No. What we’re seeing is actually the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime, and the dawn of a new era of peace in the Middle East.

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.

Israel will continue to vaporize whomever steps into their place.

And Hezbollah is getting their asses kicked in Lebanon. Even the IDF is shocked at how quickly they’ve made progress. There are reports that captured Hezbollah fighters have admitted they lost their will to fight after Nasrallah was killed. Generals fled.

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.

Thank you. I didn’t really understand what I did to warrant a ban.

I’m old enough to remember George W. Bush arguing in favor of invading Iraq going “They’re violating 17 UN resolutions!” and the reaction from sane people was “Yeah? And Israel is violating 80? 90? We going to invade Israel too?”> Okay, but also not analogous. Bush used this as justification for invading another country that didn’t pose a threat to the US.

Where Squid went off was the whole “UN doing nothing” thing. It’s pretty clear to me you MEANT nothing about 1701, but they are doing a lot of good humanitatarian work on the ground, you know, when Israel isn’t SHOOTING AT THEM.> I’m sure they are. They’re just not doing what they’re supposed to be doing with respect to 1701, and their failure to do so poses an existential threat to Israel. I’m sure you’re aware that in recent days the IDF has uncovered both Hezbollah plans to carry out a 10/7-style attack but on a larger scale, and multiple instances of Hezbollah operating from positions within very close proximity to UNIFIL positions. Kinds looks like UNIFIL has basically been providing cover for Hezbollah.

And you know full well that the Lebanese are controlled by Hezbollah. Unless they want to plunge the country into another devastating civil war, they’re not going to challenge Hezbollah.

Looks like an isolated incident and should be investigated.

This is hilarious. I have to provide evidence for what literally everyone knows is happening in the world right now? Okay, here we go. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-lebanon-after-hezbollah-hits-shebaa-farms-2023-10-08/ https://abcnews.go.com/International/hezbollah-rocket-attacks-northern-israel-spark-fires-destroy/story?id=111593691 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/13/isarel-military-lebanon-south-hezbollah-war/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-peacekeepers-confirm-existence-of-tunnel-from-lebanon-into-israel/ (This is a good one. UNIFIL found a tunnel from Lebanon into Israel back in 2018 and said, “We’ll speak to the Lebanese authorities about it.” Well done.)

No, the creation of Israel was an act of the UN. The UK had promised to help establish both Jewish and Arab homelands in the region. When the UK turned on the Jews and started restricting immigration, in the midst of the Holocaust, that’s when the Zionist militias fought back against the UK. Israel was actually created in spite of the UK, not because of it.

And there was no foreign invader. The Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine for hundreds of years, was a foreign invader. They lost control of the land in WWI and Britain took temporary control. Jews didn’t invade anything. They literally purchased land and moved in, like immigrants do. They had to establish a militia to protect themselves from Arab aggression.

Do you know how many countries in the world have been established through partition plans and political agreements? Why is that not good enough for the Palestinians?

Every citizen of Israel participates in government, Arabs included. To repeat: Palestinians aren’t citizens of Israel. The people of Gaza elected Hamas as their government, remember? Why should they have their own territory with their own government but also benefit from Israeli citizenship?

“You clearly are a supporter of the geonicide, the settlements, the throwing Palestinians out of their homes, burning their fields, killing, raping, spitting on them as they walk the street below in jerseleum, and the myriad of crimes isrealis commit daily.”

Pretty childish, which is typical of Palestinian activists. You know you don’t have the facts on your side so you resort to rhetoric, strawman arguments, and ad hominem attacks.

And that shows just how little you understand about this conflict.

The evidence is the fact that the UN has been stationed in southern Lebanon since 2006 and in that time Hezbollah has established bases all across the region, which is in direct violation of UN Resolution 1701, and now the IDF is coming across those bases and weapons caches within spitting distance of UN watchtowers. And even after Hezbollah declared war on Israel by launching rockets into Israel starting on Oct 8, 2023, those same UN peacekeepers have done nothing to stop them and have tried to prevent Israel from retaliating.

So although it was a rhetorical question, it really wasn’t.

You should use that network to look up “rhetorical question”

They want them out because they don’t want them caught in the crossfire. They serve no purpose there, so might as well GTFO before they get killed.

This is almost entirely false.

1. Jews have always lived in Palestine, for thousands of years. Jews and Arabs are both indigenous to the region. Jews purchased land and moved in. The violence was brought by the Arabs, who spent about 20 years attacking Jews and trying to drive them out. The war that led to the displacement and death was started by Arab nations invading Israel to destroy it. All of that, and the ensuing 75 years of violence, could have been avoided if the Arabs accepted either of the two partition plans that would have given the Palestinians their own state.
2. Arabs are not excluded from citizenship in Israel. There are about 2 million Arab citizens of Israel with full rights as Israeli citizens. There is an Arab political party in the Knesset. There is an Arab on the Supreme Court. The Palestinians don’t have the same rights because they are not Israel citizens by choice. They are governed by Hamas and the PA. I can tell by your comments you are clearly someone who gets all their information about the conflict from either TikTok or from your keffiyeh-wearing buddies on your college campus.

What have those “peacekeepers” been doing for the past 20 years, aside from watching while Hezbollah turns southern Lebanon into a terrorist base? Do they snack on popcorn while watching Hezbollah’s rockets fly into Israel?