Ari Fleischer: Fire Helen Thomas
posted at 11:10 am on June 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Sam Stein at the Huffington Post reports on an e-mailed statement from former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who apparently had the same reaction to Helen Thomas as just about everyone else in the US. After telling a reporter on camera that the Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine,” and then apologizing, Fleischer says that any kind of endorsement of ethnic cleansing would have resulted in an immediate firing for anyone else in the White House Press Corps. So why should Helen get a pass? (via Newsbusters)
But even as she was trying to walk back the remarks, calls for her firing mounted. Among the more vocal was former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who claimed to have a close relationship with Thomas when he was manning the daily briefings.
“She should lose her job over this,” Fleischer said in an email. “As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling.”
“She is advocating religious cleansing. How can Hearst stand by her? If a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs.”
Helen Thomas has been a national joke for years, at least since Tony Snow thanked her once for providing the “Hezbollah view” in the daily briefings, but people rolled their eyes at her cranky, off-topic commentary for years before that. Stein says that her more “filtered” questions — really just rants about Israel dressed up as Jeopardy-style answers in question form — were popular with some of the “political and foreign policy observers” (presumably, Stein means in the press corps). Yeah, I’ll bet.
Now that Thomas has expressed her true feelings on ethnic cleansing — and remember, Jews have lived in “Palestine” for millenia and got kicked out of other old Ottoman cities well before Israel came into existence — will those observers stand up to defend Thomas and those views? Will they just keep silent? Or will they call for an action that is probably at least 20 years overdue in asking for Thomas’ expulsion from the WHPC and asking for someone to replace her and her exhausted anti-Israel hobby horse? For that matter, will the Hearst chain endorse Thomas’ views on Israel by keeping her employed, or will they cut her loose?
I’d bet that we’re in for a big round of silence. Hearst will bury its head in the sand, and Thomas’ friends in the press will desperately look away as one does with a mildly demented old relative who shouts embarrassing insults in crowded public places and hope that bystanders believe that they’re too embarrassed to correct the old lady.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I understand you believe that. I’m not arguing that point. She didn’t say out of Gaza and back into Israel though. She said Germany, Poland, and the US.
So again…
anuts on June 5, 2010 at 5:44 PM
Fire that biatch Hagetha!
Liberty or Death on June 5, 2010 at 5:47 PM
–My understanding is that there may be about 600,000 people in the Occupied Territories and that Israel currently has a population of 7 million or so. Could Israel easily handle a ten percent increase in its population?
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Uh…Jimbo3…:
Aren’t we still arguing about if what she said amounted to advocating ethnic cleansing? So would now arguing about the where they are to be ‘cleansed’ amount to a denial or admission? At least a confirmation…?
anuts on June 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Different rules for the leftist liberals, dontcha know?
ultracon on June 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM
–My understanding is that there are Syrians, Eqyptians, Jordanians, Jews and Christians (probably among others) in the Occupied Territories. Assuming that she meant removal of Jews by force (which she didn’t say), it still wouldn’t result in the area being homogenous.
And, as you mentioned, Israel has itself removed some Israeli settlements from the Occupied Territories and the Sinai Peninsula (when it was in possession of that). Was Israel guilty of ethnic cleansing when it did that?
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Oh good Lord.
What do the first three groups you mentioned have in common, genius?
And if the Jews are removed, and the Christians are left as a small minority, the area is dominantly….
cs89 on June 5, 2010 at 6:28 PM
You say you’re a lawyer? (*snort*)
Well, chew on this: Not only did the Lord give this land to the Jews, but since 1948, they have fought for it, died, and taken it by force and victory 3 times (1948, 1967 and 1973).
In addition, there is no such place legally as “Palestine.”
British Palestine became the state of Israel in 1948, recognized by the U.N.
There is no such place as “Palestine” today.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Do they regard themselves as being very similar, or not? Someone in the US with Irish ancestors wouldn’t necessarily think s/he is ethnically the same as someone in the US with British or Scottish ancestors.
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:35 PM
I don’t think those places are rightfully called “the occupied territories” anymore, which is why Ariel Sharon pushed for them to be un-occupied.
Gaza and the Left Bank are occupied by Islamists from many Arab countries that have come to make jihad on the Israeli Jews.
Even the original “Paleostinians” were a group of people kicked out of Jordan by King Hussein, led by Arafat, around 1970.
It was jihadi killers from this group that massacred the Israeli wrestling team at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games.
It’s clear, Himbo3, that you know–or choose to know–very little about the history of Israel and the Middle East.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:39 PM
She’s just another out of the closet leftist nazi, now that they have a radical like Obama in the White House.
ray on June 5, 2010 at 6:39 PM
–She must have meant Gaza and the other Occupied Territories (it would be good to see the whole conversation, not just the part that’s been posted).
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1528
“In a May 19, 2004 commentary criticizing Democratic Party presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry for having voted to authorize use of force against Iraq, Thomas complains that “on the Middle East, Kerry is simply a ‘me too’ echo of Bush when it comes to endorsing Israel’s illegal land grab on the Palestinian-occupied West Bank.”
Does the president think that the Palestinians have a right to resist 35 years of brutal military occupation and suppression?”
Fleischer responds that President George W. Bush supports an Israeli-Palestinian peace process leading to a two-state solution, and the administration’s “focus is on peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
The legal and moral distinctions between resistance and terrorism aside, Thomas persisted: “But does he [the president] think they have a legitimate right to fight for their land?”
Fleischer: “Helen, I do not accept the description or the premise of your question and the manner that you asked it.”
Thomas, muttering: “Occupation, 35 years.”
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:40 PM
You’re dancing and trying to obfuscate the real problem, Helen.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:35 PM
Wiseguy, you are doing your usual schtick here of defending your position long after it is shot fuul of holes.
Was the textbook case of Nazi Germany not true “ethnic cleansing” because, while the blue-eyed blond Aryans were the “master race,” many dark-haired Germans remained as well?
You really need to learn when to let it go, Jimmyboy.
cs89 on June 5, 2010 at 6:42 PM
Helen, there is no “occupation” and Paleostinians have no “rights” to that land.
None.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:42 PM
So if I promote sending all the Blacks back to Africa, that’s ok because we’re keeping the Asians and Hispanics?
Or is that horribly offensive even if it doesn’t result in a pure homogeneous result? Naah, it couldn’t be problematic at all, since it’s a direct analogy.
Somehow I suspect you’ll disagree; color me curious to wonder how you’ll defend racist ethnic cleansing here, and yet show my example as so horribly inappropriate and over the top that it couldn’t possibly be analogous.
Or are you going to defend the KKK views as acceptable as well?
gekkobear on June 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM
So why does Israel argue legally it has authority over those areas on the basis of belligerent occupation?
The Israeli High Court of Justice determined in the 1979 Elon Moreh case that the area in question was under occupation and that accordingly only the military commander of the area may requisition land according to Article 52 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention. Military necessity had been an after-thought in planning portions of the Elon Moreh settlement. That situation did not fulfill the precise strictures laid down in the articles of the Hague Convention, so the Court ruled the requisition order had been invalid and illegal. In recent decades, the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of “belligerent occupation”, in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence.
In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Court determined that “Judea and Samaria” [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel:
The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. (yet unpublished, paragraph 3 of the opinion of the Court; hereinafter – The Gaza Coast Regional Council Case). In the center of this public international law stand the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereinafter – The Hague Regulations). These regulations are a reflection of customary international law. The law of belligerent occupation is also laid out in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:44 PM
The fact that she didn’t say is the worst part: it leaves it ambiguous and open and if you’re Jewish, you can fill in the rest.
Didn’t she say “back to Poland?”
You know what was in Poland, don’t you? Nazi death camps.
Helen wants the Middle East to be Judenrein, not homogeneous.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:46 PM
–Is anyone arguing here that blacks don’t have the legal or moral right to be in the US? That’s where your analogy fails.
