‘I’m anti-Zionist,’ Helen Thomas declared, in twilight of long career

Israel/Palestine
on 163 Comments

 

In death, Helen Thomas’s long wonderful career (as feminist trailbreaker among other accomplishments) is boiling down to one episode, the Syrian-American’s anti-Zionist statements in 2010 (and sequel statements in 2011, which blurred into anti-Semitism). There’s a lot of vitriol being flung at Thomas, dead at 92, by the pro-Israel crowd.

Above is the famous video interview with Rabbi David Nesenoff at the White House in May 2010 after a Jewish heritage celebration. First, Thomas spoke to the rabbi about journalism. “Go for journalism, you’ll never regret it… Never stop learning.”

Nesenoff: “Any comments on Israel We’re asking everybody today?

“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine… Remember, these people are occupied. And it’s their land. It’s not German, it’s not Poland’s.”

Nesenoff: “So where should they go? What should they do?”

“They should go home. Poland Germany, and America, and everywhere else. Why push people out who live there for centuries, see?.

Nesenoff: Are you familiar with the history of that region?

“Very much. I’m of Arab background.”

When Nesenoff published the interview on-line a week later, Thomas apologized:

“I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians,” she said “They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

But the apology was not enough for many supporters of Israel:

The Anti-Defamation League said in a written statement that Thomas’ apology “does not go far enough.”

“Her remarks were outrageous, offensive and inappropriate,” ADL national director Abraham H. Foxman said in the statement. “Her suggestion that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany is bigoted and shows a profound ignorance of history. We believe Thomas needs to make a more forceful and sincere apology for the pain her remarks have caused.”

Her apology also was not enough for [Lanny] Davis, who served as special counsel to former President Bill Clinton.

“Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot,” Davis said. “This is not about her disagreement about her criticisms of Israel. She has a right to criticize Israel and that is not the same as being an anti-Semite.”…

“Helen’s statement calling for the religious cleansing of Israel is reprehensible,” said [Ari Fleischer, who served as press secretary for former President George W. Bush.] “If this isn’t bigotry, what is? What she said is as bad as someone saying all blacks should leave America and go back to Africa.”

Then a few days later Thomas announced her retirement.

Here are excerpts of the Playboy interview in 2011 by David Hochman, in which Helen Thomas identified herself as an anti-Zionist, stood up for the Palestinian right to resist colonization, and said that American Jews control the media and the White House and Congress and she’s old enough to speak the truth about it at last.

First some biography from that interview.

Born August 4, 1920, Thomas herself is of Arab descent. She was the seventh of nine children born in Winchester, Kentucky to Syrian-born emigrants from Tripoli, Lebanon. Her family soon moved to Detroit, where her father ran a grocery store even though he couldn’t read or write in English. News was often a topic around the house, and after college Thomas landed a job as a girl Friday at a Washington, D.C. newspaper toward the end of World War II. That led her to the copy desk and a cub reporter position and eventually to a job covering government bureaucracy for the wire service United Press International. She remained at UPI for much of her career.

Then some excerpts:

PLAYBOY: What was life like in the immediate aftermath as millions started viewing the video on YouTube?

THOMAS: I went into self-imposed house arrest for two weeks. It was a case of “know thyself.” Isn’t that what Socrates said? I wanted to see if I was remorseful—and I wasn’t.

PLAYBOY: Did the phone ring off the hook?

THOMAS: No. Nobody called. But I still have some friends in the White House press pool, who reached out to me. I understand they formed Jews for Helen Thomas at one point.

PLAYBOY: That’s interesting.

THOMAS: I also heard from Jimmy Carter. He called a few weeks later.

PLAYBOY: He did? What did he say?

THOMAS: Basically he was sympathetic. He talked about the Israelis in the Middle East, the violations. It was very nice of him to call, but I don’t want to get him into trouble.

PLAYBOY: His reaction certainly wasn’t typical.

THOMAS: No. Every columnist and commentator jumped on me immediately as anti-Semitic. Nobody asked me to explain myself. Nobody said, “What did you really mean?”

PLAYBOY: What did you really mean?

THOMAS: Well, there’s no understanding of the Palestinians at all. I mean, they’re living there and these people want to come and take their homes and land and water and kill their children and kill them. How many are still under arrest in Israel—never been charged, never been tried, never been convicted? Thousands. Why? Meanwhile, we keep giving Israel everything. Our government bribes the Israelis by saying, “Please come to the [negotiating] table and we’ll give you this and we’ll give you that.” Obama’s last offer to the Israelis was $22 billion in new fighter planes [Editor’s note: The offer was actually just under $3 billion], a veto at the UN for anything pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian and a three-month freeze on the colonization and settlers. I mean, what is this? They gave away the store, just as Reagan and every other president did. Why do you have to bribe people to do the right thing? I don’t want my government bribing anybody. I want them demanding. Stop all this aid to Israel when they’re killing people!

PLAYBOY: It was your follow-up comment, when you said the Jews should go back to Poland, Germany and America, that really infuriated people.

THOMAS: Well, that immediately evoked the concentration camps. What I meant was they should stay where they are because they’re not being persecuted—not since World War II, not since 1945. If they were, we sure would hear about it. Instead, they initiated the Jackson-Vanik law, which said the U.S. would not trade with Russia unless it allowed unlimited Jewish emigration. But it was not immigration to the United States, which would have been fine with me. It was to go to Palestine and uproot these people, throw them out of their homes, which they have done through several wars. That’s not fair. I want people to understand why the Palestinians are upset. They are incarcerated and living in an open prison. I say to the Israelis, “Get out of people’s homes!” It’s unacceptable to have soldiers knocking on a door at three in the morning and saying, “This is my home.” And forcing people out of homes they’ve lived in for centuries? What is this? How can anybody accept it? I mean, Jewish-only roads? Would anyone tolerate something like that in America? White-only roads?

PLAYBOY:
You mean Israeli-only roads, not Jewish only, right? [Editor’s note: Israel closes certain roads to Palestinians, but roads are open to all Israeli citizens and to other nationals, regardless of religious background.]

THOMAS: Israeli-only roads, okay. But it’s more than semantics because the Palestinians are deprived of owning these roads. This is their land. I’m sorry, but we’re talking about foreigners who came and said, “God gave this land to us.” [Former Israeli prime minister ­Yitzhak] Rabin said, “Where’s the deed?” I mean, come on! Do you know that an Arab Palestinian trying to go home to see his mother has to go through 10 checkpoints and then is held there, while an American tourist can go through right like that? The Palestinian people have to carry their kids to hospitals and are not allowed to drive cars and so forth. What is this? No American Jew would tolerate that sort of treatment here against blacks or anyone else. Why do they allow it over there? And why do they send my American tax dollars to perpetuate it?

PLAYBOY: Do you acknowledge that some Palestinian behavior over the years, including hijacking and the use of suicide bombers, has been wrong and has added to the problem?

THOMAS:
In an ideal world passive resistance and world disarmament would be great. Unfortunately we don’t live in that world. Of course I don’t condone any violence against anyone. But who wouldn’t fight for their country…

PLAYBOY: Do you have a personal antipathy toward Jews themselves?

THOMAS: No. I think they’re wonderful people. They had to have the most depth. They were leaders in civil rights. They’ve always had the heart for others but not for Arabs, for some reason. I’m not anti-Jewish; I’m anti-Zionist. I am anti Israel taking what doesn’t belong to it. If you have a home and you’re kicked out of that home, you don’t come and kick someone else out. Anti-Semite? The Israelis are not even Semites! They’re Europeans, and they’ve come from somewhere else. But even if they were Semites, they would still have no right to usurp other people’s land. There are some Israelis with a conscience and a big heart, but unfortunately they are too few.

PLAYBOY: In the wake of your anti-Israel comments, a blogger from The ­Atlantic argued there’s really no distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. He wrote, “Thomas was fired for saying that the Jews of Israel should move to Europe, where their relatives had been slaughtered in the most devastating act of genocide in history. She believes that once the Jews are evacuated from their ancestral homeland, the world’s only Jewish country should be replaced by what would be the world’s 23rd Arab country. She believes that Palestinians deserve a country of their own but that the Jews are undeserving of a nation-state in their homeland, which has had a continuous Jewish presence for 3,000 years.…”

THOMAS: [Interrupts] Did a Jew write this? [Editor’s note: The writer is Jeffrey Goldberg.]

PLAYBOY: “…and has been the location of two previous Jewish states. This sounds like a very anti-Jewish position to me, not merely an anti-Zionist position.”

THOMAS: This is a rotten piece. I mean it’s absolutely biased and totally—who are these people? Why do they think they’re so deserving? The slaughter of Jews stopped with World War II. I had two brothers and many relatives who fought in that war against Hitler. We believed in it. Every American family was in that fight. But they were liberated since then. And yet they carry on the victimization. American people do not know that the Israeli lobbyists have intimidated them into believing every Jew is a persecuted victim forever—while they are victimizing Palestinians.

PLAYBOY: Let’s get to something else you said more recently. In a speech in Detroit last December, you told an Arab group, “We are owned by the propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question, in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth is. We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.” Do you stand by that statement?

THOMAS:
Yes, I do. I know it was horrendous, but I know it’s true. Tell me it’s not true and I’ll be happy to be contradicted. I’m just saying they’re using their power, and they have power in every direction.

PLAYBOY: That stereotype of Jewish control has been around for more than a century. Do you actually think there’s a secret Jewish conspiracy at work in this country?

THOMAS: Not a secret. It’s very open. What do you mean secret?

PLAYBOY: Well, for instance, explain the connection between Hollywood and what’s happening with the Palestinians.

THOMAS: Power over the White House, power over Congress.

PLAYBOY: By way of contributions?

THOMAS: Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood. Same thing with the financial markets. There’s total control.

PLAYBOY: Who are you thinking about specifically? Who are the Jews with the most influence?

THOMAS: I’m not going to name names. What, am I going to name the Ponzi guy on Wall Street [Bernard Madoff] or the others? No.

PLAYBOY:
Then how do you make the claim that Jews are running the country?

THOMAS: I want you to look at the Congress that just came in. Do you think [New York Democratic senator Charles] Schumer and Lehtinen—whatever her name is—in Florida [Republican representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a strong supporter of Israel] are going to be pro-Arab? No. But they’re going to be very influential. Eric Cantor, the majority leader of the Republicans, do you think he’s going to be for the Arabs? Hell no! I’m telling you, you cannot get 330 votes in Congress for anything that’s pro-Arab. Nothing. If you’re not in, you’re eased out, just as Senator William Fulbright was in the 1960s [after claiming that millions of tax-deductible dollars from American philanthropies were being sent to Israel and then funneled back to the U.S. for distribution to organizations with pro-Israel positions]. Congressman Paul Findley from a little old rural district in Illinois made the mistake of shaking hands with Yasir Arafat years ago. It ended up costing him his reelection. He later wrote a book called They Dare to Speak Out about how impossible it is to have a position in this country that takes on Israel. Maybe there is a handful that can, but in general you cannot speak against any Zionist movement in this country.

PLAYBOY: Do you begrudge people like Steven Spielberg? He created the Shoah Foundation to chronicle the life stories of Holocaust survivors. What’s your feeling about him?

THOMAS: There’s nothing wrong with remembering it, but why do we have to constantly remember? We’re not at fault. I mean, if they’re going to put a Holocaust museum in every city in Germany, that’s fine with me. But we didn’t do this to the Jews. Why do we have to keep paying the price and why do they keep oppressing the Palestinians? Do the Jews ever look at themselves? Why are they always right? Because they have been oppressed throughout history, I know. And they have this persecution. That’s true, but they shouldn’t use that to dominate.

PLAYBOY: In America you’re talking about a relatively small community. Jews make up roughly two percent of the U.S. population. On a worldwide level, the percentage is well under one percent. Those numbers don’t exactly spell domination.

THOMAS: I get where you’re leading with this. You know damn well the power they have. It isn’t the two percent. It’s real power when you own the White House, when you own these other places in terms of your political persuasion. Of course they have power. You don’t deny that. You’re Jewish, aren’t you?

PLAYBOY: Yes.

THOMAS: That’s what I thought. Well, you know damn well they have power.

PLAYBOY: Why did it take you so long to speak out like this?

THOMAS: It hasn’t taken that long. I’ve told all my friends and so forth. This has been an issue for me since I first came to Washington.

PLAYBOY: You’ve kept quiet publicly since the 1940s?

THOMAS: It was certainly on my mind back then. The United Nations Partition Plan was being debated at the UN and in the Arab community, and I knew what the Arabs were going through since I have an Arab background. I was part of that community. Like I said, I’ve never hesitated to tell my views to all my friends. They knew exactly where I stood. But I finally wanted to speak the truth. And I think I’m old enough to get away with it. Well, almost. Not quite.

163 Responses

  1. gingershot
    July 21, 2013, 1:41 pm

    THOMAS: I went into self-imposed house arrest for two weeks. It was a case of “know thyself.” Isn’t that what Socrates said? I wanted to see if I was remorseful—and I wasn’t.

    This is how deeply most of us have been battered by the Holocaust Industry.

    Search insides yourselves -deep inside yourselves – for some unconscious hatred of Jews (rather than believe your lying eyes and see the Israelis for who they are). Every Goy on earth suffers from some unconscious irrational never-based-on-anything hatred of the Chosen ones because clearly any desire to stop the Israelis is only the New Anti-Semitism.

    The Israelis have demonized the Non-Jews (psychologically) as much as they have demonized the Palestinians for terrorism/resistance to Israel. What suckers we’ve been

    It’s natural to hate Israelis for ethnically cleansing Palestine, just as natural as it was to hate Afrikanners for doing what they did in South Africa. To believe otherwise is to have been brainwashed.

    Hating something enough – or loving something ELSE enough to STOP ethnic cleansing – is an important part of stopping something. That’s the link the Holocaust Industry wants to sever. Israeli Apartheid must be hated – it is right and natural to hate it

    That Israelis have taken the only way to STOP Jews in Israel and made that a ‘thought crime’ for non-Jews – which makes it itself the perfect crime.

    It’s time to hate Israeli Apartheid enough to STOP IT – and I am delighted at the EU boycott as the beginning of this ‘hate- or love -in action’.

    It’s NOT all about the Jews. Surprise!

    • miriam6
      July 25, 2013, 2:56 pm

      If its;

      not all about the Jews ,then what are you doing on THIS website , and why is your comment all about Jews?

      M.W claim’s to be website on the mid-east from a Jewish perspective..

      Please also desist from using the derogatory word goy, particularly use of that word in such by YOU that it implies Jews talk about non- Jews in such a derogatory way.

      They don’t.

      Its really only people like YOUwho use such derogatory language.

      It is YOU that has Jews on the brain.

  2. chet
    July 21, 2013, 1:42 pm

    “We are owned by the propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question, in my opinion.

    The ravings of a dotty old woman or ……?

    • thankgodimatheist
      July 23, 2013, 6:29 am

      I see what you mean. One isn’t supposed to say that (even if it’s true) for which case the French have a saying that goes like this ‘Toute vérité n’est pas bonne à dire’ (not every truth is good to say). Not good to say because it has consequences that, given recent history of persecution, can lead to actions that can go out of control. Only for that reason it’s taboo, not because it’s false.

  3. German Lefty
    July 21, 2013, 1:50 pm

    sequel statements in 2011, which blurred into anti-Semitism
    What do you mean by that?

    • W.Jones
      July 21, 2013, 5:07 pm

      Phil commented in more depth about the 2011 interview that she “said that American Jews control the media and the White House and Congress”.

      In the 2011 interview, she said: “Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists.”
      Naturally, Zionists =/= “the Jews”, because there are C.Zionists and non-Zionist Jews.
      However, this part turned out like her interview with R. Nesenoff, because again the interviewer re-characterized her quote above as if she was talking about “the Jews.”

      It’s like this:
      Thomas: “Abused wives should escape from their husbands.”
      “So you believe in separation of families?”
      Thomas: “Yes and whatever else must be done to stop abuse.”
      Conclusion taken out of context: Thomas believes broken homes are good!

  4. Marco
    July 21, 2013, 2:02 pm

    Philip, where do Thomas’ comments in 2011 “blur” in anti-Semitism? Her comments to Playboy are totally consistent with what you’ve said on this website.

    • RudyM
      July 21, 2013, 2:31 pm

      I wonder about that. This is not to far from things Phil himself has written about Jews in the media particularly.

    • W.Jones
      July 21, 2013, 4:59 pm

      The first place I saw in the article that Thomas generalized about Jews was the interviewer’s question that also generalized them:

      PLAYBOY: Do you have a personal antipathy toward Jews themselves?

      THOMAS: No. I think they’re wonderful people. They had to have the most depth. They were leaders in civil rights. They’ve always had the heart for others, but not for Arabs, for some reason.

      • German Lefty
        July 22, 2013, 4:08 pm

        The first place I saw in the article that Thomas generalized about Jews was the interviewer’s question that also generalized them
        Right. It’s the same with surveys that aim at measuring the extent of anti-Semitism, e.g. “Jews try to take advantage of having been victims during the Nazi era.” or “Jews have too much influence in [country].” The only possible answers are “yes”, “no”, and “I don’t know.” The option “It depends!” does not exist. That’s how they put words in your mouth.

    • Donald
      July 21, 2013, 5:01 pm

      “Philip, where do Thomas’ comments in 2011 “blur” in anti-Semitism?”

      She’s too sweeping and sloppy when she talks about “Jews” and “total control”. I don’t even know what she means regarding the financial markets.

      When she is talking specifically about how the Palestinians are screwed by Congress and the press and the bias in favor of Israel because of the Lobby then she’s on firm ground. She should have said something like “No, of course I don’t think Jews are “running the country”, but on the subject of Israel the Lobby almost completely dominates that subject in Congress and to a lesser degree with Obama. Nothing can be done to put even tiny pressure on Israel because of it.”

      I guess this very thread illustrates the problem of how to discuss the power of the lobby–on the one hand the Lobby defenders claim that any criticism of them is equivalent to traditional anti-semitic claims that Jews control everything, and then some of the critics of the Lobby see that claim and don’t see anything wrong with it. Nothing hyperbolic or exaggerated, just perfectly fine. It’s this inability to make distinctions that means most ordinary people don’t want to touch the subject with a barge pole. Which, of course, means the Lobby wins.

      • W.Jones
        July 21, 2013, 5:21 pm

        Donald,

        At this point the Israeli imprisonment of the native population seems more urgent and brutal than financial or media issues, so that is a factor. That was the main motivation for Thomas speaking out- to deplore the brutalization, rather than to debate about control. Do you think that after decades working there she would not be able to argue with you? She think the other issue is more important, naturally, since she is Arab.

      • Donald
        July 22, 2013, 11:06 am

        “That was the main motivation for Thomas speaking out- to deplore the brutalization, rather than to debate about control.”

        Agreed and I don’t think she had any malice in her heart–she was angry about the Lobby, not some hater. But she did fall into making some of the traditional anti-semitic over-the-top claims and that makes it easier for people to ignore or overlook the points she made about the Lobby that were valid.

        Also, of course, even if an individual isn’t personally malicious, it’s still not good for them to believe things that are bigoted and false.

      • kalithea
        July 22, 2013, 11:47 am

        “Also, of course, even if an individual isn’t personally malicious, it’s still not good for them to believe things that are bigoted and false.”

        Oy, if she believes things that are bigoted and false she has malice, but the fact is that she hit the nail on the TRUTH. So is isn’t malicious she’s merely stating what other’s are too cowardly to state.

      • W.Jones
        July 22, 2013, 1:43 pm

        Also, of course, even if an individual isn’t personally malicious, it’s still not good for them to believe things that are bigoted and false.
        1. There’s plenty of articles right here on Mondoweiss one can quote to show that her claims are debateable and are not patently 100% false.

      • American
        July 21, 2013, 11:09 pm

        ”––on the one hand the Lobby defenders claim that any criticism of them is equivalent to traditional anti-semitic claims that Jews control everything, and then some of the critics of the Lobby see that claim and don’t see anything wrong with it. Nothing hyperbolic or exaggerated, just perfectly fine. It’s this inability to make distinctions that means most ordinary people don’t want to touch the subject with a barge pole.”…Donald

        If you go by comments at the msm blogs are there are a lot of ordinary people touching the subject and they don’t make hyperbolic statements.
        I dont see many critics in my cruising the net world and the online newspaper blogs that claim the Jews or Lobby run the entire country and that don’t make distinctions…cant even remember an example of that. You might find some of those on the fringe sites.
        In fact what I see more of is people referring to ‘specific’ examples of what they objecting to….imo your average commenter on Isr has gotten a lot smarter on the subject.
        I think we’ve been pretty specific here about exactly what areas they are involved in.
        However the truth is the lobby and Israeli activities are very wide spread in the US, ranging from arranging for Isr bonds to be bought by public employees retirement funds at even small towns in the US –all the way to their congress, WH activities.
        Lately their activities have also included lobbying ‘state governments and legislatures’ for Israel..
        Although they don’t ‘run the country’ …if one lays out every area in which they are ‘actively operating for Israel’ it’s a pretty big web.

        The fact that it is a big enough web *to warrant attention* is why the ziobots exaggerate what the critics say and put words in their mouths to try to make it appear that they are anti semites describing some “Jewish conspiracy”…..naturally they want to discredit the messengers to discredit the message.
        You’ve been around long enough to see that.

      • Donald
        July 22, 2013, 10:02 pm

        “In fact what I see more of is people referring to ‘specific’ examples of what they objecting to….imo your average commenter on Isr has gotten a lot smarter on the subject.”

        You might be right. Certainly things are better than they were just a few years ago–Carter and then Walt and Mearsheimer broke some of the barriers. But nuance is something you’re more likely to see in some of the politically aware types who frequent liberal/left blogs. When you get down to the level of ordinary people who aren’t all that interested in politics, people believe all sorts of weird things, sometimes mainstream things they’ve heard from the MSM (like the belief that Saddam posed a clear threat to the US), and sometimes weird mixtures of things they’ve heard on rightwing and leftwing radio. I had a landlord once who was like that–but I’m going off on a tangent and anyway, time to get off the computer.

      • American
        July 22, 2013, 10:28 pm

        ”When you get down to the level of ordinary people who aren’t all that interested in politics, people believe all sorts of weird things, sometimes mainstream things they’ve heard from the MSM (like the belief that Saddam posed a clear threat….. ”

        Thats true in my experience also…..among the labor class, whose lives are mostly consumed with laboring to make a living, what free time they do have isnt usually devoted to politics and news and they just pick up snips of issues from the msm or what someone tells them. Never can pre judge by someone’s status, education level or occupation though. I ‘ve been surprised enough times by people I wouldn’t have thought were paying much attention to national issues.

      • Donald
        July 23, 2013, 12:05 pm

        “Never can pre judge by someone’s status, education level or occupation though. I ‘ve been surprised enough times by people I wouldn’t have thought were paying much attention to national issues.”

        Yes, and it also cuts both ways–I’ve known well-educated intelligent people who virtually worshipped the NYT (in part because it was hated by conservatives) and as a result had some pretty biased views on the I/P conflict, with no clue that what they were reading was biased. Sometimes it probably helps to be ignorant of what the elite press is telling us.

      • Danaa
        July 22, 2013, 10:04 pm

        Donald:
        “the Lobby defenders claim that any criticism of them is equivalent to traditional anti-semitic claims that Jews control everything, and then some of the critics of the Lobby see that claim and don’t see anything wrong with it.”

        But the main thing wrong in that claim is “everything”. People should perhaps be more specific:

        The jewish/Israel Lobby does control the congress, the presidency, many court systems, US foreign policy, the financial markets, Hollywood, admission boards and faculties of many top colleges and/or departments, the media, the publishing industry and the labor union leadership.

        By control I mean 80-99%, with congress being 99%, the president and foreign policy at 80% (thanks god for the 20%! or iranian people would have been bombed to smitherins already), the financial markets (as in wall street) about 70% , Hollywood somewhere near 70% (if we look at producers especially), the media at around 80% (hey, there’s democracy Now! and FreeSpeech TV – good for 20%, no?), certain universities (like harvard, Yale, Chicago economics dept., NYU, Boston Univ. etc.) at close to 40-50% when we look at admission boards, trustees, boards, faculty at some departments, etc) and the labor Unions leadership somewhere around 30% (some unions more than others). Don’t have an estimate on publishing but know it’s high. Disproportionately so.

        BUT, that’s not EVERYTHING. Jewish/Israel Lobby DOES NOT control the Military (hooray!), technically inclined top universities where admission is purely merit based (Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech) and hard science and engineering departments just about everywhere (can anyone recall when we have last seen a spokesperson for mechanical Engineering or Nanotechnology who was actually Jewish? and yes, I know many jewish people take computer science and software engineering, but hardware – not so much. i don’t count israelis in this BTW – that’s separate), Energy and oil sectors (all texas and doing unbelievably well! sorry…just had to say that), nanotechnology, robotics, climate policy, urban planning and the penal system. So what did I leave out? must be lots… hey, it’s my prism….and I see what I see. .

        The estimates above are all mine, based on what I see, read and hear. Will not quibble on a few percentage points this or that way, though.

        Upshot? the Palestinians are still screwed big time, alas. Neither Oil and Energy nor nanotechnology can do much to rescue them from the fate Israel has prepared, unfortunately. With the full support of the majority of American jewish population (Phil, Adam and another 10000 good souls excepted, of course. I wish i could count to 50,000 but can’t).

      • Donald
        July 23, 2013, 12:22 pm

        “But the main thing wrong in that claim is “everything”. People should perhaps be more specific:”

        My way of being specific is this–the Lobby has a stranglehold on the Israel/Palestine issue in Congress. It’d be interesting to see what percentage of people in Congress are actually willing to criticize Israel as harshly, as, say, even Tom Friedman (and God knows that’s setting the bar pretty low.) They have a somewhat weaker but still very strong grip on the Obama Administration–I’d say a bit weaker because he did at least try to put pressure on Israel before caving in. Someone here or elsewhere suggested that Obama’s chief priority there seems to be keeping Israel from pushing us into a war with Iran–the Palestinians he’s willing to throw under the bus. As for the press, the Lobby has a strong influence, but not quite as strong an influence as they’d like. I’m not sure about other areas, like academia and so on.

        The problem with the “control everything” language is that it makes it sound like the traditional anti-semitic crackpot notion that Jews control every aspect of life and people coming to the issue for the first time will get the wrong idea–actually, I think we’re just talking about a very powerful lobby with a stranglehold on one particular issue, and that’s not unknown in politics. So long as the vast majority of people don’t care that much about issue X, or at least it isn’t their top priority, that clears the way for people who do obsess about issue X to have disproportionate influence. If some of them are rich and powerful, they’ll dominate it until or unless the public wakes up and decides it doesn’t like what is being done. Of course it also helps them that they can scream “anti-semitism” whenever someone points out that there’s this thing called the Israel Lobby–that’s a situation that is unique among lobbies as far as I can recall. The tobacco lobby would have loved to have accused its critics of bigotry, but I don’t think it would have worked for them.

      • seanmcbride
        July 23, 2013, 12:45 pm

        Donald,

        Wise thoughts about how to approach discussion about the Israel lobby — be as precise, factual and nuanced as possible. Don’t shoot from the hip. Don’t overgeneralize.

        Some of the discussion about the Israel lobby does in fact pass way over the line into hardcore and classical antisemitism — paranoid and hysterical rants against control by “the Jews” of virtually everything. Some of that discussion is probably being instigated by pro-Israel militants who understand the psyop game. But there are many authentic Judeophobes out there.

      • American
        July 23, 2013, 1:56 pm

        ”The problem with the “control everything” language is that it makes it sound like the traditional anti-semitic crackpot notion that Jews control every aspect of life and people coming to the issue for the first time will get the wrong idea–actually, ”…Donald

        You cannot be afraid of the ‘wrong idea’ and you can avoid it by being ,as we said, very specific about just what activities harm or are unfair to the US people.
        Again, I hardly ever see anyone claim Jews control everything, maybe one crackpot in a 1000 comments .
        Notice what goes on here with ziobots—-I can say I object to the legistation won by the Isr Lobby that mandates that a certain amount of research grants given by the US NIH be shared by Israel. I can give the specific example of a grant to Duke Unv to study the aging populaton of NC that included the requirement that the grant by split with a Israel group of researchers on the elderly…although the grant *was specifically and only for studying the state of NC’s aging population*. This of course was under the guise/claim that the Israeli aging and the NC aging were ‘alike.’ I can say that this diverts funds that should be used exclusively by US specialist on US aging groups and for the US population. I can give hundreds of examples of this ‘splitting of US grants” to Israel that are totally hokey and amount to nothing more than just another way the lobby and congress shuffle US money to Israel.
        The ziobots will say/accuse my objecton is only because Israel is Jewish and/or Israel knows more about aging issues than the US anyway and then the whole issue about the Lobby dipping into yet more taxpayers funds for Israel grant issue becomes people defending themselves from the charge of anti semite and so forth.
        You dont have to defend yourself…Period.
        Let the facts and examples speak for themselves.
        People can figure it out.

      • tree
        July 23, 2013, 2:09 pm

        The problem I see with your analysis Donald is that Helen Thomas never said that “Jews control everything” or anything like that. In the interview she spoke specifically about Zionists and political persuasion, and certainly Hollywood and the media play a part in that. The reporter is trying to lead her into that kind of “conspiracy” talk but she is clearly speaking about Zionists and their mostly successful attempts to obscure and limit understanding of the basic injustice going on in I/P.

        And the reporter also attempts to falsely undermine her credibility in places, as W. Jones pointed out with the $22 billion figure. The reporter also insists that she falsely used the term “Jewish only roads” but failed to note that, as Anatole France said, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Or, in other words, the Israeli built roads in the West Bank connect Israel to JEWISH-ONLY settlements, and in many cases physically block any connection to Palestinian towns or villages. Thus, “in its majestic equality”, Israeli law allows Palestinian citizens to drive on roads that go to places they are not allowed to live in, and don’t go to places where they might wish to visit.

        I don’t think the religion of the reporter in this case makes any difference. It simply shows the power of the false Zionist narrative in the US with respect to Israel. And that is what Helen Thomas was addressing in the Playboy interview.

      • Danaa
        July 23, 2013, 2:16 pm

        Donald:

        “The problem with the “control everything” language is that it makes it sound like the traditional anti-semitic crackpot notion that Jews control every aspect of life and people coming to the issue for the first time will get the wrong idea–—”

        When people say something like “control everything” it just reflects the usual imprecision of speech. So one has to look at context of where the remark is made. And you are still trying to minimize the context:

        It’s not just I/P and it’s not just congress. It’s the ENTIRE US Foreign Policy apparatus that’s been infected and compromised, because everything, as you know, is tied to everything else. US policy towards Russia is not independent of I/P and US policy on Syria largely reflects Israel’s preferences. If those interests twirl in the wind and seem confused, so does the US policy. And it’s not just those two – congress and foreign policy – it’s also the presidency AND much of the MSM, both on the right and left.

        I understand the issue with tying it all to money but this is the US we are talking about – an extremely corrupted political system that responds to money more than to anything else. American politics runs mostly on money, rather than competing ideas and/or ideologies – something that’s become woefully clear in the last decade. In fact, it’s funny how US is lecturing Russia about democracy and corruption. The US system simply has a fully legalized and out in the open system for buying politicians and legislatures, out there for all to see. No money, no influence – that’s American democracy. When two sides have money enough there’s a semlance of “competition”. When one side dominates in terms of money all legislation is clogged, no matter how important (like climate change).

        And in this money-driven political culture and the so-called “journalism” that covers it, jewish people play an outsize role. In fact, one that dominates every other group, including the NRA and the agribusiness. That’s because money is fungible – it flows with the influence – undermining everything it touches along the way. So yes, we have seen congress lean so far to the right in support of apartheid and colonialism, that it even challenges the executive branch that’s already out on a way-to-the-right limb. But there is “collateral damage” along the way since the money that can buy politicians and media corrupts not only the one issue of interest but EVERYTHING that politician touches.

        Just as one obvious example, money buys not only national level politicians but extends to the local level. just look at LA, Chicago and NY! And speaking of Chicago, rahm, a true man of the Lobby now has embarked on a campaign to destroy public education in Chicago. Why? probably because the money lobbied in his direction (because he is such good/bad little jewish boy! so accomplished!) propelled him to power; yet that money, is tied up in knoots with all kind of money, including the corporatocracy that sees teachers a detrimental to its (corporation’s) goals of absolute power. ATo me this is an example of how one issue becomes inextricably linked with others. Therefore tying together those who have the money AND control the mainstream media mouthpieces is not only not wrong. In the American context, it’s far from a trope. It’s a tautology.

        If tying jewish control of I/P to money and influence peddling conjures anti-semitic tropes, may be we should look more closely at those tropes both “then” and now. If anti-semitism exists may be it’s because there’s fuel for the fire. may be it’s because money may be important but it isn’t necessarily smart. Monied people and organizations and groups, from kings to bankers to rubber barons have always over-played their hand.

        So, IMO, the time for niceties is over, and over-carefullness over the perception of words is over. That, in the face of what the Israelis are perpetrating and the American Jewish community supports. Which, to put it bluntly, are monstrous atrocities.

        The only righteous thing to do is to support the likes of Marc Ellis and give comfort to Jews of Conscience (yes, all 10 or 20 thousand of them?). That’s where i think more people should lend their voices, rather than seeking to cast aspersions on some mispronounced or over-generalized word.

      • Danaa
        July 23, 2013, 2:26 pm

        More for Donald – and others who make self-same arguments, a la:

        “actually, I think we’re just talking about a very powerful lobby with a stranglehold on one particular issue, and that’s not unknown in politics.”

        Alas, what you say is patently NOT TRUE. The Jewish Lobby is by far the MOST powerful lobby in the country today. partly because it’s one issue is tied up with so many others, and partly because that obeyance on that one issue has repercussions in quadzillion other issues. The Lobby’s power has no proportion to the numbers of jews or even to the money poured into politicians’ coffers. And because of the nature of political wheeling and dealing that power IS NOT limited to “one particular issue”. It flows smoothly is across the board through the phenomenon of “dumbing down”, something I’ve commented on before, in connection with US foreign policy.

        Since full out support of israel’s most extreme positions is a litmus test for any aspiring politician, and since rational and well-meaning people can see where American interests lie and supposedly have some clue about differences between right and wrong are, we get a contradiction that’s built into the system. The result is that the cadre of representatives and senators we get are:

        (1) beholden to one special interest above all others
        (2) mortified of anything seen as not towing the line
        (3) willing to make decisions and cast votes that are not rational-based
        (4) willing to relinquish their own strong moral compass – if it’s in one area, it’s bound to spill to another. When morality is compromised, it is, for all intents and purposes mortally wounded.
        (5) weak and/or ineffectual

        Each and every national level politician we now have is guilty of at least one of these attributes and many times several, bar a few.

        I think it’s easy to work out the consequence for policy in any other area, no matter whether The Lobby is in it or not. And that, Donald, is how Zionism, a movement not originally perceived as pernicious, has perniciously undermined the very foundations of American Democratic system.

        PS and I didn’t even start on the question of the subtle and not-so-subtle ways zionism has become intertwined with The Empire and is now shepherding the empire towards its inevitable decline. Don’t want to open this particular can of worms here.

      • tree
        July 24, 2013, 7:51 pm

        Hello, two comments of mine have been awaiting moderation for over a day. I suspect I’m not alone. How does it happen that some comments get posted right away and others seem to take forever? Several comments have been posted here that were made long after my comments were made. Is there any kind of system in place to clear up a backlog of old comments before moving on to newer ones?

      • Donald
        July 25, 2013, 11:42 am

        “It flows smoothly is across the board through the phenomenon of “dumbing down”, something I’ve commented on before, in connection with US foreign policy.”

        I don’t think American foreign policy would be dramatically more moral in the Middle East or anywhere else if Israel had never existed. Obviously the Lobby has made things worse, but we would still be supporting dictators if the Zionists had lost in 1948. If you look at American foreign policy in areas where Israel is not involved, you won’t see any huge gap in how cynically we’ve behaved between our policy in the Middle East vs. our policies in Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America. The world doesn’t revolve around Israel or the Lobby.

        I also don’t think the Lobby has somehow corrupted the system–the system is corrupt already, has been all along and the Lobby thrives in that environment, as does the tobacco lobby and the coalition of groups that are all bent on denying the link between fossil fuels and climate change.

        As for Helen Thomas, yes, the interviewer sets her up and keeps nudging the interview in the direction where she can be portrayed as a classic anti-semite, but the problem is that she fell for it. She doesn’t make it clear that she is talking about US foreign policy in the Middle East and more specifically Israel–she accepts his language, goes along with it, asks if he is Jewish and in general does almost everything she can to fall into the trap.

        The point is not that she was a bad person–obviously she is upset about the harm done by the Lobby. The point is that we should be precise and factual in our claims. The point is to reach people who don’t hang around websites like this and don’t read books and articles on the subject.

      • James Canning
        July 25, 2013, 2:31 pm

        Good points. The goal of the Israel lobby in effect has been to make any criticism of Israel dangerous for politicians, journalists, businessmen, etc etc etc etc. Suppression of honest debate. And the Lobby works with other lobbyes too.

      • Danaa
        July 25, 2013, 3:10 pm

        tree, the same happened to my two comments above – held up for over 36 hours. I don’t think we have been singled out however. Comments on this thread have not been refreshed for that whole time – I kept watching the count and only two short comments of james canning have come through in all that time.

        Obviously Donald’s comment and reply precipitated some discussion, as well it should (thanks Donald, you are Taylor-made for promoting discussions of all-things-Lobby). I noticed yours was along the lines of mine and I wish I had seen it earlier, as it gave still more ammunition and brought out important angles.

        No, I believe that Helen Thomas and discussions about she said and implied are considered sensitive, and no doubt required extra moderator attention to police the periphery (hey, mine went up almost to the line before a U-turn. I know my lines!). That’s been a pattern on MW in recent months, no doubt by choice, which I can’t blame them for. The issues concerning the Lobby can indeed take up the oxygen in the room, to the detriment of other important topics.

        Dear mods, see how understanding I am? so can I get mine through next time just a teensy-wheensy bit faster? it’s not like like many would wish to labor through that densely populated verbiage….not dangerous at all, really….

      • Danaa
        July 25, 2013, 3:20 pm

        Actually, Donald, I believe you are thoroughly wrong about US policy had israel never existed.

        For some time now, I have been working on a “What If” essay about the world, the American jews and the Middle east had israel never come into existence, at least not in the shape it is now,

        The reason I couldn’t finish the essay yet, is because the more I pursued logic, the more entangled the consequences became. In truth, if you start to think through carefully what Israel – by its existence and actions has wrought – you’ll be amazed at the radically altered geopolitical landscape.

        One of the most interesting pieces that drop out of such an exercise is what different form and shape the Jewish American community takes. Hint: it becomes the true “Zion”, in the prophetic sense Marc Ellis expounds on. But that would be another essay, wouldn’t it?

        PS the trick with a proper “what if” scenario to anything is to try and remain honest about the facts as one knows them. That’s far from easy because wishful thinking invariably creeps into such exercises.

      • tree
        July 25, 2013, 4:21 pm

        If you look at American foreign policy in areas where Israel is not involved, you won’t see any huge gap in how cynically we’ve behaved between our policy in the Middle East vs. our policies in Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America.

        Not a huge gap, certainly not in the immediate foreign policy objectives but I would say that the longevity of the corruption of our Middle East Policy is a big difference. Certainly we, as a nation, have behaved very badly throughout the world, but I’ll give you just a few examples where US policy was forced to change, in large part due to bottom-up changes in American attitudes: Vietnam, Nicaragua, the Philippine under Marcos, apartheid South Africa. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. All were cases where cynical and destructive US policies had to change because of overwhelming demands of US citizens upset about the lack of morality in our positions. (And also, our foreign policy objectives have on occasion been benign or even helpful and, in the Middle East, Israel has a history of stomping all over them. See Stephen Green’s “Taking Sides” for Israel’s history of destroying Middle Eastern cooperative water projects that were funded and led by the US.)

        This kind of outcry from the US populace is not present for the Palestinians, mainly because of Zionist distortions and silencing of its critics in the US. Its been 65 years since 1948 and I would guess that the majority of Americans are still in the dark as to the real history of the region. And that is purposeful, because most Zionists know that if the American public understood the injustice of the current situation most would not stand for it, or stand for US involvement in that injustice.

        As for Helen Thomas, yes, the interviewer sets her up and keeps nudging the interview in the direction where she can be portrayed as a classic anti-semite, but the problem is that she fell for it. She doesn’t make it clear that she is talking about US foreign policy in the Middle East and more specifically Israel-

        No, she doesn’t “fall for it”, she simply ignores it and makes her points, where she does in fact make clear that she is talking about politics and US foreign policy in the Middle East. The problem is that the interviewer is “dog whistling” and she doesn’t specifically address the dog whistles, probably because she isn’t listening for the the dog whistles (probably doesn’t hear them) – she’s trying to make her own points, not the interviewer’s points. Perhaps a misstep on her part, but only because of the stunted form of our acceptable political conversation on I/P in the US, created in large part by Zionists with influence through power and/or money.

      • American
        July 25, 2013, 7:17 pm

        ”I don’t think American foreign policy would be dramatically more moral in the Middle East or anywhere else if Israel had never existed. “”…Donald

        There you go again..’enlarging’..-:)
        The morality or lack of it in the US is not the true point….and our corruption is a given anyway.
        The crux is the Israel -zionist corruption has infiltrated many,many aspects of the US in a way ‘never done before’ and for a foreign country and a minority interest—-that threatens the fundamental sovereignty of the US.
        Get ‘fundamental soverignty”????
        This corruption is not just about economics and the elite and etc..this isnt about abdicating the poor to the elite, abdicating citizens privacy to NSA spying…..this is about abdicating the “Entire Nation’s” interest…… to a foreign country’s interest.
        Do you understand what it means that the US has given up ‘major parts of it’s own interest in the ME —-major parts of it’s reputation worldwide, major parts of it’s foreign aid for a ‘internationally illegal’ occupation, major parts of it’s ‘sorely needed at home’ taxpayer treasure ..almost PURELY because of one special interest and foreign loyalty political lobby?

        You think this is like all other lobbies?…it isn’t.

      • tree
        July 26, 2013, 12:14 pm

        Hello again. waiting for moderation on a comment from a day ago.

        Is there any way that comments can be moderated in the order in which they are made? It seems as if the comments that get made around the time that a moderator is on the job are the first to get moderated, and ones made earlier than that can languish for a day or two. I’m well aware how thankless a moderators job is, and that they have lives outside of moderating, but it seems like there could be some kind of software fix that would allow the moderators to see the oldest comments first when they start their moderating tasks and thus moderate the comments in the order that they are made. Something along the lines of your “100 most recent comments” link, but this one used to help the moderators?

