Uncategorized
How Philip Roth invented a myth called ‘Philip Roth’
Steven J. Zipperstein set to work on his own biography of Philip Roth before anyone knew that Roth’s authorized biography would be pulled from shelves after accusations of sexual misconduct by its author, Blake Bailey. Zipperstein and I first spoke when he was wrapping up his draft. He was pondering Roth’s legacy. He wanted to discuss a Roth-like character I had put in my novel, How I Won a Nobel Prize, in part because he was surprised to discover a younger writer riffing on Roth so openly.
Zipperstein’s book, Philip Roth: Stung By Life, which is part of Yale’s Jewish Lives series, distinguishes itself with an approach that focuses more on Roth’s intellectual and artistic development than on a comprehensive reconstruction of his sexual history. Though Roth was devoutly anti-religious, Jewishness is a major theme that provides a surprisingly sturdy handle with which to grasp the family ties and cultural traditions that remained Roth’s persistent obsessions on the page, even as he resisted them in life.
Zipperstein, who is a professor of Jewish history and culture at Stanford, delivers an admiring, thorough, and swift account of an immensely single-minded writer’s unabating struggles with ambition, romance and the politics of his time. The book also has some fascinating scoops‚ major interviews and materials to which Zipperstein alone had access. We had a lot to talk about, and this interview has been compressed for length and clarity.
Julius Taranto: Start with the obvious: Why did you devote so much time and thought to a Philip Roth biography when there were rival biographical efforts that you could not have known would go up in flames?
Steven Zipperstein: Roth first reached out to me after I published my book, Rosenfeld’s Lives, and we were in touch intermittently for years. I was persuaded that there was really a book to be written, that I could actually do something new, when I discovered the Yeshiva University tape and came to realize the vast discrepancy between what Roth actually experienced and what he believed he experienced and then recorded on the page.
The Yeshiva University tape is one of one of several remarkable bits of journalism on your part, unraveling a remarkable bit of self-mythologizing on Roth’s part.
As part of its 75th anniversary celebration in 1962, Yeshiva University sponsored a panel about the ethnic responsibilities of a writer. Roth, who had at this point published only Goodbye, Columbus, was a featured speaker alongside Ralph Ellison. What Roth remembers — he devotes an entire chapter to this incident in his memoir — is that it was an inquisition, the audience hated him. As a result he decided he wasn’t going to write about Jews anymore and devoted three excruciating years to his next novel in which there are no Jews, and it’s a defining moment in his life.
I learned that the event was taped. Roth had threatened the university with a lawsuit if it was published or aired, but he agreed to give me access. By the time I acquired it, Roth was already dying in the hospital, so the last conversation I had with him was about this tape. It contradicts his memory in every conceivable way. The audience loved him and laughed at his jokes. Those who disliked him rushed to the stage once the program ended. And their criticism was all that he recalled.
I now see Roth’s purported rejection by the Jewish mainstream as a tale he invented (and earnestly believed) in order to justify his preexisting sense of rage and alienation.
Rage was a crucial factor in Roth’s fiction from the beginning. One of the people who contacted me, partly because of the implosion of Blake Bailey’s biography, and because of the apparent difference between my life and Blake’s, was Maxine Groffsky, who hadn’t spoken to anyone before about her relationship with Roth. They’d dated for years, and she was in many ways the model for Brenda Patimkin, the girlfriend in Goodbye, Columbus. But, at least as I was able to reconstruct it, Maxine was little like Brenda Patimkin.
She wasn’t rich or high status, and Roth was never especially subservient to her, the way Neil Klugman is to Brenda.
Still, in fiction Roth gives us Brenda Patimkin. That’s a projection of his rage and ambition.
Where do you think that came from?
I wrestled in the book not to be reductionist. I try to suggest that to understand Roth, you really need to understand the interplay between Roth and mother. Her fastidiousness was through the roof. Roth and his brother Sandy wouldn’t even use the bathrooms in friends’ houses because none were as clean as theirs. That’s a category of a very special kind. It’s a feature of Roth’s life from the outset to figure out what it means for him to really want to satisfy her and at the same time to be aware of what Benjamin Taylor calls his “inner anarchy.”
Mickey Sabbath – a rageful, overweight, unkempt, disgraced, perverted puppeteer – seems like the character through which Roth expressed his “inner anarchy” in its least-filtered form.
This man who engages in daily exercise, who’s trim, who’s incredibly disciplined in his work habits: Mickey Sabbath is what he imagines he is on the inside. In Sabbath’s Theater, he’s undressing himself. He’s allowing the reader to come closer to all that he fears he could be, the person who he knows exists and that he keeps hidden. It’s a book very much in conversation with Maletta Pfeiffer.
They had an on-and-off affair for more than twenty years, and she’s the model for Drenka in Sabbath’s Theater.
I think Maletta more than anyone else becomes privy to Roth’s secrets because he’s convinced that he’s met someone who has an all but identical attitude toward life, towards sensuality and sexuality, and who for the longest time he greatly admires.
But he’s wrong, isn’t he? You spent time with Maletta, and she showed you her diaries and her unsent emails to Roth — documents she never showed to any other biographer or journalist. I’m going to quote from your book, because I think this has real importance for how we interpret the portrait of mutual sexual ecstasy in Sabbath’s Theater. In one of her draft emails in 1995, Maletta wrote: “All the things you did to me. You made me go and talk to whores. . . . That never excited me. I just did it to please you. . . . I never liked it. All the things I did with you. I cannot even write about them. What you put in the book.” It’s quite dark to reconsider Sabbath’s Theater with the understanding that the model for Drenka was often not as enthusiastic as Roth believed her to be.
In contrast to the accusations against Blake Bailey, there’s no evidence of any coercive behavior on Roth’s part in his sexual life – but it’s clear that his sense of Maletta was, I think, not altogether accurate.
She’s romanticized, both in fiction and in Roth’s mind. This relates to a theme that I picked up on in your description of the arc of his career. Alongside his ambivalent relationship to Jewishness and family life, there is a parallel ambivalence between sentimentality and irony. Early in his career, he is so critical of Jewish sentimentalists like Leon Uris and Herman Wouk. But he has his own version of sentimentality emerge later in his career, particularly in American Pastoral and The Plot Against America. He becomes nostalgic for his parents’ world, for FDR, for the sense of moral security that he imagines they had.
He wrestled with nostalgia. He hated nostalgia, and he hated the strengths of family life. He is seeking his whole life to be extraordinary. But he also fantasizes, overtly in Portnoy’s Complaint, about the joy of not needing to strive, the joy of being mediocre. Roth deeply admires his father and wishes on some level that he was like him but also knows in every orb of his body that he wouldn’t actually want to be like him, committed and monogamous and dutiful. He writes from that ambivalence time and time again. And I think, as I suggest in the book, that’s why Zuckerman is the stand-in that stays with Roth, in a contrast to Kepesh, who is more one-sided and selfish and disposable.
I sensed your special affection for The Ghost Writer. Its portrait of writing within domesticity is extraordinarily well-rounded. Perhaps in response to criticism from Irving Howe, Roth maintains a balance in The Ghost Writer that he wasn’t trying to maintain in other works. And you argue, persuasively, that Lonoff is not really a portrait of Bernard Malamud, as is commonly thought, but is much more profoundly Roth’s projection of his own future.
Roth worked assiduously against balance and proportion in many of his other books. Zuckerman inhabits Roth’s ambivalence, and Lonoff represents a future that Roth doesn’t want. Roth fears obscurity. He doesn’t want a body like Lonoff’s, but he fears down deep that this actually might end up being his body. That Hope might end up being his wife. He’s able to face his own terror, in this book and others, in ways that I find extraordinary, especially since beyond his writing desk he doesn’t manage that nearly as successfully.
You surface Roth’s notion that politics is the great generalizer, and literature the great particularizer, and that at a fundamental level, they really cannot abide one another. “How can you be an artist and renounce the nuance? But how can you be a politician and allow the nuance?” Did Roth have political commitments?
He’s a political liberal in the Clintonesque sense, without using it as a curse word. But as is true for many aspects of his life, he’s willing to challenge his presuppositions. That’s something he certainly does in American Pastoral, which probably satisfied readers like Norman Podhoretz rather too much. He does something not dissimilar in The Counterlife with regard to Israel. His own inclinations are dovish. That book was all the more powerful for me for its capacity to portray with a degree of sympathy extreme Israeli figures that Roth politically deplored. One of the characteristics of Roth that I ended up admiring the most was the way in which he so often excoriated his own commitments, challenged them, and exposed them for their own weaknesses.
He tells Benjamin Taylor that he cares intensely about his “moral reputation.” That not something that one expects from the author of Portnoy’s Complaint or Sabbath’s Theater. How would you describe the values that Roth wanted to be associated with? It can’t be mainstream civility.
