Historical revisionism goes unchallenged on BBC One’s ‘The Big Questions’

Misrepresentation of Jesus as a Palestinian has long been seen in the Palestinian media and that politically motivated historical revisionism is sanctioned and propagated by the Palestinian Authority and members of its dominant party Fatah. 

Those watching BBC One’s faith and ethics debate show ‘The Big Questions’ on March 25th may however have been surprised to see that ahistorical notion go completely unchallenged during a discussion (available in the UK here) titled “Would Jesus be labelled an extremist today?”.

Panellist Shaykh Ruzwan Mohammed opined (from 09:34 in the video below):

“I think what you have to do is to put the person [Jesus] in his proper context.”

He went on to say:

“But I think it’s an issue of…he’s Palestinian. He was probably dark-skinned.”

Presenter Nicky Campbell responded to that claim with one word: “exactly”.

Remarkably, neither Campbell nor anyone else taking part in the debate bothered to relieve viewers of the erroneous – and politically motivated – idea that Jesus was a Palestinian.

Advertisements

10 comments on “Historical revisionism goes unchallenged on BBC One’s ‘The Big Questions’

  1. Once more either pure ignorance on behalf of Nicky Campbell- Or was he just once more following the one sided bias of the BBC`s anti Zionist dialogue.
    For It was Emperor Hadrian who renamed Judea as “Palestine” and reigned from 117 to 138. AD So there is absolutly no way whatsoever that Jesus could have been known as a “Palestinian”.

  2. Not the first time that Campbell has proved himself to be a typical Beeboid moron. To be generous.

  3. As Judiasm 5778 is older than Christianity 2018 and both are centuries older than Islam, Jesus was a Jew. Palestians were Jews until Arafat decided to steal that identity and now they’re stealing the Christian identity.

  4. BBC dont know their facts and never have! What is the matter with both the religious and lay Jewish leadership – how long can they stay silent???

  5. Pingback: Historical revisionism goes unchallenged on BBC One’s ‘The Big Questions’ — BBC Watch – NZ Conservative Coalition

  6. Pingback: 03/29 Links Pt2: Richard Landes: Middle east pack journalism: Everybody agrees; Labour can’t tackle anti-Semitism under Corbyn; BDS movement takes on hit Israeli Netflix series ‘Fauda’ – 24/6 Magazine

  7. Here are answers to Ted Nielsen’s claim about “palestine.” Yes, Herodotos did use the term but as an adjective referring to a section of what he called Syria [Syria Palaistine]. In the heyday of the Roman Empire, the Land of Israel as a whole was called Judea [IVDAEA, Ioudaia] in Latin and Greek. It was called officially Provincia Ivdaea until Hadrian changed the name in 136 BCE to Provincia Syria Palaestina. Thus use of the name “palestine” today means taking the side of the Roman imperialists. We wouldn’t want to help imperialists, would we Ted? See at the link:
    https://www.academia.edu/31569044/WHAT_DID_ROME_CALL_THE_LAND_OF_ISRAEL_and_WHERE_WERE_ITS_BORDERS

Comments are closed.