Helen Thomas to Retire

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't mind idiots like Helen Thomas from making their abhorrent views known.  At least I know who the anti-Semites are.

Just because you oppose Israel, or my case the recent actions of the Israeli government, does not mean you are an anti-Semite.

Exactly.  Many people (usually anti-Israel people) fail to realize that few people actually believe that connection.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But a large majority of Jewish people don't depend on Israel.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Ah the world's greatest democracy can't even allow freedom of speech to prevail in the personification of its power.

Has Helen Thomas been arrested?!

No, but the condemnation seems as though she had been.

This is exactly the kind of misrepresentation of the 1st Amendment that's become prominent.

People were shouting "Freedom of speech!" when they fired the columnist for writing the "F--- Bush" column, but that was just a good business move.

Freedom of speech allows you to say stupid things without the government coming down on you.  But when you say stupid stuff as a columnist/reporter, you hurt your employer, and they have an obligation to the company to keep money coming in, and at that point, it's the smart thing to fire you.

[cinyc]

Just because you oppose Israel, or my case the recent actions of the Israeli government, does not mean you are an anti-Semite.

It makes you more likely to be one.  Almost all anti-Semites oppose Israel, but not all who oppose Israel are anti-Semites.  Someone who opposes Israel and says the Jews should go back from where they came, including countries in which millions of their relatives were slaughtered IS an anti-Semite.  

[Brittain33]

But a large majority of Jewish people don't depend on Israel.

I would hesitate to say a "large majority" because a large minority of Jews actually lives in Israel. Unless you are positing that the vast majority of Jews who live outside of Israel, do not derive any real security from knowing that it's a place to go should their country's environment turns sharply negative.

[Brittain33]

It makes you more likely to be one.  Almost all anti-Semites oppose Israel, but not all who oppose Israel are anti-Semites.  Someone who opposes Israel and says the Jews should go back from where they came, including countries in which millions of their relatives were slaughtered ARE anti-Semites. 

I have to say that I don't know or care if Helen Thomas is "an anti-Semite." I think her statement is, but that can be qualified fifty ways from Sunday, and I do not divide the world into anti-Semites and others. I think we benefit from recognizing that racism and, to a much lesser extent, anti-Semitism are forces flowing through society that can pop up at unexpected time and influence people in different ways. But it is not a virus that someone is either infected with or not. And we need to be able to work with people, and that is done by focusing on deeds and words, not on their identity as a person.

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I react badly to this particular line of argument because I have seen it deployed in a very manipulative way by people who are critics of Israel, no matter what intellectual position they come from. It delegitimatizes people who disagree with them by pre-emptively labeling us as labelers who try to shut down discussion. If someone says "I'm sure I'll get called an anti-Semite for this, but I think Israel's policy is wrong," they're pre-emptively disrespecting people who disagree with them because we're so irrational or obnoxious that we refuse to debate. And you end up debating whether criticizing Israel is always anti-Semitic or not, but that's not the issue, the issue is Israel's policies, let's just debate that for damn sake. And what's more, 1 times out of 5 on Daily Kos you get someone saying "I'm sure I'll get called an anti-Semite for this by the Likudniks, but wealthy Jews control America" and it's infuriating to everyone.

[Brittain33]

I have to say that I don't know or care if Helen Thomas is "an anti-Semite." I think her statement is, but that can be qualified fifty ways from Sunday, and I do not divide the world into anti-Semites and others. I think we benefit from recognizing that racism and, to a much lesser extent, anti-Semitism are forces flowing through society that can pop up at unexpected time and influence people in different ways. But it is not a virus that someone is either infected with or not. And we need to be able to work with people, and that is done by focusing on deeds and words, not on their identity as a person.

I mean, I'm sure she hates the country of Israel and really hates its government. I'm sure she's nice to ordinary Israelis and doesn't think anything bad of them as individuals, but hates what they do when they go to the ballot box or what she imagines they do when they talk about Arabs behind their backs.

But guess what, the nation of Israel is in large part responsible for the destruction of her ancestral country, both because of its founding driving Palestinians over the border, but also because Israel has no compunctions about bombing the hell out of it every few years. If I were her, I'd probably hate Israel, too.

And then it expresses itself in the form of statement that's as hateful as what Avigdor Lieberman says. Not because she's a monster. Because she's human, and because that's anatural extension of years of seeing people you empathize with suffer greatly at the hands of another country. And yet the sentiment itself shows no empathy for actual Israelis or recognition she'd be turning them into refugees. She doesn't care. This is a dilemma, not Eichmann on trial. So calling her an anti-Semite is wrong because it denies HER humanity as someone, like the rest of us, who is a member of a nation or two.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But a large majority of Jewish people don't depend on Israel.

I would hesitate to say a "large majority" because a large minority of Jews actually lives in Israel. Unless you are positing that the vast majority of Jews who live outside of Israel, do not derive any real security from knowing that it's a place to go should their country's environment turns sharply negative.

I meant outside of Israel.  And there's a difference between "depending" on Israel and "considering Israel a place to flee to".

[Brittain33]

I meant outside of Israel.  And there's a difference between "depending" on Israel and "considering Israel a place to flee to".

Then for me this is an argument of semantics.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I meant outside of Israel.  And there's a difference between "depending" on Israel and "considering Israel a place to flee to".

Then for me this is an argument of semantics.

I don't mean to make it all technical and nit-picky.  I'm just saying, I would disagree that Jews (outside of Israel) have a dependence on Israel.  Now, considering their history, I'm sure many of them are glad they have a place to flee to if they needed it, so in that sense, I agree with you.

[Lunar]

I meant outside of Israel.  And there's a difference between "depending" on Israel and "considering Israel a place to flee to".

Then for me this is an argument of semantics.

I don't mean to make it all technical and nit-picky.  I'm just saying, I would disagree that Jews (outside of Israel) have a dependence on Israel.  Now, considering their history, I'm sure many of them are glad they have a place to flee to if they needed it, so in that sense, I agree with you.

Let's withdraw from "Israel as a state" approach, and let's go back to the original comments: all the Jews in Israel should be expelled [or I guess voluntarily go to places that would not accept them] "to where they came from," specifically listing "Germany, Poland, America."  

Third and fourth generation immigrants cannot "go back to where they came from en masse."  And that's why her comments were racist.  It doesn't even make sense.  It's not like a third or fourth generation Israeli has a home country somewhere else.  Thomas seems to think that the places where Jews were slaughtered in millions be the base country for such people?

Think of anyone else making such statements of entire races of people, living in an area for multiple generations in large numbers, "going back to where they came from."  Find me one that's not racist in the modern era.    

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

While I agree with you, Lunar, I will just point out the Devil's advocate position who would argue that we stole land from the Indians, and there are some people who say we should give it back.  Although, this is even more of a impossible-to-achieve proposition than the Jews moving out of the area of Palestine.

[Lunar]

While I agree with you, Lunar, I will just point out the Devil's advocate position who would argue that we stole land from the Indians, and there are some people who say we should give it back.  Although, this is even more of a impossible-to-achieve proposition than the Jews moving out of the area of Palestine.

I guess the difference is between the absurdness of the two projects, although both are absurd, only one is held with seriousness and passion.  Probably, a more comparable analogy would be a White American believing that Mexican-Americans should "go back to where they came from" -- as that would be slightly more feasible of a racist belief for one to hold.  

I guess it conflicts with the "original land" aspect, and obviously no relevant such things exist in America.  And, in general, immigrant communities tend not to take over a region as quickly as Jewish immigrants did in Palestine -- although, with the repeated military attacks from surrounding Arab states, perhaps they really had no choice.  Although Singapore really didn't exist ever as an ethnic Malay center of population or cultural pride, I couldn't imagine an ethnic Malay in Singapore declaring that the  Chinese in the city "should go back where they came from" being considered non-racist.  If I can think of a better parallel example, maybe I'll chime in.

edit: Maybe South Africa?  A declaration that White South Africans should "go back where they came from?"  That would be an interesting parallel, although, of course, it would be a weird one and one I'm not sure I'd be as eager to wade into as I'm not remotely informed about the current tensions in the state, and I'm not sure if it'd really give us an uncontroversial example to work with.  Obviously Israel gets compared with South Africa a lot in protests with the Afrikaans word of Apartheid.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just because you oppose Israel, or my case the recent actions of the Israeli government, does not mean you are an anti-Semite.

It makes you more likely to be one.  Almost all anti-Semites oppose Israel, but not all who oppose Israel are anti-Semites.  Someone who opposes Israel and says the Jews should go back from where they came, including countries in which millions of their relatives were slaughtered IS an anti-Semite.  

Two things.

1. Please do not equal Nazi Germany and Occupied Poland
2. Anti-semite would rather say "lock them in ghettos" or "exterminate them all".

[Lunar]

2. Anti-semite would rather say "lock them in ghettos" or "exterminate them all".

I don't think that's what anti-semites really believe at all today.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I react badly to this particular line of argument because I have seen it deployed in a very manipulative way by people who are critics of Israel, no matter what intellectual position they come from. It delegitimatizes people who disagree with them by pre-emptively labeling us as labelers who try to shut down discussion. If someone says "I'm sure I'll get called an anti-Semite for this, but I think Israel's policy is wrong," they're pre-emptively disrespecting people who disagree with them because we're so irrational or obnoxious that we refuse to debate. And you end up debating whether criticizing Israel is always anti-Semitic or not, but that's not the issue, the issue is Israel's policies, let's just debate that for damn sake. And what's more, 1 times out of 5 on Daily Kos you get someone saying "I'm sure I'll get called an anti-Semite for this by the Likudniks, but wealthy Jews control America" and it's infuriating to everyone.

I guess you misunderstood me. I used my positions as an example.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Btw, an ironic side. Jews actually comes from Palestine.

[Lunar]

edit: Maybe South Africa?  A declaration that White South Africans should "go back where they came from?"  That would be an interesting parallel, although, of course, it would be a weird one and one I'm not sure I'd be as eager to wade into as I'm not remotely informed about the current tensions in the state, and I'm not sure if it'd really give us an uncontroversial example to work with.  Obviously Israel gets compared with South Africa a lot in protests with the Afrikaans word of Apartheid.

Actually, sure, I'd say someone who's not white, who says "white South Africans should all just go back to where they came from," would be saying something racist.  Although what Helen Thomas said was worse, because of the Poland/Germany thing, and Israel's unique circumstance being formed as a sanctuary from centuries of discrimination, which South Africa was not for English and Dutch settlers.

With an additional note: if you want to compare Israel of today to South Africa at the height of Apartheid, then you'd also acknowledge that tensions eventually died down, and things worked themselves out despite widely disparate cultures and even military siege.   If anything, perhaps that could ironically speak in favor of eventually there being a workable solution and "kicking them all out" not being a viable, non-racist solution.  

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Btw, an ironic side. Jews actually comes from Palestine.

No they don't. That's not ironic at all.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Btw, an ironic side. Jews actually comes from Palestine.

No they don't. That's not ironic at all.

Where did they come from then?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Btw, an ironic side. Jews actually comes from Palestine.

No they don't. That's not ironic at all.

Where did they come from then?

Jews are not one monolithic tribe who all come from one place.

To claim that Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated from Germany, Russia, Poland, etc. have a real ancestral claim to Palestine is utterly absurd.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Btw, an ironic side. Jews actually comes from Palestine.

No they don't. That's not ironic at all.

Where did they come from then?

Jews are not one monolithic tribe who all come from one place.

To claim that Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated from Germany, Russia, Poland, etc. have a real ancestral claim to Palestine is utterly absurd.

Well, if you go far enough back, they originated in Palestine.

[Lunar]

Btw, an ironic side. Jews actually comes from Palestine.

No they don't. That's not ironic at all.

Where did they come from then?

Jews are not one monolithic tribe who all come from one place.

To claim that Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated from Germany, Russia, Poland, etc. have a real ancestral claim to Palestine is utterly absurd.

Well, if you go far enough back, they originated in Palestine.

And obviously Judaism is one of the few religions that actually actually requires a certain amount of genetics to fit into the equation.  But going back 2,000 years....  obviously the Jewish people are much more diverse than the original stock of those residing in Israel thousands of years ago.  I mean, there are Chinese Jews and Ethiopian Jews and so on.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Btw, an ironic side. Jews actually comes from Palestine.

No they don't. That's not ironic at all.

Where did they come from then?

Jews are not one monolithic tribe who all come from one place.

To claim that Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated from Germany, Russia, Poland, etc. have a real ancestral claim to Palestine is utterly absurd.

Well, if you go far enough back, they originated in Palestine.

Not really. The odds of an Ashkenazi Jew tracing his ancestral origins to Palestine aren't much better than those of anyone else. Not to mention you're going back a really long time.