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
Anti-Israel Activist Cameron Kasky Drops US Congressional Bid in New York
Cameron Kasky, former US congressional candidate in New York’s 12th district. Photo: Screenshot
Cameron Kasky, a prominent Gen Z political activist and Parkland school shooting survivor, has withdrawn from the Democratic primary race to succeed US Rep. Jerry Nadler in New York’s 12th Congressional District, saying he plans to focus instead on human rights in the West Bank.
Kasky, 25, announced his decision on Tuesday in a social media post, ending a short-lived congressional bid that had drawn attention for its sharp criticism of Israel and its appeal to younger progressive voters. He said recent travel to the West Bank had influenced his decision to step away from electoral politics for now.
“Thank you to everyone who supported our human rights-centered campaign for New York’s 12th Congressional District,” Kasky posted on X.
“It’s the honor of my life to be walking out of this race with the chance to do what must be done,” he continued, adding that he intends to focus on documenting and opposing what he described as “settler violence” in the West Bank.
His exit marks the latest shake-up in the already crowded Democratic primary to represent one of Manhattan’s most reliably blue districts, which spans parts of the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and Midtown. Nadler, who has represented the district for decades, announced his retirement last year, triggering a wide-open contest.
Kasky, who is Jewish and rose to national prominence as a co-founder of the March for Our Lives movement after surviving the 2018 Parkland shooting, entered the race late last year with a platform centered on gun reform, progressive domestic policies, and a call to halt US military aid to Israel. He had repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, a position that set him apart from much of the Democratic establishment in New York.
Kasky has also accused Israeli leaders of advancing the war in Gaza in service of the “Greater Israel” agenda — a fallacious conspiracy theory which claims that Israel seeks to expand its borders into the Sinai Peninsula, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq.
Such views drew praise from some younger activists but also criticism from pro-Israel groups and Democratic leaders in the district, where support for the Jewish state has historically been strong.
During his short-lived campaign Kasky notably vowed to vote against all aid to Israel, including aid to furnish the Iron Dome missile interception system.
With Kasky’s departure, the field remains packed with well-known figures, including New York State Assembly members Micah Lasher and Alex Bores, journalist and former cable news anchor Jami Floyd, and Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of former President John F. Kennedy. Conservative lawyer George Conway, a longtime critic of US President Donald Trump, is also running as a Democrat.
Political analysts have said Kasky was unlikely to emerge as a frontrunner in a district dominated by older, highly engaged voters, but his candidacy reflected broader generational and ideological tensions within the Democratic Party, particularly over US policy toward Israel.
His withdrawal removes one of the race’s most outspoken critics of Israeli government policy, potentially narrowing the ideological range of the debate as the primary campaign accelerates.
The Democratic primary is scheduled for June, with the winner heavily favored to hold the seat in November.
Uncategorized
UK Home Secretary Says She ‘Lost Confidence’ in Police Chief Following Ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv Soccer Fans
British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood speaks on stage at Britain’s Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool, Britain, Sept. 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hannah McKay
British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood told Parliament on Wednesday that she has lost confidence in the chief constable of the West Midlands Police (WMP) and will push for a new law that will give her power to fire him, after it was revealed that intelligence used by the police force to justify a ban against fans of the Israeli soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv was “exaggerated or simply untrue.”
Mahmood’s comments came on the same day that her office announced new plans to give the home secretary the power to fire “failing chief constables.”
Speaking to UK lawmakers, Mahmood said that WMP Chief Constable Craig Guildford “no longer has my confidence” and that he should have ensured “more professional and thorough work was done” by police before the ban was implemented late last year. She claimed it has been over 20 years since a home secretary has made such comments about a chief constable.
West Midlands Police had a “failure in leadership” which “harmed the reputation and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police and policing more broadly” across the country, the UK’s home secretary explained in front of the House of Commons.
Maccabi supporters were banned from attending a soccer game at Villa Park in Birmingham on Nov. 6 last year, a decision made by Birmingham City Council in October following advice from a safety advisory group which acted on a recommendation by West Midlands Police. Traveling Israeli fans were banned from the soccer game between Maccabi and Aston Villa due to “public safety concerns.”
“I do believe all of us in this country need to be able to trust the police when they come forward and they say they have risk assessed an upcoming event; they have come to a professional judgment as to whether an event can take place safety or not,” Mahmood said. “We all need to be able to trust that they have gone about making that risk assessment in a way that is robust, consistent, in line with the law, and just plain old truthful. That is not what’s happened in this case … It’s why I set out what I said about losing confidence in the chief constable.”
Mahmood does not have the power to fire a chief constable because of law changes implemented in 2011. Guildford would have to be dismissed by Simon Foster, the West Midlands Police and crime commissioner. However, Mahmood’s office announced on Wednesday she will push new legislation that will once again restore power to the home secretary to “force the retirement, resignation, or suspension of chief constables on performance grounds.”
Mahmood said she came to the conclusion about Guildford after receiving a “damning” and “devastating” report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, Sir Andy Cook, that “catalogues failures that did not just affect traveling fans” but also “let down our entire Jewish community in West Midlands and across the country.”
Cook’s report provides evidence that WMP only sought evidence to support what Mahmood called the police force’s “desired position” to ban Maccabi fans. The report also elaborates on a series of “misleading” public statements made by the police force, including Guildford, and “misinformation” promoted by the police. Cook’s report showed police “overstated the threat posed by Maccabi fans while understating the risk that was posed to the Israeli fans if they traveled to the area,” according to Mahmood.
“What is clear from this report [is] that on an issue of huge significance to the Jewish community in this country and to us all, we have witnessed a failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police and policing more broadly,” the home secretary said.
When the ban against Maccabi supporters was first announced in October, Mahmood and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer were among those who voiced concerns about the decision and said Israeli soccer fans should be allowed to attend the game.
Mahmood said police forces across the country should learn a “lesson” from the mistakes of WMP. Police around the UK should remember “they are called to their profession to serve truth and the law, to police our streets without fear or favor, and that community trust and cohesion depends upon them doing that above all else,” she said.
Uncategorized
Deborah Lipstadt has second thoughts about tying Jackson synagogue arsonist to ‘Globalize the Intifada’
(JTA) — As news broke over the weekend of an arson attack that heavily damaged the only synagogue in Jackson, Mississippi, a few prominent individuals connected the culprit to pro-Palestinian activism.
“This is a major tragedy. But it’s more than that,” Deborah Lipstadt, formerly the State Department’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, wrote on the social network X. “It’s an arson attack and another step in the globalization of the intifada.”
Later, upon learning that the arsonist appeared to have been motivated by a strain of antisemitism associated with the far right, not the pro-Palestinian movement, she walked back her comments — to a degree. But Lipstadt’s initial comments about the arsonist’s motives reflect a larger sense of disorientation among diaspora Jews as they face increased levels of antisemitism from across the spectrum of left-wing, right-wing and Islamist extremism.
Jewish activists and communities have been engaged in fierce debate over which corner poses the greatest threat, and reports of new incidents are often met with immediate speculation over the attacker’s motivations. Lipstadt, an Emory University professor who had served in the State Department under President Biden, has herself criticized the politicization of antisemitism charges. “When you only see it on the other side of the political transom,” she told the Los Angeles Times in 2024, “I have to ask: Are you interested in fighting antisemitism, or was your main objective to beat up on your enemies?”
“Globalize the Intifada” is a term commonly used in left-wing, pro-Palestinian protests. Most of the perpetrators of the large-scale antisemitic attacks in the diaspora since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel — including in Washington, D.C.; Boulder, Colorado; Bondi Beach, Australia; and the arson attack on Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home — have made their pro-Palestinian and/or Islamist affiliations public.
But when the identity of the Jackson arsonist was revealed and the suspect appeared in court, his comments and social media presence betrayed no obvious link to the pro-Palestinian movement.
Instead the suspect, 19-year-old Catholic school graduate Stephen Spencer Pittman, used language —including “synagogue of Satan” and “Jesus Christ is Lord” — popular among leading figures of the online far right who peddle antisemitism, including Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens. (“Synagogue of Satan” also has deeper roots; it was popularized by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.)
An Instagram account appearing to be Pittman’s also contains references to a “Christian diet” and a clip from “Drawn Together,” an adult animated series, referencing an antisemitic “Jew crow.” (One of the show’s creators is Jewish.) Neither Pittman’s public statements in court, nor his Instagram account, referred to pro-Palestinian activism.
In hindsight, was Lipstadt right to preemptively link the fire to “globalize the intifada”?
“It may have been inopportune of me to say that,” she told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about her invocation of the phrase.
Lipstadt insisted, “I was not saying this was a leftist attack. Clearly it’s not.” Nor did she “mean to suggest that this was an Islamist attack.”
She offered that the phrase, which uses the Arabic word associated with the violent Palestinian uprisings of the late 1980s and early 2000s, could be interpreted as hatred toward Jews coming from all sides.
“If ‘globalize the intifada’ means ‘attack Jews everywhere,’ then it certainly fits,” she said. “So it depends on how you want to interpret the sentence.”
Lipstadt wasn’t the only prominent figure linking the arsonist to “globalize the intifada” and other pro-Palestinian phrases before his identity was revealed.
“It began with BDS. Some said, it’s just words,” Marc Edelman, a Jewish law professor at the City University of New York, wrote on X over the weekend.
He continued, “CUNY Law speech: ‘globalize the intifada.’ Still, just words? Recent pro-Hamas chants. Words again? And now the violence in Pittsburgh, Washington D.C., Sydney, Jackson, Mississippi and more. As the Left used to say, words matter!”
Even a pro-Palestinian politician condemned the arson while also addressing recent hard-line pro-Palestinian activism in her own city.
“Mississippi’s oldest and largest synagogue, and two of their Torah scrolls, were burned yesterday on Shabbat in a horrific antisemitic attack—days after protestors chanted ‘We support Hamas’, here in NYC,” Shahana Hanif, a New York City council member from Brooklyn who won re-election in a race that pivoted largely on Israel, wrote on X.
She was referencing recent pro-Hamas protesters outside synagogues in New York, who have been denounced by progressives who are critical of Israel including Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Hanif added, “These chants are antisemitic and deeply harmful. You can oppose land sales in the West Bank without supporting violence against Jews. Yesterday’s arson in Mississippi is a stark reminder of the consequences of hate.”
She attracted some criticism from the pro-Palestinian movement for her statement — including from the group that organized the pro-Hamas New York synagogue protests, which took offense at the comparison.
“Linking chants at a Palestine protest that support a resistance movement of occupied people to the klan bombing of a synagogue is absolutely irresponsible and disgusting,” PAL-Awda NY/NJ, a radical group, wrote to Hanif.
In the group’s Telegram channel viewed by JTA, PAL-Awda added, “We see you, politicians who claim to support Palestine but then follow the hasbara playbook to link people resisting colonial oppression with white supremacists bombing synagogues in Mississippi.” “Hasbara” is a Hebrew term used to describe Israeli public relations efforts.
Pro-Israel groups, meanwhile, claimed hypocrisy, with some sharing a screenshot of Hanif previously retweeting a pro-Palestinian activist’s post that included the phrase “Globalize the Intifada.” JTA was unable to verify the post.
Unlike Lipstadt, Edelman, the CUNY law professor, told JTA he stands by his initial assessment of the arson.
“Nothing changes the fact that the actions taken in Washington, D.C. and Sydney, Australia, coalesced with an extreme left anti-Israel position,” he said, referring to the mass shootings at the Capital Jewish Museum and Bondi Beach — the former by a declared pro-Palestinian activist, the latter by declared Islamists. (Edelman noted that he recently undertook a Fulbright scholarship in Australia.)
Edelman added, “It is also not surprising that far-right rhetoric, much as it has for generations in this country, has also led to increased violence against minority groups including Jewish Americans.”
But there’s a key difference between the two sides, in Edelman’s eyes.
“The big distinction here, and I say this as a member of the Democratic Party, is that the left has historically been better than this,” he said. “And now, perhaps, they are not.”
For Lipstadt, the incident has largely taught her that Jews shouldn’t spend time trying to determine which kinds of antisemitic attacks, whether from the left or right, are worse.
“It’s all horrible,” she said. “Much of it is lethal. It’s toxic and it’s dangerous.”
The post Deborah Lipstadt has second thoughts about tying Jackson synagogue arsonist to ‘Globalize the Intifada’ appeared first on The Forward.