PDA

View Full Version : Helen Thomas: 'Jews control teh world!'


operative
12-03-2010, 12:42 PM
Striking a defiant tone, journalist Helen Thomas, 90, said today she absolutely stands by her controversial comments about Israel made earlier this year that led to her resignation. But she stoked additional controversy with new remarks, claiming that "Zionists" control U.S. foreign policy and other American institutions. The local Jewish community strongly condemned her remarks.
"I can call a president of the United States anything in the book but I can't touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank," Thomas said. "No American would tolerate that -- white-only roads."
Thomas, who grew up in Detroit the daughter of Lebanese immigrants, was in Dearborn today for an Arab Detroit workshop on anti-Arab bias. The Free Press asked her about her comments, which critics have said were anti-Israel.
"I paid the price for that," said Thomas, a longtime White House correspondent. "But it was worth it, to speak the truth."
"The Zionists have to understand that's their country, too. Palestinians were there long before any European Zionists."
Thomas claimed that "You can not say anything (critical) about Israel in this country."
In a speech that drew a standing ovation, Thomas talked about "the whole question of money involved in politics."
"We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way."
Jewish groups have criticized Thomas' earlier remarks, saying they were unfair and bigoted. And they slammed today's remarks as well.
"When she said…today that Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists, Ms. Thomas repeated the anti-Semitic stereotypes that have been used for more than a century to incite hatred of Jews. Her comments should be condemned by all people who oppose bigotry in any form," said Robert Cohen, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit.


Read more: Defiant Helen Thomas defends remarks that led to exit | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20101202/NEWS02/101202052/Defiant-Helen-Thomas-defends-remarks-that-led-to-exit#ixzz174V8WJnm

Nice to see an icon of the lefty media doing even more to expose herself as a demented antisemite. Now just to wait for someone on here to defend her remarks.

chiwhisoxx
12-03-2010, 04:25 PM
For the record, Israel doesn't have "Jew only roads," they have Israeli only roads.

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 04:33 PM
For the record, Israel doesn't have "Jew only roads," they have Israeli only roads.

They have Apartheid Occupier-Only roads.

Starwatcher162536
12-03-2010, 04:33 PM
Is there a difference?

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 04:36 PM
Is there a difference?

Yes, conservatively speaking, 20% of Israel's population is not Jewish.

Starwatcher162536
12-03-2010, 04:38 PM
..and this 20% does not encompass "secular jews"?

operative
12-03-2010, 04:46 PM
..and this 20% does not encompass "secular jews"?

There are 1,523,900 Arab citizens in Israel.

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 04:47 PM
..and this 20% does not encompass "secular jews"?

No, definitely not.

There are about 1.3 million Israeli-Arab citizens of Israel who are Muslim (mostly) and Christian. Also, throw in an at least 1/3 of the original 1 million Soviet immigrants who are either non-Jewish family members of an immigrant Jew or "Jews" by virtue of having (maybe) 1 Jewish grandparent. There are also descendants of Jews who have intermarried and long ago renounced the religion. Finally, there are also small numbers of other naturalized non-Jews and immigrant workers from Thailand, Philipines, etc. whose citizenship is under dispute.

Ocean
12-03-2010, 04:57 PM
No, definitely not.

There are about 1.3 million Israeli-Arab citizens of Israel who are Muslim (mostly) and Christian. Also, throw in an at least 1/3 of the original 1 million Soviet immigrants who are either non-Jewish family members of an immigrant Jew or "Jews" by virtue of having (maybe) 1 Jewish grandparent. There are also descendants of Jews who have intermarried and long ago renounced the religion. Finally, there are also small numbers of other naturalized non-Jews and immigrant workers from Thailand, Philipines, etc. whose citizenship is under dispute.

That sounds like a revolution awaiting to happen. Could it be that Jews were able to keep their nation for so many centuries while they didn't have a territory, but now that they have one they are so fragmented? I mean, it's only expected that multiculturalism would occur sooner or later. That's the reality that they need to face in order to be able to redefine an Israeli identity.

Sorry for the rambling, but I wasn't aware of the diversity of population beyond different country origins and varieties of practice within Judaism.

popcorn_karate
12-03-2010, 05:12 PM
Nice to see an icon of the lefty media doing even more to expose herself as a demented antisemite. Now just to wait for someone on here to defend her remarks.

zionists are not only jews. many christians are zionists - not to mention rastafarians.

chiwhisoxx
12-03-2010, 06:11 PM
zionists are not only jews. many christians are zionists - not to mention rastafarians.

Er, what's your point? No shit there are lots of people who are zionists who aren't jews. I'm an athiest and a zionist. Who said anything to the contrary? And what does this have to do with Helen Thomas being an anti-semite?

chiwhisoxx
12-03-2010, 06:11 PM
They have Apartheid Occupier-Only roads.

Your melodrama on this subject makes you hard to engage and take seriously Wonderment.

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 06:55 PM
I'm an athiest and a zionist. Who said anything to the contrary? And what does this have to do with Helen Thomas being an anti-semite?

In the material cited, she never said a word about Jews. How then is she an anti-Semite?

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 06:57 PM
I mean, it's only expected that multiculturalism would occur sooner or later. That's the reality that they need to face in order to be able to redefine an Israeli identity.

Right. The current Zionist model is anachronistic, racist and unsustainable.

operative
12-03-2010, 09:33 PM
In the material cited, she never said a word about Jews.

Um

"I can call a president of the United States anything in the book but I can't touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank,"

Maybe she meant to say "Zionist only." But it again illustrates that for Helen Thomas and other antisemites, "Jew" and "Zionist" are interchangeable. They're careful to hide their ugly, bigoted face behind the more accepted "Zionist" most of the time, but like Jeremiah Wright, every once in a while it just slips. And then we see that those tired, bigoted tropes--The Jooooos control Hollywood, Wall Street, American policy, etc. are all there. You can't just substitute in "Zionist" and think that you can deny antisemitism, especially when the veneer lifts. Just like Jooooos won't let Wright see Obama, oh I'm sorry he meant Zionists. I'm sure she meant "Zionist only roads." Too bad they're identical terms in her lexicon.

Time to stop defending antisemites.

Wonderment, I remember you writing that you think the US should not have stopped Nazi Germany. You also wrote that you think it would have been right for you to have taken up arms against Zionists, if you would have had the opportunity. Why are your fellow Jews worse than Nazis in your eyes? This reeks of a suicidal mindset.

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 09:58 PM
Wonderment, I remember you writing that you think the US should not have stopped Nazi Germany. You also wrote that you think it would have been right for you to have taken up arms against Zionists, if you would have had the opportunity. Why are your fellow Jews worse than Nazis in your eyes? This reeks of a suicidal mindset.

I do think WWII could and should have been avoided, but I never said it was right for me to take up arms against anyone, hypothetically or any other way. You are mistaken about that. In fact, it's a crazy idea. On whose behalf would I have fought Zionism? As an uprooted Palestinian?

Moving on, it's insulting that you would claim that I favor Nazis over Jews. Nazism was a perverse and detestable ideology that culminated in the mass murder of millions of people. You are being extremely childish with such an accusation, and I wouldn't bother responding except to remind you to think a little before you post.

operative
12-03-2010, 10:02 PM
I do think WWII could and should have been avoided, but I never said it was right for me to take up arms against anyone, hypothetically or any other way. You are mistaken about that.

Ah, my apologies. I could've sworn that you had written that "militant Zionism" was a cause worth fighting militarily.


Moving on, it's insulting that you would claim that I favor Nazis over Jews. Nazism was a perverse and detestable ideology that culminated in the mass murder of millions of people. You are being extremely childish with such an accusation, and I wouldn't bother responding except to remind you to think a little before you post.

I wouldn't suggest that you were in any way sympathetic to Nazis, certainly. I'm just utterly perplexed at the depth of your disgust toward Zionism.

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 10:07 PM
Now just to wait for someone on here to defend her remarks.

Time to stop defending antisemites.

Well, make up your mind. Which do you want?

What's the point of inviting discussion if as soon as someone accepts, you tell him to shut up?

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 10:17 PM
Ah, my apologies.

Thank you.

I wouldn't suggest that you were in any way sympathetic to Nazis, certainly. I'm just utterly perplexed at the depth of your disgust toward Zionism.


I'm equally perplexed at the depth of your sympathy toward Zionism.

Having said that, my view, as a non-Zionist, is that Zionism is obsolete. Israel needs to become a post-Zionist country. That is what's good for the Jewish people.

chiwhisoxx
12-03-2010, 10:27 PM
Well, make up your mind. Which do you want?

What's the point of inviting discussion if as soon as someone accepts, you tell him to shut up?

You're going to complain about me monitoring your behavior again, but you do this all the time. "I can already hear the wingnuts furiously pounding their keyboards..."

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 10:31 PM
You're going to complain about me monitoring your behavior again, but you do this all the time. "I can already hear the wingnuts furiously pounding their keyboards..."

Anticipating a likely idiotic response, especially with a tone of humor, is not the same as telling people to STFU. And to the degree that I am not just mocking, and that there is a serious intent underlying, it could be put this way: "I already know what the stock answer is. Show me something more interesting."

operative
12-03-2010, 10:35 PM
Anticipating a likely idiotic response, especially with a tone of humor, is not the same as telling people to STFU. And to the degree that I am not just mocking, and that there is a serious intent underlying, it could be put this way: "I already know what the stock answer is. Show me something more interesting."

I wasn't inviting people to defend her, because I think her statements are indefensible. I was observing that there are some people who will persist on defending her. I'd much rather that everyone realize that she is a nasty, bigoted, terrible person.

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 10:40 PM
I wasn't inviting people to defend her, because I think her statements are indefensible. I was observing that there are some people who will persist on defending her. I'd much rather that everyone realize that she is a nasty, bigoted, terrible person.

Oh, crap. You posted your provocative statements in an open forum. Of course you were inviting responses, especially of a contradictory nature. And if you don't realize that, you're really hurting.

operative
12-03-2010, 10:46 PM
Oh, crap. You posted your provocative statements in an open forum. Of course you were inviting responses, especially of a contradictory nature.

I was hoping that'd come from folks saying "no we're not going to defend her."

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 10:49 PM
I wasn't inviting people to defend her, because I think her statements are indefensible. I was observing that there are some people who will persist on defending her. I'd much rather that everyone realize that she is a nasty, bigoted, terrible person.

There are a lot of nasty people in the world. The fact that you chose her as a spokesperson against Zionism was odd to begin with. Why not choose someone with serious ideas to debate, perhaps someone who has written a good book on the subject?

Thomas is an eccentric 90-year-old who has been caricatured and patronized by the current president and his two predecessors. She is known mainly for breaking the glass ceiling of the male presidential press corps and for longevity. That's all.

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 10:50 PM
I was hoping that'd come from folks saying "no we're not going to defend her."

If it's an echo chamber you seek, you'd be better off looking elsewhere.

I don't actually believe you're not smart enough to realize that the Bhtv community isn't populated only with people who are going to applaud your pronouncements and accept them without question. Therefore, it seems you are either being disingenuous at this moment, or you have forgotten why you came here in the first place.

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 10:52 PM
Happy Birthday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HelenThomasAndBarackObama2009.jpg)!

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 10:53 PM
Happy Birthday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HelenThomasAndBarackObama2009.jpg)!

Awwww!

Great pic.

operative
12-03-2010, 10:55 PM
There are a lot of nasty people in the world. The fact that you chose her as a spokesperson against Zionism was odd to begin with. Why not choose someone with serious ideas to debate, perhaps someone who has written a good book on the subject?

I guess the same reason bj has an obsessively maintained thread on Sarah Palin ;)

operative
12-03-2010, 10:56 PM
If it's an echo chamber you seek, you'd be better off looking elsewhere.

Like your Sarah Palin thread :o

Wonderment
12-03-2010, 11:02 PM
I guess the same reason bj has an obsessively maintained thread on Sarah Palin

Apples and oranges. Sarah Palin is a serious contender for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. She deserves a lot of critical attention.

chiwhisoxx
12-03-2010, 11:03 PM
Anticipating a likely idiotic response, especially with a tone of humor, is not the same as telling people to STFU. And to the degree that I am not just mocking, and that there is a serious intent underlying, it could be put this way: "I already know what the stock answer is. Show me something more interesting."

Fair enough. I'm not a huge fan of either, personally, but I certainly see the distinction.

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 11:05 PM
Fair enough. I'm not a huge fan of either, personally, but I certainly see the distinction.

Appreciate it.

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 11:06 PM
Like your Sarah Palin thread :o

No. Anyone who wants is welcome to dispute what I post there. I don't put up the items I do merely to get people to clap along.

bjkeefe
12-03-2010, 11:09 PM
Apples and oranges. Sarah Palin is a serious contender for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. She deserves a lot of critical attention.

Correct.

I'd also say it's hardly "obsessively maintained," as the operative would have it. I am not sure of the limitations of his skills, but I would have thought the notion of cutting and pasting occasional items as one happens across them would not have seemed to him to be such an arduous task.

operative
12-03-2010, 11:29 PM
No. Anyone who wants is welcome to dispute what I post there. I don't put up the items I do merely to get people to clap along.

Yes, this is a forum loaded with Palin advocates.

operative
12-03-2010, 11:29 PM
Apples and oranges. Sarah Palin is a serious contender for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. She deserves a lot of critical attention.

I think anyone deserves criticism when they spout something worthy of criticism, whether they're a political celebrity or a journalist.

chiwhisoxx
12-03-2010, 11:31 PM
Getting back to the broader topic, since the thread got a little bit off track. In terms of whether Thomas is an anti-semite, that doesn't seem like a debate we're equipped to adjudicate. My issue comes from the framing. It seems like the problematic thing here is that she frames the people who run the government as zionists first, rather than people who do other things, and happen to be zionists. I think when you make it seem like zionism is so incredibly central to their worldview, it feeds a darker narrative about Jews controlling things that has been around for too long. Liberals (correctly in some cases) say conservatives are obtuse and insensitive to matters of racism. I think there are cases when liberals are obtuse and insensitive about anti-semitism sometimes. That doesn't mean that they're anti-semites, anymore than all conservatives are racists, but it's part of a mindset and has to do with frames of mind. Curious to hear what you all think of this.

graz
12-03-2010, 11:54 PM
Getting back to the broader topic, since the thread got a little bit off track. In terms of whether Thomas is an anti-semite, that doesn't seem like a debate we're equipped to adjudicate. My issue comes from the framing. It seems like the problematic thing here is that she frames the people who run the government as zionists first, rather than people who do other things, and happen to be zionists. I think when you make it seem like zionism is so incredibly central to their worldview, it feeds a darker narrative about Jews controlling things that has been around for too long. Liberals (correctly in some cases) say conservatives are obtuse and insensitive to matters of racism. I think there are cases when liberals are obtuse and insensitive about anti-semitism sometimes. That doesn't mean that they're anti-semites, anymore than all conservatives are racists, but it's part of a mindset and has to do with frames of mind. Curious to hear what you all think of this.

That's a compelling way to consider your difficult question. My immediate reaction is that you have to be right in a general sense. But as to the case specifically or with certain individuals, it becomes a greater challenge. Helen Thomas would be a good example of your point, even though you concede that you can't claim her to be an anti-semite conclusively. You've created a riddle of sorts.

rcocean
12-04-2010, 12:16 AM
I was hoping that'd come from folks saying "no we're not going to defend her."

Exactly.

And I hope everyone will respond to my upcoming "Who Defends Child Molesters ?" Thread.

It should be fascinating.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 12:25 AM
Yes, this is a forum loaded with Palin advocates.

Well, at least loaded with those eager to be butthurt on her behalf.

So I try to oblige.

Wonderment
12-04-2010, 12:29 AM
Liberals (correctly in some cases) say conservatives are obtuse and insensitive to matters of racism. I think there are cases when liberals are obtuse and insensitive about anti-semitism sometimes. That doesn't mean that they're anti-semites, anymore than all conservatives are racists, but it's part of a mindset and has to do with frames of mind. Curious to hear what you all think of this.

Does it matter? It's more sensible to look at the substance of the issue. Whether Helen Thomas is anti-Semitic or not (something very difficult to discern about a person without being a mind-reader) is trivial. What are her ideas? Are they valuable?

Another example: I think Mickey Kaus is anti-Mexican, that he's got "issues" with people of Mexican culture and descent. But really, who cares what I think of Mickey or whether or not he dislikes Mexicans. What's important is to consider his assertions, challenge his assumptions and refute his views.

So whether it's Ahmadinejad, Helen Thomas, Mickey or David Duke, it's best to stick to the issues. The rest is distraction. It's a challenge to stay away from the name-calling and the accusations of bias. I don't always practice what I preach because I can always score some cheap points by playing the you're-a-racist/anti-Semite/Islamophobe card. But the high road is to resist the temptation.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 12:30 AM
Does it matter? It's more sensible to look at the substance of the issue. Whether Helen Thomas is anti-Semitic or not (something very difficult to discern about a person without being a mind-reader) is trivial. What are her ideas? Are they valuable?

Another example: I think Mickey Kaus is anti-Mexican, that he's got "issues" with people of Mexican culture and descent. But really, who cares what I think of Mickey or whether or not he dislikes Mexicans. What's important is to consider his assertions, challenge his assumptions and refute his views.

So whether it's Ahmadinejad, Helen Thomas, Mickey or David Duke, it's best to stick to the issues. The rest is distraction. It's a challenge to stay away from the name-calling and the accusations of bias. I don't always practice what I preach because I can always score some cheap points by playing the you're-a-racist/anti-Semite/Islamophobe card. But the high road is to resist the temptation.

Another excellent answer by Wonderment.

chiwhisoxx
12-04-2010, 01:05 AM
Does it matter? It's more sensible to look at the substance of the issue. Whether Helen Thomas is anti-Semitic or not (something very difficult to discern about a person without being a mind-reader) is trivial. What are her ideas? Are they valuable?

Another example: I think Mickey Kaus is anti-Mexican, that he's got "issues" with people of Mexican culture and descent. But really, who cares what I think of Mickey or whether or not he dislikes Mexicans. What's important is to consider his assertions, challenge his assumptions and refute his views.

So whether it's Ahmadinejad, Helen Thomas, Mickey or David Duke, it's best to stick to the issues. The rest is distraction. It's a challenge to stay away from the name-calling and the accusations of bias. I don't always practice what I preach because I can always score some cheap points by playing the you're-a-racist/anti-Semite/Islamophobe card. But the high road is to resist the temptation.

Part of my post was specifically saying I wasn't going to try and discern whether Helen Thomas was an anti-semite. I have my suspicious, (strong ones, at that) but I can't prove it conclusively. So before we even get into debating whether or not it matters if she's anti semitic, if we can't even figure it out, it's not worth discussing. The point of my post wasn't trying to figure out who's an anti-semite or not, or even focusing on individual people. I was talking about larger narratives, which I think do matter.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 01:17 AM
I was talking about larger narratives, which I think do matter.

If your larger narrative is seriously "liberals are anti-semitic, okay not really, but kind of!," it's an idiotic narrative.

And stop using the word narrative. If you want to discuss larger ideas or themes, say that. Narrative is a word that should be abandoned to Halperin and his ilk. Throw it under the bus. It has bad optics. If you see what I'm saying.

Also, stop saying framing. It's like being infested with mini Mooneys and Nisbets.

Please.

chiwhisoxx
12-04-2010, 01:24 AM
If your larger narrative is seriously "liberals are anti-semitic, okay not really, but kind of!," it's an idiotic narrative.


It's not. You misread what I wrote pretty badly.

bjkeefe
12-04-2010, 01:26 AM
It's not. You misread what I wrote pretty badly.

Weasel (and empty buzz) words aside, that is exactly what you're trying to push here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=191112#post191112).

stephanie
12-06-2010, 01:18 PM
Getting back to the broader topic, since the thread got a little bit off track. In terms of whether Thomas is an anti-semite, that doesn't seem like a debate we're equipped to adjudicate. My issue comes from the framing. It seems like the problematic thing here is that she frames the people who run the government as zionists first, rather than people who do other things, and happen to be zionists. I think when you make it seem like zionism is so incredibly central to their worldview, it feeds a darker narrative about Jews controlling things that has been around for too long. Liberals (correctly in some cases) say conservatives are obtuse and insensitive to matters of racism. I think there are cases when liberals are obtuse and insensitive about anti-semitism sometimes. That doesn't mean that they're anti-semites, anymore than all conservatives are racists, but it's part of a mindset and has to do with frames of mind. Curious to hear what you all think of this.

For the record, I think this is a sensible way of putting it and generally agree, although I don't really see much of interest in what Helen Thomas says (for the reasons set forth by Wonderment). If I did have an interest in Thomas, I'd say that I do find her comments quite offensive.

Going back to the original point, though, I do wonder about the purpose of the thread or what is implication is intended. I kind of doubt it's just about Helen Thomas.