Helen Thomas resigns over remarks

[DC]

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

yes i agree, it is wrong. i think Israelis should stay exactly where they are***. (Minor disputes in the WB have to be settled i guess, but you get what i mean)

and still i agree with Library lady's post.

and about the nomination, i could have even nominated Drunk Gibberish

ETA:

*** but when Israelis want to emigrate to Switzerland i welcome them well most at least

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Answer those two questions:

1) Is Israel a sovereign state recognized by the UN?

This question will not be answered, for reasons you have already stated.

ETA: Now I've read the intervening posts. Where's my million?

 

[Doctor Evil]

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

Let us be fair. I have not seen anyone here justify or repeat the claim. I have seen people make excuses, as to 'interpret' her comments in a more palatable, or try to 'put them in context'.

It is bad enough. There is no add to that.

 

[RhodyDave]

Do you believe the press represents everyone in this case?

I don't believe the press represents the opinion of many people who speak out against Israel's treatment of innocent civillians in Gaza. It's hypocritical for Israel and the US to support the collective punishment Israel continues to dole out in its response to the Palestinian military action. Not to mention Israel's response only serves to perpetuate the problem, not end it.

I wonder if you feel the same outrage towards the U.S. treatment of "innocent" civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq? You accuse Israel of hypocrisy, but what about you?

Further more, are you aware that the vast majority of civilians in Gaza support Hamas? Do you know that Hamas exists for one purpose only, and that is the eradication of the state of Israel from the face of the earth. Hamas is Gaza, and Gaza is Hamas. The two cannot be separated. Gazans have had pressure on them for years to denounce Hamas, yet they have never done this. Hamas has launched countless missiles into civilian areas of Israel, and will do so with any opportunity. The "Palestinians" refuse to control Hamas because they support Hamas.

 

[Mycroft]

If you were a Palestinian in 1947 and your land was taken, your town flattened, would the idea of reversing that wrong be outrageous?

Except reversing that wrong doesn't require the ethnic cleansing the region of Jews.

If you were a Palestinian in 1967 and the Israelis confiscated your home claiming they needed to raze it for security reasons, and they offered you less than 10% of your home's value while paying full price to your Jewish neighbors for their homes, would it be outrageous to suggest you be given your house back?

It would be outrageous to suggest ethnic cleansing is the solution to that problem.

Helen Thomas' comments were not outrageous from her perspective. Again, the solution is not feasible, but there are millions of people alive today whose homes and land were taken by Jews. It wasn't their ancestor's land that was taken. It was their homes and land which they have not forgotten. Would you forget if it happened to you?

No, I wouldn't forget, but neither would I hold the lives of my children and my grandchildren hostage to it. If I lost my property in a war, I would want to get it back, but killing someone to do it would be out of the question, and I would much rather work to rebuild my life without that property that to watch generation after generation of my family live in the violence of war.

And that's assuming the narrative where Arabs are doing nothing and Jews just come along and boot them from their homes for no reason. That's not at all historically accurate. The truth is by the time the 1947 war had come around the Zionist had already spent 50 years working to legally purchase land to build their homes and business, and legally working with the governments of those lands to establish their communities.

Equatable and just resolutions to conflicts are hard enough when all the parties agree to settle their differences peacefully and to respect each others needs and goals. When instead you opt for war, you guarantee the result will be something of a sloppy hack, with thousands of people being hurt, killed, and suffering deprivations, and the losing side bearing the worst of it. That's what happened in 1947.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

That's also the way I understood her, but that's still awful.

Telling any demographic they should leave a region is terribly offensive and racist, whether it be Jews in Israel, Hispanics in Arizona, Chinese in Indonesia, or even Arabs in "Palestine".

 

[LibraryLady]

I apologize for not making a clearer statement. I don't agree with what Helen Thomas said, but I don't think it was intended to have the meanings that people have, very justifiably, assigned to it.

Bear in mind that I have a mother who is just a couple of years older than she is and who is given to making statements that provoke outrage as well. When what she has said is pointed out to her, she is somewhat horrified and apologetic. She just isn't processing as well as she used to.

