The British novelist, Ian McEwan, who has been shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize for Fiction numerous times, is to be given the Jerusalem prize at the Jerusalem Book Fair. Israel's prestigious literary prize is awarded biennially to a writer whose works have dealt with themes of ‘individual freedom in society’. British Writers In Support of Palestine (BWISP) is joining other Palestinian solidarity groups urging the British writer to heed the Palestinian civil society call to culturally boycott Israel, pointing out that the Jerusalem Book Fair is “an Israeli business venture that normalises and whitewashes the Occupation, and uses the Occupied Territories as a commercial venue” making it a legitimate a target for boycott.
In a March 2010 blog post on McEwan, the journalist Nick Cohen says that McEwan shares the view of the British left that it has collapsed ‘in liberal principles’, by which one can read: too much criticism of Israel and not enough of political Islamists. According to the post, in McEwan's 2010 novel, Solar, the author narrates an allegedly anti-Semitic incident: a female Israeli academic is received with hostility by ‘a postmodern crowd’ gathered to hear a talk on evolution and gender by the novel’s protagonist, Michael Beard, at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. Tellingly, the sympathetic character is introduced first as ‘a Jew’ and only then as an Israeli. It is McEwan who makes the obvious link with the Palestinians, whilst yet suggesting it is an absurd jump to make: “she was a Jew, an Israeli and, by association, an oppressor of the Palestinians. Perhaps she was a Zionist, perhaps she had served in the army.” Perhaps she is, very likely she did. The contempt with which the author views such an ‘association’ is itself ridiculous. The alternative narrative behind the birth of the State of Israel, vaunted homeland of the Jewish people, and all the privileges enjoyed by the Jewish citizens of this “only democracy in the Middle East” is, of course, the dispossession of the Palestinians. The anger felt by those aware of the outrage done to the memory of the nakba – its continued suppression, the public denial, the indifference – is justifiably immense. This being a fictional account, it suits the author to interpret Palestinian solidarity with indiscriminate hostility towards Jewish and Israeli individuals. In doing so, he can implicitly dismiss its validity in relation to Israeli cultural and academic institutions – all of which have been proven to be complicit in the Occupation. With a final flourish, McEwan denounces the bigotry of the audience: “This was a postmodern crowd with well-developed antennae for the unacceptable line.”
Ian McEwan’s own antennae is evidently ‘undeveloped’ in regards to the Israeli military occupation. Defending his acceptance of the Jerusalem Prize to the British newspaper, The Guardian, he paints a picture of symmetric warfare between illegal Israeli settlers and Hamas rocket-launchers: “"I am not a supporter of the Israeli settler movement, nor of Hamas. I would align myself in the middle of a great many of my Israeli friends who despair that there will ever be peace while the settlements continue. I support the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon's call for a freeze on the settlements. But I also have no time for Hamas lobbing missiles into Israel either." The ‘middle’ is despairing – alongside reasonable Israeli friends – at settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territory, whilst being comfortable with accepting ‘a highly distinguished award’ at a book fair in a city, the east of which has been illegally annexed by the Israeli State (not by some lone religious nutters). McEwan also told the Guardian: "I think one should always make a distinction between a civil society and its government. It is the Jerusalem book fair, not the Israeli foreign ministry, which is making the award. I would urge people to make the distinction – it is about literature.” To make a well-worn point, in an apartheid state, civil society institutions – even for the arts – are gravely compromised by their government funding and links. And why does it not concern him that Israel is presently at war with the Palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem – routinely expelling them and demolishing their homes to make way for Jewish citizens? Perhaps Ian McEwan aligns himself more closely with the Israeli government, which, in violation of International Humanitarian Law, believes in collective punishment of the Palestinian people besieged in Gaza, and elsewhere. In 2008, he publically defended his friend the British novelist Martin Amis who said "the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order".
It is clear that what commentators such as Nick Cohen, Ian McEwan and Martin Amis fear (the latter is also on record for defending Israel with this old canard: “Amis attempted to rally with a quick point about Israel being surrounded by hostile countries”) is that the liberal, or ‘the postmodern’ crowd is increasingly convinced of the non-violent path of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. This might be terribly inconvenient for literary luminaries like McEwan, but it is a matter of great urgency for the Palestinians who have entered their fifth decade under Israeli military occupation.
“Israel” and “prestigious” in the same sentence.
who woulda thunk.
Oh, for godsake, the Man Booker Prize is run like Hollywood. That’s what McEwan wants.
So now “postmodern” is the sneering synonym for “antisemitic?”
Yeah, feudal, modern, and postmodern–past, present, and incipient future–all anti-semitic eras; in other words, the single most important thing to know about world history is that of eternal anti-semitism. Small world, isn’t it?
Mr. McEwan and his liberally conceited literati gangbangers like Amis, Rushdi: ALL known left-wing snooty fascists (which is weirdly neocon-ish elitism), all politically united by their outspoken islamaphobia.
All SELLOUTS from two decades ago. All presently old men with zero street-cred or relevance outside a recycled academic prize circuit.
All professional ‘careerist’ writers.
All utterly devoid of any poetry.
And of morals.
Let Mr. McEwan take his ‘prize’ from racist brutes and oppressors. So what?!!
I don’t believe for a second that a single Palestinian cares about what Mr. McEwan thinks or likes – why should they when his own people, the Brits, already don’t give a flying hootinpoop about him or his pretentious books.
Is he vital to BDS? No! He’s not even a blip of importance to the struggle.
So what’s the problem?
I wouldn’t waste any time on him – he’s been on the wrong side of history for two decades.
I guess I have not read enough about Rushdie to arrive at any such conclusion. I only know that he wrote a book that did not meet the approval of the Ayatollahs in Iran and thus garnered a different sort of a “prize”- a fatwa, in which a certain translator was murdered. Do you approve of that “prize” or is his inclusion based upon some pro Israel comment that he has uttered?
Yeah wonderingjew dude, you said it yourself: he offended the high mullah of a religion so I guess he ain’t exactly a friend of that religion (islam) from way way back then – duh!
And what do you reckon – you reckon I approve of ‘fatwas’? You really gotta ask? Duh and double-duh!!!
Taxi- islamophobia, if it is to be a useful category, needs to be defined. i think your definition is a bit too wide. I do not think writing a book that offends believers is sufficient cause to paint someone as islamophobic.
The moslems are saying that he DID offend them – it’s not up to you or me to DENY THEM THEIR EXPERIENCE. They were offended, obviously because he was offensive to them. He mocked their religion – he antagonized their religion – obviously he doesn’t like their religion: giddit, okay?
That you, wonderingjew, would OMIT to mention that some FIFTY NINE Pakistani and Indian moslem protestors tragically died over this controversy, has NOT gone unnoticed indeed!
>> wj: … I do not think writing a book that offends believers is sufficient cause to paint someone as islamophobic.
>> Taxi: He mocked their religion – he antagonized their religion – obviously he doesn’t like their religion: giddit, okay?
I agree with wj: Disliking or disrespecting something is not the same as fearing it.
More importantly:
i) Religions do not have a right to demand respect from non-adherents.
ii) Disrespect of a religion does not give its adherents the right to commit murder.
Some Muslim find ANY music and ANY schooling for girls offensive. And a number of people were killed on that basis, and sometimes it was done with money and equipment provided by CIA (ingrates!). “Antagonizing a religion” should be a fair game given what the religious say and write about the agnostics. At least Rushdie did not suggest that anybody will go to hell, and he did not offer any bounties.
Moreover, there is a similar distinction between nude art and pornography. A Jew can start doubting his religion and write a book about it and many did so. As long as they do not rent to Arabs, they are not subjected to any fatwas.
Hey aljay – yeah well right or wrong, the point is that Rushddie’s book deeply offended people – it WAS an offensive piece of work to them – he knew he would offend but obviously didn’t realize how far people would take his offense.
And the extremist actions of the few shouldn’t also be used as a bludgeon on others of the same religion, hence: islamophobia in the west.
Last week Phil Weiss reported on his comment at a Friday night party regarding the Talmud- “It’s bullshit.” In fact I took offense and responded by a too wide brush to his statement, stating that the Christians from the Middle Ages often sought to burn the Talmud and the Nazis would have wiped out all those who learned the Talmud and placed it in their museum of the dead Jewish culture. But in fact rejecting any single element of the Jewish religion is not within itself a Jew hating statement, no matter how much the statement gives offense to believing Jews.
If Islamophobia is a term that means hatred of people of the Islamic faith and is thus meant as a parallel of sorts with Jew hatred (I don’t like the term antisemitic and Judeophobic does not come naturally to me either), then offending believing Muslims is not within itself Islamophobic. Given western freedom of speech, Rushdie’s novel although it offended religious Muslims is merely offensive to believers and is not a blanket condemnation of people born into the Islamic faith.
definition too wide you mean like calling anyone even slightly critical of Israel an anti semite?
I urge Mr. McEwan either to decline to receive the prize absolutely, or to decline to visit Israel to receive it. If the prize-giver will give the prize in London, for example, it would take some of the Zionist sting out of it.
I don’t think he’s likely to take your advice. There are a lot of “liberals” who are as Taxi describes on this issue–”liberal” islamophobes. A hundred years ago they might have been cultured anti-semites, maybe, but times change and the fashionable target for defenders of Western civilization has become the Muslim.
RE: “…it suits the author to interpret Palestinian solidarity with indiscriminate hostility towards Jewish and Israeli individuals. In doing so, he can implicitly dismiss its validity in relation to Israeli cultural and academic institutions – all of which have been proven to be complicit in the Occupation. With a final flourish, McEwan denounces the bigotry of the audience…” – Eleanor K
FROM PAUL ROSENBERG @ OPEN LEFT, 01/20/11:
SOURCE – link to openleft.com
“Hey, let’s be fair; tax and don’t tax the rich and poor the same. We all need to believe in the American Dream. Let’s not get into class warfare.”
British Writers in Support of Palestine (BWISP) has a letter in the British newspaper, The Guardian, today regarding Ian McEwan’s acceptance of this prize:
Trying again!
Ian McEwan and the implications of accepting the Jerusalem prize
link to guardian.co.uk
UPDATE: McEwan has responded in the Guardian to the BWISP letter:
There is now a debate on his official Facebook page:
That was link to Guardian; this is his FB page:
(Am apparently rubbish at html)