Helen Thomas resigns over remarks

[DC]

I'm siding with the camp who will remember her in her heyday, and not judge her whole career by one unconsidered remark. This may be how she feels, but she is entitled to her opinion. I cannot think that she was actually thinking people should have been shipped back to the Holocaust, but I think she meant people should return to the lands they escaped from during and after it.

Nominated

 

[The Shrike]

I guess I just don't understand the Israeli/Palestinian conflict well enough to know what to think. My gut reaction to Thomas' remarks was a mix of "wow, she's a Nazi bigot!" and "finally, someone in the media had the stones to say something anti-Israeli."

As a powerful U.S. ally in the Middle East, it seems to me that Israel gets a pass on some things that maybe deserve more scrutiny. Aren't there new settlements being built right now on lands that should be under Palestinian control? If so - and somebody please set me straight if not - then what is our recourse to address Israeli treaty-breaking? It doesn't make much sense to me to let our ally inflame tensions with the Islamic world which ultimately leads to attacks on American targets elsewhere.

But then when I have thoughts like that I fear that I'm just falling into a "blame the Jews" mentality which at its best is politically incorrect and at its worst is well, you know. So what should be the objective view of Israeli policy regarding settlements?

 

[Pardalis]

I'm siding with the camp who will remember her in her heyday, and not judge her whole career by one unconsidered remark. This may be how she feels, but she is entitled to her opinion. I cannot think that she was actually thinking people should have been shipped back to the Holocaust, but I think she meant people should return to the lands they escaped from during and after it.

And since the economic situation of Italy is far better now than it was in the 1920's, maybe the wave of Italians who emigrated to the US and Canada should return to Italy now?

And all the other immigrants who escaped war and famine, maybe they should "go back" to their country of origin once the situation there has improved?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Maybe it's an obsession because people like you deny the historical roots of Judaism there, that Jews have lived there continuously for thousands of years, and many deny that the Jews are actually one people. All bogus claims.

Oh I see, 'people like me'. Gotcha.

How so? The melting pot has nothing to do with genetics. What an odd thing to say.

Modern interpretations certainly can certainly include mixing genes.

Lauding a 'pure' genetic heritage has been out of vogue for quite a while.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

No. Impractical, yes, but outrageous, definitely not.

And practicality is the key to reaching a final solution. Good thing it's not outrageous - definitely not outrageous.

 

[DC]

And since the economic situation of Italy is far better now than it was in the 1920's, maybe the wave of Italians who emigrated to the US and Canada should return to Italy now?

And all the other immigrants who escaped war and famine, maybe they should "go back" to their country of origin once the situation there has improved?

Jest because she expressed what she understood from Helen Tomas's words, means she supports the idea?

whats going on?

cool down?

 

[Pardalis]

Jest because she expressed what she understood from Helen Tomas's words, means she supports the idea?

Why did you nominate it for the language award?

 

[tsig]

But why does that entitle them to live on land that, by the time of Israel's establishment, was populated by others? As with manifest destiny, the main justification for the occupation is a kind of semi-religious "rightful heritage" claim.

I think it's the "more soldiers, more weapons" claim.

 

[WildCat]

Oh I see, 'people like me'. Gotcha.

Are you backing away from your claim that the only evidence Jews ived there historically is from holy texts?

Modern interpretations certainly can certainly include mixing genes.

Lauding a 'pure' genetic heritage has been out of vogue for quite a while.

You obviously didn't read the article. You really should before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Hint: it's quite the opposite of "'pure genetic heritage".

 

[marksman]

But why does that entitle them to live on land that, by the time of Israel's establishment, was populated by others?

nobody said that their historical connection "entitles" them to Israel. It merely explains their connection to Israel and their dream for a homeland in Israel. What entitles then to Israel is the declaration of Israeli independence which the State of Israel has been able to enforce for sixty-plus years. And the ability to prevent itself from being toppled is pretty much all that "entitles" any nation-state to exist.

I mean, it's not like the US Constitution or the Magna Carta or France's Constitution of the Fifth Republic has any magical powers. Nations exist because they haven't yet been toppled.

 

[DC]

Why did you nominate it for the language award?

`because i liked the post alot. a very sane post in a very polarized debate.

 

[dudalb]

I am going to open up a can of worms and suggest that some people are defending Thomas because she is a woman from a misguided idea of feminism.

 

[marksman]

Lauding a 'pure' genetic heritage has been out of vogue for quite a while.

Who is "lauding" genetic heritage? It was used as evidence for the idea that the Jewish people do indeed hail from that region of the world.

And what does this "lauding" have to do with the Jewish people's historic connection to the region? Have you now conceded that you erred as to your evaluation of the use of the Torah with respect to the existence of Israel?

 

[Pardalis]

`because i liked the post alot. a very sane post in a very polarized debate.

The language award is not meant for the posts you like, but the post you think are the best written.

Unlike this one.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Israel by definition is occupying the land.

So? Americans, by definition are occupying the land of many nations who once called several states "home". Brazilians occupy land once belonging to native tribes. So are the Japanese who pushed the native people on the "Japanese" Islands out of land when the Japanese came from Korea. South Africans occupy the land of the native Africans. Australians occupy the land of the native Australians. And the list goes on and on.

When Israel was created there was no "Palestine" just as when the state of Georgia in the US was created there was no "Cherokeeland".

What is more is this. The British Empire carved out national borders all over the Middle East. So there is no big deal the UN created Israel.

Instead of asking if Israel has a right to exist, one should ask if Palestine has a right to exist. I think they have lost that right time after time. They lost it in the Munich. They lost it at Camp David when the Israeli president gave every thing Arafat asked for and Arafat still turned them down out of fear that the people of Palestine would kill him for making peace with Israel. They lost it when they elected Hamas into power. And they lost it when they launched rockets into Israeli neighborhoods. And they have lost it for the countless suicide bombings that have been going on since the 1980's.

Thomas said what she believes - big deal. Interesting we vilify those that speak their mind but laud those who utilize doublespeak and never really say anything at all.

It is because she is wrong. She is logically wrong, not just ethically wrong.

 

[DC]

The language award is not meant for the posts you like, but the post you think are the best written.

Unlike this one.

go cry foul then.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Oh, but it is. Just try, for example, to find any other country held to the "collective punishment" definition that apparently exists only for Israel.

Could you please elaborate? I'm not familiar with this "collective punishment definition" that you speak of, nor do I know to what extent it is employed by those who criticize Israel.

When the criticism is based largely on lies and misrepresentations no matter how often those lies and misrepresentations are pointed out, it sure makes you wonder, don't it?

Translation: I disagree with said criticism, therefore it's largely based on lies and misrepresentations.

The "Israeli government" is synonymous with "the Israeli people"...

No, it's not. The current Israeli government is no more synonymous with the Israeli people than the Obama Administration is synonymous with Americans. The people elect those who govern them, but their government does not determine who they are as people. Even if a majority of Israeli citizens do support the actions of the Israeli government, that doesn't mean the government and its people are one and the same. No large population is that homogeneous, nor does the electorate have as fine control over government policy as the people they elect. Democracy can be frustratingly indirect sometimes.

And you can be sure that historically the Jews have been blamed for the hatred they have received. Any good Nazi could tell you they got what they deserved.

Oooh... the Nazi card! Why did I not see that coming?

 

[Pardalis]

go cry foul then.

I think there is no excuse for what Thomas said, even the way Library Lady understood it is still wrong.

 

[Skeptic]

Apparently, telling Jews to "go back where they came from" is a deeply progressive and brave truth telling remark.

But telling Blacks, Latinos, Italian-Americans, or any other group on the planet to "go back where they came from" is, however, evil and racist.

I think I get the picture.

 

[RhodyDave]

What if she claimed all Black people should "go back to Africa"? Or all, say, Latinos "go back to Mexico"? I think you'd then agree the condemnation would not be "lopsided" just because it would be universally critical, and that this is hardly a sign of "hypocrisy" from the press. So why is it that only when it comes to Jews "going back to Europe" is it "lopsided" to criticize without seeing the good part of this sage advice?

A curious rule that applies only to Jews, I guess. Discussing their deportation and destruction is not racism, it's "speaking one's mind" and "being honest".

Oh, and by the way, I'm confused. My grandfather was hounded out of Germany because he was told to "go back to Palestine". Could Ms. Thomas and the Nazis please straighten it out and decide where Jews really belong?

Because as we all know, Jews are not allowed to live anywhere from where they really belong, if somebody objects. It's another one of those curious rules that applies only to Jews.

Perfectly said! Many in my family where rounded up and sent to horrible deaths in concentration camps. Some were lucky and survived or escaped to Palestine. Helen Thomas' remarks attack the right of Israel to exist, and Jews the world over. Support for her remarks are one's right in the U.S., but that does not make those remarks right, or acceptable, or not offensive.

I think the big problem is that many people don't understand or know the history of the creation of the modern state of Israel. The land was established from the British Mandate in the early 20th century and Israel as a nation was approved by the UN in 1947. Israel is not occupying a land any more than the U.S. is occupying Native American territory. "Palestinians" have been offered great concessions many times, and invariably their response to Israel has been along the lines of "go drown in the sea".

Telling Jews to abandon Israel and go back where they came from is more than a simple insult. It's an attack on the right of all Jews to have a nation.