Several months ago, CAMERA wrote about the self-promoting CNN commentator and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, pointing out his bigoted anti-Israel disinformation campaign and defense of Palestinian terrorists.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism provides new evidence that Lamont Hill has progressed from being a radical, anti-Israel propagandist and justifier of terrorism to one who directly promotes Palestinian violence and terrorism against Israelis.

Lamont Hill was one of the advertised speakers at a conference by a leading BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) group that was held on September 28-30, 2018. In an audio recording of Lamont Hill's remarks there, he can be heard using his anti-Israel propaganda to advocate violence.

He repeatedly urges his audience not to "romanticize nonviolence, " and concludes that "we have allowed this nonviolent thing to become so normative that we're undermining our own ability to resist in real robust ways."

Lamont Hill previously justified the kidnappings and murders of three Israeli boys in 2012, saying:

This starts with occupation. There's an apartheid state in Gaza. There's an apartheid state in the region. That's what we need to talk about. That's what starts as resistance. It's not terrorism.

He bemoaned Israel's employment of the Iron Dome air defense system to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells fired into Israel, because, he lamented, "it takes away all of Hamas's military leverage."

And he labelled the call for Palestinians to reject hatred and terrorism "offensive and counterproductive."

So by urging Palestinians and their supporters to forget about non-violent protests and to "resist in real robust ways," Lamont Hill can only be advocating for the same type of terrorism he justified in the past, i.e. rocket fire, kidnappings, and murders of Israeli civilians.

It is perhaps unsurprising that extremists like Lamont Hill become ever more radicalized as time progresses. The question is at what point will Lamont Hill be considered too radical to feature as a "political commentator" or as a "professor"? Do mainstream media outlets and U.S. universities really want to be linked to someone who advocates terrorism?