Monday, December 17, 2018
Elder of Ziyon
When noted black intellectual Marc Lamont Hill spoke at the UN last month about justice for the Palestinian people, critics like those in the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) were quick to condemn him.So since Jewish groups have managed to get two blacks fired in 40 years, clearly there is a pattern of racism here.
....Yet some of the most insightful criticisms of the way Hill was treated pointed out the controversy’s racial context: Hill’s was just the most recent case in a long history of blacks being publicly excoriated for “daring” to speak out on the great issues of the day in ways that defy white conventions. This was particularly true when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict in a manner that challenges the carefully circumscribed discourse enforced by strongly pro-Israeli groups like the ADL.
This has happened before. Indeed, next year, 2019, marks the fortieth anniversary of a similar brouhaha that erupted when another black man very much in the public eye dared to challenge the rigidly pro-Israeli understanding of Americans’ approach to the Middle East: the Andrew Young Affair.
In August 1979, President Jimmy Carter forced the American ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, to resign following revelations that Young had secretly met once with an official from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in violation of an American pledge to Israel not to deal with the PLO in any way. Young, the highest-ranking black official in the Carter administration, had met the official to advance American policy aims but nonetheless was fired after facing a barrage of hostile public criticism, notably by American Jewish organizations.
When it was soon revealed that the American ambassador to Austria, a Jewish industrialist from Cleveland named Milton Wolf, also had met several times with PLO officials earlier that year but without similar repercussions, African-Americans exploded in fury and rallied behind Young.
Obviously.
Oh, Fischbach didn't directly call Jews racist. No, of course not. The headline just says that he's "raising this question."
So I'm not going to directly call him an antisemite. No, of course not. He just likes to single out Jewish organizations for using their inordinate power to destroy the careers of uppity black personalities that they don't like.
Just since I started this blog, we Elders have also managed to get rid of Octavia Nasr, Jim Clancy and Diana Magnay over their bias - all from CNN.
Well, none of them are black, but who cares? Fischbach is a history professor, and if he sees a pattern of two incidents over four decades, then he clearly sees things that no one else can.
Hold on - one other black CNN commentator, Roland Martin, was suspended and ultimately let go - for encouraging people to bash gays. Obviously GLAAD, which demanded his suspension, is racist, right?
No. In today's universe, saying that gays are racist is obviously wrong. But saying that Jews are racist on little more proof is perfectly acceptable.
Why History News Network allowed this bigotry to be published is another story. The story doesn't come anywhere close to proving Fischbach's theory that Jews are racist, but it sure indicates that Michael R. Fischbach is a different type of bigot.
Fischbach, by complete coincidence, has spoken at a pro-BDS conference and features a poster in his office that shares Marc Lamont Hill's desire for the destruction of the Jewish state, and no other state on the planet.
(h/t phil d.)
