 |
The Nelly Sachs prize was given to Shamsie this month, but its German jury has reversed decision because of the novelist’s pro-Palestinian activism.
Kamila Shamsie has said that it is a “matter of outrage” that the Israel boycott campaign should be held up as something shameful after a German jury reversed its decision to award her the €15,000 (£13,000) Nelly Sachs prize over her support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
The eight-member jury had decided on 6 September to make the British-Pakistani author their latest winner, citing writing that “builds bridges between societies”. But when they learned of Shamsie’s support for the BDS movement, they announced that they would cancel their original vote and withdraw the award. .
“With its vote for the British writer Kamila Shamsie … the jury honoured the author’s outstanding literary work,” they said. “At that time, despite prior research, the members of the jury were not aware that the author has been participating in the boycott measures against the Israeli government for its Palestinian policies since 2014.”
Once it was revealed that Shamsie was actively supportive of the BDS movement is it so surprising that a prize closely associated with the Jewish religion or author would be rescinded? That it was initially awarded to a writer who is also Muslim --that sounds consistent with the aim of promoting understanding or building bridges between peoples. But her support for BDS means she is not neutral but is infact devisive in matters that are important to many Jewish people. Personnally I do not believe that being anti-zionist equates to being anti-semite but that is a dispute that remains unsettled and it is not surprising that many Jews would like to conflate the two. What I am getting at is that it is not really that shocking that the award was rescinded (considering the politics involved) nor is it a great injustice to a woman who is partisan with one side of a middle eastern conflict -that's hardly in the spirit of building bridges between waring factions.
ReplyDeleteChristy - I am not as surprised as I am disappointed. Shamsie is not neutral nor should she be given the immense barbarity practiced by Israel on the Palestinians. I wonder if it is less to do with what Jewish people feel and more to do with the wider German attitude which is hostile to criticisms of Israel. I think support for BDS is far removed from taking sides between warring parties but taking a stand against what a serious military power does to a pretty powerless people. The terrible experience of Nelly Sachs is more akin to what the Palestinians endure than it is to what Israel inflicts. On another matter, I see they are now considering prosecuting Lisa Smith when she returns.
DeleteAs somebody who is opposed to BDS; I am appalled by the withdrawal of the Nelly Sachs prize to Kamila Shamsie. Censoring or boycotting ideas and literary endeavours is never a good idea.
ReplyDeleteAM
ReplyDeleteYou have a point and I do think the whole affair is more about politics and securocrats than fairness. I think the German's are still very sensitive about issues concerning Jews and plays into German concerns for Isreal's security.
I am concerned about the Assitant Garda Commissioner's interview. Sounds like they are being lazy and will try to stretch anti-terror law to fit what its not designed for. ISIS committed what are called 'core international crimes' such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide -anti-terror laws are not designed for these. Whereas, Ireland introduced the International Criminal Court Act 2006 specifically to deal with core international crimes; thus it is the appropriate way to go.
O'Sullivan's claims that Smith was not radicalised in Ireland smacks of just trying to make themselves look good -in light of claims that military collegues had flagged concerns about Smith's radicalisation and somebody decided to ignore them. If Smith decided to leave Ireland to join ISIS then she was already radicalised.
Christy - it will be interesting to see how this plays out. As you suggest, it is the use of the law in this for another purpose that poses a concern.
ReplyDelete