Talk:Helen Thomas

Official website hacked

I have removed the link to Helen Thomas's official website, as the site has been hacked and is currently compromised. I have removed the link, as one never knows if the site may be running exploits (I was prompted to download a "plug-in"). In the mean time if you wish to view the site and understand that whatever happens to your computer as a result of visiting a known-compromised site is your responsibility, you may click here.

I will be checking the site every so-often to determine when it's appropriate to re-add the link to the article. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Remarks on Israel from YouTube

Don't be fooled by the sweet face of this little old lady. She's a stark raving anti-Semite and an Evil Religion sympathizer. She should be fired and sent packing back to Detroitistan. I'd be very happy to see this little old codger limping away from Washington on her walker with her wrinkled little tail between her legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.18.72 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Helen Thomas did not make those remarks outside a white house jewish heritage event. This is partisan lies. This wiki should not be used as a political football, especially for minorites. The fact is, she works in the white house, not at some jewish event. IMHO the whole idea of putting "controversy" heading in a BIO, at the convenience of whomever is trying to smear Helen's reputation is horrible. --Kanliot (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

this is a completely biased and false entry. the fact that she works in the White House does not in any way contradict the fact that she was at an event at the White House celebrating Jewish Heritage. Nobody is smearing anything ... they are merely reporting statements made by the individual in questionDahveed323 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

While this video is getting quite a bit of play on pro-Israel blogs, a Google search reveals no reliable sources to indicate the significance of any controversy arising from Thomas' remarks. Thomas herself has already issued an apology on her personal web site, but without reliable, secondary sources, this section could (should?) be removed for lack of verifiability. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

The mere fact of this entry in attempting to remove the mention of these statements evidences controversy regarding the statements. Further, this entry acknowledges the apology issued by Thomas, further supporting the controversy to which it gave rise, otherwise their would be no need for an apologyDahveed323 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

It clearly meets verifiability, whether it meets weight or reliable sourcing is a seperate issue. This was a pretty inflamatory statement, I am quite suprised that it hasn't recieved much coverage. If such a statement had been made by Beck or Hannity it would be front page news. Arzel (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced YouTube with a Fox News link. Oren0 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Solution: change the section headline to "Anti-Israel Bias". Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.62.146 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement is anti-Semitic. If she would of said, "All blacks should go back to Africa", would there be a doubt that she was racist? Why should we doubt she is anti-Semitic?--Panzertank (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although she might not be clear about the difference between 'Jew' and 'Zionism', it's hard to identify her statement as anti-Semitic, since there are also some Jewish groups against Zionism. She also stressed that those Jews in Palestine are occupiers. The question is whether they are occupiers or not. If they are, her statement that Jew should 'get the hell out of Palestine', although she has taken it back, is self-consistent.Chenchiheshang (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

This is nonsense. If she had said all Zionists out of Israel then it would be anti-zionist ... she said all JewsDahveed323 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

You are mistaken on 2 counts: the Jews you refer to (Satmar Hassidim for example) are not anti-Zionist; they simply refuse to recognize an Israeli state that is not precipitated by a messianic event. And nonetheless, many of these Jews who dislike the state of Israel (as it exists) still live within its confines. What Thomas said is that NO JEWS SHOULD EVEN BE LIVING in that territory, i.e. - that a person's religious affiliation is grounds for their just removal - that even metic status is unacceptable. This is advocacy for religious discrimination, and anti-Semitic at its core.

My first image of the Jews-against-Zionism is Yisroel Dovid Weiss. I watched several his videos on Youtube. There are pretty many other videos featured with Jewish people, who are strongly supporting Orthodox Judaism and clearly against Zionism. As you have mentioned, some of them are living in Israel, but they are clearly saying: (1)Zionists are occupying Palestine; and (2)they wanted Zionism is peacefully dismantled, and they want to live peacefully with Arabic people just like 100 years ago. I had no idea about Satmar before you mentioned, so it's not in my reference; but thank you for reminding me that, and I appreciate. Back to Helen Thomas. Although I don't think she was careful enough to choose her words, I think her intention is not so obscure that people might misunderstand. She mentioned 'occupiers', 'go back home'. As we all know, Jewish community has already been existing in Palestine for centuries. And according to those Jewish people I mentioned, they were living peacefully under Islamic rules. So I think Helen Thomas was not intending to let these Jews go to Germany or Poland, since Palestine is their home. So I don't think your interpretation--no Jew should live in Palestine--fits Thomas's remark very well.Chenchiheshang (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This analogy is not correct. The zionists have occupied Palestine by force. The blacks have been transferred to America against their will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.229.137 (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to get dragged into a long-winded debate about the deep history, politics, and religious/ethnic affiliations that go into the modern Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Neither of us is probably expert enough to do them justice, and they do not prove anything on the topic of this discussion, which is the statements of Ms. Thomas. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research or contemporary debate. Here is a transcript of her statements in the video.

"Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine...Remember, these people [Palestinians] are occupied, and it's their land. It's not Germany it's not Poland...They can go home...to Poland, Germany...and America, and everywhere else."

(When the interviewer clarified whether the second "They" meant Jews, she didn't correct him.)

When Helen says that "home" is the several Diaspora countries, the only common denominator left for the people she's describing is Jew, and it is not any more unreasonable to call this anti-semitic than it is to say that "those people" are good with money or clever or bad at sports. Helen left even the 6-10 mile wide U.N.-recognized state of Israel off of that list of "home". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.62.167 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Farah, former Hearst Corp. employee, and head of WorldNetDaily, the largest independent online news source, has called for her to be fired by Hearst Corporation and bar her from the White House Press corp. It's definitely a controversy and her weak apology of late, IMHO, has not brought it to rest. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=162621 99.235.39.210 (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A senile remark has no business being on Wikipedia. Nutmegger (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive of statement: http://www.webcitation.org/5qGvsCvQF. I note there's arguably no contrition, retraction or correction. Analogy: I deeply regret telling my broker to buy XYZ stock just before XYZ went belly up, but that's just because it turned out to be a bad gamble. I feel no contrition, and an unwilling to make an apology or issue a retraction or correction. Helen, in a pseudo-question to President Obama, had

1. just characterized as a deliberate massacre the deaths that occurred as Israel resorted to the use of force to defend its territory and people from the Hamas flotilla.
2. complained of use of the term deeply regret as not strong, and yet she uses it herself. Seems clear to me that she meant what she said but in hindsight, wishes she hadn't actually said what she said, because of the backlash expressing her feelings has created.

I think what we are not agreeing upon is largely depending on the different interpretations of Gaza flotilla raid happened recently. Since there are different descriptions about what really happened (Israel didn't offer the videos showing how they killed those demonstrators, and those demonstrators didn't offer a solid interpretation about the violence against the armed IDF, who boarded one of the ships through fast rope). So I think no more discussion about Helen's intention is needed, until we both agree on the basic fact about Gaza Flotilla raid, and Gaza blockade. Last but not least, pleas sign after you edit the discussion page.Chenchiheshang (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The last page edit that is marked as undoing vandalism was certainly not doing so.--W☯W ^t/c 01:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources used in the article state that she was referring to the Jews, not to Israel. Andjam (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is true, however, I (personally) think it is a misrepresentation of the primary source YouTube video. Given Wikipedia policy, I think you're right to stick with the interpretation given by the reliable secondary sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is currently incomplete. Thomas has been dropped by her speaking agency. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/06/helen-thomas-dropped-by-agency_n_602225.html

In addition, given that she made incredibly anti-Semitic remarks that she herself admits are indefensible, this entire descussion should be changed to "Anti-Semitic Remarks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairedits (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

did she say _jews_ get out?

the article misquotes her and makes libellous statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.252.100 (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

YES Take a look at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14&feature=player_embedded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.179.176 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

She absolutely did say that the Jews should get out of "Palestine." The country's name is Israel. Fairedits (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, she did not at any point specifically demand that "the Jews" should leave Israel. In response to a question about the state of Israel, Thomas somewhat ambiguously stated, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine."

1. She could have been referring merely to the Israeli settlers in the UN-designated Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem or the Syrian Golan Heights.
2. She could have been referring to the leaders/founders of the Israeli government that expelled Palestinians from their homes and confiscated their property in the 1948 and 1967 wars.
3. She could have been referring to all European Jewish immigration subsequent and/or prior to the 1947 UN partition plan.
4. Given the context of her remarks, it seems unlikely that she was referring to the indigenous Jewish population of the region who had lived there prior to the founding of the Zionist movement, but I suppose that is a possibility as well.

