Writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, darling of leftist media, the intelligentsia alike, and white liberals, spent 10 days in Israel and the Palestinian territories before writing a treatise on how Israel is the worst nation ever and definitely does not have the right to exist. In an interview with CBS This Morning, he was pressed on these views, and in his irate response both during the interview and after, it has become clear that Coates is not only poorly informed as to history both recent and 20th century, but that he's essentially antisemitic, his views no different from those of the extremists who preach and seek the destruction of Israel and America. In fact, he seems to believe that race-based terrorism is entirely justified. The white liberals who love him eat this up like manna dropped from the heavens, believing that if they adore Coates, that makes them good people themselves.
What was most shocking about the interview wasn't the revelation that Coates is not particularly diligent in his work or up to being challenged, but that the network put the reporter who questioned Coates through a struggle session, got him to say he regretted the questioning, and has been engaging in internal struggle ever since over whether Coates should have been questioned so diligently. I'm not an expert of Israeli history, and I haven't read Coates' book, but I do know about struggle sessions and attempts at cancellation, and that's what we're seeing with CBS and reporter Tony Dokoupil.
In that CBS This Morning interview, Dokoupil addresses the largest section of the book, which addresses the conflict between Israel and Hamas terrorists, which was also the governing body of Gaza since they were elected to power in 2006 after a brutal civil war between that group and the previous Palestinian governing body Fatah. Hamas won their election with promises of social services for Palestinians. Much of the aid they received from the West was used to construct tunnels, such as the one where American Hersh Goldberg-Polin was executed this summer, and to create weapons. It was with this aid, as well as support from Iran, that they were able to enact the worst single day of violence against Jewish people since the Holocaust. Intel used by Hamas was gained by Palestinians who worked in Israel and were able to provide logistics before joining the terrorists in ransacking the homes and villages of their employers. Coates' book doesn't mention the words Hamas or Fatah, does not take note of Iran, but simply paints Palestinians and their cause as just in the face of horrific oppression.
"I want to dive into the Israel Palestine section of the book," Dokoupil said after Coates expounded on his belief that "young writers" must endeavor to "save the world", "it's the largest section of the book. And I have to say, when I read the book, I imagine if I took your name out of it, took away the awards and the acclaim, took the cover off the book, publishing house goes away, the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist. And so then I found myself wondering, why does Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I've known for a long time, read his work for a long time, a very talented, smart guy, leave out so much? Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it? Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it? Why not detail anything over the First and the Second Intifada, the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits? And is it because you just don't believe that Israel, in any condition, has a right to exist?"
Coates claimed that the "perspective" Dokoupil "outlined" is already well-covered in American media and that his concern is "always with those who don't have a voice, with those who don't have the ability to talk. I have asked repeatedly in my interviews whether there is a single network, mainstream organization in America with a Palestinian American bureau chief or correspondent who actually has a voice to articulate their part of the world." A Palestinian journalist for a Washington State, non-profit outlet was killed in June during an IDF raid on his home to free the three Israeli hostages he was holding in captivity.
"I've been a reporter for 20 years," Coates continued. "The reporters of those who believe more sympathetically about Israel and its right to exist don't have a problem getting their voice out. But what I saw in Palestine, what I saw on the West Bank, what I saw in Haifa, in Israel, what I saw in the South Hebron Hills, those were the stories that I have not heard, and those were the stories that I was most occupied with. I wrote a 260 page book. It is not a treatise on the entirety of the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis."
"But if you were to read this book," Dokoupil pressed, to his credit, "you would be left wondering, 'why does any of Israel exist? What a horrific place committing horrific acts on a daily basis.' So I think the question is central and key: if Israel has a right to exist, and if your answer is 'no,' then I guess the question becomes, why do the Palestinians have a right to exist, why do 20 different Muslim countries have the right to exist?"
Coates explained that he doesn't believe any country has the right to exist, then said that "Countries establish their ability to exist through force, as America did. And so I think this question of right to— Israel does exist. It's a fact. The question of its right is not a question that I would be faced with with any other country."
