Helen Thomas retires amid controversy over Israel remarks

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/gibbs-helen-thomas-remarks-off.html

Helen Thomas retires amid controversy over Israel remarks

Updated 12:50 p.m.
By Anne E. Kornblut
Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas announced Monday that she is retiring, effective immediately, in the wake of a controversy over her comments on Israel, according to a report from her employer, Hearst News Service.

Thomas told a rabbi at a White House event last week that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and go back to Germany and Poland.

"I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians," Thomas said in a statement on her Web site. "They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

Thomas's comments provoked sharp criticism within the close-knit world of White House reporters, and drew a rebuke from the White House podium Monday. With her seat conspicuously empty at the daily briefing, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs assailed Thomas for her words.

"Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible," Gibbs said, noting that Thomas has apologized. Her sentiments "do not reflect certainly most of the people here and certainly not those of the administration."

Thomas, 89, who has covered the White House for decades, canceled a speech over the weekend and was dropped by a speakers' bureau that represented her. The controversy comes at a precarious moment in the Middle East, after an Israeli assault on an aid flotilla that left 11 dead and prompted an international outcry.

The Board of the White House Correspondents Association also issued a statement Monday calling her comment "indefensible."

The full WHCA statement follows:

Helen Thomas' comments were indefensible and the White House Correspondents Association board firmly dissociates itself from them. Many in our profession who have known Helen for years were saddened by the comments, which were especially unfortunate in light of her role as a trail blazer on the White House beat.

While Helen has not been a member of the WHCA for many years, her special status in the briefing room has helped solidify her as the dean of the White House press corps so we feel the need to speak out strongly on this matter.

We want to emphasize that the role of the WHCA is to represent the White House press corps in its dealings with the White House on coverage-related issues. We do not police the speech of our members or colleagues. We are not involved at all in issuing White House credentials, that is the purview of the White House itself.

But the incident does revive the issue of whether it is appropriate for an opinion columnist to have a front row seat in the WH briefing room. That is an issue under the jurisdiction of this board. We are actively seeking input from our association members on this important matter, and we have scheduled a special meeting of the WHCA board on Thursday to decide on the seating issue.

Ed Chen, Bloomberg
David Jackson, USA Today
Caren Bohan, Reuters
Ed Henry, CNN
Julie Mason, DC Examiner
Don Gonyea, National Public Radio
Steve Scully, C-SPAN
Doug Mills, The New York Times

This post has been updated since it was first published.

 

Jeff Gannon/Guckert

Yet Jeff Gannon was given a free ride and no statement about that from the WHCA.

A Little Recent History On The Middle East We Tend To Forget

Helen was fired for incompetence and not for speaking the truth. Jews have lived in "Palestine" from time immemorial, witness that Jews constituted over 50% of the population of Jerusalem in the 1870s.

Once more, why is it Israel that nearly everyone thinks of when Palestine is mentioned. Palestine also includes Jordan, which is ruled by the Hashemite royal family who themselves are foreigners to Jordan; coming to Jordan from Saudi Arabia in 1921, yet no one says that the Hashemites should leave "occupied" Palestine and return it to the Palestinians.

The conflict in the Middle East is not between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it is between the Israelis and the Arabs. The Arabs want back the last piece of land won by the Allies in WWW I, that being Western Palestine, known today as Israel.

As for Jeff Gannon/Guckert, he worked for a Republican organization, not a 'legitimate' news organization.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Helen knows her history

Your use of the phrase "from time immemorial" and line of argument in general has me a figuring you've read a book best forgotten. As for the population of Jeruslam in 1870, the estimates I've seen put Jews at slightly under half, but that is only one city of a considerably larger region in which the vast majorty of the population was Christans and Mulsims. A couple decades later, with the encoragement of corprate barons and Dominionist Christians, European Jews started flooding the region. By 1947 they took up arms and ethnically cleansed the land of hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims and by mid 1948 declared the state of Israel. At that point the Arab states sent their armies in, but failed to prevent Israelis from driving out hundreds of thousands of more. That act of colonialism is the root of Israel/Palestine conflict, around three quarters of a million people driven from their homes en masse to create a state with an ethnically Jewish majority.

Furthermore, Palestine never included Jordan, but rather simply the Leauge of nations Mandate for Palestine incorprated Jordan (known as Transjordan then) into it as an autonomus region seprate from Palestine. As for why no one suggests the Hashemites should leave Jordan; try reading some human rights reports and see if you can spot the differences. Put simply, Jordanians are reasonably well off, while Israel maintains the world's largest open air prison in the Gaza Strip, and an apartheid-like regime in the West Bank as they condole expanding their colonization there. In doing this Israel is denying millions of peoples human and civil rights, and in flagrant violation of international law, as this list of UNSC resolutions details. Unfortunately, US veto power over the UNSC has long been exploted to prevent any honest effort to impose a peaceful solution.

The Israeli establishment today is of the same European origins as the first colonists, hence the reason Helen mentioned Germany, Poland, and the US in particular. That said, her comment was vulgarly disrespectful of the fact that most Israeli Jews today were born there, and hence can't rightly "go home" to anywhere else. Her retraction on the other hand sums up the situation well; "peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

For a better understanding of this matter, I recommend following Mondoweiss daily. If you take the time to look into the issue, I assure you that you will find the mainstream sources are nearly as bad about Israel/Palestine as they are with 9/11.

British Mandate For Palestine

Pavlovian,

The British Mandate for Palestine includes what is today Jordan. I'm not surprised you don't know this, considering the propaganda we're feed by the media/Arabs that equates Palestine with Israel only. Here is a map of Palestine under the British Mandate in 1920, which was formalized by the League of Nations in 1922. The British later divided the Mandate in 1923 into Palestine and Trans Jordan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine

As one can see, the British Palestine Mandate includes what is today Jordan. Maybe if you had actually read Joan Peters book (From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, pp. 234-41) you would have known this little known historical fact. For those interested in a book not steeped in historical amnesia on the issue of Palestine, I suggest the book: -- http://www.amazon.com/Time-Immemorial-Arab-Jewish-Conflict-Palestine/dp/...

The last I saw, the Israeli Arab population is 1.5 million (20.3 % of the total population in Israel), so I'm guessing the ethnic cleansing in 1948 was aimed at those areas considered militarily sensitive to the Jews.

Again, it must be remembered that the Ottoman Empire lost WW I. Britain and France, as Mandate Powers, were now charged with administering the Middle East area and its diverse populations. A Christian enclave was set up in today's Lebanon. Arab enclaves were set up in Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. A Jewish enclave was proposed for the Palestine Mandate, however 75% of the British Palestine Mandate was turned over to Emir Abdullah, leaving the Jews with a measly 25% of Palestine. Then the Jews are shafted again when the United Nations in 1947 agrees to partition Palestine, giving approximately a further 40% of the land to the Arabs! As one can see in the map in the link below, the 1947 UN suggested Jewish areas of Palestine are separated and undefensible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181

The above is instructive for those who say that powerful 'Jewish interests' control world events, going so far as to say it was the Jews who in 1917 installed the Bolsheviks in Russia! Well, if the 'Jews' can lose approximately 85% of the original Palestine Mandate, then what does that tell one about the conspiracy theory that Jews 'control' the world? It tells one that it is actually a conspiracy theory that is provably false and malicious!

Pavlovian says, "If you take the time to look into the issue, I assure you that you will find the mainstream sources are nearly as bad about Israel/Palestine as they are with 9/11."

I agree, the Media distorts the history of Western and Eastern Palestine, insinuating that Jews only arrived in Palestine after WW II. Jews never left Historical Palestine, and European Jewish immigration to Palestine was in progress before 1870 and before Zionism.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

For the love of God

Dean,

You start out with:

"The British Mandate for Palestine includes what is today Jordan. I'm not surprised you don't know this...."

In realty, not only have I long been aware of the fact that the British Mandate for Palestine included what is today Jordan, I mentioned it in the post you were replying to, and even linked to the same Wiki article you did. Considering that, I'm not even going to attempt to bother responding to the rest of your post, as you've made it clear that you're intent on remaining detached from reality here.

That said, I'm curious as to what motivates your position on this matter though. Do you believe Israel's ongoing conquest of what little is left of Palestine is necessary to bringing Jesus back?

Edit:

By the way, for those might not understand what prompted me to ask about theological motivation, please see here:

"A Pew Foundation poll shows 53 percent of Americans believe God gave Israel to the Jews. And 59 percent, according to a CNN/Time survey, agree paradise for Christians can only be achieved once Jews are in control of the Holy Land (which includes Palestine)."

Considering such statistics, I can't rightly help but wonder if that might be why Dean slandered me as having been mislead by "media/Arabs" propaganda. I wonder if he believes Arabs are behind the official 9/11 conspiracy propaganda too. :/

Palestine Confusion

Pavlovian,

In your earlier comment you say, "Furthermore, Palestine never included Jordan..." In 1920 there was an area called Palestine, it was called the British Palestine Mandate, which included todays' Jordan.

We are talking of the British Mandate for Palestine, granted by the San Remo Conference in 1920. That Mandate included todays' Israel, West Bank, Jordan and several other small areas. There is no historical Jordan included in the 1920 Mandate given to Britain. Jordan comes into the picture in 1921.

Pavlovian asks, "That said, I'm curious as to what motivates your position on this matter though. Do you believe Israel's ongoing conquest of what little is left of Palestine is necessary to bringing Jesus back?"

The Jews conquered nothing in the Middle East! It was the West that conquered the lands after the Ottoman Empire lost them in WW I. The Jews are defending what we in the West granted them. Those Christians who believe Jesus is on the way back better be wrong, because they are the same Christians that supported the war in Iraq that has resulted in the deaths of in-excess of 1 million dead Iraqis. My motivation for supporting Israel is simply the truth. I'm not ready for Jesus' return!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Again

As I said; Palestine never included Jordan, but rather simply the Leauge of nations Mandate for Palestine incorprated Jordan (known as Transjordan then) into it as an autonomus region seprate from Palestine, as seen here:

While all of that was the Mandate of Palestine, only the potion on the left of the Jordan river was ever considered Palestine, while to the right was called Transjordan at the time. Again, I'm curious to know; what motivates you to misrepresent this fact and so much else about the conflict? If it'is a matter of religious significance to you, I'd like to know so that I can be sure there is no point of attempting to engage you in rational discourse of the topic.

Clarification, Once More

Pavlovian,

I don't care what was called Palestine before 1920. Not even the Ottomans were sure of the borders. I only care about Palestine beginning after WW I.

Your map shows Palestine not in 1920, but AFTER 1920! Note the caption on the top of the map: British Mandate of Palestine. That caption is for the whole area between Egypt and Syria/Arabia. Now, in1921-22 Britain agreed to divide Palestine into two parts: Palestine and the new Trans Jordan. The link below shows the 1920 San Remo Mandate map (There was no Trans Jordan before 1921):

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/Israel%20in%20Maps/The%...

Your map of the British Palestine Mandate was approved by the League of Nations on 29 September 1923. Before 1921, the League of Nations designted Palestine as east and west of the Jordan River from the Meditterranean to Arabia and Iraq, and north and south from Egypt to Lebanon and Syria.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

You are only misrepresenting and obfuscating

Dean,

You cite the Israeli government? Do you want I should also look to our US government for information on 9/11?

Seriously man, here is the reality of the situation:

Bernard Wasserstein, 2004, pp. 105-106.: "In a telegram to the Foreign Office summarizing the conclusions of the [San Remo] conference, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, stated: 'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.' When Samuel set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan. Following the French occupation in Damascus in July 1920, the French, acting in accordance with their wartime agreements with Britain refrained from extending their rule south into Transjordan. That autumn Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be added to the Palestine mandate, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the Palestine mandate would not apply there. Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there - but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement.

Once more I ask, do you hold religious convictions in regard to this matter? I'll take further evasion of that simple question as a tacit admission that you do.

Oy vey!

Pavlovian,

why don't you email the United Nations and ask them to provide the 1920 San Remo Conference map of Palestine? Here's another map, since you think Israel is lying!

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_maps.php

Here's a discussion (forum thread) of Palestine with various maps of Palestine:

http://www.freebritannia.org/post?id=587931

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I know the Israeli government is lying, as they do constantly

Feel free to email the UN yourself, or just come to terms with what I quoted in my previous post, but no amount of Zionist propaganda can ever change the fact that the San Remo Conference didn't define any borders, let alone produce any map. That said, I'll leave you with a little something Jesus taught me:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. -John 8:44-45

Facts are Facts

Pavlovian,

I can understand a novice to 9/11 Truth having problems coming to terms with the truth of 9/11, but there is nothing to debate about the Balfour Declaration and the 1920 San Remo Conference map. There was NO Trans Jordan, nor any such thing as Jordan before 1920! The area was known as Palestine in the West. Just before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the area the West called Palestine in 1920 was a part of the southern district of the administrative area called Syria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ottoman_Syria_1918.png

The Ottomans didn't have a Palestine.

You need to learn how to distinguish fact from fiction on this matter.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Having eyes, see ye not?

Bernard Wasserstein, 2004, pp. 105-106.: "In a telegram to the Foreign Office summarizing the conclusions of the [San Remo] conference, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, stated: 'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.' When Samuel set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan. Following the French occupation in Damascus in July 1920, the French, acting in accordance with their wartime agreements with Britain refrained from extending their rule south into Transjordan. That autumn Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be added to the Palestine mandate, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the Palestine mandate would not apply there. Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there - but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement.

Time To Come To Terms

Pavlovian writes,

'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.'

And what's your point?

Once more, there was no Trans Jordan nor a Jordan during the Ottoman Empire. Come to terms with the fact that Palestine is a Western name given to the southern part of the Ottoman Empires' administrative area called Syria.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I've no interest in your terms, as i prefer truth

"Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. "

Why do you prefer defending Zionism over the truth?

To Remove By Cutting That Which Isn't There!

Pavlovian writes, "Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area."

The NEW nation of Trans Jordan was added to the 1920 Palestine Mandate by partitioning (dividing) the 1920 Palestine Mandate! Trans Jordan of course couldn't be excised in 1920, because she NEVER existed before 1920!

The fact that there was no Trans Jordan or Jordan before 1920 should clue you in that Palestine was only meant for the Jews. Trans Jordan came later, 1921-22, which means Palestine would necessarily have to be partitioned (divided), which she was.

San Remo Convention of 1920

Article 25.

In the territories lying between the Jordan [River] and the EASTERN BOUNDARY [emphasis mine] of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18. -- http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention

The San Remo Convention affirms that Palestine is also east of the Jordan River in 1920, which is the boundary line between Israel and Jordan today. Can it be any clearer?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Dean lies by claiming that which isn't there

I'm going to stop addressing Dean directly as his devotion to Zionism is obviously impervious to truth. That said, the San Remo Convention refers to "Palestine as ultimately determined" because the San Remo Conference didn't even attempt determine the boundaries of Palestine, as Bernard Wasserstein laid out the facts to prove in what I quoted from him in previous posts here. Furthermore, Dean's insanely bigoted suggestion that "Palestine was only meant for the Jews" is contradicted by the Balfour Declaration he mentioned earlier, which insists "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

Unfortunately, few Zionists have any regard for facts which contradict their ideology, but rather they generally contempt if not outright hatred for anyone who refuses to share their flagrant disregard for the truth, much like the goons over at JREF do in regard to 9/11. Granted, I've never seen anyone treat us truthers as horrifically as one can see deranged Zionists treating honest Jews here:

Delete

Delete

Of Boundaries and Bigots

Pavlovian,

the boundaries of British Mandated Palestine were not set because the boundaries of mandated Arab countries surrounding Palestine, such as Iraq, were still not set.

Pavlovian writes, "Furthermore, Dean's insanely bigoted suggestion that "Palestine was only meant for the Jews" is contradicted by the Balfour Declaration he mentioned earlier, which insists "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"."

My exact statement was, "The fact that there was no Trans Jordan or Jordan before 1920 should clue you in that Palestine was only meant for the Jews." The 1920 mandate was meant as the Jewish homeland only, which isn't saying only Jews could live there.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Warped History

Pavlovian,

Incorporated means to unite. There was never an intention to unite the Jewish homeland with Trans Jordan.

Pavlovian writes, "As for Deans bigotry, that is evidenced by his suggestion that a Jewish homeland could be made out of the whole region without violating the rights of the Christians and Muslims who constituted the vast majority of the population of the region at the time."

What whole region are you talking about? The Christians were given Lebanon. The Arabs were given Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria. In 1921-22, the Arabs were given more land when the original 1920 Palestine Mandate for a Jewish homeland was amended by taking 66% of the territory of the Palestine Mandate and giving it to the newly created Trans Jordan!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Helen was not fired ...

she retired ... and at age 89, she has served the public for longer than most and entirely deserves to depart at a time and in a manner of her own choosing ... her comments re Israel were just, well timed and well made ... three cheers for Helen Thomas

More Likely Forced Retirement

More Likely Forced Retirement.

I think the point she was generally making

was that Jews from around the world have migrated to Palestine, while we know that Palestinians who would like to return to their homeland cannot return. I for one am very sorry to see Helen Thomas leave. She has stood up to both bush and obama which few reporters have done. I think reporters are entitled to their opinion as long as they state it as such and do not try to call it reporting. Perhaps she could be recruited to the 911 Truth Movement, perhaps someone like Richard Gage, Steven Jones, or Robert Bowman could give her a call.

Helen was referring to far more than you suggest

Please watch this documentry:

Excellent Documentary

Thanks

Another geat documentary

This one is even older than the last, but still well worth watching:

Thank you for putting up this documentary

Thank you for putting up this documentary. It is the first time that I have seen it.

For peace, undo Israel create new laique state for Jews, Muslims

John MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,
thanks very much for this entry. The reasons for the 911 treason attacks are in part due to the Israeli's occupations.

For a good twenty years I think the only way to have peace in Israel is for the United Nations to undo the Israel State and etablish a new laique state where the Jews, Muslims, Christians, ... can live in peace together, like they did before 1947 in Palestine.

Yours

John

Are You Kidding?

John,

are you talking about the Hebron Massacre of 1929, where 67 Jews were killed? Or maybe you're talking about the 17 Jews killed on the first day of the so-called Arab Revolt (1936-39)? Ant that was just the first day of the revolt!

Or maybe you're talking about the April 1920 murders of Joseph Trumpeldor and others who were killed in the defense of Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee. These developments led to the founding of the Haganah on June 15, 1920.

Or maybe you're talking about the Deir Yassin massacre (even though that happened after 1947), where 100 Arabs were murdered by Jews?

In Israel (as in America and all nations), there are persons who believe that in war there is no such thing as discretion; all are combatants. If one's heart allows one to murder a child in time of war, there is nothing I can say to convince otherwise. However, allow me to add that one Israeli soldier did not kill a certain three-year Egyptian girl during the 1967 Sinai incursion. That child was handed over to the Red Cross, whom I met years later at University.

Am I the only one at 9/11 Blogger who will defend Israel? Israel doesn't have to be 100% perfect in her dealings with the Arabs in order to defend her, you know.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Ta for reply.Today there is state war,less peace than before1947

Bonjour Dean,
thank you very much for all your information. Firstly I would like to say that I would not vote down your entry as it is important to have all sides of the subject. Neither do I take it badly with "Are you kidding" because I know the more I learn the more I realise that I know so little.
Effectively just up to now, I ignored the events you mentioned
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_d%27H%C3%A9bron_%281929%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
and now I can say that I am better informed but being a simple citizen who has to work hard for his living I have not enough time to really read and follow up your points as I should. In the future I will try to find time to further research the subject ( incidentally if I win my struggle for the four day working week (mouv4x8)
http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/SOUSCRIP/Souscript1.htm
for everyone we will have the possibility to have a day a week to further study the world's history).

The large immigration of Jews to Palestine began before 1947 and this had created problems for the Arabs who were living there for centuries. The killings at that time were not a State program. With the creation of Israel, by the United Nations vote the 29 November 1947, the bulldozer to push the Arabs out of Palestine was legitimized and the state of perpetual war put in place. Massive immigration with a diminuing number of Muslims can only create a dangerous situation. I still think that comparing before and after 1947, before 1947 the Palestine was relatively peaceful.

For me, states come and go, but what is important is the populations living on the land. It seems obvious that the State of Israel is going to ethically clean the land it has already and the future land that it is going to steal. With a final event being a new Jewish temple at the place of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. A state nuclear powerful to extend even further. With all that I cannot see how there can be a lasting peace in the Middle East.

That is why I think that the state of Israel should be peacefully undone by the United Nations and a new laïque state for all should be put in its place. A state where there is no more apartheid and where all the religions can live in peace and harmony with an equal access to jobs, land, housing, water, etc

If I do not find it appropriate to defend the state of Israel, I think it is more important to defend the Jews, Muslims, etc in Israel who have a right to peace and prosperity. Of course there will always the minority who will try to keep the power, wealth, water , ... for themselves.

Sorry not to have enough time to do a better reply or pass it by an english corrector.

Yours

John

PS it is a pity that the zone subject is restricted to only 61 characters

More history, for the sake of context

While the violence Dean mentions is part of the history of the British Mandate period, so are many acts of violence commented by Zionists, of which one find some notable examples here. The murder of Jacob Israël de Haan in 1924 is particularly notable example, a benevolent anti-Zionist Jew who was ruthlessly assassinated under orders of the Zionist militia which went on to become the Israeli military.

Also, please note that while Muslims had long been the majority of the population of the region, at the beginning of the British Mandate period there were nearly as many Christians there as Jews, as can be seen in the British administrative records, this page in particular. One particularly tragic irony is that Christian and Muslim Palestinians are largely descended from people who lived in the region since pre-Biblical times, many of their ancestors having been Jews themselves.

Why Israel Is

mouv4x8,

one of the reasons for the state of Israel is that Jews and Arabs did NOT live in peace even during the Ottoman Empire. Jews and Christians were Dhimmi under Moslem rule. The main problem with Dhimmi status was in the legal realm. When a case pitched a Muslim against a dhimmi, the word of a Muslim witness nearly always carried more weight than that of a dhimmi. According to Hanafi jurists dhimmi testimony and oaths were not valid against Muslims. On the other hand, Muslims could testify against dhimmis. Jews and Christians could be murdered by a Moslem with no punishment for the Moslem.

A new state to replace Israel would mean an 'Arab' majority in the not too distant future* and the eventual return to Sharia Law and all that means for Dhimmi Jews living in the new state, including eventual rule by dictator/monarchy, which Jewish Israelis would rather die fighting against then live under, just like Americans.**

If Israel destroys the Al-Aqsa Mosque, then Israel will have to use nuclear weapons against an enraged Moslem world. Such an action would see the end of Israel, so you don't have to worry about the Al-Aqsa Mosque (for me the Al-Aqsa Mosque is a house of God, so I would be annoyed also. To destroy a house of God of one faith just to build another House of God of your faith is no way to ingratiate yourself with God! Such a move on the part of the Israelis would set into motion a Greek tragedy.).

I hope these few points clarify the need and purpose for an independent Israeli state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Current Israeli Jewish population is 5,660,700; current total Moslem population of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is approximately 4,598,417. The defense force in a new state would now be composed of a population of nearly 50% Moslem, which would sabotage the defense of the new state when its Arab nations invaded and reclaimed the area lost in WW I.

**All Moslem lands stretching from Morocco to Pakistan are ruled by direct descendents of the Prophet Muhammad. The top leaders/politicians/military/businessmen of these Moslem nations are all blood related; that is cousins/uncles/aunts/brothers/sisters. Few inside and outside the Moslem world (including Intelligence agencies) know this, so consider yourself a fortunate person!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Why Israel really is

While Dean is correct in saying Muslims had privileged status under the Ottoman Empire, his claims about the treatment of others are largely delusional. Furthermore, it wasn't Jews in the Middle East who started the Zionist movement, or even Jews at all for the most part, but rather WASP corporate barons and Dominionist Christians.

Anyway, judging from the grossly exaggerated notions of victimhood, I'm guessing I was wrong to assume Dean is a Christian Zionist, and rather it seems more likely now that he is Jewish. So I'll quote a little Tanakh which flies in the face of Zionism:

"Then he answered and spoke unto me, saying: 'This is the word of HaShem unto Zerubbabel, saying: Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit, saith HaShem of hosts." - Zechariah 4:6

Also, a song which I recommend for some spiritual healing:

Catch 22

Pavlovian says, "Furthermore, it wasn't Jews in the Middle East who started the Zionist movement, or even Jews at all for the most part, but rather WASP corporate barons and Dominionist Christians."

Response:

Where did I say Zionism was started by Middle Eastern Jews? The term Zionism was coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1890, however European Jews were going to Palestine by the 1810s.

Pavlovian says, "...his [Dean] claims about the treatment of others are largely delusional."

Response:

The Hanafi School, which represents the vast majority of Muslims, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi. In other schools of Islamic jurisprudence the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money; no death penalty was possible. For Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, the value of a dhimmi's life was one-half the value of a Muslim's life; in the Shafi'i school, Jews and Christians were worth one-third of a Muslim and Zoroastrians were worth just one-fifteenth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

Now the Hanafi School does say that the murder of a dhimmi by a Muslim must be punishable by death (and it is good to see that the Prophet Muhammad said that!*), however we have a problem here because according to the same Hanafi jurists dhimmi testimony and oaths were not valid against Muslims! So unless the witness to the murder of a dhimmi by a Muslim is a Muslim, and that Muslim is brave enough to point the accusing finger at another Muslim, the dead dhimmi's family saw no justice. Classic 'Catch 22' situation, not unlike the experience of Black Americans before and after the Civil War.

Pavlovian, I'm Roman Catholic! I was born in England to Irish (Republic of Ireland) Catholic parents, which makes me 100% ethnic Irish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Prophet Muhammad also freed his slaves as an example to all Muslims (In total his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves).

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Zionism has nothing to do with God

Dean fails to consider many facts in his defense of Zionism, the fact that more than one-third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land being but just one example.

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

You shall not steal

You shall not murder

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

You shall not make for yourself an idol

You shall have no other gods before Me

Zionism is nothing but an idol for which heathens covet, steal, murder, and bear false witness for in their deranged quest to serve that golden calf in rejection of God.

Native Land Rights

Pavlovian,

I'm shocked. Imagine, a nation being so underhanded and unscrupulous! Certainly Israel must be the first nation in history to be devious when dealing with native land rights. I mean European Americans were certainly fair to American Indians! And America was very reasonable towards Mexico! America only wanted California, Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico. That wasn't too much, was it?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Ah, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument

Idolatrous freaks incessantly appeal to such demonic tripe. May God have mercy on your tormented soul.

Brian, Exactly how many wrongs make a right?

I usually find your input to be at a much higher standard. In my opinion you are not being objective in this matter. Peace,

Hypocritical

peacefulwarrior writes, "In my opinion you are not being objective in this matter."

Response:

I'm the only one here being objective. As I said, I understand why the Arabs want returned to the Arab fold the territory Israel sits on, and I understand their rationale, however, that doesn't mean I agree with the Arabs on this issue. The Ottoman Empire lost WW I, and Britain and France were the winners and mandate powers. The mandate powers created Arab, Jewish and Christian homelands in the Middle East. Therefore Israel remains as is. I will not call for her destruction, or her incorporation into an Arab entity.

The descendents of the Prophet Muhammad want Israel gone as a political entity, well I'm not a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad.

This dumping on Israel is totally hypocritical. You want to know how I know that? Here's how: In 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus and is still there. Where is the international outrage for Turkey's illegal war of aggression and occupation?

180,000 Greek Cypriots were evicted from their homes in the north of Cyprus. Around 150,000 settlers from Turkey are believed to be living in the north in violation of the Geneva Convention and various UN resolutions, but no outrage.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Come on Brian what's the point really?

There is plenty of injustice in the world so let Israel inflict it's rightful share? The descendents of the Prophet Muhammad want Israel gone? Well they are misguided aren't they. Muhammand was known as a peacemaker! Many muslims seem to intentionally forget that small matter don't they. "the mandate provides arab, jewish and christian homelands in the middle east." How should that be accomplished? What are the rightful boundaries and how should that be worked out? By war, by occupation or blockades, walls, etc? Israel sits on because of the United States period. We gave them the illegal nuclear weapons, and they are a fort in the sand to protect the US interest in the middle east. They get to risk jewish blood to defend the greater empire. What is your real motivation in this matter? Why do you feel so strongly about defending injustice in this case? I try not to be a hypocrite, I am of Italian heritage but I never celebrate Columbus Day! I think the US owes the American Indians anything they want and if it would raise their status above the rest of us that would be fine with me. Both the US and the State of Israel are guilty of inflicting terrorism in the world and in my opinion there can never be a justification for such behavior.

Albatross Would Be A Better Description

peacefulwarrior writes, "Both the US and the State of Israel are guilty of inflicting terrorism in the world and in my opinion there can never be a justification for such behavior."

Response:

Many nations other than the United States and Israel use terrorism/war to achieve policy goals, so why single out Israel?

The Prohet Muhammad was a peacemaker AFTER he conquered territory for Islam, just as the Romans brought peace AFTER they conquered a territory. The United States brought peace between Indian tribes and between Europeans and Indians AFTER the conquest of the Indians. Notice how here in America the Sioux no longer attacks the Crow, or the Apache no longer attacks the Comanche.

The boundaries in the Middle East were already worked out.

Israel is a sovereign state, not a Western fort. The forts that the West are building in that part of the world are in Iraq and Afghanistan, not Israel! If anything, Israel is an albatross to Western interests in the Middle East!

peacefulwarrior writes, "What is your real motivation in this matter?"

Response:

Since I believe Western civilization to be superior to all others, this truth guides my political observations. Arab Muslims understandably are guided by the truth as expressed by the Prophet Muhammad. Allow me to also add that it was the Ottoman Empire that declared war on the Allies during WW I, which means Israel is not only a child of the West, but a legitimate child of the West.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I never singled out Israel!

Muhammad was a peacemaker long before he even became a prophet. I know of no real conquered territiory he claimed exclusively for Islam. He showed a generous amount of tolerance for all religions after conflicts ended. Tolerance that other leaders both arab and jewish never did.

What exactly is it about Western Civilization that you find so superior to all others? As far as I am concerned all modern warfare including WWII and even before that time reflect manipulation for profit by bankers and weapon manufacturers period. Your kidding yourself about Israel not being a fort in the sand for the " established" interest of the US and it's allies. However the new forts you mention in Iraq and Afghanistan do result in some obsolescence accuring to the Israeli camp.

" The boundaries in the Middle East were already worked out" yeah by who? and even then Israel would never honor the original boundaries would it?
What I find most reprehensive is how Israel says it wants peace but it really just wants the land. At the end of the day it seems it will get it too! As the US continues to let the expansion and expulsion take place without regard to human rights. Now that's a surprise eh?

Israel, Muhammad and the West

peacefulwarrior writes, "Muhammad was a peacemaker long before he even became a prophet."

Response:

In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for them at Badr.[106] Aware of the plan, the Meccan caravan eluded the Muslims. Meanwhile, a force from Mecca was sent to protect the caravan, continuing forward to confront the Muslims upon hearing that the caravan was safe. The Battle of Badr began in March of 624. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not dumping on Muhammad, he was merely spreading the new faith.

peacefulwarrior writes, "What exactly is it about Western Civilization that you find so superior to all others?"

Response:

The Democratic ideal that infected Western civilization, thanks to Athens, reminding us that though we may commit evil acts we must nonetheless strive to be noble towards all. This Democratic ideal was transferred to Rome (Roman aristocrats were always trying to outdo each other in nobility), finally to us today.

peacefulwarrior writes, "The boundaries in the Middle East were already worked out" yeah by who? and even then Israel would never honor the original boundaries would it?"

Response:

Worked out by the West, of course. We won WW I after the Ottoman Empire declared war on the Allies. Actually the Jewish community in Israel did accept the UN partition plan, it was the Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee who refused.

peacefulwarrior writes, "What I find most reprehensive is how Israel says it wants peace but it really just wants the land."

Response:

I agree. Israel knows there can be no peace because the blood descendants of the Prophet Muhammad who rule the Muslim world want back the land the West gave to the Jews in 1920-23.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Brian you're making less sense all the time!

Muhammad was a peacemaker long before he even became a prophet.................As a business man long before he was a prophet representing his first wife he was known as a great negotiator among many clans which involved making peace among them

We won WW I after the Ottoman Empire declared war on the Allies. Actually the Jewish community in Israel did accept the UN partition plan, it was the Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee who refused..............under what authority was this undertaken? Oh the old to the winner belongs the spoils? no wonder war will never end. How barbaric is that? My real point was that Israel would never today accept the original boundaries so what's the point of saying the original boundaries meant anything with or without recognized authority to make such boundaries.

Israel knows there can be no peace because the blood descendants of the Prophet Muhammad who rule the Muslim world want back the land the West gave to the Jews in 1920-23...................perhaps that is the case...........but any real chance for peace has been sabotaged by Israel because of the policies regarding the west bank and east jerusalem.

The Democratic ideal that infected Western civilization, thanks to Athens, reminding us that though we may commit evil acts we must nonetheless strive to be noble towards all. Yeah right strive to be noble to all.........you must be kidding ...............................

At the end of the day the Palestinian people have been suffering for many years at the ruthless hands of Israeli leaders. When an Israeli leader begins to show some measure of conscience what happens? he is killed.........There will never be peace as long as stubbron, elitist attitudes exist.

Insurance

peacefulwarrior writes, "Muhammad was a peacemaker long before he even became a prophet.................As a business man long before he was a prophet representing his first wife he was known as a great negotiator among many clans which involved making peace among them."

Response:

So?

peacefulwarrior writes, "How barbaric is that?"

It's not barbaric. It's called administration and insurance. After the end of the Ottoman Empire there were no governments, and the Allies were going to try to ensure whatever new Arab governments were set up would be friendly to the West.

peacefulwarrior writes, "There will never be peace as long as stubbron, elitist attitudes exist."

Response:

There will never be peace until Arabs accept Israel, which one day they will, but it will be a phony peace. Again, once Islam takes land, the land must not be lost. If it is lost, Islam will always attempt to reclaim it.

peacefulwarrior writes, "Yeah right strive to be noble to all.........you must be kidding ................."

Response:

In the fifth century BCE, the [Roman] republican magistracies were monopolized by aristocrats called patricians. This caused great tensions with two other groups: the poor, who had to appeal to a patrician judge against arbitrary decisions by patrician magistrates (e.g., consuls), and the rich non-patricians, who were supposed to fight in battle and to pay taxes, but were not allowed a vote in the decision about war and peace or to oversee the spending of their money.

In c.490 BCE (or, to use the Varronian chronology, which is too often confused with our era, 494), these two groups united and demanded political rights. From now on, the opposition was called the plebs. They created the 'anti-magistracy' of the tribunus plebis, who was to defend the rights of the non-patricians. In a lex sacrata (sacred law), the plebeians swore that they would defend the tribune's person at all costs, which made him sacrosanct (i.e., he could not be attacked by the patrician magistrates). This enabled him to veto (forbid) measures by consuls, sentences by praetors and financial decisions by quaestors. After a brief struggle, the patricians recognized the two (later ten) tribunes, but demanded that they would not veto military decisions. -- http://www.livius.org/to-ts/tribune/tribune.html

Once bitten, the Democratic germ can't help but spread!

