Helen Thomas quits

[Bart]

My oh my! The liberal old hag was the toast of the town when she was bashing conservatives which is great fun in Washington and the media.But now she has committed the unpardonable sin and the usual suspects are in a frenzy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2427/print

[UPDATE: Helen Thomas has resigned.]

Journalist Helen Thomas, who has covered every administration since Eisenhower's and occupies front-row center in the White House briefing room is taking heat for comments she recently made on Israel.

Thomas, a longtime critic of Israeli policy, replied: "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine." She continued to say that the Palestinians are "occupied" and that the Jews should "Go home" â€" to Germany, Poland, America and "everywhere else."

The speaker's agency representing Thomas has dropped her, and a high school canceled her commencement speech. Members of the White House Correspondents Association, which oversees seating in the briefing room, discussed the Thomas situation over weekend emails and were meeting Monday to hash out a response, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

"I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians," the 89-year-old Thomas wrote on her website. "They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

Thomas continued apologizing in the Washington Post, telling its media critic, Howard Kurtz, in a Monday column: "I'm very sorry for my remarks. I think I crossed the line. I made a mistake."

Apologies aren't enough for some.

Rabbi David Nesenoff, who interviewed Thomas and published the clip on his RabbiLive.com site, told Yahoo! News that she should lose her job with Hearst Newspapers. "Of course they've got to get rid of her," he said.

Hearst, asked by the Washington Post's Greg Sargent whether it would remove Thomas, issued a statement over the weekend: "We deeply regret Helen Thomas' remarks, which in no way reflect the views of Hearst Newspapers or its employees. Helen has expressed her own profound regret over the incident." Its spokesman refused to go further.

Since going viral, the short clip of Thomas has spawned criticism across the political spectrum.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), on Monday's "Morning Joe," said her comment "borders on anti-Semitism" and "anyone who runs her stories has a credibility issue."

Sarah Palin took to Twitter to condemn Thomas (and the media): "Helen Thomas press pals condone racist rant?Heaven forbid'esteemed'press corps represent society's enlightened elite;Rest of us choose truth."

Ari Fleischer, who tangled with Thomas when he was press secretary during the Bush administration, told the Huffington Post that Hearst should drop the veteran journalist.

"She should lose her job over this," Fleischer said. "As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling."

On Fox News, Fleischer said: "I look at this as an employee-employer matter. Who would want an employee who espouses what is tantamount to religious cleansing to work for them?" Here's the video, courtesy of Fox News; Fleischer shows up about 45 seconds in:

 

[Westside]

20 years too late!

 

[Kaptain]

"For fear of the Jews." What did she say wrong? Jews should get out of Palestine? Well, shouldn't they? The settlements are illegal.

She should lose her job because she apologized.

 

[jcolec02]

after hearing what she said i kinda wish she would stay now

 

[guest301]

Good riddance! Self-important hag and I felt that way about her long before she made those recent disgusting comments. However, I don't like seeing people lose their jobs over free speech so trying to be consistent as I rejoice over her demise, her rapid fall from liberal icon to nothingness.Edited by: guest301

 

[white is right]

I agree with her comments in principle. Obviously it's practically unworkable. But if Jews were given a homeland in old Silesia or Prussia(now part of Poland). The world would be a completely different place. Most Jews that died in the holocaust were Polish nationals and if you look at the Treaty of Versailles losing countries such as Germany, Austria and Russia gave over territories to ethnic groups/nationalities that wanted independence from old political masters. Ie Serbia and the creation of the new Polish republic.

 

[FootballDad]

"For fear of the Jews." What did she say wrong? Jews should get out of Palestine? Well, shouldn't they? The settlements are illegal.

She should lose her job because she apologized.

Illegal?? Says who? The UN? Love them or hate them, the Jews have the earliest claims on the Holy Land. If the Canaanites, Hittites, Phoenicians, et al, want to claim the land, since they preceded the Israelites, they can go right ahead, but they are all gone. The Arabs took the land by force, and according to you, Kaptain Poop, that is also "illegal".

 

[white is right]

That was 2000 years ago. Germanic tribes over ran much of Western Europe and parts of North Africa are the ancient Romans supposed to boot out anybody with Lombard blood from Italy? Or the French boot out anybody with Frankish blood? This is recent history with people still alive who lost homes and businesses that they were never compensated for.

 

[FootballDad]

That's nice. But I don't see any scripture telling the Germanic tribes, or others that the land is theirs. And since all of these folks you mention, Germanic Tribes, Romans, Lombards, and Franks have integrated and gone the way of the Canaanites, etc., your argument is ridiculous.

