Uncategorized
Commemorating Philip Roth means confronting his limitations head on
(JTA) — Next Sunday marks the 90th anniversary of Philip Roth’s birth. In celebration of the famed novelist’s work, a scholarly conference titled “Roth@90,” sponsored by the Philip Roth Society, will be held starting Wednesday at the Newark Public Library. That will be followed by a weekend of high-profile events — staged readings, panel discussions, a bus tour of Roth’s old Newark neighborhood — co-presented by the library and the New Jersey Performing Arts Center.
Exactly 10 years ago, we commemorated his 80th birthday in a similar fashion. Dozens of Roth scholars made learned presentations about his work, of which Roth attended exactly zero. Later that week, the author read aloud from his novel “Sabbath’s Theater” in front of hundreds of fans, friends and well wishers. The proceedings were televised on C-Span.
Roth was being acclaimed for having just wound down an exemplary career. With the exception of the Nobel Prize, what garland evaded him? Was there a high-culture literary platform where his name wasn’t a virtual watermark? Could he publish any novel without hundreds of reviews being written in newspapers across the world? Was there a serious fiction writer out there with greater renown?
So much has changed in the decade between the two conferences. To begin with, Roth died in 2018. In that same span, the country witnessed the election of Donald Trump and the fissure it exposed in society in general and the Jewish community in particular. America endured one convulsive racial reckoning after another. Finally, in October of 2017, the #MeToo movement gained massive public salience.
All of those events, along with digital media’s indomitable ascent, have combined to affect and reshape Roth’s literary legacy. That legacy is far less assured than all the (justified) praise and lionizing that will occur this week might suggest.
Let’s start with Jews. The Trump era yielded two seemingly irreconcilable data points. On the one hand, Jewish-Americans endured the Charlottesville riot, the Tree of Life synagogue attack and a stunning rise in antisemitic incidents. On the other, there was staunch support for Trump among Orthodox Jews and supporters of Israel’s right wing.
Leaving that conundrum for others to parse, I simply note that Orthodox Jews and right-wing Zionists are almost completely absent in Roth’s fiction. A young Roth wrote a sensitive portrait of Holocaust survivors who want to start a suburban yeshiva in “Eli the Fanatic.” He also sketched a militant religious-nationalist Zionist in “The Counterlife,” Mordecai Lippman, who, according to Roth biographer Blake Bailey (about whom more below), was based on Elyakim Haetzni, one of the so-called founding fathers of the settlement movement. In the same novel, a version of the narrator’s brother falls under the settlement leader’s sway.
And that’s it, across a half century of writing. For traditionalist Jewish readers, whose political and social influence in the United States and Israel is substantial and growing, Roth’s fiction is not a mirror, nor a signpost, nor a scroll upon which is inscribed some essential truth.
The Jews who populated his stories, the Jews he best understood, were of Ashkenazi descent, white, liberal, assimilated and secular. His courage was to valorize them over and against other Jews who viewed them as defective, lost or even as apostates. Thus Anne Frank in “The Ghost Writer” was portrayed as a patron saint of secular Judaism. Elsewhere, his stories abound in proud, professionally accomplished diaspora Jews. They rarely think about God. Synagogue attendance is reserved strictly for lifecycle events and High Holy Days, if that.
A novelist, of course, is not a political clairvoyant. However, the immediate future of Judaism is being greatly shaped by Jews whose population and influence are growing and whom Roth rarely portrayed. In this manner, another stellar writer like Cynthia Ozick — herself Orthodox and quite attuned to the mindset of her co-religionists — might fare better commercially and emerge as more relevant than her friend in the coming decades.
Roth didn’t just write about Jews. In my book “The Philip Roth We Don’t Know: Sex, Race and Autobiography,” I pointed out that depicting non-Jewish Black people was an unrecognized “obsessional theme” across his 28 novels and 25 short stories. Much to my dismay, I found Roth’s multi-decade treatment of his African and African-American characters often to be crude, thoughtless and sometimes racist.
