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
Jewish leaders escalate concerns about unclear political conditions on federal security grants
(JTA) — The federal government distributes hundreds of millions of dollars each year to houses of worship to protect them from violent attacks, such as the synagogue arson in Jackson, Mississippi, last month or the car ramming at the Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn last week.
But would a synagogue that declares itself a sanctuary for refugees — and refuses to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement — be eligible for that funding under the Trump administration? What about a congregation that runs afoul of the administration’s anti-DEI push by offering programs aimed at making Jews of color, Jews with disabilities or LGBTQ Jews feel more welcome?
After more than six months of inquiries by Jewish organizations and members of Congress, the answer remains unclear: The federal government has not provided a definitive explanation of what conditions will apply to the funding. With the application deadline now passed, congregations that applied despite the uncertainty are waiting to find out whether they will receive an award.
“We are facing real threats against our communities,” Amy Spitalnick, the CEO, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said in a statement. “Yet — as we’ve been warning for months — we’re now seeing this vital program thrown into chaos and politicized in dangerous ways — from the delayed rollout, to confusing and contradictory guidance, to new conditions that force communities to choose between their values and their security.”
The latest effort to keep the security funding untethered from ideological or political conditions came Thursday in a letter signed by a bipartisan group of members of Congress set to be sent to Kristi Noem, the U.S. secretary of homeland security, who oversees the program.
The letter was organized by Jewish Federations of North America, which for the first time is publicly calling to remove the conditions.
In the letter, lawmakers urge DHS to keep the Nonprofit Security Grant Program focused on its core purpose and free of unrelated policy requirements.
“In this time of rising antisemitic terror attacks and violence against diverse faith-based institutions, we believe it is crucial that NSGP remains a critical resource for all who seek to worship in safety and free from partisan politicization,” the letter says.
According to Eric Fingerhut, JFNA’s president and CEO, some Jewish institutions decided not to apply for the funding this year, though there is no estimate of how many.
“We continue to encourage every Jewish institution with heightened security needs to apply for these funds,” said in a statement. “We have also heard from our community that the current terms and conditions have had the unintended effect of deterring some organizations from applying, which is why we believe they should be updated appropriately.”
The letter follows a more forceful appeal sent last month by members of the Congressional Jewish Caucus — which is composed entirely of Democrats — organized by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. That letter raised similar concerns about political and ideological conditions being attached to the grants.
The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to the Congressional Jewish Caucus letter has not answered requests for comment from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency since August.
Created more than 20 years ago, the program provides grants to nonprofits deemed at high risk of terrorism or extremist violence, helping them pay for “target hardening” and other physical security upgrades. Eligible expenses typically include cameras, access controls, alarms, locks and protective barriers. Congress allocated $274.5 million in each of the last two years and raised funding to $300 million for 2026. In 2024, lawmakers also approved a one-time $400 million infusion to address a surge in threats against houses of worship and nonprofit organizations following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.
Demand has far outpaced available funding. In 2024, roughly 7,600 applicants sought nearly $1 billion in grants, and only 43% were approved. Jewish institutions have historically comprised a significant share of the recipients.
When the federal nonprofit security grants were first proposed in 2004, they triggered a sharp debate inside the Jewish community: the Union for Reform Judaism, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee opposed the idea on church-state grounds, warning that direct federal support for houses of worship risked crossing a constitutional line.
That argument was echoed by prominent Jewish lawmakers during Senate consideration of the “High-Risk Non-Profit Security Enhancement Act.” Sen. Carl Levin backed an amendment to bar aid for security improvements to houses of worship, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg argued that even with safeguards, federal funding for religious sites “crossed a line,” citing a letter from Reform and Reconstructionist leaders that said such aid “seriously weakens the wall separating church and state.”
Over time, however, particularly as threats against Jewish institutions intensified, opposition within the Jewish community largely subsided. For many, the urgent need to protect lives outweighed earlier worries. The program was increasingly described by Jewish leaders and lawmakers as a rare bipartisan success: a lifesaving initiative that strengthened security at synagogues and other institutions without leading to government interference in religious affairs.
That consensus began to fray last year under the Trump administration, which introduced new grant terms that Jewish groups say extend beyond security into matters of values and policy.
The revised rules require grant recipients to make broad certifications related to immigration enforcement and diversity practices, prompting concerns that synagogues could risk losing funding for declaring themselves sanctuaries, declining to cooperate with immigration authorities, or offering inclusion-focused programming.
In August, an open letter signed by faith-based groups criticized the revised grant conditions and urged organizations to reconsider participation in the program as long as the conditions are in place.
“We are unified in refusing to capitulate to conditions that would require us to sacrifice the safety and dignity of our community members, neighbors, and partners in order to receive funding,” the letter said.
Signatories included progressive Jewish advocacy groups such as Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice and, Jewish Voice for Peace, as well as congregations such as Kolot Chayeinu in Brooklyn, Kehilla Community Synagogue in Oakland, and Temple Beth El in Stamford, Connecticut.
Groups like JFNA and JCPA that have long championed the program took a different tack. They advised Jewish institutions and congregations to apply for funding while they worked behind the scenes to push for changes, noting that if the conditions were still in place when grants were offered, applicants could then decline the money.
In November, DHS told JCPA that the immigration cooperation requirements do not apply to nonprofit security grants, though the official funding notice has not been revised to reflect the change and the applications nevertheless required applicants to disclose whether their work or mission involves supporting immigrants. Language barring what the administration defines as “illegal DEIA” activities remains in effect.
The uncertainty is underscored by a government FAQ that asks whether accepting nonprofit security grant funding could allow the federal government to impose restrictions “in any other area of policy that may contradict the religious and/or other beliefs” of a recipient. Rather than offering a clear answer, the guidance advises applicants to consult legal counsel — a response advocates have flagged as concerning.
A related dispute is also unfolding in federal court. In October, a judge in Rhode Island ruled in Illinois et al. v. FEMA that the Trump administration could not require states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement as a condition of receiving certain homeland security grants, ordering those requirements stripped from grant agreements.
But a subsequent DHS memo notes that the ruling applies only to the 21 states and jurisdictions that sued, and that the administration will reinstate the conditions if it prevails on appeal.
The post Jewish leaders escalate concerns about unclear political conditions on federal security grants appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jews who support Israel often do not identify as ‘Zionists,’ new JFNA survey finds
(JTA) — Only one-third of American Jews say they identify as Zionist, even as nearly nine in 10 say they support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and Democratic state, according to a new survey conducted by Jewish Federations of North America.
The findings of the survey reveal that American Jews do not have a mutually agreed-upon definition of Zionism — with those identifying as anti-Zionist and those identifying as Zionist ascribing sharply different meanings to the term.
For example, about 80% of anti-Zionist Jews say “supporting whatever actions Israel takes” is a tenet of Zionism, while only about 15% of self-identified Zionists share the belief, according to the survey.
The survey marks the most detailed assessment of the sentiments of American Jews about Zionism by a major Jewish organization in the United States, finding that 14% of Jews ages 18 to 34 identify as anti-Zionist and that the only demographic with a majority of self-identified Zionists was Millennials between 35 and 44.
The survey comes as tensions following the Oct. 7 attack, Israel’s war in Gaza and the election of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have put a sustained spotlight on the tenor of American Jewish support for Israel — and divided Jewish communities.
The divisions, JFNA is concluding based on the data, are real but often overstated — a matter of concern as Jewish communities and institutions decide whether and how to engage with Jewish critics of Israel.
“If we misread the trend about ‘Zionism’ to mean that large numbers of Jews, especially young Jews, are turning against the existence of Israel itself, we will draw the wrong conclusions and take the wrong actions,” Mimi Kravetz, JFNA’s chief impact officer, wrote in an essay about the survey’s findings. “We risk responding with anger when the moment calls for steady leadership, pulling away when the moment calls for connection, and defensiveness when the moment calls for listening and understanding.”
Kravetz’s comments add JFNA, the umbrella organization of hundreds of local Jewish federations in the United States and Canada, to an emerging group of Jewish leaders calling to open dialogue with Jews who have recently taken stands against Israel or in support of its opponents. JFNA would continue to define itself as Zionist, Kravetz noted, “in large part because we adhere to the historic definition,” but she conceded that the term had undergone “definition creep.”
Conducted in March 2025 by the research firm Burson, the survey posed a variety of questions to more than 1,800 Jewish and more than 4,100 total respondents about their relationship to Israel and Zionism, as well as about their beliefs about the definition of Zionism.
It was new territory for studies of American Jews. While a major 2021 survey of American Jews by the Pew Research Center had polled Jews on their relationship to Israel, that survey had avoided the use of the word “Zionism.” Other major Jewish groups that conduct population surveys have in the past typically avoided closely interrogating Jewish opinions about Zionism. JFNA’s venture into this territory came as part of the umbrella group’s series of post-Oct. 7 Jewish trend studies, which have also revealed what the group has termed a “surge” of Jewish engagement.
Overall, more than 70% of Jewish adults who responded to JFNA’s survey agreed that “I feel emotionally attached to Israel,” and 60% said Israel made them proud to be Jewish. At the same time, nearly 70% also agreed that “I sometimes find it hard to support actions taken by Israel or its government.”
One of the survey’s big sticking points emerged around self-identified Zionists. Only 37% of Jews surveyed said they identified as Zionist, while 7% labeled themselves anti-Zionist and another 8% said they were non-Zionist. Another 18% said they weren’t sure, while 30% said none of the labels described them.
At the same time, 88% of surveyed Jews believed that “Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish, Democratic state” — traditionally one of the most historically accepted definitions of Zionism. Seven percent of Jews disagreed with that sentiment, equal to the number who consider themselves anti-Zionist.
Respondents were also quizzed on what views they believed constituted “a part of Zionist beliefs.” Among Jews, 36% said Zionism only meant “the right of the Jewish people to have a Jewish state.” More than one in four Jewish respondents said they thought Zionists were expected to be “supporting whatever action Israel takes,” and 35% said Zionism meant “believing Israel has a right to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
Smaller numbers of Jews indicated that they thought “believing Palestinians are a made-up population” and “believing Jews are superior to Palestinians” were also core Zionist tenets.
