Marc Lamont Hill: I'm sorry my word choices caused harm

[oberliner]

Over the past week, I have been embroiled in a controversy regarding my speech at the United Nations regarding the plight of Palestinian people. My remarks have sparked heavy controversy, around the nation and right here in Philadelphia. Specifically, some of have argued that my remarks endorsed or reflected anti-Semitism. For this reason, I feel morally compelled to respond.

First, I strongly believe that we must reject anti-Semitism in any form or fashion. This means not only preventing physical violence against Jews, but also ugly anti-Semitic images, stereotypes, conspiracy theories, and mythologies. As an activist and scholar, I have done my best to point out these realities and challenge them whenever possible. For example, in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre, I not only decried it as an ugly act of terrorism, but spoke about the broader rise of anti-Semitism in the United States and around the globe. Throughout my career, I have done my best to identify and uproot anti-Semitism in every political and social movement of which I have been part. One simply cannot be committed to social justice and not be committed to battling anti-Semitism.

It is precisely this commitment to social justice that prompted me to accept an invitation to speak before the United Nations on the plight of Palestinians. During my speech, I offered a deeply critical analysis of the State of Israel. Specifically, I challenged the Israeli criminal justice system, settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the need to attend to human rights abuses throughout the country and occupied territories. I also reiterated the importance of global solidarity in order to produce justice. One simply cannot be progressive if they ignore the plight of Palestinians.

Many have focused specifically on my final remark, which said that justice required a "free Palestine, from the river to the sea." Critics of this phrase have suggested that I was calling for violence against Jewish people. In all honesty, I was stunned, and saddened, that this was the response.

http://www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/marc-lamont-hill-temple-university-cnn-palestine-israel-united-nations-20181201.html

[brush]

1. Suggestions please as to how Israel moves from apartheid?

[oberliner]

4. What do you mean?

[brush]

6. Exactly what I wrote. Apartheid there is undeniable. Any solution ideas?

[oberliner]

7. Two-state solution to avoid apartheid state - Palestinian foreign minister

The world must help resolve the Israel-Palestinian issue by backing a two-state solution to avoid the creation of an apartheid state, Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki said on Friday.

https://www.news24.com/World/News/two-state-solution-to-avoid-apartheid-state-palestinian-foreign-minister-20181125

[Adrahil]

2. It bothers me....

That in some quarters, opposition to the goverment of Israel is automatically equated with Antisemitism.

[oberliner]

3. The argument is that he was using Hamas-terminology

Which in their parlance would mean replacing Israel with an Islamic Palestinian state.

If he had presented his criticism of Israeli policy and support for a "one-state solution" without using that language, I think there would not have been this response.

[LanternWaste]

10. "Why do you think that?"

[oberliner]

11. Mostly based on this article

Demonizing Israel Isn’t Anti-Semitic — But Marc Lamont Hill Crossed The Line

https://forward.com/opinion/415088/demonizing-israel-isnt-anti-semitic-but-marc-lamont-hill-crossed-the-line/

In particular this excerpt:

But unfortunately, the specific words Hill used to voice his support for Palestinian independence sound eerily similar to words used by the unquestionably anti-Semitic terror organization Hamas:

Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land…We don’t fight Jews because they are Jews. We fight the Zionists because they are conquerors and we will continue to fight anyone who takes our land and our holy places.

For now, let’s give Hill the benefit of the doubt. Hill didn’t notice the similarity to the rhetoric of Hamas and he meant nothing sinister by his use of the words.

However, words have power. The fact that Hill used the rhetoric of groups that are violently anti-Semitic is a real problem, and the fact that he seems to advocate violent resistance against Israel should give pause to every supporter of a peaceful outcome to the conflict.

[malaise]

5. Same here

The oppressed cannot become the oppressor and expect support.

[oberliner]

8. What are you talking about?

What does "the oppressed cannot become the oppressor" mean?

[brush]

9. Come on. That's not hard to understand.

[oberliner]

12. Who are "the oppressed" that have become "the oppressors" ?

[SFnomad]

13. He shouldn't be sorry his choice of words caused harm, he should be sorry for his choice of words