That's not quite right either. Rooney is saying she'll by default refuse offers from *all* publishers of a particular nationality on the grounds that merely being a company of said nationality *constitutes* a prima facia "political stance" on the company's part.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @schraubd @michelledean
Her statement says nothing about nationality.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet @michelledean
Her statement says "I simply do not feel it would be right for me under the present circumstances to accept a new contract with an *Israeli* company that does not publicly distance itself from apartheid" (emphasis added).https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-sally-rooney-explains-her-israel-boycott-bds-is-anti-racist-1.10287709 …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @schraubd @michelledean
It's impossible for you to imagine a Israel company distancing itself from apartheid? That's a harsh judgement on Israel, much harsher than anything Rooney has said.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @michelledean
That's why I said "default" and "prima facia". It sets up a prima facia obligation on Israelis-qua-Israelis. Yes, prima facia obligation is different that a per se bar, but it's obviously not "saying nothing about nationality". It explicitly hinges the duty on nationality!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @schraubd
I don't think the obligation to oppose apartheid is onerous and is based on a duty to morality rather than nationality.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
Cool position. Not the one at issue here. Rooney is not saying "I cannot contract with any company that does not publicly distance itself from apartheid". I suspect the vast majority of companies Rooney contracts with have been exactly as (non-)vocal on the subject as Modan.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @schraubd
It would be a bit odd to expect a publisher in, say, Peru or Fiji to articulate a stance on Israeli policy. Do you think people who boycotted apartheid South Africa were picking on South African nationality or South African policy?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
Are we recognizing that this *is* a duty defined by nationality (albeit one you think is justifiable)? If the trigger making you presumptively subject to a boycott is your nationality, then yes, that's national-based targeting. Is that ever justifiable? Maybe! But own the move.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
You didn't answer the South African question.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
"If the trigger making you presumptively subject to a boycott is your nationality, then yes, that's national-based targeting. Is that ever justifiable? Maybe!"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @schraubd
The trigger is not the nationality but the policy. Change the policy or even just oppose the policy and the trigger doesn't apply. You seem intent on ignoring the policy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.