Helen Thomas agrees to bow out as commencement speaker at Walt Whitman High

[spiritual_gunfighter]

Source: Washington Post

By Martin Weil
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 7, 2010

Veteran journalist Helen Thomas, who recently made controversial comments about Israel and Palestine, agreed Sunday not to appear as commencement speaker at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda.

Alan Goodwin, principal of Whitman, where objections to the appearance had been raised, said he reached a niece of Thomas's earlier in the day. "We had a mutual understanding about her not coming," he said.

"Graduation celebrations are not the venue for divisiveness," Goodwin said in an e-mail to Whitman parents. "Graduation is the time for a cohesive and joyous celebration of our students' achievements," he wrote.

Thomas, 89, who has covered the White House for decades, provoked criticism by her response in an impromptu video interview that was posted online. In a brief comment, she said Israelis should "get the hell" out of Palestine and go to places including Poland, Germany and the United States.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/06/AR2010060604269.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

[PCIntern]

1. ...and well that she should have.

Her statement, made by a perfectly sentient individual according to everyone who has ever had anything to do with her, was outrageous.

I'm not interested in the 'moment' argument, i.e. she had a 'moment'.

I call BS on that utterly.

[HEyHEY]

57. racist

[liberation]

67. She also had an apology

[BrklynLiberal]

2. How come the disgusting repukes never bow out..even when their presence is

virtually unanimously unwanted???????? When THEY speak, "It is necessary to hear both sides of an argument...." no matter how irrelevant or disgusting THEIR side is...
I do not agree with this decision. That is too bad.

[Bitwit1234]

10. What Thomas said is really racism, I THINK BUT

you are correct. Why is it when the republicans and other reporters say things that are just as bad they don't call for them to be thrown out. What she said was not right, but consider her age and the spur of the moment. Since the guy who called Obama a raghead was allowed to apologize, why don't they accept hers. I agree she is too old to still be in the press room. Even at her age tho she should be able to conduct herself in a professional manner.

[ananda]

13. How is it RACISM exactly?

It's not, of course. It's anti-Semitic.

[shirleym]

14. How is it anti-Semitic to criticize Israeli tactics? Helen is Semitic herself. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Antisemitism is defined as discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemitism

[No Elephants]

28. Yes, Toward Jews. Not Israel.

BTW, that was not always the definition, either.

And the newer definition of "anti-Semitism" does not change the fact that Thomas is a Semite herself, which is all the poster said. So, I'm not sure how the definition applies to the post.

IF Shirleym intended to imply that members of a group that has long been hated cannot also be biased against that group, though, I disagree. Unfortunately, bigotry and stereotypes are highly contagious.

[uppityperson]

36. Too bad she said Israel should get the hell out of Palestine, no prejudice towards Jews, but the Sta

State of Israel.

This reminds me of the rw fundies saying people are unpatriotic for criticizing the Bush administration.

[leftynyc]

18. How many times

are people going to make the same moronic statement? Anti-semitism is defined as bigotry against Jews - look in any dictionary. And she can criticize Israeli tactics all she wants. Her monumental fuck up was saying Jews should go back to Germany and Poland - countries that delighted in turning their Jews into ashes. Hearst should fire her.

[No Elephants]

31. Please see Replies 27, 28 and 35. I very much doubt Ms. Thomas meant Jews should go into ovens.

[ixion]

29. criticism of Israel is NOT synonymous with being "anti-semitic"

sorry.

[HEyHEY]

58. Racist? It's not racist. It's an opinion. She didn't say anything racist

WHen southerners say they want to free the south, are they racist? When Quebecois start going on about a soveriegn Quebec, are they racist? No, it's an opinion.

[provis99]

61. Both your examples are examples of racism.

(White) Southerners want to "free the South" so they can practice racism. Quebecois want to purify Quebec of all non-Quebecois through separation. Were you being ironic?

[HEyHEY]

62. You are ignorant as hell about the Quebec issue and, in fact, actually BEING racist

As for the southerner thing, bad example.

[tinymontgomery]

77. Because people that are Democratic

have values, pride and true remorse. They see that it is better to move on and let events move on with out them. Repubs have no such morals or show they have true morals and their followers don' t have any either.

[n2doc]

3. Maybe they should invite Palin

After all, she gets invites all the time.

[minnesota_liberal]

4. Whitman principal Alan Goodwin continued ...

"Graduation is a time for everyone to put on their rose-colored glasses and pretend that our graduates will be entering a perfect world, where never is said a discouraging word, and the deer and the antelope play."

[spiritual_gunfighter]

7. What if Sarah Palin had said this?

Would we be having the same reaction?

[WileEcoyote]

32. Helen isn't universally known as a dumbfuck

Palin is unprincipled and stupid. Whereas Thomas is held to a higher standard.

So yes, Thomas should withdraw as the commencement speaker.

We can judge Liberals by the way they deal with the transgressions of their brethren. The GOP keeps assholes like Palin around for decades. However say the wrong thing in a Liberal medium? You get bounced.

I think this is fair otherwise we get more and more Rod Blagojevich's running around with their foot in mouth.

[No Elephants]

38. (a) Thomas did wthdraw. (b) Please see Reply 35.

[liberation]

75. How is Helen Thomas even remotely similar to Rod Blagojevich?

[liberation]

68. Alan "Goodwin" I can't think of a more ironic last name for this situation

LOL

[polly7]

5. Helen Thomas has proven who she is as a human being.

One mistake will not ruin her, she's got more empathy and understanding of what the Palestinian people, and every suffering population on earth ..... are enduring, in her little finger than the rest of them combined. BTW ....... she isn't the only one asking, I've read for years comments wondering why an occupied nation was 'given' away when other countries could have easily accepted these millions with little trouble. Maybe the question should be why every nation in the world didn't try to work out a better solution to offer them refuge.

[iamjoy]

They Tried That Before

You ask why other nations in the world didn't try to work out a better solution to offer the millions refuge.

Yeah, they'd tried that before. When the Romans took over what is now Israel, the Hebrews were scattered throughout the world. For almost 2,000 years, they were subject to prejudice, discrimination and persecution simply because they were Jewish. As the tide of hatred rose and fell in various countries, many Jews moved around to try to go where they were accepted, or at least where the prejudice wasn't as severe. After WWII, it was at the point where the Jewish people really didn't trust other nations to look out for them. Even the US wasn't blameless. In 1939, the St. Louis could not find refuge in America for 900 Jews fleeing the Nazis. They ended up going back to Europe. keep in mind that the US is somewhat unusual in having no official religion, as many other nations do. Jews became convinced that the only way their freedom and security was ensured was to have their own homeland.

Of course, I'm not so sure this Israel thing is working out so well either. Freedom and security?

[No Elephants]

27. No one denies Jews were persecuted. The only issue is, if the Holocaust proved that they needed

land for their own nation, why was it just to Palestinians that the land given the Jews was Palestine, rather than land from the perpetrators of the Holocaust? Palestinians had been persecuted, too, and they probably had, over the millenia, persecuted Jews less than most other peoples had.

Answer. It was not just.

[iamjoy]

53. Good Question

It does seem like the world tried to compensate for the injustice done to Jews by perpetrating an injustice on the people living in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917, but modern Zionism really began in the late nineteenth century and the idea of a homeland for the Jews was seen as a solution to the problems in Europe. Imperialism was still somewhat fashionable then, so the consideration that other people lived in Palestine wasn't seen as insurmountable. Jewish immigration to Palestine picked up following the Balfour Declaration, although the British still imposed quotas - maybe they weren't totally insensitive to the existing native population. I guess you could say after WWII, the pressure to provide the Jews a homeland really increased. As for the Jews, after facing death camps, survivors weren't easily deterred by Britain's attempts to stop them, or to control Palestine. The UN agreed to partition Palestine. However, the Arab neighbors refused to recognize Israel, and tried to destroy the infant state.

I guess the UN tried to correct the injustice of hundreds of years of Anti-Semitism by creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In so doing, perhaps they created another injustice to the people living there. At this point, though, over 60 years since Israeli independence and almost 100 years since the Balfour Declaration, wouldn't it be another injustice to kick out the Jews? What land would you give them now? Perhaps following WWII a case could have been made for seizing territory from Germany, but that would not have satisfied spiritual Jews who identify with Jerusalem. Besides, by not taking land from the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the world could convince itself it wasn't be vengeful. The people living in Palestine didn't really control that land, it had been part of the British Empire.

