• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Sugar Cookie

Veteran Member
Bold Member!
CNN has fired a commentator who made comments that critics described as a 'dog whistle' advocating the elimination of Israel.

During a speech at the United Nations on Wednesday, Marc Lamont Hill said accused the Israeli government of 'normalizing settler colonialism' and called for a 'free Palestine from the river to the sea.'

Hill made the comment during a meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

On Thursday, a a spokesperson for CNN told Fox News, 'Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN.

Those calling out the television personality said his use of the phrase 'from the river to the sea' was problematic, due to its regular use by anti-Israel groups, including the terrorist organization known as Hamas.

Hill said the phrase 'precedes Hamas by more than 50 years' and 'has a variety of meanings,' calling the assertion that he was calling for the eradication of Israel 'absurd on its face.'

When Hill used the phrase in question, the crowd erupted in applause.

Hill’s speech was described as an 'especially obscene UN moment that reveals the true nature of the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish animus of the modern United Nations,' by Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices/

'Hill's call at the United Nations for the destruction of the Jewish state was not some accident,' Bayefsky added.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pped-anti-Israel-comments-United-Nations.html

His response and explanation is at the link
 
Israel learned a lot from the Nazis.
One would think they would be a bit more cordial and willing to share.
Israeli fascism is a thing.
 
No offense to any of you American's, but you back Israel because you have too. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter what kind of horrendous things the Israelis do. Israel is and has been the biggest recipient of American foreign aid going way back into the 70's. 2014 America gave Isreal $3.1 BILLION in military aid along with another $8 BILLION in loans. Why? Because you get access to really sweet oil deals. There is no denying that American's have something to lose in the Israel vs Palestine fight.

Palestinians have every right to say from the river to the sea. And people have every right to back the Palestinians, even if they aren't Palestinian themselves. Lets not forget they got their land wrongfully taken and given away in the hopes to quell a fight that to this day is raging strong as ever. It's not about eradication so much as it is the fight to regain what is rightfully theirs to them. They dont call for death, thing is that some people are willing to fight to the literal death to protect what is theirs and when people feel they aren't being heard they will go to sometimes drastic or rebellious actions.

It's akin to the fight between aboriginals and colonizers in any number of countries. Tensions are raising all over the world with people native to the lands fighting to be given even small amounts of control over a country that is technically theirs. I guarantee that a commentator wouldn't be fired for levying pro native american comments at a UN meeting. In fact the UN recently roasted Canada over it's laws pertaining to natives. Saying they don't do enough to protect them and their lands*..

For those who aren't aware, what this UN meeting was over is whether or not the UN member states will back the US condemnation of Hamas. US is fighting to have them listed as a terrorist group. This latest bought comes after Israel sent soldiers into Gaza and one of them died. Frankly the information coming out should see the Israeli's being persecuted and not the Palestinians.

Hamas has uncovered critical information about a botched IDF operation in Gaza on November 11 that left one officer dead, according to a report in the Lebanese Al-Akhbar.

The report states that Israeli soldiers entered Gaza multiple times before the operation through the Kerem Shalom crossing, the Palestinian side of which is under the control of the Palestinian Authority, in order to install listening devices aimed at Hamas’s communications network. In one instance, the commandos were disguised as workers for a Palestinian telecommunications company and installed the surveillance equipment east of Gaza city.

Before their final operation, the Israeli soldiers entered Gaza through the Erez checkpoint using false identities.
While Israel launched dozens of rockets at the vehicle used by the commandos before its capture, according to the report Hamas was nevertheless able to extract important information about the unit’s operations from the destroyed car.

Al-Akhbar also reported that Palestinians inside Gaza helped the Israeli team.
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-...li-commandos-in-botched-Gaza-operation-573017

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh wrote a letter to the United Nations General Assembly president, Maria Fernanda Spinosa, on Wednesday condemning recent proposals in the UN against Hamas by the United States and Israel, and appealing for assistance to counter "the American efforts to condemn the resistance."

Haniyeh wrote that he is "following up with great anger and condemnation the ongoing and miserable efforts by the United States of America, not only by adopting the Israeli narrative of the conflict, but also by providing all the necessary material and moral support for the Israeli occupation to continue its aggression against our people and deprive them of their basic rights of freedom, independence and self-determination."

The Hamas leader asserted that Hamas would "greatly count on the members of the UN General Assembly [to] stand by international legitimacy in support for the right of peoples to defend themselves and thwart these aggressive American endeavors."

Finally, Haniyeh concluded that there was a great need for "hard work to thwart the American efforts to condemn the resistance" at the UN.

Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, responded to Haniyeh's appeal to the UN, saying that "Hamas speaks about international law while it fires rockets into civilian populations, holds the bodies of IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens, and uses its own people as human shields. A terrorist organization going to the UN for assistance is like a serial killer asking the police for assistance. Israel and the United States will continue to mobilize the countries of the world into a united front against the terrorism that Hamas engages in on behalf of Iran."
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-...o-thwart-agressive-American-endeavours-573103

The irony in the Israel ambassadors statement is almost rich enough that you could mine the mofo...


*Canada has a unique situation where almost all provinces - except BC - the natives ceded their lands during treaty negotiations. BC natives are among the few that have unceded lands. They have never given them over, but the government still says the lands are government owned in an excuse to strong arm and storm trooper those unceded lands.
 
I disagree because terrorists are real ...
The actual meaning of terrorist is pretty broad. Never mind every country and establishment has their own definition. There are a lot of groups that one wouldn't consider to be terrorists that under most definitions actually are. From governments to churches to civilians rebelling against social constructs. Not all "terrorists" are of the bad type, especially when it comes to things like this. Most people could be considered a terrorist in some form or fashion simply because most terrorist definitions say that anyone trying to change ideological or social objectives are terrorists.

This is what American law dictates terrorism to be. Take note that their own definition actually excludes them from being able to call it terrorism, despite the fact that they are calling it that:

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged. In the United States of America, for example, Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."


  • It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives.
  • It can be committed by governments, non-state actors, or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments.
  • It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.
  • It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).

The following criteria of violence or threat of violence fall outside of the definition of terrorism:


  • Wartime (including a declared war) or peacetime acts of violence committed by a nation state against another nation state regardless of legality or illegality that are carried out by properly uniformed forces or legal combatants of such nation states.
  • Reasonable acts of self-defense, such as the use of force to kill, apprehend, or punish criminals who pose a threat to the lives of humans or property.
  • Legitimate targets in war, such as enemy combatants and strategic infrastructure that are an integral part of the enemy's war effort.
  • Collateral damage, including the infliction of incidental damage to non-combatant targets during an attack on or attempting to attack legitimate targets in war.

Just to make things even more broad and vague, this is the UN definition of terrorism:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the United States Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
 
Meh. I guess CNN doesnt want their bias to be too ohvious. As a news and commentary organization they have the right to set the tone, and their goal is more viewers, not a noble search for truth.
They have a right to fire any commentator who doesn't fit that criteria. I'm sure the man can get a job at msnbc or the young turks:
"CNN wouldnt let him speak truth to power but we will! Tune in tonight at 7pm!"
 
Last edited:
While he has the right to his free speech-CNN had the right to fire him because what he said was blatant Anti-Zionist views. Since they are a money making entertainment organization why should they damage their bottom line for him.

The United Nations has continuously shown their hatred for the Jewish people and their hatred of the Nation of Israel while overlooking other regimes that enslave and brutalize their people.
 
One doesn't automatically equate to the other though. And I'm not saying that I agree with the guy. But that's what freedom of speech means to me. Fighting for other people to be allowed to say anything, even if I think it's crap.

In know but in this climate it could be seen as inciting ? I'll call it a bad choice of words for sure.
 
The United Nations has continuously shown their hatred for the Jewish people and their hatred of the Nation of Israel while overlooking other regimes that enslave and brutalize their people.
Right...North Korea is right up front with their outrage against Israel's brutality.

The UN is just a glorified "Who's Who". Pay the fees and get honorariums, or else.
 
Back
Top