"But you write a book that delegitimizes the pillars of Israel, it seems like an effort to topple the whole building of it. So I come back to the question, and it's what I struggle with throughout this book. What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state, that is a Jewish safe place and not any of the other states out there," Dokoupil asked.
Coates then pivoted to claiming that he is "offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy, no matter where they are, Muslim included," without recognizing that every nation other than the United States was built on shared ethnicity among people. "I would not want a state where any group of people laid down their citizenship rights based on ethnicity," Coates said, although that is how citizenship is bestowed in many Asian and European nations. "The country of Israel is a state in which half the population exists on one tier of citizenship, and everybody else that's ruled by Israelis exist on another tier, including Palestine Israeli citizens," Coates said.
"The only people that exist on that first tier are Israeli Jews. Why do we support that? Why is that okay?" Coates continued, without recognizing that the very terrorists who perpetrated the violence on October 7, as well as the terrorists of the bus bombings of years past, were Palestinians and that while this does not color the entire group, Hamas has for decades called for the destruction of the Jewish race globally. Protesters from Gaza to London to New York to LA to Berlin and yes, beyond, call for a global intifada to destroy not only Israel but the entire Jewish people. Dokoupil takes further issue with Coates' portrayal of Palestinians as innocent victims who are simply brutalized by Israeli laws that prevent them from living freely.
"Why is there no agency in this book for the Palestinians? They exist in your narrative merely as victims of the Israelis, as though they were not offered peace at any juncture, as though they don't have a stake in this as well. What is their role in the lack of a Palestinian state."
Coates dives into his own background as a black American during the interview as well, saying "I am a child of Jim Crow," and saying that the issue is very clear to him "perhaps it's because of my ancestry. Either apartheid is right or it's wrong. It's really, really simple. Either what I saw was right was wrong." Jim Crow laws were abolished in the south, including in Coates home state of Maryland, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Coates was born in 1975.
The two men actually had a conversation. And so Dokoupil was struggle-sessioned by the CBS network. The Free Press got hold of a Monday morning staff meeting where the network's "top brass," they reported, "all but apologized for the interview to staff." They said it did not meet the company's "editorial standards," which is bizarre, because it was actual journalism that got to the heart of Coates' views and his breadth of knowledge, or lack thereof. They claimed that Dokoupil had not "checked his biases and opinions at the door," claiming that the network is "here to report news without fear or favor" and indicating that Dokoupil had not done so.
"There are times we fail our audiences and each other," continued CBS News' Adrienne Roark. "We’re in one of those times right now, and it’s been growing. And we’re at a tipping point. Many of you have reached out to express concerns about recent reporting. Specifically about the CBS Mornings Coates interview last week as well as comments made coming out of some of our correspondents’ reporting. I want to acknowledge and apologize that it’s taken this long to have this conversation. This goes way beyond one interview, one comment, one story. This is about preserving the legacy of neutrality and objectivity that is CBS News. We want every show to be a place for courageous and robust conversations and discussions." Apparently not, though. Dokoupil was hit with a "violation."
Dokoupil had few defenders on the call, but chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford did jump in, saying that "I thought our commitment was to truth. And when someone comes on our air with a one-sided account of a very complex situation, as Coates himself acknowledges that he has, it’s my understanding that as journalists we are obligated to challenge that worldview so that our viewers can have that access to the truth or a fuller account, a more balanced account. And, to me, that is what Tony did." The network chose not to answer her on the call. The date of that call was Oct. 7.
Democracy Now! interviewed Coates about the book, and brought up the interview with Dokoupil on CBS. Amy Goodman asked Coates about the "rebuke" from CBS against Dokoupil, saying "CBS News has rebuked one of the morning anchors, Tony Dokoupil, over what he did in that interview to you, and, maybe you could also say, to his fellow anchors as he dominated this. CBS executives said the interview fell short of the network’s editorial standards." Goodman brought up the race of the other two journalists who were on set that morning.
"So, Ta-Nehisi," she said, "you sitting on the set of CBS This Morning with the former football player, now anchor, Nate Burleson, Gayle King, very well known, both African American anchors, and Tony Dokoupil. He dominated the discussion, talking about your book belonged, could be found in an extremist’s backpack. Talk about the backlash on this, the aftermath of this, and also who you felt was most wronged in this."
