Uncategorized
Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame
(JTA) — When a lawyer for Donald Trump asked E. Jean Carroll why she didn’t scream while allegedly being raped by Donald Trump, I thought of Letty Cottin Pogrebin. In her latest book, “Shanda: A Memoir of Shame and Secrecy,” she writes about being assaulted by a famous poet — and how the shadow of shame kept women like her silent about attacks on their own bodies.
That incident in 1962, she writes, was “fifty-eight years before the #MeToo movement provided the sisterhood and solidarity that made survivors of abuse and rape feel safe enough to tell their stories.”
Now 83, Pogrebin could have coasted with a memoir celebrating her six decades as a leading feminist: She co-founded Ms. magazine, its Foundation for Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus. She served as president of Americans for Peace Now and in 1982 blew the whistle on antisemitism in the feminist movement.
Instead, “Shanda” is about her immigrant Jewish family and the secrets they carried through their lives. First marriages that were kept hidden. An unacknowledged half-sister. Money problems and domestic abuse. An uncle banished for sharing family dirt in public.
“My mania around secrecy and shame was sparked in 1951 by the discovery that my parents had concealed from me the truth about their personal histories, and every member of my large extended family, on both sides, was in on it,” writes Pogrebin, now 83. “Their need to avoid scandal was so compelling that, once identified, it provided the lens through which I could see my family with fresh eyes, spotlight their fears, and, in so doing, illuminate my own.”
“Shanda” (the Yiddish word describes the kind of behavior that brings shame on an entire family or even a people) is also a portrait of immigrant New York Jews in the 20th century. As her father and mother father move up in the world and leave their Yiddish-speaking, Old World families behind for new lives in the Bronx and Queens, they stand in for a generation of Jews and new Americans “bent on saving face and determined to be, if not exemplary, at least impeccably respectable.”
Pogrebin and I spoke last week ahead of the Eight Over Eighty Gala on May 31, where she will be honored with a group that includes another Jewish feminist icon, the writer Erica Jong, and musician Eve Queler, who founded her own ensemble, the Opera Orchestra of New York, when she wasn’t being given chances to conduct in the male-dominated world of classical music. The gala is a fundraiser for the New Jewish Home, a healthcare nonprofit serving older New Yorkers.
Pogrebin and I spoke about shame and how it plays out in public and private, from rape accusations against a former president to her regrets over how she wrote about her own abortions to how the Bible justifies family trickery.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
I found your book very moving because my parents’ generation, who like your family were middle-class Jews who grew up or lived in the New York metropolitan area, are also all gone now. Your book brought back to me that world of aunts and uncles and cousins, and kids like us who couldn’t imagine what kinds of secrets and traumas our parents and relatives were hiding. But you went back and asked all the questions that many of us are afraid to ask.
I can’t tell you how good writing it has been. I feel as though I have no weight on my back. And people who have read it gained such comfort from the normalization that happens when you read that others have been through what you’ve been through. And my family secrets are so varied — just one right after the other. The chameleon-like behavior of that generation — they became who they wanted to be through pretense or actual accomplishment.
In my mother’s case, pretense led the way. She went and got a studio photo that made it look like she graduated from high school when she didn’t. In the eighth grade, she went up to her uncle’s house in the north Bronx and had her dates pick her up there because of the shanda of where she lived on the Lower East Side with nine people in three rooms. She had to imagine herself the child of her uncle, who didn’t have an accent or had an accent but at least spoke English.
You describe yours as “an immigrant family torn between loyalty to their own kind and longing for American acceptance.”
There was the feeling that, “If only we could measure up, we would be real Americans.” My mother was a sewing machine operator who became a designer and figured out what American women wore when she came from rags and cardboard shoes, in steerage. So I admire them. As much as I was discomforted by the lies, I ended up having compassion for them.
It’s also a story of thwarted women, and all that lost potential of a generation in which few could contemplate a college degree or a career outside the home. Your mother worked for a time as a junior designer for Hattie Carnegie, a sort of Donna Karan of her day, but abandoned that after she met your dad and became, as you write, “Mrs. Jack Cottin.”
The powerlessness of women was complicated in the 1950s by the demands of the masculine Jewish ideal. So having a wife who didn’t work was proof that you were a man who could provide. As a result women sacrificed their own aspirations and passions. She protected her husband’s image by not pursuing her life outside the home. In a way my feminism is a positive, like a photograph, to the negative of my mother’s 1950s womanhood.
“I’m not an optimist. I call myself a ‘cockeyed strategist,” said Pogrebin, who has a home on the Upper West Side. (Mike Lovett)
You write that you “think of shame and secrecy as quintessentially Jewish issues.” What were the Jewish pressures that inspired your parents to tell so many stories that weren’t true?
