Helen Thomas: Jews didn't have to leave Europe following Holocaust

[oberliner]

Excerpt:

When Behar asked Thomas if she realized that her comment regarding sending the Jews back to Poland and Germany were insensitive in view of the past the Jews share with those countries, the former correspondent said: "I also said Russia."

"Well Russia, they had their share of anti-Semitic pogroms," the CNN interviewer said, to which Thomas answered: "They also had 25 million who died in World War II…. More than that."

"They didn't have to go anywhere really, because they weren’t being persecuted anymore but they were taking other people's land," Thomas said, adding of the perceived insensitivity of her comments by saying: "Count how many Palestinians are in jails now, taken from their homes, a million refugees, is that sensitive?"

Responding to Behar's question whether or not she considered herself to be anti-Semitic, Thomas said: "Hell no! I'm a Semite…of Arab background," and saying of the Jews: "They're not Semites. I mean, most of them are from Europe."

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/helen-thomas-jews-didn-t-have-to-leave-europe-following-holocaust-1.344196

[leveymg]

1. She's anti-zionist, not anti-semitic. The distinction is lost on most people.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Well I can grasp that.

.

[still_one]

4. She is also anti-Jewish, by other statements she has made

[jimmie]

15. She is not "anti-Jewish"..

she just doesn't like those people.

See?

Word games 101.

[leveymg]

17. She doesn't have problems working or socializing with American Jews. It's the neocons & the Israeli

Right-wing she can't stand. She isn't alone in that. A lot of American Jews feel the same way.

[LeftishBrit]

The distinction also seems to be lost on *her*...

or why would she also be saying that Zionists control the White House and Hollywood, etc.? I assume that even she doesn't think that Israel controls these institutions directly; so she's basically implying that American Jews have an excessive and sinister influence.

[leveymg]

19. Depends upon how you define "excessive and sinister."

Unless one believes that the influence of American Jews is inherently "excessive and sinister" (and I strongly doubt Helen Thomas does), that conclusion in any particular case does not in itself prove anti-semitism.

But, that's a long subject. The definitions and assumptions one applies to those terms may prove anti-semitism. Then again, it may not.

I think you're making an accusation against Ms. Thomas that is neither proven by your proposition nor born out of the facts.

[cali]

97. she verbalized classic anti-semitic rhetoric straight out of The Protocols

It just makes me sad.

[Jmaxfie1]

100. David Duke's not anti-black he's just pro-white

Seriously though she is not just anti-Zionist but obviously anti-semitic. Her Jews, ZOG or whatever she wants to call it controlling the USA is inexcusable. It's like saying calling all Muslims terrorists.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kolesar]

3. Featuring a photo with Helen Thomas scowling

...just for effect.

[azurnoir]

5. one can feel the frustration that Ms Thomas can not be made to grovel

but then again she never did

[LeftishBrit]

7. Nothing to do with grovelling

I do not know very much about Helen Thomas (being that I'm English), and for all I know, most things she's said in her life may be admirable. But I object to these particular statements - for exactly the same sort of reasons that I object to Avigdor Lieberman wanting Arab citizens of Israel to be kicked out, or far-right groups in Britain wanting to deport British-born Muslims and non-whites.

[azurnoir]

8. Ms Thomas has lost almost everything gained during her career

but she is supposed to apologize?

[LeftishBrit]

10. I don't care whether she personally apologizes...

What bothers me is the idea that her views are somehow valid on this issue.

[azurnoir]

13. so you feel that that being against taking Palestinian land is an invalid view?

and she was right European Jews did not have to go to Palestine after WW2, some did stay in Europe which consisted of more than just the USSR and Poland also many went to America, theUK , and elsewhere

[LeftishBrit]

21. Do you honestly think...

that America and the UK and Western Europaean countries would have taken all of the Europaean Jews? If they had been prepared to do so in the 1930s, then the Holocaust might not have happened, or at least might have involved far fewer people!

In any case there are several different aspects of what Helen Thomas has said, which are being conflated:

(1) The Occupation is a bad thing, and the settlers should leave the OTs - I have no disagreement with that.

(2) Israel should never have been created, and was theft from the beginning. - As true or untrue as for most other countries, I'd say. At any rate, it's too late to undo its creation, any more than the UK's, USA's or Australia's!

(3) Israeli citizens NOW should leave Israel to the Palestinians, and 'go back to Europe'. Considering that the majority of Israelis were *born there*, this is pernicious rubbish - and that's even assuming that they'd automatically be accepted in large numbers as immigrants to Europe, which is improbable. Also, how does an Israeli Jew of Moroccan or Yemenite ancestry 'go back to Europe'? Only about half the Israeli Jews are of Europaena descent.

(4) 'Zionists' in America control the White House, Wall Street and Hollywood: that is particularly pernicious rubbish!

It's one thing to perhaps say, 'I don't think that Helen Thomas should have been fired, given all the vile things other journalists have said with impunity'. It's another thing when some liberals *agree* with such right-wing views as that all Israelis should be kicked out, or that the 'Zionists' control America.

Helen Thomas isn't responsible for the fact that some people hold these views; they held them anyway- but since these views have come up in this context, I think it's only right to recognize that they are *not* liberal views, however liberal Helen Thomas may be on other things.

[azurnoir]

88. answers

that America and the UK and Western Europaean countries would have taken all of the Europaean Jews? If they had been prepared to do so in the 1930s, then the Holocaust might not have happened, or at least might have involved far fewer people!

the obvious answer is yes the Holocaust may well still have happened but if the UK and the US had taken in more Jews prior to WW2 ther would have been fewer killed, but the time prior does not pertain to this discussion

In any case there are several different aspects of what Helen Thomas has said, which are being conflated:

(1) The Occupation is a bad thing, and the settlers should leave the OTs - I have no disagreement with that.

true enough

(2) Israel should never have been created, and was theft from the beginning. - As true or untrue as for most other countries, I'd say. At any rate, it's too late to undo its creation, any more than the UK's, USA's or Australia's!

she never said Israel should be 'uncreated', that is IMO a willful misinterpretation of her words

(3) Israeli citizens NOW should leave Israel to the Palestinians, and 'go back to Europe'. Considering that the majority of Israelis were *born there*, this is pernicious rubbish - and that's even assuming that they'd automatically be accepted in large numbers as immigrants to Europe, which is improbable. Also, how does an Israeli Jew of Moroccan or Yemenite ancestry 'go back to Europe'? Only about half the Israeli Jews are of Europaena descent.

again a willful misinterpretation unless you think Palestine ids the same as Israel

(4) 'Zionists' in America control the White House, Wall Street and Hollywood: that is particularly pernicious rubbish!

as to Hollywood and Wallstreet I really do not know, however as to the White House yesterday's vote at the UN speaks volumes

It's one thing to perhaps say, 'I don't think that Helen Thomas should have been fired, given all the vile things other journalists have said with impunity'. It's another thing when some liberals *agree* with such right-wing views as that all Israelis should be kicked out, or that the 'Zionists' control America.

again she IMO did say that all Israeli's should leave Israel she said Palestine the unwillingness of some to differentiate between the two astounds me

Helen Thomas isn't responsible for the fact that some people hold these views; they held them anyway- but since these views have come up in this context, I think it's only right to recognize that they are *not* liberal views, however liberal Helen Thomas may be on other things.

but once again you seem to be attributing views that are not held


note I missed this yesterday because I was going between 5 different posters on 2 different threads

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. That she has .eom

[oberliner]

72. She did apologize

She just made later public statements that were much worse than the initial one.

She has the right to hold whatever beliefs she wishes - and certainly does not need to apologize for them if she does not want to.

People are free to respond to her public statements accordingly as well.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Fairly disgusting and inaccurate

First of all, I think this makes clear that she's not only criticizing the settlers!

Secondly, many Israeli Jews are not of Europaean descent.

Thirdly, there was a lot of violence against Jews in several East Europaean countries just *after* the end of WW2: notably the 1946 pogrom in Kielce, Poland. It is wrong to say that Jews could just go back to Europe, especially Eastern Europe, without fear.

Fourthly, rightly or wrongly, Israel DOES exist; and most of the people who live there now are not immigrants, but were born in Israel. How are they going to 'go back to Poland or Russia' - even if they were willing, the countries of Eastern Europe are not generally noted for their enthusiasm for accepting immigrants of any sort.

[azurnoir]

9. Once again in her orginal statement she did not say Jews

get out of Israel she said Palestine, but one must wonder if her ethnic background influences the opinion of some, but of course that will be den

eta Ms Thomas never said Jews either, the man 'interviewing' her said that

[oberliner]

11. In the CNN interview cited in the OP, she makes it very clear who she is talking about

This parsing of her words is beyond ridiculous.

Agree or disagree with her opinion - but don't try to play games.

She does not think that the Jews of Europe should have gone to Israel/Palestine and displaced people who were living there.

She wishes that those Jews who came from Europe would return to Europe and that Israel/Palestine be returned to its original Palestinian inhabitants.

