Chief Rabbi of England Accidentally Tells The Truth Live on BBC

Brown Bomber

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was on BBC's Thought For The Day programme on Radio 4 giving a spiel about something or other on the 16th Nov. Linked below:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20121116-1100a.mp3

The BBC have edited out the last section of the programme where the BBC presenter asks the Rabbi for his thoughts on Israel/Palestine. The Rabbi seemingly unaware he is still being broadcast live gives his honest opinion. Luckily someone has captured it and put it on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8mdCWNY-g8

Brown Bomber

That actually reminds me of the EDL's favourite Rabbi - Rabbi Shifren and his freudian slip at an EDL rally. This is hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SME374VHQ1k

cynik

The attack on Gaza could indeed be an attempt to draw Iran or even Egypt into a more direct confrontation with Israel. Since Romney wasn't elected, perhaps this is Plan B to get a war started.

Kinda reminds me of Zionists calling for a false flag attack on America to start war with Iran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk

Perhaps the attack on Gaza is the start of war with Iran.

Brown Bomber

cynik wrote: »

The attack on Gaza could indeed be an attempt to draw Iran or even Egypt into a more direct confrontation with Israel. Since Romney wasn't elected, perhaps this is Plan B to get a war started.

Kinda reminds me of Zionists calling for a false flag attack on America to start war with Iran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk

Perhaps the attack on Gaza is the start of war with Iran.

Who knows? I'm open to the idea of the whole Iran fiasco being a sleight of hand trick by the US-Israelis to turn the world's eye away from the daily atrocities and abuses carried out by Israel in their ever expanding project of creating greater Israel through force, destruction and theft. I get where you are coming from. Neo-Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson is a close ally of Netanyahu and bankrolled Romney so I though we would be essentially ****ed if Romney had won. I think that particular axis of evil would have literally and gladly destroyed any and all resistance to US-Israeli dominance in the Middle East.

thiarfearr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Israel in their ever expanding project of creating greater Israel through force, destruction and theft. I get where you are coming from.

I am confused. How come Israel doesn't hold all this territory it had after the six day war if its "ever expanding"?

Torakx

cynik wrote: »

The attack on Gaza could indeed be an attempt to draw Iran or even Egypt into a more direct confrontation with Israel. Since Romney wasn't elected, perhaps this is Plan B to get a war started.

Kinda reminds me of Zionists calling for a false flag attack on America to start war with Iran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk

Perhaps the attack on Gaza is the start of war with Iran.

Oh my god, that wasnt even a sketch or prank video was it?
That guy actually said all that in front of a camera.
I bet some people gave him a lashing for being so blunt and obvious.

And what was the USS slip about spain and a sub/ship? which changed to pipe or pipeline etc.

cynik

Torakx wrote: »

Oh my god, that wasnt even a sketch or prank video was it?
That guy actually said all that in front of a camera.
I bet some people gave him a lashing for being so blunt and obvious.

And what was the USS slip about spain and a sub/ship? which changed to pipe or pipeline etc.

No, he was talking about USS Maine explosion in late 1800s which took US to war with Spain. He didn't mention 9/11 though.

cynik

thiarfearr wrote: »

I am confused. How come Israel doesn't hold all this territory it had after the six day war if its "ever expanding"?

Here are the Israeli borders since it's creation..

Harry Angstrom

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was on BBC's Thought For The Day programme on Radio 4 giving a spiel about something or other on the 16th Nov. Linked below:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20121116-1100a.mp3

The BBC have edited out the last section of the programme where the BBC presenter asks the Rabbi for his thoughts on Israel/Palestine. The Rabbi seemingly unaware he is still being broadcast live gives his honest opinion. Luckily someone has captured it and put it on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8mdCWNY-g8

I'm not sure how this can be seen as a conspiracy theory that some people might construe as having a grain of turth. It's just his opinion. Just because he's the Chief Rabbi doesn't mean that his ideas could still be as mad as a box of frogs.

charlemont

thiarfearr wrote: »

I am confused. How come Israel doesn't hold all this territory it had after the six day war if its "ever expanding"?

I agree but I reckon it suits some long term thinkers on the Israeli or US zionist side to keep from a solution so as to wear the Palestinians out, I doubt most of Israel thinks like that though, I'm sure most of them would love peace and to have stability in the region.

The long term logic could be to eventually just absorb most of the West Bank as Israel is a growing nation, Its very small and highly populated.

Yes They took that land quickly in the 6 Day War but once they got the peace treaty with Egypt they acted responsibly and gave the Sinai back obviously they kept Gaza but that wasn't Egyptian in the first place.

Personally I think both sides are being screwed over by lies and propaganda.

thiarfearr

cynik wrote: »

Here are the Israeli borders since it's creation..

Well its clearly inaccurate as it doesn't show Israels borders after the 1967 war, which included the Sinai, and would show its borders have shrunk since then. The 1946 part shows privately owned Jewish land in 1946 in white, the green is private AND government owned land. The UN partition plan rejected by the Arab side, leading to third part of the map which ended up as a result of the war after the Arab nations attacked Israel and was beaten. Also, Gaza and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, not ruled by the Palestinians.

cynik

I was skeptical of the Greater Israel project but why would the current Netanyahu government oppose recognition of Palestine as a state?

Brown Bomber

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I'm not sure how this can be seen as a conspiracy theory that some people might construe as having a grain of turth. It's just his opinion. Just because he's the Chief Rabbi doesn't mean that his ideas could still be as mad as a box of frogs.

The conspiracy is the pantomine that is played out and the collusion between the actors; the BBC and the Rabbi.

The Rabbi stepped out of character when he though he was speaking privately and gave his honest opinion. The BBC presenters panicked -- ssshh we're live!!!!" - and tried to shut him up. They didn't want him to give his honest opinion publically and he clearly had no intention of actually giving his opinion and immediately jumped back into character when he realised he was still on-air.

Don't you find it odd that based on the Rabbi's answer BBC producers/presenters somehow knew that he was unaware that he was on-air? Don't you find it odd that the BBC presenters would ask a question and then try to stop the interviewee from answering?

Harry Angstrom

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The conspiracy is the pantomine that is played out and the collusion between the actors; the BBC and the Rabbi.

The Rabbi stepped out of character when he though he was speaking privately and gave his honest opinion. The BBC presenters panicked -- ssshh we're live!!!!" - and tried to shut him up. They didn't want him to give his honest opinion publically and he clearly had no intention of actually giving his opinion and immediately jumped back into character when he realised he was still on-air.

Don't you find it odd that based on the Rabbi's answer BBC producers/presenters somehow knew that he was unaware that he was on-air? Don't you find it odd that the BBC presenters would ask a question and then try to stop the interviewee from answering?

The male interviewer asked the question. The female presenter interjected that they were still on air. It could have been an honest mistake on the male presenter's part?

Torakx

That was very suspicious alright.
It was pretty obvious they knew he didnt want to say that live and easy to hear them warning him they were still live on the air.

It tells me maybe they knew more than what was spoken about.
The panic at his honest opinion was palpable indeed!

What did he mean exactly when he mentioned Iran?
I havent really been doing my homework lately.

Torakx

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

The male interviewer asked the question. The female presenter interjected that they were still on air. It could have been an honest mistake on the male presenter's part?

No he quickly changed the subject when he heard he was on air.
He obviously had something to say about Iran and had not done so in that interview i would guess.Until he thought he was off the air.

After the warning he switched to a generic monologue of peace between all etc.

Harry Angstrom

Torakx wrote: »

No he quickly changed the subject when he heard he was on air.
He obviously had something to say about Iran and had not done so in that interview i would guess.Until he thought he was off the air.

After the warning he switched to a generic monologue of peace between all etc.

That's pretty much my point. The male presenter probably might have thought he was off air, and the Chief Rabbi definitely thought he was off air. He obviously has his own opinions about the current Middle East crisis but just like a politician, he has a public view and a private view. His public view is bland. His private view was off the wall.

Brown Bomber

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

The male interviewer asked the question. The female presenter interjected that they were still on air. It could have been an honest mistake on the male presenter's part?

The confusion was cause by the Rabbi speaking his mind because he thought he was involved in a private conversation. As soon as he mentioned Iran there was a few seconds of panic and stuttering and whispers until they all regained their composure and everyone pretended that Iran had ever been mentioned by the Rabbi.

Torakx

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

That's pretty much my point. The male presenter probably might have thought he was off air, and the Chief Rabbi definitely thought he was off air. He obviously has his own opinions about the current Middle East crisis but just like a politician, he has a public view and a private view. His public view is bland. His private view was off the wall.

Ok i see where your going and i respect that idea to an extent.

If he isnt stating his own opinion for the course of that show,Isnt that then just a soap opera they are playing out for the public?

cynik

Torakx wrote:

What did he mean exactly when he mentioned Iran?
I havent really been doing my homework lately.

IMHO, it could be a number of reasons.

Some say it is intended to provoke a response from Egypt or Iran which has some weight but it could be just an added benefit in the eyes of Netanyahu.

I'd say the main reason is to damage Palestinian Authority bid for upgraded status at the U.N on November 29th.

It's no secret the current Israeli government deeply opposes Palestine sovereignty.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman pledged last month:

“If they persist with this project, I will ensure that the Palestinian Authority collapses.”

So really, what is the agenda of Lieberman, Netanyahu and others?

It certainly isn't peace.

Brown Bomber

Torakx wrote: »

,Isnt that then just a soap opera they are playing out for the public?

And worse still: facilitated by a public broadcaster. Who go out of their way to prevent the truth accidentally coming out in an interview.

Harry Angstrom

Torakx wrote: »

Ok i see where your going and i respect that idea to an extent.

If he isnt stating his own opinion for the course of that show,Isnt that then just a soap opera they are playing out for the public?

That's politics for you. Most of the time, it is a soap opera. WikiLeaks is proof of this.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Ok i see where your going and i respect that idea to an extent.

If he isnt stating his own opinion for the course of that show,Isnt that then just a soap opera they are playing out for the public?

Isn't this what we all do every day, work? friends? think about it.

Newscasters, politicians, etc are often caught out being candid. Everyone has their moments. I have plenty of friends who, in certain company, say awful things about homosexuals, jews, blacks, etc.. doesn't mean they are homophobic, anti-semetic or racist.. but if they made any of those comments publicly .. well.

Torakx

Thats why i wanted to know what he may have ment when speaking of Iran.
What was his reason for hiding his real opinion over his official one and what was the official opinion i wonder too.
Id like to compare them if possible.

thiarfearr

How do we know he wasn't going to say it was Iran that instigated it?
And it could be something simple like he didn't want a private conversation in the public domain, if the BBC is going to be included in a grand conspiracy against Iran, it means an awful lot of people would have to be included from around the world, and given how hard it is to keep a secret between 3 friends it makes it unlikely if hundreds are involved

batistuta9

Torakx wrote: »

Thats why i wanted to know what he may have ment when speaking of Iran.
What was his reason for hiding his real opinion over his official one and what was the official opinion i wonder too.
Id like to compare them if possible.

does Iran not have nuclear weapons/capable of making them & Israel are looking for an excuse to attack Iran

So the rabbi probably thinks Israel are doing this now in the attempt to lure Iran into the conflict, so they can attack them.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And worse still: facilitated by a public broadcaster. Who go out of their way to prevent the truth accidentally coming out in an interview.

You seem to be confusing "the truth" with "opinions I happen to agree with".

Jonny7

batistuta9 wrote: »

does Iran not have nuclear weapons/capable of making them & Israel are looking for an excuse to attack Iran

So the rabbi probably thinks Israel are doing this now in the attempt to lure Iran into the conflict, so they can attack them.

It's very unlikely Iran has a nuclear weapon right now, the US and Israel have repeated this.

To put it simply, if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, many in Israel see their own existence as threatened. Physically it's a small country, in the range of many of it's neighbours. Not directly, but indirectly, via instable regional arms race or by proxy, e.g. a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands. This is a key concern (among others)

Iran has repeatedly stated that it is not weaponising and that taking such a course is unIslamic, but again, many in Israel are highly dubious of this.

Due to many factors, historical, holocaust, regional, previous wars - Israel has quite the siege mentality. It's not surprising, they've been hounded and persecuted throughout history and aren't exactly surrounded by friendly neighbours. I'm not going into detail on "who's fault" it is, that is up to intepretation of complex issues, I am just going over the current situation.

So, if given a choice, it strongly appears that the Israeli's would favour a (limited or not) conventional war with Iran to destroy it's nuclear facilities rather than allow Iran go to down a definitive road of weaponisation. They have stated that they do not currently believe Iran has a weapon right now, however the "red line" should be reached mid next year (this is based on the processes of enrichment, obtaining and utilising the tech, etc) and their own intelligence on the issue.

