[Peace-discuss] Helen Thomas Asks A Question That Exposes Obama's Obseqiousness

Wed Feb 11 14:25:39 CST 2009

RE. You remark:

I sense that the religious population in Israel is at the very least  
no more extremist in a political sense than the secular population.  
That includes the so-called "ultra-orthodox."

Are there not polls probing this?

Carl's remark re. the remark of Bob Palm that it "borders on anti- 
semitism" itself borders on a lax view of "anti-semitism". Palm was  
criticizing "Israel", its policies, and U.S. approval of them, not  
Jews per se. This is a familiar problem, that apologists for Israel in  
particular perpetuate.

Finally, calling Israel a "religious state" may be technically wrong,  
but in some sense it is true, in that calling oneself Jewish means  
attachment, if vague, to the religion and those who practiced it in  
history, even if not observing it, indeed even if atheistic or  
agnostic.  Israel indeed calls itself a state of the Jewish people.  
Perhaps Palm in his disgust and anger at Israeli behavior  went  
overboard. I think it can be excused on that basis.

The word "racist" is also problematical, in that it has no firm  
genetic basis for those described, but I accept the notion that it  
represents a separation from those who are in the club from those who  
aren't, i.e., the "other".

--mkb

On Feb 11, 2009, at 9:12 AM, David Green wrote:

>
> In fact, Avigdor Lieberman's ascendant and more openly racist party,  
> with its threat to deprive citizenship from Palestinian Israelis, is  
> not a party of the religious, radicalized or otherwise, but of  
> primarily secular Russian immigrants, many not of Jewish background  
> (not that that matters, except to them in terms of their right to be  
> buried in Israel). It's a complicated situation, and while my  
> understanding is superficial, I sense that the religious population  
> in Israel is at the very least no more extremist in a political  
> sense than the secular population. That includes the so-called  
> "ultra-orthodox." The radical religious settlers, a small minority  
> of both the overall religious and overall settler populations, may  
> already be or become a Frankenstein, but up to this point they've  
> been used to achieve expansionist goals, partly in their ability to  
> distract from more routine and ongoing expansion. As in  
> understanding our own country, we shouldn't let
> religious fundamentalism distract us from the economic  
> fundamentalism that drives the actions which we oppose.
>
> DG
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> To: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
> Cc: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:19:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Helen Thomas Asks A Question That  
> Exposes Obama's Obsequiousness
>
> I agree with your comment, Mort, but Rosenberg is surely wrong not  
> to "fault Obama," and it's outrageous to say, "Israel's nukes are  
> its number one deterrent against attack by Iran"!  Worse, "Bob's"  
> obtuseness borders on antisemitism (e.g., Israel is not a "religious  
> state," it's a racist state; most Israelis aren't religious).  --CGE
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> This is from another list-serve. One doesn't have to agree with  
>> what is written below, but Obama's (non-)response stuck out like a  
>> sore thumb, and
>> shook his cool demeanor. The obvious answer for the non-answer is  
>> that he
>> wants to protect our pet Israel and its policies. --mkb
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *Robert Palm <rpalm32 at yahoo.com <mailto:rpalm32 at yahoo.com>>  
>>> *Date:
>>> *February 10, 2009 3:24:36 PM CST * * *Subject: **[WBPF] Helen  
>>> Thomas Asks
>>> A Question That Exposes Obama's Obsequiousness* *Reply-To:
>>> *rpalm32 at yahoo.com <mailto:rpalm32 at yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> Israel won't brag much about their nukes except to threaten to use  
>>> them on
>>> Iran who may be working on getting nukes.  So if our boss Israel  
>>> doesn't
>>> want the US government to acknowledge Israel's nukes the US  
>>> won't.  But if
>>> Israel wants the US to get all excited about Iran's maybe nukes  
>>> then gosh
>>> darn the US will.  Israel rules the US. The US has lost its  
>>> sovereignty to
>>> a money-leaching, Middle Eastern, religious state. Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> The Huffington Post  February 10, 2009
>>>
>>> MJ Rosenberg Director of Policy for the Israel Policy Forum Posted  
>>> February
>>> 10, 2009 | 09:34 AM (EST) BIO Become a Fan
>>>
>>> Why Did Obama Diss Helen Thomas?
>>>
>>> I love Helen Thomas. During the past eight years she was the only  
>>> reporter
>>> who stood up to Bush, took on this rotten war, and, in general,  
>>> acted like
>>> a journalist. Last night, the great hall looked like it was  
>>> populated by a
>>> president, a reporter, and 11th graders from local high school  
>>> newspapers.
>>> I think I saw a cub reporter from the Dillon, Texas high school  
>>> paper.
>>> (sadly, not Lilah Garrity).
>>>
>>> Ms. Thomas' moment came when she asked the president about nuclear  
>>> proliferation. Her question ended with the query: does he know of  
>>> any Middle Eastern state with nukes?
>>>
>>> Why did she ask that? She asked it to see if Obama would refuse to  
>>> respond
>>> as previous presidents have. The answer is Israel, of course. And  
>>> everyone
>>> knows it. In fact, the State Department has published reams of  
>>> material
>>> about JFK's concern about the Israeli bomb. Israeli politicians  
>>> talk about
>>> it. Every Arab in the world knows about it. And Israel's nukes are  
>>> its
>>> number one deterrent against attack by Iran -- and everyone knows  
>>> that too.
>>>
>>>
>>> But Israel has a policy of not talking about its nukes in any  
>>> official capacity because acknowledging them might lead to Israel  
>>> having to sign the
>>> NPT and opening itself up to nuclear inspection.
>>>
>>> So Israeli Prime Ministers try (not always successfully) not to  
>>> acknowledge
>>> that Israel has a nuclear arsenal while ensuring that everyone  
>>> knows it
>>> does.
>>>
>>> That may be a sensible policy...for Israel.
>>>
>>> But why is it our policy? Why is the American president forbidden  
>>> from being honest on such a critical subject. Answer: there is no  
>>> reason, unless
>>> we are to believe that Israeli policy guidelines, by definition,  
>>> apply here
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> So why did Obama refuse to answer? Simple. Because if he did, the  
>>> media
>>> would have reported it as a gaffe. Reporters either know nothing  
>>> about the
>>> Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted Israel's  
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> Had Obama spoken the truth, the media would have made his  
>>> "blunder" the
>>> story of the night. He cannot afford that because, frankly, we  
>>> have more
>>> important things to worry about, like rescuing the economy.
>>>
>>> So I don't fault Obama. But I salute Helen Thomas. Next time she  
>>> should ask
>>> how he felt about those pictures that came out of Gaza. As the  
>>> father of
>>> those two precious girls, we all know how he felt. But it would help
>>> America in the eyes of the world if he'd just say it.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090211/fb669bc9/attachment.htm