Connect with us

Uncategorized

Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame

(JTA) — When a lawyer for Donald Trump asked E. Jean Carroll why she didn’t scream while allegedly being raped by Donald Trump, I thought of Letty Cottin Pogrebin. In her latest book, “Shanda: A Memoir of Shame and Secrecy,” she writes about being assaulted by a famous poet — and how the shadow of shame kept women like her silent about attacks on their own bodies.

That incident in 1962, she writes, was “fifty-eight years before the #MeToo movement provided the sisterhood and solidarity that made survivors of abuse and rape feel safe enough to tell their stories.”

Now 83, Pogrebin could have coasted with a memoir celebrating her six decades as a leading feminist: She co-founded Ms. magazine, its Foundation for Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus. She served as president of Americans for Peace Now and in 1982 blew the whistle on antisemitism in the feminist movement

Instead, “Shanda” is about her immigrant Jewish family and the secrets they carried through their lives. First marriages that were kept hidden. An unacknowledged half-sister. Money problems and domestic abuse. An uncle banished for sharing family dirt in public. 

“My mania around secrecy and shame was sparked in 1951 by the discovery that my parents had concealed from me the truth about their personal histories, and every member of my large extended family, on both sides, was in on it,” writes Pogrebin, now 83. “Their need to avoid scandal was so compelling that, once identified, it provided the lens through which I could see my family with fresh eyes, spotlight their fears, and, in so doing, illuminate my own.”

“Shanda” (the Yiddish word describes the kind of behavior that brings shame on an entire family or even a people) is also a portrait of immigrant New York Jews in the 20th century. As her father and mother father move up in the world and leave their Yiddish-speaking, Old World families behind for new lives in the Bronx and Queens, they stand in for a generation of Jews and new Americans “bent on saving face and determined to be, if not exemplary, at least impeccably respectable.”

Pogrebin and I spoke last week ahead of the Eight Over Eighty Gala on May 31, where she will be honored with a group that includes another Jewish feminist icon, the writer Erica Jong, and musician Eve Queler, who founded her own ensemble, the Opera Orchestra of New York, when she wasn’t being given chances to conduct in the male-dominated world of classical music. The gala is a fundraiser for the New Jewish Home, a healthcare nonprofit serving older New Yorkers.

Pogrebin and I spoke about shame and how it plays out in public and private, from rape accusations against a former president to her regrets over how she wrote about her own abortions to how the Bible justifies family trickery.

Our conversation was edited for length and clarity. 

I found your book very moving because my parents’ generation, who like your family were middle-class Jews who grew up or lived in the New York metropolitan area, are also all gone now. Your book brought back to me that world of aunts and uncles and cousins, and kids like us who couldn’t imagine what kinds of secrets and traumas our parents and relatives were hiding. But you went back and asked all the questions that many of us are afraid to ask. 

I can’t tell you how good writing it has been. I feel as though I have no weight on my back. And people who have read it gained such comfort from the normalization that happens when you read that others have been through what you’ve been through. And my family secrets are so varied — just one right after the other. The chameleon-like behavior of that generation — they became who they wanted to be through pretense or  actual accomplishment. 

In my mother’s case, pretense led the way. She went and got a studio photo that made it look like she graduated from high school when she didn’t. In the eighth grade, she went up to her uncle’s house in the north Bronx and had her dates pick her up there because of the shanda of where she lived on the Lower East Side with nine people in three rooms. She had to imagine herself the child of her uncle, who didn’t have an accent or had an accent but at least spoke English.

You describe yours as “an immigrant family torn between loyalty to their own kind and longing for American acceptance.”  

There was the feeling that, “If only we could measure up, we would be real Americans.” My mother was a sewing machine operator who became a designer and figured out what American women wore when she came from rags and cardboard shoes, in steerage. So I admire them. As much as I was discomforted by the lies, I ended up having compassion for them.  

It’s also a story of thwarted women, and all that lost potential of a generation in which few could contemplate a college degree or a career outside the home. Your mother worked for a time as a junior designer for Hattie Carnegie, a sort of Donna Karan of her day, but abandoned that after she met your dad and became, as you write, “Mrs. Jack Cottin.”

The powerlessness of women was complicated in the 1950s by the demands of the masculine Jewish ideal. So having a wife who didn’t work was proof that you were a man who could provide. As a result women sacrificed their own aspirations and passions. She protected her husband’s image by not pursuing her life outside the home. In a way my feminism is a positive, like a photograph, to the negative of my mother’s 1950s womanhood.

“I’m not an optimist. I call myself a ‘cockeyed strategist,” said Pogrebin, who has a home on the Upper West Side. (Mike Lovett)

You write that you “think of shame and secrecy as quintessentially Jewish issues.” What were the Jewish pressures that inspired your parents to tell so many stories that weren’t true?

Think about what we did. We hid behind our names. We changed our names. We sloughed off our accents. My mother learned to make My*T*Fine pudding instead of gefilte fish. Shame and secrecy have always been intrinsically Jewish to me, because of the “sha!” factor: At every supper party, there would be the moment when somebody would say, “Sha! We don’t talk about that!” So even though we talked about what felt like everything, there were things that couldn’t be touched: illness, the C-word [cancer]. If you wanted to make a shidduch [wedding match] with another family in the insular communities in which Jews lived, you couldn’t let it be known that there was cancer in the family, or mental illness.

While I was writing this memoir, I realized that the [Torah portion] I’m listening to one Shabbat morning is all about hiding. It is Jacob finding out that he didn’t marry Rachel, after all, but married somebody he didn’t love. All of the hiding that I took for granted in the Bible stories and I was raised on like mother’s milk was formative. They justified pretense, and they justified trickery. Rebecca lied to her husband and presented her younger son Jacob for the blessing because God told her, because it was for the greater good of the future the Jewish people.

I think Jews felt that same sort of way when it came to surviving. So we can get rid of our names. We wouldn’t have survived, whether we were hiding in a forest or behind a cabinet, a name or a passport, or [pushed into hiding] with [forced] conversions. Hiding was survival.  

I was reading your book just as the E. Jean Carroll verdict came down, holding Donald Trump liable for sexually assaulting her during an encounter in the mid-’90s. You write how in 1962, when you were working as a book publicist, the hard-drinking Irish poet Brendan Behan (who died in 1964) tried to rape you in a hotel room and you didn’t report it. Like Carroll, you didn’t think that it was something that could be reported because the cost was too high.

Certainly in that era powerful men could get away with horrible behavior because of shanda reasons. 

Carroll said in her court testimony, “It was shameful to go to the police.” 

You know that it happened to so many others and nobody paid the price. The man’s reputation was intact and we kept our jobs because we sacrificed our dignity and our truth. I was in a career, and I really was supporting myself. I couldn’t afford to lose my job. I would have been pilloried for having gone to his hotel room, and nobody was there when he picked up an ashtray and threatened to break the window of the Chelsea Hotel unless I went up there with him.The cards were stacked against me.

In “Shanda,” you write about another kind of shame: The shame you now feel decades later about how you described the incident in your first book. You regret “how blithely I transformed an aggravated assault by a powerful man into a ‘sticky sexual encounter.’” 

I wrote about the incident in such offhand terms, and wonder why. I wrote, basically, “Okay, girls, you’re gonna have to put up with this, but you’re gonna have to find your own magical sentence like I had with Behan” to get him to stop. 

You write that you said, “You can’t do this to me! I’m a nice Jewish girl!” And that got him to back off.

Really painful.

I think that’s a powerful aspect of your book — how you look back at the ways you let down the movement or your family or friends and now regret. In 1991 you wrote a New York Times essay about an illegal abortion you had as a college senior in 1958, but not the second one you had only a few months later. While you were urging women to tell their stories of abortion, you note how a different shame kept you from telling the whole truth.  

Jewish girls could be, you know, plain or ordinary, but they had to be smart, and I had been stupid. I could out myself as one of the many millions of women who had an abortion but not as a Jewish girl who made the same mistake [of getting pregnant] twice.

The book was written before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In the book you write powerfully about the shame, danger  and loneliness among women when abortion was illegal, and now, after 50 years, it is happening again. Having been very much part of the generation of activists that saw Roe become the law of the land, how have you processed its demise?  

Since the 1970s, we thought everything was happening in this proper linear way. We got legislation passed, we had litigation and we won, and we saw the percentage of women’s participation in the workplace all across professions and trades and everything else rise and rise. And then Ronald Reagan was elected and then there was the Moral Majority and then it was the Hyde Amendment [barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion]. I was sideswiped because I think I was naive enough to imagine that once we articulated what feminism was driving at and why women’s rights were important, and how the economic reality of families and discrimination against women weren’t just women’s issues, people would internalize it and understand it and justice would be done. 

In the case of Roe, we could not imagine that rights could ever be taken away. We didn’t do something that we should have done, which is to have outed ourselves in a big way. It’s not enough that abortion was legal. We allowed it to remain stigmatized. We allowed the right wing to create their own valence around it. That negated solidarity. If we had talked about abortion as healthcare, if we had had our stories published and created organizations around remembering what it was like and people telling their stories about when abortion was illegal and dangerous…. Instead we allowed the religious right to prioritize [fetal] cells over a woman’s life. We just were not truthful with each other, so we didn’t create solidarity. 

Are you heartened by the backlash against restrictive new laws in red states or optimistic that the next wave of activism can reclaim the right to abortion? 

I’m not an optimist. I call myself a “cockeyed strategist.” If you look at my long resume, it is all about organizing: Ms. magazine, feminist organizations, women’s foundations, Black-Jewish dialogues, Torah study groups and Palestinian-Jewish dialogues. 

Number one, we have to own the data and reframe the narrative. We have to open channels for discussion for women who have either had one or know someone who has had one, even in religious Catholic families. The state-by-state strategy was really slow, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted that. She almost didn’t get on the court because she didn’t like the nationwide, right-to-privacy strategy of Roe but instead wanted it won state by state, which would have required campaigns of acceptance and consciousness-raising.

So, the irony is she hasn’t lived to see that we’re going to have to do it her way. 

You share a lot of family secrets in this book. Is this a book that you waited to write until, I’ll try to put this gently, most of the people had died?

I started this book when I was 78 years old, and there’s always a connection to my major birthdays. And turning 80 – you experience that number and it is so weird. It doesn’t describe me and it probably won’t describe you. I thought, this could well be my last book, so I needed to be completely transparent, put it all out there. 

My mother and father and aunts and uncles were gone, but I have 24 cousins altogether. I went to my cousins, and told them I am going to write about the secret of your parents: It’s my uncle, but it’s your father. It’s your family story even though it’s my family, but it’s yours first. And every cousin, uniformly, said, “Are you kidding? You don’t even know the half of it,” and they’d tell me the whole story. I guess people want the truth out in the end.

Is that an aspect of getting older?

I think it’s a promise of liberation, which is what I have found. It’s this experience of being free from anything that I’ve hid. I don’t have to hide. Years ago, on our 35th wedding anniversary, we took our whole family to the Tenement Museum because we wanted them to see how far we’ve come in two generations.


The post Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Al Jazeera Forum Platforms Terrorist Leaders and Their Sympathizers

The Al Jazeera Media Network logo is seen on its headquarters building in Doha, Qatar, June 8, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon

At the 17th annual Al Jazeera Forum in Doha, Qatar, familiar faces took the stage to discuss the aftermath of October 7 and its broader regional and global implications. These figures are familiar not for their credibility, but because the lineup included terrorist leaders and their sympathizers.

Upon entrance to the forum, an “in memoriam” lined the halls filled with faces of Al Jazeera journalists who died during the Israel-Hamas war.

Eitan Fischberger, who first exposed the terror-filled line up of speakers at the conference, found that five of these so-called journalists are also familiar faces. These “journalists” didn’t become well-known for trustworthy and accurate reporting, but rather because all five of them had well-established ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were two of the biggest attractions at the event. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, sanctioned by the US for her pro-terror rhetoric, also took part in a session via video call.

Despite the mass slaughter of Iranian civilians, the focus of every speaker at the conference was laser-focused on Israel. This was not accidental. After all, Abbas Araghchi, who, given his position in the Iranian regime, has stood by as thousands of Iranian citizens were murdered, was given a spotlight.

From that platform, Araghchi blamed Israel for regional instability, saying that “Israel’s expansionist project requires that neighboring countries be weakened” and amounts to the “enforcement of permanent inequality.”

For this, he called for Israel to be “punished.” The irony would be laughable if it weren’t so grotesque. A senior official of a regime that jails dissidents, executes protesters, and bankrolls terrorist proxies across the region stood before an audience and positioned himself as a moral authority on justice and stability.

Predictably, in Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal’s session, he similarly dodged any blame for the ensuing war. What he did was suggest that “the flood” — the operation name chosen for the October 7 massacre — successfully brought the Palestinian cause back to global consciousness. He specifically praised the outrage seen on university campuses and across social media, treating international unrest as a strategic victory.

Naturally, as a terrorist leader, Meshaal deflected the requirement for Hamas to disarm, saying “criminalizing the resistance” is not something it can accept. As long as Israel exists, Hamas will not disarm.

It is the most recent example of Hamas leaders being explicit in their absolute unwillingness to adhere to the ceasefire agreement to which they signed.

Beyond actual terrorists, terrorist sympathizer Francesca Albanese was invited to speak, joining a session abroad via video. Unsurprisingly, her words echoed those of the terrorist leaders listed above, as she spoke of Israel as the “common enemy” of the world.

It is dangerous enough that a UN Rapporteur shared a platform at the same conference as terrorists. That her language is barely distinguishable from that of designated terrorists should probably come as little surprise given Albanese’s previous actions.

Mustafa Barghouti, who has similarly expressed support for Palestinian terrorism in the past, discussed how the Palestinian will could not be broken, and how the fact that people stayed in Gaza throughout the war displayed the “failure of Israel” despite the “genocide.” In reality, this only goes to show that Palestinian civilians were never the target of Israel, which fought tirelessly to root out Hamas and other terrorists, while doing its utmost to avoid harming civilians.

Al Jazeera’s support for terrorism is not new. What makes this moment particularly alarming is the scale of its influence on the world, and how it brings terrorists and their sympathizers onto a stage in light of global events. This was not a conference about the future of the Middle East. It was an echo chamber where terrorism got the platform.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Erdogan’s Atomic Ambition: Why Turkey Is the Middle East’s Next Proliferation Crisis

Riot police walk outside the Istanbul provincial office of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), as CHP supporters gather near the office, after a recent court ruling that ousted the CHP’s Istanbul provincial leadership, in Istanbul, Turkey, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dilara Acikgoz

As the global community remains transfixed by the diplomatic theater in Oman, a more ominous atomic shadow is lengthening across the Eastern Mediterranean.

While Western envoys chase a “nuclear framework” with a defiant Iran, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is quietly executing a multi-decade roadmap to transform Turkey into the region’s next nuclear-threshold state.

We are witnessing the birth of a sophisticated, NATO-embedded “Iran 2.0” — yet the international community continues to treat Ankara as a standard ally rather than the primary proliferation risk it has become.

Unit 1 of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant stands at 99 percent completion. While marketed as a civilian energy panacea, Akkuyu represents a strategic Trojan Horse of unprecedented proportions. It is the world’s first “Build-Own-Operate” nuclear project, entirely financed and controlled by Russia’s Rosatom. This arrangement has not only granted the Kremlin a permanent nuclear anchor on NATO’s southern flank, but has also provided the Turkish state with the technical laboratory necessary to master the full nuclear fuel cycle under the guise of commercial cooperation.

The most alarming development in Turkey’s nuclear trajectory is not found in its power reactors, but in its naval shipyards. By officially prioritizing the “NUKDEN” initiative — Turkey’s nuclear-powered submarine program — Erdogan has discovered the ultimate legal loophole for domestic uranium enrichment. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, “peaceful” enrichment remains a contentious grey area, but the production of highly enriched uranium for naval propulsion is a recognized military necessity that bypasses many traditional civilian safeguards.

By pursuing a nuclear navy, Ankara is signaling its intent to stockpile the very fissile material required for a warhead, all while maintaining a veneer of maritime sovereignty. This is a tactical evolution of the “Iran Model.” Where Tehran chose a path of open defiance, Ankara is choosing a path of “Legalist Proliferation,” using its status as a naval power to justify a fuel cycle that would otherwise trigger immediate international sanctions.

This “Stealth Proliferation” is backed by a massive, nine-billion-dollar cash injection from Moscow, ensuring that the infrastructure for this “naval requirement” is built with the highest Russian expertise.

A nuclear reactor is merely a forge; its true threat is realized only when paired with a delivery system. In June 2025, Erdogan issued a decree to massively expand Turkey’s production of medium- and long-range missiles. This was not a random military upgrade. When paired with the 2026 commissioning of Akkuyu, the picture becomes clear: Turkey is building the two halves of a nuclear deterrent in parallel.

The “Araghchi Doctrine” currently being debated in Doha — Iran’s refusal to negotiate on its own missile program — finds a mirror image in Ankara’s “National Missile Program.” Erdogan has been vocal in his disdain for the “nuclear OPEC,” arguing that it is unfair for some nations to possess nuclear-tipped missiles while others are barred from the club. By developing indigenous missile technology capable of reaching any capital in the Middle East or Europe, Turkey is ensuring that once its “breakout” occurs, the delivery mechanism will already be in place, tested, and ready.

For too long, Turkey has been granted what can only be described as a “NATO Pass.” Washington has consistently hesitated to enforce the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act with the necessary vigor, fearing the loss of the Incirlik airbase or a total rupture in the alliance. This hesitation has been read in Ankara as a green light. Erdogan views the international order not as a set of rules to follow, but as a set of constraints to be dismantled.

The strategic reality is that Turkey is no longer content to sit under the American nuclear umbrella. It seeks to build its own, potentially in a trilateral partnership with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This “Islamic Nuclear Axis” would combine Turkish high-tech delivery systems, Saudi capital, and Pakistani technical blueprints to create a new center of gravity that is entirely independent of Western control.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Map of Israeli targets goes up in Tehran as tensions simmer ahead of Netanyahu’s White House visit

(JTA) — Iran has erected a map showing Israeli targets for potential strikes in a prominent propaganda spot as another week dawns with uncertainty over whether it will face a U.S. attack.

The map went up over the weekend in Tehran’s Palestine Square, a frequent site for billboards meant to broadcast the Islamic Republic’s bravado when it comes to Israel and the United States. It includes the words “You start, we finish!”

It comes as President Donald Trump continues to weigh military intervention against Iran and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to visit the White House to press for his demands in Trump’s negotiations with Iran.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with US President Donald Trump this Wednesday in Washington, and will discuss with him the negotiations with Iran,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on Saturday. “The Prime Minister believes any negotiations must include limitations on ballistic missiles and a halting of the support for the Iranian axis.”

A will-he-or-won’t-he air has pervaded for weeks as Trump has considered different strategies for dealing with Iran, which has said it would view both U.S. and Israeli targets as legitimate if the United States strikes to curb its nuclear ambitions, less than a year after the last U.S. attack on Iranian sites, which came during a war between Iran and Israel.

On Friday, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East advisor, and Steve Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, met directly with Iran’s foreign minister in Oman. The foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, said the talks had gotten off to a “good start” but that Iran was willing to negotiate only about the nuclear program, not the missiles that concern Israel.

Trump, too, told reporters that there had been “very good talks” that indicated that Iran was prepared to make more concessions than it had offered in the past. Still, he said, “They know that if they don’t make a deal the consequences are very steep.”

The next day, Kushner and Witkoff also visited a U.S. naval carrier that has been moved to the region as part of what Trump has called an “armada” that would enable U.S. military action in the event that Trump decides it is needed. Netanyahu has moved up his planned White House visit — which will be his fourth since Trump retook office last year — to advocate for Israel’s interests in the negotiations. It was at a previous visit, last April, that Trump disclosed for the first time that the United States had opened direct talks with Iran. Just over two months later, Trump joined Israel’s campaign against Iran with a bombing attack that came a day after he said he had not decided whether to strike.

The post Map of Israeli targets goes up in Tehran as tensions simmer ahead of Netanyahu’s White House visit appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News