[untitled]
35 comments
Very strange post title. Is there context I'm missing?
For the uninformed, Marc Lamont Hill is a university professor and CNN contributor who was fired from CNN yesterday after his speech to the United Nations in which he argued for "a free Palestine from the river to the sea" (meaning the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea).[0]
That phrase has been repeatedly used[1] by Hamas and other terrorist organizations calling for the eradication of Israel and its Jews; if Palestine exists from the river to the sea, there is no room for Israel. This statement is a variation on the phrase which Islamic apocalyptic fundamentalists claim the Islamic Madhi will pronounce in the last days: "Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."
The Anti-Defamation League and other prominent Jewish organizations, both left and right leaning, condemned the speech. ADL vice president said[2],
"Those calling for ‘from the river to the sea’ are calling for an end to the State of Israel...It is a shame that once again, this annual event at the United Nations does not promote constructive pathways to ‘Palestinian solidarity’ and a future of peace, but instead divisive and destructive action against Israel."
Hill later claimed[3] he was not calling for the destruction of Israel. But other snippets from his speech[0] showed he in fact was arguing that the UN should permit violence against Israelis, and that peaceful protest was not the only way forward for Arabs living in and around Israel.
[0]: https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/1067985406388510727
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_nationalism#From_t...
[2]: https://jewishjournal.com/news/nation/242732/cnn-commentator...
[2]: https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/106823807625274572...
That phrase has been repeatedly used[1] by Hamas and other terrorist organizations calling for the eradication of Israel and its Jews; if Palestine exists from the river to the sea, there is no room for Israel. This statement is a variation on the phrase which Islamic apocalyptic fundamentalists claim the Islamic Madhi will pronounce in the last days: "Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."
The Anti-Defamation League and other prominent Jewish organizations, both left and right leaning, condemned the speech. ADL vice president said[2],
"Those calling for ‘from the river to the sea’ are calling for an end to the State of Israel...It is a shame that once again, this annual event at the United Nations does not promote constructive pathways to ‘Palestinian solidarity’ and a future of peace, but instead divisive and destructive action against Israel."
Hill later claimed[3] he was not calling for the destruction of Israel. But other snippets from his speech[0] showed he in fact was arguing that the UN should permit violence against Israelis, and that peaceful protest was not the only way forward for Arabs living in and around Israel.
[0]: https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/1067985406388510727
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_nationalism#From_t...
[2]: https://jewishjournal.com/news/nation/242732/cnn-commentator...
[2]: https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/106823807625274572...
Interesting (but not really) that twisting his words made it to HN. Watch the video of his speech, it’s ~20 minutes (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BvzSv28z97o). He says, and is pretty clear, that peace is the key, but don’t idolize it because as other movements have shown, the oppressed need to fight back.
American Colonials against the British, for example
It's not twisting his words. He literally said, "Palestine from the river to the sea." That means no Israel. Its why that phrase has been used repeatedly by Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization whose charter calls for the violent destruction of the world's only Jewish state.
He in no way implied that the UN should permit violence. This is completely false.
What Israel has done in Palestine is countless atrocities recognized by the UN every country in the world except the US.
I visited two years ago. Witnessed Israeli settlers live taking over Palestinian homes after they were kicked out by the police.
The systemic oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli government and supported by the US must end.
What Israel has done in Palestine is countless atrocities recognized by the UN every country in the world except the US.
I visited two years ago. Witnessed Israeli settlers live taking over Palestinian homes after they were kicked out by the police.
The systemic oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli government and supported by the US must end.
He absolutely implied, and the comments in this thread document precisely that.
More importantly, he stated "Palestine from the river to the sea", which is an anti-Semitic dog whistle calling for the eradication of Israel. It's a statement repeatedly used by Hamas, the anti-Semitic terrorist organization whose charter calls for Israel's violent destruction.
More importantly, he stated "Palestine from the river to the sea", which is an anti-Semitic dog whistle calling for the eradication of Israel. It's a statement repeatedly used by Hamas, the anti-Semitic terrorist organization whose charter calls for Israel's violent destruction.
What other snippets from the speech show he believed in permitting violence?
It sure looks like another case of anti-Palestine groups conflating criticism of the apartheid policies of Israel with antisemitism.
edit: As an example, look at the ADL's incredibly misleading take on the BDS movement:
https://www.adl.org/what-we-do/israel/anti-israel-activity-b...
edit: As an example, look at the ADL's incredibly misleading take on the BDS movement:
https://www.adl.org/what-we-do/israel/anti-israel-activity-b...
Here's a piece of the speech where he argues that we should permit violence against Israelis: https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/1067985406388510727
[deleted]
>“Contrary to western mythology, black resistance to American apartheid did not come purely through Ghandi and nonviolence," Hill said (see video below.) "Rather, slave revolts and self-defense and tactics otherwise divergent from Dr. King or Mahatma Gandhi were equally important to preserving safety and attaining freedom. If we are to operate in true solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must allow the Palestinian people the same range of opportunity and political possibility. If we are standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend itself. We must prioritize peace, but we must not romanticize or fetishize it. We must advocate and promote nonviolence at every opportunity, but we cannot endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing
He's not defending violence. The media has a long track record of portraying protests/etc by the Palestians as violent and terroristic, even when it is not. The Palestinians are commonly terrorized or even murdered by radical Israelis, but you never hear about that.
The thing is, you cannot defeat oppression by engaging in decorum politics. That's not how the Civil Rights movement happened, contrary to popular belief. Ditto for about every other successful mass movement. By insisting the Palestinians only ask nicely for their basic human rights to be upheld, one becomes complicit.
The thing is, you cannot defeat oppression by engaging in decorum politics. That's not how the Civil Rights movement happened, contrary to popular belief. Ditto for about every other successful mass movement. By insisting the Palestinians only ask nicely for their basic human rights to be upheld, one becomes complicit.
> "a free Palestine from the river to the sea" (meaning the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea).
This is literally calling for a genocide of every Jewish person is Israel. Enough is Enough.
This is literally calling for a genocide of every Jewish person is Israel. Enough is Enough.
What you fail to note is that Palestinians use this term in the context of demolishing Israeli apartheid policies and aggression towards the Palestinians for the past 70 years. It is Israel who uprooted them from their homes, it is Israel who occupied the WB and Gaza and it continues to be the aggressor. Even after multiple UN resolutions that call for the right of return for all Palestinians who were uprooted from their homeland in 1948, Israel turns a blind eye. Maybe because they feel they can get away with it and cry anti-semitism anytime someone criticizes Israeli policies. That's exactly what you're doing here, you are trying to steer the conversation away from the reality on the ground. The reality is that Gaza is an open-air prison, Israeli forces continue to shoot UNARMED civilians at the fence while they are protesting their UN right to return to their homeland. And instead of engaging in a discussion where we can lay out the facts, you cry anti-semitism because its the easy way out hoping the world will turn away. Just to note something there, there are many many Jews who criticize Israel and they stand up for the basic right of the Palestinian people. I would suggest taking a look at JVP, If Not Now and look at the works of Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pape.
I highly suggest that if anyone is interested in this topic to visit the West Bank and see for yourself the brutality and occupation the Palestinians face on a daily basis. Don't fall for what the American media will feed you, you must see it for yourself as I have in the past summer. Its also important to note that Shaun King, BLM, and multiple Black activists/movements support the Palestinian movement towards their liberation. It's also important to note that recently Israel passed a law stating the even Palestinians who carry Israeli citizenship (which make up 20% of their population) are deemed as second class citizens.
Here are some links:
Ilan's Pape book: https://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe...
JVP: https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
If Not Now: http://ifnotnowmovement.org/
Here are some links:
Ilan's Pape book: https://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe...
JVP: https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
If Not Now: http://ifnotnowmovement.org/
>> "What you fail to note is that Palestinians use this term in the context of demolishing Israeli ...policies"
That's true, but both of the Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, use this phrase to mean destruction of Israel itself, not just policies. If Palestine exists from the river to the sea, there is no Israel. The ADL noted this in their rebuke of Mr. Hill yesterday.
If both governing Palestinian factions use that anti-Semitic phrase in a way meant for the violent destruction of the world's only Jewish state, it's naive to think it's a harmless phrase directed at policy alone.
>> "Don't fall for what the American media will feed you..."
OK, now you're getting into conspiracy theory land. Why should we not "fall for what the American media will feed" us? Is it because the American media is made up of Jews?
When I was Nazareth, I spoke with 3 Arab teens. They told me precisely this: CNN is controlled by Jews, therefore we shouldn't listen to them. It's anti-Semitic, hate-filled nonsense if I've ever heard it. I'd expect such nonsense on extremist forums, but not on HN.
That's true, but both of the Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, use this phrase to mean destruction of Israel itself, not just policies. If Palestine exists from the river to the sea, there is no Israel. The ADL noted this in their rebuke of Mr. Hill yesterday.
If both governing Palestinian factions use that anti-Semitic phrase in a way meant for the violent destruction of the world's only Jewish state, it's naive to think it's a harmless phrase directed at policy alone.
>> "Don't fall for what the American media will feed you..."
OK, now you're getting into conspiracy theory land. Why should we not "fall for what the American media will feed" us? Is it because the American media is made up of Jews?
When I was Nazareth, I spoke with 3 Arab teens. They told me precisely this: CNN is controlled by Jews, therefore we shouldn't listen to them. It's anti-Semitic, hate-filled nonsense if I've ever heard it. I'd expect such nonsense on extremist forums, but not on HN.
Still free speech, though.
Sure, he has the freedom to say it. And CNN has the freedom to terminate their contract with him.
Says the username judah :-)
Since we just warned you about this, I've banned this account.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18564254
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18564254
For the uninformed, here is my completely biased take as a Zionist.
The simplest and best reply to the Darwin tweet is this
https://twitter.com/paraschopra/status/1068462375970443264
> Today’s Darwin would be like the original Darwin. > Someone with FU money, not dependent on grants,
EDIT: added quote
https://twitter.com/paraschopra/status/1068462375970443264
> Today’s Darwin would be like the original Darwin. > Someone with FU money, not dependent on grants,
EDIT: added quote
>The simplest and best reply to the Darwin tweet is this
That's a terrible reply as it implicitly endorses the idea the rich and powerful can say and do anything while the less fortunate better know their place and toe the line.
That's a terrible reply as it implicitly endorses the idea the rich and powerful can say and do anything while the less fortunate better know their place and toe the line.
And that's not true? When you have to worry about maintaining a job you 100% have to watch what you say. We even have a saying which encapsulates this phenomenon - "FU money".
What part of my reply debated the truth of what was said? The tone of the tweet is gleeful endorsement. Hence it is not the "best" reply as espoused by the GGP. Thus my response and I'll quote it as a reminder since your response is a non sequitur.
>it implicitly endorses the idea the rich and powerful can say and do anything
When replying, please try to actually respond to what was written and not just how you feel about it or just the first thing that pops in your head.
>it implicitly endorses the idea the rich and powerful can say and do anything
When replying, please try to actually respond to what was written and not just how you feel about it or just the first thing that pops in your head.
Well, actually...
PG laments the difference between today and 1500s. He is not talking about some ideal utopia. So the reply tweet claims that the difference is not that great.
PG laments the difference between today and 1500s. He is not talking about some ideal utopia. So the reply tweet claims that the difference is not that great.
Could you explain what makes you interpret a tone of "gleeful endorsement"? It doesn't read to me like that at all.
I think it's purposely generic to encompass many examples, besides the one that's most recent?
His tweet is pretty dumb on pretty much every level. People publishing uncoventional and unpopular ideas on twitter get booked on speaking tours, collect money from patreon and publish best-selling books. Being an alt-right provocateur is a pretty good gig, all considered.
The idiots getting fired for stuff they said on twitter are almost all out and out racists and bigots who had nothing interesting or important to say.
The idiots getting fired for stuff they said on twitter are almost all out and out racists and bigots who had nothing interesting or important to say.
I doubt Darwin would have anything to worry about today. If his paper actually got any attention on social media at all, it would not go against any of the beliefs of the companies on social media. Frankly, given some of the things that regularly get said about groups of people, Darwin really wouldn't be that controversial. It was more problematic in his age. Heck, since 1950, even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin[1] and says there is no conflict.
Which group would get Darwin fired?
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_generis
Which group would get Darwin fired?
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_generis
The problem is not to publish the same ideas of Darwin, because they have mostly become popular culture. Perhaps outside some circles is more dangerous to publish something against Darwin. The problem is what are the current theories that are too dangerous to publish because you will get a tweetstorm against you and get fired, so anyone sane will self censor and shut up.
Let's pick a very safe example. A recent HN post was about a paper of low energy nuclear reactions (aka cold fusion). If I had full inquisition power, I'd recommend to fire the authors and burn all the copies of the paper, but luckily no one gave me full inquisition power and too lazy to even post a comment in the HN thread to call them crackpots. (Moreover, there is a tiny chance that they are right, I didn't read the full paper, but that intermediate neutron idea is too weird to be true.) Should they had shut up?
Let's pick a very safe example. A recent HN post was about a paper of low energy nuclear reactions (aka cold fusion). If I had full inquisition power, I'd recommend to fire the authors and burn all the copies of the paper, but luckily no one gave me full inquisition power and too lazy to even post a comment in the HN thread to call them crackpots. (Moreover, there is a tiny chance that they are right, I didn't read the full paper, but that intermediate neutron idea is too weird to be true.) Should they had shut up?
I doubt nuclear will ever be a safe topic, but they shouldn't shut up. Unless they have committed fraud or great incompetence, they shouldn't shut up. I would expect someone to try to duplicate their research. If that is shown to be impossible, then bring the pitchforks.
Unless you pick some topic that is considered proven, the mob really isn't going to be an issue.
Unless you pick some topic that is considered proven, the mob really isn't going to be an issue.
> Heck, since 1950, even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin[1] and says there is no conflict.
A bit tangential, but it's inaccurate and unfair to say that "even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin" because it plays into Protestant and Enlightenment anti-Catholic propaganda that continues to be repeated to this day. The Church is not in the business of making pronouncements about scientific questions as such. It has commented on subjects of a scientific nature in order to clarify any concerns that the Magisterium has perceived in the laity, etc, concerning issues related to or apparently related to doctrinal matters. However, not only is science not in the business of decreeing "official truths and acceptable beliefs", but the Church is not even a scientific institution as such, so there should be no expectation that the Church need to have an official position about such things (it has no position on evolution, for example) because it is not its department.
A bit tangential, but it's inaccurate and unfair to say that "even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin" because it plays into Protestant and Enlightenment anti-Catholic propaganda that continues to be repeated to this day. The Church is not in the business of making pronouncements about scientific questions as such. It has commented on subjects of a scientific nature in order to clarify any concerns that the Magisterium has perceived in the laity, etc, concerning issues related to or apparently related to doctrinal matters. However, not only is science not in the business of decreeing "official truths and acceptable beliefs", but the Church is not even a scientific institution as such, so there should be no expectation that the Church need to have an official position about such things (it has no position on evolution, for example) because it is not its department.
Look, the Catholic Church gets a lot of undeserved grief (and frankly some deserved), but if you look back they did make pronouncements about scientific questions and certainly some scientists did run afoul of the church.
Why would you think that the tweet is about MLH? He made these remarks during a speech, not on social media, though I'm sure the social media storm was notable.
FWIW, I always found him insufferable and strident. He cuts people off he doesn't agree with, yells at them, and engages people in uncivil and boorish ways. He should have been fired for that reason alone.
FWIW, I always found him insufferable and strident. He cuts people off he doesn't agree with, yells at them, and engages people in uncivil and boorish ways. He should have been fired for that reason alone.