Marc Lamont Hill Defends Blasting Trump’s ‘Offensive’ Critique of Palestinian ‘Hatred’
On Friday, left-wing CNN pundit Marc Lamont Hill fiercely defended a week-plus old Tweet that ripped President Donald Trump‘s call for the Palestinians to “reject hatred and terrorism”:
Trump’s position on Israel/Palestine is repugnant. His call for Palestine to “reject hatred and terrorism” is offensive & counterproductive.
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 3, 2017
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was somewhat taken aback:
A bit flummoxed by this tweet.https://t.co/q1HlpzIJpr
— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) May 12, 2017
Hill responded by underlining that “perhaps because the context is missing. Peace will not come from demanding action from only one side.”
Secular Jewish blogger Lucas Lynch got into the back and forth as well:
… so @marclamonthill thinks Palestinians should embrace hatred and terrorism?
I don’t like Trump or Bibi, but I’m confused here. https://t.co/DOdKqcDJtO
— Lucas Lynch (@lucasjlynch) May 12, 2017
The Temple University professor replied:
@lucasjlynch no. I think that calls for only ONE SIDE to stop are problematic. It misframes the problem and the solution.
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
Lynch didn’t completely buy this explanation, though:
I probably agree w you regarding what the Israeli government should do, but ‘reject hatred and terrorism’ isn’t a controversial position https://t.co/08VP4AF0Gz
— Lucas Lynch (@lucasjlynch) May 12, 2017
Hill further explained his point in subsequent Tweets on Friday. He also sparred with other Twitter users who piled on criticisms of left-of-center author:
In the remarks, Donald Trump essentially framed Israel/Palestine as a conflict that would be resolved if Palestinians would merely behave.
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
One could similarly say “peace will only come when settlement expansion stops.” But that, too, would be inaccurate and shortsighted. https://t.co/1aLRg9tiNH
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
We all agree that hatred and terrorism are bad things. The issue is who gets to define each term, and under what conditions. https://t.co/ycelkCHtIP
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
No. I find it offensive that you’re comparing Palestinian resistance to settler-colonialism to the actions of ISIS. https://t.co/ms9mfY3whY
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
No. I find it offensive to only call on Palestinians to “behave”, while normalizing/ ignoring the violence of the occupation. https://t.co/pAO413WgfG
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
So your position is that the West Bank isn’t occupied but Morocco is? Got it. ? https://t.co/mis0SRgRZ2
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
@danlevyesq trump suggested that peace would only come if Palestinians rejected hate and terror. That’s a dishonest and unhelpful narrative.
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
@danlevyesq and instead of actually reading my full remarks, you’re suggested that I’m pro-terrorism. That too is dishonest.
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 12, 2017
[image via screengrab]