The difference is that when my mother does this about 5-20 people hear her at a time, depending on the size of the family party. When Helen Thomas does it, millions hear. Which leads me to the question of why she didn't retire previously, but who knows.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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?

I'm not necessarily defending the argument, but there is a significant difference between your example and the situation under discussion. Neither blacks nor latinos have a special state created for them to live in.

If the Mexicans had established California as an independent Latino state and housed all the white residents in containment areas I think there might be a legitimate debate around whether the continued existence of that state is beneficial in its given form.

I find the comments about Germany/Poland a bit worrying - the countries did not try to exteminate the Jews, the Nazi Government tried to do it. There is no reason why Jews cannot live in Germany and/or Poland if they wish to. Native Americans manage to live in the USA.

 

[Doctor Evil]

I'm not necessarily defending the argument, but there is a significant difference between your example and the situation under discussion. Neither blacks nor latinos have a special state created for them to live in.

Weirdly enough, neither have Jews. Your knowledge of the relevant history is very lacking.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, but until now, at least I could respect your opposing view, since you always provide evidence and ponder your arguments rationally.

Now it's all gone.

I'm truly disappointed.

Skeptigirl, asking an entire people to be removed from their state is appalling. The very idea should be rejected, not considered and thought through.

Instead of rejecting it as a despicable view, you are defending it.

And what about the Israeli? What would mass deportation feel like you think?

Yes, and I also looked at a map of New France in 1645. I wished we could go back to that era and start over. But unless Stephen Hawking found the way to travel back in time, there is nothing we can do about it.

This is 2010. Let's move on from 1947, shall we?

Israel is there now, there is a people called the Israeli now, their country is their home now.

If it is appalling to suggest the Israelis be removed then surely it was equally appalling to remove the people who were originally there?

If its only a matter of 63 years that is the issue then presumably anything is A-OK if you can make it stick for long enough?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Weirdly enough, neither have Jews. Your knowledge of the relevant history is very lacking.

So you think his analogy was a good one?

'Blacks' is not analagous to 'Israeli Jews' in my opinion. Do you disagree?

 

[RhodyDave]

I find the comments about Germany/Poland a bit worrying - the countries did not try to exteminate the Jews, the Nazi Government tried to do it. There is no reason why Jews cannot live in Germany and/or Poland if they wish to. Native Americans manage to live in the USA.

The Nazi Party was made up of a lot of regular, good, Germans. To try and shift responsibility away from the nation by claiming it was "the government" is a very rudimentary way of thinking.

You are aware that Jews still do live in Germany and Poland? It's not a matter of whether they wish to or not, but that they have a recognized, sanctioned sovereign nation in Israel. They are allowed to live there too, if they wish.

 

[Jono]

Well, the Law of Return does make Israel a state purposed for giving jewish people around the world a preferential treatment immigration'wise.

 

[Doctor Evil]

So you think his analogy was a good one?

'Blacks' is not analagous to 'Israeli Jews' in my opinion. Do you disagree?

His analogy was not perfect, due to several reasons, which we can discuss if you wish. What he got right was that Thomas' remarks were both stupid and racist. (I explained why earlier - erasing Jewish history, and sending Jews to the places where their brothers were murdered.)

 

[Doctor Evil]

Well, the Law of Return does make Israel a state purposed for giving jewish people around the world a preferential treatment immigration'wise.

That is true, and can be the subject of a thread if you wish. (And if you search the forum, you are bound to find some.)

The rational behind this law is to allow any Jew who feels persecuted an easy way of getting citizenship. History has shown that this may be needed. (Though you may wish to disagree with that.)

By the way, several other countries have similar laws, a fact that is not commonly mentioned when the subject comes up.

Edit: By the way, why this change in subject?

 

[bobdroege7]

Equatable and just resolutions to conflicts are hard enough when all the parties agree to settle their differences peacefully and to respect each others needs and goals. When instead you opt for war, you guarantee the result will be something of a sloppy hack, with thousands of people being hurt, killed, and suffering deprivations, and the losing side bearing the worst of it. That's what happened in 1947.

I think you make an excellent point.

Instead of agreeing with a UN resolution and deciding to invade the new state of Israel, the Arab states involed in the war set in stage a series of events that never provided for the well being of the Arab residents of the area.

Never choosing peace, instead always choosing either war, terrorism or dishonest diplomacy, the Arab leaders always making pawns of the Palestinians, they have chosen their beds and its time they sleep in them.


And since the Arabs never seem to have the muster to win any war they start, instead relying on the public outcry that follows any disproportionate response that follows when Israel defends itself, to attemp to sway international opinion against Israel.

As if competence in both defending your citizenry and killing your enemies should be condemned, following any conflict, Israel is always condemned for killing more Palestinians then Israelis the Palestinians manage to kill.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Tell her to sod off because Jews have lived there for 60+ years and have no intention of leaving unless it's by force, not because of any ancient cultural claims to the place.

The whole obsession with ancient legitimacy confounds me. Land taken and held by force has been a legitimate standard for every other nation on Earth, ever. Why some people think the Jews need some special privilege to explain away not giving what they took back to the losers is...confusing.

Fine if that's the standard you are going to use but I think the Israelis would be somewhat miffed if someone else came and took their land. I don't think they would say 'oh well, fair play, you won'

"We took it so it ours' is not a solution to this problem. Nor for that matter is 'You should all bugger off and leave this land you took' If thats the level we are working at then we might as well just leave them to fight it out.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

The Nazi Party was made up of a lot of regular, good, Germans. To try and shift responsibility away from the nation by claiming it was "the government" is a very rudimentary way of thinking.

You are aware that Jews still do live in Germany and Poland? It's not a matter of whether they wish to or not, but that they have a recognized, sanctioned sovereign nation in Israel. They are allowed to live there too, if they wish.

The Nazi Party is not Germany, and Germany is not the Nazi Party though. The people of Europe have worked and still do work hard to ensure that Jews or any other people are free to live their lives without opression. I am well aware that Jews live in all countries of Europe which is why I objected to the comments that Israeli Jews wouldn't want to move to a country that tried to exterminate them (which seemed to imply some link between Germany 2010 and Germany 1938.

If Israelis wish to live in the recognised, sanctioned state of Israel then great. However, they should do so offering equal rights and privileges to non-Jews too and play nicely with their neighbours. I think the styling of Israel as a Jewish state rather than an Israeli state doesn't help matters.

 

[Jono]

That is true, and can be the subject of a thread if you wish. (And if you search the forum, you are bound to find some.)

The rational behind this law is to allow any Jew who feels persecuted an easy way of getting citizenship. History has shown that this may be needed. (Though you may wish to disagree with that.)

I don't dispute it's original intended necessity nor add any negative judgement to it. It does however make Israel, in a manner of speaking, a state especially for jewish people. Allthough one has to be careful when noting on semantics and specific technicalities, as to not talk inbetween them.
A long time prior to -48 there were a lot ado also about where such a 'haven' was to be pursued, and Israel wasn't always the given region. But ultimately it became the most historically aligned, and contemporarily practical, choice of logic for a jewish homeland, which was the main reason for its advent creation.

By the way, several other countries have similar laws, a fact that is not commonly mentioned when the subject comes up.

Yes that is true. You're talking about "Right of Return" yes, which I'm familiar with.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

His analogy was not perfect, due to several reasons, which we can discuss if you wish. What he got right was that Thomas' remarks were both stupid and racist. (I explained why earlier - erasing Jewish history, and sending Jews to the places where their brothers were murdered.)

No, its not racist in the same way. That's the point I was getting at. It may have been meant to be racist (im not familiar with the person in question) but that's the differentiation I was trying to make. The comments were targeted at the people of a nation, not a race. The analogy doesn't work. If someone was to say 'all the Jews should go live in Israel' that would be racist just as someone who says all the blacks should go back to africa is racist. A better analogy would be something like saying all the Falkland Islanders should bugger off back to the UK or that Australia should be given back to the Aborigines and the other populations shipped back to their own country. Good ideas? Nice ideas? Sensible ideas? probably not - but not targeted at entire races of people.

One reason its difficult to discuss the Israel issue is this blurring of nation/religion/race.