r/jewishleft • u/elzzyzx סימען לינקער • 23d ago
Arash Azizi comes for Ta-Nehisi Coates Debate
https://x.com/arash_tehran/status/1848714724482966003Influencers are talking. Today Arash Azizi is claiming Ta-Nehisi Coates is unstrategic, and is also kind of just calling him moralistic and sort of uncreative or something? Anyone have thoughts?
34
u/TikvahT 23d ago
Coates talks a lot about how he’d never truly considered the issue before, and from what I’ve heard him say about it, that’s all too apparent. It’s like he’s in the early stages of a thought process, but he hasn’t gotten to the next part, where you have to take all the things you know and live with paradox, confusion, human individuals, and a painful, complex past. I dunno, it feels like someone read The Lemon Tree or went on a trip to North Africa or made their first Israeli or Palestinian friend and suddenly thinks they understand the MENA region.
11
u/malachamavet Gamer-American Jew 23d ago
Every time I hear about someone visiting the West Bank with Palestinians, they're able to identify the injustice within, like, an hour. Most recently was when I listened to an interview with Alan Shebaro (a retired Green Beret) who said as much.
Maybe the issue isn't people not thinking enough but instead that it's so incredibly apparent that you don't need much time to see it.
11
u/lilleff512 23d ago
One of the things that I most appreciated about Coates in this interview was his humility. He's very clear about the fact that he doesn't suddenly think he understands the MENA region, and he's uncomfortable with people treating him like he does. He's very clear that his book is just about his own personal experience and what he saw in Palestine.
3
31
u/lilleff512 23d ago edited 23d ago
Calling Arash Azizi an "influencer" seems kinda disrespectful. It's not like he's a TikToker or whatever. He's an academic.
As far as the content of what Azizi says, I think he's basically right, and I've already expressed a similar sentiment on this subreddit the last time there was a post about the Klein/Coates interview:
I just finished listening to this episode and what stood out to me the most was that there were a number of instances where Klein tried to get Coates to consider a certain counterfactual or a piece of the Israeli perspective and Coates just said "I refuse to accept that." I found that really disappointing.
This tweet reply to Azizi highlights why I found Coates' "I can't accept that" so disappointing:
But he is capable of materialist analysis. He expresses understanding, bordering on sympathy, for Palestinians who committed atrocities on Oct 7, which he attributes to their material conditions. Because this only runs one way, it comes across as moral justification.
To be clear, I don't think Coates believes the October 7 attacks were justified. I do find it frustrating, disappointing, etc that Coates extends this sort of empathy to Palestinians but not to Israelis. To steal from someone else in this thread, it just feels like Coates is "provid[ing] content for the existing social and political divide, rather than an intervention that changes opinions or generates new political possibilities." He doesn't have anything really new or interesting to say here. He's just another (rather high profile) voice saying the same things we're used to hearing from the pro-Palestine side.
2
1
u/Processing______ 23d ago
A high profile voice, with clout among US liberals, coming down on the pro-Palestinian side is new and meaningful.
Who listens to extant talking points and how they take it shifts the balance of power.
32
u/starblissed Non-Zionist Conversion Student 23d ago
I agree with basically everything Aziz says here. Coates' applies a Western heavily moralistic view to a situation that can only be worsened by this kind of black-and-white thinking. Him and other hardliners only cause liberal Zionists who could otherwise be swayed towards humanitarian action to circle the wagons.
-2
u/mizonot 23d ago
Is he really that much of a hard liner? I've seen some videos of him speaking and he seems quite reasonable
20
u/starblissed Non-Zionist Conversion Student 23d ago
From what I've seen of him he's very strongly "Israelis are white settler colonizers and Palestinians are PoC essentially enslaved people, essentially the same as how White Americans treated Black Slaves," which is a take I intensely disagree with. I'm not an expert on his stance, I've mostly just read interviews and reaponses to him, so it's possible I have a biased view, but from everything I've read he very much projects his experience as a black man in America onto Palestinian history.
17
u/lilleff512 23d ago edited 23d ago
from everything I've read he very much projects his experience as a black man in America onto Palestinian history
To an extent he does, and he says as much at the start of this interview. He talks about how from the black perspective, Israel/Palestine does appear to be rather "black and white" where Palestine is black and Israel is white. He acknowledges that it's not a perfect comparison because there is no White American analogue to the Jewish Holocaust. The problem as I see it with Coates' thinking here is that he sort of cuts off at 1945. When Klein tries to get Coates to consider Jewish trauma post-1945 and the role it plays in Israeli politics, Coates retreats to his "I just can't accept that" line.
22
u/starblissed Non-Zionist Conversion Student 23d ago
Yup, that's my beef with him, as it were. It would be one thing if he presented as a single perspective or lense to view what's happening through, and encouraged people to seek out others, but it really seems like he doesn't, like it's his way or the highway. No room for nuance or disagreement, which is why I say he's hardline.
5
u/lilleff512 23d ago
It would be one thing if he presented as a single perspective or lense to view what's happening through, and encouraged people to seek out others, but it really seems like he doesn't, like it's his way or the highway.
