Apologists for Israel take top posts at BBC

Oh really? How come Putin did not know about it 5 days ago? Please explain. LOL

"12 Jun 2013: And when we hear threats from Iran against its neighbours, particularly Israel, when we hear from Iran that Israel must be destroyed - I think this is completely unacceptable."

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/iran-threats-against/707036.html

 

No, that is giving biased information. Even half the Jews of the UK did not agree with Israel. I am pretty sure that was when jfjfp was formed.

Impossible to. It has vanished. However the information known is that it could rule out those who believe that Israel has a right of return.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=44756


You only need to have attended primary school to work out why it vanished when all the other episodes are still there and they will not even mention it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0109jny

This was part of a wide series on archeology but only the one threatening the belief that if your family lived their 2/3000 years ago, you have a right to take the land replacing those who have been living there for up to 5000 years or more vanished shortly before it was to be aired.

I do not think this justifies Israel at all but for those who do, archeology showing it to be untrue.................................

 

There is a long list of people who denied it. Just not the one who stated it. When it comes to Iran, I'll rely upon the President of Iran and the Iranian national media, not the Israeli defense minister.

 

Like I said, even the Israeli defence minister admitted it is BS.

Move on man, move on, the imminent 'death of all Jews' is not flying this time.

 

No one claimed an "imminent death of all jews". Ill wait here while you scurry off after that strawman.

 

that upper image costs to produces??? 280-300 just in case they want to represent

 

So what do you mean 'wipe Israel off the map' then?

 

You kind of cant, because israel aint had a good map for the last 60 yrs.

As a country, it's a cancer

 

Yep’… hmm'… it seems when a usual suspect is wrong or exposed when making questionable comments all we receive in reply is ….(nothing) a silence so quite we could hear crickets chirping, if camping.

(I’d rather be camping too)

reva

 

Israel was not on the Map :

[video=youtube;1k9IlR3-_-A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k9IlR3-_-A[/video]


btw - the land of Canaan /Palestine has been populated by non-Jews for a much longer periods than it ever was - as claimed - in biblical myths.
While it might have for a brief period conquered by invading runaway Egyptian slaves - Hebrews - it soon eroded into civil wars /conquered, all in all - lasted less than a century / conquered dismembered ..

The Land of Israel claims is founded on ancient myths. nothing more. - .

...


.........

 

I think you are making stuff up again Bishadi, bad bad bad! The real facts are that Israel’s official state maps are very good. They are authorized for use in all building projects and such things maps are used for lol. Also according to the web Israels official maps have been approved by the worlds various authorizing agencies etc. for use in text books and other apps. So its not the maps that are questionable, its the suspects grasp on reality that may be the problem. Or maybe its just that the worlds usual suspects and pal apologists have a difficult time accepting reality considering their veiws on a mythical nation and people they see as 'real'.

As a nation in secular terms it’s average, no better or worse than other nations. In some way Israel far surpasses other nations...buit thats material for another thread. By secular terms I mean I am not considering the God contract (covenant) etc. However, Israel can claim exclusive rights to one thing. They are the only modern sovereign nation I know of that is being blackmailed and extorted to give up her land she won by UN protocol and other ethical* means. By other means I am speaking of the exact same means that other hypocritical nations and naive people demand her to forfeit !

reva

 

BS all (the above)., well maybe not BS but its w-r-o-n-g, typical Pal-aplogist parroting of a mistruth. I do not accept vids as valid proof or even evidence of anything. They are too difficult to verify for accuracy. By your statements concerning history I see you hold the same untrue propagandized ideas of Palestine and its people. However, you may be like many honest people who do have misconceptions of the non nation of Arab Palestine. That area's history is complicated and easy to become confused because of the similar names used and the efforts of malicious minions that have a vested interest to confuse the world to the truth of Pal-land. I hope you really do have an open mind and will read the information I posted below. The facts in the article are in hundreds of other valid official documents etc, so this is not a one internet site fabrication etc. Or if you don’t have time etc ask me to direct you to a paragraph etc that specifically answers any question you may have as to why I and most of the worlds Ivy League scholars even those that are Pro Palestine unless they are an Islamic official or agent of some capacity deny an Arab Palestinian nation has existed.

