussions about Israel, Arabs and the rest, that being me works best. I monitor my settings carefully, although that’s not possible on a site like this one. If I get trolled, they get blocked. I don’t think being on FB means being a “friend” to the world. So I take my lumps and deal with it. Probably if I had a site, as you do, I’d be more careful and learn how to use other security measures.

          Meira on December 18, 2013 at 3:27 am

      I missed that.

      Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    Sorry to disappoint, LA, This is moi, in my natural form. I mentioned several weeks ago that the screen name thing wasn’t working for me. I’m not very good at thinking them up and some were really dumb, so I went to my true first name. You don’t need any more. If you read all the posts, now that you know I AM MEIRA, you will see that I’m agreeing with you and Alfredo here.

    I saw LOA when it came out and I didn’t have a clue as to what it was going on but maybe that was due to the woman behind me screaming out passionately to O’Toole how magnificent he was. I was too young to understand she was having orgasms. Seriously. But I wonder if that might have been Vivian in her younger days?

    Meira on December 17, 2013 at 12:40 pm

      Meira, you may be confusing my comment with someone else’s. I have said nothing about your posts. All my comments pertained to Vivian.

      Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 12:55 pm

        Al, I had to re-read this post. Apparently Skunky thought you meant me also because she commented that Italkit is Meira. Then, I didn’t get your response the first time around but I’ve been thinking about it and how to interpret it. So, now I get it. You thought Vivian was Italkit.

        Meira on December 18, 2013 at 6:22 am

And Omar’s last name is spelled Sharif, one ‘f.’ LOL!!!

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Alfredo, Vivian shot “the” Sharif[f] I guess.

    Meira on December 17, 2013 at 12:52 pm

      ROTFLMAO!!!

      Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 1:00 pm

Well Little Al, the last few posts are certainly indicative of SOMETHING. Definitely not substance. I smell peanuts. And if I smell peanuts, can elephant dung be far behind?

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 10:53 am

No doubt they would. That doesn’t change the fact that LOA is visually ravishing film that continues to hold attention from cinephiles (and not because of political reasons as Debbie stated – as I mentioned before, LOA really doesn’t have any political ideas). And I would be shocked if it was popular (or even allowed)in Islamic countries.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 10:55 am

I am getting tired of correcting all your grammatical mistakes. But — ‘if it were’ (subjunctive, contrary to fact). I’ll give up on that — just too many errors. And, frankly, you just don’t understand subtle, indirect, political indoctrination. Have to go now. Can’t spend all day on this.

Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 11:00 am

‘Indirect’ is right as Sam Spiegel and David Lean probably didn’t have a political thought in their head and just wanted to make a picturesque epic. I’m sure you think that ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’ glorifies treason too? You could find those sorts of overtones in just about any film.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Bridge and Lawrence do certainly, in an indirect sense glorify treason. Both films were plagued with the re-emergence of left-winger (euphemism) Michael Wilson. And then, of course, Carl Foreman re-emerges in Bridge, as well. And naturally, in keeping with its left-wing writers, it is an attack on militarism, quite in keeping with Commie goals in the late 50s (disarmament campaigns, etc.).

    It is worth noting that Michael Wilson is also included in Lawrence. It is too bad that Spiegel was so comfortable with this left-wing writer. A harbinger of the conjunction of left-wingers and anti-semitism.

    And pointing out a prominent feature of something is not necessarily reductionism unless it is asserted that this particular feature overrides and nullifies everything else. I don’t think that is what anyone is saying.

    Little Al on December 17, 2013 at 1:09 pm

T.E.Lawrence was certainly no friend of the Jews. In addition, his military exploits were greatly embellished by an American reporter. His real influence on the British war against the Ottomans was not that great.

By and large, Lawrence led no committed Arab nationalists. His army was a mercenary army paid for in gold.

By comparison, Emir Feisel, Lawrence’s partner is quoted by Felix Frankfurter (3 March 1919): “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement… We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home… We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East, and our two movements complement one another. There is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be successful without the other.”

Feisel eventually went on to reach an agreement of cooperation with Dr. Chaim Weitzman. Sadly, Emir Feisel was pushed out of Syria by the French who would have nothing to do with Zionism; a British initiative. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood grew out of the 1920′s and clearly had conflicting aims. From that point on, the British policy of appeasement set in and the rest is history.

Feisel was not only opposed by the French, but also by British spies like Jack Philby and T.E. Lawerence who were not only hostile toward Zionism, but also hostile to British plans to seat Emir Hussein and his sons in power. Philby betrayed British secrets to American oil companies who helped arm Ibn Saud. Ibn Saud eventually forced Sherif Hussein and his sons out of the Arabian peninsula and established Ibn Saud as the ruler of the Arabian Peninsula along with a hegemony of American oil companies. These American oil companies ultimately formed ARAMCO which was wholly owned by Americans until the Saudi Arabian government nationalized it in the 1970′s.

It’s a very sick and sordid story and T.E. Lawrence undeservedly remains a romantic hero when in fact he deserves no such status.

There is NO Santa Claus on December 17, 2013 at 11:16 am

One of the more laughable portions of “Lawrence of Arabia” was when Lawrence and Feisel capture Aqaba. The film shows a sprawling sea-side which is a joke to anyone who has ever been to Aqaba and Elat. The two ports are crammed right on tip of each other in a narrow gulf that it is obvious that the film scene had to be taken somewhere else.

For the sake of repeating myself, the military feats of T.E. Lawrence had little meaningful outcome of the British conquest of Palestine. Rather, the real fighting was carried out largely by Australians.

Were it not for an American reporter romanticizing Lawerence’s activities, few would have noticed him. To the Arabs who fought with him, Lawerence was “the guy with the gold” leading a paid mercenary army with little, if any political motivation except to pillage the spoils of war.

There is NO Santa Claus on December 17, 2013 at 11:27 am

Thank you for the review, TINSC. As if cinema COULDN’T have an effect on hearts and minds. One only has to attend the next The Rock and Vin Diesel movie to see people swayed in to cheering for or against someone or something.

It is insultingly absurd to suggest that because a movie was made for stylistic reasons rather than substantive ones, it could not still have a powerful impact on humans, of ALL ages and knowledge bases. We all know how impressionable ALL minds can be.

A case in point is the American left’s continual denying of the facts that their policies don’t work. They are inhabited by the low information crowd on up to those with multiple advanced degrees and astounding knowledge on many subjects.

Although I probably saw Lawrence Of Arabia sooner than perhaps 99.9% of the folks on this web site, I wouldn’t know T.E. Lawrence from Jennifer Lawrence. The Troll Patrol became aware of the invasion of the ‘Stylistics’ earlier today, and I thank the cavalry for showing up.

The nature of these discussions is beyond the intellect and knowledge base of The Great Dumboni a/k/a The Resident Dumb Blond(e).

I STILL don’t know if it’s chicken or fish.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Alfredo, if you want a beautiful film, made for “stylistic” effect, you make Elvira Madigan, not politically correct Oater set in the ME with the Arabs as the good guys and everyone else as the Indians. For that matter, you don’t attempt to make a historical drama out of such material.

    Sorry, Vivian, as Alfredo said, even a movie made for aesthetic reasons alone can have great power over people’s minds, sometimes more so, but if you think movies are made only for aesthetic reasons, that’s simply absurd. They are almost all, especially if they consider themselves “serious,” contain a message and a point of view which is a lot harder to ignore than it would be in a book. The medium is not as innocent as they would have you believe.

    Meira on December 17, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Alfredo:

    Lawrence of Arabia was a beautiful movie based on the the romantic embellishment of an American reporter. It had little basis in fact.

    This is typical of many movies “based on a true story”. Like Lawrence of Arabia, these movies often push liberal orthodoxy.

    There is No Santa Claus on December 17, 2013 at 10:09 pm

Who said it couldn’t have an impact? The fact is that it did not have an impact. Feel free to demonstrate what impact it did have. Islamic countries probably hate that film.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 11:52 am

Then why log on here to make light of our hostess’ take on this movie, the real life figure, and the man who played him? Slow day at the circus, . . .

elephant keeper?

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 11:57 am

Wasn’t Lawrence’s memoir (Seven Pillars of Wisdom) largely fabricated by him as well? He had considerable literary talent -hence its endurance. It’s been said that he exaggerated his role in the events considerably. LOA was based on his memoir.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 11:59 am

As I’ve stated before, you are addressing The Resident Dumb Blond(e), a/k/a The Great Dumboni. I neither have the intellect nor knowledge base to engage in a lively discussion of T.E. Lawrence. I wouldn’t know T.E. Lawrence from Jennifer Lawrence. I saw Lawrence Of Arabia when I was six. All I remember is a white guy in a burkha (or hoodie?) who was made out be some kind of hero, and a lot of desert scenes.

I STILL don’t know if it’s chicken or fish.

However, rest assured, the cavalry could show up again, . . .

at any time.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 12:09 pm

I would advise you to watch it again as an adult – prefferably on a big screen. The Lawrence of the film is a tabula rasa. The audience projects on him whatever motives they wish to.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 12:13 pm

Ahhhhhh!!! So audiences go in to the movies with a wish? SO, whether preconceived or made up as one goes along, we go to the movies SEEKING to be impressionable.

A MATHEMATICAL CONCLUSION!!! Since audiences go IN TO the movies SEEKING to be impressionable, they could seize on a moment or moments, ORCHESTRATED BY THE MAKER(S) OF THE FILM, . . .

to DELIBERATELY CREATE an impression in people’s minds.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Think I’ll pick up some peanuts to put in my ice cream when I come back to the abode tonight. But somehow, peanuts or not, I keep coming up with, . . .

Debbie’s right. Debbie’s right. And LAST, but not least, . . .

Debbie’s right.

Even if she got bowling wrong. ROTFLMAO!!!

Just kidding, Debbie, DON’T KILL ME, DON’T KILL ME, DEBBIE!!! LOL!!!

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 12:20 pm

Your reduction of all cinema (and books, paintings, music I assume?) to a form of propaganda is pretty sad.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    Yep, very sad, but also true. Why do you think Michelangelo painted some of his patron’s enemies into the “hell” portion of THE LAST JUDGEMENT? he knew where his lira were coming from and he was sending a message.

    Meira on December 17, 2013 at 12:44 pm

ACHAAAAAA!!! The Stylist gets out . . .

The Broad Brush.

Indeed, as you wish. I confess. I am clod, an amoeba, a paramecium. I got this log on from a piece of DNA left by a CSI squad, and came on to the web site to trivialize all of human existence.

I’M SO BUSTED!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!

Discovered, . . .

and exposed.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 17, 2013 at 12:37 pm

And Shakespeare glorified the evil (but Tudor) Henry VIII and demonized the bad but probably not all that bad Richard III. It’s still a depressing way to see the world. It’s what the Marxists do…see all human expression as a form of power politics.

Vivian on December 17, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    You’re beginning to get it Viv! Back in Shakespeare’s day, there were no journalists. Ideas and ideologies were transmitted thru the spoken word or images, going back to Sophocles and the Inhabitants of Lascaux. What? Oedipus isn’t about power politics among other things? If we had no need to communicate our ideas, we could, like Plato, sit in a cave with our backs turned to the entrance. Communication and connection are a basic human need and so we have evolved from painting rock walls to this, the electronic blog but we’re still all trying to share ideas, get new information and to some degree press our own beliefs. That Marx picked up on this is of no matter. If it didn’t work, I doubt Lenin could have persuaded millions of Russians to follow him.

    Meira on December 18, 2013 at 3:38 am

Didn’t know much about Lawrence – the real person. Very interesting, thanks Debbie

Frankz on December 17, 2013 at 2:23 pm

Thanks, Debbie , for posting these about LOA. Very important facts contained here that must reads. Weizman &Co. are object lessons of what Jews should not be, if survival is on our minds.
Also, never forget:
“Anti-semitism is the hating of Jews MORE THAN IS NECESSARY”
Ernest Bevin, Brit Foreign Secretary.
And lets not forget Pasha John Glubb, who led the Jordanian Legion in 1948, and whose son converted to Izlam.
The Muslimification and neuterization of present day England seems to be devine retribution for their behavior towards us over the past century.

