Marc Lamont Hill Called for Peace and Equality in Palestine, Shame on CNN and  Temple University Trustees By James J Zogby Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, December 21, 2018

Marc Lamont Hill speaking to a UN panel about peace and equality in Palestine, November 28, 2018

 

Temple University Owes Marc Lamont Hill an Apology

Because I have a long and complicated history with Temple University, I have closely followed the story of the backlash against Temple Professor Marc Lamont Hill for the speech he delivered at the United Nations' "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."  

I've never met Dr. Hill, but I have read his speech and was moved by his careful cataloging of the violations of human rights endured by Palestinians and his passionate embrace of justice and equality for all who live "between the river and the sea" in the land of Israel/Palestine.  

Because, in my work, I have experienced much the same hostility, it didn't surprise me that his appeal for justice and his efforts to humanize the Palestinian experience would rankle hardline supporters of Israel. Nor did it surprise me that some would deliberately distort the meaning of his words and claim that he was threatening the very existence of the Israeli people.  

For his efforts, Dr. Hill was denounced as an "Israel-hating, anti-Semite." His speech was termed "malicious", "ignorant", and "an incitement to violence." That much I expected. But what confounded and irked me were the reactions of some American Jews who said that they found his words "threatening." Based on my own experiences, however, I expected these expressions of feigned "outrage".  

I must say that I was surprised that CNN acted as precipitously as they did in firing Dr. Hill as a network commentator. I was also troubled by the denunciations that came from the Chair of Temple University's Board of Trustees who termed Dr. Hill's remarks "hate speech" and the university's president who said that he would explore the possibility of terminating Hill's contract. It appeared that they either hadn't actually read Dr. Hill's remarks or were reading talking points from those who deliberately overreacted in order to snuff out any and all criticism of Israel.  

After deliberations, the Board of Trustees issued a statement expressing their "disappointment, displeasure, and disagreement" with Dr. Hill's UN speech, while at the same time begrudgingly acknowledging that since he was a tenured professor it would be difficult to fire him.  

I am proud that in reaction to this uproar, Dr. Hill has remained firm and has received the support of many of his colleagues. In a beautifully written response to the attacks, he made clear his absolute rejection of anti-Semitism, reaffirmed his criticism of Israeli policies and his commitment to Palestinian rights, and apologized for words in his speech that may have served as "a dangerous and harmful distraction from my political analysis."  

Despite his strong stance, I can imagine how unsettling this entire experience must be for Hill.  

Five decades ago, as a doctoral candidate in Temple University's Department of Religion, I experienced some of the same intolerance and threats - but, in my case, without the protection of tenure.  

It was the late summer of 1967 when I first arrived at Temple University to begin my graduate studies. I was greeted on campus by a large banner hanging in front of a fraternity house screaming, in capital letters, "GO ISRAEL, BEAT ARABS." No one in Temple University's Administration appeared to object to the banner since it was not removed for quite some time.  

A few years later, while I was speaking at a campus Vietnam antiwar rally, someone shouted out "Why are they letting the Arab speak?" Shortly thereafter, I received a note at my apartment that began "Arab dog, you will die if you set foot on campus again." I brought the letter to the attention of the Administration and the campus police and was disturbed that my concerns were shrugged off as "boys will be boys." When, a few days later, a group of shouting Jewish Defense League activists attempted to storm the classroom where I was teaching - there were no campus police around to make arrests or offer me protection. I was blessed that a group of four African American students who were taking my class rose to my defense and confronted the demonstrators, who beat a hasty retreat.  

These events were threatening. But troubling in a different way was what happened in 1971 after a series of articles I had written appeared in Philadelphia's African American newspaper "The Philadelphia Tribune."  

In the summer of 1971, I had traveled to Lebanon on a University grant to interview Palestinian refugees as part of my dissertation research. When I returned to Philadelphia, I decided to share my experiences with a larger audience and so I excerpted some of my research notes into a series of columns which I titled "Three Days in Palestine." In the articles, I told the stories of people whom I had met; reported their recollections of having been expelled from their homes; detailed the life they had built for themselves and their families in the camps; and told of their passionate desire to return to their homes (many had showed me treasured photographs of the homes they had left and the actual keys to their homes in Palestine).  

I was pleased with the with initial reaction to the articles from the Tribune's readers, but was stunned a few weeks later when my academic department's director of graduate studies published a letter in the Tribune, denouncing my work and, using bizarrely intemperate language, described me as a "neo-Bolshevik, neo-Nazi, anti-Semite."     

Reading his harsh letter which sought to dissociate the university from my writings, I felt as though my graduate career might be over. Thankfully, it was not. My advisor, Dr. Ismail al Faruqi defended me as did other faculty members.   After a year as an NDEA Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, I returned to Temple, later finished my dissertation, and was awarded my doctorate in 1975. I was able to feel somewhat vindicated when, three decades later, the College of Liberal Arts named me a Distinguished Alumni Fellow in recognition of my life's work.  

Given this personal history, I feel that I not only have some understanding of what Marc Lamont Hill might have experienced when he was attacked and not defended by the administration of his own university.  

I find it incomprehensible that anyone would have felt threatened by Hill's thoughtful criticism of Israel's behavior or his fervent wish for a society "between the river and sea" where there is justice and equality for all. His words echo the warnings of the prophets of old and today's courageous Israeli human rights activists who are themselves threatened in the increasingly repressive environment that currently exists in Israel.    

Someday, Temple University will recognize the prophetic words of Marc Lamont Hill and they will be embarrassed that they did not come to his defense. They will realize that he was right and courageous to speak out in support of human rights and to call for equality for all peoples, Palestinians and Israelis, who live "between the river and the sea." I hope this recognition and their apology doesn't take three decades. He deserves it now.  

***

Turning a Corner

US supporters of Israel are in a bind: public opinion is changing; there are more actors publicly challenging Israel; and the crude, heavy-handed tactics they have successfully used in the past to silence criticism now only aggravate the situation. A few examples:

A few weeks back, Airbnb announced that they would no longer list rental properties located in the occupied West Bank. The reaction in Israel and among its supporters in the US was predictably hysterical. They termed the action taken by Airbnb as "anti-Semitic." Israel announced that it would enforce its anti-boycott law by banning Airbnb from operating anywhere within the country. And some American political leaders said that they would press US states that have passed their own anti-boycott legislation to also take action against Airbnb.

This Airbnb decision and the reaction to it are instructive in that they bring together a number of issues that define exactly where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is today.

Sometimes, in order to see an issue clearly, it is important to reduce it to its essence. In this instance, the omnipresent, ever-comical Rabbi Shmuley Boteach provided us with just such an example of the core Israeli argument against Airbnb in a costly full page newspaper ad this past week. More than just reducing Israel's case to its essence, Boteach has revealed its absurdity.

The ad features an opening headline calling "Airbnb: Anti-Semitic," falsely claiming that the company has "singled out Jews for discrimination...deliberately punishing Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria based solely on their nationality, ethnicity, and religion." He then accuses Airbnb of a double-standard because they haven't de-listed rental properties in other occupied territories, giving these examples: Turkish-occupied Cyprus, Russian-occupied Crimea, or Chinese-occupied Tibet (an interesting implicit recognition of Israel as an occupier in the great company of other occupiers!). The ad concludes with the stark black banner stating that "Boycotting Israel Is Anti-Semitic."

The entire ad is a deliberate distortion of reality. Airbnb isn't boycotting Israel or Jews. They still list rentals in Tel Aviv and a host of other Israeli cities, and they continue to list rentals owned by Jews everywhere in the world. What Airbnb has decided not to list are Jewish settler-owned properties in occupied Palestinian lands. And as for Israel's argument that Airbnb is guilty of a double-standard since the company continues to list properties in other occupied territories, there are two things to point out: (1) Airbnb has already said that they were “evaluating how we should treat listings in occupied territories around the world,” and (2) in none of the cases cited by Boteach is there comparable evidence that the rentals in question are owned by settlers living in illegal developments built on confiscated lands.

In the end, however, it's not about the lies contained in this ad or any of the other efforts to combat Airbnb. What is important is that in the face of declining public support and diminishing capacity to dominate the narrative about the nature of their conflict with the Palestinians, Israeli supporters are flailing about, striking blindly at opponents in their effort to pummel into submission anyone who would dare to challenge them.

The campaign against Airbnb is but one recent example. Here is another: Just last week, significant pressure was brought to bear on CNN, forcing them to fire one of their on-air political commentators, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. Hill's "crime" was that upon his return from a visit to occupied Palestinian lands he spoke at the annual UN-sponsored "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People." After detailing the abuses of Palestinian rights he had witnessed, Hill concluded his speech with a call for a "free Palestine, from the river to the sea."

While it was clear from the entirety of his remarks that Hill was calling for justice and equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, supporters of Israel immediately assumed the role of victim and leapt to attack. Hill was denounced for "inciting violence," "calling for genocide," "promoting anti-Semitism" and more. Instead of refuting these outrageous charges and standing by their commentator, CNN cowered and fired Hill. Shortly after that, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Temple University, where Hill is a professor, accused Hill of “hate-speech” and floated the possibility of firing him.

These two cases – the decision of a major company to respect international law and a mainstream commentator speaking out for justice - are but two examples of the changing political landscape in the US. Polls show that Israel is losing ground in US public opinion - most especially among the demographic groups that form the Democratic coalition (young people, "minority" communities, and educated women).

In reaction, pro-Israel lobby groups, after realizing that they are unable to silence critics by striking out against them individually as they speak out, are now trying to pass bills in Congress to penalize and/or criminalize criticisms or actions against Israel. The bills in question are: the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA) and the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (IABA). Should they pass Congress and be signed into law, a company like Airbnb could be penalized and a person like Marc Lamont Hill could be fired.

The problem being encountered by supporters of Israel is that the very changes in public opinion toward Israeli policies and awareness of the plight of Palestinians that have led socially aware companies like Airbnb to act and progressive African Americans like Marc Lamont Hill to speak out are also making it difficult for them to pass their repressive legislation. And even their campaigns against Airbnb and Dr. Hill have shown signs of backfiring.

Students on college campuses are passing BDS resolutions and civil liberties groups are winning legal challenges to anti-BDS laws passed on the state level. Because supporters of the controversial AAA and IABA bills are finding too much resistance to pass them in regular order, their only recourse may be to add them to an omnibus bill in the dark of night. And finally, it's important to note that individuals and companies like Marc Lamont Hill and Airbnb are getting more praise than criticism for standing up to bullies.

The struggle for justice continues. Challenges remain, but a corner has been turned.

***

Share the link of this article with your facebook friends