I don’t usually write about events that happen locally in Washington, D.C. But Helena Cobban informed me of a controversy brewing there that involved such a betrayal of Jewish liberal values that I thought it would be worthwhile covering it.
Saree Makdisi, is a professor of English at UCLA (where I completed my M.A.). He has just written a powerful and heart-rending story in Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation, of the impossibility of anything resembling “normal” Palestinian life under Israeli Occupation. He just happens to be the nephew of Edward Said.
Politics and Prose is a D.C. independent bookstore which agreed to an author appearance by Makdisi to promote his book. About the store, Helena writes, “in DC’s policy-intellectual circles and amongst all my liberal friends here, P&P is a HUGE deal.” So we’re not just talking about a mom and pop bookstore in a small town somewhere. We’re talking restricting the very policymakers who you’d want to hear Makdisi’s message from hearing it at the town’s pre-eminent literary showcase.
Apparently, Carla Cohen, the owner got cold feet about the event and cancelled it. But it’s her explanation provided to a local Palestinian-American who protested that boggles the mind. There is a class of intelligent American Jewish liberal who understands most of the issues involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet for some strange almost atavistic reason, they can’t bring themselves to have the courage of their convictions. When forthrightness is called for they waffle. When intestinal fortitude is needed, they cave. Here is Cohen’s response to the initial letter of protest:
Thank you so much for your thoughtful letter. I understand how you feel. I was very sad to cancel Saree Makdisi.
I have been very active — and my husband even more so — in trying to have the U.S. intervene with Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. I was recently in Israel and saw and heard about the heartbreaking effects of Israel’s policies vis-à-vis travel, employment, and so on. I came back very discouraged about Israel’s political ability to break through the impasse. The way to end the occupation lies with the U.S. I want to make the case with American Jews and with American politicians to press Israel to end the occupation.
I guarantee that nobody will listen to me if I am seen as promoting a book whose only way out of the present situation is a one-state solution. One state means the end of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. I do not believe that should happen. I am placing all of my energies on promoting within the American Jewish community a practical solution that involves respecting the legitimate needs of Israelis and Palestinians and treating with empathy those on both sides.
I read recently — and I cannot remember whether it was in the Post or Times — about the idea of having Israel recognize publicly the forced dispersion of Palestinians and offer a financial settlement for the families that lost their property. This is something that we can get behind. Somehow, we must work together to end the standoff.
You are very good to take the time to write to me about how you feel. I respect your thoughts. I hope that you understand and respect my position.
To call this mealy-mouthed is giving it too much credit. She expects the protester to “respect her position” when there isn’t a single element in it that deserves respect. It is shot-full of moral equivocation and fear of some unspecified outcome that might occur should she have the courage of her convictions and do what independent bookstore owners are supposed to do: champion authors for the important ideas they espouse. A good bookstore doesn’t care whether someone supports a one-state, two-state or 20-state solution. It looks for good books that will provoke thought and debate and gain an audience.
The most troubling statement is that no one would “listen” to Cohen should she promote a book advocating a one-state solution. I have to say that I have not read this book. But I have read reviews of it and know the reputation of the author. In none of the reviews have I seen mention of the author’s advocacy of a particular solution to the conflict. And even if he had done so, why is Cohen’s audience incapable of hearing such an argument without running for the hills in disgust?
Are we so frightened of discussion that we must close our ears and eyes to ideas outside some vaguely defined consensus? This is self-censorship of the worst sort. I don’t just mean censorship of the author, but rather censorship imposed by Cohen on herself and her customers. And for what purpose? To protect them from dangerous ideas? To prevent her from going out of business due to the furor such an appearance might generate?
I have to tell you that while I despise much of the political argument advanced by the Israeli right, thinking like Cohen’s is at least as pernicious. Perhaps even more so. Because she fully believes she is an enlightened liberal, anti-Occupation and supporter of Palestinians. This in turn gives her the right to act as an Israeli rightist would in stifling the free exchange of ideas about the conflict. You remember the old witticism: “I love the human race. It’s people I can’t stand?” Well, Cohen opposes the Occupation. It’s just Palestinian ideas she can’t stand.
Oh and should you live in D.C. and want to buy a copy of Saree Makdisi’s book, don’t buy it (or anything else for that matter) at P&P. It’s probably banned anyway. Buy it here instead.
To register your own views:
Politics and Prose (202) 364-1919
books (at) politics-prose.com
Utterly unacceptable.
I expect that the ADC will be all over this.
As the name suggests, I presume, this is a book store where people buy books on Politics and Prose and authors are invited to discuss these subjects with their readers. An independent store, I thought, encourages diversity of political thought whether the owner of the store agrees with it or not. If ‘A GROUP’ does not like a particular book because of what it says and the owner also does not agree with the main idea contained in the book and that results in cancellation of an invitation to the author to discuss the book, the book store can not claim to be “AN INDEPENDENT BOOK STORE” any more and the owner is perceived as ” NOT OPENMINDED” to different points of view from his/hers. Only when an owner of a book store will allow an author to discuss his/her book with whom he/she disagrees, will the store have the legitimacy to call itself “INDEPENDENT”. I hope, Ms Cohen will re-invite Prof Saree Makdisi. I have read quite a few of his Op-Eds and his is a voice of reason and Ms Cohen should not deprive the memebership of her store to hear what this wise professor has to say.
Prof. Makdisi is pretty clear in his newspaper columns, reprinted on his blog, that he is in favor of a one-state solution. _Palestine Inside and Out_ is a descriptive book for the most part, different from Abunimah’s and Tilley’s prescriptive works on a one-state solution, or Abu-Sitta’s work on Right of Return, all of which envision or sketch a complete scenario for the resolution of the conflict on a one-state basis. “Independent bookstore” is often code for “owned by ISM or ANSWER supporters”, and I suspect that this is an attempt to shame P&P for not being anti-Zionist, or not anti-Zionist enough. An honest “We do not agree with you and are not obliged to offer you a forum when the vast majority small of independent booksellers are taking an explicitly anti-Zionist stand” would have sufficed, but since booksellers are going to be boycotted by someone no matter what they do, a little CYA is called for. Since Makdisi is well within the mainstream of academic debate, it certainly couldn’t hurt to invite him and get the anti-Israel crowd to drop some green at P&P, but I am generally a bit more sanguine about where mainstream debate is in academe right now.
@Eurosabra: Since yr name indicates you are European or at least living in Europe I’m not sure how/why you believe you understand terms of art in the U.S. bookselling business. You are wrong in yr impression of the meaning of the term. “Independent” bookseller refers to any store independent of the mega-chains like Barnes & Noble. THere is even a national independent booksellers professional association & I assure you there are no political connotations to either the term or being a member.
Since Makdisi’s book, as you say, doesn’t focus specifically on solutions or prescriptions for resolving the conflict, it’s safe to say that any presentation he makes at this bookstore would be tertiary at best to what he would say. So the owner’s fears are unfounded. And again as you say, Makdisi is well within the academic mainstream in this. By denying him a venue, P&P is rendering itself irrelevant to those for whom this debate is important, which is an awful lot of people & potential customers.
A copy of a letter I sent the censoress, Ms. Carla Cohen:
Dear Ms. Cohen:
As a resident of the DC area and a lover of stimulating books, I have had high regard for your store, Politics and Prose, and for the exciting events that you have often organized there. But that has changed, after reading Richard Silverstein’s account of your decision to cancel Professor Saree Makdisi’s planned book reading event at your store in honor of his new book Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation.
First, I noticed that Mr. Silverstein gave you the privileges and benefits that, ironically, you denied Professor Makdisi. In discussing your decision to ban Makdisi, Mr. Silverstein had the integrity to bring forth your point of view. He published his piece only after hearing your side of the story.In the article, he quoted in full your letter attempting to justify the ban, thereby allowing your voice to be heard. He gave you the opportunity to explain, and indeed you did elaborate on how Saree Makdisi’s new book is “beyond the pale” and therefore should be banned from Politics and Prose.
You, however, did not give Professor Makdisi the opportunity to make his case; you did not allow his voice to come through. You did not have the honesty, integrity and openness to allow Professor Makdisi to present his side, namely why the book is certainly not “beyond the pale” and why he thinks we, the people who are interested in solving the conflict, should consider his ideas and opinions. Instead, you assumed the role of the liberal intelligentsia’s censor and gatekeeper, issuing a decree: the public cannot be allowed to hear Professor Makdisi discuss his book. What a shame!
While I am aware of your concerns, I am hugely disappointed in your self-imposed blatant censorship. I highly doubt your quite imaginative fear that angry hordes of right-wing Zionists are lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce on you if you dare invite Professor Makdisi to give a talk. And even if some threatening voices do exist, do you not have a backbone? Aren’t the principles of freedom of speech, thought and expression worth fighting for? By banning Professor Makdisi from your store, you acted no differently than AIPAC and other Jewish right-wing organizations that habitually ban and harass speakers whom they deem “beyond the pale,” even though those speakers advocate for peace and strongly denounce violence, as does Professor Makdisi.
I would like to suggest you heed the warning expressed so eloquently by Supreme Court Justice William Douglas:
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
Douglas was talking about the government, of course. I bet he never imagined that one day those same words will aptly describe self-censorship imposed by private individuals, self-defined liberals (!!) no less, who abuse their standing in the community to engage in restriction of free speech and free thought.
I ask that you reconsider your decision. Until you do so, I am forced to express my deep disappointment in your censorship by resolving that none of the members of my family will visit your store. Please do take a stand for freedom of thought and expression. There is no time to waste. Thank you.
S.
Silver Spring, MD
@s: Cohen has written me a very sharp, aggrieved e mail in which she appears to acknowledge that she has had a change of heart. She seems to have taken offense at being called a “wimp.” I confirmed that Makdisi has been reinvited with bookstore staff. They are waiting for his reply.
Richard
I eagely await your comments on the mistrial of the shooter at the Seattle JCC. This is certainly worth your attention since it has received virtually no press coverage in the US