Goodbye, Helen
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Fifty years of Presidential coverage came to an end today as Helen Thomas stepped down from her position at Hearst, the second in her long and storied career as a White House correspondent. Her retirement announcement comes on the heels of controversial comments she made during what The Hill describes as “a White House event on May 27 celebrating Jewish heritage.”
Thomas (in)famously opined that Israeli Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else.”
A lot of people are, no doubt, very happy to see Helen Thomas go. The Dean of the White House Press Corps has shown herself to be among Washington’s most vocal liberals and has used her position to demand answers to difficult questions from both the Bush and Obama administrations. Yet, while American audiences have been quick to call commentators on the carpet for insensitive, racist, or otherwise inappropriate comments, perhaps Thomas’ unceremonious departure from political journalism should be cause for some media introspection.
Yes, Helen Thomas voiced a contentious and controversial opinion. The Israel/Palestine question is among the most reliable hot-button topics in world politics. Israel is among the United State’s closest allies and certainly Thomas’ comments ruffled some very important feathers. Yet, it would be dishonest to pretend that the Israel/Palestine question is meaningfully resolved upon the world stage.
Every day that rockets cross the border between Gaza and Israel, every day that shells fall on Gaza or that Israel or Egypt interdict supplies bound for Gazan markets, the world is reminded of the fact that, for centuries, the land presently labeled “Israel” on our maps was once “Palestine.” Treaties and colonial powers very literally created the Jewish Homeland by drawing lines upon a map and they did so without so much as a thought for the individuals, families, and people who had called those lands “home” since Roman times.
Helen Thomas expressed an opinion shared by billions of people all over the world. She expressed that opinion crassly and perhaps without her customary degree of tact, but to pretend that her opinion is in some way aberrant or unacceptable is pathetic. The United States is well served by an independent media that need not fear the consequences of making unpopular statements and presenting challenging ideas.
A journalistic legend has been forced to go quietly into the night over what is fundamentally a deeply main-stream, if unpopular, opinion; we are all a little less for that.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Billions of people, including most of the Muslim world, believe that Jews control the media and the banks, and that the Holocaust never happened. Do you believe that these opinions are aberrant or unacceptable, Chris? If Helen Thomas had expressed them, would she deserve acclaim for presenting challenging ideas?
I’m sure quite a lot of people believe in conspiracy theories. The notion that some sort of international Jewish conspiracy controls the banking industry is likely among them.
But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assumption that billions of people buy into that. If you’ve got some kind of evidence to support the claim I’ll be happy to reconsider.
The Israel/Palestine question is a gray area in world politics, however, and at the end of the day the price of a Jewish Homeland was the wholesale appropriation of an entire people’s ancestral home.
A huge number of people think that was too high a price to pay and that’s an opinion that they are absolutely entitled to. It’s a legitimate opinion; you don’t have to agree with it but you can’t seriously argue that it lacks any merit whatsoever.
Helen Thomas agreed with that opinion. For that she lost her job.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The Israel/Palestine question is a gray area in world politics, however, and at the end of the day the price of a Jewish Homeland was the wholesale appropriation of an entire people’s ancestral home. ”
What people’s “ancestral home?” “Palestinians” are Arabs and aren’t the same “ancestral people” who were living there over 3,000 years ago when the Israelis came along.
In response to another comment. See in context »But they were living there for hundreds of years before the creation of the State of Israel.
The Israelis can claim that particular part of the world as their ancestral home because they lived there thousands of years ago… but lots of other people lived there before and after them.
Now, those other people’s claims aren’t the subject of several books in the Bible, but that doesn’t make them less legitimate.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Jews should get the hell out of Palestine” has merits as an argument, Chris? Jews should “go back” to Poland, Germany and the U.S. has merits? Can you tell me what those merits are, Chris?
You and Helen Thomas both seem to believe that the destruction of the state of Israel and the expulsion of the Jews living there is a solution that has merit. Can you tell me this solution would be implemented and where those Jews would go? Most of the Polish and German death camp survivors have long since passed away, and their children were born in the state of Israel.
In response to another comment. See in context »““Jews should get the hell out of Palestine” has merits as an argument, Chris? Jews should “go back” to Poland, Germany and the U.S. has merits? Can you tell me what those merits are, Chris?”
