Israel and the Middle East

I understand that.

Generically, it's probably a fair criticism of certain kinds of writing about Israel.

But since he hasn't read this book, he doesn't know if it's a fair criticism in this case.

 

I think you understand exactly what Matti was getting at.

 

Of course.

But does his criticism apply in this specific case?

 

Anyone have an idea of how all this ends? I can't keep track of what each side is "responding" to at this point.

 

With Coates' book?

 

You're saying that he can't reply to a question about the interview, or the dozen other interviews he's done without reading the book? People on this thread have been reacting saying they didn't watch the clip. Coates says plenty about his research and his conclusions. Why can't an experienced reporter have and voice an opinion about that without reading the book?

 

Israel, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah.

 

This is the nut of it.

The reporter who has lived every nuance of that world doesn't have to read a book by a writer who spends a week there and proclaims himself an expert on thousands of years of conflict.

< enter Azrael > He proclaimed himself an expert?

< enter Songbird > You know exactly what I'm saying.

< enter Azrael > Yes but ...

-- rinse and repeat --

(Joanie Loves Chachi laugh track into commercial)

Annnnnnd scene!

 

"I haven't read the book."

 

As I said, he's welcome to generically address the problem of writers parachuting in and drawing conclusions about Israel.

But if he hasn't read a specific book addressing a specific issue about Israel and its conduct, how would he know what that book or essay gets right or gets wrong?

It's dismissive. It's calling a book you haven't read a "bad book."

 

Sound critiques of Coates here:

Ta-Nehisi Coates and the Temptations of Narrative

and here:

Why Ta-Nehisi Coates Writes

 

I'm paywalled out, but without reading them, I'd guess that "sound" is being used as a euphemism for gentle.
I haven't listened to his interview with Ezra klein, but someone i respect told me that it was interesting because he agreed
with Coates on the broader conflict, he pushed him on the book.