Benny Morris!!!! Thrilled to read this and see you chiming in. I have relied on and learned so much from your work. 1948 and Righteous Victims especially. This sentence for me, encapsulates so much of the present dialogue: “The uninformed reader, as most of Coates’s American readers are, will, of course, be seduced into accepting the equation.” Millions of uninformed are purporting to be the moral arbiters and truth tellers everyday. It’s so maddening.
Thank you, Vicki. It’s good not to be alone in my frustration. I’m going to begin my own substack which will open with some recent blindsiding micro- (and not-so-micro-aggressions I experienced just this week as a Jew who acknowledges our ties to our Israeli homeland.
Once I do, would love to send you a link - hope I can get it done!
Touché, mon ami. The scurrilous propagandist, Coates, is, indeed, as awful as you say, as ignorant, tendentious, and mendacious on American history as he is on Israel. Race, race, race...bullshit. It cannot explain everything the way he says. ("Maybe he's colorblind," lol, that's a good one!) But anyway, whatever people want to believe about Coates when in comes to his own country, he certainly knows nothing of ours. That said, it kind of begs the question, what kind of a self-serving prima donna pronounces like he does on a reality that is, indeed, as "complex" as it gets, after a short, ten day visit typified by one of those deceptively calculated, brief little tours (I once got one too) of an unrepresentative part of the West Bank, obsessively marketed to naive visitors by the execrable Avner Gvaryahu. In short, well done. Good that you took on this infamous bs artist.
I have not read Coates’ book but have read and heard various summations. I recall a brief tv interview where he defended his decision not to access any contrary views while in Israel/West Bank. When asked why he didn’t, he said that he just could not stand to hear the ‘justification’. What I found strange was that he eluded to being a journalist. How does a journalist not seek a broad and full blown perspective? He is no journalist. He is an essayist with an ideological bias. No use for most of us.
Right, and when Tony Dokoupil questioned Coates, in the one and only serious interview that I know of, out of many, which wasn't just adulatory, Dokoupil was targeted for disciplinary action by the wokist forces at his TV network. In the end it didn't happen because the owner stepped in, I believe. But what a joke. As Bari Weiss pointed out, he was accused of committing the sin of doing actual journalism!
Typical one sided MSM journalism. Do you think Dukoupil has ever, even once, intersected with Palestinians (rather than squatters in illegal settlements on stolen land) in the West Bank? Journalists explore issues from all sides rather than having tantrums because his ex and daughters abandoned the U.S. and moved to a foreign country with a troubling human right record (as every major human rights organization including the Israeli B’Tselem has stated).
Perhaps he could visit the Lutheran Church in Bethlehem where IDF troops (mostly Russians) entered the church during the second intifada and broke the stained glass windows and, in entirely humanitarian move, left excrement in the communion vessels.
Regarding his thoughts on Yad Vashem, Coates wrote "at the end of my trip to Palestine, I went to Yad Vashem" As if the Palestinians would build a Holocaust museum.
My friend Tom Doran put me on to this, truly outstanding writing Benny
One failure of the entire US academic left is that none of them are capable of understanding that other countries have their own politics that doesn’t map neatly onto a US racial politics format
I guess there can be moral hazards in too much historical complexity, but they're not nearly so prevalent as the moral abysses of too much ideological simplicity. Thank you, Benny Morris, for exposing this "insubstantial pageant" of a book by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
As a historian, maybe you can explain who so few people know the history of Jewish oppression by both the Christian & Muslim world? The subjugation, expulsion, confiscation of property, pogroms and murder of Jews has been taking place for millennia. Yet people see Zionism as a post-Holocaust necessity when it was actually created more than 60 years prior to the creation of a Jewish state. Why is it that the world doesn't know we lived as dhimmis, in the Pale of Settlement etc. had limited educational & employment opportunities and were emancipated at around the time slavery was ended. Why is it that people do not know that the settlers who came from Europe purchased land, and didn't steal it? I can go on an on but you should get the drift of my question.
Coates went to Israel with pre-conceived notions about what the country was and then wrote a book about it. He was there for a total of 10 days. His ignorance and antisemitism comes through brilliantly.
The good news is that no other commenters here, least of all you, have any preconceived ideas or any reflexive biases against any of the Semitic peoples in Palestine/Israel, whether they be Jews, Christians or Muslims.
Wilful ignorance that is expressed in unfounded proclamations intended to undermine the right of the ancestral indigenous Jewish homeland to exist is, in fact, one of the most antisemitic expressions there is. Refusing to be challenged on his flimsy and poorly researched (I’m being generous here) unscholarly assumptions about Jews and Israel and leaning into equally flimsy assumptions and claims a from Gazan propagandists is also the very essence of antisemitic arrogance.
Not word salad. Slow down and read. The sentences are long, yes, but they do make sense. Whether or not you (or I) agree with what is being said doesn’t make them “word salad”.
I don’t understand why you characterize the so-called “occupation” of Judea and Samaria as some kind of repressive regime which suggests that Israel is acting unfairly. Isn’t it obvious that Israeli measures against Palestinians in these territories is necessary to control the unrelenting terrorism against Israeli civilians that would otherwise erupt? As you pointed out successive Israeli governments have offered to leave the area to the Palestinians but they themselves rejected it because - at the risk of sounding like a broken record- the Palestinians reject the concept of a Jewish state. You make it sound like Israel is doing something wrong by inconveniencing Palestinians when they are the cause of their troubles.
Perhaps Israelis could move back to live inside of Israel’s borders rather than stealing and living on illegally occupied land that is all outside of Israel?
Perhaps they could. Perhaps the Palestinians could renounce their decades-old project of trying to expunge the Jewish state and its inhabitants. Does that bother you as well? Cause I notice you didn’t mention it.
Perhaps both the Zionists (Jewish Israelis) and the indigenous people (Christian and Muslim Arabs) could each agree that any talk or action that promotes a from the river to the sea outcome will stop immediately with Jewish Israeli squatters (curiously no Israeli Arabs live in squatter settlements outside of Israel’s borders) withdrawing from the West Bank and East Jerusalem to return to live within Israel’s borders and the Palestinians accepting Israel as an equally sovereign state with Palestine.
Of course it bothers me that so many of the indigenous people and so many of the Zionists want the from the river to sea outcome. Currently all the from the river to the sea momentum resides with the Zionists (Ben-Gvir, Smotrech and others who are disciples of the Jewish terrorist Meir Kahane and worship the memory of the mass murderer Baruch Goldstein).
We know from the wise and balanced Elise Stefanik that any promotion of “from the river to the sea” is genocidal. The US should not be sending endless American taxpayer charity to either of Israel or Palestine as long as they both endorse and engage in genocide.
I’d suggest that until the Hutus and Tutsis (Middle East version) get serious that we as loyal Americans should step away from this issue. We certainly shouldn’t be giving away, at no cost, huge bombs with a 720 meter killing diameter to be used by one tribe to kill huge numbers of the other tribe.
We certainly didn’t get tied up in Rwanda, which is just as important to most Americans as Palestine, including Israel.
You might be interested in reading the Quran teachings. It's indispensable to comprehend the "Middle East" and Arab Muslims mentality. For they are the majority in these territories.
Quran teachings pillars are the annihilation of Jews. And conquering ("saving") the world to install a global caliphate.
About Christian Arabs :
Reality shows us how much influence they have in muslim majority nations. Lebanon now has a Christian president. Ishe disarming Hezbollah as was agreed to in the ceasefire commitments ? Is he asking for peace with Israel?
Key points :
- Can one negotiate with a population who's main goal is killing all jews and force infidels to convert to their religion, following Quran teachings ?
- How many of us realize that peace and freedom of religion are not accepted by the Quran and its followers ?
I’m sure reading the following, among many other things available online, will serve to expand your horizons and enlighten you regarding your gross generalizations regarding Muslims.
You might want to read the Torah and Talmud to see how Jews feel about anyone else living in Palestine. It is enlightening. Everything is rationalized by simply saying “God gave it to us!”
None other than Elise Stefanik has illuminated us on the fact that anything promoting a “from the river to the sea” outcome is genocide that must be condemned.
A hint: with the endless pressure to expand Israel to include Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) plus East Jerusalem, guess which of the two tribes in Palestine is pushing from the river to the sea hardest? Condemn them for genocide based on the “God gave it all to us” claim?
Newsflash! Israel is 21% Arab Israelis with the same rights as any other Israeli. The rest of the Arab countries? .0002% Jewish. That tells you what you need to know about how Arabs feel about anyone else living in their countries. Duh.
One may be reminded that other countries actually pay for the armaments that they obtain from the United States. Where Israel is concerned it’s given them to them, as our charitable ward, on an endless charitable basis funded by American taxpayers. That makes it far worse.
And perhaps the right of Israel to exist and its people to live could be affirmed so they no longer need to live in fear from their neighbors who loudly and proudly proclaim an intent to destroy the country and slaughter its people - half the world’s Jews?
I’m not even gonna bother to try to refute your dumb garbage. Which is ill-founded and essentially consists of you recycling a bunch of online clichés and pretending you’ve read the Talmud.
I will just ask a simple question before I block you. Currently, turkey is bombing the shit out of the Kurds. yet you have said nothing about that. Why not? Obviously it’s all about hating Jews for you. Because turkey had no provocation, unlike us. Blocking your loathsome antisemitic ass.
I don’t think that the historian of your caliber should waste your time on Coates book. Whatever talent he or his father had was 100% depleted while coming up with a fake African name! Everyone with a brain understands that.
He is not stupid. But he is mainly a pamphleteer. He has one idea, everything is race, and pretty much all he writes is about that. It’s a thin ideology.
You fail to address many issues too.. it was the Christians in the Byzantine empire who conquered Palestine, and the Muslims who defeated them. It wasn't just Arabs came waltzing and decided to take land from Jews. In fact, it was the Muslims, up to and including Saladin, who protected the Jews from the Crusaders, who did succeed in massacring Jews. You said Arabs were offered a deal which they rejected, which is true, but at the time, Jews owned 6% of the land, but the partition gave them 55%. Of course the Jews rejoiced. You also glossed over the Nakba (oh, the Jews killed some Arabs, but Arabs also killed Jews), but it was a deliberate effort to displace a population who was living there peacefully for hundreds of years to take their land. And make no mistake - Israel is an ethnostate - which you failed to mention - yes, they allow a percentage of the population to be Arab, so maybe they can claim to be a democracy, but they would never allow Arabs to come close to reaching parity with the Jews in Israel. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization, but Israel is no angel here - they've committed war crime after war crime, and largely have gotten away with it because of the protection of the United States.
It's rather amusing that you're trying to give Benny Morris a history lesson on the UNSCOP partition plan.
This is from the memoirs of Guatemalan UNSCOP committee member Jorge García Granados:
"One of the first subjects we took up was the future status, in an Arab State, of illegal Jewish immigrants and immigrants who had not acquired Palestinian nationality.
Hamid Frangie, Foreign Minister of Lebanon, replied succinctly: all Jews who entered Palestine since the Balfour Declaration - since November 1917 - would be considered illegal im-migrants.