Sure. They’re identical to the merits of the argument that the Palestinians should pack up and leave their homes without a fight.
No, seriously, they’re **exactly the same argument.** That is, by the by, what all those folks who are on about the “destruction of the state of Israel” are talking about. Those folks who are launching rockets into Israeli schools and hospitals aren’t doing it because they’ve already seen Iron Man 2 and everything else that’s come out this summer is crap; they’re doing it because 60 years ago a bunch of Europeans decided that their homeland needed to be turned into a sovereign state for some people who hadn’t lived there for over a thousand years.
Expecting them to just lay down their arms and accept the subjugation of their homeland is no different than expecting the Jews to pack up and leave Israel today.
Can I tell you the solution? No. There is no solution and since there is no solution, I think Helen’s comments are at least as valid as those that support stuffing all the Palestinians behind walls and starving them half to death.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Those folks who are launching rockets into Israeli schools and hospitals aren’t doing it because they’ve already seen Iron Man 2 and everything else that’s come out this summer is crap; they’re doing it because 60 years ago a bunch of Europeans decided that their homeland needed to be turned into a sovereign state for some people who hadn’t lived there for over a thousand years.”
So, it would be okay with you if Native Americans lobbed a few bombs on some schools in your neighborhood?
In response to another comment. See in context »Nancy (to whom I can’t reply because apparently T/S has a maximum comment depth)
No, I’d really rather Native Americans didn’t lob bombs into my neighborhood but they did, in fact, fight a number of wars against ancestors of mine who pushed them off their lands and they were certainly entitled to do so.
I’m not saying that I agree with the shelling of Israel *or* the blockade of Gaza; I’d much rather the Palestinians and the Israelis chilled out and had a Coke and a Smile but that doesn’t mean that I am incapable of recognizing that Palestinians have a legitimate grievance.
Would you be ok with your home being turned into an artificially created “homeland” for victims of the ongoing genocide in Darfur? If the UN showed up, kicked you out of your house and crowded you into temporary camps while busing in strangers from half a world away would you just shrug your shoulders and figure it’s no big deal?
Of course not; and it’s foolish to presume the Palestinians should either. If there’s ever going to be peace both Palestine *and Israel* must recognize the other’s right to exist, to trade, and the integrity and sovereignty of each other’s boundaries.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hi Chris!
You state, “the price of a Jewish Homeland was the wholesale appropriation of an entire people’s ancestral home.”
One word for you: Pakistan
In response to another comment. See in context »I disagree with much of what Helen Thomas says, this included. My reaction was anger and disgust. I felt like yelling, “Go back home to Lebanon, Helen, don’t you know you’re living in occupied Native American land?” I see no reason why she should be considered a journalistic legend.
None of these reactions and opinions are reason for her retiring from the Washington Press Corps. Had she transgressed journalistic ethics or somehow failed to do her job, that would be reason; expressing an unpopular opinion, even an abhorrent one, is not.
I love this comment and agree, though honestly I am happy she’s gone!
In response to another comment. See in context »You can acknowledge the horrors of the Holocaust and appreciate some of the finer traits of Israel (unconditional acceptance of those seeking asylum, for instance)while still questioning the role of AIPAC and other lobbyists in the media. At best, the response to Thomas’ comments were disproportionate. At worst, it was another display of our selective and meaningless “outrage”.
Helen Thomas fails to recognise that there was a very good reason for the Jews to leave these nations in the first place – Poland, Germany, Hungary etc.. She will do well to remember that. Something else to bear in mind – Jews came to Israel from places such as Iran, Iraq, Yemen etc.. as well.
She should also know that none of these nations are waiting to let these jews back in. So her statement that they should all go back is just plain absurd and is akin to the statement from Marie Antoinnete that the french should just eat cakes.
The fact that Chris considers it a reasonable opinion – if just a bit crass, indicates his own attitude towards this.
Chris, why don’t you consider going back to wherever your ancestors came from? Why are you on native american land?
No, I am not a jew nor am I an American.
“Chris, why don’t you consider going back to wherever your ancestors came from? Why are you on native american land?”
Because I like where I live. But let me turn your comment around a bit. Should you be forced into retirement for daring to ask me that question?
In response to another comment. See in context »“Because I like where I live.”
Ah! perhaps the jews like where they live too. Your ancestors came to America on their own free will – they weren’t leaving their homes behind because of severe persecution or because nearly half of them were slaughtered in death camps tailor-made for them. Your ancestors came to take land which was not theirs from people who have lived there for several millenia.. they did that in the most violent ways possible despite having the option of living a perfectly happy life in the countries they came from.
But yet, you seem to believe it is alright for you to stay in the US on native american land because you “like where you live” but it is not ok for the jews to stay in Israel despite having to flee from the nations they had to leave behind – nations which were actively persecuting them.
Name one middle-eastern nation which will be willing to even allow Israelis in on even a tourist visa. Lots of jews were forced out of these middle-eastern nations – not just from Europe. They got no compensation for the homes which were confiscated.. nothing. Where is your outrage about that?
Chris, your hypocrisy is amazing to behold! Your extreme eagerness to prove your left-leaning credentials is clouding your mind.
In response to another comment. See in context »“But yet, you seem to believe it is alright for you to stay in the US on native american land because you “like where you live” but it is not ok for the jews to stay in Israel despite having to flee from the nations they had to leave behind – nations which were actively persecuting them.”
No, you misunderstand. I have *never* said that the Jews or the Israelis should give up their homes.
Ever. I’ve never, ever said that and I fervently disagree with that statement.
**BUT** neither do I believe that saying that they should give up their homes (or just withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank – Thomas’ comments weren’t clear) is cause for forcing someone into retirement.
I think there’s room in the world for ideas with which I disagree.
You want to make this about the right of Israel to exist or to occupy Gaza and the West Band or any number of other geopolitical issues. It’s not about that; it’s about the right to opine on those issues without fear of losing your job.
That’s it and that’s all I’ve expressed an opinion upon.
In response to another comment. See in context »I also feel a certain sadness at seeing Helen Thomas go, especially under the cloud of an indefensible outburst. At her best, she was feisty and formidable, a groundbreaking female journalist who, in my one encounter with her, was more than generous in sharing her memories and history. Let’s face it: At 89, she probably stayed too long at the press conference, and it’s unfortunate that her valuable contributions will forever be overshadowed by those inflammatory taunts.
A few days ago, Slate published a piece that asserted IDF forces who killed civilians had “nothing to be ashamed of.” That writer wasn’t speaking quickly out of frustration, and there’s zero possibility that he meant it in some other context, as in “I’m going to say something out of left field to express how hopeless this situation is” (which may or may not be what Thomas was doing, although our infantile media enjoys pretending she was espousing Nazism). This writer thought about it, wrote it, and submitted it to Slate, where an editor read it, thought about it, and decided it was a-ok to publish “news analysis” that stated, basically, “it’s fine for Palestinian sympathizers to be killed, because they are less human than we are.”
Needless to say, there was no outrage.
There’s a pretty obvious double standard for what constitutes “racism” at play in Thomas’ case, and it’s an informative microcosm of the US media’s Israel/Palestine coverage as a whole. Some racism is good, others is bad, and if the “bad” kind comes out of the mouth of one of the few reporters in Washington who was more than a White House stenographer, that’s a huge bonus for lovers of unchecked executive power. Plus, they get to go all self-righteous in their commentaries about Thomas (as any schoolyard bully knows, as soon as someone’s powerless, beating her up gets a whole lot easier). For fans of irony, it’s been a fun week.
Mr. Thomas,
You wrote:”Helen Thomas expressed an opinion shared by billions of people all over the world.”
I do not know that this true, I would suspect not, but it is really beside the point. Forcibly deporting Ashkenazic Jews from Israel is not reasonable social policy, and, incidentally, would not resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. I would argue that it is indeed beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse, irrespective how many people support it.
I think that you have confused support of the cause of the Palestinian people, which does indeed enjoy support of billions of people, with the specific idea that their cause would be advanced by Jews leaving Israel, which does not.
I should point out that I’ve yet to read any of Thomas’ remarks that support the idea of *forceable* deportation.
She said they should “get the hell out,” not that they should be expelled.
In response to another comment. See in context »Lame!
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Thomas,
I will grant you that Ms. Thomas was not exactly detailed in exactly what she meant. Nonetheless, however the difference between whatever it is that she meant exactly and what she said exactly (and what I wrote exactly) is not big enough to change the point of my comment.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Nonetheless, however the difference between whatever it is that she meant exactly and what she said exactly (and what I wrote exactly) is not big enough to change the point of my comment.”
Except it does. Thomas’s brief interaction with her interviewer is difficult to follow but her statement was that Israel (not Jews) should get out of Palestine (not Israel). That’s very different than saying that Jews should abandon the modern-day nation of Israel.
Now, the follow up question muddied things somewhat and it’s not entirely clear to me if Thomas and the interviewer were on the same page (he shifted the discussion from “Israel” to “Jews” and I’m not sure Thomas kept up). Moreover, “Palestine” never gets adequately defined. Thomas may have meant – and indeed her statement makes a great deal more sense if she did – Palestine in the sense of Gaza and the West Bank, not the historical early 20th Century Palestine.
After 50 years I think Helen Thomas deserves, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt. We don’t do her or us any favors by assuming intent where none was provided.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Thomas,
There is a certain history that cannot be ignored. Between 1880 and 1930 there was a terrific raise in anti-immigrant sentiments in western Europe and the US. Millions of immigrants arrived from eastern Europe, fleeing poverty and oppression, and flooded western Europe, the US, and other places. Nativist political organizations arose in all of these areas to prevent further immigration of these people and to get rid of those already there.
The immigrants were of course the Ashkenazic Jews and their opponents were called “Anti-Semites” on the racist assumption that they were not European (or as some called it “Aryan”) but rather belonged somewhere where Semetic languages were spoken. The battle cry of the Anti-Semites was “Jews Get Out” (“Juden Rauss” as the German anti-Semites put it). Now the anti-Semites were not very specific as to where the Jews should go, either back to where they came from (Poland, Russia, &c.) to somewhere else “where they belonged” but somewhere else.
Now none of the anti-immigrant / Semetic political parties active in this period ever suggest that anything should happen to the Jews other than them “getting out”. They did no suggest assaulting Jews, robbing them, or killing them. They just needed to “get out”. However when one of these parties came to power in Germany, they began to implement their battle cry of “Juden Rauss”, as a practical matter, they decided that getting the Jews out meant attacking them, robbing them, and ultimately killing them. All of thus under the banner “Jews Get Out”.
Within this historical context, the phrase “Jews Get Out” is one that is about as loaded as is possible. Within the current context of the struggle between the Zionists and the Palestinians, it is even more loaded.
I agree that Helen Thomas is a terrific, indeed unequaled journalist. I would even agree that her getting fired was probably over-kill. However, within the contexts I identified above, her fate is hardly surprising.
In response to another comment. See in context »>>>>At best, the response to Thomas’ comments were disproportionate. At worst, it was another display of our selective and meaningless “outrage”.<<<<
Goodbye Nazi bitch
Hell must have frozen over, because on the Helen Thomas issue, I am in partial agreement with our own uber military/conservative establishment pundit from Oregon. You know who you are, Mr. Peck.
Helen Thomas could have said the settlers should get out of Palestine. She could have said the right-wing Jewish extremists or the Yesha Council or the Kach Party of Meir Kahane or the Women in Green should get out of Palestine.
But she angrily mentioned Jews going “home” to Germany, and that for me is where her comments turned from liberal to simply racist. She needed to resign.
I can’t give Thomas a break. She’s no better than the Jerusalem Post Deputy Managing Editor – the settler-praising, peace-process-hating Caroline Glick – responsible for making the racist music video, ‘We Con the World.’
We Will Slaughter the Jews,’ sing the video’s keffiyah wearing, knife-wielding ‘Arabs’ and other members of the ‘Flotilla Choir’ who clearly aren’t Turks or Gazans, but are Jewish Israelis singing “there’s no people dying” about the Gaza humanitarian-aid flotilla, in which nine people were killed last Monday by Israeli commandos, and many others were shot:
There comes a time when we need to make a show
For the world and CNN
There’s no people dying so the best that we can do
Is create the greatest bluff of all
Glick and Thomas display a lack of compassion and understanding for the shared humanity of the “other” side. Glick and Thomas have crossed over from journalists to activists. Thomas has done the appropriate thing. Now’s the time for Glick to resign from the JP and head across the Green Line to Arutz Sheva, the settlers’ daily.