Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900

 Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard  rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152
December 9, 2018

Michael B. Gebhardt, Esq.

Vice President and University Counsel at Temple University
300 Sullivan Hall
1330 W. Polett Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19122- 6086
(215) 204-6542 re: Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D. [D.O.B. 12/17/1978]

Dear Mr. Gebhardt:

This is a follow-up memo supplanting its predecessors, with the goal being to maximize inclusion of all
information acquired during the past day; it is structured to allow the reader to appreciate the importance
of this initiative without sacrificing the exhaustive effort to ensure a useful database has been given.
Therefore, an Executive Summary has been composed, followed by what may be perceived as a “brief”
that provides the documentation in a fashion that will allow for its use as a reference-narrative. Again,
availability to explain anything that appears unclear is emphasized, for it is recognized that time-is-tight.

I advocate for prompt dismissal of the above-named professor and, thus, will provide a comprehensive
review of both the database and the key-rationale for this posture; I would be more than happy to meet
with you and/or anyone else in Temple Administration, and I would be able to bring people who are far
more knowledgeable than I to detail how profoundly incorrect and how demonstrably Jew-hating has
been Hill over the years, climaxing last week during his speech before an annual anti-Israel U.N. event.

Executive Summary

Hill’s 11/28/2018 speech triggered turmoil with local/national implications, for he violated the four
faculty-conduct criteria that supersede any claim of “academic-freedom” and satisfied the four legal
criteria that shed “speech-freedom” defense by showing moral turpitude when fomenting violence;
these are applicable regardless of whether an individual is tenured and regardless of the purported
credibility of the cause for which he/she is advocating. A “compromise” cannot be effectuated, for the
only method to protect defenseless students (of all ages) from his input is to ensure he has no classroom
contact (notwithstanding off-campus conduct); his reprehensible ideology is so thoroughly engrained—
particularly when videos are scrutinized—that the only reasonable remedy is to discharge him and then
to permit him to reapply after he has demonstrated a pattern of [1]—spreading accurate information,
[2]—showing restraint; [3]—viewing contrary postures without scorn; and [4]—providing an explicit
disclaimer which identifies him as speaking only for himself rather than for Temple. Hill is a Jew-hating
anarchist—a radical-racist rabble-rouser—who harbors values that neither reflect Temple’s reputation
nor the ethics of the local/regional/statewide/national community. After he has been promptly FIRED,
the Board should investigate how he was hired without a meaningful background-check, given tenure
and a salary, and let-loose without evidence that oversight of his activities was effectuated by his Dean.

1
 Contents

Page Focus

1 Executive Summary
2 Contents
2 Standing
3 Overview
4 Hill Violated All Mandated Faculty Behavior Criteria on Multiple Occasions (Handbook)
5 [1]—Inaccuracies (factual > interpretive)
8 [2]—No Restraint (intersectionality > apologia)
9 [3]—No Respect (for the opinion of others)
12 [4]—No Disclaimer (speaking for himself > standing for Temple)
12 Initial Statements of President and Board Chair
14 Hill’s [Empty] Apologia vs. Speech-Freedom Qualifiers
16 “From the River to the Sea: Philly Stands with Marc Lamont Hill” Protest (and personal reaction)
17 Hill-Fans Promote Two Narratives: “From River to Sea” & “Freedom of Speech” (easily refuted)
18 Hill-Fans Ignore the Key-Concern: Unambiguously Fomenting Violence (recognized by ZOA)
20 Media Coverage Predictably Reflected Political Proclivities
22 Discussion, Summary and Conclusions
23 Exhibits (1-4)

Standing

As do many Philadelphians, I have a familial link with Temple [my father graduated with a B.S. in ’33 and
earned his M.D. in ‘37] and I have a prior academic appointment [while I was on the Medical Staff of the
Albert Einstein Medical Center]. Other professional/personal perceived-linkages exist, including
awareness that debate as to Temple’s reputation has reached your Japan campus (personal information).

Because I anticipate dissemination of this communication, it contains both key-excerpts from myriad
documents and the complete texts thereof; this will facilitate vetting without worriment about pay-walls.
Deferred are extensive opinion-citations that emerged nationally, despite the disturbing observation that
bigots are emerging from the closet with abandon. It is sad that Hill has afforded academic legitimacy to
the vile claims both of “Zionist Power” (CNN-firing) and of Palestinian Arab suffering (false-diatribes).

These views are mine and, explicitly, are related neither to any institution nor to any organization.
Granted, I have written essays focused on myriad issues inclusive of Middle East politics (Kurdistan, the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to implement the Iran-Nuke Capitulation-Pact, the Iraqi Constitution,
Camp David II) and other concerns (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, the McCarran-Ferguson Act,
ObamaCare, Gun Control) in both the lay/professional literature. Publication has been sought only
if/when concerns that have otherwise been overlooked can be explored and a reasonable action-plan can
be formulated. To avoid error, I routinely invoke hyperlinked-articles and request cogent-feedback.

I am aware that perpetrators/protestors can conjure counter-argument on a political/polemical plane to

further their needs, so the focused-goal here simply is to explain what must be done … come what may.
The implications as to how people may perceive “Temple” hangs in the balance for, citing a parody/spoof:
“I could have gone anywhere – but I chose Temple, a school that would allow a lying Jew-hater and
advocate for violence and the destruction of Israel to become [and to remain] a tenured full professor.”

2
 Overview

This was how I initially characterized the challenge to those wishing to help Temple excel:

Both in Philly and [inter-]nationally, the U.N. testimony of Marc Lamont Hill against Israel
has provoked reflex-praise from the usual-suspects, cover-ups by key-individuals, and
condemnation by those whom we hold to be dear; activism is alive-and-well, but the key-
question is whether it will be converted into proper/concerted/focused action.

He advocated violence, explicitly eschewing the nonviolent approach of MLK-Jr./Gandhi,

to be expended on behalf of Palestinian Arabs; his 23-minute attack on Israel started with
condemning the Nakba (the purported “catastrophe” of Israel’s re-establishment as a
Jewish Nation-State) and ended with praise for efforts to displace her “from the [Jordan]
River to the [Mediterranean] Sea,” channeling the hate-filled rhetoric of terrorists.

It was punctuated by claims of Israeli human rights violations and the intent to link such
behavior with the “Resistance” that he has lionized, citing Ferguson (noting its having
spurred the BLM-movement); “intersectionality” was manifest when he linked the groups
he alleges are downtrodden, the people-of-color in America and the Palestinian Arabs.

He has been lionized for having been fired by CNN, but he has been defended from being
discharged by Temple University, setting-up a conflict between the Board Chair and his
protectors, the [Jewish] dean of the Communications School and the University President.

Claims he is shielded from being fired due to his tenure are trumped by his having
committed moral-turpitude by advocating for violence against Israel and her supporters;
again illustrated is the link among those who are anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and anti-Jew.

Hill establishes a tremendously potent national standard for other academic institutions
to allow faculties to convey openly/unabashedly Jew-hatred to students, devoid of facts;
furthermore, he evokes sympathy for having been fired due to Zionist pressure on CNN.

Inasmuch as this is a publicly-funded institution [under the State Board of Education],

it’s possible a remedy will need to be pursued in Harrisburg; he must not be permitted to
have student-contact, lest he poison innocent, young, impressionable minds.

As was the subject of an elaborative-essay {Exhibit 1} published by the American Thinker,

“After more than a decade of this relentless anti-Jewish and anti-Israel trope, the false
beliefs have spread from the campus to the MSM and a growing number of elected
Democrats. Moreover, many in the black community who have converted to Islam share
these views.” Each phrase in this blog-posting can be corroborated and, aggregated,
provide an indictment of America’s educational system; allowing this precedent to be
accepted will cross-the-line, allowing unbridled “academic” dissemination of deceit.

THEREFORE, put the issue on to the Trustee-Agenda and invite his Dean to be present to
defend him...line by despicable line...and then posit whether he would FIND a way to FIRE
an employee who would utter any IDENTICAL diatribe against African-Americans ASAP.

3
 Hill Violated All Mandated Faculty Behavior Criteria on Multiple Occasions (Handbook)

The fundamental criteria to be invoked when assessing your faculty’s behavior are quoted herein directly
from the Faculty Handbook: “[T]hey should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint,
should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are
not speaking for the institution.” Here: [1]—The inaccuracies of his statements are extensive, [2]—he has
failed to demonstrate a modicum of restraint, [3]—he has projected disrespect for the opinion of others,
and [4]—he has made no effort on multiple occasions to ensure off-campus listeners recognize he has
spoken for himself rather than on behalf of Temple, even as he has characterized himself as a “scholar”
[http://www.temple.edu/Senate/documents/faculty_handbook.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0JkkuRgg-jTdbHRkHI-
LSTbCmBaPnmaRK6YMCe4SZMbrzYjR_AcHl3uRw and http://www.temple.edu/Senate/documents/
faculty_handbook.pdf]. There is no room for “discretion” when conjuring any “remedial” alternative.

Temple Univ. Faculty Handbook {annotated}

VII. © College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession,
and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens,
they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special
position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and
educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their
profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all
times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect
for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they
are not speaking for the institution.”

{During both the U.N. speech and in prior venues, Hill was inaccurate, was unrestrained,
was disrespectful of others, and was not careful to indicate that he was not speaking for
Temple; for example, he started his UN speech by speaking of himself as a “scholar.”}

VI. DISMISSAL FOR CAUSE*

The University shall have the right to dismiss any member of the faculty for adequate
cause. Cause, except as stated in Section VII (below), means incompetence, grave
misconduct, or neglect of duty. The following dismissal procedures will be used when
dismissal or suspension of any faculty member with tenure is being contemplated.

* Policies and procedures for dismissal for cause for faculty in schools and colleges covered
by the Temple/Temple-Association-of-University-Professors Agreement (including the
Klein College of Media and Communications) are included in that Agreement.

{Calling for violence constitutes the “grave misconduct” of moral turpitude; the process
follows the introductory standard lingo quoted above, detailed in the rest of section VI.}

VII. FACULTY REDUCTIONS CAUSED BY FINANCIAL EXIGENCIES OR CHANGES IN

PROGRAM*

The University shall have the right, upon such notice as may be reasonable, to dismiss any
member of the faculty under the two following circumstances.

4
 1. During any period of emergency caused by financial exigencies; or
2. If such member’s services are no longer required by reason of changes in the
educational program of the University.

A member of the faculty so dismissed shall have the right to present his or her case to the
Personnel Committee of the Faculty Senate in accordance with the procedure outlined in
Section VI above.

Upon dismissal of any member of the faculty under the provisions of this section, the
University shall make a conscientious effort to use the services of such member in some
other department or capacity for which he or she has the necessary qualifications. If the
services of the member of the faculty so dismissed cannot be used in any other depart-
ment at the time of the dismissal, the University shall make a conscientious effort to give
the faculty member first consideration for any new position to be filled in the future for
which he or she may have the necessary qualifications at the rank held when dismissed.

{It would appear that his curriculum is imbalanced and at-variance with the necessity to
ensure students receive an educational experience that is unbiased and utile, vide infra.}

Hill’s U.N. speech during the “Special Meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights
of the Palestinian People in observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”
provoked sustained applause [http://webtv.un.org/watch/player/5972788893001]; following a glowing
introduction, his section starts @ 1:35 and ends at 1:58. It has been spliced to isolate Hill’s speech
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvzSv28z97o], and a transcript has been generated [http://www.
humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/11.28.2018.ceirpp.marc.hill.presentation.pdf].

[1]—Inaccuracies (factual > interpretive)

This speech surprisingly prompted a contributor to a major Jewish-American left-leaning publication to

lambaste him: “Perhaps now that [he] will no longer be a CNN contributor, he’ll have some time to
educate himself about how the oldest hatred has been adapted over centuries to always cast the Jew—
and now the Jewish state—as an evil that can’t be tolerated” [https://forward.com/opinion415084
/marc-lamont-hills-jewish-problems-didnt-start-with-bashing-israel/]. What provoked this rebuke was
his dissemination of false/incomplete information, including perhaps his 5/17/2018 essay addressing
“Seven Myths About The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict” [https://www.yahoo.com /news/7-myths-palestine-
israel-conflict-174113642.html] {which may be offset by “Ten Facts About the Arab-Israeli Conflict”
[http://arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-israel-facts/10-facts]}. Consider his claims and their inaccuracy:

Many of the following errors are interlaced within his U.N. speech, starting with decrying the existence
of Israel by disparaging partition yielding the “Nakba, the great catastrophe in May 1948 that resulted in
the expulsion, murder and, to-date, permanent dislocation of more than a million Palestinians.” Yet,
absent citations, other assertions (e.g., human rights, disproportionate force, right of free-movement,
UNRWA funding) cannot be verified; citing “the terms of Oslo” is particularly galling because, during the
‘90s Arafat never began to implement its phase #1. {This is a cursory correction of what he has written;
obviously, elaborative documentation could be provided if any residual doubt would have to be resolved.}

5
{Intro}—…[When] the Trump administration move[d] the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, … Israeli soldiers
kill[ed] over 50 … Palestinian protest[ers] in the West Bank and Gaza ….

Omitted [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hundreds-israel-beyond-protest-killin
gs_us_5afb6d48e4b0a59b4dfe7ff8] is the uncontested report that “The Israeli military
said Monday in a statement that some protesters ‘hurled firebombs and explosive devices
at the security fence and Israeli troops.’ Israel has also said that it was defending its border
against the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza and which the U.S. considers a
terrorist group, saying Hamas has attempted attacks during the protests.”

{1}—Arabs and Jews have not been fighting forever. Rather, it can be dated to the end of the 19th century
or, more acutely, the beginning of the post-World War I British Mandatory period.

Omitted from the “Mandatory” citation is reference therein to the Balfour Declaration,
which served as a foundation for the re-establishment of the State of Israel; more serious,
omitted from this rendition is reference to the ancient root of Isaac-Ishmael bitterness
[https://www.gotquestions.org/Jews-Arabs.html]. Theodore Herzl didn’t invent Zionism,
a core-value of Judaism for millennia (starting when Abraham bought Sarah’s burial-plot)
and an ongoing goal ensconced in liturgy, such as the Seder (“Next Year in Jerusalem”).

{2}—This is not about religion. It’s about land-theft, expulsion and ethnic-cleansing by foreign settlers to
indigenous land.

Omitted from this Al-Jazeera citation [https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive

/2015/05/ethnic-cleansing-palestine-150514130231067.html] is the fact that the
population movements that occurred on both sides (noting the dearth of Jews currently
residing in Arab countries) was triggered by the Arabs’ declaration of war against the
nascent State of Israel following the U.N. partition-vote [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/
AboutIsrael/History/Pages/Israels%20War%20of%20Independence%20-%201947%20-
%201949. aspx]; myriad Jihadists/Islamists would not concur with the claim that Muslims
lack a religious motivation to expel Jews from Jerusalem. Also omitted is recognition that
Jews have resided in this Palestinian region continuously for three millennia
[https://www.amazon.com/Homeland-Jewish-Peoples-Presence-Palestine/dp/141450
6929]; ultimately, reference to “foreign settlers” ascribes Israel’s rebirth to the Holocaust.

{3}—This is about the 70-year struggle of a people who have been expelled, murdered, robbed, imprisoned
and occupied.

Omitted from this The Nation citation [https://www.thenation.com/article/how-israel-

privatized-its-occupation-of-palestine/] are the word/word-roots cited supra [expelled,
murdered, robbed, imprisoned], recognizing that Palestinian Arabs cannot be “occupied”
in a land they never governed; indeed, There Is No Israeli ‘Occupation’- It’s Not Arab Land
and 98 Percent of Palestinian-Arabs Live Under Arab Rule [https://zoa.org/2018/11
/10378972-mort-klein-op-ed-in-breitbart-there-is-no-israeli-occupation-its-not-arab-
land-and-98-percent-of-palestinian-arabs-live-under-arab-rule/].

6
{4}—Palestinians don’t keep rejecting fair deals.

Deftly omitted from this truncated history [1947 and 2008] is what occurred [or, rather,
what didn’t occur] at Camp David II in 2000; Arafat not only rejected an independent state
and failed to provide a counter-offer, but he subsequently launched the Intifada.

{5}—Palestinians want peace, but justice is always a precondition of peace; occupied people have a legal
and moral right to defend themselves, and to ask them not to resist is to ask them to die quietly.

Justice emerges from an agreement, for nothing should serve as a precondition when so
much controversy is well-recognized; essentially, resistance is endorsed as a tool to extort
unilateral concessions, absent any reciprocation offer/gambit/conceptualization.

{6}—Israel has no right to exist.

Of all the deceit refuted herein by invoking citations embedded in his essay, this is the
most revelatory; all the biased claims herein are derivative of this fundamental defect.

{7}—Being anti-Israel and anti-Zionist does not mean one is anti-Jew, for Jewish tradition is one that covets
justice and fairness, and its principles are in fundamental opposition with the Israeli government’s actions.

Neither The Shalom Center [https://theshalomcenter.org/deeper-torah-israel-palestine]

nor the Jewish Voice for Peace [https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/jvp-rabbinical-council-
condemns-israeli-forces-killing-palestinian-protesters-in-gaza/] constitutes mainstream
sources of Jewish thought; they are self-referential polities that selectively apply their
“commitments” to tradition, justice, and fairness; here, also, rejected is the responsibility
to pursue self-defense when invaded militarily, as has repeatedly occurred from Gaza.

The “damages” caused by this non-”scholar” of Middle East history were perhaps manifest after
Hanukkah was celebrated by ~50 students on the Temple campus on 12/3/2018; the event was attended
inter alia by President Richard Englert, Provost JoAnne Epps, and Trustee Marina Kats [https://temple-
news.com/student-org-celebrates-hanukkah-days-after-hills-comments/?fbclid=IwAR3l7c-Y9FM4X1D2
fAx09B-36w0_6fI5TZfSmJUG9xC8TYZ5zgL0zg4drwg] and the accompanying article about this Hill speech
included reference on a map to non-existent “Palestinian territories” (instead of “Judea/Samaria” or even
“West Bank”) and the false-claim (in a call-out) that “Jewish people first occupied the region in the early
1900s as a part of the Zionist movement, which supports Jews finding a permanent homeland.” Inasmuch
as this article also includes a time-line of Hill’s comments regarding the Middle East conflict, Hill’s input
arguably informed the author’s having made so many basic, egregious errors in its background-section
[https://longform.temple-news.com/temple-to-investigate-if-it-will-reprimand-marc-lamont-hill/].

