Connect with us

Uncategorized

‘When I tell the story, it is therapeutic’: These Canadians are still on the front lines, 2 years after Oct. 7

Shye Klein and Joy Frenkiel hadn’t met before last week. But they share some common traits: both are dual Canadian-Israeli citizens, and both are still helping victims of trauma heal, as the world prepares to commemorate two years since Oct. 7, 2023.

Klein, 27, is a photographer who had recently moved to Israel when he decided to attend the Nova music festival, which ended up being the site of a horrific massacre from Hamas terrorists. The CJN first interviewed him about two months after Oct. 7, when Klein visited Toronto to showcase photos he had taken at Nova—both before the attack, and while he and his friends narrowly escaped the slaughter.

Frenkiel, meanwhile, has been living in Israel for nearly three decades, as a practicing social worker based in Ramat Gan. When The CJN first contacted her, shortly after Oct. 7, she was working at the morgue of the central Shura base of the Israel Defense Forces, where she was helping bereaved families identify victims’ remains. Frenkiel is still on duty, but now her work involves counselling victims of the more recent Iranian missile attacks in June.

Unlike Klein, who has told his story in some 240 cities around North America, Frenkiel is just beginning to share her tale more widely. Both meet for the first time on today’s episode of North Star, catching up with host Ellin Bessner about their deeply emotional personal journeys ahead of the solemn day of remembrance.

Transcript

Shye Klein: Both holding rifles. We’re parallel to them in the car, a car length away. We can see clearly one of the men, his hands are covered in blood. We see two bodies and the driver in the passenger seat, obviously dead. We only slow down for a split second just to comprehend what we’re seeing, and then we speed off again. We tell my cousin to drive and not to stop, to drive fast. Drive. Now that’s what he does.

Ellin Bessner: That’s the voice of Canadian-Israeli Nova Music Festival survivor Shye Klein speaking in the fall of 2023. It was barely six weeks since he’d escaped from the October 7 Hamas attack. However, there he was in late November, and I was recording him as he told his story to a group of students gathered in the campus Hillel lounge at Toronto’s York University.

His words and experiences are all the more powerful because Klein is a photographer. He’d brought a couple of cameras with him to the Nova festival. He snapped portraits all night of the vendors and the partygoers, documenting the happy vibes, even though these kinds of events were not his scene.  But after he moved to Israel from the Barrie, Ontario area just a few months earlier, on the spur of the moment, he decided to join some friends and a cousin for the true Israeli youth experience. While Klein survived, many did not. Nearly 400 people were murdered that day from the festival. He spent nearly two years receiving intense trauma counselling and trying to rebuild his career. He lost a $10,000 camera during the terrifying flight. 

He’s since made it his mission to raise awareness about the struggles of the thousands of survivors like him, and he’s become a sought-after speaker. By his estimate, he’s been to approximately 240 cities around the world so far. Klein never met social worker Joy Frankiel in all this time, even though they’ve both been on emotional journeys. She’s a Canadian from Chomedey, north of Montreal. She moved to Israel 30 years ago and works as a social worker in Ramat Gan.  After October 7, she was a frontline first responder, a social worker posted at the IDF Shura military morgue where forensic teams identified the remains, a process that took months in some cases, before the families could be informed. Here is how Joy Frankiel described it to me, when we first interviewed her in October 2023.

Joy Frankiel: There was a team that was identifying the bodies, and our role was to accompany the parents and the families as they were identifying their loved ones. What that meant was going with a police officer; we received the people, they were waiting outside. There were lots of people waiting outside those gates, Ellin. We accompanied them, and the body was brought into a special tent. Every tent was meant for one family. The police and I looked at the bodies beforehand so we could warn the family what they were about to see.

Ellin Bessner: I’m Ellin Bessner, and this is what Jewish Canada sounds like for Monday, October 6, 2025. Welcome to North Star, a podcast of The Canadian Jewish News made possible thanks to the generous support of the Ira Gluskin and Maxine Granovsky Gluskin Charitable Foundation.

Two Canadian Israelis, one who spent half her life there, and the other still a relative newcomer, both deeply changed because of their October 7 experiences.  We were privileged to meet them two years ago as guests of my podcast, in separate episodes, during the very early days after the massacre.

When we wanted to do an episode for this two-year anniversary, I reached out to each of them to see what their lives are like now. Both were conveniently visiting family in Canada during the High Holidays before their next trips, and they agreed to come on together, even though at first they weren’t sure how they might have anything in common.

Klein is a veteran sought-after speaker, while Frankiel is just starting to do talks.  Yet despite their apparent surface differences, they both discovered speaking helps them, and so does photography as a vehicle for their storytelling. It’s my honour to have Joy Frankiel and Shye Klein join us today. Why don’t we start by you introducing yourselves to each other?

Joy Frankiel: Okay. Hi, Shye, my name is Joy Frankiel, originally from Montreal. I’ve been living in Israel for the past 30 years, practising as a social worker. Since the October 7 massacre, I’ve really been working as a frontline social worker in various positions.

Shye Klein: That’s very important right now, especially in Israel. So, Kol Ha Kavod. Like Ellin mentioned, my name is Shye Klein, and I moved to Israel about four months before Nova. After attending the Nova Festival, I’ve been travelling North America to various schools and communities with different organisations and independents, speaking about my own personal experience with the students, showing them my photos I took at the Nova through a visual presentation I put together using my photos, videos, maps, images from online, and other context news articles as a way to humanize what happened to us and draw connection between people in the Diaspora and us back in Israel.

Ellin Bessner: And I think, Joy, you’re kind of doing that sort of yourself now, sharing your experiences. Let’s talk about what you’re here in Canada doing at the moment.

Joy Frankiel: Recently, I actually just came back from Huntington Beach, California. We were in a twin city signing ceremony, and there I was able to tell the story of a Ramat Gan social worker and my role in the war. Here, I’m back visiting family. I think it’s the first time since October 7 that I’ve been in Montreal. I was invited by a couple of agencies to present my story to professionals and laypeople here.

Ellin Bessner: Shye, you’re a veteran presenter, traveller. Do you know how many talks you’ve given since you got back and started doing this in October?

Shye Klein: No, but I know I’ve been to about 240 cities across the US and Canada. I was just in Norfolk, Virginia, a week and a half, two weeks ago. I spoke at Old Dominion University. I’m just mentally getting prepared for this October. I’m leaving on the 4th of October, and I’ll be in a new place almost every day of the month.

Ellin Bessner: Look, you said mentally prepare. Let’s dig into that a bit. How does speaking help you, or does it help you?

Shye Klein: Well, it’s another way to express myself and just get it out there. Much like when I talk to my therapist, you know, when I speak about what we went through, I am mostly talking about feelings, how it felt, what I thought, the overall mood, feelings in the country, you know, the effect it has on you mentally, on everything. I feel it does help me.  But speaking with these communities, with these schools, with these students, with the faculty, you know, hearing about their own personal experiences, dealing with antisemitism in their communities, and just, you know, feeling the amount of support that is present in the diaspora really helps in knowing that, you know, there are people working beside me to make a difference and to make this whole situation a little bit more… Well, tolerable is the wrong word, but that’s the best word I can find.

Ellin Bessner: And Joy, you know, put your two hats on, your own personal survival hat and then your social work hat. How does speaking help you and coming to do these presentations? And then maybe your professional hat.

Joy Frankiel: I can just explain it as I have. There’s a higher calling to do this kind of work.  And I think that it’s so important for people to hear our story and to understand the role of social workers. What we’ve gone through during the war and what we have done—it’s really, really important for people to hear and to learn about it. When I tell the story, it is therapeutic because I feel that I’m processing what I’ve gone through. I’ve experienced a lot of difficult things during the war as a social worker, and I think it’s really important for people, including professionals and laypeople, to learn about it and about what everybody in Israel has gone through.

Ellin Bessner: Now, Shye said that he’s been receiving therapy. What did the therapists or the social workers get?

Joy Frankiel: So, I’m very, very fortunate to work at the agency where I am employed. The director of our agency, her prime concern is her workers, and the mayor as well. After every intervention we’ve done, we’ve been able to get support, to process it, and to get any kind of support we need. We process it after with a peer group. If we need professional help beyond that, we’re also given that. A lot of people ask me how I got out of Shura without being traumatized, and I think it’s because of the help and support we got after that. We were able to talk about it, and we still write to each other, which I think really helps our listeners.

Ellin Bessner: Just so you know, tell us, what is Shura and what did you do?

Joy Frankiel: Okay, so Shura is an army base, and it was the morgue where everyone was brought to on the 7th of October to be identified. I worked there accompanying families in identifying their loved ones that were murdered. It was a really, really hard experience in terms of the sights and sounds—the refrigerator trucks, the smell of death, the sound of reservists hammering coffins for their friends and the soldiers. It was a very, very significant experience that could have led to a lot of post-trauma. However, I was very fortunate to be among amazing people who supported and still support the need for that support.

Ellin Bessner: Shye, did you want to say something? You’re nodding.

Shye Klein: No, I was nodding because that’s terrible—that’s something that had to be done and endured.

Joy Frankiel: You know, Shye, a lot of things we’ve endured and done—whoever thought we would have to do and experience the things we’ve gone through in the past two years? It’s unbelievable and almost sounds like something made up, but unfortunately, these are not made-up events.

Ellin Bessner: Both of you have had the occasion, I’m not sure how many times, to go to the Nova site afterward and the memorial for different reasons and circumstances. I’d like to discuss that first if we could, because you were there, Shye—when was the occasion you had to go and revisit the site, and how many times?

Shye Klein: The first time I was there, it was around December 23rd with Jake Tapper of CNN and a friend of mine, for an interview. So, all the bodies were gone, but everything else was still there. It was nuts, like the Nova exhibition, but 100 times the size and smelled worse. I’ve been back maybe 30 or 40 times, give or take, with different groups, you know, Birthright kids, volunteers, people on missions, or just a friend or by myself. I’ve gone back quite a bit.

Ellin Bessner: I know that Joy has been and has had some, some interesting coincidences and experiences I’d like her to share.

Joy Frankiel: Okay. So, I went to Nova very early on—I was already there in October.

Shye Klein: Wow.

Joy Frankiel: My memory is so different from yours because the first time I was at Nova, there was nothing there. I don’t remember the stage being there; it was just…

Shye Klein: Well, yeah, when I was there, the main stage was removed, but everything else was still there.

Joy Frankiel: Right. So for me, what I remember were just sticks in the ground to commemorate where people were. It was before their pictures were up. It was really, really at the beginning where there was just nothing, just sticks in the ground. I’ve been there, I think, three or four times as well. Two years ago, I was also on the Next of Kin Death Notification Team, and the last time I was at Nova, I saw a picture of someone that I had given their parents the notification that she was murdered at Nova. It was the first time I saw her there, and I stopped in my tracks. I really wanted to honor her and that moment. It was so sacred—that I was the one who notified her parents, and here I was seeing her at Nova. So, that was really, really difficult. I’m sure for you too, Shye, every time you go to Nova, there’s a different experience. Something else comes in. It’s like the narrative changes all the time.

Shye Klein: For me, I don’t like going there anymore. I don’t like all the construction that’s been done. I equate it to, “What if you tore down the ovens at Auschwitz and put a parking lot?” A lot of those changes, my understanding, are not the work of the government but of families who are bereaved and lost kids, trying to memorialize their kids. I totally respect that—I have no problem with that. But now, people like me going to the Nova site have to tell other visitors, “Hey, we didn’t have bunkers, we didn’t have a parking lot; the road wasn’t paved, we had no pathways, we had no shelters, we had no fog lights, we had no siren.” Now we have to educate people about what we didn’t have there because people get the wrong understanding of what the environment was like on October 7th due to those changes.

Joy Frankiel: And I guess when I went there in October, it was kind of like…

Shye Klein: It was raw.

Joy Frankiel: It was totally raw.

Shye Klein: There was nothing done. There was nothing done until like January. Besides those sticks, besides those faces—I’m fine with that. That’s okay. That doesn’t change the environment.

Joy Frankiel: That’s what really was. The sticks were where everybody was, and it was raw and unedited.

Ellin Bessner: Shye, you don’t like to go anymore?

Shye Klein: I still go, I just… I mean, I never liked going after the fact anyways. Why would I, you know, why would anybody want to visit such a site of a massacre? It’s not something anybody wants to do, I feel. But, you know, it’s sort of like… I don’t want to use the word obligation or “I have to” or anything like that, because I don’t have to do anything. But, you know, it’s important, even with whatever changes are made, to take people.

Ellin Bessner: Like CNN and Jake Tapper, because there’s a bit of hasbara.

Shye Klein: I hate that word so much. I don’t see him doing hasbara; I think it’s a nonsense word.

Ellin Bessner: Fair enough.

Shye Klein: I just call it advocacy.

Joy Frankiel: What did you call it?

Shye Klein: Advocacy. I’m advocating for people, you know, for my group.

Ellin Bessner: What is the group that you represent want?

Shye Klein: I don’t know. There are still quite a few Nova survivors. You know, there are 411 people who were killed on October 7th by Nova, and 55 kidnapped. And, you know, there are a lot of nonprofits and a lot of organizations out there that exist.

A lot of people love to talk about the Nova and fundraise using the story of Nova. Not so much when it comes to donating to help Nova survivors.  You know, there are nonprofits in Israel that Americans don’t know exist and they’re really not funded enough. They do much better work for Nova survivors than some North American organizations that people prefer to donate to. There’s one organization called Safe Heart, Lev Batuach. All they do is provide mental health care, therapy, and psychiatry to Nova survivors, period.  Nothing else. They don’t do galas. They’re not wasting their money just to make people feel good. They are spending the little money they have to help people heal. Like, they got me a therapist before I was even recognized as a victim of terror by the government. That’s what they do.   And I come to North America and people would rather donate to an influencer or whatever than to organizations like Safe Heart because they don’t know they exist. They’re so small and have so little money they can’t afford to get it out there to North America, Europe, Canada, or the US. It’s just too costly and they have a small team.

Ellin Bessner: Can I ask a question? So, you mentioned the Nova exhibition. I didn’t go to it in Toronto, but I know many, many thousands of people came. Wasn’t that money going towards the rehabilitation of survivors? That’s what I thought, that

Shye Klein: it goes to like the Nova’s programming and stuff like that. But, you know, their programs are all over the country, but a lot of it’s in the centre of the country. There are people who are, you know, all the way in Eilat who don’t want to drive to the middle of Israel or to Netanya to receive whatever they’re offering. Would you drive to Netanya from Eilat or from the Golan for a single therapy session? I wouldn’t.

Joy Frankiel: I also want to comment on that, Shye. I’m from the centre, and in the Shura group that we’re in, very often people are looking for therapists. And again, in the periphery, there are fewer therapists, there’s less of everything than in the city. That’s right.

Shye Klein: There’s less of everything for anybody who doesn’t live between Netanya and Bat Yam.

Joy Frankiel: You’re absolutely right.

Ellin Bessner: Before we change the topic, I should say I know that the Jewish National Fund and the Friends of the Jewish National Fund, for example in Canada, are fundraising specifically for this kind of rehabilitation and resilience centers in the south.

Shye Klein: Specifically for the communities in the south, though, specifically for the kibbutzim. And Sderot and Netivot, not the Nova.

Ellin Bessner: Can we talk a bit about your lives in the last two years? Personally, I want to know. You told me, Joy, let’s start with you. You did certain tasks close to the October 7th. What are your duties now? What are your duties now in the last few months? Are you still doing follow-ups with these families that you had to knock on the door, or what’s your job?

Joy Frankiel: So, first of all, for the protocol with the notification team, you go in once and you never see the family again. You’re supposed to give the notice and leave. You’re not supposed to have ongoing contact with the family. I’m not in contact with the families. The families do have their therapists and their people they can go to. However, I do have contact with one of the families, and I’ll discuss it a little later. 

Another thing that has happened since October 7th is the 12-day war with Iran. And Ramat Gan got hit three times within six days. There were 4,000 evacuees. They became refugees within their own cities. I was at the scene of every attack, again helping the home front command account for missing people and working with the evacuees.  The day of the third attack in Ramat Gan, we had evacuated over a thousand people and we had interviewed every single person before they were evacuated to hotels. We wanted to know their personal information, who was with them in the house, and if they had any medical issues that needed to be dealt with. They were successfully put into 40 hotels right away.  So, you know, following up with the victims. And I worked with all of the evacuees in the hotel. There were 350 evacuees in the hotel that I worked with. And we were with them day and night for a month. Social workers did not sleep. We’ve been working around the clock since the October 7th massacre. My work has just taken on other dimensions that it was never like before. We’re always in a war. We’re always working with crises and a new situation. It’s been very, very intense, to say the least.

Ellin Bessner: Are you doing this? You said you wanted to talk about it later, but maybe just tell us now.

Joy Frankiel: Okay, so one of the soldiers that had fallen, Ilay Bar Sadeh, he was 19 years old and he was in Golani. He was at the Zikim army base. He was killed around 8:03 in the morning, which means that from 6:30 till 8, he was fighting the terrorists. Apparently, he was considered a big hero because he was killed at 8 o’clock and not earlier.   When the terrorists were caught and later interviewed, they were asked, why didn’t you murder more people? There were more people beyond the army base. And they said, because the soldiers really tired us out. We didn’t even have any more energy.

His mother, Limor, reached out to me a couple of weeks ago. She heard about me and she asked me to accompany her to Barzilai Hospital to track Ili’s last steps in his journey, even though he was killed at the army base.   And there we were able to track what happened to the soldiers on that day, how they were brought to trauma, then pathology, and onwards.

What happened was she was welcomed by the spokesperson of the hospital, which was a big honour. One of the things I also love to do is to photograph, and she asked me to photograph everything. So, everything was filmed and photographed.

We went from triage to the trauma room to where her son was in bed Number 4. In Room 4. When she went to pathology, she wanted to meet the director of pathology. We were told, no, no, no, he’s totally burnt out, he’s dealing with post-trauma, he won’t meet with people anymore. We don’t allow him to meet with people. He’s just not well enough to do that.  

Later on, we were met by the hospital social worker who joined us. And little did we know that her son was murdered in Nova. So, here we were: two women joined by tragedy were together supporting one another. And then as we were sitting in this room, the head of pathology came into the office. He was just passing by and he started to talk about his experiences that day.   We all just held that space and were able to talk about everything that happened from our perspectives, because after the hospital pathology, they came to Shura. So it was like a full circle. And Ilay’s mother was able to get a lot of answers. She really wants closure. I don’t know if that helped her with closure, but it certainly changed the narrative.

Ellin Bessner: These encounters that are unexpected, that happened to you, and I’m sure, Shye, you get this too.  All the places you speak and then all the people that you’re involved with/ Could you think of one, maybe even recent story or encounter that helps give you hope?

Shye Klein: Well, I don’t know if it helps give me hope, but I met the cousin of Dor Avitan and Ran Shaffer, two men who I met at the NOVA in North America. When I was speaking, Ran Shaffer, his cousin, hosted me, and we didn’t know. I’m telling you about my NOVA experience and I’m showing her my photos, and she says, this is my cousin. It was really insane.

Then I met another cousin of Dor Avitan, who was the younger man I met at NOVA. He was working with his friend, Dor Malka. They were selling clothing, jewelry, bags, and stuff from Southeast Asia. After Hamas arrived, they murdered Dor and his friend, Dor Malka.  And then I think it was early this year. I was in the U.S., I think it was maybe Florida or New York, I can’t recall, but I met the cousin of Dor Avitan at their school. Meeting his cousin was really difficult.

You know, after October 7th, I found everybody who I photographed and if they were alive or dead. Of the 54 people, 52 survived. Sort of like what you do, Joy. I had to find the families and say, I’m sorry, but here’s the last photo of your son or your husband alive, smiling.

Joy Frankiel: That must have brought so much comfort to the families in spite of the horrors and the atrocities.

Shye Klein: They’re very appreciative of receiving these photos, but, you know, I wish I didn’t have to give it in the first place.

Joy Frankiel: Absolutely.

Ellin Bessner: So you both are still doing holy social work in your own ways or speaking just as President Trump and Netanyahu had their meeting and launched a 20-point plan for the end of the war, the return of the hostages, and the rebuilding of Gaza. I want to just get your take on this. Are you hopeful now his is it? Are you not? Because of the two years you’ve just spent? Some people say Israelis are broken and they have no hope as of going forward to a New Year. So I’m wondering where you find yourselves on this spectrum as a person.

Joy Frankiel: I’m always hopeful and I’m always optimistic. However, I don’t think that we have any partner with Hamas, and I don’t think that any offer that we’ll put will come through. And so, although I wish it would end the war, I don’t think that it will.

Shye Klein: First of all, I think we missed our best shot. I think our best chance was November, the first deal we had when we had 53 hostages returned. I think that was the time to make the ultimate deal, whatever you want to call it.

But I’m looking at the deal right now. First point is Gaza. A de-radicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbours. I feel like that’s an obvious. I feel like that’s a given. I feel like that’s something that benefits Israelis and Palestinians because if there’s no threat to Israelis, then there’s no reason for them to strike terror groups in Gaza and risk the lives of civilians.

Gaza will be redeveloped if it benefits people. I feel like Israel owes it to the Gaza population to rebuild. We blew it up. And if we want to have peace and some sort of semblance of coexistence, we have to rebuild it. Otherwise, what’s going to happen? Another terrorist group will just say, hey, you guys destroyed our home, didn’t rebuild it. We’re going to kill you again for whatever else reason they can think of. We don’t need to give them reasons to try and kill us.

But I feel like if we do our best and try and humanize people, like I’m doing in North America, trying to humanize victims of the NOVA, it would help. You know, I think we should do everything we can to get back the hostages. I think we should do whatever’s asked because the hostages are the priority. If they’re willing to let these people from the NOVA, from the kibbutz, other soldiers, sit in Gaza for two years, hostage of Hamas, they would let that be you or me or your sons or your daughters, your neighbours. No matter how Zionist or pro-Israel or pro-Netanyahu you that you are, you’d be in those tunnels in the exact same two years. And during these last deals, it’s not like Hamas gives us the hostages randomly. We submit names of who we want to release, which means the government is choosing who stays for an additional year. You know, we just struck Hamas in Qatar, which was universally disliked and everybody did not approve of that. And what happens when we do that and fail to kill terrorists? The hostages pay the price. They get tortured, they get beat with electrical wires, they get forced to watch Hamas terrorists eat, they lose a meal. You know, they face the direct repercussions for every action and every stupid comment the Israeli government makes. Like when Smotrich talks about Gaza being a real estate bonanza, the hostages suffer for those words. And our soldiers kill themselves every month because they don’t receive the mental health care they need after fighting in Gaza for 700 days.

Ellin Bessner: Joy and Shye, at the beginning of our conversation, you weren’t sure you had a lot of overlap. Have you found some things that now you think are common ground with each other? And what message do you have for each other and our audience as we all mark October 7th?

Shye Klein: I was just gonna tell you to keep taking photos!

Joy Frankiel: Absolutely. I think that that’s the overlap that we have is my stories are through my photos. I see photos, I take photos, everybody laughs at me that I photograph so much. But in the end, it tells a story and I think it’s an important story that needs to be told and it’s beyond words and it’s going to stay with us forever.

Ellin Bessner: For the actual October 7th. You’re going to be in the States, right, Shye? And you’re going to be in Canada, Joy, or you’re going home?

Joy Frankiel: Well, it’s funny because they’re commemorating the October 7th this year on October 16th, which is my birthday. And I’m going to be here in Montreal for October 7th.

Ellin Bessner: And Shye, you’re going to be doing your thing. Speaking.

Shye Klein: I will be speaking at Regent University in Virginia, which is a Christian university.

Joy Frankiel: Amazing. Shye. Yashar koach.

Shye Klein: I’m very looking forward to it.

Ellin Bessner: Joy and Shye, thanks so much.

Shye Klein: Thank you, Ellin, very much.

Joy Frankiel: Thank you for having me.

Ellin Bessner: And that’s what Jewish Canada sounds like for this episode of North Star, made possible thanks to the Ira Gluskin and Maxine Granovsky Gluskin Charitable Foundation.

Shye Klein is still raising funds for his new photography project. It’s called Beyond the Supernova.  His goal is to capture the personal stories of over 2,000 fellow survivors, highlight their challenges and their resilience, and bring it to major world cities where he feels it could help combat antisemitism.

The charity he mentioned, called SafeHeart, works with NOVA survivors who were using mind-altering drugs at the time.

We put links to that, about him, and about Joy Frankiel, in our show notes. 

North Star is produced by Andrea Varsany and Zachary Judah Kauffman. Michael Fraiman is the executive producer, and Bret Higgins composed the music.  

Thanks for listening.

Show Notes

Related links

  • Listen to our original interview with Joy Frenkiel from Oct. 26, 2023, and our original interview with Shye Klein from Nov. 27, 2023.
  • Learn about Shye Klein’s latest project, “Beyond the Supernova”
  • Book Joy Frenkiel to speak to your group about her experiences.
  • Learn more and donate to the Israeli mental health treatment charity for Nova survivors, SafeHeart.

Credits

  • Host and writer: Ellin Bessner (@ebessner)
  • Production team: Zachary Kauffman (senior producer), Andrea Varsany (producer), Michael Fraiman (executive producer)
  • Music: Bret Higgins

Support our show

The post ‘When I tell the story, it is therapeutic’: These Canadians are still on the front lines, 2 years after Oct. 7 appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

How Philip Roth invented a myth called ‘Philip Roth’

Steven J. Zipperstein set to work on his own biography of Philip Roth before anyone knew that Roth’s authorized biography would be pulled from shelves after accusations of sexual misconduct by its author, Blake Bailey.  Zipperstein and I first spoke when he was wrapping up his draft. He was pondering Roth’s legacy. He wanted to discuss a Roth-like character I had put in my novel, How I Won a Nobel Prize, in part because he was surprised to discover a younger writer riffing on Roth so openly. 

Zipperstein’s book, Philip Roth: Stung By Life, which is part of Yale’s Jewish Lives series, distinguishes itself with an approach that focuses more on Roth’s intellectual and artistic development than on a comprehensive reconstruction of his sexual history.  Though Roth was devoutly anti-religious, Jewishness is a major theme that provides a surprisingly sturdy handle with which to grasp the family ties and cultural traditions that remained Roth’s persistent obsessions on the page, even as he resisted them in life. 

Zipperstein, who is a professor of Jewish history and culture at Stanford, delivers an admiring, thorough, and swift account of an immensely single-minded writer’s unabating struggles with ambition, romance and the politics of his time. The book also has some fascinating scoops‚ major interviews and materials to which Zipperstein alone had access.  We had a lot to talk about, and this interview has been compressed for length and clarity.

Julius Taranto: Start with the obvious: Why did you devote so much time and thought to a Philip Roth biography when there were rival biographical efforts that you could not have known would go up in flames?  

Steven Zipperstein: Roth first reached out to me after I published my book, Rosenfeld’s Lives, and we were in touch intermittently for years. I was persuaded that there was really a book to be written, that I could actually do something new, when I discovered the Yeshiva University tape and came to realize the vast discrepancy between what Roth actually experienced and what he believed he experienced and then recorded on the page.

The Yeshiva University tape is one of one of several remarkable bits of journalism on your part, unraveling a remarkable bit of self-mythologizing on Roth’s part. 

As part of its 75th anniversary celebration in 1962, Yeshiva University sponsored a panel about the ethnic responsibilities of a writer. Roth, who had at this point published only Goodbye, Columbus, was a featured speaker alongside Ralph Ellison. What Roth remembers — he devotes an entire chapter to this incident in his memoir — is that it was an inquisition, the audience hated him. As a result he decided he wasn’t going to write about Jews anymore and devoted three excruciating years to his next novel in which there are no Jews, and it’s a defining moment in his life.

I learned that the event was taped. Roth had threatened the university with a lawsuit if it was published or aired, but he agreed to give me access. By the time I acquired it, Roth was already dying in the hospital, so the last conversation I had with him was about this tape. It contradicts his memory in every conceivable way. The audience loved him and laughed at his jokes. Those who disliked him rushed to the stage once the program ended. And their criticism was all that he recalled.

I now see Roth’s purported rejection by the Jewish mainstream as a tale he invented (and earnestly believed) in order to justify his preexisting sense of rage and alienation.

Rage was a crucial factor in Roth’s fiction from the beginning. One of the people who contacted me, partly because of the implosion of Blake Bailey’s biography, and because of the apparent difference between my life and Blake’s, was Maxine Groffsky, who hadn’t spoken to anyone before about her relationship with Roth. They’d dated for years, and she was in many ways the model for Brenda Patimkin, the girlfriend in Goodbye, Columbus. But, at least as I was able to reconstruct it, Maxine was little like Brenda Patimkin.

She wasn’t rich or high status, and Roth was never especially subservient to her, the way Neil Klugman is to Brenda. 

Still, in fiction Roth gives us Brenda Patimkin. That’s a projection of his rage and ambition.

Where do you think that came from?

I wrestled in the book not to be reductionist. I try to suggest that to understand Roth, you really need to understand the interplay between Roth and mother. Her fastidiousness was through the roof. Roth and his brother Sandy wouldn’t even use the bathrooms in friends’ houses because none were as clean as theirs. That’s a category of a very special kind. It’s a feature of Roth’s life from the outset to figure out what it means for him to really want to satisfy her and at the same time to be aware of what Benjamin Taylor calls his “inner anarchy.”

Mickey Sabbath – a rageful, overweight, unkempt, disgraced, perverted puppeteer – seems like the character through which Roth expressed his “inner anarchy” in its least-filtered form.  

This man who engages in daily exercise, who’s trim, who’s incredibly disciplined in his work habits: Mickey Sabbath is what he imagines he is on the inside. In Sabbath’s Theater, he’s undressing himself. He’s allowing the reader to come closer to all that he fears he could be, the person who he knows exists and that he keeps hidden. It’s a book very much in conversation with Maletta Pfeiffer.

They had an on-and-off affair for more than twenty years, and she’s the model for Drenka in Sabbath’s Theater

I think Maletta more than anyone else becomes privy to Roth’s secrets because he’s convinced that he’s met someone who has an all but identical attitude toward life, towards sensuality and sexuality, and who for the longest time he greatly admires.

But he’s wrong, isn’t he? You spent time with Maletta, and she showed you her diaries and her unsent emails to Roth — documents she never showed to any other biographer or journalist. I’m going to quote from your book, because I think this has real importance for how we interpret the portrait of mutual sexual ecstasy in Sabbath’s Theater.  In one of her draft emails in 1995, Maletta wrote: “All the things you did to me. You made me go and talk to whores. . . . That never excited me. I just did it to please you. . . . I never liked it. All the things I did with you. I cannot even write about them. What you put in the book.” It’s quite dark to reconsider Sabbath’s Theater with the understanding that the model for Drenka was often not as enthusiastic as Roth believed her to be.

In contrast to the accusations against Blake Bailey, there’s no evidence of any coercive behavior on Roth’s part in his sexual life – but it’s clear that his sense of Maletta was, I think, not altogether accurate.

She’s romanticized, both in fiction and in Roth’s mind. This relates to a theme that I picked up on in your description of the arc of his career. Alongside his ambivalent relationship to Jewishness and family life, there is a parallel ambivalence between sentimentality and irony.  Early in his career, he is so critical of Jewish sentimentalists like Leon Uris and Herman Wouk.  But he has his own version of sentimentality emerge later in his career, particularly in American Pastoral and The Plot Against America. He becomes nostalgic for his parents’ world, for FDR, for the sense of moral security that he imagines they had. 

He wrestled with nostalgia. He hated nostalgia, and he hated the strengths of family life.  He is seeking his whole life to be extraordinary. But he also fantasizes, overtly in Portnoy’s Complaint, about the joy of not needing to strive, the joy of being mediocre. Roth deeply admires his father and wishes on some level that he was like him but also knows in every orb of his body that he wouldn’t actually want to be like him, committed and monogamous and dutiful. He writes from that ambivalence time and time again. And I think, as I suggest in the book, that’s why Zuckerman is the stand-in that stays with Roth, in a contrast to Kepesh, who is more one-sided and selfish and disposable.

I sensed your special affection for The Ghost Writer. Its portrait of writing within domesticity is extraordinarily well-rounded. Perhaps in response to criticism from Irving Howe, Roth maintains a balance in The Ghost Writer that he wasn’t trying to maintain in other works. And you argue, persuasively, that Lonoff is not really a portrait of Bernard Malamud, as is commonly thought, but is much more profoundly Roth’s projection of his own future.

Roth worked assiduously against balance and proportion in many of his other books. Zuckerman inhabits Roth’s ambivalence, and Lonoff represents a future that Roth doesn’t want. Roth fears obscurity. He doesn’t want a body like Lonoff’s, but he fears down deep that this actually might end up being his body. That Hope might end up being his wife. He’s able to face his own terror, in this book and others, in ways that I find extraordinary, especially since beyond his writing desk he doesn’t manage that nearly as successfully.

You surface Roth’s notion that politics is the great generalizer, and literature the great particularizer, and that at a fundamental level, they really cannot abide one another. “How can you be an artist and renounce the nuance? But how can you be a politician and allow the nuance?” Did Roth have political commitments?

He’s a political liberal in the Clintonesque sense, without using it as a curse word. But as is true for many aspects of his life, he’s willing to challenge his presuppositions. That’s something he certainly does in American Pastoral, which probably satisfied readers like Norman Podhoretz rather too much. He does something not dissimilar in The Counterlife with regard to Israel. His own inclinations are dovish. That book was all the more powerful for me for its capacity to portray with a degree of sympathy extreme Israeli figures that Roth politically deplored. One of the characteristics of Roth that I ended up admiring the most was the way in which he so often excoriated his own commitments, challenged them, and exposed them for their own weaknesses.

He tells Benjamin Taylor that he cares intensely about his “moral reputation.” That not something that one expects from the author of Portnoy’s Complaint or Sabbath’s Theater. How would you describe the values that Roth wanted to be associated with? It can’t be mainstream civility.

What he values above all is freedom as he understands it. And what he’s hoping a biographer will do is to portray him as someone who spends his life exploring the wages of freedom and the underbelly of unfreedom – hence his political commitment to liberalism, and hence his deploring ideologues who disparage freedom. He’s immensely preoccupied with his reputation, but he also takes incredible risks with it. He is insistent that those risks are unavoidable for a writer and that to avoid them means inevitable mediocrity.

 

The post How Philip Roth invented a myth called ‘Philip Roth’ appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Israel is at an existential pivot point. It never needed to go this far.

Two years after the Oct. 7 massacre, the Middle East is at an absurd pivot point. If Hamas, badly beaten but unbowed, accepts the disarmament element in President Donald Trump’s new peace plan, the region will move toward reconstruction, Gulf-financed normalization, and peace. If it refuses, Israel will likely re-occupy Gaza, miring the region in a ruinous quagmire.

That so much now depends on the whim of a terrorist group is a scandal — the product not only of Hamas’s diabolical strategy and indifference to loss of life, but of American weakness and, crucially, a chain of catastrophically bad choices by Israelis. It did not have to be this way.

The choice between abyss and opportunity is simple in outline and brutal in consequence. One future is endless counterinsurgency in Gaza: Soldiers patrolling hostile alleys and encountering roadside bombs, with Palestinian families under curfew, while Israel’s economy bleeds, its society seethes and its global standing plummets. The other is the disarmament and removal of Hamas, with the hostages returned, Gulf money flowing into reconstruction, and quite possibly dramatic moves toward normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and maybe others.

That binary was manufactured, step by avoidable step, by foolishness, arrogance, and weakness from key players:

    • The political opening: Netanyahu’s return. The rightward re-alignment of Israeli politics after repeated elections was caused by splits in the center-left, and an utter lack of focus from Israel’s moderate parties that made Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comeback possible. The coalition he assembled after the November 2022 election, dependent on fanatics and brimming with ex-cons and incompetents, was a disaster waiting to happen. The wait wasn’t long.
    • Judicial overhaul and societal schism. Netanyahu’s drive to neuter the judiciary and establish an illiberal majoritarian semi-democracy, similar to that of nearby Turkey, began within days of his resuming power. It tore Israeli society apart in 2023, provoking mass protests and deepening social polarization — a rupture that the security establishment warned would project weakness and invite attack.
    • Ignoring security warnings and intelligence. Knowing this was their position, Netanyahu refused to meet with the heads of the military, Shin Bet and Mossad in the weeks and months before Oct. 7. For their part, the security chiefs also ignored multiple intelligence indicators of Hamas’ intent for a major attack. The signals were minimized or misread — a classic bureaucratic pattern of cognitive failure. As for Netanyahu, his fabulously misguided position, for many years, was that Hamas ruling Gaza was useful because it weakened the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank — which is threatening to him precisely because it is moderate.
    • Troop diversion to the West Bank. In the run-up to Oct. 7, forces and attention were redirected to the West Bank to manage flashpoints — a political decision tied to coalition pressures to accommodate radical settlers determined to provoke the Palestinians, which left the Gaza boundary defense much thinner than it should have been.
    • Tactical failures on Oct. 7. When the assault began, early military warnings were not acted on, local commanders were confused, communications broke down, and reinforcements arrived too late, often not unless 10 hours later, in a small country.
    • Blundering into war. Israel briefly held the moral high ground as the world recognized Hamas’ act of barbarism. Arab capitals were unusually receptive, and the diplomatic leverage was enormous. That was the moment to demand the release of hostages, insist on Hamas surrendering Gaza’s administration to the Palestinian Authority, and make disarmament a multilateral demand enforced by a regional-Western coalition. If Hamas had refused, the world would have been forced into an explicit test — and come to understand, once and for all, that war was the option Hamas wanted.
    • Ignoring the hostage problem. It was obvious from the start that Israel could not destroy Hamas while the group held hostages in Gaza. The captives were a human shield, ensuring that any attempt at “total victory” would be self-defeating. Netanyahu denied this, promising that annihilation was possible while sending the army in and out of the same ruins two years of an endless cat-and-mouse.

These step-by-step misfires, together, make it clear that at every subsequent juncture, Netanyahu chose to prolong kinetic action. A permanent state of emergency enabled him to argue for deferring accountability and shifting the discussion away from the unwinnable one about his role in Oct. 7.

And the United States showed weakness and complicity with nonsense at key moments. 

    • A missed opportunity. In late 2023 and early 2024, then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken was crisscrossing the region to put together a comprehensive plan: return of all hostages, the Palestinian Authority restored to Gaza, normalization with Saudi Arabia. Officials in President Joe Biden’s administration believed it was achievable. Netanyahu refused, knowing his coalition would collapse. Biden, astonishingly, effectively accepted the rebuff — a display of weakness that allowed the war to grind on, and, of course, hurt the Democrats’ chances to retain the American presidency.
    • Biden’s big error. Biden went further, publicly endorsing Netanyahu’s own outline for ending the war in exchange for hostages. Within weeks, Netanyahu reneged, and Biden again let it pass. The cost was counted not only in the lives of Palestinian civilians, but also in those of Israeli soldiers and hostages who might have been saved.
    • And Trump’s. By January, 2025, after 15 months of devastation, a reelected Trump forced Netanyahu to accept what was essentially the same plan as Biden had put forward. But Netanyahu walked away halfway through implementation, without even denying that doing so was a violation of the deal — because Trump allowed him to (and indeed was then advocating for the expulsion of all Gazans in favor of a U.S.-built “riviera”).

Each of these errors compounded the others and cost many lives.

On the Palestinian side, it is widely believed that some 65,000 people are dead, over half of them civilians — although all numbers from Gaza are suspect, as they come from authorities linked to Hamas. According to Israel’s Defense Ministry, 1,152 Israeli soldiers and security personnel have been killed in the course of the war, including several hundred in the Oct. 7 attack itself. Of the 251 people abducted on Oct. 7, the vast majority of them civilians, at least 83 are believed to have been killed — the cost of these decisions to not prioritize their release.

At every pause when Netanyahu prolonged the war he could say “Hamas is not yet destroyed.” People who both wanted Hamas gone and the hostages freed could be manipulated into tolerating continuation of fighting. That line sustained support from about a third of the public.

What are the lessons of this litany of error — other than the obvious one, that Netanyahu must be removed from power at almost any cost?

The big one is that Israel, even if Hamas says no to Trump’s deal, must resist the impulse to push forward militarily. Two years of devastation have made it plain: The war cannot be “won” so long as hostages remain in Hamas’s grip, and every repetition of the cat-and-mouse in Gaza only weakens Israel’s legitimacy and social cohesion, while strengthening Hamas’s narrative.

If Hamas refuses to disarm, the wiser course is to flip the script, and increase pressure on them without further military action.

The priority must be the hostages: Every diplomatic channel and instrument of international pressure should be deployed to secure their release. Humanitarian suffering must be addressed by offering civilians temporary refuge — in Egypt, in the West Bank, or elsewhere — guaranteed by international commitments of return once Hamas is gone.

This is not ethnic cleansing; it is protection, analogous to Ukrainians sheltering in Poland during the Russian assault. Properly framed, it exposes Hamas as the jailer of Gaza’s people.

If Hamas breaks, then excellent: the Trump plan can proceed with a technocratic Palestinian government in Gaza, reforms in the Palestinian Authority, Gulf-financed reconstruction, and normalization with Saudi Arabia and beyond. If Hamas refuses, the world must be made to see that Palestinian misery is not the people’s inevitable fate, but the direct consequence of Hamas’s obstinacy.

The fact that the Middle East’s future now waits on Hamas is not some cosmic inevitability: it is the fruit of a sequence of political, tactical and strategic mistakes. Israel must learn from this disaster, and take steps never to be so exposed in the future.

The post Israel is at an existential pivot point. It never needed to go this far. appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Israel’s relationship with the US has never been worse. It’s also never been better

Let’s not sugarcoat it: American support for Israel has taken a nosedive since Oct. 7, 2023.

The question two years later is: How can Israel avoid a complete crash?

Recent polls show the most dire numbers. Americans’ sympathy for Israelis dropped to 46% by February 2025 — the lowest in 25 years of Gallup tracking. Israel received its lowest rating ever in Chicago Council of Global Affairs polling, which dates back to 1978: 61% of Americans said Israel is playing a negative role in resolving Middle East challenges.

The numbers are worst where it matters most — among the younger generations, who will lead the United States and set policy in the future. Only 9% of those aged 18 to 34 approve of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, according to a Brookings Institution poll. That’s compared to 49% in the 55 and older age group.

What I think: The tremendous outpouring of support American Jews received after Oct. 7 hasn’t disappeared. Instead, it’s been obscured by deep misgivings about the way Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has conducted the war in Gaza. And after two years of conflict, there’s finally a real opportunity to remake the region — and enable that support to flourish once again.

The most dramatic shift occurred among Democrats, who now sympathize with Palestinians over Israelis by nearly a 3-to-1 ratio. Just 33% of Democrats view Israel favorably — a 30-point plummet over a span of three years. While party leaders still express strong support for Israel, if not for its current government, negative sentiment is surging among younger Democrats. At the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last year, the party’s youth wing passed a resolution calling Israel’s military campaign in Gaza a genocide.

But even more strikingly, the generational gap among Republicans is dramatic and widening.

For years, Republicans have tried to peel off Jewish voters by claiming theirs is the true pro-Israel party. Over the last two years, that claim collapsed in their young wing. Since 2022, young Republicans aged 18 to 49 went from 35% having an unfavorable view of Israel to, today, 50% having one, according to an August survey, while such views among Republicans older than 50 went up only marginally, from 19% to 23%.

Numbers like these, or the sentiments behind them, were behind a now-famous memo that the late Charlie Kirk wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning that Israel faced a “5-alarm fire” over conservative support.

Or, as a recent headline in Politico summed it up:“An entire generation of Americans is turning on Israel.”

At first, sympathy

That trend began long before the Oct. 7 attack. Decades of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, repeated Israeli incursions into Gaza that resulted in high numbers of civilian casualties, university curriculums that framed Israel as a colonizer, and Israel’s demographic and political move to the right have all played a part.

But still, the post-Oct. 7 numbers represent a tremendous reversal.

In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas-led attacks, 71% of Americans said they felt a lot of sympathy for Israelis, and 96% expressed at least some. In a country as divided as the U.S., those are extraordinary numbers.

Israel’s long military campaign changed that. As it dragged on, claiming more than 64,000 Palestinian lives — about 20,000 of whom Israel claims are Hamas fighters — leveling more than 75% of Gaza’s buildings, and causing widespread hunger, support began to evaporate.

The fall-off was accelerated by online media campaigns, some of which, according to the American government and Israeli intelligence sources, were funded and operated by Iran and Qatar. (Israel has also funded online social media influencer campaigns, to try to improve its global image.) Social media, where young people get their news and form their opinions, became another battlefield in the war — and one Israel has been losing.

American Jews mirror their neighbors

As is so often the case, American Jews reflect the sentiments of the society around them.

A just-released Washington Post poll found that 61% of American Jews say Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza.  Almost 4 in 10 say Israel is guilty of genocide against Palestinians.

Only 36% of Jews aged 18 to 34 say they feel emotionally attached to Israel, compared to 68% of those over 65. Among younger Jews, half said Israel is committing genocide, compared with about a third of older respondents.

The numbers have been reflected by sometimes surprising public statements. Last month, Rabbi Ismar Schorch, former chancellor of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary, called Israel’s Gaza War “a moral stain” on Judaism itself.

In August, 80 Modern Orthodox rabbis wrote an open letter demanding moral clarity on the humanitarian disaster of food scarcity in Gaza.

“Hamas’s sins and crimes do not relieve the government of Israel of its obligations to make whatever efforts are necessary to prevent mass starvation,” they wrote. “Orthodox Jewry, as some of Israel’s most devoted supporters, bears a unique moral responsibility. We must affirm that Judaism’s vision of justice and compassion extends to all human beings.”

Some of Israel’s supporters have argued that these numbers prove Americans only like Israel until it starts defending itself. Spend a few minutes on Jewish online forums and inevitably up pops the Golda Meir quote, “If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.”

But that sentiment is harder to justify when scores of Israel’s former officials, two of its former prime ministers, and hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have taken to the streets themselves are saying the war has gone on too long, and been too cruel.

Has Israel lost the U.S.?

Dire as those statements and numbers might seem, buried within the statistics are some reasons for hope.

Polls show that what Americans really take issue with is Israel’s military campaign. Overall approval of Israel’s military action in Gaza fell to 32% by July 2025, down from initial support of 50% in November 2023 — including that near rock-bottom 9% support for Israel’s military action among young people.

In other words, the Israel that Americans are rejecting in those polls is the Israel executing a military and political project that, until recently, seemed bent on obliterating Gaza. But there’s a whole other Israel out there, and it’s a powerful one.

It’s the Israel of protest marches, which have seen tens of thousands of Israelis rally, week after week, against a government that does not reflect their values. It’s the Israel of the dozens of Arab and Jewish NGOs fighting for coexistence.

President Donald Trump’s new peace plan, which will put an end to the war, offers the beginning of a way back to that better Israel. Netanyahu has accepted the plan, which not only calls for an end to the war and for the hostages to be freed, but for a longer diplomatic horizon that calls for “reconciliation and coexistence” between Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas has taken the first steps toward signing onto it, as well, by for the first time agreeing to release all the remaining hostages.

If Trump and his successors can hold the Israelis and Palestinians to their word, the possibilities open to an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace and the integration of Israel into the Middle East. When the Arabs accept Israel, it will be that much harder for a Barnard sophomore to reject it.

Israel can retain the U.S. as its greatest ally, and the American public as its greatest friend, if it marginalizes its own hardliners and takes the opening Trump has offered. These are big ifs, pipe dreams perhaps. But two years after Oct. 7, we are closer now than ever to seeing them come true.

The post Israel’s relationship with the US has never been worse. It’s also never been better appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News