Not Ovenready on December 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm

I wonder if any of the Arabs made any homosexual advances toward Lawrence the way the Turkish officer played by Jose Ferrer (I think) did.

CornCoLeo on December 17, 2013 at 4:31 pm

I live in arab muslim country, the funny thing is they believe westerners are weak because they don’t cover their women.

Btw keep exposing the real nature of islam and arabs

Observer on December 18, 2013 at 10:51 am

This was really one of the best runs of comments I have ever seen on this blog, seriously. Thecomments were thoughtful, well articulated and everyone showed respect for others even in disagreement. There was no name calling or vulgarity. This is how it should be!

Meira on December 18, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    Sup, fellow Noo Yawkuh. Yeah, I like when threads go that way. Very good, quite right.

    Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 19, 2013 at 12:15 am

      It’s all good, Alfredo, How’s PR treatin’ ya? We’ve pretty much thawed out here but man! that storm last week?

      Meira on December 19, 2013 at 6:02 am

        I’m still in the NYC area, been walking on sheets of ice lately. Heading back home Monday morning. Been up here almost seven weeks, which is about twice as long as intended, but it’s about making enough money to get back. I have no way of making a living down home, . . . yet. Such is a life in transition.

        Alfredo from Puerto Rico on December 19, 2013 at 8:49 am

          I hear ya! Good thing we live in a Socialist country. haha

          Meira on December 19, 2013 at 11:13 am

You state that Lawrence “led a successful assault by Arabs on the City of Aqaba (a coastal city in the Gulf of Aqaba in what is now Jordan but was then Palestine)”, but I’d like to tweak that a little to get you more nearly 100% correct. To begin with, best to say at the end, “located in what is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but was then (i.e., in 1917) the Kaza of Beersheba within the Ottoman Turkish Sanjaq (Governorate) of Jerusalem.” Arabic-language chroniclers had long used the term “Falastin” (derived from the Greco-Roman term Palestina) to refer to a limited area well northwest of Aqaba which included such towns as Gaza, Nablus & Jenin but did not include the village of al-’Aqabah. All of this “Falastin” also fell within the much larger bloc known as “al-Sham”, generally translated as “Greater Syria”, but neither term appears on contemporary Ottoman maps of 1917. It was the British in particular who grandly decided to apply the name “Palestine” to the Mandate they undertook west of the Jordan River after WWI, but they dubbed territory to the east, which included Aqaba, “Transjordan.” Today’s Palestinian maps merely mimic pre-1948 British maps in calling all of the old Palestine Mandate “Palestine” while rather opaquely omitting any reference to Israel, but they do not lay claim to Aqaba. Lawrence, who may be properly described as a legend in his own mind, hardly “led a successful assault by Arabs on the City of Aqaba.” He was merely a glorified military adviser to Arab troops who never made did make that frontal assault on Turkish positions which is fatuously depicted in the wretchedly long film named after him. Not to say that the film’s discreet reference to his gladly walking into rear-end assault by the Ottoman commandant at Der’ah is necessarily all that off the mark.

Ted Gruen on December 18, 2013 at 6:24 pm

Debbie,

Just a quick noted to say that a cousin of Lawrence, Orde Wingate as not impressed.

It turns out that Lawrence used vast amounts of British taxpayers gold to get the dozy rag heads off their backsides & into the fight against the Turks.

I think you’ll find Wingate is listed as one of the righteous.

It just shows there is no accounting for human behaviour, even amongst families.

Skaldcrow on December 19, 2013 at 6:02 am

So, barfable British dhimmitude is nothing new …

Pray Hard on December 20, 2013 at 10:50 am

    The only thing I really remember of the movie is David Lean’s vast landscapes which affect my photography to this day.

    Pray Hard on December 20, 2013 at 10:53 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field