John, hopefully I am not speaking out of turn. But to answer what is the responsibility for a black intellectual?
To be an intellectual.
Full stop. It should be the responsibility of every intellectual and it should not be conditioned on race. They should take them where their interests lead them and be interested in all that is available to be offered to them.
Glenn. I am 25mins into this. And I have been subscribed and listened to you for years. This is the first time I have found you to sound stupid. Not disagree. But your points and how you justify them are purely idiotic.
I will continue to listen. I have appreciated you for years. But dear god, learn more about the topic. And also (apparently), open your damn eyes. The Palestinian perspective IS in the NYT, is in WaPo, is in WSJ, is on CNN, is on MSNBC, is coming from our politicians in Washington, is coming from our universities, is coming from alternative media absolutely everywhere, it is literally all around us.
In fact I think it is so ubiquitous, you don’t even realize how terribly uninformed your opinions are as you’re being informed by them. It is astounding to me.
For a comparison you sound like Tucker Carlson on WWII or on Ukraine but from the other side.
Glenn you just said “responsibility for whom? He’s speaking for the Palestinians!” As if that justified anything you are even supporting…
Ok yes, he’s speaking for the Palestinians, I accept that. So, the solution is to make a terrible half baked lazy (Johns verbiage) argument that doesn’t engage with any of the issues so that he can support the Palestinians??
That is how his argument is going to win the day? Are you serious? Where the hell is your sanity in this discussion?
In total frustration with Glenn may I suggest he read the recent short book by Bernard Henri Levy, "Israel Alone" to get a sense of the morality that I think he misses in his adulation of Coates book and views.
Can you imagine Glenn -- who tells us every five minutes, in capital letters, that he is an INTELLECTUAL -- engaging in conversation with someone as knowledgable on the Middle East as Bernard Henri Levy, who among other things is probably the most dedicated, accomplished, respected human rights activist in the world.
No way! Glenn loves Coates language. Let him read "Israel Alone" in English the language is spectacular. I can just imagine reading it in the original French. Without addressing Glenn directly Levy debunks all of his arguments. Watch Levy tell Fareed Zakariah that the notion of "context" in this case is "Bull Shit".
All of our previous suggestions for Glenn to engage with more pro Israel voices on his show are not necessary. Just read these 150 or so pages by Levy and come back to us with his thoughts.
Glenn has spent several years on this podcast taking issue with the 3 named writers, anti-racism, certain areas of black culture, BLM (how's that helped inner city blacks), the riots, the decimation of cities, the infantilizing & condescension of same & multiple rants "no ones coming to save you!!" Apparently it only applies to blacks, not other POC especially the Palestinians today. Yes, civilians deaths in war is sad and much has been said below so I won't repeat. If Israel wanted a genocide they could have made a parking lot of Gaza in a few days, drove the Palestinians into the sea & made martyrs of the hostages. Sound familiar.
A fascinating conversation. Since John compared Chloé Valdary and Thomas Chatterton Williams favorably to Coates, here's a link to a thread from last year that may be relevant:
It begins with Chloé quote tweeting Thomas praising Coates, to which I respond with my favorite quote from Coates, to which Chloé then responds. I am quite certain that if these two were listening in they would be fully on your side of the exchange.
i like that quote, it could have been Glenn who said that. But if that is the case white folks like me can claim Glenn . . . no?
I deal a good deal with the white guys took black music meme. I like the music, and perhaps worse, I like what white people have done with it. Can I claim that, or is it like the use of N word and this whole deal of what you embrace is policed by people like Coates (or, to. be fair by those who now think Glenn is off the reservation onsome anti-semitic walkabout?)
I wonder how deeply Coates is committed to the view he expresses in that passage.
It is surely fair to say that John is predisposed to distaste for the gravamen if not the aesthetic of Coates writing. But given your apparent solicitous regard for Glenn's side of this debate I must say that I do side with John–and I quite more often side with Glenn. This phenomenon is perhaps what leads to the consternation in this comment chain that you noted on the podcast. I think it completely unfair for folks who more generally find solidarity with Glenn to be upset or let down that there is an issue on which they disagree–indeed, as John notes, such a highly complex issue. I actually find it refreshing and celebrate the seriousness of disagreement these men could have as such serious friends. I disagree with one of the greatest intellects in the country, Hadley Arkes on the Dobbs decions–thinking that Roberts concurrence, for once, should have been the opinion. I don't find that disappointing, but, as Samuel Johnson is reported to have said regarding a day that Burke would argue in parliment: I must prepare!
Despite disagreeing with Glenn–always at the peril of losing the argument–I'm with John and do think that publishing The Message in 2024 (not sure when the contract and general form of manuscript were arrived at) without a postnote at least as to Oct. 7th 2023 is gross misconduct. While the book was apparently written from the perspective of a gray sameness approximating some aspects analogous to apartheid in the west bank and might, at the time written, have been a fair standalone first person reminder of the true occupation, published at this time, even under the cloak of essays from a writing class, it cannot but serve as an implicit justification for october 7th–which if that is what he is doing , Coates should have the stones to say so.
He came close in his post publication interview where he coyly says he could see himself participating with Hamas on October 7th–essentially accepting his earlier characterizations of the west bank as justifying the pro-Hamas stand and the unaddressed notion that Gaza is like the West Bank. Fine, many could see themselves participating in the Israeli war in Gaza (and perhaps Lebanon) and see those as existential self-defense with a positive moral asymmetry from october 7th–even as a different argument with which I don't agree could be made that october 7th was justified and the Israeli war is not.
Israel's failing, in my view, is not the use of calculated assymetrical military force with inevitable if not remotely genocidal civilian casulties, it was the complete failure in anticipation of and response to October 7th. I do not suffer from Bibi derangement Syndrome and think the judicial reforms proposed long overdue, but he should have resigned the week after the attack.
But I feel very uneasy when any piece of writing done in good faith is described as gross misconduct. My conversation with Glenn this week covers some of this ground.
Glenn, I hate that you are forcing me to read this book, but as you are one of my favorite voices, and your opinion differs from my predisposition on it, I'll have to.
I'm supposed to agree with Glenn, but I find myself agreeing with John. Love you guys for being complex!
I haven't read the book, so I'm possibly way off base, but here's the argument I'd want to make:
1) If Hamas wanted to end the savagery, it could surrender. Release the hostages and surrender authority in Gaza. If Hamas cared about their own people, wouldn't they do that?
2) Why don't they? Why shouldn't they?
3) I suspect the answer would be "Israel is in the wrong"
4) Why? (I think they're not, but admit the answer is complex.)
5) I suspect Coates sees it as "European settler colonialism". Which *is* the fraternal twin of "white supremacy".
6) Why doesn't Coates appear so upset over other atrocities? What ever happened to the Uyghurs, etc.? IMHO, no "European settlers" involved.
And I don't like Coates language. John pointed out the "open air prison" fallacy. Or Glenns. Given's Israel's overwhelming advantage in military firepower, if they were truly engaged in genocide, there'd be 400K dead, not 40K dead.
Finally, to say "I can imagine being in the state of mind of Oct 7"? It's one thing to kill indiscriminately, but to rape and mutilate? That's pretty dark. People are capable of that (many examples throughout history), but I'm not sure what to do with that other than to recoil in horror from our own nature.
When I first saw the prior video (before Mr. McWhorter had read the book), I truly was worried that Mr. Loury was ill…….perhaps he had a fever, or had taken too many pain pills for his back surgery.
Fast forward to today, and it is amazing to see how dead wrong Mr. McWhorter is about the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Absolutely dead wrong.
About 20 years ago, I decided to begin reading books that might explain why the Palestinian/Israeli question had never been solved. I discovered Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky. I read a history book of the modern Middle East (the author’s name escapes me). I eventually participated in a humanitarian aid mission to deliver medical supplies to Gaza. I went with a group to visit Lebanon to see the occupied Golan Heights.
When a nation ethnically cleanses an indigenous population from their homeland, the displaced people’s desire to return home never goes away. NEVER.
I am happy that Israel was created after Balfour, and after the horrors of WW2. And I will be equally happy when Palestinians are free to have their OWN state residing next to Israel.
But Mr. Loury is 100% correct in saying that virtually nowhere in mainstream US media is the Palestinian version of truth ever told. They deserve a voice……THaNK YOU Mr. Loury for giving a sh*t about Palestinians.
And, ‘yes’, Mr. Coates’ book just arrived yesterday. I plan to read it in the next few weeks, but I have no illusions that it will add much to the authors I have studied well before this new book has arrived. And if Mr. Coates’ has dumbed it down so much that a fool could understand the Palestinian perspective, then BRAVO for Mr. Coates!
So I guess the Israeli's want to return to their homeland after being booted out by the Romans in 135 AD. The Greeks want to return to Constantinople after being conquered by the Ottomans in 1453 AD. And so on. This seems like a problem.
