The findings will be formally presented at the Senate in Palazzo Giustiniani on March 3.
According to the CDEC, anti-Israel animus was a key ideological driver of the surge in antisemitism.
(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.
A protester uses a pole to break a window at Milano Centrale railway station, during a demonstration that is part of a nationwide “Let’s Block Everything” protest in solidarity with Gaza, with activists also calling for a halt to arms shipments to Israel, in Milan, Italy, Sept. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Claudia Greco
Antisemitism in Italy surged to record levels last year, according to newly published figures, as Jews and Israelis across Europe continued to face a relentlessly hostile environment including harassment, vandalism, and targeted attacks.
In Italy, the Milan-based CDEC Foundation (Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation) confirmed that antisemitic incidents in the country almost reached four digits for the first time last year.
Of 1,492 reports submitted through official monitoring channels, the CDEC formally classified a record high 963 cases as antisemitic, according to the European Jewish Congress and Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI), the main representative body of Jews in Italy.
By comparison, there were 877 recorded incidents in 2024, preceded by 453 such outrages in 2023 and just 241 in 2022. The data fits with several reports showing antisemitism surged across the Western world, especially the US and Europe, following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
The findings will be formally presented at the Senate in Palazzo Giustiniani on March 3.
According to the CDEC, anti-Israel animus was a key ideological driver of the surge in antisemitism.
“The main ideological matrix that has fueled hatred against Jews is anti-Semitism linked to Israel – i.e., the transfer of anti-Jewish myths, such as blood libel, racism by election, and hatred of mankind,” the organization stated.
In May, for example, a restaurant in Naples ejected an Israeli family, telling them “Zionists are not welcome here.” Months earlier, demonstrators at a January protest in Bologna vandalized a synagogue, painting “Justice for a free Gaza.”
Most of the incidents, 643, occurred online on digital platforms, while 320 involved physical acts such as graffiti, vandalism, and desecration of synagogues in addition to discrimination, threats, and assaults.
The surge in antisemitism came amid multiple surveys showing pervasive antisemitic attitudes among the Italian public.
Around 15 percent of Italians consider physical attacks on Jewish people “entirely or fairly justifiable,” according to one survey published in September.
The survey, conducted on Sept. 24-26 by the pollster SWG among a national sample of 800 adults, found that 18 percent of those interviewed also believe antisemitic graffiti on walls and other public spaces is legitimate.
About one-fifth of respondents said it was reasonable to attack professors who expressed pro-Israeli positions or for businesses to reject Israeli customers.
Months earlier, in June, the Italian research institute Eurispes, in partnership with Pasquale Angelosanto, the national coordinator for the fight against antisemitism, polled a representative sample of the country’s population and found that 37.9 percent of Italians believe that Jews “only think about accumulating money” while 58.2 percent see Jews as “a closed community.”
About 40 percent either did not know or did not believe that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, and the majority of respondents — 54 percent — regarded antisemitic crimes as isolated incidents and not part of any broader trend.
The report also showed elevated levels of anti-Israel belief among younger Italians, with 50.85 percent of those 18-24 thinking that “Jews in Palestine took others’ territories.”
The Institute for Jewish Policy Research estimates the number of Jews in Italy as ranging from 26,800 to 48,910 depending on which standards of observance one selects. Eurispes places the number at 30,000.
In January, the Anti-Defamation League released the newest results of its Global 100 survey which found that 26 percent of Italians — 13.1 million adults — embrace six or more antisemitic stereotypes.
The man who piloted the Israeli bobsled team to its first-ever Olympic Games defended the athlete-swapping scheme that led to the team’s removal from competition, saying in an interview with the Forward that the Israeli sporting authority blew the incident out of proportion.
The Olympic Committee of Israel said it pulled the team after learning that a member had faked an illness in order to allow the substitution of a teammate in his place.
AJ Edelman, the team’s captain, did not contest that account. He said that the substitution was unanimously agreed to by the group, calling it “essentially a normal maneuver” at the Olympics given what he called a “somewhat arbitrary” rule that allows alternates to compete only when an athlete is medically unable to continue.
The reason it didn’t work, he said, was that the teammate chosen to fake sick tipped off the Israeli committee, which needed to approve the substitution.
“We’re not the only team to have made that sort of substitution in the competition,” Edelman, 34, said in a phone interview with the Forward from Prague, shortly after midnight local time Tuesday. “We are the only team for which the person then was just upset that he was the one doing it and made a scene about it.”
The swap would have made Ward Fawarsy, who was traveling with the squad as an alternate, the first Druze Israeli to appear in Olympic competition. Instead, the committee pulled the team before its third race, cutting short Israel’s run with two heats remaining.
The Israeli committee said in a statement that it had reported the matter to the International Olympic Committee and would conduct an investigation after the Games.
The exit — which Edelman characterized as a voluntary withdrawal — blighted a budding underdog success story. The team, nicknamed “Shul Runnings” (a play on the title of a popular movie about the 1988 Jamaican team), had scrapped its way into the Olympics without financial support from Israel — largely thanks to the perseverance of Edelman, its indefatigable spearhead, who told the Forward he saw the team as a “holy endeavor.”
