+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

A masterclass in Palestine solidarity

By using his platform to elevate marginalized Palestinian views onto the global stage, Marc Lamont Hill’s UN speech challenged the unequal parameters of permissible thought on the conflict.

Activists march in Boston, Mass. on October 25, 2014, calling for an end to police racial profiling and violence. The protest came in the wake of events in Ferguson, Mo., following the fatal shooting by police of an unarmed black man. (Activestills.org)

Activists march in Boston, Mass. on October 25, 2014, calling for an end to police racial profiling and violence. The protest came in the wake of events in Ferguson, Mo., following the fatal shooting by police of an unarmed black man. (Activestills.org)

Watching Marc Lamont Hill’s speech at the United Nations on Wednesday was like a breath of fresh air. Unlike the mundane and repetitive remarks made by aging diplomats, Hill delivered a powerful articulation of the Palestinian struggle and how he, as a Black American, identifies with their cause. More provocatively, Hill reflected upon the history of Black resistance to “American apartheid,” which ranged from nonviolent boycotts to slave revolts, saying that true solidarity “must allow the Palestinian people the same range of opportunity and political possibility.”

Pro-Israel advocates have portrayed Hill’s speech as a violent and anti-Semitic diatribe, focusing especially on his call to achieve “what justice requires, and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.” They claim that this phrase is a “genocidal” and “jihadist” slogan associated with groups like Hamas, and that it implies the elimination of the Jewish state, if not the Jewish people on the land. CNN, for which Hill was a frequent contributor, severed its ties with him following the uproar.

Aside from the fact that many of Hill’s critics deliberately misconstrued the content of his speech, the hysteria over the phrase “the river to the sea” is grossly misplaced. Groups like Hamas do not own, nor do they orchestrate, the source from which that phrase derives: the Palestinians’ collective desire to fulfill their human rights in their historical homeland. Conflating the two is politically dishonest and viciously dehumanizing; it encourages the belief that the Palestinian cause is something to be defeated, rather than respected.

The outrage is also hypocritical, given that the premise of the phrase is as embedded in Israeli-Zionist consciousness as it is in the Palestinian one. Take the first article of the Nation-State Law, which asserts that the land of Israel (stretching from the Mediterranean to the Transjordan) is the “historical homeland of the Jewish people.” Or, take the legislation being advanced in the Knesset, which would formalize Israel’s fifty-year de facto annexation of two-thirds of the West Bank. Or, take the words of center-left opposition leaders who, like right-wing officials, pledge to keep East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley under Israeli rule in any peace deal.

These unequal parameters of permissible thought on the conflict, and the extent to which they remain so ill-informed, are illustrated once again by the furor over Hill’s remarks. It is acceptable to refer to the “Land of Israel” but extremist to recall “historic Palestine.” Violence and coercion are deemed rational tactics, but only when used by an occupying army. Palestinians can live under a single state with Israelis, so long as it assumes Jewish supremacy.

As Omar Baddar wrote on +972, nothing should be controversial about demanding justice in the one-state reality in which Israelis and Palestinians live. The problem lies in the opposing visions for that state: one seeks dominance and privilege, the other demands equal rights and dignity. These two visions cannot be equated: if Israel views Palestinian freedom as its deathblow, then it reflects a perverted ideology on the part of the state, not of activists like Hill.

Hill’s speech thus challenges the norms that have long undermined the right of Palestinians and their allies to narrate their reality and re-imagine their future. By using his platform to elevate marginalized Palestinian views onto the global stage – and in bearing the severe backlash for doing so – Hill has given a masterclass on how to exercise effective and meaningful solidarity.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Listening to Mr Hill addressing the UN was an uplifting experience for me as well. I cannot agree more wholeheartedly with Mr Iraqi here. CNN is blind, if not bereft of courage. It has missed a rare opportunity to defend and support a journalist who will certainly go far. Oh his own.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Lewis from Afula

      Re: “historic Palestine”
      Where was its Capital ?
      What was its native currency ?
      What was its official language ?
      Who were its poets, intellectuals or scholars in the 16th, 17th or 18th Centuries ?
      Can you name one famous “fakestinyan” General ?

      The author obviously lives in his own nonsense world – a phantom Non-history crafted by his own deranged delusions.

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        @Lewis: Correct me if I’m wrong, but when the American colonists declared independence from Britain in the 18th century they didn’t justify it by claiming they were creating Version 2.0 of a previously existing copy of the country – no, they basically used a human rights argument for justification. And that’s the correct reason for a Palestinian state in my view, not the historical junk.

        Reply to Comment