Helen Thomas resigns over remarks

[Jekyll's Guest]

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'

They'd probably go crying to the U.N., maybe even vote in terrorists and lob missiles in to their former home out of rage and frustration.

Dispossessed people rarely just go away quietly.

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

Show me where I said that.

I was commenting on how useless the bible is as historical evidence, and that only.

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".

Right at the start of the article it talks about how Jews on opposite sides of the planet have more genetic heritage to each other than they do to their neighbors.

How can that possibly be explained by anything else than breeding with your 'own kind'? It even comments on the genetic flaws picked up from many generations of inbreeding within a small gene pool.

If you want to argue that there is nothing wrong with favoring certain stock over others then have away, but it goes against the modern meme that we should all be mixing together and becoming diverse.

 

[WildCat]

Show me where I said that.

I was commenting on how useless the bible is as historical evidence, and that only.

You went on a bit further:

The bible has multiple cases of blatantly incorrect history contained within it though, so how can we cherry pick?

I could write a book about how Elvis came from Iran, bury it for a couple of thousand years, and maybe future people dressed like Elvis would descend on their cultural homeland?

--------------------------------------------------------

Right at the start of the article it talks about how Jews on opposite sides of the planet have more genetic heritage to each other than they do to their neighbors.

Is that all you read, the first paragraph?

How can that possibly be explained by anything else than breeding with your 'own kind'? It even comments on the genetic flaws picked up from many generations of inbreeding within a small gene pool.

No need to explain what didn't happen, which was made clear in the article...

If you want to argue that there is nothing wrong with favoring certain stock over others then have away, but it goes against the modern meme that we should all be mixing together and becoming diverse.

Did you miss this part?

Sometime in that period,the Middle Eastern and European Jews diverged and the European branch began actively proselytizing for converts.

..."That explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blond hair," Ostrer says. It also explains another of the team's findings — that the population most closely related genetically to European Jews are Italians.

The data also show what the researchers call a "bottleneck" in the Jewish population during the Middle Ages. The population of European Jews shrunk below 50,000 during that period because of disease, prejudice, anti-Semitic edicts and the Crusades, Atzmon said.

Maybe you should have read the whole thing?

 

[Pardalis]

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

(my bold)

Yes but it's done, as you said, "it was", it's been done for 70 years now, there's nothing we can do about the past. It sucks for the Palestinians, but it's part of history.

They're never going to get back what they never had.

Stop sulking over the past, it only fuels resentment, and will lead nowhere. Stop talking about *********** 1947 already. Aren't you guys supposed to be "progressives"? Isn't the word "progress" something that seeks a goal in the future? You sound more like reactionaries whenever you keep bringing the discussion back 70 years in the past.

What Thomas is suggesting is to deport the Jews today. Want to comment on that, instead of always trying to make this a discussion about the Palestinians?

 

[dudalb]

Time for me to post my standard comment that whether of not forming a Jewish State in the Mideast was a good,indifferent or lousy idea is sort of irrevelent, you have Five Million Jews in Israel and they give no signs of wanting to go anythere else.
And as for the idea of a "Secular Palestinian State", that has about as much chance of happening as a Snowball in Hell, given the present Palestinian leadership, most of which are Islamic Militants.

 

[quixotecoyote]

(my bold)

Yes but it's done, as you said, "it was", it's been done for 70 years now, there's nothing we can do about the past. It sucks for the Palestinians, but it's part of history.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was less that they were removed and more that they left at the behest of invading forces and Israel told 'em not to let the door hit 'em in the ass. Were there mass deportations? I'm a little fuzzy on that topic.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was less that they were removed and more that they left at the behest of invading forces and Israel told 'em not to let the door hit 'em in the ass. Were there mass deportations? I'm a little fuzzy on that topic.

There were some, such as from Lydia. Though the majority of Palestinians left because of the war. Out of the ~700000 Palestinian refugees, around 100000 were expelled. The rest were not.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Forum cliche #456a: Just read the entire thread and I suppose there's still no way I can get back the last 30 minutes of my life? ha

I'm almost hesitant (or embarrassed) to remind everyone she's just a White House™ news reporter. I mean, it's not like she's Chauncey Gardener or anything. Anyway, given her long distinguished career, and it really was, I still can't find any other references to her being 'consulted' previously (say, by world leaders) about the 'long term solutions' to the plight of Israel and the Palestinians, but I'll definitely keep looking. Apparently her news reporter opinion really matters...uhhh...to some.

 

[Noztradamus]

The bible has multiple cases of blatantly incorrect history contained within it though, so how can we cherry pick?

I could write a book about how Elvis came from Iran, bury it for a couple of thousand years, and maybe future people dressed like Elvis would descend on their cultural homeland?

That some witnesses may be mistaken, shade their testimony, or even outright lie is not regarded as reason to abandon the legal system.

Of course that may be that, unlike historians, court witnesses swear by various gods, to tell the truth. This makes their evidence more reliable.

 

[beachnut]

I'm pretty sure she's of Lebanese descent.

I suspected after my shallow comment she would be from the Cherokee Nation, or have Shawnee blood. I was hoping if it went wrong it would be like the Helen Tomas remark ...

 

[Thunder]

When I first heard "let them go back to Poland and Germany", I thought she was literally telling Jews to go back to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen.

her comments were some of the most stupid I have heard in years.

had she made a thorough and sincere apology, she could have saved herself. but I think she hates Israel..and maybe even Jews.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

When I first heard "let them go back to Poland and Germany", I thought she was literally telling Jews to go back to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen.

her comments were some of the most stupid I have heard in years.

had she made a thorough and sincere apology, she could have saved herself. but I think she hates Israel..and maybe even Jews.

Hmmmm(sp?)

"Dear world, I'm sorry I've been such an half-wit ideologue masquerading as a reporter for over 50 years - now can I have my job back?"

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Hmmmm(sp?)

"Dear world, I'm sorry I've been such an half-wit ideologue masquerading as a reporter for over 50 years - now can I have my job back?"

Well we do live in a world where what you say is more important than what you think or do, and where fake contrition is both expected and supped upon, so it's not that far fetched.

'Hymie town', anyone?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The notion seems to be she is old. I think she has always been this way. She was insisting that since there were no WMD's the invasion of Iraq was not justified during one of W's press meetings. But she did not seem to notice that the invasion was never based primarily on WMD's. ....

Revising history, I see.

The same is true with the current deal with Palestine. Most people in the left Media seem to be automatically blaming Israel without knowing all the facts.

You are confirming what I said, describe yourself as seeing both sides of the issue and you are immediately labeled as being against Israel.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No it doesn't.

It just says "people advocating the mass deportation of an entire people 100% wrong".

So you admit Israel was wrong then, when they advocated removing all Palestinians to refugee camps including one giant camp in Gaza.

You want to keep thinking Thomas' statement is not outrageous, so therefore you refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence.

"Want" has nothing to do with it. Thomas's point of view is based on the fact the land which is now the country of Israel was confiscated from the Palestinians who lived there when the UN leadership decided to atone for the Nazis at the expense of the powerless Palestinians.


Is there a reason you cannot accept that fact?

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Well we do live in a world where what you say is more important than what you think or do, and where fake contrition is both expected and supped upon, so it's not that far fetched.?

Well said friend.

'Hymie town', anyone?

Not me, I'm gonna head over to Greektown and sup upon a gyro.
(or maybe one of those stuffed pizzas - those are really good)

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Not me, I'm gonna head over to Greektown and sup upon a gyro.
(or maybe one of those stuffed pizzas - those are really good)

I LOL'd, well played sir.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think there is an important misunderstanding about what the Bible means, and what it does not mean, for zionism. Sure, some religious zionists speak about the God-promised land. But -- like the US Constitution -- Israel's very declaration of independence does not even mentioned God.

Indeed, it is explicitly said that the Bible, far from being the work of God, was "created by the Jewish nation in the land of Israel" as part of the "cultural values of national and universal significance" the Jews created when they lived in that land.

This is quite typical of the zionist view. The bible is read not as a divine promise, but simply as (some of) the evidence that, indeed, the Jews had come from the land of Israel. The prayer book's prayer "next year in Jerusalem" is not used as proof God will do anything, but as evidence of "Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland".

Whatever one thinks of the claims themselves, there is nothing supernatural or "God promised" about the claims.

There is a Zionist political faction in Israel which believes they have the right to expel non-Jews from the area. They are a powerful political lobby. They are also responsible for many of the illegal settlements that serve to prolong the conflict.

It's my understanding Zionists are not in the majority in Israel and in fact, many Israelis do not agree with Zionist ideas and openly oppose the Zionist movement. But the political power of the Zionists and nationalist extremists within Israel are just as much a problem as the Palestinian extremists who are convinced continual violence will eventually result in change in their favor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wonder what skepticginger would call someone who seriously said, "Unfortunately it's impractical to ship all the darkies back to Africa."

Of course, this can always be rationalized by all kinds of excuses about how awful Blacks are and how they have it coming.

When there's a will, there's a way.

This is a straw man and a very poor analogy.

Black people in the US are Americans, not Africans. They are not occupying other people's homes and land.

Suppose a particular ethnic group of blacks, say Ethiopian immigrants, started building homesteads on federal lands. Suppose they began to cut down national forests and began selling the timber. Would you see that as legitimately taking land that was "unoccupied"? If this went on for 60 years it might become impractical to expel these people from the federal lands they occupied. Would it therefore be outrageous for any US citizens to suggest they be expelled from the lands they squatted on in the first place?

Such a scenario would be a closer analogy than the one you described.


Here's another analogy. There are different sentiments here in the US regarding the position, all illegal immigrants in the US, even those who have been here most of their lives and know nothing about the countries they are actually citizens of, should be sent back to the countries they are citizens of.

Is it outrageous to have the position illegal immigrants should be expelled? Is it outrageous for the President of Mexico to weigh in on US legal aspects of the illegal immigrants? Suppose the UN declared a new country, a separate Hispanic State in the border states of the US declaring the inhabitants now had their own country.

This is another relevant analogy, while sending American blacks to countries their ancestors were from is not. Many of the Palestinians alive today are people the UN decision directly affected. These are not descendants 3 and 4 generations removed from the initial action.

 

[WildCat]

There is a Zionist political faction in Israel which believes they have the right to expel non-Jews from the area. They are a powerful political lobby. They are also responsible for many of the illegal settlements that serve to prolong the conflict.

It's my understanding Zionists are not in the majority in Israel and in fact, many Israelis do not agree with Zionist ideas and openly oppose the Zionist movement. But the political power of the Zionists and nationalist extremists within Israel are just as much a problem as the Palestinian extremists who are convinced continual violence will eventually result in change in their favor.

I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of Israelis are Zionists. Do you know what the word means? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How could it be made feasible?

With a magic wand.

OTOH, what might have been a more reasoned solution than Thomas'? First, fairly split the county into two states, not the unfair plan Israel would have. Water rights would be evenly split. Arable land would be evenly split. Resources would be evenly split. People whose land and homes were confiscated should be fairly compensated.

That's the general idea anyway. I don't expect it to happen. Israel will not give up access to water. They won't allow the Palestinians to prosper. And on both sides the culture of revenge and blaming the other side is too ingrained to change. The only hope is to change a new generation of children from both cultures and wait for the older generations to die out. And that's not likely to happen as long as each side continues to indoctrinate their children.