Disclaimer:  Today’s post includes a discussion of two writers.  Myself and Salman Rushdie.  Therefore, let me remind everyone, I know Dr. ESP.  I collaborate with Dr. ESP.  Dr. ESP, you are no Salman Rushdie.

Anyone who writes historical fiction knows, by labeling it “fiction,” writers give themselves license to create situations and dialogue to which no one except the principals have first-hand knowledge.  In many cases, the non-documented passages are needed to address unanswered questions.  As I drafted In the National Interest, there were two issues for which the public record provided no definitive explanation.  What was Lee Harvey Oswald’s motive for killing John F. Kennedy?  And was Oswald’s employment at the Texas School Book Depository, weeks before the motorcade route became public, coincidence or due to manipulation?

I was reminded of this aspect of my book while watching Jon Stewart’s interview of Salman Rushdie last night on “The Daily Show.”  In his book Knife, an account of being attacked during an August 2022 lecture at the Chautauqua Institute and the aftermath, Rushdie admits he still knows nothing about his attacker Hadi Matar’s motive other than his support for the Islamic Revolution on social media.  And despite standing outside the Chautauqua prison where Matar is being held pending trial when, while writing his book, Rushdie returned to “the scene of the crime,” he chose not to confront his attacker.  Instead, he created a Socratic dialogue which included his idea of what Matar’s legal counsel might provide as a defense in his forthcoming trial.

Again, I felt a personal kinship with Rushdie as this was the same technique I used to create both sides of the moot court arguments as my protagonist Jonathan Sheppard explores the decision to release or withhold the journal he inherited.  My self pat on the back was, however, short lived as Rushdie explained his purpose in forging this imaginary conversation with this young man who “came out of the crowd” 34 years after an Irani Ayatollah ordered a fatwa against Rushdie, following the 1988 publication of The Satanic Verses, a satirical account of the alienation and eventual assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Britain.

I had used my creative process at best to tie up loose ends in my narrative, but mostly for its entertainment value.  Rushdie had used his to try and understand why someone who was not even born at the time of the fatwa would commit a crime that would likely incarcerate him for the rest of his life.  His was a far more noble endeavor, looking for some rationale for the irrational.  Which made me rethink the value of a fictional Socratic dialogue as a means of exploring options in complex situations, especially when the actual response, in hindsight, proved unproductive.

And, being the first night of Passover, my thoughts centered on the current status of the Israel/Hamas conflict and its impact on college campuses in the United States.  On the day after the terrorist attack, international sympathy, for the most part, was clearly with the Israelis despite lingering concerns about policies affecting Palestinians promoted by the Netanyahu government. 

History tells us any nation subject to a terrorist attack has options, including, but not limited to:

• Diplomacy
• A targeted military response.
• An unlimited military response.
• Focus on internal security to prevent future attacks.
• Establishing an anti-terror alliance to universally condemn such attacks.
• Some combination of the above.

Only one of these six options had the potential of inverting post-October 7 sentiment towards Israel from victim to villain.  Likewise, it was Muslim students, not their Jewish classmates, who felt unsafe on college campuses in the immediate days after the vicious and inhumane Hamas attack.    As was also the case for almost unanimous Congressional support for military assistance to Israel.  Again, only one choice could dramatically change those dynamics. And yet that is the one Netanyahu and his war cabinet chose.

When Jon Stewart asked Rushdie, “How are you doing,” he told his host he feels better now than he did before the attack.  And when queried if he was apprehensive about Matar’s forthcoming trial and the possibility of being called to testify, Rushdie replied he is only a fact witness and feels no need to confront his attacker.  He then referred back to standing in the “car park” (British for parking lot) outside the Chautauqua prison.  “I am a free man outside; he is locked up inside.”

I cannot help but wonder if the Israeli government had conducted a similar Socratic process before launching their version of “shock and awe” on Gaza, would they have avoided a situation where both sides are hopelessly and indefinitely “locked up inside” prisons of their own making.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP