1. The position that CNN was wrong to end Marc Lamont Hill’s contributorship over his anti-Semitism is perfectly legitimate and defensible—and is the position I tend to take on such controversies, very much including anti-Israel figures. But I disagree this time. I’ll explain why
2. There are two reasons. The first is the nature of the job. If MLH were, idk, an exec at a construction company or something, firing him over his views would be insane and cruel. But that’s not the case here—and indeed he’s not in danger of losing his day job.
3. CNN gig is the network bringing him on occasionally to opine on current affairs. His views on current affairs are riddled w/overt bigotry. I also thought Fox was right to banish its guest who made anti-Semitic comments about Soros. No reason to bring the guy back on air. None.
4. My views on Fox not bringing back on bigoted pundits are unremarkable. When the same principle is applied to CNN, it’s considered censorious—even though MLH has a far more prestigious and influential place in politics and culture than the Fox guy you don’t even remember.
5. And that, one suspects, is one reason for the hypocrisy: leftists think pawns can be taken off the board at will but please leave the bishop alone. That anti-Semites are considered so valuable to liberalism (the Forward defense of Sarsour et al) is a chilling admission.
6. The second reason is the nature of the comments. He did not call some Jewish guy greedy or scheming or whatever. No dog whistles. He used the single most famous genocidal anti-Israel call to arms in existence. To a room full of states who take such action!
7. And in the same speech, he told a room full of representatives of terror-supporting anti-Semitic states to *ignore calls for nonviolence regarding the Jewish state.* I think it’s kind of getting lost just how completely psychotic his speech actually was.
8. When he concluded with the famous genocidal slogan, the entire hall was electric with enthusiastic applause. It was like watching a between-the-wars Bavarian beer hall times a hundred.
9. But there’s a key difference: it wasn’t just a hall of angry people. It was a hall of representatives of countries around the world, at the headquarters of the world body, with that body’s imprimatur.
Have you completely lost your goddamned minds?
Have you completely lost your goddamned minds?
10. Now again, you can defend his pundit job without defending his remarks. But the campaign to portray this as just a political disagreement is disingenuous in the extreme. If your position is there are no lines, fine. But if a line exists, MLH is on the wrong side of it. /fin
Anyhoo that’s where I’m coming from. I cannot imagine defending MLH’s conduct—because it’s indefensible. But I absolutely *can* understand defending his paid CNN role to occasionally come on air and vomit nonsense. It is tv, after all. Thanks for listening.
