Simon & Schuster's Republication of Susan Abulhawa Demands Public Explanation
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "Simon & Schuster Should Explain Its Decision to Republish Susan Abulhawa | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." August 13, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author argues that Simon & Schuster's publishing imprint is actively relaunching books by a writer who has repeatedly used bigoted language against Jews and praised violence, and that doing so amounts to more than just keeping old books available—it's a fresh investment of prestige and promotion. She argues the publisher and the author's speaking agency owe the public an explanation for why they're standing behind someone with this record, especially since even her political allies have distanced themselves.
Conclusion
Simon & Schuster (via Atria Books) and Pande Lecture Management should publicly explain and justify their decision to actively republish and promote Susan Abulhawa's work, given her escalating antisemitic rhetoric and glorification of violence.
Premises
- Abulhawa has repeatedly used dehumanizing language about Jews and Israelis, calling them 'demons,' 'monsters,' 'parasites,' 'ghouls,' and 'cockroaches.'
- She has promoted antisemitic tropes about Jewish power, 'dual loyalty,' and 'overrepresentation' of Jews in government and media.
- She has minimized the Holocaust, calling it meaningless and complaining about 'holocaust whining,' and suggested Jewish behavior contributed to its causes.
- She has publicly embraced political violence, calling armed resistance 'the only way' forward and praising a perpetrator of the 1972 Lod Airport massacre.
- Republishing an author's work is an active institutional decision (involving editorial approval, marketing, publicity) that confers renewed prestige and legitimacy, distinct from passively allowing existing books to remain in print.
- Even former political allies, including Zohran Mamdani, have publicly distanced themselves from Abulhawa's rhetoric as 'reprehensible' and 'patently unacceptable.'
- Despite outreach from a watchdog organization (Protect Our Campus), neither the publisher nor the speaking agency has responded to questions about why they continue promoting her.
Assumptions
- Publishers bear some responsibility for the reputational and moral implications of actively promoting an author, beyond simply making their books available.
- Public statements by an author outside their published work are relevant to evaluating a publisher's decision to invest in and promote that author.
- There is a meaningful moral/institutional distinction between 'allowing a book to remain in print' and 'actively relaunching and marketing it.'
- The described statements by Abulhawa are accurately characterized as antisemitic rather than legitimate political criticism of Israel.
- Institutional silence in response to questions is itself indicative of an unwillingness or inability to defend the decision, rather than a policy of non-engagement with press inquiries.