• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Helen Thomas tells Jews to go back to Germany

Cardinal said:
Glad you asked.

I'm liberal (around 60-70% of my beliefs can be called liberal) so it's not surprising that I often find myself keeping liberal company, here in the United States and with the friends I've made abroad, in particular, several European countries such as Italy, Germany, and the U.K. (yeah, I know, that's not Europe). In the U.S. any conversations that begin on the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian issue nets me, at worst, some sarcasm and contemptuous looks. When I talk to my European friends about it the hostility that came from them was such that I sometimes wondered if I was actually safe.

If one believes that Israel is the aggressor in this situation, no different than South Africa during Apartheid, then one is going to be rather open about that, and believe me the "coffee talk" in Europe runs very much along those lines, like Europe in the end of the 19th century/ beginning of the 20th century regarding the Jews.

Have to cut this short. Gotta run.
Click to expand...

Well the reporter who told that Jews should go back to Germany was not European.

But I get your point, I think there is a big difference between the opinions of most Europeans and most Americans on this conflict. It looks like most Americans (from my experience on this forum) would rather support Israel (and give a lot of weight to the right of Israel to defend itself), while more Europeans (from my experience in real life) would side with Palestinians (because they give more weight to the situation of Palestinians in Gaza). For example, I'm not left wing and neither are my friends, yet many of them like Noam Chomsky (who is American btw), while this guy seems to be considered as an extreme-left joke by most Americans on this forum.

However, it's quite exagerated to compare the situation with the violent antisemitism that existed in most of Europe until the 40's. People may look very radical about the "settlements" or the "security fence", but I don't think I know anyone who is antisemite (= one that would consider that Jews are somewhat inferior or different) or who wants Israel to disappear.
 
apdst said:
The same proof Leftists have when they say that the Arizona illegal immigration law is racist.
Click to expand...
You don't have to bob 'n' weave for him, he will certainly perform his own gymnastics to avoid the question.
The Proof of the Arizona law being racist is... the Arizona law. I know that you will deny that ONLY people who look Mexican will be asked about their legal status so don't bother.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
You don't have to bob 'n' weave for him, he will certainly perform his own gymnastics to avoid the question.
The Proof of the Arizona law being racist is... the Arizona law. I know that you will deny that ONLY people who look Mexican will be asked about their legal status so don't bother.
Click to expand...

I guess that makes all traffic laws, racist. I get asked for my, "papers", everytime I get stopped. It's just commons sense, that if a motorist doesn't have proof of insurance, a driver's license, a green card and can't speak English, that that person must be an illegal alien.
 
bub said:
Good!

According to international courts, that's proportionality

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Things that should enter into account are the "efficiency" of a measure, and also its "necessity".
Click to expand...
That's a far different definition of proportionality than comparing civilian deaths on each side of the border. The necessity of the operation isn't debatable unless you think it's ok for rockets to be falling on you. That leads to the issue of efficiency. By that definition of efficiency, Hamas was in control of that because they were using human shields. We don't know if it was an efficient mission or not because the #s are disputed, but it may've been extremely efficient. Israel not only had high tech weapons, they bent over backwards to warn civilians about their war plans. They sacrificed the element of surprise by doing so. If if there was inefficiency, very little of it should be blamed on Israel.
 
bub said:
It would be better than replying to Katusha rockets with aerial bombing and demolition of houses, yes.
Click to expand...
What you're proposing is a war crime.
 
apdst said:
Much of the world doesn't care for Israel, because Israel always whens the fight?
Click to expand...
More likely because, on a regular basis, Israel forgot that an "eye for an eye" doesn't mean "116 eyes for an eye"
 
NoJingoLingo said:
More likely because, on a regular basis, Israel forgot that an "eye for an eye" doesn't mean "116 eyes for an eye"
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Pals should get the message and stop attacking Israel.

"The objective of any war is to do more damage, in less time, than your enemy" --General George S. Patton Jr.
 
apdst said:
Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, so they could build their own country--not that they ever had one to begin with. Then, when the Pals got their own country, they turn around and declare war on Israel. So, yes, Israel is acting in self defense.

Palestine the country didn't exist before the Israelis fought for and won their freedom in 1948.

After what the Arabs have done to the Jews over the past few thousand years, I'm having a hard time summoning any sympathy for the Palestinians. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Read the Old Testament, you might have a hard time summoning sympathy for the Jews.
Who was living in the area before the Jews decided they had the authority to divy it up?
 
mpg said:
What you're proposing is a war crime.
Click to expand...

Probably, but at least that would be "an eye for an eye", not "an eye, 5 teeth and a broken arm for an eye"
 
She's, erm, "apologized".

Helen Thomas
I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. 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.
Click to expand...

Translation: "Whoops! Sorry for revealing that I'm a senile idiot."

It's not like this is a solitary incident: CAMERA: Editor and Publisher Defends the Indefensible Helen Thomas

And now, for Helen Thomas acting clueless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICq2AuxYTTE&feature=player_embedded
 
Last edited:
bub said:
Probably, but at least that would be "an eye for an eye", not "an eye, 5 teeth and a broken arm for an eye"
Click to expand...

apdst said:
"The objective of any war is to do more damage, in less time, than your enemy" --General George S. Patton Jr.
Click to expand...

10characters
 
apdst said:
She'll get a pass. Liberal excitement over racism, homophobia and anti-semetism is only for political ammo. They don't really care. It'll be like when Dan Rather made the, "selling watermelon's", comment a while back.
Click to expand...
She's not a politician (nor was Dan Rather) so what do you expect to be done by "liberals"? Seems like there is a fair amount of outrage over it... but of course, you need to blame liberals because she hasn't been lined up against a wall and shot. :roll:
 
bub said:
Probably, but at least that would be "an eye for an eye", not "an eye, 5 teeth and a broken arm for an eye"
Click to expand...
IMHO, revenge is barbaric. The expression "an eye for an eye" makes my skin crawl. Maybe that's why it's a war crime.
 
washunut said:
You must be against the U.S. killing many more civilians in Iraq,Afghanistan and Pakistan in probably a month than the out of control Israelies.
Click to expand...

We aren't discussing Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are discussing Israel. However, since you saw fit to bring it up irrelevantly, I will provide you with one answer and then move back to the thread topic...yes, I am against the killing of civilians in any conflict.

That being said, I didn't say the Israelis were "out of control". In fact, I think the Israelis are fully in control of themselves and it is the Palestinians who are out of control. However, that leaves Israel with a much greater responsibility to act in a humane and measured way when they respond to threats from Palestine...something which they have been seriously failing to do.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Read the Old Testament, you might have a hard time summoning sympathy for the Jews.
Who was living in the area before the Jews decided they had the authority to divy it up?
Click to expand...

It belonged to Jordon.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
She's not a politician (nor was Dan Rather) so what do you expect to be done by "liberals"? Seems like there is a fair amount of outrage over it... but of course, you need to blame liberals because she hasn't been lined up against a wall and shot. :roll:
Click to expand...

Don Imus isn't a politician, either, but we saw Liberals get allllllll involved in that brew-ha-ha. We hear Liberals crying, "racism", all the time when talking about Rush and Glenn Beck and neither of them have said anything near this racial.

I guess the real question is: what should expect from Liberals, at all? Anything?
 
apdst said:
Perhaps the Pals should get the message and stop attacking Israel.

"The objective of any war is to do more damage, in less time, than your enemy" --General George S. Patton Jr.
Click to expand...

It's not "the Pals" attacking Israel. It's militant groups within their population. You just betrayed an extreme ignorance of the situation and exposed how your position is one of emotional knee-jerking.
 
mpg said:
That's a far different definition of proportionality than comparing civilian deaths on each side of the border. The necessity of the operation isn't debatable unless you think it's ok for rockets to be falling on you. That leads to the issue of efficiency. By that definition of efficiency, Hamas was in control of that because they were using human shields. We don't know if it was an efficient mission or not because the #s are disputed, but it may've been extremely efficient. Israel not only had high tech weapons, they bent over backwards to warn civilians about their war plans. They sacrificed the element of surprise by doing so. If if there was inefficiency, very little of it should be blamed on Israel.
Click to expand...


I do not contest the necessity of a reaction from Israel.
I do not contest that Israel did everything that was possible to avoid civilian casualties, both during the raid on Gaza and during the raid on the flotilla.

However, I think that the anticipated civilian damage (even if Israel warned the civilians, it is predictable that there will be numerous civilian casualties if you bomb a city) was superior to the anticipated military advantage (it was predictable that bombing Gaza won't defeat the Hamas, it won't bring peace, it won't prevent more rocket launches: Israel had bombed Lebanon a few years before and knew that the bombings had not solved anything, they had not destroyed the Hezbollah or brought a lasting peace).

As for the raid on the flotilla, I agree that the anticipated civilian damage was extremely low (Israel did not expect that the guys on the ships would react so violently, it was not predictable that they would start stabbing the soldiers) but the anticipated military advantage (preventing arms to be smuggled into Gaza) was also very low (I understand the security concerns of Israel but the guys on the ships, even if they obviously wanted to create an incident in order to make Israel look evil, were not stupid enough to actually transport rockets or guns)
 
mpg said:
IMHO, revenge is barbaric. The expression "an eye for an eye" makes my skin crawl. Maybe that's why it's a war crime.
Click to expand...

And I agree with you
 
jallman said:
It's not "the Pals" attacking Israel. It's militant groups within their population. You just betrayed an extreme ignorance of the situation and exposed how your position is one of emotional knee-jerking.
Click to expand...

Militant groups which act as their leaders. Which are (in many cases) elected democratically by the population. So to say that Palestinians are attacking Israel is just as accurate as saying that Israel attacks back.
 
jallman said:
It's not "the Pals" attacking Israel. It's militant groups within their population. You just betrayed an extreme ignorance of the situation and exposed how your position is one of emotional knee-jerking.
Click to expand...

Specifically, the militant group that the Palestinian people elected to run their government. So, yes, it's, "The Pals", that are attacking Israel. Just like it was Germany that attacked Poland, Italy that attacked Ethiopia, Vietnam that attacked Cambodia and The Soviet Union that Attacked Afghanistan.
 
apdst said:
"The objective of any war is to do more damage, in less time, than your enemy" --General George S. Patton Jr.
Click to expand...

The only difference with the WWII is that the goal of Israel/Palestinians is not to destroy each others, it is to reach an acceptable peace and live as good neighbors.
 
Shouldn't we return to the topic of this thread and tell that ugly piece of anti-Semitic **** to go and set herself on fire?

Just sayin'.
 
bub said:
The only difference with the WWII is that the goal of Israel/Palestinians is not to destroy each others, it is to reach an acceptable peace and live as good neighbors.
Click to expand...


That's the case with the Israelis, but the Pals are hell bent to destroy Israel.
 
Apocalypse said:
Shouldn't we return to the topic of this thread and tell that ugly piece of anti-Semitic **** to go and set herself on fire?

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


She should be lynched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom