Palestinian books do not belong here. About the limits of freedom and forms of censorship.

In the dust that slowly settles after the turbulent debate about employment positions at Edison Cinema and the presentation of Douglas Murray's book at the Arena Theatre, numerous comments appear in both liberal and conservative media, critically evaluating these events. And they spark further discussions about the nature and limits of boycott and censorship. Among them, an information has appeared on social networks that is worth examining a bit more closely. 

Writer and poet Veronika Dianišková outlined a situation she experienced while preparing an interview for Denník N in one discussion thread. As part of the Five Books column, she was asked for an interview. However, when she proposed two Palestinian books among her reading tips, they were rejected, which ultimately led to the cancellation of the interview. Dianišková explained the whole process to me.  

No, better (another) book

„I agreed to the interview and listed my five book tips. I wanted them to discuss various aspects of social and political injustice, and how they reflect in the lives of children and adolescents. Among them was, for example, Marek Torčík's novel Distributed Memory and two books about the Palestinian experience: the novel Insignificant Detail by Adania Shibli and the book If I Have to Die, Let It Be a Story, which presents family stories of Palestinians in the Czech Republic,“ Dianišková begins her account. 

To clarify: Insignificant Detail is a novel that has received numerous awards worldwide and was recently published in Czech and Slovak translations. The book tells about a young girl who is raped and murdered by Israeli soldiers. The collection of texts If I Have to Die, Let It Be a Story also won the 2024 award for the best documentary book of the year at the Ji.Hlava festival. In both cases, these are works relevant to the theme – the impact of injustice on children's lives – which Dianišková chose. She was also approached for the interview because she is a foster mother of two young Roma children. 

„However, when I listed my tips, a editor called me and informed me that those two books about the Palestinian experience cannot be included. There were no issues with the others. Followed by three more phone calls during which she tried to persuade me to change my selection; only then could the interview be realized. I repeatedly refused, and thus the interview ultimately did not take place. At the end, she added that they have their own experts on this topic,“ concludes Dianišková. 

I also asked journalist Ria Gehrerová for a reaction, who currently leads the Five Books column at Denník N. „In the Five Books column, we invite people who are professionally involved in a certain area or have personal experience with a specific topic. We ask them to recommend books from that area, and then we conduct an interview about the topic and the books. We approached Veronika Dianišková at the beginning of April as a person who understands literature, has two children in foster care, and promotes this topic, as well as as a poet who has written several books, including one about homeless people,“ Gehrerová writes. 

She further explains what the topics of the interview were supposed to be: „We planned to focus the interview and the selection of books on social and family issues. We suggested to Veronika Dianišková that instead of two books on the Palestinian topic, she choose other books. Since she insisted on the books, the editor and she ultimately agreed that the interview would not be created. In the Five Books column, it is common that we ask those invited to adjust their selection to better fit the chosen theme. Sometimes, after a few phone calls or emails, we conclude that the text will not be created or that we should approach someone else. Palestine at Denník N is not a forbidden topic. We regularly publish texts about it.“

Insignificant Details

There is no need to see any malicious conspiracy behind the rejection of Dianišková's book tips. As Gehrerová correctly notes, texts by authors defending Palestinian rights and highlighting war crimes faced by Palestinians are also published on Denník N's pages. I myself was a respondent in that column, and one of the books I recommended within the theme of fatherhood was by a Palestinian author. 

So why did Dianišková face rejection? It is hard to justify that her book tips do not fit the theme. If you look at the articles in this column, you'll see that the book tips of respondents are sometimes very thematically focused, sometimes much more relaxed. I would say that it is up to the respondent to 'defend' their choice in the interview, and it is then up to us, the readers, to assess how relevant it is. However, Dianišková was not given this opportunity; the books were rejected before she could discuss them. I know Dianišková's work and believe she could discuss them erudately and place them within the context of the main interview theme. 

Ultimately, the rejection of the mentioned books is based on concerns that are partly understandable but no less troubling. Concerns that the editor might not be sufficiently prepared on the topic, concerns that it might upset some of the readership, concerns that these topics do not belong in similar columns. But if there was a will, even these concerns could be addressed – the interviewer's questions could be consulted with experts, the respondent's answers could undergo thorough fact-checking (which many articles would deserve). Meanwhile, these are fears that, I believe, would not arise in other cases – would they reject Dianišková if it were about Ukrainian, Iranian, or perhaps Israeli literature?

So why is it that Palestinian literature is a topic some editors prefer to avoid? I think it is partly a problem of liberal intellectual elites – they either remain silent about the situation in Gaza out of sheer opportunism or comment only sporadically, almost always critically towards those who advocate Palestinian rights. Palestine thus becomes a topic only a select few comment on, who sometimes respond to each other's texts in a somewhat delusional circle. Others may easily get the impression that it does not concern them, that it is too complicated, too polarizing (except for the exceptions). That such issues do not belong in 'lighter' journalistic genres and columns.

And the result is the suppression of opinions and censorship, even with good intentions. The intentions and considerations behind the rejection of Dianišková's book selection are partly understandable, but the outcome is that Palestinian literature, Palestinian experience, and ultimately the author and her life story do not get space. They are silenced. I do not know if it can be called anything else but censorship.

Martin M. Šimečka, at the end of his recent text, in which he criticizes the platform Solidárna kultúra for the anonymity of their outputs and its call, does not hesitate to compare it to the refusal to publish newspapers of democratic parties in 1948, writes that this is how democracy and freedom perish. I would recommend that the author and other journalists and artists, who today see a threat to democracy in the protests at Edison Cinema and the Open Culture call, occasionally look into their own ranks. There are enough threats to freedom there as well.