Perhaps throughout most of modern history Arabs in Palestine have been kinder to the Jews than Christian Europeans, however, for the past hundred years or so, some want to see the Jews annihilated. Their goal is no different than Hitler's. They believe there's a secret international Jewish conspiracy for global domination. We're now at a chicken or egg scenario (pardon the cliche) where it's hard to tell if Muslim hatred of Jews is because of anger at Israel, or if anger at Israel is really just thinly veiled anti-Semitism. I realize that not all anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic. Critics of Israel have some valid points. By the same token, some criticism is nothing more than hatred of Jews. That is, although Israel's actions give people justification for hatred, the sentiment would exist regardless.

[VermeerLives]

66. So why don't the Arab nations take the Palestinians?

Israel is a tiny speck in the Middle East. Why doesn't Jordan take them? Why not Egypt (which also prevents these boats from coming into Gaza, by the way)? Why does it have to be on Israel's shoulders to accommodate them? Because nobody wants them, not even their Arab brothers.

Helen Thomas comes from Lebanese Christians. So it's truly sad that she has forgotten what happened to her ancestral home, which was once a Christian nation. After the Lebanese Civil War, Israel gave refuge to the South Lebanese Army (SLA) and their families, and gave them financial aid just like they would any immigrant. I'm surprised Thomas has forgotten that.

[liberation]

70. I think you need to refresh your modern history of Lebanon pronto

As you seem to have a very warped information on the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.

As to why bordering states do not take Palestinians, well... actually they sort of did. There were, and still are, large number of Palestinian refugee camps through those states. Arafat for example lived most of his life abroad in refugee camps away from Palestine. The problem is that Egypt, Jordan, etc, are not that rich, and such an influx of refugees put a real strain in their internal politics/economies. Thus making the Palestinians a real hot potato issue.

Other richer nations like Saudi Arabia for example, have an agenda, and even though they could very well help the Palestinians, they have far more use for them as pariahs. Same goes for Iran et al. They much rather have a nation of Pariahs so that they can blame all their ills (even domestic ones) on that great Satan that is Israel.

There is also the issue, that even though these countries share the same religion and some cultural commonalities, they are at the end of the day very different societies and countries altogether. It is like asking why the US does not simply take all the Mexicans since we are in the same hemisphere, and what the heck we have the same taste in food, no?

The real victims in all this are the Palestinians, who are in no other terms: Fucked.

[VermeerLives]

79. I was asking a rhetorical question

"As you seem to have a very warped information on the conflict between Israel and Lebanon."

No, I don't. You are absolutely correct in the answering of the question, however. The Palestinian people are being used as political pawns by these other countries, who don't want them, to further their own agendas. Furthermore, their leaders are enriching themselves (and look at Arafat's wife in Paris, for example) and doing nothing to help them.

[leftynyc]

19. Maybe if she wrote

a column in another country - you'd be right. But she writes for this country and not only our politicians, but our populace greatly sympathizes with Israel more than the Palestinians - so that wont help her here. She's finished as a journalist.

[xchrom]

6. Well, that's genuinely too bad. Nt

[asjr]

8. We used to send her roses because she was

not afraid to speak her mind. Her remark was ill-advised but I don't see anyone stopping Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney, Rand Paul, etc. from continuing to speak out. Has anyone read her speech? It would probably have been a very good one without anything devisive about it. She has been the only "newsperson" to question GWB about his tenure as president. He was afraid of her. I hope some news organization hires her. She is pretty darn rare in this age. An 80 year-old woman of Arab descent who said something many people in this country and elsewhere have said is paying the price for using her right to speak out.

[mbperrin]

12. Or when Shrub was so gleeful about waterboarding the other day.

No negative comment from any quarter that I saw, But by all means, let's get down on Helen Thomas - who needs her? Dick Cheney's always available.

[goclark]

24. Correction: Helen Thomas (born August 4, 1920)

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

Those nine years make a lot of difference.
I'm a Senior with a mother that will be 92 in August.
I'm a pretty close observer of friends of my Mom's in that age group.
Friends that don't have anywhere near the stress/deadlines that Helen faces on a daily basis.

There are rare 89+ year olds that are vibrant emotionally and physically to withstand the day to day pressure that she faces.

Not saying she is not one of the rare ones.... but I would be surprised if she is able to function like she did when she was 80 yrs.

On Edit: I joined in sending roses to Helen.

[asjr]

25. Thanks. I should have put her at 80-plus. I knew she

was older but I didn't realize she was at that age. I'm 78 and sometimes am forgetful.

[goclark]

34. I'm 68 and things get mighty tough sometimes

I am quick to make a decision if I don't like something.

Many times, my mouth is ahead of my mind.

I don't suffer fools well ~ glad GW is no longer President. : )

[Bossy Monkey]

9. Obligatory gratuitous "Room 222" reference:

But what did Pete, Alice and Bernie say?

[Laughing Mirror]

11. Perhaps Avigdor Lieberman can replace Helen

And just for starters, he can warm up the atmosphere by telling the students why he proposes nuking Gaza, why he believes that the many thousands of Palestinian prisoners should be bused to the Dead Sea and drowned, why he believes Arabs should pledge allegiance to a Jewish state, "no loyalty, no citizenship ..."

He's got all kinds of entertaining solutions that the graduates at this very elite high school right outside of Washington should definitely hear.

And for inspiration to the new graduates, surely they would love to hear the story of how he was able to transform himself from a nightclub bouncer in Moldavia to Israel's foreign minister.

[Wizard777]

15. Their loss.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Perhaps they can find another anti-semetic bigot to replace her

[Wizard777]

20. How about replacing her with an American killing IDF Commando?

Then he can shoot the kids in the face with tear gas canisters for kicks.

[No Elephants]

33. Believing Palestinians were unjustly displaced to create Israel does not make one

an anti-Semitic bigot.

On edi. Please see also, Reply 35.

[Betty]

39. maybe Pat Buchanan is free that day

he's way more of a bigot than she could ever hope to be.

[HEyHEY]

55. How is she anti-semtic? Cause she spoke out for another viewpoint?

You know, in Canada, when Quebecors get all nationalistic, we don't call them "Anti-English" stop your fucking whining. It's so tiresome.

[sabrina 1]

60. In this country that wouldn't be hard to find. Lots of Muslim

haters here, but no one seems to mind that racism. This whole thing is just silly. It is faux outrage mainly to distract from what Israel did last weekend. While it may occupy a few people here, the rest of the world is not as easily distracted from the real problem of the killing of nine unarmed people on a humanitarian mission.

Helen Thomas is one of the best journalists we have in this country. I have a feeling she will do just fine.

I'm still waiting for the outrage over the killing of a U.S. citizen, you know, someone is dead, it wasn't just a comment, it was a killing of a young person who was born in this country. I guess that's okay with you? Killing U.S. citizens gets me a lot more angry than anything someone might have to say no matter how much I disagree with it. And from what I have seen, I am not alone. Enjoy your misplaced outrage. You'll be taken seriously when you show even half the outrage over the killing of those peace-makers.

[liberation]

71. They don't have to aim that high, maybe someone who can spell semite correctly will suffice.

[civilisation]

21. It is not racist to speak out against a state,.

a state is not a race nither is a religion. Israel was created by violence and is maintained by violence. Any 2000 year old claim to anything is utterly ridiculous. The mothers side of my family is french, they came to America in the 1700s can I go to France today and claim "My ancestors used to live here,. right here on this spot. I now claim this as mine, and who ever lives there must get the hell out, or I kill them!" Some how I don't think that is how it works. People are persecuted all over the world, for any number of reasons, none of them justify action like of those of the state of Israel.
Helen said nothing offensive, it only crosses a line of pure propaganda; that any speech critical of one religious group to carry out genocide on a people and to take there land, is somehow reasonable and justified. It is not. Consider the crap stated all the time in American media toward Muslums just as one example of many,. things much more inflamitor and hatefull and no calls for anything to be done about it, no one steps down or is asked to.