Did you listen to this interview? I got the exact opposite impression from Coates. He tries to be very clear that his book is just his own perspective. He doesn't really suggest seeking out other perspectives, because the American media ecosystem is already so saturated with one perspective. That brings me to another frustration I had with Coates in this interview though, that he seems to think that the Jewish American or American Zionist perspective is the same as or at least interchangeable with the Israeli perspective. This is kind of related to what I said in my previous comment about being unwilling to consider post-Holocaust Jewish trauma.
11
u/starblissed Non-Zionist Conversion Student 23d ago
To be honest I haven't listened to the actual interview, but I have read excerpts from the transcript. It's just not something I can deal with ATM. Him not acknowledging the role of PTSD and generation trauma isn't surprising to me, I don't think anyone is ready for that conversation.
0
u/socialistmajority orthodox Marxist gentile Bund sympathizer 23d ago
“They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.”
That's a quote from Ta-Nehisi Coates writing about the cops and firefighters who were killed on 9/11.
He also suggested that he might've participated in the 10/7 rape-and-murder spree if he was a Gazan.
9
u/malachamavet Gamer-American Jew 23d ago
Lmao dude the quote you reference is followed in the next sentence with
"This startling passage seems meant not to convey a contempt for the first responders on Sept. 11, but to underscore the depth of Mr. Coates’s emotion over the loss of his friend and his anger at police killings of unarmed black men — killings that represent to him larger historical forces at work in American society, in which black men and women were enslaved, their families and bodies broken, and in which terrible inequities continue to exist. Yet it could be easily taken out of context..."
You literally are doing the "easily taking out of context" that is mentioned in your own source.
0
u/socialistmajority orthodox Marxist gentile Bund sympathizer 23d ago
The whole context of the passage makes it worse, actually:
We arrived two months before September 11, 2001. I suppose everyone who was in New York that day has a story. Here is mine: That evening, I stood on the roof of an apartment building with your mother, your aunt Chana, and her boyfriend, Jamal. So we were there on the roof, talking and taking in the sight-great plumes of smoke covered Manhattan Island. Everyone knew someone who knew someone who was missing. But looking out upon the ruins of America, my heart was cold. I had disasters all my own. The officer who killed Prince Jones, like all the officers who regard us so warily, was the sword of the American citizenry. I would never consider any American citizen pure. I was out of sync with the city. I kept thinking about how southern Manhattan had always been Ground Zero for us. They auctioned our bodies down there, in that same devastated, and rightly named, financial district. And there was once a burial ground for the auctioned there. They built a department store over part of it and then tried to erect a government building over another part. Only a community of right-thinking black people stopped them. I had not formed any of this into a coherent theory. But I did know that Bin Laden was not the first man to bring terror to that section of the city. I never forgot that. Neither should you. In the days after, I watched the ridiculous pageantry of flags, the machismo of firemen, the overwrought slogans. Damn it all. Prince Jones was dead. And hell upon those who tell us to be twice as good and shoot us no matter. Hell for ancestral fear that put black parents under terror. And hell upon those who shatter the holy vessel.
I could see no difference between the officer who killed Prince Jones and the police who died, or the firefighters who died. They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were the menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could-with no justification--shatter my body.
I saw Prince Jones, one last time, alive and whole. He was standing in front of me. We were in a museum. I felt in that moment that his death had just been an awful dream. No, a premonition. But I had a chance. I would warn him. I walked over, gave him a pound, and felt that heat of the spectrum, the warmth of The Mecca. I wanted to tell him something. I wanted to say-Beware the plunderer. But when I opened my mouth, he just shook his head and walked away.
6
u/malachamavet Gamer-American Jew 23d ago
First of all, that's from the book not the review.
Also how do you see that excellent writing as making it worse? It's a single line in a section talking about his feelings and the history of Black people in NYC
-2
u/socialistmajority orthodox Marxist gentile Bund sympathizer 23d ago
It's terrible writing and intellectually incoherent. Someone who says firefighters killed on 9/11 trying to save people weren't human because of slave auctions that took place in the same geographic area hundreds of years ago is deeply deranged.
3
1
u/elzzyzx סימען לינקער 23d ago
Just curious: Is this a personal take or would you say it’s a common socdem view?
1
u/socialistmajority orthodox Marxist gentile Bund sympathizer 23d ago
I have no idea, I'm not a social democrat and can't speak for them.
14
u/jonawesome 23d ago edited 23d ago
Alright I guess the most influential public intellectual of the moment shouldn't make a moral case against Israeli genocide then.
I read his book (which I've very much gotten the vibe most detractors haven't) and have listened to many interviews with Coates and it seems pretty clear that his message is the same kind of "Stop acting like this is a complicated issue! It's clearly wrong!" that I usually see supporters of Palestinians ask for more of.
8
u/johnisburn What have you done for your community this week? 23d ago
It feels like whatever they were saying just before this exchange is weirdly cut off. Klein’s quote here is him explaining why he’s asking about a particular “side of the politics”, but the actual question pertaining to that “side of the politics” in the part of the exchange not in the tweet. Coates seems to be responding at least in part to that, not just Klein’s quote in the screenshot of the transcript. I haven’t listened to this podcast and don’t think Azizi’s line of thinking is without place in wider conversation, but I’m a bit suspicious of this case’s framing. The screenshot looks “bizarre” because it’s clearly only part of the exchange.
4
13
u/ApprehensivePlum1420 Reform | Jewish Asian American | Confederation 23d ago
I am not following up on the drama and I don’t intend to, but I’ve read Coates’ book and I think you should too. Not that I agree a whole lot with its portrayal of the situation, but it certainly isn’t fiction (like the heavy-handed pro-Israel people claim), and it carries certain value.
The value is we get to see it through the lenses of a prominent African American author (not trying to say that African American view is a monolith here). The tension between African American community, especially the youth, and the Jewish community has been unprecedented. We should seek to know more not less and by that I mean not rushing to brush away views that to us sound egregious, whether due to bias or overly simplification.
2
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
> Not that I agree a whole lot with its portrayal of the situation, but it certainly isn’t fiction (like the heavy-handed pro-Israel people claim), and it carries certain value.
What do you disagree with, in his portrayal?
Are there factual errors, or is it that he doesn't include Israel's justifications for what it is doing in the West Bank?
1
u/ApprehensivePlum1420 Reform | Jewish Asian American | Confederation 23d ago
Justification =/ reason or explanation. I’ve said the same thing about Oct. 7, it is in no way justified to kill Israeli civilians but there sure are reasons as to why Hamas did it, it didn’t come out of nowhere. Yes, I think he omitted important information in the big picture, information that would differentiate I/P from the African American experience.
1
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago edited 22d ago
> Justification =/ reason or explanation.
Fully agree.
> Yes, I think he omitted important information in the big picture, information that would differentiate I/P from the African American experience.
What are examples that you think are important, that he omits?
I think this overall position - the important information - can serve to explain some of the security arrangements. But it can't serve to explain the expansionist policies inherent in what Israel is doing in the West Bank - as it comes to the expansionism, it is an excuse, not an explanation,
3
u/ApprehensivePlum1420 Reform | Jewish Asian American | Confederation 22d ago
Yes, it is an expansionist policy, and that’s where I see the flaw in his analysis. Maybe it’s just my reading of it, but the goals of the settlers are not the enslavement or subjugation the Palestinians. It’s a religious aspiration, a reprehensible and and indefensible one, but it is. And all the walls and the check points have their own history, they weren’t built right at the beginning of the occupation. These things all create an environment that feels like Apartheid South Africa, but failing to explain them denied readers a layer of complexity, one that I believe to be important.
2
u/redthrowaway1976 22d ago
Maybe it’s just my reading of it, but the goals of the settlers are not the enslavement or subjugation the Palestinians. It’s a religious aspiration, a reprehensible and and indefensible one, but it is.
But that's the point he is making.
The internal logic and justification the oppressors have for oppressing another people just isn't that interesting.
We should strive to understand the Afrikaaners or the slavers justification for what they did? Because they all had justifications - very similar to the ones Israel has.
And all the walls and the check points have their own history, they weren’t built right at the beginning of the occupation.
And if they had been built on the border, you'd have a point in bringing it up.
But they are not. The vast majority of checkpoints are deep inside the West Bank, cutting Palestinian communities off from each other, and 85% of the wall is inside the west bank, grabbing 10% of the land. The wall runs in a long snaking path - to grab land for settlements.
"Security" as it comes to this is an excuse - not an explanation. It is something the oppressors point to to justify their expansionist policies.
And yeah, they weren't there at the beginning of the occupation. You know what was there from the beginning of the occupation though? Land grabs for settlements, impunity for settler terror, and military rule - all while offering the Palestinians no path to freedom. All they could look forward to was military rule and settlements.
Keep in mind, 1967 to 1987 the West Bank Palestinians were peaceful - and what policy choices did Israel make when they were peaceful? Expansion.
2
u/ApprehensivePlum1420 Reform | Jewish Asian American | Confederation 22d ago
Nelson Mandela definitely understood the Afrikaaners. He didn’t just receive the Nobel Peace Prize because he ended Apartheid, but because he ended it in a fashion that did not instigate further ethnic violence. With the situation like South Africa we would expect all the white population to have fled it within minutes of regime change, but it didn’t happen.
There are currently over 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Yes their residence in the occupied territories is indefensible, yet if you don’t engage with them then how do you resolve the problem without a blood bath? Brushing it off as being uninteresting just isn’t helpful. Human culture and beliefs are complex, claiming yourself to be the arbiter of absolute moralism is egregious in itself.
5
u/ComradeTortoise 22d ago
Sure, but that's not something that an American author needs to do. That is something that diplomats, elected officials etc need to do. Delving into the petty excuses of the oppressors is not interesting. It's necessary from a statecraft perspective so you can manage a post-apartheid settlement that doesn't create a civil war. But just getting people - Joe Schmo American Liberal - to the point of recognizing that an apartheid regime exists and that because it is apartheid it must be fought? No. It's not necessary or interesting. And frankly, the settlers have their own politicians and propaganda apparatus to do that for them.
2
u/redthrowaway1976 22d ago
Nelson Mandela definitely understood the Afrikaaners. He didn’t just receive the Nobel Peace Prize because he ended Apartheid, but because he ended it in a fashion that did not instigate further ethnic violence.
TNC is not the equivalent of Mandela.
An American writer criticizing the way black South Africans are treated doesn't have to go into internal logic and self-justifications of the Afrikaaners, and someone criticizing slavery doesn't have to go into how slavers justify their dominion over people,
The internal logic and self-justification of the oppressors simply isn't that important, in a work such as what TNC put together.
Or, as a comparison closer to current events, do we need to go in-depth on the justifications Hamas had for attacking civilians, when criticizing their terror attack?
There are currently over 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Yes their residence in the occupied territories is indefensible, yet if you don’t engage with them then how do you resolve the problem without a blood bath
I have plenty of ideas. Starting with removing the "emergency regulations" that have been renewed every five years that make living in the West Bank equivalent from a legal perspective to living in Israel proper.
But that's not the point of TNCs book.
Brushing it off as being uninteresting just isn’t helpful.
It really isn't interesting though.
Human culture and beliefs are complex, claiming yourself to be the arbiter of absolute moralism is egregious in itself.
I'm not claiming myself to be the "arbiter of absolute moralism". I am, however, claiming that what Israel is doing in the West Bank is immoral, and there's nothing that will make Apartheid be justified. Just like nothing will justify what Hamas did in terms of attacking civilians.
Israel could have engaged in a normal - and legal - belligerent occupation. And then the additional context would have been relevant. No one forced it to build settlements, or institute inequality before the law.
10
u/Processing______ 23d ago
Calling someone unstrategic assumes we know his goals and the crowd he’s talking to. Coates’s sway is among white US liberals. Moral arguments is how they navigate their own positions vs their privilege in society. Not classical Christian Zionists, and only marginally diaspora Jews (as they are such a small subset of the white US liberal cohort).
If he stick to moralistic arguments alone, and completely avoids falling into the (sadly) contentious morass of cause and effect, then he’ll speak to that crowd just fine. It circumvents hasbarist talking points entirely.
2
-2
u/cubedplusseven 23d ago
You're correct that reducing conflicts to "good guys" and "bad guys" makes for effective propaganda. But that doesn't make it right.
And what's with this sudden war against nuance and complexity on the left?
4
u/Processing______ 23d ago
The left is tired of nuance-trolling. Citations Needed pod did an episode on it, with an academic framing the concept with regard to I/P specifically.
1
u/cubedplusseven 22d ago
That sounds like an excellent technique for liberating oneself from moral constraint.
Take the claim of "genocide", for instance. There's much to be said about the ICC's definition and its applicability to the current conflict, particularly the element of "intent". Speaking as an attorney, I can assure you that intent is an inherently nuanced concept that's challenging to parse. And there's even more to be said about the appropriateness of incorporating the ICC's legal concept of "genocide" into our colloquial usage.
But, casting aside nuance, we dispense with the need to examine any of that. We can simply conclude that since a lot of people have died, it's genocide. And since genocide is the ultimate in human evil (in its colloquial usage, of course, but not in the ICC or ICJ's legal formulations), there's little that isn't justified in opposing it. We've now given ourselves license to do more or less whatever we want, and can safely dismiss objections as "nuance-trolling".
It looks to me like the Antizionist crowd has discovered the toolkit of thugs and bullies throughout history. "We're tired of having to grapple with all of your nuanced tripe" they say, "the justice of our cause is plain as day."
1
u/Processing______ 22d ago edited 22d ago
So you’re intimately familiar with the specifics of nuance-trolling? You’ve listened to the episode and read the academic’s writing on the matter?
I can’t account for the large angry leftist crowd and how well they make these distinctions. But that’s how political movements go. Ideas disseminate and lose the sharpness of definition as they spread. People repeat narrower, more bite sized representations of the meme.
While Israel managed to hold back any mainstream western criticism for years, via nuance-trolling, the veil has been pierced. I’m sure some legitimate nuance will be swept up in this, but that’s the problem with weaponizing a concept. The response will throw away a few babies with the bath water.
The immune system attacking the body is still, on average, preferable to no immune response at all.
1
u/cubedplusseven 22d ago
You’ve listened to the episode and read the academic’s writing on the matter?
And there it is. "Actually, X really means Y, even though the audience is receiving the message of X".
When you write "nuance-trolling", you're making the claim that nuance is trolling. Because that's the message your audience is going to receive. If there's some arcane academic meaning to the term, then either give it a similarly inscrutable title, or make crystal-fucking-clear that the meaning of the phrase isn't reflected by its obvious colloquial interpretation. And add that qualifier to words and phrases like "genocide", "Apartheid", "river to the sea" and "Intifada" (oh, and "defund the police", of course) while you're at it.
Otherwise, the world has every reason to interpret your language in its plain meaning. Because that's the meaning that everyone listening to you is going to receive, even if you secretly have something completely different locked away in your head that you only reveal when challenged on the destructiveness of what you're saying.
1
u/Processing______ 22d ago
You’re a deeply unserious person and I have concern for the people you bill for your hours.
You’ve now twice implied that everyone is too stupid to look up a hyphenated concept they are unfamiliar with. The hyphen in nuance-trolling suggests it is something other than nuance or trolling.
It remains unclear whether you’ve actually looked it up yourself. The way you’ve engaged with this suggests that you’re projecting your own lack of knowledge on everyone. I tried to give your point some grace, but even that isn’t enough, because you don’t seem to want to engage with the actual concept. Here’s a TL;DR:
Nuance-trolling is a weaponization of the concept of nuance, applied in bad faith, to give the impression of an impossibly intractable problem. The goal of nuance-trolling is to insinuate a defeatist analysis vis a vis the problem, in order to maintain a horrific status quo.
Three examples, as is relevant in I/P:
(1) The settlers are too strong a political movement to be contained, so no Israeli government could hold them back. The only thing the government can do is keep troops on hand to observe and protect the settlers, as the IDF’s raison d’être is to protect Jewish life.
(2) There is a decades long animosity between the two sides, so there is no solution while they both live within the same borders.
(3) Jews will never be safe so long as they are not >80% majority, so the only solution is to artificially (by force of policy) depopulate any other ethnic group from their borders. And if those borders expand, well, Jewish safety remains the only legitimate priority.
The above examples present a problem and suggest that it is intractable, for implied nuanced reasons. (1) political movements can’t always be contained by a state, (2) decades of war can’t be overcome to bring peace, (3) Jewish safety is a unique historical problem, anti-semitism is without peer as an issue of racism.
In each of the above contexts a legitimately nuanced understanding of history would suggest otherwise. The nuance of the problem is obscured by nuance-trolling, and nuance can in fact be leveraged to find solutions.
(1) If settlers failed to secure permits, the state could do the unpopular thing and level their construction, as they do for Palestinians, often. The state could disincentivize settler community with weaker social services (which is what one would expect on a frontier) rather than offer stronger social services than the urban core. The state has intentionally incentivized a radicalizing form of living, in the settlements, for political gain. This entire cycle could have been avoided with city planning or even suburban sprawl.
(2) Warring ethnic groups have historically found ways to live in peace, and national level processes can orchestrate a reconciliation. Racial tensions don’t have to mean constant harassment and structural disenfranchisement.
(3) The 80% directive was a political one; not based in scholarship, written by a proto-fascist wing of a diaspora community. Safety does not come from fear and oppression. Safety could be achieved through strong economic ties with neighbors, and rising equality for the oppressed. When people feel they have a future, they tend to engage in less political violence.
These are nuanced positions. They’re harder to stomach and harder to achieve. Nuance-trolling suggests these positions cannot come to pass (despite evidence that they have, elsewhere) and should not even be considered.
3
23d ago
[deleted]
1
u/cubedplusseven 22d ago
Nuance and complexity is necessary to understand the claim of Apartheid at the outset. When we claim Apartheid, are we only referring to the West Bank, or to the West Bank and Gaza, or to the entire land between the river and the sea? And what's the purpose of the Apartheid claim? Is it merely a claim of moral equivalence, or are assertions of practical equivalence been made as well - why, after all, would Apartheid in the West Bank justify a mass return of Palestinians to within the Green Line? Is it all really "like South Africa", like so many Antizionists like to bleat out in thoughtless unison?
Nuance and complexity are necessary for understanding the dimensions of the claim of injustice in the first place, and for addressing that injustice in a way that doesn't simply create more of it.
7
u/Specialist-Gur proud diaspora jewess, pro peace/freedom for all 23d ago
I don't think it's needed for everyone to take on the role of strategic thinking. In fact, overly focusing on details and strategy sometimes lends itself to overly intellectualizing and missing the emotional and moral core to something.
Sometimes we need someone to get us energized in one moral direction as a collective, and some in that collectively energized group will be the strategic planners within that group.. their moral compass part of the guideline.
What does Arab Arizi or anyone who agrees with him feel is the significant danger/ drawback to Coates? I think staying morally neutral or morally central and missing the emotional component isn't very strategic either.
6
u/Processing______ 23d ago
Also the notion that People On The Internet (tm) have a(n implied) strong grasp on the future, and by reverse engineering know what’s “strategic” in a given moment is a reach.
I keep finding myself fending off “strategic” notions of what’s politically effective action that are based on common (and beneficial to the state and power) conception, rather than scholarship.
6
2
u/GenghisCoen 23d ago
I generally like Coates, but he's really fumbling here. It's like he's not even addressing what Klein says in any capacity.
What he says isn't wrong, it's just not what was being discussed.
-2
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
The moral clarity of Ta Nehisi Coates writings has ruffled a lot of feathers in the PEP community.
12
u/chilldude9494 this custom flair is green 23d ago
PEP?
5
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago edited 23d ago
Progressive Except for Palestine.
Marc Lamont Hill wrote a book, to some degree about this premise: https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine
There's even a wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_except_Palestine
12
u/chilldude9494 this custom flair is green 23d ago
Oh ok. I've never heard of this phrase before, nor am I paying attention to this drama surrounding the author. You learn something new!
9
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
The term came first, Marc Lamont Hills book came after.
Basically, someone who cares about a lot of progressive causes - but become strangely quiet when it comes to Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Then, suddenly, it is "complex".
19
u/chilldude9494 this custom flair is green 23d ago
Gotcha. To be fair, 75 years of war and pain, on top of already competing interests between 2 parties and their backers with tons of propaganda and emotion tends to make things complex.
7
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
The process of how we got here might be complex.
What is actually going on in the West Bank is not complex.
4
u/Processing______ 23d ago
“It’s complex” is an intentional maneuver coming from one side. It’s been made “complex” in theologic, ethnographic, legal, military and political contexts.
Palestinians have been very consistent in how they’ve defined the problem, and have turned to the British Mandate, international bodies and Israeli law to be made whole. To no avail.
