BBC Paxman: "What's the difference between Zionism and Racism?"

BBC Paxman: "What's the difference between Zionism and Racism?"


Jeremy Paxman NAILS the British Ambassador Peter Gooderham on his churlish walkout of the speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by asking him the question,"What is the difference between Zionism and Racism?"

What an embarrassing retort! "Zionism is a political movement. Racism is...is something else. I think we know when we see it, and it's not that." Come on, man! BBC has a history of sticking it to defenders of Zionism in these brief correspondences; one would think they would be aware of this fact and make themselves ready for the belligerent questioning. Instead, they continue to make asses of themselves in a very public forum. This must be the third or fourth video I've seen of a BBC interview going terrifically awry for a supporter of Zionism.

Regardless of whether or not you believe Zionism is racism in whole or in part, a supporter of the movement could certainly make a more sophisticated argument than this poor fellow did. Someone needs to prep these representatives, or else hire reps who have the foresight to prepare themselves (as any adult should be able to do).

[edit on 23/4/09 by paperplanes]

Sometimes the Middle East is conditioned by the verses in their book of their religion, I will show examples of what they read and then see the relationship of the behavour in their political history with the Jews and why through Islamic influence they are so against the Jews and aways will be.

Ishaq:240 "The Jews are a nation of liars.... The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people."
Text

Is that not what Iran thinks in similar lines?

Qur'an 33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."
Text

Is that not what Iran dreams of doing, let them push the Palistinians to do the work for them?

Tabari VIII:130 "The Messenger said during his final illness, 'Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.' Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: 'Allah has given permission for you to be expelled; for I have received word that the Prophet said that two religions cannot coexist in Arabia."

Text

Still to this day two religions can not coexist, its in the Arabian laws and the leaders agree with this notion. I still think Iran has the same idea based on what they read, but they won't tell you where they get their ideas from.

Ishaq:245 "Do you love Jews and their religion, you liver-hearted ass, and not Muhammad? Their religion will never march with ours.... Jews make false professions about Islam. So Allah sent down: 'Satan wishes to lead them astray."
Text

Tabari VII:158 "The Messenger of Allah besieged the Nadir Jews for fifteen days. In the end they made peace with him on the condition that the Prophet would not shed their blood and that their property and possessions would be his."
Text

Of course why not, always a win win situation and maybe like Israel today this fantasy is still to act out.

Qur'an 5:42 "They are fond of listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden; they are greedy for illicit gain!"
Text

Spirtually in the Bible they are blessed so they are bound to attract some fortune but people see it as some conspiracy and still do.

Qur'an 5:82 "You will find the Jews and disbelievers [defined as Christians in 5:73] the most vehement in hatred for the Muslims."
Text

Nothing to do with personally liking someone but just following the example of the greatest man ever alive, how can they go against his wise words?

Ishaq:256 "The Jews used to ask Muhammad questions which annoyed and confused him." Ishaq:257 "Your situation seems obscure to us, Muhammad."
Text

Oh well.

Ishaq:243 "I heard the Apostle say: 'Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!' He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks.... Allah sent down concerning him: 'To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom." [9:61] "Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, 'If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey's.'"
Text

Okay so no black Jews either, there will be trouble then.

Bukhari: V9B89N256 "Allah's Apostle said, 'You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he is a black African slave whose head looks like a raisin.'"
Text

Not only is he back his head looks like a raisin too, is this trying to win converts?

Ishaq:374 "The black troops and slaves of the Meccans cried out and the Muslims replied, 'Allah destroy your sight, you impious rascals.'"
Text

What is the difference between Zionism and racism?





[edit on 23-4-2009 by The time lord]

I haven't heard anyone in this thread argue that the Qur'an is not prejudiced against Jews. The trouble with your statements is not accuracy, but the fact that they have nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not Zionism constitutes racism in whole or in part. Care to address the subject of the thread?

Unless by "their political history with the Jews" and "through Islamic influence they are so against the Jews", you mean "Zionists political history with the Jews" and "through Islamic influence Zionists are so against the Jews" .

reply to post by The time lord


Thou shall not commit adultery...

Is not the same as:

Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife.


The first one means don't mix your race, however many marriages seem to overlook this one in particular of the ten commandments.

Racism is all through religion as it has been all through mans culture. You could argue there is basis for any argument about race, it all depends on how open your mind is to anything considered 'non pc'.

No doubt the BBC and Paxman will receive venomous letters of denunciation and accusation of anti semitism by some Israeli 5th columnist Hyena demanding a retraction , paxmans sacking or some form of renumeration , or perhaps all .