I note that Israel's population is roughly 20% Arab (I'm not sure they call themselves Palestinians) and there's an Arab party in the Knesset. So it would seem the ethnic cleansing was only partially successful. Unlike the ethnic cleansing that's occurred pretty much everywhere else in the Middle East where Jews and Christian populations have basically been eradicated. Why isn't that also an issue?
John is soo out of his depth. If this would have been my first encounter I would never listen to him again. I will list why I say this.
* The most egregious example of his ignorance is to cite Benny Morris as a pro-Palestinian voice. Benny Morris has advocated using nuclear weapons and has critcised Netanyahu for being too soft.
* Acting as if Apartheid is Coates invention. Ignoring who Coates cites, Ehud Barack, Olmert and virtually all Human Rights orgs including Israeli ones.
* Acting as if Coates invented “Open air Prison” when it was the Conservative Prime Minister Cameron who described it as such. And the prison like conditions is agreed on by virtually all observers. Giora Eiland Called gaza a “concentration camp” This same Eiland is now advocating to make Gaza “a place where no human can exist”
I could go on. But he is arguing in bad faith, he is letting his previous hatred and disagreement with Coates to colour everything he says.
It’s incredibly cringe and unbecoming of such a brilliant man.
i agree regarding benny morris, albeit what brings morris to mind is the context of heterodox jewish viewpoints which can at once have more nuanced view of palestinian circumstances but more aggressive sense of israel standing against the threats in the region, i.e. morris thinks differently or at least expresses himself differently than other israeli observors. and glenn made your point and mcwhorter acknowledged.
but you lost me when you started talking about human rights organizations. my impression is they all operate ideologically like the southern poverty law center, that bunch of hopeless leftists who think charles murray is anti-humanist for investigating the human condition.
coates did not invent the analogies but I think mcwhorter is right that he lazily adopts them , which is precisely what john says. I didn't find this the least bit cringe but I found the serious disagreement over the merits of the expression–moreso than the substance– refreshing. And reading the comments, I have an opposite side of the same coin take:
i have no patience whatsoever for those who walk up to the edge of calling Glenn an anti-semite for giving Coates work the benefit of the doubt. Heterodox is as heterodox does and we should get used to the reality that we are not substantively unified. Just because much sympathy for the Palestinians is couched in a racialist leitmotif is not a reason to support or oppose Israeli methods. The proper strategy would have been for Israel to be ready for October 7th. The failings are not simply the antihumanist orgy of October 7th itself. Glenn should be free to say so and his heterodox community free to disagree.
But, anyone who has listened to Glenn for any amount of time will recognize that his argument here does not reflect that he shares Coates outlook–albeit Glenn has expressed an empathy with the Palestinian circumstance without invoking the more extreme metaphors of apartheid, open air prison, and genocide. But Glenn does not attempt to place Coates views outside the overton window of discourse which is what the progressives have tried to do to anyone who disagrees with them. He concedes that they lack context but defends Coates against the charge of laziness. His earnest distillation of Coates expression is the zenith of his ability to synthesize the arguments and sympathies of those with whom he does not [perfectly] agree.
The danger of Coates outlook is quite more subtle than egging on a bunch of low information students. Supporting the use of extreme metaphors both exaggerates the circumstance and undermines our historic understanding of the circumstances that give rise to those metaphors. Thus I agree with John that if you are going to use them you should distinguish. The lazy allegory that those who don't think Florida will disappear under the Atlantic some few decades hence are seriously akin to holocaust deniers is the very kind of reason that the ethnostate arising from the ashes of the holocaust finds itself crowned the new South Africa. Likewise, to the extent that American descendants of slaves find their circumstances uniquely unavailing generations later and still seek society's attention to erasing the stain of their fraught heritage, the cooption of the civil rights movement inspired by the failure of reconstruction to prevent ubiquitous jim crow and its de facto cousins by the gay rights and womens rights and now trans rights movement cheapens their case. It is not that the "Civil rights" cannot be invoked in those cases, but too closely analogizing these movements means we lose sight of the original.
So should the Coates book have taken more cognizance of the context that lead to the circumstances he criticizes. My indictment of the book which at the same time is also a defense of it is that it was written before October 7th. The sadly treadworn metaphors of open air prison and apartheid are hardly new here. And the essay was written when they were the wrot Palestinian experience in the West Bank and calling attention to this before October 7th spilled this circumstance into the sleeping international conscience. And Gaza doesn't even count , the occupation is the West Bank–should have gone to Jordanian administration decades ago and the settlements are a needless provocation that hint at an alternative river to the sea vision.
I don't at all mean that it was wrong to look seriously at the Palestinian cause before October 7th, but it is malpractice to publish what was a paean to the apparently lost Palestinian cause written before October 7th in the wake of that event without making some kind of postnote–as it otherwise unavoidably serves as a kind of justification. If that is what you mean you should say so. If October 7th is no more justified than what is currently taking place in Gaza you should say that. You shouldn't say nothing. And to coyly say in post publication interview that you could see yourself taking part in October 7th obviously ignores that plenty of people could see themselves reacting to Oct. 7th as Israel has . . .
Meanwhile, in related news, the President of the Palestinian Authority landed in Russia today to meet with his pal Putin. Can this situation be any clearer?!?
"Error never shows itself in its naked reality, in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself." —Irenaeus
A few simple thoughts. McWhorter is right. Coates is a moral simpleton. Singular focus on oppressor/oppressed framing is not useful. The ME is different from the USA. Coates is an antisemite. It's becoming dangerous to identify as a Jew in the USA. Identitarianism is horrible for the societal health of the pluralistic USA.
Before, I had characterized John as having TDS. Trump Derangement Syndrome. Now, it's Glenn's turn at TDS. Ta-Nehisi Derangement Syndrome. Why? Well, first let me say that if Glenn were in my class on Ethics, Cultural Anthropology or Political Economy (the latter I've only taught as a subset in an intro anthro class), he would have gotten a D. I would have given him an F, but for his enthusiasm for Ta-Nehisi's writing style but not the substance in these respective classes. Here's the why for that grade: 1) excellent writing style might credit one in an English class, but beyond that, we're into fallacy thinking about real world consequences for border checkpoints, apartheid, and even humanity (need I say more?); 2) when I teach about "humanity," I speak to the good, the bad and the ugly -- just saying "humanity" is a naive position unless one embraces it all; 3) if Ta-Nehisi was reaching for this broader sense of humanity -- what John said Ta-Nehisi imagined when he was interviewed by Ezra Klein and imagined that he could have been with Hamas on October 7th given the claim of total "victimhood," then those atrocities would have been actually a chapter, or even a paragraph, in his book (The Message); without that text, as John would have appreciated in a broader discussion, Ta-Nehisi's eloquence ends up being the sound of one-hand clapping. I might mention that the imperial (broadly conceived) enterprise in the Middle East from the 15th century to the present has been largely one of Islamic control. To speak of Israel's "imperialism" is to cast the molehill as a mountain. Yes, Glenn, you have TDS. A shame. John was trying to help you understand complexity where it is the bright light and simplicity (either as the sin of commission or ommision) being Plato's cave of shadows.
this does not map TDS, BDS the lesser use Bibi Derangement Syndrome maybe, but i'm sorry to say as one who supports Netanyahu in other contexts this happened on his watch and to an extent follows from his strategies and preparation. But there you impute that because Glenn is willing to listen to or consider Coates argument (he never says he agrees with it) that he finds no defense of the Israeli actions and thus must have TDS or BDS, neither of which is in evidence–even though I don't agree with Glenn's take on Coates and don't subscribe to the extent of his internal conflict over Gaza.
And I have said elsewhere in this chain and it can't be repeated enough that the Israeli action that is indefensible is NOT street fighting with attendant civilian casualties to extirpate Hamas (not really possible and has its own unintended consequences, not strategy all might choose, but an understandable and at least arguably defensible response to October 7th). What is indefensible IS the lack of anticipation and the poor response to the events of October 7th. That is not to countenance Hamas or its actions but how can you say that you cordon Gaza because of the terrorist intent of its rulers and then be shocked that they would resort to terrorism and so unprepared which made the outcome worse.
In 2000, America elected a president who at least came in proposing a less interventionist world policeman role and more city on a hill approach to global affairs and its citizens can be foregiven for being surprised by 9/11 (which is not to forgive all intelligence failures or America's earlier and continuing deep state international intrigue that left unaddressed the sentiments inspiring 9/11). But Israel cannot raise as a context it's constant hostile neighbors who resort often to terrorism where conventional warfare has been unavailing and the necessity to respond to such provocations asymmetrically and then be shocked that Hamas would do something like October 7th which is precisely how asymmetrical macro-conflicts are fought and Israel is caught completely flat-footed.
Netanyahu should have resign the week after October 7th.
Wow, Prof. Loury. Et tu?
Never imagined you too were sharpening your knives for the Jews.
In him u I’m v
John, hopefully I am not speaking out of turn. But to answer what is the responsibility for a black intellectual?
To be an intellectual.