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Assuming that she meant removal of Jews by force (which she didn’t say), it still wouldn’t result in the area being homogenous…
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:21 PM
–Sixty years ago, yes. Not now.
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:47 PM
I notice you gave no links or cites with your post.
No Israeli worth their salt would call it “belligerent occupation.”
That’s Islamist talk.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:48 PM
She’s talking about her wish that there were death camps there now to “take care of the problem.”
Or are you too stupid to get it?!?
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:48 PM
Link here, Jen. Scroll down to “judicial decisions”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:49 PM
I’m sure that Storm Front and the KKK would.
These people are curiously on the side of the Islamists, too, who support the Paleostinians’ right to Israel.
Isn’t that curious?
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:50 PM
–She said “Israel should get out of Palestine”, not “Jews”, goes on to mention that its occupied territory and then says where the displaced people should go. If she said “Jew”, I’d agree with you, but given her past comments, she was talking about Israel’s acts in the Occupied Territory.
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Not only is Wikipedia not a definitive source, but even this page refers numerous times to the fact that “occupied territories” is a concept that is widely disputed and almost purely political.
The truth of the matter is that Israel itself moved beyond the 1967 borders during the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:55 PM
One would expect Hearst to have a legal written employee policy dictating termination for tarnishing the Hearst brand by representing the company with that kind of nappy haired diatribe, on camera no less. Why wouldn’t Hearst enforce that policy?
Rea1ityCheck on June 5, 2010 at 6:56 PM
Stop being obtuse and such a useful idiot of the Left!
Everyone knows that “Israel”=”Jews”
And again I must tell you, there are no “occupied territories.”
This is a Leftist, Islamist term.
In fact, if you want further proof, it’s what our jihadist enemies call our military presence in Iraq.
To them, Iraq is “U.S. occupied territory.”
As is probably Afghanistan to them.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Good points and perhaps jimbo3 should also realize that there are no such things as “the Palestinian people” as Hamas has brainwashed the left into believing. There us no such things as a specific ethnic race of Palestinian people, they are Arabs that happen to live in Palestine!
Furthermore, the land supposedly “occupied” by the mean-ole’ Israeli’s was taken over by Isreal after three of their neighbors attacked them unprovoked…the truth of the matter is this should have been a good lesson for Israel’s neighbors and that lesson is don’t provoke a war with your neighbor unless you are willing to take the risk of losing some territory!
And if you do take the risk and get your azz kicked and lose some territory don’t continue to whine and snivel about it and make the world’s gullible bleeding heart liberals beleive it is Israel that is the blood-thirsty monster occupiers; instead they should STFU and learn their lesson!!
Next time Israel’s neighbors should stay in their own backyard…nuff said!
Liberty or Death on June 5, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Excellent!
And now their neighbors include a bellicose Turkey…
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 7:00 PM
–Wikipedia may not be a definitive source, but it’s easily enough to search for the cases mentioned and verify the content. And the Israel Supreme Court did decide that the occupation was justified by “belligerent occupation” and Israeli lawyers successfully argued it. It wasn’t some Islamists.
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 7:01 PM
Everyone knows that “Israel”=”Jews”
And again I must tell you, there are no “occupied territories.”
This is a Leftist, Islamist term.
In fact, if you want further proof, it’s what our jihadist enemies call our military presence in Iraq.
To them, Iraq is “U.S. occupied territory.”
As is probably Afghanistan to them.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Really? Then why is about 1/4 of Israel not Jewish (again, from Wikipedia);
According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the population in 2008 was 75.4% Jewish, 20.6% Arab, and 4% minority groups. The religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2005 was 76.2% Jewish, 16.1% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.6% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion.[2]
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 7:03 PM
Sorry folks,Israel is not the occupiers–the Edomites, Jordanians and others are. Genesis clearly deliniates the land God gave to Abraham and then to Isaac. Ishmael and his tribes were sent to the east to stay away from Isaac. There has been war ever since. It actually started when Ishmael mocked Isaac and out he went. Nothing has changed in thousands of years except the erroneous ideas of western and other cultures–the bag Thomas!
wepeople on June 5, 2010 at 7:05 PM
An attorney using wikipedia. Yeh sure.
And YOU IDIOT she told them to go back to Poland and Germany. Sheesh.
CWforFreedom on June 5, 2010 at 7:05 PM
You should be disbarred and kept from using that internet law license. Hilarious-using wikipedia. This is just too much.
CWforFreedom on June 5, 2010 at 7:06 PM
Maybe the Israel Supreme Court said so, but sadly, far be from some Israelis to be self-hating Jews that will do things to hurt their country…
That being said, the whole reason that PM Sharon insisted on the disengagement from Gaza and the West Bank was so that those areas would no longer by contested as “occupied.”
Get it?
So to call them “occupied” is now crazy.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Whatever. Gotta go to a graduation party. Hope you’re keeping cool in the DFW heat, Jen (and to anyone else in Texas and surrounding states).
Have a good weekend, all. Anuts, thanks for not resorting to personal insults and keeping it classly.
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Because the Jews are infinitely more liberal and forgiving than their enemies, that’s why!
You’re not going to get Helen off the hook, she meant Jews.
The stated purpose of the Paleostinians’ and Islamists’ war on Israel is to push the Jews (also called the Jewish state of Israel) into the sea.
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Whatever?
Your glib Arafat lies have me pretty hot under the collar!
Now, git and don’t come back with that cr*p again!
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 7:11 PM
Jimbo you are hilarious …wiki boy.
CWforFreedom on June 5, 2010 at 7:11 PM
Notice how once I spanked him like the red-headed stepchild he is, he remembers he has a “party” to go to!
What an idiot!
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Hilarious coming from a hater, liar , and distorter.
CWforFreedom on June 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Assuming that Jimbo3 is actually a corporate lawyer, it will be for a corporation notorious for its lax safety, and contempt for human life.
His his the face they send out to explain that their violating minimal safety standards has nothing to do with the new body count.
Slowburn on June 5, 2010 at 7:16 PM
Exactly right bimbofidel, as I pointed out in an earlier comment this whole “occupied territories” is a bunch of political propaganda BS Hamas and other Jew hating groups have concocted to make Israel out to be the bad guy in all of this yet the lefty bleeding heart liberals lap it up like the dumb azz morons they are.
I say they are dumb azz morons because it really doesn’t take much to research the history of that area and what has transpired over the years, particularly the Yom Kippur War of 1973. So either the left are morons, dishonest, lazy, gullible, hypocrites, or all of the above…I SAY ALL OF THE ABOVE!
Liberty or Death on June 5, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Sweetie, my screen name’s Jenfidel.
Himbo3 changed it out of hostility because I was beating his butt!
LOL
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 7:19 PM
She’s going nowhere. Just like Obama’s attempt to bribe Democrats to not run with “jobs” will go nowhere. Wrong party.
sandee on June 5, 2010 at 7:21 PM
I bet those wiki quotations go over well./
CWforFreedom on June 5, 2010 at 7:21 PM
I’m corn-fused…? Yes, you did kick his butt but I’m still corn-fused about the name…
Liberty or Death on June 5, 2010 at 7:24 PM
You called me “bimbofidel” which is what he dubbed me to get even for showing him to be such a Helen Thomas shill.
Get it now?
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM
From Iowa I see.
CWforFreedom on June 5, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Ok, so jimbos actually posted what I responded to? If so he helped me prove my point and made himself look silly! I’m on Israel’s side and your side Jenfidel!
Liberty or Death on June 5, 2010 at 7:33 PM
Actually I live in AZ and was born in Syracuse NY, but my girlfriend’s dad (he’s 92) is from Iowa and the guy is quite the character and uses the “I’m corn-fused” line all the time…the guy cracks me up, he’s till got it at 93 bless his heart!
Liberty or Death on June 5, 2010 at 7:35 PM
I am guilty too. Though I was not born there but most of my relatives came from Iowa.
CWforFreedom on June 5, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Hell yeah she should be fired! She’s not crazy great aunt Betty saying crazy things at Thanksgiving dinner! Shes in the White House press core asking cray questions and saying crazy racist things! Can the crazy old bat!
MCGIRV on June 5, 2010 at 8:01 PM
Do NOT fire Helen Thomas!!!
Take her front row seat away and make her stand in the back of the room next to the television cameras. Never acknowledge her again.
“Oh,what a world! I’m melting, MELTING!” Then let Jake Tapper take her broomstick.
walkingboss on June 5, 2010 at 8:15 PM
What makes Hellen Thomas’ comments extra special is they came at a Jewish Heritage Event at the White House.
Then again, my wife and I used to visit nursing homes with our late giant ginger Norweigian Forest cat named Jerry (he was exceedingly gentle, calm and furry, and he weighed about 30 lbs.). One woman liked him and we went back to see her, but she was obviously lapsing from Altheimer’s. She did not recognize us.
I asked, “Do you want to see Jerry the Cat?”
She replied, “Jerry Katz? I do not care for Jews!”
Unfortunately, in Helen’s case I think her statements reflect how she truly feels.
Mr. Joe on June 5, 2010 at 8:31 PM
And I agree, don’t fire her. Just take away the front row. She does not deserve it.
Mr. Joe on June 5, 2010 at 8:31 PM
7 Million in Israel surrounded by more than 300 million of their enemies. Those 300 million live often in countries who have terrible human rights records yet not a peep from the likes of Jimbo. Anti- semitism is alive and well.
CWforFreedom on June 5, 2010 at 8:42 PM
And this story just got more legs I think-
Palin just tweeted about Thomas.
cs89 on June 5, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Fire her!
Glad Fleischer, Palin, the blogs, etc. are taking up the cause.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on June 5, 2010 at 9:18 PM
She’s a witch!
Burn her!
:D
The Evil Doctor K on June 5, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Hearst probably agrees with Helen. The most they will probably do is ask the accounting department if they can afford further of Helen’s outbursts yet to come.
Hearst letting her get away with it may encourage Helen Thomas to make more blatant outbursts of media bias which could be useful to critics of whacked-out Liberal activist news.
viking01 on June 5, 2010 at 9:35 PM
I wondered aloud whether the usual anti-semite trolls had shown up to defend Thomas yet.
I see at least one of them finally has.
Midas on June 5, 2010 at 10:31 PM
–So, she says “Israel needs to get out of Palestine” and the media report it as “Jews need to get out of Palestine”, and you’re calling me anti-Semitic for pointing that out?
You’re Ppathetic and dishonest. You have no integity or ethics.
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 11:28 PM
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 11:28 PM
Why are you leaving off the “go back to Poland or Germany” at the end of her “get out of Palestine” comments?
As if we didn’t already know, by you’re pathetic attempts to justify her statements….
cs89 on June 5, 2010 at 11:43 PM
You’re pathetic and dishonest.
You have no integrity or ethics.
And yes, you’re anti-Semitic for not only defending Helen and the Paleostinians but condemning the Jews on this very thread, while pretending that you were not and just being “reasonable” by linking to Leftist wikipedia posts to back up your pathetic Leftist, Islamist “arguments!”
Oh, and you’re a liar, too!
Jenfidel on June 5, 2010 at 11:44 PM
-Why am I not surprised that you didn’t have a date tonight, Jen?
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 11:57 PM
My dating days are long behind me–Praise God!
I’m happily married to the man I’ve been with for the last 19 years.
Nice ad hominem, though, you liar.
Jenfidel on June 6, 2010 at 12:00 AM
-Sorry. I thought you were in your 30s and not married. My sympathies to your husband.
Jimbo3 on June 6, 2010 at 12:01 AM
If the WH refuses to demand Helem Thomas’s removel from the Corps, then it is a clear indication and strong support for an anti-Semitic hack.
With this administrations lack of support for Israel, it has shown our historic president’s anti-Semitic beliefs.
She is as bigoted as someone who screams, “Send the Blacks back to Africa”, and her removal is necessary. Her apology is weak, and intended to get the heat off her
JohnD9207 on June 6, 2010 at 12:06 AM
You’d better hope he doesn’t find out where you live…
Now stop with the personal attacks!
And quit telling lies for Helen and her Jew-hating friends…like you!
Jenfidel on June 6, 2010 at 12:06 AM
Jimbo3 on June 5, 2010 at 11:57 PM
Umm…
What did my comment (start of your blockquote) have to do with Jen’s lovelife?
Guess I’ll just respond with a couple of places you seem reluctance to address.
Germany.
Poland.
cs89 on June 6, 2010 at 12:13 AM
–How about you stop with the personal attacks on me, like calling me a Jew-hater, dishonest and a liar, among others, as well?
Cs89, I shouldn’t have included your post in my comments.
Jimbo3 on June 6, 2010 at 12:22 AM
♫ ♪ Some enchanted evening,
you will meet a stranger…. ♪ ♫
and biatch and moan about her.
viking01 on June 6, 2010 at 12:32 AM
Can we still call you a Jew-hater apologist?
kthxbye
Inanemergencydial on June 6, 2010 at 12:33 AM
In that you are a Jew-hater, dishonest and a liar and that those facts are germane to the comments you make on this thread, it is relevant.
But derisive comments about my domestic and married life
are not germane to the topic.
So, no can do!
Jenfidel on June 6, 2010 at 12:36 AM
No one should take Bush crime family seriously after what they did.
Spathi on June 6, 2010 at 1:12 AM
What???
How did you sneak in a slam at the Bushes, you Paulistinian?!
(Also not germane to the thread in the least!)
Jenfidel on June 6, 2010 at 1:31 AM
Ari is with the Bushes.
Spathi on June 6, 2010 at 2:33 AM
Ari hasn’t been President Bush’s Press Secretary for a long time and he is not only Jewish himself, but he’s also correct.
Having been a press secretary, he knows what’s proper for a WH correspondent and he is now a private citizen and can condemn Helen’s awful Nazi-like remarks about Israeli Jews!
Both the Bushes and Ari Fleischer are on the side of right about Israel.
I suppose that being a supporter of Ron Paul wouldn’t make you a fellow anti-Semite, would it, Spathi?
Jenfidel on June 6, 2010 at 2:56 AM
So in other words, you are down with ethnic cleansing, as long as it’s the “right kind”?
That’s what your drivel boils down to, whether or not you see it is another story. Shame on Helen Thomas, and shame on you.
hillbillyjim on June 6, 2010 at 3:48 AM
Jimbo3:
I have never seen a worse example of an anti-Semite trying to defend the indefensible than your ramblings on this thread.
Being a Jew hate is one thing. But you’re supposedly a lawyer and you couldn’t even mount a 1/2 assed defence of your views. Now that is pathetic.
angryed on June 6, 2010 at 7:55 AM
As Obowma spent 20 YEARS in a racist, Anti-American, Jew-hating, black theology church, I’m certain Obowma practices what Helen is preaching.
On Israel and the so called “Palestinians”, God gave this land to the Jews THOUSANDS of years before these Arabs aka “Palestinians” lived there. The first two state solution was tried with Transjordan long before the latest attempt in the Gaza strip and it didn’t work as the Arabs simply want NO Jews in the middle east..period.
Israel wants peace, the Arabs want the Jews dead.
dthorny on June 6, 2010 at 8:44 AM
With all due respect I don’t think anyone can honestly believe that this Jimbo3 guy is a lawyer. He can’t even form a coherent sentence. I wouldn’t hire someone that incompetent in the English language to be a waiter or even a cook for that matter at my restaurant. I suppose he could rise to assistant manager at White Castle with some hard work. But when you live in your mothers basement why bother working?
