Helen Thomas resigns over remarks

[Skeptic]

The "second order" of racism here is not that people necessarily support the "destroy Israel" conclusion, but that they consider the question a legitimate one at all, one to be "objectively" discussed. That it is somehow legitimate to say that Jews, and only Jews, must prove they have the right to live, or to a country, at all, is disgusting.

That defending the legitimacy of such a discussion (if not necessarily its implied conclusion) is done precisely by the supposedly "progressives" and "liberals", shows the corruption and decline of the so-called "progressive" movement: from fighters for equality in the 1960s to unwitting (or witting) sympathizers with genocidal terrorists today.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Yes I know what Zionism means. But it would seem we are using different operating definitions.

Just wanting a Jewish homeland or supporting the existence of Israel doesn't require one's vision of that homeland as a Zionist state. Many Jews in Israel oppose a Zionist state just as those of us in the US do not want a Christian state or a Caucasian state. You can support the existence of Israel and recognize your cultural identity without excluding everyone else.

I don't think the majority of Jews in Israel identify with the extremist form of Zionism that I am referring to.

 

[WildCat]

Yes I know what Zionism means. But it would seem we are using different operating definitions.

Just wanting a Jewish homeland or supporting the existence of Israel doesn't require one's vision of that homeland as a Zionist state. Many Jews in Israel oppose a Zionist state just as those of us in the US do not want a Christian state or a Caucasian state. You can support the existence of Israel and recognize your cultural identity without excluding everyone else.

I don't think the majority of Jews in Israel identify with the extremist form of Zionism that I am referring to.

Jewish isn't just a religion, it's an ethnicity. Israel was created to be a place of refuge for the Jewish disapora, who as you may have noticed tend to have hard times among other groups. That's why it's important for it to be a "Jewish state".

You know, hundreds of thousands of Israelis ended up in Israel because the countries they were living in for centuries decided to get rid of their Jewish Problem. You want to send hundreds of thousands of Jews back to Iraq and Morocco?

 

[Mycroft]

Yes I know what Zionism means. But it would seem we are using different operating definitions.

If you're going to use an alternate definition, perhaps you should tell us what it is.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

Is that how you imagine Israel was founded?

 

[DC]

The "second order" of racism here is not that people necessarily support the "destroy Israel" conclusion, but that they consider the question a legitimate one at all, one to be "objectively" discussed. That it is somehow legitimate to say that Jews, and only Jews, must prove they have the right to live, or to a country, at all, is disgusting.

That defending the legitimacy of such a discussion (if not necessarily its implied conclusion) is done precisely by the supposedly "progressives" and "liberals", shows the corruption and decline of the so-called "progressive" movement: from fighters for equality in the 1960s to unwitting (or witting) sympathizers with genocidal terrorists today.

yeah poor Jews ar always the bad guy and nobody likes you, thats why you are the only people ever the international Community decided to create a nation for on a place that long time ago was their home , against will of the the local people, and since then that Nation gets every thinkable support from many many countries in the International community.
are we likely to do that again? say for the Kurds for example? or the Republic of Lakotah?

 

[bigjelmapro]

...thats why you ... to create a nation for on a place that long time ago was their home , against will of the the local people

Can you spot the failed logic? Sustained Jewish presence in the area in question should also be involved in your decision making.

Now apply the concept of nation-building and the consequences of the losing side of those who imposed war on you to other nations and historical events.

This is what Skeptic has also pointed out, ie double standard (and what i've stated time and time again, the hypocrisy) compared to other nations and their development, but somehow has always been swept under the rug as playing the victim card.

I've lost count in how many times this distinction is intentionally or (rather doubtful) unintentionally missed in order to play this folly of a defense.

 

[Skeptic]

There are numerous ethnic minorities who emigrated to and from, or simply are, in various countries in this world, sometimes causing mischief, intentionally or otherwise: say, White people in North America, Mexicans in Arizona, Muslims in Holland, Hindus in Pakistan, Albanians in Italy, Africans in Spain, British in Zimbabwe, Arabs in Israel, Turks in Germany, Gypsies in Poland, Republicans in Berkeley, and so on and so forth, practically ad infinitum. I am sure that, had I checked, I could find dozens of such cases easily.

Does Skeptic Ginger think that all such groups should go "back where they came from" -- if only it is practical -- so that the ideal racially- or ideologically-pure countries could be erected in the countries that they left?

Or does she (he?) think that only the Jews should be so deported and expelled, if only it were "practical"?

What, exactly, is the difference between Skeptic Ginger's position and Hamas', both calling for a destruction of Israel and the deportation of the Jews -- except for the mere disagreement about whether it would be practical or not?

 

[Skeptic]

Helen Thomas, needless to say, is probably also against Arizona's evil and racist immigration law -- which actually says illegal immigrants have no right to enter the USA for some inconceivable reason.

I suggest that we set up a Helen Thomas patrol on the Arizona-Mexico border. All migrants crossing it will be checked. If they are non-Jews, they'll be allowed in, documents or no documents.

If they're Jews, they'll be arrested and sent back to Poland, where they came from.

Impractical, perhaps; but I sure don't see anything else wrong with this plan.

 

[DC]

Can you spot the failed logic? Sustained Jewish presence in the area in question should also be involved in your decision making.

Now apply the concept of nation-building and the consequences of the losing side of those who imposed war on you to other nations and historical events.

This is what Skeptic has also pointed out, ie double standard (and what i've stated time and time again, the hypocrisy) compared to other nations and their development, but somehow has always been swept under the rug as playing the victim card.

I've lost count in how many times this distinction is intentionally or (rather doubtful) unintentionally missed in order to play this folly of a defense.

so?
the Lakotah also have non stop presence on their land, and are we helping them build up the republic of Lakotah?

But Sceptic's cries about anti semitism and jew bashing thw whole day long are just over top.
Many countries and many many people are doing their best to prevent anti semitism, we even have limited our freedom of speech so we can put people denying the holocaust in jail.
Moslems walking around in their traditional clothes bothers many people, they are mostly among eachother and that gives them many critizism about them not intergrating.
But never is anyone pointing at jews walking around in Basel with their traditional clothes, nobody points out they are not integrated well because they mostly hang around with other jews.
When i lived in Belgium i have seen plans for streets beeing changed so the Jewish community's beliefs are taken in consideration.
we do so many things.
but when you read Sceptics posts one could mean we are still in 1944 and we are all supporting the Nazis.

He is no bit diffrent from those in Palestine that just exploit their victim role.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

I wasn't aware any immigrants to the US other than the first colonialists 300+ years ago invaded and took over a section of land to make their own country out of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

As far as I'm aware, no Jew was denied the right to move to Palestine before 1947. It wasn't until they decided to carve their own country out of other people's land that the problems really started.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Jewish isn't just a religion, it's an ethnicity. Israel was created to be a place of refuge for the Jewish disapora, who as you may have noticed tend to have hard times among other groups. That's why it's important for it to be a "Jewish state".

You know, hundreds of thousands of Israelis ended up in Israel because the countries they were living in for centuries decided to get rid of their Jewish Problem. You want to send hundreds of thousands of Jews back to Iraq and Morocco?

And none of the Jews living in Israel today are there as the result of Zionist recruitment, right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you're going to use an alternate definition, perhaps you should tell us what it is.

Perhaps you should consider not everyone operates with your view of the world in mind.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

(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?

Sorry who are 'you guys'? There's only one of me as far as I know.

If you want to talk about the present then there is a present day problem with Israel and its neighbours and an answer has to be found. Just because Israel exists in 2010 as it does that's no reason to assume that it should continue to do so in its current form and that everyone else should just live with it - look at the map of Europe today, things can change and change pretty quickly.

The reason why the history plays in to it is because its seems a somewhat silly argument to insist that we draw an abitrary line across time and say 'whoever has the land at that point gets to keep it in pepetuity'

Something has to change in that region and Israel has to start accepting that. As do the other parties in the conflict. We need to consider all possible answers - even stupid ones like sending all the Jews to Poland and Germany - without people jumping on them shouting racist or bringing up the Holocaust.

 

[bigjelmapro]

so?
the Lakotah also have non stop presence on their land, and are we helping them build up the republic of Lakotah?

Wasn't arguing this, was arguing the point that Jews are somehow new to the area (even when in your post you contradict yourself) and don't have a claim over the 'locals' (whomever those are?).

But Sceptic's cries about anti semitism and jew bashing thw whole day long are just over top.

Not in the post I was referring to. Not talking about Skeptic's overall statements either. I've specifically stated what I was referring to.

 

[Mycroft]

Perhaps you should consider not everyone operates with your view of the world in mind.

I do, that's why I asked you to provide your definition of "Zionism".

Will you please do so?

 

[bigjelmapro]

As far as I'm aware, no Jew was denied the right to move to Palestine before 1947. It wasn't until they decided to carve their own country out of other people's land that the problems really started.

White papers ring a bell?

There was a call for a state for the Jewish people long before this period as well, in the late 19th century in an organized fashion.

Perhaps a refresher on the basics?

 

[PhantomWolf]

There is a common misconception that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is in some way similar to the relationship of the United States to Native Americans. It is not.
First, we are generally friendly toward each other.
There has been horrific bloodshed. We know what we are.

But we are allowed to intermarry - not so Israelis. Regardless of where they choose to live, they are fully AMERICAN. American Indians have full rights to vote, and also participate in their separate nation and be governed by different laws. (The weird term "USAian" is not only incorrect, it marginalizes an entire population of people who live here that are not technically part of the United States.) Considered in many ways a separate nation inside the United States, we are one larger thing - Americans.

This might be true now, but what about 62 years after the creation of the US? Were these things true in 1840? And why is it true now? Could it be that seeing the writing on the wall and extinction about the corner that the Natives capitulated and went along with the invaders just so they could survive? Allowing them to take their lands and push them further and further away just so they could stay alive and have hope of returning?

Furthermore, what might it be like in Israel and Palestine in another 160 years? Might they too have worked out their differences and be living as one people?

 

[Mycroft]

As far as I'm aware, no Jew was denied the right to move to Palestine before 1947. It wasn't until they decided to carve their own country out of other people's land that the problems really started.

Then you're ignorant of British restrictions place on Jewish immigration when tens of thousands of Jews were fleeing persecution in Europe and being turned away from various nations including the United States.

I don't think there is anything wrong with strong opinions, I just think they should be informed opinions. Strong uninformed opinions baffle me.