But she looks so kind.On Breitbart some wag said "Shouldn’t she be baking children in an oven in a house made of candy in the woods somewhere?"Funny, because I was thinking along the lines of Snow White's stepmother, polishing the poisoned apple.
I listened to what this lady had to say and at no point did I hear her say that the Jews should get out of Israel. What she said was that the Israelis are occupying the land of Palestine and should get out of it. Now, if you want to equate Israel and Palestine, that’s fine but I don’t think that that was what the lady was doing.Now when people are illegally occupying land that does not belong to them it does not seem unreasonable that they should be asked to leave that land. The lady suggests that these illegal settlers should return to where they came from. That does not seem to be a terribly evil suggestion. Nobody objected when it was suggested during the Second World War that the Germans in France, Poland, Russia, Greece, etc should go back to Germany. So, if someone comes from, let us say, New York and illegally acquires land in Palestine why should it be considered so horrific if it suggested that this person goes back to New York?The United Nations has been telling the Israelis to leave the occupied territories since 1967 and Israel has just been ignoring the UN. Zionists like to use the UN as the basis of their state (Israel) since it was the UN which voted for “a Jewish state”. However, Zionists only like to use the views of the UN when it favours them.An infamous Zionist expression was that Palestine was a land without a people. This lady is reminding modern-day Zionists that Palestine is not a land without a people and that these people have rights and that the Israelis are illegally trampling on these people’s rights.
Thanks Mike for saying all this.
It would help a great deal if the Palestinians would quit lobbing rockets over into Israel, and cease all contact with known terror groups..hey wait..isn't Hamas a known terror group??No negotiantions with terror groups..Like living next door to a known Mafiosa..And from what I understand Israel did give Gaza back..Sara
Mike"Nobody objected when it was suggested during the Second World War that the Germans in France, Poland, Russia, Greece, etc should go back to Germany. "Firstly, in your example Germany was the aggressor. Here the neighbouring Arab countries were. The state of Israel was formed, not by an invading army but by UN mandate. It is a perfectly legal entity.Secondly, following the 2nd WW a peace was arrived at. We are no longer formally at war with these countries.It went like this:military aggression > war > winner > loser > surrender > peace agreement > peace.The Israel situation is different.The Arab aggressors, following an unexpected defeat remain formally at war with Israel.They have refused to make peace.The West Bank and the Gaza strip were annexed by a country at war as buffer zones. It would be madness to surrender these until there is a peace agreement.If Germany had not reached a peace agreement with us but preferred to remain formally at war, do you suppose that we might be occupying key strategic areas of Germany?I think we would and that would be perfectly responsible and proper if Germany was still hostile.This has been going on for so long now that people are forgetting how the West Bank and Gaza came to be annexed by Israel and why they remain so. The Palestinian arabs are the victims of leaders who are motivated more by a nihilistic hatred of Israel than a love of their own people who they prefer to use as weapons, either literally in the form of human bombs, or as propaganda tools.No time here to elaborate, but I would also draw your attention to the treatment the Palestinian arabs get from Lebanon and Egypt.Help their oppressed 'brothers' much? Nah. Keeping them coralled in their ghettos makes a better photo op.
If you are interested in a brief, readable 'digested version' of these events see here
Also, I want to make the point that Helen Thomas was not talking about the occupied territories but about the entire State of Israel.She said "they should go home" NOT to Israel proper, but to "poland, Germany...wherever they came from".It is the presence of the State of Israel as a whole that she is objecting to and referring to as an "occupation" of Palestinian land. So, if we are going to apply Helens standards consistently, Americans, how about you "Go home" to Europe? How about Californians and Texans quit their 'illegal occupation' of Mexican land?
