Should have chose his words better. Something along the lines of
Free free Palestine, Fuck Israel
Free free Palestine, Fuck Israel
-
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
I don't understand this. Why do people feel the need to weigh in if they even know they don't understand the topic?
It's a topic that's been studied to death and a major discursive topic. If you haven't a clue about it then what's the point of chiming in besides knee jerk conservatism?
The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim is probably the best book on the subject. It's quite readable for lay people as well.
Though according to some here who haven't read it, it's anti-Semitic for vague unexplained reasons.
Last edited:
Of course genocide is never a viable option. Who here is supporting genocide????
Cool, you seem like the perfect person to lecture people on this subject.
You are correct it wasn't used that way historically, but from just a quick google search I can see that the phrase is linked with genocide in modern times due to terrorist group using it with such meaning.
I still think the firing is justified based on the grounds that the phrase is innapropiate. But I'll also say that it is unjustified on the grounds that the pro Israeli contributor that is apparently harboring Palestinian removal by any means isn't treated with the same radicality. I believe he too should be fired.
But going back to the reporter, this situation could have happened in one of three ways, I'll list them from best to worst in my opinion.
1. He knew the modern meaning tried using it on a different context and thought his arguments could make him safe. But it didn't work as expected.
-Basically he took a risk and it backfired on him
2. He was unaware of the term, which would mean he wasn't doing his job right, because if you're going to state an opinion in public you should have facts to back them up.
-This would be negligence imo considering that if he is a reporter his main job is to collect facts to relay them to the public.
3. He was dog whistling and was trying to see how far he could go.
-I believe this is the most unlikely scenario based on some of ERA comments on his stance on the matter.
I'm not lecturing anyone though? I'm simply asking a very basic question. If the term has the current negative context why did he choose to use it. And I said if there was something wrong with my opinion you could correct me. But it's much easier to give a knee jerk reaction than answer or to st least try having a discussion.
But I see some members aren't happy with my being on the thread. I'll just not respond to the topic anymore to avoid any problems.
This a the problem with US media, there are 100% behind Israel with NO NEUTRALITY whatsoever ( as we have - kind of - in Europe ).
I mean there are resolutions that were accepted by the UN that have yet to be enforced. There is a constant blockade of Gaza that is totally illegal.
Besides, there are the continuous violations of International agreements with the colonisation of Palestinian territories.
So as a journalist you just do your job to report what is going on and you're fired ? That's sad.
Now he should have been careful with the choices if its words. This is a very sensible and explosive subject.
Now...
Yes terrorism must ALWAYS be condemned. But let's not act like as if freedom movements didn't resort to violence in order to gain freedom.... So even if Hamas action are at times despicable. There are in lines with other freedom movements in recent history.
I'm French and during "the Resistance" in World War 2, we did terror acts. "The ANC" did with Mandela during the Apartheid ( before going for the non violence route ). "The FLN" did it in Algeria against the France. Israel itself did it with "Irgun" against the British. So let's not be naive here... There are dozens of examples : ETA, IRA, the Tamoul Tigers, etc...
It's a complicated subject with no easy solutions. But we have a way around it that was agreed : the return to the boundaries of 1967. This was agreed by both Israel and the Palestinians. But over the years, the Hawks gained ground in Isreal and in the US, and the truth is there are not interested to honor those agreements. This will not help for peace.
Yes Israel have the right to Peace. But Palestinians have the right to a legitimate State with their own autonomy. Unfortunately, Peace will not happen anytime soon as Hawks are now hold all the cards in their hands...
I mean there are resolutions that were accepted by the UN that have yet to be enforced. There is a constant blockade of Gaza that is totally illegal.
Besides, there are the continuous violations of International agreements with the colonisation of Palestinian territories.
So as a journalist you just do your job to report what is going on and you're fired ? That's sad.
Now he should have been careful with the choices if its words. This is a very sensible and explosive subject.
Now...
Yes terrorism must ALWAYS be condemned. But let's not act like as if freedom movements didn't resort to violence in order to gain freedom.... So even if Hamas action are at times despicable. There are in lines with other freedom movements in recent history.
I'm French and during "the Resistance" in World War 2, we did terror acts. "The ANC" did with Mandela during the Apartheid ( before going for the non violence route ). "The FLN" did it in Algeria against the France. Israel itself did it with "Irgun" against the British. So let's not be naive here... There are dozens of examples : ETA, IRA, the Tamoul Tigers, etc...
It's a complicated subject with no easy solutions. But we have a way around it that was agreed : the return to the boundaries of 1967. This was agreed by both Israel and the Palestinians. But over the years, the Hawks gained ground in Isreal and in the US, and the truth is there are not interested to honor those agreements. This will not help for peace.
Yes Israel have the right to Peace. But Palestinians have the right to a legitimate State with their own autonomy. Unfortunately, Peace will not happen anytime soon as Hawks are now hold all the cards in their hands...
It's only a problem for CNN when it means calling out the injustices committed from Isreal. When CNN has on air senior political commentators say things that violate international law i.e.:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...4/gIQAcxsIbP_blog.html?utm_term=.3835e30f6d89
Then they're perfectly cool to remain employed.
I mean, the specific phrase he used isn't exactly simple criticism tho right?
So bascially, what your saying is, its okay to deplatform leftists on the grounds of being against the israeli government's apartheid. Not surprised.
People need to fucking understand the difference between full criticism of israel's government and "antisemitism".
Or perhaps the real issue is that they are intentionally misrepresenting it to gain a political advantage for the right wing israeli goverment
People need to fucking understand the difference between full criticism of israel's government and "antisemitism".
Or perhaps the real issue is that they are intentionally misrepresenting it to gain a political advantage for the right wing israeli goverment
Yikes! Really poor choice of words. Unfortunately there'd be no way his statement would have been accidental though, that statement has too much meaning.
Not really. Palestinians should be free in their historic homeland (West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and what's now Israel). Suggesting that's controversial is a massive attempt at shifting the overton window in favour of ethnic cleansing, colonialism and apartheid.
Saying that indigenous Americans should be free from coast to coast is not calling for the genocide of America.
So the takeaway here is, regardless of his other writings and talks about the subject matter, that he wishes to have Israel wiped off the Earth and replaced by a nation called Palestine?
It's a dog whistle, it doesn't matter who says it or what that person's interpretation is.
Seriously people, just ask yourselves, am I being a dick about this particular country more so than other similar countries and am I applying the same standard to Israel as I would Saudi, Pakistan, any other state that elevates it's natives.
If your answer is that actually Israel is the only country I'm happy destroying then you're probably a racist. If not then cool beans, you don't need to come into ever Israel thread saying you can't talk about Israel without being accused of antisemitism before anyone has actually done so .
I guess I should I should have been more specific, the statement we're discussing is the 'river to the sea' part.
See a post such as #155 for a better clarification.
"destroying" lol
I said this already, but absolutely no one here is calling for the genocide or ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews. If that's the only alternative you can imagine to maintaining Israel as a Jewish ethnostate, that says far more about you than about the Palestinians or the non-Zionist left.
There are practical consequences to ending the state of Israel which absolutely do involve the murder and ethnic cleansing of Jews.
Israel occupied Palestinian territory because a) they want it and b) there was a war where every neighbour invaded them with the intention of killing Jews and driving them out of Palestine.
Historic Palestine exists from the river to the sea. A one state solution, which is the only feasible and just solution that recognises the rights of refugees, would give Palestinians equal rights in their historic homeland.
If you think that Palestinians should be restricted to around 20% of their homeland because they're not the right race then you're an appalling racist.
Yeah, "the minority we're currently brutally oppressing must forever be oppressed because they have an innate, insatiable thirst for our blood and will kill/rape us all if we ever take our boot off their neck" was the argument in South Africa, too.
Huh??
That's not at all what I or the guy in post #155 are saying.
Oof
Greenwald on fake outrage, the weaponizing of it, deplatforming:
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29...-offensive-defense-of-palestinians-at-the-un/
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29...-offensive-defense-of-palestinians-at-the-un/
It's been used since the 60s as call for Palestinian control of all Israeli land. There's really no confusion about the phrase.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/...hill-saying-palestinians-deserve-equal-rights
Educate yourself about the man and what he's being doing before you make an ass of yourself
It suggests that because some people have used it in the name of genocide that we should never use it? That's an absurd notion.
That includes this very website by the way. Israel is afforded extra protection for reasons that are unclear unless we accept the conflation of Israel and all Jewish people. Which I'd argue is ironically very antisemitic. I know I'd be upset if someone lumped me in with the Provos.
I don't think Hill is anti-semitic, I think he used a phrase poorly. But the defense of the phrase in this thread is baffling.
How many of the people saying otherwise are even real. We complain of Russian bots and trolls. Are there not Israeli bots and trolls?
Yes anyways who disagrees with you must be a bot or a troll.
He's not calling for the destruction of Israel but he is using a phrase that has been used as a call for the destruction of Israel for the past 50 years while he advocates for freedom and equality for Palestinians. It's a very bad choice of words.
There is an obvious difference here in that the Jews have actually had many attempts over several thousands of years of different groups doing it to them. It's not a theoretical what if, like SA, it's a fact of reality. Their nearest neighbours are very explicit about what they would like to do to the Jews and Hamas does not have a Mandela.
I understand that most of you don't know anywhere near enough about the situation so I don't ascribe racist motives but you're parroting the views of racists.
That is a beautiful map of the West bank. But not very real.
... what? They have agents everywhere?
This site is great because people can't just making sweeping generalisations against the LGBT agenda, or minorities, or any other group really. I don't know what value conspiracy theories about Israel manipulating or controlling the USA add to any discussion. It feeds directly into the "(((globalists))) controlling the USA" stuff the alt-right has been pumping out.
This is a cop out passive agressive ad hominem. Ironically it's one that can very very easily be flipped around in the situation. Certainly most academics, including the foremost authorities like Louis and Shlaim, would argue the racism from ignorance in America on this situation comes overwhelming from one side.
Israel is a political entity, it doesn't represent Jews. You can't justify oppression and persecution by pointing out that the oppressors have experienced oppression and persecution. Early zionists and Israel's founders were very open about population 'transfer' and literally every government since Israel's founding through ethnic cleansing of a majority of Palestinians has supported anti-Palestinian racism.
Middle-Eastern countries don't oppose Israel because they 'hate Jews' (though of course anti-semitism is pervasive. Jews lived in peace in Palestine pre-zionism. The Arab Peace Initiative even offered normalised relations with the Arab world in return for a peace agreement in line with international law but Israel rejected it
How do you not get that LGBT+, Black people, or Jewish people aren't analogous to the Israeli state?
Meanwhile whining about the bias of this site on the matter is hilarious given that Israel is overtly given unique special protection here by the mods.
nah, I'm a non-Zionist Jew and I assure you I'm more than familiar with every variant of the "Palestinians insatiably thirst for Jewish blood" "argument," including parroting the Hamas charter as though it's still a literal statement of political intent over thirty years later
would there be formidable obstacles to integrating Jews and Palestinians in a single state? No doubt, but that doesn't make the apartheid status quo or clinging to the delusional, long-dead two-state fantasy better options
I think the situation in Palestine and their support of Hama is more complicated than some people give it credit for when you look at the intervention that caused Hamas to gain power in the first place (hint: it wasn't from neighbouring Islamic nations) or why there have been no elections since then (hint: Those who actually hold power in the region get to determine that). However, if you honestly believe in a one state solution for the region then you obviously shouldn't be dog whistling for genocide. Even if it was him making a mistake with the phrase and he genuinely wants a peaceful solution it's the type of mistake that probably should lead to someone getting fired.
My criticism of CNN would be them not firing employees that have said worse in favour of the other side who actually have the power to and have been attempting genocide with the long term aspirations of creating an Ethno State. Plus, them also being willing to platform other people who dog whistle or even those who explicitly talk about horrific political ideals.
My criticism of CNN would be them not firing employees that have said worse in favour of the other side who actually have the power to and have been attempting genocide with the long term aspirations of creating an Ethno State. Plus, them also being willing to platform other people who dog whistle or even those who explicitly talk about horrific political ideals.
That may well be true but the other side aren't on here, it's our side, and were supposed to be against racism.
The poster making the point about the alt right dog whistles is absolutely correct.
For many Israelis and even liberal Jewish Americans, calling for a one state solution is calling for the destruction of Israel - Israel as a Jewish ethnostate would cease to exist if Palestinians were given equal human rights. Therefore the freedom of the Palestinians from the river to the sea should not be spoken of and is the equivalent of calling for the destruction of Israel.
A guy just got fired for daring to speak about freedom of the Palestinians. And yet the US media keeps cheering on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their lands.
CNN, BBC etc. nothing but bullshit propaganda 'news' channels for the West. It's hilarious when people here criticize RT or Al Jazeera and use shit news channels like CNN and BBC to get their news.
A guy just got fired for daring to speak about freedom of the Palestinians. And yet the US media keeps cheering on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their lands.
CNN, BBC etc. nothing but bullshit propaganda 'news' channels for the West. It's hilarious when people here criticize RT or Al Jazeera and use shit news channels like CNN and BBC to get their news.
Please remain civil and courteous as we take your land, destroy your homes, cut off your water and electricity and murder your people.
And don't you dare throw rocks at our heavily armed and armored soldiers.
Remember, nice words only.
And don't you dare throw rocks at our heavily armed and armored soldiers.
Remember, nice words only.
What site are you on where that side isn't here? There's hardly a pro-palestein consensus here, though they might be a plurality.
This is such nonsense. "From the river to the sea" is a de facto rejection of a two state solution in favour of a single Palestinian state.
What's wrong with rejecting a two state solution exactly? It's what most people on the ground understand to be the inevitable outcome anyway.
You don't even have to call the new state Palestine, call it memetopia for all I care. It just needs to not be a ethno state de facto and de jure unlike Israel.
We're getting a one state solution either way. The question is what will happen to the Palestinians in the meantime and afterwards.