Standing Up for Helen Thomas - By Robert Parry

[kpete]

Standing Up for Helen Thomas

By Robert Parry
June 8, 2010

Long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas was right to apologize for a stupid remark she made about Israeli Jews leaving Palestine, but another ugly part of this incident was how her “mainstream” colleagues quickly turned on this 89-year-old icon.

Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz penned a retrospective on Thomas’s apology and sudden retirement from journalism, giving Thomas’s critics a free shot at denouncing her for a supposed lack of “objectivity,” a principle that has been as absent in the modern Washington press corps as frugality and common sense on Wall Street.

The simple truth is that the media’s acceptable bias on the Middle East is almost entirely in the opposite direction. Thomas, who is of Lebanese descent, has been one of the few Washington journalists who dared criticize Israeli mistreatment of Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere – and who views Arabs as people deserving of respect and human rights.

The dominant Washington media view, as articulated by the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorial section, has been that Israel is always right, except for some possible tactical misjudgments, and that Muslim organizations and nations that oppose Israel are “terrorists.”

...................

more:
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/060810.html

[laughingliberal]

1. K & R nt

[liberalmike27]

131. So True

I think Israeli soldiers could walk the streets of the tiny bits of land that are left to Palestine, and shoot babies in the head, and our media would be saying "Yep, that 2 year old had it coming to it, he was throwing lego blocks at the soldiers."

There is a completely disgusting lack of critical thinking on the things Israel does. I don't care if they are our best ally and are sucking Florida off, they still should not have carte blance in our media.

But then, as I've said, our media, especially television, and the huge majority of radio, goes from right-of-center, to extreme right in FOX, Rush, and Beck. Even MSNBC mercilessly stepped on her--another left-over long-time true democrat, purged.

I feel like it's a lot like the masquerade that we've got two parties so vastly different, put up by that same media, that similarly goes from Democrats, who act like Republicans, and Republians who are now in the insane asylum.

It's a nutty world now. Don't trust anything the jackels tell you on the corporate media, cause it's good for corporations, not people.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[Whisp]

3. K&R

[malaise]

4. Excellent article

Thanks Robert Parry

[EFerrari]

5. Parry is another treasure. K&R

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[n2doc]

6. That bias continues here too n/t

[defendandprotect]

46. Right and IMO in large part because there is too little real discussion of

this issue at DU -- when any real discussion begins it is quickly

shunted off to the I/P dungeon -- it's a large issue and it needs

more of an airing.

Ironically, just realized today that America is supply aid to Gaza . . .

didn't get all the details --

but at the same time we're subsidizing Israel and providing weapons.

[BlueMTexpat]

133. Yes, we provide some aid to Gaza

but yes, it is nothing comparable to what we provide the other side, especially in military aid and subsidies.
It's the lack of balance - and objectivity - that is the most worthy of comment. But, if one does comment, one is immediately decried, discredited or worse. Even Howard Dean got full blasts of antipathy when he mentioned the word "balance."
The Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust. The Lebanese were not responsible for the Holocaust. Yet they are the two populations who have suffered most directly because of it. And yes, there are some very bad people there who need to be brought to justice.
Helen Thomas likely had family members and close friends who have suffered and are suffering directly as a result of Israeli incursions into Lebanon. However distaseful, outright wrong and out-of-line her words were - and they were all of those - it is understandable that she feels they way that she does.
However I won't even speculate why we don't get anywhere near the same knee-jerk reaction when other populations, e.g., Arabs - whether Muslim or Christian - are repeatedly targets of slurs and misinformation. This happens daily.
********
Collective punishment is still a war crime, no matter who is doing the punishing. That's a fact. We can't just choose when it is and when it isn't.

[chimpymustgo]

144. The collective censorship on this issue is astonishing and frightening - whether it's DU or the

press corps.

And the unfairness against the Palestinians is heartbreaking.

[chimpymustgo]

145. The collective censorship on this issue is astonishing and frightening - whether it's DU or the

press corps.

And the unfairness against the Palestinians is heartbreaking.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[City Lights]

8. K&R nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

10. Thanks

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. I saw Frank Sesno on CNN --

talking about Helen this morning and he mentioned that her views on Israel and the Middle East were very well known to everyone who worked with her -- she made no secret about them.

So, she has has those views for decades and yet was still able to work with and have the respect of her fellow journalists.

Now I am even more pissed she retired.

[MicaelS]

12. If her views were "very well known to everyone"....

Then it begs the question of why no one outed her long before this? If there are so many pro-Israel journalists out there, I find it hard to believe that one of the conservative journalist would not have taken her down a long time ago. Are we seeing another double standard of the media? Where the media gives all of its fellow journalists a pass for views that they would delight in roasting a public official?

[EFerrari]

14. Are we going to start attacking people for their privately held views now?

[MicaelS]

21. Yes we are.....

I see people right here on this website doing it all the time. Plenty of variations of

"My family member or long time friend made bigoted, racist comments, and I am so angry it will be along time before we speak again, or I want nothing to do with them again."

"I'm estranged from my family because they all wingnuts, who do nothing but listen to Rush and Faux news."

[EFerrari]

22. Right. The distinction I was making is between public and private.

Which is what the McCarthy hearings were about in part, attacking public figures for the privately held views.

[defendandprotect]

51. Think you're onto a big discussion there . . . .

and probably wider than this thread --

but while I support Helen Thomas' comments -- given the shock and outrage of the

attack on the aid ship and presuming it was not what she might have said given some

time to make it clearer or pretty it up a bit -- I do know that I would hold right

wingers accountable if they were making some horrid comments about Palestinians.

Maybe time will smooth this out in our minds?

And, yes, a lot of liberals/progressives in government were lost due to the McCarthy

Era attack on the ideals of democracy --

[liberation]

32. Except that Helen Thomas is a public figure, and not a supposed family member of an anonymous poster

in an internet discussion board.

It is not that hard to grasp the difference really, unless your narrative depends on establishing such patently false equivalences.

[Chulanowa]

31. Because perhaps there is nothing worth outing?

Helen said something stupid. I imagine you never have, of course. Helen's views - that the Israelis are not always right, that Muslims and Arabs deserve equal consideration as human beings - are not shared by many, but nor are they questionable or worthy of "outing"

It's not like she sat at home licking a Swastika or something. Or you know, promoted Nazi authors on a radio show, or regularly talked about how there are too many jews on the supreme court or something.

[Chef Eric]

84. The problem is not that she thinks the Israelis "are not always right."

The problem is that she implied that there shouldn't be any Israelis.

[Chulanowa]

124. "She implied" - Is that so?

Interviewer: "Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today."
Helen: "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.
I: "Oooooh. Any better comments on Israel?"
Off-camera voice: "Helen is one"
H: "Remember; these people are occupied, and it's their land. It's not German , it's not Poland..."
I: "So where should they go, what should they do?"
H: "They could go home."
I: "Where is 'home'?"
H: "Poland...
I: "So the Jews..."
H: "...Germany..."
I: "So the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?"
H: "...And America, and everywhere else. Why push people out of there, who have lived there for centuries? See?"
I: "Now, are you familiar with the history of that region, and what took place?" (My note; She'd have been justified for whacking him upside the head for that question. Jeeze)
H: "Very much, I'm of Arab background"
I: "I see. You speak Arabic?"
H: "Huh? No, try."
I: "Oh, try? "
H: "Very little."
I: ""
H: "We were too busy americanizing our parents"
I: "Oh my goodness, learn a little Arabic, learn a little Hebrew..."
H: "All the best. Go for journalism, you'll never regret it"

So what I'm seeing here is that she's calling for an end to the occupation of Palestine; i.e., Gaza and the West bank. And telling the "settlers" in those regions to get out, to go home. And given that a lot of those "settlers" are in fact recent immigrants to Israel - particularly from the US and former Warsaw pact nations, dunno about Germany - many who emigrated solely for the chance to expand Israel beyond its borders, it seems a legitimate statement to me. it certainly does not implicate that Israel should be eradicated or removed or what have you.

However, this is what you're being told. It's the steady message that this famous, left-wing, Arab journalist is a filthy fucking antisemite. That's what you're being fed, at any rate. She's kept it well-hidden for the last sixty years she's been in the public eye, hasn't she? All along, she's been clutching her swastika and just waiting for a Rabbi to stick a camera in her face so she can unleash it for the world to see.

The only thing that makes what she said "antisemitic" or even anti-Israel, is the tacit assumption by you, the media, and many others beside, that Palestinians have no right to live on Palestinian land, that Jewish "settlers" have a divine - literally- right to kill, burn, mutilate, and terrorize Arabs in order to take that land, and that by criticizing this brutal system of Israeli Manifest Destiny, she is in fact tarring all Jews. This is even revealed by the interviewer; She speaks of Israel, and all he hears is "Jews."

[Chef Eric]

139. If she was talking about Jews in West Bank/Gaza, why did she say they should go to Germany/Poland?

Why not just say that they should go to Israel's pre-1967 territory, and stay there? The fact that she said they should go to "Germany and Poland" suggests that she doesn't think Jews have a right to live in that region at all.

And you have no right to say that I am assuming that "Palestinians have no right to Palestinian land." YOU are the one making assumptions. I have always thought that the Palestinians should have their own country in the West Bank and Gaza. Always.

[Chulanowa]

141. There's only one answer you want to hear and want to accept

That answer is "That filthy arabushim pigfucking whore is an antisemitic hag who wants to send all the Jews to the camps"

I mean really, maybe a little more invective than you would personally use, but that's clearly the sentiment you're expressing here. The only answer you will accept is that she is an evil, horrible old bag of a Jew-hating Arab. Any other explanation, and I might as well be speaking to a tree stump.

But I'll try anyway.

If she were talking about all Israel, why did she say Palestine? Why did she talk about the occupied territories? Have you ever actually heard anti-Israel invective from an actual antisemite, Chef Eric? it sounds fucking nothing like anything Helen Thomas said.

Why mention Germany or Poland? Same reason she mentioned America and "Everywhere Else" - it's a nicer way of saying "Wherever, I don't give a fuck." Maybe if she had taken a page from Betty White and just out and said that, it would have been for the better, and you'd be clutching your pearls for a whole different reason.

So my question then... Why aren't you hearing "America" or "Everywhere else"? My theory is that it simply doesn't fit the message that you're either peddling or straining to hear; that Helen Thomas, that wrinkled old bitch of a camel-jockey, wants to send Jews back to the Nazis and death camps. That's the narrative, and I've seen it repeated time and time again here on DU. Rather than hearing "I don't care" you've decided to make her an evil, scheming, hook-nosed old bitch who's been secretly holding back her vile antisemitic ravings for sixty years.

"Suggests that she doesn't think Jews have a right to live in that region at all"

"Implies." "Suggests." But never actually says, does she? In fact, the implication and suggestions are never actually implied nor suggested in the video of the interview. You're bringing your own cards to the table; Clearly she is a subhuman pro-Hamas cockroach slut, so even if she never actually said or implied or suggested or hinted at something, you're going to hear it there anyway.

As for me having no right, well sir, I have every right in the world. I've played this game before. First, you are taking an anti-occupation statement, and equating the occupation with the whole of Israel. From there, you leap that wide chasm and turn "Israel" into "Jews." So Helen's anti-occupation statement turns into Helen's antisemitic statement; "Get the hell out of Palestine" turns into "Get back into the oven."

And through it all is of course the assumption that she must hate Jews, she simply must hate them. No other explanation or rationale could possibly be considered. Any suggestion of such is to be derided and dismissed, the person who offers it shoveled onto the heap with Helen and the other witches as an Antisemite. That she is an evil, hateful, antisemitic bint is the only acceptable explanation, the only message fit to tell or hear, and no dissent will be heard.

Like I said, I've played this game before, Chef Eric. I've played it with actual, for-real antisemites. I've played it with racists of several stripes, and I am very familiar with the tactics of propaganda, groupthink, message framing, and self-reinforcement. I can tell that when you take offense to the notion that Israel should get the hell out of the occupied territories, take that to mean the entirety of Israel, and then slather all Jews in the world with the name of Israel... you're saying a little more than just "I'm upset at Helen Thomas' words"

On that note, if you haven't been able to tell, I am very convinced that this would be a non-story if Helen Thomas were of any other ethnicity. We've got a white guy pimping a book that is openly and blatantly antisemitic - no "implies" or "suggest" it's fucking saying Jews run the world and want to kill everyone - And what's sticking to him? Nothing. Not a goddamned thing. Does he apologize? No, he gets on the air, defends the book and the author and mocks those who have a problem with it... And nothing sticks. Media silence. A few posts on DU that quickly wash down to the back pages in a flood of wondering why Obama doesn't just stick his finger in BP's hole like some sort of latter-day Dutch Boy.

Helen Thomas says something completely valid, with a poor choice of countries to add to her "wherever" list, and you would think she just sodomized and raped a kitten. She's on the news regularly as the "controversy" is covered. Reams and reams of bandwidth are dedicated to her great offense in suggesting that israel get the hell out of Palestine. Three threads about her seem to be on every page of DU, six pages back, with constant bumps, and people like yourself rolling snowballs down the hills to see how big they'll get.

Why the difference? Even if you think what Helen Thomas said was bad or wrong or whatever negative adjectives you want to use... Isn't the guy citing and defending a text that incites violence against Jews worse? So why the different treatment?

Because, as she said, she's of Arab background.

[Chef Eric]

142. Boy, you just LOVE to tell me what I am really hearing, really thinking, really saying.

You know, it's not very conducive to communication. Nevertheless, I will try to communicate with you once again.

First of all, you are wrong to assume that I've got some kind of a problem with anyone who says that Israel should get the hell out of the occupied territories. I too think that Israel should get the hell out of the occupied territories, meaning that I think all of the Israelis that are living there should MOVE TO PRE-1967 ISRAEL.

But again, that is not what Helen Thomas said, is it? She said that they should go back to Germany, Poland, the United States... presumably wherever they "came from." In doing this, she has suggested and implied that they have no right to live anywhere in that region at all.

Yes, I have a problem with what she is SUGGESTING and IMPLYING. So what? Why does this bother you so much? And why do you assume that my opinion of Helen Thomas is in any way comparable to my opinion of someone who would rape a kitten? And why do you assume that my opinion of Helen Thomas is influenced in any way by her heritage or ethnicity? Why do you make one assumption after another, about ME, yet criticize me for what you think are MY assumptions?

And why are you so concerned that Helen Thomas is being treated too harshly, as compared to Glenn Beck, who is getting away with publicizing a blatantly anti-semitic book. What kind of argument is that? Glenn Beck never had any credibility with me or anybody I know anyway, so why should I be upset over that? On the other hand, Helen Thomas did have credibility with me, which is why I found her words upsetting.

If you are really going to try to communicate with me, you should stop making so many assumptions.

[Chulanowa]

166. And I have a problem with what you are suggesting and implying

So what is your problem with that?

"If you are really going to try to communicate with me, you should stop making so many assumptions."

And yet, that's all that your position is based on. Assumptions of suggested implications that Helen Thomas said what you want her to say, rather than what she actually said.

Why do I assume that your opinion of Helen Thomas is influenced by her race? Well, you're already showing some pretty bigoted train of thought when you turn "Occupied territory" into "all of Israel" and then turn "Israel" into "Jews." But more than that, it's because "Helen Thomas is an antisemite" is the only answer you're willing to consider. it is the only possibility, in your mind. She simply must be an antsemite, there is absolutely no other possible argument.

Even though she never actually said anything like what you are attributing to her, you demand that it be heard. You attribute it to "implication" and "suggestion" because you know that she actually said nothing of the sort, but still, she simply has to be a raving antisemitic lunatic.

So... Why must it be so? Why is this the only possible explanation, to the point where you have to attribute things she never said or implied to her. Why is this the only possible explanation? Why is it so utterly inconceivable that Helen Thomas did not actually mean what you are accusing her of?

There's no logical reason, actually. So we have to look for illogical reasons. And what do we find? Well, did you know Arabs are all antisemites? You find it in the news. You see it in popular culture. There are websites such as palwatch, chronwatch, debka, and many others that "expose" how hateful the Arab race is towards the Jewish race. So of course Helen Thomas hates Jews. She's just been very good at covering it up all this time (because Arabs are wily and cunning too, of course). If she says something odd on the subject, then the immediate answer is "AHA! I knew it, that dirty Arab hooker hates Jews, I knew it all along!"

Remember the Unibomber, Chef Eric? when he was blowing shit up, the FBI profile had a dark-complexioned man with tightly curled hair and a moustache. Frankly he looked like the Syrian president in a hoodie. They stated repeatedly that they were "probably" looking for a middle eastern or muslim man. It never entered the heads of the FBI or especially the media, that it might not be an Arab, or even a Muslim. he simply had to be, because that's just the way it was. Same with the Murrah City bombing. Initial speculation was that we were looking at "An extremist islamic cell; this has Hezbollah all over it." Even when we had the big reveal and it was some ugly irish dude (much to the constant surprise of media heads) they still insisted that Muslims and Arabs had to be involved. Tim McVeigh was an Iraqi operative. Tim McVeigh had received training from hamas. Tim McVeigh was intimately close with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The message was pounded, this good ol' Christian American white boy had to be the pawn in some big shadowy Arab conspiracy. There were similar "theories" when Ted Kazcinsky was dragged out of his plywood shack. Eric Rudolf got the same free pass. because only Arabs and Muslims do such things, was the message.

What you hear constantly from the media is that Arabs and muslims are bad people (just as you hear that blacks are thugs and criminals). it's pounded into your head. So when we have Helen Thomas saying something even a little odd regarding Israel... Well suddenly calling her an antisemite is the only possible explanation for it, isn't it? She can't be an 89 year old woman having a brain fart (Not ageist, it's not like any of us have never said something weird or dumb) it has to be nefarious and sinister, doesn't it? And the reason why is plainly because she's an Arab.

Maybe you're not a racist. As you mention, I don't know you; even so I doubt you go out and act like Pamela Geller or some of our other posters here on DU. However it's apparent to me that you're very eager to parrot the meme and assumption of the evil, dastardly Arab, even if you don't really know you're doing it.

As for Glen beck, I was using him to illustrate the point, not asking that you give a shit about him. Compare the two. There's a media frenzy over Helen Thomas saying something that some people think "implies" a racist statement. But we have other media figures saying openly antisemitic shit... and not getting any heat for it. The key is, they are not Arabs. Or perhaps Mel Gibson was shamed for their sins or something. Fact is, the only possible answer for helen is that she is a filthy antisemit.. .While Glen Beck at least gets the benefit of the doubt.

And yes, it's because of the difference in race.

[modestybl]

116. She thinks that the state of Israel was a mistake, and I agree...

... the state of Israel was founded on a terrible injustice that has never been addressed. The deaths of innocent civilians seems to not register with Israelis as long as those deaths are Palestinian. The outright bigotry that justifies the starving of children in the Gaza strip is hard to stomach.

I wish the state of Israeli did not exist. There will be war until the end of time as long as we support Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. And it will be MY tax dollars that will contribute to this sad state of affairs.

There is no justification of the Likkud party's politics of annihilation.

[nightgaunt]

189. She was talking about the inequality between them

Israel has the right to return for any Jew even if their family has never lived there. For the Palestinians they can't even come back to their own houses. (Before they are torn down and Israelis come to live there now claiming their JHVH given right to live there no matter where they actually came from.) That was her point but she made it very poorly. but that is what I got out of it. Didn't everyone else?

There is no "right" to exist. You make it yourself. So has Israel, so must Palestine. Talking about rights to exist is a racist point of view. Show me any country's "right" to exist, please?

However the Old Testament JHVH policy of annihilation, as was with the story of Canaan, must be stopped. No one has such a right yet the Messianic Zionist in the USA and the Israeli Zionist fanatics in charge of Israel see it as such.

[defendandprotect]

49. Thought the questioning of her in that video was a bit odd on reflection.....

will have to go back and see what the actual question was --

but also wondering what others said -- they suggested they were asking "everyone."

[Chulanowa]

170. We'll never hear from anyone else

Rabbi Cheech here is using this video to launch his own website into the prime time. It's an attempt to "bring down" a media icon in order to elevate himself. While frankly I imagine that he could have done "gotcha" just as well with Katy Couric or George Will (who for some reason remains "respected") the message would not have caught on as easily with hte public if that were the case.

[Carolina]

13. K&R

great article. Robert Parry is a gem. I hope I live to see the day when white, middle America wakes up and realizes how its tax dollars and the blood of its young men have been used by and for Israel!

[Laughing Mirror]

15. Good to hear intelligent and brave colleagues speaking up

Another informed defense of Helen Thomas was by former Senator Abourezk (D-SD) today on Democracy Now. Watch it if you can.

[Catherina]

16. And there you have it

"Thomas, who is of Lebanese descent, has been one of the few Washington journalists who dared criticize Israeli mistreatment of Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere – and who views Arabs as people deserving of respect and human rights."

Rec'd with a thank you to Robert Parry

[KharmaTrain]

17. The Disconnect...

Actually several in this unfortunate incident.

The first is what Helen said. Yes, she has stood up for what she sees as injustice in the Middle East and for the most part she is right. There is extremism on all sides that has prevented any honest dialogue or peaceful coexistance from happening. It's a lifelong frustration that I feel and can relate to how it must feel from her perspective. The disconnect is when that frustration turned into words that were intended to inflame and offend rather. While she appologized, words do have consequences. It doesn't discount all the good work she's done but it does show a side that crossed a line in an area that is short on tolerance to begin with.

The other disconnect is how her words were covered. Yes, there was a vendetta in the corporate media...many who couldn't hold back their long time contempt for Helen and were the first to not just throw her under the bus (they've done that endlessly for the past 30 years) but piling on with glee. While I was offended with her remarks, I was even more offended seeing a war criminal, Ari Fliescher, rushed to the nearest camera to do the corporate's beating up. Her appology never had a chance.

And in the end, what do we have? A lot of hurt feelings and more food fights. Instead of shedding light on this complicated and emotional issue, it pushed more heat.

[sabrina 1]

75. Ari Fleischer, propagandist for war crimiinals,

leaker of the name of an undercover agent, couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon. However, Helen survived the Bush administration despite being sent to the back of the room.

Sad that she couldn't survive a Democratic WH. Her remarks during the Bush administration were called 'anti-American' when she questioned the legality of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Many of the same people currently vilifying her, cheered for her then. They did not agree that she was anti-American. Nor was she. She was anti-illegal war and occupation.

[Peregrine Took]

80. Low, low POS. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

94. Well said.

[inna]

18. kr+45

[uppityperson]

19. K&R

[blm]

20. Thank you Robert Parry....

and kpete.

Parry allows his articles to be posted in full at DU.

[glitch]

23. Thank you Robert Parry -- one of the last of the genuine journalists.

Which is why he was one of the first to end up on the Net. Corporate journalists and their followers consider that something to sneer at, in reality it's a badge of honor.

[Spheric]

24. K&R /nt

[jacksprat]

25. Criticize Israel?!

Daily, mainstream journalist refer to Muslims as terrorists. Helen Thomas should not have apologized--nor fired. Now she just looks to the same biased media as representing "anti semitism," which she is not.

[Chef Eric]

86. How is not anti-semitic to say that the Jews should "go back to Germany and Poland"? nt

[Recursion]

98. Reverse that question. How *is* it anti-semitic?

I think it's a dumb idea, but I don't see how it's conceivably anti-semitic.

[Chef Eric]

109. There has been a continuous Jewish presence in that land for thousands of years.

Jews have a right to live there.

Furthermore, if she can't see that Jews have a right to live there (which I find outrageous), then why did she have to single out Germany and Poland as the countries to which the Jews "should go"? These were the countries where the most gruesome death camps were situated, where millions of Jews were starved and worked to death. Would it not have sufficed to say that the Jews should go back to Hungary, and Romania, and wherever else their recent ancestors came from?

There, I answered your question, even though my question remains unanswered. I will ask again. How is not anti-semitic to say that Jews should "go back to Germany and Poland"?

[German]

136. But are the israelis jews of today from the holy land?

There is a rarely discussed theory about the roots of the jewish people of today. It is written in the book The Thirteenth Tribe; The Khazar Empire and its Heritage By Arthur Koestler.
Some quotes:

This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in A.D. 740 converted to Judaism. Khazaria, a conglomerate of Aryan Turkic tribes, was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Han, but evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the craddle of Western (Ashkenazim) Jewry...
The Khazars' sway extended from the Black sea to the Caspian, from the Caucasus to the Volga, and they were instrumental in stopping the Muslim onslaught against Byzantium, the eastern jaw of the gigantic pincer movement that in the West swept across northern Africa and into Spain.
Thereafter the Khazars found themselves in a precarious position between the two major world powers: the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium and the triumphant followers of Mohammed. As Arthur Koestler points out, the Khazars were the Third World of their day, and they chose a surprising method of resisting both the Western pressure to become Christian and the Eastern to adopt Islam. Rejecting both, they converted to Judaism.

