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?

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’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.>

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.

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).>

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).

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:>

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.

Your suggestion is that someone that “understood Israel” would find the Israel’s actions acceptable.>

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.

Dokoupil started his attack on Coates right out of the gate. Dokoupil left no room for thoughtful arguments with his strawman accusations.>

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.

He witnessed Israeli apartheid firsthand and was sharing that experience>

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.

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.

Its been a week or two since I watched the Jon Stewart interview, but one of the final questions Stewart asked Coates was something to the effect of “So what is the answer? Where do we go from here with the two side so far apart?” Thank isn’t a difficult question?> What I mean is, he didn’t challenge him at all. He didn’t question any of his assumptions or narratives, he just accepted it all at face value. It wasn’t a journalistic interview, it was a conversation between two people who think the same way.

The fact that strawmanning and attacks are the only thing you’re recognizing as journalism shows how much journalism has deteriorated.> First of all, how did Dokoupil strawman Coates? Second, it wasn’t like Coates offered a thoughtful, intellectual argument. There’s no substance at all to what he says about Israel. he just gives his impressions based on his very limited experience and dresses it up in intellectual clothing.

Typical. Can’t engage in a discussion, huh? I’m guessing that’s because you know as much about Israel as Coates does.

There are roads that both Israelis and Palestinians are prevented from using FOR SECURITY PURPOSES. That’s the problem with Coates’ perspective, he refuses to even ask how it got to this point. He just looks around, sees fences and soldiers acting as security guards and says, “This feels like apartheid.”

It’s not the job of a journalist to kiss the interviewee’s ass and finish their sentences for them. That’s not journalism, that’s marketing and promotion.

The Jon Stewart interview is two people who don’t understand Israel at all talking as though they’re experts on Israel. Stewart didn’t ask Coates a single difficult question or challenge his narrative in any way at all.

Dokoupil did his job and the fact that he’s received so much backlash shows just how far journalism has deteriorated.

Coates thinks he’s an expert on Israel because he took one trip sponsored by Palestinian activist organizations and openly admits that he was only there to hear one side of the story.