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
At Jewish Republican summit, GOP casts midterms as a battle against DSA
(JTA) — LAS VEGAS – Speakers at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual convention at the Venetian Resort cast the upcoming midterm elections as a battle against not just the Democratic Party, but specifically its left-wing Democratic Socialists of America faction.
“A Democrat majority in November is not just a political setback for our party and our movement, it is a direct threat to the Jewish community,” said Joe Gruters, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “The people in charge would not be moderate Democrats who have occasionally pushed back on antisemitism. It would be the Squad. It would be the DSA.”
Ed Gallrein, the farmer and former Navy SEAL who defeated Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in a Republican primary back in May, said that “radical socialism sentiment is gaining ground across our nation,” calling November’s elections a battle between “the Constitution versus the Communist Manifesto.”
Georgia Rep. Mike Collins, who is challenging Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, accused the Jewish senator of using November’s election as a springboard to run for president in 2028 as “the DSA candidate.” (Ossoff has repeatedly denied having interest in running for president. He is also neither a DSA member, nor has he been endorsed by the group.)
Even the WiFi password for the Vegas confab — “DSA=AntiUSA” — offered a rejection of the group.
The RJC’s summit comes after a string of victories by DSA members and DSA-backed candidates in Democratic primaries across the country, sparking criticism from Republicans and moderate Democrats who oppose tenets of the group’s left-wing ideology, including its anti-Zionist stance.
The total number of House members endorsed by a DSA chapter could rise from two to seven, depending on how November shakes out, in addition to candidates in downballot races. Though there are 212 Democrats in the House, Republican officials on Sunday and Monday painted the Democratic party as one that is ceding control to the DSA.
China, Russia and Iran, Gallrein said, are hoping that “Democrats controlled by the DSA take the House and the Senate, and that they can exploit and divide America.”
Speakers panned other DSA-backed politicians such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, as well as the streamer Hasan Piker, who has fundraised for numerous DSA-endorsed candidates.
Florida Rep. Randy Fine specifically attacked Muslim politicians in the Democratic party, saying he was addressing “the elephant in the room.” He was among the speakers to say that there are anti-Israel and antisemitic voices on both ends of the political spectrum. The difference, he said, is that Republicans “repudiate this evil” with actions like voting out Kentucky’s anti-Israel congressman Massie, while Democrats elect anti-Israel candidates.
Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News personality who has spread antisemitic conspiracy theories in recent years, was repudiated by the RJC and also cast aside by the party’s leader, President Donald Trump. Trump’s second-in-command JD Vance, however, has made no such condemnation, to the chagrin of many Jewish Republicans.
With Vance set to speak at the RJC’s summit on Monday night, multiple Jewish Democratic groups blasted the RJC for hosting him, particularly in a session that is closed to the press.
“JD Vance may be speaking behind closed doors, but he should not be able to avoid questions about his attacks on Israel, his failure to confront antisemitism within the MAGA movement, and his continued alliance with Tucker Carlson,” said Brian Romick, president and CEO of Democratic Majority for Israel, in a statement.
“What’s next, a live taping with Tucker Carlson on the main stage?” the Jewish Democratic Council of America wrote.
In a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the JDCA’s CEO Halie Soifer said, “The RJC may choose to highlight the less than ten DSA candidates on the ballot in November for their own cynical political purposes, but Jewish voters see past their deflection and lies, just as they see the Republican Party for what it is — the party of Donald Trump.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post At Jewish Republican summit, GOP casts midterms as a battle against DSA appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel and Greece ink defense deal to protect against regional threats
(JTA) — Israel and Greece finalized on Monday a $3.5 billion deal providing the Hellenic Republic with a multilayered antimissile system designed to protect the European Union country against aerial attacks from nations such as Iran and Turkey. It is one of the largest defense export deals in the history of the Jewish state.
The two countries “share common strategic interests and face shared regional challenges,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a press statement sent out after the deal was signed at Tel Aviv’s Ministry of Defense.
Called the “Achilles Shield,” the agreement was inked by the General Director of the General Directorate for Defense Investments and Armaments of Greece, Maj. Gen. Ioannis Bouras, and Israel’s Ministry of Defense Director-General reserve Maj. Gen. Amir Baram.
“At a time when actors with hegemonic ambitions are seeking to expand their influence and undermine stability in the region, Israel and Greece will continue to deepen their defense and strategic cooperation, and will act with determination to preserve stability and safeguard their security and shared interests.” Katz said.
Katz didn’t name Iran or Turkey in his remarks, but it was widely understood that the two countries pose regional concerns for both countries. Turkey and Greece are not just neighbors but historic enemies with several current disputes. As Israel’s relationship with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has deteriorated, Jerusalem and Greece have drawn closer in an effort to counterbalance Turkey’s growing power.
At the same time, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israel multiple times since 2024. Greece has not been under Iranian fire, but Tehran has threatened to attack European countries. Greece hosts a U.S. naval base and is among those European countries that are closer to Iran.
The agreement isthe “largest defense export deal in the history of Israel-Greece relations, and one of the largest in the history” of the country, Israel’s Defense Ministry noted.
The multilayered system Israel will build for Greece will mark the first time that it provides a country with a system that can combat a wide array of threats from ballistic missiles to drones, the ministry explained.
Among the systems included in the “Achilles Shield” architecture are David’s Sling, SPYDER, BARAK MX and MMR multi-mission radars for air surveillance.
The two countries on Monday also signed a supplementary deal valued at $30.2 million for the sale of the Israeli company Rafael’s Drone Dome systems.
Chairman of Israel Aerospace Industries Boaz Levy said during the recent fighting with Iran that Israel’s aerial defense systems had shown they could intercept “a range of threats, chief among them exoatmospheric ballistic missiles.” The same systems that defended Israel could also be used to help allies in Europe, Levy explained.
“We are proud to take part in the important ‘Achilles Shield’ project, and will continue to be key partners in additional projects in Greece and around the world, as we develop and build the next generation of defense technologies,” he added.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Israel and Greece ink defense deal to protect against regional threats appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
He was a privileged Jewish kid from NYC’s Upper East Side. Donald Trump was his greatest invention.
American Scoundrel: Roy Cohn’s Dark Journey from Joe McCarthy to Donald Trump
By Kai Bird with Susan Goldmark
Scribner, $32, 528 pages
By the beginning of the new millennium, Roy Cohn, the red-baiting scourge of the McCarthy hearings, lived largely in the pages of U.S. history books, trotted out on occasion to illustrate how America always manages to overcome its worst nativist impulses. But just in case someone never knew or had forgotten about Cohn’s malign influence on U.S. politics, Tony Kushner brought him back as a villain in his brilliant drama of the early 1990s, Angels in America.
Then, in 2016, Donald Trump was elected president and suddenly, Cohn was breaking news again. The very next year, when Trump was furious at then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from an investigation into whether Russia meddled with the election, the president cried out to his advisers, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?”
Now, as if in answer to that question, Kai Bird has written a magisterial biography of the notorious lawyer and Trump whisperer that is indispensable reading for anyone who wants to understand the current political moment. Bird, the co-author of American Prometheus, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Robert J. Oppenheimer and inspiration for the Oscar-winning movie, began it in 2022, a couple years before Trump’s re-election. He collaborated with his wife, Susan Goldmark, who did the research for this riveting account of the unseemly, outrageous life of the hustler and con man about whom Trump once said, “If you need somebody to get vicious, hire Roy Cohn.”
Though Cohn has been long gone from public life — he died of AIDS at age 59 in 1986, insisting to the very end that he had succumbed to liver cancer — Bird demonstrates how he practically invented the dark political arts of resentment and division adopted by his former client, protégé and future president of the U.S.
Indeed, over the recent 4th of July weekend — decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union — Trump used Cohn’s divisive, inflammatory rhetoric in back-to-back speeches, including one at Mount Rushmore, branding his political opponents as evil, godless communists.
Bird walks us through Cohn’s life decade by decade. He grew up as an only child in a wealthy Jewish family on the Upper East Side and attended elite private schools, where his boyhood friends included Si Newhouse Jr., heir to the Condé Nast media empire, Gene Pope Jr., who would go on to found the National Enquirer, and, improbably, Al Lowenstein, later a well-known liberal Democratic activist and politician.
After Cohn graduated from Columbia Law School, his father, a judge, pulled strings to get him a job in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, where he made a name for himself as the boy prosecutor who sent Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to the electric chair in 1953 for passing nuclear secrets to the Soviets. His tactics were highly irregular, including private meetings with the trial judge.
Not long after that, he went to work as chief counsel to Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy, using his position to force U.S.-funded libraries abroad to purge 30,000 books on the flimsy pretext that the authors were communists or Soviet sympathizers. He was also a central figure in the so-called Lavender Scare, when hundreds of federal employees thought to be gay lost their jobs because they were deemed a security risk.
By the 1960s, Cohn was back in New York, hanging out at the Stork Club and 21, squiring Barbara Walters around town, and representing mobsters though still living at home with his mother at 1165 Park Avenue. Over the next decade he would be indicted three times by U.S. Attorney Robert Morgenthau Jr. for bribery, perjury, extortion and other white-collar crimes. In each case, he managed to beat the rap though months before his death he was finally disbarred for unethical conduct.
After Cohn’s mother died in 1967, he moved into a stately townhouse on East 68th Street, where he established his law practice and stopped the pretense of dating women though he never publicly came out as gay. Then, in 1973, Cohn met his most consequential client. At the time, Trump was the 27-year-old son of a Queens real estate mogul trying to break into the Manhattan market and living in a rent-controlled studio on East 75th Street with a view of a water tank on an adjacent building.
Cohn advised the family on how to fight a Justice Department lawsuit accusing the real estate company of violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to Black tenants. Over the course of the litigation, Cohn taught Trump his signature moves: Keep your name in the paper. Never settle. Countersue. Claim victory. Don’t pay the bills.
Cohn also advised Trump on his first major real estate deal in Manhattan — buying the dilapidated Commodore Hotel on East 42nd Street, next to Grand Central Terminal. To get the deal done, Cohn worked his extensive connections to New York’s first Jewish mayor, Abraham Beame, a player in Democratic machine politics and an old friend of Cohn’s father.
For more than a decade, Trump continued to model himself after his mentor, adopting his penchant for personalized license plates and his snarling, scowling demeanor. Bird argues that in the decades since Cohn died, the McCarthyism of the 1950s has morphed into a nativist, America Firster politics that transformed the Republican Party into one of resentments against the old establishment, multiculturalism, globalization and liberal culture — in other words, the MAGA movement of today.
Cohn’s “values, his unethical behavior, and his political mindset have survived and replaced the values of the establishment he so resented,” Bird writes. “Perhaps his life is proof of the ability of one individual to change the arc of history. Certainly, he gave us the narcissistic politics of Donald Trump.”
The post He was a privileged Jewish kid from NYC’s Upper East Side. Donald Trump was his greatest invention. appeared first on The Forward.
