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
A new collection of Yiddish rhymes and games for children (and Yiddish students!)
עס קומט באַלד צו גיין דער יום־טובֿ פּורים, האָב איך פֿאַר אײַך לייענער צוגעגרײט שלח־מנות: אַ גוגל־דאָקומענט מיט מאַטעריאַלן פֿאַר קינדער און תּלמידים, געשעפּטע סײַ פֿון עלטערע פֿאָלקלאָר־זאַמלונגען, סײַ פֿון שאַפֿונגען פֿון דער נײַערער צײַט. ער געפֿינט זיך דאָ. װײַטער קענט איר לײענען פֿאַר װאָס איך האָב זיך אונטערגענומען אַזאַ פּראָיעקט, און זיך דערװיסן נאָך פּרטים װעגן די מאַטעריאַלן װאָס געפֿינען זיך דערין.
* * * *
אינעם הײַפֿעלע ייִדישיסטישע משפּחות צעשאָטענע איבערן ערדקײַלעך קומט נישט זעלטן אױס צו פֿילן, אַז עפּעס פֿעלט אונדז מאַטעריאַל װאָס זענען אי אױף ייִדיש אי זײ נעמען אױס בײַ די קינדער.
אָט דער כּלומרשטער דוחק שפּירט זיך אין פֿאַרשידענע תּחומען: אין גראַמען, געזאַנג, שפּילן, מעשׂהלעך — קורץ, אַלצדינג װאָס טראָגט אַרײַן פֿרײד און כּישוף אין לעבן פֿון אַ קינד. נישט אײן מאָל בין איך געזעסן און געהאָצקעט אַ קינד אױפֿן שױס און געװאָלט פֿרײלעך מאַכן, צוזינגען עפּעס אַ לידעלע אָדער אַ גראַם, נאָר פּונקט איז מיר נישט געקומען אױפֿן געדאַנק מער װי „פּאַטשע פּאַטשע קיכעלעך“, אָדער פּשוט שמײכלען און מאַכן גרימאַסן.
איז אַװדאי גוט, אַן עופֿעלע װעט נישט זײַן קײן גרױסער איבערקלײַבער, אָבער װיפֿל איז דער שיעור איבערצוקײַען די זעלבע צװײ־דרײַ גראַמען, אַז מיר פֿאַרמאָגן אַזאַ רײַכן קינדער־פֿאָלקלאָר מיט שפּילן און גראַמען? און פֿאַר װאָס זאָלן מיר כּסדר טאַנצן אױף פֿרעמדע חתונות, אָנקומענדיק צו איבערזעצונגען פֿון ענגלישע לידעלעך, אַז ס׳איז פֿאַראַן הונדערטער קינדערלידער אױף ייִדיש, אָדער סתּם ייִדישע לידער, סײַ לעבעדיקע סײַ רויִקע, צוגעפּאַסטע צו פֿאַרשידענע טעמעס און סיטואַציעס?
איך זאָג אַ „כּלומרשטער דוחק“ װײַל אין דער אמתן איז עס אַ נעכטיקער טאָג. אָט האָט ש. לעהמאַן צונױפֿגעזאַמלט און אָפּגעדרוקט אַ שלל מיט קינדער־פֿאָלקלאָר אינעם פֿאָלקלאָריסטישן־פֿילאָלאָגישן באַנד בײַ אונז יודען אין 1923. אָפּטײלן מיט קינדערלידער און קינדער־פֿאָלקלאָר קען מען אױך טרעפֿן אין די זאַמלונגען פֿון י. ל. כּהן, באַסטאָמסקי, בערעגאָװסקי און פֿעפֿער, און נאָך אַזעלכע. הײַנט, װוּ איז רוט (רבֿקה) רובינס קלאַנגאַרכיװ בײַם ייִװאָ, װאָס האַלט אין זיך גאַנצע פֿינעף טאַשמעס מיט קינדערלידעלעך? און, און, און… איר זעט שױן מסתּמא אַלײן די צרה.
מיר זענען נישט חלילה אָרעם, נאָר פֿאַרקערט: ס׳איז פֿאַראַן צו פֿיל, און װער האָט דאָס די צײַט צו צעקײַען, דורכזיפּן, און אָפּקלײַבן פֿון די אַלע מאַטעריאַלן? בפֿרט אַז אַ סך פֿון די זאַמלונגען זענען גאַנץ שלעכט געדרוקט אָדער דער טינט איז שױן אָפּגעשפּרונגען. אַראָפּצולײענען װאָס דאָרט שטײט איז נישט קײן קלײנער קונץ. און עלטערן פֿון קלײנע קינדער, אַזױ אױך פֿאַרהאַװעטע און פֿאַרהאָרעװעטע מיט די טאָג־טעגלעכע אַחריותן, זאָלן גײן גריבלען אין װיסנשאַפֿטלעכע שריפֿטן?
דערצו נאָך, אַז מע האָט זיך שױן יאָ אַ ביסל אָריענטירט אין די זאַמלונגען, דאַרף מען ערשט דערטאַפּן די, װאָס קענען שטימען מיט אונדזערע הײַנטצײַטישע השׂגות. װי למשל בײַם באַװוּסטן קינדערגראַם: „ציגעלע מיגעלע קאָטינקע / רױטע פּאָמעראַנצן / אַז דער טאַטע שלאָגט די מאַמע / גײען קינדערלעך טאַנצן“. נו, איך װײס נישט װי בײַ אַנדערע, אָבער איך קען באַשטײן, אַז דאָס זאָל בלײַבן אַ קוריאָז פֿונעם אַמאָליקן לעבן אין דער אַלטער הײם. נישט יעדע סחורה איז פּאַסיק פֿאַר הײַנטיקע קינדער.
װען סע קומט, װידער, צו ייִדישע לידער איז דער מצבֿ שױן אַ סך פֿױגלדיקער, אָבער די מענטשלעכע טבֿע איז פֿאָרט אַזאַ, אַז מע גײט זעלטן אַרױס פֿון די אײגענע דלתּ אַמות. „די גרינע קאַטשקע“ און „פֿלי, מײַן פֿלישלאַנג“ קענען דאָך אַלע, אָבער פֿאַראַן אַ סך פֿײַנע אַלבומען, נײַערע און עלטערע, פֿון דער סעקולערער װעלט און פֿון דער פֿרומער װעלט, צעשאָטן איבער דער אינטערנעץ, נאָר גײן זוכן אױף דער הײסער מינוט װען די קינדער פֿאַרלאַנגען „מוזי־י־י־י־ק!“?
כאַפּט מען זיך צו די אײן־צװײ באַליבטע און באַקאַנטע און שױן. װאָס שײך געזאַנג, זענען די מלאָטעק־ביכער אַװדאי אַ געװאַלדיקער אוצר, אָבער יעדעס מאָל גײן אױפֿמישן אַ באַנד און האָפֿן, אַז מע װעט אָנטרעפֿן אױף עפּעס גוטס, איז אױך נישט קײן פּלאַן. אַז מאַכט זיך יאָ אַ פּאָר פֿרײַע מינוט און מע װיל זיך אױסלערנען אַ נײַ ליד, דאַרף מען ערשט װיסן װוּ צו געפֿינען די גוטע סחורה.
צום גליק האָב איך אין די לעצטע חדשים יאָ געהאַט צײַט זיך אַ טונק צו טאָן אין דעם ים פֿון קינדער־פֿאָלקלאָר און קינדער־מאַטעריאַלן, צעשאָטענע איבער זאַמלונגען און װעבזײַטלעך, אָפּקלײַבן פֿון זײ אַזוינע װאָס זאָלן זײַן צוטריטלעך פֿאַר עלטערן און צוציִיִק פֿאַר די קינדער, און מאַכן פֿון דעם אַ שטיקל װעגװײַזער. דאַכט זיך, אַז דאָס קען אױך נוציק זײַן פֿאַר לערערס און תּלמידים, װאָס זוכן פֿריש, אינטערעסאַנט לערנװאַרג. דער װעגװײַזער באַשטײט פֿון פֿינעף אָפּטײלן:
-
- גראַמען און לידעלעך. אין דער קאַטעגאָריע גײען אַרײַן קינדערגראַמען, סײַ צו יעדער געלעגנהײט, סײַ פֿאַר ספּעציפֿישע פֿאַלן אָדער קאָנטעקסטן, למשל: אַז דאָס קינד גיט אַ גרעפּס, אָדער אַז דאָס קינד טוט זיך אָן דאָס העמד, אָדער אַז מע דערזעט אַ שנעקל, צי אַ משה־רבינוס קיִעלע, אָדער אַז סע רעגנט… און נאָך אַ סך אַזעלכע.
- שפּילן. נישט נאָר האַנט־ און פֿינגער־שפּילן און גלאַט פֿאַרשפּילענישן, װי, צום בײַשפּיל, „באַראַן־באַראַן־בוץ“, „שׂרהניו װאָרעניע“, „אַ זעקעלע מעל“, „אין אַ שטעטעלע פּיטשעפּױ“, נאָר אױך שפּילן פֿאַר עלטערע קינדער, װאָס מע האָט אַ מאָל געשפּילן אין חדר און אין די הױפֿן — „בלינדע קו“, „פֿײגעלע פֿליט“, „רודענע ראַנע“, און פֿאַרשידענע שפּילן אין באַלעמס, מטבעות און ניסעלעך.
- רעקאָרדירטע מוזיק. נישט נאָר אַלבומען געמאַכט פֿאַר קינדער, נאָר אױך אַן אָפּקלײַב פֿון די שענסטע אַלבומען פֿאָלקסלידער װאָס קענען אױסנעמען אױך בײַ קינדער.
- געזאַנג. אין דעם אָפּטײל װערט געבראַכט אַ רשימה לידער װאָס מע קען זינגען מיט אָדער פֿאַר די קינדער, סײַ רויִקע סײַ לעבעדיקע, סײַ קינדערלידער סײַ גלאַט פֿאָלקסלידער, װי אױך לידער מיט באַװעגונגען — אַ שטײגער, „בלעטער“, „מיכלקו“, און „פֿון אַ קלײנעם גרינעם הױז“. בײַ יעדן ליד װערט געגעבן אַ לינק צום טעקסט און צו אַ רעקאָרדירונג.
- מעשׂהלעך. פֿון די פֿאָלקס־מעשׂיות און װוּנדער־מעשׂיות, פֿון בערן און לצים און כעלעמער חכמים און באַהאַלטענע אוצרות, װאָס מע פֿלעג דערצײלן די קינדער שבת אױף דער נאַכט, אָדער אין שול צווישן מינחה און מעריבֿ, אָדער װינטער הינטערן אױװן.
צום סוף געפֿינען זיך עטלעכע הוספֿות: װײַטערדיקע רעסורסן פֿאַר די װאָס װילן אַלײן אַרײַנקוקן אין די רױע מאַטעריאַלן, איבערזעצונגען פֿון פּאָפּולערע ענגלישע לידער (אַ מאָל מוז מען דאָך נאָכגעבן!), און אַ רשימה חיה־קלאַנגען אױף ייִדיש. האָט איר געװוּסט אַז אױף ייִדיש מאַכט דער בער „בו־בו“?
אַ לעצטע באַמערקונג: כאָטש דעם גרעסטן טײל מאַטעריאַל האָב איך געשעפּט טאַקע פֿון עלטערע מקורים, האָב איך אױך אַרײַנגענומען שאַפֿונגען פֿון דער מאָדערנער צײַט, צי פֿון דער פֿרומער־חסידישער װעלט, צי פֿון די ייִדישע שולן, צי פֿון אונדז ייִדישיסטן פֿון 21סטן יאָרהונדערט. איך האָף, אַז אינעם דאָזיקן װעגװײַזער װעט יעדער טרעפֿן עפּעס װאָס װעט געפֿינען חן בײַ די אײגענע קינדער, און באַװײַזן דערמיט אײַנצופֿירן אַ גרעסערע מאָס געװאָרצלטקײט און פֿאַרשידנקײט אין דער שפּראַכיקער סבֿיבה פֿון די קינדער (אָדער תּלמידים). טאָמער געפֿעלט עפּעס נישט, אָדער מע װיל עפּעס צוגעבן, מעג מען איבערלאָזן אַ קאָמענטאַר אינעם גוגל־דאָקומענט אַלײן, אָדער קען מען אַלײן אױפֿמישן די זאַמלונגען געבראַכטע אין די הוספֿות און דערבײַ אױפֿדעקן די אוצרות, װאָס װאַלגערן זיך נאָך הײַנט אין די פֿאַרגעלטע בלעטלעך און װאַרטן אױף זײער תּיקון אין די מײַלער פֿון ייִדישע קינדערלעך.
The post A new collection of Yiddish rhymes and games for children (and Yiddish students!) appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mass shooter at Canadian elementary school tweeted antisemitic content 2 days before attack, ADL finds
(JTA) — The shooter who killed eight people and wounded dozens more in one of Canada’s deadliest mass shootings Tuesday allegedly tweeted antisemitic content two days before the attack.
“I need to hate jews because the zionists want me to hate jews. This benefits them, somehow,” Jesse Van Rootselaar, the alleged Tumbler Ridge school shooter, tweeted on Sunday, according to research by the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism.
Authorities in British Columbia have identified Van Rootselaar, 18, as the shooter who killed six people at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School and two family members at home before also dying, apparently from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
According to the ADL, Van Rootselar had a “troubling pattern of online radicalization” that included using WatchPeopleDie, a platform that glorifies violence and has been linked to several mass violence events.
The ADL also found what it believes to be Van Rootselar’s X account, which it says “regularly shared antisemitic and racist content and material glorifying previous mass killers, including the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooter and the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooter.”
Additionally, the ADL said, “The Tumbler Ridge shooter’s X profile photo also featured an image of the Christchurch shooter superimposed over a Sonnenrad, a neo-Nazi symbol, and a transgender pride flag.”
Other recent mass shooters have been WatchPeopleDie users. In August, alleged Minneapolis shooter Robin Westman entered a Catholic mass at an elementary school and allegedly used a gun featuring antisemitic and anti-Israel writing to kill two children and injure another 17 people before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The gun also included writing with the name of the man convicted of the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S. history, the 2018 mass shooting on a Pittsburgh synagogue.
The alleged shooter behind the January 2025 Antioch High School shooting, Solomon Henderson, was found to have extensive online documents that praised Adolf Hitler and included links to “groyper” content.
Authorities in British Columbia say they cannot speculate on the motive of Van Rootselaar, who they said dropped out of school in Tumbler Ridge, a town of about 2,500, about four years ago. The dead included a 39-year-old teacher; five students, ages 12 to 13; and Van Rootselar’s mother and 11-year-old stepbrother.
Tuesday’s attack was the deadliest mass shooting in Canada since a 2020 attack in Portapique, Nova Scotia, left 23 people dead, including the shooter. A gun buyback program was implemented days after that shooting, but has proven both logistically challenging and unpopular.
“To the students, the teachers, the parents, and every resident of Tumbler Ridge: all of Canada stands with you. May the memories of those lost be a blessing,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a statement Wednesday morning. “May this community, which has shown its resilience so many times before, once again find the strength to heal.”
The post Mass shooter at Canadian elementary school tweeted antisemitic content 2 days before attack, ADL finds appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
International social workers group set to vote on expelling Israeli union for ‘not acting to promote peace’
(JTA) — The Israeli Union of Social Workers could be booted from a global federation after at least three countries called for a vote on its expulsion on allegations of ethical breaches.
The countries — Ireland, Spain and Greece — charged that the Israeli union should have moved to seek exemptions from military service for its members or “issue a call for peace.” Their call for an expulsion vote escalated the International Federation of Social Workers’ January 2025 censure of the Israeli union over the alleged breaches, which the federation said violated ethics rules that say social workers “should not use weapons in their professional or personal capacities against people.”
The Israeli union has called for the vote to be abandoned while signaling that it remains committed to dialogue with Palestinian colleagues.
“Expelling or suspending a social workers’ union will not promote change — rather, it will promote polarization and radicalization, which arise in situations of isolation or perceived threat,” it said in a statement issued on Monday. “In our reality, this means that expulsion or suspension would hinder our ability to promote dialogue with our neighbors or with other countries. Those who oppose shared life between Israelis and Palestinians would welcome such an outcome. It would serve as an excuse to maintain extreme positions and continue fighting.”
In the statement, the Israeli union also said that the demand to request Israeli social workers be granted an exemption from military service was “entirely unimaginable within Israeli society.”
“Demanding that specifically during wartime (a war Israel did not initiate) social workers receive different treatment is not feasible in a society where military service is a universal civic duty,” the statement read.
The International Federation of Social Workers represents 141 national associations of social workers. It has previously sparred with the Israeli union, which it censured in 2018 for “failing to act as an independent professional voice on issues of occupation and Palestinian rights.” The 2018 censure was lifted in 2022 after the Israeli union invited the Palestinian Union of Social Workers to engage in dialogue.
The expulsion vote is set for Feb. 18 and will require a 75% majority to pass. Each member union gets one vote.
The vote comes as Israelis have faced marginalization in a range of international associations during the war in Gaza. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, for example, suspended its Israeli affiliate in 2024 before reinstating it the following year.
The Jewish Social Work Consortium argued in a statement that the expulsion proposal at the International Federation of Social Workers “advances an ideologically driven effort to isolate Israeli social workers as a collective, based on nationality rather than actual professional conduct.”
“This is not principled critique or ethical debate. It is antizionism operating through professional institutions, denying Israelis moral complexity, collective legitimacy, and equal participation in global social work,” the statement continued. “When professional bodies adopt this framework, they normalize collective punishment under the guise of ethics.”
The consortium and several other Jewish groups have petitioned American and Canadian members of the international federation to “publicly oppose and refuse to endorse” the vote. The petition had gained over 10,000 signatures by Thursday morning.
“Ethical accountability must be based on individual conduct rather than identity or nationality,” the petition says. “This is not the time for silence as this motion carries grave consequences for our profession.”
The post International social workers group set to vote on expelling Israeli union for ‘not acting to promote peace’ appeared first on The Forward.