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
White House Religious Liberty Panel Member Decries ‘Zionist Supremacy,’ Vows Not to Resign Despite Backlash
Carrie Prejean Boller speaks during a White House Religious Liberty Commission hearing on Feb. 9, 2026. Photo: Screenshot
Carrie Prejean Boller, a member of the White House Religious Liberty Commission, has vowed to combat so-called “Zionist supremacy” in the United States, sparking fresh outrage amid ongoing furor over her recent comments condemning the Jewish state and defending antisemitic podcaster Candace Owens.
“I will continue to stand against Zionist supremacy in America. I’m a proud Catholic. I, in no way will be forced to embrace Zionism as a fulfillment of biblical prophesy [sic]. I am a free American. Not a slave to a foreign nation,” Prejean Boller posted on the social media platform X on Tuesday.
Thank you all for the love and support I’ve received. I will continue to stand against Zionist supremacy in America. I’m a proud Catholic. I, in no way will be forced to embrace Zionism as a fulfillment of biblical prophesy. I am a free American. Not a slave to a foreign nation.
— Carrie Prejean Boller (@CarriePrejean1) February 10, 2026
The comments came on the heels of furor over Prejean Boller’s conduct during Monday’s hearing of the 13-member White House Religious Liberty Commission, which descended into a tense back-and-forth after she asked pointed questions about Israel’s policies and whether rejection of the Jewish state’s legitimacy should itself be labeled antisemitic.
The council was established by US President Donald Trump to examine religious freedom issues and was intended to focus on concrete challenges facing Jewish communities, including bias and harassment. Prejean Boller’s conduct, which included an impassioned defense of antisemitic personalities Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, and her peddling of unsubstantiated claims that Israel has intentionally starved and murdered Palestinian civilians, raised alarm bells among pro-Israel advocates.
“I would really appreciate it if you would stop calling Candace Owens an antisemite,” Prejean Boller said to Seth Dillon, CEO of the political satire site Babylon Bee, during the hearing. “She’s not an antisemite. She just doesn’t support Zionism, and that really has to stop. I don’t know why you keep bringing her up, and Tucker.”
Owens, one of the country’s most popular podcasters, has spent the past two years spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories on her platform. She has called Jews “pedophilic,” argued that they oppress and murder Christians, and asserted that they are responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Prejean Boller, a conservative activist and former Miss California, repeatedly pressed witnesses about Israel’s actions in Gaza and religious leaders on their views of Zionism, drawing audible boos from the audience and confusion from her colleagues. At one point she asked a Jewish activist if he would condemn Israel’s military response to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, despite the hearing’s official focus on domestic antisemitism. Prejean Boller also donned a Palestinian flag pin on the lapel of her suit, telegraphing her support for the anti-Israel ideological cause.
“Since we’ve mentioned Israel a total of 17 times, are you willing to condemn what Israel has done in Gaza?” Boller asked Jewish activist Shabbos Kestenbaum.
During the hearing, she also accused Rabbi Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, of Islamophobia after he declared that anti-Zionism — the belief that Israel does not have a right to exist —is an antisemitic ideology. Berman argued that attempts to delegitimize the existence of the world’s sole Jewish state, while showing ambivalence toward the existence of dozens of Muslim states, indicates anti-Jewish sentiment.
Panel members repeatedly stressed that American universities and communities must do more to confront bias and ensure Jewish students can live without fear of harassment.
Members of the commission expressed visible surprise at Prejean Boller’s line of questioning and repeated downplaying of antisemitism. Kestenbaum took aim at Prejean Boller after she asserted that the young activist had conflated antisemitism with harboring anti-Israel sentiment.
“She decided that this should be a debate on Israel’s conduct in Gaza, which I’m not entirely sure how that affects American students being discriminated against,” Kestenbaum said, “given that there are hundreds of millions of Catholics, including some who are on this commission, speaking at this commission today, who would vehemently disagree with such a grandiose assertion.”
Spectators suggested that the hearing also spotlighted deeper fissures within the conservative movement. Prejean Boller’s impassioned defense of Owens and Carlson, who have spent the past few years peddling anti-Israel conspiracies, suggest that their narratives may be penetrating deeper into the Republican base. The hearing also raised questions about the White House’s vetting process for the commission.
A recent analysis by the Jewish People Policy Institute found that both Carlson and Owens dramatically increased the volume and intensity of negative content about Israel in 2025, with Owens also incorporating explicit antisemitic language and conspiracy narratives, including accusations of disproportionate violence and undue influence over US policy into her commentary.
Carlson, the former Fox News host whose podcast remains influential among conservative audiences, has in recent years amplified fringe voices, including figures such as white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes. Carlson’s interviews have featured conspiratorial depictions of “Christian Zionists” as afflicted by a “brain virus,” and his platforming of extremists and Holocaust minimizers has drawn widespread condemnation from lawmakers and civil rights advocates across the ideological spectrum.
Some prominent conservative voices have demanded for Prejean Boller to resign or be removed from the commission, arguing that her views are counter to the mission of the initiative. Prejean Boller has repeatedly refused to relinquish her position, arguing that her Catholic faith does not allow for support of Israel and doing so would signal a surrender to “Zionist supremacy.”
However, conservative reporter and podcaster Laura Loomer stated that sources at the US State Department are pressing for the Trump administration to remove Prejean Boller from the panel.
“Carrie’s behavior is unacceptable and is not representative of the Trump administration’s values. We have asked the White House to take action,” Loomer posted on social media, attributing the quote to an unnamed State Department official.
Uncategorized
13-Year-Old Boy Brutally Assaulted in Paris in Second Antisemitic Attack in Less Than a Week
Tens of thousands of French people march in Paris to protest against antisemitism. Photo: Screenshot
In a shocking second antisemitic attack in less than a week, a 13-year-old boy in Paris was brutally beaten Monday by a knife-wielding assailant, prompting authorities to open a criminal investigation and step up security amid a rising tide of antisemitism.
On his way to a synagogue in Paris’s 18th arrondissement, the schoolboy was physically attacked by a group of five assailants who beat him, pressed a knife to his throat, called him a “dirty Jew,” and stole his belongings, the French news outlet Le Parisien reported.
According to the Paris prosecutor’s office, the victim was walking to a synagogue, clutching his kippah in his hand rather than wearing it for fear of being recognized, when five attackers confronted him; stole his AirPods, sneakers, and coat; and forced him to empty his pockets.
The boy also told authorities that he was shoved, punched in the face, and threatened with a knife to his throat before his attackers stole his belongings, shouting antisemitic remarks throughout the assault.
Local police have arrested and taken an 18-year-old suspect into custody after he was recognized during the assault by someone on a video call with the victim. The four other attackers remain at large as of this writing.
The prosecutor’s office has opened an investigation into armed robbery and armed violence, committed as a group and aggravated by discrimination, as authorities continue to work to identify and apprehend the remaining suspects.
This latest antisemitic attack marks the second such incident in less than a week, underscoring a growing climate of hostility as Jews and Israelis face a surge of targeted assaults.
Over the weekend, three Jewish men wearing kippahs were physically threatened with a knife and forced to flee after leaving their Shabbat services near the Trocadéro in southwest Paris’s 16th arrondissement, European Jewish Press reported.
As the victims were leaving a nearby synagogue and walking through the neighborhood, they noticed a man staring at them. The assailant then approached the group and repeatedly asked, “Are you Jews? Are you Israelis?”
When one of them replied “yes,” the man pulled a knife from his pocket and began threatening the group. The victims immediately ran and found police officers nearby. None of the victims were injured.
Like most countries across Europe and the broader Western world, France has seen a rise in antisemitic incidents over the last two years, in the wake of the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
According to the French Interior Ministry, the first six months of 2025 saw more than 640 antisemitic incidents, a 27.5 percent decline from the same period in 2024, but a 112.5 percent increase compared to the first half of 2023, before the Oct. 7 atrocities.
Last week, a Jewish primary school in eastern Paris was vandalized, with windows smashed and security equipment damaged, prompting a criminal investigation and renewed outrage among local Jewish leaders as targeted antisemitic attacks continued to escalate.
Uncategorized
Over 90% of American Jews Feel Less Safe After Recent Antisemitic Attacks, Survey Finds
A friend organized a vigil for Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, both Israeli embassy workers who were allegedly murdered by an anti-Israel activist, in Washington, DC on May 22, 2025. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Nearly all Jews in the United States feel less safe after a recent wave of antisemitic attacks, and the majority have changed their behavior over the last year as a result, according to a major new survey.
The American Jewish Committee (AJC) on Tuesday published its annual State of Antisemitism in America report, revealing a growing level of fear among American Jews — especially the 31 percent directly targeted by antisemitic hate themselves in the past year. Of those who reported being the target of antisemitism, 80 percent said they changed their behavior in response.
“We need Americans to wake up to the reality of what their Jewish neighbors are experiencing,” AJC CEO Ted Deutch said in a statement announcing the report.
The AJC’s researchers found that 91 percent of American Jews feel more unsafe in the country following last year’s antisemitic attacks against Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s residence in April and pro-Israel demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado in June, in addition to the slayings of Israeli embassy staffers Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky at the Capital Jewish Museum in May.
Seventy-eight percent of survey respondents said they feel less safe as a Jewish person in the US because of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of southern Israel. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists perpetrated the biggest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, killing 1,200 people and kidnapping 251 hostages.
“Right now, in America, when Jews gather, whether at synagogue or a community event, it’s routinely behind metal detectors and armed guards,” Deutch said. “No one in America should have to change their behavior because of what they believe, but that’s how most Jews are living their lives. What we’re asking for is what every other minority group expects in America: the freedom to be who we are without fearing for our safety.”
The report documents that 55 percent of Jewish respondents to the survey said they changed their behavior in response to fears of antisemitism, while 17 percent noted they have considered leaving the US in the past five years as a result of rising hate, an increase from 13 percent in 2024.
Majorities of American Jews are attuned to the threats of online hate and the dangers of the popular large language model (LLM) chatbots marketed as so-called “artificial intelligence,” including SpaceX’s Grok, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and Anthropic’s Claude.
Seventy-three percent of American Jews who were surveyed said they have experienced online antisemitism, and 65 percent expressed concerns at either the “very” or “somewhat” levels that LLM chatbots will spread more bigotry against Jews.
In addition, 69 percent of American Jews worry that information and misinformation from LLMs will inspire antisemitic incidents, according to the data.
More American Jews surveyed in 2025 said they saw antisemitism on social media platforms than those in 2024. Jews reporting seeing antisemitism on billionaire Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook social media website rose from 47 percent in 2024 to 54 percent last year, while those experiencing the hate on his Instagram photo-sharing app shot up from 32 percent to 40 percent.
American Jews seeking to enjoy online videos also reported rising bigotry targeting them on Alphabet’s YouTube (increasing from 27 percent to 38 percent) and Oracle’s TikTok (up from 18 percent to 23 percent).
The picture of life for younger American Jews is much more dire than for the middle-aged and elderly, with 47 percent of respondents 29 and younger saying antisemites had personally targeted them in the last year. This compares to 28 percent for Jews 30 and older.
The survey also affirms reports in recent years of increased antisemitism at the outposts of American academia.
Among Jewish college students, 42 percent said they experienced antisemitism while on campus, and 25 percent reported feeling or being excluded from a group or event because of their Jewish identity.
Jewish institutions remain widely under threat, with 28 percent of respondents saying that antisemites had targeted at least one synagogue, Jewish school, or community organization where they affiliated.
The survey also found that the protest slogan “globalize the intifada,” which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israelis and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand such violence, provokes fear among 88 percent of Jewish respondents, with 27 percent saying they would feel “very unsafe” hearing the words. Among the general public, only 13 percent of respondents said they knew the phrase while 32 percent had heard the similar controversial war cry “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
More Americans (73 percent) knew the “Free Palestine” chant. The AJC noted that the alleged killer of Milgrim and Lischinsky “is reported to have shouted ‘Free Palestine’ during the shooting. The alleged attacker in Boulder is also reported to have yelled ‘Free Palestine’ as he threw a Molotov cocktail at the crowd of people gathered to support hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, ultimately leading to the death of 82-year-old Karen Diamond.”
In a parallel survey the AJC conducted of the American general public, researchers found that 70 percent of respondents called antisemitism a problem, 63 percent said it had increased since Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, and 45 percent had seen or heard an antisemitic incident in the last 12 months.
Deutch on Tuesday highlighted some of the key findings in an op-ed published by the New York Post announcing the report.
“Among Americans who know a Jewish person, only 54 percent said they had personally seen or heard one or more antisemitic incidents in the last year,” Deutch wrote. “Among those who don’t know any Jews? Thirty-two percent.”
Deutch continued, “I am not advocating for special attention or treatment for my community. I’m calling for, rather, the same care, awareness, and collective outrage we would rightly see if these daily assaults were being made against members of any other religious or ethnic group in the United States.” He warned that “the fortress of metal detectors and bulletproof glass we’ve built around the Jewish community is a physical sign of the deep cracks undermining the foundation of our society.”
Holly Huffnagle, the AJC’s director of antisemitism policy, warned in a statement that tolerating the spread of antisemitism “corrodes social trust, legitimizes extremism, and weakens the democratic institutions that protect everyone, making a clear, dedicated government response not just optional, but necessary.”
The AJC’s survey took place between Sept. 26 and Oct. 29, 2025. Researchers drew data from responses provided by 1,222 Jews, ages 18 and up, as well as 1,033 adults in the general population. The margin of error for Jewish respondents was +/-3.7 percent while for the general population it was 3.4, at a 95 percent confidence level.