The Helen Thomas moment

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 111 Comments

I was surprised as anyone by the Helen Thomas video that came out the other day showing the veteran White House correspondent saying that the Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine," and she wasn’t talking about the occupied territories. She said they should go back to Germany. One hears this type of comment in Palestine, too; I reported it from my Gaza trip a year back. 

The silver lining here is that Thomas, who is an Arab-American, was expressing maximalist feelings, and if you’re going to denounce her maximalist impulses, then it is only fair to expose maximalist policies on the other side. Ari Fleischer says that Thomas is in favor of "religious cleansing." Well what is happening now– not just in angry people’s heads– but on the ground in Sheikh Jarrah and al-Walaje and so forth? That’s a maximalist policy. Yes Arabs opposed Partition, but so did Jewish maximalists, and who has had the hammer for the last 63 years? And which side repeatedly defied international law, and Harry Truman too, when it came to letting the non-Jewish refugees of ’48 return to their homes following their cleansing? 

It’s one thing to say that Palestinians want to push Jews into the sea. And yes, some surely do. But who actually got pushed into the sea? The Palestinians in Jaffa, during the ethnic-cleansing of that Arab city. There are now Israeli art galleries in the old stolen Arab homes there. That land’s beauties must be shared.

111 Responses

  1. Taxi
    June 5, 2010, 8:55 pm

    You honestly think that the middle east is actually EVER going to embrace the euro jewish converts as locals and allow them even an inch of territory?

    People in America need to get real.

    Even if it takes a hundred years and a hundred world war wars, to the natives, Israel is a cruel and invasive EUROPEAN entity that will NEVER be allowed to settle amongst them, DESPITE THEIR CONVERSION to an Abrahamic religion. For fuck’s sakes the Israelis could convert to Islam tomorrow and the mideasterners would STILL want them out of Palestine and back in europe!

    And they should go back to europe – because thats where they’re really from.

    • RoHa
      June 5, 2010, 9:28 pm

      I think “really from” means “born there and/or spent formative years there”.

      If it means “where ancestors were born”, then ultimately we are all “really from” Kenya. It is going to be awfully crowded when we all “go back” there.

      Israeli Jews will be accepted when they accept that they are part of Middle Eastern society.

      • Taxi
        June 5, 2010, 10:33 pm

        Will never happen Roha.

        The zionist experiment failed while it was being configured on the drawing boards of europe, just like all other colonial projects. They’ve never had a single peaceful day in ‘Israel’ and they NEVER will. People view Israelis as european and they will always view them this way. Also the native’s memories in that region, go back a long, long, long, long way – they just simply don’t forget invasions and occupations and they’re very emotionally attached to their WIDER history. If you’re not including this particular local trait in your calculations, then you really don’t know the mideastern mind. I’ve never met a single mideasterner, either extremist, moderate or apolitical, who thought that euro jews should own part of the middle east – that this ‘implant’ state was ever justice to them and their existence. Not a single one. Never! So no, I don’t believe Israel will ever have peace.

        I used to think it could, oh for about 5 minutes some thirty years ago.

      • RoHa
        June 5, 2010, 11:53 pm

        “I’ve never met a single mideasterner, either extremist, moderate or apolitical, who thought that euro jews should own part of the middle east – that this ‘implant’ state was ever justice to them and their existence.”

        But if the Israeli Jews accept that they are part of Middle Eastern society, they will disband the implant state and give up the idea of “owning” part of the Middle East. Then they will be accepted.

      • Shmuel
        June 6, 2010, 1:17 am


        It’s interesting that you say about Israeli Jews being accepted in the Middle East, that it “will never happen”, while talking about fantasies that thy will just disappear. This is even more over the top than those who argue for a 2ss because a 1ss is “unrealistic”.

        As for Mideasterners willing to accept Israeli Jews as part of the region, I’ve met quite a few – mostly Palestinians. One such Palestinian once explained her vision of peace to me – end occupation, equal rights, ROR – and I (very Oslo-minded, at the time) asked, “but what’s in it for the Jews?”, to which she replied “you get to stay”. I thought she was nuts, and was even a little offended. It took me a while to realise what a truly generous offer she was making – not because she actually thought Israeli Jews could be forced back to Poland, Germany, Iraq or Yemen – but because she was talking about acceptance.

        There is also another side to the equation, however. You would be surprised by the number of Israelis open (even now) to the possibility of integration into the region. Apart from the millions of Arab Jews in Israel (some more, some less westernised), there is, even among Ashkenazi Jews, a significant openness to Arab culture and connection to the Middle East, which goes beyond classic. colonial romanticism. The racist-European image of Israelis is somewhat oversimplified, to say the least.

      • RoHa
        June 6, 2010, 2:21 am

        Didn’t you see the line “disband the implant state”? That means that Israel ceases to exist.

      • Justice Please
        June 6, 2010, 8:12 am

        Shmuel, how you slowly changed your reaction to that encounter with the Palestinian is very moving and shows that you are a real Mensch. I will use your example to show ignorant people that Jews/Israelis are not automatically fascist bastards. Thank you.

      • Taxi
        June 6, 2010, 9:37 am


        The real fantasy is when people underestimate the longevity and depth of the emotion of hate.

        It’s not personal, its just the human condition to want the killer of their children hanged in a public square and his children spat on.

      • Pamela Olson
        June 6, 2010, 12:10 pm

        Hi Taxi,

        With respect, I think you underestimate the power of forgiveness. I don’t say this from a naive perspective. I say it as someone who was humbled over and over and over by Palestinians whose ability to welcome Jews and Israelis into their homes even if their land or children had been stolen or destroyed by Jewish Israelis, whose ability to work for peace even when it seemed like the most futile and humiliating thing imaginable, whose ability to look and see where violence and hatred took them and their children and step back from the brink, made it impossible for me not to at least attempt to rise to their level.

        Once there is peace, there will probably need to be peace and reconciliation committees. But honestly, the vast majority of Palestinians just want to live. Without violence. Without vengeance. Just with enough justice that they can look their children in the eye and live with dignity.

        In other words, peace is not as far away as you (or most Israelis) think. You just have to be fair.

      • Shmuel
        June 6, 2010, 12:22 pm

        Thank you Pamela. That is my experience too. Many things are felt and said in anger, but I think that Arab culture in general, and Palestinian culture in particular, have a staggering capacity for generosity and forgiveness.

      • Taxi
        June 6, 2010, 12:25 pm


        You are so nice and smart and persuasive :-)

        Not to be a cynic here, I’m merely pointing to the will of the collective in the middle east. Knowing something about the human condition, I know that forgiveness after prolonged torture is highly improbable in the short-term, especially if you have to ‘live’ with your torturer. It usually takes many generations to arrive at forgiveness. (Have the jews really forgiven the nazis?)

