Marc Lamont Hill called for violent resistance. He called for a Palestine to exist instead of, and not alongside, Israel. He called for policies that would upend Israel’s demographic balance and disempower the Jews. Why are so many of his defenders gaslighting Hill's critics instead of defending the actual ideas promoted by the former CNN contributor?
Airbnb's claim that settlements are “at the core of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians” reflects a lack of understanding of the history of the region and of the history of the conflict itself.
It is no secret that Marc Lamont Hill is a radical who hates Israel, promotes anti-Israeli violence and terrorism, and advocates the violent elimination of the Jewish state. After asking how long would he continue as a political commentator on CNN, our question has been answered. The network has finally severed its ties with him.
The Washington Post continues to obfuscate on the goals of the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) effort. The Post hides the real agenda of BDS and omits the movement's ties to terrorist-linked entities. In so doing, the newspaper violates its own stated standards and policies.
The New York Times story about Israel's High Court ruling to allow graduate student and BDS activist Lara Alqasem into the country serves as yet another vehicle for the newspaper to whitewash the campaign as one that simply promotes "Palestinian rights."
The Washington Post misleads on the true nature of the BDS movement; failing to report its documented links to terrorism and its true objective: The destruction of Israel. While it was busy filing inaccurate reports on BDS, The Post ignored a Palestinian terrorist attack and Palestinian political developments.
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank has long preferred snark over thoughtful analysis. And his Sept. 21, 2018 column, “America’s Jews are watching Israel in horror,” offers ample proof. In it, he slurs Israel as an apartheid state-in-the-making, while ignoring inconvenient facts.
For Robin Young and Derek Thompson, SodaStream's former employment of Palestinians and its subsequent "punishment" of employees with layoffs counterbalance the company's "positive moral valance." There are no "moral questions," however, about the BDS activists who claim credit for depriving Palestinians of their livelihoods.
Just as the claim that the IDF commits atrocities is an attempt to limit the ability of Jews to defend themselves physically, the claims that groups that defend Israel or fight antisemitism are somehow shady, engaging in immoral tactics, is an attempt to limit the Jews' ability to defend themselves rhetorically.
Adjectives and labels are used to influence rather than inform; they are the weapons of journalists who prefer advocacy journalism over objective reporting. The frequent use of labels by Times reporters demonstrate how far they've strayed from their stated mission of independent and deep reporting.