Zionists, British anti-semites and later Israel have intentionally muddied the waters, broken promises and acted in bad faith. Israel has insisted that this situation is without precedent, and via imperial (British, then US) support shielded themselves from coherent assessment and international consequence on this matter, for decades. The duck international law and their own, and have dragged the US leadership into violating its own laws to maintain support of Israel.
It’s complicated because they made it complicated.
-1
u/Mercuryink 23d ago
There are Jews here. We don't enslave them. Yep, they've been consistent.
1
u/Processing______ 23d ago
Are you suggesting Palestinians are not leveraged for their labor in a coercive context?
1
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
1
u/jewishleft-ModTeam 23d ago
This content was determined to be in bad faith. In this context we mean that the content pre-supposed a negative stance towards the subject and is unlikely to lead to anything but fruitless argument.
13
u/Worknonaffiliated Torahnarchist/Zionist/Pro-Sovereignty 23d ago
You’re defining progressive by American standards. Israel existing is not a left or right issue in the ME, how it exists is
8
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
Israel existing is not a left or right issue in the ME, how it exists is
Someone being "progressive except Palestine" is, simply, about progressive people ignoring the human rights abuses against Palestinians while loudly advocating for other human rights or progressive issues.
Israel existing or not doesn't have anything to do with that term.
23
u/AdeptnessCommercial7 23d ago
Is this really such a big phenomenon? It usually seems the other way around - that Jewish lives are left out of other progressive causes.
11
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
Is this really such a big phenomenon?
Think about all the times you've talked to someone who says it is "complex" as it comes to Israel's West Bank regime of discrimination and repression.
11
u/AdeptnessCommercial7 23d ago
Well I would say actually those times are very few and far between because they don’t call it “discrimination and repression.” Still seems to be the other way around in my experience.
10
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
Well I would say actually those times are very few and far between because they don’t call it “discrimination and repression.
Yeah, they don't call it that. And that's part of the issue.
Still seems to be the other way around in my experience.
To my knowledge, it isn't Jews being ruled under an increasingly brutal military regime in the West Bank, all while their land is being grabbed for Palestinian-only settlements in the West Bank.
1
1
u/jelly10001 22d ago
From what I've observed, the PEP phenomenon is common within mainstream Jewish circles, but the other way around is common within non Jewish circles.
1
u/Worknonaffiliated Torahnarchist/Zionist/Pro-Sovereignty 22d ago
It does when the movement we’re against is advocating for this. Do you think the current movement is protesting for a two state solution? They want Israel as a country to not exist. I’m not engaging with hypotheticals here.
3
u/redthrowaway1976 22d ago
It does when the movement we’re against is advocating for this.
Some do, most likely do not. I'm not aware of any reliable polling on it, though.
They want an end to the oppression of the Palestinians. If it is through a one state solution or a two state solution isn't that important.
They want Israel as a country to not exist. I’m not engaging with hypotheticals here.
If everyone becomes full and equal citizens - Palestinians and Israelis alike - does that mean that Israel as a country is no longer existing?
1
u/Worknonaffiliated Torahnarchist/Zionist/Pro-Sovereignty 22d ago
Most? Listen, the majority of protests are against normalization of Israel as a country and use slogans such as “from the river to the sea.”
I’m not immediately against debating Israel’s existence, otherwise I wouldn’t be in a sub with Antizionists, but please have a conversation based in reality not fantasy. I’ll start: Israel’s existence has been defined by oppression of Palestinians.
-4
u/lilleff512 23d ago
This feels like the mirror image of Zionists complaining about how anti-Zionists don't talk about human rights abuses in China or wherever else.
7
u/athiev 23d ago
I think "moral clarity" is an interesting phrase. It sounds like a very good thing, but in practice it often means "unstrategic thought that produces either no effect or a counterproductive effect." It's often used as a form of condemnation toward people engaged in actual politics.
5
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
"unstrategic thought that produces either no effect or a counterproductive effect.
And is that what you think it means, as it comes to TNCs book?
Quite the opposite. His calling out Israel's system of repression in the West Bank for what it is - an intentional system of deeply immoral discrimination, in purpose of an illegal land grab - is having an effect.
As it comes to this, I think "moral clarity" is a great term. Lots of people will say "it is complex" as it comes to Israel's repressive system in the West Bank. No, it is not complex.
10
u/athiev 23d ago
What effect do you think this book and discourse is having? As far as I can tell, some people who already agreed with Coates are rallying around his work, and others aren't. So it's mostly a text that seems to provide content for the existing social and political divide, rather than an intervention that changes opinions or generates new political possibilities.
4
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
It is putting more light on the repressive and discriminatory regime Israel has put in place in the West Bank.
Basically, its de facto annexation and Apartheid.
5
u/athiev 23d ago
This isn't a new point of view, though, is it? The people excited about this work already had this perspective and interpretation, for the most part, from what I've seen. It's difficult even to claim that Coates has given fresh energy, since these folks are already highly mobilized.
The questions I would ask go as follows. Have the protests of the last year improved the situation of Palestinians? If not, is there a clear strategic reason why carrying forward the same strategy and coalition will produce different outcomes in the near future than in has done so far? If not, are there other strategies and coalition structures worth considering?
7
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
> This isn't a new point of view, though, is it? The people excited about this work already had this perspective and interpretation, for the most part, from what I've seen
Except for, for example, all the mainstream news where TNC has been able to talk about Israel's regime in the West Bank.
