Do you remember Marc Lamont Hill? He used to be a regular liberal guest on the old Bill O'Reilly show on Fox. Now he comes on CNN sometimes. He's a professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. He's also a moron. I say that after reading his latest article entitled "Seven Myths About the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict". It's amazing just how dumb this piece is.
Hill (or is it Lamont-Hill?) starts with the "myth" that "these people have been fighting forever." Here's what he says: "This is one of the most often repeated and inaccurate comments on the conflict. The truth is that Arabs and Jews have not been fighting forever. Rather, it can be dated to the end of the 20th century or, more acutely, the beginning of the post-World War I British Mandatory period."
Amazing! He puts the start of fighting back to the end of the 20th century. That's just 18 years ago. In the same sentence he also dates it to the start of the British Palestine Mandate which began 100 years ago. So which is it? 18 years or 100 years? Apparently, the professor doesn't know. And if it is 100 years, isn't that tantamount to fighting forever, a proverbial 100 years war? So what's the "myth"? Is it that college professors know what they are talking about?
Another example: the professor says that myth 2 is "this is a religious conflict." According to Hill, the Palestinians include some Christians and they all used to live in peace with Jews. (I guess that was prior to 100 years ago when the conflict started.) Now for the reality. Israel is the ultimate manifestation of a basic tenet of Judaism: God gave the land of Canaan (which is now Israel) to the Jews. It's part of every Jewish religious service. It's really hard to say that it's not religious on the Jewish side. Meanwhile on the Arab side, there's a major focus on the possession of Jerusalem, called the third holiest place in Islam. And for those Christian Arabs, Jerusalem and The Holy Land are of religious importance. Maybe the professor never heard of the Crusades. I guess he thinks that the Crusades were just a nationalistic manifestation of the European patriarchy rather than a highly religious attempt to take back the Holy Land. Simply put, the professor's statement that this is not a religious conflict is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. It may be more than just a religious conflict, but it is certainly still a religious conflict.
And how about the professor's myth 6, namely "Israel has a right to exist"? That's a myth? Israel doesn't have a right to exist? That's what Hill says; people have a right to exist, but countries don't. In the period since the end of World War II, a main international narrative has been that colonialism is a bad thing and has to be ended. Peoples of the world have a right to have their own nation states. The Poles deserve to have Poland. The Indians deserve to have India. During the Vietnam War, the professor's leftist predecessors chattered incessantly about the right of the Vietnamese people to rule their own country Vietnam. National liberation movements are based on the right of peoples to have their own country. Well, Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jews. They have a right to their own country. And remember, the idea that Israel has a right to exist is actually a counter-statement to the constant claims by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and many other Arab countries that Israel must be destroyed and the Jewish citizens either expelled or killed. The professor thinks it a myth that Israel has a right to exist? He's a moron.
I often read things on the internet which make me wonder how they were ever published. This latest one from the professor, however, takes the cake. It has to be the single most ignorant thing I've seen in years.
Hill (or is it Lamont-Hill?) starts with the "myth" that "these people have been fighting forever." Here's what he says: "This is one of the most often repeated and inaccurate comments on the conflict. The truth is that Arabs and Jews have not been fighting forever. Rather, it can be dated to the end of the 20th century or, more acutely, the beginning of the post-World War I British Mandatory period."
Amazing! He puts the start of fighting back to the end of the 20th century. That's just 18 years ago. In the same sentence he also dates it to the start of the British Palestine Mandate which began 100 years ago. So which is it? 18 years or 100 years? Apparently, the professor doesn't know. And if it is 100 years, isn't that tantamount to fighting forever, a proverbial 100 years war? So what's the "myth"? Is it that college professors know what they are talking about?
Another example: the professor says that myth 2 is "this is a religious conflict." According to Hill, the Palestinians include some Christians and they all used to live in peace with Jews. (I guess that was prior to 100 years ago when the conflict started.) Now for the reality. Israel is the ultimate manifestation of a basic tenet of Judaism: God gave the land of Canaan (which is now Israel) to the Jews. It's part of every Jewish religious service. It's really hard to say that it's not religious on the Jewish side. Meanwhile on the Arab side, there's a major focus on the possession of Jerusalem, called the third holiest place in Islam. And for those Christian Arabs, Jerusalem and The Holy Land are of religious importance. Maybe the professor never heard of the Crusades. I guess he thinks that the Crusades were just a nationalistic manifestation of the European patriarchy rather than a highly religious attempt to take back the Holy Land. Simply put, the professor's statement that this is not a religious conflict is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. It may be more than just a religious conflict, but it is certainly still a religious conflict.
And how about the professor's myth 6, namely "Israel has a right to exist"? That's a myth? Israel doesn't have a right to exist? That's what Hill says; people have a right to exist, but countries don't. In the period since the end of World War II, a main international narrative has been that colonialism is a bad thing and has to be ended. Peoples of the world have a right to have their own nation states. The Poles deserve to have Poland. The Indians deserve to have India. During the Vietnam War, the professor's leftist predecessors chattered incessantly about the right of the Vietnamese people to rule their own country Vietnam. National liberation movements are based on the right of peoples to have their own country. Well, Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jews. They have a right to their own country. And remember, the idea that Israel has a right to exist is actually a counter-statement to the constant claims by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and many other Arab countries that Israel must be destroyed and the Jewish citizens either expelled or killed. The professor thinks it a myth that Israel has a right to exist? He's a moron.
I often read things on the internet which make me wonder how they were ever published. This latest one from the professor, however, takes the cake. It has to be the single most ignorant thing I've seen in years.
No comments:
Post a Comment