[mikelgb]

23. +1

[krabigirl]

51. Exactly. I stand by her.

[ensho]

22. I have her back. I heart Helen.

nt

[BeyondGeography]

26. Hard to imagine how she could have fucked up worse

She needs to alter the narrative with a very high-profile apology.

[No Elephants]

37. Having a different opinion about Israel than AIPAC's is the worst thing she could have done?

[BeyondGeography]

41. Cause only AIPAC thinks Jews shouldn't be returned to Germany and Poland

:dunce:

[No Elephants]

43. Straw man much?

[liberation]

72. Oh, I can think of much worse ways of fucking up...

... out of the top of my head, and focusing on that body part particularly, I dunno... she could have shot in the head an American kid in international waters for example.

That is a pretty big fuck up.

Oh, BTW, she already issued an apology... not that will really affect your very own narrative that much. But it is there.

[ixion]

30. Very sad. The AIPAC wins again.

:(

[No Elephants]

35. Thomas was asked her opinion and she gave it--Jews should not be in Palestine.

Then she was asked where they should go. And she said "home." Then, she was asked "Where's home?" And she said, "Where they came from. Germany, Poland....

I am sure that where Jews should go was not her point. Her point was that, in her opinion--which was solicited--Palestine should not have ceased to exist, period. And that view is held by many people, including many Jews. She should have left it at that, but she took the bait.

Do I agree with her? Maybe, in 1947, I would have. I don't know. But, in 2010, I definitely disagree with her.

Was what she said anti-Jew? No. It was anti-Israel. Had she said Jews smell bad or Jews should die, I would be all over her in a NY heartbeat. But she said, they should leave Palestine. (Her term.) If the Brits were still occupying that land, would she have said something very similar? Probably so. If she did, would that make her anti-Brit? No.


The school disinvited her, which was its right. Others are dropping her as a speaker, too, which is their right, though I think it's sad and probably wrong. People in America should be free o have more than one opinion about Israel.


The claims on this thread and in the media about ovens are jaw-dropping, unless she also suggested a time-machine. Assuming that Germans or Poles of 2010 would put Jews into ovens, as did Nazis of the early 1940's is far more bigoted against a group of people (or two groups)than anything Ms. Thomas has ever said (that I know of, anyway). People saying those things need to check their own selves for bigotry.

[Betty]

40. well spoken

a voice of reason.

[No Elephants]

44. Thank you.

[HEyHEY]

56. Well said.

n/t

It's disgusting what is being done to her.

[BrklynLiberal]

64. Very well said.

[mulsh]

42. Perhaps a Lebsnese/American like Helen is old enough to

remember then the entire region was Palestine and under British control. Perhaps a Lebanese/American like that had relatives who property was "liberated" to make room for the new state of Israel and the predominately European settlers who came there after 1948. I mean if so many posters here can accuse her of being anti-Semitic I can speculate about the feelings of member another group the Semitic race.

It's a damn shame that something like this is forcing her to retire. It is our loss.

[WileEcoyote]

46. No it is not a shame

The lesson for public figures is a good one: Put brain in gear before engaging mouth.

[heliarc]

47. Helen's brain is entirely in gear.

The conflation of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Theocracy in this context is downright stupid.

Helen was neither Anti-Semitic, or prejudiced in her response to the questions. Israel's law of return is ethnically prejudiced to favor a race of people of one practicing religion and that is just about the only racist thing going in this argument. If we allowed people to come to the US and vote, but only if they are white and christian that would be considered a theocracy. In Israel, that is precisely how the law of return works. Others who enter Israel seeking citizenship have a hard time doing so if they aren't at least one quarter Jewish, and can only vote after living there for a number of years.

And the settlements are State run strategies to encroach and strangle the areas that Palestinians live in.. Jewish people from Israel and from other countries (some of whom may be persecuted... that is also true) purposely occupy territory that very often was bulldozed and taken from Palestinian hands. Little by little, the borders are edged out, and the Palestinian people are forced off their orchards and their homes.

So for Helen Thomas to say (rather imperfectly), that foreign born Zionist Jews who have an advantage over other ethnic groups in Israel, should think about returning home rather than crowding out indigenous populations of Palestinian people, is entirely logical in my book. Probably brave to say that in my opinion.

The Jewish people have seen terrible terrible persecution perpetrated against them in many places on earth. That in no way justifies their persecution of the people of Gaza and of Palestinians in Israel. It also makes almost offensive the prospect of a Theocracy that discriminates on the basis of ethnic, and religious identity. Israel is in many ways a dogmatic Theocracy and the discrimination therein is tragically ironic.

[WileEcoyote]

49. Your response reminds me of my favorite Edward Abbey quote:

“When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense”

What Helen Thomas said was ill advised. To put it mildly. Had she been on her "A" game that day he wouldn't have said it in the first place.

So she's bounced. I'm sorry for her, but regardless, good Liberals are held to a higher standard than that. As well we should.

All fine for Conservatives to say stupid, racist things but we don't allow this among our own public speakers.

Anyway I doubt she'll truly retire. My guess is that she'll go on and on in the talk show circuit and prosper there. Best wishes to her.

[heliarc]

50. If you had read what I said...

You might have noticed that I agreed with you that she didn't say what she did very well...

What you've said reminds me of an old Albert Einstein quote...

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18"

If you get to quote an NRA fan, I get to quote the Zionist who invented the Atom Bomb. Zionists are full of Contradictions. ;-)

[liberation]

74. who is this "we liberals" you speak of?

As far as I can tell Helen Thomas has never aligned herself with any specific political ethos.

She is of Lebanese ancestry, so maybe... just maybe this issue hits close to her heart.

What you are trying to say with that whole royal "we" is that conservatives and zionist can say whatever the fuck they want. Other semites and liberals better watch what they say.

As a "liberal" you make a fine reactionary apologist.

[liberation]

73. I am sure you will promptly exclude yourself from that standard whenever it is convenient...

[kgnu_fan]

45. I stand by Helen.

[heliarc]

48. I stand with Helen

See my post 47 if you do or don't agree.

[proteus_lives]

52. Good. She should retire from public life completely.

[EgyptianGirl]

54. Words are more disgusting than killing unarmed people

We all know that. You would rather be killed than to hear few words you don't like.

[HEyHEY]

59. This lambasting of her is trash.

She was asked her opinion. It's an opinion that many, not just "terrorists" agree with. And, this also proves that their is a bias toward Israel in the establishment(again).

Where I'm from we've had separatist movements. Yet, with the exception of one time I've never heard someone of prominence accused of racism because of their views on the subject (When Jacques Parizeu said they lost the referndum due to money and the ethnic vote). Maybe supporters of Israel need to grow up a bit. If someone disagrees with you they are not anti-semitic, they are a person of a different opinion whether you like it or not.

Is what she said untrue? Is Israel not largely made-up of European immigrants? Was it not created on land formerly known as Palestine?

THis is such a grey and muddy issue that simply calling someone a racist DOESN'T wash.

I'll miss helen, and you should too.

[Old Vet]

63. Shes been watching and personally involved........

In the injustices being done I think she just didn't phrase her anger correctly. I will miss her, But she slipped up in this time. I just don't know how to defend what she said, Although I understand her remark. I think anger and frustration won over her thought process in that slight moment, Of a otherwise brilliant career.

[HEyHEY]

69. I just hope the press leaves her alone now

there's no need to keep picking on an old lady who slipped up.

[Peace Patriot]

65. I heard the tape. She said, "...Poland, Germany AND AMERICA AND EVERYWHERE ELSE."

Why do people leave this out? She was questioning the basis of the creation of Israel, back in the day (and I do think her age is relevant to this, since she was a young, politically active woman when that occurred). She was referring to the U.S. and England NOT WANTING ALL THE JEWS FROM HITLER'S EUROPE to immigrate to their countries! That was a big reason for their support for creating Israel--along with keeping a western-controlled foothold in the Middle East, for the oil. We really shouldn't be naive about the motives of our own government or others. It's an interesting question: Why didn't the U.S./England give European Jews a chunk of Germany, or, say, Texas, or Scotland? Or, why didn't they take MORE Jewish immigrants and integrate them into U.S./English societies as so many Jews have successfully done? Thomas was speaking off the cuff, in a private conversation, as if that decision was still pending. It is not a realistic view today--especially considering the war profiteer involvement here and there, today--but it IS a reasonable, if archaic view, and it is NOT anti-Jewish. It is more like saying, Why didn't the English, French and Spanish stay home and NOT conquer the Americas and NOT displace, steal from, oppress and kill Native Americans? Further, Israeli Jews have SUFFERED from how this decision was made and implemented, by our leaders and by Israeli leaders. A lot (but not all) of Israel's troubles go back to this decision and especially to its implementation, compounded today of war profiteer involvement which militates against peace.

As for Poland and Germany, Israeli Jews would be a lot safer in those countries today than they are in Israel. And why are they so unsafe in Israel? A: How Israel was created. B: How the Palestinians were treated (and are still being treated). C: War is lucrative.

It's interesting why/how the remarks of this veteran journalist--one of the most respected people in her profession--have not prompted a national discussion of U.S. policy on Israel, of the mind-boggling expense of MILITARILY maintaining this country in the Middle East, and of Israeli policy toward Palestinians. Instead, she is treated as a pariah because she somewhat awkwardly stated a reasonable, if outdated, opinion.

Just a side note: I don't think Walt Whitman would care for this decision by "Walt Whitman High School." He was a free-thinker! Read his poems! He strongly advocated for the equality of women, sexual freedom and the virtues of Nature, and was a celebrator of American diversity. He was also adamantly anti-war. I think he would be appalled at the U.S./Israeli war establishment. It is inherently anti-democratic and unjust.

[liberation]

76. Because a lot of people are not interested in what Helen Thomas said or did not say

as much as they were thanking heavens that such an incredible gift felt on their lap to make sure we stopped talking about the fact that Israel just killed a 19 yr old American kid in international waters, and severely injured another one in firm land.

That is why we are talking about what some old lady may or may not have said, while completely ignoring the other "uncomfortable" recent news.

[Peace Patriot]

78. Well, that's probably true but even her defenders seem to forget what she actually said--

basically, why do Jews need Israel--this tiny state in the middle of hostile neighbors which requires trillions of dollars in U.S. military aid (or our war profiteers think it does) to defend itself. She said they could live ANYWHERE, not just Poland and Germany, also America and elsewhere. It's an outdated opinion in the sense that Israel has been an established state, just like Cuba, for more than half a century. It's time Israel's neighbors got used to it--and probably MANY people in the Middle East would like to co-exist peacefully. I think Helen was re-fighting an old issue, in her mind, back when Israel was founded, partly because the U.S. and England did NOT want floods of Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. Hers is a reasonable viewpoint, but not realistic. The question now is not where Israeli Jews could go, but how Israel can PEACEFULLY integrate into the Middle East and create a positive future for all. And THAT is something that is being RETARDED by war profiteers here and there, and by righting/corpo-fascist operatives, here and there. Israel's stance--as created by these war profiteers and corpo-fascists--as a sort of medieval fortress, armed to the teeth, is UNTENABLE. Peaceful integration into its region is an essential component of Israel's survival, and if people truly want it to survive--not as a war profiteer cash cow, not as a mainstay of the Forever War--they will promote peace, and find the way to peace and insist on PEACE. You don't get peace by taking other peoples' lands and livelihoods and penning them up in detention camps and making their lives miserable. You get endless war. You have to put anger and hatred aside, even if those feelings are justifiable. You have to negotiate. You have to look to the FUTURE. I think that Helen Thomas doesn't think that that is possible, and she may be right. There is TOO MUCH MONEY involved. Well, the Great Depression that the Bushwhacks landed us in may ultimately settle the matter. We simply won't be able to maintain the trillions of dollars in military support to Israel and maintain most of our war machine in the Middle East, and Israel will be forced into a better, long term policy. I hope that re-thinking happens sooner rather than later. This hysteria in the Israeli government and military about humanitarian aid ships, resulting in killing unarmed people on the open sea, may help precipitate a re-thinking. I hope it does.