The Society of Authors UK was founded in 1884 by Walter Basant, novelist, historian, and social reformer. Counted among its earlier members were George Bernard Shaw, John Galsworthy, Thomas Hardy, J.M. Barrie, and E.M. Forster.
This prestigious organization is a trade union for British writers of all genres. Its goal is to protect the rights of authors, lobby publishers and government to make sure that writers get their just rewards, for example royalties on library loans. It also offers free legal advice when checking contracts and has saved many an author from signing a suspicious document.
Having been a member of the SOA for many years, I have benefited from its efforts and have also enjoyed a friendly and efficient dialogue with the staff. On its Zoom events, one sees a diverse and intelligent selection of lecturers and members.
Resolution on the Israel-Hamas War
So it was with some disbelief when in May, the SOA announced an Extraordinary General Meeting online to vote on three resolutions. The first two were technical and passed without argument.
Resolution Three, however, was totally beyond the remit of a British trade union, and although the democratically elected Board of Management strongly advised against its being presented and discussed, freedom of speech prevailed.
Sixty-six members had presented a resolution that the SOA should discuss the situation in Gaza. The text quotes word for word the Hamas narrative and accused Israel of deliberately aiming at hospitals, schools, and universities. In particular, it claims that journalists and media workers have been killed as a result of Israeli action. The complaints continue: blockade of water, fuel, medical supplies, electricity. It cites, of course, the vastly inflated casualty numbers, now proven to be totally inaccurate.
There was not one word about October 7, the heinous invasion and crimes committed against the residents near the Gaza border, and the peace-loving Supernova music festival. Not one word about Israeli hostages, raped, mutilated, starving, deprived of food and medication kept for all these months in the dark cold of underground tunnels. Not one word about a nine-month old baby and a four-year-old toddler abducted with their terrified mother.
No mention that some of those journalists killed by Israel action were from recognized news agencies who gleefully joined Hamas terrorists on October 7 in order to report and photograph their glorious “victory.”
Speaking out in opposition, a very articulate Jewish writer pointed out the inaccuracies and one-sided text, graphically describing the massacre on October 7.
While the resolution did not carry, the number of people who voted for it was alarming compared to those against: 883 against, 786 in favor, with 239 abstentions.
Out of 12,500 members of the SOA, it would seem that more than 10,000 did not care enough to make their views known.
This set the cat among the pigeons, and the SOA was besieged with enraged comments from both sides, many of them, including myself, threatening to resign.
Nevertheless, the UK Jewish Chronicle reported that Jewish members had shared their relief over the failure of the resolution to be carried. Quoting SOA member writer Hilary Freemen, “It is heartening to know that most people are not happy to put their names to a statement that is so one-sided. Commenting on politics in the Middle East is not the society’s remit,” she said.
Following the responses to this, the Board of Management held a follow-up internal meeting requesting that members could send their comments beforehand. They obviously received an avalanche of mailings and sent out a rather lukewarm response, repeating that they had advised against but could not block the resolution. Their approach to dignity and respect includes, “We do not comment on areas outside our remit in order to protect the right to freedom of expression of our 12,500 individual members.” This is not what had happened at that meeting.
While protecting the rights of authors, I had proposed some time ago that they should investigate the marginalization of Jewish and Israeli writers by British publishers and literary agents. While Israeli and Jewish writers produced some of the most prolific and iconic literature in Britain in the 20th century, the trend now is for publishers to promote the narratives of writers of color, including more and more radical Muslims.
An Israeli Russian writer, Dina Rubina, was invited to a conference at Pushkin House in London to talk about her books.
Prior to the conference, she received the following email from the moderator, Nataliya Rulyova:
“The Pushkin House announced our upcoming conference on social media and immediately received critical messages regarding your position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They wanted to understand your position before responding. Could you formulate your position as soon as possible.”
Rubina’s reply: “You’ve written beautifully about my novels, and I’m sorry for the time you’ve wasted because I have decided to cancel our meeting.
“The academic community which was not concerned about the massacres in Syria or Somalis, nor the mistreatment inflicted on the Uighurs nor the millions of Kurds persecuted by the Turkish regime, now support the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.”
The SOA obviously did not anticipate the reaction to its lack of judgment in allowing this resolution to be discussed.■