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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Bob's comment, "The US has lost its sovereignty to a money-leaching, Middle
Eastern, religious state," in addition to being wildly inaccurate (and redolent
of references to "ZOG") goes pretty far towards traditional antisemitic 
stereotype (and I presume that he does not distinguish between "leech" and "leach").

"Racist state" is a fairly clear notion (and I grew up in one).  It's a state in
which one group defined by descent (i.e., you belong to it if and only if your
parents did) have legal privileges denied to others not so descended.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> ... 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> 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.