Sunday, June 13, 2021

Jew Did The Crime, You Read The Times

 1. Introduction of the Issue

The Question

The question of this post is who is guiltier of "War Crimes" in the recent Israel/Gaza war, Israel or Gaza? (I say "Gaza" instead of Hamas because why say an entire country on one side, Israel, and just a political party, Hamas, on the other side? It makes one think that those who do want to increase blame on the entire Israel side while limiting blame on the Gaza side to Hamas, even though Gazans support Hamas' recent actions exponentially more than Israelis support their government's recent actions. Homas don't play that game). 

Doing a search on the Internet (Google) with key words "Israel" "Hamas" "War Crimes" and "2021" gives 10 direct hits on the first page. Most of the articles claim that Israel and Hamas may be guilty of War Crimes. What is the actual EVIDENCE though for relative war crimes (who is guiltier)? 

2. Discussion

Definition of "War Crimes"

"Under the law of armed conflict (LOAC), the death of non-combatants is not necessarily a violation; there are many things to take into account. Civilians cannot be made the object of an attack, but the death/injury of civilians while conducting an attack on a military objective are governed under principles such as of proportionality and military necessity and can be permissible. Military necessity "permits the destruction of life of persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable by the armed conflicts of the war; 
it does not permit the killing of innocent inhabitants for purposes of revenge or the satisfaction of a lust to kill. The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."[40]
When there is no justification for military action, such as civilians being made the object of attack, a proportionality analysis is unnecessary to conclude that the attack is unlawful."


1) If the objective of the attack is civilian the attack is always 
    a War Crime. 

2) Civilian casualties in an attack are not automatically a War Crime.

3) If there is a combination of a military objective and civilian casualties from an attack, the relative value of the military objective must be compared to the civilian damage to determine if there is a War Crime. 

Measurement of War Crimes in 2021 Gaza/Israeli War

The most objective measurement of War Crimes is in terms of quantity rather than quality (with apologies to Jon Oliver #RatFJonOliverandtheHamasmissileherodeintoTelAvivwith). 

Gaza fired 4,360 rockets, all with the objective of Israeli civilians, so that's 4,360 War Crimes. 

Trying to quantify possible Israeli War Crimes is much more difficult. Other than Israel, it's unknown how many rockets Israel fired at Gaza. Everyone would agree that the majority of Israeli rockets had military objectives. You would have to look at specific Israeli rocket attacks but another significant problem is while Gaza would be in the best position to provide evidence of a War Crime, lying about the relative military versus civilian damage would be well within its definition of "resistance".

For example, looking at an Israeli attack with the most potential for War Crime due to the extent of civilian damage, the lead candidate is probably when Israel fired 11 missiles along 200 yards of Wehda Street, in Gaza City. Gaza claimed that 44 civilians were killed. Here the objective of the attack was military as according to Israel the objective was a Hamas military base in an underground tunnel. So the fact that there was collateral civilian damage does not automatically make it a War Crime. The proportionality of the military value must be compared to amount of civilian damage. A Hamas military tunnel would have a very high military value as there are relatively few such tunnels in Gaza, they are the best hiding places for rockets and Hamas military leaders, are deterrents to an Israeli ground assault and are protected by being placed deliberately close to major civilian centers. In addition to destroying the tunnels Israel also estimated it killed 44 Hamas soldiers, including important officers, in the strike. On the other side, in addition to killing possibly 44 civilians, Israel destroyed two multi-family residential buildings. Israel claimed afterwards that it was not aware of the extent of the tunnel and its proximity to the buildings. This suggests that Israel did think that the resultant civilian damage was excessive in proportion to the military value or at least that others would think so. 

Other important factors though in determining War Crimes in the context of proportionality are:

1) The intent of the attack. Here Israel had no intention of inflicting so much civilian damage.

2) The extent to which the enemy contributed to the amount of civilian damage. Here the placement by Hamas of a military tunnel underneath residential buildings is not only a War Crime by itself but also makes the residential buildings part of the military target. 

3) Comparison to other similar attacks by other countries. There are comparable attacks by other major countries with exponentially higher proportions of civilian damage that were never Internationally categorized as War Crimes.

Based on the above, it's unclear that if you were any country other than Israel, the International Community would conclude this attack was a War Crime. 

3. Conclusion

In summary, regarding who is guiltier of War Crimes in the recent Israeli/Gaza War, and using the most objective measurement of War Crimes, the number of, we have the following conclusive results:

Gaza = 4,360

Israel = -0-

So congratulations Gaza, you finally found something you are better at than Israel. And when will the protest/boycott of Gaza for war crimes be held at the Palestinian/Palestinian supporters' offices or business connections and when is the UN session to condemn Gaza for War Crimes and/or related Op-Ed in The Times (rhetorical, no need to answer). 

Friday, February 19, 2021

Has There Ever Been Colonialization, Genocide and an Endless Series of Crimes Against the Universe in Modern Israel?


1. Introduction of the Issue

The Question
The question of this post is whether or not there has ever been colonialization, genocide and an endless series of crimes against the universe in modern Israel? Doing a search on the Internet with key words "Israel" and "Genocide" (the worst of the Big 3) gives 10 hits on the first page. Nine of the articles claim Israel is guilty of genocide against the Palestinians. One article defends against this claim. Keeping in mind though that people are often guilty of what they falsely accuse other people of, what is the actual EVIDENCE for colonialization, genocide and an endless series of crimes against the universe in modern Israel?

2. Discussion


"While many European colonization schemes focused on shorter-term exploitation of economic opportunities (Newfoundland, for example, or Siberia) or addressed specific goals (Massachusetts or New South Wales), a tradition developed of careful long-term social and economic planning for both parties," 

One of the lies told by Palestinians/Arabs is that foreign powers directly participated in their wars against Israel on the side of the Israelis. Not at all well known, is that the United Kingdom, the greatest colonializer of all time, created, supplied, maintained and led the Jordanian army against Israel during the War of Independence. 

Arab Legion

(The Soviet Union, Cuba, Pakistan and North Korea also provided soldiers who directly fought against Israel). Great Britain provided the leader of the Arab Legion, John Glubb, and the top officers. Glubb married a Jordanian and the Jordanian King married a Brit (now that's old school!). 

During the War of Independence, because of Great Britain's Arab Legion, the Jordanian army was the only relatively modern quality army the Arabs had. During the Israeli Civil War, Israel had defeated the Palestinians everywhere, including the West Bank. Without the Arab Legion Israel would have taken the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in the War of Independence. 

At the time, the King of Jordan wanted all of Israel to be part of Jordan, even though the population of Jordan was relatively smaller than the Palestinian population. He realized though that he lacked the military strength to do that and the British told him they would only support taking over the part of Israel designated for the Palestinians. Based on how the War went he was willing to only annex the portion of Israel conquered by the Arab legion and allow a Jewish Country in whatever was left. He never wanted a Palestinian country as, if he was successful in taking the West Bank, the majority of his subjects would be Palestinian, and a neighboring Palestinian country would be a direct threat to his rule. 

In the War of Independence, Egypt and Syria had much larger militaries than Jordan and much more threatening politics, and, a majority of the West Bank was Palestinian, so the Israelis had a defensive policy towards the West Bank in general with the exception of East Jerusalem. 

The Arab Legion won the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Jordan annexed both. Thus Jordan colonized the West Bank and could not have done so without the foreign colonizing power Great Britain. Included in the take was East Jerusalem, which the United Nations including Great Britain, had agreed was to be an International City. Great Britain publicly stated that it did so for its own economic self-interests. 

Great Britain was embarrassed by the fact that its military was leading an attack against a country that at the time would have to reach up to be third world status and that would have been exponentially stronger if the British had not prevented so many Jews from leaving Europe to prevent being murdered by the Nazis, so it ordered all its officers to return to Jordan after they initially crossed into Israel. All of them though quickly (and unofficially) returned to lead the front lines (but lying seems a relatively low badge of dishonor to pin on them here). 

So, Jordan/Great Britain thus colonized part of Israel, with Jordan leaving open the possible final solution of the conflict to it colonizing all of Israel. The United Nations complained that this was a violation of the related UN Mandate. But there were no boycotts, demonizations, violent protests or terrorist attacks against Jordan/Great Britain.

And HOW did Jordan accomplish this. That involves what follows, genocide and crimes against the Universe.



"Definition of genocide[edit]

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroyin whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[5]"

During the War of Independence the Arab Legion, and thus Jordan, conquered the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Qualitatively, East Jerusalem had exponentially more Jewish religious significance than any other religion. Quantitatively, it's difficult to estimate how many Jews were in East Jerusalem/West Bank before Jordanian colonization because:

During and after the Battle of Jerusalem, Palestinian civilian looting destroyed most of the synagogues and Jewish schools. After the Battle Jordan expelled all Jews from East Jerusalem and prevented Israelis from visiting Jewish holy sites. Thus there remained no significant Jewish presence in East Jerusalem in terms of people or identifying history except for the Western Wall which ironically was spared because Muslims insisted it was an Islamic heritage site and not a Jewish one. Thus an almost complete destruction of Jews and Jewish history in East Jerusalem, which has always been the heart of Judaism. Now what's the word for that?

An Endless Series of Crimes against the Universe

Crimes Against Humanity

"Nuremberg Trials

After the Second World War, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal set down the laws and procedures by which the Nuremberg trials were to be conducted. The drafters of this document were faced with the problem of how to respond to the Holocaust and the grave crimes committed by the Nazi regime. A traditional understanding of war crimes gave no provision for crimes committed by a power on its own citizens. Therefore, Article 6 of the Charter was drafted to include not only traditional war crimes and crimes against peace, but also crimes against humanity, defined as

Murder, extermination, enslavementdeportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.[12][13]"

The List is long and undistinguished:

Battle for Jerusalem

"Israeli victories against the Arab militias in the city pushed Abdallah of Jordan to order the Arab Legion to intervene."

"It deployed in East Jerusalem, fought the Israelis and took the Jewish quarter of the Old City. The population was expelled and the fighters taken prisoners to Jordan."


"Arab forces attacked a Jewish medical convoy on its way to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. The British had provided no escort (as they had in previous months) and both they and Palmach forces were slow to intervene during the attack and help the ambushed Jews. After seven hours of fighting, the British put an end to the standoff; by then 78 Jews (mostly unarmed medical personnel) had been killed, as was one British soldier.[41][42][43]"

Battle for Jerusalem

"The Jordanians in Latrun cut off supplies to western Jerusalem.[154] Though some supplies, mostly munitions, were airdropped into the city, the shortage of food, water, fuel and medicine was acute. The Israeli forces were seriously short of food, water and ammunition.[154]"
"King Abdullah ordered Glubb Pasha, the commander of the Arab Legion, to enter Jerusalem on 17 May. The Arab Legion fired 10,000 artillery and mortar shells a day,[154] and also attacked West Jerusalem with sniper fire."

"The 1,500 Jewish inhabitants of the Old City's Jewish Quarter were expelled, and several hundred were detained. The Jews had to be escorted out by the Arab Legion to protect them against Palestinian Arab mobs that intended to massacre them.[158]"

      East Jerusalem 

"During the Battle for Jerusalem, fighting in the Jewish quarter between the Jordanian Arab Legion and the IDFIrgun and Lehi had been particularly fierce, leaving the zone in ruins. The battle and subsequent looting by Palestinian civilians left 27 synagogues and 30 schools destroyed.[28] The Jordanian army is said to have blown up, three days after conquering the area, what remained of the Hurva Synagogue, which had served both as a civilian refuge and Israeli military post.[28]"

"In the first six months of the 1948 war 6,000 Jews also abandoned the city, and when war broke out, thousands fled the northern areas subject to Jordanian shelling. "

 "as Jordan did not recognize Israeli passports, neither Jewish nor Muslim Israelis were allowed access to their traditional sites of worship in East Jerusalem, though Israeli Christians, with a special laissez-passer. were permitted to visit Bethlehem over Christmas and the New Year.[50][51]"

3. Conclusion

Palestinian political violence

" John Bagot Glubb, a high-ranking British army general who worked with the Arab Legion, explained in his autobiographical history of the period how he convinced the Legion to arm and train the fedayeen for free.[36] The Israeli government cites dozens of these attacks as "Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis prior to the 1967 Six-Day War".[37][38] Between 1951 and 1956, 400 Israelis were killed and 900 wounded by fedayeen attacks.;[39][40] according to the Anti-Defamation League "[i]n 1955 alone, 260 Israeli citizens were killed or wounded by fedayeen".[41]"

         [It was not enough for England to have their General lead Jordan against Israel in a Colonialization, Genocide and Crimes Against The Universe effort. After the War this shmuck putz trained Palestinian terrorists to commit terrorist attacks against Israel from the safety of Jordan.]

In conclusion then, During The War of Independence, we've seen how Jordan, with England's help, colonized part of Israel, and tried to colonize all of it, committed genocide in East Jerusalem and The West Bank and committed numerous crimes against the universe during and after The War. So when people say there has been colonialization, genocide and crimes against the universe in modern Israel, they are correct. They just often have the guilty party and the victims switched. 


Friday, February 14, 2020

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?

1. Introduction of the Issue

The Question
The question of this post is whether or not Palestinian Terrorism is good for Israel. In order to answer the question one needs to define "what is good for Israel". For purposes of this post I will assume that what is good for Israel is land. The post will then discuss the historical relationship between Palestinian Terrorism and its effect on the quantity of Israeli land. 

2. Discussion

1947 UN Partition Plan For Israel/Palestine
The above is the original proposed separation of land for Israel and the Palestinians per the 1947 UN Partition Plan. This post will emphasize the changing relationship over time/events/offers between Israeli land and (offered/non-Israeli) Palestinian land. The comparison will primarily be quantitative rather than qualitative as quantitative is more objective. 

Per this plan Israel was to receive 54% of the land, the Palestinians 45% and 1% would be the International city of Jerusalem. Qualitatively, the majority of the land is in the Negev desert and Israel was allocated almost all of the Negev. 


Israeli/Jewish = Acceptance of Plan.

Palestinian/Arab = Rejection of Plan and position that it would not accept any land being given to a Jewish State. 

Subsequent Events

Israeli War Of Independence - 1948-1949

On May 14th 1948 Great Britain left Israel/Palestine. The next day all surrounding Arab countries invaded Israel with the intention of not allowing any Israeli/Jewish State. Egypt and Jordan, the two main invading Arab powers, did not intend any Palestinian State either, they wanted to colonize parts of Israel/Palestine for themselves. It's unclear, if the Palestinians would have been able to decide for themselves, whether or not to accept the Partition Plan, they would have or not. In any case they allied with the surrounding Arab countries.

In preparation for the invasion Palestinian/Arab leaders publicly threatened that the intent of the invasion went well beyond a mere military victory:

"Haj Amin al-Husseini said in March 1948 to an interviewer in a Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were Annihilated".[115]"

[Note al-Husseini was the highest Muslim religious figure in Palestine and had recruited Palestinians for the SS during WWII]

Arab Higher Committee:

"The Palestinian Arabs make a grave declaration before the UN, before God and before history that they will never submit to any power that comes to Palestine to impose a partition. The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children."

Arab League's Secretary-General Azzam Pasha:

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades"

Plenty more where those came from but you get the idea. 

Conclusion = Palestinian/Arab reaction to Israeli/Jewish acceptance of the Partition Plan was Terrorism. 

After The War of Independence:

Land percents after the War =

Israel = 78%

Jordan/Egypt = 22%

Palestinians = -0- %

Conclusion = As a result of the Arabs/Palestinians trying to reduce Israel's percent to -0-, Israel's percent of the land went from 54% to 78% and if your criterion for what is good for Israel is land, then this was Tov mehode for Israel. Meanwhile, the Palestinian percent went from 45% to -0-. 

Six-Day War - 1967

Subsequent to The War of Independence the Arab League agreed on a policy statement that there would be no negotiation with Israel and no acceptance of an Israeli country. In May 1967 Egypt removed UN peacekeeping forces from their border with Israel and massed troops on the border. Israel had previously announced that if Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping Israel would consider that an act of war. Egypt closed the straits. Egypt also sent troops to Jordan.

Once again Nasser, the leader of the Arab forces, made clear his intentions by constantly having threats made against Israel by the Egyptian radio service and saying things like coexistence was not possible because Israel had robbed and expelled the Palestinians and Israel would get what was coming for threatening to march on Damascus, occupy Syria and overthrow the Syrian Arab regime.

Conclusion = Palestinian/Arab reaction to The War of Independence was Terrorism.

After The Six Day War:

Land percents after the War =

Israel = 100%

Palestinians = 0%

Conclusion = As a result of the Arabs/Palestinians trying to reduce/eliminate Israel's percent, Israel's percent of the land went from 78% to 100% and if your criterion for what is good for Israel is land, then this was pretty, pretty, pretty good for Israel. 

  3. Conclusion

From the beginning of the conflict, the Arabs/Palestinians have refused to negotiate with Israel and instead used Terrorism to try and prevent Israel from having any percent of Israel. As a result Israel has ended up with 100% of Israel and the Palestinians have ended up with -0-%. Now that's Justice for Palestine!

Saturday, July 27, 2019

The Counting Of The Omar (Antisemitic Statements). Is Ilhan Omar Antisemitic?

1. Introduction of the Issue

The Question
The question of this post is whether or not Ilhan Omar is antisemitic. In order to answer the question one needs to select a definition of antisemitism. For purposes of this post I will use the most recent definition of antisemitism which is used by some governments agencies and generally by the United States which is =
Working Definition of Antisemitism

The Working Definition of Antisemitism has the following definition:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

With the following examples:

"Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." 

  • Note that the above generally contain two significant elements:

    1. Assuming a negative conclusion regarding Israel/Jews while denying/minimizing the related discussions/arguments needed to support the conclusion. 

    2. Applying standards to Israel/Jews that are not applied to others, especially those most in conflict with Israel/Jews.

    Application of Omar's Significant Statements to The Question
    As Israel is currently most in conflict with Hamas, this post will only consider significant statements from Omar regarding Israel or Hamas. Omar's statements then will be evaluated specifically based on the examples above and generally based on their extent of double standards. 

    2. Discussion

    A neutral place to start looking would be Omar's Wikipedia page at the 

    Israeli–Palestinian conflict section:

    1. "she supports the BDS movement"

    Here we have the double standard that she supports penalties unilaterally against Israel without any consideration of penalties against those that Israel is in conflict with or for that matter any other country in the known Universe.

    2. A 2012 Tweet "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel,"

    This is a direct demonization of Israel ("hypnotized"and "evil") and she has further given it a religious context by using "Allah" for God. She initially claimed a defense of limited demonization, just Israel and not Jews. However, the context she uses it in is limited to Jewish Israel and not all of Israel which includes a significant amount of non-Jews. Plus, her context includes that the supposed victims of Israel are the non Jews in Israel. So she is demonizing a group of Jews, which happen to comprise about half the Jews in the world.

    Omar subsequently apologized for the tweet confessing that the demonizing language she used has been common historical antisemitic rhetoric used against Jews in general and could therefore be understood/connected to all Jews and not just Israel. But this is not a defense here as she has left her intent as demonizing Israel. 

    Wednesday, December 5, 2018

    Why Did CNN Terminate Its Contract With Marc Lamont Hill?

    1. Introduction of the Issue

    What Happened?
    CNN recently terminated its contract with Marc Lamont Hill for Commentator services. A quick search of the Internet does not show a direct related statement from CNN. However, it's generally accepted that this is true and the best second hand statement seen (from CNN Business) is:

    CNN severs ties with liberal pundit Marc Lamont Hill after his controversial remarks on Israel:

    "(CNN)CNN said Thursday that it had severed ties with contributor Marc Lamont Hill following controversial comments the liberal pundit made about Israel.
    "Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN," a spokesperson for CNN confirmed in a short statement.
    The move was first reported by the media news website Mediaite."
    Why It Happened?
    So far CNN has not publicly stated why it terminated the contract so you have to try and deduce/guess why. A summary of the first page of a related Google search gives popular reasons/guesses. Note that those critical of Hill give relatively better potential main specific reasons for why the contract was terminated and those supportive of Hill give relatively worse reasons:

    The Washington Post = Apologists for Israel conducted a smear and harassment campaign.

    Jewish Journal = For saying “free Palestine from the river to the sea,”.

    Jewish Exponent = For saying “free Palestine from the river to the sea,”.

    Campus Reform = For saying “free Palestine from the river to the sea,”.

    Insider NJ = For supporting equal rights for Palestinians.

    The Inquirer = For saying “free Palestine from the river to the sea,”.

    Al Dia = For saying “free Palestine from the river to the sea,”.

    TruthOut = For saying “free Palestine from the river to the sea,”.

    BreakingIsraelNews = For saying “free Palestine from the river to the sea,”.

    Ebony = For saying “free Palestine from the river to the sea,”.

    2. Discussion

    1. The Contract
    CNN has not released any information about the contract between CNN and Hill so the terms needed to be guessed at. Something to look at than would be known contract information from similar contracts between commentators and major networks, especially CNN. Unfortunately CNN also does not appear to release general information regarding contracts with Commentators either. Since Hill and others who have had their contracts terminated by CNN have not stated exactly what was in the contract that caused its termination we can only deduce that one term of the contract was that the Commentator was prohibited from revealing the terms of the contract. 

    2. Possible Terms of the Contract that Caused Termination
    Commentator contracts often limit the commentator from making comments that the Network considers overly negative such as inflammatory, prejudiced, biased, controversial and false. The Network could decide that a Commentator went over the limit with a single comment, an entire commentary or cumulative comments in commentaries on the same subject. 

    A contract could also have a term that the Network reserves the right to terminate the contract without cause. This could be caused by a Commentator being too controversial, outside pressure on the Network or the Network simply deciding that this Commentator was not a very good commentator. 

    3. The Best Reason is the Worst Comment
    The best reason to terminate is usually the one worst comment because individual comments are easier to publicize than cumulative ones. Let's look for the possible worst comment by Hill in his recent speech to the UN:

    The worst comment appears to be:
    “Contrary to western mythology, black resistance to American apartheid did not come purely through Ghandi and nonviolence," Hill said (see video below.) "Rather, slave revolts and self-defense and tactics otherwise divergent from Dr. King or Mahatma Gandhi were equally important to preserving safety and attaining freedom. If we are to operate in true solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must allow the Palestinian people the same range of opportunity and political possibility. If we are standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend itself. We must prioritize peace, but we must not romanticize or fetishize it. We must advocate and promote nonviolence at every opportunity, but we cannot endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing."

    In just one paragraph Hill manages to present the entire range of positions on Palestinian Terrorism:

    1) Advocate against it.

    2) Advocate against it but don't criticize it.

    3) Accept it but do not prioritize it.

    4) Advocate for it.

    Of course the worst of this range would be advocating Palestinian Terrorism. Hill does not say this directly but a strong implication from being in favor of Palestinian Terrorism would be somewhere in between also being in favor of increased Israeli civilian casualties or at least a position with a consequence of increased Israeli civilian casualties. Note that in general an increase in Palestinian Terrorism (or for those who think the two words do not go together like Arafat & Nobel or President & Trump, "violence") is exponentially more likely to cause exponentially more Palestinian casualties than Israeli. 

    In summary Hill is clearly in favor of increased Palestinian violence and his being unclear on his exact position of Palestinian Terrorism and the related effect of increased Israeli civilian casualties leaves it open, especially to his critics, to interpret the worst.

    The next best worst comment appears to be:

    "Give us what justice requires -- and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea"

    "from the river to the sea" has always been not just a but the main political slogan of The Palestinians/Hamas supporting a goal of complete Palestinian control of all of Israel:

    From the river to the sea

    4. The Cumulative Reason for Termination
    Per the above Hill at a minimum called for increased Palestinian violence and invoked the traditional Palestinian rallying cry for the elimination of the Country of Israel in the same speech. 

    Further cumulative effect may have been that the above also made CNN consider Hill's previous controversial comments on the same subject such as:

    “How can you romanticize nonviolence when you have a state that is at all moments waging war against you, against your bodies, poisoning your water, limiting your access to water, locking up your children, killing them,” Hill said. “We can’t romanticize resistance.”

    Yikes! Since retracted.


    "But what the Iron Dome does is it also takes away all of Hamas's military leverage which is very different than say, 10 years ago or 15 years ago in other wars like Lebanon, et cetera. As a result, it not only serves a defensive purpose but de facto serves an offensive purpose. It allows Israel to essentially assault and siege Gaza without any retribution or response on the other side. So again, to some extent, they are not just funding defense, they are funding an offensive war and ultimately an occupation. That for me, is the problem."

    Hill is against Israel having the Iron Dome defense which helps protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian Terrorist Rocket attacks.

    Hill was a supporter of Ward Churchill who was a 911 denier. 


    Until recently Hill said he did not know if Louis Farrakhan was a racist and anti-semite:


    Hill invokes Leila Khaled, a Palestinian Terrorist, in the context of violently resisting what he considers to be a violent State:

    The Washington Free Beacon

    As that great 20th century philosopher Goose would say, "The List is long and distinguished." 

    The irony here is that Hill is really being vetted after his contract was terminated.

    3. Conclusion

    The best reason Marc Lamont Hill's Commentator contract with CNN was terminated may have been a combination of the recent worst comment he has made in a UN speech advocating at a minimum increased Palestinian violence against Israel along with the cumulative effect of his prior controversial comments on the same subject of Israel. CNN promotes itself as being a relatively objective Network and while trying to present both sides of an issue trying to avoid commentators with overly radical positions. 

    For those who need a simpler conclusion, based on what he should have known were CNN's standards for commentators, he was not a very good commentator. And for my Jewish readers, in the simplest terms, Marc Lamont Hill is a putz. 

    Perhaps the better question/title for this post is why didn't CNN terminate its contract with Hill earlier?