(December 26, 2018 / JNS) Marc Lamont Hill supports directing violent “resistance” against Israeli civilians by emulating the first female Palestinian Arab plane hijacker: “I’m Going Leila Khaled-Style.”
By professing to be an abolitionist seeking disbandment of the police and emptying of the prisons, this Green Party rock star would demolish any semblance of community law and order.
Hill denounces those attacking Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan’s racist calls for violence against Caucasians, while claiming his disagreements with the minister are limited to Farrakhan’s hatred for Jews and the LGBTQAI community.
All the while, this “Afro-Palestinian” says that Israel trained police in New York City and Chicago to kill blacks, justifying abandonment of the nonviolence of those like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.
Yet Hill remains a Temple University full professor holding an endowed chair, lest his speech-academic-freedoms be compromised.
That’s why the board condemned his remarks, but retained him on the Temple faculty.
His reaction to this reprieve was to double-down on his elitist posturing after having characterized Temple as a “[H]ostile Academy that doesn’t want me there. They definitely don’t want me there for talking about all this Palestine stuff.”
Hill thereby “thanked” Temple by continuing to violate the four criteria defining expected-conduct in the Faculty Handbook; his having fomented violence due to moral-turpitude exempts him from speech-academic-freedom protection.
That’s why the board should have fired Hill, notwithstanding the need to probe why dean David Boardman had hired him, and immediately granted him tenure to occupy an endowed chair.
Extensive documentation of these concerns was sent to the Board of Trustees before and after its meeting. Beforehand, the 12/9/2018 letter detailed how his anti-Jew racism contravened basic societal norms (with Exhibit 3, a compilation of handouts distributed at a pro-Hill campus-march); the 12/11/2018 letter expounded on the local-national implications of these concerns. Afterward, the 12/12/2018 letter highlighted glaring deficiencies in the board statement; the 12/14/2018 letter revealed Hill to be an incorrigible ideologue, unapologetically defining a career praising “intersectionality” of radical groups while attacking global oppression due to colonialism.
Indeed, Hill protects Farrakhan because he shares his policies. This explains why Hill refuses to denounce the Nation of Islam leader for having defamed white people (“white devils,” “potential humans” who “haven’t evolved yet” and “sinful by nature”); having exclaimed, “White people deserve to die, and they know, so they think it’s us coming to do it”; and having proclaimed the ominous goal of the Ferguson, Mo., protests to be to “Tear This G**damn Country Up!”
Furthermore, praising plane-hijacker Khaled is not a “one … off” because to promote the “resistance” Hill has honored other terrorists and rabble-rousers who have praised terrorists, among them Noura Erakat, Rasmea Odeh and Ahed Tamimi, and her family.
And dropping any potential ambiguity as to the “hand” to which all these “fingers” are appended, Hill has characterized terroristic Hamas in a positive light: “Everything that Hamas is doing, everything that the Palestinian people are fighting for, is from a posture of resistance to occupation.”
Imagine hearing your classroom teacher explain his support for the BLM/BDS movements by charging that Israel poisoned Palestinian water and averring, therefore, it is insufficient merely to slap a soldier “that has stolen my land, destroyed my village, killed my children, locked us out since 1948. … If that’s the only resistance that we accept in a post-Oslo moment then, again, we are constraining and domesticating the resistance. … We have allowed this nonviolent thing to become so normative that we are undermining our ability to resist in real robust ways.”
By overtly, aggressively rejecting nonviolence, Hill advocates violence be directed against the Israeli government; while exhorting listeners in this fashion while in Israel (and not in Judea-Samaria), Hill conveys lamentation for Israel’s survival since the nakba (“catastrophe”) in 1948, else he would “date” his anger from 1967 and thereby countenance Israel’s ongoing existence in the region of the (repeatedly shrunken) British Mandate (the fate of which was to be determined by the 1917 Balfour Declaration).
How is a student to relate with a teacher who would glorify terrorism by emulating Leila Khaled, a notorious Palestinian Arab terrorist—affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—who participated in two airplane hijackings?
How can the Temple community tolerate a presumed leader who is enmeshed with a Jew-hating Women’s March leadership?
How can America accommodate an Academy that tolerates a bigot whose rap sheet has been painstakingly compiled by the Zionist Organization of America?
Let him spew hate-speech wherever, but don’t let him poison young minds with his calls for violence.
He is slick—and dangerous.
Dr. Robert Sklaroff is a Philadelphia hematologist/oncologist. Lynne Lechter is a Philadelphia attorney.