CNN Contributer Fired For Pro-Palestinian Comments At UN Address - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14968569


Marc Lamont Hill just got Helen Thomas'd

EXCLUSIVE: CNN Fires Marc Lamont Hill Following Israel 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.

On Thursday, Hill rejected accusations of anti-Semitism in several tweets:



#14968748
When you demand one side be silenced, it is naive not to expect the same to happen to you. Something ‘liberals’ just refuse to foresee in their self righteous discrimination of others.
#14968758
I don’t see how you can not see my concern for free speech in my comment? Firing a reporter for bias reporting makes sense. Firing him for a particular bias is limiting free speech.
Today, when all reporting is biased, it is difficult to determine their reason is not political, but it’s possible.
#14968760
One Degree wrote:I don’t see how you can not see my concern for free speech in my comment? Firing a reporter for bias reporting makes sense.


It's not really biased when it is true. Although I suspect you would be the first to complain if someone reported the opinions of Trump and got fired.

Although I will say I agree with your point that progressives are falling on the sword they lay out for themselves on ethical codes and standards they demand from others.
#14968792
maz wrote:Hill's controversial statements wasn't a CNN report though, it was part of a UN address.

In my opinion, it's like if you were to get fired from your job for something you said at the bar.


Oops, that did slip my mind. He should be free to say anything he wants if he was invited to speak. What’s wrong with what business did in the past of just saying “his opinions do not necessarily represent ours”?
#14968897


Hill only called for “a free Palestine from the river to the sea” and I thought CNN was on the same page, guessing from CNN's repuation as a fake news source. His speech overall was pretty decent and he is a professor of media studies at Temple. Instead, I think CNN should fire Jim Acosta who lost his White House press pass.

“Throughout my speech, I spoke explicitly about the need for Israeli political reform, specifically as it pertains to Arab citizens of Israel. I also called for a redrawing of borders to the pre-1967 lines, as well as a greater attention to human rights for those living in the West Bank and Gaza. At the time, I believed that these demands made in the speech sufficiently reflected my belief in radical change within Israel, not a desire for its destruction,” he wrote. “Clearly, they did not.”

“I take seriously the voices of so many Jewish brothers and sisters, who have interpreted my remarks as a call to or endorsement of violence. Rather than hearing a political solution, many heard a dog-whistle that conjured a long and deep history of violence against Jewish people. Although this was the furthest thing from my intent, those particular words clearly caused confusion, anger, fear, and other forms of harm. For that, I am deeply sorry,” he wrote.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/marc-lamo ... er-to-sea/
#14968902
ThirdTerm wrote:Hill only called for “a free Palestine from the river to the sea”

The problem is that there is already a country between the river and the sea and that country is not "Palestine".

ThirdTerm wrote:he is a professor of media studies at Temple.

In today's runaway PC environment, being a professor in an American university does not mean much.
There are plenty of moron professors

ThirdTerm wrote:For that, I am deeply sorry,” he wrote.

He is not really sorry, he is just lamenting the loss of the extra income.
#14969105
Gideon Levy wrote:In U.S. Media, Israel Is Untouchable
Marc Lamont Hill is an American writer and lecturer in communications at Temple University in Philadelphia, and also an analyst with CNN. In a speech last week at a United Nations conference he called for “international action that will give us what justice requires and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

In a matter of hours, the skies collapsed into well-orchestrated hysteria. Seth Mandel, editor of the Washington Examiner, accused Hill of having called for Jewish genocide; Ben Shapiro, an analyst on Fox News, called it an anti-Semitic speech; Consul Dani Dayan tweeted that Hill’s remarks were like a “swastika painted in red,” the Anti-Defamation League said they were tantamount to calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. The inevitable outcome was not long in coming and CNN fired the rebel analyst on the very same day.

How dare he? What was he thinking? Where did he think he’s living, in a democracy with free speech or a country where dialogue about Israel is under the serious censorship of the Jewish establishment and Israeli propaganda? Hill tried to claim that he’s opposed to racism and anti-Semitism and his remarks were intended to support the establishment of a binational, secular and democratic state. But he didn’t stand a chance.

In the heavy-handed reality that has seized control over dialogue in the United States, there’s no room for expressions that may offend the Israeli occupation. On a liberal day it’s permissible to say “two states” as long as you do it in a whisper.

What would have happened if Hill had called for the establishment of a Jewish state between the Jordan and the sea? He would have safely continued holding down his job. Rick Santorum, the former senator, said in 2012 that “no Palestinian” lives in the West Bank. Nobody thought of firing him. Even Hill’s critic, Shapiro, has called in the past for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the territories (he backtracked on it a few years later) and nothing happened to him.

You can attack the Palestinians in America uninterrupted, call to expel them and deny their existence. Only don’t dare to touch Israel, the holy of holies, the country that exists above suspicion. And the height of chutzpah? Israel and the Jewish establishment keep on accusing the media, including CNN, of being slanderers of Israel. There’s no worse joke than that. Try to publish a critical article about Israel in a mainstream newspaper in the West – it’s getting more and more difficult, more often than not, impossible. But nothing will satisfy the lion’s hunger: The more he complains, the stronger he gets.

The key word of course is anti-Semitism. A lot has been written about the use Israel and its supporters make of anti-Semitism. And it works wondrously, it’s a magic word that silences people. There has not yet been a single critique of occupation that isn’t tagged as anti-Semitism. Everything is anti-Semitism: Hill is anti-Semitic because he favors a one-state solution, Roger Waters is an anti-Semite because that’s how Gilad Erdan described him at a conference last week about propaganda in Germany, UNRWA is anti-Semitic, and of course, BDS. The whole world is against us.

Last week there was a lot of fuss over a world survey of anti-Semitism conducted by CNN. It turns out that the Jews are not as hated as Israel would like: Only 10 percent said they had any negative feelings about them. Nearly four times as many people said they don’t like Muslims. Along with its worrisome aspects, the survey points up more than a few truths you can’t deny. Twenty-eight percent of those questioned said that anti-Semitism in their countries is a result of Israeli policy. A third believe that Israel takes advantage of the Holocaust to advance its positions. One in five thought the Jews have too much influence in the media.

Fire more analysts who dare to criticize Israel or suggest just solutions to the occupation – and more people surveyed will say what everyone knows: The Jews and Israel have an incredible degree of influence in Western media. Now you can call me an anti-Semite, as well.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premiu ... scoWf8bsj4
#14969147
Ter wrote:There was no country there and it was a decision of the UN to allocate land to create the Jewish state of Israel.


So if people don't want to establish a state that gives anyone in the world the to right come in, push them off the the land they're occupying, and start dictating where and how they're going to live? I don't think so. That's just uncivilized savagery. The fact that the world operates on such primitive belligerence and is run by barbarians in $5000 suits doesn't justify or excuse the aggression.
#14969149
skinster wrote:It wasn't considered to be a Jewish state during UN's partition and it most certainly isn't today, unless all those non-Jews in the land of Palestine are considered Jews too, when over half of the population are obviously not, including those who pretend to be (goys like ZN).


Your statement is laughable but I understand that after reading the electronic intifada and other such propaganda sources you genuinely believe what you stated.

So when the UN decided to allocate a land to the Jews after WWII, it was not supposed to be a Jewish State ?
The 20% Arabs and other non-Jews living in Israel today do not change its status of being a Jewish State.
You cannot wish it away and you cannot fight it away.
Learn to live with it.
#14969154
Ter wrote:You cannot wish it away and you cannot fight it away.
Learn to live with it.


That's what all tyrannies claim before they're overthrown. It's not a question of if the vicious apartheid zionist regime will be brought down, it's only a matter of time.
#14969168
Sivad wrote:That's what all tyrannies claim before they're overthrown. It's not a question of if the vicious apartheid zionist regime will be brought down, it's only a matter of time.


Yes, a government or a king can be overthrown, but how can a country be overthrown ?

@Sivad
About your earlier post : the people who built up Israel in the beginning were pretty socialist-minded. They wore shorts and worked the land in kibbutzim where they shared everything including the upbringing of their children.
The suicide bombing and intifadas have caused the turn to the right and even the extreme right. And now we are where we are.
#14969172
Ter wrote:Yes, a government or a king can be overthrown, but how can a country be overthrown ?


Countries are overthrown all the time, what are you talking about?

@Sivad
About your earlier post : the people who built up Israel in the beginning were pretty socialist-minded. They wore shorts and worked the land in kibbutzim where they shared everything including the upbringing of their children.
[/quote]

That's not my kind of socialism, that's really just shitty collectivism.

These human feelings existed long before capitali[…]

Is magic being resisted by the selection of a corr[…]

Congratulations. You are wrong. Back to the sam[…]

Is it elitist, if the structure of socialism consi[…]