        I think the conversations would flow a lot better with a more time consistent moderation, and it would cut done on those posts like the recent one from jonah who thought he was being censored when it was merely a case of a lot of old comments being overlooked for moderation.

        Is this something I should mention in the “Comments Policy” thread? Or something I should suggest by email instead? I do appreciate the efforts of the moderators, it just seems like the system could be modified to help everyone.

  5. The Hasbara Buster
    July 21, 2013, 2:38 pm

    We’ve witnessed the sad spectacle of Joe Biden stating that if he were an American Jew he wouldn’t feel safe in his own country and that only Israel can guarantee the Jewish people’s security.

    The VP of the most powerful nation in history is brought to his knees by the Lobby and forced to make bizarrely servile statements that shame his own country — yet Helen Thomas was stripped of many honors awarded to her for stating that Zionists own Congress.

  6. American
    July 21, 2013, 3:05 pm

    ”PLAYBOY: In America you’re talking about a relatively small community. Jews make up roughly two percent of the U.S. population. On a worldwide level, the percentage is well under one percent. Those numbers don’t exactly spell domination.”…Jewish interviewer

    What she should have said is the media ‘domination’ by guys like you and your hokey dissembling re Jews is exactly what I am talking about.
    Or….
    You mean Playboy doesnt have a single non Jewish reporter to interviewer me about what I said about Jews!?

    Out of one side of their mouth they brag about their great power in the US and out of the other side of their mouth they claim it’s anti semitic to say it…..if non Jews say it that is.

  7. lysias
    July 21, 2013, 3:20 pm

    Ros-Lehtinen isn’t merely a strong supporter of Israel, she is the daughter of a Jewish mother. I think that is part of why Thomas mentioned her.

  8. Justpassingby
    July 21, 2013, 4:18 pm

    Hah I love her answers in the Playboy interview, that women had enormous courage.
    Reading the interview from the start the interviewer have a redline throughout the interview and that is to discredit Helen. He failed.

  9. fillmorehagan
    July 21, 2013, 4:45 pm

    In America money is power and Jews have hugely more than their 2% portion of the population. If anyone doubts this I advise them to scan the FORBES 400 list of the richest people in America. Around 40% of them appear to be Jewish.

    • James Canning
      July 23, 2013, 7:21 pm

      Apparently the count is either 139 or 140 (of 400 richest Americans according to Forbes).

  10. W.Jones
    July 21, 2013, 4:47 pm

    From the Playboy article:

    Our government bribes the Israelis by saying, “Please come to the [negotiating] table and we’ll give you this and we’ll give you that.” Obama’s last offer to the Israelis was $22 billion in new fighter planes [Editor’s note: The offer was actually just under $3 billion]

    Obviously this is one more of Thomas’ baseless remarks made up out of nothing.

    In other news:

    Israel Seeks U.S. Fighter Planes
    By The Media Line Staff
    The United States government has approved selling Israel 25 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter planes in a deal worth up to $22 billion.

    link to newsblaze.com

    Besides military aid, the United States has contracted more than $22 billion in arms sales to Israel in 2008 alone, including a proposed deal for 75 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, nine C-130J-30 military transport aircraft and four combat ships.

    link to twnside.org.sg

  11. just
    July 21, 2013, 5:23 pm

    Wow– what a lady with brains and fearlessness! She pretty much nailed it all the way through, imho. It seems that the ‘journalists’ couldn’t/ can’t really handle the truth nor any variation from the standard narrative (propaganda). Nor could the Rabbi. They just went digging for dirt and she remained true to herself.

    RIP dear Helen, and thanks Phil.

  12. Stephen Shenfield
    July 21, 2013, 7:04 pm

    The US being a plutocracy, the relevant question is what proportion of the wealthiest elites are Jews. In a report posted on the site of the Jewish Telegraph Agency (not, I think, an anti-Semitic source) on October 5, 2009, Jacob Berkman says that there is “reasonable certainty” that at least 139 of the richest 400 Americans (according to the Forbes list) are Jews, that is, 35%. These include 20 of the richest 50 (40%). These figures do not suffice to guarantee domination, but they are probably high enough to ensure domination on any issue that matters a lot to and unites most of the rich Jews (allowing for a few mavericks) but matters much less to and disunites the rich Gentiles — in the same way that a substantial minority shareholding often ensures effective control of a company. That surely applies to the US-Israel relationship.

    This does not correspond exactly to the idea of Jewish domination, but I admit I would feel more comfortable if a wider margin separated that idea from reality! The main point on which the idea of Jewish domination (at least in its crude form) goes wrong is its targeting of “the Jews” as a whole rather than a wealthy elite.

    • tokyobk
      July 21, 2013, 7:34 pm

      Why is that in itself a relevant question? Did those 139 people game the system in some way different than other financiers and luck-sperm club inheritors? Are they 139 Bernie Madoff’s or 139 Sergey Brin’s? Jews have been really successful in America because America was the levelest playing field yet in history and Jews traditionally (this is definitely diminishing) valued education, law and business. The explosion of opportunity and immigrant vigor is over, though and in a few decades the Jewish numbers will be significantly lower.

      And, why do you wish it was not so that Jews were extremely successful? Because it is so easy to make that into a conspiracy? That is the player-haters problem (and it goes for other minorities who excel in areas as well).

      • Stephen Shenfield
        July 21, 2013, 8:46 pm

        Yes. Surely it would be much better if the conspiracy theory were so far removed from reality that it could appeal only to a few crackpots.

        I feel that it is dangerous for Jews to be too prominent, powerful, or wealthy. It is tempting fate. I suppose I was brought up that way. There is a long tradition behind this attitude. Hanover expressed it in his chronicle of the Khmelnitsky pogroms. On the whole I think that history bears it out and I don’t see why the United States should be an exception.

        From the current vantage point “in a few decades” seems a long time.

      • American
        July 21, 2013, 11:33 pm

        Stephen Shenfield says:
        July 21, 2013 at 8:46 pm

        Yes. Surely it would be much better if the conspiracy theory were so far removed from reality that it could appeal only to a few crackpots.

        I feel that it is dangerous for Jews to be too prominent, powerful, or wealthy.”>>>>>>>>>

        Shows how little you understand.
        No one cares how much money Jews have ..or Asians have or Gentiles have ..or whoever.
        What people look at is what they do with it that either outrages them or that they admire.
        Thats why the liberals scream about the Koch brothers.
        Thats why we bashed the casino Jew Aldeson.
        Thats why the Zios scream about the Jewish Soros.
        When Ted Turner gave a billion dollars to the UN
        no one hated him for being rich.
        The public doesnt hate Bill Gates for being rich.
        The public doesnt hate Warren Buffet for being rich.

      • The Hasbara Buster
        July 21, 2013, 10:08 pm

        Why is that in itself a relevant question? Did those 139 people game the system in some way different than other financiers and luck-sperm club inheritors?

        The question about how rich the Jews are is relevant because the interviewer insists that Jews make up less than 2% of the American population and, hence, can’t be that influential. Thomas retorts that, the population figures notwithstanding, the Israel lobby controls Congress and the White House, for instance through funding.

        This is not about whether such control is legal or whether it has been hard-earned by the overwhelmingly Zionist Jewish community through their valuable commitment to study and business. It as about whether such control exists, and it does.

      • tokyobk
        July 22, 2013, 4:32 am

        I have seen those lists and not all of them, especially younger people like Zuck and Brin are particularly Zionist. Almost none are observant Jews and at least half are married to non-Jews. Rich Jew does not equal either Zionist or (particularly Jewish) control.

      • mijj
        July 22, 2013, 6:16 am

        > “The question about how rich the Jews are is relevant because the interviewer insists that Jews make up less than 2% of the American population and, hence, can’t be that influential. ”

        damn right

        Money is a form of social influence (as part of a mix that includes threats of violence, propaganda, etc). A unit of money is a socially acknowledged (ie. backed by threat of state violence, or community acceptance, etc) token of psychological influence. Disproportionate distribution of money = disproportionate distribution of influence. If there is a concentration of money in few hands, then those few hands can shape the economics, politics, and world-view of a society. Being of limited imagination, the purpose of being of the disproportionately influential is to use their disproportionate influence to increase the disproportionality of their influence. Head count matters not one whit.

      • yrn
        July 22, 2013, 6:16 am

        “how rich the Jews are is relevant because the interviewer insists that Jews make up less than 2% of the American population and, hence, can’t be that influential. ”
        “This is not about whether such control is legal or whether it has been hard-earned by the overwhelmingly Zionist Jewish community through their valuable commitment to study and business. It as about whether such control exists, and it does.”

        What they call pure Antisemite quotes.

      • James Canning
        July 23, 2013, 7:19 pm

        For most US Senators and Congressmen, money talks. Jews have given as much money to Democrats in national races over past 40 or 50 years, as the remaining 98% of the American people combinded.

      • American
        July 23, 2013, 7:39 pm

        @ James

        anyone have a handy list of big non Jews who have given mega bucks to the parties?
        sure they are some but cant think off hand of names except Koch ….however doubt non Jewish rich put as much money into politics as jews do.

      • James Canning
        July 25, 2013, 1:30 pm

        @yrn – – Curious thing, is it not, that the astounding levels of wealth and power achieved by Jews in the US, is regarded by some as something not to be known by the American people.

      • James Canning
        July 25, 2013, 2:28 pm

        @American — I do not have a list of big donors at my fingertips. I remember Michael Huffington spending $35 million on his own senate race, and other similar items. Richard Mellon Scaife put a lot of money into politics. I am sure a list is available somewhere.

      • W.Jones
        July 22, 2013, 2:02 pm

        Only 2% of the medieval world were in the the nobility, which was defined based on genetic lineage. Hence, the nobility did not dominate the medieval world, and to claim so would be discriminatory.

      • Danaa
        July 22, 2013, 10:12 pm

        W. jones – on Nobility control during the Middle Ages. Astutely excellent comparison. Who could possibly claim that aristocrats controlled everything/ such calumny! that’s really hurtful to their descendants …

        Gotta go burn them history books now….

      • James Canning
        July 23, 2013, 7:24 pm

        In England, some rich merchants, farmers etc avoided becoming part of the nobility. But that route was open to them (or their children), if so desired, often enough.

  13. mijj
    July 21, 2013, 7:14 pm

    any person whose fulcrum is morality is anti-zionist. It’s as natural as being anti-kittenStrangling.

    • Bumblebye
      July 22, 2013, 3:59 pm

      Yes. I *will* find homes for these last two little blond tom-kittens! No-one’s wringing their beautiful little necks.

  14. jonah
    July 21, 2013, 7:35 pm

    “I mean, Jewish-only roads?”
    “The Israelis are not even Semites!”
    “Did a Jew write this?”
    “Do the Jews ever look at themselves? … And they have this persecution. That’s true, but they shouldn’t use that to dominate….. ”
    “who are these people? Why do they think they’re so deserving? ”
    “You’re Jewish, aren’t you?”
    “That’s what I thought. Well, you know damn well they have power.”

    Ms. Thomas is a good example of the extent to which anti-Zionism can be impregnated with anti-Semitic ideas. She seems unable, while speaking about Israel, to suppress her perception of the Jews; and she can not help but confirm the impression given in her infamous phrase …. Also in the interview with “Play Boy”, she is pretty outspoken and doesn’t mind to openly deny Jews the right to have their own nation. But that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, of course. The anti-Zionist always has a lot of Jewish friends and is himself a true friend of the Jewish people, but – at the same time – he has right and the moral obligation to make Israel the Jew among the nations. This is indeed what anti-Zionism is all about.

    • tokyobk
      July 22, 2013, 4:37 am

      I for one am fine with denying Jews the right to have their own nation. I would like to deny all religions the right to have their own nations.

      And no, there is principled anti-zionism. It just stays completely away from the idea that Jews don’t belong in Palestine.

      • jonah
        July 22, 2013, 5:34 am

        The “Jews” are not only a religion, they also are a people. And it happens that peoples have their own nation – after 2000 years of diaspora and since 65 years also the Jews. Nothing wrong about that. Israel as Jewish state has at least as much right to exist as many modern Arab states, whose borders where artificially drawn by European imperial powers during the 19th and early 20th century.

      • German Lefty
        July 22, 2013, 5:48 am

        The “Jews” are not only a religion, they also are a people. And it happens that peoples have their own nation.
        Bullshit! Neither Christians nor Muslims are a people. Then how can Jews be a people? All religions must be treated equally.
        A nation are the citizens of a country. Germany has Germans, who can be Jewish or non-Jewish. Israel has Israelis, who can be Jewish or non-Jewish.

        Israel as Jewish state has at least as much right to exist as many modern Arab states
        Why do you equate Israel with Arab states? I thought that Zionists believe that Israel is a Western country. As such, it must be compared to other Western countries. Tell me, do you believe that Germany has a right to exist as Aryan state?

      • mijj
        July 22, 2013, 6:41 am

        > “Israel as Jewish state has at least as much right to exist as many modern Arab states”

        Palestine has at least as much right to exist as Israel.

      • Citizen
        July 22, 2013, 7:44 am

        @ jonah
        No, Israel only has the rights of a sovereignty afforded all modern states as curbed by Nuremberg Trials in 1945, and its progeny, Geneva, etc. Or was US & Coalition wrong went it attacked Iraq and made it withdraw from Kuwait? Did the US send American settlers into Iraq after it defeated Iraq? Is the US mostly withdrawn from Iraq now, or not? Get the picture?

      • andrew r
        July 22, 2013, 9:13 am

        Israel as Jewish state has at least as much right to exist as many modern Arab states, whose borders where artificially drawn by European imperial powers during the 19th and early 20th century.

        This is a disingenuous comparison. Israel was created so a colonial-settler group could become the majority within a previously-created colonial entity. The real parallel to the other Middle-Eastern states is with the British Mandate of Palestine. Instead of becoming an independent state like its neighbors, it was partitioned with most of the majority population expelled by force out of the usurped “Jewish state”.

      • Cliff
        July 22, 2013, 11:32 am

        What does a Chinese Jew have in common with an American Jew or an Ethiopian Jew other than religion?

        There is no such thing as a Jewish ‘people’ in the nationalistic sense.

        Israel has a 20% Palestinian minority and is built on the ruins of Palestine and the Palestinian majority it destroyed (is destroying).

        Jewish peoplehood is fine and dandy but no Jew is bound by Zionism.

        No Jew born outside of Israel is automatically an Israeli upon birth.

        There is no analog to other religions or ethnicities either.

        The Arab peoplehood/’countries’ are a natural growth from one generation to the next. The lines drawn are not.

        Israel and Jewish peoplehood are not. Jews from OUTSIDE that land came there and drove out the indigenous population.

        So the disagreement with Jewish peoplehood is not concerned with the intrinsic value of the concept.

        The disagreement is over the application of the concept vis a vis Zionism and the Nakba and Palestine, etc.

        Do not compare yourself to the Arabs.

        Compare yourself to Manifest Destiny. That is the accurate comparison. You are not indigenous. Very few Jews were. Most are usurpers and colonists.

        If you want to talk about an Israeli people – which comprises a Jewish majority and an Arab Palestinian minority – then you’d be accurate.

      • kalithea
        July 22, 2013, 11:37 am

        “And it happens that peoples have their own nation”

        Not if you have to ethnically cleanse the people living there for generations to get that nation! It’s too bad Jews had that karma 2000 years ago. That doesn’t give present-day Jews from Moldova and New Jersey the right to STEAL other people’s land, dispossess others of their homes and demolish other people’s homes because some tribes 2000 years ago that these Zionists have no connection with except religious persuasion lost that land over 2000 years ago. Puh-leease!

      • W.Jones
        July 22, 2013, 2:00 pm

        “The “Jews” are not only a religion, they also are a people.” ~Jonah
        A people is an ethnic group. Israeli law defines someone who converts from Rabbinic Judaism to another religion to be non-Jewish. Palestinians on the other hand are ethnically Jewish.

        While your statement is correct, the Israeli system does not define things that way.

      • MHughes976
        July 22, 2013, 4:40 pm

        No one has rights based on being related by blood to someone else other than rights of inheritance, which are not universal human rights, valid at all times, but rights defined for individual societies by their local laws to secure what they consider to be best for their general prosperity and solidarity. No one has rights based on sharing the same ideas, religious or other, as some other people. For human rights to be genuine human rights they cannot depend on blood or opinion. So to my mind there is no such thing as the rights of groups or peoples.

      • American
        July 22, 2013, 4:58 pm

        MHughes976 says:
        July 22, 2013 at 4:40 pm

        ”For human rights to be genuine human rights they cannot depend on blood or opinion. So to my mind there is no such thing as the rights of groups or peoples.>>>>>>

        Good way to put it.

      • RoHa
        July 22, 2013, 10:09 pm

        “And it happens that peoples have their own nation”

        “Peoples have their own nations” is not a law of nature. Some “peoples” have nations. Some don’t. Lots of nations have several different “peoples” in them.

        And MHughes976 has neatly demolished the idea that there could be a moral principle of the type “peoples should have their own nations”.

        So although it sometimes happens that peoples have nations, nothing follows from that. It is no foundation for saying that Israel has a right to exist.

      • jonah
        July 23, 2013, 2:39 am

        Israel is in the Middle East, not in Europe, although the only democracy in ME. So why do you equate Israel with Nazi Germany?

      • talknic
        July 23, 2013, 2:44 am

        jonah “The “Jews” are not only a religion, they also are a people”

        Correction: The “Jews” are a mixed people. Race, ethnicity and ancestry are not necessary to the Jewish religion. Anyone of any race, ethnicity or ancestry can become a Jew by conversion. Few Jews share a continual ancestral presence in the M East.

        “Israel as Jewish state has at least as much right to exist as many modern Arab states, whose borders where artificially drawn by European imperial powers during the 19th and early 20th century”

        Correction: The Arab and Israeli state borders were all artificially drawn by European imperial powers during the 19th and early 20th century. Unlike the Arab states which were declared independent in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people in them and in the region, Israel was declared against the wishes of the majority of the people in the region.

        Since being declared, only Israel has illegally acquired, illegally annexed and illegally settled in the territory of its neighbours, showing no “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”

      • thankgodimatheist
        July 23, 2013, 6:18 am

        “Israel as Jewish state has at least as much right to exist as many modern Arab states, whose borders where artificially drawn by European imperial powers.”
        Which Arab state was founded on lands ethnically cleansed of non-Arab population to make room for Arabs?

      • German Lefty
        July 23, 2013, 10:43 am

        Israel is in the Middle East, not in Europe, although the only democracy in ME. So why do you equate Israel with Nazi Germany?

        ethnic nationalism = Germany as Aryan state = Israel as Jewish state
        Israel as “Jewish state” is NOT a democracy. A democracy doesn’t predetermine the size of the ethnic groups. A democracy doesn’t define itself in a way that excludes 25% of its citizens. A democracy grants refugees the right to return to their homeland instead of denying them citizenship and suffrage because they have the “wrong” ethnicity and religion. A democracy doesn’t confiscate foreign land.

      • James Canning
        July 23, 2013, 2:11 pm

        EU point of view is that EU properly has relations with Israel withink 1967 borders, but that Israel must get out of the West Bank.

      • tree
        July 23, 2013, 2:21 pm

        Israel is in the Middle East, not in Europe, although the only democracy in ME. So why do you equate Israel with Nazi Germany?

        First off, Lebanon is a democracy also, so Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. Two, Iran is in the Middle East as well, and Israeli leaders are constantly equating it with Nazi Germany,so obviously the geographic position of a country has no bearing on the use of the comparison.

        Thirdly, and most importantly, you are advocating that it is OK for a “nation” to ethnically cleanse those who are not considered of that nation. That is what Nazi Germany did to the Jews. If you approve of ethnic cleansing in one case, then you are justifying it in the other case as well. Or as German Lefty said, if you approve of a Jewish State in Israel (to the detriment of Palestinians) then you must, to be consistent, approve of an Aryan State in Nazi Germany (to the detriment of Jews). Otherwise you are simply demanding something for your own group that you are denying to every other group.

      • W.Jones
        July 23, 2013, 5:29 pm

        “Israel is in the Middle East, not in Europe, although the only democracy in ME.”
        If America had a white majority and put the rest of the people in Bantustans, would it be a democracy?

      • Ludwig
        July 23, 2013, 6:08 pm

        Actually the borders of Palestine were drawn along Biblical lines to facilitate Jewish national homeland the terms where “From Dan to Bersheba” roughly.

      • American
        July 23, 2013, 8:05 pm

        ”So why do you equate Israel with Nazi Germany?’….jonah

        Well, think about it.
        They terrorized people and made them flee for their lives, made them leave their homes and property and then confiscated it and gave it to Jews, then they ghettoized the other parts of Palestine to terrorize them and get them to leave also…..but the Palestines wont leave, so the Isr’s turned them into ducks in a barrel, regularly shoots them for fun, including children, women and old people, tries to starve them out, steals their water and makes them buy it back if they want any water to drink, humilates them daily, …..then when the Palestines fight back calls them animals and terrorist same way nazis demonized jews as vermin and traitors.
        And that is why Isr is equated with the nazis…except it is carrying out it’s genocide lite very slowy and not as fast as the nazis.
        Sounds like the nazis to me.

      • jonah
        July 25, 2013, 6:14 am

        ThankGod –

        Which Arab state was founded on lands ethnically cleansed of non-Arab population to make room for Arabs?

        A large number of Arab states:

        link to jpost.com

        link to jewishrefugees.blogspot.ch

      • jonah
        July 25, 2013, 6:25 am

        American –

        there is another explanation: your account of the events is pretty distorted and false. Only so you can make such misleading and slanderous comparisons.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 25, 2013, 10:48 am

        jonah, there is absolutely nothing in either of those links that supports the idea of an arab state being ‘founded’ on lands ethnically cleansed of non-Arab population ‘to make room for Arabs’. nothing. you’re simply using tgia’s question as an opportunity to place your hasbara links.

        think about that the next time one of your comments w/embeds that do not support the premise of the argument doesn’t pass moderation before you repost it again.

      • talknic
        July 25, 2013, 11:56 am

        @ jonah ”.. why do you equate Israel with Nazi Germany?’

        Israel is in breach of International Laws, the UN Charter and relative Conventions adopted in large part on the vile treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis. It’s obvious to anyone but Israel’s apologists

      • yonah fredman
        July 25, 2013, 12:20 pm

        talknic- “In breach of International Laws” is slim as a basis to label the Zionists as Nazis. I know there are other reasons, but “in breach of international laws”, come on. That’s weak rhetoric.

      • miriam6
        July 25, 2013, 12:50 pm

        I take it then, Talknic , you would have no problem equating the U.S. with Nazi Germany.
        After all, the U.S. violates those same International Laws…

        I take it also , you must therefore regard EVERY nation that has ever violated International Law to be like Nazi Germany…

        That’s a lot of pseudo Nazi Germany’s all over the world..

        United States embargo against Cuba

        “Future students of American history will be scratching their heads about this case for decades to come.
        Our embargo and refusal to normalize diplomatic relations has nothing to do with communism.
        Otherwise, we wouldn’t have had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, with China since Nixon, and with Vietnam despite our bitter war there.
        No, Cuba was pure politics.
        Though it started out to be a measure of an administration’s resistance to Castro’s politics, it very soon became a straight-jacket whereby first-generation Cuban-Americans wielded inordinate political power over both parties and constructed a veto over rational, mature diplomacy.”

        — Gary Hart, former U.S. Senator, March 2011

        The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water,[43] medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population. Criticism has come from both Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro, citizens and groups from within Cuba, and international organizations and leaders including Barack Obama.[citation needed] Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked the embargo to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases.[44][45] It has also been linked to epidemics of specific diseases, including neurological disorders and blindness caused by poor nutrition.[44][46] Travel restrictions embedded in the embargo have also been shown to limit the amount of medical information that flows into Cuba from the United States.[43] An article written in 1997 suggests malnutrition and disease resulting from increased food and medicine prices have affected men and the elderly, in particular, due to Cuba’s rationing system which gives preferential treatment to women and children.[45]

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        TheRepublic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1984 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua.

        Of course , the U.S. later managed to find a way to wriggle it’s way out of taking responsibility.

        link to en.wikipedia.org drone attacks ‘may breach international law’

        link to belfasttelegraph.co.uk

        link to guardian.co.uk

        “US in breach of international law after execution of Leal García in Texas ” – UN human rights chiefInternational Law and War Crimes

        by Michael Ratner

        link to deoxy.org

      • talknic
        July 25, 2013, 1:59 pm

        @ yonah fredman ““In breach of International Laws” is slim as a basis to label the Zionists as Nazis. I know there are other reasons, but “in breach of international laws”, come on. That’s weak rhetoric.”

        Cherry picking is weak

        @ miriam6 Any state in breach of in breach of International Laws, the UN Charter and relative Conventions is deserving of contempt. Being in breach of in breach of International Laws, the UN Charter and relative Conventions adopted in large part on the vile treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis is also deserving of contempt, especially the JEWISH state.

      • talknic
        July 25, 2013, 2:14 pm

        jonah /// Which Arab state was founded on lands ethnically cleansed of non-Arab population to make room for Arabs?///

        “A large number of Arab states”

        Problem … they didn’t do it “to make room for Arabs” or to found their states.

        Another problem … it is NORMAL for states at war to either expel or inter possible allies of their enemies (5th column) from their own territory. The US, UK, Australia did during WWII. Israel also did it not only from Israeli territory but also from territory “outside the State of Israel”. Israel is STILL doing it.

        It is also NORMAL to allow their return after hostilities have ceased. The US, UK, Australia did after WWII. Israel hasn’t.

      • jonah
        July 25, 2013, 4:56 pm

        annie (July 25, 2013 at 10:48 am) –

        The exodus of the Jews from Arab lands is today a proven fact. In most cases it was a targeted and coordinated plan for the expulsion of Jews living in the country for generations. As you may know, from 800,000 to one million Jews had to leave their countries of origin in the space of little more than twenty years (1947-1970). Without many words we can speak of ‘ethnic cleansing’ as a result of the civil war in (mandatory) Palestine as well as of the Arab-Israeli wars that followed.
        Now, you say that my comment does not support the premise of the argument, but obviously you do not know my premise (not the Thankgod’s one). Unlike the anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli narrative, my position explains the exodus of the Arabs from (mandatory) Palestine not as a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing, but as a direct consequence of the ongoing war. Today, hundreds of thousands of civilians are fleeing from Syria because of the civil war, and the same thing happened in post-mandatory Palestine during the fury of the first Arab-Israeli war.
        In this context, the two phenomena of expulsion resp. exodus on both sides should be considered at least equivalent, since they appear to be the direct or indirect consequence of the war between the Arab states and Israel. However, I consider the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries the real ethnic cleansing, as Arab governments started pogroms and confiscation of property to the detriment of their Jewish citizens as a pure form of retaliation and revenge for the creation of the State of Israel, while the Palestinian exodus 1948 occurred amid the Jewish struggle to survive the combined attack of five Arab armies.
        Furthermore, Israel was willing and able to absorb the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, not so the Arab states which misused the Arab Palestinian refugees problem to keep the pressure on Israel.

        The following link can give you the needed informations in this regard. Read it before you (pretty lightly) dismiss it as hasbara.

        link to meforum.org

        Also wikipedia is quite informative:

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • jonah
        July 25, 2013, 5:07 pm

        talknik (July 25, 2013 at 2:14 pm) –

        it is NORMAL for states at war to either expel or inter possible allies of their enemies (5th column) from their own territory …. It is also NORMAL to allow their return after hostilities have ceased. The US, UK, Australia did after WWII. Israel hasn’t.

        Are you maybe suggesting that Israel should and had the right to do the same with her enemies (5th column)?

        And please tell me: since when the hostilities between the Arab states, including the Palestinian Arabs, and Israel have ceased? Yet another (and in my opinion useless) round of peace talks has yet to begin ….

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 9:42 pm

        Are you maybe suggesting that Israel should and had the right to do the same with her enemies (5th column)?

        Even Ben Gurion admitted that most of the Palestinians had no desire to fight or even resits, so no. The Israelis did what they did to change the demographics, not to eliminate enemies.

        Of course, the Nazis used your argument too remember?

        since when the hostilities between the Arab states, including the Palestinian Arabs, and Israel have ceased? )?

        Since when has ethnic cleansing and occupation ceased?

      • miriam6
        July 25, 2013, 9:59 pm

        Talknic@;

        Few Jews share a continual ancestral presence in the MEast.

        You are being Ashkenazi -centric.

        You are forgetting the Mizrahi Jews.

        They DO have share a continual ancestral presence in the Middle East

        Mizrahi Jews make up 52% of the Israeli population.

        Presumably you exclude them from the sympathy you have for your (Ashkenazi) your Jewish fellows

        Remember , just take just one example , that the JEWISH community in Iraq ( which flourished under the rule of Ottoman Turkey i.e. BEFORE a combination of Arab nationalism, the divide – and – rule tactics of the British and the German imperialists and Zionism, came to disturb them) was in 1917 a large community in Baghdad which comprised a significant ONE THIRD of the population of that city.
        By 1947 , the jewish population of Baghdad numbered 118,000 .
        Today only 7 jews remain in Iraq, bringing an end to a significant jewish presence in Iraq which began in 597 B.C.

      • jonah
        July 26, 2013, 2:31 am

        jonah (July 25, 2013 at 4:56 pm) –

        I consider the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries the real ethnic cleansing, as Arab governments started pogroms and confiscation of property to the detriment of their Jewish citizens as a pure form of retaliation and revenge for the creation of the State of Israel, while the Palestinian exodus 1948 occurred amid the Jewish struggle to survive the combined attack of five Arab armies.

        Let me add that out-and-out pogroms against the Jews in Arab lands started before the establishment of Israel, so in Irak 1941 and in Lybia 1945, as well as anti-Jewish riots in Yemen, Egypt, Marocco and Algeria.

      • jonah
        July 26, 2013, 8:15 am

        annie (July 25, 2013 at 10:48 am) –

        The exodus of the Jews from Arab lands is today a proven fact. In most cases it was a coordinated plan for the expulsion of Jewish citizens living in the country for generations. As you may know, from 800,000 to one million Jews had to leave their countries of origin in the space of little more than twenty years (1947-1970).
        You say that my comment does not support the premise of the argument, but obviously you do not know my premise (not the Thankgod’s one). Unlike the anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli narrative, my position considers the exodus of the Arabs from (mandatory) Palestine not a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing, but as a direct consequence of the ongoing war. Today, hundreds of thousands of civilians are fleeing from Syria because of the civil war, and the same thing happened in post-mandatory Palestine during the fury of the first Arab-Israeli war.
        The two phenomena of expulsion resp. exodus of Arab from Mandatory Palestine and Jews from Arab lands appear to be the direct or indirect consequence of the war between the Arab states and Israel. However, I consider the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries a form of deliberate ethnic cleansing, as Arab governments started pogroms and confiscation of property of their Jewish citizens as retaliation and revenge for the creation of the State of Israel, while the Palestinian exodus 1948 occurred amid the Jewish struggle to survive the combined attack of five Arab armies.
        Furthermore, Israel was willing and able to absorb the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, not so the Arab states which misused the Arab Palestinian refugees problem to keep the pressure on Israel.

        The following link can give you the needed information.

        link to meforum.org

        Also wikipedia is quite informative:

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • American
        July 22, 2013, 5:06 pm

        tokyobk says:
        July 22, 2013 at 4:37 am

        And no, there is principled anti-zionism. It just stays completely away from the idea that Jews don’t belong in Palestine.>>>>

        A 1948 Jewish ‘Nation’ did not belong in Palestine.
        Jews can go anywhere they want as individuals….they can take their religion and whatever else they want with them….but they cant bring a “Jewish Nation” along with them……that is their downfall.

      • MHughes976
        July 23, 2013, 11:47 am

        Since there should be no discrimination on grounds of religion or race no one belongs less in any country because of being Jewish or not Jewish, Christian or not Christian, dark-skinned or light-skinned. This means ‘staying completely away’ from the idea that Jewish people don’t belong in the UK or don’t belong in Palestine. It also means staying just as far away from any idea that people who are Jewish belong in Palestine in some special way which others ‘just because they’re not Jewish’ (Peter Beinart’s phrase, I think) don’t share: as a matter of plainest logic, this idea contradicts the basic principle completely. There are other reasons for not belonging: not having acquired permanent residence by means that are legally and morally valid, for instance. I would not necessarily come to belong in Palestine or China even if for some reason I spent quite a long time there and gained an affection for those places. On this showing and in all logic it may be that there are people in Palestine who don’t belong there even if they are Jewish: there’s no way that we should keep completely clear of that idea. Much depends on what you think about the legal and moral validity of the reasons why they’re there. You may mention birth in the place as an inalienable ground, not forfeit for any reason, to be there and to have citizenship -but note (for a start) that that applied to the Palestinians of 1948 as well.

      • James Canning
        July 25, 2013, 2:15 pm

        MHughes – – Japan is exceptionally reluctant to have non-Japanese settle in Japan permanently. This homogeneity has significant benefits.

    • Walker
      July 22, 2013, 7:49 am

      Ms. Thomas is a good example of the extent to which anti-Zionism can be impregnated with anti-Semitic ideas.

      Thomas was obviously intemperate at times in the interview, but her responses could be read as being based on the reality of how most Israeli Jews see themselves vis-a-vis Palestinians, and the injustice that ensues. That’s how I read them. For example, this:
      who are these people? Why do they think they’re so deserving?
      I have certainly had similar thoughts about Jewish settlers. I don’t think that necessarily makes me an antisemite.

      There’s also the reality of what happened to Thomas. She was driven from the public sphere overnight despite a long and very distinguished career, because of something she blurted out while being harassed. It was extremely unfair. If she had a sore head afterwards, personally I find it hard to condemn her.

    • RoHa
      July 22, 2013, 10:01 pm

      “openly deny Jews the right to have their own nation”

      Australian Jews have their own nation. It’s called “The Commonwealth of Australia”. They share it with all the other Australians.

    • Danaa
      July 22, 2013, 10:15 pm

      jonah – why do jews have the”right” to kick others from their own land, based on some flimsy mythological and genealogical claims?

      You really need to read Sand’s second book – “The Invention of the Land of Israel”. It’s really an eye opener – one can learn much about biblical accounts there….

      • jonah
        July 23, 2013, 3:59 pm

        andrew r –
        The connection of the Jews to the land of Israel is undeniable, in the same way the connection of the Arabs say to states like Egypt, Iraq and Syria is undeniable. The political, cultural and historical and spiritual roots of a country can not be simply brushed off with a sponge.

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 5:57 am

        The connection of the Jews to the land of Israel is undeniable, in the same way the connection of the Arabs say to states like Egypt, Iraq and Syria is undeniable.

        Nice sleazy attempt, but whatever connection of the Jews to the land of Palestine is no greater than the connection of the Palestinians to the land of Palestine.

      • German Lefty
        July 25, 2013, 8:03 am

        The connection of the Jews to the land of Israel is undeniable. The political, cultural and historical and spiritual roots of a country can not be simply brushed off with a sponge.
        Jonah, you are falsely equating the presence of Jews (e.g. Palestinian Jews) in that area with the existence of a Jewish state (i.e. Israel) in that area.
        THE Jews might have a connection to that area because of their religious belief. But only SOME Jews, namely Palestinian Jews, have the right to actually live in that area. The OTHER Jews are free to visit that area as tourists, e.g. pilgrimage. No more, no less.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 25, 2013, 10:58 am

        shingo, obviously the ‘connection’ is not in the same way because, unlike jewish israelis, the overwhelming majority of the population in states like Egypt, Iraq and Syria have grandparents and great-grandparents who lived on the land continuously over the last few thousand years. that’s the only thing undeniable about their ‘connection’ vrs the population of israeli jews.

      • James Canning
        July 25, 2013, 1:48 pm

        Strong emotional connection, yes. Even if based in significant part of inventions, myths, etc etc etc.

      • mondonut
        July 25, 2013, 5:42 pm

        Shingo says: Nice sleazy attempt, but whatever connection of the Jews to the land of Palestine is no greater than the connection of the Palestinians to the land of Palestine.
        ===========================================
        So they are equal?

      • jonah
        July 25, 2013, 5:50 pm

        G.L. (July 25, 2013 at 8:03 am)

        Jonah, you are falsely equating the presence of Jews (e.g. Palestinian Jews) in that area with the existence of a Jewish state (i.e. Israel) in that area.

        Or maybe you don’t like the idea that Jews can exert self-determination and self-governance through their own state, and not only live as ‘dhimmiyeen’ in a Arab Muslim country.

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 9:39 pm

        Or maybe you don’t like the idea that Jews can exert self-determination and self-governance through their own state, and not only live as ‘dhimmiyeen’ in a Arab Muslim country.

        Not if it means denying exert self-determination and self-governance of those they displaced to do so and condemning the remaining Arabs to live as ‘dhimmiyeen’ in a Jewish country.

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 9:40 pm

        So they are equal?

        The Jewish and none Jewish Palestinians that were already there?

        Absolutely

      • RoHa
        July 26, 2013, 1:29 am

        “Jews can exert self-determination and self-governance through their own state”

        Australian Jews can exert self-determination and self-governance in exactly the same ways that other Australians can. No need for a Jewish state for that.

      • jonah
        July 23, 2013, 4:00 pm

        kalithea –
        The right of the Jews to settle in whole land of Israel west of the Jordan isn’t only because of their “karma”, but also according to a very precise legal right written in the Mandate (which the British didn’t respect, let alone the Arab under the British Mandate and Arab states).
        The accusation of stealing other people’s land is simply incorrect. International law does not acquire validity only when you can use it against Israel, sometimes it also speaks in favor of the Jewish state.

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 6:14 am

        The right of the Jews to settle in whole land of Israel west of the Jordan isn’t only because of their “karma”, but also according to a very precise legal right written in the Mandate (which the British didn’t respect, let alone the Arab under the British Mandate and Arab states).

        That also applies to Palestinians, including the refugees of course, so move over and give them a warm welcome.

        The accusation of stealing other people’s land is simply incorrect.

        No, it’s factual. 800,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and their land was taken by Israel so it was stolen.

        International law does not acquire validity only when you can use it against Israel, sometimes it also speaks in favor of the Jewish state.

        Agreed, so like I said, take down that apartheid wall and let the Arabs back into Jaffa.

        There’s a good boy.

      • talknic
        July 25, 2013, 12:15 pm

        @ jonah “The right of the Jews to settle in whole land of Israel west of the Jordan isn’t only because of their “karma”, but also according to a very precise legal right written in the Mandate”

        Thanks for allowing the opportunity to show folk just how dishonest Israel’s apologists are.

        The word “Israel” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. Nor does ” land of Israel”. “Palestine” does. Jewish folk had the right to settle anywhere in Palestine as Palestinian citizens (Article 7). The Zionist Federation and their colonial lust took away that right.

        The Zionist Federation missed opportunity after opportunity… what a bunch of idiots, no wonder your bile and bullsh*t overfloweth, you wuz ripped off link to wp.me

      • jonah
        July 25, 2013, 6:06 pm

        talknic (July 25, 2013 at 12:15 pm) –

        Here we go again: the name ‘Palestine’ was revived by the British to define the territory west of the Jordan river under their Mandate between 1922 and 1948. In this sense, “Palestinians” were both locals and immigrants, both Arabs and Jews. The Mandate explicitly states :

        Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

        Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country –

        See more at: link to unispal.un.org

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 9:31 pm

        Here we go again: the name ‘Palestine’ was revived by the British to define the territory west of the Jordan river under their Mandate between 1922 and 1948.

        Yawn.

        Annual reports on Trade and Commerce of the country of Palestine were submitted to the US Bureau of Foreign Commerce from the Consuls in “Jerusalem, Palestine”. See for example the report for 1884.
        link to books.google.com

        The 19th century Jews certainly knew where Palestine was located and what it was called. The documentary record proves that they repeatedly asked the US Consuls in Palestine and Constantinople for help in immigrating to Palestine. For example, The Ottoman Sultan had issued a firman permitting Jewish settlement in Syria that prevented Oriental and European Jews from settling in Palestine. Palestine was marked on most of the maps of the era.

        The first Jewish Aliya was carried-out in violation of that prohibition on mass Jewish immigration. In 1882, the American Consul summed up an immigration request from a group of Romanian Jews living in the Ottoman Empire this way:

        In conclusion, there is nothing to prevent all the Israelites on the earth from settling in Asiatic Turkey. They shall not settle in Palestine-’that is the only prohibition.

        The actual text of Basle Program of the First Zionist Congress did NOT use the term Eretz Israel, it used the term Palistina.
        link to upload.wikimedia.org

      • jonah
        July 26, 2013, 3:50 am

        Shingo (July 25, 2013 at 9:31 pm) –

        You need a refresher in basic history and etymology.
        “Palestine” was the name the exiled Jews in the Diaspora used when they referred to the old Land of Israel, “Eretz Israel”: link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
        For sure “Palestine” was never in history referred to a state or any united, circumscribed and organized entity of the “Palestinians” as the sole Arab inhabitants of the geographical place called “Palestine”. Under British Mandate “Palestinians” were considered both Arabs and Jews (or even Christians) of Palestine – also referred as “Palestinian Arabs” and “Palestinian Jews”. The name “Palaestina” was used by the Romans the as they renamed the geographical region of Judea after having destroyed the Jewish Kingdom of Judah and expelling its Jewish inhabitants.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 26, 2013, 6:28 am

        jonah, do you know the hebrew word for palestine?

      • Shingo
        July 26, 2013, 8:08 am

        You need a refresher in basic history and etymology.

        You need someone to explain the difference between etymology and hasbarology.

        “Palestine” was the name the exiled Jews in the Diaspora used when they referred to the old Land of Israel, “Eretz Israel”

        Of course they did, because it was called Palestine. Etetz only existed for a few hundreds years, wheres Palestine existed for more than 2 millenia.

        For sure “Palestine” was never in history referred to a state or any united, circumscribed and organized entity of the “Palestinians” as the sole Arab inhabitants of the geographical place called “Palestine”.

        Palestine was never in history any united, circumscribed and organized entity of the anyone, including Jews or Hebrews.

        The name “Palaestina” was used by the Romans the as they renamed the geographical region of Judea after having destroyed the Jewish Kingdom of Judah and expelling its Jewish inhabitants.

        This rubbish has long since been debunked and was again explained right here at Mondoweiss.