 

[jaxvid]

That's nice.  But I don't see any scripture telling the Germanic tribes, or others that the land is theirs.  And since all of these folks you mention, Germanic Tribes, Romans, Lombards, and Franks have integrated and gone the way of the Canaanites, etc., your argument is ridiculous.

Scripture? So ancient documents written by jews, for jews, is now the standard for determing property rights?

Thinking like that is what drives people to atheism.

 

[guest301]

That's nice.  But I don't see any scripture telling the Germanic tribes, or others that the land is theirs.  And since all of these folks you mention, Germanic Tribes, Romans, Lombards, and Franks have integrated and gone the way of the Canaanites, etc., your argument is ridiculous.

Two nice posts Football Dad. Standing on God's word is always a good position to take but not always a safe one at this site. So stay strong brother! Parody( formerlyJD1986) might accuse you of being a Jew!Edited by: guest301

 

[FootballDad]

Whether or not you want to look to the accurate Abrahamic promises or not, the land was granted back to the Jews by the RIGHTFUL OWNERS, the Brits, in 1948. Now if the Jews want to kick out the stinking Arab hordes, likethe Islamistsdid the Jews in the 7th-8th century, I say fine. At least the newly "conquered" areas will be modern and civil, unlike the cesspools that make up the majority of Arab holdings now.

 

[Tom Iron]

FootballDad,

Sir, I respectfully disagree with your take on the situation. I suggest you study the subject from it's inception, that would be Theodor Herzl's book, "The Jewish State," published 1897. Work your way forward from there.

Pay particular attention to the zionist congress' and the "Balfour Declaration" - 1917. Also, the period of the 1920s through the 1940s. You might also be interested in the curious relationship of the zionists and nazis. Some other important zionists for you to look into are Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion, Weizmann, Begin, etc. Find out what these men had in common and what differences they had. Extremely interesting subject.

I was like yourself for many years a supporter of Israel. When I finally looked in depth what went on to bring the catastrophe, that is Israel, to fruition, I have changed my mind completely.

The Arabs got a raw deal from the British and the zionists. They are in the right Sir.

Tom Iron...

 

[Anak]

Whether or not you want to look to the accurate Abrahamic promises or not, the land was granted back to the Jews by the RIGHTFUL OWNERS, the Brits, in 1948.

Because of terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

 

[FootballDad]

And, of course, Anak assumes that the small amount of attacks by Lehi and Irgun were the main reasons for the resumption of the State of Israel, and the ceding of the land by the Brits. Although this was at the end of British colonialization, a few sorties by some offshoot militant Jews was hardly the reason for the decision.

Now back to Helen Thomas for a minute, I had to suffer though seeing her ugly mug everytime I opened my web browser yesterday, so I'm glad that she's gone.Edited by: FootballDad

 

[jaxvid]

Whether or not you want to look to the accurate Abrahamic promises or not, the land was granted back to the Jews by the RIGHTFUL OWNERS, the Brits, in 1948.

Brits! Rightful owners?? hahahahahaha what chapter and verse is that in? First you use the primacy of ancient jew documents to assert the "right" of jews to own land and then you assert the military conquest of the British Empire as the rightful "owners". Funny stuff. I guess if the arabs all get together and manage to kick the jews off the land they will be the "rightful" owners by your theory.

 

[guest301]

<div></div>Now back to Helen Thomas for a minute, I had to suffer though seeing her ugly mug everytime I opened my web browser yesterday, so I'm glad that she's gone.

Yes, so very true about her ugly mug. Why was that camera zooming in so close to a 89 year old woman? Every flaw gets magnified with the camera obviously inches away from her face. She must feel like she got Punk'ed.

 

[FootballDad]

jaxvid, since Great Britain was governing and holding the land at the time, that makes them the rightful owners. They did that by military conquest, just like the Islamists did centuries before. What makes the "Palestinians" claim more valid??

 

[Charles Martel]

She's an old woman. It was a stupid comment, she is well aware of the Zionist power but at age 90 and near retirement she probably felt she had nothing to lose.

I do believe that Israel has a right to exist, and the Jews have a right to be there. However they have been very aggressive to their neighbors since the beginning, and harsh in the treatment of the Palestinians. Sad that the Palestinians received no compensation for the land taken from them.

Jewish moviemakers and documentary writers have repeatedly attacked Anglo-Americans for their treatment of the native Indians, generally portraying the white settlers as evil. Jewish activists in the US and South Africa always have sided with the negroes. Yet according to Desmond Tutu "apartheid is worse in the occupied territories than it ever was in South Africa". The Zionists go by an ugly double standard, one for themselves and another for other white people.