        Also, forgiveness does not equate forgetfulness, and it does not mean that you’d want to live right next door to your torturer and fall in-love with them and make a nice happy little society. It’s easier to forgive when your assailant is out of sight and so therefore out of mind.

        I know Palestinians “just want to live”, their bones and skulls smashed so many times by now that what else are they gonna tell you, Pamela? But ask them if they would prefer to ‘just live’ on the whole of historic Palestine and they would in unison declare a unanimous: yes!

      • Shmuel
        June 6, 2010, 12:58 pm


        So you’re saying that the choices Israeli Jews have are:

        1. Go away.
        2. Get slaughtered (if Arabs are given half a chance).
        3. Stay armed to the teeth and keep oppressing the Palestinians.

      • olive
        June 6, 2010, 1:04 pm

        I think that the majority of people of the region will not tolerate a European colonial entity to fester in its heartland. Just look at what happened to the Crusader states.

        However, once all the fighting is done, I am confindent that the people of the region will accept Jews (those who still want to stay, anyway) with open arms.

      • lysias
        June 6, 2010, 1:14 pm

        Does anybody know what happened to the Europeans in the Levant after the fall of the Crusader states (which lasted an amazing 200 years!)? Were they forced out, or did they return to Europe voluntarily?

        Was there continuity between Outremer and the later great French influence and interest in the Levant?

      • Justice Please
        June 6, 2010, 3:31 pm

        And neither are the descendants of the other converts from the Arabian peninsula and North Africa.

      • Taxi
        June 6, 2010, 3:37 pm


        I don’t think your option number three is part of the equation.

        What I say, I say as a sober assessment, not because I am for it.

        We can debate all we want here, but over there, they’ve stopped waiting for us and our so called chattering ‘help’, stopped waiting for ‘our solution’ to deliver them even a glimmer of justice – they really have.

        C’mon it’s been sixty four years! They will not rest the next sixty years in our hands no more.

      • Taxi
        June 6, 2010, 3:41 pm


        I don’t think your option number three is part of the equation.

        What I say, I say as a sober assessment, not because I am for it.

        We can debate all we want here, but over there, they’ve stopped waiting for us and our so called ‘chattering help’, stopped waiting for ‘our solution’ to deliver them even a glimmer of justice – they really have.

        C’mon it’s been sixty-four years! They will not naively rest the next sixty years in our hands no more.

      • Avi
        June 6, 2010, 7:57 pm

        What I say, I say as a sober assessment, not because I am for it.

        Taxi, I think it’s important to remember that gradually, people tend to make compromises despite their early stubborn and deeply entrenched feelings. People change over time, they consider their options and act accordingly. If it comes to the point where Israelis are forced to make such a critical decision, the pressure could very well be sobering and help them open their eyes and hearts to their fellow Palestinians.

        Only machines are rigid. People have a tendency to bend and flex, especially in trying times.

      • Taxi
        June 6, 2010, 8:50 pm


        I wish I could agree with you. When you add ‘religion’ to the mideast mindset, it stops being so black and white – hence witness the ongoing and brutal conflict between suni and shia.

        Sorry to say but the forecast is gloomy for Ashkenazim’s future in the mid east.

      • Shmuel
        June 7, 2010, 12:53 am


        The reason I put no. 3 in is because you seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong), that no matter what the Israelis do from this point on, they will meet with extreme violence – the product of deep-seated hatred and a desire for revenge. This is precisely the argument used by Israelis to justify their country’s behaviour and the futility of “concessions”: No matter what we do, at the first opportunity, they will try to slaughter us/ drive us into the sea. It is also human nature (at least in large groups) to pursue self-interest, rather than do the right thing. White self-interest is what ended Apartheid. What interest can Israel possibly have in affording justice to the Palestinians? We can BDS ’em till the cows come home, but if we can’t convince them that they will not be murdered/expelled the moment they give Palestinians their rights (including ROR), no amount of pressure will accomplish anything.

      • Shmuel
        June 7, 2010, 2:03 am


        This is a particularly important topic for me, because it is the subject of so many conversations I have with Israeli family and friends. No reasonable person I know will actually say that the Palestinians have no rights, that it is OK to kill and torture them and steal their land. What I often hear however, is that the choice is between oppressing (as terrible as that may be) or being oppressed, that it’s us or them, that there are no innocent Palestinians (almost a mirror image, no?), or that it’s better their innocent suffer than ours.

        Honestly, when you get past the initial rage and venting, and pose a hypothetical question – were the Israelis to give Palestinians equal rights, allow the refugees to return, pay compensation, etc. – do your friends still believe that it’s either Poland or the grave for the yahoud?

      • Taxi
        June 7, 2010, 7:11 am

        Ever talked to Palestinians who were born and still live in refugee camps, Shmuel – sat outside their shack on tin cans and talked to them? What does BDS mean to them? Nothing. What does the peace process mean to them? Nothing.

        But returning home is everything. Sharing it with their oppressors is an offensive suggestion and not an option.

        It’s just the way they feel, Shmuel.

        Their oppressors could be christian or they could be yahudi – makes no difference, they’re still gonna feel the same. An oppressor is an oppressor, regardless of their religion.

        Most of my friends, both western and eastern, think that europe and America have the responsibility to pay for the safe repatriating of their judaic citizens, assuring/guaranteeing them their equal rights, their security and opportunity back in their ancestral lands. It’s time their abused child’s place is back in the fold and bosom – that’s where the healing is, not in far away Arab Palestine.

        It was wrong for the jews of europe to use the powerful forces of their WW2 tragedy, to swindle more than half of a 3rd world country, the holy lands, no less.

        This is not a small wrong Shmuel. Tens of thousands of innocent natives have died. Israelis, far less in numbers, have died. 3rd party foreigners too have died.

        The Israelis have caused just way too much death and terrorism to allow the natives room for any concessions.

        Germany still pays reparations to the jews – that means the jews still haven’t ‘forgiven’ the Germans yet. It’s what happens when too much death is caused: it takes several hundred years to ‘forgive’, not just a couple of generations.

        The Israel project has really fucked the jews. It offers no long-term ‘moral’ solutions to them, or equitable justice to the suffering Palestinians. It is therefore o so temporary. Evidently and regrettably, a violent temporary – this land of ‘no solutions’.

      • Shmuel
        June 7, 2010, 7:54 am


        I have spoken with Palestinians who have suffered great injustices (sitting in front of demolished homes or caves, or destroyed olive trees and vineyard, former prisoners, relatives of those imprisoned and killed by Israeli forces), and some of them have been refugees.

        I do not belittle these injustices, nor do I deny the right of the refugees to return home. The repatriation of 6 million people, most of whom have known no other home, is not a small wrong either, but that is probably not something I would bring up in a conversation with a lifelong refugee.

        What I am trying to understand here is whether you are talking about druthers and fantasies, or a reasoned, principled approach to a situation that cannot feasibly be resolved in any way but some form of acceptance of a large-scale Jewish presence in Palestine. When I say “forgiveness”, I don’t mean love or brotherhood. I mean conditional acceptance – what Omar Barghouti calls “toleration”. It is certainly pragmatic, but is also contingent upon a great deal of generosity – a kind of generosity I have felt from Palestinians in Jerusalem, Galilee and the WB, even in tense and tragic circumstances.

        Again, the rage and fantasies are comprehensible, but what do the people you are talking about have to say beyond that, or are they incapable of any thought beyond righteous fury and revenge? If the latter is the case, and they are in any way representative of Palestinian society and the Arab world in general, the Israeli hasbarists are right that nothing short of Israeli mass suicide will satisfy “the Arabs”, so the only thing to do is to strengthen Fortress Israel, and “live by the sword”.

        If I didn’t disagree with you, I would be even more depressed and discouraged than I already am (which is saying a lot).

      • Taxi
        June 7, 2010, 11:04 am


        It’s not about judaism. It’s about european zionism usurping the holy land. The natives can tell the difference and will rebel against zionism for eternity.

      • Shmuel
        June 7, 2010, 11:14 am

        Now you are confusing me Taxi. In your opinion, would Arabs accept a de-Zionised Jewish population in Palestine? Unless I have misunderstood you, your answer is no. So to say it’s not about Judasim is a tad dishonest, if it is about (de-Zionised) Jewish presence in Palestine. The renovation of a synagogue in Beirut won’t change that.

      • Taxi
        June 7, 2010, 12:29 pm

        Yes, Shmeul, it’s about a de-zionised holy land. Judaism is Abrahamic – there’s no resistance to that.

        The Germans gave up the nazi party but stayed German. Are Israelis prepared to give up zionism for peace and regional integration?

      • Shmuel
        June 7, 2010, 12:36 pm

        I hate to belabour the point, Taxi, but will Israeli Jews, once they have given up the colonialist ideology of Zionism, be “tolerated” in the Middle East? Or will repatriation still be “necessary,” according to your friends?

      • yonira
        June 7, 2010, 1:02 pm


        you should ask Shlomo for a refund.

        link to

      • Taxi
        June 7, 2010, 1:34 pm

        Zionism-free, they’ll be more than tolerated, Shmuel.

        They’ll be embraced as it’s required by both their historic and religious traditions to respect and actually ‘defend’ the ‘people of the book’.

      • Shmuel
        June 7, 2010, 1:37 pm

        Zionism-free, they’ll be more than tolerated

        Then I apologise. I misunderstood.

      • Taxi
        June 7, 2010, 1:52 pm


        You should definitely ask your teacher for a refund too – you obviously can’t read – at least for sure you don’t understand what the word ‘SUGGESTS’ means ie: the research ‘suggests’ ETC. blah blah blah.

        So, fuck off yonira!

      • Taxi
        June 6, 2010, 12:40 am

        There could be an older ‘Eve’ buried deep in the glaciers of the North Pole, waiting to be discovered – makes Kenya’s Eve not the ABSOLUTE Eve, just a temporary one.

        Besides, Adam-and-Eve is a myth. If the writers of this myth were truly smart, they would have arranged it for god to have created a set of twin Adams and out of their ribs created a set of twin Eves. Otherwise the incest and in-breeding when you do the maths are, well, very disturbing. See if you can get a straight or sensible answer from your rabbi, priest or imam on this question:
        Did god really want us to start humanity through inbreeding? Seriously?

        p.s. sorry to get off topic and thanks for indulging me.

    • Miss Dee Mena
      June 6, 2010, 12:05 am

      Well – disregarding the original indigenous populations – so are most Americans originally from are most Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, South Africans. But as a white African/Australian I feel no attachment to Sweden or Britain where my parents families came from. I feel African to the core and feel far more attachment to that continent.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 6, 2010, 12:11 am

        Correction not most South Africans but a significant number

    • Eva Smagacz
      June 6, 2010, 5:14 am

      I am very fearful of Israeli Jews coming to Poland in large numbers. I do not believe that they all would wish to become Jewish Poles. Some of them would in all likelihood wish to create their own “country” within country and reside as Polish Jews.

      • Citizen
        June 6, 2010, 7:19 am

        My only comment, Eva, is that, having lived in Chicago for over three decades, I couldn’t help but notice the large Polish and Jewish communities do not mix. I lived in both communities.

      • Chaos4700
        June 6, 2010, 10:55 am

        Same thing applies in urban centers a little ways north, Citizen. Also, obscene Polish jokes are so popular and mainstream, even the Polish side of my family will repeat them.

      • Citizen
        June 7, 2010, 6:17 am

        Polish jokes were always popular among the educated and not; Jewish jokes were only sometimes popular among the uneducated.
        Just my experience.

      • Taxi
        June 6, 2010, 10:26 am


        Some posters actually believe that the mono-racial Ashkanazis that run Israel are really going to volunteer to ‘assimilate’ themselves into the mideastern ‘vibe’ and that’s how peace will happen, when clearly them Israelis won’t even assimilate themselves into their own european roots.

        First and foremost, they see themselves as ‘separate’ and ‘entitled’. This makes them a very stubborn and tough negotiator with anybody and not just Palestinians – makes everything they entangle with into a Gordian Knot with only a single and clear solution to every confrontation. This method, in the long run, is unsustainable and destructive for any state to employ.

        The French in Algiers packed up and returned to France some one hundred years after colonization – and yes they took their children and pets with them too.

        An added religious ingredient makes the P/I colonial conflict more complex than that, I know – but that doesn’t mean that the solution is actually not a simple one: euro jews back to europe, arab jews back to arab land.

        Fair and square.

        And if euro jews want to live in the holy lands, they should just apply for a visa like everyone else does around the world – they can’t just stomp in with jack-boots on and steal, rape, burn and pillage and expect a welcome feast from the natives.

      • DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells
        June 6, 2010, 12:48 pm

        And if euro jews want to live in the holy lands, they should just apply for a visa like everyone else does around the world – they can’t just stomp in with jack-boots on and steal, rape, burn and pillage and expect a welcome feast from the natives.

        Surely the JNF land (10% was it?) circa 48 should remain in the hands of whoever had the private title at the time of ‘partition’, particularly if you’re applying the same logic to those who owned Palestine.

      • Taxi
        June 6, 2010, 3:26 pm

        Yes, DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells – the 10% in ’48 you refer to (I can’t confirm this figure off the top of my head right now) should indeed be allowed to keep their property: it’s theirs, they bought it before the Nakba.

        It’s not the presence of jewish property ownership that the problem, it’s the zionist brutal assertion and expansion on the land that’s the problem.

      • Todd
        June 6, 2010, 12:58 pm

        Eva, I can’t imagine that very many people would want Israelis moving to their nation. My guess is that our overlords in the U.S. would force them on us like they have forced every other unassimilable people they can find. Many Latinos in the U.S. are already calling for the formation of their own nation in parts of the United States.

      • Chu
        June 7, 2010, 2:10 pm

        link to
        More on Jews, Poles and peasants

        by Philip Weiss on March 4, 2010

    • Psychopathic god
      June 7, 2010, 6:37 am

      first question popped into my mind re Helen’s comment was, “Does Poland want them back? Does Germany?”

      a few years ago I saw a blog discussio, “Should Jews be resettled from Israel to Florida?” I mentioned the idea to a buddy at the gym; he couldn’t wrap his head about it.

      The real question inside Helen Thomas’s question is, “Do we want this Israeli Jews replanted in Florida?”

  2. spuxx
    June 5, 2010, 9:22 pm

    In her defence, she was asked for her comments on Israel not Jews, she responded ‘Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember these people are occupied and it’s their land’.

    She then said they should go home ‘ back to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else’. I’m not so sure the case against her is technically as damming as some make out, still wouldn’t like to be in her shoes though.

    • Citizen
      June 7, 2010, 6:30 am

      What’s untruthful about stating who is occupied and who is not? The balance of her comment is a matter of opinion, protected by the First Amendment–the response as to that aspect should be to show how
      stupidly simple Thomas was as her recommendation. Not making Thomas just the latest victim of speech suppression–her agent just dropped her despite her long career. BTW, over her 67 years of
      work, she has said many controversial things, asked many controversial and provocative questions–only criticizing Israel
      has been verboten. So, what’s new? Look at the rest of the DC press corps–cowardly bunch. Watch how the DC press corps handles this–on CSPAN at 7 AM EST now callers are on both sides of the fence; and drastically–certainly is bringing up the long media blackout on criticism of Israel… the flottila and Israel’s handling of it is bringing
      up issues long suffocated.

      link to

      • Taxi
        June 7, 2010, 7:35 am

        Yes, citizen. All this hoopla with Helen and the Gaza flotilla this week is very educational to America, despite the propaganda and the low level of intelligence in major pockets of our populace.

        Now, Mac and Gus in Springfield-USA can drink their six-pack in their alleyway and shoot-the-shit about the list of banned food items from Gaza.

  3. boulos
    June 5, 2010, 10:09 pm

    i think it’s really funny and ironic when people bring up thomas’ being lebanese american as a way to dismiss her views and some how explain why should should not be taken seriously. there’s an (ethnic) genetic fallacy at work here. what would happen if every time a pundit wrote or said something racist or ridiculous about arabs, muslims, or palestinians (which is a daily occurrence all over the MSM) and who was jewish had his/her ethnicity brought up and then used to explain the motivation for their saying what was said? if people want to disqualify thomas from speaking on the issue on the basis that she has lebanese heritage, then should anybody with jewish heritage not also be disqualified from speaking? what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    the truth of the matter is that thomas expressed a feeling which is common among arabs and muslims: the state of israel represents an alien, european colonial implantation into the heart of the middle east which has been forcibly placed there, against the wishes of the indigenous peoples, through western military power and has been sustained there by means of substantial western military and financial aid over the course of decades. its continued existence has only been possible through the killing of tens of thousands of arabs over the years and through the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of human beings from their homes and lands on the basis of ethnic and religious criteria. it’s like an organ which a body has tried to reject but which is being kept in place by means of very powerful medication, medication which has a pernicious effect on the rest of the body.

    now, thomas’ view may be misguided, ill-informed, wrong headed, and perhaps offensive, but the fact that it would even get headlines and be regarded as remarkable in any way, shape, or form, shows just how bereft of middle eastern/palestinian voices the ‘debate’ about this conflict is in the US and how constricted it is (and getting daily emails from MEMRI doesn’t count as making you informed about views among Arabs). you could use reaction to thomas’ statement as a diagnostic test for just how clueless a person is about the conflict and the issues at stake. the more surprised and outraged they are, the deeper their head is buried in the sand.

    ignoring arab voices and grievances doesn’t make them go away. it perhaps makes Arabs seem more irrational and barbaric in a very onanistic and self-congratulatory way. but self-congratulation, if you are an honest person, is a soup which gets very thin, very fast. or at least one would hope.

  4. annie
    June 5, 2010, 10:59 pm

    boulos, i couldn’t believe anyone would be making a big deal about this. how many times have we heard is said palestinians should ‘go back’ to jordan and egypt? it’s not like helen is over there dragging jews out off their homes they have lived in for 50 years and leaving them out on the street in tents. the absurdity of being ‘shocked’ about suggesting jews leave the place they ethnically cleansed is the height of hypocrisy.

  5. Avi
    June 5, 2010, 11:07 pm

    American Jews seem to be experts at feeling sorry for themselves and playing the victim. No, I’m not denying that Helen’s comments are over the top, but she does have a valid point; the historical and legal inhabitants of the land are the Palestinians and the European Zionists are a colonizing power. She basically summed it up in a sentence or two which taken out of context and at face value sound rather extreme.

    And I’m not surprised that many an American Jew get their panties in a bunch over such comments, all the while they sit with their thumbs up their you know what when Palestinians are the ones getting thrown off their land. The positions of power that which America’s Jew currently hold vs. the ghettos in which the Palestinians 7000 miles away have been corralled are a clear enough an indication that the victim card is as good as toilet paper at this point.

    I’ll start taking the responses and the outrage shown by America’s Jewish community over comments such as Thomas’ seriously only when they decide to acknowledge that they are not the only humans on this planet, that there are also Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian alike, and that there are goys who are good for more than just being used and then thrown like used socks when they’re no longer useful.

    Wake me up when the masturbatory victim fest takes on a mature and realistic direction. I’m sick of this nonsense.

    • J Crow
      June 5, 2010, 11:31 pm

      That’s similar to my take.

      When my friends in the AIM used to mutter similar sentiments, in the late 1980s (as the Indian movement began to collapse for good), very few people dismissed them as morally bankrupt or exemplars of heinous “cleansing.”

      It was understandable that an Ojibwa man might wonder aloud that all the wasicu ought to return to Europe, because very few people actually believed this would ever happen.

      As in, it’s never going to happen.

      Helen Thomas knows the sabra aren’t going anywhere, short of the truly monstrous (a nuclear event, as likely provoked by the Israeli state as not).

      She’s just putting into to stark terms what Jabotinsky stated nearly a century ago: European Jews were colonists in a land not their own and their descendants still rule over and occupy that same land.

      • Avi
        June 6, 2010, 12:21 am

        Precisely, and another point which comes to mind now is the sheer apathy displayed by many in the administration, AIPAC and the Jewish elite in the US in the aftermath of last week’s slaughter at sea. Even more absurd is the declaration by Brad Sherman that he is going to push for legislation that makes US citizens who participated in the flotilla to be stripped of their citizenship/tried, and others banned forever.

        Now, when we contrast that to the reaction Helen Thomas has received, it becomes all too clear that the utter, unabated, unadulterated and shameless moral bankruptcy is on the Zionist side, supported by many gullible Jews from here to Timbuktu.

      • MRW
        June 6, 2010, 6:26 am

        Some great observations in your posts here, Avi.

  6. thankgodimatheist
    June 6, 2010, 12:50 am

    One should put things into perspective. Thomas is old enough to remember that moment in history when Palestine’s Jewish population was in the vicinity of 5% no more and maybe even less…

    • wondering jew
      June 6, 2010, 1:54 am

      Thomas is old, but not that old. Assuming that her memories begin at the age of ten, in 1929 the Jewish population was 170,000 which was in the vicinity of 20%.

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 6, 2010, 3:21 am

        “Assuming that her memories begin at the age of ten,”

        Oh, really!! I have memories of when I was 4, dear sir !
        Ok so she’s not 90 as I wrongly thought, (jewish population at 6%) but 80 (she was born in 1920)..Still:
        #1904-1914:Second wave of about 40,000 Zionist immigrants increases Jewish population in Palestine to about 6% of total. Since the inception of Zionism it has been claiming that Palestinian was an empty country, click here to read our rebuttal to this argument.
        #1919-1923: Third wave of over 35,000 Zionist immigrants increases Jewish population in Palestine to 12% of total. Registered Jewish landownership (1923) totals 3% of area of country.
        link to

        We’re very far from your 20%, but as usual you pick up a detail of my statement where I could be wrong (thinking she was 90) wait until she was 10(!!) knowing that the numbers were increasing by the hour, and completely ignore the gist of my statement! This leaves me stunned!!

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 6, 2010, 3:27 am

        This business of picking up a detail of a statement ant argue at length that it’s erroneous ignoring the spirit of the whole is a standard zionist procedure highlighted by the Hasbara Buster in one of his posts. And guess what. He’s right as usual!

      • Avi
        June 6, 2010, 5:04 am


        You have a knack for attempting to discredit people by focusing on inane details and missing the forest for the trees.

        Either that, or you’re just the annoying kid in the class who sat in the front and kept correcting the teacher, “Teach, that plus looks like a cross, and the 7 is a bit crooked and looks more like a Resh”.

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 6, 2010, 5:09 am

        “but assuming young Helen was not some robot like genius, her consciousness of the population of foreign countries would not begin until she was about nine or ten.”

        So this is the point you want to prove me wrong on?! That people cannot remember much at four unless they’re geniuses, completely ignoring the substance of my argument that she was born/grew up in a world when Palestine had a Jewish population of 5%..
        It’s like disputing someone’s statement that saying he runs 10 klm in a hour is false because it all depends! If he’s wearing a pair of brogues than his statement is wrong! Well if that is the type of arguments you indulge into then allow me to step aside and you can continue your course on your own.

      • thankgodimatheist
        June 6, 2010, 5:16 am

        Exactly Avi..It all become an argument about the ability to remember rather than the actual facts(the percentage at the time). I can hardly believe this sophistry!

  7. Shmuel
    June 6, 2010, 1:57 am

    The problem of the Jewish DPs (as opposed to the millions of other DPs) after WW2, was that most – understandably – did not want to go back to their countries of origin. The allied powers were slow in finding solutions, and the Jewish Agency was only too happy to exploit this situation, and insist that the only solution was unlimited immigration to Palestine and a “Jewish national home”. Poland and Germany were not an option for the DPs, and for any number of reasons, they are not an option for their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Even if Thomas was trying to be polemical, I would have expected a little more depth from her. I also assume this was not the first time anyone has asked her for her thoughts on Israel, so I find it hard to believe she was just caught off guard.

    Of course, the chattering klutzes are little more than hypocritical opportunists, as others here have pointed out.

    • Shmuel
      June 6, 2010, 2:06 am

      As per my comment above, the idea of Jewish Israelis today as European colonists is somewhat oversimplified (although I do agree that Israel is a colonialist state). Apart from those born in Israel, nearly half of the Jewish population of Israel is of Middle-Eastern, not European origin. The idea of sending the Abutbuls and the Sanaanis “back to Poland” is a little silly, to say the least.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 6, 2010, 4:50 am

        I agree with you Shmuel. I’ve lived in East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories for about six years and I believe the Israelis have their own identity which is definitely not European. I actually think that a lot of Israelis and Palestinians share similar Mideast characteristics, much to their mutual chagrin. Expecting the Israelis to all leave is not realistic and neither is it fair for any compromise and future settlement. And this is from somebody who is a harsh critic of the Israeli state.

      • Miss Dee Mena
        June 6, 2010, 4:55 am

        If the Israelis can never be considered part of the Mideast, could the same argument be used against Arab-Americans living in the US or the thousands of Palestinians living in Australia/Europe? This could cut both ways. Of course this question overlooks how Israel practises ethnic cleansing and land expropriation against the indigenous Palestinians which Arab-Americans and Palestinians in Europe and Australia don’t.

      • Cliff
        June 6, 2010, 6:27 am

        I thought the only reason it’s brought up is because Israeli governments and the majority of the population deny Palestinians the right of return.

      • Avi
        June 6, 2010, 4:54 am

        The idea of sending the Abutbuls and the Sanaanis “back to Poland” is a little silly, to say the least.

        Of course it’s silly. I don’t think anyone is arguing that. Besides, no one here is actually arguing in favor of “sending them back where they came from”.

        At the same time, let’s not forget that Zionism originated in Europe and was driven by European-born leadership and capital – at least well into the 1950s.

        Personally, I think this entire thread is going in the wrong direction because the point here is not about sending anyone back, or about expulsion or anything of the kind. Instead, the moral of the story is how one small comment sends everyone who identifies as a Jew first and human second into a frenzy when actual actions, not mere words, are at the moment resulting in the expulsion of Others from their homes and land. That is to say that the national discourse on this very topic is skewed.

      • Shmuel
        June 6, 2010, 12:14 pm


        Helen Thomas said they should go back to Poland and Germany. I’m sure she is aware that there are non-European Jews in Israel, most of whom are Zionists. Nevertheless, she resorted to an anachronistic oversimplification. Yes, Zionism was a European colonialist movement, but its ties to Europe have become rather tenuous over the past 60 years. Had she said they should go back to Russia, she would at least have been talking about a significant portion of the current Israeli population (in terms of culture as well as birth) . Israel is a Zionist colonial state, a Jewish colonial state, an Israeli colonial state, but its current population is, to a very large extent, not European by birth or by culture.

