On May 27, long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas made remarks that have caused an uproar.
At the time, she was outside the White House, which was hosting a Jewish heritage event. An interviewer asked her if she had any comments on Israel.
Her reply was, “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.”
She went on to say that “they” (meaning the Palestinian people) are an occupied people and that Palestine is “their land.”
When asked where Israelis should go, Thomas said that they should “Go home” and went on to identify “home” as “Poland, Germany . . . and America . . . and everywhere else.”
Thomas’s remarks caused an uproar in which many have called her remarks offensive, disgusting, anti-Semitic, hateful, and so forth. Some have been demanding that the White House strip her of her press credentials. Others have suggested that she should be fired from Hearst Newspapers, for which she currently works.
I’d like to look at one characterization of her remarks—that they were anti-Semitic.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I have a long-standing disapproval of Helen Thomas. I don’t like her reporting. She strikes me as excessively partisan, mean, rude, and unpleasant. But if she’s anti-Semitic, I don’t see sufficient evidence of it in this clip.
Watch for yourself and then let’s discuss . . .
There are anti-Semites in the world, but “anti-Semite” is a term that one has to use with caution. After the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust, calling someone an anti-Semite is to throw them in league with the Nazis. It has the emotional punch of calling someone a racist. In fact, anti-Semitism can be seen as a form of racism: racism directed toward Jewish people.
Terms like “anti-Semite” and “racist” are such damning terms that they should only be used when the facts justify them. They should not be tossed around willy-nilly, at whomever you happen to dislike. However convenient they may be for torpedoing your opponent’s reputation, indiscriminate use of these words only cheapens them and takes the focus off the horrors of real anti-Semitism and real racism.
So is Thomas an anti-Semite?
I don’t know. I don’t know her heart (or even her track record of publicly expressed opinions about Jewish people), but I don’t see evidence of anti-Semitism in the clip.
Why do I say that?
Well, for a start, she never even mentions the term “Jew.” Her comments are directed at Israel, which is not synonymous with the Jewish people as a whole. Her problem—at least as she articulates it in the clip—is not with Jewish people in general but with those Jewish people who are present in the modern state of Israel and who, in her view, are oppressing the Palestinian people.
That’s not anti-Semitism. It may by anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism, but it is not racism directed toward the Jewish people.
Her complaint in the vid is of a political and historical nature, not a racial or even a religious one.
She does not display hostility to Jews outside of Israel. If they went to other countries—“Poland, Germany, and America, and everywhere else”—then she would not appear to have a problem.
And note that she includes America in the list of where he wishes the people of Israel would go. It seems she would not mind more Jewish neighbors right here in her own country.
So I’m not seeing evidence for anti-Semitism—hatred (or whatever) of Jewish people as Jewish people. She is expressing—cantankerously (and taking delight in her own cantankerousness)—a historical/political opinion that is common among many people with her background.
For those who may not know, Thomas is a Maronite Catholic [UPDATE: I’ve since run across additional claims that say she is Greek Orthodox, so I’m not sure what is accurate here] whose parents were immigrants from Lebanon (so technically she is a Semite, though ironically not as the term is used in “anti-Semitic,” where “Semite” is improperly treated as a synonym for “Jew”). She was born in 1920 and growing up as a girl and a young woman hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were immigrating to Palestine, with increasingly tense relations between them and the Palestinians. She was a grown woman—age 28—when Israel became an independent state, and subsequently has seen—and felt in a personal way—the subsequent history of pain and violence of the region, including in particular the horrors that have befallen Lebanon on account of its proximity to Israel.
There is another side to that story—the Jewish side. (In fact, there are many sides to this story, including multiple ones within each ethnic group.) But it is understandable if someone like Thomas were to think, “Y’know, things would have been better off if all those immigrants and refugees had never come to Palestine. I wish they’d all go back to their previous homelands.”
Actually deconstructing the state of Israel and returning its citizens to other countries is not something that is presently on the table (though who knows what will happen if Middle Eastern states start getting nukes), and I don’t know that Thomas was literally proposing it. She may well have just been giving voice to an angry wish or fantasy scenario.
But that kind of thing is not uncommon or unexpected. In history people have conflicts, some people lose, and those who lose often harbor such wishes—sometimes for generations. It’s human nature.
Beyond that, the opinions one might reasonably attribute to Thomas on the basis of the clip—that it would be better if the Jewish migration to Palestine had never occurred and the state of Israel had never been founded, that the Palestinians have some kind of still-existing claim to the territory of Israel, and that it would be better if the Israelis migrated to other countries—are opinions which one could reasonably hold.
That’s not to say that they’re right, just that one could reasonably hold them. (I.e., they don’t flatly contradict the clear dictates of reason.) One also can reasonably hold diametrically opposite views. These are subjects of a historical and political nature that people can disagree about.
Were Thomas’ remarks inopportune? As they were made outside of a Jewish heritage celebration, oooooh yes.
Were they phrased with unnecessary cantankerousness? Uh-huh.
Was she foolish to make them? Most definitely.
Should she lose her job or White House credentials over them? One may reasonably hold this opinion.
But was she being anti-Semitic in her remarks? Not from what we see in the clip.
You can hold that Helen Thomas is as hateful, offensive, mean, venomous, outrageous, embarrassing a woman as you wish, but if you want to accuse her of anti-Semitism, you’ll need more than this clip. One can be angry about a historical situation without hating an entire people.
She is clearly an anti-Zionist—and an angry one!—but Zionism and the Jewish people are not the same thing. An angry anti-Zionist is not the same thing as an anti-Semite.
Unless evidence emerges that she hates Jewish people as an entire people (not just those Jewish people she views as occupiers of Palestine), let’s not call her an anti-Semite. It cheapens the word and thus makes it easier for real anti-Semitism to occur.
What are your thoughts?
I must say, Jimmy: in the end, this post is a lame exercise in hair-splitting. Yawn. I’d even rather read one of your posts about a television program than stuff like this. You can do much better. You have done.
Most often cultural knee-jerk is invisible to the person involved. I consider most of the comments the battle of the hot buttons. “You pushed mine so I’ll push yours.” I personally like Jimmy’s approach: evidence first, conclusion later. But then, the Catholic Church has pushed against the common culture from the beginning, not just outside the church but especially inside.
First, I think that Jimmy is confusing “evidence” with “proof.” While Ms. Thomas’s statement does not prove anti-semitism (I refuse to play the irrelevant pedantic games favored by those who point out she is a semite), it is probative of it. But it is probably prudent and charitable to not rush to such a conclusion without more evidence.
In any case, I’m perfectly content to stick with “hateful,” “offensive,” “mean,” “venomous,” “outrageous,” partisan,” “mean,” “rude,” and “unpleasant.” And did I mention “mean”?
I agree with Mike.
Of all the battles I could choose to fight, this would not be one of them.
Pray for misguided Helen and be done with it.
there is no palestine. there are no palestinians. Israel is a jewish nation, you cannot be anti israel without being anti jew.
these are, of course, just my opinions.
but yes, she is Anti-semite. and I don’t care what religion she claims to be.
By the way, the poster over at Catholic Register who posted under the initials TMC is NOT me. I have nothing to say about the fracas other than thank God for the freedom of speech we have in this country. It allows both good reasoning and bad reasoning to be manifested.
The Chicken
I particularly like Paul’s comment.
As to Helen Thomas, I don’t know the lady though I’ve been hearing about her for decades in the Andy Rooney chair at the White House press corps. I would not string together adjectives on her. Suffice to say that she stuck her foot in her mouth this time and chose to go quietly when urged.
I looked up the definition of “probative” just to be sure. “Furnishing evidence or proof” is what I found in the first position. So Jimmy and Mike P. are both right and wrong! And that’s one more reason I like Paul’s comment.
Not too long ago, I learned the Rule of Three as taught by Jerry Weinberg, a software Ancient. I commend it to those here.
“One option is a trap. Two options are a dilemma. Three options are a choice.” Can you come up with three possible explanations for Ms. Thomas’ behavior? Which of the three is the most probable? Which say more about you than Ms. Thomas?
Well said, Jimmy. Unlike many of the comments made, your post is lucid, logical and spot on.
Let is consider a few facts. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law. It has been condemned by the United Nations ever since 1967. Therefore the Jewish settlers in “Palestine” are there illegally. Now what do Americans do about illegal immigrants? Do they welcome them with open arms and give them good houses to live in and give them weapons to use against the people who are there legally? Or do they attempt to catch them and send them back to wherever they came from?
So what is Helen Thomas saying that is different from the vast majority of Americans who say that Mexicans who are illegal immigrants to the USA should be sent back to Mexico?
As to those people who have tried to equate Israel and the Jewish people. Nice try, but totally unconvincing. It makes as much sense as saying that anyone who wants to send illegal Mexican immigrants back to Mexico is prejudiced and hostile to all Mexicans.
Many of the pro-Israelis comments seem to fall into the false description of Palestine by nineteenth century Zionists. They called Palestine “a land without a people”. The fact that there were many people living in Palestine was just an inconvenience. Similarly, when the UN voted in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine and the area allocated to this Jewish state had rather a lot of Arabs in it, the Zionist leaders decided that these Arabs needed to be persuaded to leave the area. This has been admitted by leading Zionists of the time.
So, ever since the nineteenth century Zionists have wanted to either pretend that the Arabs did not exist or, if they had to acknowledge their presence, then do their best to remove them. The latest method employed in this strategy is to make life in the occupied territories as unpleasant as possible for Arabs in the hope that they will choose to leave the area. Indeed, right from the foundation of the state of Israel apologists for Israel have spoken about the Palestinian Arabs being resettled in any of the other Arab countries as they are, after all, Arabs.
Finally, let is consider the Jews who live in Israel and are anti-Zionists. I don’t know much about these people but I think that they have religious objections to Zionism. (ie. The state of Israel) I take it that the critics of Jimmy’s article would argue that these Jews are therefore anti-Semitic.
“condemned by the United Nations”? Oh, horrors!
Let is consider a few facts. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law. It has been condemned by the United Nations ever since 1967.
The United Nations is not a legislative body. There is a long, long history of precedent under ius gentium clearly showing that when a country conquers territory in a defensive war, it has the right to keep that territory if it sees fit. In fact, about half the area of Israel in 1948 was not assigned to the Jews by the U.N., but conquered in just such a defensive war — and the U.N. recognized the cease-fire line as the de jure border of Israel.
Resolutions of the General Assembly do not overturn such precedents.
Therefore the Jewish settlers in “Palestine” are there illegally.
This is appallingly disingenuous. You should know that Palestine does NOT mean merely the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, but the entire territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. In other words, Ms. Thomas called for all the Jews to leave Israel — including those whose ancestors have lived in Palestine continuously from time immemorial. Remember, the Holy Land has had a Jewish population, even if not a large one, continuously since the Hebrews first conquered Canaan. A remnant stayed in the country during the Babylonian captivity, and another remnant stayed after the destruction of the Second Temple.
Nearly half the Jews in Israel are of Middle Eastern ancestry. Some of these are the indigenous Palestinian Jews I just mentioned; many more are the descendants of the over 500,000 Jews (I have seen figures as high as 800,000) who were expelled from the Arab countries in the two decades after 1948. These people have no possible place to go back to.
Neither have the Russian Jews who were permitted to leave the former Soviet Union after 1990, on the strict and explicit condition that they went directly to Israel and Israel only. Both the Soviet and Russian governments maintained a policy of issuing Jews with exit visas good for transit to Israel only.
If you include these two groups, you will find that about two-thirds of the Jews in Israel are legally forbidden even to try to move back to their (or their parents’ or grandparents’) former countries.
So what is Helen Thomas saying that is different from the vast majority of Americans who say that Mexicans who are illegal immigrants to the USA should be sent back to Mexico?
She is saying that no Jew whatever has any right to live in Israel. Your analogy would be valid if the majority of Americans were saying that all people of Mexican descent should be expelled from the U.S. — including those whose ancestors lived in the American Southwest for generations before that region came under U.S. rule. I have met and heard from some bigoted Americans in my time, but never one vile enough to say such a thing as that.
As to those people who have tried to equate Israel and the Jewish people. Nice try, but totally unconvincing. It makes as much sense as saying that anyone who wants to send illegal Mexican immigrants back to Mexico is prejudiced and hostile to all Mexicans.
I have just shown that this argument is fallacious. Only if you accept that all the Jews in Palestine, and the State of Israel itself, are illegal, can you support such an allegation. That is entirely contrary to the facts.
Many of the pro-Israelis comments seem to fall into the false description of Palestine by nineteenth century Zionists. They called Palestine “a land without a people”.
Actually, the population of Palestine in the nineteenth century was trivially small compared to its present population — only a few hundred thousand. Most of the land was desert. Jerusalem itself at that time was scarcely more than a walled village. If you want an illuminating description of Palestine before the return of the Diasporan Jews, written by someone who had no connection with Zionism whatever, read the chapters on Palestine in Mark Twain’s Innocents Abroad. Twain was flatly unable to believe the reports of ‘a land of milk and honey’ in the Old Testament, because he saw a desert inhabited chiefly by impoverished Bedouins and believed the country must always have been in that state.
Similarly, when the UN voted in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine and the area allocated to this Jewish state had rather a lot of Arabs in it, the Zionist leaders decided that these Arabs needed to be persuaded to leave the area. This has been admitted by leading Zionists of the time.
This is — I am afraid there is no more polite way of putting this — simply and utterly false. Israel today has over a million Arab citizens, precisely because the Arab population in 1948 were not ‘persuaded to leave the area’. What persuasion there was, came from the leaders of the Arab League, who asked Arabs to leave the proposed Jewish territory for the duration of the war that (they believed) would surely wipe the Jews out. Those Arabs who left expected to return home in triumph in a matter of months. Instead, they were shepherded into permanent refugee camps, and forced to remain in Palestine (no other Arab country would accept them). The historian Paul Johnson has described them as ‘human title-deeds’ for an eventual Arab reconquest.
Indeed, right from the foundation of the state of Israel apologists for Israel have spoken about the Palestinian Arabs being resettled in any of the other Arab countries as they are, after all, Arabs.
Why should they not be allowed to resettle in Arab countries? Approximately half a million Arabs were foolish enough to depart from the future territory of Israel in 1948 — fewer than the number of Jews who were forced to leave Arab countries. Israel, despite its tiny size and desperately limited resources, found a way to accept all those Jews as immigrants, settle them, build houses for them, and find work for them to do. Ask yourself why none of the Arab countries, stretching from Morocco to Iraq, and including some of the most naturally wealthy countries on earth, have ever offered to do the same for their Palestinian brothers.
Until 1918, there was no state of Syria, no Lebanon, no Jordan, no Iraq, no Saudi Arabia. All the territories surrounding Palestine were part of the Ottoman Empire, and any Arab who wished could move freely from one district to another. It was only with the drafting of the arbitrary post-colonial borders after the two World Wars that the ‘Palestinians’ became identifiable as a separate group from other Arabs. Yet there is no such distinction either in history or in ethnography. ‘Palestinian’ was eventually defined to mean any Arab who had lived in the Palestine Mandate for two consecutive years prior to 1948, or any descendant of such an Arab.
Finally, let is consider the Jews who live in Israel and are anti-Zionists. I don’t know much about these people but I think that they have religious objections to Zionism. (ie. The state of Israel)
If there are such people, they are either hypocritical or insane. A Jew who genuinely objected to the existence of Israel would emigrate.
I know there are many Jews in other countries, particularly the U.S., who do not favour the existence of the State of Israel. If there are Jews in the State of Israel itself who wish that state to be abolished, the best I can say for them is that they have a death wish.
I take it that the critics of Jimmy’s article would argue that these Jews are therefore anti-Semitic.
I would argue that you need to come up with better evidence than your own say-so that such people exist and are not merely suicidal.