Familiarize yourself with the degrading portraiture we receive of Black people in “The Great American Novel” (1973), or a short story like “On the Air” (1970), and you might reconsider what Roth was after in “The Human Stain,” in which an academic who is accused of racism turns out to be an African American who had been “passing” as white and Jewish. The book, the 2001 Pen/Faulkner Award winner, is often seen as a sensitive treatment of racial issues in America, and perhaps as the author’s attempt to extend the hand of friendship to another oppressed minority.
In fact, my best guess is that, as with many Jewish writers post-1967, Roth was shaken by the deterioration of the Black-Jewish alliance. His frustrations were reflected in prose that often referenced Black communities in his hometown of Newark but showed little curiosity about their lives or sympathy for their plight.
Obviously, this type of literary rendering of African Americans — or any minority group — is disturbing and dated. Insensitive racial representation inspires calls for publishers to drop authors. They disappear from high-school or college syllabi. This bodes ominously for the afterlives of the titans of post-World War II American fiction, including John Updike, Saul Bellow Bellow and Norman Mailer, all three of whom have been accused of being racially insensitive and worse.
Roth’s marketability also seems to be sailing into a squall regarding gender. As women began demanding an accounting of sexual abuse and misogyny within the media, entertainment and other industries, numerous think-pieces wondered how the author of “Portnoy’s Complaint” — whose libidinous narrator identifies most of the women in his life by debasing nicknames — would fare in such an environment. Would he — should he — be “canceled”?
The question is more complex than his admirers and detractors make it out to be. No doubt, many of Roth’s male characters mistreated women. Accusations of Roth himself doing the same exist, but they are fairly rare, unsubstantiated and contested. The dilemma for researchers is that Roth was a deeply auto-fictional writer. You sense his presence in his stories — especially when protagonists share much of his biography, including Nathan Zuckerman and Peter Tarnopol, and when characters are named “Philip Roth.”
It’s hard not to speculate about the relation between the author and the many misogynistic fellows who cut an erotic swath through his pages. There will, of course, be readers who give him the benefit of the doubt. They might observe that Roth’s toxic males provide evidence of women’s experiences that needs to be explored, not censored.
Not helping him cleanse his reputation were the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against his hand-picked biographer, Blake Bailey. The ructions engulfing Bailey came to dominate the discourse about Roth, leading to a peculiar cancellation by proxy.
The episode also revealed that Roth had instructed his estate to eventually destroy a massive trove of personal papers he entrusted to Bailey. This led Aimee Pozorski (co-editor of Philip Roth Studies), myself and 20 other Roth scholars to issue a statement reminding his executors that “scholarship can only be advanced when qualified researchers engage freely with essential sources.”
As if all these concerns weren’t enough, his grim prophecies about the demise of an audience for serious literature seem to be coming true. “The book,” Roth worried, “can’t compete with the screen.” Meanwhile, the English major is in a very bad way, and the institution of tenure is under siege. Professors (insufferable as we might be) teach the next generation who to read and how to read. Writers might not like them, but they need them.
Roth is also getting the scrutiny that he was at pains to avoid in his lifetime. His disregard for scholars who might be critical of him always struck me, one such scholar, as misguided. Instead, he surrounded himself with friends — friends who had preternatural access to major media platforms. These friends built upon his own interpretations of his own work. It doesn’t mean they lacked wisdom. It just means that when they talked about Roth, they talked about what Roth wanted them to talk about. To wit: Jewish Newark, his sundry interpretations of his life, his pesky ex-wives and lovers, the close-mindedness of his critics, and so forth.
I think, in this cultural moment, it’s prudent to confront Roth’s limitations head on and chart one’s own path through his fiction. I pitch him to my students as a writer with some racial, religious and sexual hang-ups — who among us is innocent of those charges? I also present him as a bearer of unique and meaningful insights. Let scholars (while they still exist) parade those insights into sunlight.
I’ve tried to illuminate that his fiction was preoccupied, for 50 years, by how individual and collective bodies (like the Jews) change. Transformation, metamorphosis, metempsychosis — his obsession with those themes, I’ve noticed in my classrooms, is shared by Gen Z. If the span between Roth@80 and Roth@90 has taught us anything, it is that Roth was right: Life is about radical, unpredictable flux. Now his own legacy is in flux. I wonder who will read Roth@100.
—
The post Commemorating Philip Roth means confronting his limitations head on appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
How to face life’s difficulties with total confidence
ווי אַזוי קען מען זיך באַוואָרענען פֿון ווערן פּאַראַליזירט ווען מען שטייט פֿאַר אַ סיטואַציע וואָס זעט אויס ווי אַ געפֿאַר?
דער ענטפֿער איז זייער פּשוט: מען דאַרף באַטראַכטן די סיטואַציע ווי אַ פֿאַרמעסט, אַנשטאָט ווי אַ באַדראָונג.
אָבער ווי אַזוי קען מען דערגרייכן אַזאַ ענדערונג פֿונעם קוקווינקל, אַז אַנשטאָט זיך צו פֿילן דערדריקט און אַנטמוטיקט, זאָל מען זיך פֿילן געשטאַרקט און מאָטיווירט?
צו דעם דאַרף מען צוויי זאַכן: ערשטנס, זיך פֿאָרשטעלן דעם רעזולטאַט וואָס מען וועט האָבן ווען מען וועט איבערקומען די שוועריקייט, און צווייטנס, זיך געהעריק צוגרייטן, כּדי צו קענען מצליח זײַן אין איבערקומען די אַרויספֿאָדערונגען.
אין דער פּרשה די וואָך, ויצא, לייענען מיר ווי יעקבֿ אָבינו איז אַרויס פֿון זײַן טאַטנס הויז אין באר־שבֿע, און זיך געלאָזט אין וועג קיין חרן, צום הויז פֿון זײַן זיידן פֿון דער מאַמעס צד, בתואל. ער האָט דאָס געמוזט טאָן ווײַל ער האָט געוווּסט אַז זײַן ברודער עשׂו וויל אים הרגענען. יעקבֿ, נישט עשׂו, האָט דאָך באַקומען די ברכות פֿון זייער טאַטן יצחק.
ס׳איז אָבער דאָ אַ צווייטע סיבה פֿאַר יעקבֿס נסיעה. ער האָט געדאַרפֿט זוכן אַ שידוך, ווײַל זײַנע עלטערן זענען נישט געווען צופֿרידן מיטן אויפֿפֿיר פֿון די פֿרויען און מיידלעך אין כּנען.
לאָמיר זיך אַרײַנשטעלן אין זײַן מצבֿ. דאָס לעבן אין באר־שבֿע איז פֿאַר יעקבֿן געווען רויִק און באַקוועם. ער האָט געוווינט בײַ זײַנע עלטערן; זײַענדיק אַ בחור האָט ער ניט געהאַט קיין באַזונדערע דאגות, און האָט געקענט זיך אָפּגעבן מיט לימוד התּורה און פּערזענלעכער אַנטוויקלונג. און פּלוצלינג, האָט ער געמוזט אַנטלויפֿן פֿון דעם באַקוועמען און באַשיצטן מצבֿ, און זיך אַרויסלאָזן אויף אַ וועג צו אַן אָרט וואָס איז געווען פֿול מיט שוועריקייטן און סכּנות.
חז״ל דערקלערן אַז דער נאָמען פֿון דעם שטאָט חרן, וווּהין ער איז געגאַנגען, איז פֿאַרבונדן מיטן וואָרט „חרון אף“, וואָס מיינט כּעס, ווײַל דער אויפֿפֿיר פֿון די אײַנוווינער האָט אַרויסגערופֿן דעם כּעס פֿונעם אויבערשטן.
דערצו איז זײַן פֿעטער לבֿן, וואָס האָט געוווינט מיט בתואל, געווען באַרימט מיט זײַן אומערלעכקייט.
קענען מיר זיך פֿאָרשטעלן אַ גרעסערן קאָנטראַסט צווישן דער רויִקייט פֿון זײַן היימישער סבֿיבֿה און דעם שווערן מצבֿ וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט אין זײַן נײַעם אָרט?
