Uncategorized
As landmark Saul Bellow documentary premieres, a look back at his life through the JTA archive
(JTA) — Given his place in the international literary canon, it’s hard to believe that there has never been a widely-released documentary made about the Jewish Nobel Prize winner Saul Bellow.
That’s about to change, as PBS debuts “American Masters: The Adventures of Saul Bellow” on Monday night.
The documentary, which was filmed by Israeli director Asaf Galay between 2016 and 2019 and features what is being touted as the last interview Philip Roth gave before his death in 2018, digs deep into Bellow’s personal life and inspirations. Many know about his successful novels and memorable (usually Jewish) characters, but as the film shows, Bellow had a turbulent personal life that involved five marriages. Several of his closest friends and family members felt betrayed or offended by how Bellow wrote unflattering characters closely based on them. His moderate conservative political leanings put him at odds with the ethos of the 1960s, and some saw his framing of occasional Black characters as racist.
But the film also devotes time to explaining — through interviews with scholars, other novelists and members of the Bellow clan — how Bellow’s deep-rooted sense of “otherness” as the son of Jewish immigrants influenced his work, and how he, in turn, influenced many Jewish American writers who followed him. Roth, for instance, says on camera that Bellow inspired him to create fuller Jewish characters in his own work.
To mark the milestone film, we looked back through all of the Saul Bellow content in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s archive. What emerged was a portrait of a leading Jewish intellectual of his time who was deeply invested in the Soviet Jewry movement and Israel, and who was beloved by the American Jewish community — despite his complicated relationship to his Jewishness and his bristling at being called a “Jewish writer.”
The Soviet Jewry movement
Bellow was born in 1915 in Canada to parents with Lithuanian ancestry who first immigrated from St. Petersburg, Russia. In the 1920s, when Bellow was 9, the family moved to Chicago. By the 1950s, the plight of Jews in the Soviet Union — who were forbidden from openly practicing their religion and from emigrating — had become a rallying cry for American Jews. As a 1958 JTA report shows, Bellow was passionate about the issue; in January of that year, he signed a letter to The New York Times about “the purge of Yiddish writers, the refusal of the current Soviet regime to permit a renaissance of Jewish culture and the existence of a quota system on Jews in education, professional and civil service fields.” Other signatories included fellow Jewish writers Irving Howe, Alfred Kazin and Lionel Trilling.
Saul Bellow, Anita Goshkin (his first wife) and their son Gregory Bellow, circa 1940. Bellow’s turbulent personal life involved five marriages. (Courtesy of the Bellow family)
He signed another letter to the Times on the topic in 1965, and in 1969 he circulated an appeal for cultural freedom for Jews to the Soviet Writers Union, getting other prominent writers such as Noam Chomsky and Nat Hentoff to sign. By 1970, the issue had become widely publicized, and Bellow stayed involved, signing onto a petition with several other thought leaders that asked: “Has the government of the Soviet Union no concern for human rights or for the decent opinion of mankind?”
Israel
Like many American Jews, Bellow had complicated feelings on Israel. “If you want everyone to love you, don’t discuss Israeli politics,” he once wrote.
In the 1970s, JTA reports show that he followed Israeli diplomacy closely and was a strong supporter of the Jewish state in the face of international criticism. In 1974, at a PEN press conference, he called for a boycott of UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural heritage arm that has historically been very critical of Israeli policy.
In 1984, Bellow met with then-Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who was in the United States on an official state visit.
But Bellow wasn’t a blanket supporter of Israel — in 1979, he signed a letter protesting West Bank settlement expansion that was read at a rally of 30,000 people in Tel Aviv. In 1987, while in Haifa for a conference on his work, Bellow criticized the Israeli government for the way it handled the Jonathan Pollard spy case, bringing up an issue that still reverberates in Israel-Diaspora conversation — and in U.S. politics.
“I think the American Jews are very sensitive to the question of dual allegiance, and it is probably wrong of Israel to press this question because it is one which is very often used by antisemites,” Bellow said.
Nobel Prize
After garnering multiple National Book Awards and a Pulitzer Prize, Bellow won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1976. JTA’s report on the award noted that Bellow’s most recent book at the time, published right around the time of the Nobel announcements, was a memoir about his 1975 stay in Jerusalem, titled “To Jerusalem and Back.” The report added: “Two of his books, ‘Herzog,’ published in 1964 and ‘Mr. Sammler’s Planet,’ which won him the National Book Award in 1971, have been translated into Hebrew and were enthusiastically received by Israeli critics and public.”
(Bellow wasn’t the only Jew to win a Nobel that year: Milton Friedman won the economics prize, Baruch Blumberg shared the medicine prize and Burton Richter shared the physics prize.)
Bellow, center, with his fifth wife Janis Freedman-Bellow and longtime friend Allan Bloom, who is the subject of Bellow’s last novel, “Ravelstein.” (Courtesy of the Bellow family)
A “Jewish writer”?
The Anti-Defamation League also gave Bellow an award in 1976. According to a JTA report, Seymour Graubard, honorary national chairman of the ADL at the time, said that Bellow “has correctly rejected all efforts to pigeonhole him as a ‘Jewish writer.’ Rather, he has simply found in the Jewish experience those common strains of humanity that are part of all of us — and therein lies his greatness as an American writer.”
Debate over whether or not Bellow should be labeled a “Jewish writer,” and what that meant, dogged him for much of his career. After his death in 2005, at 89, a New York Jewish Week obituary focused on Bellow as “a literary giant who did not want to be bound by the tag of Jewish writer.”
“Mr. Bellow bridled at being considered a Jewish writer, though his early novels, most notably 1944’s ‘The Victim,’ dealt with anti-Semitism and featured characters who spoke Yiddish and Russian,” Steve Lipman wrote.
Bellow’s biographer James Atlas added in the obituary: “He always said he was a writer first, an American second and Jewish third. But all three were elements of his genius. His greatest contribution was that he was able to write fiction that had tremendous philosophical depth.”
In a JTA essay at the time of Bellow’s death, academic and fiction writer John J. Clayton argued: “No good writer wants to be pigeonholed or limited in scope. But he is deeply a Jewish writer — not just a Jew by birth.
“Jewish culture, Jewish sensibility, a Jewish sense of holiness in the everyday, permeate his work.”
—
The post As landmark Saul Bellow documentary premieres, a look back at his life through the JTA archive appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Iran Says School Massacre’ and the Media Repeats: How a Regime Claim Became a Viral Headline
An Iranian flag flutters, as Israel and the US launched strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, February 28, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
On Saturday, February 28, Israel and the US launched a joint military operation against the Iranian regime, targeting senior leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei, and military commanders. The operation has also seen a significant targeting of military infrastructure, including air defense systems, missile launchers, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command centers.
The Iranian regime, like its terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, has embedded its infrastructure within civilian locations. As protests broke out at the beginning of 2026, the movement of weapons and military equipment into protected civilian locations, such as schools and hospitals, was widely observed. This prompted Iranian civilians to take protective measures and warn one another of the dual use of protected spaces.
Geolocation/Correction/Additional Info:
1. Confirmed geolocation: The Imam Ali school in Arak, Iran (34.088253, 49.687137) @GeoConfirmed .
2. The photo is from as early as January 8th, 2026 – Per earliest reports it just depicts them as “Security forces”.
3. This school appears… https://t.co/6y7INfX8Fx pic.twitter.com/JWAZJ34bch— Tal Hagin (@talhagin) January 27, 2026
When the IDF targeted an IRGC compound in Minab, southern Iran, Iran’s state broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), immediately claimed that the US had purposefully targeted the Shajareh Tayyebeh school full of young girls.
Al Jazeera soon published the story, blaming Israel for the deaths of children.
The Western media, without questioning the credibility of the source, immediately reported on the strike and followed Al Jazeera’s lead by holding Israel responsible.
In doing so, the media further amplified and legitimized claims from the same regime that has spent the past two months executing its own civilians in the streets protesting for freedom.
The same outlets that included a caveat about their inability to independently verify the number of protesters killed by the regime were the same ones that published and continuously updated alleged casualty figures without any verification other than a regime source.
This is not to say that innocent civilians may not have died in the strike, but they were certainly not the target of Israel or the US. Moreover, a civilian building was purposefully exploited by the Iranian regime, putting civilians in immediate danger.
The school, reportedly intended to be for the children of military personnel, was built directly next to an IRGC naval base, according to anti-regime media.
Independent geolocation analysts further indicated that the Shajareh Tayyebeh school was located in the same premises as the Sayyid al-Shohada barracks of the IRGC Navy’s Asef Brigade. While it remains unclear whether many civilians were present in the area at the time of the strike, witnesses have reported that the school was not targeted but rather the adjacent IRGC buildings, where missiles were reportedly being stored.
This information was, of course, omitted from IRIB’s reporting of the strike. As a result, when Western outlets covered the story, the school’s proximity to — and apparent integration with — an IRGC military complex was missing from the coverage.
The Iranian Embassy in Austria continued with the disinformation campaign on behalf of the regime, sharing a now-viral image on X of a backpack that reportedly belongs to one of the schoolgirls killed in the strike.
However, research analysts have found the photo to be AI-generated, as a Google Gemini watermark was detected hidden in the image.
Adding to the uncertainty surrounding the already disputed casualty figures, basic questions remain unanswered, most notably who exactly was killed in the strike.
As of the time of writing, The Telegraph reported 165 casualties, including 81 pupils, citing Iranian sources. That leaves 84 individuals not identified in the public breakdown. And given that the school was located within an IRGC compound, it is legitimate to ask whether any of the remaining casualties were affiliated with the regime, a distinction that has not been clarified.
The disinformation does not stop at pro-regime sources. A widely-circulated photograph online purported to show a misfired IRGC missile that had fallen inside Iranian territory and struck the school, shifting the blame onto the Iranian regime.
However, independent analysts found that the school was located more than 1,000 kilometers from where the photo was taken. They also show that the structure in the photograph faced a direction inconsistent with the alleged missile trajectory, making it unlikely that the image depicted the Shajareh Tayyebeh school.
The Iranian regime has taken a page out of Hamas’ notebook. For the past two and a half years, Hamas has made exaggerated and false claims, which the media repeatedly amplified before doing their own due diligence. Corrections, when they came, rarely traveled as far as the original headlines. That same cycle of rapid accusation, viral spread, and delayed scrutiny is now playing out in Iran.
The nature of war between Israel and the Iranian regime means that vast amounts of information are released in real time, often before facts can be fully verified. When reporting omits key context or relies heavily on regime-affiliated sources, narratives can solidify before the truth has a chance to catch up, leaving the public with a distorted understanding of events.
In a time of instantaneous reporting and with clear evidence that narratives are being deliberately shaped for strategic purposes, rigorous scrutiny by the media is essential to ensure the truth prevails.
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.
Uncategorized
History Is Not Over: From Cyrus to Today’s Iran
Protesters gathered on Jan. 24, 2026, at Joachimsthaler Platz in western Berlin, Germany, to rally in support of anti-regime demonstrations in Iran, calling for US military intervention. Photo: Michael Kuenne/PRESSCOV via ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
In 539 BCE, a Persian king made a decision that changed Jewish history.
Cyrus conquered Babylon and founded a nation in exile. The Jews had lost their Temple, their sovereignty, and their center. He could have absorbed them into his empire and tightened control. Instead, he allowed them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild. That decision altered the course of Jewish continuity. Our presence in the Land of Israel today traces back to that moment.
Jewish memory holds Cyrus in a rare place of honor. He was not Jewish. He did not belong to our covenant. Yet his choice shaped our destiny. History records his decree. Our tradition preserves it. That act still echoes through our prayers and our national life.
History does not disappear. It accumulates. One decision becomes a foundation for generations.
Today, the Iranian people live under a regime that governs through coercion. Protesters have filled the streets demanding dignity and paid for it with imprisonment and violence. Women have risked everything to challenge laws that strip them of agency. Families live under surveillance and fear. The regime’s ideology has isolated Iran from much of the world and directed hostility outward, including toward Israel.
The Iranian people are not synonymous with the regime that rules them. They carry a civilization older than the Islamic Republic. They carry the legacy of Persia, which once intersected with Jewish survival in a decisive way.
As Jews, we understand exile. We understand what it means when rulers decide the limits of your freedom. We also understand what it means when a ruler makes a different choice.
Jewish values are anchored in memory and responsibility. We are commanded to pursue justice. We are taught that every human being is created in the image of God. We are told to remember our own experience of oppression so that we do not become indifferent.
When I teach self-defense, I speak about responsibility in the present moment. If danger is forming, clarity matters. Early action changes outcomes. Waiting for harm to fully unfold reduces options and increases damage. Self-defense is rooted in awareness and accountability.
History functions in a similar way. Cyrus acted at a critical moment. His choice redirected a people’s future. That decision still shapes Jewish life more than 2,000 years later. A single act of leadership can move through centuries.
The regime in Tehran has chosen a path of repression and confrontation. That choice is shaping the lives of millions of Iranians today and influencing the security of the broader region. Regimes are temporary. The consequences of their choices are not.
Wishing for change in Iran is not an expression of hostility toward its people. It is a recognition that societies thrive when citizens are free to speak, build, and lead without fear of their own government. A different Iran would serve its citizens first. It would reduce instability across the region. It would allow the country’s ancient culture to reemerge from beneath layers of coercion.
Nothing in history stands alone. The decree of a Persian king continues to reverberate in Jewish life. The decisions made in Iran now will shape futures we cannot yet see. Jewish memory teaches that liberation can begin with one moment of moral clarity.
A Persian ruler once enabled Jewish restoration. The Iranian people today seek their own restoration. History is long. Memory is longer. The question for us is how we carry that memory forward and how we allow it to inform our understanding of freedom, responsibility, and the power of timely choices.
Do something amazing.
Tsahi Shemesh is an Israeli-American IDF veteran and the founder of Krav Maga Experts in NYC. A father and educator, he writes about Jewish identity, resilience, moral courage, and the ethics of strength in a time of rising antisemitism.
Uncategorized
Big Tents Need Moral Boundaries: The High Cost of Institutional Cowardice
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivers a speech during his inauguration ceremony in New York City, US, Jan. 1, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
In the vocabulary of modern leadership, the “big tent” is a sacred cow — the hallmark of pluralism and the supposed proof of a movement’s vitality. But as we navigate the geopolitical shockwaves of early 2026, we are witnessing a fundamental law of institutional physics: a tent without a frame will eventually collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
The recent joint military operations against Iran have provided fertile ground for a virulent strain of demagoguery. We are seeing a shift from legitimate foreign policy criticism to “vice-signaling” — the intentional, ostentatious breaking of moral taboos to prove one’s “authenticity” to a radicalized base. Equally dangerous is the growing unwillingness to shun those who egregiously violate these taboos.
When an institution stops enforcing its boundaries, it becomes a host for pathogens that eventually kill the original mission.
The Case of the Hollowed Right
Consider the recent trajectory of Tucker Carlson. What began as a debate over “America First” isolationism has curdled into something far more dangerous.
In recent weeks, Carlson has platformed “Khazar theory” genetic tropes — suggesting Jews should undergo DNA tests to prove their provenance — and hosted uncritical interviews with Holocaust revisionists under the guise of “just asking questions.”
This is not a policy debate; it is the systematic dismantling of the moral taboos that once kept overt bigotry out of the mainstream. When a leader uses a massive platform to single out the world’s only Jewish state as the sole source of domestic suffering, they aren’t making a fiscal argument; they are constructing a “permission structure” for hate.
By framing this as “skepticism,” Carlson avoids the social consequences that such rhetoric once commanded, even while he uncritically associates with avowed bigots like Nick Fuentes.
It is hard to imagine a pundit cozying up to David Duke without facing immediate social ostracization — a “moral guilt by association.” Yet today, the outrage often lasts only for a news cycle, leaving few lasting consequences for those who sanitize hate.
The Danger of Permission Structures
The real threat, however, isn’t just the demagogue; it’s the silence of the moderate. Since October 7, 2023, the boundaries have been trampled because those inside the tent refuse to act as the “immune system.”
When we fail to hold our own side accountable — whether it is the Left’s refusal to condemn the dehumanization of Israelis in the name of “resistance,” or the Right’s willingness to ignore antisemitic dog-whistles to preserve a voting bloc — we are complicit. This is true not only in political associations but also within religious institutions.
As I have written regarding the responsibility of the Christian faithful to denounce those who espouse bigotry in Christ’s name, all institutions must draw a clear moral boundary and shun those who cross it, while attempting to maintain the benefits of the affiliation. If the local pastor or the Vicar of Christ stays silent as the Cross is used as a bludgeon against the neighbor, the silence becomes permission.
The Democratic Vacuum and the “Mamdani Reversal”
This rot is cross-partisan. On the Left, the refusal to enforce boundaries against an illiberal fringe has led to the “Mamdani reversal.” In New York City and on elite campuses, we see a movement so focused on “intersectional solidarity” that it can no longer condemn the targeting of civilians if the perpetrators fit a certain ideological profile.
When a “human rights” organization cannot unequivocally condemn terror because it might offend a “coalition partner,” it has ceased to be a moral arbiter; it has become a hostage to its own “big tent” philosophy. While groups like the DSA may not fully control the Democratic Party, their hand is firmly on the wheel, steering it toward illiberalism and anti-Americanism, with only a brave few willing to call out these fundamental taboo violations.
A Principled Path Forward
To save our institutions, we must return to a disciplined moral order. This is not a call for the reactionary excesses of “cancel culture,” which often lacks objective standards. Instead, we must solve this in a principled way by restoring universal moral taboos.
As I’ve outlined in my work on the “Lawful but Awful” zone of social behavior, there are four essential principles for this restoration:
- The Red Line: Limit actionable taboos to overt bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence.
- The Consensus Test: Distinguish between subjective offense (partisan) and a “Shared Moral Violation” (universal).
- The Private Mechanism: Enforce standards through civil society, never government coercion.
- The Open Door: Ensure the goal of consequence is correction and redemption, not permanent destruction.
Reclaiming the Obligation to Say “No”
True pluralism requires “definitional clarity” — the courage to say that while many are welcome, those who actively undermine the core tenets of the mission cannot be given the keys to the kingdom.
Leaders must stop treating moral boundaries as “divisive” and start seeing them as “protective.” The Left long ago ceded this ground by allowing reverse discrimination to be normalized within social justice “power dynamic” frameworks. Now we see a similar rise of illiberalism on the Right, rooted in distortions of theology or in foreign policy critiques that only hold up if their double standards against the Jewish state are ignored. If this parasitic fringe is not immediately exorcised, it will corrupt and destroy its host.
A positive vision for an organization can be broad, but we must reclaim the right to draw a clear moral boundary. We must say “no” to those who cross it. Only then will our “yes” mean anything at all.
Erez Levin is an advertising technologist trying to effect big pro-social changes in that industry and the world at large, currently focused on restoring society’s essential moral taboos against overt hatred. He writes on this topic at elevin11.substack.com.