Evidence with verifiable factual information the myth of Arab Palestine the Nation and or Palestinian people;

The term “Palestine” is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word Filastin is derived from this Latin name. 3

Map of British Mandate
The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David’s son, Solomon, built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon’s son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward until most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States. 4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be more than 3,000 years old today.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most of the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.”5

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds. 6

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country as Palestine! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.” 7 The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations echoed this view in a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947, which said Palestine was part of the Province of Syria and the Arabs of Palestine did not comprise a separate political entity. A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” 8

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War.

end of document

Truth is not easy to accept when it clashes with dearly held ideas. I know I used to be highly anti-Israel and pro Pal over a decade ago. That was until I read factual accounts etc. I could not verify a true Arab nation called Palestine existed in recorded history.

reva

 

the false witness of a liar is clearly represented, as i didnt even use the word 'bad' in the whole post.

good smoke in tenn?

there is a city called jerusalem. It's not israel; fact

UN Res 181, 476, 478

Presidents apparantly quote something about "National Security" if they allow the idiots to get their way.

I wounder if that means the people within the US will retaliate or that other nations will retaliate. Either way, by presidential over coming congress, the USA does not have an Embassey in jerusalem

because what is right, and nothing to do with any other word.

they leave or you will see ww3

not my call

i dont push buttoms on any terminimal except this one but i can make up a mean story about burning f;esh frrom bones and returning jeruselem to thickets and and then no more religious embodiment left on the earth.

It'll put you guys out of business


sheeeeeeeett...



i noticed thts its already in the bible


7 And I have seen it coming near the ram, and it becometh embittered at it, and smiteth the ram, and breaketh its two horns, and there hath been no power in the ram to stand before it, and it casteth it to the earth, and trampleth it down, and there hath been no deliverer to the ram out of its power.

8 `And the young he-goat hath exerted itself very much, and when it is strong, broken hath been the great horn; and come up doth a vision of four in its place, at the four winds of the heavens.

9 And from the one of them come forth hath a little horn, and it exerteth itself greatly toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous [land];

10 yea, it exerteth unto the host of the heavens, and causeth to fall to the earth of the host, and of the stars, and trampleth them down.

11 And unto the prince of the host it exerteth itself, and by it taken away hath been the continual [sacrifice], and thrown down the base of his sanctuary.

12 And the host is given up, with the continual [sacrifice], through transgression, and it throweth down truth to the earth, and it hath worked, and prospered.

13 `And I hear a certain holy one speaking, and a certain holy one saith to the wonderful numberer who is speaking: Till when [is] the vision of the continual [sacrifice], and of the transgression, an astonishment, to make both sanctuary and host a treading down?

14 And he saith unto me, Till evening -- morning two thousand and three hundred, then is the holy place declared right

 

I noticed you only disagreed with my opinion, why no rebuttal of the article, an article that proves my point, not even one teeny wennie point did I see you disagree! Of course the entire article rebuts nearly everything you have said here at PF and disproves nearly every relevant idea you base your anti-Israel Pro-Pal leader* sentiments upon? The reason is you can't rebut truth.

I highly empathies homeless people of the world and have the near the exact same feelings for the hapless Syrian and Jordanian refugees that think themselves Palestinian via masterful trickery. The rIslamic leaders and higher ups are the real demons and shotcallers in this entire Pal-Israel thing, but they too are only pupets for their puppet master and ally. They have the second most powerful ally in the universe too, so I am not shocked that with 'his' influence and the trillons of eurodollars avaiable over the years to fund and promote propganda and black ops the common people, people that are basiclly good people support Islamic terrorists, brutal Sharia law, giving up freedoms, forcing another attempted holocaust, or deny the real holocaust all terrible things. The only person that has been able to resist this historic long lived ally of the pal leaders etc was Jesus, and he had a difficult time of it.

reva

 

Um..anyway, in the end, best thing to do is not buy a licence - simple. That way you are doing the very best thing that you can do, withdraw funding if you find said thing objectionable. Less easy to understand is finding it so, and still funding it.

 

I didn't say it so I didn't mean anything. Amusing that you people think what you or I think it means has any relevance. Who cares what the Israeli defense minister thinks when

 

For some, it appears that ignorance really is bliss:

THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

THE PROOF:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site
www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

THE ORIGIN:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.

The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.

It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth". In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth", or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth". The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm

 

So did it have a meaning or not then?

You admit it is not death to the Jews, so what does that leave, do you think?

 

I don't recall anyone claiming Iran was going to somehow eliminate the land mass of Israel. And the president of Iran never refers to Israel the country as he doesn't recognize the existence of Israel as a country. Otherwise, not sure of your point with all of that. Confirms what I said in that it wa Iranian, state owned media that put out the translation

 

That doesnt prove BBC was baised by canceling that chapter...

I think i can see what it was about - I cant be sure because the director, for some reason, did not post his ground shaking finds, instead about 10,000 words were spent about how unfair it was that they cancelled his episode,

I know that champter is not the topic but you use it to prove BBC is baised so I will have to address it, please try to be objective:

You'll agree I hope that some things in this world are very sensitive like Genocides, wars, religion etc', while some medias do offer anyone to post an opinion or theories others (the more responsible ones) require facts, even consent from academic circles, there is freedom of speech but one cannot use it to abuse others - not unless he has facts, you would disagree I suppose to run the Muhamad movie that Coptic made in the US on freedom of speech excuse, how about a docomentry about the hoax of the Nakba ? there is enough debated evidence about that I assure you,

In such sensitive cases a responsible network will not shove its head into unless there is enough evidence and enough research done on it. its not just another theory you throw to the pile when it has strong politic meaning, not unless you have solid accepted facts - then you can use freedom of speech, truth that shouldnt be hidden, however that's not the case.


I suspect his work was based on missing evidence rather than existing evidence, that's the kind of theories the anti types usually run on, that is, we would expect to find this and that if the alleged had really happened - but we dont so it didnt, that kind of logic cannot be used to prove a point, its not conclusive and certainly not enough to braodcast considering its sensitivity.

I suspect that is the case because the article said " “… evidence revealed [in the programme], suggesting that the Jewish exile from Jerusalem in AD 70 may never have actually happened, has…severe ramifications for relations in the region.”, nice, then how about a few documentries on evidence Muhamad really did sleep with children, it may have actually happend.......

 

BBC is one of the most impartial news oultets out there, reality just has an anti-Israel bias.

 

But the Jews in the UK are not the issue...they didnt go to this op did they ? its not a popularity contest Alexa it was a declaration of a military operation - dramaticly changed to "war", and the only thing that matters for the report is what both sides have to say, to Israel it was a defensive move against th ehuge amount of rocket fire we suffered from, 1000's of rockets over year, Jews in the UK objected.....irrelevant...

 

There is no longer a 'Left Wing' political Party in Britain, they are all the same Party now, we have no choice really but that said, In the last election 'we' voted Blair and Brown and the three witches out 'we' didn't vote anyone in, therefore we have a very unhappy coalition of mainly young, useless, know nothing of life outside politics, professional Politicians in Power.

Some of the Scottish posters on here are very Anti English btw

 

How can a biased person be a judge on that? you and most of the posters here are anti-Israel and have no objectivity in the first place, this whole thread is a joke.

 

LOL, your statement is like Stalin declaring 'Pravda' to be impartial. If BBC apears to be 'impartial' in the eyes of ultra-left 'RedRepublic' that tells the rest of us what all we need to know about BBC. BBC's relunctance to call terrorists 'terrorists' and calling them militants instead is as far away from impartiality as it gets, it's bias and political correctness running amok and showing the true nature of BBC ultra-liberal slant.