"However," he added, "the Mandatory Power gave Palestinian nationality to a number of those immigrants. They are citizens de facto. The term “illegal,” as it is put in the question, seems to des-ignate Jews who enter Palestine without the permission of the Mandatory Power. They should be answerable to the same rules as Arab illegal immigrants: they, too, should be expelled from the country. As for those who entered Palestine according to pres-ent immigration laws, but who have not acquired Palestinian na-tionality, their condition will be determined by the future inde-pendent government of Palestine. Those who fulfill the required conditions for acquisition of nationality should be considered as citizens. The others will be considered as foreigners.”
The implication of this was clear: of the 700,000 Jews now in Palestine, perhaps 400,000 - most of those who had entered since 1917 - would be subject to deportation, depending upon the be-nevolence of the future Arab Mufti-dominated government of Palestine.
Something of this must have gone through Sandstrom's mind for he asked, "Does anyone else wish to give another answer to this question?" He looked around the room.
Frangie spoke up promptly: "What I am reading now has been decided by the various States. There should be no indi-vidual replies to the questions."
Sir Abdur, who undoubtedly would have liked to see a less ex-treme statement, asked, "Are they all agreed on this answer?"
No one else had a chance to reply, for Frangie said quietly and emphatically, "Yes."
Emir Adel Arslan of Syria ventured to add, "We consider these Jewish immigrants as illegal because they entered Palestine after the Balfour Declaration which we considered to be illegal.""
So the Arab leaders made clear that most Jews would be at risk of expulsion or worse if the Jews weren't given their own state. The primary Arab objection to partition was not the percentage of land given to the Jews but the idea that Jews would have any self-determination at all. The Arabs wanted to be free to expel the Jews. The 1948 war took place against that backdrop.
So there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics ...
The 6% Jewish private ownership mean nothing if you don't compare them to the Arab private ownership in 1947. Hint: it wasn't 94% ... in Palestine like everywhere, the large majority of the land are was state land.
And the 55% that the Jews received sound disproportionate, until you look at the map and realize that it consisted mainly of the Negev desert. Under the partition plan, the Arabs received the majority of the arable land.
The true reason that the Arabs rejected the partition plan wasn't that it allocated them too little, but rather that it allocated anything at all to the Jews. Was that rejection morally justified? Was it practically justified? On that, each can reach their own conclusion. But if you try to obfuscate reality, it may mean that you aren't too sure of your conclusion.
This is what the Arab leaders told UNSCOP (from the transcript of their meeting with UNSCOP on the UN website):
"...no partition in any form or guise will be acceptable to the Arabs. They will fight it and resist sooner or later for no Jewish State in any size or form will ever be tolerated by the Arab world".
They were right to oppose partition. Not a single one of the partitions imposed on the indigenous people they ruled by the far off British turned out well.
Just to be clear, when you say "indigenous" in this case you mean the Arabic (you know, from Arabia) speaking Palestinians? The issue of indigenous people, particularly in that part of the world, is very complex. You make it sound like the Arabic speaking Palestinians were the first people to show up in the area.
I am pretty sure that some variation of Cro Magnan man was the first to show up in that area. I know it’s unfortunate that the indigenous Arabs of Palestine have only been there for about 100 generations or maybe 1500+ years on an uninterrupted basis, with many of them having ancestors who were Jews at the time of the destruction of the temple and simply assimilated via a process that we are all familiar with. I certainly am not making a case that only Arabs are indigenous to the area and I’m sure you’re not making a case that only other tribal groups than those Arabs groups are indigenous.
Note that almost everyone in Palestine at the time of our Redeemer, the Jewish Carpenter, was not speaking Arabic, Greek, Hebrew or Yiddish. Their primary language was Aramaic.
As soon as I see someone write "the arabs lived peacefully in the land" I know I am not dealing with someone who knows anything about the Middle East, Arab conquest, fundamentalist islam, etc. Just a few: 1834 Looting of Safed, 1886: Petah Tikva pogrom, 1908: Jaffa massacre (again in 1921, 1929, 1936, etc), 1920: Tel-Hai massacre, 1921: Bnai Yehuda massacre, 1921: Metula massacre, 1929: Jerusalem massacre, 1929: Hebron massacre, 1929: Nablus massacre, so many in 1929 I can't include them all, 1936: Anabta massacre, and on and on - all pogroms and violence against Jews by Arabs.
As for the land, after all the conquest and colonization it was a barren, malaria swamps, and desert. In 1867, Mark Twain visit the land and wrote it was desolation, hopeless, and dreary. As the Jews returned (either by their own or from ethnic cleansing from surrounding Arab countries) they rebuilt, drained the swamps, and made the land whole. Most people lived in Jerusalem and the census from the 1800's said 80% were Jews. As Jews came to the land Arabs and others came too. And when the Arab armies told the people leave the land and we will kick the Jews out and you can have even more, the 1948 war, many did, the so called "Nakba." Those that did not leave are now the Arab Israeli citizens. So yes maybe it was displacement of a population, but it wasn't by the Jews but by the invading Arab armies.
Also an "ethnostate"? 20% of Israel is Arab, birthrates are also on par for the region (no cap), so it's not being limited which is core to the definition of ethnostate. The Arab Israeli population make up 50% of all pharmacists, sit on their Supreme Court (arrested a Jewish PM and sent him to jail), are part of the Knesset, etc, ie have full rights. Is it a "Jewish state", yes, and should stay so. We see how Arab/Muslim countries treat non-believers, minorities, etc, it's not good. Look at the ethnic cleansing of minorities or indigenous populations that Arab conquest wiped out, you know Arabs are from a couple countries in the Arabian peninsula, but happily displaced not only Jews but also Kurds, Persians, Yazidis, Copts, Assyrians, etc.
On the one hand, you say Arab births aren't limited, but then you say it should remain a Jewish state, and list reasons why it should remain so. Israel is a de facto ethnostate. And yes, Arabs and Jews mostly lived peacefully in Palestine from the middle ages to about the 19th century, when the Looting of Safed happened. Anti-antisemitism was mostly a Christian idea, which was imported into the Arab world around the 19th century. A lot of the violence was borne out of pan-Arab nationalism. You also forgot to list the Holocaust - remember, when 6 million Jews were killed? You should blame the Western countries as much as anyone for antisemitism.
Sorry, but that is such an American response. White Anglo Saxon Protestant, of many admittedly many variants, from Oregon to Appalachia. Yes, the US is huge and diverse, but there is still a dominant ethnicity and a generalized assimilation into the dominant culture. Only descendants of African slaves and natives have maintained a truly distinct culture, and much of that is due to overt discrimination.
What are you talking about? Why do you get to define "ethnostate?" My definition of an ethnostate is a country that limits citizenship to a racial, ethnic, or religious group. So yes, the United States is not an ethnostate. Neither is Brazil. Israel is an ethnostate.
as I wrote above, I challenge anyone to name one that isn’t. Some are based on MORE than one dominant ethnicity, but their dominance and ethnicity are broadly recognized. Over time, populations become mixed but there is a process of assimilation for everyone who joins the society. Listen to someone from Toronto or London - if they are second generation you can’t tell where their parents were from.
The arrogance of those with no connection to Israel or the Jews who suddenly promote themselves as experts on the complex ME history will never cease to amaze me. Awesome you forgot all about the million Jews forcibly expelled from N African and Arab lands, the number of times Israel has been attacked b/c your people don’t want two states - they want it all - and the glaring way you overlook other world conflicts.
Ethno-state? Very telling you have no issue with 23 officially Muslim states that have entirely ethnically cleansed themselves of their Jews…..while 21% of Israelis are Arabs. Yet it’s only Israel you single out and want to abolish and eliminate its people. No Jew hate rhere!??!
You attribute all bigotry to Jews, when the main issue was bigotry of the Arabs. They were used to living side-by-side in the same empire, Druze, Christians, Bedouins, Sunni, Shiite Muslims, Jews. What you ignore is that they could tolerate anyone being in authority, anyone, the Turks, Brits, French, Arab rulers of various sorts. What was intolerable to them was the idea that Jews should be in charge - of anything. Do the Arabs in Israel have a worse life than in any majority Arab (and Muslim) country? No. Their standard of living, their ability to have professional and academic opportunities are far greater. Have most Christians left Palestinian or Lebanese cities (e.g. Bethlehem), where they used to be the majority? Yes. Were the West Bank and Gaza part of Jordan and Egypt until 1967, respectively? Yes. Are the two peoples still at war and have plenty of guilt at this point? Yes. Do ignorant and bigotted remarks from the peanut gallery in the ROW (rest of the world) help to improve matters? No!
1) I didn't attribute all bigotry to Jews, so stop lying. 2) Arabs tolerated anyone in authority? You mean when they fought and beat the Byzantine empire? Or during the Arab revolt, when they fought the Ottoman Empire? Maybe you're the ignorant one - you're the one with an agenda, not me. I would care less if the US gov would stop sending money and weapons to Israel - we sent $17 billion last year. All those 2,000 lb bombs - that's from US. The missiles, armored vehicles, jets - that's all from the US. When the US stop sending weapons and money to Israel, I would stop talking about it.
It is self-evident that Israel is an ethno-state - it’s right in the name. But you (selectively) decide to point this out, while handily omitting that only Israel gives equal rights to its citizenship, in stark contrast to the surrounding states, including Turkey, which are also effectively ethno-states (they all have large ethnic majorities). In western pluralistic democracies such as in Europe most immigrants choose to assimilate, and so culturally become indistinguishable from the majority. You are absolutely right that there were revolts, including against the British, by Arabs, but the one group of rulers that they would never accept in principle, not because being ruled over was complete anathema but because it was simply unthinkable, was the Jews. This accounts for the past 100+ years of violence against Zionism.
Informative article about a race hustler Ta-Nehisi Coates who simply projected his own carefully cultivated race obsession into a country he knew nothing about and apparently didn’t even visit. It is a common trajectory for many Americans, and being what he is, Coates revealed his shortcomings.
Nice to see Professor Morris come out in defence of the truth. Better late than never, I guess. When Mortis emerged as a New Historian of the Israeli left, prominent Palestinian politicians lauded Morris for using then newly available documents to expose the allegedly immoral circumstances of Israel’s creation. His book, the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949, which portrayed the PA as hapless victims of the unprovoked Jewish aggression, failed to consult the millions of declassified IDF archives, even though other historians used those archives in their research at that time. Morris later apologised by acknowledging that he had no access to declassified IDF archival materials and no time to sift through firsthand military records, but the damage had been done by then.
Benny Morris!!!! Thrilled to read this and see you chiming in. I have relied on and learned so much from your work. 1948 and Righteous Victims especially. This sentence for me, encapsulates so much of the present dialogue: “The uninformed reader, as most of Coates’s American readers are, will, of course, be seduced into accepting the equation.” Millions of uninformed are purporting to be the moral arbiters and truth tellers everyday. It’s so maddening.
Thank you, Vicki. It’s good not to be alone in my frustration. I’m going to begin my own substack which will open with some recent blindsiding micro- (and not-so-micro-aggressions I experienced just this week as a Jew who acknowledges our ties to our Israeli homeland.
Once I do, would love to send you a link - hope I can get it done!
