Good to see Temple University isn't piling on.
I posted his UN address on Facebook. My accompanying post:
Marc Lamont Hill was fired as a CNN commentator on Thursday, after he called earlier in the week for a one-state solution in Palestine and Israel. While speaking at a United Nations event honoring international solidarity with the Palestinian people, Temple University Professor Hill stated, "We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grassroots action, local action, and international action that will give us what justice requires and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea."
I have given up on the notion that a "Two-State Solution" between Israel and some sort of Palestine is actually in the works. The "Peace Process" is gone. Over. All prominent Israeli politicians say as much. The divergence there is in how to deal with the remaining non-citizen Palestinians.
Increasingly, the possibility of Israel becoming even more apartheid than it already is - both in the Occupied Territories and 1967-era Israel - only grows, as Israeli politics becomes more hard right and pro-settlement expansion.
Simultaneously, the BDS Movement in solidarity with the Palestinian people is slowly gaining traction, even in the face of political opposition, both in the USA and elsewhere. The British Quakers endorsed BDS just this past month.
Commentator Brown was fired for expressing the truth: There can only be a one-state solution unless one accepts the suffocation of any rational Palestinian aspirations for a sense of place to replace what has clearly been stolen from them.
A commenter asked:
What is it that CNN says he did wrong? I mean, they didn't like what he said, but are they claiming some kind of breach of contract?
I haven't seen details of his contract. His expressing of a wish for unification of the Palestinian and Israeli people into one nation is seen by many militant Zionists as anti-Semitic, as it would end the religious-theological supremacism and racial singularity of Jews in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Why some consider this viewpoint to be anti-Semitic is an important issue in current affairs, both in Israel-Palestine and other countries, particularly, the English speaking countries and Western Europe. Artists, intellectuals and politicians who express solidarity for Palestinians from any viewpoint not pre-approved by some flavor of Zionists risk a lot.
Prof. Hill isn't afraid of taking risks. And, he isn't going away.
Back in mid-September, Deb Haaland called me, thinking I was a different Philip Munger - the NYC multimillionaire one who donates very generously to progressive Democratic Party candidates. She was soliciting a campaign contribution. I get those calls from time to time, because I also donate generously to Dems, but from a much, much smaller kitty.
After letting her know I wasn't going to be able to donate more than a few bucks to her Act Blue account, we talked about what issues are important to her. I didn't bring up Palestinian rights, nor did she. We both view income inequality and the rapidly accelerating degradation of the earth's environment to be paramount.
I already knew who she was, mostly through Howie Klein's articles about her at" Down With Tyranny!" and by following her revitalization of New Mexico Democrats through various progressive political blogs. However, I didn't know her position on Palestinian rights or her feelings about the weekly Gaza sniper murders.
That some in the Democratic Party might think less of her because of her tweets about this, or other things she may have said about I/P issues bothers me. Representative-Elect Haaland and the other freethinking women of color elected as Democrats this November are far more important than any single issue.
Between Alexandria Occasion-Cortez's genius for improvising fresh approaches and Deb Haaland's proven organizational skills, there is much to be gained for our country.
Although I'm disturbed by the constantly lengthening procession of neocons trotting out to pretend the USA somehow, rather exceptionally, doesn't routinely disturb the political routines of many other countries - most notably and recently in Honduras and Nicaragua - I'm more disturbed about an issue that hasn't gotten the attention I think it deserves: possible voter machine manipulation in the 2016 election.
Maybe it wasn't even needed, given how close the apparent results were in those few important upper Midwest swing states that HRC's inept campaign wrote off as "hers." The so-called experts we've heard from keep intoning that there is no evidence voters or voting mechanics were tampered with beyond the fake accounts designed to either manipulate voters on who to vote for, or to convince them it wasn't worth it to pull the lever. Actually, very little appears to have been done to really verify this as fact.
In past elections, it has been difficult to get actual recounts of electronic, computer networked voter machine tallies for a variety of reasons: The information in the machines is often the private property of the vendors the state contracts to provide the machines (!!!). Secretaries of State generally have to be sued to get inside info on how vote counts from precinct to precinct are tabulated on their way up the chain of highly vulnerable computer steps they go through in the process of being posted publicly.
There are many steps of vulnerability in our voting process. Even when we seem to finally get a dream candidate, such as Alex in the Bronx, they are under constant pressure to comply with absurd constraints such as Phil W. covered here recently.
Many U.S. laws were broken in the 2016 election. We will never be able to prosecute the Russian military figures indicted last Friday, but now that the indictments are in the mill, I feel it is important we view this strange set of events they are part of as a learning experience on how vulnerable our political system is, rather than how futile or useless it is to participate in the Federal election process.
Goldberg (a friend of mine) ought to take the obvious next step here and endorse BDS. That would be a real slap at the occupation, and the least an American can do to support nonviolent resistance.
I met Ms. Goldberg the first week of September, 2008, when Salon had tagged her to follow Sarah Palin during the presidential race. She impressed me deeply. While we mostly talked about Palin in the context of Goldberg's 2006 book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, she did know I had been involved in controversy for supporting Palestinian rights, and writing about Rachel Corrie. We discussed Palestinian rights and the drift of Israeli politics further and further to the right, but that was probably it. The thing I remember most about meeting her, was that she turned me on to what became my favorite vineyard, Rosenblum, headquartered near Berkeley, where she got her MS.
I've followed her course since then, reading her next book too - The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World. When she was picked to write important op-eds for the NYT, I was skeptical of how far she might be able to push her outspoken views.
This column will provoke controversy and meaningful discussion. I doubt she would be able to keep her post at the Times and openly endorse BDS, though.