Full stop. It should be the responsibility of every intellectual and it should not be conditioned on race. They should take them where their interests lead them and be interested in all that is available to be offered to them.
Glenn. I am 25mins into this. And I have been subscribed and listened to you for years. This is the first time I have found you to sound stupid. Not disagree. But your points and how you justify them are purely idiotic.
I will continue to listen. I have appreciated you for years. But dear god, learn more about the topic. And also (apparently), open your damn eyes. The Palestinian perspective IS in the NYT, is in WaPo, is in WSJ, is on CNN, is on MSNBC, is coming from our politicians in Washington, is coming from our universities, is coming from alternative media absolutely everywhere, it is literally all around us.
In fact I think it is so ubiquitous, you don’t even realize how terribly uninformed your opinions are as you’re being informed by them. It is astounding to me.
For a comparison you sound like Tucker Carlson on WWII or on Ukraine but from the other side.
Glenn you just said “responsibility for whom? He’s speaking for the Palestinians!” As if that justified anything you are even supporting…
Ok yes, he’s speaking for the Palestinians, I accept that. So, the solution is to make a terrible half baked lazy (Johns verbiage) argument that doesn’t engage with any of the issues so that he can support the Palestinians??
That is how his argument is going to win the day? Are you serious? Where the hell is your sanity in this discussion?
In total frustration with Glenn may I suggest he read the recent short book by Bernard Henri Levy, "Israel Alone" to get a sense of the morality that I think he misses in his adulation of Coates book and views.
Can you imagine Glenn -- who tells us every five minutes, in capital letters, that he is an INTELLECTUAL -- engaging in conversation with someone as knowledgable on the Middle East as Bernard Henri Levy, who among other things is probably the most dedicated, accomplished, respected human rights activist in the world.
No way! Glenn loves Coates language. Let him read "Israel Alone" in English the language is spectacular. I can just imagine reading it in the original French. Without addressing Glenn directly Levy debunks all of his arguments. Watch Levy tell Fareed Zakariah that the notion of "context" in this case is "Bull Shit".
All of our previous suggestions for Glenn to engage with more pro Israel voices on his show are not necessary. Just read these 150 or so pages by Levy and come back to us with his thoughts.
Glenn has spent several years on this podcast taking issue with the 3 named writers, anti-racism, certain areas of black culture, BLM (how's that helped inner city blacks), the riots, the decimation of cities, the infantilizing & condescension of same & multiple rants "no ones coming to save you!!" Apparently it only applies to blacks, not other POC especially the Palestinians today. Yes, civilians deaths in war is sad and much has been said below so I won't repeat. If Israel wanted a genocide they could have made a parking lot of Gaza in a few days, drove the Palestinians into the sea & made martyrs of the hostages. Sound familiar.
https://www.thefp.com/p/ad-israel-book-canceled-jewish-author-bernard-henri-levy-shelf-awareness-booksellers-mag
A fascinating conversation. Since John compared Chloé Valdary and Thomas Chatterton Williams favorably to Coates, here's a link to a thread from last year that may be relevant:
https://x.com/cvaldary/status/1621159919193051138
It begins with Chloé quote tweeting Thomas praising Coates, to which I respond with my favorite quote from Coates, to which Chloé then responds. I am quite certain that if these two were listening in they would be fully on your side of the exchange.
i like that quote, it could have been Glenn who said that. But if that is the case white folks like me can claim Glenn . . . no?
I deal a good deal with the white guys took black music meme. I like the music, and perhaps worse, I like what white people have done with it. Can I claim that, or is it like the use of N word and this whole deal of what you embrace is policed by people like Coates (or, to. be fair by those who now think Glenn is off the reservation onsome anti-semitic walkabout?)
I wonder how deeply Coates is committed to the view he expresses in that passage.
It is surely fair to say that John is predisposed to distaste for the gravamen if not the aesthetic of Coates writing. But given your apparent solicitous regard for Glenn's side of this debate I must say that I do side with John–and I quite more often side with Glenn. This phenomenon is perhaps what leads to the consternation in this comment chain that you noted on the podcast. I think it completely unfair for folks who more generally find solidarity with Glenn to be upset or let down that there is an issue on which they disagree–indeed, as John notes, such a highly complex issue. I actually find it refreshing and celebrate the seriousness of disagreement these men could have as such serious friends. I disagree with one of the greatest intellects in the country, Hadley Arkes on the Dobbs decions–thinking that Roberts concurrence, for once, should have been the opinion. I don't find that disappointing, but, as Samuel Johnson is reported to have said regarding a day that Burke would argue in parliment: I must prepare!
