Jeff, What do you think about Helen Thomas' comments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but it's not all peace, love, and happiness there. Right now IMO it kind of works because blacks have political power and whites have the economic clout. But when economic redistribution hits (and it should), there is going to be conflict just like elsewhere. And there are racial tensions today.

It is a great outcome for blacks, and not necessarily a bad one for whites, but Israelis would lose a lot that they want.

Is there no regard that the Palestinians have lost everything. They have lost their dignity, their homes, their jobs, their life, etc., etc., etc. They fight because they have everything to fight for and so little to live for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but it's not all peace, love, and happiness there. Right now IMO it kind of works because blacks have political power and whites have the economic clout. But when economic redistribution hits (and it should), there is going to be conflict just like elsewhere. And there are racial tensions today.

It is a great outcome for blacks, and not necessarily a bad one for whites, but Israelis would lose a lot that they want.

Is there no regard that the Palestinians have lost everything. They have lost their dignity, their homes, their jobs, their life, etc., etc., etc. They fight because they have everything to fight for and so little to live for.

There is a middle ground between nothing and a single state in which Jews are a minority. There is what is called the two state solution. I have quite a bit of regard for Palestinians. But I understand that Jews have been kicked around for a few thousand years now, in too many countries, not just interwar Germany. They do not trust their survival to anyone but themselves, and who can blame them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but it's not all peace, love, and happiness there. Right now IMO it kind of works because blacks have political power and whites have the economic clout. But when economic redistribution hits (and it should), there is going to be conflict just like elsewhere. And there are racial tensions today.

It is a great outcome for blacks, and not necessarily a bad one for whites, but Israelis would lose a lot that they want.

Is there no regard that the Palestinians have lost everything. They have lost their dignity, their homes, their jobs, their life, etc., etc., etc. They fight because they have everything to fight for and so little to live for.

There is a middle ground between nothing and a single state in which Jews are a minority. There is what is called the two state solution. I have quite a bit of regard for Palestinians. But I understand that Jews have been kicked around for a few thousand years now, in too many countries, not just interwar Germany. They do not trust their survival to anyone but themselves, and who can blame them?

Two states reminds me of separate but equal, which is ugly.

Look, lots of people have been kicked around for centuries. We can't go giving every group their own country. Heck African Americans, Native Americans, Roma to name a few have had it bad . Do we send the Roma to India, and remove tons of people from Mumbai and tell them to make room for the down trodden Roma? Yeah, that would go over really well.

Then, even with your own country, their is room for exploitation through colonialism and so on. Jews are not necessarily safe in Israel, with that concentration of people, it takes only one nasty bomb to destroy lives. That is actually one reason that I am in favor of one state. The more non Jews mingled in, the less the chance of a nasty WMD.

Why does correcting the wrongs wrt to Jews have to do with hurting another group?

[Anonymous]

I posted on off topic about whether or not she is senile. I'm thinking something's going on. It's not that she doesn't think that -- I don't know. But I've never seen her say anything so damaging before. She's too brainy to make a bald remark like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but it's not all peace, love, and happiness there. Right now IMO it kind of works because blacks have political power and whites have the economic clout. But when economic redistribution hits (and it should), there is going to be conflict just like elsewhere. And there are racial tensions today.

It is a great outcome for blacks, and not necessarily a bad one for whites, but Israelis would lose a lot that they want.

Is there no regard that the Palestinians have lost everything. They have lost their dignity, their homes, their jobs, their life, etc., etc., etc. They fight because they have everything to fight for and so little to live for.

There is a middle ground between nothing and a single state in which Jews are a minority. There is what is called the two state solution. I have quite a bit of regard for Palestinians. But I understand that Jews have been kicked around for a few thousand years now, in too many countries, not just interwar Germany. They do not trust their survival to anyone but themselves, and who can blame them?

Two states reminds me of separate but equal, which is ugly.

Look, lots of people have been kicked around for centuries. We can't go giving every group their own country. Heck African Americans, Native Americans, Roma to name a few have had it bad . Do we send the Roma to India, and remove tons of people from Mumbai and tell them to make room for the down trodden Roma? Yeah, that would go over really well.

Then, even with your own country, their is room for exploitation through colonialism and so on. Jews are not necessarily safe in Israel, with that concentration of people, it takes only one nasty bomb to destroy lives. That is actually one reason that I am in favor of one state. The more non Jews mingled in, the less the chance of a nasty WMD.