That is her position. She has made it very clear in this interview.

[azurnoir]

12. I did not 'parse' the CNN interview in fact I did not mention it at all

you threw that in and accused me of playing games

but then you threw this in

"She does not think that the Jews of Europe should have gone to Israel/Palestine and displaced people who were living there.
'

if you feel she was out of line for saying Jews should not have taken Palestinian land then do you feel it was the right thing to do?

[oberliner]

14. No such claim was made

Parsing words was with respect to the earlier statement you keep referencing - whether or not she used the word "Jews" as being significant in some way.

The CNN interview makes it clear exactly what she was talking about with respect to her earlier statement - as she is asked directly about it and gives a direct response.

There is, therefore, no reason to wonder what she was talking about in the earlier statement that you keep parsing.

That is what appears to be "game playing" at this point, in light of the clarification in the CNN interview with Joy Behar that Helen Thomas recently gave.

And, she did not merely say that Jews should not have taken Palestinian land she also said that Jews living in Israel should go back to Poland, Germany, and other places (she added Russia in the CNN interview).

And in another statement, she said:

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists"

That, to me, is the most clearly and egregiously offensive of her statements.

[azurnoir]

16. so now you hybrid the 2 statements the one to Nessenoff and the CNN

and throw in a third statement which I have not mentioned at all, in an attempt to make a point, you are entitled to your opinion of course.

also you dodge my question as to her statement in your OP

[leveymg]

20. Again, that makes her an anti-zionist, not anti-Jewish.

I personally don't think that her proposal is either wise or practical at this point, but I would not call her anti-semitic for expressing that view.

[Shaktimaan]

31. So when she said...

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists" you don't think she was referring to Jews?

Or is saying that "Jews secretly control the world" not an anti-semitic statement to you?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. I Have A Question

First let me lay a factual foundation, ergo:

I am staying at my friend's home. He's a seventy six year old African American man who grew up in the Jim Crow South and joined the military at seventeen to escape it. On his wall he has various commendations including a Bronze Star from Korea and a Bronze Star from Viet Nam. He also has an award from the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Teaching Tolerance" Program. I am reading their current newspaper which has an article about the rise of nativist hate groups. Many of these hate groups subscribe to the notion of ZOG; that the American government and the nation's institutions are run by Zionists.

My question is what distinguishes Ms. Thomas' views from their views?

And if her views on the topic are legitimate and correct how can one logically argue that that these nativist groups views on this topic are illegitimate and incorrect?

[oberliner]

109. I hope you get a response to this

Bookmarked for future reference.

[pelsar]

18. no, one 'doesn't wonder"

but one must wonder if her ethnic background influences the opinion of some

thats clearly an attempt to demonize those who disagree with her statements.....its so obvious, (i think your losing your touch....)


.but its not needed, her statements are very clear as are her opinions.....its that magical place where the far left meets the far right and the funny people that appear to defend her version of the protocols of zion

[azurnoir]

24. the 'far left'is the same as the 'far right' sort of like the statement

that the Nazi's were socialists ridiculous on it's face IMO clearly an attempt to demonize, nope simply an attempt question, you added the ending in order to legitimize the rest your statement

does the question offend you? why? are we not for some reason allowed to ask such things?

[pelsar]

27. no i'm not so easily offended..more amused....

the attempt to demonize those who have called out helen for her "protocol of zion" type beliefs (etc) was simply amusing in thats its such a weak attempt (who "hates the lebanese?"). Like i wrote, your usually better at it.

That magic meeting place where far right meets left has nothing to do with the nazis....its the right and left these days.

the protocols of zion, and its modern variations, as we see with helen and her defenders are also believed by those on the far right. This particular belief as well as others such as gaza the concentration camp, the IDF carpet bombs gaza, apartheid, etc are also beliefs held by both those on the far progressive left and the far right.

Hence we have that "magical meeting of the minds" .....
____

as far as inquiring....of course your "allowed", just don't be offended when your motivation is question.....

[azurnoir]

29. and I am quite amused as well as to your rather IMO

over wrought statement and tendency to categorize groups of people

the protocols of zion, and its modern variations, as we see with helen and her defenders are also believed by those on the far right. This particular belief as well as others such as gaza the concentration camp, the IDF carpet bombs gaza, etc are also beliefs held by both those on the far progressive left and the far right.

the first place I ever heard of the 'protocols' was here, and there is a tendency for people to lean on them as a rhetorical device when the need arises

[azurnoir]

30. oh and BTW way you never addressed my question but do not feel bad

that seems to be 'going around' today

[pelsar]

33. which question?

i thought i did, if not please repeat or rewrite so i can answer using different words so that you will understand.

i dont believe one should right; "i've already answered the question"....that to me is a cop out.

[azurnoir]

35. first the statement which was a question

but one must wonder if her ethnic background influences the opinion of some

then Iasked if that offended you and why also if such questions should not be asked

[pelsar]

37. the answer

it didnt offend me nor does her lebanese background influence my opinion of her. As far as the larger world, i would say that possible some druze in Lebanon might have a problem with background, perhaps some hizballa members in Zidon, might see her as a traitor living in the US, so their opinions might be tainted.

as far as should it be asked?.....i don't believe it was relevant in this case as the discussion here is pretty much around what she said and its meaning.

[azurnoir]

41. I do believe that Ms Thomas's being an Arab is quite

relevant to the impression and reaction to her statements over all, for what Hezbollah might think seeing that she born in Kentucky I not so sure about that

[shira]

69. Do you believe her comments were antisemitic? Yes or No? n/t

[azurnoir]

84. No she is antizionist n/t

[cali]

98. exusing, defending or agreeing with bigotry is disgraceful

and disgusting.

it's that simple.

[azurnoir]

102. resorting to name calling? what is simple is that attack posts

are self described, one can not disagree with out being called a bigot? that is bigotry in itself, something you do recognize apparently

[cali]

103. bigot repulse me. they're hateful and sick

it really is that simple.

[azurnoir]

104. seeing as how you addressed the comment to me were you simply

"making conversation" or applying the you opinion to me? Note I am asking and take it as ypu will is really not an answer

[azurnoir]

105. why the crickets? Are you aiming your statements at me ?

do you not want to back up or explain your statements? What ever you may think of my position on Helen Thomas I have at least stuck to what I feel no matter how badly attacked I am for it

note as a matter of honor here I would not alert anything you might say in answer to this, and would ask that no one else would either

[cali]

107. No. I think my statement is about as clear as a statement can be

[LeftishBrit]

80. Disagree that that's the main reason.

For one thing, does everyone who's complaining even *know* that she's an Arab (the name 'Helen Thomas' would sound more Welsh in fact)? I certainly didn't until it came up on DU.

For another, disagreement is *usually* not based on someone's ethnic background. Assuming that criticizing Helen Thomas over her comments is because she's an Arab, is a bit like assuming that people, who criticize Daniel Pipes over his writings, are antisemites who are only against him because he's Jewish. In both cases, there may be *some* people who are influenced by ethnic prejudices; but in most, disagreement is just disagreement.

[azurnoir]

83. First I never said that HT's being an Arab was the main reason

I said it was an influence, but in this issue 'creative' reinterpretation seems to rule the day

as to no one knowing she was an Arab that all ended some years ago, when one of her political opponents referred to her as such

[pelsar]

81. if we are to declare that she is an arab...

then i hearby declare that she is an biased, hateful arab attempting to spread the modern version of the protocols of zion ("zionists control.....) which is a hateful message, designed to demonize jews that believe in israel, israeli jews that see israel as their home and other jews who define themselves as zionists.

if its decided that she is not an arab but an "progressive american" than you can use the same statement above just replace arab with progressive american. You see my statement is addressing the persons statements and nothing else, hence she can be of any background you choose, its changes nothing of her hateful message and opinion.

[shira]

79. Pelsar, there are many who believe criticizing a Lebanese person for being antisemitic is bigotry.

Jews (Zionists) are like rich, white oppressive people these days (no longer victims of antisemitism which is so yesterday) therefore it's perfectly legitimate for Lebanese or 3rd world victimized "brown people" to criticize Jews or whites or rich people (all oppressors) any way they see fit. To call them out for being bigots is itself bigoted.

Get it?

[LeftishBrit]

87. I don't think there are many. There are some.

Just as there are some who do regard any criticism of a Jewish person as antisemitic, or any criticism of a black person as racist, but neither is as common as it's represented.

In the case of Helen Thomas, I think there are two more important issues: (1) some are reluctant to be hard on her for anything because of her distinguished career; (2) sadly, some people actually agree with her. Antisemitic myths about 'Zionists controlling Hollywood, etc.' are still very much alive.

[pelsar]

95. I dont get that....

(1) some are reluctant to be hard on her for anything because of her distinguished career;

well isn't pretty clear that during her distinguished career she simply kept her hateful opinion about jews/zionistic holocaust survivors to herself (makes me wonder what her opinion about jews were pre 1948).

If she came out with her opinion in 1950, and was honest, perhaps she wouldnt have duped so many people in to believing in her?

[LeftishBrit]

96. Well, speaking as an outsider who had barely heard of Helen Thomas till recently...

I actually don't care too much whether a public figure is antisemitic (or racist or Islamophobic or otherwise bigoted) so long as they *do* keep their hateful opinions to themselves. It might be relevant to my personal friendship with someone, but not to their public activities. They do harm by influencing public opinion, or directly pursuing harmful policies, not by their private opinions.

This tends to come up with me with regard to right-wing pundits. People have tried to convince me that Dan Pipes and others are 'not bigoted' as though this should influence my view of them. My reply is generally that I *don't care* if they're personally bigoted or not; I am against them because they promote right-wing viewpoints and policies.

Unfortunately, Helen Thomas ended up *expressing* some nasty viewpoints (and I disagree with those who think that these can be interpreted as just criticizing the settlers or the Israeli government!); and unfortunately there are rather too many people who share such viewpoints.

[leveymg]

23. Let's make sure we have this right: she said the Russian settlers should leave Palestinian land.

Is that correct? If that is her true statement and meaning, I believe that is also the position taken by the United States government. Many of the more recent arrivals post-1990 were resettled on the West Bank, occupying Palestinian territory.

If they can't fit within the legal borders of Israel, they should go back from whence they came or resettle in some third-country.

Stated that way, the idea sounds very conventional.

[azurnoir]

25. quite convoluted wording is there in your opinion not enough room in Israel?

so do you think that the West Bank should become some sort of 'overflow' for Israel?

oh and in answer to your carefully reinterpreted question no you are not correct

[leveymg]

26. The convolution in Thomas' statement appears to be on the part of the CNN interviewer.

I just reread the Hareetz article. The interviewer appears to have challenged an earlier statement about the return of European Jews which Thomas suggests is misinterpreted. Thomas is saying that European Jews have not been persecuted since the defeat of Germany in 1945 and that they should not have been resettled in what was Palestine prior to the Partition. Well, that issue has been moot for a long time.

I would like to know if she may have instead been suggesting that the post-1990 ex-Soviet arrivals, who make up most of the "settlers" in the OT, should not have been allowed to occupy Palestinian territory - I think that assertion is entirely conventional and she doesn't deserve to be ostracized for it, if that is indeed what she said and means.

[Shaktimaan]

28. so you think she meant...

that all of the Arab Israelis should also go back to Poland?

And that this statement... "Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists" does not refer to Jews? What Zionists do you think she was talking about then?

[azurnoir]

32. lol I was wondering when the sephardim would thrown in

but if you remember her entire statement to Nessenoff she said where ever they came from, so perhaps yes if the those Sephardi are settlers in the West Bank

[Shaktimaan]

34. when did she mention the west bank? np

[azurnoir]

36. she said Palestine which is generally accepted as the West Bank

and Gaza these days and seeing as how there are no settlers in Gaza anymore what else could that have meant?

[Shaktimaan]

38. are you serious?

Well, she did not say that the Jews should leave Palestine and go back to Israel, did she? Why not? Why Poland, of all places? How many Jews are immigrating from Poland to the West Bank these days? Or from Germany?

No, it's quite clear that she was referencing the older generation of zionist immigrants. By Palestine she meant Mandate Palestine. She meant that Israel was occupied Palestinian territory.

Now, if she did NOT in fact mean this then why didn't she just clarify her position during her apology? Seems simple enough. If this was just a big misunderstanding then why not say so?

She didn't say that Jews should go behind the green line. She didn't say "these people are occupied and it's not their land, it's not ISRAEL." She said "these people are occupied and it's not their land, it's not German. It's not Poland." Her meaning is pretty clear.

[azurnoir]

39. So when Helen Thomas says Palestine she really means Israel

I see does that mean only Ms Thomas or would you generally apply that standard to Arabs?and why do you you and others truncate her quote? she also added America or where ever they came from
also she never said Jews Nessenoff did

[Shaktimaan]

42. my point stands.

I see does that mean only Ms Thomas or would you generally apply that standard to Arabs?

It applies to Ms Thomas of course. That IS who we're discussing, isn't it? Why would I extend a quote of hers to be representative of a billion other people?

and why do you you and others truncate her quote? she also added America or where ever they came from

Because it doesn't matter. The point is still obvious. If anything that reinforces my argument. She CLARIFIED her point by including America. Never Israel, which is the main place you'd think she would be telling people to go back to if she meant what you think. Never said "they should go home to Israel." No, they should go home to Poland, Germany, America or wherever they came from.

also she never said Jews Nessenoff did

Right. For clarification. And Ms Thomas agreed with him.
Why, are you positing that when she said "them" she was referring to some other group? Wow, you sure are desperate here.

[azurnoir]

44. actually she said "they" and the subject being discussed was Israel

Nessenoff changed to Jews after that

here is the vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc4OeRu7cfs

also what gets left out is Nessenoff seemly innocuous question as to her speaking Arabic which IMO was an under handed way of asking if she is Muslim as most Muslim's speak Arabic if only for religous reason's

[oberliner]

47. She clarifies that she was talking about Jewish people from Europe when she said 'they'

Watch the CNN interview if you haven't already as she explains her earlier remarks quite clearly.

Incidentally, most Muslims do not speak Arabic - not sure where you pulled that misinformation from.

[azurnoir]

48. the "misinformation" cam e from Muslims that I know

not all of which are Arab some are Kurd and a couple are Malaysian, also is this a litmus test for anti-Semitism?

[oberliner]

57. No litmus test - just correcting inaccurate info

Only about 15 percent of the world's Muslims speak Arabic.

[azurnoir]

59. ah ya ok especially the Malaysian ones

note I did not say it was a first language I said for religious purposes

[oberliner]

71. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world

There are 250 million Arab speakers (as their first or second language).

Do the math.

[azurnoir]

50. which CNN vid

why is that no one seems to ask her did she mean
Jews should leave Israel or should Israel not exist? Perhaps because insinuations are more valuable?

[oberliner]

53. The one that the article is about

In fact, Joy Behar asks if Helen Thomas means Israelis and she corrects her and says "the Jews" in the interview.

Edit to add: Specific moment is at 2:50 - 3:00 of the video - where Behar says "the Israelis?" and Thomas corrects her and says "the Jews".

[azurnoir]

54. Did she ask if HT meant Israel? n/t

[oberliner]

56. Please watch the video

As mentioned in my edit to the above post - the exchange happens at around 2:45 - 3:00.

[azurnoir]

58. see comment # 55 n/t

[oberliner]

60. Here is a transcript of that part of the interview

Behar: If you had a chance to re-do the comment what would you say now?

Thomas: Why did they have to go anywhere? They were not being persecuted anywhere.

Behar: The Israelis?

Thomas: The Jews. The Jews.

I'll post a link to the video as a response to the OP in case anyone else is interested.

[azurnoir]

62. That is quite truncated please post the entire transcript n/t

[oberliner]

70. You want me to type up a transcript of the entire interview?

As much as I enjoy our discussions, I think I'll pass on that one.

If you'd like to sit down and listen to the video and type up a transcript of the entire thing, be my guest.

[azurnoir]

74. you claimed the 4 posted sentances were from a transcript

which you now claim not to have in other words youtranscribed or copied them down?

[oberliner]

77. transcript: a written or printed version of material originally presented in another medium

I wrote "here is a transcript of that part of the interview" which is exactly what I provided by typing out the part of that video that I was referencing.

[azurnoir]

86. it is IMO quite misleading to claim it from a "transcript' when in fact

you simply listened to the vid and typed what you felt you heard, did you feel the need to make it sound 'more official' than that?

[oberliner]

93. There is nothing misleading about what I typed

Listening to a video and typing what you heard is making a transcript.

[cali]

99. bwahahahahaha.

beyond pathetic. but amusing.

[azurnoir]

73. here is the entire video with the 4 cherry picked sentances

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOv_Ll_Pl08

thee entire interview puts them in to context quite nicely IMO

[oberliner]

78. Official video from the CNN website is linked to below in post 61

This link to a video you are providing here will most likely be deleted by YouTube since it violates copyright - CNN usually gets this sort of thing removed.

I strongly encourage anyone who is interested in this to watch the entire video (official link provided in my post below) and draw their own conclusions.

[azurnoir]

85. it is the same video I posted which @109 pm cst is still up

perhaps you should complain to youtube-again?

[oberliner]

92. The one that says "Jews are the cancer of humanity"

That is the first comment on your link.

Perhaps you should complain as well.

[azurnoir]

94. yes that one with the comment posted 3 hours ago? long after I posted the video?

I alerted the vid to the mods here on DU I think the person who posted the vid is antisemitic, I am surprised that got past you or did it?

[azurnoir]

55. please post the video n/t

[Shaktimaan]

49. what is your point?