To Kravetz, these results indicate that some Jews “are not rejecting Israel’s existence or the idea of a Jewish state. They are reacting to an understanding of Zionism that includes policies, ideologies, and actions that they oppose, and do not want to be associated with.”
That is especially true for younger Jews, according to the survey, which shows stark differences along age lines. Less than half of Jews under 44 agreed that “in general, Israel makes me feel proud to be Jewish.” The lowest share of Jews who agreed that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and Democratic state came from the same age group — though even then about three in four, a sizable majority, agreed with the statement.
Uneasiness in describing oneself as Zionist held true across nearly every age range, with only around 35% of Jews in most demographics using the term to describe themselves.
Of the Jewish respondents, 37% were Reform, 17% were Conservative, 9% were Orthodox and 30% identified as other or as no particular denomination. Survey results shared with JTA broke down respondents by age range, but not by other factors such as denomination; individuals were randomly assigned to receive certain questions.
The debate over Zionism remains fraught. The last few years have seen increased demonization of “Zionists,” alongside shifting definitions of the term, among progressives and far-right figures on social media and college campuses. At the same time, new advocacy groups like The Jewish Majority and the Movement Against Antizionism have called for shunning those expressing anti-Zionist or anti-Israel sentiment from Judaism’s big tent.
Still, more Jewish researchers are looking to better understand the intra-Jewish divide over Zionism and the various ways Jews understand the term.
For The Sake of Argument, an organization that promotes “healthy arguments” and works with several mainstream Jewish groups including JFNA, recently undertook its own interview series with Jewish anti-Zionists. Co-directors Robbie Gringas and Abi Dauber Sterne plan to soon publish findings from their conversations with about 30 participants.
“It’s great that people are starting to talk about the elephant in the room,” Gringas told JTA from Israel. “We, the Jewish world, don’t yet know what to do with this. And in the meantime, we have to find a way to not break each other’s hearts as much as we have been.”
The pair’s main takeaway from their interviews, Gringas said, was that Jewish anti-Zionists were “sad, if not brokenhearted, about the ways in which they not only find no expression for their Judaism, but also find the Judaism that they’re meeting very challenging.” He added, “The people we met were very knowledgeable about Israel and about Judaism. They were rich human beings.”
The fact that more institutional Jewish groups are interested in learning about what motivates Jewish anti-Zionism is a positive step, Gringas said, adding that it fits the current challenges of the Jewish moment.
“We need to recognize that the world’s changed. We’re in a different time,” he said. “We’re not in a transition. We’re in a rupture. And we need to confront it and think about it carefully.”
The post Jews who support Israel often do not identify as ‘Zionists,’ new JFNA survey finds appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Palestine Action activists acquitted in Israeli defense firm break-in, drawing criticism from British Jewish leaders
(JTA) — A British jury has acquitted six activists from the British group Palestine Action who were charged with breaking into the U.K. site of an Israeli defense company, eliciting criticism from British Jewish groups and leaders.
The defendants — Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31 — were accused of driving a prison van into Elbit Systems’ factory, an Israeli-based military technology company, on Aug. 6, 2024, and causing damage to the building’s property and using sledgehammers as weapons.
After deliberating for 36 hours and 34 minutes, the jury said on Wednesday that it was unable to reach verdicts for criminal damage charges against all six defendants.
The jury was also unable to reach a verdict for charges faced by Corner, who was accused of causing grievous bodily harm with intent for hitting a police sergeant with a sledgehammer.
The incident took place nearly a year before the defendants’ organization, Palestine Action, was banned under the Terrorism Act in July after its activists broke into a Royal Air Force base and spray-painted two planes to protest Britain’s support for Israel. Now, people expressing support for Palestine Action or participating in its activism can be charged with terrorism.
The ruling drew praise from some British lawmakers and the Irish rap group Kneecap, whose member was charged under the Terrorism Act in May for displaying a Hezbollah flag at a concert in London last year.
But Jewish groups and figures in the United Kingdom lamented the acquittal.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the largest Jewish organization in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it was “concerned by the troubling verdicts acquitting members of Palestine Action.” Alleging that the group had targeted “businesses linked to the Jewish community in London and Manchester,” the group called for a retrial on the charges in which the jury did not reach a verdict.
“While it is important to respect the integrity of the judicial process, there is a serious danger of perverse justifications being used as a shield for criminality,” the statement continued. “It cannot be the case that those who commit serious criminal acts, including violent assaults, are able to evade the consequences of their actions.”
In an op-ed published in The Telegraph titled “The Palestine Action acquittals are telling British Jews they have no future here,” former Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard argued that “the message of the case is this: you can smash the spine of a police officer and so long as you are doing it because of ‘Palestine’, you can walk home free.”
“That decision, I believe, may come to be seen as the single most significant case in the history of Anglo-Jewry since 1945,” continued Pollard. “It shows that the game is up. We can no longer rely on the criminal justice system. And when the law is no longer there to protect us, who or what will?”
The post Palestine Action activists acquitted in Israeli defense firm break-in, drawing criticism from British Jewish leaders appeared first on The Forward.