The biggest question is over Iran's intentions. They were racing hammer and tongs for 20% enrichment (which is appox 80/90% of total effort to weapons grade), but that on it's own is still okay, because that is the level required for medical isotopes. However it's that, coupled with previous inspection incidents, coupled with their games with the IAEA - basically, there are few fully trust Iran's intentions on this issue - and that's including allies like Russia.

The bottom line is that the Israeli's do not trust the current administration in Iran, and if they feel they have enough evidence themselves, then they will pursue their own course of action. It might not be "fair" or whatever quaint notions people have of world politics, but it's just the reality.

Be like Nutella

It was just his honest but incendiary opinion which doesn't suit his public message as a preacher and the interviewers know well people have one message for radio and another in private so they were merely helping him out by warning him he was on air - there's no conspiracy here BUT his opinion was clearly that the main driver behind what is going on is the whole Iran thing.

I urge anyone with an open mind to watch this very informative Amonpour piece which, unusually for Bullsh1t CNN, actually sets out clearly the complete LACK OF EVIDENCE that Iran is going directly for the bomb or has even decided it wants the bomb.

This is one of those pieces to me which slips past peoples radars which, if an Iran/Israel/US war happened in the future, we'd be looking back on in this forum and saying -'how did people not watch this piece and see there was no evidence that Iran was going for the bomb, as there was no evidence that Saddam was going for the bomb in 2003?'

I really urge as many people to watch this piece as possible. If anyone has counters to its contents then please speak up as I'd love to hear views or criticism on it...

My opinion is that Iran ain't going for the bomb. The US knows this and we're looking merely at a complex regional power 'play'. Iran CAN and DOES use the fact that others think it IS or SAY that they think it IS for sure but they are not going for the bomb, thus far, in my opinion.

I also think Israel cannot (militarily) stop Iran from doing so IF Iran even wanted to. The US COULD but will not under any circumstances as it would definitely be a huge undertaking with chaotic outcomes and effects. Netanyahu is playing the game of: Everybody thinks I'm a gun totin blood thirsty ultra patriotic Jew who will do anything to defend Israel including pre-emptive strikes etc but there are enough cool heads within the Israeli structure to stop any 'rash' actions. Israel has not got the right Intel, hardware or volume of hardware to hit the deep sites appropriately and so their RED LINE they like to talk about so often has been crossed some time ago anyway. The actions in Gaza right now are based on Netanyahu flexing some Israeli military muscle, showing off the Iron Dome system and creating internal support for more pointless rhetoric about Iran to unite the right in the Knesset even further to remain in power and continue this regional power game with Iran during the birth of democratic Islamic nations all around the region and the unstoppably changing demographics around them.

Chess not checkers... there will be no strikes, strikes make no sense and the players in this game are rational actors, as much as they would like us to think they weren't. I'm not saying there are not big risks of the outbreak of regional war with rising tension in Gaza and Syria and Israel and Iran and Libya. This is a tinderbox alright but as is so often true in International Relations, the rhetoric does not represent the reality. What people know and what leaders know will always be different. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes not so much.

Idealism, Religion and Individual Power is such a dangerous mix. This whole thing will require Obama (love or hate him) to step in, quite soon and speak up and calm heads and bring regional leaders together to keep logic and rationalism constantly at the top of the agenda.

stevedublin

He said the trouble in Gaza is probably about Iran.
Fair enough.
Whats controversial about that?

studiorat

I don't suppose anyone considered they changed the subject because "thought for the day" isn't a political discussion program.

Brown Bomber

thiarfearr wrote: »

How do we know he wasn't going to say it was Iran that instigated it?

We don't. However, we can assume he is not a complete fool though to be fair.

Far more likely that when referring to "Iran" he was suggesting that the IDF was warming up their child-killing skills against a defenseless, trapped "enemy" of civilians before some kind of conflict with Iran. Even war criminals need training. Also, by killing a Hamas leader they were guaranteed to provoke a response from Hamas via rockets which would test the Iron Dome system.

As cynik has said it could also be an attempt to get the wheels in motion towards regime change in Iran through escalating violence in the region. Though, Hamas have of late slowly being moving away from Iran towards Sunni-dominated states. Turkey, Qatar etc-

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

So, if given a choice, it strongly appears that the Israeli's would favour a (limited or not) conventional war with Iran to destroy it's nuclear facilities rather than allow Iran go to down a definitive road of weaponisation.

No. Israel would prefer that American blood is spilled not their own to remove a regional rival to Israel. Besides, Israel is not capable of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities

Torakx

I had already presumed that a given, regarding America doing Israels dirty work.

The Bishop!

thiarfearr wrote: »

How do we know he wasn't going to say it was Iran that instigated it?
And it could be something simple like he didn't want a private conversation in the public domain, if the BBC is going to be included in a grand conspiracy against Iran, it means an awful lot of people would have to be included from around the world, and given how hard it is to keep a secret between 3 friends it makes it unlikely if hundreds are involved

With respect, you might be misunderstanding the OP.

Could be wrong now, but I gather the topic is not a conspiracy by the BBC against Iran as such. It's that the BBC is basically a mouthpiece for Downing St. policy and is biased in favour of Israel.
Therefore they actively censored the honest views of the Chief Rabbi (who was seemingly blaming or somehow implicating Iran for the current situation) in favour of generic soundbites calling for 'peace'. Peace presumably meaning that the people of Gaza should go back to living like animals peacefully.

If the BBC was as unbiased as many like to think it is, they wouldn't be silencing uncomfortable opinions in this way. They wouldn't be giving massive airtime to Mark Regev and his ilk, not even asking him any hard questions like a proper news organisation is supposed to do.

If they really were unbiased surely they would be asking Regev if his Deputy Prime Minister is going to follow through on his threat to "blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages destroying all the infrastructure including roads & water". They would be asking does he realise that destroying civilian infrastructure is a war crime under the Geneva Convention.
They would asking what he thinks of calls for genocide by well-known figures like Gilad Sharon.
Etc etc.

stevedublin

Khaleed Mashaal of Hamas has praised Iran for arming them, the rabbi was correct.

Brown Bomber

The Bishop! wrote: »

With respect, you might be misunderstanding the OP.

Could be wrong now, but I gather the topic is not a conspiracy by the BBC against Iran as such. It's that the BBC is basically a mouthpiece for Downing St. policy and is biased in favour of Israel.
Therefore they actively censored the honest views of the Chief Rabbi (who was seemingly blaming or somehow implicating Iran for the current situation) in favour of generic soundbites calling for 'peace'. Peace presumably meaning that the people of Gaza should go back to living like animals peacefully.

That's basically how I understood it more or less. The BBC, ostensibly neutral and providing a public information service were covering for a) The Rabbi or b) the official bull**** narrative of we are only killing people in "self defense". Or both.

It's impossible to say for sure but my understanding is that the Rabbi was suggesting that Israel was attacking Gaza to anger/intimidate/weaken/involve Iran. Or perhaps to annex Gaza for defensive purposes in anticipation of a future strike against Iran.

The Rabbi, if he was truly a man of God would speak out publically with his opinions. He apparently is not. It would be incredibly problematic for British Zionist-Jews if he did. He can hardly be accused of anti-semitism.

Carra23

Jesus that's fu*cking hilarious ! ! ! ' Its got to do with Iran ' ..... ' Eh we're still live Jonathon '..... ' Oh ****, I mean I just want to pray for everyone blah blah blah ! priceless

batistuta9

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3437374

The Bishop!

stevedublin wrote: »

Khaleed Mashaal of Hamas has praised Iran for arming them, the rabbi was correct.

If that is what the rabbi was alluding to, then he is still not correct. Or honest. If he wanted to be correct and honest he would have said, "I think it's got to do with Israel and the U.S. actually."

hyperborean

cynik wrote: »

I was skeptical of the Greater Israel project but why would the current Netanyahu government oppose recognition of Palestine as a state?

_Iron Wall_= go forth and googlefy

http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm

cynik

I watched a video by Pat Condell the other night.(as much as i hate the clown)

Correct me if I'm wrong but he appeals to those who identify themselves as Atheist?

What's really funny about him and his followers is that they're all assimilating towards a Zionist ideology where Jews are "Gods chosen people" and everyone else is simply on this planet to serve them.

I am not saying all Jews think they should be served by non-jews, okay?

But the powers that be...the people in charge of foreign policy for example...or even global monetary policy, these are the same people that believe God chose them to rule the world...do you really believe in this?

They actually believe in their own mind because of their religion, some voodoo god chose them to rule the world.

Pat Condell fans want me and others undecided to take the side of crazy people that think some fairy in the sky chose them to rule the world?