At any rate, her remarks were ambiguous enough to be open to a wide variety of interpretations, but it seems unlikely that she was calling for the blanket expulsion of every Jew in Mesopotamia. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the difficulty in interpreting her remarks and given the passion it has stirred up would it not be appropriate to include her remarks verbatim in the article. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. There is a new article up on FoxNews that makes it clear Thomas was referring to "Israelis" and not "Jews" as a whole. I'll add the new reference and make the changes. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

the way the article is currently written reads that she said "jews" which is, simply put, NOT what she said. it's been locked so someone should correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.43.167 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thomas didn't "somewhat ambiguously state" anything. To argue otherwise would reveal one as either uninformed or a patent liar. Helen Thomas made it clear that in her opinion the Jews should leave the Middle East. Reviewing the conversation between her and the interviewer in context removes any doubt. One doesn't need to conduct a linguistic Conversation Analysis (CA) to categorize the turn constructional components and taxonomies to describe the clear meaning and intent of what she said. Specifically, when asked about Israel, she said "They should get the hell out of Palestine" and go back to Germany and Poland. She didn't say that the Israeli's should leave Gaza and the West Bank. She knew exactly what she was saying and so do the rest of us; to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Additionally, when asked about the Jews getting the hell out of Palestine (commonly understood to include the entire area, particularly among you antiSemites who deny Israel's right to exist), she reiterated her point by adding the United States as a destination to which the Jews should return as well. She specifically replied to the question from the reporter, "So you're saying that the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany," by adding "and America, too." The video is right here and you can't lie your way out of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeqb8h0I-Bg . So yes, she made it clear that the Jews should get the hell out of the Middle East. There was no equivocation, no ambiguity and no clarification necessary. Helen Thomas reiterated her position with crystal clarity when she responded to the interviewer's follow-up, referential question. To claim otherwise is a pathetic attempt to whitewash the patent AntiSemitism that currently infects the leftist-jihadist alliance, in which Helen Thomas is clearly entrenched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangelodiluce (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Joatsimeon, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} per talk page, article incorrectly states that Thomas said "Jews" should leave. She did not and the way it is written now defames her.

Joatsimeon (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. There is enough ambiguity in the statement to warrant a change per WP:BLP. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bigot can now be added to her resume —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.73.223 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Joatsimeon - you are absolutely wrong. Obviously, you and most of the people commenting here did not take the time to listen to the clips. The entire approach by the rabbi is included "Any comments on Israel. We're asking everyone today - any comments on Israel." She talks over the last word. "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine." (Note here, she does not stay - the West Bank, or the Palestinian territories. She is absolutely talking about "Palestine" - the area of the former British protectorate.) She is then asked "Oooh ... Any better comments on Israel?" She says "Remember. These people are occupied . . . and it's their land - not German and its not Poland." The interviewer says "So where should they go? What should they do?" She replies "Go home." He asks "Where's their home?" She replies "Poland. Germany." He asks "So the Jews - you're saying Jews go back to Poland and Germany?" She replies by nodding her head and continuing "And America and everywhere else." She was, by this time asked about, not Israel, but the Jews. She is talking about "the Jews" not the state of Israel, not Jewish settlers in the Palestinian territories. She is saying that the Jews in the area formerly known (and still known to her ilk) as Palestine, should "get the hell out" of "Palestine" and return to Poland and Germany (then as an afterthought tossing in America too. Note she is talking at a Jewish Heritage day celebration at the White House, and talking to a rabbi and two young men in skullcaps. This was not in the context of a foreign policy discussion - it was in the context of trying to offend some Jews who were bothering her by suggesting that the Jews of Israel should be sent back to death camp land.

Hypercallipygian (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Although Thomas does seem to suggest that European Jews who have immigrated to Israel should return to their countries of national origin, the context indicates that her primary concern is the political status of the Palestine region, not racial bigotry.

Certainly, Thomas was not suggesting that the Musta'arabi Jews leave Israel. Since they were native to the land of Israel, it would be nonsensical to suggest that they "return" to Europe.

It's also unlikely that Thomas would support the expulsion of Jews who migrated to Palestine prior to 1947 and legally purchased their land from the native inhabitants. Her primary concern here is the occupied territories, which refers either to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip or, more broadly, to the Arab lands and villages that were forcibly depopulated by the Israeli military following the 1947 UN Partition Plan and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what she said

"and added that Palestine is a country under occupation, whose occupiers should return home..." This line, added June 1, puts words in Helen's mouth. Helen never stated that Palestine was a "country", nor did she specify that it was "occupiers" who should return home. Helen's exact words are readily available on YouTube, so editors should refrain from "interpreting" her remarks. 72.130.181.15 (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it a bit to hopefully more accurately reflect her comments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Describing reactions

Is anyone going to object if the reactions of Bill Clinton special counsel Lanny Davis, and that of the Anti-Defamation League are included? Andjam (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)