I think the MAJORITY of pro-Palestinian voices have been clear about the principle of non-violence. It is in reaction to the incredible gaslighting on the pro-Israel side regarding their exclusive rights to committing violence that is the problem. Israelis/Jews can't be perpetrator and judge at the same time. As for mainstream outlets, MSNBC has shown an incredible turnaround on this issue. Note interviews with Chris Hayes and Ali Velshi. Also take a look at Coates' conversation with Trevor Noah. As for The Atlantic, I tossed my subscription this past year in response to their irresponsible coverage - or lack of coverage - on the most egregious human rights issue of modern times. I did it in favor of funding this Substack and others.
I tossed my own subscription to The Atlantic way back in 2003 after reading its cover article headlined "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism". The article was entirely about suicide terrorism by Palestinians against Israelis. The writer, Bruce Hoffman, shared what he learned on this subject from many conversations that he had with many different people, but the problem was that not a single one of these people was a Palestinian. Nor did he note this omission, let alone explain it.
There seems to be insufficient focus on how Zionism is in fact annihilationist and too much general progressive defensiveness regarding Palestinians'-and their neighbours'-righteous calls for rejecting a theft of 80% of Palestine's territory(even with land swaps) as well as their legitimate choice of armed resistance. An analysis of Zionism and Palestine which hectors Indigenous people for their mode of resistance is alienating and reveals its colonial mindset, however inadvertent, by imposing a moral condition on the oppressed which cannot effectively be imposed on the oppressor, except by military force or under threat of military defeat, currently prevented by our taxpayers' bombs and bullets.
Thank you for your comments on Ta-Nehisi Coates. I agree with you completely. I love his book. And am now re-reading it again, See also his interview with Daily Show's Jon Stewart, who also matches well with Coates. (As you also do.). Julie M Finch
Who is Coates' audience. I disagree with the Nat Turner comparison because it implies it was Hamas' intent to kill all Israelis on October 7 rather than to take them as hostages. In light of the evidence that the Hannibal Directive was employed, that the IDF killed most of the Israeli civilians and military that day to prevent them from being used as hostages, it begs the question: who was really valuing Israeli life that day? Hamas, whether you agree or not, viewed live Israelis as valuable for the sake of swapping hostages with Palestinian prisoner. Did Nat Turner do that? No. I can understand Coates' intentions generously if his audience is an obstinate Zionists one, one that he must concede something to because they will not want to understand anything about what Hamas and the IDF did on October 7. Coates uses that lack of awareness to reach those who are half listening or unable to hear his bigger message. But to me as a Lebanese-Palestinian it adds to the pile of misinformation, a pile of fabrication that ultimately cheapens the lives of Arab Americans here and Arabs abroad. I don't think that was Coates' intent but it comes across as another concession that diminishes reality.
Peter, Thank you very much for this comment, which is excellent. I have not yet read Coates' book but know his position well, have heard him speak several times, and suspect that I will agree with most or all of what he says.(I will be reading it.)
I would venture a guess, however, that people whom you characterize as not understanding his position, or of his simplifying unnecessarily, actually understand what he is saying all too well. But they have to distort it, and lie about the external realities they describe (Israel under the threat of annihilation, etc.) because if they dealt with those things honestly, they would have to confront the reality of Israel as an apartheid state, and its violations of international law, and now as a state conducting a genocide, and that would be too painful for them. They are not innocently misconstruing Coates' position, they are doing that deliberately as a way of avoiding the underlying issues.
Thank you for being a beacon of well considered sanity. This idea of basically calling the Coates view as shallow and facile is a thinly veiled assertion that only someone who supports the status quo is "getting it". How does this help anyone in any way, other than to support the continued annihilation of any country that doesn't agree with Israel?
Thank you for saying this! I see many folks trying to pooh-pooh TNC in this way. Thanks for illustrating these verbal sleight-of-hand techniques used to delegitmize his concerns. This situation needs clarity and honesty, and I think TN Coates has brought a clear-eyed take to it and am grateful to him for it.
TNCs critics are only boosting sales of the book. It’s largely a media sensation because of them.
