Ta-Nehisi Coates and Israel-Palestine

Do we ask genuine questions in order to better understand the complex reality? Or do we already assume that we know the answers and ask only questions that confirm our pre-existing views?

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Coates visited the Middle East for a short time, for a Palestinian literary festival, and by design, surrounded himself with left-wing Israeli activists and Palestinians. I'm fortunate that in my line of work, as well as the situations that I choose to place myself in, I'm also regularly surrounded by the same voices; Palestinians who seek rapprochement or peace with Israelis, but also those that seek an end to Israel and Jewish presence in any part of the land, and organizations on the left in Israel such as Ir Amim and Breaking the Silence - the latter of which I believe Coates' joined on a tour in Hebron or the South Hebron Hills.

I've joined tours with Breaking the Silence in these areas on numerous occasions, the first time being back in 2005, barely a year after they were founded, and have followed the ideological evolution of the organization with interest.

I write this because, 1) perhaps unusually, as a (Jewish) Israeli I have met, listened and engaged with many of the same people that Ta-Nehisi Coates met during his brief visit to the region, and 2) that the fact that I fundamentally disagree with Coates' arguments on Israel does not stem from a denial of Palestinian grievances or a belief in Israeli infallibility. 

It's possible (and essential) to be able to carry more than one thought at the same time.

I have read articles written by a number of people who have criticised Coates for basing his views on Jews and Israelis on a brief and ideologically skewed trip to the region. I agree that for anyone seeking to approach a subject with intellectual honesty, spending time evaluating multiple perspectives (especially those you disagree with or find uncomfortable) is a prerequisite. Objectively, Coates didn't do this, at least in this instance (again, I am referring to his stance on Israel-Palestine and not to any of the other subjects he writes about). 

That said, this doesn't necessarily disqualify the relevancy of the ideas and narratives that he was exposed to during his time in the West Bank, which may or may not have been faithful to the truth; I'd imagine that some of what he heard was true and some was not - this would likely be the same had he arrived with an altogether different stance on Israel-Palestine and met only with figures on the Israeli right.

Speaking about Coates' book, journalist Matti Friedman suggested that; "A good reporter approaches a story with a willingness to understand it on its own terms, while a bad reporter sees only a mirror."

Coates' choice to visit and speak predominantly with those whose views and identities corresponded with his pre-existing views ensured that, in putting together the picture that he presented in the book, he failed to relate to many vital pieces of the puzzle that are necessary to build an accurate picture of reality. Coates' essay on Israel-Palestine doesn't mention Hamas, Palestinian Terrorism, Iran, Arab anti-Jewish pogroms pre-1948, the Muslim Brotherhood and Haj Amin Al Husseini's links to Hitler and Nazism, nor many more themes that (perhaps unfortunately for many) paint a more complex picture of the historical reality for Israelis and Palestinians than they would care to acknowledge.

I remember watching Coates be challenged on this after the book's release. His response was that these themes are commonly brought up by others and that he wanted to address other themes and narratives that others don't.

Taking this claim at face value, I think that it is admirable to seek to raise ideas and narratives that one feels are ignored by others. However, Coates's inferred criticism of these 'others' is that they deliberately ignore crucial parts of the story necessary for understanding reality. This may well be true of the people that he is referring to, yet Coates is admitting in his own words, that he is doing exactly the same, picking and choosing what to tell in order to present, what is in this case, a deliberately simplistic narrative framed within a powerful ideological paradigm; and it is his use of an extraneous ideological paradigm, or lens, through which to view the Israel-Palestine conflict, that is most problematic.

Coates' entire framing of the Israel-Palestine conflict and of Jews and Arabs in general is through the lens of American racial politics. This paradigm may well be accurate in the United States, however it is wholly false and inappropriate when applied to the context of Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs.

To read the rest of the article, visit Simply Complicated on Substack by clicking here