She said "they" should go back to wherever. Do you think she meant someone other than "the Jews?" (Who else would be going back to germany and poland and america?) Besides, Nessenoff clarified and HT confirmed... that is exactly who she meant. Seriously, what is your point pursuing this?

also what gets left out is Nessenoff seemly innocuous question as to her speaking Arabic which IMO was an under handed way of asking if she is Muslim as most Muslim's speak Arabic if only for religous reason's

I don't read that as some kind of coded thing. She said that she was of Arab background, then he said, "I see, so do you speak Arabic." Big deal. She was the one to bring up her Arab heritage.

And to most Americans the two are one and the same, anyway... Arab and Muslim I mean. Many people usually don't get the difference. Certainly not to the extent where if they hear that she's Arab they think nothing of it, but if they hear that she SPEAKS Arabic then THAT means she's a Muslim.

Regardless it is not related to our discussion. What HT meant was OBVIOUS. Israel is really occupied Palestine. Jews should go back to wherever they came from.

[azurnoir]

51. yes to many Americans Arab and Muslim are the same

with some exceptions such as Danny Thomas and other Lebanese also include Casey Kasem, and Paul Anka there are other well know people too and that rule does not seem to apply to them. What exactly did Nessenoff 'clarify' that he that he substituted Jews for Israeli's ? No he did not clarify a darned thing in that respect

[leveymg]

40. Perhaps, she's ambivalent about Zionism, in general, and is specifically opposed to

the more recent settlement activities? She's old enough to have formed some contemporary opinions opposing the Partition and founding of Israel. Given that she's Lebanese (I believe), that sort of old-fashioned anti-Zionism would not be surprising. What she's saying now may in part come out of that, but it also seems to reflect a more widely-held and conventional view that the Israeli settlements on the West Bank are an injustice.

I don't think, as is suggested by some of her critics, that she really believes that the everyone in Israeli should return to the Diaspora, or that can or is about to happen. That's unrealistic, and she doesn't seem to be crazy. Ninety years old, and grouchy that she's become the focus of so much enmity late in her life, but not completely nuts. Certainly not an anti-Semite and not anti-Jewish - maybe not even really anti-Israel. Give the old lady a break. She's not a monster.

[oberliner]

43. Look at this particular quote

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists"

What do you make of that one?

[leveymg]

45. I'd say that she has no future as a politician in America, today.

If I said that she was right about that, would you take that as evidence that I'm anti-semitic? I'm not, and it isn't.

Now, let me ask you a question: do you actually deny that AIPAC and the Israel lobby are extremely powerful, and that the Israeli Right-wing and their American allies have been a destructive influence?

As for the question of whether Israel is a fact of life and will continue to exist as a Jewish state, I don't think that's really disputed. However, I think as American progressives we all regret and dislike some things the Israeli government have done, particularly with regard to the settlements in the OT. Most of us would conclude that this has done grave damage to Israel, itself.

I think we all fundamentally agree on the big issues. So what is the issue, sir? Is it what a 90-year old woman of Arab extraction has said when provoked? Or, is she being made into some sort of lithmus test - if you don't condemn her, that's proof that one is anti-semitic? I think that's ridiculous.

[oberliner]

46. What do AIPAC and the Israel lobby have to do with Hollywood and Wall Street?

Please look closely at what she actually said.

The statement she made is not simply that the Israeli right-wing is a destructive influence or that AIPAC has a lot of power (neither of those statements would be anti-semitic), nor that the Israeli government has done things we all regret and dislike, particularly with regard to the settlements in the OT (also not at all an anti-semitic observation) but rather that Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists.

Do you not see how this statement references traditional anti-semitic canards?

Will you truly stand by your claim that that statement is not anti-semitic (or evidence of anti-semitism)?

There is no "litmus test" here and no one is saying that if you don't condemn her, that's proof that one is anti-semitic. It is stunning to me that anyone would even remotely question that statement as an anti-semitic remark and thus I feel a need to reply and present my case.

You made a point of responding to this thread (repeatedly) to defend her - and to in fact argue that her statements were not anti-semitic - and I think it's my responsibility to at least ask you (and anyone else) to reconsider that point of view - just as I am sure you might ask someone to reconsider conclusions that you felt were misguided. That's part of what a discussion board like this is all about, in my opinion.

[azurnoir]

52. Then what exactly in your opinion does it mean if one does not think

HT's remarks are antisemitic, your statement seems almost contradictory

[Shaktimaan]

64. Well, seeing as how they are obviously anti-semitic...

it would mean that such a person is either unwilling to face the facts of reality OR are possibly mentally retarded. Or both.

BTW, nothing in his statement was contradictory.

[azurnoir]

89. "mentally retarded" ?!?

second time you have referred to me in those terms, the fact that you resort to such juvenile name calling speaks more of your own shortcomings than my own

[LeftishBrit]

66. There is more to it than that, however

'Do you actually deny that AIPAC and the Israel lobby are extremely powerful'

They are (though I would have assumed that AIPAC and the Israel lobby are the same lobby, not two different ones!), but so are many other lobbies, including the oil lobby which tends to exert influence more in a pro-Arab direction

'and that the Israeli Right-wing and their American allies have been a destructive influence?'

Certainly - as is the Right of many countries, sadly including the UK.

'whether Israel is a fact of life and will continue to exist as a Jewish state, I don't think that's really disputed.'

I hope it is not disputed!

'However, I think as American progressives we all regret and dislike some things the Israeli government have done, particularly with regard to the settlements in the OT. Most of us would conclude that this has done grave damage to Israel, itself.'

As a British left-winger, I would certainly agree here - as would quite a few Israeli left-wingers!

However, what does any of this have to do with Zionists controlling Wall Street and Hollywood?? Certainly neither Israel nor AIPAC nor the settlers have the slightest interest in either of these organizations! Sounds like typical xenophobic paranoia, and at the very least *influenced* by old antisemitic myths.

[Shaktimaan]

67. btw

I never mentioned the sephardim. I said "ARAB Israelis." Not "Israeli Jews from Arab countries."

But it's besides the point, she was pretty clear. The ONLY place for Israeli settlers to go home to would be Israel. She clearly doesn't mean that or she would have said it.

Or do you think there's a big problem currently with Jewish citizens of German suddenly emigrating directly to the west bank?

[oberliner]

61. Link to CNN video clip of Behar interviewing Thomas

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/02/16/behar.helen.thomas.hln

[ellenrr]

63. When Helen Thomas was ousted I was sure it was for her anti-Israel positions

I agree with her anti-Israel positions.

But this comment quoted in the OP {I didn't listen to the interview}-
"They (the Jews) didn't have to go anywhere really, because they weren’t being persecuted anymore but they were taking other people's land," Thomas said, adding of the perceived insensitivity of her comments by saying: "Count how many Palestinians are in jails now, taken from their homes, a million refugees, is that sensitive?"

If this quote is correct, then it makes me think less of her, altho I don't feel compelled to give her a label.
It's ridiculous to think that Jews would have wanted to stay in the countries which had tried to annilate them. To this day my father practically spits when he mentions Hungary the country of his parent's birth, cuz what they did to the Jews is so fresh in his mind.
So imagine how Jews felt immediately after the Holocaust.

She seems to think (going only by this quote, which perhaps is unfair) that because the Palestinians are today, and have for half a century, suffered terrible oppression, death, land theft, etc. that because of this fact, she can ignore that Jews also suffered in the Holocaust.

Both things happened both were evil, one is sadly still continuing, so that is the one we should focus on, imo, but no need to re-write history.

[Mosby]

65. HT needs to STFU.

[shira]

68. Why? She's adored more than ever now by both the far right and far left, her echo chamber. n/t

[azurnoir]

82. yawn but that ole chesnut never tires for some huh?

and just what is being 'echoed'?

[houstonintc]

75. Is she ignorant or just prejudice?

Russia outlawed Judaism and Jewishness.

Poland had pogroms immediately after Jews started to return to Poland and their Shtetls.

The Europeans did not want them, the Holocaust and many of their countries capitulation with it was proof enough.

[pelsar]

76. shes certainly not ignorent...

and shes very clear about what she thinks...the real question is why are people in the "progressive community" even supporting her, defending her, or trying to pretend she didnt say what she so clearly said?

that is far more interesting.....

btw, what she is doing is the PC version of anti semitism, certainly she has jewish friends, hence she is not anti semtic in the classic sense but what She does is divide the jews up between the "good jews" and the "bad jews"...the good jews are the passive ones or those that agree with her politically, anti zionist, anti israel etc....those other jews, the bad ones are the ones that own hollywood, wall street the whitehouse, that survived the holocaust and decided not to trust the nice nations to protect them, etc. Its just a variation of a very old virus......

[houstonintc]

91. It's sad to see

Those on the left we side with so often so easily swayed by Antisemitisms easy appeal.... O wait it's "Anti-Zionism" if we do it.

[NuclearDem]

90. Helen...just stop talking about Israel. Please.

You had such an amazing career and so many other stories before this...just stop talking about it.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.