Despite disagreeing with Glenn–always at the peril of losing the argument–I'm with John and do think that publishing The Message in 2024 (not sure when the contract and general form of manuscript were arrived at) without a postnote at least as to Oct. 7th 2023 is gross misconduct. While the book was apparently written from the perspective of a gray sameness approximating some aspects analogous to apartheid in the west bank and might, at the time written, have been a fair standalone first person reminder of the true occupation, published at this time, even under the cloak of essays from a writing class, it cannot but serve as an implicit justification for october 7th–which if that is what he is doing , Coates should have the stones to say so.
He came close in his post publication interview where he coyly says he could see himself participating with Hamas on October 7th–essentially accepting his earlier characterizations of the west bank as justifying the pro-Hamas stand and the unaddressed notion that Gaza is like the West Bank. Fine, many could see themselves participating in the Israeli war in Gaza (and perhaps Lebanon) and see those as existential self-defense with a positive moral asymmetry from october 7th–even as a different argument with which I don't agree could be made that october 7th was justified and the Israeli war is not.
Israel's failing, in my view, is not the use of calculated assymetrical military force with inevitable if not remotely genocidal civilian casulties, it was the complete failure in anticipation of and response to October 7th. I do not suffer from Bibi derangement Syndrome and think the judicial reforms proposed long overdue, but he should have resigned the week after the attack.
Certainly you can and should claim Glenn.
But I feel very uneasy when any piece of writing done in good faith is described as gross misconduct. My conversation with Glenn this week covers some of this ground.
Glenn, I hate that you are forcing me to read this book, but as you are one of my favorite voices, and your opinion differs from my predisposition on it, I'll have to.
I'm supposed to agree with Glenn, but I find myself agreeing with John. Love you guys for being complex!
I haven't read the book, so I'm possibly way off base, but here's the argument I'd want to make:
1) If Hamas wanted to end the savagery, it could surrender. Release the hostages and surrender authority in Gaza. If Hamas cared about their own people, wouldn't they do that?
2) Why don't they? Why shouldn't they?
3) I suspect the answer would be "Israel is in the wrong"
4) Why? (I think they're not, but admit the answer is complex.)
5) I suspect Coates sees it as "European settler colonialism". Which *is* the fraternal twin of "white supremacy".
6) Why doesn't Coates appear so upset over other atrocities? What ever happened to the Uyghurs, etc.? IMHO, no "European settlers" involved.
And I don't like Coates language. John pointed out the "open air prison" fallacy. Or Glenns. Given's Israel's overwhelming advantage in military firepower, if they were truly engaged in genocide, there'd be 400K dead, not 40K dead.
Finally, to say "I can imagine being in the state of mind of Oct 7"? It's one thing to kill indiscriminately, but to rape and mutilate? That's pretty dark. People are capable of that (many examples throughout history), but I'm not sure what to do with that other than to recoil in horror from our own nature.
When I first saw the prior video (before Mr. McWhorter had read the book), I truly was worried that Mr. Loury was ill…….perhaps he had a fever, or had taken too many pain pills for his back surgery.
Fast forward to today, and it is amazing to see how dead wrong Mr. McWhorter is about the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Absolutely dead wrong.
About 20 years ago, I decided to begin reading books that might explain why the Palestinian/Israeli question had never been solved. I discovered Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky. I read a history book of the modern Middle East (the author’s name escapes me). I eventually participated in a humanitarian aid mission to deliver medical supplies to Gaza. I went with a group to visit Lebanon to see the occupied Golan Heights.
When a nation ethnically cleanses an indigenous population from their homeland, the displaced people’s desire to return home never goes away. NEVER.
I am happy that Israel was created after Balfour, and after the horrors of WW2. And I will be equally happy when Palestinians are free to have their OWN state residing next to Israel.
But Mr. Loury is 100% correct in saying that virtually nowhere in mainstream US media is the Palestinian version of truth ever told. They deserve a voice……THaNK YOU Mr. Loury for giving a sh*t about Palestinians.
And, ‘yes’, Mr. Coates’ book just arrived yesterday. I plan to read it in the next few weeks, but I have no illusions that it will add much to the authors I have studied well before this new book has arrived. And if Mr. Coates’ has dumbed it down so much that a fool could understand the Palestinian perspective, then BRAVO for Mr. Coates!
"The displaced people want to go home... "
So I guess the Israeli's want to return to their homeland after being booted out by the Romans in 135 AD. The Greeks want to return to Constantinople after being conquered by the Ottomans in 1453 AD. And so on. This seems like a problem.