I like his past writing on race in America, but Israel/Palestine is out of his usual lane and niche, so I probably wouldn’t have bought the book if not for the “controversy” of the CBS interview or the Coleman Hughes takedown of it in The Free Press.
To his base of critics—say, writers at the Free Press—TNC is “guilty” of using one of the same reductive rhetorical devices—“moral clarity”—that they often invoke when discussing the I/P conflict defending Israeli policy.
During the events of and in the immediate aftermath of Oct 7, those voices didn’t want to hear about “context” or Palestinian grievances about occupation, 1948, Oslo, Cast Lead, or any other such historical complications. The most salient moral issue at the moment was bearing witness to the act of terror and the scale of loss of life and suffering inflicted upon the Jews and other Israelis along the Gaza border. I think that was the correct take at the time.
Yet for TNCs essay, writing about his observations in and around Hebron and East Jerusalem well before Oct 7, he employs the same “moral clarity” to see an Apartheid system for what it is.
He could have gotten bogged down in “it’s complicated” obfuscation, as the Free Press crowd usually does when deflecting criticism of Israel, but for the limited and specific criticism that TNC levels at Israeli policy, it really is that simple and uncomplicated.
I’m not sure why he’s more obligated to give readers the exhaustive, balanced, objective, and bias-free disposition on the history of the conflict when Free Press writers—his most outspoken critics—seem to feel no such obligation themselves with their notoriously slanted takes. Especially since TNC states his bias upfront and out in the open for the reader: he specifically wanted to hear Palestinian voices and perspectives that are rarely heard in western media.
I also think Zaid Jilani had a good take this week on Twitter:
“AIPACs educational arm sends members of Congress, their staff, and lots of other VIPs on weeklong trips through Israel where they’re treated to propaganda every day and never go through the Palestinian Territories. The “10 Days” crowd attacking Coates seem fine with this.”
Yes to all of this. But not all critics of Coates are necessarily staunchly partisan, caterwauling detractors like the TFP folks. It's possible to see the many objective facts of an issue and want to engage in a deeper discussion for the purpose of gaining insight.
Yeah, I’m only 2/3 through the book and Coates ruminates and meanders around on a few themes in each of the essays, probing his own feelings and impressions during his travels, and then kind of just moves on to the next topic.
The premise of the book, I guess, was to complete a self-assignment of essays for his writing class to his students. There’s more focus on style and craft of writing than on content. The subjects of the essays were almost beside the point. So by the time one gets to the Israel/West Bank chapter, the reader should understand that exhaustive “deeper discussion” is beyond the scope of the work.
Thank you Peter! I have not read the book yet but I’ve seen so much criticism of it that I now really want to read it (I wanted to before but now I want to even more urgently). I had suspected that the book was being caricatured so not surprised to see that that is the case. I haven’t had a chance to watch your interview with him yet (I did listen to Ezra’s podcast last night - he’s another national treasure), hopefully I will be able to today.
You shouldn’t be distorting your opponents’ views. The Arab League may have recognized Israel’s right to exist but Israel is surrounded by proto-states such as Hezbollah and Hamas that couldn’t care less about a 2SS. And don’t claim that they pose no threat to Israel’s security. In addition, the PA has rejected three peace plans that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (in 2001, 2008 and 2014). The revisionist interpretation of the failure of the peace process is just wrong and you know it. The truth is that Israel went beyond the Clinton parameters in 2001, 2008 and possibly 2014. (In 2001, Shlomo Ben-Ami offered the Palestinians full sovereignty over Al Aqsa/Temple Mount, instead of the vertical sovereignty Clinton called for. on top of this, he offered the PA 100% of the West Bank. Two other Israeli negotiators, Nimrod Novik and Yair Hirschfeld, also offered the PA 100% of the West Bank instead of the 97% Clinton called for. In 2008, Olmert and Bush wanted Abbas to sign an agreement in principle with Israel so as to turn the 2009 Israeli election into a referendum on peace. In 2014, Netanyahu gave the Kerry-Obama principles a lukewarm approval, while Abbas said no.)
Regarding discrimination against Palestinian-Israelis, you really seem to have a hard time understanding what equality under international conventions. It does not mean cultural neutrality, nor a neutral immigration policy. It means equal civil and political rights. This is totally compatible with Israel’s existence as a Jewish democracy. Latvia is not a binational state despite the existence of a sizeable Russian minority.
Finally, and this is a question no anti-Zionist has been able to answer so far: if Zionism was so wrong, what was the alternative to save and protect the Jews? Cultural Zionism? Even Martin Buber acknowledged that demanding to impose restrictions on Jewish immigration while they were on the tip of a volcano was no longer morally defensible. Ben Gurion told Buber in 1936 that the only meaningful difference between them was not binationalism (Ben Gurion subscribed to his own version of binationalism, ie, "parity" until 1936). The real difference was that, unlike Magnes, he was not willing to tell the Jews of Germany and Poland who had nowhere else to go that they would not be allowed to take refuge in Palestine.
Liberal Zionism may have its own contradictions, but it’s about time for anti-Zionists who think they are so smart and so consistent to at the mirror themselves.
Bernard, you think it's time for a response so here's one: I as an American Jew cannot fathom wanting to live in nation that registers my religion as part of my civic /political identity It would scare me to pieces if any gov't in the US at any level asked that. I also cannot understand why I as an American with no roots in Pal/Isr can go there and my friend whose parents had a farm before 48 cannot. As for refuees from Nazi Europe? again read more about the Biltmore conf. and how much pressure was ever put on other countries to accept refugees instead of giving them an out named "Palestine" ? by overzealous Zionists who wanted 'human material? Whatever happened then needs to be part of the discussion now. A secular state is a lot more familiar situation (and attractive if we think about it ) to most of us American Jews than what is there now (and unsustainable if our tax dollars aren't subsidizing it) The JCC on the Mediterrranean it is not.
Bernard asks: "if Zionism was so wrong, what was the alternative to save and protect the Jews?"
I would ask you: If ANTI-Zionism was so wrong, what was the alternative to save and protect the NON-Jews who were living in Palestine? Exile? Subjugation? And how would you make this case to anti-Zionist non-Jews from Palestine?
Peter, this is excellent. I don't think many of us have ANY idea of the history of Zionism and Israel is too often thought of as simply
the refuge from Nazi Europe. I think the Biltmore Conference needs to be revisited . Even re reading the Wikipedia page on it to refresh myself is appalling to me. As usual people need to be careful for what they wish for but they need to remember what was asked
I read that article in The Atlantic and became so frustrated with the word salad of the author. The “simplicity” in my mind of this huge and very complicated issue begins with the simple and plain FACT Palestinians were forced off their land and were immediately occupied by the Israelis who had full support of the colonial West. Period. This gets lost after decades of finger pointing by individuals such as the author of the article. Demanding Coates go further and further to justify Israel’s behavior. It’s exhausting and nonsensical
It seems that when anyone argues on this issue, something gets conveniently left out. In this case, you argue that Israel's Arab neighbors (countries) don't have its guns locked and loaded and aimed at Israel. That's a fair and valid point. But Iran and its proxies most certainly do have a ****stated goal**** of wiping Israel out. I'm not using this fact to justify Israeli occupation of the WB or its horrific war on Gaza. My point is that you made a video that specially aims to poke holes in the "it's complicated" line of reasoning, yet in making your point, you omitted a key -- and undermining -- fact. (At a certain point you're splitting hairs: neighboring Arab countries v neighboring Jihadist terrorists. Reminds me a bit of how the staunchly pro-Israel folks say "it's not technically genocide" and ignore all the bodies piled up, although that's a far greater semantic infraction to make than the one I'm pointing out here.) Anyway, yes, Israel's treatment of Gazans and WB civilians is indeed straightforward -- and terrible, but pointing out the complexity of a years-long and thus-far intractable issue is not the same as justifying Israeli policy, as you (and Coates, from what I've heard him say) suggest. I guess what I'm getting at is that any issue in which multiple, opposing or conflicting facts exist is by definition complicated -- it's that simple.
BTW the best interview I've heard so far with Coates was with Ezra Klein. Highly recommend.
I think the MAJORITY of pro-Palestinian voices have been clear about the principle of non-violence. It is in reaction to the incredible gaslighting on the pro-Israel side regarding their exclusive rights to committing violence that is the problem. Israelis/Jews can't be perpetrator and judge at the same time. As for mainstream outlets, MSNBC has shown an incredible turnaround on this issue. Note interviews with Chris Hayes and Ali Velshi. Also take a look at Coates' conversation with Trevor Noah. As for The Atlantic, I tossed my subscription this past year in response to their irresponsible coverage - or lack of coverage - on the most egregious human rights issue of modern times. I did it in favor of funding this Substack and others.
I tossed my own subscription to The Atlantic way back in 2003 after reading its cover article headlined "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism". The article was entirely about suicide terrorism by Palestinians against Israelis. The writer, Bruce Hoffman, shared what he learned on this subject from many conversations that he had with many different people, but the problem was that not a single one of these people was a Palestinian. Nor did he note this omission, let alone explain it.
There seems to be insufficient focus on how Zionism is in fact annihilationist and too much general progressive defensiveness regarding Palestinians'-and their neighbours'-righteous calls for rejecting a theft of 80% of Palestine's territory(even with land swaps) as well as their legitimate choice of armed resistance. An analysis of Zionism and Palestine which hectors Indigenous people for their mode of resistance is alienating and reveals its colonial mindset, however inadvertent, by imposing a moral condition on the oppressed which cannot effectively be imposed on the oppressor, except by military force or under threat of military defeat, currently prevented by our taxpayers' bombs and bullets.
Thank you for your comments on Ta-Nehisi Coates. I agree with you completely. I love his book. And am now re-reading it again, See also his interview with Daily Show's Jon Stewart, who also matches well with Coates. (As you also do.). Julie M Finch
Who is Coates' audience. I disagree with the Nat Turner comparison because it implies it was Hamas' intent to kill all Israelis on October 7 rather than to take them as hostages. In light of the evidence that the Hannibal Directive was employed, that the IDF killed most of the Israeli civilians and military that day to prevent them from being used as hostages, it begs the question: who was really valuing Israeli life that day? Hamas, whether you agree or not, viewed live Israelis as valuable for the sake of swapping hostages with Palestinian prisoner. Did Nat Turner do that? No. I can understand Coates' intentions generously if his audience is an obstinate Zionists one, one that he must concede something to because they will not want to understand anything about what Hamas and the IDF did on October 7. Coates uses that lack of awareness to reach those who are half listening or unable to hear his bigger message. But to me as a Lebanese-Palestinian it adds to the pile of misinformation, a pile of fabrication that ultimately cheapens the lives of Arab Americans here and Arabs abroad. I don't think that was Coates' intent but it comes across as another concession that diminishes reality.
Peter, Thank you very much for this comment, which is excellent. I have not yet read Coates' book but know his position well, have heard him speak several times, and suspect that I will agree with most or all of what he says.(I will be reading it.)
I would venture a guess, however, that people whom you characterize as not understanding his position, or of his simplifying unnecessarily, actually understand what he is saying all too well. But they have to distort it, and lie about the external realities they describe (Israel under the threat of annihilation, etc.) because if they dealt with those things honestly, they would have to confront the reality of Israel as an apartheid state, and its violations of international law, and now as a state conducting a genocide, and that would be too painful for them. They are not innocently misconstruing Coates' position, they are doing that deliberately as a way of avoiding the underlying issues.
Thank you for being a beacon of well considered sanity. This idea of basically calling the Coates view as shallow and facile is a thinly veiled assertion that only someone who supports the status quo is "getting it". How does this help anyone in any way, other than to support the continued annihilation of any country that doesn't agree with Israel?
ps, also enjoyed Rashid Khalidi on Portside.org today.
Thank you for saying this! I see many folks trying to pooh-pooh TNC in this way. Thanks for illustrating these verbal sleight-of-hand techniques used to delegitmize his concerns. This situation needs clarity and honesty, and I think TN Coates has brought a clear-eyed take to it and am grateful to him for it.
TNCs critics are only boosting sales of the book. It’s largely a media sensation because of them.
I like his past writing on race in America, but Israel/Palestine is out of his usual lane and niche, so I probably wouldn’t have bought the book if not for the “controversy” of the CBS interview or the Coleman Hughes takedown of it in The Free Press.
