Israel and the Middle East

[Songbird]

I can't imagine it's what Coates expected

He's been around the block, and to a few rodeos. Ain't a thing he doesn't expect.

 

[Alma]

Coates is correct here.

"Does Israel have the right to exist?" is a non-question. (In the same way "Israel has the right to defend itself" is a non-answer.)

Both are meant to end a conversation, not encourage one.

That Dokoupil found a way to ask the same non-question twice is telling.

The questions got telling answers, though.

And I'm not sure you're right about whether those are non-questions. Questions sometimes are as questions do.

And, again, this isn't an hourlong conversation.

 

[Azrael]

The questions got telling answers, though.

And I'm not sure you're right about whether those are non-questions. Questions sometimes are as questions do.

And, again, this isn't an hourlong conversation.

As a matter for journalism, I think the question "Does Israel have the right to exist?" was germane in 1946 or 1947.

Eighty years later, it's code for "are you friend or foe?"

Israel exists, and has for quite some time. OK. Now what?

The question of its "right" to exist - unless you're asking the Ayatollah or the Saudi royal family - is philosophical. But it's also a booby trap; a sucker play used to neutralize the nonconforming opinions of journalists and politicians.

In the case of this CBS interview, what relevance does that question have to anything Coates wrote, except to identify him as an "extremist," and therefore someone to be ignored?

 

[Alma]

As a matter for journalism, I think the question "Does Israel have the right to exist?" was germane in 1946 or 1947.

Eighty years later, it's code for "are you friend or foe?"

Israel exists, and has for quite some time. OK. Now what?

The question of its "right" to exist - unless you're asking the Ayatollah or the Saudi royal family - is philosophical. But it's also a booby trap; a sucker play used to neutralize the nonconforming opinions of journalists and politicians.

In the case of this CBS interview, what relevance does that question have to anything Coates wrote, except to identify him as an "extremist," and therefore someone to be ignored?

Because, apparently, Coates wrote an essay that effectively raises the question of whether Israel should continue as a state on the terms it prefers. That's probably the better way to ask it. Less shorthand. And if not on preferred terms, what terms would be acceptable?

I should note that I believe Coates to be sincere in his application of a moral compass while being coy (or perhaps uncertain) to what kind of system at which his moral compass points. Let's say there are x years of lament and secular repentance (Coates claims no specific religion) that might suffice in Coates' eyes. How many years? What practical repentance? What's the adjudicating framework of future grievances? What's the responsibility of the writer playing moral witness - which Coates believes in - to lay out then a way forward?

Over an hour, you can get into all that, although I don't know how enlightening that'd be.

In 6 minutes - really 5, since the offending CBS reporter didn't ask the first question - you can't.

Again - what I think is different about the interview is that it dispelled with all the niceties, cut to the chase and boiled 100 pages of Coates' words down to what ultimately will be most people's impulse: If he thinks Israel is acting so horribly, maybe he thinks there shouldn't be an Israel.

In a sense, it's very disrespectful: Coates didn't write 100 pages of moral compassing just to be boiled down to one sentence.

But it's still done in the name of journalism. As is the Alex Wagner "the cause" interview.

 

[Azrael]

Because, apparently, Coates wrote an essay that effectively raises the question of whether Israel should continue as a state on the terms it prefers. That's probably the better way to ask it. Less shorthand. And if not on preferred terms, what terms would be acceptable?

I should note that I believe Coates to be sincere in his application of a moral compass while being coy (or perhaps uncertain) to what kind of system at which his moral compass points. Let's say there are x years of lament and secular repentance (Coates claims no specific religion) that might suffice in Coates' eyes. How many years? What practical repentance? What's the adjudicating framework of future grievances? What's the responsibility of the writer playing moral witness - which Coates believes in - to lay out then a way forward?

Over an hour, you can get into all that, although I don't know how enlightening that'd be.

In 6 minutes - really 5, since the offending CBS reporter didn't ask the first question - you can't.

Again - what I think is different about the interview is that it dispelled with all the niceties, cut to the chase and boiled 100 pages of Coates' words down to what ultimately will be most people's impulse: If he thinks Israel is acting so horribly, maybe he thinks there shouldn't be an Israel.

In a sense, it's very disrespectful: Coates didn't write 100 pages of moral compassing just to be boiled down to one sentence.

But it's still done in the name of journalism. As is the Alex Wagner "the cause" interview.

I don't think honest journalism proceeds from a dishonest premise, whether we're talking about Dokoupil or Wagner or Bari Weiss. It's advocacy.

If Coates writes that Israel is an apartheid society, ask him how he arrived at that conclusion.

If a two-tiered set of laws and restrictions reminds him of Jim Crow, ask him for specifics. Ask him for evidence of these things.

If these things exist - and if Coates can support his assertions with evidence - ask him then if he believes the survival of Israel depends upon them.

Ask direct questions. Get direct answers.

 

[Songbird]

cut to the chase and boiled 100 pages of Coates' words down to what ultimately will be most people's impulse

We live in a Twitterverse: tell us now!

 

[Azrael]

The anti-Coates campaign is well under way.

 

[Songbird]

BTW, if we're having the capital J journalism discussion about this ... it should include the video. Here's a good chunk of it.



Just finished watching it for the first time.

All interviews should be that forking intense.

 

[Azrael]

All interviews should be that forking intense.

Maybe.

Not sure how well it served the viewers.

 

[Songbird]

Maybe.

Not sure how well it served the viewers.

It served me well. It's as good an interview as you can ask for, and should demand.

 

[Songbird]

Because I'm obsessing about it ...

Listen to Dokoupil's first question, the way he articulates and slices every syllable, leading up to the crescendo of what he's going for, riding the crest of the wave ...

... and listen to Ta-Nehisi's onomatopoeia of rage and disgust rising up from his guts as he glares at Dokoupil, and the way he delayed the start of his answer ...

... and that is the inner forking core of the human condition. Love it.

 

[SoloFlyer]

Coates presents an extreme position that is shared by others. It should be challenged vigorously.

The same applies if Coates seemed to be suggesting that Palestinians did not deserve to exist or that Syria/Jordan/Lebanon were treating Israelis like Jim Crow America.

Extreme positions should be challenged.

I don't know that Dokoupil is the appropriate person to challenge Coates, though. At the very least, someone in his position needs to be transparent with the audience of his background/beliefs.

I am more certain of this - Coates did not belong on a morning show. It is not the format or environment for a substantive discussion, complete with fact checks and challenging questions, and it seemed apparent to me that neither Gayle King nor Nate Burleson were prepared for that line of questioning from Dokoupil.

Coates should have been booked for 60 Minutes, where the substance of his book and his extreme stance could have been appropriately examined and challenged.