A “test” of the durability of these concerns have been established following direct contact with the staff
of “Temple News” following the 12/6/2018 pro-Hill rally; they were provided a copy of the handout
{Exhibit 2} which otherwise wasn’t distributed—accompanied by an explicit statement that the version of
Middle East history on the “long form” was gravely defective—and they have been provided a copy of
the 12/6/2018 letter and follow-up information accrued during the subsequent 24-hours. After they are
provided a copy of this letter, they will then be requested to “update” their online backgrounder.

7
 [2]—No Restraint (intersectionality > apologia)

Parsing Hill’s oeuvre yields the immutable conclusion that his Jew-hatred was pervasive [https://www.
nationalreview.com/2018/11/dear-progressives-do-not-whitewash-marc-lamont-hills-anti-semitism/
amp/?fbclid=IwAR1d3T84zZJWlY9weXGhznujNWMQbk33LIX8No6zb7Pg3H9A_h7Zxs8fwcA]. Ethically,
“Hate in the name of ‘justice’ — even justice for a cause for which you may have sympathy — is still hate.”
Operationally, content of his U.N. presentation was summarized dramatically and unambiguously:

[He] made two despicable statements. First, he at length defended violent Palestinian
resistance against Israel. He condemned romanticizing or fetishizing peace, scorned the
politics of “respectability,” and compared Palestinian resistance to slave rebellions. He
added that while “we must promote non-violence at every opportunity,” he could not
“endorse narrow politics that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing
in ethnic cleansing.” This is important context for his second statement, an explicit call for
a “free Palestine from the river to the sea.” In other words, he called for violence with an
explicit anti-Semitic goal — the physical destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.

The context of what was uttered was then superimposed upon this definitive discussion:

Next, the context. Any person expert enough on the topic to be invited to address a U.N.
gathering (or vouched for so strongly by Peter Beinart) knows those words represent a
specific rallying cry for terrorist organizations like Hamas. They are the specific rallying cry
for those who want to end Israel as a Jewish state and wipe the only homeland for the
Jewish people from the face of the earth. They know the extraordinarily violent recent
history of those who’ve sought to make that rallying cry a reality, and they know the
horrific warfare that would result if that rallying cry was once again the national military
doctrine of Israel’s neighbors.

The implications of what was uttered was next superimposed upon this definitive discussion:

Further, they do not just know of the efforts to wipe out the Jewish state of Israel, they
also know of Palestinian efforts to render their own state judenrein even in the event of
a two-state solution. The contemporary understanding of the phrase “from the river to
the sea” is eliminationist.

The import of what was uttered was finally superimposed upon this definitive discussion:

But he did support killing Jewish people with his explicit endorsement of Palestinian
violence and his explicit disdain for so-called “respectability” politics. This is hardly the
first time he’s supported Palestinian terrorism. In 2014 he lamented Israel’s Iron
Dome missile-defense system because it took away Hamas’s “military leverage.” To be
clear, Hamas’s “military leverage” is terrorism, pure and simple. Hamas’s missiles are
aimed indiscriminately at Israel’s towns and cities. There’s not even a hint of an effort to
confine their targeting to Israel’s military alone.

8
The impact of what was uttered relates to the definition of moral turpitude:

Moral turpitude is a legal concept that refers to any conduct that is believed to be
contrary to the community standards of honesty, justice, or good moral values. While
there is no one exact definition of acts that are considered under moral turpitude, they
are typically described as any acts of vileness or depravity, or of sexual immorality,
whether in a private or social context. Legally, moral turpitude affects a wide range of
activities, some of which are unlawful, and some of which are not. In many areas, conduct
of moral turpitude may be used to determine the honesty or trustworthiness of a
candidate for office, an applicant for certain types of job, and witnesses at trial.
“Turpitude” constitutes a shameful, vile, or corrupt character or acts. Moral turpitude
refers to conduct that shocks the public conscience, or which does not fall within the
moral standards held by the community. The law concerning moral turpitude is
constantly changing and evolving, as the moral standards of society in general change.

https://legaldictionary.net/moral-
turpitude/?fbclid=IwAR0_tr2zangD8ZmYdv3PO4SxBC4A_jMmZvK_V_HJ6vYXMaRQKDkX
UsyOrWw

He demonstrated no “restraint” when advocating for the violent physical destruction of the Jewish state
of Israel, awareness thereof by the public (on-campus and beyond) would certainly shock-the-conscience.
Stridency has “grown” as a commentator/educator during this decade, recalling that “Fox News Fired Hill”
in 2010 [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/fox-news-fires-marc-lamon_n_324207.html].

[3]—No Respect (for the opinion of others)

Hill was asked to address the U.N.’s annual anti-Israel hate-fest to take full advantage of both the
“intersectionality” phenomenon and to drive a wedge more deeply into American support for Israel — to
hasten her demise. Noting his record of Jew-loathing [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSO6lYh
WlsY&fbclid=IwAR2mpCMGmg6-79-QVpxv04PGGi8G86_bmVpiLAVc5klmPt-KmTo_l8oGQnc], he was
warmly welcomed when conveying his view of the college campus as an essential battleground and when
praising Students for Justice in Palestine (@ 5:32) and charging Israel with having destroyed Palestinian
Arab culture (@ 3:04:00-3:06:00). Here and elsewhere, by overtly abandoning efforts to help listeners
promote the commonweal, he promotes his agenda to the exclusion of any other consideration.

Hill advocates a “Revolutionary Struggle” against Israel [https://youtu.be/L2yMMdPTQ30], griping that

the Iron Dome ‘Takes Away Hamas’s Military Leverage’ over Israel, instead of recognizing this incomplete
protection saves Jewish lives against indiscriminate terrorism [https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb
/connor-williams/2014/08/04/cnn-contributor-gripes-iron-dome-takes-away-hamass-military?fbclid=Iw
AR3ns96GeuEas2xPM_ZxJE4CgHCk0vXiPm3FSmYQ1xLOrQppqpmdwmrVxJM]. Equating Israel with
slavery, the Jim Crow South and Ferguson, MO, is a failed racist gambit because, unlike Palestinian Arabs,
African-Americans never tried to destroy America. And, in a podcast uploaded this week linking his Jew-
hatred with BLM-ideology, he advocates abolition of prisons and police [https://www.stitcher.com/
podcast/toure-show/e/57561550?autoplay=true&fbclid=IwAR3Lg7JjFJvZBEootsLLays7L9O3bObimTyifo
N0bxZHvcEQKwVlz3G5Kr0 @ 1:06]. He should teach alternative paradigms addressing BLM sociologically
[https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/black-lives-matter/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium
=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1536873760&pushcrew_powered=1].

9
In an op-ed that validated by liberal-egalitarianism Hill’s warped viewpoint by the Inqy’s resident-leftist
Trudy Rubin [“What Marc Lamont Hill and the Israeli government have in common”], she focuses only on
the view that both Israelis and Hill envision one government “From the River to the Sea” while omitting
(Hill's call to destroy Israel) and evading (including Hill's exhortation to eschew nonviolence) key-quotes.
Curiously, atop her piece on-line is a photo that has nothing to do with foreign-policy [http
://www2.philly.com/columnists/marc-lamont-hill-israel-un-comments-temple-cnn-20181205.html].

Imbalance is probable, noting the Contents of one book he uses in his classes: “Promises Not Kept: Poverty
and the Betrayal of Third World Development,” By John Isbister, 7th edition [https://www.rienner.
com/title/Promises_Not_Kept_Poverty_and_the_Betrayal_of_Third_World_Development_7th_edition]:

Introduction.
A WORLD OF POVERTY.
Five Lives.
The Third World.
The Extent of World Poverty.
The Successes.
Different Areas of the Third World Diverge.
The Betrayal of Responsibility.
EXPLANATIONS OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT.
Modernization Theory.
Dependency Theory.
Marxism.
Limitations of These Approaches.
Why Does Poverty Persist?
Assessment.
The Theories as Worldviews.
IMPERIALISM.
The Creation of the European Empires.
The Causes of Imperialism.
The Culture of Imperialism.
The Foundations of Third World Poverty.
The Population Explosion.
The Legacy of Imperialism.
NATIONALISM AND INDEPENDENCE.
The Origins of Third World Nationalism.
The Indian Subcontinent.
China.
Vietnam.
Algeria.

10
 Muslim and Jewish Nationalism.
Islamic Fundamentalism.
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Latin America.
The Nationalist Identity.
The Legacy of Nationalism.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
What Is Economic Development?
Population Control.
False Paths to Economic Development.
Development in the 1980s: Waylaid by the Debt Crisis.
Into a New Century: Rediscovering the Market and Exports.
FOREIGN POLICY.
The End of the Cold War.
Foreign Policy During the Cold War: Globalism.
The New American Hegemony.
The War on Terrorism.
The Illusion of the North-South Dialogue.
A Constructive Foreign Policy.
Military Spending and Policy.
Human-Rights Policy.
Foreign Economic Policy.
Can the Rich Cooperate with the Poor?
THE FUTURE: JUSTICE IN AN AGE OF GLOBALIZATION.
Globalization.
A Hope for Partnership.

Perhaps the most revelatory moment in his vile speech was when he interrupted it to state, “Forgive my
thirst; I literally just off of a flight from Palestine to come to address you this morning and I was boycotting
the Israeli water, so I was unable to quench my thirst, but thank you for your indulgence. Or for indulging
me rather” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvzSv28z97o, @ 7:30]. This "Blood-Libel"-type charge
recalls him apparently “Accusing Israel of Poisoning Palestinian Water" [https://freebeacon.com/
issues/video-appears-show-marc-lamont-hill-accusing-israel-poisoning-palestinian-water/]. Unpacking
multi-level ignorance and irony when assessing his aside includes noting Israel’s decades-old desalination
leadership; he exudes core-hatred for all-things-Israeli, unabashedly projecting this arrogant attitude to
audiences. And after he said Palestinian Arabs were “collectively punished” in 1948 and 1967, the import
of his deeply-engrained posture was dutifully explored [https://jewishjournal.com/news/nation/243
148/marc-lamont-hill-accused-israel-poisoning-palestinian-water/amp/?__twitter_impression=true].

Claiming Israeli-Jews poison the drinking-water of Palestinian Arabs recalls conjuring blood-libel to justify
Jew-hatred starting in the Middle Ages; Jews were accused of starting Black Death by poisoning wells.
More recently, referencing water-libel is linked to two prior events. First, the P.L.O. characterized as “an
order to kill,” a false announcement that “a religious decree by a prominent Jewish rabbi allowed Israeli
settlers in the West Bank to poison Palestinian water sources in Palestinian towns in the occupied West
Bank” [http://www.israellycool.com/2016/06/20/latest-blood-libel-sunday-the-rabbi-decreed-poison-
the-palestinians-water/]. Second, in an address to the EU Parliament by P.A. [perpetual?] President
Mahmoud Abbas repeated this calumny [http://www.israellycool.com/2016/06/23/breaking-mahmoud-
abbas-repeats-embellishes-water-blood-libel-in-speech-to-eu-parliament/].

11
 [4]—No Disclaimer (speaking for himself > standing for Temple)

In his U.N. speech, he initially identified himself “As a scholar, as an activist, and as a citizen”
[http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/11.28.2018.ceirpp.marc.hill.prese
ntation.pdf]. In his essay (“Seven Myths About the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”), he identified himself as
“[T]he Steve Charles Professor of Media, Cities, and Solutions at Temple University, a CNN political
commentator and former host of HuffPost Live [https://www.yahoo.com/news/7-myths-palestine-israel-
conflict-174113642.html]. In two puff-pieces, he was identified as an author, activist, scholar, intellectual
[http://monarchmagazine.com/a-moment-with-marc/] and as a College Dropout who became a Ph.D.
(“The Bold & Beautiful Marc Lamont Hill”) during which he claimed Fox News fired him because of his
support for Mumia Abu Jamal and Assata Shakur [https://www.ebony.com/news/college-dropout-to-
phd-the-bold-beautiful-marc-lamont-hill/]. In a piece about Muhammad Ali (“my Black Superman”)
during which Hill discussed his conversion to Islam, he identified himself as “a distinguished professor of
African American Studies at Morehouse College” [https://www.ebony.com/black-history/ali-black-
superman-cover-aug16/]. In none of these pieces did he include any academic representation disclaimer.

It is impossible to discern whether this grossly undisciplined misconduct spills-over into other activities.
Illustrating his academic “reach” is his leadership role in a program that invites 15 high-achieving students
from Philadelphia public high schools to spend their senior year completing five courses within the College
of Education [https://education.temple.edu/news/2018/07/college-education-welcomes-its-inaugural-
cohort-temple-education-scholars]. And he was ranked #55 in terms of the ability to influence the public
on the Internet; he posted the top Klout scores for the second year in a row [https://mail.google.
com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvzLrQQgXKBmTqHrBZXGVgJXNWR?projector=1 and https://webcache.
googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LVf2jiVXbtgJ:https://education.temple.edu/news/sara-
goldrick-rab-ranked-7th-most-publicly-influential-education-scholar+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us].

Thus, one wonders whether such extended-activities have been appropriately referenced. Unfortunately,
the only rating of his performance [http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=745138],
from a decade ago, reflects his self-confident elitism rather than his scholarship; comments convey both
“lack of restraint” and “intolerance for contrary views,” generating a consensus that he was “average.”
Perhaps assessing this a criterion is ignored because it is considered de rigueur for academicians to insert
such disclaimers into their speeches; it can only be concluded, here, that his pattern is not to do so.

Initial Statements of President and Board Chair

Establishing Hill is a Jew-hating, BLM-supporting, Anarchy-promoting, Single-minded, Ideological-bigot

cannot suffice when addressing the ability to fire a tenured professor; it is therefore desirable to note the
consensus view of this challenge, citing the University of Alabama at Birmingham: “employment of a
tenured faculty member shall not be terminated without cause. Cause for termination is defined as gross
professional misconduct or serious failure of a faculty member to discharge his or her obligations to UAB”
[http://www.uab.edu/policies/content/Pages/UAB-AA-HBK-0000656.aspx]. It is perhaps this perceived
hurdle that prompted release of the initial announcement by Temple’s President, for it constituted a
slough-off communication; ascribing justifiable angst to “language” constitutes an evasion that is beneath
the bare-minimum of what should be expected from an institution that perceives itself as having entered
the elite of America’s graduate and post-graduate Academy. Granted, it captured the essence of the
reactions of both “sides” that emerged instantaneously, but it focused on the coda of Hill’s speech
[“from the river to the sea”] rather than an unambiguous call-to-arms [which transcends rhetoric];
the former has itself been dismissed inappropriately [vide infra], but the latter is beyond alarming.

12
This is the text of the initial statement, which followed announcement that his CNN-contract had ended:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

To the Temple community,

Earlier this week, Temple University was thrust into the media spotlight after the remarks
of one of our faculty, Marc Lamont Hill, during the United Nations International Day of
Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

The story has been covered widely, including this story from Friday’s Philadelphia
Inquirer. As you can see, his comments sparked strong responses from those who were
offended by his language. I have spoken with some; I have heard their concerns; and
understand their reactions to the “river to sea” reference, a phrase many associate with
a perceived threat.

Let me be clear: Professor Hill does not represent Temple University, and his views are
his own. Further, Professor Hill’s right to express his opinion is protected by the
Constitution to the same extent as any other private citizen.

It is also vitally important to remember our values: Temple condemns in the strongest
possible terms all anti-Semitic, racist or incendiary language, hate speech, calls to
violence, and the disparagement of any person or persons based on religion, nationality,
race, gender, sexual orientation or identity. The university, in the best interest of its
community, will take necessary and proper action to protect these values when they are
threatened. At the same time, we pride ourselves on our diversity, in all its forms. We will
always be a place where divergent points of view will find a home. These are the values
the Temple community embraces.

Thank you for your commitment to Temple’s ideals, which have withstood the tests of
more than 130 years. And thank you for all you do to make Temple the welcoming
community it is.

Sincerely,

Richard M. Englert, President

Executive Office of the President
1330 Polett Walk
Sullivan Hall, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19122

A contrasting reaction was evinced by Patrick J. O’Connor, Temple Board Chair, who called Hill’s remarks
“lamentable” and “disgusting,” conveying an anguish that is reportedly shared by many of his colleagues:
“I’m not happy. The board’s not happy. The administration’s not happy. People wanted to fire him right
away. We’re going to look at what remedies we have.” Indeed, he opined a private company would fire
him ‘immediately’ [https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11584, citing http://www2.philly.com/philly/
news/breaking/marc-lamont-hill-temple-israel-anti-semitic-20181130.html and https://newsone.com/
3838885/temple-university-board-chair-marc-lamont-hill-israel/].

13
Echoing this posture was an e-mail from one of his colleagues, apparently remitted to multiple people:

Dear Robert,

Personally, I am in agreement with your reaction to the recent statements by Marc

Lamont Hill. Unfortunately, Prof. Hill is a tenured faculty member at Temple and as a
Trustee, I do not have any power to fire him. I sympathize and appreciate your response.

Sincerely,

Marina Kats, Esquire

1 Bustleton Pike
Feasterville, PA 19053
215-396-9001 phone - 215-396-8388 fax
marina@mkats.com - www.phillylawyers.com

Stephen A. Cozen defended Board Chair (and law-partner) O’Connor for having been unfairly criticized
over his remarks regarding Hill and heaped “Shame” on the Temple Association of University Professors
[“TAUP”] for supporting Hill’s “[R]emarkably hateful statements and for unfairly criticizing someone who
has dedicated a substantial part of his professional life to the betterment of Temple University”
[https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/12/05/letter-to-the-editor-oconnor-unfairly-
criticized-over-remarks-on-temple-profs-speech/]. Others also feel Temple’s not having fired him to be
shaming Temple’s reputation [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/shame-on-you-temple-university/].