This is all so very confusing to me...I thought the "state of Israel" was part and parcel of our policy;that's up for debate, I guess.But why is Helen Thomas making these statements? What is really going on here?It can't be a mistake; there is more here than meets the eye.The whole Palestinian question, which is a touchy subject, even within the Vatican (although both Pope JP II and Pope Benedict have made it clear that the rights of the Palestinians are to be respected), combined with the "terrorist" issue, is just difficult to understand.Go back to Germany and Poland?Tell that to the Brits and Americans who forged this whole "state of Israel".I have no idea what this all means.I'll just pray...hard!
Because this administration condemned Israel's actions, Helen Thomas has concluded that her statements are endorsed. Either that or she's losing it.
Clare, you wrote:"So, if we are going to apply Helens standards consistently, Americans, how about you "Go home" to Europe? How about Californians and Texans quit their 'illegal occupation' of Mexican land?"My point exactly - in the US we also have an entire culture supressed - the Native American. Thanks
In addition - take the following quiz provided by Denis to test how much you really know about Palestine.http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=1&item=9250
I admit upfront I have not been following much of the chatter on this incident. Today I read my first full article vs a quick glance at one, and heard the Thomas clip Akin offers within his reflection. The link is posted below.Jimmy Akin does all of us a favor by helping his reader to understand the words that are being tossed around and raises some other necessary questions.I know through experience that in some circles if a person holds anti-Zionist beliefs, they are then labeled an anti-semite, but as Jimmy Akins questions, is that appropriate? What some people don't understand is that there are Jews who are anti-Zionist. I believe in the last few years the Vatican has issued a statement or two on anti-Zionism, and per this document at the Jewish virtual library — http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/italytime.html—one Vatican statement in 1989 did distinguish between anti-semitism from anti-Zionism, but also acknowledged that anti-Zionism at times "serves ... as a screen for anti-Semitism, feeding on it and leading to it."http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-zionism.htmlhttp://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19890214&id=RGcaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zysEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5326,5314875ATKINS' reflection:http://www.ncregister.com/blog/is_helen_thomas_an_anti-semite/Here is another question, if one is against ss marriage, are they homophobic?Oh, know too I don't like the reporting style of loud mouth, nasty jrnlst, no matter their age or background.
Just a different twist on this, how about we pray for "the guy next to her?" I'm sick of hearing about "pray for the poor pope. He's being persecuted," blah, blah, blah...He gets prayed for at least once every mass, but do we prayer for the president? Honestly pray, by name, instead of making snide remarks and bashing him? Our civil authorities need just as much prayer, if not more, than the pope. I don't agree with everything he says or does, anymore than I did with the Bush Bros. But is it meet, just, right and our bounden duty to bash the president as it is not to bash the pope? Seems it is to me.
Aceman: Dittos. I'm on it. Great advice!
I am no way endorsing Helen Thomas' comments.I just found this and want to share it; the plight of Christians in the Middle East, esp. in Israel, is a real concern.Somehow, we have to balance an "anti-Semite" stance with the hatred of the Palestinians,http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177619
Father, I don't think he could ever top all of W's vacation time. I'm just sayin....Aceman is precisely right. It would be rather difficult for our President to "go back" to a place from which he never came.As far as the rest of it goes, of course there has been aggression on both sides. It is helpful, however, to step back and "compare suffering," so to speak. Are the Israelis blockaded? I think not. As far as the control of Gaza goes, they are most certainly the aggressors. I think that sometimes they intentionally provoke missile attacks and such so that people will blindly take their side.Something else that worries me about American's perceptions of the conflict... the Israelis are too much like us. We can sympathize. "Oh look, those nasty Arabs bombed a shopping center!" Same suburbian values, different continent.
".... Israelis ... As far as the control of Gaza goes, they are most certainly the aggressors. I think that sometimes they intentionally provoke missile attacks and such so that people will blindly take their side..." ThomThe June 4th issue of the WSJ had an insightful article on the flotilla ... in my mind I wondered who the "aggressors" were "Free Gaza" activists or Israel in this incident. This statement does not negate your statement about "sometimes" they intentionally provoke, but I would like to know of specifics you might be recalling your mind. I agree many "blindly" take sides and I await for the Pope BXVI's issued report to be made available for reading. My humble opinion is that the Christians in the Middle East have it coming at them from many sectors, but they do not do themselves any favor when they cannot get along with other Christian groups either. They are divided among themselves and the world sees that too.
fwiw, the Pope has already unequivocally condemned the attack.
