Marc Lamont Hill is really sorry that his defense of murdering Jews was misunderstood.
In 2014, Hill had claimed on CNN that the kidnapping and murder of three Jewish teens, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah, one of them an American citizen, wasn’t “terrorism”, but “resistance”.
Earlier this year, Hill had insisted that “occupied people have a legal and moral right to defend themselves” and that the idea that Israel has a “right to exist” is “propaganda”. In May of last year, he had argued that Trump’s “call for Palestine to ‘reject hatred and terrorism’ is offensive.”
A month before a Pittsburgh synagogue was shot up by a violent bigot; Hill again justified the murder of Jews by violent bigots.
“We have allowed this nonviolent thing to become so normative that we’re undermining our own ability to resist in real robust ways,” he complained.
Anyone who might have been hoping that the murder of eleven Jews by a killer who also thought he was engaging in “resistance”, not “terrorism” would have touched Hill’s heart was sadly mistaken.
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.
Now Hill is sorry that his defenses of murdering Jews were misinterpreted in a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed titled, “Marc Lamont Hill: I’m sorry my word choices caused harm.”
It’s not the word choices. It’s the ideas.
But Hill’s defense is claiming that his meaning was pure, but his words were misunderstood.
Read the full story from Front Page Mag