        The Algerian analogy is not a good one, because although the pieds noirs had their own identity, they were deeply linked to the metropole, and could be repatriated, reabsorbed and reintegrated. The Afrikaner model is far more apt. They had no metropole, nowhere to be repatriated to. A more realistic and humane goal for Israel than “sending the Jews packing” would be the de-Zionisation of the country, dismantling the colonial system rather than expelling the colonists.

      • lysias
        June 6, 2010, 1:11 pm

        Only about half the pieds noirs were of French descent, I believe. There were plenty of people of Spanish and Italian heritage. The Jews of Algeria had essentially become part of the pieds noirs community. Plus, an awful lot of the “French” in Algeria were descendants of Alsacians who fled to Algeria after France lost Alsace to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.

      • Shmuel
        June 6, 2010, 1:28 pm


        Regardless of their heritage, the pieds noirs saw themselves as fundamentally French. They were thus a “classic” colonial presence, with a connection to the metropole. I do not accept the claim that Israel is not colonialist because of this lack of a metropole, but it is a somewhat different situation.

      • lysias
        June 6, 2010, 2:03 pm

        Many of the Afrikaner political leaders were still closely enough tied to Europe that they studied in Holland and/or Germany. Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of apartheid, was actually born in the Netherlands of Dutch parents.

      • Shmuel
        June 6, 2010, 2:09 pm

        Are you arguing that the Afrikaners had a “mother country”, the way the pieds noirs did?

      • lysias
        June 6, 2010, 2:12 pm

        I’m arguing that it was a complicated situation.

      • Shmuel
        June 6, 2010, 2:21 pm

        I’m arguing that it was a complicated situation.

        Undoubtedly. Decolonialisation is a messy business. Nevertheless, repatriation is sometimes an option and sometimes it is not. It is not just hindsight that tells me that it was possible in Algeria and not in SA.

      • lysias
        June 6, 2010, 2:27 pm

        Well, I certainly hope the United States and Europe offer the Jews of Israel refuge if it looks like the state is going down, if only out of self-interest. If they see that they can survive, the Israelis will be less likely to turn to a disastrous misuse of their nuclear weapons in a desperate situation. (I think a lot of the reason the whites in South Africa were willing to surrender power and give up their nukes was that Mandela made it clear that they would not face a desperate situation in a truly democratic South Africa.)

    • Avi
      June 6, 2010, 4:45 am


      Many commenters here know that Israeli society is made up of both Mizrahi and Ashkenazi (and other groups like the Falasha etc.).

      We also know the entire East-European Zionist history and the events leading up to 1948.

      To come out and state that describing Israel as a colonial enterprise is an oversimplification doesn’t seem intellectually honest.

      That’s my sense. I could be wrong. But that’s how you come across.

      In all honesty, the arguments you made about Israelis, even Ashkenazim in Israel who are OPEN to the Middle East is not that convincing. If I were buying a dishwasher from you and you wanted to sell me on the top-of-the-line one with stainless-steel-this and timer- that, the argument presented so far would leave me needing more information. I might even walk away and shop somewhere else. ;)
      I’m not sold. The argument isn’t convincing. I’m sorry.

      The point I’m getting at is that trends within today’s Israeli society define the direction in which Israel is headed and its current position in the Middle East. And since we know from several polls that Israel still considers Arabs as a whole, and Muslims as a whole, as one scary suicidal monolith, hell bent on its destruction, then the colonial label isn’t quite an oversimplification afterall.

      I mean, sure there are exceptions.

      When I use the term “Jewish Americans” I’m not referring to people like Tema Okun and other Jews of conscience. I’m not referring to Glenn Greenwald either. I’m not referring to Hedy Epstein or Professor Norman Finkelstein. I’m referring to Dershowitz, Saban, Ari Fleischer, Madeleine Albright, Dennis Ross…..the list is long.

      But, we avoid such unnecessary details because 1. Comments are not meant to be Dissertations. 2. Citing polls and listing statistical data every time becomes rather redundant and quite annoying.

      So, we simplify for the sake of brevity and conciseness.

      Nonetheless, I don’t see the Israeli public as a whole abandoning Zionism and its core values today or tomorrow. Nor do I see Israelis attempting, as a whole, to integrate into the greater Middle East. I’m afraid European colonialism isn’t an oversimplification in this context.

      • Shmuel
        June 6, 2010, 11:58 am

        To come out and state that describing Israel as a colonial enterprise is an oversimplification doesn’t seem intellectually honest.

        That’s why I didn’t say that. I agree that Israel is colonial enterprise, it is an oversimplification however, to view today’s Israelis as European colonists. They are colonists all right, but Israeli Jewish society is only partially European (even the Ashkenazi part), whether they like it or not.

        I also agree that Israeli society is terrifying and getting worse all the time. That is not to say however, that Jewish Israeli society is not already somewhat influenced by Arab culture and could be receptive to integration, were justice to be achieved for Palestinians. Taxi was referring to one side of the equation (whether Arabs would be willing to accept them) and I was referring to the other side of the equation (whether Israeli Jews would be open to or capable of integration).

        Of course it’s all pie in the sky, but the whole discussion was launched by Helen Thomas’ unrealistic remark.

      • Avi
        June 6, 2010, 8:42 pm

        To come out and state that describing Israel as a colonial enterprise is an oversimplification doesn’t seem intellectually honest.

        That’s why I didn’t say that. I agree that Israel is colonial enterprise, it is an oversimplification however, to view today’s Israelis as European colonists. They are colonists all right, but Israeli Jewish society is only partially European (even the Ashkenazi part), whether they like it or not.

        I apologize then. It was a misunderstanding on my part. It probably didn’t help that I was quite upset, too, after the lack of condemnation for the attack on the flotilla in contrast to the outrage shown by Ari Fleischer over Helen Thomas’ comments.

    • Avi
      June 6, 2010, 8:07 pm

      I would have expected a little more depth from her.


      She was being asked the question by some guy with a camcorder, walking around asking people impromptu questions. Her answer shows that she treated the question with an overall lack of seriousness. If someone bumped into you on the street and asked, “What do you think about Kevin Spacey’s performance in his Oscar winning movie?” Is your answer going to be a 300 word essay about Spacey’s career, history and body of work? Most likely not. Most people would say, “Hey, great job”, or “It was alright, needed more oooomph”.

      • Shmuel
        June 7, 2010, 1:03 am

        She was being asked the question by some guy with a camcorder, walking around asking people impromptu questions.


        She’s a seasoned reporter, and was asked a question she’s thought about for most of her life. I’m no Helen Thomas, and I could come up with something on this particular subject in my sleep. Her first remark (“they should get the hell out of Palestine”) was great. When asked to clarify, there are any number of intelligent things she could have said. She’s certainly no stranger to thinking on her feet. It’s not the worst thing a senior US journalist has ever said, and the calls for her to be sacked are ridiculous, but it is disappointing.

      • Avi
        June 7, 2010, 3:08 am

        When asked to clarify, there are any number of intelligent things she could have said. She’s certainly no stranger to thinking on her feet.

        That’s true. Good point.

      • MRW
        June 8, 2010, 1:45 am

        Here’s what she actually said on the clip:

        Tell them to get the get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people [the Palestinians] are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.” [Where should they go?] “They should go home, to Poland, Germany and America.”

        I heard her talking about Palestine, not Israel.

        The other thing is: what was edited out?

  8. javs
    June 6, 2010, 2:36 am

    Now that takes moxy ! And she is right on the money. There have been tests done on the bloodlines, scmuel, and the DNA does not lie. There are more jewishness in the palestinians than in any of the people in aparthied israel that is a fact sir or miss. This right on the money statement by her is needed in the everyday news stations around the usa several times a day. The lies of the aparthied run usa media has corrupted even clark kent.

    • yonira
      June 6, 2010, 2:54 am

      Javs, read the study:

      link to

      You should ask Shlomo for a refund, the Khazarian myth is a lie.

      • Justice Please
        June 6, 2010, 10:23 am

        In case anyone believes this bullshit study:

        Jews cannot be a race, for there are white Jews and black Jews.

        Jews are Jews because of their religion, nothing else.

        To believe that Jews are a “race” is a Nazi idea, plain and simple. Does that make you proud, Yonira, that Hitler couldn’t have agreed more with your fake ass study?

      • Citizen
        June 7, 2010, 6:41 am

        There are atheist and agnostic Jews, including some who regularly post on this blog. The question of what makes a Jew has been the subject of intense debate for many, many years, JP, especially amongst Jews the world over; you merely show your ignorance when you say, ” Jews are Jews because of their religion, nothing else.”

      • Chaos4700
        June 6, 2010, 10:53 am

        You’re from SOUTH DAKOTA! And your ancesters were from POLAND! And you yourself have only been Jewish for FIVE YEARS!

        Seriously, yonira. Get over yourself. You’re just about the phoniest person on this blog since Witty vacated.

      • yonira
        June 8, 2010, 12:58 am


        can you argue the facts I presented instead of constant ad-hominem attacks against me.

        Genetics are passed from mother and father. Read the the study, argue the study. Don’t argue the irrelevant.

      • lyn117
        June 6, 2010, 1:54 pm

        Any study which starts as it’s title “Abraham’s children…” has to be somewhat suspect, as they’re starting out with a religious myth as their premise, and obviously searching for evidence to support it. Like the creation “scientists.” The last such study I read in full (yonira’s requires payment) if I recall right, provided evidence that Jews from Kurdistan appeared most closely related to other Kurds and then said the explanation is that Jews from Palestine migrated to Kurdistan, contributed to the gene pool there, and then much of the population converted to Islam or something like that. Of course I’m not an expert in genetics.

      • Shmuel
        June 8, 2010, 2:20 am


        I am not a geneticist, but Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh is (Yale, Duke). In chapter three of his book, Sharing the Land of Canaan, Prof. Qumsiyeh explains that such studies generally fail to adequately examine genetic similarities between Ashkenazi Jews and Turkic/Slavic populations. Markers present in “Middle Eastern” populations are generally present in Turkic/Slavic populations as well. Iraqi Jews could thus have the same markers as say German Jews, but from different sources – Iraqi Jews from their genetic similarity to Arabs, and German Jews from their genetic similarity to Turkic/Slavic populations.

        According to Prof. Qumsiyeh, there has been no convincing study to date, that contradicts the theory of the Khazari origins of Ashkenazi Jews.

        All of this is of course irrelevant to the theft of Palestine from its native inhabitants.

      • MRW
        June 8, 2010, 4:17 am


        From Arutz Sheva in Israel
        “Found: Ancient Capital of ‘Jewish’ Khazar Kingdom
        by Ze’ev Ben-Yechiel”
        link to

        References to a Jewish kingdom of Khazars are numerous in rabbinic literature from the Middle Ages and later. Among them is the famous tale by Rabbi Yehuda HaLevy, related in his celebrated 12th-century work The Kuzari. The book recounts a lengthy conversation between a certain Khazar king and an unnamed Jewish “wise man”, where the latter’s brilliant exposition on the essence of Torah compels the king to join the Jewish people.

        Among other Jewish sources supporting the Jewish identity of the Khazars is a letter written by the medieval Jewish writer Avraham ibn Daud, who reported meeting rabbinical students from Khazar in Toledo, Spain in the mid-12th century. The well-renowned Schechter Letter recounts a different version of the conversion of the Khazar king, and mentions Benjamin ben Menachem as a Khazar king. Saadia Gaon, considered by many to be the greatest rabbi of his generation in the 10th century, also spoke favorably of the Khazars in his writings.

      • MRW
        June 8, 2010, 4:18 am

        So, yonira, will you investigate this on your own and finally drop all this shit? You need a little more book learning. ;-)

      • Shmuel
        June 8, 2010, 5:14 am

        What is it that bugs you about the Khazar theory, yonira? The Zionist claim to Palestine is not based on genetics anyway, but on religious-national identity. It is not Jews as individual descendants of Judaeans (were that the case, non-Jewish descendants with no recent ties to Judaism would have an equal right to the land), but Jews as part of the “nation” that traces its history back to the ancient Judaeans, and that maintained a theological-cum-national longing to “return” to Zion. Converts to Judaism and their descendants – as members of the “Jewish nation” – thus have no less of a claim to Palestine than Jews (such as some of the Jews of Italy) whose ancestors probably did come from Judaea. In joining the Jewish nation, the Khazars assumed the same heritage as all other Jews. Arthur Koestler himself, found the theory entirely compatible with Zionism. None of the serious arguments against Zionism rise or fall on the precise genetic origins of Israeli Jews.

        So what’s the problem? Do you have something against Turko-Slavs? Are you bothered by the fact that the theory has, at times, been embraced by anti-Semites? (Koestler actually thought it pulled the rug out from under those who believe that Jews were extraneous to Europe.) Does it ruin some romantic vision of Jewish history? Does it undermine the way in which you perceive the concept of “Jewish peoplehood”? So my ancestors were Turkic nomads who adopted an Abrahamic religion (or two or three). Who cares?

  9. Justice Please
    June 6, 2010, 8:18 am

    On topic, Helen is right in that every Jew who envisions a biblical racial “Jewish” state should go home to Europe, America or Russia.

    On the other hand, every Jew who is okay with living in a state with lots of Arabs, one man one vote, sometimes under an Arab government if the voters decide so, is welcome to stay in Palestine.

    In other words, the Nazis should go, the Menschs should stay.

    • lyn117
      June 6, 2010, 2:03 pm

      I tend to agree that any of the immigrants unwilling to live in peace and equality should leave Palestine, but do you really want Nazis anywhere?

      • Justice Please
        June 6, 2010, 3:45 pm

        No I do not, but i presume that without their hands on 200 nuclear weapons they would be far less dangerous.

  10. VR
    June 6, 2010, 10:23 am

    For a little comic relief –


  11. Les
    June 6, 2010, 12:02 pm

    The one country that could have and should have taken in the Jews after WW II was the US which suffered no serious physical damage to our infrastructure during the war. How many Israeli Jews are we talking about if we decided to give them a chunk of Montana to which Canada might add some land?

    • DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells
      June 6, 2010, 12:36 pm

      I seem to recall Chomsky suggesting it happened in Palestine because nowhere else wanted them.

      Other potential sites were Argentina, Madagascar (where at least half of German Jewry should have been and would have been during the Holocaust, if not for Churchill) and Birobidzhan.

    • Shmuel
      June 6, 2010, 12:44 pm


      The US eventually took a very large number of DPs, but it took a few years, and these people didn’t have the time to sit around waiting for an uncertain outcome. The vast majority didn’t want their own state – in Palestine, Montana or Birobidzhan. They just wanted to build normal lives for themselves, far away from the horrors they had experienced. They needed Palestine like they needed a hole in the head. Now, it’s too late.

    • Citizen
      June 7, 2010, 7:16 am

      Les, there are other peoples who’ve been severly short-changed, and currently–should we give American land to those too; how many Americans do you want to subject to federal eminent domain, how many states?

  12. pabelmont
    June 6, 2010, 1:18 pm

    Helen Thomas should be fired because she’s biased? Oh, good point! Although I can think of quite a few others who should be fired if “bias” is the test.

  13. Judy
    June 6, 2010, 1:31 pm

    Thomas was the one reporter who would ask the White House the legitimate hard questions. What kind of access will she have now?

    Helen Thomas did no one any favors with that comment. I wish she had kept her mouth shut.

  14. maximalistNarrative
    June 6, 2010, 3:16 pm

    Her comments are really very disappointing

  15. TheAZCowBoy
    June 7, 2010, 1:15 am

    TheAZCowBoy returns – knee down all serfs like TAXI ans his ilk.

    The Kahzarian Jews came from the Black Sea Cacasus area several tribes of nomadic Turks. In 520 BC they migrated north to destroy Czarist Russia. Then it was Ukraine and then Poland, and then Hungry and finally in Germany they discovered that their most infamous invention ‘usuary’ could make them filthy rich. The Rothchilds and their ilk ran the German people into the ground as other Kahzarians moved ahead to Spain where their skills as accountants and businessmen gained them great power. But, as their power grew queen Isabella decided to kick the bastard Kahzarians out to North Africa where they conntinued their assulat on the Goyem using the principals of the wicked Talmud – a book so wicked that only Jew’s only discuss it’s vicious anti-Goyem content among themselves.

    It seems the Jew has reached the extent of his wickedness and now we see them in Israel, bloated egos and all, armed with the best in the US arsenal. They have grown so strong that they rountnely give the Great Satan the stiff middle finger when their criminality exceeds their nations treasury’s limits.

    Look for the Jewish state to become a’ mere shadow of its former self in the next decade and with a little luck the world will see a huge kosher confetti cloud high up in the stratosphere as ‘justice’ catches up with these insolent rats.

    Arrivaderche MFer’s, the best is yet to come – real soon!

    Tombstone, AZ.

    • Taxi
      June 7, 2010, 7:24 am

      Your middle name, Adolf, by any chance?

      Asshole ponce from Arifuckingzona (where else?!).

      Pimping his ‘gas-ware’ around here – sheesh.

      Well I reckon the dust on your cowboy boots is FAKE asshole! Hollywood fucking fake!

  16. Citizen
    June 7, 2010, 6:54 am

    The Washington DC press corps has for years never seriously questioned anything the White House says about Israel or its activities–finally one member with 67 years press corps professionalism makes a brief statement critical of Israel in response to someone going around with direct questions and a camcorder–and it’s ASAP time to shitcan her to oblivion? Did she make a racist statement in jest like Imus? No. She stated a fact, followed by an ill-considered & impractical solution. Maybe now more Americans will actually learn about the Israeli occupation, the problematic nature of the founding of the state of Israel–a context long left out of any discussion or comments by our government leaders regarding the sole state we have had “a special relationship” with for decades that has not been criticized since Johnson took over the job of POTUS and gave us the muzzling of the crew of the USS Liberty.

  17. Citizen
    June 7, 2010, 7:27 am

    The Gaza flottila this time around, thanks to Israel’s macho maneuver to send a macho signal to the Muslims, is showing more and more power–it’s not like Helen Thomas has not made her controversial thoughts before, e.g.:
    Thomas speaking at a March 3, 2002 Newseum session shown by C-SPAN on March 4, 2002: “Ari, does the President think that the Palestinians have a right to resist 35 years of brutal military occupation and suppression?” (Question to WH press secretary Ari Fleischer, April 1, 2002.) “I think the chipping away of our civil liberties is unprecedented. Even in World War II, I never saw anything like that in Washington or any of the wars. I think that people are standing mute, and I remember the rabbi in the March on Washington program. He said that the greatest sin of all in the Nazi era was silence. He had been in a concentration camp for many years. People have got to, they must speak up now or forever hold their peace.” ( Thomas on MSNBC’s Donahue, July 22, 2002. ) “I censored myself for 50 years….Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’…I have never covered a President who actually wanted to go to war. Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war is immoral — such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It’s as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam….Where is the outrage?” (Thomas speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on November 4, 2002 and quoted on MIT’s Web site two days later.) “Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up….The follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?” (to press secretary Ari Fleischer during a January 6, 2003 White House briefing shown on all three cable news networks.)

    • Citizen
      June 7, 2010, 7:30 am

      On Imus show, moments ago, Bernie correctly (as usual) made the point that Thomas was merely revealing her long held convictions; in contrast, Imus argued (ignorantly, as usual) that she was senile, “crazier than a drunken bedbug.”

  18. TheAZCowBoy
    June 8, 2010, 12:47 am

    Everyday the same ‘Ol riff-raff is on this site. Are you unemployed or just addicted to splurging the ‘computer ink?’

    In the time it takes people like ‘TAXI’ to read, process and make his snide remarks – TheAZCowBoy has been around the world twice, reconnoitering the Jewish scum and ‘leaving them my ‘excuse my dust,’ commentary(ies).

    While its appears that being venomous to your ‘peers’ makes you ‘taller and wider’ (TAXI – LOL!) in the end, excuse the pun. you nothing but a goyem ‘cabron’ – and don’t you forget it.

    Death to the Jews, make ’em into lamps and soap bars – and ‘let their G-d sort them out.’

    TheAZCowBoy – whooppee!
    Tombstone, AZ.

    • Taxi
      June 8, 2010, 7:23 am

      Like I said to you before AZcowboy, the dust on yer boots is fake.

Leave a Reply