 

[FootballDad]

Good post, Parody, and your take on the Zionist control apparatus is accurate.

 

[Menelik]

jaxvid, since Great Britain was governing and holding the land at the time, that makes them the rightful owners. They did that by military conquest, just like the Islamists did centuries before. What makes the "Palestinians" claim more valid??

It isn't. They are both Semitic peoples fighting over land. And THEY BOTH have committed atrocities in the name of God and "state security." But lets be honest here. If we are to claim that the Palestinians have a claim to the land what about all of the indigenous tribes that were here before Europeans arrived? Historical military conquest trumps all claims in my opinion. I'm sure though that someone will point out the error of my way of thinking.

Edited by: Menelik

 

[C Darwin]

i'm pro-zionist if it keeps jews out of europe.

 

[Bart]

Whether or not you want to look to the accurate Abrahamic promises or not, the land was granted back to the Jews by the RIGHTFUL OWNERS, the Brits, in 1948.

Brits! Rightful owners?? hahahahahaha what chapter and verse is that in? First you use the primacy of ancient jew documents to assert the "right" of jews to own land and then you assert the military conquest of the British Empire as the rightful "owners". Funny stuff. I guess if the arabs all get together and manage to kick the jews off the land they will be the "rightful" owners by your theory.

Good post! You know that reasoning with Christian Zionists is futile. Why? Because they have zero regard for the historical record and don't give a rat's behind for the rights of the people living there other than Jews. Countless numbers of Christian Arabs, Armenians, Greeks and other nationalities have also suffered under Israel's heavy hand, but no one cares.

Every single argumemt posited against Jewery will be dismissed. God gave them the title deed to the land -- end of story.

 

[jaxvid]

If we are to claim that the Palestinians have a claim to the land what about all of the indigenous tribes that were here before Europeans arrived? Historical military conquest trumps all claims in my opinion. I'm sure though that someone will point out the error of my way of thinking.

</div>

The ruling government of an area IS decided by conquest. However note that every single native American tribe is still in the america's and they are not required to live in a certain area and prohibited to enjoy any of the other freedoms of the local population. While american natives might continue to self segregate or suffer due to the welfare state they live under, they are still free to go anywhere in the country and live as they chose. They are legal equals with the "conquerers" which is all that can really be asked.

Compare that to the Palestinians in Israel. Forcibly segregated, denied basic freedoms and basically living in a concentration camp. How does that compare to the Indians?

 

[Tom Iron]

Menelik,

Sir, If I may explain something to you. Any comparison of American Indians and Palestinians is Apples and Oranges. The American Indians were a stoneage people when we got here. The Palestinians Arabs, although not in control of their homeland at the time of the arrival of the first zionists, were clearly the majority of the population and a very established society. They were nothing like our American Indians.

The problems started right away between the Arabs and zionists as opposed to the cordial relations with the resident pius Jews who'd lived in the Holy Land for many years before the zionist arrival.

During WWI, while the Arabs were fighting with the British against the Turks (Lawrence of Arabia), the British made a secret agreement with the zionists to give Palestine to the zionists following the War if they helped them win. That secret deal was known as the Balfour Declaration and it was signed in 1917.

Folowing the war, the Arabs wanted what they'd been promised, which was their independance. Of course, the double dealing British had made promises to the Jews as well. The British had also gone into another secret deal with the French. In that deal, they'd promised the French what is today, Syria and Lebanon. So out of all this malarkey, what came about was Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and Jordan, none of which had independant status under the Turks. They'll all creations of the British and French policy.

After WWI, The British set up Palestine and tried to bring in as many Jews as possible to populate it for the time when the country would have a Jewish population majority and then a Jewish state could come about. Of course, the Arabs resisted. For the most part, their resistance was ineffectual, but in 1936, they revolted against the British. The revolt lasted until it was put down in 1939. But, by then the British knew they'd made a mistake with the Balfour Declaration and were trying to make matters right with the Arabs. But the Jews/zionists were well organized by then and there was no turning back. WWII was upon the British by then.

During WWII, the Arabs in Palestine were pretty much subdued, having just been defeated in 1939, prior to the outbreak of WWII. But the Jews continued to bring in Jews and started underground terrorsit activities against the British (Irgun, Stern Gang), by murdering their soldiers. After the end of the War, these terrorist atrocities continued (blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, murdering UN envoys, etc.)

Of course, we know what happened after 1948. I only bring this up because this early period is mostly unknown and it is the crux of the issue. The Arabs were swindled pure and simple.

All good Americans are always for being in the right. We might not always do right, but we, for the most part, mean well.

That's why I'm completely for the Arabs and against the zionsits.

Tom Iron...