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
Metropolitan Police investigating abuse of Jewish attendees at London Pride
(JTA) — London’s Metropolitan Police launched an investigation Monday into antisemitic abuse at a Pride parade after videos and pictures circulated on social media showed Jewish participants enduring taunts at Saturday’s event.
The police department said in a statement that officers were “aware of videos circulating online that show antisemitic verbal abuse directed towards attendees” at the parade in central London and that footage was being reviewed to assess whether criminal offenses had been committed. The department added that it “continues to work hard to tackle hate crimes of all types.”
Videos shared online show people carrying rainbow flags incorporating the Star of David being confronted by individuals shouting “Free Palestine.” The harassment escalated with attendees shouting, “Go back to your Zionist homeland,” “You kill Arab children, you kill gay children,” “F*** you, Jew,” and “How many babies did you kill?”
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reached out to Pride in London for comment. The group had not replied by press time.
The incident comes amid heightened concern over antisemitism in Britain since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, with a record number of antisemitic incidents reported over the past two years. It also comes as Pride celebrations around the world have been roiled by tensions over Israel and antisemitism.
Pride in London drew tens of thousands of participants and visitors to the Soho neighborhood in the British capital. Some Jewish LGBTQ+ organizations have in recent years chosen not to participate in Pride, citing hostility towards Zionist Jews. But this year, around 150 people marched as part of a Jewish bloc at the event.
Organizers said the return this year followed discussions with Pride in London over Jewish inclusion and commitments that organizers would undertake antisemitism awareness training in partnership with the Community Security Trust, the main security consultant to the Jewish community. Jewish LGBTQ group Keshet UK stated earlier this year that the measures were intended to help ensure Jewish LGBTQ+ participants could march “safely and openly” following concerns raised after Oct. 7.
It was not clear whether the Jewish marchers who endured the abuse were part of the official Jewish bloc – accounts from marchers who stayed with the Jewish bloc were generally positive.
“A few people came and chanted ‘free, free, Palestine,’” Israeli author and LGBTQ+ activist Hen Mazzig told JTA. “They were passing through. And there was another person who was at a cafe and then they came by and they were just staring at us.”
Mazzig shared footage from the event on X, writing, ”My pride is not affected by the opinions of others. I am gay, I am Jewish, and I’m here to stay. Am Yisrael chai.”
Mazzig splits his time between London and Tel Aviv, because his husband is British. He told JTA in a phone interview that Saturday’s incidents “were scary, especially when a Pride parade is supposed to be inclusive.”
Mazzig said that since Oct, 7, circumstances have been exceptionally challenging for the British Jewish community “but specifically for LGBTQ youth that are being forced to choose between their Jewish identity and their queer identity.”
Mazzig claimed that Jewish marchers are not accepted unless they specify that they are anti-Zionist. “Every statement of solidarity with LGBTQ Jews seems to come with a ‘but,’” he said. ‘We support you, but not if you’re physically Jewish, not if you’re supporting Israel. You have to renounce half of your identity first.’ That’s not equality.”
In advance of Saturday’s event, some 650 Met police officers were deployed to enforce “zero tolerance” on hate crimes and to ensure that attendees could “safely and securely” enjoy the parade.
When JTA asked the Metropolitan police why at least two policemen appeared to stand by as Jews were subject to abuse, the Met requested that JTA provide the video in question. After being supplied with the video, the Met later told JTA that it had nothing further to add at this stage but would provide an update if it did.
Mazzig said the Met police should consider the abuse at the parade “shameful and it should alarm everyone.”
He added, “I hope that we stop debating whether or not antisemitism is real and accept it. And that communities that are supposed to be inclusive and pluralistic start taking action.”
The post Metropolitan Police investigating abuse of Jewish attendees at London Pride appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel’s diaspora minister calls Erdogan a ‘grotesque hybrid of Hitler and Sinwar’
(JTA) — Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli compared Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Adolf Hitler and slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar in a post on X on Monday.
“We all know how narcissistic power-obsessed fanatics like you begin and how they end. The Jewish people have never feared mere flesh and blood, from Pharaoh until today,” Chikli wrote. “You are nothing but a pathetic blood soaked zero who history will soon forget.”
In the post, Chikli accused the Turkish leader of being a “patron of Hamas and ISIS” and described him as a “grotesque hybrid of Hitler and Sinwar” alongside an AI image of Erdogan in front of a Nazi flag.
Chikli’s post was in response to an address by Erdogan last month, in which the Turkish leader called Zionism a “genocidal occupying expansionist ideology” and said the “struggle” against Zionism was for the “collective survival of ourselves and our nation.”
Long-standing tensions between Turkey and Israel stoked by the war in Gaza have escalated in recent weeks, amid increasing Israeli concerns over the tight ties between Ankara and Washington and the possible sale of advanced American F-35 fighter jets to Turkey. Erdogan, who has consistently voiced support for Hamas, has been one of Israel’s most outspoken international critics.
Chikli’s post followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s blistering attack against Erdogan during an interview on “Fox & Friends” on Fox News Monday. Netanyahu said Turkey was “governed by a man who calls openly for the annihilation of Israel…and talks openly about conquering Jerusalem.”
The Israeli leader warned against the sale of weaponry to Ankara, portraying Turkey as an aggressive country that didn’t help the U.S. battle Iran. He spoke in advance of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trip to Ankara late Tuesday for a two-day summit of NATO.
“For a regime infected by the Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme movement that hates America and chants ‘death to America’ from that side of the spectrum, I don’t think they should be given F-35’s or the engines for their fighter jets,” Netanyahu told Fox News.
Such a sale would “upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority and … by America’s posture in the Middle East,” Netanyahu said.
Relations between the two regional powers have also been aggravated by the Israeli government’s June 28 decision to recognize the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire during and immediately after World War I.
Turkey has condemned Israel’s recognition of the Armenian genocide. It’s a move so diplomatically controversial that to date, only some 33 countries, aside from Israel, have taken this step, including the U.S. in 2021.
According to Politico, Erdogan said in a public address last week, “We do not give the slightest heed to the slanders about our country from the murder network that has the blood of 73,000 innocent Gazans, most of them children and women, on its hands.”
Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Saar, also took aim at Turkey’s foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, during a press conference in Jerusalem Monday, decrying Fidan’s comments to CNN Türk on Friday in which he said that Israel had become a “burden that humanity can no longer bear.”
“The remarks by Turkey’s Foreign Minister are a clear call for genocide,” Saar said. “The Jewish people know all too well what happens when such words are allowed to go unanswered. The first step on the road to genocide is dehumanization.”
The post Israel’s diaspora minister calls Erdogan a ‘grotesque hybrid of Hitler and Sinwar’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A narrowed Michigan Democratic Senate race leaves Jewish voters with a stark choice
(JTA) — When Michigan state senator Mallory McMorrow suspended her campaign for the U.S. Senate on Sunday, some progressive Jews were bereft.
“I’m still in mourning,” Eve Mokotoff, a public health expert who had been advising McMorrow’s campaign on issues including Jewish ones, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency the next day. “You have to understand, I was sobbing yesterday.”
McMorrow, who is married to a Jewish man and raising a Jewish child, had sought to carve a progressive identity in the state while taking on the far left, particularly on Jewish issues and Israel.
Now with her out of the primary, the race is down to two candidates with polar opposite visions of the Democratic party’s future — particularly on Israel policy — battling over a seat that the party must retain if they hope to flip the Senate in November.
The race will inevitably be seen as a bellwether for the party’s larger orientation on Israel.
The sharp reorientation of the party in the recent years to embracing Israel-critical policies will be exacerbated by the specific dynamics of Michigan. A state home to large Jewish and Arab/Muslim populations weathered the attack at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, outside Detroit, earlier this year and in 2024 saw the rise of the Uncommitted movement that pressured party leaders over Gaza.
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a former county health director who has grassroots momentum in the state, has said the Israeli government is as “evil” as Hamas and made headlines for campaigning with streamer Hasan Piker, an anti-Israel hardliner. His opponent, U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, has accepted backing from AIPAC, whose affiliated super PAC has spent over $10 million on the race according to Federal Election Commission disclosures, at a time when the pro-Israel behemoth is historically unpopular among Democrats.
Neither campaign’s representatives responded to JTA requests for comment for this story, though both have issued statements reaching out to McMorrow supporters since she left the field. Mokotoff described the new playing field as “a terrible choice.”
“I don’t trust either of them,” she said. “You either have someone whom I completely don’t trust, or someone who can be completely manipulated by the state of Israel.”
For many of the state’s other estimated 129,000 Jews, the choice is less difficult. While analysts are torn on what McMorrow’s exit from the race will mean for each candidate, Jewish Democratic leaders — and some clergy — in the state are coalescing around Stevens.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is Jewish and a close ally of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, endorsed Stevens following McMorrow’s announcement. “Haley cares deeply about the needs of her constituents,” Nessel wrote in her announcement.
The Michigan Jewish Democratic Caucus had already endorsed Stevens, as well — but it had been close between her and McMorrow, the group’s chair told JTA.
“The Jews that I know, my sense is that if they were supporting Mallory, they’re going to support Haley at this point,” Jessica “Decky” Alexander, the caucus’s chair, told JTA.
While Alexander added that she could “still see myself supporting” El-Sayed if he wins the nomination, some Jewish clergy in the state have sounded loud alarms about his candidacy.
“For many Michigan Jews, the Democratic primary race for senator feels like an existential moment,” Rabbi Aaron Starr, of the historic Conservative Congregation Shaarey Zedek in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, told JTA. “We pray that our neighbors and fellow Michigan residents will vote to reject extremism and the kind of rhetoric that leads to violence.”
Along with his fellow Shaarey Zedek clergy, Starr authored a letter to congregants in June urging them to support “the candidate whose record, actions, and rhetoric demonstrate the strongest commitment to protecting Jewish lives by combating antisemitism, seeking federal security funding for American Jewish communities, and supporting Israel’s security and right to exist as a Jewish state.”
“As a clergy team, we agreed that we cannot remain silent if our voice might encourage people to prioritize protecting Jewish lives,” Starr told JTA.
The letter, which invoked the Book of Esther, did not name Stevens or any other candidates. But to JTA, Starr called Stevens “an ongoing friend of the Jewish community” who “personally reached out to me after October 7,” referring to the 2023 Hamas-led massacres in Israel that launched the Gaza war. El-Sayed — whom Starr said he has “heard nothing from” — has publicly expressed doubt that Israel should be a Jewish state.
Now that the race had narrowed, Starr said, “We are hoping that it is now even more likely that the November election will see two candidates who recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, who support Israel’s right to defend itself when under threat, and who will be committed to protecting American Jews in Michigan and around the U.S.” The likely GOP nominee is Mike Rogers, a former congressman known for his pro-Israel outlook.
While El-Sayed often welcomes the Jewish community at his rallies, his comments on local radical behavior affecting Jews have also caused controversy. He angered Jewish leaders, including a rabbi at Temple Israel, when he issued a statement about the attack at that congregation that mentioned Israel’s war in Lebanon.
In recent weeks El-Sayed also suggested that a group of pro-Palestinian protesters at the University of Michigan, recently arrested by federal authorities and accused of plotting attacks against university officials, were politically targeted.
“It’s a lot more about what you’re advocating for that gets you indicted or not indicted, rather than what you did,” El-Sayed told a rally of supporters about the indictments last month, according to the Detroit News. One of the arrested protesters had briefly worked for El-Sayed’s campaign.
His campaign has amplified the voices of Jewish supporters, including former U.S. Rep. Andy Levin, who lost his reelection bid in a redrawn district to Stevens in 2022 after AIPAC backed Stevens.
El-Sayed’s campaign has also launched a Jews For Abdul affinity group. The group’s mission statement says the candidate “correctly recognizes that the Israeli government does not speak for all Jewish people, or even for all Jewish citizens of Israel,” and “has properly characterized Israel’s US-enabled genocide in Gaza to be among the most immoral events of our time.”
An El-Sayed campaign spokesperson did not respond to a JTA inquiry about how big the group is. Alexander, the state’s Jewish Democratic Caucus chair, said she believed it was “a very small faction.”
Nationally, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, which had endorsed both McMorrow and Stevens, reaffirmed its commitment to Stevens on Monday. Meanwhile, J Street, the liberal pro-Israel lobby, had backed McMorrow. In a statement Monday to JTA, the group did not endorse a new candidate.
“We are grateful to her for the campaign she ran and the nuance she infused into this race,” Tali deGroot, vice president of political and digital strategy, told JTA. “We hope the next Senator from Michigan will be an advocate for peace and diplomacy in the Middle East and will recognize the need for a new U.S. policy toward Israel.”
A new super PAC formed to counter AIPAC’s influence signalled in a statement on Sunday that it was prepared to get more directly involved in the race on El-Sayed’s behalf. American Priorities PAC told reporters it was “fully committed to seeing Abdul El-Sayed become the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, and we will do what it takes to get there.”
Representatives for El-Sayed and American Priorities PAC did not respond to questions from JTA about whether the candidate, who has said he would reject all PAC funding, would accept American Priorities’ financial support.
The post A narrowed Michigan Democratic Senate race leaves Jewish voters with a stark choice appeared first on The Forward.