BBC bows once again before the pro-Israel lobby

Last week, the BBC Trust bowed before its pro-Israeli critics by accepting the validity of criticisms of two articles by its Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen.

Its report found that Bowen had breached BBC rules on impartiality and accuracy in his reporting on Israel. The complaints had been filed by a member of the Zionist Federation. They relate to an article dealing with the 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbours and another on the Israeli settlement, Har Homa, in East Jerusalem.

The decision of the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee was grist for the mill to the pro-Israel lobby, which said that the decision was proof of the BBC’s “bias” and called for Bowen’s dismissal. The report, in fact, testifies to the BBC’s willingness, in the face of powerful political and corporate interests, to fall dutifully into line with the British government’s support for the US and Israel—up to and including the suppression of dissenting opinion in its own ranks.

The censure of Bowen is the second occasion in recent months in which the BBC has cited the need for “impartiality” to placate Israel, the US and the British government.

In January, the BBC refused to show an appeal for humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza put out by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) of aid charities. BBC Director General Mark Thompson claimed that airing the DEC appeal would put the corporation’s impartiality at risk by giving the impression the BBC was “backing one side” over the other.

Over 11,000 viewers contacted the BBC to complain about its refusal to air the appeal. Labour MP Gerald Kaufman said the BBC had responded to “nasty pressure” from “very active and not very pleasant Israeli diplomatic representation in Britain.”

Former BBC journalist and independent MP Martin Bell noted in the Guardian that the BBC’s “senior journalists feel betrayed, but dare not speak out because of their terms of service.” An unnamed BBC news source stated, “Feelings are running extremely high and there is widespread disgust at the BBC’s top management. There is widespread anger and frustration at the BBC’s refusal to allow people to speak out about it.”

The BBC used the same pretext of maintaining impartiality in relation to an appeal for aid to Lebanon in 2006 following the Israeli war against Hezbollah.

Robert Fisk in the Independent on April 16 described the Trust’s report on Bowen as “pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest.” He added that the Trust had “collapsed, in the most shameful way, against the usual Israeli lobbyists who have claimed—against all the facts—that Bowen was wrong to tell the truth.”

wsws.org...

reply to post by The time lord


You cannot defend the side you obviously want to, so you bash the other side?

Typical unfortunately, but showing guilt none the less.

Ask Netenyahoo if he thinks two religions can co-exist in israel and you will find you are not much different then your neighbors!

Originally posted by The time lord
Sometimes the Middle East is conditioned by the verses in their book of their religion, I will show examples of what they read and then see the relationship of the behavour in their political history with the Jews and why through Islamic influence they are so against the Jews and aways will be.

What is the difference between Zionism and racism?

[edit on 23-4-2009 by The time lord]

Yeah, what is the difference between Zionism and racist?

"Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him"

www.come-and-hear.com...

ONE SHOULD NOT PLACE CATTLE IN HEATHENS' INNS, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF IMMORAL PRACTICE WITH THEM. A [JEWISH] WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF LEWDNESS, NOR SHOULD A [JEWISH] MAN BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF SHEDDING BLOOD.

juchre.org...

"But a heathen should not perform circumcision on an Israelite, because he is liable to take his life. "nor should a heathen woman suckle a child of an Israelite woman, because she is liable to murder it ... not even while others are standing by her, for she may take the opportunity of rubbing in poison on her breast beforehand and so kill the child."

juchre.org...

Come and hear: If one finds therein a lost object, then if the majority are Israelites it has to be announced, but if the majority are heathens it has not to be announced.

juchre.org...

If a heathen smites a Jew, he is worthy of death for it is written ... He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence; for it is written, one who smiteth man [i.e. an Israelite] attacketh the Holy One.

juchre.org...

Of course you get the point: All Holy books were written by monkeys.

The difference between the Israelites of the past are historical rules based on covenants, they were isolated tribes through history in which they had abide by strict laws. It was not a law for other tribes outside the Jewish circle; they had to stick to their gene pool. Why did they stick to their gene pool because to keep the covenant of the coming Messiah Jesus in which they did not recognise in the end. Mary had to be of the original Adam decedents for Jesus to remain pure in bloodline, the whole Israelite journey was to protect the future and fulfil it. That is why fallen Angels produced giants and hybrids to save themselves and that is why Noah's flood occurred and why Moses fought off giants or hybrids near Israel, if not mistaken the canite Palestine area of today.

I doubt the Qur'an has such a rich tale to say the same thing. The only difference is that they hold onto the Arab tribe bloodline through Ishmael where the Jews held onto the Isaac and Jacobs 12 sons decedents in which they kept their bloodline pure.