        In the 5th Century BCE, Herodotus, the first historian in Western civilization, referenced”Palestine” numerous times in his chronicle of the ancient Greek world, The Histories,including his documentation that “the coastal parts of Syria…and all that lies between it and Egypt is called Palestine.”
        (VII.89, trans. Henry Carter, Heritage Press, 1958)

        Furthermore, the name Palaestina was not of Greek origin, but has even more ancient roots. According to the late University of Chicago professor Gösta Ahlström in his seminal book, The History of Ancient Palestine, “Clearly Herodotus did not invent the name but used an already common term,” derived from the Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaean, and Egyptian words for Philistines. “Herodotus’ use of the term shows that its content had expanded in the Persian period and that it referred to the people of the coastal areas from Gaza to Carmel,” explains Ahlström.
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • jonah
        July 26, 2013, 8:18 am

        annie (July 26, 2013 at 6:28 am) –

        jonah, do you know the hebrew word for palestine?

        Peleshet: link to hebrew-streams.org

      • Light
        July 26, 2013, 11:44 am

        The name “Palaestina” was used by the Romans the as they renamed the geographical region of Judea after having destroyed the Jewish Kingdom of Judah and expelling its Jewish inhabitants.

        Do we constantly have to play whack-a-mole with Zionist mythology? Whatever happened 2000 years ago is utterly irrelevant to the present situation or whether Helen Thomas is anti-zionist or antisemitic.

        FYI. The use of the name Palestine to describe the region goes back to the 5th century BC as documented by the Greek historian Herodotus. In addition, the Jewish historian, Josephus, also used the term in his works. Finally, there is no evidence that Romans expelled anyone from Palestine.

      • jonah
        July 23, 2013, 4:01 pm

        MHughes976 –
        So according to your mind, why should the Palestinians have the right to a own state?

      • RoHa
        July 25, 2013, 7:42 pm

        “MHughes976 –
        So according to your mind, why should the Palestinians have the right to a own state?”

        MHughes can answer for himself, but I have never claimed that the Palestinians (or any other group) have a right to a state. I have claimed that they have a right to live as full and equal citizens in any state constituted on the territory in which they are natives, to wit: Palestine. This right encompasses the Right of Return.

      • jonah
        July 23, 2013, 4:02 pm

        talknic –
        >>Since being declared, only Israel has illegally acquired, illegally annexed and illegally settled in the territory of its neighbours, showing no “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”<<

        So why was Israel admitted as member of the United Nations in 1949?
        link to unispal.un.org

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 6:17 am

        So why was Israel admitted as member of the United Nations in 1949?

        Because it agreed to the condition that it would allow all refugees to return and admitted as a state within the 1948 borders. Did you miss the par that says

        Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter

        and

        Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations”

        The UN is still waiting for Israel to honor it’s obligations of the United Nations Charter, which explains why Israel and the US are going to such lengths to keep negotiations away from the UN.

      • talknic
        July 25, 2013, 12:32 pm

        jonah So why was Israel admitted as member of the United Nations in 1949?

        Why are you asking such stupid questions? You’re so ignorant you want me to do your homework?

        Israel was granted admission to the UN based on its promises to abide by the Law, the UN Charter et al.

        AFTER admission, on 31st Aug 1949
        Israel claimed non-Israeli territories link to unispal.un.org Israel’s claims were rebuffed link to domino.un.org after which Israel proceeded to ignore its legal obligations. I.e., a liar and a thief, completely against the basic tenets of Judaism. Rather odd for the ‘Jewish’ state … no?

      • mondonut
        July 25, 2013, 5:52 pm

        Shingo says:Because it agreed to the condition that it would allow all refugees to return and admitted as a state within the 1948 borders. Did you miss the par that says…
        ======================================
        There is nothing in the UN charter that provides a RoR, nor did Israel ever agree to allow for the so called RoR. Nor was their admittance conditional on elevating UGA 194 to a binding obligation.

        Israel was admitted to the UN on the basis of Article 4 of the Charter. Period.

      • jonah
        July 25, 2013, 6:43 pm

        Shingo (July 25, 2013 at 6:17 am) –

        You need to read the full text of the declarations and explanations made by Israel, in particular on the problem of the Arab refugees:

        1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States which were entirely responsible for that as well as for other forms of suffering inflicted by that war;

        2. The ensuing problem had raised a humanitarian issue and also had serious implications for the future peace, development and welfare of the Middle East. The Government of Israel believed that a solution of the problem was inseparably linked with a solution of the outstanding issues between it and the Arab States and that no satisfactory solution was possible except by the restoration of peace in the Middle East. A solution could be found only within a final settlement creating conditions of co-operation between Israel and its neighbours;

        3. The Government of Israel was earnestly anxious to contribute to the solution of that problem although the problem was not of its making. That anxiety proceeded from moral considerations and from Israel’s vital interest in stable conditions throughout the Middle East. Any rehabilitation of Arab refugees in any part of the Middle East, whether in Israel or in the neighbouring countries, involved intricate tasks of resettlement. The two most widely advocated principles were (a) resettlement of the refugees in the places from which they had fled, thus creating a large minority problem and a possible menace to internal peace and stability and also placing masses of Arabs under the rule of a Government which, while committed to an enlightened minority policy, was not akin to those Arabs in language, culture, religion or social or economic institutions; (b) the resettlement of the refugees in areas where they would live under a Government akin to them in spirit and tradition and in which their smooth integration would be immediately possible with no resultant friction. A study of the economic, irrigation and other potentialities of the under-populated and under-developed areas of the Arab States revealed greater possibilities for a stable solution by the latter method than by resettlement in Israel. Therefore, the Government of Israel contended that resettlement in neighbouring areas should be considered as the main principle of solution. Israel, however, would be ready to make its own contribution to a solution of the problem. It was not yet ascertainable how many Arabs wished to return under conditions that might be prescribed by the Assembly or how many Arabs Israel could receive in the light of existing political and economic considerations. Israel’s first objective at Lausanne would be to reach an agreement by direct negotiation on the contribution to be made by each Government toward the settlement of that grave problem. The extent of the contribution of the Israeli Government would depend entirely on the formal establishment of peace and relations of good neighbourliness between Israel and the Arab States;…

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 9:35 pm

        You need to read the full text of the declarations and explanations made by Israel, in particular on the problem of the Arab refugees:

        No, you only need to read the full text of UNGA194, which Israel accepted.

        1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States which were entirely responsible for that as well as for other forms of suffering inflicted by that war;

        A lie of course. Israel had expelled 300,000 Palestinians before the Arab armies invaded Palestine.

        3. The Government of Israel was earnestly anxious to contribute to the solution of that problem although the problem was not of its making.

        Which they demonstrated by assassinating Folke Benadotte and Lord Moyne.

        Like I said, Israel was obliged to adhere to the UN Charter and they have refused to.

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2013, 9:38 pm

        There is nothing in the UN charter that provides a RoR

        There is. The UN Charter is bound by customary international law, and ROR is enshrined in it.

        Sorry.

        By accepting 194, Israel agreed to RoR.

        Nor was their admittance conditional on elevating UGA 194 to a binding obligation.

        Yes there was.

        Israel was admitted to the UN on the basis of their acceptance and compliance with UNGA194 and the UN Charter, both of which they are in violation.

        End of story.

      • RoHa
        July 26, 2013, 1:31 am

        “1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States which were entirely responsible for that as well as for other forms of suffering inflicted by that war;”

        Since the Zionists started the attacks and expulsions before the war started, this is not true.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 26, 2013, 1:46 am

        Since the Zionists started the attacks and expulsions before the war started, this is not true.

        actually, in my opinion the war had already started months before. they just changed the name of the war one day in the middle of the war. it’s a framing device that serves israel’s images and is used to cement the idea the war ‘began’ by outsiders on the day the eeny teeny little new country had it’s first birthday.

        and then claimed everything that happened after that one day was the fault of ‘the invaders’. but the war was obviously in full swing, they just called it by another name. ..the idea a ‘civil war’ ended and a war of independence began, is just a framing issue. it sounds better than saying: ‘in the middle of the war after the jewish militias cleared dozens of villages and refugees were expelled and fleeing under threat of death by the hundreds of thousands, the arab armies entered the fray to protect what was left of palestine.’

      • talknic
        July 26, 2013, 1:57 am

        jonah “You need to read the full text of the declarations and explanations made by Israel, in particular on the problem of the Arab refugees”

        The statements by the Israeli representative ARE NOT the law. They are the usual Israeli propaganda mantras.

      • talknic
        July 26, 2013, 2:03 am

        mondonut “Israel was admitted to the UN on the basis of Article 4 of the Charter. Period.”

        Indeed

        Article 4

        Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

        Israel has since shown it is not willing to carry out these obligations. That’s why there are hundreds of UNSC resolutions against Israel’s illegal actions “outside the State of Israel” since being accepted as a UN Member.

      • talknic
        July 26, 2013, 3:48 am

        @ Jonah Mr. EBAN was full of bullsh*t

        “1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States”

        Plan Dalet escalated the civil war that existed in Palestine prior to Israel’s declaration at which time Jewish forces were already outside the territory slated for the Jewish state. The civil war became a war waged by a state against what remained of Palestine the moment Israel was declared.

        There was no UNSC resolution against any Arab state for launching any war. In fact they had a legal right under UN Charter Chapt VII Article 51 on notifying the UNSC of their intentions as Regional Powers to intervene and attempt to expel foreign (Israeli) forces from territories Israel acknowledged were “outside the State of Israel”

        “The two most widely advocated principles were (a) resettlement of the refugees in the places from which they had fled, thus creating a large minority problem”

        Yet the Israeli Declaration says

        WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions link to mfa.gov.il

        So those they were asking to stay, would be a problem if they were to return. It’s gobbledegook

        “and also placing masses of Arabs under the rule of a Government which, while committed to an enlightened minority policy, was not akin to those Arabs in language, culture, religion or social or economic institutions”

        Yet that’s what Israel agreed to under UNGA res 181 link to pages.citebite.com

        “(b) the resettlement of the refugees in areas where they would live under a Government akin to them in spirit and tradition and in which their smooth integration would be immediately possible with no resultant friction”

        They were not Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian or Jordanian Arabs, nor was it the responsibility of those states to absorb and resettle them.

        Eban was spouting the same nonsense we hear today

      • German Lefty
        July 25, 2013, 6:09 am

        if the Palestinians were kicked from their own land, why are they one of the fastest growing populations of the world
        Refugees can procreate, too. Refugee status and fecundity are two different things.

        how comes they were able to reach the number of at least 4 million people between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?
        First of all, the area of the state of Israel is not identical with the area of Mandatory Palestine. Second, there are internally displaced refugees. This means within the area of Mandatory Palestine, i.e. from Israel to Gaza or the West Bank. Third, if it were up to the Zionists, these 4 million Palestinians would be removed as soon as possible. “!מוות לערבים” The only thing that keeps the Zionists from doing it is their fear of how the international community would react.

    • talknic
      July 23, 2013, 3:33 am

      @ jonah

      Cherry picking is so cute!

      Ms. Thomas jonah is a good example of the extent to which anti-way in which Zionismtas can be impregnated everything they can with false notions of anti-Semitism

      “She seems unable, while speaking about Israel, to suppress her perception of the Jews; “

      Israel is controlled by a majority and they aren’t non-Jews. 1st stop for US presidents on election AIPAC .. why?

  15. Krauss
    July 21, 2013, 11:17 pm

    I wrote about these comments when she made them.

    I wrote, in opposition to many at the time, that it was in fact anti-Semitism.

    My arguments:

    1. If we look at Hollywood, then yes, it is heavily Jewish at the top. Wall St is less so, but among hedge fund guys it is also notable. The media ownership is also pretty Jewish. These are facts.

    2. However. My argument then and now is that Hollywood doesn’t function as a bastion “for the Jews” in terms of how it operates. You have the occassional for IDF dinner/fundraiser, but it is not a central reason of Hollywood’s being, it’s a by-product of the fact that many rich people in Hollywood grew up in secular-Zionist homes. And what they are doing for the IDF and/or Israel is done on their own sparetime, not in relation to their jobs in Hollywood.

    3. Second, while the Israel lobby has power, it’s power is limited to Israel.
    Can Helen Thomas or those that support her statement in this interview honestly say that AIPAC has any influence on health care policy?
    What about energy policy? Education? What about how our tax policy should be, the case for austerity or against it?

    As you can see, it’s impossible to say that there is such an influence. What about any Jewish “control” over our diplomatic policies towards China?
    Again, it should be obvious that while Jews – with the help of some overzealous Christian footsoldiers – have helped create a debate that is unhealthy on matters Israel, that is still a very narrow plank on our foreign policy.
    But on the vast majority of America’s policies, domestic or otherwise, it’s simply ludicrous to give that kind of broad “Jews(or ‘Zionists’ as Thomas prefers) control everything speech.

    Thomas never makes these points. She should have said, Jews in America have had an outsized influence on American policy towards the middle east and in particular the Israel/Palestinian conflict. That would have been true.

    Saying that Jewish presence in the establishment has helped this is also a true statement, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. But Thomas goes way beyond this, she instead talks how “Zionists” control everyone and everything, making it seem as if no decision in America on anything can be done without some sort of Jewish collective making up their minds first and giving it their stamp of approval.
    That’s straight out of the Protocols.

    And as I argue, even a brief look at the vast, vast majority of our politics should make that kind of argument laughable.
    But Thomas never made that argument, instead she took the broadest brush possible and basically said that da joooz control everything, which isn’t remotely true. Not even close.

    Furthermore, some of the biggest victims of the Israel lobby in recent years have been Jews, Tony Judt, Kushner even Friedman was viciously attacked. Beinart was openly attacked by LA’s most influental rabbi as a “self-hater”. The list goes on.

    The issue is Israel, but Thomas lost herself in somekind of anti-Jewish rant in general where any and all kinds of Jewish influence is too much, apparently.
    That diminished what she had to say about the Palestinians, which was important and heartfelt, and that too was unfortunate.

    • yrn
      July 22, 2013, 6:23 am

      Krauss

      Your comment is the only one here worth reading.
      You said it all, nothing else to discuss.

      • W.Jones
        July 22, 2013, 2:16 pm

        I was surprised to read that when Palin met former Israeli president Shimon Perez, she said:

        “I wanted to meet you for many years. The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag, and I want you to know and I want Israelis to know that I am a friend.”
        “Palin: ‘Only Flag In My Office’ Is Israeli,” NY Sun, September 26, 2008.

        This refers to her time as Alaska’s governor. What about having an Alaskan flag?

      • German Lefty
        July 23, 2013, 10:53 am

        “Palin: ‘Only Flag In My Office’ Is Israeli,” NY Sun, September 26, 2008.
        What about having an Alaskan flag?

        Interesting information. I just looked it up and it turns out she was lying. She had three flags: USA, Alaska, Israel.
        link to dailykos.com

      • James Canning
        July 23, 2013, 2:08 pm

        Fascinating comment. Perhaps Palin will let us know what efforts were made to smooth her path to nomination as VP? Israeli flag display in governor’s office is a selling point?

      • James Canning
        July 25, 2013, 1:46 pm

        Assuming she was obliged to have US and Alaska flags, Palin chose ONE flag. Israel’s. Anyone know why she played this game?

    • Citizen
      July 22, 2013, 8:19 am

      @ Krauss
      Pretty persuasive. She said she had been dwelling on the I-P conflict, its lop-sided unfairness, since the 1940’s, and that all her friends have been treated to her deeply felt opinion for years, and she so often asked root questions during her career, putting the WH on the hot spot, so I’ve wondered why Helen apparently never developed a converse method of calling her own inquisitors to account for twisting her words as soon as she spoke them. As I type this I’m watching Imus In The Morning. The show’s resident sports anchor Warner Wolfe just got back from a trip to Israel to attend a marriage in Jerusalem, some IDF parachuter friend of his. Imus asked him about his trip. He immediately announced that Israel has something for everyone, a great place to visit–and, added, with gusto, “You know Jerusalem is the capital of Israel!” Nobody responded to that line, so he followed it up, with even more gusto mixed with a tone of surprise, “Israel’s only the size of New Jersey!”
      Imus responded to this statement with an adage pointing out that everything is small until you try to paint it. Try painting New Jersey.

      Isn’t it quite enough to be concerned when one’s country is conflated constantly with a nuclear-armed, heavily conventionally-armed and aggressive and oppressive powder keg country located smack dab in the middle of the world’s biggest supply of oil? By the end of September it’s probable Israel will officially be rated by Congress as our unique super ally, entitle to virtually total enmeshment in all our core systems of defense and internal security, and Israel’s discriminatory laws will be encoded in US law as applicable to All American visitors to Israel?

    • The Hasbara Buster
      July 22, 2013, 10:36 am

      Can Helen Thomas or those that support her statement in this interview honestly say that AIPAC has any influence on health care policy?

      No, they can’t — and they haven’t!

      Actually, it’s not Thomas who claims Zionists control everything and everyone; her remarks were always made in reference to US policy regarding the ME conflict. It’s the interviewer who asks “Then how do you make the claim that Jews are running the country?”, and Thomas doesn’t object. Now this may simply mean that Thomas thought that the interviewer was also talking about running the country as regards things related to the ME, not about running the country in general.

      Most of Thomas’ outrageous “statements” are content provided by the interviewer (in the form of tricky questions) that is not commented on by Thomas. But she herself never made any reference to any other Zionist control than that over US ME policy. Did Thomas say the word “conspiracy,” or was it the interviewer?

      Now with regard to her generalization about Jews as solidly Zionist, it is of course wrong, but hardly antisemitic. It is true that Phil Weiss and Adam Horowitz exist, but Jeffrey Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer exist much more — they enjoy huge audiences and get the seal of approval of the official Jewish community, which Mondoweiss doesn’t. It is very much correct to state that anti-Zionist Jews, however vociferous, not only don’t represent the Jewish community; they are in most cases not recognized as Jews by the latter. You can’t ostracize an anti-Zionist Jew as a self-hater but then bring him up when someone generalizes about Jews as intrinsically Zionist. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    • HemiFaulk
      July 22, 2013, 11:31 am

      Excellent and powerful commentary, a broad brush that reminded me of an influential Rabbi of old, along with Thomas’ reminder of Poland and other localities, being former homes for Jewish communities, it at the very least suggests that her comments were misconstrued in that she meant return to your former homes as it is not necessary for all Jews to continue evacuating to Palestine where resources and space(s) are scarce.

      link to en.wikipedia.org
      for Dob_Berush_Meisels

      without the history of the Jewish people then it becomes difficult for others, including many Jewish persons, to comprehend the defensive nature of her majesty
      Israel.

    • W.Jones
      July 22, 2013, 1:51 pm

      Krauss,

      As for the last sentence in your second point, some have noted the negative portrayals of middle easterners in Hollywood, and Palestinians have had a hard time finding parts depicting Palestinians in a positive way.

      As for your third point, it may go beyond one country, and affect relations with other countries too. May I recommend you have a look at the Clean Break document, advanced by leading think tanks before the dominoes in the Middle East began to fall?

    • American
      July 22, 2013, 2:50 pm

      “What about energy policy? Education? What about how our tax policy should be, the case for austerity or against it?
      As you can see, it’s impossible to say that there is such an influence.
      “…Krauss

      Actually you are *misrepresenting* the issue the same way the hasbrats do.
      And evidently you have paid no attention to the hundreds of documented examples posted here by me, Grant Smith and others , of their lobbying in Education policy , US Energy Grants to Israel , Tax favortism for US overseas donations to Israel, the Amendment to the US SS Bill to transfer funds within to ‘specal services to Jewish Russian immigrants, the allocation of 90% of HSDept funds to Jewish schools and entites, how the taxpayer funded US Heritage Agency established to maintain graves of US military fallen overseas spend 60% of it’s funds on maintaning graves and memorial of Jews *that were never even citizens of the US, * and ad nausum.

      You can say HT *should have expanded* and gone *into detail* on exactly what she was talking about or meant—-the difference between their ‘running’ everything and ‘using’ everything in the US, but thats all you can say.
      It is not even questonable that they lobby every possible aspect of US law, policy and institutions for their and Israel’s benefit.

      Education:
      link to ushmm.org
      State Profiles on Holocaust Education
      For example:
      Bill Number: 143A-48.1
      Year: 1985
      Title: North Carolina Council on the Holocaust
      Legislation:
      Legislative Text: (a) There is hereby created the North Carolina Council on the Holocaust Education

      Energy:
      PDF]
      U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act (S. 838) – Aipac
      http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/…/BillSummaryEnergySenate.pdf‎ Cached
      Aug 7, 2007 – The U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act (S. 838) provides funding for joint … of $20 million in grants each year through 2012 to U.S. and Israeli

      I am not going to drag up all the information and examples for you but I suggest you educate yourself on the true extent of this. HT didnt express herself right in what she said but she was more right than you are.

    • ritzl
      July 22, 2013, 10:31 pm

      @Krauss Re health care policy (for example): It was reported at the time Steve Clemons that some Reps withheld their votes on the HCRA in order to secure benefits for Israel.

      link to washingtonnote.com

      So, David Schenker [Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy] sees no linkage between what a huge number of observers see as Israel wrecking chances for a credible two state track — and the use of this grievance by Iran in its support of transnational Arab networks in the region, but nonetheless sees linkage between President Obama’s fragile health care reform position and the state of US-Israel relations?! Schenker’s view was that Obama couldn’t afford to have a testy, strained relationship with Israel because it would cost him support in Congress for his health care legislation.

      Clemons walks it back a bit, but then uses Shenker’s email as the motivation for doing so. I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether Shenker disavowed anything at all.

      Dear Steve:
      I was surprised that you implied that I said the crisis with Israel would cause Congressmen or Senators to explicitly withdraw support for health care reform.
      I didn’t say that. What I did was point out the obvious domestic political implications that Democrats could face-in addition to their current problems-in light of the very public row with Israel, especially one concerning the disposition of Jerusalem. Considerations like the mid-term elections and controversial health care legislation, I said, would likely lead the Administration to try and end the very public spat with Israel sooner rather than later. (my emphasis)

      The linkage between foreign and domestic policy considerations is well established. (Walt has written, for example, that the escalation in Afghanistan might cost Obama democratic seats in the midterms that would make it more difficult to pass domestic legislation).

      Until I read your blog, I thought my comments were uncontroversial.

      Best regards,

      David Schenker

      “Uncontroversial” my ass. Only in a comfortable, consolidated-power, Israeli-centric (to the detriment of lower/middle class US citizens) echo chamber/bubble.

    • talknic
      July 23, 2013, 3:55 am

      “The issue is Israel”

      Uh huh… The Jewish state, run by a majority of …… Jews.

      ” but Thomas lost herself in somekind of anti-Jewish rant in general “

      She should have ranted at New Zealand Maoris perhaps?

      ” she instead talks how “Zionists” control everyone and everything, making it seem as if no decision in America on anything can be done without some sort of Jewish collective making up their minds first and giving it their stamp of approval.
      That’s straight out of the Protocols.”

      Nice try, but there’s the same olde glaring problem one always seems to encounter in zioapologist twaddle … she didn’t say “everything” or “everyone “. It’s straight out of the mouths of a Zionist apologist. First you LIE, then try to align it with the Protocols. Cute

      US policies on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict DO seem to be subject to a Jewish collective making up their minds first and giving it their stamp of approval. We see it reflected in the US veto vote in the UNSC going completely against US commitments to International Law, the UN Charter and International Conventions link to pages.citebite.com

  16. Citizen
    July 22, 2013, 8:34 am

    @ Krauss
    Just for the record, Although Israel has claimed Jerusalem its capitol since 1950, Jerusalem is not the officially recognized capital of Israel. To my current knowledge, only two countries around the world, Guatemala and El Salvador, have recognized it as such, which is why most states’ actual embassy is in Tel Aviv. Remember the DNC vote about this issue–on prime time tv? The guy with the gavel didn’t know what to do as the oral vote was not clearly one way or the other, so some lady whispered in his ear and he just brought the gavel down, declaring the language would reflect Jerusalem was the capital of Israel.

    • W.Jones
      July 22, 2013, 1:53 pm

      “declaring the language would reflect”… I know, Citizen. That was nuts. Democracy?
      Non-Democratic National Committee?

  17. Citizen
    July 22, 2013, 8:44 am

    When is it ok to say that Jews own Wall St? Check out these twists and turns:
    link to mondoweiss.net

    • fillmorehagan
      July 25, 2013, 2:02 pm

      Note that Jews have chaired the Federal Reserve since the Volker era and account for a grossly disproportionate percent of the FOMC. Many consider the Fed chairman more powerful than the President who appoints him.

      Would not surprise if the Israel lobby pressures FORBES magazine to drop its annual compilation of the 400 richest Americans, because it exposes the truth about the lobby’s enormous power.

  18. Citizen
    July 22, 2013, 8:53 am

    When is it ok to say that Jews own Wall St? Check out these twists and turns:
    link to mondoweiss.net

    Here’s something one can research if one chooses to:
    Of the fifty-one(51) senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies, thirty-seven(37) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 72%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies by a factor of 36 times(3,600 percent).

  19. James Canning
    July 22, 2013, 2:19 pm

    Bravo to Jimmy Carter, for telephoning Helen Thomas after the famous incident.

  20. The Hasbara Buster
    July 22, 2013, 2:56 pm

    Second, while the Israel lobby has power, it’s power is limited to Israel.

    I’m afraid it’s a bit more complicated than that. The Lobby has power not only over US policy toward Israel, but also over a host of internal affairs in the US where Israel might be involved.

    For instance, when Norman Finkelstein applied for tenure at DePaul, he was supported by two advisory faculty committees, and the final decision rested with the university president. Then Alan Dershowitz wrote a letter against the appointment of Finkelstein and the DePaul president gave him a thumbs-down.

    It’s widely speculated that wealthy Jewish donors threatened to withdraw financial support from DePaul if Finkelstein was granted tenure. I.e., a combination of pressure from a widely known Jewish public figure and anonymous rich people managed to twist a university’s arm into denying tenure to a professor who deserved it under any academic standard.

    Similar witch hunts have ended the careers of lesser-known Israel critics. That’s a stunning display of power, and it is not antisemitic to point it out.

    • James Canning
      July 25, 2013, 1:45 pm

      Israel lobby had great influence over US policy toward the Soviet Union. This was an area of special interest to Senator Jackson (Washington state). Original neocons often got their starts working for him.

  21. German Lefty
    July 23, 2013, 11:20 am

    Some interesting articles:

    Netanyahu’s women and the making of Psychobibi
    link to blogs.timesofisrael.com

    German supermarket denies settlement boycott
    link to timesofisrael.com

  22. kalithea
    July 23, 2013, 12:35 pm

    Helen, you’ll be missed; your courage to speak the WHOLE truth will be missed. Can I at least say, she spoke the WHOLE truth? We’ll see. I’m bummed and out. You just don’t get what it’ll take to bring about justice; or maybe you do and refuse to go that distance. You make it hard to see the light. Sayonara.

  23. Rusty Pipes
    July 24, 2013, 3:25 pm

    The biases of the Playboy interviewer are revealed at several points, including quoting IDF Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg as just some “blogger from The Atlantic:”

    PLAYBOY: In the wake of your anti-Israel comments, a blogger from The ­Atlantic argued there’s really no distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. He wrote, “Thomas was fired for saying that the Jews of Israel should move to Europe, where their relatives had been slaughtered in the most devastating act of genocide in history. She believes that once the Jews are evacuated from their ancestral homeland, the world’s only Jewish country should be replaced by what would be the world’s 23rd Arab country. She believes that Palestinians deserve a country of their own but that the Jews are undeserving of a nation-state in their homeland, which has had a continuous Jewish presence for 3,000 years.…”

    THOMAS: [Interrupts] Did a Jew write this? [Editor’s note: The writer is Jeffrey Goldberg.]

    PLAYBOY: “…and has been the location of two previous Jewish states. This sounds like a very anti-Jewish position to me, not merely an anti-Zionist position.”

    THOMAS: This is a rotten piece. I mean it’s absolutely biased and totally—who are these people? Why do they think they’re so deserving? The slaughter of Jews stopped with World War II. I had two brothers and many relatives who fought in that war against Hitler. We believed in it. Every American family was in that fight. But they were liberated since then. And yet they carry on the victimization. American people do not know that the Israeli lobbyists have intimidated them into believing every Jew is a persecuted victim forever—while they are victimizing Palestinians.

  24. James Canning
    July 24, 2013, 5:34 pm

    @Rusty Pipes – – Jeffrey Goldberg is aware that being “anti-Zionist” is not the same thing as being “anti-Semitic”.

Leave a Reply