Without a national sports program behind him, Edelman, a former MIT hockey goaltender, had recruited Israeli athletes from other sports to the project — Zisman was a former pole vaulter, Fawarsy played rugby — and crowdfunded relentlessly to pay for their training. He said this year was the first he broke even, with the team’s costs totaling to around $300,000.
After narrowly missing qualification in 2022 and 2026, Israel broke through in January, receiving an invitation after the United Kingdom decided to send only one team instead of two.
But at the end of a whirlwind month in which the team was burglarized at its pre-Olympic lodgings, booed at the opening ceremony and drawn into controversy involving multiple foreign broadcasters, Israel’s withdrawal left it below teams that crashed in the final results for 4-man bobsled, marked “Did Not Start” on the scoresheet.
Israel also finished last out of 26 teams in 2-man sled.

The fake illness plan was set in motion after the second of four heats in the 4-man competition, with Israel in 24th place out of 27 and medaling out of reach.
Olympic rules generally do not allow alternates to compete unless a team member has to withdraw due to injury or illness. The idea to fake an injury, according to Edelman, had been Zisman’s earlier in the year, when it appeared that he, not Fawarsy, would be the alternate. Edelman said he nixed the proposal at the time.
But in Italy, with Fawarsy the alternate due to a pre-Olympics injury, Edelman went for the switch.
“Ward’s inclusion was important because of his years of service to the team, because of who he was and because of who he represented,” Edelman said. “I was quite proud that a group of young Israelis took a look at their brother, their teammate, and said, ‘This is important for you. This is important for us.’”
After the group agreed to the plan, the question became which team member would drop out.
According to Edelman, Zisman thought it should be Menachem Chen, because he had raced with Edelman in the 2-man. But Zisman, Edelman said, “was the weakest performer. And given that Ward’s position was his position in the sled, they were somewhat interchangeable.”
Zisman appeared to begrudgingly go along with the arrangement at first, undergoing a medical exam and signing an affidavit to support the substitution request, according to Israeli officials. But Edelman said that during that process, Zisman volunteered that “another athlete should do it instead, and at that point Israel made it what it became.”
The Olympic Committee of Israel said in a statement that Zisman had admitted to the head of the delegation that he had acted improperly, forcing the committee to withdraw the request and disqualify the move.
“The Olympic Committee of Israel views any deviation from the Olympic values as unacceptable and cannot accept inappropriate behavior,” the OCI statement added. “It should be emphasized that, up to this point, the participation of the bobsleigh delegation has taken place in the spirit of sport and without any violations by the athletes.”
The Israel committee did not respond to questions sent by the Forward, and Zisman did not respond to a request for comment.
Edelman flatly disagreed with the committee’s decision.
“We felt that it was completely fine, given that it was essentially a normal maneuver,” Edelman said. “It was really blown into something that we hadn’t expected. Israel insisted on sort of making an example of the situation.”

The incident capped a Winter Olympics in which Israel appeared in more headlines due to controversy than competition. The country did not medal at Milan Cortina — it has never medaled at a Winter Games — and most of its athletes ended competition in the bottom half of contestants.
The first Israeli delegation to compete at the Winter Olympics since the attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, was also a frequent target at the Games. Much of the ire from foreign press and other athletes targeted Edelman, who has been a vocal defender of Israel’s war in Gaza on social media.
As Israel was racing in the 2-man event, a commentator for a Swiss TV broadcast listed Edelman’s comments and actions related to the war, which it said were “in support of the genocide in Gaza.” The network later apologized.
An Italian commentator also landed in hot water after he told someone off camera but on live air to avoid the Israeli team.
Edelman said the hostility extended to his fellow bobsled athletes, and claimed that one had called the team “baby killers.” He declined to name the athlete or say what country he represented.
“I take a look at a guy like that, who has made the Olympics a couple of times, and I go, ‘What a loser,’” Edelman said. “He spends his time worrying about Israelis or Jews? What a total loser. So I just don’t put too much stock in it.”

Edelman did not want to highlight the role Fawarsy’s ethnic background played in the team’s decision to break the rules, saying doing so “minimizes him as an athlete and it minimizes him as a person, into something demographic.” At the same time, he appeared to allude to Fawarsy serving in the IDF as a reason for his inclusion.
On Oct. 12, 2023, Edelman posted a picture of Fawarsy to Instagram, writing in the caption that his teammate was “serving on the front lines right now.” (He edited the caption earlier this month to, “Love Ward. Send him a message with your support!”)
“He served Israel with distinction and a level of heroism that all of us aspire to have in our lives,” Edelman told the Forward, adding, “Ward earned it and deserved it as much, if not more, than any of the other guys.”
Fawarsy did not respond to an inquiry.
Few in the public sphere have found inspiration in the team’s intentional rule-breaking, even done in service of a Druze athlete’s achievement. Israel’s i24 news broadcast called it a “dramatic and disappointing development.” The Times of Israel said the team’s “legacy was tainted.”
And David Greaves, the president of the Israeli Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation, told Times of Israel that he was “deeply disappointed in the actions of the team.”
Edelman maintained that the public reaction reflected a lack of context about how the sport tends to operate.
