The latest proxy battle in the Israel-Palestine conflict came and passed this week. This one took the form of a dispute between famed author Sally Rooney and an Israeli publisher. While Rooney's previous two books had been printed with a Hebrew translation, this book as of now has not. This relatively niche issue would normally not be a major concern, but an op-ed published on Monday suggested something more sinister. The original edit of the article says that Rooney wouldn't allow a Hebrew translation at all and suggests a sinister motive:
"I’m not suggesting that Rooney is antisemitic, or that criticism of Israel automatically constitutes antisemitism. But given the rise of antisemitism in recent years, especially in Europe, the timing of her choice is dangerous."
To be clear, the article presents precisely zero proof of antisemitism or anything resembling it, so that final paragraph reads more as a less-than-good faith smear than as a genuine concern. Furthermore, it became clear the very next day that its entire central premise was incorrect. Rooney's decision was not in fact a blanket dismissal of publishing the book in Israel, but rather a decision to avoid the specific publisher in concordance with the demands of the BDS movement:
full statement from Sally Rooney on choosing to boycott an Israeli publishing house, via her agent: pic.twitter.com/q3CMAG4NKT
— Mari Cohen (@maricohen95) October 12, 2021
This kerfuffle soon got picked up by mainstream outlets like the New York Times. The summary of the issue in the linked article is mostly fine, but there is one very peculiar thing that undermines its purpose. Specifically, it quotes precisely one person not directly involved, a literary agent who has a very clear opinion on the matter:
"Deborah Harris, a literary agent whose company handles major authors looking to be translated and published in Israel, described Ms. Rooney’s decision as painful and counterproductive.
“When it’s ice cream or when it’s cement, or whatever else it is, it’s one thing, but when it comes to culture, I just have a very, very hard time seeing how this can be productive in changing anything,” Ms. Harris said. “What literature is supposed to do is reach into the hearts and minds of people. ”
Those likely to read Ms. Rooney’s work in Israel, Ms. Harris added, are not those who support the policies to which she likely objects. “Her audience here are people who are in total support of a Palestinian state,” Ms. Harris said."
The argument she makes is itself ridiculous and contradictory (literature is supposed to change hearts and minds but also no one who needs such a change would read the book?), but the more critical issue is what such reporting omits. Its lack of critical analysis omits proof of the suspicious "total support of a Palestinian state" quote. Its assumption that the "hearts and minds" quote is true omits an acknowledgment that other, likely more valid theories of change exist. And most importantly, it omits the voices of BDS supporters and even Palestinians in general. Such a blinkered portrait of the dispute at best conveys an incomplete understanding of what happened and at worst launders the prevailing ideology of the ruling class through a seemingly neutral medium.
This all comes full circle with the publication that started this choosing to monetize the rot by hearing both sides. The follow-up piece is much more fair to Rooney and as such is not completely awful, but once again whatever utility it may have is undermined, this time by an appeal to what is effectively nihilism in its closing paragraph:
"Rooney gets what the conversation around her doesn’t, which is that every part of this saga — her boycott, the backlash, the backlash against the backlash — is a gesture of almost monumental insignificance. It’s just a means for those engaged in it, including Rooney herself, to feel some sense of control in chaos without making much or any difference at all."
This echoes the quote from NYT, but in a more pervasive and all-encompassing way. It conflates Rooney's purposeful adherence to an organized boycott with...posting about it? It appears to assume that because Rooney's boycott didn't immediately lead to Palestinian liberation, her actions were worthless. It's a sort of existential begging of the question that's common to our time, where it is seemingly easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism/imperialism/etc. More than anything, I think that this sense of fundamental despair is what corporate media is designed to impart to the masses (or perhaps it just does this unintentionally, but with the implicit support of those in power). This episode with Sally Rooney is a prime illustration of how a clearly principled action can be rhetorically ground into nothing. You may not be able to stop them from promoting this cynical view of the world, but you can at least refuse to accept it.
No comments:
Post a Comment