Capitalist Infidel on June 6, 2010 at 8:58 AM
I am not surprised by the racists that rationalize Helen Thomas avowed racism against Jews. As has been said before, if she would have said that all African-Americans should leave the US and go back to Africa, how long would it have been before the Whitehouse would have expelled her, Hearst would have fired her, and the main stream media would have shunned her?
Since she has the same views as Obama, my guess is that she will get a nice phone call from him telling her this will all blow over…and next time just don’t be so public about those troublesome Jews…He’ll take care of them Jews…just you watcht Helen
georgealbert on June 6, 2010 at 9:04 AM
Jenfidel, you ruled this thread. Impressive exchanges.
On a side note, I’m wondering about Jimbo3′s “lawyer” creds too. You would think a “lawyer” would be able to make enough coin to pay for his own health care. Jimbo3, not so much.
hawkdriver on June 6, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Actually, this is an interesting point. In sticking with the settlements in Gaza only, a case can be made that there was ethnic cleansing. The caveat, however, is to distinguish the guilty party. Although Israel voluntarily shut down (disengagement) those settlements, it was not out of preference. Sharon’s stated reason was that they had become such a security issue thus draining life and resources. Call that by force and/or intimidation. And the intimidation for this decision was certainly not of Israel’s doing.
Terrible mistake.
At the time, I subscribed to the theory that it would prove to the blinded pro Pali/anti Israeli quite clearly both the intentions of Israel (of seeking peace with its neighbors) and that of the Palistinians (destruction of Israel). Because we all knew that the terrorism would not end. Thereby Israel having casus belli from the daily attacks from another sovereign entity.
The miscalculation, of course, was that it didn’t matter. Much of the world still chose to be blind and Israel didn’t defend herself properly.
Terrible mistake, yet again.
anuts on June 6, 2010 at 9:43 AM
She should show up for one more presser and then retire.
She’s destroyed her own career reputation with this not-subtle slip.
The woman is obviously anti-semitic and needs to resign.
AnninCA on June 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM
I’m curious, one more presser would….let her apologize?
BTW, remember when Rush called out the anti-war movements Jessie MacBeth (who was not a current soldier/never made it out of basic/never was a Ranger/never was in Iraq/never even deployed) and the media firestorm that followed? The WH and liberal congress wanted his head on a platter by even mischaracterizing who he was talking about? There is no mistake what Helen T was saying here.
Helen Thomas’s statement and the media reaction to it is the final and definative evidence of a media system that is morally corrupt and beyond repair.
hawkdriver on June 6, 2010 at 10:02 AM
So explain how I am an anti-Semite, Jew-hater and Liar. I think Helen Thomas meant to say that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories should be removed and the people there should go back to Europe and the US. That’s not all Jews, it’s just the Jews there, so I don’t see how anyone can say that makes her an anti-Semite, much less me for defending what she said (see definition below).
Israel has previously removed Israeli settlements in the Sinai Pennisula. About 700,000 Palestinians also left parts of Israel in connection with the formation of the State of Israel; at least 60,000 of those were expelled under Israeli orders and there is a dispute over how many others were a direct result of Israel intimidation or official orders and a letter from the first Prime Minister of Israel to milliary commanders confirmed that “the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan Dalet” The US has moved American Indians to reservations. The US is trying to move illegal Mexicans back to Mexico. Do you think those things are “ethnic cleansing”.
Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religion. In its extreme form, it “attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilizations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]” in which they reside.A person who practices antisemitism is called an “antisemite.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
Jimbo3 on June 6, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Actually Jimbo3, the “lawyer”, Anti-Semitism would cover any descendant of Shem. So, Muslims also. Just saying.
hawkdriver on June 6, 2010 at 10:14 AM
–Anuts, from what I can tell, Israel forcibly removed about 4500 Israelis from the Sinai in the late 70s under the Camp David Accord and forcibly evicted all Israel citizens from 21 settlements in Gaza and a few West Bank settlements who would not voluntarily agree to go in exchange for compensation in 2005. Israel may have felt it had to do this because of other factors, but it did agree to do this and forced Israelis to move.