Touché, mon ami. The scurrilous propagandist, Coates, is, indeed, as awful as you say, as ignorant, tendentious, and mendacious on American history as he is on Israel. Race, race, race...bullshit. It cannot explain everything the way he says. ("Maybe he's colorblind," lol, that's a good one!) But anyway, whatever people want to believe about Coates when in comes to his own country, he certainly knows nothing of ours. That said, it kind of begs the question, what kind of a self-serving prima donna pronounces like he does on a reality that is, indeed, as "complex" as it gets, after a short, ten day visit typified by one of those deceptively calculated, brief little tours (I once got one too) of an unrepresentative part of the West Bank, obsessively marketed to naive visitors by the execrable Avner Gvaryahu. In short, well done. Good that you took on this infamous bs artist.
I have not read Coates’ book but have read and heard various summations. I recall a brief tv interview where he defended his decision not to access any contrary views while in Israel/West Bank. When asked why he didn’t, he said that he just could not stand to hear the ‘justification’. What I found strange was that he eluded to being a journalist. How does a journalist not seek a broad and full blown perspective? He is no journalist. He is an essayist with an ideological bias. No use for most of us.
Right, and when Tony Dokoupil questioned Coates, in the one and only serious interview that I know of, out of many, which wasn't just adulatory, Dokoupil was targeted for disciplinary action by the wokist forces at his TV network. In the end it didn't happen because the owner stepped in, I believe. But what a joke. As Bari Weiss pointed out, he was accused of committing the sin of doing actual journalism!
I found the podcast interview of Coates with Ezra Kline to be serious.
Typical one sided MSM journalism. Do you think Dukoupil has ever, even once, intersected with Palestinians (rather than squatters in illegal settlements on stolen land) in the West Bank? Journalists explore issues from all sides rather than having tantrums because his ex and daughters abandoned the U.S. and moved to a foreign country with a troubling human right record (as every major human rights organization including the Israeli B’Tselem has stated).
Perhaps he could visit the Lutheran Church in Bethlehem where IDF troops (mostly Russians) entered the church during the second intifada and broke the stained glass windows and, in entirely humanitarian move, left excrement in the communion vessels.
Regarding his thoughts on Yad Vashem, Coates wrote "at the end of my trip to Palestine, I went to Yad Vashem" As if the Palestinians would build a Holocaust museum.
My friend Tom Doran put me on to this, truly outstanding writing Benny
One failure of the entire US academic left is that none of them are capable of understanding that other countries have their own politics that doesn’t map neatly onto a US racial politics format
I guess there can be moral hazards in too much historical complexity, but they're not nearly so prevalent as the moral abysses of too much ideological simplicity. Thank you, Benny Morris, for exposing this "insubstantial pageant" of a book by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
As a historian, maybe you can explain who so few people know the history of Jewish oppression by both the Christian & Muslim world? The subjugation, expulsion, confiscation of property, pogroms and murder of Jews has been taking place for millennia. Yet people see Zionism as a post-Holocaust necessity when it was actually created more than 60 years prior to the creation of a Jewish state. Why is it that the world doesn't know we lived as dhimmis, in the Pale of Settlement etc. had limited educational & employment opportunities and were emancipated at around the time slavery was ended. Why is it that people do not know that the settlers who came from Europe purchased land, and didn't steal it? I can go on an on but you should get the drift of my question.
Coates went to Israel with pre-conceived notions about what the country was and then wrote a book about it. He was there for a total of 10 days. His ignorance and antisemitism comes through brilliantly.
The good news is that no other commenters here, least of all you, have any preconceived ideas or any reflexive biases against any of the Semitic peoples in Palestine/Israel, whether they be Jews, Christians or Muslims.
I think that Coates is ignorant, but not anti-Semitic
Wilful ignorance that is expressed in unfounded proclamations intended to undermine the right of the ancestral indigenous Jewish homeland to exist is, in fact, one of the most antisemitic expressions there is. Refusing to be challenged on his flimsy and poorly researched (I’m being generous here) unscholarly assumptions about Jews and Israel and leaning into equally flimsy assumptions and claims a from Gazan propagandists is also the very essence of antisemitic arrogance.
Quite the word salad. Self-editing is a good practice.
Not word salad. Slow down and read. The sentences are long, yes, but they do make sense. Whether or not you (or I) agree with what is being said doesn’t make them “word salad”.
Uh, OK.
Yes, you came across as unserious.
Long sentences are hard, huh?
Hemingway had it right. Writing effectively is a skill to be acquired.
I don’t understand why you characterize the so-called “occupation” of Judea and Samaria as some kind of repressive regime which suggests that Israel is acting unfairly. Isn’t it obvious that Israeli measures against Palestinians in these territories is necessary to control the unrelenting terrorism against Israeli civilians that would otherwise erupt? As you pointed out successive Israeli governments have offered to leave the area to the Palestinians but they themselves rejected it because - at the risk of sounding like a broken record- the Palestinians reject the concept of a Jewish state. You make it sound like Israel is doing something wrong by inconveniencing Palestinians when they are the cause of their troubles.
Perhaps Israelis could move back to live inside of Israel’s borders rather than stealing and living on illegally occupied land that is all outside of Israel?
Just a wild and crazy idea I know.
Perhaps they could. Perhaps the Palestinians could renounce their decades-old project of trying to expunge the Jewish state and its inhabitants. Does that bother you as well? Cause I notice you didn’t mention it.
Perhaps both the Zionists (Jewish Israelis) and the indigenous people (Christian and Muslim Arabs) could each agree that any talk or action that promotes a from the river to the sea outcome will stop immediately with Jewish Israeli squatters (curiously no Israeli Arabs live in squatter settlements outside of Israel’s borders) withdrawing from the West Bank and East Jerusalem to return to live within Israel’s borders and the Palestinians accepting Israel as an equally sovereign state with Palestine.
Of course it bothers me that so many of the indigenous people and so many of the Zionists want the from the river to sea outcome. Currently all the from the river to the sea momentum resides with the Zionists (Ben-Gvir, Smotrech and others who are disciples of the Jewish terrorist Meir Kahane and worship the memory of the mass murderer Baruch Goldstein).
We know from the wise and balanced Elise Stefanik that any promotion of “from the river to the sea” is genocidal. The US should not be sending endless American taxpayer charity to either of Israel or Palestine as long as they both endorse and engage in genocide.
I’d suggest that until the Hutus and Tutsis (Middle East version) get serious that we as loyal Americans should step away from this issue. We certainly shouldn’t be giving away, at no cost, huge bombs with a 720 meter killing diameter to be used by one tribe to kill huge numbers of the other tribe.
We certainly didn’t get tied up in Rwanda, which is just as important to most Americans as Palestine, including Israel.
Wow you seem to know and understand so much about the conflict! Maybe move here and solve it, seems you have all the information.
You might be interested in reading the Quran teachings. It's indispensable to comprehend the "Middle East" and Arab Muslims mentality. For they are the majority in these territories.
Quran teachings pillars are the annihilation of Jews. And conquering ("saving") the world to install a global caliphate.
About Christian Arabs :
Reality shows us how much influence they have in muslim majority nations. Lebanon now has a Christian president. Ishe disarming Hezbollah as was agreed to in the ceasefire commitments ? Is he asking for peace with Israel?
Key points :
- Can one negotiate with a population who's main goal is killing all jews and force infidels to convert to their religion, following Quran teachings ?
- How many of us realize that peace and freedom of religion are not accepted by the Quran and its followers ?
I’m sure reading the following, among many other things available online, will serve to expand your horizons and enlighten you regarding your gross generalizations regarding Muslims.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Islam
You might want to read the Torah and Talmud to see how Jews feel about anyone else living in Palestine. It is enlightening. Everything is rationalized by simply saying “God gave it to us!”
None other than Elise Stefanik has illuminated us on the fact that anything promoting a “from the river to the sea” outcome is genocide that must be condemned.
A hint: with the endless pressure to expand Israel to include Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) plus East Jerusalem, guess which of the two tribes in Palestine is pushing from the river to the sea hardest? Condemn them for genocide based on the “God gave it all to us” claim?
Newsflash! Israel is 21% Arab Israelis with the same rights as any other Israeli. The rest of the Arab countries? .0002% Jewish. That tells you what you need to know about how Arabs feel about anyone else living in their countries. Duh.
Jews are the indigenous people. there is no statute of limitations on our 5000 year claim to our homeland.
^^^This^^^
One may be reminded to the fact that Israel is purchasing these bombs and other weaponry from the USA. It's a detail that's often ignored.
One may be reminded that other countries actually pay for the armaments that they obtain from the United States. Where Israel is concerned it’s given them to them, as our charitable ward, on an endless charitable basis funded by American taxpayers. That makes it far worse.
And perhaps the right of Israel to exist and its people to live could be affirmed so they no longer need to live in fear from their neighbors who loudly and proudly proclaim an intent to destroy the country and slaughter its people - half the world’s Jews?
Did you read this essay?
Where is here? I assume you are a foreign national benefiting from
The endless charity provided by Americans like me?
Hopefully you aren’t a squatter living outside the borders of your country and at least live on land in your own country.
I’m not even gonna bother to try to refute your dumb garbage. Which is ill-founded and essentially consists of you recycling a bunch of online clichés and pretending you’ve read the Talmud.
I will just ask a simple question before I block you. Currently, turkey is bombing the shit out of the Kurds. yet you have said nothing about that. Why not? Obviously it’s all about hating Jews for you. Because turkey had no provocation, unlike us. Blocking your loathsome antisemitic ass.
Brilliant. Thank you. Learning a lot. 🤍💙
I don’t think that the historian of your caliber should waste your time on Coates book. Whatever talent he or his father had was 100% depleted while coming up with a fake African name! Everyone with a brain understands that.
Coates is an imbecile
Coates is dishonest. He uses his literal approach to justify glossing over and ignoring relevant facts. He is a poison.
Maybe Coates is just stupid and can’t handle complexity?
He is not stupid. But he is mainly a pamphleteer. He has one idea, everything is race, and pretty much all he writes is about that. It’s a thin ideology.
I really like your characterization of ‘pamphleteer’.
Thx. I don’t think it’s unfair.
Not at all unfair.
I think he's a guy who received a massive amount of money and adulation during the early rise of critical race theory and he's dining out on it.
Good point. I was intrigued by "Maybe Coat is colour blind" and obviously obsessed 😉
You fail to address many issues too.. it was the Christians in the Byzantine empire who conquered Palestine, and the Muslims who defeated them. It wasn't just Arabs came waltzing and decided to take land from Jews. In fact, it was the Muslims, up to and including Saladin, who protected the Jews from the Crusaders, who did succeed in massacring Jews. You said Arabs were offered a deal which they rejected, which is true, but at the time, Jews owned 6% of the land, but the partition gave them 55%. Of course the Jews rejoiced. You also glossed over the Nakba (oh, the Jews killed some Arabs, but Arabs also killed Jews), but it was a deliberate effort to displace a population who was living there peacefully for hundreds of years to take their land. And make no mistake - Israel is an ethnostate - which you failed to mention - yes, they allow a percentage of the population to be Arab, so maybe they can claim to be a democracy, but they would never allow Arabs to come close to reaching parity with the Jews in Israel. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization, but Israel is no angel here - they've committed war crime after war crime, and largely have gotten away with it because of the protection of the United States.
It's rather amusing that you're trying to give Benny Morris a history lesson on the UNSCOP partition plan.
This is from the memoirs of Guatemalan UNSCOP committee member Jorge García Granados:
"One of the first subjects we took up was the future status, in an Arab State, of illegal Jewish immigrants and immigrants who had not acquired Palestinian nationality.
Hamid Frangie, Foreign Minister of Lebanon, replied succinctly: all Jews who entered Palestine since the Balfour Declaration - since November 1917 - would be considered illegal im-migrants.
"However," he added, "the Mandatory Power gave Palestinian nationality to a number of those immigrants. They are citizens de facto. The term “illegal,” as it is put in the question, seems to des-ignate Jews who enter Palestine without the permission of the Mandatory Power. They should be answerable to the same rules as Arab illegal immigrants: they, too, should be expelled from the country. As for those who entered Palestine according to pres-ent immigration laws, but who have not acquired Palestinian na-tionality, their condition will be determined by the future inde-pendent government of Palestine. Those who fulfill the required conditions for acquisition of nationality should be considered as citizens. The others will be considered as foreigners.”
The implication of this was clear: of the 700,000 Jews now in Palestine, perhaps 400,000 - most of those who had entered since 1917 - would be subject to deportation, depending upon the be-nevolence of the future Arab Mufti-dominated government of Palestine.
Something of this must have gone through Sandstrom's mind for he asked, "Does anyone else wish to give another answer to this question?" He looked around the room.
Frangie spoke up promptly: "What I am reading now has been decided by the various States. There should be no indi-vidual replies to the questions."
Sir Abdur, who undoubtedly would have liked to see a less ex-treme statement, asked, "Are they all agreed on this answer?"
No one else had a chance to reply, for Frangie said quietly and emphatically, "Yes."
Emir Adel Arslan of Syria ventured to add, "We consider these Jewish immigrants as illegal because they entered Palestine after the Balfour Declaration which we considered to be illegal.""
So the Arab leaders made clear that most Jews would be at risk of expulsion or worse if the Jews weren't given their own state. The primary Arab objection to partition was not the percentage of land given to the Jews but the idea that Jews would have any self-determination at all. The Arabs wanted to be free to expel the Jews. The 1948 war took place against that backdrop.
So there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics ...
The 6% Jewish private ownership mean nothing if you don't compare them to the Arab private ownership in 1947. Hint: it wasn't 94% ... in Palestine like everywhere, the large majority of the land are was state land.
And the 55% that the Jews received sound disproportionate, until you look at the map and realize that it consisted mainly of the Negev desert. Under the partition plan, the Arabs received the majority of the arable land.
The true reason that the Arabs rejected the partition plan wasn't that it allocated them too little, but rather that it allocated anything at all to the Jews. Was that rejection morally justified? Was it practically justified? On that, each can reach their own conclusion. But if you try to obfuscate reality, it may mean that you aren't too sure of your conclusion.
This is what the Arab leaders told UNSCOP (from the transcript of their meeting with UNSCOP on the UN website):
"...no partition in any form or guise will be acceptable to the Arabs. They will fight it and resist sooner or later for no Jewish State in any size or form will ever be tolerated by the Arab world".
They were right to oppose partition. Not a single one of the partitions imposed on the indigenous people they ruled by the far off British turned out well.
Just to be clear, when you say "indigenous" in this case you mean the Arabic (you know, from Arabia) speaking Palestinians? The issue of indigenous people, particularly in that part of the world, is very complex. You make it sound like the Arabic speaking Palestinians were the first people to show up in the area.
I am pretty sure that some variation of Cro Magnan man was the first to show up in that area. I know it’s unfortunate that the indigenous Arabs of Palestine have only been there for about 100 generations or maybe 1500+ years on an uninterrupted basis, with many of them having ancestors who were Jews at the time of the destruction of the temple and simply assimilated via a process that we are all familiar with. I certainly am not making a case that only Arabs are indigenous to the area and I’m sure you’re not making a case that only other tribal groups than those Arabs groups are indigenous.
Note that almost everyone in Palestine at the time of our Redeemer, the Jewish Carpenter, was not speaking Arabic, Greek, Hebrew or Yiddish. Their primary language was Aramaic.
The Nakba? The war of independence in which 5 regular Arab armies lost to the rag tag Haganah which faced a weapons embargo. Cry me a river.
😁
As soon as I see someone write "the arabs lived peacefully in the land" I know I am not dealing with someone who knows anything about the Middle East, Arab conquest, fundamentalist islam, etc. Just a few: 1834 Looting of Safed, 1886: Petah Tikva pogrom, 1908: Jaffa massacre (again in 1921, 1929, 1936, etc), 1920: Tel-Hai massacre, 1921: Bnai Yehuda massacre, 1921: Metula massacre, 1929: Jerusalem massacre, 1929: Hebron massacre, 1929: Nablus massacre, so many in 1929 I can't include them all, 1936: Anabta massacre, and on and on - all pogroms and violence against Jews by Arabs.
As for the land, after all the conquest and colonization it was a barren, malaria swamps, and desert. In 1867, Mark Twain visit the land and wrote it was desolation, hopeless, and dreary. As the Jews returned (either by their own or from ethnic cleansing from surrounding Arab countries) they rebuilt, drained the swamps, and made the land whole. Most people lived in Jerusalem and the census from the 1800's said 80% were Jews. As Jews came to the land Arabs and others came too. And when the Arab armies told the people leave the land and we will kick the Jews out and you can have even more, the 1948 war, many did, the so called "Nakba." Those that did not leave are now the Arab Israeli citizens. So yes maybe it was displacement of a population, but it wasn't by the Jews but by the invading Arab armies.
Also an "ethnostate"? 20% of Israel is Arab, birthrates are also on par for the region (no cap), so it's not being limited which is core to the definition of ethnostate. The Arab Israeli population make up 50% of all pharmacists, sit on their Supreme Court (arrested a Jewish PM and sent him to jail), are part of the Knesset, etc, ie have full rights. Is it a "Jewish state", yes, and should stay so. We see how Arab/Muslim countries treat non-believers, minorities, etc, it's not good. Look at the ethnic cleansing of minorities or indigenous populations that Arab conquest wiped out, you know Arabs are from a couple countries in the Arabian peninsula, but happily displaced not only Jews but also Kurds, Persians, Yazidis, Copts, Assyrians, etc.
On the one hand, you say Arab births aren't limited, but then you say it should remain a Jewish state, and list reasons why it should remain so. Israel is a de facto ethnostate. And yes, Arabs and Jews mostly lived peacefully in Palestine from the middle ages to about the 19th century, when the Looting of Safed happened. Anti-antisemitism was mostly a Christian idea, which was imported into the Arab world around the 19th century. A lot of the violence was borne out of pan-Arab nationalism. You also forgot to list the Holocaust - remember, when 6 million Jews were killed? You should blame the Western countries as much as anyone for antisemitism.
Can you name a single country in the world that isn’t an ethnostate? I can’t think of any but am open to suggestions.
The United States.
Sorry, but that is such an American response. White Anglo Saxon Protestant, of many admittedly many variants, from Oregon to Appalachia. Yes, the US is huge and diverse, but there is still a dominant ethnicity and a generalized assimilation into the dominant culture. Only descendants of African slaves and natives have maintained a truly distinct culture, and much of that is due to overt discrimination.
What are you talking about? Why do you get to define "ethnostate?" My definition of an ethnostate is a country that limits citizenship to a racial, ethnic, or religious group. So yes, the United States is not an ethnostate. Neither is Brazil. Israel is an ethnostate.
Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud!!!
Ooooh Israel is an ethnostate. So is Denmark.
as I wrote above, I challenge anyone to name one that isn’t. Some are based on MORE than one dominant ethnicity, but their dominance and ethnicity are broadly recognized. Over time, populations become mixed but there is a process of assimilation for everyone who joins the society. Listen to someone from Toronto or London - if they are second generation you can’t tell where their parents were from.
The arrogance of those with no connection to Israel or the Jews who suddenly promote themselves as experts on the complex ME history will never cease to amaze me. Awesome you forgot all about the million Jews forcibly expelled from N African and Arab lands, the number of times Israel has been attacked b/c your people don’t want two states - they want it all - and the glaring way you overlook other world conflicts.
Ethno-state? Very telling you have no issue with 23 officially Muslim states that have entirely ethnically cleansed themselves of their Jews…..while 21% of Israelis are Arabs. Yet it’s only Israel you single out and want to abolish and eliminate its people. No Jew hate rhere!??!
If it’s not the Jews it’s not the news?
You attribute all bigotry to Jews, when the main issue was bigotry of the Arabs. They were used to living side-by-side in the same empire, Druze, Christians, Bedouins, Sunni, Shiite Muslims, Jews. What you ignore is that they could tolerate anyone being in authority, anyone, the Turks, Brits, French, Arab rulers of various sorts. What was intolerable to them was the idea that Jews should be in charge - of anything. Do the Arabs in Israel have a worse life than in any majority Arab (and Muslim) country? No. Their standard of living, their ability to have professional and academic opportunities are far greater. Have most Christians left Palestinian or Lebanese cities (e.g. Bethlehem), where they used to be the majority? Yes. Were the West Bank and Gaza part of Jordan and Egypt until 1967, respectively? Yes. Are the two peoples still at war and have plenty of guilt at this point? Yes. Do ignorant and bigotted remarks from the peanut gallery in the ROW (rest of the world) help to improve matters? No!
1) I didn't attribute all bigotry to Jews, so stop lying. 2) Arabs tolerated anyone in authority? You mean when they fought and beat the Byzantine empire? Or during the Arab revolt, when they fought the Ottoman Empire? Maybe you're the ignorant one - you're the one with an agenda, not me. I would care less if the US gov would stop sending money and weapons to Israel - we sent $17 billion last year. All those 2,000 lb bombs - that's from US. The missiles, armored vehicles, jets - that's all from the US. When the US stop sending weapons and money to Israel, I would stop talking about it.
It is self-evident that Israel is an ethno-state - it’s right in the name. But you (selectively) decide to point this out, while handily omitting that only Israel gives equal rights to its citizenship, in stark contrast to the surrounding states, including Turkey, which are also effectively ethno-states (they all have large ethnic majorities). In western pluralistic democracies such as in Europe most immigrants choose to assimilate, and so culturally become indistinguishable from the majority. You are absolutely right that there were revolts, including against the British, by Arabs, but the one group of rulers that they would never accept in principle, not because being ruled over was complete anathema but because it was simply unthinkable, was the Jews. This accounts for the past 100+ years of violence against Zionism.
Like he wrote, it’s complicated.
Informative article about a race hustler Ta-Nehisi Coates who simply projected his own carefully cultivated race obsession into a country he knew nothing about and apparently didn’t even visit. It is a common trajectory for many Americans, and being what he is, Coates revealed his shortcomings.
Nice to see Professor Morris come out in defence of the truth. Better late than never, I guess. When Mortis emerged as a New Historian of the Israeli left, prominent Palestinian politicians lauded Morris for using then newly available documents to expose the allegedly immoral circumstances of Israel’s creation. His book, the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949, which portrayed the PA as hapless victims of the unprovoked Jewish aggression, failed to consult the millions of declassified IDF archives, even though other historians used those archives in their research at that time. Morris later apologised by acknowledging that he had no access to declassified IDF archival materials and no time to sift through firsthand military records, but the damage had been done by then.