He compared the move to a football player seeking medical treatment to stop the clock or buy time for fatigued teammates. But that ploy, he noted, conferred a competitive advantage his team’s swap had not.
The rule that alternates could not compete was arbitrary in Edelman’s view because it was mostly designed to limit the census of the Olympic Village. He said that other teams had similarly broken the rule with none the wiser.

“When you take a look at the sport from the outside and don’t understand how the sport works, what the usual behavior is in the sport and why things are the way they are,” he said, “the decision seems like a very heavy risk to have taken on. The move is not unusual. It is not uncommon whatsoever.”
It did not appear that any other men’s bobsled teams made substitutions at the 2026 Games. It was unclear how many alternates ultimately competed at Milan Cortina.
At least one alternate was substituted in in another sport: Rich Ruohonen, an athlete on the U.S. curling team, entered competition late in a match with his team facing a near-insurmountable deficit. His throws made Ruohonen the oldest-ever U.S. Winter Olympian. It was unclear how he was able to substitute, and U.S. broadcasters embraced the moment. (Ruohonen could not be reached for comment.)
In a statement to X following news of the team’s withdrawal, Edelman took accountability for the decision and said he believed he had been “putting the country first.” And while he believed Israel was held to a higher standard than other countries, he was not sure that should have influenced his team’s choices.
“A lot of people have asked, ‘Would you do it again?’” Edelman told the Forward. “I think it would have been very hard in the future for all of us to take a look back on it and go, ‘You know, every other team does this sort of thing — we were just not going to get Ward in there because we’re looked at extra harshly if something goes wrong.’
“Again, it’s tough to explain to outsiders who don’t know the sport,” he continued. “So I feel very comfortable and confident in the decision that the team unanimously took.”
The post Israeli bobsled captain on Olympics exit: ‘Holy endeavor’ slammed into rigid rule appeared first on The Forward.
Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS
A group of Queens elected officials and civic leaders has filed suit against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, accusing his administration of stonewalling a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request related to his decision to revoke an executive order adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
The lawsuit centers on Mamdani’s move on his first day in office in January to rescind a series of executive orders issued by his predecessor, former Mayor Eric Adams, to combat antisemitism. Among the orders revoked was one formally adopting the IHRA definition, which has been widely embraced by governments and institutions across the democratic world.
Plaintiffs include Queens Councilmembers Joann Ariola and Vickie Paladino, along with Queens Civic Congress President Warren Schreiber, the Queens Daily Eagle reported last week.
They argue that the mayor’s office has failed to provide adequate transparency regarding the rationale behind rescinding the IHRA order, a move critics say weakened the city’s formal commitment to combating antisemitism at a time of rising anti-Jewish incidents both locally and nationally.
“The purpose of the FOIL applications at issue in this proceeding is to decipher and obtain the documentary trail of information illuminating Mayor Mamdani’s motives, policies, programs, legislative initiatives, and budgetary priorities implicated within the EO [executive order],” the lawsuit reads.
In their filing, the plaintiffs accuse the administration of having “stonewalled, deflected, delayed, and denied” their FOIL request, calling the response timeline “arbitrary and capricious.” Although the city’s Law Department acknowledged receipt of the request and projected a response date in April, the plaintiffs contend that such delays are unacceptable given the gravity of the issue. The lawsuit characterizes Mamdani’s actions as “anti-Israel” and “anti-Jewish.”
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations. Law enforcement also uses it as a tool for matters such as hate-crime investigations and sentencing.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
Jewish community advocates have expressed alarm that rescinding the executive order could signal a retreat from clear standards at a moment when antisemitic incidents have surged in the two years following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
The Israeli government and leading US Jewish groups sharply criticized Mamdani’s decision.
Mamdani’s supporters say the move was part of a broader action by Mamdani to revoke all executive orders issued by Adams since Sept. 26, 2024, when the ex-mayor was indicted for corruption, charges of which have since been dismissed. Mamdani’s office has framed the move as an administrative reset rather than a targeted policy shift, saying the new mayor sought to begin his term with a clean slate.
However, critics argue that lumping the IHRA adoption together with other rescinded orders was, at best, careless and, at worst, reflective of an ideological discomfort with pro-Israel policy frameworks.
The New York Times reported last month that Mamdani “knew from the moment he won the election” in November that he would revoke the executive orders related to Israel and antisemitism but believed rescinding them would upset Jewish groups whose concerns he spent months trying to allay. Therefore, the report continued, Mamdani’s team laid out a few options, and he chose to rescind every order that Adams issued after his indictment, “allowing him to frame the choice as a matter of good governance.”
The lawsuit now seeks a court order compelling the mayor’s office to produce internal communications and documentation explaining the decision-making process behind the revocation.
The IHRA definition could have been problematic for Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist and avowed anti-Zionist who has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career and been widely accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric. A supporter of boycotting all entities tied to Israel, he has repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; routinely accused Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide”; and refused to clearly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been used to call for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.
Leading members of the Jewish community in New York have expressed alarm about Mamdani’s electoral victory, fearing what may come in a city already experiencing a surge in antisemitic hate crimes.