Why does correcting the wrongs wrt to Jews have to do with hurting another group?

Separate but equal describes how a minority was mistreated treated by the majority within one country. So it is more appropriate to think this is a possible outcome of your one Palestine solution. A two state solution aims to create separate countries, in which each group is its own majority.

As for the question of when a determined group deserves to form its own country, this is a very difficult political question, for which there is no set of rules. If you are the Republic of Georgia, should you be freed of the Soviet Union? Ok, so if you are a South Ossettian, should you be free of Georgia? and so on, and so on.

But in this particular case, the partition of palestine was done by the mandate of the United Nations and with the consent of the British, who had been governing it. So with a moral need due to the treatment of Jews during the war, the legal mandate of the UN an the backing of the British, the reality of hundreds of thousands of Jews living there, and the fact that they have successfully defended the territory for over 60 years, they have what it takes to make a claim to some part of Palestine.

All of this may seem entirely unfair to the Palestinians, but they have land and government, so there is a real possibility that one day two functioning states could co-exist side-by-side. If that doesn't meet your notion of right, then consider our own country. Do you feel motivated to leave this country, because it belongs to Native Americans? Their claim is just as strong as the Palestinians, even stronger in many regards. How do you resolve that contradiction?

None of this should be construed as a defense of Israel's policies towards WB an Gaza. I do not agree with any of it. But I do think that a two state solution, with shared control of Jerusalem, is the key to peace.

[Anonymous]

In case it is not obvious in my above post, the population number above refers to the Jewish population at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel. There are somewhere north of 7 million Jews there today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but it's not all peace, love, and happiness there. Right now IMO it kind of works because blacks have political power and whites have the economic clout. But when economic redistribution hits (and it should), there is going to be conflict just like elsewhere. And there are racial tensions today.

It is a great outcome for blacks, and not necessarily a bad one for whites, but Israelis would lose a lot that they want.

Is there no regard that the Palestinians have lost everything. They have lost their dignity, their homes, their jobs, their life, etc., etc., etc. They fight because they have everything to fight for and so little to live for.

There is a middle ground between nothing and a single state in which Jews are a minority. There is what is called the two state solution. I have quite a bit of regard for Palestinians. But I understand that Jews have been kicked around for a few thousand years now, in too many countries, not just interwar Germany. They do not trust their survival to anyone but themselves, and who can blame them?

Two states reminds me of separate but equal, which is ugly.

Look, lots of people have been kicked around for centuries. We can't go giving every group their own country. Heck African Americans, Native Americans, Roma to name a few have had it bad . Do we send the Roma to India, and remove tons of people from Mumbai and tell them to make room for the down trodden Roma? Yeah, that would go over really well.

Then, even with your own country, their is room for exploitation through colonialism and so on. Jews are not necessarily safe in Israel, with that concentration of people, it takes only one nasty bomb to destroy lives. That is actually one reason that I am in favor of one state. The more non Jews mingled in, the less the chance of a nasty WMD.

Why does correcting the wrongs wrt to Jews have to do with hurting another group?

Separate but equal describes how a minority was mistreated treated by the majority within one country. So it is more appropriate to think this is a possible outcome of your one Palestine solution. A two state solution aims to create separate countries, in which each group is its own majority.

As for the question of when a determined group deserves to form its own country, this is a very difficult political question, for which there is no set of rules. If you are the Republic of Georgia, should you be freed of the Soviet Union? Ok, so if you are a South Ossettian, should you be free of Georgia? and so on, and so on.

But in this particular case, the partition of palestine was done by the mandate of the United Nations and with the consent of the British, who had been governing it. So with a moral need due to the treatment of Jews during the war, the legal mandate of the UN an the backing of the British, the reality of hundreds of thousands of Jews living there, and the fact that they have successfully defended the territory for over 60 years, they have what it takes to make a claim to some part of Palestine.

All of this may seem entirely unfair to the Palestinians, but they have land and government, so there is a real possibility that one day two functioning states could co-exist side-by-side. If that doesn't meet your notion of right, then consider our own country. Do you feel motivated to leave this country, because it belongs to Native Americans? Their claim is just as strong as the Palestinians, even stronger in many regards. How do you resolve that contradiction?

None of this should be construed as a defense of Israel's policies towards WB an Gaza. I do not agree with any of it. But I do think that a two state solution, with shared control of Jerusalem, is the key to peace.

Honestly, if they could do it all over, they would have put emotions aside and been a lot more practical.
BTW, the reason we don't have to think about Native Americans is that we killed them all (something Hitler always admired). The only way that Israel can get rid of the Palestinian "problem" is to kill them. That will not happen, so Israel has to deal with it.

[Anonymous]

It would be convenient to say "well, we'd stick to our high ethical principles, but darn it the Indians are gone and nothing can be done." But as American Indians like to remind us, they are still around. We still screw them out of signed treaties to this day.

Case in point: http://native-american-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/native_band_files_suit_against_new_jersey

In February 2009, Chairman Ron Holloway of the Sand Hill Band of the Lenni Lenape Natives filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Newark, New Jersey against the State of New Jersey for the illegal seizure of lands, breaking treaties, and attempted genocide. Holloway explained, “The original Treaty of Easton of 1758 is still in force, as well as the original Quick Claim Deed that specifically state the Lenapes have the coast from Port Elizabeth to Delaware Bay up to the low water mark, and unfettered hunting rights throughout their original homeland, as well as rights to have 50 shillings for every tree cut. The Federal Government has never canceled our treaties. “

This would, among other things, give the tribe Atlantic City. If you say, well that's crazy, you can't do that after all this time, then you are making an argument that the presence of a people in a land over time carries some weight in the decision.

If you want to get some idea about how much litigation goes on even to this day, check out this site:

http://www.nativelegalupdate.com/

[Anonymous]

We have spent a lot of time speaking about rights, and intruding into other people's territory, while all the while horning in on a question that was directed only at Jeff. Are we all at fault, or did OP transgress by using this public space for a private communication?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that there are many supporters residing in the U.S. who help finance Israel that really do not want what you propose 15:03

I'm the dreamer of 15:03, and I am absolutely sure that you are right. But there were a lot of people here and in South Africa who thought Truth and Reconciliation was an unrealistic dream. It was, but the right dreamer came along. Probably won't happen again -- sigh!

Not that I disagree with your aspirations for a state that includes both Jews and Palestinians equally and democratically, but it wasn't Mandela who brought about the end of apartheid in South Africa. The white government saw the writing on the wall after many years of resisting international pressure, economic and sports boycotts, and facing its own demographic problem. I don't know the details but as I understand it, de Klerk, the president and a former supporter of apartheid, made the move to let Mandela out of jail and to negotiate the end of apartheid. I have a great deal of respect for Mandela because he chose to be a leader for the whole country and not just blacks but he wouldn't have been in the position he was in if there hadn't been many years of both armed and nonviolent resistance within the country and intense international pressure from abroad.

The reality is that there may be a Mandela in jail in Israel but we also need a de Klerk from the other side. There may be candidates for those two jobs out there but the situation within the area does not seem to be right just yet for them to emerge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that there are many supporters residing in the U.S. who help finance Israel that really do not want what you propose 15:03

I'm the dreamer of 15:03, and I am absolutely sure that you are right. But there were a lot of people here and in South Africa who thought Truth and Reconciliation was an unrealistic dream. It was, but the right dreamer came along. Probably won't happen again -- sigh!

Not that I disagree with your aspirations for a state that includes both Jews and Palestinians equally and democratically, but it wasn't Mandela who brought about the end of apartheid in South Africa. The white government saw the writing on the wall after many years of resisting international pressure, economic and sports boycotts, and facing its own demographic problem. I don't know the details but as I understand it, de Klerk, the president and a former supporter of apartheid, made the move to let Mandela out of jail and to negotiate the end of apartheid. I have a great deal of respect for Mandela because he chose to be a leader for the whole country and not just blacks but he wouldn't have been in the position he was in if there hadn't been many years of both armed and nonviolent resistance within the country and intense international pressure from abroad.

The reality is that there may be a Mandela in jail in Israel but we also need a de Klerk from the other side. There may be candidates for those two jobs out there but the situation within the area does not seem to be right just yet for them to emerge.

I agree with much of what you have sasid, but we seem to think that we can afford to wait for the right time. I have a suspicion that this whole thing will be taken out of our hands. I would not be surprised if there is a sudden change there that has nothing to do with the US.

[Anonymous]

I really hesitate to ask this question, but I figure I'll get plenty of views here ....

Why is what Helen Thomas said so offensive?

It seems to me like she just said that she thinks one group's claim (the Jews) over a disputed piece of territory is weaker than another group's claim (the Palestinians). I can understand why that's impolitic (taking sides in a fiercely contested issues), and really stupid (because the dispute is a really complex one that is more nuanced than she suggested). But I don't understand why it's so incredibly and obviously offensive. How is it any more offensive than someone expressing the view that the British should (or should not) get out of India, or the UK out of Ireland, or China out of Taiwan?

A lot of really smart and reasonable people from all walks of life and political spectra all seem to agree it was blatantly offensive. So I'm not trying to argue that it wasn't offensive -- I assume it's offensive, and I am just too naive and uneducated to understand why. Could someone please explain in a reasonable and measured way?

I've read this thread and searched on the internet for an explanation, but without much luck. I saw someone here posted on page 2-3 of this thread that Helen Thomas' comment suggests she thinks that Israel and Israelies shouldn't exist, but I don't think that's really what she was saying.

Can anyone help educate me? I'm not a troll; I just don't understand.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:IWhy is what Helen Thomas said so offensive?

I don't think her comments were anywhere near as offensive as they have been made out to be. I think this was seized on by people who were having trouble defending Israel's actions against the Free Gaza flotilla. It fits nicely with their narrative that everyone criticizing Israel is anti-Israel or anti-Semetic. That said, here is what I find offensive:

1) suggesting that Jews return to countries in which an attempted genocide had been waged against them is deeply offensive and insensitive;
2) ignoring those Israelis who were born in Israel and know no other land is offensive. Similarly, I oppose the deportation of the children of illegal immigrants in the US who are routinely sent to countries in which they have never previously been.
3) implied in her remarks is a belief that peace between Israelis and Palestinians is not possible. While that may not be offensive, I would expect more from her.

I think ethnic cleansing in any form is offensive. Whether it is Hutus against Tutsis, Israelis against Palestinians, or cranky old women against Israelis.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, you gave a nice articulated explanation of exactly why her comments were offensive. Why do you mitigate that by saying they were 'not as offensive as made out to be'? That's awfully relativistic. I'm pretty not PC, and I defend her right to say what the hell is on her mind unapologetically. That being said, her comments were DEEPLY offensive to many for EXACTLY the reasons you enumerated. I also defend her right to be criticized unapologetically.

[Anonymous]

Here's what she said (copied from Wikipedia):

On May 27, 2010, outside the Jewish Heritage Celebration Day event at the White House, the following exchange took place between Thomas and Rabbi David Nesenoff:

Nesenoff: Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today, any comments on Israel?

Thomas: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. (laughs)

Nesenoff: Oooh. Any better comments on Israel?

Thomas: (still laughing) Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not German, it's not Polish ...

Nesenoff: So where should they go, what should they do?

Thomas: Go home.

Nesenoff: Where is the home?

Thomas: Poland. Germany.

Nesenoff: So you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany?

Thomas: And America and everywhere else. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries? See?

Nesenoff: Well, yeah, are you familiar with the, the history of that region and what they're (unintelligable)?

Thomas: Very much. I'm of Arab background.

The offensive part is suggesting that the Jews return to Poland and Germany, two countries that tried to exterminate them.

The comment is also misleading regarding the origins of the Jews in Israel. I looked this up in Wikipedia (entry on Demographics of Israel) and found that most Israelis were born in Israel, and most of their parents did not come from Poland or Germany either. Only 35% of all Israeli Jews are first or second generation descended from European Jews. 25% of the Israeli Jews are actually recently descended from Arab Jews.

According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2008, of Israel's 7.3 million people, 75.6% were Jews of any background[1]. Among them, 70.3% were Sabras (Israeli-born), mostly second- or third-generation Israelis, and the rest are olim (Jewish immigrants to Israel) — 20.5% from Europe and the Americas, and 9.2% from Asia and Africa, including the Arab countries.[2]

About 35% of all Israeli Jews are recently (first or second generation) descended from European Jews, while 25% are descended from Jews who immigrated from Arab countries, Iran, Turkey and Central Asia. In addition, 45.6 thousands (0.8%) are, or are descended from Indian Jews, and 106.9 thousands (1.9%) - from Ethiopian Jews[2].