Jimbo3 on June 6, 2010 at 10:28 AM
For liberals, no apology is sincere. This is a biased, partisan, anti-semite, Bush hating, old reporter who has lost her credibility long, long ago. Hearst needs to retire her immediately…… but then, they are liberal as well……… Their inaction speaks volumes.
ultracon on June 6, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Jimbo3 – nobody likes you here. Go be with your own kind elsewhere. Your ideologies simply expose who you are — someone who has never been, never will be and is not now a man. This is why you sympathize with Terrorists.
Simona on June 6, 2010 at 11:55 AM
–I’m staying, so why don’t you start responding to some of the questions and points I raised rather than personally attacking me like a deranged, hysterical rightwinger?
Jimbo3 on June 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM
And it appears that US policy on the Occupied Territories has been consistent over the last thirty or so years, and it also appears that there is considerable question whether Israel’s continued occupation of the Occupied Territory might violate international law (it’s not clear that the laws noted apply to Israel):
Bush Administration (1989-1993) Former President Bush raised Israeli ire when he reminded a press conference on March 3, 1990, that east Jerusalem was occupied territory and not a sovereign part of Israel as the Israelis claimed.
President Clinton disagreed with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policy of expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and it was reported that the President believed that the Prime Minister delayed the peace process.
U. S. policy, beginning in 1982, supported neither an independent Palestinian state nor Israeli sovereignty or control of the occupied territories. Instead, the Reagan Administration preferred a form of “association” between the West Bank/ Gaza areas and Jordan.
Since the first Israeli settlements were created in the occupied territories following the June 1967 war, the United States has held that such settlements are illegal under international law (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an occupying power may not transfer its civilian population into occupied territories) and are an “obstacle to peace” because their presence implies an Israeli claim of sovereignty that appears to rule out a willingness to negotiate.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/crs_israeli-us_relations.shtml
The UN’s Security Council has repeatedly denounced Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. For instance, in UNSC Resolution 446 of 22 March 1979, it stated:
The Security Council,(…)
1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East[.]
The issue arose again when the ICJ was asked to give an advisory opinion about Israel’s Apartheid Wall/Security Fence. On 9 July 2004, the ICJ issued its opinion that the Wall was illegal “recalling in particular” relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal[.]
Invoking UNSCR No. 446, the ruling included the following unequivocal statement:
The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.
The opinion was passed by a 14-1 vote. Even the sole dissenting judge, Thomas Buergenthal of the United States, was very careful to note that:
9. Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6.
In 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol asked the legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron (currently a judge at the Appeals Chambers for the Rwanda Genocide trials), whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked “Top Secret,” Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally,
My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Jimbo3 on June 6, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Jimbo,
Were Arab attacks against Israel before Israel began violating the 4th Geneva convention legal or illegal?
Are the daily rocket attacks from Gaza legal or illegal?
Akzed on June 6, 2010 at 12:29 PM
The solution is obvious:
Revoke the outdated ‘permanent assigned seating’ policy for press conferences and replace it with a deliberate rotation of a larger press pool.
This would be better in the long run for the press, the administration, and the citizens who have to read the ‘news’ generated by these events.
As a minimal alternative, the Press Secretary should quit being deferential in accepting ‘questions’ every press conference from an obviously demented person, and should sit her down when she rants.
landlines on June 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Jimbo3: When has ‘International Law’ ever mattered?
Do you know anyone who has pledged allegiance to an ‘International Constitution’?
The very concept of ‘consent of the governed’ and ‘International Law’ are irreconcilable.
Thus, ‘International Law’ is doomed to failure and irrelevancy as merely a construct imagined by those who would impose their will on the people of the world.
landlines on June 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM
–Illegal, I would think.
Jimbo3 on June 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »