The Price of Principle: PEN America’s Divisive Report on Jewish Writers

PEN America’s recent report, “A Silent Moratorium,” has sparked a firestorm in the literary world. Its president, Dinaw Mengestu, resigned in protest, leaving many to wonder about the future of the organization.

The report is a scathing indictment of the literary establishment’s treatment of Israeli and Jewish writers. According to PEN America’s research, these writers have faced “rising isolation and exclusion” since the 2023 attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza. This isn’t just about cultural boycotts; it’s about the very real consequences that come with being a vocal supporter or critic of Israel in the literary world.

PEN America’s history reveals why this report has caused such a stir. In 2020, the organization released a study criticizing film studios and major directors for relinquishing creative control to avoid antagonizing Chinese officials. This was seen as a bold move at the time – but now it seems like just another example of the organization’s willingness to speak truth to power.

Writers Against the War on Gaza praised Mengestu’s decision to resign in protest, calling it a principled stand against censorship. However, others saw it as a betrayal of the organization’s principles. Author David Zweig wrote, “Imagine running a free expression org and resigning because it refuses to blacklist authors based on their nationality.”

The tension between Israel and Palestine is not new in the literary world – we’ve seen similar debates play out in the entertainment industry, with thousands of film workers vowing not to work with Israeli counterparts last year. But what’s different this time around is the willingness of some writers to take a stand.

As PEN America navigates this crisis, it’s worth considering the larger implications. The cultural boycott debate is not just about Israel or Palestine – it’s about the role of writers and artists in shaping public discourse. It’s about whether or not they should be willing to speak truth to power, even if it means facing backlash.

PEN America’s future hangs in the balance. Will this lead to a re-evaluation of the organization’s stance on cultural boycotts? Or will it simply be another chapter in the ongoing saga of infighting and division?

The debate over free expression is not just about PEN America or its president – it’s about what we value as a society. Do we believe that writers should be willing to speak truth to power, even if it means facing backlash? Or do we prefer the comfort of silence and complicity?

Ultimately, this is a question for all writers to consider: will they continue to take a stand on issues they care about, or will the fear of consequences silence them into submission?