So just to keep their race pure even if it seems like racist views had a long-term prophetic outcome in which Christianity was born. Jews then rejected Christ but that was part of the prophecy it was fulfilled and had nothing to do with other religions or races it was kept as a promise through time, a reason far greater than the accusations the Qur'an makes about other religions and skin colour. The Jewish religion changed through time and in based either on documenting history or telling prophecy. The Qur'an is for all times it has no end in its message.

The Qur'an has no bloodline story to continue, it was more about converting people, people argue that Muhammad was like Moses a merchant trader but spiritually Jesus was far more compatible in comparison by going through similar struggles.

Maybe if the Middle East was more diversity friendly every time they set up Sharia camps it could ease the pressure a bit of the world’s problems. Look at Pakistan now with the Swat situation, its another country falling into the fear trap of rebellious religious fanatics. Iraq began that way under Saddam, new Iran began that way till every person became under Islam.

Israel has tried by different groups to include everyone, Israel is important to Jews Christians and Muslims so it has to remain open to democracy regardless if some Jewish leader says not to. There are over 2billion Christians in the world, leaving Israel under some Sharia law will keep their rights out too. Christians try and uncover history there and have found book worth’s of archaeological Biblical evidence but believe me the Arabs would not like it if they found the Ark of the Covenant or anything major. They oppress history that is un-Islamic and much of the unislamic history found by Muslim or Arab supporters have been dump and thrown away. They want Israel to fall so the Jewish and Christian faith and history is covered up and lost and prophecy is ruined. But by doing so Iran and the surrounding nations are doing exactly as the Bible says, Psalm 83 Eziekiel38 with the Gog and Magog wars.

*sigh* How many times do I have to repeat it -- Zionism is about creating a homeland for the ethnic Hebrews, not a homeland for Jews. It is not racist per se, but it is ethnocentric, and casts the Zionist movement in a light of hypocrisy for decrying other groups as racist.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
*sigh* How many times do I have to repeat it -- Zionism is about creating a homeland for the ethnic Hebrews, not a homeland for Jews. It is not racist per se, but it is ethnocentric, and casts the Zionist movement in a light of hypocrisy for decrying other groups as racist.

To fulfill that goal, wouldn't they have to get rid of the Arabs first?

Is that not israels ultimate goal, an israel with no Arabs?

Why do they get this land, because their god gave it to them?

Do you not see the problem with this?

This notion is based off of ancient history, should we restructure the rest of the world to the ethnic grouping of many millenia ago?

Then why should we revert back to ancient ethnic grouping in israel?

reply to post by breakingdradles


Probably. The Promised Land (הָאָרֶץ הַמֹּובְטָחָת, Ha-Aretz Ha-Muvtachat) stretches from the river of Egypt to the Eurphates, which is modern-day Iraq. In other words, it includes eastern Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, as well as Jordan. There would be no need to "cleanse" Arabs or Muslims in other areas like the Arabian Peninsula, China, sub-Sahara Africa, eastern Europe or the former Soviet republics.

This land is promised through God's Covenants to Abraham. It's in the Bible.

That's an interesting concept, this probably would set a precedent for grouping people according to ethnicity around the world. There is already a movement for indigenous Americans to take back the southern US states.

Thing is, the people putting this in place don't really care about being disingenuous. They just use emotional appeals to distract people from engaging in any intellectually-honest discussion.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by breakingdradles

 

This land is promised through God's Covenants to Abraham. It's in the Bible.

The problem is, less then 1/5 of the world believes in the bible, and that number declines everyday.

The bible is YOUR religion's holy book, and should not be taken at fact anymore than the Quaran or Hindu Vedas.

That argument is soon to fall on deaf ears, take religion out of this conflict and see it for what it is.

[edit on 25-4-2009 by breakingdradles]

reply to post by breakingdradles


And what religion is that?

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by breakingdradles

 

And what religion is that?

ALL!!!!!!!!!!!

Take all religion out of this and see it for what it is!

Originally posted by setfree

BBC Paxman: "What's the difference between Zionism and Racism?"


Jeremy Paxman NAILS the British Ambassador Peter Gooderham on his churlish walkout of the speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by asking him the question,"What is the difference between Zionism and Racism?"

Zionism has been ENDORSED throughout history. It is "the thing to do" as Zionists control the world, the banks, and drive U.S. foreign policy (has since JFK was assassinated). Racism is if you say, "Israel is murdering women and children" and it is "anti-semitic." However, if an Israel soldier says, "They are dogs to us" then that is Zionism. Zionism wants EVERYONE to die other than the ZIONISTS and racism can be aimed at ANY group/groups. Any questions?