Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Marc Lamont Hill, ‘Philosemite’

By

 

Marc Lamont Hill is a professor of Media Studies at Temple University. He writes quite a bit about Israel and Jews. It appears to be the subject that interests him the most. He doesn’t care for Israel. The Israelis appall him. He does have a soft spot for the Palestinians. In 2018, he was fired as a commentator for CNN when it was revealed that he had tweeted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will soon be free,” which amounts to a call for Israel’s destruction and its replacement by “Palestine.” He kept his position at Temple University, however. Now there are calls for the university to discipline him for his denunciation of Jews who support Israel. The report is here: “Temple University Must Take Action Against Marc Lamont Hill,” by Melissa Landa, JNS.org, February 21, 2021:

Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, who was fired from CNN in November 2018 for his clarion call to destroy Israel, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” is reiterating that call. This time, he has written a book, Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics, and has been promulgating his violent ideas in a series of interviews.

As Hill speaks about his book, in which he calls for “justice” for the Palestinian people, he disregards the history of the Jewish people, including their exile from the land of Israel, their millennia of persecution in the Diaspora, their endless longing to return to their ancestral homeland in Zion, and the presence of Jews in the land of Israel since biblical times. In doing so, he chooses to dismiss the existence of Jewish peoplehood, and instead, arrogantly and naively defines Jews as “a religion and a faith,” as he did during an interview with Carmen Perez Jordan on Feb. 18….

Marc Lamont Hill leaves out, in all his vaporings about the Jewish state, the 3,000 years of a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. Very likely he is unaware of it. He is unfamiliar with the Jewish texts that in exile expressed the yearning of Jews to return to that ancestral homeland, such as the hope at the end of the Haggadah that there will be another Seder “Next year in Jerusalem.” He hasn’t a word about what happened to Jews in their centuries of exile, either about the two millennia of Christian antisemitism they endured, culminating in the Holocaust, or about the 1,400 years of enduring the difficult status of dhimmis in Muslim lands, suffering a host of financial and other disabilities, including the required payment of the Jizyah, a burdensome tax that had to be paid by the Jews to the Muslim state in order to assure their safety. In other words, it was religiously-sanctioned extortion. For Marc Lamont Hill, none of this matters. Not knowing this history of endless persecution and murder endured by Jews, he cannot fathom how important it is for them to have the security of a state of their own. He writes as if the Jews arrived in “Palestine” only in the 20th century, having no organic connection to the land, and determined to displace the “Palestinian people.”

Hill does not refer in his copious writings on Israel to the Mandate for Palestine, which is the foundational document for the reconstruction, in the 20th century, of the Jewish National Home, that is, of Israel. Is he aware of what that document contains? It encourages, in Article 6, Jewish immigration and “close settlement by Jews on the land.” Does he realize that the “land” covered by the Mandate extends from the Golan in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean in the west? I suspect he has no idea about any of this. He is secure in his surpassing ignorance; any introduction of history, ancient or recent, would only confuse him.

Nor does Hill ever mention U.N. Resolution 242, which provides Israel with an independent claim to retaining much of the West Bank, as well as the Golan Heights. This was the resolution passed on Nov. 22, 1967, that gave Israel the right to hold onto those territories won in the Six-Day War that it deemed necessary for its own security, so as to obtain, in the key phrase of the resolution, “secure [i.e., defensible] and recognized boundaries.” Among the territories both Israeli and American military men (who wrote their own report on Israel’s minimal security needs for President Johnson) judged essential to the Jewish state’s defense were the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley.

Indeed, watching and listening to Hill propagate antisemitic tropes as he promotes his book has been both illuminating and deeply disturbing. On one occasion, he mocked what he regarded as Israel’s demand for exceptional treatment — reminiscent of the antisemitic view that Jews regard themselves as the “Chosen People.” (Ironically, he was discussing Israel’s right to exist, a subject that originated when Israel’s legitimacy was called into question as an attack by Israel detractors like Hill, not as a unique demand by Israel.)

Israel has never asked for exceptional treatment. It asks only to be judged by the standards applied to all other states but which are so rarely permitted to the Jewish state. It has the same right of self-defense as other nations. It has the right to respond to attacks on its people., whether by national armies or by terror groups. It has the right to hold onto territory from which attacks have been launched on it, just as other states have held onto territory won in defensive wars in the past. The Jewish people have the same right to a state as other peoples, including the Arabs, who now possess twenty-two states, more than any other people; in land area those twenty-two states are 630 times as large as tiny Israel. And now, despite being so amply supplied with states, the Arabs want still another, 23rd state, whose existence would likely put Israel in permanent peril.

It is the Arabs, not the Israelis, who have received exceptional treatment. Of all the tens of millions of refugees since World War II, it is only the “Palestinian” refugees – that is, the Arabs who left Mandatory Palestine, and then Israel, between 1947 and 1949 – who have been allowed to pass on their refugee status as an inheritable trait. No other refugees in the world have been granted such an extraordinary privilege. Henry Kissinger is a Jewish refugee from Germany. His son, born in Boston, is not. Vladimir Nabokov was a Russian refugee. His son, born in Berlin, was not. But the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on, without any logical limit, are all considered to be “Palestinian refugees” and thus eligible to receive free housing, free medical care, and free education from UNRWA. No one has explained why the progeny of the original Palestinian refugees (who now number about 30,000) should alone continue to receive such extraordinary treatment.

On another occasion, he [Marc Lamont Hill] spoke about Israel as having stolen land from the Palestinians, using the words “transfer of people out of their homeland” and “dispossession,” eliciting the stereotypical image of the thieving, greedy Jew.

From the first decade of World War I, Jews returning to “Palestine” to rebuild the Jewish commonwealth bought land, at often exorbitant prices, from Arab and Turkish landowners. When the Palestine Mandate came into force in 1922, Jewish pioneers were also allowed to settle on “state and waste lands.” But there was no “dispossessing” of the Arabs by the Jews. Every dunam of land was paid for until the 1948 war. Just before and during that war, the Arabs of Palestine were urged, both by their own leaders, and by foreign radio broadcasts beamed from Arab states, to “leave Palestine” in order to get out of the way of the five invading Arab armies, and those Arabs could return once the fighting – which was not expected by the Arabs to last long — had ended, with the Jews either having been killed or having fled. The Arabs could reclaim their homes and, of course, also take possession of the homes and other property left by the Jews. It was not to be. The Arabs were decisively defeated. The homes left by Arabs who did not return to reclaim them could not simply be left empty; the state of Israel created a Custodian of Abandoned Property “to prevent unlawful occupation of empty houses and business premises, to administer ownerless property, and also to secure tilling of deserted fields, and save the crops….” The implied danger from Arab repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number, on condition that the Arabs sign a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees. In other words, there was to be no “dispossession” of the Arabs; Israel stood ready to pay for the abandoned lands. All it asked for was a peace treaty.

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel, including signing a treaty that would result in payment for all the land that the Arabs had abandoned. If the Arabs refused to take the compensation – at fair market value — offered, there was nothing Israel could do, and the land they had abandoned was at long last taken over by Jewish owners. That’s what Marc Lamont Hill mischaracterizes as “dispossession.”

As for Hill’s claim that Israel was guilty of the “transfer people out of their homeland” – it’s nonsense. It was the Arab leaders themselves, both foreign and Palestinian, who urged the Palestinian Arabs to leave the area, to get out of the way of the five invading Arab armies, and to return once the war was over, to reclaim both their own property and that of the Jews who had fled or had been killed. Some Israelis, such as the Mayor of Haifa, urged the Arabs to remain, but most took the advice of their Arab brothers and left for what they assumed would be a most temporary stay abroad. There was no forcible “transfer”by Israel – the Arabs left voluntarily.

Most disturbing, however, was hearing Hill reiterate his genocidal call for an end to Israel as the Jewish state in an interview with Briahna Joy Grayon on the Bad Faith Podcast. He stated, “When I called for a free Palestine from the river to the sea, I was referring to … a belief that we should have justice and equality in the entire region of historic Palestine. When I say historic Palestine, I’m referring to that entire area, both in the State of Israel, what is now known as the State of Israel, founded in 1948, also in the West Bank, also in Gaza.”

Marc Lamont Hill made clear, yet again, that the “Palestine” he continually refers to is indeed “from the river to the sea” – consisting of the State of Israel in its pre-1967 lines, all of the West Bank, all of Gaza, all of the Golan. It is this Palestine that is to be made “free” by the expulsion of the Jews from the land they took from its rightful owners, the Palestinian Arabs. “Justice and equality” in Hill’s view requires an end to the Jewish state, and its replacement by Arab Palestine.

Equally disturbing, in his interview with Jordan, Hill argued that Israel is so despicable that those who associate Jews with Israel are antisemitic and that those who work to sever the relationship between Jews and Israel are advocating for the preservation of Jewish goodness. He stated, “Part of what Zionism has produced is the narrative … of Israeli policy and practice being equated with Jewishness, so that if I critique Israel, I’m critiquing Jewishness or Jews. We have to separate those things because actually in many ways it’s actually antisemitic to do the opposite. I don’t want Judaism associated with the occupation. Judaism is a religion and a faith and a tradition of justice, of love. … I don’t want that linked to the open-air prison of Gaza.”

Hill insists that it is he who is trying to rescue the Jews from themselves. He’s not antisemitic, merely obsessively anti-Israel. Because Israel is a terrible place, those who want to link Jews to Israel are not doing them a favor. He, Marc Lamont Hill, insists that his criticism of Israel is not intended to be a criticism of Jews; it is those who conflate wicked Israel with inoffensive Jews, who are the true antisemites. Then Hill – who in the past has repeatedly praised Louis Farrakhan, the antisemitic demagogue who appears to have no other subject but the perfidy of money-grubbing Jews, whom Farrakhan has compared to “termites” – feigns his admiration for Judaism, which he describes as “a religion and a faith and a tradition of justice, of love…”…

It is that respect for Judaism that makes Marc Lamont Hill want to clearly distinguish between despicable Israel and admirable Jews, the kind who — that’s why they are admirable — despise Israel. Why, Marc Lamont Hill can assure you – why should you doubt him? – he hasn’t an antisemitic bone in his body. Just like his friend Louis Farrakhan.

No doubt Hill’s offense is rank. American Jews overwhelmingly support Israel. But the numbers of those who say they “support Israel” differs, depending on the poll, and a better answer would be “somewhere between 80% and 95%” of American Jews say they support Israel. So Hill is criticizing not only Israel but the overwhelming majority of American Jews who support this abomination.

However, it’s hard to see what Temple University can do about Marc Lamont Hill. He has tenure – something he did not have at CNN. He despises Israel, but so far has not called for violence against Israelis, has not praised terrorist attacks, and has couched his antisemitism as philosemitism – he claims he wants to rescue Jews from those who would link them, so unfairly, to Israel. He would likely insist that “I am a supporter of the authentic Jews, those who follow the best traditions of Judaism, with its emphasis on justice and on love. I don’t want others to confuse that admirable Judaism with the Zionist ideology of modern-day Israel, that aggressive little Sparta whose dispossession of the Palestinians should not be blamed on innocent Jews, but only on the Israelis.”

Perhaps Marc Lamont Hill will slip up, drop his mask for a minute, praise Hamas or the PIJ for their acts of terrorist murder, encourage imminent lawless action to shut down a pro-Israel speaker, crudely disparage “the Jews” in general. And there’s another path to consider. I would not be surprised if there are passages in Hill’s “Except For Palestine” that were lifted, unattributed, from other authors similarly obsessed with Israel. That would give Temple University something to work with, emulating the way the University of Colorado finally rid itself of Ward Churchill. It’s worth, as they say, the old college try.

Comments

  1. How does someone in academe get away with declaring that the Jewish people don’t exist? The historical record is filled with references to Jews, Israelites, Hebrews and other terms for the same people.

    Students of a blinkered ideologue like Hill are not getting value for their university fees.

    Hill doesn’t understand the deep connection Jews have with Israel and Jerusalem, both in the Bible and in Jewish prayers and theology. Judaism is highly focused on Israel and life in Israel, while Islam is focused on Mecca and conquering the world.

    Judaism has no ‘world conquest’ component, unlike Islam which is presented in Sharia law as a world empire.

    • According to what I was told by a Rabbi, at one time Judaism shared the idea of spreading the word with Christianity. But then they were told by the Roman Emperor “If you seek converts we will exterminate you.” Later that was changed to “If you accept converts we will exterminate you.” According to Jews, God and History, somewhere in the order of 2 million Jews were killed in 3 rebellions against Rome. Most other groups (communities) stopped with 1 rebellion and then submitted; but not the Jews.

      Even now, converts to Judaism are welcomed in theory; but practice is a totally different matter. It is a shame that such wisdom should be kept so secret.

      • Out of curiosity, Frank, which Roman Emperor was that? I ask this because Judaism has almost never been a proselytizing religion as has, say, Christianity and Islam. Additionally, I know of two rebellions against Rome by the ancient Jews, the first being the 66-73 A.D. revolt and thereafter the 132-132 A.D. revolt. What is the third one? Surely you’re not confusing the revolt by the Maccabees against the Seleucids from around 167-142 B.C. as a revolt against the Romans, are you? Hope not because sloppiness about facts leads to many distortions. Truth begins with the basic arithmetic of truth, i.e., facts.

        Moreover, Judaism rejected Jesus right from the get-go. Yes, there were Jewish converts to Christianity in the first generation or two of Christianity, but they were in the distinct minority among Jews, a tiny fraction. Also, a division opened up very early on (by no later than c.100 A.D.) between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. This was, effectively, the first divide between Christians. Paul’s epistles went a long way to insuring that the Gentile Christian community would prevail over the Jewish Christian community (e.g., the non-need for circumcision).

        The very fact that the Gospel of Matthew is “very Judaic,” as numerous Biblical scholars have maintained (examples being the great Albert Schweitzer and the historian, Michael Grant, and I might mention Thomas Jefferson too here who knew a great deal about antiquity, religion in general, and Christianity in particular), while Mark, Luke and the philosophical John appeal primarily to the “Gentile crowd,” only confirms all the more that a major divide existed early on between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

        Just as, until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., the Resurrection of Jesus was looked upon by many Christians (e.g., Gnostic Christians) as a “spiritual resurrection” and not a literal, physical one (similar to parables often being treated as miracles as evidenced by the difference between Matthew and Mark on the one hand and Luke on the other about the withering of the fig tree–in the first two, a miracle, in Luke a parable—but I digress). Of course, after Nicaea, the “spiritual resurrectionists” were hunted down and wiped out by the “literal resurrectionists” due to the “imprimatur” by the Emperor Constantine who wanted no divisions among the Christian religion since he had effectively endorsed Christianity from the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312 A.D.) onward.

        So much for true freedom of thought. And which such freedom perilously existed even in ancient 5th century B.C. Athens as well as in late 18th-century America—and these are quite arguably two of the four or five finest examples of liberty being extolled anywhere on earth in man’s history.

        Your turn if you care. Give it a shot

        • Wellington, one of my sources is the book Jews, God and History by Rabbi Max Dimont, which was required (expected) reading as part of the teaching prior to a conversion at the local Temple. The first prohibition against seeking converts was made following the 70 CE/AD war, the second following the later war and then Emperor Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome. I think you can see some information about these decrees in Constantine’s Sword.

          Having spent from 1992 to 2015 in the Jewish community, I had many experiences and lessons on the subject of seeking, accepting and tolerating converts. According to my Rabbi, Abraham was the first convert, as were all who followed him in his travels. Many people along the way joined the community voluntarily because of the great wisdom being shared. For that reason even today when someone decides to convert, they take a Hebrew name as a “son of Abraham” or “daughter of Abraham”. That does not mean they are embraced with a permanent, warm commitment. Quite a few converts find after time it is necessary to move on because of 2000 years of problems with “outsiders”. I will always treasure and respect what I learned in their community and the friends who helped when it was needed. “No matter how well things start: They change.” Rabbi DK, The Two Lessons of The Exodus.

          FYI-I had the honor of taking one of my many “mothers-by-choice” to just about every Jewish event in town for over 5 years. We had better attendance than the Rabbi. I listened and learned at every opportunity for the 20+ years of involvement. I have no need to make things up.

      • Even now, converts to Judaism are welcomed in theory; but practice is a totally different matter.
        …………………

        Frank, I have a friend who discovered he had Jewish heritage and converted to Judaism, and he has been warmly welcomed by his Synagog and the Jewish community.

        • GI, you don’t have to keep telling me how wrong I am. I was welcome for 23 years by people who died or moved away. Those who remained, or replaced the retired Rabbi, did not. I have been gone now for 6 years. NOT one has made a single telephone call in spite of Mary’s and my health problems. We met there over 18 years ago. We are together now, very happily, because our Jewish mother by choice wanted us that way. Remember, according to Maimonides, the second highest Mitzvah is matchmaking of friends. But when she died (3 weeks after my heart surgery) so did our welcome. It took 8 years to be made clear. But when it finally became clear, it was also absolute. The same thing has happened to other converts before in that community.

          In a Reform congregation, about a third dislike converts, I had one, a federal judge before whom I practiced, ask me to not convert. About a third tolerate converts. The remaining third follow the teaching that Abraham converted and welcome converts. In Orthodox and Conservative congregations far fewer are in the group that welcomes and far more are in the group that dislikes outsiders. A person who has no Jewish ancestry is an outsider. Mary and I both have many experiences in our lives with Jewish people worthy of highest praise and honor. But we have no Jewish ancestry. We are outsiders and understand our position.

          Just as I have both the right and duty to select my friends, whom I offer my commitment of trust and support, so do others. We have discussed a number of times my adopted AND birth families telling me to move on; that they did not wish to be involved in my life. I appreciate candor above all else. I would rather be alone and free to find new friends than be burdened with liars and false friends who are there only so long as they are bought and paid for. After all, I sincerely believe based on many experiences, I do have the Ultimate Friend who has been with me at every step and will remain with me always. Two hours of being legally dead is a teaching and humbling experience.

          I do consider you a friend.

        • Frank, I never said you were wrong, and I have said before how sorry I am that this happened to you. I just wanted to mention that I know of a case where a convert to Judaism has indeed been welcomed by the Jewish community.

          This case in *no way* negates your sad expereince, nor did I mean to indicate that it does.

          And I very much consider you to be a friend, as well.

        • GI, Honored, Respected Appreciated friend do you see the difference in community reception to a person with ancestral connections and those who do not? A person who has no ancestral connection is barely tolerated. The first time I attended Torah Study in Nashville (1992), the Rabbi said along with the 3 propositions that inspire me to this day, also said that “Converted Jews are Second Class.” When I moved to where I live now the Rabbi, now retired and gone, explained that statement is not consistent with the teachings of Reform Judaism, but is still widely supported within the congregation.

          I accept their right to decide who is welcome and not. That does not change what motivated me to follow what I learned in their company even when I am no longer part of that community. I have enough reasons to be angry with real evil and corruption that I have experienced. Minor irritations from people exercising their basic rights will not be allowed to confuse me or waste my energy for worthy causes.

          “No matter how well things start: They Change!” (Rabbi DK).I had my time of refuge and rehabilitation in my Egypt. It came time to move on with my life elsewhere.

          WE have good things we can still do and much work to be done.

  2. When will excuses end? Why do so many people race to assume “he doesn’t know”? Is it because the person writing is afraid to make the direct statement that if he does not know, he should know? “Deliberate ignorance constitutes knowledge of the truth.” Wyle v. R.J.Reynolds, 709 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1983).

    For Hill to be a professor paid tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to teach, there is no excuse for him not to know the history of Israel and the Jewish presence for more or less 3000 years. He knows and cares not one tinker’s damn about Jews, Judaism and the Jewish homeland.

    In cases of defamation of “public persons” the Supreme Court announced the New York Times standard of malice, “knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth” Hill is defaming Israel; and his statements are clearly made with New York Times malice, KNOWLEDGE of falsity or RECKLESS DISREGARD of the truth.

    Stop making excuses and glossing over liars.

  3. Islam would have totally ignored Israel if Caliph Abd al Malik had not built an Islamic shrine on Temple Mount. The shrine was intended to replace Petra and Medina as a place of pilgrimage for Arabs, but most all Arabs wanted to worship the Black Stone and turned to it wherever it was moved, and so, Arabs ignored the Dome of the Rock almost entirely throughout its history.

  4. This so called academic ought to read proper history, instead of HIS Revisionist narrative of it. The proper name for “Palestine” is….. JUDEA. The Romans changed it to humiliate the Jews once the Revolt to their Rule ended at Masada in AD whenever. They changed the name to “Syria Palestina”. Perhaps that’s too far back for him to cope with. Then he should look at the slavery aspect of Islam. Over 100 Million Africans were taken & still are. We don’t hear about that.
    I don’t agree with “Re-education” Camps, but some people do need to be “re-educated” & learn the Truth.

