Posted on 06/18/2010 4:20:32 PM PDT by grand wazoo
Even among Israel’s harshest critics, I’m not aware of anyone serious who believes or espouses what veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas said recently—that Israeli Jews should return to their nations of origin in Poland, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, where they or their ancestors resided prior to World War II. Such a statement grossly ignores the almost unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust and Thomas should be ashamed and embarrassed for even making it.
But if we are to be honest, Thomas’s sin had more to do with who she dared to criticize than what she actually said. For instance, what if Thomas had suggested white Australians should return to where they came from, out of respect for the occupied Aborigines? Or perhaps white Americans should vacate parts of the Southwest United States that once belonged to Mexico, or even go back to Europe altogether, giving the Chicora and the Cherokee back their rightful land? Of course, these suggestions are as silly as what Thomas said, but it’s hard to imagine anyone being forced to resign over them. It’s also not hard to imagine some pundits on the Left, or perhaps leaders for Hispanic-advocate groups, making such statements about the U.S. in particular, with little or no repercussions.
Writing for the LA Times, UCLA professor Saree Makdisi notices a blatant double standard concerning the Thomas controversy, “(If) 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’s remark.” Makdisi notes that when Israel was created in 1948 “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.” Makdisi then goes on to outline many instances of well-respected pundits and politicians making the same sort of harsh and unreasonable—and outright racist—comments Thomas did, only with the criticism directed at the Palestinians, concluding, “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.”
My purpose here is not to defend Thomas, or even Israel or Palestine, but free speech. Being politically incorrect should mean more than a politician’s willingness to oppose some liberal policy or some shock jock’s eagerness to make a crude remark. Political correctness implies many things, but perhaps the best definition is that some subjects are so beyond reproach that to even “go there” means the inquisitor should be immediately discredited, read out of polite society, or as in Thomas’ case, forced to end their career. Challenging the status quo—the alleged role of the press—necessarily requires questioning the very premise upon which our conventional wisdom rests. How can anyone possibly challenge the status quo without occasionally saying, thinking or writing things that sometimes stray outside the limits of respectable opinion? The very notion seems impossible.
While I don’t condone her controversial comments I also don’t condone the overreaction to them, and I’d rather have an army of Helen Thomas’s speaking their minds and saying plenty of stupid things, than a press so constricted by fear that it never challenges convention. Liberal columnists at the New York Times and elsewhere have made sport out of saying horrible and nasty things about white Southerners—people like me and my family—and pundits on the Right have been known to say horrible and nasty things about blacks and gays and others. Yet, it’s hard to recall a reporter of Thomas’ stature being taken down for one admittedly dumb comment, which leads me to believe her greatest sin was “going there,” or going too far, on a subject that is widely considered no-go. This is unacceptable and like white Southerners, blacks, gays, and all the rest, Israel too, should not be beyond reproach.
Defending the importance of having a free press if not Thomas, “The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart recently asked, “When does America’s unwavering defense of Israel begin to compromise our unwavering defense of free speech?” Answer: with the forced resignation of Helen Thomas.
I thought she was an impartial reporter... Right? Impartial my ass.
There is no such thing. Everyone has an opinion.
Does this writer (Jack Hunter) think she was arrested for her opinion? You would think a conservative would know what free speech is.
Who forced her to resign?
Ah. 'Pat Buchanan conservative,' AKA troglodytic reptilian anti-Semitic paleo-pseudo-conservative. Still whining about Nazis needing love, too.
Anyone writing that Helen Thomas's First Amendment rights have been infringed knows NOTHING about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Methinks Hunter, odds-on HT's love child, should crawl back under his rock...and no, Jack, that statement is not an infringement of First Amendment rights, either.
That's not what he said. Your reading comprehension is severely deficient. Public school educated?
He claims that she was forced to resign because of who she criticized. He is correct. His view is supported by the examples he provides.
Grand Wazoo? How about your reading comprehension, not-so-hot Wazoo? As far as I remember from those dim days of non-public-school edumakashun, all that there free press stuff was in the...what was it?...oh, yeah, the First Amendment. Not to mention that most of the readers who have placed comments on the article's site have raised precisely those First Amendment free speech/free press arguments, so I guess simply EVERYbody but you is 'misunderstanding' the article.
I'll bow out now, having vowed to refrain from battles of wits with the obviously unarmed.
“Who forced her to resign?”
Don’t know , but I think we can safely say it weren’t the palistinian lobby.
I don't think people are misunderstanding the article. I think they are misrepresenting what the article states.
So much idiocy crammed into such a short article.
Strange he didn't mention how "ok" it would be for someone to suggest that blacks go back to Africa...
Blacks didn't immigrate here from Africa. They were taken and transported here. The analogy doesn't apply.
You mean to tell me that there has be zero immigration from Africa in the past 200 years or so?
The vast majority of blacks in the US are the result of the importation of slaves. Other than that, we didn't allow more than a handful of blacks to immigrate here until the 1960s.
TAC runs a piece defending a Third Worldist rant. Of course Ms. Thomas has a right to free speech. However, it is unfortunate that a putatively "American" and "conservative" magazine would defend a comment that undermines all settler nations, including the US, Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand. From issue one they have been subjugating America's interests and survival to screwing Israel.
America’s interests and Israel’s survival are two separate issues that do not necessarily coincide. Something Israeli firsters understand, but refuse to acknowledge.
No we don't. Our interest is in securing our liberty. We may wish that the other things don't happen, but that is really up to those other nations. Our involvement in destroying monsters abroad endangers our liberty.
And I notice that you failed to answer my point that Thomas's remark undermine the legitimacy of all settler nations, including the US.
Your only point is to confuse the interests of Israel and America. Likudniks only care about American conservatives if they can advance their agenda.
A+Bert, is that you?
I wrote: "And I notice that you failed to answer my point that Thomas's remark undermine the legitimacy of all settler nations, including the US. "
GW responded: Your only point is to confuse the interests of Israel and America. Likudniks only care about American conservatives if they can advance their agenda.
You understand that the United States was formed out of the 13 Colonies and is a settler nation, right?
Helen Thomas's comment attacks the legitimacy not only of Israel, but of all settler nations, in so far as she calls for the ethnic cleansing of it "non-indegous" population. If it is OK to attack Israel, as a nation where the settler population has histical ties to the land, then we in the US have even right to exist. Hence it is in the interest of America and Israel to denounce such Third Worldism.
And where did you learn the term "Likudnik"? Do you know what it means? Because, I cannot be one, since were I an Israeli, and I am not, I would be a member of Yichud Leumi, National Union.
I look forward to a cogent response that addresses all points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.