Indeed the Israelis HAVE returned home. It is the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that occurred in 1948 that is the issue here.
I note that Israel's population is roughly 20% Arab (I'm not sure they call themselves Palestinians) and there's an Arab party in the Knesset. So it would seem the ethnic cleansing was only partially successful. Unlike the ethnic cleansing that's occurred pretty much everywhere else in the Middle East where Jews and Christian populations have basically been eradicated. Why isn't that also an issue?
Read Ilan Pappe’s book entitled, “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ written in 2006. And have a great day.
John is soo out of his depth. If this would have been my first encounter I would never listen to him again. I will list why I say this.
* The most egregious example of his ignorance is to cite Benny Morris as a pro-Palestinian voice. Benny Morris has advocated using nuclear weapons and has critcised Netanyahu for being too soft.
* Acting as if Apartheid is Coates invention. Ignoring who Coates cites, Ehud Barack, Olmert and virtually all Human Rights orgs including Israeli ones.
* Acting as if Coates invented “Open air Prison” when it was the Conservative Prime Minister Cameron who described it as such. And the prison like conditions is agreed on by virtually all observers. Giora Eiland Called gaza a “concentration camp” This same Eiland is now advocating to make Gaza “a place where no human can exist”
I could go on. But he is arguing in bad faith, he is letting his previous hatred and disagreement with Coates to colour everything he says.
It’s incredibly cringe and unbecoming of such a brilliant man.
i agree regarding benny morris, albeit what brings morris to mind is the context of heterodox jewish viewpoints which can at once have more nuanced view of palestinian circumstances but more aggressive sense of israel standing against the threats in the region, i.e. morris thinks differently or at least expresses himself differently than other israeli observors. and glenn made your point and mcwhorter acknowledged.
but you lost me when you started talking about human rights organizations. my impression is they all operate ideologically like the southern poverty law center, that bunch of hopeless leftists who think charles murray is anti-humanist for investigating the human condition.
coates did not invent the analogies but I think mcwhorter is right that he lazily adopts them , which is precisely what john says. I didn't find this the least bit cringe but I found the serious disagreement over the merits of the expression–moreso than the substance– refreshing. And reading the comments, I have an opposite side of the same coin take:
i have no patience whatsoever for those who walk up to the edge of calling Glenn an anti-semite for giving Coates work the benefit of the doubt. Heterodox is as heterodox does and we should get used to the reality that we are not substantively unified. Just because much sympathy for the Palestinians is couched in a racialist leitmotif is not a reason to support or oppose Israeli methods. The proper strategy would have been for Israel to be ready for October 7th. The failings are not simply the antihumanist orgy of October 7th itself. Glenn should be free to say so and his heterodox community free to disagree.
But, anyone who has listened to Glenn for any amount of time will recognize that his argument here does not reflect that he shares Coates outlook–albeit Glenn has expressed an empathy with the Palestinian circumstance without invoking the more extreme metaphors of apartheid, open air prison, and genocide. But Glenn does not attempt to place Coates views outside the overton window of discourse which is what the progressives have tried to do to anyone who disagrees with them. He concedes that they lack context but defends Coates against the charge of laziness. His earnest distillation of Coates expression is the zenith of his ability to synthesize the arguments and sympathies of those with whom he does not [perfectly] agree.
The danger of Coates outlook is quite more subtle than egging on a bunch of low information students. Supporting the use of extreme metaphors both exaggerates the circumstance and undermines our historic understanding of the circumstances that give rise to those metaphors. Thus I agree with John that if you are going to use them you should distinguish. The lazy allegory that those who don't think Florida will disappear under the Atlantic some few decades hence are seriously akin to holocaust deniers is the very kind of reason that the ethnostate arising from the ashes of the holocaust finds itself crowned the new South Africa. Likewise, to the extent that American descendants of slaves find their circumstances uniquely unavailing generations later and still seek society's attention to erasing the stain of their fraught heritage, the cooption of the civil rights movement inspired by the failure of reconstruction to prevent ubiquitous jim crow and its de facto cousins by the gay rights and womens rights and now trans rights movement cheapens their case. It is not that the "Civil rights" cannot be invoked in those cases, but too closely analogizing these movements means we lose sight of the original.
So should the Coates book have taken more cognizance of the context that lead to the circumstances he criticizes. My indictment of the book which at the same time is also a defense of it is that it was written before October 7th. The sadly treadworn metaphors of open air prison and apartheid are hardly new here. And the essay was written when they were the wrot Palestinian experience in the West Bank and calling attention to this before October 7th spilled this circumstance into the sleeping international conscience. And Gaza doesn't even count , the occupation is the West Bank–should have gone to Jordanian administration decades ago and the settlements are a needless provocation that hint at an alternative river to the sea vision.
I don't at all mean that it was wrong to look seriously at the Palestinian cause before October 7th, but it is malpractice to publish what was a paean to the apparently lost Palestinian cause written before October 7th in the wake of that event without making some kind of postnote–as it otherwise unavoidably serves as a kind of justification. If that is what you mean you should say so. If October 7th is no more justified than what is currently taking place in Gaza you should say that. You shouldn't say nothing. And to coyly say in post publication interview that you could see yourself taking part in October 7th obviously ignores that plenty of people could see themselves reacting to Oct. 7th as Israel has . . .
Meanwhile, in related news, the President of the Palestinian Authority landed in Russia today to meet with his pal Putin. Can this situation be any clearer?!?
"Error never shows itself in its naked reality, in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself." —Irenaeus
A few simple thoughts. McWhorter is right. Coates is a moral simpleton. Singular focus on oppressor/oppressed framing is not useful. The ME is different from the USA. Coates is an antisemite. It's becoming dangerous to identify as a Jew in the USA. Identitarianism is horrible for the societal health of the pluralistic USA.
Before, I had characterized John as having TDS. Trump Derangement Syndrome. Now, it's Glenn's turn at TDS. Ta-Nehisi Derangement Syndrome. Why? Well, first let me say that if Glenn were in my class on Ethics, Cultural Anthropology or Political Economy (the latter I've only taught as a subset in an intro anthro class), he would have gotten a D. I would have given him an F, but for his enthusiasm for Ta-Nehisi's writing style but not the substance in these respective classes. Here's the why for that grade: 1) excellent writing style might credit one in an English class, but beyond that, we're into fallacy thinking about real world consequences for border checkpoints, apartheid, and even humanity (need I say more?); 2) when I teach about "humanity," I speak to the good, the bad and the ugly -- just saying "humanity" is a naive position unless one embraces it all; 3) if Ta-Nehisi was reaching for this broader sense of humanity -- what John said Ta-Nehisi imagined when he was interviewed by Ezra Klein and imagined that he could have been with Hamas on October 7th given the claim of total "victimhood," then those atrocities would have been actually a chapter, or even a paragraph, in his book (The Message); without that text, as John would have appreciated in a broader discussion, Ta-Nehisi's eloquence ends up being the sound of one-hand clapping. I might mention that the imperial (broadly conceived) enterprise in the Middle East from the 15th century to the present has been largely one of Islamic control. To speak of Israel's "imperialism" is to cast the molehill as a mountain. Yes, Glenn, you have TDS. A shame. John was trying to help you understand complexity where it is the bright light and simplicity (either as the sin of commission or ommision) being Plato's cave of shadows.
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
this does not map TDS, BDS the lesser use Bibi Derangement Syndrome maybe, but i'm sorry to say as one who supports Netanyahu in other contexts this happened on his watch and to an extent follows from his strategies and preparation. But there you impute that because Glenn is willing to listen to or consider Coates argument (he never says he agrees with it) that he finds no defense of the Israeli actions and thus must have TDS or BDS, neither of which is in evidence–even though I don't agree with Glenn's take on Coates and don't subscribe to the extent of his internal conflict over Gaza.
And I have said elsewhere in this chain and it can't be repeated enough that the Israeli action that is indefensible is NOT street fighting with attendant civilian casualties to extirpate Hamas (not really possible and has its own unintended consequences, not strategy all might choose, but an understandable and at least arguably defensible response to October 7th). What is indefensible IS the lack of anticipation and the poor response to the events of October 7th. That is not to countenance Hamas or its actions but how can you say that you cordon Gaza because of the terrorist intent of its rulers and then be shocked that they would resort to terrorism and so unprepared which made the outcome worse.
In 2000, America elected a president who at least came in proposing a less interventionist world policeman role and more city on a hill approach to global affairs and its citizens can be foregiven for being surprised by 9/11 (which is not to forgive all intelligence failures or America's earlier and continuing deep state international intrigue that left unaddressed the sentiments inspiring 9/11). But Israel cannot raise as a context it's constant hostile neighbors who resort often to terrorism where conventional warfare has been unavailing and the necessity to respond to such provocations asymmetrically and then be shocked that Hamas would do something like October 7th which is precisely how asymmetrical macro-conflicts are fought and Israel is caught completely flat-footed.
Netanyahu should have resign the week after October 7th.