Writers attacking Pen America over Israel are burning down their own house

There are certain “first principles” that must be respected, no matter whom they appear to benefit in the short run. One is the right to free expression, including the freedom to write and read, with access to both harmonious and offensive points of view. 

In the United States, we are fortunate that Pen America has championed the freedom to write for the past 102 years, by ensuring people “have the freedom to create literature, to convey information and ideas, to express their views and to access the views, ideas and literatures of others.”  

Almost tragically, a hard corps of American writers — some prominent, others emerging — have, evidently, set out to all but destroy Pen America for the perceived sin of being insufficiently condemnatory of Israel’s Gaza war. 

They have already forced the cancelation of two of Pen America’s most important events for 2024 — the World Voices Festival (founded by Salman Rushdie in 2004) and the annual literary awards ceremony — and have now demanded the resignation of Executive Director Suzanne Nossel, President Jennifer Finney Boylan and the entire executive committee. (Disclosure: I am a Pen America member.) 

It’s not that Pen America has been silent on the Gaza war. The organization has issued over 40 statements denouncing the “immense loss of Palestinian lives, including authors, poets, artists and journalists, and the destruction of museums, libraries and mosques that contribute to a vibrant cultural community.”  

Pen America has decried “the suppression of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian speech on campuses,” called for the protection of Palestinian journalists “in the face of irresponsible rhetoric by the Israeli government” and opposed “government efforts to curtail speech critical of Israel.” 

In addition, Pen America has created an emergency fund with an initial contribution of $100,000 for direct financial assistance to Palestinian writers. 

None of that mattered to the angry writers, who found Pen America’s efforts objectionably little and late. They have charged variously that Pen America declined to join the academic and intellectual boycott of Israel, and did not quickly enough join the demand for an “immediate and unconditional cease-fire.” 

Predictably, many of the writers’ complaints focused on the use or non-use of certain language, even though their own accusations were notably imprecise.  

For example, one group of 28 well-known writers — including Naomi Klein, Michelle Alexander and Hisham Matar — complained that Pen America called for a cease-fire only with a vague “hope” for one that is “mutually agreed,” rather than “a clear call.” 

Another group of mostly younger writers complained that Pen America’s cease-fire statement “forgot the word ‘permanent.’” 

The nub of it seems to be that Pen America had the temerity to call for “an immediate cease-fire and release of the hostages.” That actually goes further than United Nations Security Council Resolution 2728, which demanded a “cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire [and] the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” 

Even Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), no apologist for Zionism, included the release of Israeli hostages in her cease-fire demand. 

The Security Council and Pen America recognized — as the furious writers have not — that a “permanent” cease-fire is impossible given Hamas’s vow to repeat the Oct. 7 attack “time and again until Israel is annihilated.” Even a “lasting sustainable cease-fire” requires a mutual agreement, including the release of hostages. 

Pen America’s entirely reasonable explanation of its position addressed virtually all of the criticisms, expressing support for the “Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including authors, poets, artists, journalists, and others who have paid with their lives brutally and unfairly.” 

Still, the organization stood by its commitment “to be open to all writers” because it sees “no alternative but to remain home to this diversity of opinions and perspectives.”  

To the protesters, “diversity of opinion” amounted to “Zionist propaganda under the guise of neutrality.” They condemned the organization’s “New York Times-like refusal to even use the word ‘genocide’ [and] consistent platforming of Zionists.’” 

They attacked Nossel, former executive director of Amnesty International USA, for supposed “longstanding commitments to Zionism, Islamophobia and imperial wars in the Middle East.” 

Salman Rushdie and eight other past presidents of Pen America saw things differently, praising the organization as a “place for writers to debate and disagree” and endorsing continued “commitment to presenting varied voices [and] willingness to engage challenging topics.” 

The writers who have endangered Pen America would do well to consider what the literary landscape would be like — especially in red states — without an organization determined to defend free expression, without regard to politics or ideology. 

There is a crucial scene in “A Man for All Seasons,” Robert Bolt’s iconic play about the role of integrity in human affairs, when Sir Thomas More explains his unwavering principles to a disbelieving William Roper: 

More: “What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” 

Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” 

More: “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?” 

To the writers who would flatten Pen America for the offense of insufficient demonization of Israel: Where will you find a champion, should the zeitgeist turn ‘round on you? 

Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.