Farewell to Helen Thomas

[Bluer White]

As the late, great Tony Snow once quipped to Helen Thomas during a White House press conference, "Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view."

Tony Snow had the perfect temperament for that job.

 

[U2387]

Helen Thomas Gets A Defender... Hezbollah

As the late, great Tony Snow once quipped to Helen Thomas during a White House press conference, "Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view."

As if Hezbollah are the only group in the entire world that take issue with Israel expanding into land they do not have any business being in. Building settlements, etc. Israel is being flat out unreasonable and an obstacle to the peace process no doubt.

I don't think Helen Thomas or anyone else in their right mind would ever even think about excusing the actions that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have resorted to.

The Palestinians want the same things Israelis have and most of them want nothing to do with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

To equate criticism of Israel's lack of good faith in the peace process with supporting or merely parroting the views of Hezbollah is completely ignorant, brain dead and reeks of arrogance and disrespect.

And to think... Obama is supposedly the "punk" who discounts all opposing views.

Just like Obama is the dictator who is afraid of Fox News and surely afraid of terrorists.......only no one has yet caught him planting favorable people to lob softballs at press conferences like Bush routinely did.

With the economy and 2 wars, does anyone blame Obama for not having time or energy or patience for what amounts to a propaganda network that will make everything look like a negative for him and his party anyway?

Anyways, bottom line:

Its a shame Helen Thomas said what she said, she is a great lady who had worked hard, overcome challenges and conducted herself professionally and honestly for 50 years!

It is also a shame that Tony Snow, God rest his soul, said what he said, as he was ultimately a classy guy who was fair to people and conducted himself with integrity. Rove had no doubt briefed him beforehand..... I guess when you work for the devil...........

 

[deep]

here is an op-ed I read this morning

Don't single out Helen Thomas
The veteran journalist was pilloried for her remark about Israel, but where's the uproar over such comments directed at Palestinians?

Saree Makdisi

June 13, 2010

Unconscionable. Offensive. Hurtful. Bigoted. Terrible. Hateful.

These are the words being used to describe Helen Thomas' recent comment about Israel and Palestine. Editorialists across the country have condemned her statement that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back" to Europe.

Let's agree that she should not have said those things, and that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East fundamentally requires reconciliation between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. We need also to agree on a formula that allows them both to be at home in the same land (I have long advocated the idea of a single democratic and secular state for both peoples; a state that treats all citizens as equals). Insisting that either people does not belong is not merely counterproductive; it lies at the very root of the conflict.

If, however, it is unacceptable to say that Israeli Jews don't belong in Palestine, it is also unacceptable to say that the Palestinians don't belong on their own land.

Yet that is said all the time in the United States, without sparking the kind of moral outrage generated by Thomas' remark. And while the nation's editorialists worry about the offense she may have caused to Jews, no one seems particularly bothered by the offense felt every day by Palestinians when people — including those with far more power than Thomas — dismiss their rights, degrade their humanity and reject their claims to the most elementary forms of decency.

Are we seriously to accept the idea that some people have more rights than others? Or that some people's sensibilities should be respected while others' are trampled with total indifference, if not outright contempt?

One does not have to agree with Thomas to note that her remark spoke to the ugly history of colonialism, racism, usurpation and denial that are at the heart of the question of Palestine. Part of that history involves vicious European anti-Semitism and the monumental crime of the Holocaust. But the other part is that Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homeland in 1948 to clear space for the creation of a state with a Jewish identity.

Europeans and Americans were, at the time, willing to ignore or simply dismiss the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians, who, by being forced from their land, were made to pay the price for a crime they did not commit.

But this callous carelessness, this dismissal of — and refusal even to acknowledge in human terms — the calamity that befell the Palestinians, and of course the attendant refusal to acknowledge their fundamental rights, did not end in the 1940s. It continues to this very day.

Mainstream politicians, civic leaders, university presidents and others in this country routinely express their support for Israel as a Jewish state, despite the fact that such a state only could have been created in a multicultural land by ethnically cleansing it of as many non-Jews as possible. Today, Israel is only able to maintain its Jewish identity because it has established an apartheid regime, both in the occupied territories and within its own borders, and because it continues to reject the Palestinian right of return.

Where is the outrage about that?

Where was the outrage in 1983 when Israeli Gen. Rafael Eitan looked forward to the day that Jews had fully settled the land, because then "all the Arabs will be able to do about it is scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle"? Or when Alan Dershowitz suggested in 2002 that Israel summarily empty and then bulldoze an entire Palestinian village as a punitive measure each time it was attacked? Or when New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman claimed in 2006 to have discovered a "pathology" that caused some Arabs to "hate others more than they love their own kids"? Or when Avigdor Lieberman (who now serves as Israel's foreign minister) said in 2004 that Palestinian citizens of Israel should "take their bundles and get lost"? Or when Israeli professor Arnon Sofer, one of the country's leading demographic alarmists, said that to preserve the Jewish state, Israel should pull out of Gaza, though that would require Israel to remain at the border and "kill, and kill, and kill, all day, every day"?

An endless deluge of statements of support for the actual, calculated, methodical dehumanization of Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular goes without comment; whereas a single offhand comment by an 89-year-old journalist, whose long and distinguished record of principled commitment and challenges to state power entitles her to respect — and the benefit of the doubt — causes her to be publicly pilloried.

To accept this appalling hypocrisy is to be complicit in the racism of our age.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. That op-ed sums up my feelings exactly.

One definite defender of her so far. One. Most people out there have criticized her for saying what she said. So, uh, yeah, not sure what your point is here, INDY.

Angela

 

[U2387]

here is an op-ed I read this morning

Thanks, Deep!

Good find.

The entire Helen Thomas uproar should remove all doubt anyone still as about the level of influence the Israel lobby has on our government, our media and yes, INDY, even liberal academia.

Israel has gotten a pass for far too long.

Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Arab terrorist organizations are born out of an ideology of hatred, intolerance and a desire for the onset of a strictly interpreted Shar'ia law in the entire world.

That would be present no matter what, I would think.

So no, Israel is not the cause of groups like Al Qaeda, but its actions, and our support of them no matter what the circumstances, certainly helps them get more and more Muslims to buy into their hatred.

The level to which people like Joe Lieberman, Anthony Wiener, etc use the US Government to blatantly do Israel's work borders on treason.

Just look what happened to Jim Moran(D-VA) when in 2003 he suggested that the Israeli lobby had a lot to do with many members' votes on Iraq despite the fact that there was no clear threat. Nancy Pelosi took him from a leadership role in the Party caucus to the back bench, where he remains to this day, in less than a nano second.

(Moran's got his own problems, he's not the most virtuous Congressman up there, but at least he's got the balls to say what others wont.)

 

[maycocksean]

Those arguments, about America in the 1700 and 1800s are ridiculous.
When anyone brings them up, they have surrendered the argument.

It is a confession that their cause is illegitimate.

Why????

Because in the 1700, and 1800s, there was all kinds of wrong actions and behavior. Why not argue for child labor laws, and slave labor to build the infrastructure, railroads, etc. That is/ was the standard in the 1800s.

Now if you want to come out of the dark and into the light of the 1900s and 2000s.

What is the standard? WW1, Germany and the AXIS powers, captured territory and displaced people. The world united against, this taking of territory and pushed them back.

WW2, again aggressors were pushed back, and the victors did not annex their conquered territories. Unless you want to site the Soviets and Eastern Europe? Does Israel want to say they follow the Communist Soviets, that were eventually fought back in the Cold War and had their empire crumble?

And we have Iraq and Saddam expansion into and taking of Kuwait. Should that have been allowed to stand? The Imperialists Japanese expansion into and taking Asia and the Pacific?

And when I did visit Japan, Japanese people did tell me that their expansion during the 1930s and 1040s was no different than the U S expansion into the West. That is was their manifest destiny.

All through the 1900s it has been going the other way. Expansionism, wrong, Manifest destiny, wrong. Occupation, wrong.

Israel's arguments about the 1800s are morally bankrupt.


And as for the hope that with time 200- 300 years from now this will be forgotten and Israel will be looked at the same way as the U S and their taking of natives' lands.

That was the same thing the White South Africans thought they could pull off in South Africa. And it worked through the 1960s through most of the 1980s. They got that far with the US, Reagan, Cheney and the like labeling the ANC, terrorist, communists, and killers of innocent people. Cheney and Reagan would have been fine with Mandela being executed.

Finally the West stopped supporting them and they had to deal with Mandela the terrorist and reach an accommodation.

Whoa, slow down, cowboy.

I wasn't making an argument. I was making an observation. And it was an observation that lends SUPPORT to your point of view. Perhaps you missed sarcastic nature of the final sentences of my post.

Furthermore, I don't think that the American land grab of the 1800s was okay (nor any of the other atrocious behaviors you mentioned). It wasn't okay then. It's not okay now. That was the point I was making.

 

[deep]

sorry, Sean

I am sorry I quoted you in my reply, those observations are so often made by many people that support Israel

each time I just roll my eyes, because I think they are not credible at all

my reply was more of a response to all the times I have heard those comparisons.

I just quoted you for a reference point, I should have began with,
'This is not directed at you, but at those arguments".

 

[maycocksean]

sorry, Sean

I am sorry I quoted you in my reply, those observations are so often made by many people that support Israel

each time I just roll my eyes, because I think they are not credible at all

my reply was more of a response to all the times I have heard those comparisons.

I just quoted you for a reference point, I should have began with,
'This is not directed at you, but at those arguments".

I'm actually shocked that pro-Israel hardliners would be callous enough to present those sentiments as an actual argument! I didn't realize that.

Perhaps Achtung Bono can elaborate?

 

[the iron horse]

So, I guess the Jews should go back to Germany or Poland or somewhere.

Not many friends here.

 

[deep]

Perhaps Achtung Bono can elaborate?

Part of me understands how she feels, she is Jewish living in Tel-Aviv.

I have been hearing those arguments all my life. I don't expect to ever stop hearing them. We see what lengths this country went to after Pearl Harbor (internments) and 911 (too many too list) .

 

[Earnie Shavers]

So, I guess the Jews should go back to Germany or Poland or somewhere.

Not many friends here.

So, you didn't read what she actually said.

 

[maycocksean]

Part of me understands how she feels, she is Jewish living in Tel-Aviv.

AB has always struck me as quite sincere in her posts, and I appreciate that this is not just an abstract issue for her. Which is exactly why I'm curious to see what she might say about the comparison.

 

[maycocksean]

So, I guess the Jews should go back to Germany or Poland or somewhere.

Not many friends here.

Just because one finds the situation in Israel complicated and see missteps on both sides does not equate to a desire for the Jews to go back to anywhere.

 

[Muldfeld]

I couldn't find a thread with the name "Israel" or "flotilla" that was responded to recently, so this'll have to do.

Check out Jon Meacham and Bill Maher saying that the US media isn't pro-Israeli and, if anything, is actually pro-Palestinian. I was shocked at either the self-delusion (which I think Bill Maher is going through) and careerist phoniness (which I think Jon Meacham is practicing).

YouTube - Maher: Media 'Way Too Stupid' to Understand Israel/Palestine Conflict

Let me remind you of Jon Meacham's book tour in 2003 to promote his biography of Churchill and FDR's alliance. He constantly stated that this paralleled the nobility of George W. Bush and Tony Blair's righteous war. Screw him and other "moderates" who further American folly. He now works for PBS, which is very pro-Israeli in its questioning, though occasionally stumbles upon guests who explain the Middle East issue -- like Ali Abunimah -- but then refuse to invite them again because their Zionist funders won't have it, so they invite some coopted wimp like Hisham Melham.

I never used to believe Noam Chomsky's allegations, but, in the last few years, looking at the mainstream US media's treatment of Israel's massacres of Lebanon, then Gaza, and now the flotilla, I see how right he is.

 

[Irvine511]

-- but then refuse to invite them again because their Zionist funders won't have it

floating conspiracy theories isn't going to win you any support. the tired "the Jews control the media" is silly. you can certainly point to AIPAC money in Congress, but there are other, bigger lobbying groups (the NRA springs to mind) that wield far more influence.

 

[Muldfeld]

floating conspiracy theories isn't going to win you any support. the tired "the Jews control the media" is silly. you can certainly point to AIPAC money in Congress, but there are other, bigger lobbying groups (the NRA springs to mind) that wield far more influence.

I don't deny the NRA's influence, but it doesn't matter when it comes to foreign policy -- just as Zionist groups don't matter (as the AARP does) when it comes to health care.

It's not a conspiracy theory; it's the only logical conclusion I can draw, other than the possibility that these news folks have lots of pro-Israeli friends and are fond of the US' relationship with Israel dating back to the Cold War. It's the same reasoning I use to figure out why Jon Stewart has moved to the right on Israel; I think it has to do with his friendship with nationalist and pro-Israeli folks like David Gregory (who is Jewish) and Brian Williams (who's Christian) and his inability to criticize them, which, in turn, has made him tepid on Israel. Stephen Colbert (a Christian), though, is far more pro-Israeli. I think, among non-Jews, Holocaust guilt plays a major role and they're trying to look heroic -- as if they would have stopped the Holocaust -- by standing by Israel now, which is a dangerous conflation.

I've specifically noted instances in which PBS' Newshour issues apologies for having a discussion more balanced with folks arguing the "Muslim" side with equal ferocity as the "Israeli"/US side. Yet they never apologize for having a weak defender of the "Muslim" side, but greater representation from the right wing Jewish or Israeli side.

I was shocked to see "Now"'s David Brancaccio (a liberal on domestic and most foreign policy issues) completely ignore that Ahmadinejad's translator was explaining that Ahmadinejad never pledged to kill Israelis; he was, in fact, quoting someone who implied that Israel shouldn't be there, which is not a genocidal sentiment; the statement was misquoted by an Israeli newspaper and never questioned by the US media. Brancaccio has, in contrast to most leftists, used the argument of justifying massive violence against people just because they're terrorists. It was a very irrational and shockingly aggressive performance by Brancaccio. Bill Moyers is also extremely pro-Israeli, showing clips of Netanyahu when he had Richard Goldstone (the UN rep who condemned mostly Israel for its far greater war crimes) on, but not Hamas or any representative of the Palestinian people.

PBS has also done documentaries explaining that Hamas' basis is akin to anti-semitism and that Jews are under siege, and demanding Palestinians adopt non-violence like Ghandi or MLK. These documentaries never condescend to the Israeli side and conveniently ignore Israeli atrocities or use of violence.

Now, if there's ever an ethnic group around the world not under siege, it's Jews. Perhaps in the Islamic world, especially in repressive regimes, there's some horrible anti-semitism, but one could argue Muslims face far greater discrimination in the West. And far worse than either of these groups are Latinos, then Blacks, then native Americans or other indigenous peoples who have it the worst off.

There's a shocking unwillingness on PBS' part to criticize Israel's occupation -- in stark contrast to publicly funded channels in other countries like the CBC and BBC. Even Israeli media is more critical and voices of the left are heard in these other media, but not in the US. I think much of this has to do with PBS' dependence on charitable donations. The notion that Jews are cheap is something I've never seen. Jews are extremely charitable and politically active. It stands to reason that more right wing elements among them are giving to PBS and skewing the content.

Norman Finkelstein has hinted at this in talks.

Just look at all the specialists in most fields. They happen to be Jewish because Jewish people are disproportionately well-educated. The problem occurs when many of them have certain political views that create blind spots or discrimination on their part. I wouldn't argue having only Arabs or Muslims cover the Middle East, but there's something off when Charlie Rose has a discussion of the flotilla raid and 4 people are Jewish and 2 are Christian and there are no Arabs/Muslims at all. Even Jon Stewart invites some Zionist jerk whenever there's a crisis in the Middle East and never any Arabs/Muslims.

Many of the correspondents in the Middle East are Jewish and when Israel's carrying out a massacre, they're stationed and protected in Israel; there's an obvious bias in the way Ben Weiderman conveys the news for CBS Evening News or the way Wolf Blitzer (who has Israeli citizenship) questions people on the matter.

The odd thing is that there's a tendency among Christians who try much harder than many Jewish news folks to prove their pro-Israeli credentials in such a climate. A case in point is that Larry King was exceedingly polite to Ahmadinejad, but Charlie Rose was excessively rude, compared to how he treated Karl Rove or George W. Bush. Similarly, Paul Krugman has criticized Israel on "This Week", but George F. Will seems its strongest defender. Anderson Cooper is probably the most anti-Muslim anchor person I've seen on CNN, whitewashing Israel's massacres of Lebanon and Gaza and issuing reports that question looking out for human rights of suspected terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan -- the kind of reporting that encourages torture and keeping Abu Graib open.

Look, it's not a conspiracy to say there are biases among given ethnic groups; it's a rare thing for a person to criticize those in their ethnic group, and many Jewish people have been exceedingly willing to go against Zionism, and they're real heroes for doing so.

However, to deny that there's a very strong Jewish influence in the media and Hollywood (due to hard work and wealth and, yes, connections) and that, since a huge proportion of this is going to be right wing on Israel, there is going to be a pro-Israeli bias in these media is to deny what's staring us in the face every day.

Even if you don't agree with what I've just said, you can't tell me that what Jon Meacham and Bill Maher said is true. There's no way that the mainstream US media is more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. No way. That's objective fact; it's not conspiracy to dispute their claims.

 

[Irvine511]

you don't think that people can arrive at their own conclusions, which might be different from yours, all on their own? they're all being blackmailed by the Jews?

Look, it's not a conspiracy to say there are biases among given ethnic groups; it's a rare thing for a person to criticize those in their ethnic group, and many Jewish people have been exceedingly willing to go against Zionism, and they're real heroes for doing so.

but you are assuming that these people are incapable of doing their job because of their given ethnic groups and that any position other than your own comes out of cowardice or stupidity or secret "friends" of various people.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's the same reasoning I use to figure out why Jon Stewart has moved to the right on Israel; I think it has to do with his friendship with nationalist and pro-Israeli folks like David Gregory (who is Jewish) and Brian Williams (who's Christian) and his inability to criticize them, which, in turn, has made him tepid on Israel. Stephen Colbert (a Christian), though, is far more pro-Israeli. I think, among non-Jews, Holocaust guilt plays a major role and they're trying to look heroic -- as if they would have stopped the Holocaust -- by standing by Israel now, which is a dangerous conflation.[/B]

Maybe I'm watching entirely different programs than what you're watching-I find both Jon and Stephen to be fairly balanced on the Israel/Palestine issue. I know Jon in particular has acknowleged Israel's faults before on his show. They're trying to do what most news media fail to do-actually have some balance.

I definitely agree that the media at large is supportive of Israel and less so of Palestine, but I wouldn't call that a conspiracy. Just that Israel's a strong ally, and we tend to be less critical of our allies. That's all. That, and I think we're still rather wary of the Muslim culture.

Angela

 

[INDY500]

Now, if there's ever an ethnic group around the world not under siege, it's Jews.

I've read some howlers in FYM before but this one has got to be the biggest.

 

[Bluer White]

Now, if there's ever an ethnic group around the world not under siege, it's Jews.

Excellent, excellent post sir...except for that one big sentence.

 

[deep]

That was one sentence. In a post with about 12 paragraphs.

So the least one should do is quote the paragraph.
( If they want at least the appearance of a fair context.)

Now, if there's ever an ethnic group around the world not under siege, it's Jews. Perhaps in the Islamic world, especially in repressive regimes, there's some horrible anti-semitism, but one could argue Muslims face far greater discrimination in the West. And far worse than either of these groups are Latinos, then Blacks, then native Americans or other indigenous peoples who have it the worst off.

 

[U2387]

Muldfeld, your whole post was good, though there are some places I'd part company with you and others where I wouldn't go as far. But overall, very well reasoned and thought out post. I don't know what planet anyone denying the influence of Israel and the taboo of questioning Israeli policies is living on, but its not this one.

This really stood out to me as something that needs to be elaborated on:

I don't deny the NRA's influence, but it doesn't matter when it comes to foreign policy -- just as Zionist groups don't matter (as the AARP does) when it comes to health care.

Bingo.

And if the NRA gets a few states to allow some people to carry concealed who are law abiding and just want to look after themselves, well that doesn't affect too many of us. Its certainly fine by me.

I am no fan of a lot of what the NRA does(gun show loophole, tiahart amendment are outrageous), I don't have a membership or a bumper sticker, but compared to something like the Israel lobby? They're NOTHING, NOTHING AND MORE OF NOTHING.

Its between a small segment of the population that truly believes passionately either way on the gun issue, and making foreign policy with implications for every citizen in the entire country and I dare say, the world. Say what you want about the NRA, at least its American citizens influencing American government. The Israel lobby operates at the edges of legality and raises serious loyalty to America questions.To equate the two is intellectual dishonesty.

The Israeli lobby influences members of Congress regardless of party or ideology, and has made it so that even minor questioning of the policies of the State of Israel is to be viewed with a certain assumption toward anti semitism on the part of the critic.

Again, one need look no further than what Pelosi did to Jim Moran when he spoke out.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Text by Associated Press unless otherwise noted

MARION, Ohio — In a radio interview, former White House correspondent Helen Thomas acknowledges she touched a nerve with remarks about Israel that led to her retirement. But she says the comments were "exactly what I thought," even though she realized soon afterward that it was the end of her job.

"I hit the third rail. You cannot criticize Israel in this country and survive," Thomas told Ohio station WMRN-AM in a sometimes emotional 35-minute interview that aired Tuesday. It was recorded a week earlier by WMRN reporter Scott Spears at Thomas' Washington, D.C., condominium.

Thomas, 90, stepped down from her job as a columnist for Hearst News Service in June after a rabbi and independent filmmaker videotaped her outside the White House calling on Israelis to get "out of Palestine." She gave up her front row seat in the White House press room, where she had aimed often pointed questions at 10 presidents, going back to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

She has kept a low profile since then.


In the below clip (via Mediaite), Thomas can be heard crying after learning that President Obama condemned her remarks about Israel on the "Today" show, calling them "offensive and out of line."

Helen Thomas Cries When She Learns Of President Obama’s Comments About Her | Mediaite



"I think he was very unfair, and I return the compliment on his remarks," Thomas said. "Reprehensible."

More from the Associated Press:

"(It was) very hard for the first two weeks. After that, I came out of my coma," Thomas said.

Rabbi David Nesenoff, who runs the website rabbilive.com, said he approached Thomas after he'd been at the White House for Jewish Heritage Day on May 27. He asked whether she had any comments on Israel.

"Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine," she replied.

"Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not Germany, it's not Poland," she continued. Asked where they should go, she answered, "They should go home."

"Where's home?" Nesenoff asked.

"Poland, Germany and America and everywhere else," Thomas replied.

"I told him exactly what I thought," she told Spears.

Spears said during the interview that some accounts left off her reference to America and gave the wrong impression that Thomas was referring to World War II.

"I was not talking about Auschwitz or anything else," she said.

"They distorted my remarks, which they obviously have to do for their own propaganda purposes, otherwise people might wonder why they continue to take Palestinian land," said Thomas, a daughter of Lebanese immigrants who over the years did little to hide her pro-Arab views. There was no explanation of whom "they" referred to.

When she soon began getting calls about her remark, "I said this is the end of my job."

She issued an apology, she told the radio interviewer, because people were upset and she thought she had hurt people. "At the same time, I had the same feelings about Israel's aggression and brutality," Thomas said.

Asked whether she's anti-Semitic, she responded "Baloney!" She said she wants to be remembered for "integrity and my honesty and my belief in good journalism" and would like to work again.

Spears said Thomas granted him the interview because the two had developed a friendship during previous interviews she had done with the station in Marion, 42 miles north of Columbus in central Ohio.

Their discussion also touched on current politics, particularly on women.

Thomas described Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton as "a hawk." "I thought women in politics would have more compassion, be more liberal," Thomas said.

As for Sarah Palin, Thomas said she believed the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate was ambitious enough to run for president.

"That would be a tragedy, a national tragedy," she said, describing Palin as "very conservative, reactionary, unbelievable."

Asked about tea party-backed Republican Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, Thomas responded with one word: "Frightening."

 

[Canadiens1131]

A couple thoughts.

~

I don't take issue with Thomas criticizing Israel. The manner in which she did it was quite blunt, though, and she was even given an opportunity to clairify her remarks and she continued to be blunt. It's just the case of an old lady who just don't give a flying fuck no mo.

~

Yes, it's very hard to criticize Israel publically in the US, unfairly so. Maybe it has to do with the fact that we sell them hundreds of millions of dollars of tanks and planes as a deterrant to Iran (oh, and to level Lebanon and to accidentally turn Palestinian schoolchildren into a fine red paste). Or the fact that a lot of us are afraid of Arabs.

At least from my viewpoint, on the current geopolitical stage Israel is like the high school kid who was pushed around a lot and now has grown up to become an asshole of a police officer. I'm talking post-WWII, by the way, before a poster decides to take that last sentence out of context and remind me that the Holocaust happened. Since the creation of their country, they've been surrounded by countries who seemingly want them to not exist, so it's an understandable reaction, even if it's not just or "the right thing to do."

I wouldn't mind seenig the UN slap them around a bit with some sanctions the next time they decide to do something rash, but the UN is controlled by the security council so that's obviously never going to happen. I do see Israel as a big of a threat to the reigon's stability as Iran is, to be honest.

~

I believe Fox News got Helen Thomas' front-row seat. Not sure if that's an upgrade or a downgrade. Considering the softballs that the White House Press lobs at oh-so-smug, chucklepuss Robert Gibbs, maybe having Fox up there to push Rupert's right-wing agenda isn't a bad idea to balance out the room.

The fact is, though, that the White House Press Corps is pretty much a circlejerk no matter who's in office. Dubya was pushing the limit with all the wacky shit his administration pulled off during those 8 years, and his press guys actually had to field some real hardball questions. Most of the time it isn't like that, though.