The second part of Mr. Koestler's book deals with the Khazar migration to Polish and Lithuanian territories, caused by the Mongol onslaught, and their impact on the racial composition and social heritage of modern Jewry. He produces a large body of meticulously detailed research in support of a theory that sounds all the more convincing for the restraint with which it is advanced.
Mr. Koestler concludes: "The evidence presented in the previous chapters adds up to a strong case in favour of those modern historians - whether Austrian, Israeli or Polish - who, independently from each other, have argued that the bulk of modern Jewry is not of Palestinian, but of Caucasian origin. The mainstream of Jewish migrations did not flow from the Mediterranean across France and Germany to the east and then back again. The stream moved in a consistently westerly direction, from the Caucasus through the Ukraine into Poland and thence into Central Europe. When that unprecedented mass settlement in Poland came into being, there were simply not enough Jews around in the west to account for it, while in the east a whole nation was on the move to new frontiers" ( page 179, page 180).
"The Jews of our times fall into two main divisions: Sephardim and Ashkenazim.
The Sephardim are descendants of the Jews who since antiquity had lived in Spain (in Hebrew Sepharad) until they were expelled at the end of the fifteenth century and settled in the countries bordering the Mediterranean, the Balkans, and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. They spoke a Spanish-Hebrew dialect, Ladino, and preserved their own traditions and religious rites. In the 1960s, the number of Sephardim was estimated at 500,000.
The Ashkenazim, at the same period, numbered about eleven million. Thus, in common parlance, Jew is practically synonymous with Ashkenazi Jew." ( page 181).
In Mr. Koestler's own words, "The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated."

Content:

Map of the Khazar Empire

The Lord's Prayer in the Khazar language

PART ONE: RISE AND FALL OF THE KHAZARS

I - RISE

II - CONVERSION

III - DECLINE

IV - FALL

PART II - THE HERITAGE

V - EXODUS

VI - WHERE FROM ?

VII - CROSS-CURRENTS

VIII - RACE AND MYTH


APPENDICES

APPENDIX I - A NOTE ON SPELLING

APPENDIX II - A NOTE ON SOURCES

APPENDIX III - THE "KHAZAR CORRESPONDENCE"

APPENDIX IV - SOME IMPLICATIONS - ISRAEL AND THE DIASPORA

REFERENCES

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

The author:

Mr. Koestler was an Ashkenazi Jew and took pride in his Khazar ancestry. He was also a very talented and successful writer who published over 25 novels and essays. His most successful book, Darkness at Noon, was translated in thirty-three languages.
As expected, The Thirteenth Tribe caused a stir when published in 1976, since it demolishes ancient racial and ethnic dogmas...At the height of the controversy in 1983, the lifeless bodies of Arthur Koestler and his wife were found in their London home. Despite significant inconsistencies, the police ruled their death a suicide..

[Chef Eric]

138. Yes, they are. DNA evidence has debunked the "Khazar" theory.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#DNA_Evidence

A 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences, compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."<53> According to Nicholas Wade, "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."<54>

More links here:

http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/21499/

http://www.csjo.org/pages/essays/essaykhazars.htm

[cali]

186. Not the Khazar shit again.

It's been exposed as bullshit repeatedly for years.

[Recursion]

140. Umm.. no you didn't

You told me why it's a stupid idea, which I already agreed with.

[stranger81]

151. She didn't just say "Germany and Poland." She said "Germany, Poland, the United States"

and whereever else they came from. Focusing exclusively on "Germany and Poland" and plucking those three words out of their context to try to make her statement look antisemitic (when, if read in context, nothing of the sort is implied) is disingenuous at best.

[orbitalman]

26. Tell all the damn pundits (both R & D) I support Helen ....

and I am NOT anti-semite.

[Mugweed]

27. You'd think she murdered 9 people in international waters, the way people reacted.

NT

[sabrina 1]

135. You would, wouldn't you?

The WH seems to think what she did was worse than the killing of U.S. citizen. they condemned her, but are the only country in the world who have not condemned the killers. Something is really wrong with that.

[MissDeeds]

28. K&R

:kick:

[chill_wind]

29. K & R. n/t

[JDPriestly]

Helen Thomas was way, way out of line.

Suggesting that the Jews in Israel go back to the European countries in which they were persecuted for centuries? You've got to be kidding. That's like suggesting that Armenians go back to Turkey.

Helen Thomas was right on many issues over the years, but this comment was so over the top.

It really is blaming the victim. The rape victim wore too short a skirt. The car owner should not have parked it in such a shady neighborhood. Blame the victim. The Israelis were victims of centuries of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.

Should their be a negotiated peace beetween the area that was designated as Transjordan and that we now call Palestine including Gaza and the West Bank and Israel?

Yes, there should and all parties to it should insure the security of Israel and whatever other state or states are created within agreed upon borders.

But, before negotiations can be successful, all parties have to agree that they will enforce laws that guarantee the security of all the other nations and that they will discourage third parties from threatening or attacking the security of any of the parties to the agreement. That just seems like the basic law of neighbors.

Good fences (borders), fences (or borders) that all respect, make for good neighbors.

Helen Thomas should do more than apologize. She should make a pilgrimage to the sites in Europe where, during the Holocaust, millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents and others were brutally murdered. Once she understands the magnitude of the crimes that were committed across Europe against Jews, she just might understand why there is an Israel -- that is if she has any heart, any soul at all.

And I suggest that any of you who question the right of Israel to exist as a haven for the Jewish people also visit the Holocause sites -- as many as you can take, not just one.

[defendandprotect]

56. Suffering is suffering whether you are a Jew or a Palestinian --

Palestinians had nothing to do with persecution of Jews in Europe . . . .

There is no connection between that persecution and these events --

except that those events brought about the necessity for a place where Jewish

immigrants could find peace --



I'm a little late to this discussion, however, IMO what Helen Thomas was trying

to show was that the Palestinians have been pushed out of their own land --

and because we are limited here about what we can say, I won't go into those conditions.

What I think Helen was trying to show us was that the European Jew was once in this very

same situation...

And that they were taken into Palestine to give them relief.

Where is similar equal compassion and concern for the Palestinians?

As Helen mentioned . . . "Where are the Palestinians to go?"

I would suggest that perhaps the British Crown will once again donate land in Palestine, but

this time to the Palestinians!!??

Re this . . .

It really is blaming the victim. The rape victim wore too short a skirt. The car owner should not have parked it in such a shady neighborhood. Blame the victim. The Israelis were victims of centuries of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.

It's a well know argument, but doesn't seem to apply in the case of I/P.

Who is it that you see as the "victim"?

Yes, the Israelis were the victims of 1,100 years of persecution and vile propaganda in Europe,

at the hands of the Vatican which spread anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic hatred throughout the

Papal States and confined the Jews in Papal ghettos where they were barred from education,

careers, professions and isolated from other citizens -- forced to wear Yellow Stars.

That's one of the primary reasons that that Hitler had such an easy time scapegoating the Jews.

They had long been scapegoated and hated. Did the Palestinians have anything to do with

that persecution? I don't think so.

Did America take in Jews threatened by Hitler-? -- No...

We did not due to the anti-Jewish climate in the State Department -- and we forced a boatload

of Jewish refugees to return.

Israel is an armed nation -- and as the United Nations has made clear is conducting a full

scale war on Palestine which has no military.

Jewish immigrants were given the right to live in Palestine -- I believe it was by the British

Crown. It came at a cost, however, which I don't think we're entirely clear on -- nor of the

full consequences of those costs. The leaders of those immigrants fought -- as the Palestinians

fight today -- to establish a "Jewish State."

Again -- there are many things that cannot be said about this issue on DU.

But I don't think that even if we agree that the Israelis were victims at one time that we can

suggest that the Palestinians are not just as equally victims today.

Also I don't think enough of us are aware of the many attempts to bring about resolution of

this issue at the United Nations.


And re this . . .

Helen Thomas should do more than apologize. She should make a pilgrimage to the sites in Europe where, during the Holocaust, millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents and others were brutally murdered. Once she understands the magnitude of the crimes that were committed across Europe against Jews, she just might understand why there is an Israel -- that is if she has any heart, any soul at all.

Helen Thomas' husband is a Jew. Helen is Lebanese and has personally covered much of this

history during her career. I would imagine she is better informed than most of us on this subject.

No one denies the suffering of the Jews in the German Holocaust --

what we are trying to point out to you is that event was not in any way brought about by

Palestinians! What we are saying is that we must all have "heart and soul" not only for

Israel but for the Palestinians, as well!! Israelis are not the only human beings involved

in this -- the Palestinians are human, as well!


And I suggest that any of you who question the right of Israel to exist as a haven for the Jewish people also visit the Holocaust sites -- as many as you can take, not just one.

Again -- the victimization of Jews in Europe was not brought about by Arabs in Palestine.

Americans have unfailingly -- for decades -- supported Israel's right to exist.

However, many are losing faith in Israel because of Israeli behavior -- because of Israeli

war making, because of Israel's lack of compassion and its brutality.

It is Israel's own behavior towards Palestine which is causing a loss of support for Israel.

And only that --

[JDPriestly]

65. Did the US take in Jews threatened by Hitler?

Ultimately, Allied victory brought an end to Nazi terror in Europe and to the war in the Pacific. However, liberated Jews, suffering from illness and exhaustion, emerged from concentration camps and hiding places to discover a world which had no place for them. Bereft of home and family and reluctant to return to their prewar homelands, these Jewish displaced persons (DPs) were joined in a matter of months by more than 150,000 other Jews fleeing fierce antisemitism in Poland, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union.

Most sought to begin a new life outside Europe. Palestine was the most favored destination of Jewish Holocaust survivors, followed by the United States. Immigration restrictions were still in effect in the United States after the war, and legislation to expedite the admission of Jewish DPs was slow in coming.
President Harry S. Truman favored a liberal immigration policy toward DPs. Faced with congressional inaction, he issued an executive order, the "Truman Directive," on December 22, 1945. The directive required that existing immigration quotas be designated for displaced persons. While overall immigration into the United States did not increase, more DPs were admitted than before. About 22,950 DPs, of whom two-thirds were Jewish, entered the United States between December 22, 1945, and 1947 under provisions of the Truman Directive.

Congressional action was needed before existing immigration quotas could be increased. In 1948, following intense lobbying by the American Jewish community, Congress passed legislation to admit 400,000 DPs to the United States. Nearly 80,000 of these, or about 20 percent, were Jewish DPs. The rest were Christians from Eastern Europe and the Baltics, many of whom had been forced laborers in Germany. The entry requirements favored agricultural laborers to such an extent, however, that President Truman called the law "flagrantly discriminatory against Jews." Congress amended the law in 1950, but by that time most of the Jewish DPs in Europe had gone to the newly established state of Israel (founded on May 14, 1948).

By 1952, 137,450 Jewish refugees (including close to 100,000 DPs) had settled in the United States. The amended 1948 law was a turning point in American immigration policy and established a precedent for later refugee crises.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094

The US took in a huge number of refugees. I was born during the war and my parents were active in all kinds of charitable work. There were refugees in my classes at school. I have no idea how many of them were Jewish. The US really took in as many refugees, especially Jews, as our economy could possibly absorb.

Remember, we had a labor shortage, but we also had a terrible, terrible housing shortage. In 1952, my parents were looking for a house to buy in a midwestern city. They were offering partially finished houses. You had to do incredible amounts of work inside yourself. Some people we knew lived in quanset huts. Those were military barracks that were being used to house ordinary people. Nevertheless, accepting refugees was a huge priority.

Just a few years ago, I heard it said that there were more Hungarian-speakers in some midwestern cities than in Budabest, Hungary. That is because the US accepted so many refugees.

[cascadiance]

91. Turkey did take in German jews threatened by Hitler before the holocaust...

... and WWII was in full gear.

And now this Zionist government pays them back by brutally murdering Turks. Perhaps that can help you understand the depth of anger some over there feel about what happened! That's the thanks they got for providing a place to escape the brutality of the Nazis...

[defendandprotect]

96. Thanks for that and . . .

watch that "Z" word -- not allowed here re Israel -- you may get a warning!!

Meanwhile, I did came across similar comments to yours here --

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/08-12#comment-1528181

second comment down under the article . . .

[cascadiance]

99. Wow, I wasn't aware that the "Z" word was a bad word.

I thought that's what many Israelis choose to call their government, and use that as a way to separate the definition of how they think their government should be structured from the national identity of themselves.

I'll avoid the "Z" word as I have no wish to offend in that regard. But I do still feel that we should be able to express our feelings about the bad behavior of the Israeli government, which many seems to feel is something we can't do, and yet we can skewer people like Helen Thomas for doing far less harmful things.

I don't want to say "Israeli" in that I still like a lot of Israelis and there are many there that want a peaceful co-existence with others in their region. I have NOTHING against them at all and would like to think of many of them as friends!

It really is hard to be constructively critical in these situations... I think that's what leads to so many people's frustration where it does at times go over the edge too in the way Helen did, when they might otherwise be more rational in discussing these issues. How come we can rip up those who we don't like and what they are doing in our own government and yet its impossible at times to do the same with Israel?

[defendandprotect]

107. As far as I'm aware . . . think it says that in the I/P forum . . .

maybe it's permitted in General?

I could be completely wrong? Best you follow your own judgment --


I thought that's what many Israelis choose to call their government, and use that as a way to separate the definition of how they think their government should be structured from the national identity of themselves.


Not familiar with that -- so presume I'm behind in my info on what's been going on.

Not surprising because I've found the violence very depressing and with most of the stuff

confined to the "I/P" section, I've evidently missed a lot in understanding it all.

And ..


I don't want to say "Israeli" in that I still like a lot of Israelis and there are many there that want a peaceful co-existence with others in their region. I have NOTHING against them at all and would like to think of many of them as friends!

Absolutely agree with all of that -- think Americans over decades have been very supportive of

Israel. But, I began questioning it as the repeated violence grew -- and as their right wing

became more and more politically prominent -- assassination of PM Rabin, especially, which

really buried the peace-loving Israelis! Very sad!

And I do think that many of us are shocked again at this violence vs the aid ship!

At least, I am very horribly shocked. And to the point where I don't want to see any more

subsidizing of Israel -- and especially not re weapons.

Evidently, Israeli and American weapons production is so closely intertwined that you can

barely tell the difference between them!

We also store some nuclear weapons in Israel!

Agree with your post completely . . .

:)

[Chef Eric]

110. The problem is not with the word "Zionist." The problem is that so few people know what it means.

The word does NOT mean "militant Israeli" or "supporter of Israeli militancy." Of course, there are militant Israelis who are Zionists, but it is NOT their militancy that makes them "Zionists"; it is their belief that the Jews have a right to a homeland on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean.

That's right, the word "Zionist" means someone who believes that the Jews have a right to their own homeland. I happen to believe that too, although I don't think that the homeland should reach beyond the 1967 borders. Yes, that makes me a Zionist.

In fact, you can be both a Zionist and a pacifist. Albert Einstein is a perfect example of someone who was both a Zionist and a pacifist. But please, don't take my word about any of this. Do a little research on Zionism. If you're going to use the word, you really should know its true meaning.

[cascadiance]

117. I was under that impression to though, where Zionism implies the structure of the government...

to regard the state of Israel as a religious state, which would seem to REQUIRE a two state solution if those who are not Jewish (Christian and Muslim Palestinian residents) want freedom and equality in the state they live in. If Israel were to switch to becoming more of a real democracy, where everyone regardless of their religion had equal rights and representation, etc. (and the rights of becoming citizens as immigrants in to Israel isn't limited to Jewish immigrants as it is currently), then a one state solution seems to be a possible goal, assuming the parties can find ways to live peacefully with and alongside each other.

And since reality there is currently a one state situation now with the occupation, it is the concern I have that the Zionist ideal of a Jewish homeland seems to be in conflict for the freedom and citizenship of those non-Jewish residents living there.

I strongly believe that Jews are entitled to live in the state of Israel and to have equal rights in that state with other residents. If they want to have the state also be religiously aligned with Judaism (aka Zionism), then I think they need to pull out of Palestinian areas, and find some creative ways for those non-Jewish residents who live in Israel to have rights. Not sure how to do that though.

[defendandprotect]

158. Certainly, the situation where Israel is an "occupier" over the state of Palestine ....

should not be acceptable at any time -- now or in future --

and the Israeli violence used to keep this occupation in place can't be

tolerated --

US has to end subsidy for Israel -- for warmaking and in supplying weapons!

[defendandprotect]

155. The question was the USE of the word in DU forums . . .

go to the "I/P" forum and read the info for posters there --

believe it says something about the "Z" word --


In general, however, I have read about "z" and not that I recall all of the info,

but my impression is that it is a right wing political movement.


The world supported a homeland for Israel -- a refuge for DPs Jews.

Things changed when Nixon began to arm right wing Fundamentalist Israel, thereby

burying peace-loving Israelis. The final assault on the peace movement in Israel

was with the assassination of PM Rabin.


The increasing violence of Israeli right wing leadership is what is changing thinking

out Israel.

And it is changing --

[Hell Hath No Fury]

156. "...a right to their own homeland."

Sorry, but that "right" is a wrong when it involves subjugating another people. A State called "Israel" that does not allow the full, unequivocal participation of all of it's citizenry is not a State that deserves to exist. And I would say that about a State called "Palestine", as well.

[JDPriestly]

126. Turkey would have done precisely the same thing as the Israelis did

if someone had tried to cross a line that was internationally recognized as was the Israeli one.

[cascadiance]

129. Speculation on your part. And the line was not there in INTERNATIONAL WATERS...

where the Israelis attacked these boats, and most of the rest of the world rejects Israel's definition of "their line" there...

If Turkey would have done that, you know they would have been hung out to dry!

I'm wondering how many of the "overlapping" members of "both" the ATC and AIPAC are leaving one of these groups or the other, or being pushed to do so now... Of course most likely these members are part of our military industrial complex that have interests in getting both of these countries weapons...

[JDPriestly]

134. You are probably too young to remember the Turkish-Cypriot conflict.

Both sides fought so hard. Turkey fought just as hard as the Cypriots.

And, anyway, our discussions here, my husband reminds me, are really not that relevant because the West Bank and Israel are going to negotiate peace and Gaza will be left behind and isolated.

The real struggle is to promote those who are willing to make peace, not those who insist on confrontation -- and those who insist on confrontation exist everywhere.

[cascadiance]

168. Too young? I probably knew more people DIRECTLY involved in that than you did!

I actually lived in Turkey in the years leading up to that invasion. And it was later revealed that the U.S. government actually HELPED Turkey prepare for that invasion, and therefore likely many of my high school friends there had parents that were involved in that effort then, even though I nor most Americans didn't know about it at the time.

And those who are conducting piracy in international waters attacking and killing people there, are "willing to make peace"? It was the Israelis that "confronted" the flotilla by boarding their boats! Sheesh!

[defendandprotect]

95. US turned away a boatload of Jews trying to excape Germany ... forced to return...

THAT was specifically the incident my post referred to -- pre WWII --

Yes, later on, when State Department anti-semitism was challenged, things did improve.

As you acknowledge here . . .

Immigration restrictions were still in effect in the United States after the war, and legislation to expedite the admission of Jewish DPs was slow in coming.

Keep in mind that Allen Dulles, under Operation Paperclip during the same period of time brought

in tens of thousands of former Nazis -- and their families! Dulles used them to found the CIA

and funneled them into the FBI and other government agencies. Werner Von Braun was given

leadership of NASA.

[B Whale]

174. that is a significantly biased view of WW2

once again the mighty US and the glorious generation came to the rescue of the world against those dastardly europeans and also saved the jews and took in all the refugees and they all wanted to go to america and thats where they all went, cos they loved us and we loved them and....... hip hip hooray.

come on. you gotta be more neutral than that to be taken seriously

[JDPriestly]

66. If you look at the map, you will note that the largest part of Transjordan

which was before the Mandate known as the British Protectorate and before that a part of the Ottoman Empire was made into Transjordan. Check out what happened in the 1967 war in that area. It was after that conflict that most of what we now view as Israel/West Bank/Gaza was divided as it now is.

Check the history. I have posted on this so many times that I am just tired of it. You can Google it like I did. The whole area was Transjordan. Israel was cut out of it. The Palestinians have plenty of room. Think of it, if you were six years old in 1949, you are now 67. I am 67, and I really don't remember what the neighborhood or house that I lived in when I was six was like. I have pictures, but I don't really remember it. If you dropped me down in front of the house I lived in at that age, I probably would not recognize it.

[defendandprotect]

97. Does this suggest to you somehow ....

that the Palestinians who lived in Palestine before the Jewish immigrants were permitted

a place of refuge there, now have no right to their homeland -- ?

Also keep in mind that there was a specific area given over by the British Crown as a refuse --

not with any thought of a Jewish state --

which later came about through Jewish leaders fighting to establish a "Jewish state."


"The Palestinians have plenty of room?"

If your country was occupied for decades and you were under the control of people from

another country, would you consider that you have plenty of room?


Again . . .

"Do Palestinians have a place in their own homeland?"

If not, as Helen Thomas has asked . . . "Where are the Palestinians supposed to go?"

And under what license is Israel blockading the Gaza area?

[JDPriestly]

125. The Palestinians have a homeland.

No one is depriving them of that. If the United States can accept all kinds of refugees and immigrants from all nations, why can't the Palestinians?

Where do you propose that the people of Israel go? When the British Protectorate was divided, the by far largest part was given to the Palestinians. And those Palestinians who stayed in the part assigned to Israel are still there. Why don't the Palestinians just decide to live in peace and see what happens. Things are likely to get better for all involved if they simply deal with each other. Israelis need to be secure as do Palestinians. They can negotiate a peace if they treat each other civilly and guarantee each other's security.

France and Germany fought so many wars. Alsace-Lorraine was handed back and forth depending on who won the most recent war. I lived there for a while. German-speakers and French-speakers lived in peace there when I was there. Alsace-Lorraine was at that time a part of France. It still is, but borders mean less and less in Europe.

The Palestinians and Israelis could experience a similar peace. But they have to start somewhere. And the first step is for the Palestinians to be willing to recognize Israel and guarantee its security.

The situation as it is cannot be sustained. Everyone there is suffering. The "right of return" is not worth fighting for. Ask anyone who ever tried to return. It can't be done. Because the place you left is so different than it was when you left it that you find you have returned to a disappointment. Tried that. Been there.

I know that DUers argue Israel will not negotiate. It will but if it shows too much willingness to negotiate, the Palestinians will not respect it. It's really up to the Palestinians. That's the way negotiations go. The Palestinians are in the stronger position even though the Israelis are stronger militarily. That is because the Israelis want more, that is something that has more value, from the Palestinians than the Palestinians want from the Israelis. The Palestinians can have peace whenever they are willing to give so little. The Palestinian leadership has never represented the interests of the Palestinian people. I have watched this situation since the early 1950s because my father used to talk about it a lot.

[defendandprotect]

153. Evidently, we're all talking about the need for a "State of Palestine" ....

because we all understand they don't need it?

The Palestinians have a homeland.
No one is depriving them of that. If the United States can accept all kinds of refugees and immigrants from all nations, why can't the Palestinians?

Palestine is under the control of Israelis -- occupied -- and expanding.


Many Jews are going back to Germany from Israel -- presume you read my post on that?

Where do you propose that the people of Israel go? When the British Protectorate was divided, the by far largest part was given to the Palestinians. And those Palestinians who stayed in the part assigned to Israel are still there. Why don't the Palestinians just decide to live in peace and see what happens. Things are likely to get better for all involved if they simply deal with each other. Israelis need to be secure as do Palestinians. They can negotiate a peace if they treat each other civilly and guarantee each other's security.

However, there is no need for the people of Israel to go anywhere -- the need is for

them to stop warmongering against Palestinians.

Again, I think you have to understand how many United Nations resolutions Israel is ignoring

with the help of the US.

It isn't the peace-loving Israeli nor the peace-loving world which is failing to try to create

peace -- it is Israel's continuing violence and illegal actions in this blockade which create

ill circumstances for peace. Not to mention the assassination of PM Rabin.


When you talk about wanting "more" consider the expanding Israeli settlements -- despite even

obama's admonishment. Consider the size of the REFUGE given to DP Jews by the British Crown

and what land Israel has taken since then.


And, again, perhaps we need the British Crown to deed some more land in a gift --?

But this time to the Palestinians?

We need an official, recognized State of Palestine -- not a Palestinians under the occupied

rule of Israel.

[dflprincess]

87. NBC news did a segment tonight on "Growing Up Behind the Blockade in Gaza"

http://www.nbc.com/news-sports/msnbc-video/growing-up-behind-the-blockade-in-gaza/

Over half the population there is under 15. They will not grow up with good feelings about either Israel or the United States.

[defendandprotect]

100. Nothing for me to feel proud of in Obama's failure to criticize Israel

for the brutal attack on the aid ship --

And, while we are also sending billions in aid to Gaza -- which I found out about

today -- we have been for decades subsidizing Israel with money and weapons.

This is insane!

:)

[earth mom]

111. Best reply on this thread!

Totally agree. :thumbsup:


Also, Helen will be missed big time! :cry:

[WileEcoyote]

68. One of the few posts on this subject that really "gets it".

Thank you.

[dorkulon]

81. That analogy isn't quite right.

I agree suggesting Israelis go back to Poland or Germany is just a shitty thing to say or think. But Israel is a victim and an aggressor. It's more like blaming a rape victim who goes on to kill some other guy for no apparent reason. One crime does not justify another.

[Raineyb]

146. Israel is no victim here.

I'm sorry but Israel has the superior fire power, it's got control of the borders, resources and it controls who and what can come in to the area including ambulances. To even try to claim that the more powerful entity in a conflict is the victim of the weaker entity is illogical, and frankly sounds like excuse-making for behavior which would otherwise be condemned.

[defendandprotect]

159. Besides US backing with money and weapons -- !!! Palestine has no military ...

and Israel is a nuclear power --

in fact, America stores some nuclear weapons in Israel!!

[JDPriestly]

30. Helen Thomas was way, way out of line.

Suggesting that the Jews in Israel go back to the European countries in which they were persecuted for centuries? You've got to be kidding. That's like suggesting that Armenians go back to Turkey.

Helen Thomas was right on many issues over the years, but this comment was so over the top.

It really is blaming the victim. The rape victim wore too short a skirt. The car owner should not have parked it in such a shady neighborhood. Blame the victim. The Israelis were victims of centuries of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.

Should their be a negotiated peace beetween the area that was designated as Transjordan and that we now call Palestine including Gaza and the West Bank and Israel?

Yes, there should and all parties to it should insure the security of Israel and whatever other state or states are created within agreed upon borders.

But, before negotiations can be successful, all parties have to agree that they will enforce laws that guarantee the security of all the other nations and that they will discourage third parties from threatening or attacking the security of any of the parties to the agreement. That just seems like the basic law of neighbors.

Good fences (borders), fences (or borders) that all respect, make for good neighbors.

Helen Thomas should do more than apologize. She should make a pilgrimage to the sites in Europe where, during the Holocaust, millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents and others were brutally murdered. Once she understands the magnitude of the crimes that were committed across Europe against Jews, she just might understand why there is an Israel -- that is if she has any heart, any soul at all.

And I suggest that any of you who

[liberation]

33. She should do all that...

... right after you take a stroll down Beirut. If we keep this silly tit for tat, we can be here all eternity.

BTW, she already apologized.

[here_is_to_hope]

34. Lolz...

"Suggesting that the Jews in Israel go back to the European countries in which they were persecuted for centuries? You've got to be kidding. That's like suggesting that Armenians go back to Turkey."

She did not suggest that.
So I didn't read the rest of your double post (so uninformed, it shows up twice) because you told a fib to begin with.

[AlbertCat]

48. "Suggesting that the Jews in Israel go back ...

... to the European countries in which they were persecuted for centuries?


Is there any other kind of European country?


She put it very very clumsily, but I think she was suggesting that if there are too many Jews in Israel, so that they have to steal and "conquer" land that is not theirs, maybe some should go back to where they recently emigrated from. They don't all come from America, y'know.

Anway.... playing the anti-semite card is like playing the race card. She has no history of Jew-hating that I can see. It's overblown.... as usual. All emotions, no logic.

[B Whale]

54. Yis there any other european country? .....why yes

there is. don't let your own bigotry seep in...

[JDPriestly]

59. What European country did not persecute Jews for centuries?

England (in modern times), Norway, Sweden, Denmark maybe. Maybe Ireland. But then, how many Jews were there in those countries? Those are not the countries that Jewish people could go back to? Do you have any other suggestions about European countries in which there was no persecution for Jews for centureis

[defendandprotect]

61. You have to understand that the basis of that ...

anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic intolerance was the teachings of the Vatican which

spread hatred for Jews throughout the Papal States, giving a firm grounding to

anti-Jewish sentiment for Hitler to later capitalize on.

Again, the Palestinians had nothing to do with the persecution of the Jews in Europe.


Now, ask yourself, the same question of Palestinians . . .

"Where are the Palestinians to go?" Have they no right to their own homeland in Palestine?

[JDPriestly]

64. I understand that very well.

I was shocked at a TV news broadcast on Austrian TV while I lived there that stated that the Vatican had finally, sometime in the very late '70s or early '80s admitted that the story on which the last anti-semitic religious shrine in Austria was based was a total lie. Austrian school children had, until that time, been visiting that shrine and told that baseless lie. Trust me. I lived in a number of European countries. Jewish people cannot go back to Europe in large numbers. In spite of all the efforts to counteract the brainwashing by the Catholic Church over the centuries, there is still a lot of anti-semitism.

It's a little like racism in America. Yes, we seem to have rid ourselves of it. We seem to have educated ourselves toward racial tolerance. But don't count on it. We have to remain vigilant at all times. It's our national sin. And look at the anti-hispanic craze here right now. It's unbelievable. We still do not judge people as individuals. We still classify people according to color or even hair and eye color in this country. It's just awful. The Jewish people have to have a safe haven in Israel. It is their only alternative.

[defendandprotect]

90. Jews are immigrating to Germany - More Jews in Germany now that pre-WWII...

Please see my post here . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8512348&mesg_id=8517284


And, perhaps you're giving some though to the questions I asked in that post?

Again, the Palestinians had nothing to do with the persecution of the Jews in Europe.


Now, ask yourself, the same question of Palestinians . . .

"Where are the Palestinians to go?" Have they no right to their own homeland in Palestine?


Also, if you understand all of the history of WWII then you, of course, understand that

it was not Palestians who "victimized" nor "persecuted" Jews during WWII?

[B Whale]

63. hey hey easy. You asked a question, is there

any other european countries? and the answer is yes, many. Mainly the protestant North, as you point out, except for Germany and its perverse tradition of the concept of 'volk', that is inherently fascist.

Persecution of the jews in Europe came intermittently through mainly the catholic church to seek an enemy and scapegoat and bolster itself and its developing theocracy, depending on which pope was ruling at the time and what were the circumstances. Its very complex as to when and where and why, although obviously despicable, and there is also hugely honourable traditions of refuge to all sorts of persecuted peoples in many european countries.

Your implication (which sounded deliberate) was about european people. That is bigoted and racist! i was just pointing that out.

[liberation]

78. Apparently some people figure WWII is a carte blanche for them to be racist

Apparently it is OK to name Euros all sorts of names and make all kinds of accusations.

Regardless of the fact that the second largest Jewish community outside of Israel is in France, that there have been plenty of Jewish prime ministers, ministers, politicians and public figures in EU countries. Claiming there is no safe haven in Europe for Jews when there are thriving Jewish communities in the UK, Holland, France, etc is ridiculous and it plays into a fairly xenophobe narrative. And no, people living in Israel should not have to go anywhere, it is their land now... but it also belongs to the Palestinians who lived there too.

What there isn't in the EU is an automatic justification for every single act by Israel like in the US, however trying to label that as some kind of institutionalized anti-semitism is beyond ridiculous.... and incredibly dishonest.

What Helen Thomas said was fairly ill timed and spoken. However, she is of Lebanese ancestry, so chances are that tempers are running high when such issues so close to home/heart pop up. In the same fashion that a lot of the zionist supporters in this site say plenty of ridiculous things because it is also a subject fairly close to their sensitivities and thus logical thinking breaks down. Which is the irony of this situation... And old lady saying something stupid being chastised by a bunch of people saying plenty of stupid things. There can't be any winners in such scenario.

[defendandprotect]

103. Nice post . . . .

and in case you didn't catch this . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8512348&mesg_id=8517284

[JDPriestly]

128. I lived in France. There are many Jews there.

When I first went there as a student, we used to eat in the Jewish student restaurant which had the best food and the best company.

But I met many, many anti-Jewish people, even students in France. This was back in the 1960s. Later, when I lived in France, I lived in an area of Paris in which there were many Jewish people. It is still not totally safe. I would not trust it.

[liberation]

149. Dupe

dupe

[liberation]

150. What is your definition of "safe?"

Good grief, arbitrary selective anecdotes as indictment of a whole continent? You make it sound like they were forcing you to wear a star of David and that you had to be careful, like people had some jewradar or something.

Me thinks you are projecting a tad too much of your own xenophobia onto others.

[B Whale]

175. you have a screwed view of europe and european people

Jewish people have a more integrated and secure status than in the US. In the US jewish people have a special status in my interpretation, yet in somewhere like the UK, one of our greatest ever prime ministers was jewish, two of the five contenders for the leadership of the labour party currently are jewish, the last leader of the conservative party was jewish, and we have jewish people throughout our society for hundreds of years, as british as the next man and their jewishness never comes up.

Now, can you imagine if george washington was a jew, George Bush was a jew, and al gore and joe biden? would that happen?....in america?.........cos thats what we are talking about...and it has never even been mentioned by british people as an issue.

don;t shout too loud about your greatness, you may be covering cracks you're scared to see.

[JDPriestly]

177. One of the great prime ministers in Austria was Jewish, but believe m

I met many, many NAZIs in Austria. They poured their nasty, venomous propaganda out to me once I knew them fairly well. I was horrified. Anti-semitism is alive and well in Europe. And it does not just target people who are Jewish. Turkish guest workers and others from the Middle East, even from Yugoslavia are not accepted as equals by many people. Of course, the joke is that North Germans and Bavarians (Southern Germany) hate each other more than anyone else.

I would not say that the anything close to the majority of Europeans are anti-Jewish, at least not at this time, but I know for certain that a high enough percentage of them are that, while a small Jewish presence is tolerated, a sizable one would not be welcomed by a sizable minority of people.

[B Whale]

182. i would take your point about austria. i do believe austria has

a particular but unique history and continuing culture of anti-semitism amongst a fair sized minority.

but i still stand by the statement that jewish people are far more embedded and integrated into european society (for example president sarkozy of france is jewish and it is never even hinted at) and in particular Britain than i believe they ever could be (in my experience) in America.

America has a large Jewish community for sure, but i do not believe they would ever be as entwined into American society as European Jews are entwined into our societies. (if you get what i'm talking about ? ;) )

[defendandprotect]

92. Yes, you're correct . ..

and I'd refer you to two of my posts you may not have read --

Jews are immigrating to Germany --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8512348&mesg_id=8517363

and this one re Vatican's 1,100 year oppression of Jews in Papal States --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8512348&mesg_id=8516118


But, especially want to comment that all of these myths of "inferiority" --

gender, sexual orgientation, religion, race -- are simply exploitation for the benefit

of the few. It's all the same --

When you can suppress an entire class of people, there is a great transference of wealth!

And available slave labor!



:)

[JDPriestly]

127. Not all European people are anti-Jewish. But I lived there,

and enough of them are to make it impossible for Jewish people to live there and feel secure.

[AlbertCat]

148. it impossible for Jewish people to live there and feel secure.

I don't know if this is true ....but I'll take your word on it.

And why have all these posts ignored "for centuries".... as in more than just the 20th century....or today?

BTW.... Catholic doctrine may have been bad, but those protestants didn't seem to love the Jews either.....CENTURIES ago...

[liberation]

152. And I lived in Europe too, and had plenty of Jewish friends who lived there all their lives

... gosh, I have no clue how they manage to make it through!

Honestly at the end of the day most people over there do not give a rat's ass if you are protestant, catholic, Jew, whatever. Because there is no fucking way of knowing, unless you start yelling with a megaphone about your religious affiliation or you make your religion a constant issue that you have to broadcast to others.

[dflprincess]

83. Denmark deserves more credit than a "maybe"

Denmark stood up for its Jewish citizens and, when the time came, arranged to get most of them out of the country and into neutral Sweden to protect them from the Nazis.

[liberation]

154. That is a very disingenuous question.

Given that the past half century has been the longest stretch of peace in Europe, you need to understand the historical context.

Europeans have been at war with each other for centuries, there have been religious prosecutions involving Muslims, among Cristians themselves (Catholic vs. Orthodox, Catholic vs. Protestant, Protestant vs. Protestant), and yes Jews. There have been social prosecutions, political prosecutions and conflicts. Prosecutions based on monarchical successions. Battles between feuding royal families, empires taking over neighbors, the whole colonial phase. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Jews have not been the only victims, not by a long shot. Does it suck any less, no it doesn't. But it also means that the other groups which have been feuding and trying to annihilate each other have finally learned (or managed at least) to live in relative peace, and who knows maybe even have a stable future together. And yes, there are plenty of Jews living and thriving in Europe.

It took a lot of blood to learn their lessons, but maybe Europe finally grew up. I suggest you do the same.


Are there some anti-semite assholes over there. I am sure there are. But guess what, there are plenty of anti-semites in this country, yet I don't see you packing up and leaving anytime soon. And same could be said about Jews hating Palestinians, does that mean every Jew is a racist xenophobe, not at all. I am sure the extremists in the Jewish community, just like in every other community, are the exception not the rule. I have no clue why you feel entitled to make such generalizations about Europeans.

[defendandprotect]

160. Evidently, Israeli Jews are returning to Germany and Israel isn't happy about that ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8512348&mesg_id=8517284



Frankly, I was surprised at that info -- !!

:)

[defendandprotect]

89. Please see my post . . . here . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8512348&mesg_id=8517284

[Recursion]

101. No Ashkenazim means no need for settlements

I don't know whether she was saying that there are no Mizrahim (a commonly-believed canard), or whether she's saying the Ashkenazim shouldn't have immigrated. Kicking them out now is a non-starter, but their presence has caused a whole lot of problems.

[NorthCarolina]

37. Negotiated Peace would require that the Israelis give up on expanding their territories

further into Palestinian land, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Simply put...that ain't gonna happen.

[Bluebear]

45. 'And I suggest that any of you who' - ?

[Lilith Velkor]

55. I didn't know the United States was a European country.

Huh. Ya learn something new every day here.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

115. That's crap

Jews live very well in most European countries today, because they won their rights through struggle. What she said wasn't any different than people who say "the so-called Palestinians already have a state called Jordan, so why don't they all move there?"

[tomp]

143. so where are the homelands for gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, and others?

and, for the record, no amount of history of persecution justifies israel's treatment of the palestinians.

if israel wants security, let it make peace with the palestinians.

[defendandprotect]

161. +1000%

[avaistheone1]

35. Strongly recommended.

k&r

[freeperhuntersRus]

36. How come the media never slams the Right?

I know why, but think the question should be asked often.

[liberation]

38. it must be all that "liberal bias" or something...

[Dinger]

39. K & R

[Safya]

40. Very good

Thanks!

[Darth_Kitten]

41. Turn on your own to spare Israel.....always....

n/t

[Owl]

42. K&R

[eagertolearn]

43. In the passion of the moment it is easy to say what we are feeling

and some of us can be more direct about it. I found myself almost posting on here to let Iran **** Israel because I was so mad at them (and I'm not even Lebanese). From what I can tell is many of the people on both sides just want to be able to live in peace. I can't stand the inhumane ways people are treated all in the name of "protection and security". I've only read a historical fiction version of the conflict "The Lemon Tree" but it taught me a whole lot more than what I learned in school in the US. There has to be a way to solve this conflict without so much suffering:(

[defendandprotect]

44. What I see is a lot of support from the corporate MIC and then the lemming journalists follow....

Helen Thomas wasn't a lemming --

and it's really sad that people aren't waking themselves up given this very

brutal event -- but rather that it's sadly going to take more consciousness raising

before Americans wake up -- and the establishment press can no longer play the

Israel "can't ever be wrong" game.

[RetroLounge]

47. K&R

K&R

RL

[WillyT]

50. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Hannah Bell]

52. k/r. the hypocrites.

[scarletwoman]

53. K&R -- Thank you, Robert Parry. Thanks Kpete for posting this. I support Helen Thomas

unconditionally.

sw

[me b zola]

57. K&R

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. kick and recommend!!

[branders seine]

60. here's a cheer for Ms. Thomas.

I'm sick of Israel. Fucking goons.

[proteus_lives]

62. One must wonder if Mr. Parry would be so quick to leap to Thomas' defense...

If she targeted another group.

[Raineyb]

106. I wonder if you would be so quick to condemn Helen Thomas if she went after

Palestinians. I suspect not.

[proteus_lives]

119. Yes, I would.

I detest bigots.

You will be confused by that.

[sabrina 1]

67. Robert Parry, another of the few real journalists left in this

country. I guess he'll be on the hit list now. Otoh, a lot of people surprisingly, support Helen and maybe it took this to highlight the unbalanced media coverage of the Israelis V Arabs/Muslims in this country. Silencing people who have an opinion about an issue that relates to Americans is simply not and never should have been acceptable.

[Divine Discontent]

72. she was a journalist they were more than happy to get rid of.

so exactly, who is next?

I have never been anti-Israeli, ever, I am someone that respects all people's beliefs (I am a Christian) or non-belief, and I understand how Israel feels greatly threatened by many Muslim extremists who'd love to kill every Jew, however, in being defensive of their needs, it is obvious they go over the boundaries of decency then they, and their defenders claim over and over "both sides do that!", over and over and over.

Enough, if you're gonna claim you're such a Godly country, you shouldn't be so cruel to the suffering, and shouldn't slaughter. This goes for the USA also, who has shown great murderous mentality the past 10 years specifically, in response to the sad day in September '01, but then goes overboard and at times destroy whole villages from the sky, regardless of how many die who were innocent, just to get the one they wanted (sometimes).

[sabrina 1]

104. Good post, I think your view is shared by a majority of decent people.

[Divine Discontent]

112. Thank you, sabrina 1, it's nice to see someone else have decency about this issue.

[defendandprotect]

105. Amy Goodman would be one guess for "next" . . .

[Divine Discontent]

114. sadly, you're spot on. she's fantastic. God protect her/good vibes!

[UpInArms]

69. UIA loves her some Robert Parry

he is so clear and so quietly loud that we could just not have half as good a world without him.

[KoKo]

70. So glad to see this post from Robert Parry defending Helen Thomas!

He knows the score from getting some of the same treatment.

:kick:

[Owl]

71. Howard Kurtz sucks. Big Time.

[bleever]

73. I thank Robert Parry for standing up for Helen.

K&R.

[pleah]

74. K&R

[kgnu_fan]

76. I am glad that someone is articulate enough to write for Helen

[Rabrrrrrr]

77. Helen needs all the people standing up for that she can muster.

What happened to her is a travesty, and typical rightwing politics.

They've wanted to take her down for a long time, and she finally made a mistake they could capitalize on, even if it is the same shit that their own people are saying all the time, and shit that they're saying about every other race and religion on the planet.

[Peregrine Took]

79. Isn't she entitled to her opinion, even if some view it as not "PC?"

Plus that was definitely a "gotcha" type, cheapest of the cheap shot "interview."

[Proud_Lefty]

82. This was rotten, indeed.

Sometimes, we all say things that come out wrong and we wish we could take them back. When it comes to certain things (like criticizing Israel, Christianity, etc.), there's just no forgiving in their hearts, even for a woman approaching her ninetieth birthday. Good God, my family, in their 70's and 80's said the damnest things and we just excused it cause that's how life works unless ... you're a liberal. You are a target and anything you say will be used against you because we are living in a messed up society. Just ask Obama. When is this crap going to end already?

[snagglepuss]

85. Why does most everyone including Parry mention Thomas' Lebanese background

but not the fact that she is a Lebanese Christian which when talking about Lebanon is a fairly standard distinction. I support Thomas completely and though raised Anglican, I have little time for organized religion so I'm not waving any flags, I am just genuinely puzzled why the media refer to Israeli-Jews but don't refer to Thomas' backround as Lebanese-Christian?

[defendandprotect]

88. Here's some info I'm surprised at... Jews are immigrating to Germany . . .

More Jews in Germany that pre-WWII -- !!!

This is from a comment section to this article ...

Will the Flotilla Attack Be Our 'Kent State' Moment?

Published on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 by Focal Points Blog/Foreign Policy in Focus
by Stephen Zunes


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/08-12#comment-1528181

Juan Cole, the blogger at Informed Consent, has found some statistics on Jewish immigration that would strike most of us as strongly counterintuitive:

“There are over 250,000 Jews in contemporary Germany, and more Jews immigrated to Germany in 2005 than to Israel. Four-fifths of them are Russian Jews who prefer Berlin to Beersheva. And, there are some Israelis among them who have similar preferences. In further evidence of how Israel can actually be bad for Jews, the Israeli government lobbied Germany in 2004 to restrict Jewish immigration. But there are now more Jews in Germany than there were in 1939 before the Holocaust. (True, there are not more than in the Weimar Republic, but that is where the trend line is going despite Israeli attempts to foment discriminatory immigration policies toward Jews.)”

http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/jewish-gaza-aid-flotilla-planned.html

Comment by commenter on the article . . .

So I think that too many Americans have their minds stuck back in World War II that they fail to see that Germany has become a far more desirable place for Jews to immigrate to than Israel. And I’m sure that many Israelis, at least the hardcore (deleted word DU administration doesn't want used
in our posts here) ones, are very envious of the Germans for this.

[Karenina]

184. Some are taking German citizenship...

Permanent residencies are popular. Not at all counter-intuitive considering the culture here and LOTS of bilingual (at LEAST) progressive Israelis who are watching their country turn into Fundie-land.

[BrklynLiberal]

93. Excellent article. I stand with Helen Thomas.

[femrap]

102. F*ck the

Washington DC Press Corp....an 89 year-old woman who has given Journalism her life and this is how they treat her.

As I said before....:wtf: is wrong with living in Germany or Poland??? I'd live there.

Her country was bombed by Israel...is she supposed to say 'Thank you for bombing Lebanon?'

Shit.

[CL455W4R]

108. Really???

ZIONIST is a no no on DU, huh? That is just crazy. All the crazy Protocols of the Elders blah blah conspiracy nonsense would hold much less water if criticizing Israel wasn't such a fucking taboo. Why is it that one can talk shit all day about Muslims without anyone batting an eye, but the minute anyone mentions anything even slightly negative about Israel or ZIONIST Jews they are labelled an anti-semite or a fucking loon?

[HEyHEY]

118. Cause the Aliens controlling DU will melt your brain and feed it to oil companies

FUCK YOU, ROVE, MY KIDNEYS ARE MY OWN!

[ooglymoogly]

130. The blinding cataracts need to be removed from your eyes.

but me thinks they are there to shield.

[femrap]

157. Because

ownership is everything.

[defendandprotect]

163. Check the specific rules posted at "I/P" . . .

maybe I'm wrong --

but there are various ways that you CANNOT discuss I/P affairs here at DU --

and a number of taboo words . . .

Again, please check for yourself -- I may have misunderstood --

IMO, taboos simply make for more emotionalism because subjects simmer rather

than actually get ironed out.

[ooglymoogly]

169. Apologies to CL455W4R. I meant my above post for another poster

I, in fact, except for the first few words, agree with much of your post even though it is unclear where you are coming from, so please, all who read this, disregard my carelessness in the previous post.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

113. Hypocrisy

While I don't exactly agree with Helen's rhetoric, I find it completely hypocritical for her to be given such a backlash when other pundits say similar things about the Palestinians. Remember eight years ago when Dick Armey advocated Indian Removal-style ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories as a way to solve the conflict? Tell me how many journalists had to resign over remarks against Arabs. The answer: NONE.

[flyarm]

120. I will forever stand with Helen Thomas..the Queen of truth! eom

[earcandle]

121. Sorry, her remark was simply common sense resolution, but what is the acceptable alternative?

It is criminal to genocide a population and occupy their land.
 

Firing Helen Thomas at this age after her history is
blasphemous.

You turds are fried meat in hell if you get your way about God
being real and all that. 

Our country invests in Israel's power in the world. And will
not only use it, but back it. 

So Helen cannot speak resolution language and is de-jobbed for
speaking her mind.  A JOURNALIST!  whoah.. what have we come
to?   

If our country, in response, doesn't elect leaders who have
their integrity and intelligence intact, then we will fall
like every other country has fallen as a result of our
military tactics to take a country down and steal its
resources.  

We can only trim tab this hurl toward absense, ala Jean Genet,
with intact practices using the principles of Ethics: 
character, intelligence, and goodwill.  Ethics; it's one of
the Three Offices of Truth of Aristotle. 

We need to internally and externally observe and instruct
ourselves to learn and practice the "Three Offices of
Truth:Ethics, Logic and Passion".  

We also need to find where we are on the 16 levels of the
Integrity Tone Scale, and with whom, so we don't go suicidal
or plunder.  We can do that by giving up "Being at the
Effect", so we can BECOME CAUSE! 

We can work on our economic and environmental issues with some
cognitive intelligence, and some technology.

Come to SENSIBLE CITIES this weekend Friday at 7pm to  Sunday
at 4pm open to the public sponsored by KQED and Gray Matter
here in San Francisco if you can.  ITs the digital age!  Come
explore! 

Lets get together, yeah yeah yeah
we can have a lot of fun...   

[ooglymoogly]

122. I stand with Helen...without the reservations of this post.

For those of you who think Israel has a right to bulldoze Palestinian homes, not even caring whether there are folks inside...I guess you have a very dark, misguided and totally unfounded beef. I believe Israel should stay within its borders. Helen said they should get out of occupied Palestinian territories, where they are killing and casting out men women and children to fend for themselves into an Israeli controlled dictatorship, and where the Israeli's are building settlements hand over fist at the expense of Palestinians and at the condemnation of the entire world, except of course for the US and inviting any Jew in the world to come live there on lands that so do not belong to them. This is so wrong; There are no words to describe the horror they are inflicting by the murderous and ruthless way they are going about this theft. If the circumstances were reversed, then I would be speaking just as adamantly on the other side; But things are what they are. AIPAC with the help of their wholly owned subsidiary the "MSM" or corporate media, has turned the argument on its head and everyone is buying their absurd and ridiculous arguments. Helen was right on the money, as she always has been. There are no reservations to my support for her and I condemn, in no uncertain terms, the dastardly crime that is being perpetrated against her. Ridding the world of honesty and integrity one journalist at a time. Hello darkness my terrible and inevitable enemy. A dark age is, once again, upon us.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[avaistheone1]

132. What is Sensible Cities?

[genorp]

137. Why all the hate?

I don't post much but I've been regularly reading this site for many years. The last time I posted I was immediately pounced on as if my opinion were less valuable because I don't have a 1000+ next to my name. I am a Democrat. I'm not anything but. My views are based not only on upbringing and observation but study and research. I hold a degree in political science and always, always research to find the truth amongst the swill of historical revisionism, opinion presented as fact, name-calling, untruths, and blatant lies. I find it sad that liberals have had to resort to calling themselves progressives because right-wingers have successfully turned "liberal" into an insult in the mainstream. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, however I also believe that opinion should be based on fact. That being said, I don't always agree with everything that seems to be popular here. But that's the beauty of free thinking. The one thing that I will never fathom is the tendency for this community to be so anti-Israel. It is the one, ONE, truly free liberal democracy in the region. It has a thriving economy with freedom of religion, women's rights, homosexual rights, freedom of speech. Nowhere else in the whole of the Middle East can you exercise as much freedom as you can there. In some senses they have more rights than the US, considering they have a universal health care and gays can server openly in the military. Does it have problems? Of course it does. Does it act unfair at times? Of course it does. Do extremes have too much voice in their government? Of course they do. But is it the brutal state that is so often portrayed? No, it most certainly is not. Many people turn their support for Palestinians into, frankly, scary anti-Zionist words and behavior. (As with the skill of Republicans, Zionism has been turned into a bad word too.) I will never say that the Palestinians don't deserve equal and fair treatment. But please, please don't let the propaganda make them seem worse off than they are and drive many into hateful, blood-thirsty speech and action. I don't say that out of pro-Israeli sympathies. I say that based on hard, cold facts. The UN, notoriously anti-Israel outside of the Security Council, publishes a report every year: The Human Development Report. Based on reports in the media and placards at protests you would certainly think that the Palestinian territories would be rather low on the list. But you would be wrong. Other than the small rich Gulf states and Israel, the Palestinians have the highest standard of living in the Middle-East. Higher life expectancy, higher literacy rate, lowest rate of underweight children, and ranked above even Lebanon on the poverty index (higher being less poverty). In fact, in the ranking of the Human Poverty Index of 135 countries, they are only number 24. Recent news reports have tried to slip in little factlets like "though no one is going hungry" or "it's a human crisis not a humanitarian crisis", most people still believe it is the worst place to be in the world.

We've seen Holocaust and WWII references in this thread. Some act as if it were ancient history. It is not. There are veterans of that war still alive, and even more of our parents and grandparents were children at that time. The Arab-Israeli conflict didn't begin in 2007. It's complicated and full of twists and turns hatred and unkept promises and internecine battles (are you aware of the 32,000 Palestinian refugees just from fighting between Fatah and Lebanon a couple years ago, or the attempted Palestinian coup in Jordan in 1970?). And there are double-standards. Even triple and quadruple-standards. And that's the way it is. Yes, the rules are different for Israel. And so they are for the Palestinians as well. Did you know that the UN refugee agency considers ONLY descendants of Palestinian refugees to be refugees? No other refugee community in the world gets that definition. And considering Gazans have the highest fertility rate in the region, their population as grown SIX TIMES since 1950, that's a lot of refugees, even though there were the same number of Arab refugees from the land that became Israel as there were Jews from the Arab countries in 1948/49.

Picture if you can, living in Maryland, and the rest of the entire area of the US east of the Mississippi wants you annihilated. It would have an effect on your domestic and foreign policies, don't you think?

Israel's blockade of Gaza was made for a reason. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Egypt even closed their border with Gaza. Should the blockade end? Yes, it should. It's bolstering Hamas's grip rather than turning people against them. It has proven as ineffective as the US embargo on Cuba. But people complain and whine about it and give no alternative suggestions. They forget about the suicide bombers that crossed the border. They act as if the 10,000 rockets launched from there are nothing. It's been luck that so few have been killed by them, but I don't think you'd like the kid next store to shoot at you even if he's a bad shot. Israel doesn't want to be in a position to have wipe the blood off and say "I told you so". They've had to do it too many times. But the collective memory of the world is short.

Criticize Israel, but do so based on truth. And offer reasonable suggestions. The loss of innocent life is horrendous. That hundreds of children died in the most recent Israeli incursion is truly sad. I won't pretend to try and defend devastation like that. Without launching into a treatise on whose got the best claim, it is a free and sovereign nation who contributes much to the world. They deserve, as do all, the right be secure within their borders. If you have a problem with their actions don't spout hate, don't make inane comparisons to the Nazis; reductio ad hitlerum is as fallacious an argument as absurd arguments of the Palin/Rush/Glenn Beck crowd. Criticize and posit a better way.

I could go on and on about the conflict. Emotions run high and civility is the first casualty. But I won't call names. I won't use foul language. I won't insult intelligence. I want peace. A fair peace based on mutual trust.

[Raineyb]

147. Absolute bullshit excuse making.

And I'm going to count your opinion as less valuable because it is blatant and obvious excuse-making for illegal behavior because either the country doing the law-breaking is one you like, or the people whom they are victimizing are those you think you are allowed to hate.

Sorry this doesn't jibe with your rather selective view of democracy but Hamas was elected. And the only reason why they are the only ones running things is because some dumb-asses thought it was a good idea to try to get Fatah to push them out by force and it turns out that Hamas wasn't so easily tossed out.

So now to punish the entire population (which is illegal) they're trying to starve the people into submission with a blockade which is also illegal. Then when activists try to get aid past this illegal blockade, Israel illegally boards the ships in international waters. (Once again more illegal activity.) They murdered nine people including an American citizen but since it's Israel apparently you think this is okay.

Do not try to fool anyone into thinking you're some fair minded individual when you clearly are of a mindset that anything Israel does is fine no matter how immoral or illegal it is. YOu might as well come out and say that as long as its Palestinians who are being oppressed you have no problems with oppression, and as long as it's Arabs being pushed into Bantustans, you have no problem with apartheid. At least that would be honest and then I can write you off as the bigot you are.

[genorp]

162. Thank you for making my point

You call names without substance. You don't know me. I could certainly call you a bigot as you pre-judge. Where's your condemnation of the Egyptians who kept the Palestinians of Gaza in refugee camps for 20 years? There's where your Bantustans come from. But there's obvious no conversation here. You attack, you condemn, you accuse, yet you offer no alternative. For you the world started in 2007, there's never been any suicide bombers, coup attempts, hijacked airplanes, slaughtered Olympic teams, coordinated surprise attacks and invasions, or other countless crimes committed over the past 62 years. You entered the movie well after it started and chose your side based on the scene you came in on. "starve the people into submission"? If that's the plan they're doing a terrible job of it. Even Hamas says "There is no starvation in Gaza. No one has died of hunger." I agree that economy is in tatters and that is wrong But I'm not going to debate the legality of the blockade. The Palestinians deserve their own state to build as they see fit. They were well on their way until their leaders turned down a better deal than their cousins offered them all those years ago. The average Palestinian is a victim, as much from the rest of the Arab world who kept them as pawns as they are from Israel. Do you condemn Hamas? Do you condemn Egypt? Or even the Turks, who treat them like game pieces, and who provided the backing for the flotilla that left, by the way, from the illegally Turkish-occupied North Cyprus, from their illegal invasion that displaced 200,000 Greek Cypriots. That's all I'm saying. Quick to condemn Israel and no one else. Israel does something wrong and the world comes down. Someone does something wrong to Israel and nobody says a word. Others have committed far more heinous crimes, others are far worse off. I never said I hated Palestinians or that Arabs deserve oppression. I don't. They don't. I could easily accuse you of supporting the destruction of Israel but I don't because I hope you don't, even though you didn't say it.

[defendandprotect]

165. Bravo . . .!! Thank you -- !!

[defendandprotect]

164. Minus 1000% -- Too much wrong with that post to get into . . .

however, Israel's blockade of Gaza is illegal --

and Hamas is the elected government of Palestine --

Israel treating Palestinians as less than human, does not argue for the humanity

of Israelis!

[LTX]

167. So much for real discussion:

Forgive me, but weren't you the person complaining above that there is too little real discussion of the subject? Your rather facile dismissal of an opposing view, and your conclusory statements concerning issues that are anything but conclusory in nature, doesn't seem much like "real discussion."

[defendandprotect]

171. Yes, I am arguing for more honest discussion of "I/P" affairs . . . but not in the dungeon...

and not with limitations on what we can say and taboo words!

However, if YOU would like to debate the comments I did make, please go to it --


Israel's blockade of Gaza is illegal --

and Hamas is the elected government of Palestine --

Israel treating Palestinians as less than human, does not argue for the humanity

of Israelis!

[LTX]

173. The legality of the blockade:

Certainly. We can start with the blockade. Setting aside the ill-considered and badly executed raid that has triggered current re-examinations of the blockade, the legality of the Gaza blockade itself is by no means a black and white issue. Considerations include whether an armed conflict exists as a prerequisite condition, whether that armed conflict falls under the rubric of an International Armed Conflict (an IAC), whether the blockade includes an effective mechanism for permitting transfer of humanitarian aid, and the adequacy of the supply levels currently passing to Gaza.

On the armed conflict and its nature, the UN has itself issued conflicting statements on some of the core issues involved in the determination of whether an IAC exists, the key one being whether a current state of Israeli occupation of Gaza exists (with occupation being defined here as effective isolation). Colorable arguments have also been made that an IAC determination in the first instance is irrelevant in view of the practical state of conflict. I tend to view the semantics over whether an IAC exists as subsumed by the practical state of conflict.

Regarding passage of humanitarian aid to Gaza, Israel argues that it has a demonstrated track record of humanitarian supply, and that this supply meets any plausible definition of "adequate supply" during an armed conflict. I tend to view the adequacy of supply as a function of the state of conflict, so I can see Israel's point. But I also think that the state of conflict is a function of the adequacy of supply, creating the catch-22 that makes the situation both untenable and explosive. I am also of the opinion that there is considerable political exaggeration of the state of humanitarian conditions in Gaza, and that hyperbole about the conditions serves only partisan purposes. As an aside on the conditions in Gaza and Palestine, you may find the following site interesting: http://gazaeconomy.blogspot.com/2009/10/rawabi-west-banks-first-planned-city.html

All in all, I tend to view the balance of the arguments as falling on the side of legality. Obviously, you don't. But as I stated previously, it is not an issue reducible to conclusory pronouncement.

[defendandprotect]

176. UN find the blockade of Gaza "illegal" . . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html

The international cry is for the blockade to be lifted --

On the armed conflict and its nature, the UN has itself issued conflicting statements


Consistently, the UN has called this a "full scale war" on Palestine by Israel --

Palestine has no army -- and certainly no nuclear weapons.

Israel is a nuclear nation backed by the US -- and backed by US financial support for

warmaking/weapons. In fact, US and Israeli arms production is so closely intertwined that

"you can almost not tell the difference between them."

America has also stored nuclear weapons in Israel.



I am also of the opinion that there is considerable political exaggeration of the state of humanitarian conditions in Gaza, and that hyperbole about the conditions serves only partisan purposes.

First, keep in mind that the United States government is sending "aid" to Gaza . . .

evidently they feel it is necessary!

IMO, the tendency of Americans to hereafter give Israel the benefit of the doubt is over.

For me, it ended quite some time ago as Israel's brutalies/violence piled up --

certainly by the time of the right wing involvement in the assassination of PM Rabin, which

completely buried peace-loving Israel. See: Murder In The Name of God

And would Americans ever again be so naive about anyone like Lieberman, who came close to

being a Trojan Horse as VP!


This is occupied territory -- and I wouldn't want to leave my total conditions of life to

an occupier. Don't know how you feel about that, but I certainly recognize the inherent

problems with such an arrangement.

More specifically . . .

Here's a BBC report on conditions in Gaza --

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm


Part of that report from May 31, 2010 --

Aid agencies operating in Gaza say they have largely been able to continue to transport basic supplies such as flour and cooking oil into the territory.

But the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation says 61% of Gazans are "food insecure".

According to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, Unrwa, 80% of Gazan households rely on some kind of food aid.

Unrwa provides food aid for 750,000 people, half the population.

Its food distribution has been suspended several times since June 2007 as a result of border closures or fuel shortages.

Israel usually says crossings are closed for security reasons, pointing to occasions when Palestinian militants have attacked the crossings or fired barrages of rockets into Israel.

Unrwa rations provide about two-thirds of dietary needs, and so need to be supplemented by dairy products, meat, fish and fresh fruit and vegetables. Some of these items are grown locally, some allowed in from Israel, and some smuggled in through tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border.

But with the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics estimating unemployment at 38.6% in early 2010, some Gazans cannot afford the basics, even if they are physically available.

Unrwa says the number of Gazan that it helps who are unable to buy basic items such as soap, stationary and safe drinking water has tripled since 2007.

A UN survey in 2008 found more than half Gaza's households had sold their disposable assets and were relying on credit to buy food, three-quarters of Gazans were buying less food than in the past, and almost all were eating less fresh fruit, vegetables and animal protein to save money.

The Israeli military operation in December and January 2009 disrupted food aid transfer and distribution significantly, as well as causing what the UN FAO estimates at $180m of damage to the agricultural sector.

According to the World Health Organization, one third of children under five and women of childbearing age are anaemic.

and some additional info --

Power cuts remain frequent. Research by Oxfam in April 2010 showed houses across Gaza without power for 35-60 hours a week.

SEWAGE AND WATER
The blockade has taken its toll on Gaza's water and sewage network. Lack of spare parts has made repairs difficult. Intermittent power supplies have made pumps reliant on generators, which in turn have lacked spare parts and fuel.

The WHO says Operation Cast Lead worsened an already bad situation. Before the operation, it says Gazans had only half the water they needed according to international standards, and 80% of water supplied did not meet WHO drinking standards.

At the height of the January fighting, half of Gaza's population had no access to piped water.

Gaza's sewage treatment body estimates that at least 50m litres of raw or poorly-treated sewage is released into the sea daily.

Some of Gaza's sewage is stored in huge lagoons, one of which burst in 2007 causing at least five deaths.

on and on --

Overall, the UN says the blockade has caused the economy "irreversible damage". Unemployment has soared from 30% in 2007 to 40% in 2008, according to the World Bank, though it dropped slightly in early 2010. The UN says that when aid is discounted, 70% of Gazan families live on less than a dollar a day per person.

[LTX]

178. Navi Pillay's report is not a UN finding of illegality

The report by Navi Pillay as chief of the HRC has yet to reach Council debate, and reflects a pre-investigation opinion that is somewhat odd in its rambling nature and undocumented conclusions. The Security Council stopped short of adopting a resolution on the issue, but issued a Presidential Statement: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/382/79/PDF/N1038279.pdf?OpenElement

The Presidential Statement, issued on June 1, covers the broad subject "the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question." The Statement refers to the "loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza," but it does not specifically address the legality of the blockade, and significantly does not reference Gaza as an occupied territory. Rather, the Statement refers to the "grave humanitarian situation" and "the need for sustained and regular flow of goods Gaza." The Security Council has called for an "impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards," but as has become par for the course, does not identify who would be mandated to conduct it.

The significance of the issue regarding "occupation" of Gaza (which, again, is in this context a reference to unilateral control over the flow of goods and people creating effective isolation) relates to the definition of an IAC (an international armed conflict), which itself is regarded by some international lawyers as a prerequisite to establishment of a legal blockade. In the absence of "occupation," it is argued that there can be no IAC, and in the absence of an IAC, it is argued that there can be no legal blockade. By omitting references to whether Gaza is "occupied," the Presidential Statement is suggesting that the precursor IAC is absent, which leaves the door open for a finding of illegality.

However, on June 2, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution A/HRC/RES/14/1: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/RES-14-1.doc

HRC 14/1 addresses what is referred to as "the grave attacks by Israeli forces against the humanitarian boat convoy." In the preamble, the Council refers to the 4th Geneva Convention, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, and then proceeds to condemn "in the strongest terms the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces."

What is exceedingly curious about HRC 14/1 is its explicit reference to "the occupying Power Israel" and its call to "immediately lift the siege on occupied Gaza and other occupied territories." Hence, the resolution gives legal cache to the legality of the blockade it otherwise condemns. The HRC has decided to "dispatch an independent international fact finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law" (presumably exclusive of an investigation of the blockade itself as an ostensible violation of international law, given its explicit finding of "occupation"), and this investigatory body is to report back on its findings in the next session.

As a matter of interest, HRC 14/1 was adopted on a vote of 32 members for, 3 against, 9 abstention. The Security Council veto powers voted as follows: China and Russia for, USA against, France and UK abstained. Slovenia is the the only EU member state to vote for.

As you can see, there is anything but consensus, or even consistency, on the issue of the legality of the blockade.

[defendandprotect]

179. "U.N. Human Rights Chief: Israel's Blockade of Gaza Strip Is Illegal" -- no rambling there ...

U.N. Human Rights Chief: Israel's Blockade of Gaza Strip Is

Illegal

GENEVA — United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay on Friday accused Israel of violating the rules of warfare with its blockade stopping people and goods from moving in or out of the Gaza Strip.

In a 34-page report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Pillay also called on Israel to stop expanding its West Bank settlements and punish all settlers who attack Palestinians.

Pillay said the Gaza blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.

-snip-

Pillay urged Israel to ease restrictions immediately "with a view to the complete lifting of the blockade and other restrictions."

Pillay told the Israeli government to

"stop its expansion of settlements, which are illegal."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539363,00.html


Certainly no "rambling" there -- and here is the response from Israel which also

doesn't mention "rambling" . . .

Israeli Ambassador Aharon Leshno-Yaar rejected the findings of the U.N. high commissioner for human rights. He said the report reflected the anti-Israel bias of the U.N. Human Rights Council that commissioned it, and failed to note recent Israeli moves to ease restrictions on Palestinians.




Over the years, of course, those have been the sentiments of Secretaries General of UN

Here's more ...

UN asks Israel to end blockade on Gaza
01.06.2010 00:55

The top foreign policy official of the United Nations on Monday asked Israel to end its "counterproductive" and "unacceptable" blockade on Gaza, dpa reported.

The UN Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, the Argentina's Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, further said in an emergency UN Security Council meeting that Monday's attack on the a humanitarian aid flotilla off Gaza's coast would not have happened without the blockade.

The call to end the blockade was also made the British and Brazilian ambassadors before the UN.

Fernandez-Taranco spoke at the meeting in the name of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Echoing Ban's comments earlier from Uganda, Fernandez-Taranco called for a thorough investigation of events. He noted that the incident happened when all efforts should be focusing on confidence- building and on promoting talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Brazil's Ambassador to the United Nations, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, asked for an "immediate" end of the blockade, and described the attack on the aid flotilla as "deplorable." She further requested an "independent" investigation of events.

http://en.trend.az/regions/met/israel/1697069.html

More --

m&c2010-03-21

Gaza - United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called Sunday on Israel to lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip, as he visited the impoverished salient to examine first hand the humanitarian situation. Addressing a news conference in the southern Strip city of Khan Younis, Ban said the 'unacceptable' blockade increased suffering and while...

Unfortunately the video with his full comments on the conditions he found wasn't available.



and re your final comments . . .

What is exceedingly curious about HRC 14/1 is its explicit reference to "the occupying Power Israel" and its call to "immediately lift the siege on occupied Gaza and other occupied territories." Hence, the resolution gives legal cache to the legality of the blockade it otherwise condemns.

Seemingly disingenous comments --

[LTX]

180. As I said, Pillay's report is not a UN finding of illegality:

It has not been presented to or debated by the HRC, and it is not the product of HRC or Security Council investigation. It is a single-author document and reflects the views of Pillay alone. The UN is a large, deliberative body, and its many ambassadorial members make or author individual statements on a regular basis (some reflective of, or endorsed by, a sponsor state, some reflecting solely the opinion of the individual author). Navi Pillay's report is her own, the Fox News headline you cite notwithstanding.

And indeed, Pillay's report does ramble, covering topics ranging from building permits for East Jerusalem to settlement expansion to export restrictions. It is a report into which Pillay appears to have dumped a plethora of simmering complaints.

As for my comment that HCR 14/1 facially gives cache to the legality of the blockade by its expressions of occupation, I fail to see how it is "disingenous." Perhaps you can be a bit less cryptic.

[defendandprotect]

181. As I've mentioned ... for the second time now ...

your responses are disingenuous --

You're, in fact, showing a dependency on "rambling" as debate --

And you're ignoring the reality that over and again the world is calling

Israel's occupation/blockade "illegal."

And the attack on the Aid ship "deplorable."

Bye --

[LTX]

183. I see:

Real discussion is actually cryptic assertion. Ok. Bye.

[Octafish]

172. Parry and Thomas stood up to Rev Moon, Bush and the rest of the Washington Mafia.

From Parry's piece in the OP:

EXCERPT...

Only One Helen Thomas

As the Iraq War claimed the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the key problem with the Washington press corps wasn’t that it had one Helen Thomas, it was that it only had one Helen Thomas, someone willing to ask the impertinent but important question that pierced the conventional wisdom which dangerously restricts the capital’s policy debates.

Thomas also had the integrity to refuse to allow her name and reputation to be used by South Korean theocrat (and right-wing funder) Sun Myung Moon when he took over United Press International in 2000. Then the best-known journalist at UPI, she resigned as an act of principle.

Though Moon was a notorious propagandist who had founded the Washington Times in 1982 as a vehicle for supporting some American politicians (such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) and for tearing down others (such as John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Al Gore), much of the “objective” Washington press corps tolerated and even promoted Moon’s curious newspaper.

In the mid-1980s, after Moon’s newspaper signed up for the Associated Press wire service, AP executives told AP staffers, including me, that we were no longer allowed to mention Moon’s connection to the newspaper when we cited the Washington Times’ reporting in AP copy.

That policy change meant that readers of AP stories around the world wouldn’t be alerted to the propaganda element of Moon’s operation.

Who else stands up to Busn, Rev Moon and Co.? Not too many journalists, certainly.

[Dinger]

185. Kicked (nt)

[Better Believe It]

187. Kick

[Spazito]

188. Kick

Well said, Mr. Parry.