Hill’s [Empty] Apologia vs. Speech-Freedom Qualifiers

Writing as “a professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University,” Hill echoed the
“language”-phraseology invoked by the University President [vide supra] without addressing content;
indeed, Hill focuses upon the “final comment” without confronting the prior “violence-laden” rhetoric:

I’m sorry my word choices caused harm | Opinion

Over the past week, I have been embroiled in a controversy regarding my speech at the
United Nations regarding the plight of Palestinian people. My remarks have sparked
heavy controversy, around the nation and right here in Philadelphia. Specifically, some
have argued that my remarks endorsed or reflected anti-Semitism. For this reason, I feel
morally compelled to respond.

First, I strongly believe that we must reject anti-Semitism in any form or fashion. This
means not only preventing physical violence against Jews, but also ugly anti-Semitic
images, stereotypes, conspiracy theories, and mythologies. As an activist and scholar, I
have done my best to point out these realities and challenge them whenever possible.
For example, in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre, I not only decried it
as an ugly act of terrorism, but spoke about the broader rise of anti-Semitism in the
United States and around the globe. Throughout my career, I have done my best to
identify and uproot anti-Semitism in every political and social movement of which I have
been part. One simply cannot be committed to social justice and not be committed to
battling anti-Semitism.

14
It is precisely this commitment to social justice that prompted me to accept an invitation
to speak before the United Nations on the plight of Palestinians. During my speech, I
offered a deeply critical analysis of the State of Israel. Specifically, I challenged the Israeli
criminal justice system, settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the need to attend
to human rights abuses throughout the country and occupied territories. I also reiterated
the importance of global solidarity in order to produce justice. One simply cannot be
progressive if they ignore the plight of Palestinians.

Many have focused specifically on my final remark, which said that justice required a “free
Palestine, from the river to the sea.” Critics of this phrase have suggested that I was calling
for violence against Jewish people. In all honesty, I was stunned, and saddened, that this
was the response.

My use of “river to the sea” was an invocation of a long history of political actors – liberal
and radical, Palestinian and Israeli – who have called for their particular vision of justice
in the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. For many, justice will come
from a two-state solution. For some, like me, justice will come through a single bi-national
democratic state that encompasses Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. I strongly believe
that this is the best method to achieve peace, safety, security, and self-determination for
both Israelis and Palestinians. Justice requires that everyone, not just a single side, is free
and equal.

Throughout my speech, I spoke explicitly about the need for Israeli political reform,
specifically as it pertains to Arab citizens of Israel. I also called for a redrawing of borders
to the pre-1967 lines, as well as a greater attention to human rights for those living in the
West Bank and Gaza. At the time, I believed that these demands made in the speech
sufficiently reflected my belief in radical change within Israel, not a desire for its
destruction. Clearly, they did not. {Emphasis added.}

I take seriously the voices of so many Jewish brothers and sisters, who have interpreted
my remarks as a call to or endorsement of violence. Rather than hearing a political
solution, many heard a dog-whistle that conjured a long and deep history of violence
against Jewish people. Although this was the furthest thing from my intent, those
particular words clearly caused confusion, anger, fear, and other forms of harm. For
that, I am deeply sorry.

As a communicator, I must take responsibility for the reception of my message. In this

case, the final words of my speech became a dangerous and harmful distraction from my
political analysis. Rather than talking about the plight of Palestinians, or engaging in tough
but necessary conversations about a positive and successful way forward for both parties,
the bulk of the conversation has been about my choice of words. To this extent, I did no
favors to Israelis or Palestinians. For this too, I am deeply sorry.

In the aftermath of this controversy, I remain steadfastly committed to love and solidarity
with oppressed people. I remain committed to critical dialogues throughout the city,
nation, and world in order to advance the cause of justice. And I remain open to learning,
growing, and struggling together toward freedom.

15
 http://www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/marc-lamont-hill-temple-
university-cnn-palestine-israel-united-nations-20181201.html
https://temple-news.com/marc-lamont-hill-pens-letter-to-temple-
community/?fbclid=IwAR3IkcTjtKBVCB_-2lCxsMgNxFJ2WC1lBCgqfJyx83e-
Mvf1__6_9NgiZ8M

He failed to withdraw his advocacy of violence (by eschewing the non-violence of MLK-Jr./Gandhi) and,
therefore, he triggers the four criteria that disqualify using speech-freedom protections, as per an article
in The American Thinker (primary-authored by an esteemed attorney and co-authored by myself):
“The legal exceptions to the right of free speech that accurately apply are fighting-words, true-threat,
defamation (libel & slander), and incitement to imminent lawless action. Hill’s words, dramatically
presented at a ‘Free Palestine Day,’ clearly exemplified all of these exceptions.” The reader is invited to
review comments (and replies thereto) that illustrate how the article-critics ignored this specific point;
note also discussion of the national implications of what is occurring locally, inasmuch as “Temple U hides
behind Constitution to defend anti-Semitic Marc Lamont Hill” [https://www.americanthinker.com
/blog/2018/12/temple_u_hides_behind_constitution_to_defend_antisemitic_marc_lamont_hill.html]
{Exhibit 1}. Note that this transcends his support for BDS, for this is also a “non-violent” approach.

“From the River to the Sea: Philly Stands with Marc Lamont Hill” Protest (and personal reaction)

On 12/6/2018, a protest-march was held to support Hill, although the focus thereof clearly was upon
“freeing Palestine”; a counter-protest was led by Philadelphia’s Zionist Organization of America {“ZOA”}.
My crowd-estimate of this hastily-organized dual-event was ~50 pro-Hill and ~20 anti-Hill attendees
noting, for example, that it was easy to walk around the pro-Hill protesters who were in a narrow region
in front of the Administration Building; this can be confirmed by counting-bodies on the marching-video
(depicting moi @ 20 seconds, wearing a blue hood, illustrating that at least one marcher didn’t support
the Palestinian Arabs and/or Hill’s continued presence) [https://temple-news.com/protesters-go-toe-to-
toe-on-temple-universitys-campus-about-marc-lamont-hills-comments-at-the-un/]. The Inqy article
[http://www2.philly.com/news/temple-zionism-education-protest-palestinian-israle-20181207.html]
included this call-out, which accurately conveyed my sentiments (both in content and in mood):

Robert Sklaroff, an oncologist from Elkins Park, demanded Hill’s immediate ouster. “His
words were an overt exhortation to annihilate Israel,” said Sklaroff, adding that he
applauded CNN’s decision to fire Hill. “The university trotted out the hackneyed coward’s
defense that while it does not share Hill’s views, it supports his constitutional free-speech
right to say whatever he pleases.”

I had given him a handout that that included a hyperlink to the letter to the General Counsel {Exhibit 2},
but he didn’t reference its contents; had he consulted it, he would have noted my office had been moved
from Elkins Park to Philly more than a decade ago. I thought we had decided that the rally-attendance
had been congruent with the above, contrasting with what he wrote. In any case, he wisely avoided
quoting one-note speakers but, surprisingly, failed to report that the repeatedly-recycled marching-chant
["Free Palestine, from the River to the Sea"] omitted reference to Hill. The three handouts accrued during
my walking-tour from the Bell Tower to the Barnes & Noble @ Broad and Columbia (Cecil B. Moore)
reflect the dearth of info conveyed about what Hill’s presence at Temple meant to students {Exhibit 3}.

16
A rally in New York City in front of the CNN Building on 12/1/2018 protested the firing, organized by
entities such as the Palestinian Youth Movement and Existence is Resistance and Others. Nancy Mansour
was the “MC” of the event, and other speakers included Zachariah Barghouti, Alexi Shalom, Pam Africa,
Johanna Fernandez, Michael Letwin, Michela Martinazzi and Peter Flog [https://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=Rn0CnmCmkKE&fbclid=IwAR21iDC7rTBw1_sV2M5bXd1-NOK_xLIow8uYWJ_jz4uAivzC7
ypGh2_hMsU]. The “strange bed-follows” phenom emerged when David Duke tweeted support for Hill
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/KtbxLvgpngMfzDMctDPgWPNKRqFmLMPvhg?projector=1].

Indeed, this pro-Hill rally sported an array of supportive groups that, themselves, illustrate his radicalism
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/KtbxLvgpngMfzDMctDPgWPNKRqFmLMPvhg?projector=1]:
Workers World Party, Party for Socialism & Liberation, Philly BDS, Black Alliance for Peace, Jewish Voices
For Peace, and Mobilization for Mumia [https://www.facebook.com/events/339960753482488/].
Coverage of Hill’s “controversial speech in favor of Palestinian rights” was composed locally but
disseminated nationally [https://www.metro\.us/news/local-news/philadelphia/marc-lamont-hill-fired-
cnn-after-un-speech-palestine]. In contrast, unfortunately, the ZOA stood alone against Hill.

