CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill has been terminated from the network after he seemingly called for the destruction of the nation of Israel during a speech at the United Nations.
Hill’s speech focused on the Palestinian people’s hope for their own statehood and he called them to utilize all avenues to resist Israel. Although he said Palestinian people should prioritize peaceful options in their resistance effort, he said the international community should grant leniency for political violence.
He also argued that there should be “a free Palestine from the river to the sea,” a line borrowed from radical, anti-Semite groups who regularly call for the physical destruction of Israel.
As a result of the controversy and subsequent backlash, CNN terminated their contract with Hill, BizPac Review reports.
According to the report, CNN included only a brief sentence about the firing and did not at all criticize the anti-Israel comments:
CNN fired commentator Marc Lamont Hill amid uproar over an inflammatory speech he gave at the United Nations that many perceived to be an anti-Semitic dog whistle calling for the elimination of Israel.
In a terse, one-sentence statement, CNN said: “Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN.”
The liberal network did not elaborate on Hill’s firing — nor did it condemn his anti-Israel comments. As BizPac Review reported, Hill appeared to endorse violence against Israel and call for the destruction of the nation-state.
The same network which pounces on President Trump for any perceived sexist, homophobic, racist, or xenophobic comment plainly missed an opportunity to condemn comments from one of their own contributors.
“In fact, CNN repeatedly suggested Trump is anti-Semitic and blamed him for the October 2018 massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh,” BizPac Review added. “In reality, the shooting was committed by an anti-Semite who hated Trump for being pro-Israel.”
Some people online similarly criticized the network for not condemning the anti-Israel comments:
During the U.N. speech, Hill compared the Palestinian-Israel struggle to that of African Americans in the United States and said Palestinians should be allowed to explore a full range of political and even violent tactics against Israel.
Here’s more on Hill, from a Washington Examiner op-ed:
The phrase “from the river to the sea” has been a rallying cry for Hamas and other terrorist groups seeking the elimination of Israel, as a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea would mean that Israel would be wiped off the map.
Hill’s remarks are the latest example of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements.
Last year, Hill tweeted that it was “offensive” for President Trump to call on Palestinians to “reject hatred and terrorism.” Hill also defended a terrorist who killed two Jewish students and praised anti-Semitic leader Louis Farrakhan.
As Fox News reports, the speech widely criticized.
Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, called the speech “especially obscene.”
“[It was an] especially obscene U.N. moment that reveals the true nature of the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish animus of the modern United Nations,” Bayefsky said to Fox News, via the report.
And, “Hill’s call at the United Nations for the destruction of the Jewish state was not some accident,” the director continued. “He didn’t misspeak. He was an invited guest. He was the only person invited to speak as ‘the’ representative of ‘civil society.’ When he ended his extraordinary tirade with ‘Give us a free Palestine from the river to the sea’ his words were met by a round of applause. The only applause for any speaker.”
Hill took to Twitter shortly after his speech, seeking to clarify his comments: “In my speech, I talked about the need to return to the pre-1967 borders, to give full rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to allow right of return. No part of this is a call to destroy Israel. It’s absurd on its face.”
Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.