What he values above all is freedom as he understands it. And what he’s hoping a biographer will do is to portray him as someone who spends his life exploring the wages of freedom and the underbelly of unfreedom – hence his political commitment to liberalism, and hence his deploring ideologues who disparage freedom. He’s immensely preoccupied with his reputation, but he also takes incredible risks with it. He is insistent that those risks are unavoidable for a writer and that to avoid them means inevitable mediocrity.
The post How Philip Roth invented a myth called ‘Philip Roth’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Why Jewish teens aren’t speaking out about the NYC mayoral election, despite their strong feelings
This article was produced as part of the New York Jewish Week’s Teen Journalism Fellowship, a program that works with Jewish teens around New York City to report on issues that affect their lives.
As a teen reporter I work hard to amplify the voices of young people on issues that affect them. That’s why I was excited about my assignment from the New York Jewish Week to gather teens’ reactions to the upcoming New York City mayoral election. While many of these teens aren’t old enough to vote, I hoped to present a range of opinions from young people who care about their city and its future.
But when I started to report on the issue, I kept hitting the same wall: None of the teens I tried to interview would go on the record with their names or their political beliefs. All eight said they didn’t want that type of exposure in such a politically divisive time.
The teens I met aren’t the only ones who feel this way, and it isn’t just the mayoral election that’s keeping young adults quiet. According to Education Week, “young people are reluctant to discuss politics, especially without a space to safely navigate those discussions in such a polarized environment.” The article found that teens often worry that if they speak up in school, their voices will be dismissed, criticized or misunderstood. A lack of confidence could play a role, too: A 2023 study by CIRCLE, Tufts University’s research organization focused on youth civic engagement, found that only 40% of students feel “well-qualified” to participate in political conversations.
Nonetheless, in private conversations, the New York City teens I talked with shared fascinating insights about the mayoral race. The discussions broadly fell into two camps: Teens felt conflicted over the morality and beliefs of the candidates, and they also feared that if they said the wrong thing, their opinions would follow them for the rest of their lives.
Zohran Mamdani, the frontrunner, is a progressive and a staunch critic of Israel who won the Democratic nomination. His closest challenger, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is seeking a political comeback after resigning as governor in 2021 amid a barrage of sexual harassment allegations. Trailing the pack is Republican Curtis Sliwa, the red beret-wearing founder and CEO of the Guardian Angels.
To Jewish teens, none of these candidates seem suitable to run their beloved city — something my sources were eager to express, albeit anonymously.
“On the one hand, it feels morally wrong to consider electing Andrew Cuomo, given the numerous allegation of sexual harassment. As a woman, I believe elected officials should embody the values of respect and integrity,” one Jewish teen living on the Upper West Side told me. “On the other hand, while Zohran Mamdani’s policies often sound compelling, in theory, I consistently find myself questioning what a sharply critical view of Israel might mean for a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.”
Another Upper West Side teen, a senior at a private high school, echoed a similar sentiment: “This election has been so frustrating because it feels like I have to give up one set of values to protect another.”
The teens I spoke to had strong beliefs. Why had they declined to attach their names to their statements?
Well, according to a junior at a Manhattan public high school, “although I am not yet old enough to vote, I’ve found this mayoral race both confusing and frustrating. I don’t want my name attached to either one of these candidates.”
“I do not want my name to be linked to a political figure,” explained one Upper East Side teen, “because it can follow me into the future and change how others automatically view me when they meet me for the first time.”
This last quote, in particular, touched a nerve with me, as it highlights just how aware teens are of growing up in a society that increasingly lives online. Teens applying for colleges and thinking about their future career path start thinking at a young age. The last thing we want is for a future employer to find — and disagree with — something we said about a politician when we were 16.
As a teen reporter, my job is to give teens an opportunity to be seen and heard. My editor, who has worked with teen journalists for over 30 years, told me that she’s seen more and more young sources ask for anonymity over the past five years. As our lives become inextricably tied to the internet, it’s easy to see why: Doxxing — the malicious release of private information — has become a “mainstream public safety concern,” according to Safe Home, which conducts yearly research on doxxing. According to their report, 57% of Americans say they avoid sharing political views online out of fear of being targeted.
Doxxing over perspectives related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been common in recent years, with both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian voices experiencing the practice.