For Coates, who pontificated about media for a moment, the key issue was "How often on CBS, on NBC, on ABC, or on any major news organization, do you see someone who is a defender of the Israeli state project get confronted in that kind of way, given a tough interview in that kind of way? When was the last time you saw, for instance, a defender of Israel, a defender of Zionism confronted with the fact that major human rights organizations say that Israel is practicing apartheid? How do you defend that?" Coates wants to see defenders of the Jewish state confronted over that defense on television.
Juan Gonzales chimed in, asking why no one considers how bad conditions were in Gaza prior to Oct. 7, although certainly they are far worse now. Gonzales said "this criticism that you weren’t sufficiently taking into account the history, when the reality is here we are on the anniversary of the October 7th attacks, and very little discussion occurs about what was Gaza like before October 7th of last year and how were the residents of Gaza being treated, essentially, in an open-air prison." They did not mention that Gaza was under Hamas rule since 2006 and that Israeli forces had fully withdrawn at that time. Israel maintains very tight security with the Palestinian territories, and if anything, Oct. 7 shows us why that is necessary.
Coates said "there really is no part of my politics that has the ability to look at October 7th and not mourn the death, the massacre, the atrocities perpetrated. I just wish that some of my countrymen — especially my countrymen, especially Americans who are responsible for this, who are propping this up — had that same sort of compassion and that same sort of energy for October 6th, October 5th, etc."
But a few days later, Coates appeared on Trevor Noah's podcast where the two discussed the book and Coates revealed that he believed that were he Palestinian he would have gone on to commit the kind of atrocities committed by terrorists on Oct. 7 last year. He said "I haven't said this out loud, but I think about it a lot." And he gave nearly fairytale hypotheticals about olive groves and fishermen. "Were I 20 years old, born into Gaza, which is a giant open-air jail— and what I mean by that is, if my father is a fisherman and he goes too far out into the sea, he might get shot by somebody off of, you know, the side of Israeli boats. If my mother picks the olive trees and she gets too close to the wall, she might be shot. If my little sister has, you know, cancer and she needs treatment because there are no, you know, facilities to do that in Gaza, and I don't get the right permits, she might die. And I grow up under that oppression and that poverty and the wall comes down. Am I also strong enough, or even constructed in such a way where I say, This is too far? I don't know that I am. You know, I don't know that I am."
This answer itself gives credence to Dokoupil's questions. Coates does sound like an extremist, albeit a thoughtful one who has thought long and hard about if he's really up to massacring toddlers, brutally raping women, and killing entire families as they shelter in the safe rooms of their homes praying to God the storm of terror will pass. If anything shows why the questioning was necessary, it is this response from Coates.
Also Coates is just wrong. In November 2023 Gayle King, who was also on set with Coates and Dokoupil, interviewed father Thomas Hand whose 8-year-old daughter Emily was kidnapped on Oct. 7 and held hostage by terrorists in Gaza. "Now this seems to be all about politics," King asked Hand. "What do you say about that? You know, you have innocent children and Palestinians who are dying, innocent Israeli children who are dying. And no one seems to be able to say "Enough, stop that.'"
Hand, whose daughter was still in the hands of violent terrorists, said "I'm not interested in politics. My only concern is getting Emily back." Emily spent 50 days in captivity before being returned to her family. King faced no backlash for grilling the father on the political conflict between Israel and Hamas, her views on the conflict were clear as Hand simply begged for the safe return of his daughter. Emily turned 9 while being held by terrorists after being kidnapped while at a friend's house for a sleepover. She was held in the terror tunnels until her release. Hand told King that the biggest effort Israel had made toward peace was to pull out of Gaza and that it did nothing to quell the terrorists' desire to eradicate the nation. King did not address that effort.
King also was not accused of violating standards after Coates revealed that she told him the questions she was planning to ask.
During a Tuesday CBS staff meeting, Dokoupil reportedly expressed that he "regretted" that he'd "put them in a difficult position." Both co-hosts King and Burleson were not at this meeting. "Tony said he regretted putting his colleagues in that position especially the ones overseas and in danger," a source said, going on to say "There were tears" and that staffers were "very upset" as well as being "divided" on the Israel issue and "troubled" by how Dokoupil pressed Coates. It was further reported that there were dozens of employees with the network who "took issue with Dokoupil's treatment of Coates, as well as what they perceived as his history of editorializing on the Israel-Palestine conflict." And it turns out CBS' Race & Culture Unit got involved, and "determined that while Dokoupil's questions and intentions were acceptable, his tone was not." Apparently, Dokoupil was meant to have followed a "pre-production process" and "run his questions through Race & Culture."
So what's the big deal about Coates? Who is this guy, anyway? Why does CBS think he should get such special treatment? It's because, as Columbia linguistics professor and heterodox contrarian John McWhorter put it in 2016, white liberals think of him more as a spiritual leader than just a political writer and memoirist (his very first book at the age of 33 was a memoir). In a Daily Beast commentary called "Antiracism, Our Flawed New Religion," McWhorter said that "Coates is, in the Naciremian sense, a priest." He went on to say that Coates' big article in The Atlantic on "The Case for Reparations" was received as "a sermon. Its audience sought not counsel, but proclamation. Coates does not write with this formal intention, but for his readers, he is a preacher. A.O. Scott perfectly demonstrates Coates’s now clerical role in our discourse in saying that his new book is 'essential, like water or air'—this is the kind of thing one formerly said of the Greatest Story Ever Told."
McWhorter brings up an incident in which New York Times columnist David Brooks was chided by a reader in a letter the outlet printed for even questioning some of Coates' claims on reparations. Questioning Coates' was perceived as racism itself. Coates is, in short, a high priest of white liberal secular theology, questioning him on his views on racism is simply considered blasphemous. Dokoupil probably should have stopped his questions once Jim Crow was invoked if he wanted to continue being perceived of as fair and journalistic, instead, he pressed on.
The ADL came to the defense of Dokoupil, with the head of the Jewish advocacy group saying that he could not see what Dokoupil did wrong. "I just wanted to know what Dokoupil did wrong in questioning Coates’s conclusions," said ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt. "And we’re continuing to ask those questions." Greenblatt offered concerns for Dokoupil's job with CBS.
Chair of Paramount Global Shari Redstone also backed Dokoupil, saying "I frankly think Tony did a great job with that interview. I was very proud of the work that he did. Yes, as hard as it was for me to go against this company, I think they made a mistake here."
"I just want to be clear," Redstone went on to say, "that I’ve been working with the CEOs. I’ve been working with the woman who does a lot of our diversity training, and I think we all agree that this was not handled correctly, and we all agree that something needs to be done. I don’t have, you know, editorial control. I am not an executive, but I have a voice in our platform, like all of us."
Megyn Kelly also took issue with CBS for putting Dokoupil through the wringer over actual journalism, and referenced the white liberal adoration of Coates, saying "if you criticize him you're gonna get it because he literally wrote 'The Case for Reparations' and he really, really, really wants the two white guys on the set to be paying reparations to people like him."
On his take on Israel, the Palestinians, and the conflict, she said "He decided to meander over into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Because what we really needed was his take. You'll be shocked to learn he reduced it to skin color. Shocked to learn it's about colonialism for him. So he wrote this piece, which he has absolutely no knowledge of or expertise in this region, who would have the hubris to try to write a book on this region that's a Johnny-come-lately to it. That's just so absurd. But he's so used to universal praise. He's like, Sure, I'll put this in perspective for you. It's about Israel being the bad guy. Bye."
Coates has been set on such a pedestal, going back to the days of his first memoir, his "case for reparations," his crowning by white liberal secularists as the high priest of antiracism, that journalists and network executives feel it's right to threaten a man's job for asking Coates reasonable questions about his views. And they have no issue at all with the fact that, when pressed, when given the mic for even longer, it turns out that Coates wishes he had the courage to be a terrorist guided by race himself.
