In comments made at the United Nations, frequent CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill went full-on terrorist when he advocated for a “free Palestine, from the river to the sea.”
In using that phrase, Hill sounded like nothing so much as a Hamas leader calling for the ultimate one-state solution – a solution that erases Israel off the map. It is true, after all, that under such a scenario – a river to the sea scenario – there would be no room for Israeli state. And while Hill did not actively call for the dissolution of Israel, in using a phrase so well established by the worst of terrorist groups, one need not read too far into this particular dog whistle to understand what he was getting at.
Hill, of course, says that anyone accusing him of such a destructive, dangerous statement is out to lunch. He’s laughing it up on Twitter, insisting that he never said anything of the like. He doesn’t have to bother taking the criticism seriously, seeing as how the liberal media is only willing to streeeeeeetch questionable comments when they come from the mouth of a Republican. Ron DeSantis asks Florida voters not to “monkey up” a good thing, and the press goes bananas. But a liberal pundit calls for a “free Palestine” to exist in the very territory Israel now occupies? No problem, he’s cool.
At The Federalist, author David Marcus said the implications of Hill’s comment were clear.
“Honestly, what else could he have meant?” Marcus wrote. “Perhaps he didn’t know he was parroting the language of terrorists. Perhaps the line was fed to him and he was ignorant of its origins. But assuming he has the most basic grasp of geography, where does he expect the Jewish state to exist? In the Red Sea? Swallowed up by the waters that once in the Bible parted for them? If Palestine exists from river to sea, there is no Israel. Can he possibly be unaware of that?”
Only weeks after the left-wing media and the liberal Jews of Pittsburgh were laying the synagogue shooting at President Trump’s feet, the silence greeting this extraordinary, genocidal statement is deafening. We suppose anti-semitism is the kind of accusation you throw around only when it is convenient to your political interests.
Sadly, for many American liberal these days, anti-semitism and anti-Israel are no longer synonyms. They’ve baked the anti-Zionist rhetoric so far into the dough that it’s never coming out again. Meanwhile, a travel ban against countries like Syria and Iran is considered anti-Muslim. Don’t quite understand how those two things square up, but we’ve long figured out that trying to understand liberal logic is a fool’s game.