CBS News on Monday rebuked one of its star morning anchors, Tony Dokoupil, over an interview that he conducted last week with the author Ta-Nehisi Coates, in which Mr. Dokoupil challenged Mr. Coates’s views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The episode began last Monday when Mr. Coates visited “CBS Mornings” on a publicity tour for his book “The Message,” which in one section compares Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the Jim Crow laws of the American South. In describing what he witnessed on a 10-day trip to the region last year, Mr. Coates criticized other journalists for “the elevation of factual complexity over self-evident morality.”
From the start of the interview, Mr. Dokoupil directly challenged this framing, telling Mr. Coates that “the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist.” The anchor added, “What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place?”
“There’s nothing that offends me about a Jewish state; I am offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy, no matter where they are,” Mr. Coates replied. The men parried for several minutes in a tense but civil manner, with Mr. Coates at one point saying: “Either apartheid is right or wrong. It’s really, really simple.”
You guess wrong about Stewart. If he understood Israel, he would know that the Holocaust narrative is very much not a part of Israeli culture. It’s a Jewish diaspora phenomenon. Israelis hate when people (like Coates and Stewart) connect Israel and the Holocaust because they resent the image of the Jew as a weak victim. So the accusation they make that the Holocaust makes Israelis feel justified in treating the Palestinians poorly is just plain ignorant.
Your suggestion is that someone that “understood Israel” would find the Israel’s actions acceptable. That sounds like a rationalization. I think you’re doing a good job of supporting Coates’s argument. That being “Apartheid is wrong or it isn’t. Its that simple.”
I watched the interview weeks ago now and can’t remember the specific words used, but the general idea was that Dokoupil was accusing Coates of using language and argument Coates never used, then Dokoupil was attacking that strawman.
Dokoupil started his attack on Coates right out of the gate. Dokoupil left no room for thoughtful arguments with his strawman accusations.
He witnessed Israeli apartheid firsthand and was sharing that experience, and its parallels to other apartheid regimes. Dokoupil didn’t seem interested in hearing from Coates and instead Dokoupil looked like he had built his arguments to dismiss Coates long before the interview began. Dokoupil came off looking like he was pushing his own narrative instead of investigating what Coates had reported.
Even if Dokoupil is a straight up zionist with zero interest in entertaining any other ideas, he did his cause a disservice because Coates came off looking more measured and with rational arguments. Dokoupil came off looking a bit unhinged. Dokoupil made me look into Coates more and find logic I hadn’t considered in the Israeli situation. If was attempting Dokoupil to get the audience to dismiss Coates, he achieved the exact opposite.
That’s not what I said. I criticized them for expressing a perspective about Israel’s motives that are simply wrong. And this is a common attitude about Israel I hear all the time: “The Holocaust doesn’t give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way.” That’s simply not how Israelis think.
I’ll admit I haven’t read the book myself because I’m not going to give Coates my money, but I have now heard three different interviews about it. One of those interviews was about an hour long on the Ezra Klein podcast. So my impression is based on listening to him discuss Israel in these three different contexts.
Wrong. He witnessed things that he *interpreted *as apartheid based on his own frame of reference and preconceived notions about Israel. The point is, he doesn’t have the knowledge of the history and the details - he literally describes seeing things and thinking, “That reminds me of apartheid.” For example, he describes having an IDF soldier approach him and ask him questions about his background and how that just feels wrong. Well, those soldiers are trained to do what they do for security purposes because the country has dealt with terrorism for decades.
I totally disagree that Dokoupil came across as “unhinged.” No doubt he was trying very hard to suppress his emotions about the book, but he did not get angry or aggressive or anything. I will give Coates credit, however. He does present himself very well. He comes across as very calm and thoughtful.
I’m no Coates expert, but I haven’t heard him express the idea that “The Holocaust doesn’t give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way.”. I’ve heard him say something to the effect of “The Holocaust perhaps explains why Israelis treat others they way they do”. Coates take doesn’t excuse Israel, but does attempt to humanize their reaction. That isn’t the same idea that you’re expressing. If anything I would think the pro-Israeli camp would appreciate that perspective.
Are you suggesting that Israel doesn’t treat those of the Islamic faith differently that those of Jewish faith as the prime criteria for that different treatment? The “why” is irrelevant. That’s Coates’s point. Any excuse to treat people of a different faith worse is apartheid with extra steps (and rationalization).
If he wasn’t capable of being objective and controlling their emotions with a specific interviewee, he should have bowed out and let others do the interview. Are you sure you watched the interview? Dokoupil’s very first question (nearly a monologue in itself) included such treats as:
“the contents of your book would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist”
…and…
“You did not talk about [other specific violence against Israel]. is it because you believe that Israel, in any condition, doesn’t have a right to exist?”
That last one is a clear strawman.
Those are not comments you say to someone you’re interested in hearing answers out of. Those are questions you ask when you don’t care what the person is going to say because you’re using the questions as a way to advocate you position.
That last Dokoupil comment would be right at home on Fox news.
Bret Baier asked Kamala Harris a question using this same method:
“Half of American’s don’t support you. Is that because you believe they’re stupid?”
CBS should be better than Fox news, and CBS’s rebuke of Dokoupil shows that they are.
That’s precisely what he’s implying. His argument starts from the premise that Israel treats the Palestinians poorly, which is wrong, and then postulates a possible explanation for that treatment. But his implication is very clear: it might be an explanation, but it’s not an excuse or justification. My point is that his explanation is wrong. What he perceives as poor treatment of the Palestinians (heavy security, checkpoints, limitations on travel, etc) is not because of the Holocaust. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. It’s because the Palestinians have been actively murdering Israeli civilians in terror attacks for 40 years. Which is also why his apartheid narrative (which is shared by all anti-Zionists) is inaccurate.
Correct. All citizens of Israel, whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Druze, etc, have equal rights as citizens. The Palestinians don’t because they’re not Israel citizens. It has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. It has to do with citizenship. This is a very, very important point that people don’t understand about Israel (or choose to ignore).
I did watch the interview. The extremist backpack comment may have been a bit melodramatic but Coates’ perspective is an extreme left wing position. And asking him directly if he thinks Israel doesn’t have the right to exist is not a strawman. It’s a question. And a very fair one, since that is the perspective of many who share Coates’ perspective.
Not having as much exposure to to the topic, would you say your take here is a good representative example of what I hear people call a Zionist view or would you consider your views here extreme and not representative of Zionism?
I am representative of centrist Zionists, which make up the vast majority. The problem is that people have been taught by extremist anti-Zionists that the right wing nutjobs in Israel are representative of Zionism, when they simply aren’t. It’s no different than me saying that Islam is a religion of terrorism. That would be blatant Islamophobia, wouldn’t it? But when it comes to Zionism, people think it’s okay to make sweeping generalizations and treat us all as racist fascist scum.
Every society has its extremists. Every single one. The difference with Israel is that Western progressives judge the entire country by its extremists.
I hadn’t been taught this.
I guess I would fall into that category of Western Progressives. I don’t judge groups only by its extremists. This is why I ask you specifically, if the views you were sharing here were representative of modern Zionism.
This is why I wanted to know if what you’re showing is extreme or not. Your views expressed here in this thread are pushing me toward the anti-Zionist camp. If what you are describing is a centrist Zionist view, then I see it troubling and see the points I’m hearing these days about anti-Zionism.
Thank you for being honest with your views and your feelings, it has been very enlightening.
I went back over my comments and can’t figure out what I said that you find so problematic. What could I have possibly said that is pushing you towards the anti-Zionist camp?