Sadly, Marc Lamont Hill is yet, well, Marc Lamont Hill. He was fired in November of 2018 as a contributor at CNN when he advocated the destruction of Israel- "from the river to the sea."
He is still living in the land of religious bigotry. On September 13, 2024 Hill appeared on apanel of the racially segregated Congressional Black Caucus with fellow anti-Semites Rashida Tlaib (D-Minn) and Cori Bush (D-Mo), the latter of whom has been involuntarily retired from the United States House of Representatives.
With Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib clapping, listen to Marc Lamont Hill say that critiquing Hamas is a “white supremacist” viewpoint.
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) December 31, 2024
He then says that Hamas was democratically elected and to not talk about them as though they are some “crazy people.” pic.twitter.com/s5b3cCtL52
The questioning turned to Gaza and asked "why won't Hamas surrender," Hill responded "it is unnecessary and it is excessive." After maintaining that a surrender would be excessive, hence making it clear that he is not partial to surrender, he added
but let's be very clear. Hamas hasn't surrendered because it's still under brutal occupation. Hamas hasn't surrendered because Israel has never given the Palestinian people,one minute, one second of self- determination and freedom of liberation.
This "brutal occupation" included the Netanyahu Administration welcoming Qatar to deliver unto the government in Gaza supplies ostensibly "humanitarian." Alas, as should have been predictable but which the Prime Minister presumably was unaware, those resources were regularly corralled into rockets and an intensive tunnel network, critical to the 10/7/23 attack and detention of hostages since then. But, "brutal."
Predictably, Hill conveniently conflates Gaza with the West Bank. Israel, which has kept no soldiers in the territor, does not "occupy" Gaza. Had it done so, the slaughter 15 months ago arguably would not have taken place; inarguably, Israeli soldiers would not have (justifiably) invaded Gaza in response because they already would have been there.
Moreover, the "Palestinian people" are not the monolityh Hill pretends they are. The schism between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority dates back 18+ years, when
Hamas briefly joined the PA, rising to the head of the authority in 2006 after winning general elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But it split from the authority months later, when the rival faction Fatah, which has long dominated the PA, refused to recognize Hamas's election victory. The two went to war and though Fatah was able to oust Hamas fromthe West Bank and maintain its sway over Palestinian affairs there, Hamas's forces prevailed in the Gaza Strip, securing the group's control over the territory.
Nonetheless, my "favorit"e Hill remark was
My moral code is that you don't kidnap innocent people and that you don't kill civilians. Alright, that's fine- we can have that conversation...
And the question presumes- and is undergired by a kind of Orientalist white supremacy idea- that Palestinians are these unyielding, barbaric, uncivilized pre-modern people that are incapable of negotiation.
Whatever in the name of the Almighy is "Orientalist white supremacy?" What does race have to do with a conflict of peoples who both have a historical connection to the region? And who uses the term "Oriental" anymore?
Of course, the simple question "why won't Hamas surrender" does not presume anything about "Palestinians" and refers only to the terrorist group known as "Hamas." The question had nthing to do with the Palestinian people, who should not be stereotyped by Marc Lamont Hill or his fellow travelers as being indistinguishable from Hamas. Many of the ultra-Orthodox supporets of secularist Benjamin Netanyahu often conflate Hamas with the Gazan people themselves and it appears their ultra-leftist antagonists tend to do the same. And Hamas won't surrender because across the world (even in Israel), there are individuals who refuse to acknowlege the evil personified by the terrorist organization.
For most people, having a "conversation" about kidnapping innocent people and killing civilians is unnecessary. As is the extremely consequential feature of the hate expressed by the far right (most recently on November 5), the kind of hatred exhibited by Hill is a characteristic of modern American politics. In her congressional district in Missouri, Cori Bush was defeated in her primary by oa more reasonable Democra. Yet, there is a lot more of individuals like Marc Lamont Hill and Rashida Tlaib out there, joined by a larger, more consequential group of rightists, to remind us that a new year probably won't bring a new level of clear, reasoned thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment