Helen Thomas resigns over remarks

Israel by definition is occupying the land.

Thomas said what she believes - big deal. Interesting we vilify those that speak their mind but laud those who utilize doublespeak and never really say anything at all.
 
It's too bad she didn't retire first then start speaking her mind. It would have looked more competent. She has a right to her opinion as do all other 'employees'. One needs certain care when you are a public figure, but the outrage over her comments is absurd.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's too bad she didn't retire first then start speaking her mind. It would have looked more competent. She has a right to her opinion as do all other 'employees'. One needs certain care when you are a public figure, but the outrage over her comments is absurd.
Click to expand...

'Tis.
 
Nursedan said:
Israel by definition is occupying the land.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the problem with what she said.

Thomas said what she believes - big deal.
Click to expand...

The big deal is that she believes it. I'm glad she said it, precisely because it now allows us to criticize her for her beliefs. That's the way free speech is supposed to work: both her saying what she believes, and others who think her beliefs are reprehensible responding to her.
 
I said a similar thing once about white people in South Africa, during the Apartheid... when I was 6.
 
The issue is not her defining Israel as an "occupier", but that they should "return" to Germany and Poland and America, as if she had no idea that the reason they left Germany and Poland is because they had been slaughtered there (within Ms. Thomas' own lifetime).

Ms. Thomas was clearly not referring to the occupation of the West Bank, for if she were, she'd have told Israel to "go back" to the 1967 borders, or to Israel. She was telling Israelis to get out of Israel altogether.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
That wasn't the problem with what she said.



The big deal is that she believes it. I'm glad she said it, precisely because it now allows us to criticize her for her beliefs. That's the way free speech is supposed to work: both her saying what she believes, and others who think her beliefs are reprehensible responding to her.
Click to expand...
If there was some balance in the responses, you might have a point. But for the news media to show an obvious pro-Israeli bias complaining about a news reporter with an anti-Israeli bias, the hypocrisy reeks.
 
Skeptic Ginger,

How is your last comment relevant to what you quoted of Ziggurat? Ziggurat is saying that we (as in Americans) are welcome to criticize Thomas for her comments. Even if the media is biased on favor of Israel, what does that have to do with Americans criticizing Thomas?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's too bad she didn't retire first then start speaking her mind. It would have looked more competent. She has a right to her opinion as do all other 'employees'. One needs certain care when you are a public figure, but the outrage over her comments is absurd.
Click to expand...

That's the one - I just hope - as much as I disagree with what she said - that this is not what she is ultimately remembered for. I plan to remember the rest of her history and cut her a lot of slack on this.:(:(:(
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's too bad she didn't retire first then start speaking her mind. It would have looked more competent. She has a right to her opinion as do all other 'employees'. One needs certain care when you are a public figure, but the outrage over her comments is absurd.
Click to expand...

She has a right to her opinion, and we, the public, have a right to judge her accordingly if her opinion turn out to be built out of ignorance and stupidity.

This is the source of outrage.

This is also how public discussion is ought to be.
 
marksman said:
Skeptic Ginger,

How is your last comment relevant to what you quoted of Ziggurat? Ziggurat is saying that we (as in Americans) are welcome to criticize Thomas for her comments. Even if the media is biased on favor of Israel, what does that have to do with Americans criticizing Thomas?
Click to expand...
It's fine to criticize Thomas. What isn't fine is the lopsided criticism of Thomas by the same press that claims Thomas' lack of neutrality is a problem for reporters.

Zigg is also welcome to criticize Thomas. If I recall, Zigg has been an ardent Israel supporter in multiple threads.

This issue I and others in this thread are commenting on is the lack of balanced perspective of that criticism.
 
Doctor Evil said:
She has a right to her opinion, and we, the public, have a right to judge her accordingly if her opinion turn out to be built out of ignorance and stupidity.

This is the source of outrage.

This is also how public discussion is ought to be.
Click to expand...
Do you believe the press represents everyone in this case?

I don't believe the press represents the opinion of many people who speak out against Israel's treatment of innocent civillians in Gaza. It's hypocritical for Israel and the US to support the collective punishment Israel continues to dole out in its response to the Palestinian military action. Not to mention Israel's response only serves to perpetuate the problem, not end it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's too bad she didn't retire first then start speaking her mind. It would have looked more competent. She has a right to her opinion as do all other 'employees'. One needs certain care when you are a public figure, but the outrage over her comments is absurd.
Click to expand...
I know, she just said that Jews should get out of Israel and go "back" to the country that tried to exterminate them. It's not like she said she's against illegal immigration or something insane like that.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No. Impractical, yes, but outrageous, definitely not.
Click to expand...

You don't think saying Jews should go back to Europe is outrageous? Mass deportation is not outrageous? What would be an outrageous statement in your view?

Also, what does "impractical" mean, in this context?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Do you believe the press represents everyone in this case?
Click to expand...

Huh? What is that supposed to mean? Should we vote for the press, so that they represent us?

I would like to press to be factual. They are usually abysmal in that regard. Thomas was even worse than most. Her ignorance, as dispalyed here, is staggering.

I don't believe the press represents the opinion of many people who speak out against Israel's treatment of innocent civillians in Gaza. It's hypocritical for Israel and the US to support the collective punishment Israel continues to dole out in its response to the Palestinian military action. Not to mention Israel's response only serves to perpetuate the problem, not end it.
Click to expand...

We can argue about Gaza in other threads, which actually relate to Gaza. Thomas did not talk about Gaza. Her comments were about the presence of Jews in Israel. Do not change the subject.
 
WildCat said:
I know, she just said that Jews should get out of Israel and go "back" to the country that tried to exterminate them. It's not like she said she's against illegal immigration or something insane like that.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting Jews risk extermination by returning to Germany and Poland today? If so, that's a problem.

I don't think it is realistic to expel the Jews from Israel. But by the same token, I do believe many of the Jews who founded Israel did confiscate land owned by Palestinians, do practice a severe form of Apartheid, and are making their own situation worse by not treating Palestinians like human beings.


By the way, my brother dated a woman, Suma, for a long while whose family was literally expelled from their home in Palestine when Israel confiscated the home, claiming they needed it for a military buffer zone. The Israeli's then proceeded to offer Suma's father pennies on the dollar for the value of his property while compensating Jews full value for their property.

Should I retend not to know this?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom