First things first:  yes, marc lamont hill was fired by CNN.  This was finally reported on its website this morning.

But before you toss any hosannas CNN’s way, understand that the network knew exactly who and what hill was long before the outrage over his Wednesday speech at the UN forced their hand.

Daniel Greenfield, writing for, makes this perfectly clear in his latest commentary, which is excerpted below:

A month after the Pittsburgh massacre, Marc Lamont Hill addressed a UN event in support of the terror colonialists occupying parts of Israel, endorsed BDS, called for the destruction of Israel and justified the murder of Jews.

“We must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend themselves. We must prioritize peace, but we must not romanticize or fetishize it. We must promote nonviolence at every opportunity, but cannot endorse narrow politics that shames Palestinians for resisting,” Hill argued.

And after four years of defending the murder of Jews, it proved to be too much even for CNN.

It wasn’t news to CNN that Hill believed that Israel should be destroyed or that terrorism against Jews is acceptable. Long before his call for, “Palestine from the river to the sea”, erasing the existence of Israel and the only independent political self-determination option of the Jewish people, he had made similar remarks advocating some form of a ‘one-state solution’ that would replace Israel with a Muslim state.

And it certainly wasn’t news that he had defended terrorist violence against Jews. He’d done it on CNN.

CNN was forced to let Hill go because of all the negative attention, but the media quickly circled its wagons around him with numerous stories, most prominently in the Washington Post, misrepresenting his firing as due to “pro-Palestinian” remarks or “criticism of Israel” rather than the murder of Jews.

That’s the same paper that recently provided a forum for the Houthi terrorists in Yemen whose motto is, “Allahu Akbar, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam”.

CNN covered for Hill as long as it could. When it no longer could, the Washington Post and other media outlets began covering for him. Like Steven Salaita whose defense of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic violence made him a media hero, the media protects Hill because it agrees with him.

The media accused President Trump of ”dog whistles”. This isn’t a dog whistle. It’s a deafening shriek.

Hill defended the murder of Israeli men, women and children in their homes, in cars and buses, in restaurants and synagogues, by the adherents of a violently anti-Semitic ideology convinced that Jews are the descendants of “apes and pigs” (Koran 5:60) who must die because the Day of Judgement “will not come unless the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill them until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’” (Sahih Muslim)

When we talk about Islamic terrorism in Israel, this is what we are truly talking about. And the media would rather put on Hill to defend anti-Semitic terrorism than anyone who will condemn it as evil.

Is Mr. Greenfield correct?  Have media been covering for this Israel-hating, anti-Semitic marc lamont hill all this time?  Did the people in charge at CNN dump him only because this latest round of Israel/Jew hatred – no problem until now – was too much even for them to take?

It’s hard to come to any other conclusion.

Let me end with a point that, I think, should be made here.

I, personally, do not believe in censorship.  I believe marc lamont hill has every right to say whatever he thinks about anything.  If he hates Israel, hates Jews and has no problem justifying the murder of Jews, regardless of how odious I find his views I would not censor his right to state them.

I further believe CNN had every right to feature him on their shows, and has every right to continue doing so now.

But, just as we are judged by the company we keep, so should cable news networks judged by the people they hire and give a voice to.

By keeping marc lamont hill on-air all this time, CNN effectively told us it considered his views acceptable material.  And his firing, which occurred only because circumstances forced CNN’s hand, does nothing to change that.

Don’t doubt for a moment that, whether for CNN or some other network (my money is on MSNBC), he’ll be back.  Very soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *