Renowned British author Zadie Smith has faced significant backlash for her recent essay in the New Yorker, which critics claim dismisses the importance of university campus protests in support of Palestine. In the past few weeks, there have been a swathe of arrests as students across the US have been demonstrating for a ceasefire in Gaza. However, Smith’s essay, titled “Shibboleth“, has ignited a firestorm of controversy among literary circles and activist groups, including Book Workers for a Free Palestine.

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

In a statement released today (May 6), Book Workers for a Free Palestine expressed their profound disagreement with Smith’s stance, particularly in light of ongoing conflicts in Gaza. The group stated, “As genocidal Israel prepares to invade Rafah, where 1.5 million displaced Palestinians from the besieged Gaza Strip are currently sheltering, we profoundly disagree with the positions that Zadie Smith has taken in the New Yorker.

“Despite her insistence that her personal views are of no consequence, as a prominent cultural figure writing for a major literary outlet she had the opportunity to lend her voice in support of the brave and inspiring students in the US, UK and many countries protesting Israel’s seven-month war on Gaza and the West’s direct complicity,” they added.

On the fence narrative

Smith openly challenges her readers by stating, “Let me make it easy for you. Put me wherever you want: misguided socialist, toothless humanist, naïve novelist, useful idiot, apologist, denier, ally, contrarian, collaborator, traitor, inexcusable coward.” Smith then states the essay is her “personal views” which have no weight than “an ear of corn”. As a result, many have questioned why the author has chosen to write the essay in the first place.

Smith’s essay argues that the significance of student protests lies less in the political positions they advocate for and more in their collective action against funding violence. She writes, “One state, two states, river to the sea—in my view, their views have no real weight in this particular moment, or very little weight next to the significance of their collective action.”

Grandstanding and disingenuity: writers respond to remarks

Critics argue that Smith’s refusal to clearly pick a side undermines the impact of her words. Verso Books editor John Merrick criticised the piece on social media platform X, calling it “a really bad essay,” which he believes distorts the protestors’ intentions under the guise of liberal even-handedness.

Author Monica Rajesh also voiced her criticism, hinting at a personal demonstration against Smith’s viewpoint by planning to wear symbolic attire during their routine encounters. She referred to academic and poet Refaat Alareer, who was killed in an Israeli airstrike.

While “The Arab Spring” editor Suja Sawafta stated that Smith had “no idea what they’re talking about” when it comes to Palestine and its people.

It is not the first time Smith has seen some opposition. In September 2023, American writer and critic Andrea Long Chu stated that the author had “lost her teeth“, referencing her prominent book “White Teeth.” She said a consistent feature of her essays, even during Barack Obama’s presidency in the US, is the “involuntary tendency to reframe all political questions as ‘human’ ones”.

Smith previously wrote in the outset of her book “Feel Free” that she has “no real qualifications to write as [she does],” no expertise to bring her to her subjects beyond the application of her own experience. However, Chu calls this “disingenuous” given her prominent position in the industry.

Zadie Smith comments remove focus from Gaza and campus protests

However, British poet Anthony Anaxagorou also stressed on X, “Forget Zadie Smith. All eyes on Rafah”, as Israel planned to launch a major offensive on one of the last remaining areas with displaced Palestinians, as thousands have fled to the southernmost area of the Gaza Strip.

This dispute also showcases the broader tensions within the discourse over Israel and Palestine, reflecting the challenges that public intellectuals face when addressing such polarised issues. Smith herself acknowledges the criticism, stating that she is often perceived as taking various contradictory roles — from “misguided socialist” to “naïve novelist.”