Helen Thomas and the Media’s Double Standard

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.

Securing our liberty does not involve attacking every rabid anti-American group or even country. Our resources should not be squandered in such wastes of time. Bomb Afghanistan into the stone-age and exit. Simple as that. I know that certain cretins will say it is not that simple, but it absolutely is. Those who want us to stay have priorities other than the security of the US.

Europe can handle there own problems. We already take care of their military defense; how much more do we have to do?

You point about the US being a settler nation is just plain idiocy. The establishment of the US and the establishment of Israel couldn't be more different and if you don't agree, you don't have any grasp of history. Discussing this topic further is a waste of time.

The term "Likudnik" is a pejorative for those who worship at the feet of Bibi Netanyahu. If you are kookier than Bibi then pardon me.

You are very big at building up strawmen. I guess that is the only way for you to have a chance at winning an argument. Put forth arguments that were never made, attribute them to you adversary and then attack them. Very Saul Alinsky-like.
Other than suggesting that I am either a communist or have dual loyalties, do you have an arguement? And is the whole claim about "straw man argument" projecting?

Securing our liberty does not involve attacking every rabid anti-American group or even country
True, but they are in the US, you realize and around the world.

Bomb Afghanistan into the stone-age and exit. Simple as that. I know that certain cretins will say it is not that simple, but it absolutely is. Those who want us to stay have priorities other than the security of the US.
Fair enough. Next time I say we should bomb Iran, you are not going to suggest that I'm calling for ground troops, right?

Those who want us to stay have priorities other than the security of the US.
In so far as they are in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, your argument is a bit of a fallacy.

Europe can handle there own problems. We already take care of their military defense; how much more do we have to do?
We could stop our support for the EU and for the integration of Turkey into the EU.

You point about the US being a settler nation is just plain idiocy.
So the Mayflower, Roanoke etc are just a myth and we are indigenous?

The establishment of the US and the establishment of Israel couldn't be more different and if you don't agree, you don't have any grasp of history. Discussing this topic further is a waste of time.
Probably is. But I'm the one who understands that history did not begin in 1945.

The term "Likudnik" is a pejorative for those who worship at the feet of Bibi Netanyahu. If you are kookier than Bibi then pardon me.
I'd think that you'd apreciate nationalists who oppose US aid and interference in Israel. But I guess only America can have nationalism and Zionist should be shot on sight. Either that or you believe that the US should choose borders for other countries, which seems at odds with your other positions. Unless, Israel is special.

Other than suggesting that I am either a communist or have dual loyalties

You said it.

True, but they (al-Qaeda) are in the US, you realize and around the world.

No they aren't. That is a delusional fantasy that you have.

Next time I say we should bomb Iran, you are not going to suggest that I'm calling for ground troops, right?

Has Iran attacked the US? I must have missed the headlines. Who has been calling for the US to attack Iran since the day we entered Iraq? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

I'd think that you'd apreciate nationalists who oppose US aid and interference in Israel.

I wrote: "Other than suggesting that I am either a communist or have dual loyalties"
GW respondsYou said it.

I'm not the one who supports Irish irredentism and revanchism.
And it seems that you conceded my point that you aren't dealing with my arguement, just calling me names.

I wrote: "True, but they (al-Qaeda) are in the US, you realize and around the world."
GW responded: No they aren't. That is a delusional fantasy that you have.
So we weren't attacked in 1993 and 2001?We haven't had dozens of attacks since then in the US?
We don't have Muslim Botherhood groups like CAIR openly infiltrating our political system?

Has Iran attacked the US? I must have missed the headlines. Who has been calling for the US to attack Iran since the day we entered Iraq?
You're right. There was no embassy takeover in 1979. Hundreds of American servicement were not murdered by Iran's proxy Hizbullah in Lebanon. Dozens of Americans were not kidnaped by the same. Iran did not arm and train Shi'ites in Iraq to fight us. And they are not doing the same in Afghanistan.
And a nation where "Death to America" is a motto is not openly developing nhuclear weapons and ICBMS.

I would really like to visit your world for a day, just to have a vacation from our problems.

Apparently your group has little or no support. Interference? How I wish we weren't involved in every petty dispute in that part of the world. Who keeps calling for US involvement? Who keeps saying that non-interventionism is isolationism? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
I don't believe in interfereing in the government of allies. Seems like a pretty straightforward position. Overthrowing the regime sof enemy states is another matter entirely. And I'd love to see less intervention. Sadly, a 7th century brigand rapist created a cult with worldwide asperations and has over 1 billion followers.

I'm not the one who supports Irish irredentism and revanchism. And it seems that you conceded my point that you aren't dealing with my arguement, just calling me names.

No you support the Jewish version of those concepts.

You are the one that implied that you are communist with dual loyalties. I just pointed it out.

So we weren't attacked in 1993 and 2001?We haven't had dozens of attacks since then in the US? We don't have Muslim Botherhood groups like CAIR openly infiltrating our political system?

Al-Qaeda will always be around in your mind, even though they have been defeated. A couple of loose nuts do not a movement make. The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR have as much right to lobby as AIPAC and the ADL. If it was up to me, no foreign group would be allowed to lobby or contribute to the congress and the FBI would be keeping a close eye on them.

There was no embassy takeover in 1979. Hundreds of American servicement were not murdered by Iran's proxy Hizbullah in Lebanon. Dozens of Americans were not kidnaped by the same. Iran did not arm and train Shi'ites in Iraq to fight us. And they are not doing the same in Afghanistan.

Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. They hate Americans and chant "Death to America" all the time. How come you aren't advocating that the US invade or attack Indonesia? Hmmmmmm.

You are the one that implied that you are communist with dual loyalties. I just pointed it out.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I implied that this was the totality of your argument.

Al-Qaeda will always be around in your mind, even though they have been defeated.
And the dozens of attacks in the US int eh last decade are what? Take a good look at Afghanistan and tell me how they are defeated.

A couple of loose nuts do not a movement make. The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR have as much right to lobby as AIPAC and the ADL. If it was up to me, no foreign group would be allowed to lobby or contribute to the congress and the FBI would be keeping a close eye on them.
Are you just belligerent or are you purposely this ignorant?
The Muslim Brotherhood was created to restore the Caliphate and convert the world to Islam. Their motto is
"God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Qur'an our constitution, Jihad our way and dying for God's cause our supreme objective"
The Muslim Brotherhood spawned the following terrorist organizations: al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (now part of Al Qaeda), Maktab al-Khidamat (forerunner or Al Qaeda), Hamas, Jemaah Islamiyah (and its ally in the US, the Islamic Circle of North America), Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hizbul Islam and quite a few others.

Keep lobbying to have the US dragged into your war. We want no part of that snake pit. Reagan walked away 30 years ago when those issues were on the front burner. Only Israeli firsters want the US to fight their battles for them. Don't we provide the Israelis enough money and weapons? Don't they have a nuclear program? I say fight your own battles.
I show that Iran has been attacking the US and you respond that the US should not be dragged into Israel's war. I guess if a country murders Americans and threatens to destroyu us, we have not interest, so long as they also want to destroy Israel.
Seems to me that you have the dual loyalty, your primary one being hatred of Israel.

Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. They hate Americans and chant "Death to America" all the time. How come you aren't advocating that the US invade or attack Indonesia? Hmmmmmm.
The regime does not support this and they don't have a nuclear weapons program. Please try again.

I implied that this was the totality of your argument.

You tried to imply that you are neither (a communist or someone with dual loyalties). Anyone that reads yours posts can make up their own mind about your politics.

And the dozens of attacks in the US in the last decade are what?

Al-Qaeda is dead and buried. If they pop up again, we'll play whack-a-mole and bomb the country that provides them safe harbor. There is no reason to waste vast sums of American blood and treasure in that part of the world. It's a hell hole. Always was, always will be. None of our concern.

The Muslim Brotherhood was created to restore the Caliphate and convert the world to Islam. Their motto is "God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The Muslim Brotherhood spawned the following terrorist organizations: al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Your talking points are hysterical (not funny, but more like the medical condition).

I show that Iran has been attacking the US and you respond that the US should not be dragged into Israel's war. I guess if a country murders Americans and threatens to destroyu us, we have not interest, so long as they also want to destroy Israel.

You showed nothing that the American public doesn't already know. The attack on the US Marines in Beirut was nearly 23 years ago. Reagan knew to get out. Our military involvement in that part of the world only hurts us. Who does it benefit?

Iran destroy us! That is hilarious. Complete fantasy. Keep trying to peddle that tripe. I bet the day the US Army enters Tehran, you'll be coming up with "intell" on Syria.

The regime (Indonesia) does not support this and they don't have a nuclear weapons program.

The regime will change and revert to their former militancy. They have nuclear capabilities but have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What countries have and what countries have not signed the treaty?

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.