Hill-Fans Promote Two Narratives: “From River to Sea” & “Freedom of Speech” (easily refuted)

The firing for his ‘river to sea’ declaration was portrayed as showing “crisis over end of two-state solution”
[https://mondoweiss.net/2018/11/firing-declaration-solution/?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm
_campaign=fc5ea05959-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b86bace129-
fc5ea05959-398525761&mc_cid=fc5ea05959&mc_eid=c14448fe78], coupled with an attack on CNN for
giving “a platform to Israeli gov’t spokespeople” [https://mondoweiss.net/2018/11/palestine-platform-
spokespeople/?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=fc5ea05959-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&
utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b86bace129-fc5ea05959-398525761&mc_cid=fc5ea05959&mc_
eid=c14448fe78]. No wonder that a Palestinian Journalists Syndicate accused CNN of consenting to the
‘ZIONIST LOBBY’ [https://www.jpost.com//Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Palestinian-Journalists-Syndicate-accuse
s-CNN-of-consenting-to-Zionist-lobby-573376], prompting the observation that his “genocidal” ideology
recalled “the members of the Japanese Red Army who carried out the Lod terror attack in 1972 [because]
he embraces the intersectional view that the liberation of all people is being obstructed by the existence
of a Jewish state” [http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23095].

Note also that a (notorious for deceit) anti-Israel organization portrayed positively his “call for justice”
[https://mondoweiss.net/2018/12/palestine-justice-consequences/] and thus ascribed his “tragic” CNN
firing inter alia to the triumph of Zionism in the USA [https://mondoweiss.net/2018/12/tragedy-lamont-
firing/?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=880193ab5c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_
medium=email&utm_term=0_b86bace129-880193ab5c-398525761&mc_cid=880193ab5c&mc_eid=
c14448fe78&fbclid=IwAR3Sh8lWwd-PRDn6wGVMhMKMBr_BfINlok_mSgFx91CI7c83BE1V6AqwA4M].

Blogger David Straub (a UC Berkeley law professor) rationalized Hill’s advocacy for “A free ‘Palestine’ from
the river to the sea” by claiming inter alia that Hill didn’t coin the phrase [https://www.facebook.com/
photo.php?fbid=10217037445103633&set=a.1848473766915&type=3&theater], echoing [https://www.
theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/08/hamas-gaza-palestine-khaled-meshaal-israel] rhetoric emanating
from Hamas in more recent years [https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5257729,00.html] that
originated in 1964 c/o the P.L.O. [https://jewishjournal.com/blogs/242943/palestine-river-sea-always-
call-annihilation-not-liberation/]. Its “terrorist”-origins were ignored by defenders of his invoking it.

17
 Straub’s Rant [excerpt]

“Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee” seems to be the trenchant message disseminated through
an Inqy op-ed; it claims any anti-Hill micro-aggression could, if inappropriately magnified, yield censorship
[http://www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/did-marc-lamont-hill-temple-campus-free-speec
h-20181203.html?fbclid=IwAR31CxGpA6aUSFqNf21FmADjrG3hnXcp4hj3x9tJHm5S6HK6256ugmQna1I].

Illustrative of the dearth of any pro-Israel campus-presence was what was recalled by Pamela Geller while
reporting on Hill; she recalled a visit (with her colleagues) to Temple years ago—which I attended—when
she appeared under heavy security and, nevertheless, was shouted down. She claimed pro-Jewish voices
were banned, uninvited from speaking after leftists and Muslims protested; she was not surprised that
he would remain at Temple, even after having made remarks that were too extreme even for the far-left
propagandists who run CNN (destroying Israel rather than continuing to invoke Oslo-originated ideas such
as the two-state “solution”). In her view, Temple and other American universities are bastions of leftist
indoctrination and Jew-hatred and, therefore, do not merit receipt of public funding [https://
gellerreport.com/2018/11/temple-hill-remarks.html/?fbclid=IwAR1G3SHhiO5Yov5CU2XxqPUMH_Rbq
BgMyW0HMFdDHvCvi2bmekJy4waQEEk]. These observations are best viewed as illustrative of the
profundity of the challenge facing Temple, for the implications of his being validated are legion.

18
 Hill-Fans Ignore the Key-Concern: Unambiguously Fomenting Violence (recognized by ZOA)

In an “Open Letter to CNN” condemning Hill’s firing for having criticized Israel, it was claimed that, “During
his speech, Hill criticized Israel’s state violence and its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Hill pointed out
that ‘the Israeli state continues to restrict freedom and undermine the equality of Palestinian citizens of
Israel as well as those in the West Bank and Gaza’….We cannot pretend that painting Hill as a threat that
Temple University must remove is fueled by anything other than racism. Policing black voices in academia
and in public spaces is part of a much larger history of anti-Blackness.” [https://docs.google.com
/document/d/1xJ-9-bLEcsLSTiunou0yjlz3h9qToQz6FmlVX_V-Rdc/edit?fbclid=IwAR1q0LF0tUFdJCzjlALPJ
_eI2TjxqfL37au9eqREbSRCkf7I94xnEo6qLAI]. To the contrary, the population of so-called “Palestinians”
has quintupled since Israel was re-established, and it’s difficult to diagnose “Ethnic Cleansing” when the
Arab party had the third-highest vote total in the last Israeli election and when there are 14 Arab Knesset
members, plus in the judiciary, diplomatic corps, medicine and military. Essentially, violence is condoned,
again by invoking a “racism” pretext. Note Hill’s impact upon an individual who watched his U.N. speech;
when he described violence as a right of the Palestinian Arabs, he “[F]elt that he was justifying my murder
and that of everyone I know in Israel, from babies learning to crawl to my grandmother’s best friends
[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23113?fbclid=IwAR3jgFRUOOyslIisG9lW7U6
NiRqu99aH5pf4QdrE-VrSgFIYxplAR4-db7g]. There is absolutely no link between racism and this threat.

Perhaps the most succinct summary of the salient features of what has occurred—and its import—was
generated promptly after the news broke last week regarding what transpired: “CNN fires Marc Lamont
Hill after he calls for ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’ “ [https://tinyurl.com/ya2sdvmh]. It ended
with prescience that has already been validated (noting, for example, social-media postings):

I expect further escalation of attacks on Jews and Israel, as Hill will be lionized as a victim
and Jews will be demonized with the familiar tropes of puppet masters pulling strings.
The rising tide of Jew-hatred is obvious to anyone not wearing blinders.

Make no mistake about it, media-dissemination of Jew-Hatred has been unleashed during the past week;
for example, under the pretense of composing an essay “Exposing the Israel Lobby Groups Behind the
‘Political Lynching’ of Marc Lamont Hill” [https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-israel-lobby-groups-
behind-the-political-lynching-of-marc-lamont-hill/252534/], depicted in-color in an editorial-cartoon is a
Magen David prominently appearing on the sleeve of one of the two arms attempting to gag Hill. Also,
left-leaning media are citing this event as a warning against the excesses of “intersectionality” pursuits,
noting that “What the Women’s March Can Learn from Marc Lamont Hill” is to avoid alienating verbiage
[https://forward.com/opinion/415335/what-the-womens-march-can-learn-from-marc-lamont-hill/];
otherwise, it remains just-fine to collaborate, notwithstanding whether others disseminate deceit.

Such overt attacks on Jewry were ignored by The Jewish Exponent during the past week. Its initial on-line
news-article [http://jewishexponent.com/2018/11/30/cnn-severs-ties-with-marc-lamont-hill-following-
israel-comments-remains-employed-at-temple/] was expanded in the print-edition [http://jewishexpo
nent.com/2018/12/05/cnn-severs-ties-with-marc-lamont-hill-following-israel-comments-remains-empl
oyed-at-temple/], accompanied by an editorial that advised Hill be investigated; neither piece included a
critical factual review, as is so typical of evasive-progressives who wish to avoid uncomfortable truths
[http://jewishexponent.com/2018/12/05/the-view-from-here-freedom-of-speech-for-all-or-none/].

19
This contrasts with the work of the Zionist Organization of America, locally (per the counter-rally) and
nationally (per quality-composition of well-referenced input). The ZOA previously had called for the firing
of “Farrakhan-Loving Israel-Bashing Marc Lamont Hill from CNN and Temple U” [https://zoa.org/
2018/10/10378843-zoa-fire-farrakhan-loving-israel-bashing-marc-lamont-hill-from-cnn-and-temple-u/];
this observation was sent to the Temple Board (via myself) and, shortly thereafter, “CNN’s Marc Lamont
Hill Condemn[ed] Louis Farrakhan After Photo Together Surfaces” [https://www.breitbart.com/
politics/2018/10/20/cnns-marc-lamont-hill-condemns-louis-farrakhan-after-photo-together-surfaces/],
even as Hill denies having issued a condemnation [https://forward.com/opinion/415335/what-the-
womens-march-can-learn-from-marc-lamont-hill/]. It was personally felt that he had perhaps recognized
he had reached the operational limit of his oratorical output, but the U.N. speech (promoting violence
against Jews and Israel’s violent destruction) dashed this theory, prompting the ZOA [1]—to call for his
firing [https://zoa.org/2018/12/10379659-philadelphia-inquirer-marc-hill-promotes-violence-against-
jews-fire-him-says-major-real-estate-developer-bart-blatstein/], [2]—to praise CNN for having fired him
[https://zoa.org/2018/11/10379262-zoa-praises-cnn-for-firing-antisemite-marc-hill-for-demanding-
israels-violent-destruction/], [3]—to issue an urgent action-alert urging Temple to fire him, as well
[https://zoa.org/2018/11/10379233-zoa-action-alert-call-write-to-cnn-temple-university-to-fire-marc-
lamont-hill-for-calling-for-israels-destruction/], and [4]—to compose an Inqy op-ed (by Prez Mort Klein)
detailing Hill’s litany of intentional “language” aberrations [vide supra] [https://zoa.us7.listmanage
.com/track/click?u=29eb7d7528ed4ff8219eea4e4&id=9519cb54d2&e=a236d03c5e]. Regarding threats
to Jewry and to Eretz Yisrael the ZOA’s chronic/subacute/acute advocacy again remains unique; note the
perspective articulated by the local-ZOA regarding the anguishing nature of this experience {Exhibit 4}.

Media Coverage Predictably Reflected Political Proclivities

Overall, the “news” media behaved as anticipated, leaving a knowledge-gap this intro is intended to fill.
It’s felt to be advisable to portray this from an academic perspective, eschewing “left ↔ right” paradigms
that are unfortunately inescapable. Media-bias emerges in this situation, not dissimilar to other issues.

Initial (conservative) reports lambasted him [https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/11/28/cnn-

contributor-marc-lamont-hill-calls-for-destruction-of-israel-endorses-palestinian-violence/ and https://
www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-drops-marc-lamont-hill-anti-israel-remarks and https://www.Re
dstate.com/alexparker/2018/11/28/watch-cnn-commentator-calls-destruction-israel/?utm_source=rsm
orningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=8017fa59275b00c6c86c9ec95d9e69b4];
dutifully reported was Temple’s failure to discharge him after CNN had fired him for “anti-Israel remarks”
[https://www.foxnews.com/us/temple-university-stands-by-marc-lamont-hill-after-cnn-fires-him-for-
anti-israel-remarks]. Although commentaries abound, no news-reporting has since emerged.

Initial (liberal) reports emphasized the fact that CNN was receiving backlash for firing him “after his
comments supporting Palestine” (ignoring his call for violence) [https://thegrio.com/2018/12/03/marc-
lamont-hill-cnn-backlash-palestine-israel/] and one was so very biased that a reader posited: “Why did
you edit out Hill’s endorsement of terrorism? He used a dog whistle, a euphemism, calling it ‘resistance,’
but launching 500 rockets at Israeli civilians (as what happened just 2 weeks ago) is not ‘resistance’ but
terrorism. Sending suicide bombers into Israeli buses, trains, restaurants is not ‘resistance’ but terrorism.”
[https://www.newsweek.com/who-marc-lamont-hill-cnn-commentator-defends-comments-palestinian-
state-after-1235759]. Curiously, an initial (self-characterized neutral) source report [“The Real News”]
only quoted Cornel West who defended “my dear brother Marc”; it focused on the “river to sea” quote
instead of the call-for-violence [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPM11hHkw0s&fbclid=IwAR2Ly
WfUhdmk1OhlLJQ122cgntTOnrDPKdNPZUGcFSV2pZ4R5HfNSdPqST4].

20
In the Inqy, Hill was supported by a reader in Tel Aviv, who felt “Hill’s Palestine comments don’t sound so
wrong to me” [http://www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/marc-lamont-hill-cnn-fired-israel-
palestine-20181130.html]. In addition, a columnist composed a puff-piece that claimed “Fired CNN
commentator says remarks on Middle East are being misconstrued: “I’ve known now-former CNN
commentator Marc Lamont Hill for years. I’ve interviewed him many times on a variety of subjects from
politics to hip hop, and I have always found him to be a scholarly, thoughtful person.” [https://www.
msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fired-cnn-commentator-says-remarks-on-middle-east-are-being-miscon
strued-jenice-armstrong/ar-BBQqDSo]. This columnist, Jenice Armstrong, previously wrote that his uncle
“inspires Germantown bookstore/coffee shop” [http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists /jenice_armstr
ong/jenice-armstrong-marc-lamont-hill-interview-coffee-shop-cnn-20171125.html?arc 404=true]. Know
also that he opined a month ago that “Black folks suffer most without fair workweek protections”
[http://www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/fair-work-week-bill-philadelphia-city-council-
helen-gym-marc-lamont-hill-20181030.html]. Hill is unabashedly liberal-progressive Throughout,
The Inqy recycled “RELATED STORIES” in conjunction with updating its readership, repeatedly recalling its
initial reportage [CNN drops Temple professor Marc Lamont Hill after comments on Israel].

Another lib-progressive weighed-in, writing under the aegis of his nonprofit; he initiated the essay with
this disclaimer: “First, some context: I know and like Marc Lamont Hill. I hired him as a columnist at The
Daily News in 2011, where he wrote movingly about driving while black in Philly. And I am Jewish, in the
most secular of ways.” Note his dismissive approach toward what he admits as fomenting violence:

His critics lambaste Hill’s call for solidarity with the Palestinian cause as an endorsement
of violence or terrorism. But here’s how he frames the issue: “If we are standing in
solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must recognize the right of an occupied people
to defend itself.” It is correct that Hill doesn’t endorse King and Gandhi-inspired
nonviolence but, in positing his advocacy as self-defense, his argument differs hardly at
all from the justifications used by Menachem Begin and other Zionists when they bombed
the King David Hotel in 1946.

https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/dont-silence-marc-lamont-hill-debate-
him/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2f5567bd-6947-41ad-bfbb-ac1c580b9b5e

No matter that invoking false-equivalency (again, a typically-lib literary-devise, employed to evade rather
than to educate) ignores the fact that The King David Hotel bombing was as carefully planned militarily
to avoid civilian casualties as have been subsequent Israeli activities [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary
.org/bombing-of-the-king-david-hotel]:

The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal
Investigation Division (CID). The Irgun chose it as a target after British troops invaded the
Jewish Agency June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about
the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were placed under arrest.
The information about Jewish Agency operations, including intelligence activities in Arab
countries, was taken to the King David Hotel. A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews
in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain's restrictive
immigration policy had condemned thousands to death. Irgun leader Menachem Begin
stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and said three telephone calls were placed,
one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post,
warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated….

21
Even were that not the case, all of the Jewish groups didn’t sign-on to what the Irgun had promulgated.
Thus, by invoking the King David Hotel bombing, this secular Jew (Larry Platt) justifies the murder of Jews.
Indeed, this profoundly disgusting rationalization illustrates why the alarum must be sounded on an
ethical plane during this Holiday Season when modern-day Maccabees (Jews) are under assault.

Discussion

Hill is disseminating false information without the demonstrated ability to restrain himself and/or to
explore ideas with which he personally disagrees; this plus his having blurred the line between speaking
for the personal philosophy he cherishes and disclaiming any effort to represent Temple, such unbridled
behavior merits dismissal ASAP, for he otherwise will have an expanded capacity to pollute young minds.

Being a physician rather than an attorney, I can only distill the information in the public record for your
Board to weigh during its upcoming meeting; the anticipated process should be initiated ASAP regardless
of how long it takes to complete it; you must protect students from being exposed to the dissemination
of misinformation—wrapped around “intersectionality”-based goals—from the occupant of the first
Steve Charles Chair in Media, Cities and Solutions in the Klein College of Media and Communications
[https://klein.temple.edu/news/2017/05/marc-lamont-hill-joining-temple%E2%80%99s-klein-college-
media-and-communication]. His apology for language-choice is unprecedented and uncanny, emerging
from a dual-appointed professor in the realms of media and politics, absent his rescinding his incendiary
remarks. Temple must supplant charging Hill with run-of-the-mill “hate speech” (an accurate view) with
what actually and reprehensibly emerged via the U.N., namely, overt legitimation of “resistance”-style
violence drawing upon the BLM thugs who foment anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-Western behaviors.
To de-fuse high-emotions and to problem-solve, some people feel it’s highly desirable to de-emphasize
the obvious political nature of these phenomena. All of this aside, however, it is the highest priority to
expunge a destructive, ignorant force who runs rampant within Temple (in ways unknown to the public).

Overnight, the Exponent published a news-article regarding the rallies lacking analysis (despite receipt by
its author of prior drafts of this letter), corrected online by moi [http://jewishexponent.com/2018
/12/07/rally-counter-protest-face-off-over-marc-lamont-hill-at-temple/#comment-7838] and that a
school board fired a teacher for using an allegedly defamatory pronoun [https://www.pbs.org
/newshour/education/virginia-teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-use-trans-students-pronouns. In addition,
discovered was an anti-Hill effort initiated on a national level [https://www.stopantisemitism.org/] that
has promoted signing a petition (directed at President Englert and the Board of Trustees) requesting:
“Please follow in CNN’s Footsteps and Fire and/or Sanction Anti-Semite Professor Marc Lamont Hill. I am
also calling on all major donors to stop funding Temple University until it addresses the spread of anti-
Semitic propaganda from Professor Marc Lamont Hill who is brainwashing students on campus.”
[https://www.stopantisemitism.org/#signup]. Supporting this effort were citations of Hill’s history of:

• Disclaiming as “terrorism” a kidnapping/murder of three Israeli teens in 2014.

• Complaining Israel’s Iron Dome “takes away Hamas’ Military Leverage” over Israel.
• Advocating repeatedly for a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”
• Praising Farrakhan, who boasted Hitler was “a very great man” and calls Jews satanic…termites.
• Funding convicted terrorist Ali Jiddah.

22
 Conclusions

{This serves as the e-mail cover-memo, accompanied by the aforementioned Executive Summary.}

Hill should be fired, absent any need for an inquiry; his repeated quotations and actions are both intended
to destroy Israel and to advocate for violence to achieve that vile end. He is an anarchist, calling for the
abolition of police and prisons; he does not reflect the fundamental values of Temple University, thereby
subjugating its global reputation to the whims of a promulgator of anti-American intersectionality.

His arrogant, scornful rejection of how faculty should behave and his having shed free-speech protections
are explicitly documented herein; the implications of what has transpired (locally and nationally) have
been articulated in an essay primary-authored by Attorney Lynne Lechter in The American Thinker.
President of the Zionist Organization of America Mr. Morton Klein has corroborated extensive proof of
the Jew-hatred manifest by Farrakhan-lover Hill; he emulated his hero, Muhammad Ali, when converting
to Islam as a team, enhancing an appreciation of how engrained his anti-Israel attitudes have become.

Videos are riveting; he promulgated with a smirk the blood-libel anti-Jewish fantasy was manifest when
he eschewed ingesting “Israel water,” and he advocated unambiguously against rule-of-law when
claiming prisons should be emptied and police should be disbanded. His knowledge-base regarding the
basic history of the Middle East is oxymoronic, adding to his manifestations of moral turpitude; amazingly,
his faux-apology is based on defective word-choice without rescinding his content, thereby satirizing his
dual-appointment to educational/communications positions.

THEREFORE, to recapitulate, he has repeatedly violated all four of the fundamental criteria to be invoked
when assessing faculty behavior [per the Faculty Handbook]: “[T]hey should at all times be accurate,
should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make
every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.” To wit (citing just a few examples),
[1]—His inaccuracies are legion and profound, [2]—His having advocated replacing Israel “from the river
to the sea” (particularly when uttered at Nazareth, which is in Israel-proper) exceeds those of Arab leaders
proposing a two-state solution, [3]—His failure to integrate any view that could be construed as contrary
appears to have permeated his activities in academe, and [4]—His repeated failure to articulate a clear
disclaimer regarding his personal views (even in the high-profile setting of the U.N.) has been countered
by his having declared himself to be a “scholar” (and, lacking any other academic affiliation, is thereby
appending this self-description to his occupying the Charles Chair). Finally, his faux-apology for hurtful
word-choice is risible, for it undermines both his being a justified occupant of a media-related position
and his being a justified occupant of an education-related position; in a high-visibility setting, he revealed
admittedly-poor word-choice and conveyed bulk-information (as in the past) that is devoid of veracity.

This letter has been uploaded for easy-reference:

Sincerely,

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Cc: Trustees, per e-mail addresses compiled by Ms. Liora Rez [https://www.stopantisemitism.org/]

23
Exhibits

24
Exhibit 1

25
 Temple U hides behind Constitution to defend anti-Semitic Marc Lamont Hill
By Lynne Lechter and Robert Sklaroff [December 6, 2018]
[https://www.americanthinker.com
/blog/2018/12/temple_u_hides_behind_constitution_to_defend_antisemitic_marc_lamont_hill.html]

Days ago, Marc Lamont Hill, a CNN TV commentator and rock star celebrity professor at Temple
University, called for the total destruction of Israel during an address he delivered to the United Nations.
In solidarity with Palestinians, he exclaimed that Palestinians should be “free from the river to the sea.”
This is not a covert dog whistle or code. Rather, it is an overt exhortation to annihilate Israel, as Israel
exists from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

His words were ugly and chilling. More chilling was Hill’s confidence that such violent hate speech could
be spewed openly and fearlessly before a global audience, unaware or uncaring of subsequent
retaliation. Thomas Lifson first alerted us to this incident on November 30.

CNN, without explanation, immediately terminated Hill’s contract. Temple University did not. Instead,
the university trotted out the hackneyed coward’s defense that while it does not share Hill’s views, it
supports his constitutional free speech right to say whatever he pleases.

Some opponents, desiring Hill’s tenure at Temple ended, raised the issue of hate speech. Hill’s remarks
were surely hate-speech, but hate speech alone is not unconstitutional. The legal exceptions to the
right of free speech that accurately apply are fighting words, true threat, defamation (libel and slander),
and incitement to imminent lawless action. Hill’s words, dramatically presented at a “Free Palestine
Day,” clearly exemplified all of these exceptions.

How did we arrive at this ugly situation? Anti-Jewish sentiment, a historical hatred in large parts of the
globe, was mostly muted in the United States. After the 1948 creation of the State of Israel (the only
Jewish country in the world), Arab countries lost their military war against the fledgling state.
Subsequently, they waged a propaganda battle, falsely comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa in
the former’s treatment of Palestinians living within its borders. The American left embraced the fallacy
and facilitated its success. From this malevolent platform, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction of Israel,
commonly known as BDS, was launched in Ramallah around 2005. Its stated goal is to isolate and
pressure Israel; its unpublicized goal is Israel’s destruction.

Fueled with Arab petrodollars, Middle East studies departments were established in colleges and
universities throughout the United States. BDS student organizations followed. Aligned with the
plethora of progressive professors on campus, the debate inexorably became one-sided. Today, Jewish
students fight for positions on student organizations, for letters of recommendation, and for bringing
conservative speakers on campus who support their views.

More incredibly, lists have sprung up advising Jewish kids which United States colleges to avoid.

After more than a decade of this relentless anti-Jewish and anti-Israel trope, the false beliefs have
spread from the campus to the MSM and a growing number of elected Democrats. Moreover, many in
the black community who have converted to Islam share these views.

Temple University, geographically and demographically, is at the intersection of the conflict. As

opposing rallies supporting and denouncing Hill are planned, Temple University has a choice. It can
continue to cower behind its false assertion of constitutionality, or it can assert the law, suspend Hill,
and fight it out in federal court.

If this vile and dangerous speech is not confronted and deemed socially unacceptable, it will further
spread and coarsen.

CNN is to be applauded for its swift, courageous, and unexpected action.

26
Exhibit 2

27
 FIRE
Marc Lamont Hill
He has repeatedly violated the Temple Univ. Faculty Handbook!
“College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an
educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from
institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special
obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge
their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be
accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others,
and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”

Here: [1]—The inaccuracies of his statements are extensive, [2]—he has failed to demonstrate a
modicum of restraint, [3]—he has projected disrespect for the opinion of others, and [4]—he has
made no effort on multiple occasions to ensure off-campus listeners recognize he has spoken for
himself rather than on behalf of Temple, even as he has characterized himself as a “scholar.”

He advocated violence, explicitly eschewing the nonviolent approach of MLK-Jr./Gandhi, to be

expended on behalf of Palestinian Arabs; his 23-minute attack on Israel during the U.N. speech
started with condemning the Nakba [the purported “catastrophe” of Israel’s re-establishment as
a Jewish Nation-State] and ended with praise for efforts to displace her “from the [Jordan] River
to the [Mediterranean] Sea,” channeling the hate-filled rhetoric of terrorists (starting in 1964).

For further information:

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

 Telephone: (215) 333-4900
 https://tinyurl.com/y6uer8u8

These views are my own and, explicitly, are related neither to any institution nor to any organization.

28
Exhibit 3

29
Exhibit 4

30
 This is the ZOA perspective.
c/o Steve Feldman

When someone attacks you and your people; when someone encourages violence against your people;
when someone falsely accuses your people of horrific crimes such as poisoning the water supply; when
someone calls for your homeland, where seven million of your cousins live, to be destroyed -- you
cannot ignore it. You must speak up and you must show up. When people hold a rally in support* of
someone who literally wants your homeland wiped off the map and who incites others against you with
"fighting words" -- you really need to be out there to challenge them and show them and the world that
they will not get a free pass to lie about you.

And so we did, as more than 30 people (including about a dozen students) -- Christians and Jews --
assembled with our American and Israeli flags; with our signs; and singing "Am Yisrael Chai," "Hatikvah"
and "The Star-Spangled Banner" -- at the center of Temple University's Main Campus. We stood there
as long as they were there, even after they marched away. We did not chase after them as they polluted
other parts of the campus with their lies and hatred.

And have no doubt -- if those who support those who want to harm us have another rally, we will be
there again.

From Greater Philadelphia ZOA: Thank you: those who participated, those who publicized the event and
those who were with us in spirit!

*Those who rallied for Hill barely mentioned him. They chanted their genocidal slogan "From the river
to the sea, 'palestine' will be free" and "Free, free 'palestine.' "

You see, what Mr. Hill and all of the others involved via "intersectionality" have not figured out -- yet -
- is that they have all been duped by the Arabs and Muslims to participate in their war against the Jewish
People. That's all this is. The names sometimes change; the faces sometimes change -- but their goal
never does.

The great Maimonides wrote in the year 1172 CE: ". . . G-d has hurled us in the midst of this people,
the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against
us, as Scripture has forewarned us, . . . . Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as
much as they." This is when there wasn't an Israel; when there wasn't an alleged "occupation," but
rather when Jews had no power, no autonomy and not much of anything.

[photo of some of the participants at the ZOA counter-rally]

31