To his base of critics—say, writers at the Free Press—TNC is “guilty” of using one of the same reductive rhetorical devices—“moral clarity”—that they often invoke when discussing the I/P conflict defending Israeli policy.
During the events of and in the immediate aftermath of Oct 7, those voices didn’t want to hear about “context” or Palestinian grievances about occupation, 1948, Oslo, Cast Lead, or any other such historical complications. The most salient moral issue at the moment was bearing witness to the act of terror and the scale of loss of life and suffering inflicted upon the Jews and other Israelis along the Gaza border. I think that was the correct take at the time.
Yet for TNCs essay, writing about his observations in and around Hebron and East Jerusalem well before Oct 7, he employs the same “moral clarity” to see an Apartheid system for what it is.
He could have gotten bogged down in “it’s complicated” obfuscation, as the Free Press crowd usually does when deflecting criticism of Israel, but for the limited and specific criticism that TNC levels at Israeli policy, it really is that simple and uncomplicated.
I’m not sure why he’s more obligated to give readers the exhaustive, balanced, objective, and bias-free disposition on the history of the conflict when Free Press writers—his most outspoken critics—seem to feel no such obligation themselves with their notoriously slanted takes. Especially since TNC states his bias upfront and out in the open for the reader: he specifically wanted to hear Palestinian voices and perspectives that are rarely heard in western media.
I also think Zaid Jilani had a good take this week on Twitter:
“AIPACs educational arm sends members of Congress, their staff, and lots of other VIPs on weeklong trips through Israel where they’re treated to propaganda every day and never go through the Palestinian Territories. The “10 Days” crowd attacking Coates seem fine with this.”
Yes to all of this. But not all critics of Coates are necessarily staunchly partisan, caterwauling detractors like the TFP folks. It's possible to see the many objective facts of an issue and want to engage in a deeper discussion for the purpose of gaining insight.
Yeah, I’m only 2/3 through the book and Coates ruminates and meanders around on a few themes in each of the essays, probing his own feelings and impressions during his travels, and then kind of just moves on to the next topic.
The premise of the book, I guess, was to complete a self-assignment of essays for his writing class to his students. There’s more focus on style and craft of writing than on content. The subjects of the essays were almost beside the point. So by the time one gets to the Israel/West Bank chapter, the reader should understand that exhaustive “deeper discussion” is beyond the scope of the work.
Thank you Peter! I have not read the book yet but I’ve seen so much criticism of it that I now really want to read it (I wanted to before but now I want to even more urgently). I had suspected that the book was being caricatured so not surprised to see that that is the case. I haven’t had a chance to watch your interview with him yet (I did listen to Ezra’s podcast last night - he’s another national treasure), hopefully I will be able to today.
Mr. Beinart,
You shouldn’t be distorting your opponents’ views. The Arab League may have recognized Israel’s right to exist but Israel is surrounded by proto-states such as Hezbollah and Hamas that couldn’t care less about a 2SS. And don’t claim that they pose no threat to Israel’s security. In addition, the PA has rejected three peace plans that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders (in 2001, 2008 and 2014). The revisionist interpretation of the failure of the peace process is just wrong and you know it. The truth is that Israel went beyond the Clinton parameters in 2001, 2008 and possibly 2014. (In 2001, Shlomo Ben-Ami offered the Palestinians full sovereignty over Al Aqsa/Temple Mount, instead of the vertical sovereignty Clinton called for. on top of this, he offered the PA 100% of the West Bank. Two other Israeli negotiators, Nimrod Novik and Yair Hirschfeld, also offered the PA 100% of the West Bank instead of the 97% Clinton called for. In 2008, Olmert and Bush wanted Abbas to sign an agreement in principle with Israel so as to turn the 2009 Israeli election into a referendum on peace. In 2014, Netanyahu gave the Kerry-Obama principles a lukewarm approval, while Abbas said no.)
Regarding discrimination against Palestinian-Israelis, you really seem to have a hard time understanding what equality under international conventions. It does not mean cultural neutrality, nor a neutral immigration policy. It means equal civil and political rights. This is totally compatible with Israel’s existence as a Jewish democracy. Latvia is not a binational state despite the existence of a sizeable Russian minority.
Finally, and this is a question no anti-Zionist has been able to answer so far: if Zionism was so wrong, what was the alternative to save and protect the Jews? Cultural Zionism? Even Martin Buber acknowledged that demanding to impose restrictions on Jewish immigration while they were on the tip of a volcano was no longer morally defensible. Ben Gurion told Buber in 1936 that the only meaningful difference between them was not binationalism (Ben Gurion subscribed to his own version of binationalism, ie, "parity" until 1936). The real difference was that, unlike Magnes, he was not willing to tell the Jews of Germany and Poland who had nowhere else to go that they would not be allowed to take refuge in Palestine.
Liberal Zionism may have its own contradictions, but it’s about time for anti-Zionists who think they are so smart and so consistent to at the mirror themselves.
Shana Tova!
Bernard, you think it's time for a response so here's one: I as an American Jew cannot fathom wanting to live in nation that registers my religion as part of my civic /political identity It would scare me to pieces if any gov't in the US at any level asked that. I also cannot understand why I as an American with no roots in Pal/Isr can go there and my friend whose parents had a farm before 48 cannot. As for refuees from Nazi Europe? again read more about the Biltmore conf. and how much pressure was ever put on other countries to accept refugees instead of giving them an out named "Palestine" ? by overzealous Zionists who wanted 'human material? Whatever happened then needs to be part of the discussion now. A secular state is a lot more familiar situation (and attractive if we think about it ) to most of us American Jews than what is there now (and unsustainable if our tax dollars aren't subsidizing it) The JCC on the Mediterrranean it is not.
Shanah Tova
Bernard asks: "if Zionism was so wrong, what was the alternative to save and protect the Jews?"
I would ask you: If ANTI-Zionism was so wrong, what was the alternative to save and protect the NON-Jews who were living in Palestine? Exile? Subjugation? And how would you make this case to anti-Zionist non-Jews from Palestine?
Peter, this is excellent. I don't think many of us have ANY idea of the history of Zionism and Israel is too often thought of as simply
the refuge from Nazi Europe. I think the Biltmore Conference needs to be revisited . Even re reading the Wikipedia page on it to refresh myself is appalling to me. As usual people need to be careful for what they wish for but they need to remember what was asked
Well outlined Peter. I'll have to finally buy the book and read it for myself.
Thanks Peter, as always.
I read that article in The Atlantic and became so frustrated with the word salad of the author. The “simplicity” in my mind of this huge and very complicated issue begins with the simple and plain FACT Palestinians were forced off their land and were immediately occupied by the Israelis who had full support of the colonial West. Period. This gets lost after decades of finger pointing by individuals such as the author of the article. Demanding Coates go further and further to justify Israel’s behavior. It’s exhausting and nonsensical
It seems that when anyone argues on this issue, something gets conveniently left out. In this case, you argue that Israel's Arab neighbors (countries) don't have its guns locked and loaded and aimed at Israel. That's a fair and valid point. But Iran and its proxies most certainly do have a ****stated goal**** of wiping Israel out. I'm not using this fact to justify Israeli occupation of the WB or its horrific war on Gaza. My point is that you made a video that specially aims to poke holes in the "it's complicated" line of reasoning, yet in making your point, you omitted a key -- and undermining -- fact. (At a certain point you're splitting hairs: neighboring Arab countries v neighboring Jihadist terrorists. Reminds me a bit of how the staunchly pro-Israel folks say "it's not technically genocide" and ignore all the bodies piled up, although that's a far greater semantic infraction to make than the one I'm pointing out here.) Anyway, yes, Israel's treatment of Gazans and WB civilians is indeed straightforward -- and terrible, but pointing out the complexity of a years-long and thus-far intractable issue is not the same as justifying Israeli policy, as you (and Coates, from what I've heard him say) suggest. I guess what I'm getting at is that any issue in which multiple, opposing or conflicting facts exist is by definition complicated -- it's that simple.
BTW the best interview I've heard so far with Coates was with Ezra Klein. Highly recommend.