By Matthew M. Hausman
Helen Thomas was finally brought down by a display of primitive antisemitism. Nobody could mistake for objective commentary her statements that the Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine,” that the Jews should “go back to” Germany or Poland, or that Israel’s existence constitutes the occupation of a country that never existed. Her comments conjured images of the “alien Jew” that was so much a part of classical European antisemitism. This was not the first time Thomas unfairly targeted Israel, only the most recent. Is there any doubt that if a news service stalwart were to speak as contemptuously of Islam or Arabs – or any other group held near and dear by the media establishment – the political left would be calling for his or her ouster? And yet, many pundits, commentators and bloggers are passionately defending Thomas, arguing that her free speech rights were violated when she was forced to retire.
Those who attempt to disguise antisemitic expression as neutral political discourse reflexively invoke the First Amendment to shield themselves from criticism or sanction. They argue that such speech is constitutionally protected regardless of its content. However, the essential point ignored by many of these erstwhile commentators is that the First Amendment does not create a safe harbor for all manner of expression and does not apply to private citizens. Hateful words such as those uttered by Thomas are not protected because the First Amendment does not restrict private citizens, employers or entities from punishing odious speech. The First Amendment provides only that the government shall not abridge the right to speech. It does not require individuals or nongovernmental entities to tolerate conduct or expression they find offensive.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution unambiguously states that:
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This language is clear and concise and by its very terms applies only to the government, although not without exceptions. While the government generally may not censor the press or restrain expression, it is permitted to do so to protect the public welfare and national security. The government’s authority to regulate speech in the face of clear and present danger, for example, has long been recognized by the Courts. As noted by the Supreme Court in Shenck v. United States free speech does not include the right to “cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Indeed, the Court has steadfastly upheld statutes and executive orders restricting the right to speak and assemble when community peace and safety are threatened, particularly during times of war.
Thus, there are times when even the government has the right to suspend constitutional safeguards and restrict speech. However, such exceptions are not needed in the private sector because the First Amendment does not impose the same limitations on nongovernmental actors. Employers routinely restrict language they find disruptive in the workplace, and private associations and organizations often have rules of conduct that include penalties for offensive speech. The idea that individuals can utter racist, antisemitic or misogynistic comments with impunity is a fantasy.
Thus, if Hearst Newspapers finally felt compelled to punish Thomas for offensive remarks that evoked crass images of racial antisemitism, it was fully within its rights to do so. After all, her recent remarks were not a one-time event, but rather were the culmination of years of biased rhetoric that ultimately became impossible to ignore or deny.
During a White House press briefing only the week before, she referred to the flotilla raid by IDF commandos as “a deliberate massacre” despite irrefutable videotape evidence to the contrary.
The defense of Thomas by the political left should come as no surprise, particularly because her comments were aimed at Israel. However, treating her as a free-speech martyr ignores the undeniable fact that she was not penalized by the government, but by a private employer who apparently found that she had become a liability. There was absolutely nothing unconstitutional about her enforced retirement, and to argue otherwise evidences the willful ignorance of the left whenever Israel is the subject of discussion. And when the constitutional argument fades, those who defend Israel’s detractors often attempt to justify their disproportionate criticism by providing a revisionist historical framework.
In a recent Huffington Post column that attempted, among other things, to offer some historical context for Thomas’s comments, Paul Jay had this to say:
-
The American Zionist organizations at the time did not fight for a more open immigration policy to allow Jews into America; they lobbied furiously for the Jewish refugees to go to Palestine as part of a move towards the founding of a Jewish state.
‘As is well known, this state [Israel] was created in the process of expelling thousands of Palestinians from their lands, people who had nothing to do with the European genocide against the Jews.
“You cannot say the same about the Anglo-American countries that for much of the ’30s were quite happy to equip Hitler with cars and machinery. Quite content to shut their mouths as Hitler began an ethnic cleansing that would end in barbaric genocide.”
(“In Defense of Helen Thomas – Apologizing to Apologists,” The Huffington Post, June 7, 2010.)
In synopsizing the modern rebirth of history in this way, though, one must ask to whom this historical account is “well known,” considering that it is inconsistent with analyses of immigration patterns during the late Ottoman and British Mandatory periods, and leaves little if any room for the recognition that an indigenous Jewish population existed long before the arrival of Arab and Muslim immigrants from elsewhere, particularly during the later Ottoman period.
More troubling is the common tendency of Israel’s critics to analogize the Arab experience to the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany, a false syllogism that always seems to invade the discussion of whether excessive criticism of Israel is motivated by antisemitism. Ironically, such analogies always ignore the complicity of the Mufti and other Arab leaders in the implementation of Hitler’s Final Solution and in providing sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, as well as the traditionally harsh treatment of Jews in Arab society. Moreover, they ignore that only the Jews were targeted for extermination, and in fact had suffered genocidal massacres periodically throughout their history. At no time were the Arabs ever subjected to similar treatment.
However, inapposite historical comparisons are a red herring in the debate, which are employed to legitimize all criticism of Israel and impugn the integrity of those who challenge the antisemitic motivations underlying the disproportionate obsession with the Jewish State. If left-wing commentators were truly concerned about the nefarious conduct they attribute to Israel, one must wonder why they refuse to censure those regimes that really do violate human rights by quelling speech, oppressing minorities, torturing dissidents, murdering political opponents, and financing terrorism. Why do they not they criticize countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, where women are punished for being raped, where freedom of speech, religion and political expression are unknown, and where terrorists are idolized and terrorism is nurtured for export? Why do they not condemn Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority for inciting hatred or committing atrocities against Jewish and Arab civilians? The political left not only refuses to denounce such regimes, but often provides them with intellectual and moral support.
The real issue in the controversy surrounding Thomas is not freedom of expression, but rather the facile invocation of the First Amendment in order to insulate all criticism of Israel from objective analysis. It is ironic that the First Amendment is cynically called upon to shield outrageous denunciations of the only nation in the Mideast that values the same rights espoused by the U.S. Constitution, and which likewise guarantees freedom of speech and the press.
It is more ironic still how partisan political strategists defend hate speech on faux constitutional grounds but have no problem exhorting the government to abridge speech they deem unworthy of protection. The same ideologues that cite the Constitution to defend all expressions of anti-Israel animus would have the government enact a “Fairness Doctrine” to silence or blunt political speech with which they disagree. Even the enactment of hate crimes legislation, while perhaps well-intended, is an attempt to impose governmental regulation on speech – and on thought as well. The inherent danger is that such laws are often vague regarding what constitutes prohibited expressions, and concerning how future determinations will be made after statutory enactment.
It is certainly fair to question whether self-professed constitutional advocates who defend offensive speech when it is directed at Israel would grant the same latitude to political criticism of the Arab-Muslim world. Alas, however, the political left is quick to denounce such critical analysis as “Islamophobia” or ethnic bigotry. Indeed, in his attempts to delete the use of the terms “Jihad” and “Islamism” from the national dialogue on terrorism – while freely and inaccurately blaming Israel for the failure of the peace process – President Obama has shown how this bias can affect national policy.
The real issue is how the biased expressions of Thomas and other left-leaning critics of Israel can ever be defended on Constitutional grounds. Yes, people are free to speak their minds, but the Constitution only protects them from governmental backlash. It would be refreshing to read an honest, objective assessment of the scope of the First Amendment and the boundaries of its applicability in the wake of the controversy surrounding Thomas. However, the political left has little incentive to produce a commentary that would unmask as artifice an important verbal weapon in the battle to homogenize radical viewpoints for mainstream consumption.
Freedom of speech is certainly one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. But by misapplying a constitutional analysis to defend Thomas’s comments, her supporters are merely attempting to position her detractors as enemies of free speech. This is pure nonsense. None of Thomas’s critics denied her the freedom to speak her mind, regardless of how ignorant her comments may have been. However, her critics had the same right to label those comments as antisemitic, and her employer certainly had the right to demand her resignation. The episode illustrates how the rules of engagement are applied unevenly whenever Israel is the subject of debate, and how vigilance is required to level the playing field.
# # #
Personal feelings aside Narvey I am against your skewered and incorrect understanding of what we are about from a Jewish point of view, from a Zionist point of view and from an historical point of view. While I am not displeased that you feel moved to help the cause in your own way I believe that since you don’t have the that necessary understanding you cannot transmit the correct message.
I would never send a salesman into the field unless I was convinced he had the message and the spiel down-pat and knew how to transmit that message. Without a good closer no message succeeds.
Most of all you target those who reject the message even before you present it so why bother with them?
Here is only one example to compare yours with.
Zionism is a Biblical process. It is fulfillment of the prophesy that the Jewish People will return home from all over the world. This is already happening. No power on Earth can stop it from continuing unto completion… not even the government of the State of Israel. We cannot define our state by standards of the other nations of the world.
We are very different. We are part of a G-dly process which is not open for negotiation. When we try to negotiate our destiny we demonstrate a lack of faith in G-d and bring needless tragedy upon our own heads… but our destiny continues in spite of us.
Jews: sorry we’ve won
The hallmark of the Gaza war was the immensely successful initial operation. In the opening minutes of the war, Israel had bombed 95% of the targets: armories and arsenals, troops and installations.
One would expect the army to learn from that success and expand on in in the next wars. Well, Jews learn backwards.
According to the Jerusalem Post report, the army developed a new doctrine which does exactly the opposite: instead of bombing the enemy by surprise, the army would start with large-scale evacuation of civilians. The IAF will proceed then to bomb the empty shacks.
The new doctrine aims, sure, at avoiding civilian casualties. Now imagine the photos of Israeli soldiers who evict Palestinian families, young and old, from their homes, search the women (or letting them through with their males’ weapons), and beat the intentionally unruly teenagers.
You can win a war. PR exercises are always a lost proposition for Jews
I seem to remember that incident or one very similar when I played for USC. I wasn’t a starter, just the best finisher.
It’s like when I was in college, and found the whole football team waiting in my dorm room. I said, “This is totally unacceptable. What type of girl do you think I am? Everybody get out, except for the starters.”
Yamit, though you persist in pejorative comments and characterizations of me, I am not at all clear what so unsettles you about my rationalism.
As for suggesting I am the enemy I am trying to fight against and move others to do the same, just whom are you saying I am an enemy of and why?
As for your opening comment that I am pouting, not so. That I am amongst friends, I never doubted that, even with your often perplexing views that are stated to specifically oppose and denigrate mine.
Shebrew
If a word in the dictionary were misspelled, how would we know?
“What’s another word for Thesaurus?”
Narvey don’t pout, you are among friends.
The best doctors are either superior diagnosticians or rely on accurate diagnoses by others.
Your problem always is the confusing of symptoms with disease.
You have no defined disease and no accurate diagnosis to work with.
Your innate rationalism disallows that which to you isn’t.
There what ever you do will be wrong or at least ineffective.
You remember that silly Canard “I looked in the mirror and the enemy I saw was me”?
You should put tape on your mirrors in your house so you don’t accidentally walk through into another dimension.
Don’t ask that question now on the tip of your tongue.
My last girlfriend and I had conflicting attitudes: I really wasn’t into meditating and she wasn’t really into being alive.
I was sad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet. So I said, “Got any shoes you’re not using?”
Cheer up Narvey…. OR…. AS THE WORLD TURNS….!!!
ies asombroso!
Change his name to Juan, less sexy give him a screwdriver call him the cable guy and that gets him inside?
I think for Ms 180 everybody would fit this description
Si….…..See?
Yamit82, I think #5 is getting suspicious of my relationship with our swarthy young pool boy, Armando. Hubby is not the brightest ornament on the Chanukah bush, but he is aware that we don’t have a pool.
No Yamit, I am not suggesting making it uncomfortable to be a public anti-semite.
Rather, I am calling on Jewish leadership to use the momentum of the Thomas incident, which will doubtless soon dissipate, to work harder and more effectively to make society more sensitive to Jewish/Israel sensibilities and to broaden societies’ views of what kind of speech amounts to racist anti-semitism regardless of how it might be dressed up.
The challenge of course is great, but that should only inspire Jewish leadership to make that much of a greater effort to meet and overcome that challenge.
Accusing me of cowardice is a petty, bitter and small minded cheap shot. What is it you seek to accomplish by so accusing me, Yamit? Does it make you feel bigger and better about yourself when you put people down?
Your accusation has no bearing on my comment and article, which is not about bravery or cowardice, but is a about calling on Jewish leadership to resolve to do the necessary hard work that the situation demands.
You have often expressed frustration and anger with that situation, where so many nations and societies are moved by varying degrees of anti-Jewish/Israel animus and sentiment and where so many other nations, especially Western democracies and their socieities are tolerating, excusing, appeasing and rationalizing such anti-semitic and anti-Israel views as being valid and fair points, made within the context of freedom of speech.
At least I have tried to do more then just express my frustrations, concerns and anger with that status quo situation on these Israpundit pages.
I have tried to do something about it by trying to move our leadership to take the lead as they should be doing in this regard.
Narvey what you’re suggesting is to make it uncomfortable to be publicly seen as a Jew Hater. That will only drive them behind closed doors but not reduce Jew hatred. They will continue to sublimate Israel for Jew and we get the full broadsides.
I say let them be why should we Israelis pay for your cowardice.
There is another fundamental point that should be made along side Hausman’s excellent case that the left cannot look to the Constitution to base their support for Thomas’ and other anti-semites’ right right to excercise their freedom of speech.
That point to be brought home to not just anti-semites and left wing nut bars, but to all, is that the rightful lawful exercise of free speech is no shield from responsibility for their words.
Where such speech is unacceptable to society, society will hold the speech maker responsible and visit consequences upon them accordingly. Such is what happened to Helen Thomas.
This was one of the points I made in my following article:
June 9th, 2010
The Good that May Yet Come Out Of Helen Thomas’ Foul Mouth
Only back to nature environmentalists who have eschewed modern amenities like T.V., radio and phones have not yet heard of Helen Thomas’ anti-semitic rant.
Yes, she fouled the air around her and paid a price for doing so, but something good may yet come of it.
The media had no choice, but to air Rabbi David Nessenoff’s videoed Thomas interview after Nessenoff released that video to the web and it went viral. Generating much negative reaction from journalists, politicians and pundits, Thomas’ career quickly ended.
Most Jews doubtless, took particular delight as Thomas was pilloried, humiliated, shunned and then summarily forced out of her long career by her fellow journalists.
The pleasure of schadenfreud many Jews doubtless felt is however, short lived and of no lasting value.
Jewish leadership and Israel must therefore recognize that something good and lasting might yet come of the Thomas affair, provided they seize and capitalize on the moment of opportunity Thomas’ rant has presented.
When an anti-Semite, especially of one of note, in an unguarded moment reveals their true natures, opportunities present to seize the momentum of that moment to take firm and effective action against them, their organizations and to use that to better make Israel’s case to the public at large.
Taking advantage of this moment of opportunity means redoubling efforts to devise pro-active, timely, responsive and more effective strategies to deal with this and similar future incidents.
Bringing the media on board is key to raising greater awareness of anti-Israel sentiments and how Western governments/ institutions in too often catering to and appeasing these sentiments, not only hinder Israel’s ability to right wrongs done to Israel in the battle of words and ideas, but ultimately such policies of appeasement hurt the West.
This leads to the second possible good outcome of the Thomas affair.
During the media coverage another video was broadcast, revealing Thomas’ anti-Israel bias, which was taped during a W.H. press conference within a day or so of Israel’s interdicting the flotilla: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6cj86ZWR_U
Soon thereafter, other journalists came forward admitting that Thomas had long been expressing these anti-Israel/anti-Semitic views.
With such coverage, the media quite unwittingly I expect, revealed something just as troubling about themselves as they did about Thomas’ Jew hatred. It is that the media and the W.H. have long tolerated and kept secret, Thomas’ Jew/Israel hating views, as they continued to accord Thomas undeserved respect.
Anti-Israel bias of some journalists and media organizations in Canada and the States, have long been strongly suspected. The media knows its own strengths and weaknesses, though they are rarely willing to admit the latter, which can include undue bias. Without such admission forthcoming from the media, it is difficult to prove.
This Thomas affair however, amounts to proof positive that such bias indeed exists. It is also proof positive that media organizations, not harboring anti-Israel/anti-Semitic bias, are nonetheless complicit in denying and protecting anti-Israel biased fellow journalists and organizations.
This revelation of Thomas’ longstanding animus towards Israel and the medias’ acting to secrete it, thus presents Jewish leadership and Israel with yet another opportunity that can serve the interests of objective truth and thus our interests and that of Israel.
Media and journalists of course have biases just like all of us and it is not per se unfair that such biases are apparent. Those journalists however, who are obviously completely lost to their biases, contrary to journalistic standards however, should rightly be unmasked by their fellow journalists, be held accountable and dismissed if they refuse to reasonably adhere to journalistic standards of objectivity and fairness.
Jewish leaders should be using the momentum of this revelation to convince the media to be more aware of unacceptably biased journalists in their midst and to ensure that they fully grasp that there is only honor in outing journalists whose biases destroy their journalistic integrity and no honor in protecting them.
Finally, one other possible good that might come out of all this, has to do with the right of freedom of speech. This possible good, if realized, has benefit not just for Jews and Israel, but all of society.
Racist anti-Israel and anti-Jewish advocates, provided they do not transgress criminal laws, which seems at times, almost impossible to do, use their right of freedom of speech as a sword, which right they assume also yields them an impenetrable shield to express their views with impunity.
Their assumption, is often fortified by the failure of Jews to firmly fight back against anti-Israel activists. It is further fortified by the appeasing attitudes of others. Governments for instance fear firmly standing against Middle Eastern anti-Israel sentiment, lest that will enrage Middle Eastern nations and prejudice their own interests. Institutions such as universities tolerate, appease and facilitate anti-Israel/anti-semitic activism out of fear that if they did otherwise, anti-Israel activists could potentially react violently.
Fortified as anti-Israel and Jew hating activists are in their assumption that their right to freedom of speech is also their shield, that assumption is nonetheless false.
The Thomas affair proves that in spades.
It must be brought home to all who enjoy the right of freedom of speech, that the exercise of that right, is not without risk of consequence.
Non-Jews too have borne the brunt of anti-Western views and accusations as well as being subjected to insufferably grating demands that they must tolerate these intolerant purveyors of such anti-Western noxious views.
Since it is Jews and Israel however, that are more often singled out by anti-Israel, anti-Western activists, it falls to them to induce non-Jewish people, groups, institutions and government to join with them in common cause to push back to denounce and discredit these activists whose views are so often disrespectful, intolerant and antithetical to our own Western Judeo-Christian norms and values.
The momentum of the Thomas affair moment of opportunity is still here for Israel and Jewish leadership to seize and capitalize on by moving on a number of fronts to gain much greater sympathy, understanding and support for Israel from all Americans, the media and the American government.
With inspired effort and a little luck, Americans and the American government can be moved to adopt a more firm uncompromising stand not only against rampant Middle Eastern racist Jew hatred, but against rampant anti-Western sentiments. If by so doing, anti-American Mid East nations back down and America in the result, sees some success in furthering her interests, then other Western democracies will likely follow America’s lead.
If Jewish leadership and Israel therefore do seize and act on this moment and enjoy only some success, some very good unintended consequences will have come out of the foul anti-semitic mouth of Helen Thomas.
What more satisfying and lasting end to Thomas’ career could there be for Jews and Israel?
Bill Narvey
You’re most welcome.
I kind a figured it would give you a warm tickle where it counts most.
Yamit,
Thank you for giving us this wonderful news.
Absolutely correct. Two major corporations for whom I have worked, have the most extreme rules when it comes to any form of bigotry or misogynistic statements. Perhaps we should inform the press so that they can persecute these corporations.
From what I see, these media folks are like spoiled children and ought to be treated as such. They appear not to have grown up; they want to be able to do anything they want without reservation or consequences.
SOMETIMES WE DO GOOD!!!
Israel brings Jews from Kyrgyzstan
June 20, 2010
JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israel brought 12 Jews from conflict-riven southern Kyrgyzstan to Israel.
The 12 Kyrgyz Jews were brought to Israel on Sunday and were scheduled to attend a welcome ceremony at the Jewish Agency for Israel’s board of governors assembly on Monday along with 650 other new immigrants. They were immediately made Israeli citizens.
Fewer than 70 Jews are thought to live in southern Kyrgyzstan. Most of the country’s estimated 1,500 Jews reside in the capital city of Bishkek. To date, no Jews have been harmed in the ethnic violence, according to the Jewish Federations of North America.
More than 2,000 people have been killed and 40,000 displaced in fighting between ethnic Uzbeks and Kyrgyz that began earlier this month in the country’s south.