The Israeli military said on Monday night that it killed Islamic Jihad’s commander in Lebanon, describing the operation as a major blow to the Iran-backed terrorist group’s capabilities. Israel struck multiple targets in Lebanon after Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel in support of Iran.
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.
Continue Reading
Uncategorized
The cafe as a refuge of Jewish culture
די ייִדישע ליטעראַטור האָט אַ היפּשע צאָל בולטע אימאַזשן פֿון קאַפֿע־הײַזער: מנחם–מענדלס שילדערונג פֿון „קאַפֿע פֿאַנקאָני‟ אין אָדעס; די ניו־יאָרקער „קיביזאַרנע‟ און „קאַפֿע–ראָיאַל‟ אױפֿן איסט–סײַד.
אָפֿט לײענט מען די דאָזיקע באַשרײַבונגען װי טשיקאַװע עפּיזאָדן, אָבער אין דער אמתן איז דאָס קאַװע־הױז געװען אַ װיכטיקע קולטורעלע אינסטיטוציע, בפֿרט ערבֿ דער צװײטער װעלט־מלחמה. דאָס בוך פֿון פּראָפֿעסאָר שחר פּינסקער, ”A Rich Brew“ [אַ גוט געקאָכטע קאַווע] האָט אַן אַמביציעזן אונטערקעפּל: „װי אַזױ די קאַפֿע־הײַזער האָבן געשאַפֿן די מאָדערנע ייִדישע קולטור‟. װען מען לײענט איבער דעם װאָגיקן באַנד זעט מען בפֿירוש, אַז די קאַפֿע־הײַזער אין אײראָפּע, אַמעריקע און ארץ־ישׂראל זײַנען געװען זײער אַ פּראָדוקטיװ אָרט, װוּ מען האָט געשריבן, געלײענט, געשמועסט און אַ סך זיך געאַמפּערט װעגן דער מאָדערנער ייִדישער קולטור.
די ליבע־געשיכטע צװישן ייִדן און קאַפֿע־הײַזער הײבט זיך אָן אין בערלין אינעם אַכצנטן יאָרהונדערט. „דאָס געלערנטע קאַפֿע־הױז‟ איז געװען אַ נײַער לאָקאַל, װוּ די בערלינער אינטעליגענץ האָט זיך געקאָנט טרעפֿן, לײענען צײַטונגען, שפּילן שאַך און שמועסן. צװישן די אַרײַנגײער אין דעם קאַפֿע־הױז איז געװען משה מענדלסאָן, דער „פֿאָטער‟ פֿון דער בערלינער השׂכּלה. קאַװע איז געװען כּשר און דאָס קאַפֿע־הױז האָט ניט געהאַט קײן קריסטלעכן טעם. דװקא דאָ האָט מענדלסאָן פֿאַרטראַכט זײַנע פּובליקאַציעס, װאָס זײַנען געװאָרן די בימה פֿאַר זײַנע משׂכּילישע אידעען.
די בלי־תּקופֿה פֿון ייִדישע קאַפֿעען האָט געדױערט פֿון סוף-19טן יאָרהונדערט ביזן חורבן. פּינסקער פֿירט דעם לײענער אױף אַ רײַזע איבער די װיכטיקסטע צענטערס פֿון דער מאָדערנער ייִדישער קולטור: אָדעס, װאַרשע, װין, בערלין, ניו–יאָרק און תּל־אָבֿיבֿ. ער האָט באַאַרבעט אַ ריזיקן מאַטעריאַל פֿון פֿאַרשידנאַרטיקע מקורים און אים מגולגל געװען אין אַ פֿאַרכאַפּנדיקער לעקטור. דאָס דאָזיקע בוך װעט זײַן סײַ ניצלעך פֿאַר די פּראָפֿעסיאָנעלע פֿאָרשער פֿון ייִדישער און העברעיִשער קולטור און ליטעראַטור, סײַ אינטערעסאַנט פֿאַרן ברײטן עולם.
דער װאַרשעװער „פֿאַראײן פֿון ייִדישע ליטעראַטן און זשורנאַליסטן‟ אױף טלאָמאַצקע 13 איז געװען דער סאַמע באַרימטסטער ייִדישער ליטעראַרישער קלוב, באַשריבן אין צענדליקער זכרונות און בעלעטריסטישע װערק. אָבער דאָס איז ניט געװען דאָס ערשטע ייִדישע קאַפֿע־הױז אין װאַרשע. קאַפֿעען זײַנען געװאָרן פּאָפּולער אינעם אָנהײב צװאַנציקסטן יאָרהונדערט, װען װאַרשע איז געװאָרן אַ מאַגנעט פֿאַר אָרעמע יונגע אינטעליגענטן, און בפֿרט ליטװאַקעס. אײניקע פֿון זײ האָבן געחלומט װעגן אַ ליטעראַרישער קאַריערע אױף ייִדיש אָדער העברעיִש. זײ האָבן זיך געפֿילט הײמיש בײַ יחזקאל קאָטיקן, דעם מחבר פֿון באַרימטע זכרונות װעגן דעם ייִדישן לעבן אין רוסלאַנד אינעם נײַצנטן יאָרהונדערט. מען פֿלעגט דאָ זיצן שעהען לאַנג און לײענען צײַטונגען, שמועסן װעגן ליטעראַטור און פּאָליטיק און אַפֿילו פֿירן געשעפֿטן. דערצו נאָך זײַנען די קאַפֿע–הײַזער װינטערצײַט געװען װאַרעם, װאָס איז אױך געװען װיכטיק פֿאַר די אָרעמע באַזוכער.
אָן װאַרשעװער קאַפֿעען, און על–אחת–כּמה–וכמה אָן דעם שרײַבערקלוב אױף טלאָמאַצקע 13, װאָלט די ייִדישע ליטעראַטור אַװדאי געװען אָרעמער און שיטערער. פּינסקערס בוך איז װי אַ מין ייִדישע ליטעראַטור־געשיכטע, װאָס באַטראַכט די טעמע פֿונעם שטאַנדפּונקט פֿון קאַפֿע־טישן. די װאַרשעװער קאַפֿעען זײַנען געװען װיכטיק ניט נאָר פֿאַר „ייִדישע‟ ייִדן, נאָר אױך פֿאַר אַזעלכע, װאָס האָבן געשריבן אױף פּױליש, װי יוליאַן טובֿים אָדער אַנטאָני סלאָנימסקי.
דער עפּילאָג פֿון דער װאַרשעװער ייִדישער קאַפֿע־קולטור האָט זיך אױסגעשפּילט אינעם געטאָ, װוּ עס זײַנען אױך געװען עטלעכע קאַפֿעען: „דער געטאָ־קאַפֿע איז אַ קאָמפּליצירטער אָרט פֿון קאָלאַבאָראַציע, קולטורעלן לעבן, קאָמערץ און עליטיזם,‟ שליסט פּינסקער זײַן קאַפּיטל װעגן װאַרשע.
אין װין און בערלין זײַנען געצײלטע קאַפֿעען געװאָרן אַ מקום־מקלט פֿאַר ייִדישע אימיגראַנטן און פּליטים, װאָס זײַנען לרובֿ געקומען נאָך דער ערשטער װעלט־מלחמה. די דאָזיקע דײַטשיש–רעדנדיקע הױפּטשטעט האָבן צו יענער צײַט שױן געהאַט פֿאַרמאָגט אַ רײַכע קולטור פֿון ליטעראַרישע און קינסטלערישע קאַפֿעען. בײַ אַ סך ייִדישע ליטעראַטן זײַנען די קאַפֿעען געװאָרן „סטאַנציעס אױף דעם טראַנס־נאַציאָנאַלן זײַדן־װעג‟ פֿון עמיגראַציע, װאָס האָט זײ סוף־כּל–סוף געבראַכט קײן אַמעריקע אָדער ישׂראל. דערבײַ האָבן זײ מיטגעבראַכט שטיקלעך פֿון דער דאָזיקער קולטור מעבֿר־לים, קײן ניו־יאָרק און תּל־אָבֿיבֿ. די ניו־יאָרקער קאַפֿעען װערן געשילדערט אין דער אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור, װי למשל „שלומס קאַפֿע‟ אין דוד איגנאַטאָװס ראָמאַן „אין קעסלגרוב‟. איגנאַטאָװ שילדערט דעם דאָזיקן לאָקאַל װי אַן „אָרט פֿון קאָנפֿראָנטאַציע צװישן פֿאַרשידענע השׂגות װעגן דער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור‟. ניט װײניק הײסע סיכסוכים האָט מען דאָ געפֿירט אױך װעגן דער ראַדיקאַלער פּאָליטיק.
צום שלוס שרײַבט פּינסקער: „די שטאָטישע קאַפֿעען האָבן געדינט ניט נאָר װי צענטערס פֿון מיגראַנטישע קולטורעלע נעצװערק, אָבער אױך װי אַ מקום–מקלט פֿאַר הײמלאָזע מענטשן, פֿאַר קאָסמאָפּאָליטישער פֿילשפּראַכיקײט, װאָס איז געװען אין געפֿאַר פֿון צעשטערונג מצד די נאַציאָנאַליסטישע אידעאָלאָגיעס.‟ אָבער הײַנט, איז פּינסקער משער, שפּילן די קאַפֿען מער נישט אַזאַ חשובֿע קולטורעלע ראָלע. „פֿײסבוק‟ און אַנדערע װירטועלע לאָקאַלן האָבן איצט פֿאַרנומען זײער אָרט.
The post The cafe as a refuge of Jewish culture appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran Loses Contact With Palestinian Terror Proxies Amid US-Israel Strikes: Report
Smoke rises following an explosion, after Israel and the US launched strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 3, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The Israeli-American offensive targeting Iran’s military and security apparatus has led to a loss of communications between the Iranian regime and its Palestinian terrorist proxies, according to a new report.
Palestinian factions both in and outside of Gaza, especially Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have lost contact with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) since the US and Israel began launching large-scale strikes against Iran this past weekend, the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Tuesday.
It remains unclear whether the IRGC officials responsible for dealing with the Palestinian terrorist groups were killed in the strikes or are operating with special safety measures. However, sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Iranian commanders conveyed messages in different ways during last June’s 12-day war with Israel, indicating a disruption in reliable communication channels during the current conflict.
The US and Israel have killed dozens of top Iranian officials over the past few days of military action.
“Normally, messages are transmitted in encrypted ways, either electronically or in other ways. Since the beginning of this war, no messages have been received,” the Palestinian sources said.
Iran has long supported and expanded its regional network by providing financial and military assistance to its terrorist proxy groups, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, among others.
Palestinian factions — particularly Palestinian Islamic Jihad and smaller groups — have been facing a severe financial crisis for months amid a sharp decline in Iranian support, as Tehran grapples with mounting international sanctions and domestic crises that have constrained its ability to sustain funding, arming, and training for its terrorist networks.
Even prior to the Israeli-American strikes, Palestinian sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that they feared “the collapse of the Iranian regime, which would mean the end of support without return.”
The consequences are expected to be significant but less severe for Hamas, which has been ramping up efforts to rebuild its military capabilities and maintain tight control inside the Gaza Strip through a brutal crackdown on internal opposition, reflecting its broader network of support compared with Islamic Jihad and other smaller factions that remain heavily dependent on Iranian backing.
Uncategorized
Support for Israel, Trump Gaza Peace Plan Remains High Among US Voters, New Poll Finds
Pro-Israel rally in Times Square, New York City, US, Oct. 8, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
A new national survey suggests that American support for Israel remains resilient overall but with notable generational divides that could shape the future political landscape.
According to the February 2026 Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll, strong majorities of US registered voters back policies aligned with Israel’s security posture and express approval of President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict in Gaza. At the same time, the data shows that support for Israel fluctuates significantly depending on age.
Notably, the survey was conducted last week on Wednesday and Thursday, just before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran over the weekend.
Among respondents, 73 percent of voters say they support Trump’s Gaza deal framework. The proposal, aimed at restructuring governance and stabilizing post-war conditions in Gaza, commands bipartisan backing in the poll’s toplines.
The plan calls for the dismantling of Hamas’s military and political control, the establishment of an interim administrative authority backed by regional Arab partners, and a major internationally funded reconstruction effort. Trump has also emphasized expanding normalization between Israel and Arab states, building on the Abraham Accords, as a cornerstone of long-term stability, while maintaining Israel’s security oversight during a transitional period.
Voters appear to prioritize stability and deterrence, responding favorably to an approach framed around preventing Hamas from reasserting control and reinforcing Israel’s long-term security.
The poll shows that a clear majority of Americans continue to side with Israel over Hamas and support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, support levels vary considerably by age group.
Older voters, particularly those over 55, show the strongest pro-Israel sentiment, with large majorities backing Israel’s military actions and expressing sympathy with Israel over the Palestinians. Voters between 35 and 54 also lean pro-Israel, though by narrower margins.
The sharpest contrast appears among younger voters. Americans under 35 remain more divided, with significantly lower levels of sympathy toward Israel and greater skepticism about its military campaign in Gaza. While even in this group Israel retains meaningful support, the margins are slimmer and opposition more vocal.
The generational gap reflects broader cultural and media consumption differences, as well as the impact of campus activism and social media narratives. Yet the topline remains clear: despite softness among younger voters, Israel continues to command majority support nationwide.
Further, strong and stable majorities support Israel over the Hamas terrorist group. According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans support Israel over Hamas. However, support for Israel heavily fractures along age lines. Per the poll, 82 percent of those over 55 years old support Israel, compared to only 62 percent between the ages 35-44. However, a striking 58 percent of those between the ages 18-24 support Hamas over Israel, indicating a groundswell of backing for a foreign terrorist organization among American youth.
In the nearly two-and-a-half years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, support for the Jewish state has seen significant declines across political and age lines in the US. Younger Americans, particularly, have largely turned against Israel. The increasingly tense relationship between Israel and US voters has become a flashpoint in Democratic primaries, with liberal political hopefuls increasingly vowing not to accept support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group in the US.
The February poll was conducted among 1,999 registered voters, with a margin of error of ±2 percentage points.