So, here is what I think you are missing: 1. While saying he advocates and promotes non-violence, he rejected a definition of this that excluded Palestinians using violence to resist Israeli state violence. If all he meant by this was that when the Israeli military sends soldiers or bombs to the West Bank or the Gaza Strip the Palestinians should be allowed to fight back, it would be relatively uncontroversial. But he clearly meant something different - that in his view there were times when it was morally acceptable, perhaps imperative, for the Palestinians to blow up city buses as a means of resisting Israeli state violence. If you do not understand what is controversial about this position, simply imagine that instead he was saying that there were times when Palestinians would be justified in hijcking commercial airliners and flying them into crowded US landmarks. The reaction in Israel is even stronger, since they have been dealing with this longer and more frequently.
2. He used the phrase “from the river to the sea” - when he called for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea.” This phrase is a term of art in the Middle East, and a dog whistle that has a very specific meaning (I guess it is not really a dog whistle, since in the context of the Middle East everyone would know what it means, not just dogs. But in the US its meaning is less clear). The River is the Jordan, and the Sea is the Mediterranean. Right now the land between those two is mostly called the state of Israel. WHen people call for a free Palestine to exist between the River and the Sea, they are actually saying that the State of Israel has no right to exist, and that it should be replaced by the State of Palestine. Moreover, this phrase is associated with groups like Hamas, which not only refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist, but are actively devoted to using violence to eliminate it. Many, including the US, the EU and Israel, regard Hamas as a terrorist organization. In using this phrase, Hill is not campaigning for a Palestinian State, he is campaigning against the existence of the State of Israel. These are two very different things. 3. Hill has been photographed socializing with Minister Louis Farrakhan, and when criticized for it has pushed back hard, saying he will not allow the media to dictate who he gets photographed with or socializes with. Farrakhan, by any measure, is an anti-Semite and a racist. Hill’s association with Farrakhan does not by itself justify banning him from CNN of course, and there is a long list of Democratic figures (including anyone who was at Aretha Franklin’s funeral) who are included among the many who have been photographed with him. But Hill’s attitude about this provide some of the context for making sense of his recent comments. In all of this Hill is like nothing so much as Donald Trump and his enablers, who from one side of their mouth weakly endorse vague cliches about not being racist, while from the bigger side of their mouth they exuse, endorse and subtly repeat racist leaders, organizations and dog whistles. If a Fox News Commentator said he was opposed to racist violence, but then said he wa not going to be bullied into condemning people like Dylann Roof for shooting all those people at Emanuel AFrican Methodist Episcopal Church, because America is a white Christian nation that needs to be defended, and then repeared racist code phraes and defended himself for hanging out with David Duke, saying that while he disagreed with lynching, he agreed with Duke about lots of other things, I think you would find lots of reasonable Americans calling on Fox News to fire that Commentator (though of course I know I am probably describing an actual Commentator at FN who has not been fired). I agree that it is possible to harshly and criticize Israel and its immoral, oppressive polices (like the settlements) especially under its current government, without being anti-Semitic. I identify myself as such a critic. I also agree that there are those Israelis and supporters who do not seem to accept this. But I do think it is more likely that people who advocate for the use of violent terrorism, the destruction of the state of Israel, and defend Louis Farrakhan, can reasonably be described as anti-Semitic. On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:25 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d never even heard of the guy until this afternoon. Not sure what he > does, and not sure why he was speaking at the UN. But once again, because > Israel has no separation of church and state, it is assumed that those who > speak against the Israeli government’s history of discrimination and abuse > are therefore anti-semitic, so when he advocated violence as an option for > the Palestinians, CNN sacked him. Let me be clear: I naturally assume he is > as big a gasbag as every other CNN pundit, and there’s always a good reason > to fire a gasbag pundit regardless of party affiliation. But I listened to > his speech at the UN; it was bold, but he said nothing against Jews. > Supposedly his words echoed rhetoric by those campaigning for a Palestinian > state. OK, I don’t know that, but is that alone something to be fired over? > What am I missing here? > > https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/media/marc-lamont-hill-cnn/index.html > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