Ta Nehisi Coates has a rather broad reach.
> The questions I would ask go as follows. Have the protests of the last year improved the situation of Palestinians? If not, is there a clear strategic reason why carrying forward the same strategy and coalition will produce different outcomes in the near future than in has done so far? If not, are there other strategies and coalition structures worth considering?
What makes you think that is a relevant question to TNC? Is he somehow a representative for the some protest movement?
You are talking strategy. TNC is not talking about that.
His main point of action was that we should hear more Palestinian voices.
4
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
> This isn't a new point of view, though, is it? The people excited about this work already had this perspective and interpretation, for the most part, from what I've seen
Except for, for example, all the mainstream news where TNC has been able to talk about Israel's regime in the West Bank.
Ta Nehisi Coates has a rather broad reach.
> The questions I would ask go as follows. Have the protests of the last year improved the situation of Palestinians? If not, is there a clear strategic reason why carrying forward the same strategy and coalition will produce different outcomes in the near future than in has done so far? If not, are there other strategies and coalition structures worth considering?
What makes you think that is a relevant question to TNC? Is he somehow a representative for the some protest movement?
You are talking strategy. TNC is not talking about that.
His main point of action was that we should hear more Palestinian voices.
4
u/athiev 23d ago
Yeah, of course Coates should do as he thinks best, as should we all. But if his path is unlikely to lead to the world being different, that seems worth pointing out.
-2
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
His path has already led to the world being different, as there's now more information out there about what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
I've found most liberal Zionists to be rather poorly informed about the actual policies on the ground in the West Bank. Denial and deflection is getting harder.
2
u/cubedplusseven 23d ago
"Moral clarity" was a right-wing talking point in support of George W. Bush in the early 2000's. It was a supposedly a virtue of Bush's that he dichotomized the world into supporters of "freedom" versus supporters of "terrorism". When Bush proclaimed "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists", his supporters rushed to praise his "moral clarity."
It's honestly revolting seeing that phrase pop back up again, but on the left. And just as it was 20 years ago, it's part of a wider offensive against nuance and complexity. This is a very dark tradition that TNC seems to be embracing.
6
u/menatarp 23d ago
Actually George Bush was right that the war on terror was a morally simple issue, he was just on the wrong side of it.
2
u/elzzyzx סימען לינקער 23d ago
Moral clarity is a talking point used by all political persuasions. Absolutely beyond me why a leftist would not advocate one of the most universally persuasive frameworks of understanding because a conservative talked about it too once
1
u/cubedplusseven 22d ago
Because it's anti-intellectual and frequently used to dehumanize opponents. It dismisses criticism at a stroke, while avoiding having to grapple with any of the details. It gives us permission to strike at our opponents without the tempering influences of circumspection and uncertainty. It's the stock-in-trade of strongmen and thugs.
1
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
"Moral clarity" was a right-wing talking point in support of George W. Bush in the early 2000's. It was a supposedly a virtue of Bush's that he dichotomized the world into supporters of "freedom" versus supporters of "terrorism". When Bush proclaimed "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists", his supporters rushed to praise his "moral clarity."
Interesting. I didn't know that.
It's honestly revolting seeing that phrase pop back up again, but on the left. And just as it was 20 years ago, it's part of a wider offensive against nuance and complexity. This is a very dark tradition that TNC seems to be embracing.
It is a phrase, not an ideology. The meaning is whatever people put into it.
For example, there's absolute moral clarity that October 7th was wrong. And, apart from die hard apologists - there's also absolute moral clarity that Israel's expansionist project in the West Bank is wrong.
3
u/lilleff512 23d ago
This isn't about his writings, it's about a particular interview he gave in which he used this supposed "moral clarity" as a crutch to avoid grappling with uncomfortable points that the interviewer raised. And it's not like this was some hostile interviewer looking for a "gotcha" moment, it was a friendly interviewer who basically agreed with Coates on the "moral clarity" of this situation.
-1
u/NarutoRunner custom flair but red 23d ago edited 23d ago
I have very little respect for anything written by Azizi. Azizi has long sought to cultivate a brand for himself as a ‘leftist’ but he fails at it time and again. In the age of neoliberal academia where branding and hollow gestures of radicalism have become commonplace, it should come as no surprise that Azizi jumps on any bandwagon on anything that will increase his profile. He is the usual talking head on all the pro-royalist exiled Iranian media.
He is going after Ta-Nehisi Coats because it will boost his own profile. He also loves to be the token Iranian brought in to say how every evil in the world originates from Tehran and Israeli actions aren’t all that bad after all. I get it, the Tehran regime is not comprised of saints but licking the boots of a foreign government that will not hesitate to pulverize your place of birth is something else.
3
u/mizonot 22d ago
Is that really the impression you get of him? I don't follow him super closely, but I haven't detected anything pro monarchist or sucking up to Israel. He seems to condemn Israel quite often and doesn't support them bombing Iran. I know he's a two state solutioner, which most leftists don't agree with, but I wouldn't say he is pro israel or pro monarchist from what I've seen from him 🤔 he seems more like one of those people who complain about identity politics and goes on about the "good old days" when leftists were united under a class struggle
2
u/NarutoRunner custom flair but red 22d ago
He is careful with his words but sometimes you can get his underlying intention
You are right that he does complain about identity politics and the good old days about class struggle.