For modern day examples, witness the Magna Carta and what the signing of that document led to not only in England, but throughout the world.

For an even more modern example witness the Civil Rights movement in America.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

later dude

you're never going to be objective , I tried to reason with you. The sad part is you have tainted all your comments and opinions which I used to respect with the propaganda you have endorsed and set forth in this thread. Your refusal to handle this discussion without any sense of proportion or honesty is characteristic of the Israeli unauthenic positions they promote and the continued tragic misaligned endorsement (for the entire world's sake) of the U.S. I am leaving the sand box, play by yourself.

Subjectivity Not Objectivity Rules

peacefulwarrior writes, "you're never going to be objective ,"

Response:

There is no objectivity to the issue. That's what you and persons like you don't understand. The Arabs have their reason for waging war against the Jews/Israel since the San Remo Conference of 1920. The Jews/Israelis/West have their reasons for the existence of the State of Israel.

The same is true for the Cold War that is still being fought. The Soviets/China have their view of the world, while we in the West have ours. Telling the communists in Moscow that they are wrong (not being objective) is beside the point. They believe they have an historical mission to accomplish.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

A Solution That Is Pleasing To God

mouv4x8

Is the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque the only way to rebuild the Temple? Remember, Herod's temple was both a massive expansion of the Temple Mount platform and a major expansion of theTemple!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod's_Temple

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Rabbi Weiss calls for a one state for Jews, Musulms, ... video

John MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

bonour,
I refound a very good video I saw years ago, titiled "Rabbi Weiss, Outside Annapolis Peace Confab, Rips Zionism " who calls for a one state for Jews, Muslims, etc

Yours

John

Yeah, Rabbi Weiss is a mensch

("mensch" being Yiddish for "a particularly good person")

On the other hand, note how Dean appeals to a collective consciousness with statements like "we tend to forget" and by asking others to "remember" what they might never have known about before. Such is the voice of Legion, as they are many.

Why Israel Is

mouv4x8,

when Jesus returns (without the aid of megalomaniac Christians, thank you very much) that certainly will be possible. Until then, Israel remains a political entity.

Read my earlier comments to you and Pavlovian as to why Israel is.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Zionism is harmful to peace, the Jews and the rest of the world

Bonjour
your comments did not really inspire me but your video made me think about the Dr Who générique which I saw when I was young (see annex 1) Dr Who incidently travelled through time and the universe and was obviously as a time lord above the quarrels of religion and land.

In reading your text I think at least we do agree that Zionism is harmful to peace, the Jews and the rest of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

°1 _ _ _ _

It's Not Zionism, It's Land

mouv4x8,

the Arabs want the land lost in WW I back. If Zionism didn't exist, the Arabs would still want the land lost in WW I.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

at this moment the Arabs are hanging onto very little they have!

John MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

at this moment the Palestinians are ddesperately hanging on to the very little land they have. And not before long they will de driven into the sea and have nothing left at all ! That is the real problem and why the United Nations must undo Israel and create a State where Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc can live in peace.

Yours

John

PS can't we have a subject zone a bit larger ? Sixty one characters is too small to put a decent title ?

The Peace of Institutional Servitude

mouv4x8,

as I commented earlier the problem isn't the Palestinians. The Palestinians were thrown into the spotlight after Israel took the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Before 1967 the Arabs never thought to make the West Bank and Gaza a Palestinian homeland, did they?

Israeli Jews will not live as Dhimmis in a Moslem state. You seem to believe that Peace is a solution here. Well, here in America there was peace before the Civil War when slavery existed. What do you think of that peaceful state? Is that your ideal of living justly, or would you go to war to free the slaves?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

For the record

If Dean's "megalomaniac Christians" comment was intended to be an allusion to me, he's way off. I'm not even a Christian, or an adherent of any particular religion, but rather a student of many teachers. Through such education, I've become aware of and revolted by how the megalomaniacs who run our establishment deceive the masses into servitude by expropriating the teachings of honorable and wise men such as Jesus to lend false credence to debauchery and injustice. In that regard, a quote which I'd want the Truth Movement to feature prominently, were it not for the false connection between Islam and terrorism which our establishment has imposed on society:

"And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and falsehood perished: for falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish." - Qur'an 17:81

Delusion Not Allusion

Pavlovian,

what on Earth would make you think the comment "megalomaniac Christians" was meant for you?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

what I want to know is

How did Osama Bin Laden recruit an Israeli camera crew to photograph his attack on 911. Remember 911? We used to talk about it sometimes on this site.

http://911blogger.com/about

About
General Information

911blogger.com started out by filling a void in the blogger community by covering 9/11 related alternative news. There are now plenty of blogs that do this. 911blogger will continue to cover 9/11 related news, but will now broaden its mandate to cover similar events in recent, and not-so-recent history, like the OKC bombing, the 1993 WTC bombing, and the assassinations of high profile figures in the 1960s, in order to educate people new to the issues raised in such dramatic fashion on 9/11.

Philosophy

We align ourselves and agree with the philosophy laid out by other 9/11 Truth groups such as the Mission Statement of 911Truth.org and the Code of Conduct of We Are Change. The basis of these philosophies are also expressed through the examples of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

See also:
Welcome to 911blogger!