-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Marc Lamont Hill fired by CNN over Isreal remarks
- Thread starter Deleted member 6230
- Start date
You're right, context matters. And his quote:
"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,"
Does not at all imply destruction of Israel. The people that are trying to conflate his statements with Hamas are the ones arguing in bad faith especially when you consider his previous editorials and works on social justice.
It's a bit charged but given that the reality of the situation is exactly one side getting eradicated and the American culture, media, and state supporting the side doing the whole eradication bit I fail to see the issue.
There most certainly is: a binational state, which Hill explicitly supports and was advocating for.
Like, if one were to argue "While I understand that Hill and the overwhelming majority of the present-day non-Zionist left were using it to call for a binational state, the phrase 'from the river to the sea' is too easily misinterpreted as a call for violence against Israeli Jews, and perhaps they should find a different slogan," I wouldn't entirely agree with it, but I'd at least think that that's a fair point worth debating.
But that's never the discourse, and that's certainly not what got Hill fired; it's almost always just outright false claims that non-/anti-Zionists like Hill are calling for "the destruction of Israel" (read: the genocide or ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews), with no further nuance. Which is what leads me to think that the rejection of Zionism is the real problem for these folks, not any specific choice of slogan.
That kind of very loaded wording should definitely be avoided, and is nowhere on the side of peace.
That being said, as somebody pointed out, why the hell is someone like Santorum a paid contributor for CNN, considering what he's said about Palestinians (among all the vile bullshit Santorum has ever uttered)?
That being said, as somebody pointed out, why the hell is someone like Santorum a paid contributor for CNN, considering what he's said about Palestinians (among all the vile bullshit Santorum has ever uttered)?
https://twitter.com/omarbaddar/status/1068180992911990784?s=21
Here is a great twitter thread explaining why this is a bullshit and manufactured controversy. They knew exactly what MLH meant when he made these remarks. Important twitter thread, considering people here are already falling for the bullshit allegation that his comments are in any way anti Semitic or calling for the destruction of Israel.
Here is a great twitter thread explaining why this is a bullshit and manufactured controversy. They knew exactly what MLH meant when he made these remarks. Important twitter thread, considering people here are already falling for the bullshit allegation that his comments are in any way anti Semitic or calling for the destruction of Israel.
Begin your unpacking then. Good luck dodging a conflation of Jewish peoppe and Israel to make that point by the way. The quoted article has a perspective as does the guy who actually said it. Otherwise this is a cop out that says nothing.
For CNN, him using the phrase ignoring the context and history is enough to let him go because it now makes him a potential risk on a live mic. The most charitable reading of his usage of it is still specifically an issue for CNN because Hill was working as an on-air talent.
Stuff like AIPAC will absolutely grab onto something like this and exploit it as much as possible. It's also the case that he really shouldn't have used the phrase, and he's going to get good-faith criticism on that alongside the bad-faith criticism from the right wing all mixed together.
I can buy that.
Figures. Makes me wonder if he was being intentionally antagonistic in his choice of words.
I don't like his phrasing here but, in the context of the rest of his speech, it seems he used it out of ignorance?
CNN is utterly craven, of course. This is what they really had a problem with, not the phrasing used by Hill:
I saw his speech earlier and it rang true to me, especially the part about how as black Americans we should have empathy for the Palestinians because of our own struggles against apartheid.
CNN is utterly craven, of course. This is what they really had a problem with, not the phrasing used by Hill:
I saw his speech earlier and it rang true to me, especially the part about how as black Americans we should have empathy for the Palestinians because of our own struggles against apartheid.
OP
OP
I don't think he should have gotten fired and I don't think what he said was anti-semitic at all. It's just a convenient reach for isreal apologists to make to have his dissent silenced.
I mean isreal has gotten pretty aggressive with their apartheid state and open air prison
Well good, then we agree that CNN made their decision to appease the ultra Zionists out there and not the reasonable ones.
yup, this exact same campaign would have been launched against him regardless of his choice of words, and probably would have succeeded, because he called for a binational state, not because of the "from the river to the sea" phrase. they would have framed him as a raving antisemite calling for the "destruction of Israel" (read: the violent ethnic cleansing or genocide of Israeli Jews) regardless
There are also some really gross racial overtones here (Seth Mandel comparing Hill to Louis Farrakhan), which are sadly far from uncommon when black political figures are in any way critical of Israel
at least Kirblar is admitting that Hill wasn't actually calling for the genocide/expulsion of Israeli Jews, which IIRC he hasn't done in the past regarding the "from the river to the sea" phrase
I'm not a fan of many Israeli actions, but as someone who believes that the country should exist, that was a shitty thing to say.
Progressives are funny to me when it comes to Palestine. Y'all want to be unapologetically pro equality, pro human rights, pro social justice but when a historically awesome progressive activist like MLH is unapologetically pro Palestinian human rights... he shoulda known better and watched his words? From the river to the sea means the entire land of historical Palestine needs to be free. How is that in anyway controversial If you a true progressive for cares about human rights and dignity for all people? He literally said, I want justice and equality everywhere from the river to the sea for no matter who they are or what they look like. I was beginning to think activism for Palestinian Rights was mainstream enough to kill off PEPs control of the narrative among the left but I guess I'm dead wrong.
We don't. If he was working on the text side of the website I don't think this firing is defensible given his follow up statements and the way its presence in his remarks is juxtaposed against a speech that is relatively inoffensive . As he's an on-air talent, I see where this would be a problem for them.
The last time it came up was at the start of the year when it was being chanted at a DSA meeting. Context is king.
OP
OP
he's been an on air talent for years my guy. anyway don lemon still has a job after his many fuck ups including showing the nword on screen while asking "does this offend you" and years later hes still employed by the network.
I don't know about that first part as Hill hasn't had any issues in the past on-air. Yes, he was a bit daft to use the phrase as it gave certain folk an 'in' to start this campaign--and yes, there's fair criticism to why he shouldn't have used it at all. But taking two seconds to check his words as a whole, there's not much disagreeable there. Ends up feeling like CNN caved.
Progressive except for Palestine. Many simply don't care because it doesn't affect them directly. In the face of dire circumstances, the ones without a voice will be the first to be sacrificed for "the greater good" on the road paved by lesser-evilism
You all worry about Russia. Israel has scary amount of control over what happens in the US and no one blinks an eyelid. Everything from media to education institutions to political institutions. Israel has crazy clout on all of them. And is just as bad as Russia when it comes to Human rights.
glad to have you on record as believing that DSA supports the genocide and/or ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews, then. anyway, back to Hill
calling for a one-state solution is totally fine as long as it's the right kind
This is the type of shit that'll put the pressure on. CNN has got to reverse on this.
They shouldn't reverse anything. What he did was stupid and irresponsible. What they should do is fire Santorum.
They deserve every bit of criticism if they refuse to keep that same energy with Santorum.
Can't claim balance if its okay for a white guy to completely erase Palestinian identity
Troubled phrase or not, MLH made it explicitly clear he supports a 2 state solution.. Santorum wants 1....
But we're told that CNN is justified in letting him go, okay...
I've only known the phrase as something a bit... loaded.
I'd very much advise against it. It's not a good look.
Other than that, critisizing Israel is very rational.
CNN's still trash for other reasons though, considering the right wing garbage in their midst.
I'd very much advise against it. It's not a good look.
Other than that, critisizing Israel is very rational.
CNN's still trash for other reasons though, considering the right wing garbage in their midst.
I see no reason why Palestine shouldn't be restored to its original borders, or are we cool with settler colonial genocide now?
gross to see people here rationalizing this by a phrase that predates what the bad-faith right wingers are framing it as, but unsurprising
MLH was too good/insightful for CNN
amen
it very much does, and remains one of the best nonviolent means to combat white supremacists
but cute comment tho
MLH was too good/insightful for CNN
amen
it very much does, and remains one of the best nonviolent means to combat white supremacists
but cute comment tho
Just remember it's OK to give plenty of air time to various racists, Islamophobes, homophobes, misogynists and white supremacists but you better watch yourself if you sympathise with the continued oppression of the Palestinian people.
Yet another example of how free speech tends to go one way.
Yet another example of how free speech tends to go one way.
