Helen Thomas resigns over remarks

[Cicero]

They should get out of Palestine, it's not their land.

Named by the Romans with borders decided by Great Britain and the allies after the first world war, totally a European construct.

When was Palestine ruled by its own inhabitants?

Helen Thomas as a reporter should stick to the facts, not her misguided and wrong opinions.

Thomas hasn't been a "reporter" for AP since 2001. And even before then, as a columnist for Hearst, she wasn't a reporter. The WHPC chair might has well been occupied by Pat Buchanan. Same anti-Israelis POV coupled with isolationism. Watch how he defends her on Friday's McLaughlin Group.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Oh Puhleese. This is hardly the first time you've been "disappointed" with my comments. And, basing your disappointment on a total straw man of what I've actually posted is not new either.

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

Why is it those of us who can see both sides of this fight are seen as only against Israel, and those of you who completely ignore the plight of the Palestinian people believe yourselves to be 'fair and balanced'?

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

Ask the Palestinians who currently live in refugee camps in exile. They'd know better than I would.

Do you even know how many Palestinians currently live in exile and cannot return to their homes? Know how many towns were flattened to prevent those people from returning?

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?

If you weren't arguing against a straw man of what I've actually said, it would save a lot of time.

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

Which is why such a solution is totally impractical. Gee, where have I seen that posted before?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, sure. My memory must be playing tricks on me, as I recall all those pro-PLO, Mao, Che Guevara, North Vietnam, etc., etc., etc. demonstrations by "progressives" where they claim to be be REALLY ANGRY at "human rights violations".

Remember all those "progressives" on college campuses holding up Mao's "little red book"? What is exactly the difference between holding up that pile of steaming nonsense as an illustration of who one's hero is, and holding up Hitler's Mein Kampf piece of nonsense as a declaration of whom one supports?

Only, so far as I can tell, that Mao killed a lot more people.

Then again, I'm speaking with someone who thinks Israel should be destroyed -- only it's currently "impractical" (though Hamas & co. disagree) -- so there isn't much point to the discussion.

It appears the problem here is you are simply clueless about what a "Progressive" actually is. It's probably for the same reason all too many Progressives mistakenly believe the right wing lunatic fringe represents mainstream Republicans.

Of course the Democratic Party doesn't go around courting the left wing lunatic fringe the same way the Republic Party courts the Tea Baggers, but then that's getting off topic.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think Skeptic Ginger is getting a lot of flack here despite the fact that she's right.

A proposal like this was studied before, but such a large scale mass migration in such a short time frame was indeed found to be "impractical" and it was determined instead that collecting the people to a series of rail-accessible processing centers a shorter distance away and then gassing them all in situ was a more efficient use of resources.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

I've heard that she's from Jersey, and the interviewer was from Berlin. What she actually said was "youse should go back to Germany."

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why do people like to cry "anti-semite" any time others criticize the state of Israel?

Have you met the mainstream medias poster child for "criticism of Israel"?

 

[Pardalis]

Why is it those of us who can see both sides of this fight are seen as only against Israel, and those of you who completely ignore the plight of the Palestinian people believe yourselves to be 'fair and balanced'?

You didn't answer my post at all. I don't know how this is supposed to be an answer what I said.

Ask the Palestinians who currently live in refugee camps in exile. They'd know better than I would.

Do you even know how many Palestinians currently live in exile and cannot return to their homes? Know how many towns were flattened to prevent those people from returning?

Again, how is this an answer to what I asked?

Thomas is asking the Jews to leave their own country. I'm not talking about the Palestinian refugees.

If you weren't arguing against a straw man of what I've actually said, it would save a lot of time.

Then why did you ask me if I had a look at a map of "Palestine" (I'm sure you meant the British Mandate of Palestine) before 1947?

Which is why such a solution is totally impractical. Gee, where have I seen that posted before?

Not it's not just "impractical", the idea of removing them is abhorrent.

Again, since you seem now to agree Israel exists now and should not be moved, then why did you bring up the map of "Palestine" of 1947? If you agree Israel should stay right where it should be, then why always bring up the past, why always bring up 1947?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

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

I am with you here 100%.

However, that means I expect you to jump on anyone defending Israel by bringing up a 2000 year old book

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, just for good measure, could you provide me an example of a claim or statement that you would consider outrageous.

It would depend on the context. If Helen had said the Jews are all horrible disgusting people who deserve to be collectively punished for the behavior of some of them, that would be outrageous.

But that isn't what she said. She said it was her belief the UN had no right to 'give' Palestinian land away to Jews to atone for the sins of the Nazis. There is much validity in that belief. Because there was little validity in the suggested solution to the problem does not make the underlying belief invalid.

If you think about it, 70 years of Israel's oppressive response to the problem has proved to be an impractical solution as well.

 

[Pardalis]

nvm

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Have you met the mainstream medias poster child for "criticism of Israel"?

Your logic escapes me. Even if Helen Thomas could legitimately be called an anti-semite, cherry-picking examples that appear to support your claim does not in fact establish the claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nothing said about killing / expelling / murdering / etc. Jews would count.

That's just, er, "resistance".

I don't follow you here. Nothing was said about killing anyone.

But since you brought it up, there was the Sabra and Shátila massacre.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF), who surrounded Beirut's Palestinian refugee camps after having invaded Lebanon, allowed the Lebanese Forces militia to enter two of these refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila and continue the massacre throughout the night by shooting flares to illuminate the camp...

 

[coalesce]

I've heard that she's from Jersey, and the interviewer was from Berlin. What she actually said was "youse should go back to Germany."

Given that she's from Jersey, and that she now has free time, and that she feels people ought to go back from where they came from, does that mean that Helen Thomas is now going to be appearing on "Jersey Shore"?

Michael

 

[Pardalis]

But that isn't what she said. She said it was her belief the UN had no right to 'give' Palestinian land away to Jews to atone for the sins of the Nazis. There is much validity in that belief.

No it's not. It's a very flawed and simplistic view of history. You need to catch up on your history of the Middle East.

"Why should Palestinians suffer from the Holocaust?" is just a tired old Islamist talking point, which has very little to do with reality. I'm surprised you are using it.

Because there was little validity in the suggested solution to the problem does not make the underlying belief invalid.

I think there is a grave misunderstanding of the "problem", Israel doesn't just exist because of the Holocaust, and people who keep using it to attack Israel should pick up a history book.

The solution is for people to accept Israel's presence.

Do you accept Israel as a sovereign state?

If you think about it, 70 years of Israel's oppressive response to the problem has proved to be an impractical solution as well.

The only thing Israel asks is to exist, you seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that it's its neighbors who keep attacking and threatening it.

What would be your ideal solution?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Even if Helen Thomas could legitimately be called an anti-semite,

"IF"?!? WTF make you think there is an "if" involved here?

WARNING: Tying yourself into knots to avoid acknowledging an explicit endorsement of ethnic cleansing could be a sign of anti-semitism. If watching Holocaust documentaries results in an erection that lasts more than three hours, please consult your doctor.

cherry-picking examples that appear to support your claim does not in fact establish the claim.

This is like saying the president of the united states doesn't represent the united states.

 

[marksman]

She said it was her belief the UN had no right to 'give' Palestinian land away to Jews to atone for the sins of the Nazis.

She didn't say that. Maybe she believes that too, but it's not what she said. She said the Jews should "go home" to Germany and Poland. She didn't say it was impractical. She didn't say it was immoral. She said it is what should be done. Today.

I posted a link to the full interview. I transcribed everything that was actually said in the interview. Nowhere does she mention the UN or Nazis or atonement. Nowehere does she say Israel's creation was a mistake (although she clearly believes that). She was talking about what should be done right now about Israel. And her clearly stated position is they should pack up and leave Israel and "go back" to germany and Poland (notwithstanding that 70% of Jewish Israelis were born in Israel as of 2008; half of Israel's Jews are third-generation Israelies, and less than 5% of Israeli Jews are of German, Austrian, or Polish descent -- Link) (This sort of also belies her statement that she is knowledgeable about the region -- or at least knew what she was talking about.)

 

[Pardalis]

If Helen had said the Jews are all horrible disgusting people who deserve to be collectively punished for the behavior of some of them, that would be outrageous.

Wouldn't mass deportation (what she is suggesting) be a collective punishment for something that happened 70 years ago, something nobody can do anything about anymore?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems Skeptigirl believes nothing is outrageous about deporting Jews back to Europe. I have yet to hear a rational answer for this.

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

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?

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?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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?

And their ancestors took it from someone else. That's how history works. It sounds like you are advocating removing the Palestinians from Palestine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She can't even answer the simple question "is Israel is a sovereign state recognized by the UN?", because if she did answer, she would inevitably have to answer the logical next question: "How is it not outrageous to ask the inhabitants of said sovereign state to leave it?".

She prefers not to engage in that line of thought, because the cognitive dissonance would be too great.

I don't have any cognitive dissonance over this issue. I'm capable of seeing both sides of the dispute.

Cognitive dissonance would be suppressing all consideration of the Palestinian side of the struggle in order to believe the Jews are blameless and justified in how they've responded to the Palestinian resistance.