So as a 17-year-old who is constantly on social media and always with my friends, I understand why my peers are worried about sharing too much. But this also means my role as a reporter who focuses on teen issues has become significantly more difficult. I worry that as the city becomes more polarized by politics, teens and young adults will feel less and less comfortable sharing their views and, as a result, news articles can’t reflect the community fully and policies can’t be responsive to young people’s needs. When that happens, we all lose.
Compounding the reluctance of young people to speak publicly about politics is the hesitancy of politicians and media to seek their opinions. Meira Levinson, a professor of education and society at Harvard University, writes about the “civic empowerment gap.” She describes how young people, especially those still in school, are often encouraged to care about politics but are rarely given the opportunity to express their views in a meaningful way. Candidates almost never make the effort to integrate teen concerns into their campaign.
Our communal politics need to create a safe space for young people to share their opinions. And candidates should solicit teens’ views if they want to make New York City a safe and inclusive city for all.
—
The post Why Jewish teens aren’t speaking out about the NYC mayoral election, despite their strong feelings appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Hamas Expands Terror Operations Across Europe Amid Gaza War, Exploiting Criminal Networks and Weapons Caches
Palestinian Hamas terrorists stand guard on the day of the handover of hostages held in Gaza since the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack, as part of a ceasefire and a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
Hamas has expanded its terrorist operations beyond the Middle East, exploiting a long-established network of weapons caches, criminal alliances, and covert infrastructure that has been quietly built across Europe for years, according to a new report.
Earlier this month, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center released a study detailing how Hamas leaders in Lebanon have directed operatives to establish “foreign operator” cells across Europe, collaborating with organized crime networks to acquire weapons and target Jewish communities abroad.
“Hamas has never carried out a successful terrorist attack outside of Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza — but not for lack of plotting,” Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow and counterterrorism expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote in the report.
“European and Israeli officials fear that Hamas has taken the decision to go global and carry out plots abroad, marking a significant departure from the group’s prior modus operandi,” he continued.
For example, the study cited a failed Hamas plot in which an alleged operative in Germany traveled to Lebanon to “receive orders from the Qassam Brigades [Hamas’s military wing] to set up an arms depot for Hamas in Bulgaria,” part of a broader, multi-year effort to cache weapons across Europe.
However, German authorities foiled the plot, detaining four Hamas members in late 2023 on suspicion of planning attacks.
Earlier this year, the four suspects went on trial in Berlin in what prosecutors described as Germany’s first-ever case against members of the Palestinian terrorist group.
According to German officials, the weapons “were intended to expand Hamas’s activities in Europe.”
During the investigation, German authorities also found evidence on a defendant’s USB device showing that the Hamas operatives were planning attacks on specific sites in Germany, including the Israeli embassy in Berlin.
Similar weapons depots were established in Denmark, Poland, and other European countries, with Hamas members repeatedly trying to retrieve them to support their operations and plan potential attacks.
The newly released report identified Hamas’s operational headquarters in Lebanon as the command center for its activities abroad, with senior leaders directly managing plots across Europe.
“Even before Oct. 7, Hamas leaders periodically threatened to carry out attacks abroad,” Levitt explained in his report, referring to the Iran-backed Islamist group’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel in 2023.
“The increased Hamas terrorist activity abroad correlates to the establishment of a Hamas operational component in Lebanon driven by senior Hamas leaders,” he said, noting that such network “developed over time, as senior Hamas leaders left Turkey and Qatar and later made their way to Lebanon.”
The study also reported that Hamas operatives established alliances with European organized crime networks to secure weapons and logistical support for their operations.
For example, another major plot was foiled earlier this year, when a member of the Danish, banned Loyal to Familia (LtF) gang was indicted for purchasing Chinese drones intended for attacks in Denmark or Sweden. Local authorities later revealed that the gang had been working with Hamas, which has ruled Gaza for nearly two decades.
This month, German authorities foiled another planned terrorist attack, arresting three suspects on the eve of Yom Kippur who were preparing to target Jewish institutions.
According to the report, analysts remain uncertain whether these plots signal a permanent strategic shift or reflect a short-term tactical adjustment in response to the Gaza war.
“It remains unclear how decisions about such operations are made and if this includes input and approval from a broad range of Hamas leadership or just a select few,” Levitt said.
Given the loss of Hamas’s leadership and the resulting decentralized decision-making, the report noted that external operations may now be possible where they were previously constrained by internal disagreements.
“With Hamas operational capabilities in Gaza severely degraded, and the group under pressure from both Israeli and Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank, the group’s military commanders may find that acts of international terrorism carried out by small cells … may be a more central component of Hamas’s attack strategy,” Levitt concluded.
Uncategorized
British Airways breaks ties with Louis Theroux after interview with ‘Death to the IDF’ artist Bob Vylan
(JTA) — British Airways has dropped its sponsorship of documentarian Louis Theroux’s podcast following an interview with British punk musician Bobby Vylan where the artist defended his chants of “death, death to the IDF” at the Glastonbury music festival.
Following the band’s Glastonbury performance in June, the two members of Bob Vylan had their U.S. visas revoked by the State Department ahead of a planned tour this month. The BBC also said the livestream of the performance broke its guidelines because Bob Vylan’s chants could “fairly be characterised as antisemitic.”
Bob Vylan’s frontman, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, Theroux that he did not regret the chants during the interview.
“If I was to go on Glastonbury again tomorrow? Yeah, I would do it again. I’m not regretful of it,” said Vylan. “I’d do it again tomorrow, twice on Sundays. I’m not regretful of it at all. Like, the subsequent backlash that I’ve faced is minimal. It’s minimal compared to what people in Palestine are going through.”
Robinson-Foster also criticized a report by the Community Security Trust, British Jewry’s antisemitism watchdog, that found antisemitic incidents had spiked the day after Bob Vylan’s set, telling Theroux that it was unclear what the group was “counting as antisemitic.”
“I don’t think I have created an unsafe atmosphere for the Jewish community,” said Robinson-Foster. “If there were large numbers of people being like, going out and ‘Bob Vylan made me do this,’ then maybe I might go, woof, I’ve had a negative impact here. Again, in that report, what definition are they going by? We don’t know that.”
During the interview, Robinson-Foster also said that the “focus” should not have been placed on the “death to the IDF” chant, but rather “on the conditions that allow for that chant to exist.”
“Ultimately, the fight is against white supremacy, right?,” said Robinson-Foster. “That is what the fight is against. And I think white supremacy is displayed so vividly in Zionists.”
In response, Theroux replied, “They say we’re not white, we’re Jewish, right?”
Later, Theroux appeared to agree with Robinson-Foster’s assertion that the “Zionist movement and the war crimes being committed by Israel” should be viewed through the “lens of white supremacy.”
“I think I’d add to that, there’s an even more macro lens which you can put on it, which is that Jewish identity in the Jewish community, as expressed in Israel, has become almost like an acceptable quote, unquote, way of understanding ethno-nationalism,” said Theroux, later adding that “this sense of post-Holocaust Jewish exceptionalism or Zionist exceptionalism, has become a role model on the national stage for what these white identitarians would like to do in their own countries.”
Following the interview, Theroux drew criticism for failing to challenge Robinson-Foster’s defense of his chants during the interview.
“Louis Theroux has every right to interview whoever he wants, but with that right comes responsibility,” Jewish film producer Leo Pearlman told the British outlet Jewish News. “When you give a microphone to someone who proudly repeats a genocidal chant that played a part in inspiring attacks on Jews across Britain, you’re not probing hate, you’re amplifying it.”
Dave Rich, the head of policy at the Community Service Trust, wrote in a blog post that he had been distressed that Theroux did not note that Robinson-Foster had publicly undercut the idea that his chant of “death to the IDF” was not meant as a call to voice when he commented at another concert, “We are for an armed resistance. We wanna make that explicitly f–king clear.” Rich also criticized the decision to release the interview even after the attack on a Manchester, England, synagogue in which two people were killed on Yom Kippur.
“Theroux’s podcast was recorded before the Manchester attack, which he acknowledges in the introduction,” Rich wrote. “But they still went ahead and published it anyway, as if the death of two Jews due to an Israel-hating jihadist doesn’t change the context of an interview with someone who became famous for calling for death for Israelis.”
After the interview aired on Spotify last Friday, British Airways issued a statement to announce it had dropped its sponsorship of Theroux’s show.
“Our sponsorship of the series has now been paused and the advert has been removed,” the airline wrote in a statement shared with the British outlet Jewish News. “We’re grateful that this was brought to our attention, as the content clearly breaches our sponsorship policy in relation to politically sensitive or controversial subject matters.”
The episode follows the release, in April, of a documentary by Theroux titled “The Settlers” that served a searing portrayal of the far-right Israeli settler movement in the West Bank.
The post British Airways breaks ties with Louis Theroux after interview with ‘Death to the IDF’ artist Bob Vylan appeared first on The Forward.