This is what the Pope said:“With great trepidation I followed the tragic events that occurred near the Gaza Strip.Again I say with a heavy heart that violence does not solve disputes, but increases their tragic consequences and generates more violence.“I appeal to those who have political responsibilities, locally and internationally, to relentlessly seek just solutions through dialogue, to ensure the people of the best living conditions, harmony and serenity,”Not exactly an "unequivocal condemnation", nor is it partisan.Did he say anything else that I missed?
I should say that since the Pope condemned the violence, he condemned the attack.... That seems pretty common sense to me.Also (from catholic.org story lifted from Zenit.org):For his part, the parish priest of Gaza, Father Jorge Hernandez, said in statements on Vatican Radio that "evidently it was a crime that could have been avoided.""It was not necessary to go so far, as there were means to act in a peaceful manner," he said. The priest explained: "This causes many problems. The reaction of the Palestinian people here, in Gaza, is anger. "This is the atmosphere one breathes in Gaza: an atmosphere of vengeance for what has happened." He expressed the fear that this attack might spark violence in Gaza, which will in turn fuel a reaction from Israel. "We already know it," he said, "violence calls to violence. I think that this will evidently bring consequences." For Father Hernandez, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is grave. He reported: "The lack of products makes prices rise sky high. "Medicine and other basic goods are very expensive. I would also like to say that the situation worsens day by day." The priest's message from his small church in Gaza is: "Peace is not attained with violence. This is not the appropriate way!"
Thom"It is helpful, however, to step back and "compare suffering," so to speak."Although undoubtedly well intentioned, this kind of comment makes me groan.It's not at all helpful to compare suffering, that's not an objective standard.Israel is still waiting for a peace treaty since 1967 when it won a war that it did not invite.The Paestinians have rejected an offer of 97% of what they were demanding.What other country is required to be so generous to a sworn enemy that has been defeated after provoking a war?
I notice you ignored my response to your first inquiry.
ThomAre you referring to me?I don't follow?
Yeah.You said:Not exactly an "unequivocal condemnation", nor is it partisan.Did he say anything else that I missed?And so I responded.
My enquiry was whether the Holy Father had said anything other than the quote I gave.You responded with your own take on what the Pope said.I think you spun the Popes comments somewhat when you said he had unequivocally condemned Israels "attack".I'm still wondering whether he said anything else that would better represent the "unequivocal condemnation" of Israel that you mentioned.These things can sound diffeent to different ears, which is why I wanted his actual words rather than a summary of what he meant.I'm almost completely indifferent to the Gaza priests comment, not because I don't believe him, but that rent-a-quotes are 10 a penny over there on every side of the issue.
I thought the Pope's statement was pretty clear. Perhaps not. Perhaps he meant "violence, except that violence used by the Israelis"Who knows.As far as the Gaza priest goes, I'd give him a lot of credit. He is shephering the Church in one of the most hostile environments in the world. That alone gives him a lot of credibility in my book.
ThomI'm sure the pope didn't mean "violence, except that violence used by the Israelis"That would be silly wouldn't it.I read his remarks as those of a father to his children.I have four sons. Sometimes they fight. It's complicated. Sometimes the noisy, aggressive one is not the initiator, he may even be more wronged than the quiet one who is busy stirring up trouble and orchestrating a drama. Sometimes I might say ( quietly on the side) to the one nursing a bloody nose "you had it coming". Not to exonerate the thumper (who will also feel my wrath lol!)But just because one came off physically the worse, doesn't absolve them of wrongdoing.I might remind them that fighting solves nothing and makes everything worse, that there is a more excellent way which involves conquering our maddening egos and many other little deaths. But I am asking something of them that is humanly speaking, impossible. Only the grace of God enables us to love like that.So when I read the Popes words"violence does not solve disputes, but increases their tragic consequences and generates more violence"I wholeheartedly agree. Rather than an unequivocal condemnation of one party, it sounds like something I would say to my scrapping children.
Having served in the Middle East i kinda understand the mentality...everyone know that if you throw a rock at Israel they respond with machine guns...the people on the boat KNEW they were being boarded by Israeli troops, not pirates. Everythign would have been ok if they would have followed instruction from the soldiers. However they attached the soldier with bats and other weapons...the Israeli soldiers responded with military force.I remember getting in a conversation over a beer with an individual who asked me how I dealt with the rock-throwers in Iraq. I said you don't give them a chance to pick up a rock...the person pestered me, saying well it might only be a dirt clod...Well I replied, it may also be a grenade, and once one person starts throwing rocks then you're pelted with a bazillion rocks. The you really hae to start shooting. Set an example so that other moms tell their kids, "Don't even pick up dirt clod around soldier."The Israeli soldiers did the right things...when civilians decide to attack solders then they become soldiers. You hesitate because you don't want to kill civilians, you run the risk of your entire squad being killed. And no I don't feel bad, because the civilians made the bad choice. They disobeyed and attacked the soldiers. If they were truely on a humanitarian mission they would not have attacked the soldiers.Sara
Thanks Sara - it is great to have your perspective on this stuff.
Holy See Calls for End to Gaza BlockadeRecommends Investigation of Israeli AttackVATICAN CITY, JUNE 7, 2010 (Zenit.org).- As the forced isolation of the Gaza Strip again drew international attention last week -- due to an Israeli attack May 31 on ships carrying in aid -- the Holy See joined its voice to that of those calling for an end to the blockade.Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Holy See's permanent observer at the U.N. offices in Geneva, addressed a session of the Human Rights Council to call for an impartial and transparent investigation of what happened a week ago. The May 31 attack resulted in at least nine deaths. "I intervened to follow the line expressed by the Holy Father, stating that violence does not give a constructive result," Archbishop Tomasi told Vatican Radio. "It's true, the violence of this attack must be condemned, above all because it took place in international waters and gives the impression that humanitarian rules and international law don't count. On the contrary, it is necessary that these rules be respected in favor of good relations with states."The Holy See representative cautioned that the long-range consequences of actions such at these are not foreseeable, and noted how everyone's sympathy is with the families of the victims. "At the same time it must be said and recognized that the state of Israel has the right to live and to defend itself; however, through dialogue, security can be attained based on respect for international law," the archbishop affirmed. "It is evident, after this incident, that the policy adopted on the isolation of the Gaza Strip cannot work, as above all it is necessary to give a positive answer to the essential rights of food, water, medicines and education for the people of Gaza."Archbishop Tomasi classified the incident as both a cause and consequence of the ongoing "political and military instability in the Middle East.""Hence," he urged, "we must encourage all in the international community and in the countries directly interested in working for a long-term solution, which cannot be any other at this time than that of a Palestinian state and a secure Israeli state, so that between the two, the rules of independence will be able to be respected and the door of collaboration opened."
"fwiw, the Pope has already unequivocally condemned the attack."So did you mean to say this archbishop had condemned the attack?
No, I stand by what I said yesterday. I just thought that this was a nice addendum.
I stand by my original comment: this is confusing, by all involved.The Palestinians do have rights; however, terrorism is not one of them.The Israeli's, as pissed off as they might be at times, do NOT have a right to lob mortars, grenades, bombs, what have you on civilian populations (even if they THINK they might be populated by terrorists).Where in the hell has "universal norms" of warfare gone? I mean, really?The Holy See is standing up for the rights of the civilians, many of whom have no way to defend themselves.There has to be a way to clear this up; terrorism is absolutely wrong; no question.But the Israeli government has got to get a handle on themselves.The Palestinians, and there are many Christians here among them, have got rights.And somebody, other than some thug terrorist, has got to speak for them.
Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.