CNN drops Marc Lamont Hill after anti-Israel remarks

[CJ 2.0]

I think you're referring to area C.
No one in the hard-right advocates to annex areas A and B and to give the Palestinians there citizenship.

Bennet representing the hard-right had voiced his opinion numerous times of granting some form of an autonomy to the Palestinians in areas A and B of the West Bank and annexing area C giving the Palestinians there citizenship the same way that was done with East Jerusalem.

No I think she meant the whole thing and argued that only elimination of the PA in the WB could allow for the palestinians to be deradicalized sufficiently to allow for proper integration.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16156306-the-israeli-solution




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Divine_Wind]

No he has not. He's explaining the situation to you...

The fact he repeated a common Hamas phrased then backpedaled from it like a circus clown means he's both an antisemitic and a gutless liar. I hope he's fired from his University job since those who support terrorism and the eradication of Israel are no better than the terrorists who actually murder people.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/media/marc-lamont-hill-cnn/index.html
[h]Hill also called for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea."...."My reference to 'river to the sea' was not a call to destroy anything or anyone," Hill continued in a separate tweet. "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."[/I]

Temple?s Marc Lamont Hill has supporters, detractors in Israel-Palestine controversy | News | phillytrib.com
Temple University released a statement Friday defending Hill’s right to speak freely, saying, “Professor Hill does not represent Temple University, and his views are his own. Further, Professor Hill’s right to express his opinion is protected by the Constitution to the same extent as any other private citizen.”

Patrick O’Connor, the chairman of Temple’s board, told a local media outlet Friday that Hill’s comments were “lamentable” and “disgusting. Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is entirely different.”

 

[Apocalypse]

No I think she meant the whole thing and argued that only elimination of the PA in the WB could allow for the palestinians to be deradicalized sufficiently to allow for proper integration.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16156306-the-israeli-solution




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not too familiar with Glick and her work, just know who she is. But yeah I guess you're right about that part.
There's clearly no sense in advocating for that kind of result.

 

[Divine_Wind]

No he has not. He's explaining the situation to you. As you seem to need it. ...

I'm sure he appreciates your help since he certainly needs its....as do you and others who want to see Israel destroyed "from the river to the sea".

 

[Divine_Wind]

It's all on the internet, doanchaknow?

Nobody needs to go anywhere anymore and everybody with an IP can spout forth to his or her heart's content, without bothering about anyone with actual personal experience.

In truth not the age of the knowledgeable but the age of those wishing to see themselves as that.

LOL. First, what you are reading on the Internet is the opinions of those who've been there. Second, since I've been there, twice now, and you completely disregard it, then you are simply cherry-picking what you agree with on a subject which you have no actual experience. The psychological term is "confirmation bias".

Good luck with Brexit, you're going to need it.

 

[Chagos]

I'm sure he appreciates your help since he certainly needs its....as do you and others who want to see Israel destroyed "from the river to the sea".

In all fairness, the bolded is not what OlNate advocates.

 

[Chagos]

LOL. First, what you are reading on the Internet is the opinions of those who've been there. Second, since I've been there, twice now, and you completely disregard it, then you are simply cherry-picking what you agree with on a subject which you have no actual experience. The psychological term is "confirmation bias".

Good luck with Brexit, you're going to need it.

I'm getting the feeling that I should have added either an irony or a sarcasm emoji to my post (that which you quote).

Maybe, to be on the safe side, both.:lol:

 

[Nickyjo]

Only that Jews in this case are native to the land of Judea and Arabs are settlers who came from Arabia.
And regardless there is no such fear, as the "one-state solution" - the situation you describe where Israel gets dismantled and Israelis and Palestinians live in one united state and the Palestinians become a majority through demographics - is no more of a possibility than one where the US decides to dismantle itself tomorrow and cease to exist. That is so because Israel has no reason to dismantle itself thus allowing such so-called "solution".

Look, everything in your post is good food for thought except the first sentence. Who gives a whit whether Abraham (who, after all, started out in Ur, in Iraq) or Achmed got there first three thousand years ago? Both groups, descendants of Hebrews and Philistines, have legit claims on the land. The US analogy is apt, however, as the Israelis are the cowboys and the Palestinians the Indians... Or vice versa.

 

[Divine_Wind]

In all fairness, the bolded is not what OlNate advocates.

Maybe in his attacks against me and in support of antisemitics, I may have misunderstood what he advocates. What do you think he is advocating?

 

[Chagos]

Maybe in his attacks against me and in support of antisemitics, I may have misunderstood what he advocates. What do you think he is advocating?

By previous exchange between he and I, possibly that the idea of there being guys with white hats and guys with black hats won't hold.

I've seen him criticizing factions on the Palestinian side just as much.

 

[Apocalypse]

Look, everything in your post is good food for thought except the first sentence. Who gives a whit whether Abraham (who, after all, started out in Ur, in Iraq) or Achmed got there first three thousand years ago? Both groups, descendants of Hebrews and Philistines, have legit claims on the land. The US analogy is apt, however, as the Israelis are the cowboys and the Palestinians the Indians... Or vice versa.

I hold a similar opinion in that I believe that the lack of historical claim or justification isn't relevant to whether or not a right to self-determination should be recognized when it comes to the Palestinians.
However I had to correct you on the analogy you have made.

I have to correct you again because you refer to the Palestinians as "Philistines" and these are two different groups of people.
The Philistines were an ancient people who came from Greece and were the nemesis of the Israelites, the modern Palestinians were the Arab citizens of Mandate Palestine.

 

[Divine_Wind]

You really are a long way off the mark with those figures.

There's almost 5 Million Palestinians in just Gaza and the West Bank alone.

This is why the Right of Return is arguably, (apart from the status of Jerusalem), the most contentious issue in the whole I/P conflict.

Thanks, they were subsequently corrected. Thanks for the catch. Still, with about equal numbers, I fail to see how the Palestinians would run out all of the Israelis in a on-state scenario....not that one-state is a realistic possibility unless the Arabs are stupid enough to attack Israel again, lose and again and lose even more territory to the regions only democracy.

 

[Divine_Wind]

By previous exchange between he and I, possibly that the idea of there being guys with white hats and guys with black hats won't hold.

I've seen him criticizing factions on the Palestinian side just as much.

I can only go by what I see. Agreed there are no pure black hats nor pure white hats, but when it comes to supporting terrorism against innocent people, I fail to see why some support the Palestinian terrorists against the Jews.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Well now , you claim to have been there and thus infer that your opinion should hold more weight...

Facts always carry more weight than the opinion of someone who rarely leaves their basement.

 

[Chagos]

I can only go by what I see. Agreed there are no pure black hats nor pure white hats, but when it comes to supporting terrorism against innocent people, I fail to see why some support the Palestinian terrorists against the Jews.

So do I.

 

[Divine_Wind]

So do I.

Great! Common ground. What do you think of the Hamas phrase "Palestine from the river to the sea" means?

 

[ThirdTerm]

Being a CNN correspondent is not so important for Hill, who is a professor of media studies at Temple. CNN has been consistently anti-Trump but I thought CNN would fire Jim Acosta who lost his White House press pass, which didn't happen. Aside from the phrase "from the river to the sea," his UN speech was pretty modest, only calling for a redrawing of borders to the pre-1967 lines, instead of the compelete destruction of Israel.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Not too familiar with Glick and her work, just know who she is. But yeah I guess you're right about that part.
There's clearly no sense in advocating for that kind of result.

No - the point though is that she is comfortable enough that the Palestinian population stats are bunk that she is advocating to absorb the entire lot into Israel as something that won’t affect israeli control.

And given her position on the spectrum, suggests she is extremely confident that there are not nearly as many palestinians in the wb as the stats say there are.

Which frankly wouldn’t surprise me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chagos]

Great! Common ground. What do you think of the Hamas phrase "Palestine from the river to the sea" means?

Jordan to the Med.

IOW "all of it ours".

 

[Divine_Wind]

Jordan to the Med.

IOW "all of it ours".

Ahh, so you do agree the Palestinians want to take it from the Israelis and eliminate the state of Israel. How many people on both sides do you think will die in this little war? Obviously not you since you and others supporting the Palestinian terrorists will be safe thousands of miles aways from the fight.

 

[Chagos]

Ahh, so you do agree the Palestinians want to take it from the Israelis and eliminate the state of Israel.

I see no other way of interpreting it.

How many people on both sides do you think will die in this little war? Obviously not you since you and others supporting the Palestinian terrorists will be safe thousands of miles aways from the fight.

When are you finally going to understand that I do not support terrorists?

Also, if you care to read back, what's so difficult in finding out by past posts of mine, that I think absolutely nothing of the outlined solution?

In fact not even where it involves a bi-national state as one that might exclude the "river to the sea" tag?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Jordan to the Med.

IOW "all of it ours".

Let's stop with the word games. Do you support the idea of "from the river to the sea", or as you put it "Jordan to the Med" or not? Do you support the right of Israel to exist and condemn attacks against her?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Let's stop with the word games. Do you support the idea of "from the river to the sea", or as you put it "Jordan to the Med" or not? Do you support the right of Israel to exist and condemn attacks against her?

Israel and Palestine both have the right to exist, and under the borders arranged in the 1947 agreements they both had the countries they needed.

 

[Chagos]

Let's stop with the word games. Do you support the idea of "from the river to the sea", or as you put it "Jordan to the Med" or not? Do you support the right of Israel to exist and condemn attacks against her?

Oh fercryin'outloud

no to the first and yes to the second.

A two nation solution with each being allotted sovereign territory is the only solution I see. And before you get any more puzzled over even this, "River to the Sea" for neither.

Whassamatter with ya?

 

[Divine_Wind]

I see no other way of interpreting it....

Which is my point. Thanks.