CNN Fires Marc Lamont Hill After Calling for Israel’s Destruction in UN Speech
“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.”
CNN fired contributor Marc Lamont Hill after he pushed people to boycott Israel in a speech at the United Nations meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. From Mediaite:
“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.
Fox News has more:
At one point, Hill poured himself some water and told participants that he just got off a flight from “Palestine” and that “I was boycotting the Israeli water so I was unable to quench my thirst.”
“If we are standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend itself,” Hill said during a portion of his speech comparing the Palestinian movement with the American civil-rights movement. ” We must prioritize peace, but we must not romanticize or fetishize it.”
The National Council of Young Israel and Anti-Defamation League condemned Hill’s comments. Others joined in:
Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, told Fox News that Hill’s speech was an “especially obscene U.N. moment that reveals the true nature of the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish animus of the modern United Nations.”
“Hill’s call at the United Nations for the destruction of the Jewish state was not some accident,” Bayefsky added. “He didn’t misspeak. He was an invited guest. He was the only person invited to speak as ‘the’ representative of ‘civil society.’ When he ended his extraordinary tirade with ‘Give us a free Palestine from the river to the sea’ his words were met by a round of applause. The only applause for any speaker.”
Hill teaches media studies and urban education at Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. He previously taught at Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA, and Columbia University in New York City.
Hill has a long history of showcasing his anti-Israel views. Back in 2015, Professor Jacobson wrote, “Wow, Marc Lamont Hill drank the anti-Israel Kool-Aid” about the anti-Israel group Dream Defenders that tried to hijack the Ferguson protests. Hill belongs to it and even starred in a video of a “flash mob” of the group in Nazareth in Israel, but they called the location Palestine.
The in 2016, Professor Jacobson wrote about how Hill announced his intention to vote “in favor of a resolution at the American Anthropological Association to boycott Israeli academia under the expansive guidelines of the BDS movement.” It failed.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
BOOM! Make them live up to their own rules.
The walkback and complaining about this decision among leftists who call Trump anti-Semitic will begin in 5…4…3…2…1…
I hold Jewish culture in high regard for many reasons.
Historically Jews have been big supporters of blacks, but in light of ever increasing antisemitism by blacks, in particular their support of Palestinians, how much longer can this last?
Marc Lamont Hill used to show up on the Bill O’Reilly show on Fox News. Both Hill and O’Reilly are long gone from Fox, and that’s not a bad thing. I didn’t know that Hill had washed up on the left bank of the news at CNN. And now he’s floated out to sea again. My heart won’t bleed, because I always thought he was a sort of obnoxious twerp.
I used to hate that when he appeared. With that little smirk he constantly wore he was unctuous and odious at the same time. One of the many reasons why I stopped watching TV altogether in 2009.
“Obnoxious Twerp” . Classic.
I will never forget how he called the people protesting ObamaCare racists because they were white and old enough to have lived in the Jim Crow era.
Disgraceful human.
“I was boycotting the Israeli water so I was unable to quench my thirst.”
Yes, sir. Beware that “Israeli water.” Who knows what effect it might have. It might even counter-balance the fountain of anti-Semitism you’ve been regularly drinking from.
I’m not sure firing Hill is a positive. Eliminationist, virulent, Jew hatred seems to be a mainstream Progressive agenda, especially on college campuses and by Dem/Soc politicians. People like Lamont Hill and his CNN handlers help expose this poison to the American Public. Pushing it underground is not helpful. Exposure of people like Hill puts pressure on the majority of American Jews who support the Party, Candidates, and elected officials who secretly and now more openly support the “From the River to the Sea” agenda.
So what does he claim it means? What possible interpretation doesn’t mean the entire territory of mandatory Palestine?
Since it’s you, I assume it’s not rhetorical. Hot Air’s take contains a lot of his defense, not that I put any great stock in it. (It’s hard to square “Palestine from sea to sea” with “inside of Israel”.)
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/11/29/marc-lamont-hill-fired-cnn-comments-israel/
He’s right that the slogan predates Hamas. It goes all the way back to the Arab resistance to any plan to partition the Mandate and give some to the Jews, insisting they would have everything from the river to the sea, and the Jews nothing. These were Hitler’s allies, and after he was defeated they carried on with his dream.
It means he is trying to keep his sweet paying job on CNN.
May I offer a shorter headline? Racist pinhead fired.
Mueller will now investigate CNN for colluding with the Russians.
All kidding aside, good on CNN, but will CNN cover Hill’s Jew hate and racism on-air?
“CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill after public outcry forces them to”.
Fixed it for you.
Exactly. It’s not because they think he did anything wrong. It’s because they’re taking heat for it. No worries, CNN. Your ratings are still in the crapper and this won’t change that.
Amazing CNN wouldn’t have fired him without the ‘outcry.’
Meaning, this POS is CNN.
“CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill after public outcry forces them to.”
At least CNN was responsive.
We’ve been complaining about Raspierre and his personal abuse for almost 2 years now. And Professor Jacobson won’t even get us the courtesy of a response.
Does anyone know if he even bothers to read the comments on his own blog?
Sorry, its just hard to ignore the hypocrisy of slamming CNN when he can’t even get his own house together.
Well as I have pointed out, with a bare-bones comment system like this, all registration requires is an email, and banning is functionally pointless because it is so easy to register, and it does not have the functionality of banning IPs.
So if you ban Ragspierre, he will immediately register a new email account and create Ragspierre2 and keep on it.
And as this is such a basic comment system you can’t set ignores or blocks. So you’re kind of stuck with it until/unless they decide an upgrade to a Disqus-like system is warranted.
Which, given that there are only about 3-5 regular trolls and they really aren’t that active, doesn’t seem like its that big a problem.
And that makes perfect sense.
Why can’t our host or staff say anything?
It may have something to do with Section 230 CDA, the same law that should be slamming Twitter, Facebook, etc.
As long as no comments are removed / altered, Section 230 provides a “safe harbor” from lawsuits for “defamatory / libelous content” filed against anyone but the actual commenter. Start removing them, and you become a publisher who’s equally liable. Does anyone think we don’t have trolls who will resort to lawfare?
That is the exact opposite of what it does. That was the law before section 230, which it comes to fix.
IP addresses, OTOH, can be. I know several blogs that deal with their trolls effectively that way…. on WordPress.
Do they?
Most of us have dynamic IP addresses, meaning they’re different every time we connect to our ISP. So blocking a specific address is a temporary expedient at best.
The IP system works, but it doesn’t work the way most think. Just for giggles I sometimes check where the Internet thinks I am. Right now all IP lookup tools get my IP address right, but have no idea where my physical location is. One thinks I’m in Boston, one thinks I’m in Worcester, and five think I’m in Ayer. None are within ten miles of my actual location. And I’m not making any effort to hide or mask it.
No worries, Tom. We don’t use only IPs to ensure that banned people stay banned. How many banned LI users are still commenting? Only one that I know of, and he’s doing so with our full knowledge and approval because he’s not posting in a way that would earn a further ban. Here’s a fun idea: let us worry about the banning stuff, and you guys just keep being marvelous and posting your typical thoughtful, thought-provoking goodness. 🙂
Thanks for your comments, Olinser. The prof did address our comment system a couple of years ago. You can read that here: https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/02/breaking-there-will-be-no-change-in-legal-insurrection-comment-section/
Fuzzy Slippers did a pretty good job of adjusting Rags attitude. Also, Rags serves to make us appreciate more reasoned commentators 🙂 Last, everyone needs to recognize that Rags is handicapped and suffering from small mindedness, ouch.
Well, as much as I would like to take credit, I can’t. Rags is a smart guy, and he had to realize that attacking and demeaning people who don’t think as he does was not going to win them over. Rags can sell ice cubes to Eskimos, and he knows he can’t do that by telling Eskimos they are loser freaks who act deplorably. Logic always wins, and hate doesn’t sell. Bullying a conservative is a losing battle, always. Rags is no dummy, and he knows that he can’t win the LI crowd with silly name-calling and [insert whatever] “shaming,” so it’s no surprise at all that Rags would choose logic over vitriol. That’s Rags, though, not me.
Does anyone know if he even bothers to read the comments on his own blog?
As for reading, I can’t say. But I did see a specific response to a post once, and that implies that some reading was going on, at least at that time. But that was a couple of years ago.
I have watched this Jew/White/America hater for years. He is a poor academic and a grievance specialist. The fact he ever got airtime is ridiculous.
Yet he is still employed by Temple University even after this.
I don’t believe Temple should fire him for this. For other reasons, maybe, but not for political beliefs or advocacy. While freedom of speech does not include freedom from consequences of speech (other than government suppression) and CNN is free to hire/fire as they see fit, we should encourage allowing freedom of speech in the broadest sense, just like we’re arguing against conservative shadow banning on Google, Facebook & Twitter. Goose/gander & all that.
Scum of obamaian proporitions.
He’ll be teaching at Harvard next week.
He was emboldened
I wish this was parody, but it’s not:
Temple University stands by Marc Lamont Hill after CNN fires him:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/temple-university-stands-by-marc-lamont-hill-after-cnn-fires-him-for-anti-israel-remarks
He’ll be reinstated by CNN within the week.
“Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN,” a CNN spokesperson told Mediaite.
This is suspiciously “artful” wording. It’s not clear that it means he’s been fired. It means only that at the moment his relationship with CNN is not determined by the terms of a contract. In some businesses, that could mean simply that he’s no longer a contractor; he could be an employee, instead. In which case he would still be working at or for CNN.
Yes, he will be back.
Interesting how Islam doesn’t have this problem.
Take a baseball bat to his mouth, and to whoever invited him on. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
I figure this will all work itself out. Either the Jews will respond with something more powerful than civility, or they will go extinct.
I wish I could say that MLH didn’t pay attention in world history class, but unfortunately I am aware that this kind of anti-Israeli nonsense has been pushed in college sence the Isreali war for independence. I hate using the referance to Nazi’s but the stain of antisemitism leaves one with no choice. I mean really antisemitic leftist open themselves to the comparison.
What I don’t understand and haven’t seen discussed anywhere is why this guy is “testifying” at the U.N. The Middle East has nothing to do with the area in which he teaches, he’s no expert on anything relevant to the situation there, but he’s sitting there talking. Why?
Unfortunately most Jews are liberals and when it comes to politics are not rational. I have a friend who had his son Bar Mitzvah’d in Israel. He thought Obama was a strong supporter of Israel and Trump is an anti Semite. He was particularly incensed about moving our embassy to Jerusalem. He totally went blank on Obama’s anti Israel UN vote and we had to Google it to prove I was right. Didn’t matter he said that Obama must have done it for the good of Israel. I remember my parents had a similar reaction to Roosevelt. In their eyes he was a saint and even though they were highly educated they wouldn’t listen to anything negative about him.