TEMPLE PROFESSOR MARC LAMONT HILL IS JUST ONE OF MANY BLACK ANTI-SEMITES

CNN commentator calls for elimination of Israel, endorses violent Palestinian ‘resistance’

by Philip Klein

Washington Examiner
November 28, 2018

CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill, in a Wednesday speech to the United Nations, called for violent resistance against Israel and advocated expanding Palestine “from the river to the sea,” a phrase used by those who believe that Israel should be eliminated.

Hill, who has a long history of anti-Semitism, made the remarks at a U.N. event commemorating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. He said the international community should boycott Israel and allow Palestinians more space to engage in violence against the Jewish state, arguing that violence was also employed in the struggles of African Americans. Hill said:

“Contrary to western mythology, black resistance to American apartheid did not come purely through Ghandi and nonviolence. Rather, slave revolts and self-defense and tactics otherwise divergent from Dr. King or Mahatma Gandhi were equally important to preserving safety and attaining freedom. If we are to operate in true solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must allow the Palestinian people the same range of opportunity and political possibility. If we are standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend itself. We must prioritize peace, but we must not romanticize or fetishize it. We must advocate and promote nonviolence at every opportunity, but we cannot endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing."

He urged grassroots, local, and international action to "Give us what justice requires -- and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea."

The phrase “from the river to the sea” has been a rallying cry for Hamas and other terrorist groups seeking the elimination of Israel, as a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea would mean that Israel would be wiped off the map.

Hill’s remarks are the latest example of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements.

Last year, Hill tweeted that it was “offensive” for President Trump to call on Palestinians to “reject hatred and terrorism.” Hill also defended a terrorist who killed two Jewish students and praised anti-Semitic leader Louis Farrakhan.

In a follow up tweet Wednesday, Hill wrote, “I believe in a single secular democratic state for everyone. This is the only way that historic Palestine will be free.” Such an idea would reject the existence of Israel as a Jewish homeland with the ability to defend itself, and cede control over to terrorist groups that have been seeking Jewish extermination. The reference to the “historic Palestine” also makes no sense, since no such place ever existed with defined borders.

Hill, a Temple University professor, is named as a CNN commentator on the channel’s website, which describes him as “one of the leading intellectual voices in the country.”

The video of Hill's speech begins at around the 1 hour and 36 minute mark, with the comments quoted hear occurring roughly after the 1:51 mark.

UPDATE: “ Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN,” a CNN spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
__________

The five biggest myths in Marc Lamont Hill's anti-Israel speech

by Tom Rogan

Washington Examiner
November 29, 2018

On Wednesday, CNN contributor and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill spoke at the United Nations to offer his support to the Palestinian people. Regrettably, Lamont Hill's argument was built on a river or even a sea of falsehoods.

Of course, Lamont Hill disagrees, believing that most of his critics are focusing on false narratives.

Here's my critique of the five biggest fallacies in his argument. Note that these are not Lamont Hill's only misleading points – most of Lamont Hill's speech is delusional – but simply the ones I decided to focus on.

1) The Nabka mythology: By "Nabka," the Palestinian people refer to the supposed forced expulsion of Palestinians from Israel in 1948. Lamont Hill adopts the same view, presenting the Nabka as the moral rationale for Palestinian fury towards Israel.

History suggests a far more skeptical eye towards the Nabka theory. Because it's a myth. Yes, some Palestinian and Arab families were forcibly expelled from their homes by Israeli militias, but this omits the context that Arab militias also pursued the same objective against Jewish settlers. And many Palestinians also left their homes of their own volition, often after selling their land.

Still more Palestinians left Israel as a consequence of the defeat of the Arab armies that invaded Israel in 1948 with the aim of annihilating the Jewish nation. To adopt the Nabka myth whole hog is to accept a clear historical delusion.

2) Israel uses random violence against Palestinian civilians: Lamont Hill claimed that "Palestinians continue to live under the threat of random violence by the Israeli military and police. Disproportionate violence within the West Bank and Gaza, unprompted violence in the face of peaceful protest, and misdirected violence by an Israeli state that systematically fails to distinguish between civilians and combatants."

Each of these claims is false. Israeli security forces go to great lengths to protect civilians, and do so in a tactical environment defined by Hamas' use of civilian human shields. But the most obvious proof of Israeli regard for Palestinian civilian protection is that Israel allows Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad to exist, when it could instead pursue a military campaign that would risk many Palestinian civilian casualties. And Israel's extensive intelligence effort in the Palestinian territories is about accurately identifying threats in separation from civilians.

3) Israel's criminal justice system is profoundly unjust: Lamont Hill says that Israeli justice is "a term I can only use with irony." Sorry, Marc, but the only irony here is your veil of absolute confidence over authoritative ignorance.

There is a staggering distinction between Israeli and Palestinian systems of justice. Where Israel holds its security forces to judicial account for killing civilians, Palestinian authorities give their forces decorations for killing Israeli civilians. Where Israel brings accused Palestinian terrorists or criminals to trial, Palestinian security forces throw accused criminals into gulags, or off the top of buildings. Where Israel's government is subject to the power of an independent judiciary, Palestinian government is subject only to its leaders' authoritarian impulses and the capacity of Palestinian leaders to steal or waste as much money as feasibly possible.

4) Palestinian violence against Israel is compatible with the cause of peace: Lamont Hill asserts that "we must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend itself." The necessary implication here is support for Palestinian groups which use violence against Israel. And the vast majority of those groups are violent Islamic extremist organizations such as Hamas. As such, even if this is not his actual intent, Lamont Hill's narrative offers a de facto defense of Hamas' strategic intent. Which is to say the annihilation of the Jewish people in Israel and the usurpation of their democratic authority under a green flag of exclusionary Sunni supremacism. That takes us to the next point.

5) A just peace requires a Palestine that reaches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: The professor concludes with a call to arms: "What Justice requires, and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea." But while he's now denying it on Twitter, that slogan is not a rallying cry for the Palestinian compromise bloc led by Fatah. It is the rallying cry of Hamas and other groups which seek a literal purge of both of Israeli and Jewish existence from the Levant.

If put into practice by those who purvey it, Lamont Hill's war cry would mean a second Holocaust.

There's a great sustaining tragedy to Lamont Hill's understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He seriously seems to believe that his favored solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a Palestinian-preferenced one-state solution, is moral. The pursuit of that state, he says, is one that comes from a movement dedicated to defeating "hatred, imperialism, and white supremacy, and patriarchy and homophobia ... " But comparing the respective governance in Israel with that in Gaza and the West Bank, it is clear that Israel's government is manifestly the more moral one on each of Lamont Hill's stated concerns.

That's not to say that anyone should be reflexively pro-Israeli on every issue. There are very serious grounds for opposing most Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Israeli intelligence operations targeting the United States, and President Trump's relocating of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. But Israel is rightly an exceptionally close American ally for two simple reasons. Far more often than not it acts in furtherance of shared U.S. interests, and it does so in a democratic tradition that is unique to the Middle East.

EDITOR’S NOTE: 'From the river to the sea' is not only a vow made by Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups, but it is also a vow Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has made many times.

Polls show that 25 percent of blacks harbor ill will toward Jews. As for Hill, he is in good company with Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Weight, etc. Farrakhan says Jews control the banks, the FBI and Mexico, and claims there is a ‘Pot Plot’ in which Jews promote homosexuality among black men through the distribution of a special form of marijuana.