Marc Lamont Hill is really sorry that his defense of murdering Jews was misunderstood.
In 2014, Hill had claimed on CNN that the kidnapping and murder of three Jewish teens, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah, one of them an American citizen, wasn’t “terrorism”, but “resistance”.
Earlier this year, Hill had insisted that “occupied people have a legal and moral right to defend themselves” and that the idea that Israel has a “right to exist” is “propaganda”. In May of last year, he had argued that Trump’s “call for Palestine to ‘reject hatred and terrorism’ is offensive.”
A month before a Pittsburgh synagogue was shot up by a violent bigot; Hill again justified the murder of Jews by violent bigots.
“We have allowed this nonviolent thing to become so normative that we’re undermining our own ability to resist in real robust ways,” he complained.
Anyone who might have been hoping that the murder of eleven Jews by a killer who also thought he was engaging in “resistance”, not “terrorism” would have touched Hill’s heart was sadly mistaken.
A month after the Pittsburgh massacre, Marc Lamont Hill addressed a UN event in support of the terror colonialists occupying parts of Israel, endorsed BDS, called for the destruction of Israel and justified the murder of Jews.
“We must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend themselves. We must prioritize peace, but we must not romanticize or fetishize it. We must promote nonviolence at every opportunity, but cannot endorse narrow politics that shames Palestinians for resisting,” Hill argued.
Now Hill is sorry that his defenses of murdering Jews were misinterpreted in a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed titled, “Marc Lamont Hill: I’m sorry my word choices caused harm.”
It’s not the word choices. It’s the ideas.
But Hill’s defense is claiming that his meaning was pure, but his words were misunderstood.
First, I strongly believe that we must reject anti-Semitism in any form or fashion. This means not only preventing physical violence against Jews,..
Which Hill has repeatedly defended.
…. 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.
It’s easy for lefties to condemn an anti-Semitic attack by a Neo-Nazi. The challenge is condemning anti-Semitic violence by lefties and their allies.
I take seriously the voices of so many Jewish brothers and sisters, who have interpreted my remarks as a call to or endorsement of violence. Rather than hearing a political solution, many heard a dog-whistle that conjured a long and deep history of violence against Jewish people. Although this was the furthest thing from my intent, those particular words clearly caused confusion, anger, fear, and other forms of harm. For that, I am deeply sorry.
Particular words decrying non-violence and defending violence against Jews.
But Marc Lamont Hill is very sorry that Jews misinterpreted his defense of murdering them.
Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield