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

UN Nuclear Watchdog Board Passes Resolution Demanding Answers, Access From Iran

People arrive for the quarterly board of governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 19, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl

The UN nuclear watchdog‘s 35-nation Board of Governors passed a resolution on Thursday saying Iran must inform it “without delay” of the status of its enriched uranium stock and bombed atomic sites, diplomats at the closed-door meeting said.

The resolution‘s purpose was primarily to renew and adjust the International Atomic Energy Agency’s mandate to report on aspects of Iran‘s nuclear program, but it also stated Iran must quickly provide the IAEA with the answers and access it wants, five months after airstrikes by Israel and the US.

Iran, which says its nuclear aims are entirely peaceful, warned before the US and Europe’s top three powers submitted this resolution that if it passed, it would “adversely affect” Tehran’s cooperation with the agency.

“Our message is clear: Iran must resolve its safeguards issues without delay. It must provide practical cooperation through access, answers, restoration of monitoring, to enable the agency to do its job and help rebuild confidence,” the US, Britain, France, and Germany said in a statement to the board.

IAEA: VERIFICATION IS ‘LONG OVERDUE’

The resolution passed with 19 votes in favor, three against and 12 abstentions, diplomats at the meeting in Vienna said. Russia, China, and Niger were the countries that opposed it.

Iran must … provide the agency without delay with precise information on nuclear material accountancy and safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iran, and grant the agency all access it requires to verify this information,” the draft resolution text submitted to the board and seen by Reuters said.

Iran still has not let inspectors into the nuclear sites Israel and the United States bombed in June, and the IAEA says that accounting for Iran‘s enriched uranium stock, which includes material close to bomb-grade, is “long overdue” and the issue needs to be addressed “urgently.”

The IAEA cannot inspect the bombed facilities or verify Iran‘s uranium stock until Tehran submits a report updating it on what has happened to them. The bombed sites include Iran‘s three enrichment plants that were operating at the time.

When Israel first bombed Iran‘s nuclear sites on June 13, the IAEA estimates that Iran had 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60% fissile purity, a short step from the roughly 90% of weapons-grade, in a form that can easily be enriched further.

Iran says it can enrich to whatever level it wants in view of its peaceful objectives.

That is enough in principle, if it were to be enriched further, for 10 nuclear bombs, according to an IAEA yardstick.

THERE WILL BE ‘CONSEQUENCES,’ IRAN SAYS

Western powers say there is no civil explanation for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says it is “a matter of serious concern.”

“We are of the firm view that any provocative action – such as the introduction of yet another resolution – would jeopardize and potentially nullify the considerable efforts undertaken by the [IAEA] Director General and Iran to advance dialogue and cooperation,” Iran said in a joint statement to the board with allies including Russia, China, Cuba, and Belarus.

The IAEA and Iran announced an agreement in September in Cairo that was supposed to pave the way towards full inspections and verification, but Tehran said last month that deal is void.

“I’m afraid the resolution will have its own consequences,” Iran‘s ambassador to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, told reporters after the vote. Asked what those were, he said: “We will announce the consequences later.”

The only specific measure announced by Iran soon afterwards was that it was formally notifying the IAEA of the Cairo agreement’s termination.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

The Evidence Says That Al Jazeera Collaborates With Hamas

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

Al Jazeera’s leadership shake-up has been in the headlines. But will its new executives direct the Qatari state-funded media arm to cease its cozy relationship with Hamas?

Allegations have been swirling that the royal family’s soft power news outlet is not merely reporting what Hamas says — but is actively collaborating with the terrorist organization.

Al Jazeera sells its content to major wire services like the AP and Reuters. Al Jazeera has resource-sharing agreements that allow outlets like CNN to access Al Jazeera’s footage and Al Jazeera to use CNN’s news feed.

Al Jazeera also has arrangements with BBC, France 24, and The Guardian that enable them to use Al Jazeera’s video footage and reports. Other media outlets, including Deutsche Welle and Euronews, have direct syndication arrangements, allowing them to use Al Jazeera’s content without intermediaries.

