Dershowitz Slams ‘Absolute Bigot’ After Anti-Semitic Comments
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Speaking Thursday morning on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” Harvard Law school professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz was blunt about CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill’s remarks in a speech at the U.N. on Wednesday, in which Hill essentially called for Israel’s elimination as a sovereign entity.
“[He] is an absolute bigot, anti-Semite, un-American, anti-American. He’s just a despicable human being who has now gone beyond the point of acceptability for any network in the United States,” said Dershowitz
Dershowitz, a Jewish man, has debated Hill (above right) previously on CNN.
On Thursday afternoon, CNN severed ties with Hill following his reprehensible remarks, according to Mediaite.
“There’s no way that he should be allowed to be a commentator on any kind of network,” Dershowitz also declared, calling Hill “the David Duke of the hard-Left on anti-Israel groups.”
“The greatest dangers of anti-Semitism today, because they involve the future, are what’s going on on college campuses from the hard, hard, hard-Left,” Dershowitz said.
“[Hill] should be the poster child for increasing anti-Semitism among college and university students and violence against Jewish students.” Dershowitz added that he personally needs armed guards to protect himself when he visits college campuses.
“He’s advocating violence against people like me and like you and against other people who believe in Israel’s right to exist and thrive as the nation-state of the Jewish people,” he said to Ingraham.
Hill was listed earlier as a political commentator on the network’s site.
Dershowitz also commented Thursday morning on Michael Cohen’s surprise appearance in a federal courtroom in Manhattan, during which Trump’s former attorney pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress concerning the Russia probe.
“I think first, it shows that Mueller has found almost no crimes that existed before he was appointed special counsel, which was his job,” said Dershowitz.
Today’s plea involves the time frame during which Cohen discussed a plan to build a Trump tower in Moscow — as well as discussions about travel.
Cohen had indicated to the Senate Intelligence Committee that discussions about the Moscow project ended in January of 2016, when they actually ended prior to the Iowa caucuses in June of 2016 — and that he either “contemplated travel or spoke to ‘Individual 1’ regarding travel,” when he said he hadn’t, Fox News noted.
“Individual 1” refers to President Donald Trump.
“Many of the crimes [Mueller] has indicted people for are crimes that he and his legal team created, namely, false statement crimes, crimes that were the result of perjury traps,” Dershowitz added to Ingraham.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
61 visitors
The article actually touches on two news stories. Comments on either or both are fine. I'm mainly concerned with what CNN has become.
I stopped watching televised news about thirty years ago and switched to NPR and the BBC. CNN is horrible but I don’t see the others as being much better.
So wait a second. This seed and the linked article do not quote Mr. Hill, they say he "essentially called for Israel’s elimination as a sovereign entity." and Dershowitz claims he's "advocating violence against people like me and like you and against other people who believe in Israel’s right to exist and thrive as the nation-state of the Jewish people".
But what did Hill actually say?
He said "we must advocate and promote non-violence," but added that "we cannot endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing." He then called for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea."
He later clarified "I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to my speech. I have spent my life fighting these things," and continued "My reference to 'river to the sea' was not a call to destroy anything or anyone, It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things. No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant."
So at worst, Hill said we shouldn't shame Palestinians for resisting occupation. That to me does not equate to "advocating violence against" Jews.
So this is just another sad blown out of proportion overreaction to anyone who dares challenge Israels status as Gods (and apparently Americas) chosen people. Even suggesting that Israel might also be responsible for unwarranted violence is apparently equivalent to being a Nazi Jew hater for some reason. I have many Jewish friends and every one of them wishes the conflict would end and peace could be achieved but they know that can only happen if both sides were willing to compromise, but they all agree they don't think it likely because both sides are too stubborn and use their faith as an excuse to refuse cooperation, both laying claim to it as their ancestral "holy" land. They often criticize Israels government and many of the choices they have made in the last half century and yet I would never call them anti-Semitic, because they're obviously not. So why do many almost always label any non-Jewish person willing to criticize Israel for some of it's controversial actions "anti-Semitic"?
I'm sure my centrist views on this will also be exaggerated and malicious intent will be attributed to my comments, I even risk being called an anti-Semite, and apparently, according to Dershowitz, I'm calling for the annihilation of Israel, which of course is no where near what I've said but some see even the slightest criticism as full blown racist hate of an entire people.
So now non-violent boycott's of groups someone believes are responsible for unwarranted violence should be considered as "promoting violence" or "calling for the destruction of Israel"? That is the kind of wild rhetoric that gets us nowhere.
The reality is this CNN commentator did not call for violence against Israel, he did not advocate for the destruction of Israel and Mr. Dershowitz and other right wing Israeli government sycophants are falsely accusing him of being an anti-Semite because their skin is so thin they can't take even the slightest criticism of their actions and methods.
Because that was far easier and more expedient than spending any time trying to defend and explain his comments. Besides, it's not like he was a major host or had his own show, he was just one of many contributors they would go to occasionally for comment.
"So this is just another sad blown out of proportion overreaction to anyone who dares challenge Israels status as Gods"
That speaks volumes on how you feel.
I have many Jewish friends and every one of them wishes the conflict would end and peace could be achieved but they know that can only happen if both sides were willing to compromise
Compromise can only begin when both sides agree to Israel's right to exist. When will that happen?
BTW, saying that Palestine should extend from the "river to the Sea' IS calling for the elimination of Israel!!!
So do I.
Ever been to Israel DP? Ever witnessed the Palestinian "peaceful protests"? When you have witnessed a Palestinian bus bomber blow innocent women and children into little pieces that have to be picked up to be buried, and when you have witnessed the result of a Palestinian bomber blowing whole families to pieces celebrating a Seder (known as the Passover massacre), when you have had to run and hide in a bomb shelter, when you have thanked God for the lives of your children for being lucky enough to have just missed being blown to bits as I have, then let's hear it again for the justification of Palestinian violence. Amazing to me that your rhetoric sides with Hamas that has been declared a terrorist organization.
What a LAME explanation for why he was fired. Unbelievable - grasping at straws.
I get it, you can go on all day about the horrible things some Palestinians have done, just like Palestinians can go on all day about carrying their children with missing limbs limp in their arms after being blown up by an Israeli retaliation missile bombardment. Things are bad on both sides, and I'm not taking any side. You've obviously planted yourself squarely with Israel and believe they can do no wrong. I haven't sided with either which is why I can be critical of both. Both have legitimate claims on that land, both need to find a way to live together or we'll just continue to see the tit for tat violence back and forth.
If the solution were easy they would have fixed it long ago. Apparently being neutral in this debate isn't allowed and pointing out anything critical about Israel is considered anti-Semitic by some. I have many Jewish friends because I couldn't care less what nationality they are, and the fact is they're often far more critical of the Israeli government than I've ever been. They all recognize what's going on there is a humanitarian crisis that needs to be resolved and most of them believe in a two state solution. Nobody but hard right Palestinian religious extremists refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, the moderates want to figure out a way to live side by side without the violence and there are moderates on both sides who want this. So to respond to every criticism of Israel with "But they don't want Israel to exist!" is disingenuous and clearly designed to further entrench division and stoke the fires of violence.
If you're unable to respond to any criticism with anything but fear mongering and blanket accusations painting an entire people with the "terrorist" brush claiming there's nothing redeemable in Palestine, or to call anyone critical of actions Israel has taken "anti-Semitic", then it's pointless having any discussion because you obviously only want an echo chamber of your own narrow viewpoints.
I'm glad you used the word "retaliation” because that's exactly what you were describing, but it is always specifically targeted not at civilians but at Hamas targets. You obviously have no idea the lengths Israel goes to prevent civilian casualties, phone and text messages, dropping leaflets of warning, more so than ANY nation has ever done, but it's really hard to get around this:
And notwithstanding that is Hamas' technique for defending itself after it has rained missiles and rockets on Israeli civilian areas (I won't even mention the burning of Israeli forests, orchards, crops and wild animals), it has been acknowledged that is their method of defence notwithstanding it is a war crime (but ignored by most western leftist media).
You have not been following my criticisms of Israel's government, leaders, judiciary, IDF, settlers and especially the ultra-Orthodox extremists to have said I am totally one-sided. Over the years, starting at NV, I have praised attempts of normalization, although Palestinians are criminalized by their own government if anyone actually tries to do so. I have posted articles about Arabs and Jews working together. Your criticisms of me are without merit. And yes, I AM critical of terrorists being paid to kill Jews, and of the Palestinian textbooks that teach children to hate Jews - which has led to some European governments to stop funding them.
I suggest that you get some new information from more unbiased sources. Rense, Mondoweis and Veterans Today are OPENLY anti-Semitic, and most American media is left wing (I will relate what I mean by that * ) but there are more unbiased sources as indicated by MBFC to be "Least biased" such as The Jerusalem Post.
* Having been the Editor-in-chief of my award-winning university newspaper for a couple of years I can easily detect how the media can "steer" the prejudices of the public. An example would be recently when 5 Gazans were killed who had breached the border fence. The headline was something like: "Israel Kills 5 Gazans", and about 3 or 4 paragraphs down it relates that 4 of them had breached the fence and were throwing grenades and molotov cocktails at the IDF soldiers and the fifth died when a grenade he was preparing to throw exploded in his hand. How many people bother to read past the headlines, and at least 3 paragraphs down?
In my opinion, some of your Jewish friends have been misled. With the rise in antisemitism around the world including in the USA (it would be obtuse to deny that) one might listen to what Santayana said about forgetting or ignoring history and what results from that. Your friends should support and thank God that there is a place that will not turn them away, like what happened during and immediately after WWII.
I remember that. It wasn't terribly long ago.
Misleading headlines is quite an effective method to "steer" the public, and they get away with it.
It's now acceptable for the anti-Semites to come out of the closet and give vent to their latent prejudices. It's a good thing that now there is an Israel for Jews to escape to.
Buzz - don't say that. Jews should never feel they have to escape ever again. We just have to be more vigilant and aggressive. I posted an article earlier in the week regarding CNN's reporting on the uptick of antisemitism in Europe and more specifically in Germany. One of the surprising take away's for me was younger generations not knowing about the Holocaust. How can that be?
There are several pieces that all contribute to this.
15 years ago when my step-daughters were seniors in high school, their world history text books had all of WWII condensed down to four pages and there was almost no mention of the Holocaust. What was mentioned glossed over most of it so that you could come away with only an idea that they were "extra" prison camps.
Also, I saw a study a while back that showed that almost 60% of people in the US never read another book after high school, and something like 85% of people in the US have less than 5 books in their house.
If your education is glossed over and you never expand knowledge on your own it's only too easy to remain ignorant of history.
They don't teach real history in schools anymore. Certainly not American History. Someone might get offended.
Civics used to be a class that was required before graduation. It taught you what's in the constitution. After all the student rebellions in the 60's and 70's this was replaced with "Social Studies" so we have this fabulous constitution with all these guarantees ...a contract between citizens and the government and no one knows what's in it.
If you don't know what your rights are you can't stand up for them, and if you don't know what's in the document you don't care if someone is shedding it.
The same tactic applies. Didn't someone famous say about the Holicost. "Document the hell out of it or in a few decades some asswhipe will claim it never happened" or something to that effect?
OMG! 96, we agree. I am loving your post. There is absolutely nothing in it that I disagree with. WoW, there is hope.....
This is also the problem with people trying to ERASE history. Don't buy into the racist crap. It is important to remeber the bad as well as the good. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. I hope you still love me LOL!
Of course - you have a rad ride! hehehehehehe
We have to ask, are we going to follow the same path that we see happening in Europe?
Well there are good people on both sides........
I think that pretty much answers your question with respect to what this Administration would like to do.
I WILL say it, because I now see the Palestinian/Hamas/terrorist narrative being posted even on this article. Ask any Hamas official what they mean by "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea" and see what they mean by that. Peaceful protest DOES NOT INCLUDE rioting, throwing molotov cocktails and grenades, breaking through border fences....
If you can justify the rockets and missiles being fired from Gaza into Israel as "peaceful protest" then you are no different than a person justifying the Boston Marathon bombers and the perpetrators of 9/11.
Eisenhower made sure it was documented for that very reason.
Yes we wouldn’t have the VW bug or Porsche cars without Ferdinand Porsche. Everything isn’t black and white.
Buzz, this has been mentioned before, the one sided media coverage over many years does little to give the readers/watchers/listeners a balanced view of what is going on between Israel and it's neighbors.
Yup, and it seems to be coming from the American left
now they need to can Don Lemon
The seeded article is lame.
It doesn't tell us what Marc Lamont Hill said that got him in trouble. It essentially is a tip of the hat to Alan Dershowitz and his appearance on the Laura Ingraham show.
Dershowitz has become a parody of his former self, and this story shows us why. Out of his (sincere) love for Israel, he has developed into essentially a Trump toady. Trump has been all for everything that Netanyahu does, and dershowitz appreciates it.
I'm not sure where CNN fits into all this outrage. They fired the guy for comments he made on a venue outside of his duties at CNN. What else do you want them to do?
For the confused:
"Hill, a Temple University professor, called for a boycott of Israel and for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea" in the Wednesday speech.
The ADL and others said the "river to the sea" phrase is code for the elimination of Israel.
LOL. So any liberal Democrat who has said he did not vote for Trump is disparaged by you if he does not fully support the progressive leftist line or YOUR concept of "If you don't agree with me, you're wrong", or perhaps it's just because he's been quoted by Gatestone Institute.