JK Rowling says Harry Potter ‘would be disappointed’ with her stance on Israel boycott

The author explains her stance after fans claimed she had 'ruined their childhood'

Chris Mandle
Tuesday 27 October 2015 15:56
Comments

JK Rowling has said she knows that Harry Potter would be “disappointed” in her decision not to support a cultural boycott of Israel, but has dismissed comparisons between the country to the ‘Death Eaters’ in her books.

The author published the lengthly post on Twitlonger after it was claimed she was a “zionist” for signing Culture for Coexistence’s plea not to boycott Israeli products.

Some fans tweeted that their childhood was “ruined” after hearing the news, with some comparing her to Potter's archenemy in the series, Voldemort.

Rowling said in the post that she appreciated “talking wouldn’t stop the Wizarding War’ and that “Boycotting Israel on every possible front has its allure" but argued cutting off the cultural and academic community entirely would even silence those critical of Israel’s government.

She admits that although the Harry Potter of the first six and a half books would not understand her stance it did not necessarily invalidate it.

“Among the messages drawing parallels between the Potter books and Israel have been quite a few saying that 'Harry would be disappointed' or 'Harry wouldn't understand' my position,” she writes.

“Those people are right, but only up to a clearly defined point. The Harry of six and a half books might not understand.

“Harry is reckless and angry for a considerable portion of those six and a half books, and he has my whole-hearted sympathy,” says Rowling, who goes on to suggest that by the end of the seven-book franchise he would have a greater understanding of her argument.

“The Palestinian community has suffered untold injustice and brutality. I want to see the Israeli government held to account for that injustice and brutality,” she writes.

But she adds that there “are voices I’d like to hear amplified, not silenced” and a cultural boycott would “place immovable barriers between [artists who] work side-by-side for peace.”

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in