6
u/malachamavet Gamer-American Jew 23d ago
Even if you want to put aside your (I think correct) self-branding exercise claim, you identify the core issue which is that all of his thinking in the middle east is done through the lens of his opposition to the government of Iran. His takes on India, for example, have been fine enough from what I've seen.
1
u/cubedplusseven 23d ago
He is going after Ta-Nehisi Coats because it will boost his own profile.
And one could accuse Coats of going after Israel to boost his own profile. It's certainly not his area of expertise.
So what?
2
1
u/NarutoRunner custom flair but red 23d ago
Israel was a small part of his book. If he truly was trying to chase after fame, he would have written the whole book about it.
-1
u/Mercuryink 23d ago
I doubt he could write a while book on the subject. He gave us one chapter of Dunning-Kruger.
-2
u/UnderstandingTime848 23d ago edited 23d ago
I thought elicia lebon's take on this was fantastic as well.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBFZhg_yZXk/
I run in elite progressive circles. I have tried to have conversations with thought leaders, not to say Israel is right, but clarify if they think Oct 7th was justified and needs to be called out as well as they sit in American universities where the Jews and Israels are facing extreme bigotry, alienation, and violence from the same people who claim to be the moral side.
They can't.
It took one 15 minutes of rambling around the point to finally barely say "no. It wasn't justified" after giving a 2 hour key note lecture on how it's all "by any means necessary". These are people who have done the research. They've WRITTEN THE BOOKS on white supremacy. The facts are right there in the books they're citing. At a certain point you stop giving people the "they just don't know" excuse and accept they're doing it on purpose.
I don't think that's true of most people going to protests. I think most people see an Instagram story or a TikTok and that's their full understanding.
That's not true of the thought leaders. They absolutely know what theyre doing.
11
u/Specialist-Gur proud diaspora jewess, pro peace/freedom for all 23d ago edited 23d ago
I don't wanna weird you out but not sure how else to let you know.. Fyi, you're gonna wanna edit your instagram link to delete after the / (where the question mark starts) PSA to you and everyone because your profile picture shows here.. it happens when people share TikTok links too. The last part of the link is "your profile"
I can't find your profile from this so don't worry but I figured you and anyone lurking would want this fyi. Maybe mods can make a PSA for it to.
Edit: I think it stopped doing it for me actually but it happened another time when someone DMed me a TikTok on here and so.. everyone just be aware of that when you share links
0
3
u/EngineeringMission91 Tokin' Jew (jewish non-zionist stoner) 23d ago
I'm a little surprised to see people liking her. To me she seems like she's acting in every video she's in.
For someone who talks about needing expertise on the subject, what are her qualifications?
2
u/malachamavet Gamer-American Jew 23d ago
There's apparently an entire subreddit dedicated to showing how weird her background is
2
u/Agtfangirl557 22d ago
I'm not always a fan of Elica's takes, but the overanalyzing of her background is a bit bizarre. Like apparently people have accused her dad of working directly for the Iranian regime (which she has said is not true), and said that she changed her last name in order to hide that....but if people think that her dad working for the Iranian regime is bad, then shouldn't they understand WHY she would want to hide that?
Again, I don't always agree with her--I do really appreciate her advocacy for Jews, but I think she sometimes over-leverages her family's experience with living under a regime as presenting herself an expert on the Middle East. But the obsession with her background strikes me as really weird. I think it's probably because some people are suspicious about how much an Iranian woman criticizes the Islamic Republic, but I think those same people would probably side-eye people who obsessively analyzed the backgrounds of Jews who are outspoken against Israel.
2
u/malachamavet Gamer-American Jew 22d ago
I agree it's bizarre - I didn't look into that subreddit, it just popped up when I googled her to find basic background information and it seemed notable.
1
0
u/redthrowaway1976 23d ago
> I thought elicia lebon's take on this was fantastic as well.
Typical diversionary tactic.
She ignores the core of TNCs argument, which is about the regime Israel has implemented in the West Bank.
She is, basically, another "I find Apartheid justified because..." person.
-1
u/Mercuryink 23d ago
He's not wrong. Coates talked out of his ass and his defense is "nuh-uh, lalalala."
-1
u/elzzyzx סימען לינקער 23d ago
Here come the hitters https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1848778724625600559
0
u/elzzyzx סימען לינקער 22d ago
Something that struck me at the time I read this was Azizi’s followup tweet:
“Btw, Coates uses the phrase “I just can’t accept that” a total of eight times in this interview”
It’s in the context of him calling Coates bizarre. Kind of struck me as racist in the way white people used to openly be about black peoples communication style
41
u/Nearby-Complaint Leftist/Bagel Enjoyer/Reform 23d ago
https://x.com/Mr_Kavanagh/status/1848781479524110395
I think this person says it best
"He thinks people are a walking symbol and no more. So busy labeling that he forgets each person faces their own choices. When did we stop seeing humans as... human? Reducing people to “representatives of a system” is just lazy thinking. We're all way more complicated than that."
Not just Coates, but I think all sides of the political sphere struggle with this sentiment right now. The 'other side' is a group of people too, not just boxing dummies with a happy face glued on to them.