A name emerged this week on all newswires, that of  Rabbi David Nessenoff. He was the man representing a group called Rabbilive. It was he that set up Helen Thomas, a set up that has been resounding throughout the world as anti Semitism. A set up that embarassed Thomas enough to resign from her position as White House Press Correspondent.

The representatives of the Jewish Lobby jumped on the bandwagon ready to lynch this woman for saying what she did. Today, most likely fearing a backlash from AIPAC and other zionist terrorist organisations, President Obama climbed the bandwagon as well.

It was at that point that I decided to come to the defense of a woman that has done her job well for decades. A woman that must be applauded for her past activities. But, in this particular case, she should have been more prepared for the set up. Her words were misinterpreted and for the most part taken out of context, a normal exercise of the zionists.
When asked, ‘where should they [the Jews] go’, Thomas replied, ‘go home, Poland, Germany, and America, and everywhere else.’
That simply became ‘go home to Poland and Germany’.

The reality is….
Meir Kahane … Brooklyn
Baruch Goldstein … Brooklyn
Baruch Marzel … Brooklyn
Mike Guzovsky … American born
Yaakov Tytell … American born
There are more, many more. And none come from Poland or Germany. (except for a handful of Knesset members)

HERE you can read what the likes of the above advocate and why they should leave Palestine.

I tried to find some information about Rabbilive every link led to results about Helen Thomas, nothing else. They obviously had an agenda to discredit Ms. Thomas, probably because she is the daughter of Lebanese immigrants to the United States. They are the ones that should be out on the street, not Helen Thomas.

My Son the CrazyComposer wrote a brilliant piece about this fiasco. What follows is taken from it, but his piece can be read HERE in full.

A tremendous amount has been made over the words uttered by Helen Thomas recently, words spoken on May 27th, interestingly enough four days before the attack by the Israeli Defence Forces against a flotilla of unarmed civilians bringing humanitarian aid to besieged refugees in Gaza. Nine innocent and unarmed civilians were slaughtered by the defenders of the Zionist state, but it’s not okay to criticize them, is that what we are hearing? I listened to what Helen Thomas said and listened carefully; she understands history and is more than capable of reporting her stories without bias.

When asked if she had anything to say about Israel she said, ‘tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.’ When asked if she had ‘anything better’ to say, Thomas continued, ‘remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land; it’s not German [sic], it’s not Poland.’ Having heard this answer Rabbi Nesenoff, the man conducting and filming the interview, proceeded to ask a loaded question that indicated he fully understood that Thomas was discussing contemporary immigrants, not Jews who had been born Israel.

When asked, ‘where should they [the Jews] go’, Thomas replied, ‘go home, Poland, Germany, and America, and everywhere else.’


  1. Peter Reynolds said,

    June 9, 2010 at 13:46


    Like you, I have written many thousands of words on this subject but nothing, NOTHING says it like this picture!

  2. aufzuleiden said,

    June 9, 2010 at 15:24

    Thank you for posting my article; I believe it is very important that we look at what Helen Thomas said in the totality of her comment, in the context of the complete comment, without jumping to conclusions about the meaning. The most important part of her comment, in my opinion, was ‘remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land; it’s not German [sic], it’s not Poland.’ She was talking about the Jews that have stolen the homes of Palestinians, since 1933 – even before the Holocaust – uprooting families from their homes in order to fortify the borders of Israel.

    Had Rabbilive left Helen Thomas after her ‘Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine’ comment the reaction from the mainstream media would have still been devastating, as well as the reaction from Hearst Publishing, her writing partner Craig Crawford, and the White House Administration. The fear of upsetting the Zionist State runs so deeply that nobody is willing to upset the apple cart, even if what they are saying is supported by empirical data and undeniable truth.

    This episode has absolutely nothing to do with racism and Antisemitism, but rather the rush to judgment that people are apt to make when they hear something – or part of something – and they decide, in that instant, that they fully understand the situation and have the entire scene distilled into that magical word: Anti-Semite. She must be an Anti-Semite, everyone else said so, right? Perhaps not, maybe she said something that could have been phrased better, but nothing she said was wrong.

    To commenter no. 1 – Peter – excellent picture indeed, however, it should be noted that the soldier is not actually aiming his weapon (the modern M-16, with a modified top rail mount for some attachment that I can’t make out from the angle of the photo) at the child. He is standing at ‘Port Arms’, his finger is off the trigger, to the top right of the trigger guard – in the safe position – and he is not prepared to discharge the weapon (NOTE: it would take less than a second to change this; a trained marksman can discharge their weapon from this position with very little notice, but it means they have to take the weapon OFF safety and then trigger the weapon).

    You are right, Peter, a picture truly is worth a thousand words – especially if you look at it very carefully. If the picture is further examined it will be noted that another child (in the foreground, wearing a yellow shirt and jeans) is facing the soldier. There is obviously no malice in this scene – at this point – as the older child would be the one to pose any overt threat (certainly not the toddler!) to the safety of the soldier, but the soldier maintains a casual stance, not the position of someone about to level their weapon and start firing off rounds at moving targets.

    Sometimes it takes a few extra minutes to look at something before you realize that it isn’t something that you thought it was, or that it is more than what it appeared to be initially. In this case the picture is, on the surface, horrific, but the horror comes from the juxtaposition of the military with the innocence of childhood, it isn’t really what we may have thought it was at first glance. It could just as easily have been a National Guardsman standing at Port Arms with a gun pointed at a Mexican child … and that picture will eventually turn up too, I’m sure.

    Wie viel ist Aufzuleiden!

  3. Peter Reynolds said,

    June 9, 2010 at 15:55

    I thought about whether the photo was a fake and about different ways it could be interpreted before I published it. In the end I decided that was less important than the point it so eloquently makes and that is reinforced again and again every day by Israel’s actions.

    And I am no Islamist or myopic opponent of Israel!


  4. aferrismoon said,

    June 9, 2010 at 17:29

    It’s quite amazing that such a furore should be made about these words in face of the head shootings and handcuffed shootings . there’s a sense of vindictive pleasure in getting so worked up.

    I note that the Judge Rotenburg Centre [ for behavioiural anomalies] uses electric skin shockers as aversive therapy.
    This seems to be the media version. Behave! or we’ll media-shock u.

    So who has lost their job on the back of this massacre, a woman 1000’s of miles away , while Headshot Chaim might a Medal of Valor.


  5. aferrismoon said,

    June 9, 2010 at 17:31

    The eyes of the little boy and soldier seem to meet, if its ‘shopped its very well done.

  6. Hubris said,

    June 9, 2010 at 18:30


    he’s a racist

    a video from February of this year in which Rabbi Nesenoff dons a terrible Mexican impression and makes a lot of jokes about being detained by ICE. You’ve got a stronger stomach than me if you can make it past the one about being a dishwasher.

  7. Peter Reynolds said,

    June 9, 2010 at 18:40

    “…however, it should be noted that the soldier is not actually aiming his weapon (the modern M-16, with a modified top rail mount for some attachment that I can’t make out from the angle of the photo) at the child. He is standing at ‘Port Arms’, his finger is off the trigger, to the top right of the trigger guard – in the safe position – and he is not prepared to discharge the weapon (NOTE: it would take less than a second to change this; a trained marksman can discharge their weapon from this position with very little notice, but it means they have to take the weapon OFF safety and then trigger the weapon).”

    I understand your point. I have some firearms training too. Whatever postion and condition your gun is in your overriding priority is to know where it’s pointing.

    What do you want to call it:”carelessness”, “unprofessionalism”??

    In God’s name. That’s a child

  8. June 10, 2010 at 01:47

    You have no argument from me there, Peter, no weapon should be directed toward anything that you are not prepared to kill, destroy, or otherwise harm in some way – that’s the first rule of firearm safety (isn’t it?). I’ve only had limited experience with guns and that experience taught me that when a child is around, a ‘Port Arms’ stance is, in a word, inappropriate. First of all, it’s scary as hell – the child has no way of understanding the intent of the soldier, though the child is obviously no threat (neither of them), while the soldier could easily decide to spray the two children with thirty rounds (the contents of his clip) in under five seconds … not exactly a warm welcome by any stretch of the imagination.

    My point had been – and was probably lost – that while the picture pointed out a horrible image, something that no child should ever have to face, there didn’t appear to be any overt malice AT THAT MOMENT given the stance of the soldier. I’m NOT an apologist for IDF soldiers and will never make excuses for them – I’m merely analyzing what I saw in the photo – as dispassionately as possible. If the soldier has to be there (I’d prefer him to not be in the picture at all) I would rather see the gun at ‘Shoulder Arms’ – having the barrel pointed toward the sky, with his hand firmly on the butt-stock of the gun. This is how someone stands when on guard duty (though some, in times of high-alert, now stand at Port Arms in order to be that one step closer to being able to fire their weapons in case of attack).

    When I was traveling home from Europe many years ago it was a few days after a plane crash that was suspected to be terrorism at the time (it wasn’t). When I arrived at the airport in Vienna there were soldiers carrying H&K MP5s – and they were not slung over their shoulders. These kids – and I use the term with as much derision as can be mustered for any army comprised of barely post-pubescent adolescents who have been indoctrinated with the art of killing and maiming other humans – were holding their weapons at Port Arms – their safety’s were OFF and their fingers were NOT outside their trigger guard as in the picture of the Israeli soldier – their fingers were BESIDE the trigger (lateral pressure cannot cause a weapon to fire, but this means the trigger can be pulled with minimal movement or preparation).

    The plane blew up because of a mechanical failure (deployment of the thrust reverser of one engine while in flight), not a terrorist, but that was not known immediately. The extra security, given the Lockerbie crash in 1988, made everyone paranoid and expectant of devils under doilies. At the same time, seeing a bunch of pimply-faced teens with MP5s scanning the passengers, looking for possible terrorists was enough to make ANYONE feel guilty of something. To this day I’m amazed that nobody was killed by accident – not even one person (as far as I know) was shot by one of these Austrian G.I. Arnolds … I was never so happy to return to Canada (Shoulder Arms is SOP for all armed guards here in Canada).

    Either way, that soldier shouldn’t be anywhere near those kids … and, in the words of Helen, he should ‘get the hell out of Palestine.’

    Wie viel ist Aufzuleiden!

  9. Amerikagulag said,

    June 10, 2010 at 05:44

    Thank You Helen. Thank you for standing up for what is right; for saying the right thing publicly. You’re retraction only shows the pressure that was put upon you. Your statements were truthful and valid. You’ve weathered worse in your years. It’s understandable this would be a last straw for you because you know the inside of Washington DC. You KNOW first hand who controls these leeches. We know too. You’re not alone Helen. But you will be missed.

    You’ve been a valuable asset to the nation throughout your decades of service. Your decision to retire is your own. We fully understand and may you have many more years of spunk left in you to duke it out in journalism.
    Helen, please keep writing!

    All the best.
    An understanding American

  10. Rachel Bartlett said,

    June 10, 2010 at 10:39

    MK Anastasia Michaeli, who tried to physically attack Arab MK and flotilla massacre survivor Zouabi in the Knesset, came from Russia, and she only converted to Judaism after meeting an Israeli in the 1990s.

    The insanity of this all!

    Apparently, the most rabid Zionists do come from Russia and the US.

  11. aufzuleiden said,

    June 10, 2010 at 17:49

    Whenever I visited Brighton Beach it was interesting to watch the Orthodox Jews, especially on Fridays. In the afternoon there would be young men standing on the street shouting at the top of their lungs in Russian and Yiddish. Since I was unable to speak either of these languages I asked my father what all of the commotion was about and he explained. They were ‘encouraging’ the women who were out shopping to ‘hurry home’ and ‘prepare for Shabbos’.

    I was always astounded by the level of dedication required of the Orthodox Jews, especially during the summer when they seemed to wear so much in the sweltering heat of the New York heat-waves. It was particularly noticeable once when I sat next to an old Hasidic Jew on the F-Train … he was wearing the traditional garb, including the heavy felt hat and the prayer-shawl undergarment … and he stank like a … well, he stank. I know this man had a job – he was carrying a very fancy briefcase and had all the accouterments of a successful businessman (even the rich take subways in New York … except Trump, but he’s another story) – but I can’t imagine the reaction of someone having a meeting with him … unless they are all Hasidic or Orthodox Jews and understand the situation or are similarly afflicted (of course, that was probably the case).

    After all was said and done, however, the most ‘in your face’ Jews that I have ever encountered have been the ‘Conversos’ – non-Jews who have converted, mostly – but not always – for marriage (but not love?). One woman verged on the hysterical – to the point that I had to resort to extreme tactics in my arguments, asking her ‘how are you able to have your Orthodoxy at all considering you cannot make the requisite sacrifices as prescribed by the Law?’ That ended the argument (it usually does as the introduction of the Paschal Lamb tends to be offensive to ‘born-again’ Jews who have been properly indoctrinated … most haven’t been).

    Suffice it to say, fanaticism is never healthy.

    Wie viel ist Aufzuleiden!

%d bloggers like this: