Sir Salman Rushdie, the Indian-born British-American author renowned for his novel “Midnight’s Children”, has come under fire for his recent comments regarding the potential formation of a Palestinian state. Rushdie, 76, stated that a newly established Palestinian state “right now” would be similar to a “Taliban-like state.”

Read: Zadie Smith faces backlash for essay on Gaza campus protests

Speaking on the Places and Words podcast from German broadcaster RBB, Rushdie elaborated on his position: “I have argued for a Palestinian state for most of my life – since the 1980s, probably. Right now, if there was a Palestinian state, it would be run by Hamas, and that would make it a Taliban-like state, and it would be a client state of Iran.”

His remarks coincide with the International Criminal Court’s efforts to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and top Hamas leaders over alleged war crimes. In response, Nicola Pratt, a Middle East Politics Professor at Warwick University, condemned the comments, saying Rushdie’s words were “very disappointing.”

Retired psychologist Jeffrey Kaye also criticised Rushdie’s comments. “One can condemn the past criminal attacks on Salman Rushdie while also recognizing & condemning his recent comments, which misstate the state of affairs for Palestinians on Oct. 7, and give aid & comfort to Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza,” Kaye tweeted.

Salman Rushdie on university campus protests for Gaza

Rushdie continued on the podcast, questioning the progressive movements in the Western left: “Is that what the progressive movements of the Western left wish to create? To have another Taliban, another Ayatollah-like state, in the Middle East, right next to Israel?”

He acknowledged the suffering in Gaza, stating: “The fact is that I think any human being right now has to be distressed by what is happening in Gaza because of the quantity of innocent death. I would just like some of the protests to mention Hamas. Because that’s where this started, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It’s very strange for young, progressive student politics to kind of support a fascist terrorist group.”

Rushdie also commented on the reactions at New York University, where he is a faculty member, saying: “I feel that there’s not a lot of deep thought happening. There’s an emotional reaction to the death in Gaza, and that’s absolutely right. But when it slides over towards antisemitism and sometimes to actual support of Hamas, then it’s very problematic.”

Rushdie was on the podcast promoting his memoir, “Knife”, which details his recovery from the 2022 knife attack at the Chautauqua Institution in New York. The attack left him with life-changing injuries, including the loss of sight in his right eye. 

The 2022 attack occurred 33 years after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death over his novel “The Satanic Verses”. It has been dubbed the ‘Rushdie Affair’.

Rushdie’s changing politics

However, Rushdie’s recent comments are not the first to provoke criticism. In 2007, literary critic Terry Eagleton lambasted the establishment for rewarding Rushdie, accusing him of shifting from a satirist to a supporter of Western military actions. He stated: “The knighting of Salman Rushdie is the establishment’s reward for a man who moved from being a remorseless satirist of the west to cheering on its criminal adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

While many on the left have voiced their support for Rushdie in light of his attack, figures from the right have increasingly joined in. Among them is Norman Tebbit, who famously condemned Rushdie’s book as an act of “betrayal to his upbringing, religion, adopted home and nationality,” and Priti Patel, a champion of the hostile environment.

Read: EGM vote at SoA rejects ceasefire call but backs fossil fuel divestment

The left’s support for Rushdie stressed freedom of speech and rejection of extremist religion while condemning racism and Islamophobia, particularly the reactionary use of the Rushdie affair. Groups like Women Against Fundamentalism opposed both the oppression of women by fundamentalism and the racist opportunism of the National Front. Voices for Rushdie aimed to challenge the monolithic portrayal of British Muslim communities and rejected framing the controversy as an “eastern vs western” conflict. However, the controversy often led to British national identity being defined against an Islamic other, increasing perceptions of division. This divisive narrative persisted, and the left was often accused of siding with reactionary Islamism.

Rushdie’s post-1989 writings reflected a shift from a belief in pluralist Islam to hostility towards it, influenced by events like the Gulf War, 9/11, and the war on terror. He supported the 1999 NATO interventions in Yugoslavia, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and criticised the niqab. Rushdie also changed this views regarding Israel and the Palestinian state, moving from mild criticisms to enjoying support from the Israeli government, contrasting with Edward Said’s more confrontational stance.

Before he was forced into hiding, Socialist Worker ran what was to be one of Rushdie’s last public interviews for many years. At the time, he said: “It’s no pleasure to me to be supported by the Sun when it’s referring to Asians as rats.

“I’m not on the Sun’s side in that. I’d sooner be with the rats”.

Read: Salman Rushdie discusses survival, optimism, and resilience at Southbank event

Speaking during the Frankfurt Book Fair last year, however, he said: “I am filled with horror about the attack by Hamas.

“I’m filled with foreboding about what Netanyahu might do in return.

“I just hope that there can be a cessation in hostilities at the earliest point.”

Only last week, “White Teeth” author Zadie Smith was denounced for writing the essay “Shibboleth” for The New Yorker that seemingly brushed off the university protests, while being called “out-of-touch” by other writers.

Recently, Rushdie made headlines for participating in a BBC documentary, “Through A Glass Darkly”, where he engages in an AI-generated conversation with his attacker, Hadi Matar. He also spoke about envisaging a conversation with Matar at the Southbank Centre’s Spring Literature season, where we were present.