Credible reports indicate that Al Jazeera’s ties to Hamas extend well beyond journalism. Evidence points to coordination between the Qatari network and Hamas terrorists, raising serious reputational and policy questions for Al Jazeera and for media or corporate partners that cooperate with it.

Reporters Working for Both Al Jazeera and Hamas

Six Al Jazeera journalists simultaneously worked for Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), according to evidence seized by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) that has been made public.

Three have since been killed in Gaza. At any credible outlet, concurrently working for a US-designated terrorist organization would result in immediate dismissal. Not so with Al Jazeera. The absence of accountability speaks volumes.

Some of these journalists reportedly participated in Hamas’ October 7, 2023, assault, joining the terrorists who breached and burned Israeli kibbutzim near Gaza, massacring nearly 1,200 and kidnapping 250 others.

Media and corporate partners should have immediately paused collaboration with Al Jazeera until a credible internal investigation was conducted. But it appears that no such credible investigation occurred. Instead, the network issued denials that its reporters were working with Hamas.

Al Jazeera’s Role in Hamas’ October 7 Plan

The New York Times reported that Hamas’ October 7 massacre involved a detailed media strategy. This appeared to include a role for Al Jazeera, which aired prerecorded messages from Hamas commanders during the attack to inspire Arabs outside of Gaza to join in the fighting.

Al Jazeera’s reported collaboration as part of Hamas’ media strategy was not some innocuous business deal. Documents seized by the IDF reveal the terror group sought to ignite uprisings among Palestinians in the West Bank, Israeli Arabs, and Iranian proxies like Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border. One seized memo from 2023 stated that “two or three operations in which an entire neighborhood, kibbutz, or something similar will be burned” must occur to galvanize others.

There could be no credible denial about what was taking place. Hamas actively sought to broadcast its atrocities. Intercepts show that around 10 a.m. on October 7, a Hamas battalion commander, Abu Mohammed, ordered his fighters to “start setting homes on fire,” shouting “Burn, burn” and “I want the whole kibbutz in flames.”

Another six-page handwritten plan attributed to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar directed militants to “stomp on the heads of soldiers,” shoot them “at point-blank range,” and “slaughter some with knives.”

Commanders repeated and executed these orders in real time. “Slit their throats,” one said. “Kill everyone on the road. Kill everyone you encounter.” Another instructed, “Take a lot of hostages.”

According to a podcast featuring Ronen Bergman, a coauthor of the New York Times piece, Hamas wanted to showcase its “success” by showing Israelis dying, homes burning, and tanks exploding to convince allies that the destruction of Israel could be achieved.

Al Jazeera’s role was to spread this message, airing prerecorded communications from Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif, who proclaimed: “The day has come when anyone who has a gun should take it out. Now is the time. If you do not have a gun, take up your cleaver, axe, Molotov cocktail, truck, tractor, or car.”

Bergman explained that these speeches were “coordinated” and “perfectly synchronized” with Al Jazeera’s broadcasts.

A Hamas commander named Abu al-Baraa, according to intercepted communications, told Hamas terrorists invading Israel: “Document the scenes of horror, now, and broadcast them on TV channels to the whole world. Slaughter them. End the children of Israel.”

During and after the attack, Al Jazeera broadcast footage of the massacre while also airing Hamas’ messages, essentially serving as the group’s propaganda arm.

Throughout the war, Al Jazeera aired exclusive footage from Hamas tunnels, portraying the terrorist group as resilient rather than exposing its use of civilian areas for terror operations. It’s telling that Al Jazeera’s coverage portrayed Hamas as winning, while the network refrained from any criticism of the terrorist group’s leadership, tactics, hoarding of humanitarian aid, or harm done to Gazans for starting the war.

Internal Hamas communications dated before October 7 also show that the group instructed Al Jazeera to use specific terminology and limit visuals of failed rocket launches that fell inside Gaza. Al Jazeera reportedly complied with these instructions.

Direct Dial: Hamas’ Line Into Al Jazeera

Evidence found by the IDF and analyzed by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reveals that Hamas and Al Jazeera maintained a structured communications pipeline throughout the Israel-Hamas war. The captured Hamas documents show the creation of a “secure phone line” — referred to as the “Al Jazeera phone” — linking Hamas’ military operations room in Gaza directly to “Al Jazeera’s management offices in Doha.”

The line reportedly allowed Hamas to “control coverage in real time” by transmitting instructions on which events to air, what terminology to use, and which images to suppress.

Additional documents revealed that Hamas operatives sent media directives to Al Jazeera’s newsroom with detailed guidance on editorial framing. One 2022 memo urged the network to “minimize” images from a failed rocket launch that killed Gazan civilians and to avoid using the term “massacre” to refer to the event.

A subsequent Hamas media directive requested that Al Jazeera journalists coordinate with the movement’s “military media unit” before broadcasting material about the PIJ, ensuring consistency with Hamas’ narratives.

The Meir Amit Center described this pattern of coordination as “neither random nor isolated but systematic, organized and continuous.”

Why the Journalism World Should be Alarmed

Those who partner and collaborate with Al Jazeera cannot dismiss these findings as mere considerations. Continued cooperation with a network that coordinates with Hamas carries reputational, ethical, and potentially legal consequences. The same scrutiny applied to financial institutions accused of directly or indirectly supporting terror should extend to media entities that amplify or assist it.

Toby Dershowitz is a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Asher Boiskin is an intern. Follow them on X @TobyDersh and @asherboiskin.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Hamas Is Still in Power — What Does That Mean for the Gaza ‘Peace’ Deal?

Palestinian militants stand guard on the day that hostages held in Gaza since the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack, are handed over to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as part of a ceasefire and hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, Oct. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed

For weeks, the world praised the so-called “historic ceasefire deal” in Gaza brokered by President Donald Trump. It was hailed as a diplomatic masterstroke, a moment of supposed statesmanship that would stop the war, bring stability, and resolve the hostage crisis.

But peel away the glitter, and the truth is painfully simple: only one promise of that deal was fully kept — the release of the living Israeli hostages. Everything else collapsed into illusion or danger. And once again, Israel was left to deal with the consequences alone.

The ceasefire did not dismantle Hamas, disarm it, or replace it with any mechanism of governance that could prevent another October 7. Hamas remained in power, kept its rockets, rifles, explosives, and tunnels, and continues to kill Palestinians who dared to dissent.

Hundreds of Gazans were murdered by Hamas, while the world looked away. Even after enjoying international legitimacy through a US-sponsored deal, Hamas refused to return the remains of three murdered Israelis to their families. And far from reforming, restraining, or civilizing Hamas, the ceasefire simply gave the group more time, money, and power.

So while the world celebrated a “diplomatic breakthrough,” Israel understood the truth: a deal that leaves a genocidal terror group in power is not peace. It is temporary anesthesia.

The consequences of this deal did not end in Gaza. They reached Washington, and they reached the Oval Office. President Trump has continued building ties with Qatar, ignoring the fact that its government was harboring Hamas leaders, funding extremist propaganda, and fueling anti-Israel operations across the Middle East. Israel was asked to play nice with its enemies because powerful men in fancy palaces were writing very expensive checks.

Even more dangerous was Trump’s plan to sell F-35 stealth fighters to Saudi Arabia, a regime ruled by an authoritarian monarchy with a long record of human rights abuses, zero tolerance for dissent, and a history of anti-Israel rhetoric. There are also serious questions about whether the US and Israel can trust guarantees from Turkey and Syria, which the former being especially unlikely. 

The lesson is clear. International guarantees come and go. American presidents change. Arab regimes shift alliances. Tyrants receive gifts, favors, and weapons. But Israel’s enemies remain the same. And the lesson is as old as the State of Israel itself: never trust foreign promises, and never depend on foreign protection. Israel can rely only on herself.

A ceasefire deal that empowers Hamas is not peace. Weapons shipments to dictators are not stability.  

Israel’s own courage, strength, and moral clarity is what will keep her safe long after the glitter of these “historic deals” fades into dust.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News