CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill in wake of remarks criticizing Israel and calling for a 'free Palestine'

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill in wake of remarks criticizing Israel and calling for a ‘free Palestine’

By Eli Rosenberg
November 29 at 5:22 PM

CNN fired Marc Lamont Hill on Thursday after the longtime contributor made comments about Israel during a United Nations speech.

Hill, a media studies professor at Temple University, had drawn scrutiny for calling for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea.” The words drew criticism from some conservatives and staunch Israel advocates, who said such remarks echoed language used by Hamas and other groups that seek to eliminate Israel.

“Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN,” spokeswoman Barbara Levin told The Washington Post. The company did not answer questions about why he was dismissed. The firing was first reported by Mediaite.

Some mainstream Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, expressed frustration with Hill’s remarks, which also included endorsing the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. Fox News also fanned the flames.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/29/cnn-fires-marc-lamont-hill-wake-remarks-criticizing-israel-calling-free-palestine/

[ADX]

1. CNN acted cowardly in firing him...

...MLH didn't call for the destruction of Israel, he called for freedom, justice and Palestinian self-determination.

[oberliner]

2. "From the river to the sea"

[aranthus]

3. Baloney!

If he didn't know what "From the river to the sea" meant, then he's too stupid and ignorant to be a journalist. Of course he knew what he was saying, and then he lied about it. There goes his credibility.

[ADX]

4. Please enlighten those of us too stupid and ignorant to be journalists then...

...What exactly does "from the river to the sea" mean and why is it so seemingly reprehensible?

[aranthus]

5. Here is a small sample

From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_nationalism#From_the_river_to_the_sea

From the river to the sea
"Palestine from the river to the sea" was claimed as Palestine by the PLO[65] from its establishment in 1964 until the signing of the Oslo Accords.[78] The PLO claim was originally set on areas, controlled by the State of Israel prior to 1967 War, meaning the combined Coastal Plain, Galilee, Yizrael Valley, Arava Valley and Negev Desert, but excluding West Bank (controlled then by Jordan) and Gaza Strip (occupied between 1959 and 1967 by Egypt). In a slightly different fashion "Palestine from the river to the sea" is still claimed by Hamas,[79] referring to all areas of former Mandatory Palestine.

From the River to the Sea (Arabic: min al-nahr ila al-bahr ) is, and forms part of, a popular political slogan used by Palestinian nationalists. It contains the notion that the land which lies between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea be entirely placed under Arab rule at the cost of the State of Israel, excluding the contested Golan Heights, conquered from Syria in 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1981.[80] It has been used frequently by Arab leaders[81][82] and is often chanted at anti-Israel demonstrations.[83]

The slogan is versatile with numerous variations including "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,"[84] "Palestine is ours from the river to the sea," "Palestine is Islamic from the river to the sea,"[85] Islamic scholars also claim the Mahdi will also declare the slogan in the following format: "Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."[86]

[ADX]

6. MLH called for "a free Palestine from the river to the sea"...

...What's so horrible about that? Palestinians should be "free" - free from oppression and free from the curtailing of their human rights. Furthermore, many phrases don't necessarily mean the same thing to all people. For instance, if I were to say "Black power!" some people would hear it as term of self-determination while others would hear it as a term of radical defiance. Sometimes, the fault lies with the "hearer" not the "sayer".

You're entitled to your opinion but personally, I believe MLH when he says this:

"My reference to “river to the sea” was not a call to destroy anything or anyone. It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things. No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant."

[aranthus]

7. If Palestine is to be from the River to the Sea, then where are they going to put Israel?

The phrase "From the River to the Sea" has such a well known anti-Israel, anti-Jewish meaning, that his claim that he meant to say something different is not at all credible, and your belief in him amounts to denial. What is truly troubling is that the same type of people and media who called racist dog whistle when the Republican candidate for governor in Florida said "monkey up" are now defending something that is not so much a dog whistle as it is a piercing shriek. It's dishonest. And the only reason I can think of for the dishonesty is that those people actually agree with Hill's extremist views.

[ADX]

8. I'm not in denial of shit, I just happen to disagree with you...

...I explained my position but since you insist on telling me what I believe, we're done here.

Feel free to get outraged about anything you like but don't expect me or any/every one else to see everything through the same myopic lens you use.

[aranthus]

9. I think you're the one who's myopic

You didn't justify your position at all. Why do you take Hill's word for it? Because he says he meant something else? Let's see. He has a history of demanding right of return, which consequently means the replacing of Israel with an Arab state. He's experienced in the area, so he knows the common meaning of the phrase, "From the River to the Sea." That phrase has been used to mean the replacement of Israel with an Arab state for decades. It doesn't have any other commonly used meaning. He spoke the phrase at a UN conference that is well known for supporting the extreme anti-Israel position. What basis is there to believe his denial? And if he really meant something else, why didn't he at least acknowledge that the phrase is so highly susceptible of the meaning that everyone on my side knows? And you think that I'm myopic? Have a nice day.

[ADX]

10. *SIGH*

I said I EXPLAINED my position, not justified it.

I strongly suspect that you have a problem with anybody who cares at all about the plight of the Palestinian people so save your diatribes for someone else because I'm not under any obligation to agree with you, no matter how much you rant and rave.

[aranthus]

11. I understand that you explained it

My point is that it makes no sense. I explained why. Have a nice day.

[ADX]

12. Of course it doesn't make sense to you...

...because unless someone agrees with your myopic point of view, nothing make sense.

Have a great day, sport...

[Sudsy]

13. There is also the expression

Greater Israel is used by extreme Zionists to claim all territory between the Tigris and Nile rivers. No one much gets his panties in a bunch over that.

[aranthus]

14. Because it's not true.

It's just another lie that the Israel haters use.