|
Post by celawson on Nov 30, 2018 11:37:01 GMT -5
Ugh, so many good things to discuss on here, and I'm buried in work. Anyway, drive-by post: 1) How so many Europeans can not ever have heard of the Holocaust is awful and a failure of Europe. 2) Marc Lamont Hill is a flaming anti-Semite and has been for years. The following article was written a year and a half ago and has plenty of evidence (Hill's own Tweets and comments) so you all can see for yourselves. www.algemeiner.com/2017/05/17/yes-marc-lamont-hill-is-an-antisemite/It bothers me so much that the far left, in their support for Palestine regardless of tactics, their insistence that Palestine is "occupied" (it is not), and their advocating of the BDS movement, all couch blatant anti-Semitism in an elitist intellectual veneer while blaming Trump for the increase in anti-Semitic attacks over the past couple of years. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 30, 2018 12:27:07 GMT -5
Again, it's a well-known phrase. Hill knows the subject matter, so I think it's reasonable to allow that he knows the genesis and sense of the phrase. He's free to clarify, of course, but given that he's someone who hears dog whistles as a matter of course, I don't think he should be getting the benefit of the doubt, when he doesn't extend the same. There's another well-known phrase about what making assumptions do which is unnecessary to repeat here. A "well-known phrase" is not the same thing as saying "Kill the Jews and Destroy Israel." You are substituting your subjective opinion for a verified remark. Marc Lamont Hill did not call for the eradication of the Israeli state. Period. Full stop. It is highly unnecessary for Hill to give the benefit of the doubt to Florida's newly-elected governor when it is not a dog whistle, but an unvarnished fact that Ron DeSantis has a history of racist-ass shit. Hill has learned to his regret that if you dare to criticize Israel and you will be excoriated. Same as it ever was.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 30, 2018 13:50:57 GMT -5
A "well-known phrase" is not the same thing as saying "Kill the Jews and Destroy Israel." You are substituting your subjective opinion for a verified remark. Marc Lamont Hill did not call for the eradication of the Israeli state. Period. Full stop. It is highly unnecessary for Hill to give the benefit of the doubt to Florida's newly-elected governor when it is not a dog whistle, but an unvarnished fact that Ron DeSantis has a history of racist-ass shit. See, those sorts of criticisms against DeSantis could be made against Hill (as could the excuses to justify them). Hill has supported and appeared with Farrakhan, after all. And this isn't the first thing he's said that suggests anti-Semitism. But we should accept Hill's explanations for these things, but not accept DeSantis'?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 30, 2018 21:38:42 GMT -5
A "well-known phrase" is not the same thing as saying "Kill the Jews and Destroy Israel." You are substituting your subjective opinion for a verified remark. Marc Lamont Hill did not call for the eradication of the Israeli state. Period. Full stop. It is highly unnecessary for Hill to give the benefit of the doubt to Florida's newly-elected governor when it is not a dog whistle, but an unvarnished fact that Ron DeSantis has a history of racist-ass shit. See, those sorts of criticisms against DeSantis could be made against Hill (as could the excuses to justify them). Hill has supported and appeared with Farrakhan, after all. And this isn't the first thing he's said that suggests anti-Semitism. But we should accept Hill's explanations for these things, but not accept DeSantis'? Appearing with an anti-Semite like Louis "I Put the Hit on Malcolm X" Farrakhan is no more a taint on Marc Lamont Hill than appearing with a verifiable racist, sexist, xenophobe, homophobic bigot who likes to grab woman by the vagina, so nice try, robeiae. Try much harder if you want to smear Hill. It's no more disgraceful for Hill to cheese for a picture with Farrakhan than it is for DeSantis to appear with Trump. They're both useless bigots who would make the world a better place when they shuffle off to their rocking chairs and poo-filled Depends.
You're sooooo precious when you put on this front as if we're having a brand-new, fresh debate on a subject we've already had. Or did you forget? Here. I'll refresh your memory. You didn't want to refute the points then but now you do? Please. Just don't even.
Ron DeSanits IS a racist and I've offered my evidence of it. Debunk it or reject it, but you can't make an honest argument that DeSantis isn't what I've said he is. On the other hand, you SAY Marc Lamont Hill is a anti-Semite, but offered ZERO evidence of it, and despite celawson barfing up a link to a decidedly biased and pro-Israel website, neither she nor you have produced anything remotely to corroborate your baseless smears of Hill.
Perhaps you will. Probably you won't but will declare victory just the same. Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 1, 2018 7:59:13 GMT -5
I'm not interested in refuting your complaints about DeSantis. I wasn't then and I'm not now. But again, those complaints about DeSantis being racist--starting with the dog-whistleness of his "monkey this up" comment--are mirrored by the complaints about Hill being anti-Semitic. And Hill was one of the people complaining about that DeSantis comment.
I don't know if Hill is anti-Semitic. But I do think he knows what he said, when he called for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea." Maybe he was just playing to the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel crowd, but it is what it is. Groups like the ADL took it to mean he was callling for the destruction of Israel. And obviously, enough people complained about him to cause CNN to severe ties with him.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Dec 2, 2018 2:41:20 GMT -5
I'm not interested in refuting your complaints about DeSantis. I wasn't then and I'm not now.
More like you weren't able to refute my proof then and you still can't now. DeSantis is a bigot who appealed to racism to win. Which is the reason both White supremacists and Donald Trump both love him, but I repeat myself.
Ahh, the fog of false equivalency is thick tonight. What DeSantis said was racist and there's no ambivalence or other rational explanation for it. What Hill said was anti-Semitic to you , but I don't see what was anti-Semitic about it, and there's an abundance of ambivalence and rational explanations in this case.
I have facts about DeSantis. You have an opinion about Hill. The problem is you seem to think those two things are equal. They are not.
Oddly enough, since Hill's name is in a thread called "Anti-Semitism and International Identity Politics" and not in a newly-created and separate thread, it's easy to believe you brought this up here because you DO think Marc Lamont Hill is anti-Semitic. Thinkin' ain't provin'
Being "pro-Palestine" does not sit side-by-side with being "anti-Israel." No more than pro-White Supremacist/Conservative Republican. One can be both, one or the other, or neither.
The Anti-Defamation League, a pro-Israel organization which takes in a sizeable chunk of its funding from pro-Israel Jewish-Americans, taking a CNN contributor's public pro-Palestinian speech as "calling for the destruction of Israel" shocks and awes me much less than it does you. The Israel Lobby is large, powerful, influential and it hops like a rabbit on anything which is even vaguely insulting to the unofficial 51st state. The ADL, AIPAC and the other defenders of Israel have big feet and Marc Lamont Hill got stepped on.
I have respect for the ADL and their many good works, but they also are advancing a pro-Israel agenda. They're rooting for a team and they support their team. I respect that too, but I'm not kidding myself that they are objective observers.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 2, 2018 14:13:14 GMT -5
It definitely stretches credibility to believe anyone would use that "from the river to the sea" phrase without knowing exactly what he was signaling.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 2, 2018 14:40:59 GMT -5
What DeSantis said was racist and there's no ambivalence or other rational explanation for it. What Hill said was anti-Semitic to you , but I don't see what was anti-Semitic about it, and there's an abundance of ambivalence and rational explanations in this case. That's the nut, isn't it? You're absolutely sure DeSantis' comment is racist, but can't process how Hill's comment could possibly be anti-Semitic. But...shouldn't Hill--who again knows all of the Israeli/Palestinian stuff really well--have known that's how many people would take that particular comment of his? I mean, you don't see how it was anti-Semetic, but it seems a shit-ton of people do, including the ADL and, apparently, CNN. You think those responses were shocking to Hill? Maybe he didn't think he'd get dumped by CNN, but he had to know there's be complaints.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Dec 2, 2018 19:28:36 GMT -5
It definitely stretches credibility to believe anyone would use that "from the river to the sea" phrase without knowing exactly what he was signaling.
It definitely stretches YOUR credulity. The phrase "from the river to the sea" does not trigger everyone's Anti-Semitic Spidey-Sense the way it does yours.
Just how far will the defenders of All Things Israel go to twist everything into an anti-Semitic conspiracy? Hate on Professor Hill for not sharing your unflagging faith in the infallibility of Israel, but in and of itself, your interpretation of his UN speech is just that and nothing more than that. But Don't Worry. Be Happy. Hill has apologized.
Hill's apology is worth reading in it's entirety, though I suspect the easily offended and perpetually outraged here, there and elsewhere will not be too thrilled when he says, "
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.
"Social Justice, doc?" Awwww....and you were doing SO well up to the point that you included that Trigger Word. Everything else will be disregarded after that point by the easily offended and perpetually outraged
None of which will phase anyone who thinks cheesing for a selfie with Louis Farrakhan means his antipathy for Jews will contaminate you too. Hill seems both sincere and contrite, but neither will satisfy the mobs who are baying for his head mounted on a pike.
What DeSantis said was racist and there's no ambivalence or other rational explanation for it. What Hill said was anti-Semitic to you , but I don't see what was anti-Semitic about it, and there's an abundance of ambivalence and rational explanations in this case. That's the nut, isn't it? You're absolutely sure DeSantis' comment is racist, but can't process how Hill's comment could possibly be anti-Semitic But...shouldn't Hill--who again knows all of the Israeli/Palestinian stuff really well--have known that's how many people would take that particular comment of his? I mean, you don't see how it was anti-Semetic, but it seems a shit-ton of people do, including the ADL and, apparently, CNN. You think those responses were shocking to Hill? Maybe he didn't think he'd get dumped by CNN, but he had to know there's be complaints. First, I've made it perfectly clear how DeSantis's comments and actions and words and deeds are racist as fuck and if you're trying to suggest I'm having a problem with "processing" how Hill's comment could be anti-Semitic, please cease and desist attempting to insult my intelligence and rational thinking capacity, okay? In attempting to insult my ability to think rationally and reach a rational decision you're only embarrassing yourself while simultaneously attempting to justify your support for a racist.
All you need to do is offer some proof Marc Lamont Hill is a anti-Semitic and barring that all you've doing is arguing the same debunked point with a different assembling of the words. It's not working on me, so how's that working out for you?
Let me put it another way. No matter how many times you quote them, I don't give a rat's ass what the ADL or CNN say about Hill. Not now and not here on a subject where they clearly have skin in the game. They're pushing an agenda and I'm getting bored with your reliance on biased sources to back up in insinuation what you have no evidence of in attribution.
Appeals to the majority such as "it seems a shit-ton of people do" don't mean a thing to me. Nor do your equivocations and fallacious Reductio ad absurdum that Hill's supposed transgressions are equal and equivalent to DeSantis' career of evil bigotry, so cease and desist with an weak argument which carries no weight. I have already delineated my reasons why I do not give a fuck what the ADL or CNN say or do. Their motives and motivations are as clear to me as they are opaque to you.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 2, 2018 20:02:19 GMT -5
Lol. Not once have I said that I supported DeSantis or that he positively wasn't a racist. My argument in the election thread was not a defense of DeSantis at all, it was an argument as to why Dem candidates might have been losing some of their apparent advantages in pre-election polls. Maybe I was right with regard to Florida, maybe I wasn't, but either way I was not arguing that this was a fair or justified thing, at all, just that maybe it was a thing.
So again, if DeSantis' comment was a "dog whistle" to racists, it is fair to see Hill's comment as a "dog whistle" to anti-Semites.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I thought the way "dog whistles" worked is that only dogs were supposed to hear them, thus such a comment would--as a matter of definition--be offered in such a way as to give the speaker plausible deniability (for lack of better term). Hill's comment fits that to a T; it can be seen as a shout out to the "destroy Israel/anti-Semitic" crowd in a speech that is otherwise free from overt anti-Semitism (because it's a phrase that such people would immediately recognize, while almost no one else would). Hill, in fact, allows that this is the case in his apology. The fact that you couldn't see what was anti-Semitic about it is akin to some white guy not being able to see what was racist about DeSantis' "monkey this up" comment.
Now, DeSantis has subsequently said his comment was not about race at all and Hill has now said that his comment wasn't anti-Semitic. One can believe both, either one, or neither in this regard. One might also argue that even if both didn't mean their comments to be dog whistles, it doesn't matter, because they should have known how such comments would have been taken by other people.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 2, 2018 20:30:58 GMT -5
The phrase "river to the sea" is certainly not anti-Semitic in and of itself, although it's been used often by those who are anti-Semitic (like Hamas).
It seems to me quite unfortunate, actually, that the idea of a free Palestine would be seen as ipso facto a negation of Israeli/Jewish freedom. Is the reverse also true: that a free Israel is a negation of Palestinian freedom as a matter of course? If so, that's certainly bad news for those who still support a two-state solution. It's bad news for those who support a democratic one-state solution, too.
And there's the rub, IMO. What a "free Palestine" actually means is highly dependent on the intent of the speaker. Hamas might very well take it to entail the destruction of Israel, no doubt. (Although I'm almost certain the phrase pre-dates the existence of Hamas). Others might envision a bilateral state in which Jews and Palestinians coexist under a single democratic government (the classic one-state solution). Obviously supporting the latter doesn't make one an anti-Semite. Plenty of Jews support it too and have supported it for years.
I have to say I'm deeply disappointed in the reaction to Hill's comments. He used a phrase which has some real baggage, to be sure. But I see no clear evidence that Hill's use of it came from racial feelings rather than political ones. The worst I can say is that it was poor politicking, assuming he never saw the backlash coming. Maybe he should have, but that by itself doesn't put him in the wrong, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 2, 2018 21:40:30 GMT -5
It definitely stretches YOUR credulity. The phrase "from the river to the sea" does not trigger everyone's Anti-Semitic Spidey-Sense the way it does yours.
Just how far will the defenders of All Things Israel go to twist everything into an anti-Semitic conspiracy? Hate on Professor Hill for not sharing your unflagging faith in the infallibility of Israel, but in and of itself, your interpretation of his UN speech is just that and nothing more than that.
That is ridiculous. I am not particularly pro-Israel, and I do not have a habit of being "triggered" by anti-Semitism. I have no history of this and you know it.
It's simply a fact that "from the river to the sea" is a stock phrase uttered by every speechmaker in the Arab world talking about wiping out Israel for the past half century. It's practically a slogan of the PLO and Hamas. That anyone involved in Palestinian-Israeli politics could be unaware of it defies credibility. It would defy yours if you weren't invested in defending Hill.
|
|