    • The death toll from non-surgical, unsanitary castration of African slaves should be mentioned along with the number taken. I have read as many as 80 percent died from blood loss. Any person who thinks about that should question any affiliation with islam.

  5. Marc Lamont Hill is a very capable (and fast-talking—very) nothing. He’s an excellent representative of “liberal-speak”—yes, par excellence—and which “speak” must seek victims aplenty and have a “them” to despise (N.B., the “them” in our era to despise are whites, especially white males, who refuse to grovel before the altar of Leftism).

    He has no regard that America, with all its faults, is just about the best mankind has ever produced. He seeks victims here, victims there, victims everywhere, and is oblivious, utterly, that only a truly free society would allow a Marc Lamont Hill to exist in the first place, spewing his half-truths and outright lies ad nauseam, while conveniently overlooking, the many wrongs perpetrated by non-Westerners over the centuries—in Africa, in the Asian world, in the American Indian world, and most certainly in the Islamic world. Helps to partially explain his egregious defense of Palestinian rights over Israel’s rights.

    This guy is totally clueless. He identifies against Israel and is stupidly pro-Palestinian. He also regularly trashes America, the very country which gave him security and status in the first place. In short, like Pope Francis and the current Vatican, also so much of the EU and other modern idiocies that exist in the West, he is not jut a dope, he’s a monumental dope.

    But he has degrees and power and influence. Demonstrating just how dumb are the times we live in I would argue. Well, my take on Marc Lamont Hill, in microcosm evidence of how stupid our age has become.

    • W. I have always wondered why Hill was such a frequent “guest” on Bill O’Reilly? O’Reilly’s gross disrespect to many guests, especially Dick Morris, by constant interruptions and speeches, made listening a difficult experience. Eventually, I gave up and turned to another station where hosts ask questions and guests offer responses. When the host talks more than the guest, what is the point of having the guest? When “fair and balanced” becomes nothing more than the MSM line with a little challenge allowed, something is wrong. I agree with your appraisal of Hill. I like O’Reilly and wish he would try to show more hospitality and respect to the people he should be interviewing instead of lecturing. I have found that I learn more by listening than talking.

      • Frank Anderson,

        Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox was better than most but, I agree, the host should not “talk over” the guest.

        When Tucker Carlson took over, I wasn’t sure if he was up to the task, but – surprisingly – he has done an outstanding job…

        • James, as on most subjects we agree. I wanted to hear both host and guest. I would show most guests, especially Dick Morris, much more respect and courtesy than was extended.

  6. Ahh, Temple University. A school that ranks very low among universities worldwide. I’m not surprised that Lamont Hill was hired by them. Just look at their stringent requirements for entrance: “Temple is a test optional school. Through the Temple Option, we offer an innovative admissions path for talented students who feel their potential for academic success is not accurately captured by standardized test scores such as the SAT or ACT, or for those students who could not take these tests due to circumstances outside of their control.” The last part of the statement is likely referring to being in prison at the time of testing. According to them, tests are the biggest factor preventing academic success.

  7. ‘Jews as “a religion and a faith,” ‘ is partially true – they are a people AND and a religion – many non-Jews are allowed to join , but there has always been a hue & cry about that by some who want to keep them out. I discovered only some years ago that I’m Jewish by descent, but I have no interest in trying to establish myself as Jewish via claims of ‘belonging’ – I just find the history very interesting & keep up with what is going on ! When my father told us about our family’s hidden Jewish history some years back, my 4 children all laughed & said ‘how fantastic’ & wanted to know all about it, while my father was astounded – assuming we would all be horrified ! Humans !!!

  10. As an African American Christian, I am not surprised by Dr. Hill’s statements. Once I heard him make a reference to Farrakhan, everything became clear. Unknown by many citizens outside of the black community, Farrakhan, for some unknown reason, is admired and respected by my community. (I am not one of them.)

    I think the problem stems from the unfortunate effects of slavery and racism. Within my community, there is an understanding. Never criticize another black person publicly and always support a black person publicly irrespective of his or her voracity. This lopsided ideology has always troubled me.

    It is clear to me that Dr. Hill admires Farrakhan. He has probably adopted Farrakhan’s rabid hatred for the Jewish people worldwide. Unfortunately, blacks do not excercise critical reasoning when another black person says or does something that cannot be supported by facts. Intstead, they follow the tribal party line.

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Skip to content