Marc Lamont Hill fired from CNN for making pro-Palestinian statements

[Venant]

Do you think that his statements were anti-Semitic? Do you agree with him being fired? And would it be reasonable for the United States to pass laws making support for the boycott and divest movement illegal like HR 1697? (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1697)

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusiv...rael-comments/

CNN severed ties with contributor Marc Lamont Hill on Thursday, following comments the university professor made about Israel and Palestine in a speech at the United Nations.

“Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN,” a CNN spokesperson told Mediaite.

Hill urged countries to boycott Israel in a speech on Wednesday, calling for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea.” His comments sparked an immediate backlash, with many noting “from the river to the sea” is a phrase used by Hamas and other anti-Israel terror groups. The phrase implies the replacement of Israel by a Palestine stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea — though Hill disputes this characterization of his comments.

“We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grass-roots action, local action and international action that will give us what justice requires and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea,” Hill said in his speech.

His comments were condemned as anti-Semitic by the National Council of Young Israel and Anti-Defamation League.

[Teleros]

Do you think that his statements were anti-Semitic?

No. The Israeli state is not all Jews, or even most Jews (I think). Moreover, I really doubt that a Palestinian state split between the West Bank & Gaza Strip will ever be viable, so linking them together* makes sense. Well, that or moving the population from one into the territory of the other, though that also has its own set of problems (!). And no, a one-state solution will never work, unless by "work" you mean "lead to immediate, and possibly nuclear, genocide".

*Not over the bones of Israelis though, much as Hamas & Hezbollah types might salivate at the idea.

Do you agree with him being fired?

Don't care, it's just nice to see the left eating one of its own again.

And would it be reasonable for the United States to pass laws making support for the boycott and divest movement illegal like HR 1697?

It would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. If it becomes illegal to agitate for particular trade policies like the BDS movement wants, what else should it be illegal to agitate for or against? I mean, national defence is far more serious - perhaps all criticism of the wall should be made illegal? Or anti-war movements? As we've a Republican in the WH, gun control and pro-choice movements obviously out to be a high priority... need I go on?

[Venant]

It would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. If it becomes illegal to agitate for particular trade policies like the BDS movement wants, what else should it be illegal to agitate for or against? I mean, national defence is far more serious - perhaps all criticism of the wall should be made illegal? Or anti-war movements? As we've a Republican in the WH, gun control and pro-choice movements obviously out to be a high priority... need I go on?

Perhaps to expand on this, one reason why boycott and divest resonates with people is because of the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa (with boycotting being a major strategy for ending apartheid in that country). Do you believe Israel is engaging in a policy of apartheid?

[Teleros]

Do you believe Israel is engaging in a policy of apartheid?

Yes, although I can quite understand why. Regardless of who started it or who is more to blame or whatever, Hamas are firing rockets into Israel on a regular basis, including at civilians, so keeping them and their human shields walled off makes a lot of sense. That border wall along the West Bank did wonders for cutting down on attacks from that direction too, as I recall.

The problem is that this is only a short to medium term solution. As the rise of the BDS movement has shown, there's been a steady rise in anti-Israeli sentiment in the West, chiefly over the treatment of the Palestinian people - and Israel cannot afford to be isolated by the West. How the hell you solve this peacefully (let alone without resorting to politically impossible means) is beyond me though. I mean, I can't see Israel returning to the 1967 borders, and even if the Palestinians got themselves a state nearby (let's say we carve it out of the Sinai or Jordan or something, all without causing yet more trouble), would that actually stop the violence? Both sides see the state of Israel as their homeland, and aren't willing to compromise on that point from what I can tell.

[arandomuser]

is "from river to sea" some kind of dog whistle that actual anti semites use? if it is then understandable.

[Venant]

is "from river to sea" some kind of dog whistle that actual anti semites use? if it is then understandable.

I think it is a call for returning to 1967 borders

[Sylvestra]

he stepped out of line, the media only accepts white-bashing, dont touch israel, or you're out.

[LedZeppelin]

is "from river to sea" some kind of dog whistle that actual anti semites use? if it is then understandable.

fairly sure its part of the hamas mantra

[Venant]

Yes, although I can quite understand why. Regardless of who started it or who is more to blame or whatever, Hamas are firing rockets into Israel on a regular basis, including at civilians, so keeping them and their human shields walled off makes a lot of sense. That border wall along the West Bank did wonders for cutting down on attacks from that direction too, as I recall.

The problem is that this is only a short to medium term solution. As the rise of the BDS movement has shown, there's been a steady rise in anti-Israeli sentiment in the West, chiefly over the treatment of the Palestinian people - and Israel cannot afford to be isolated by the West. How the hell you solve this peacefully (let alone without resorting to politically impossible means) is beyond me though. I mean, I can't see Israel returning to the 1967 borders, and even if the Palestinians got themselves a state nearby (let's say we carve it out of the Sinai or Jordan or something, all without causing yet more trouble), would that actually stop the violence? Both sides see the state of Israel as their homeland, and aren't willing to compromise on that point from what I can tell.

Israel could allow Palestinians to vote and take part in the governance of the country.

[Teleros]

is "from river to sea" some kind of dog whistle that actual anti semites use? if it is then understandable.

According to the OP it's a Hamas one for basically conquering Israel. Whether that's anti-semitic... I don't think so, because I think you can distinguish between the state of Israel and Jewish people, but YMMV. I'm not sure you'd care much for the distinction if you were an Israeli and Hamas started putting it into practice though :P .

[Bakis]

he stepped out of line, the media only accepts white-bashing, dont touch israel, or you're out.

That does not make sense since the jewish community is what the 'whites' hate. So shouldnt he be endores then?
I mean the US got a president who love to portray neo-nazis as "very fine people".

[Venant]

he stepped out of line, the media only accepts white-bashing, dont touch israel, or you're out.

Israel is run by whites. Claiming Ashkenazim aren't whites is as silly as claiming the French don't qualify as whites.

[arandomuser]

fairly sure its part of the hamas montra

If it is then we should of course have him fired, and liberals should hold themselves to the same standards we want conservative hosts using white supramecist dog whistles to be. And to be sure the vast majority id say 99% of actual democratic politicians voted yes in pro israel bills so the BDS people id say are like 1% of the democratic movement,

[Machismo]

Perhaps to expand on this, one reason why boycott and divest resonates with people is because of the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa (with boycotting being a major strategy for ending apartheid in that country). Do you believe Israel is engaging in a policy of apartheid?

Yes, yes they are. They are pushing their own version of Nazism, in a fucked-up irony for the ages. Sure, they aren't as bad as Hitler, but their efforts are fucking terrible.

I feel bad for innocent Israelis and Palestinians caught in this pissing match between radical terror groups like Hamas, and fundamentalist regimes like Israel.

That being said, I have no problem with CNN firing this guy.

[Stelio Kontos]

is "from river to sea" some kind of dog whistle that actual anti semites use? if it is then understandable.

It's a phrase used by Palestinian militants, it means they want all of the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza. From the Jordan River (Israel's border with Jordan, to the Mediterranean Sea). It essentially means they don't want an Israel to even exist.

Only Hamas and other hard-line militant groups really hold to it anymore. The Palestinian Authority has for the most part dropped it as a tenet.

Firing was as justified as it would be for any other racist/bigoted statement on the network.

[Teleros]

Israel could allow Palestinians to vote and take part in the governance of the country.

That's one of those politically impossible options, because neither side is willing to share*. Heck, it wasn't so long ago that the Israeli government signed a law declaring Israel a Jewish state.

*And even if it was politically possible, I'm very pessimistic about how it'd end up. At best, I think you'd get an Israeli/Jewish Party vs a Palestinian/Muslim Party, and everyone would just vote on ethnic lines, fret over the other side's birth rates, and such. More likely, it'd just be a bloodbath.

[Elba]

Pathetic. Israel (made up of European post WW2 immigrants) is practicing Apartheid and oppression of the native population.

It is right to call this out. It is right to advocate for the freedom of the Palestinian people.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a phrase used by Palestinian militants, it means they want all of the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza. From the Jordan River (Israel's border with Jordan, to the Mediterranean Sea). It essentially means they don't want an Israel to even exist.

Only Hamas and other hard-line militant groups really hold to it anymore. The Palestinian Authority has for the most part dropped it as a tenet.

So they want the land to go back to the way it was 70 years ago before the European Jews came over?

[Stelio Kontos]

Pathetic. Israel (made up of European post WW2 immigrants) is practicing Apartheid and oppression of the native population.

It is right to call this out. It is right to advocate for the freedom of the Palestinian people.

- - - Updated - - -



So they want the land to go back to the way it was 70 years ago before the European Jews came over?

Using old demographics as an argument opens up a can of worms.

Should Greece and Armenia get to carve up Turkey because it used to be their land? Should Mongolia get to seize Inner Mongolia from China? Should Iran annex Iraq because Iraq was part of previous Persian dynasties?

[Exeris]

It's a phrase used by Palestinian militants, it means they want all of the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza. From the Jordan River (Israel's border with Jordan, to the Mediterranean Sea). It essentially means they don't want an Israel to even exist.

Only Hamas and other hard-line militant groups really hold to it anymore. The Palestinian Authority has for the most part dropped it as a tenet.

Firing was as justified as it would be for any other racist/bigoted statement on the network.

Thank you, it made a lot more sense now since as far as I've seen most of this planet support the 67 borders but obviously not that.

[Teleros]

So they want the land to go back to the way it was 70 years ago before the European Jews came over?

More like a hundred years ago, give or take, but... yes, from what I can tell. Jewish settlers have been moving there since the Zionist movement began in the late 19th century. As natives to the area, they resent it being gobbled up by invaders, and as Muslims, they resent seeing Islamic territory lost.