אָן קיין ספֿק האָט ער מסתּמא געפֿילט אַנגסטן, אומזיכערקייט און הילפֿלאָזיקייט.
די תּורה באַשרײַבט ווי יעקבֿ האָט אויפֿן וועג זיך אָפּגעשטעלט דאַווענען, און ווי ער האָט גענומען שטיינער כּדי זיך צו באַשיצן פֿון ווילדע חיות בשעת ער האָט זיך געלייגט שלאָפֿן אויפֿן וועג.
אין זײַן חלום האָט יעקבֿ געזען אַ לייטער וואָס איז געשטאַנען אויף דער ערד, און זײַן שפּיץ האָט דערגרייכט ביזן הימל. ער האָט געזען מלאכים אַרויפֿגיין און אַראָפּגיין אויפֿן לייטער.
דער אייבערשטער האָט צו אים גערעדט און צוגעזאָגט אים צו באַשיצן. ער האָט איבערגעחזרט זײַן הבֿטחה צו געבן זײַנע קינדער דאָס לאַנד אויף וועלכן ער איז געלעגן. דערצו האָט ער אים געבענטשט מיט אַ גרויסער און חשובֿער נאָכקומערשאַפֿט, סײַ אין כּמות און סײַ אין איכות.
ווען יעקבֿ האָט זיך אויפֿגעוועקט פֿון זײַן חלום, האָט ער געמאַכט אַ נדר: אויב דער אויבערשטער וועט אים באַגלייטן, אים געבן ברויט צו עסן און קליידער אָנצוטאָן, און ער וועט קענען צוריקקומען צום הויז פֿון זײַן טאַטן מיט זײַן רוחניותדיקער און מאָראַלישער שלימות, וועט ער אויפֿשטעלן אַ הייליקן אָרט לכּבֿוד דעם אויבערשטן און אָפּגעבן מעשר פֿון אַלץ וואָס ער פֿאַרמאָגט. אָפּגעבן מעשׂר — אַוועקגעבן אַ צענטל פֿון דײַן פֿאַרמעגן אויף צדקה — איז אַ גרויסע מיצווה.
גלײַך דערנאָך דערציילט אונדז די תּורה: וַיִּשָּׂא יַעֲקֹב רַגְלָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַרְצָה בְנֵי קֶדֶם. „יעקבֿ האָט אויפֿגעהויבן זײַנע פֿיס און איז געגאַנגען צום לאַנד פֿון די מענטשן אין מזרח.“
רש״י דערקלערט אַז דער אויסערגעוויינטלעכער אויסדרוק, „וישא יעקב רגליו“, ווײַזט אָן אַז יעקבֿס פֿיס זענען געוואָרן אַ סך לײַכטער, ווײַל זײַן האַרץ איז געוואָרן פֿריילעך נאָך דער הבֿטחה פֿון דער געטלעכער שמירה. יעקבֿ האָט נישט געמיינט אַז דאָס וואָס דערוואַרט אים וועט זײַן גרינג. ער האָט אָבער געהאַט בטחון אַז ער וועט מצליח זײַן. מיט אָט דער זיכערקייט האָט ער געפֿילט אַז ער האָט די כּוחות צו קענען בײַשטיין און איבערקומען יעדע שוועריקייט וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט.
די הבֿטחה פֿונעם אויבערשטן אַליין איז אָבער נישט געווען גענוג. ער האָט זיך אויך געדאַרפֿט געהעריק צוגרייטן צו דעם וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט.
דרײַ יסודות פֿון אָט דער צוגרייטונג ווערן אָנגעדײַט אין די דרײַ באַדינגונגען וואָס יעקבֿ האָט דערמאָנט אין זײַן נדר: עסן; קליידער, און צוריקקומען צום טאַטנס הויז אין דעם זעלבן רוחניותדיקן און מאָראַלישן מצבֿ.
אין צוגאָב צו דעם פּשוטן זין, ליגט אין די ווערטער אויך אַ גײַסטישן באַדײַט:
עסן גיט דעם מענטש חיות און גיט אים אַרײַן כּוח. אויף אַ רוחניותדיקן אופֿן ווערט די תּורה פֿאַרגליכן צו עסן, ווײַל דורך לימוד התּורה דערנערט מען זיך אינטעלעקטועל און רוחניותדיק צום אייבערשטן. פּונקט ווי דאָס גשמיותדיקע עסן ווערט פֿאַרדייט און ווערט אַ טייל פֿון דעם מענטש אַליין, און גיט אים חיות און כּוח, אַזוי אויך ווערט די תּורה וואָס מען לערנט אַ טייל פֿון אונדזער אינערלעכן לעבן און גיט אונדז רוחניותדיקע חיות.
קליידער נעמען אַרום דעם מענטש און באַשיצן אים פֿון דרויסנדיקע השפּעות. אַזוי אויך ווען אַ ייִד איז מקיים די מיצוות שאַפֿן זיי, די מיצוות, אַ רוחניותדיקע באַשיצונג פֿונעם מענטשן.
דער לערנונג איז גילטיק אויך פֿאַר אונדז הײַנט.
כּדי צו קענען זיך שטעלן אַנטקעגן די שוועריקייטן פֿון לעבן מיט בטחון און שׂימחה, דאַרף מען זיך צוגרייטן דורך דרײַ זאַכן: ערשטנס, לימוד התּורה — דאָס שטאַרקט אונדז פֿון אינעווייניק און גיט אונדז רוחניותדיקע חיות און כּוחות. צווייטנס, מקיים זײַן די מצוות: דאָס באַשיצט אונדז פֿון דרויסן און גיט אונדז די נויטיקע רוחניותדיקע שמירה, און דריטנס, נישט פֿאַרלירן פֿון די אויגן דעם ענדגילטיקן ציל: דורך אונדזער באַגעגעניש מיט דער גשמיותדיקער וועלט פֿאַרוואַנדלען מיר די וועלט אין אַ „וווינאָרט“ פֿאַרן אויבערשטן, אַ „דירה בתּחתונים“.
דאָס איז דער טיפֿערער באַדײַט פֿון „צוריק קומען צום טאַטנס הויז“: צו ברענגען די גאַנצע וועלט צו אַ מצבֿ וווּ עס ווערט דערקענט אַז זי איז דעם טאַטנס – דעם אויבערשטנס — וווינאָרט. אַז יעדער באַגעגעניש און יעדע פֿאַרבינדונג מיט דער וועלט זאָל אויסדריקן דעם געטלעכן מקור, דעם געטלעכן בײַזײַן און דעם געטלעכן ציל פֿון זיין וועזן.
אַז מען פֿאַרשטייט קלאָר וואָס דער ציל איז, און מען גרייט זיך צו ווי געהעריק, איז מען אין אַ בעסערן צושטאַנד צו קענען אַנטקעגנגיין יעדע שוועריקייט מיט מוט און זיכערקייט.
ווי דער באַרימטער פּסיכיאַטער וויקטאָר פֿראַנקל האָט עס אַזוי שיין און טיפֿזיניק אויסגעדריקט:
„ווער עס האָט אַ ׳פֿאַרוואָס׳ אינעם לעבן, קען איבערקומען כּמעט יעדן ׳ווי אַזוי׳.“
The post How to face life’s difficulties with total confidence appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Boston suburb votes to divest from Israel
(JTA) — SOMERVILLE, Mass. — The City Council in this city north of Boston voted 10-1 Thursday night to ban the municipality from doing business with companies complicit in humanitarian violations, specifically naming those operating in “Israel and Palestine.”
Councilor Kristen Strezo cast the only opposing vote on the 11-member board.
Opponents of the ordinance fear that in execution it would be akin to a boycott of Israel, and as such would create a negative environment for the city’s Jewish and Israeli residents. The ban only involves companies that work with the municipality and does not impact companies that operate privately in Somerville. It also excludes sole proprietors (individuals operating as companies).
Somerville Mayor Jake Wilson’s office said given that the ordinance passed with a veto-proof majority, the measure is now considered final.
The ordinance was originally introduced in June by Councilors Ben Ewen-Campen and Ben Wheeler, after the City Council voted in November 2025 to implement ballot Question 3 on Israel divestment, which had been approved by 55.7% of voters earlier that month. Question 3 spoke of banning businesses that sustain “Israel’s apartheid, genocide, and illegal occupation of Palestine.”
During his campaign in 2025, Wilson did not endorse Question 3.
Nine councilors on Thursday night offered comments in advance of the vote.
Ewen-Campen, who wrote and revised the ordinance along with Wheeler, spoke about the importance of a Massachusetts city passing an ordinance about a country across the world, especially at a time when the federal government has clamped down on pro-Palestinian student protesters, noting two incidents of protesters being detained by ICE allegedly for speaking against Israel.
“I think the reason that people want us to be quiet about it is because when you do talk about it, there is just no way to justify it,” Ewen-Campen said.
“I am not under any illusion that Somerville is going to have some enormous impact on the world [by passing this ordinance], but I do think that all of us collectively deciding to be silent about this does have an impact on the world,” he said. “That is why I think it is worth it to have taken this action, and that is why I have asked for all of your support tonight.”
Strezo invoked the Holocaust to explain why she considered the ban antisemitic, referring to Kristallnacht, the Nov. 9-10, 1938, pogrom against Jews in Germany and Austria.
“A few years before Kristallnacht, the Nazis worked to deter the public from shopping at Jewish businesses,” she said. “Their efforts started in moments like tonight.” On behalf of her Jewish community, Strezo emphasized that the ordinance “makes us feel targeted. It makes us feel unsafe. It makes us feel unwelcome.”
As she spoke, members of the group Somerville for Palestine (S4P), who had gathered outside City Hall for a rally in advance of and throughout the meeting, could be heard through the window, the chanting getting increasingly louder until the words were clearly audible over Strezo’s speech: “Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest.”
“This ordinance will do nothing to solve the real conflict in the Middle East,” Strezo said. “What it will do and has been doing is make Jewish people and Israelis feel less welcome in our city spaces.”
One councilor pointed out that the ordinance, while worth passing, was not what she’d hoped. Councilor Emily Hardt said, “Supporting Palestinian human rights and standing firmly against antisemitism are not contradictory positions. I believe that both are essential to our commitment to human dignity.” She went on to say that she would have preferred an ordinance that was focused on the actions of the U.S. government, “our government,” but given that this was the ordinance up for the vote, she would support it. “I appreciate the attempts to align use of our resources with our commitments to the rights and dignity of all people, in Israel and Palestine and around the world,” she said.
When the vote was finalized, members of the group Somerville for Palestine and other supporters of the ordinance, many wearing keffiyehs, stood up and cheered as they left the chamber. Shalom Somerville members and others opposing the ordinance, many of whom wore white shirts with blue square pins and had stickers with “I’m not welcome here” on their chests, stood silently as most of the room emptied.
“It’s disappointing seeing councilors knowingly abdicating their responsibility,” said Sam Gechter, president of Shalom Somerville, the local community group that has been active in opposing both the 2025 ballot question and the ordinance. “[Mayor Wilson] made several promises that he would veto it during the campaign. He said he would veto anything that named a country, so we would love to see him do that.”
“It feels so clear that this is what the majority want given that ten of our councilors voted yes,” said Mo Katz-Christy, a member of S4P’s leadership and Jewish Caucus. S4P was a major advocate for the original ballot Question 3 and worked with Councilor Ewen-Campen on the ordinance.
“They passed a strong ordinance that named Israel and Palestine, that named the genocide,” Katz-Christy said, as the S4P group played music in celebration behind them. “It’s targeting companies that are really bad actors.”
Under the ordinance, any vendor who is submitting a bid for the city’s business would have to certify it meets the criteria outlined in the ordinance. If their certification is contested, the city will consult the findings of a number of international organizations and lists, including the database of business enterprises maintained by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the divestment short-list database maintained by the American Friends Service Committee’s Investigate Project. The ordinance specifies that a company could be excluded from this prohibition should the director of finance deem that their services “are essential to the operation of the city, including by avoiding a significant financial burden.”
In the final Legislative Matters Committee meeting discussing the ordinance on Oct. 27, chief procurement officer Angela Allen, echoing the earlier sentiments of City Solicitor Cindy Amara, expressed concerns that the ordinance “would likely not sustain a legal challenge.” She noted that the city does not have the legal authority to debar bidders (prospective vendors) and that she was unsure who would be responsible for making the final call on whether or not a company met the criteria in the ordinance.
“This adds another layer of complexity that I am concerned, from a practical standpoint, could cause confusion and delay that would not be in the best interest of the city,” she said.
The vote came after several rounds of negotiations in the city’s Legislative Matters Committee, during which councilors debated the ethical and financial merits of the ordinance. The final ordinance that was voted on included updates in language that specified the companies that would be included in the ban must be “directly, knowingly and consistently” enabling or facilitating violations of humanitarian law, including in “Israel and Palestine.”
Longtime Somerville resident and Shalom Somerville member Kate Auspitz, who was present at the meeting, said, “I will never vote for any of them [city councilors] again except for Kristen Strezo… I do think it’s antisemitic, whatever they say. I think it’s denying Jews self-determination.”
Outside, in line to enter the City Council chambers, Willie Burnley Jr., a member of Boston Democratic Socialists of America who ran for mayor against Wilson last year and supported ballot Question 3, said: “I’m here to support my neighbors who are fighting for a better world, who are trying to get their city councilors to fight for the will of the people.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Boston suburb votes to divest from Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries calls for ‘dramatic change’ in Israel policy
(JTA) — U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat poised to become the chamber’s speaker in January, called for a significant shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship but stopped short of opposing defense partnerships.
“The status quo is unacceptable, and we need dramatic change,” Jeffries told reporters at a Thursday press conference.
Jeffries expressed a need for such change with respect to the West Bank, to Gaza and to a memorandum of understanding with Israel over military aid set to expire in 2028. That agreement, signed by the Obama administration in 2016, pledged $38 billion in military aid for Israel from fiscal years 2019 through 2028.
President Donald Trump has said he will wind the aid down before it is set to lapse, citing Israel’s unpopularity, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also backs ending military aid and replacing it by strengthening U.S.-Israel military cooperation.
But when asked about recent demands from Sen. Chris Van Hollen to remove provisions on defense collaborations with Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act – the model of what Netanyahu hopes to sustain – Jeffries responded that he hadn’t spoken with the senator. Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, plans to challenge Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer leadership of the Senate Democratic caucus when Democrats take over the chamber in January.
Instead, Jeffries said that “things have to dramatically change over in the Middle East,” without elaborating on the details of such changes. He stressed the importance of ensuring “a safe and secure Israel living side by side as a Jewish and democratic state with an independent Palestinian state that provides dignity and self-determination for the Palestinian people.” Netanyahu and much of the Israeli public oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.
While Jeffries noted that he wasn’t saying anything he hasn’t “previously said publicly,” his decision to reiterate this need for change following the election as Democrats are set to seize control of Congress demonstrates how the party is adopting a more critical posture on Israel.
This past summer, Jeffries wrote to colleagues urging them to reject an amendment proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, that would have cut military aid to Israel. While a slight majority of Democrats voted in favor of the measure, it was defeated after getting no Republican support aside from its sponsor.
Jeffries had argued at the time that “there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government,” warning that Massie’s amendment would have restricted Israel’s ability to confront Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror groups.
Nonetheless, Jeffries also noted in the letter that the Obama-era memorandum of understanding “expires imminently,” and that “a meaningful change in direction is needed.” Writing that Israel has a robust economy and is capable of paying for its own weapons, he said that future security arrangements “should be structured consistently with defense agreements that exist with our other Western allies.”
Since writing that letter in July in the lead-up to the midterm elections, Jeffries focused primarily on domestic issues and didn’t often address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Thursday, however, the topic was back on the table.
“We’ll work as a caucus to make sure that we can bring about the just and lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve,” Jeffries said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries calls for ‘dramatic change’ in Israel policy appeared first on The Forward.