Think about what we did. We hid behind our names. We changed our names. We sloughed off our accents. My mother learned to make My*T*Fine pudding instead of gefilte fish. Shame and secrecy have always been intrinsically Jewish to me, because of the “sha!” factor: At every supper party, there would be the moment when somebody would say, “Sha! We don’t talk about that!” So even though we talked about what felt like everything, there were things that couldn’t be touched: illness, the C-word [cancer]. If you wanted to make a shidduch [wedding match] with another family in the insular communities in which Jews lived, you couldn’t let it be known that there was cancer in the family, or mental illness.
While I was writing this memoir, I realized that the [Torah portion] I’m listening to one Shabbat morning is all about hiding. It is Jacob finding out that he didn’t marry Rachel, after all, but married somebody he didn’t love. All of the hiding that I took for granted in the Bible stories and I was raised on like mother’s milk was formative. They justified pretense, and they justified trickery. Rebecca lied to her husband and presented her younger son Jacob for the blessing because God told her, because it was for the greater good of the future the Jewish people.
I think Jews felt that same sort of way when it came to surviving. So we can get rid of our names. We wouldn’t have survived, whether we were hiding in a forest or behind a cabinet, a name or a passport, or [pushed into hiding] with [forced] conversions. Hiding was survival.
I was reading your book just as the E. Jean Carroll verdict came down, holding Donald Trump liable for sexually assaulting her during an encounter in the mid-’90s. You write how in 1962, when you were working as a book publicist, the hard-drinking Irish poet Brendan Behan (who died in 1964) tried to rape you in a hotel room and you didn’t report it. Like Carroll, you didn’t think that it was something that could be reported because the cost was too high.
Certainly in that era powerful men could get away with horrible behavior because of shanda reasons.
Carroll said in her court testimony, “It was shameful to go to the police.”
You know that it happened to so many others and nobody paid the price. The man’s reputation was intact and we kept our jobs because we sacrificed our dignity and our truth. I was in a career, and I really was supporting myself. I couldn’t afford to lose my job. I would have been pilloried for having gone to his hotel room, and nobody was there when he picked up an ashtray and threatened to break the window of the Chelsea Hotel unless I went up there with him.The cards were stacked against me.
In “Shanda,” you write about another kind of shame: The shame you now feel decades later about how you described the incident in your first book. You regret “how blithely I transformed an aggravated assault by a powerful man into a ‘sticky sexual encounter.’”
I wrote about the incident in such offhand terms, and wonder why. I wrote, basically, “Okay, girls, you’re gonna have to put up with this, but you’re gonna have to find your own magical sentence like I had with Behan” to get him to stop.
You write that you said, “You can’t do this to me! I’m a nice Jewish girl!” And that got him to back off.
Really painful.
I think that’s a powerful aspect of your book — how you look back at the ways you let down the movement or your family or friends and now regret. In 1991 you wrote a New York Times essay about an illegal abortion you had as a college senior in 1958, but not the second one you had only a few months later. While you were urging women to tell their stories of abortion, you note how a different shame kept you from telling the whole truth.
Jewish girls could be, you know, plain or ordinary, but they had to be smart, and I had been stupid. I could out myself as one of the many millions of women who had an abortion but not as a Jewish girl who made the same mistake [of getting pregnant] twice.
The book was written before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In the book you write powerfully about the shame, danger and loneliness among women when abortion was illegal, and now, after 50 years, it is happening again. Having been very much part of the generation of activists that saw Roe become the law of the land, how have you processed its demise?
Since the 1970s, we thought everything was happening in this proper linear way. We got legislation passed, we had litigation and we won, and we saw the percentage of women’s participation in the workplace all across professions and trades and everything else rise and rise. And then Ronald Reagan was elected and then there was the Moral Majority and then it was the Hyde Amendment [barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion]. I was sideswiped because I think I was naive enough to imagine that once we articulated what feminism was driving at and why women’s rights were important, and how the economic reality of families and discrimination against women weren’t just women’s issues, people would internalize it and understand it and justice would be done.
In the case of Roe, we could not imagine that rights could ever be taken away. We didn’t do something that we should have done, which is to have outed ourselves in a big way. It’s not enough that abortion was legal. We allowed it to remain stigmatized. We allowed the right wing to create their own valence around it. That negated solidarity. If we had talked about abortion as healthcare, if we had had our stories published and created organizations around remembering what it was like and people telling their stories about when abortion was illegal and dangerous…. Instead we allowed the religious right to prioritize [fetal] cells over a woman’s life. We just were not truthful with each other, so we didn’t create solidarity.
Are you heartened by the backlash against restrictive new laws in red states or optimistic that the next wave of activism can reclaim the right to abortion?
I’m not an optimist. I call myself a “cockeyed strategist.” If you look at my long resume, it is all about organizing: Ms. magazine, feminist organizations, women’s foundations, Black-Jewish dialogues, Torah study groups and Palestinian-Jewish dialogues.
Number one, we have to own the data and reframe the narrative. We have to open channels for discussion for women who have either had one or know someone who has had one, even in religious Catholic families. The state-by-state strategy was really slow, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted that. She almost didn’t get on the court because she didn’t like the nationwide, right-to-privacy strategy of Roe but instead wanted it won state by state, which would have required campaigns of acceptance and consciousness-raising.
So, the irony is she hasn’t lived to see that we’re going to have to do it her way.
You share a lot of family secrets in this book. Is this a book that you waited to write until, I’ll try to put this gently, most of the people had died?
I started this book when I was 78 years old, and there’s always a connection to my major birthdays. And turning 80 – you experience that number and it is so weird. It doesn’t describe me and it probably won’t describe you. I thought, this could well be my last book, so I needed to be completely transparent, put it all out there.
My mother and father and aunts and uncles were gone, but I have 24 cousins altogether. I went to my cousins, and told them I am going to write about the secret of your parents: It’s my uncle, but it’s your father. It’s your family story even though it’s my family, but it’s yours first. And every cousin, uniformly, said, “Are you kidding? You don’t even know the half of it,” and they’d tell me the whole story. I guess people want the truth out in the end.
Is that an aspect of getting older?
I think it’s a promise of liberation, which is what I have found. It’s this experience of being free from anything that I’ve hid. I don’t have to hide. Years ago, on our 35th wedding anniversary, we took our whole family to the Tenement Museum because we wanted them to see how far we’ve come in two generations.
—
The post Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel Prepares for ‘Extreme Scenario’ With Iran, Warns Regime Will Face ‘Unimaginable’ Response if Tehran Strikes
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a news conference in Jerusalem, Sept. 2, 2024. Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg/Pool via REUTERS
Amid escalating regional tensions, Israel has warned Iran that any attempt to attack the Jewish state will be met with an “unimaginable” response, attempting to deter Tehran while preparing for an “extreme scenario” in which the Iranian regime strikes the Israeli homeland with an unprecedented level of force.
“Extremist forces refuse to lay down their arms and are regrouping to confront us once more … We are ready and remain on high alert to defend ourselves against any threat,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a speech at the graduation ceremony of the 74th Combat Officers Course of the 1st Airborne Division on Thursday.
“We are coordinating closely with our key ally, the United States. One thing is certain: If the ayatollahs [Iranian leaders] make the mistake of attacking us, they will face a response they can’ even imagine,” the Israeli leader continued. “We are prepared to fight to safeguard our security.”
According to Hebrew media reports, Israeli officials have been on high alert in recent weeks over what they describe as an “extreme Iranian scenario,” amid concerns about a potential surprise attack involving hypersonic missiles, drone swarms, and covert operatives targeting critical infrastructure and key air bases.
Under this scenario, Tehran could launch a coordinated, multi-front attack targeting Israeli Air Force bases, military headquarters, power and water infrastructure, fuel depots, major transport routes, and airports, with the goal of paralyzing the Israel Defense Forces’ air defenses, degrading strike capabilities, and disrupting reserve mobilization.
Israel’s main concern is that a sudden, concentrated barrage of Iranian weapons could overwhelm its air defense system, potentially forcing the IDF to focus on protecting key strategic sites while leaving population centers more exposed, according to Israeli news outlet Walla.
However, Israel has also seen increased backing from the US, which has expanded its military presence in the Persian Gulf and across the Middle East with additional air defense batteries and advanced radar systems.
Amid reports that nuclear talks between the US and Iran have yet to produce any meaningful results, large numbers of US forces are deploying to the region, signaling heightened tensions and the potential for renewed conflict.
According to military news site The War Zone, a significant fleet of fighter, surveillance, and intelligence aircraft have been sent to the Gulf, marking the fastest deployment pace seen in the past month.
At least a dozen F-22 fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia and F-16s from bases in Italy, Germany, and South Carolina have been deployed to the region.
Meanwhile, F-35 jets from the United Kingdom are now headed to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan — a recent hub of US air operations — while a dozen US Navy warships are also active in the area.
Amid mounting regional tensions, Washington could launch military strikes on Iran as soon as Saturday, CBS News reported.
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump warned that Iran must reach a “meaningful deal” in its negotiations with the White House within the next 10 days, or “bad things will happen.”
In the case of renewed conflict, US and Israeli officials reportedly expect to cooperate with regional partners to enhance surveillance and provide early warning before threats reach Israeli airspace.
As has often been the case in the past, Iran appears to be receiving only limited public backing from its allies, even as regional tensions continue to rise.
While the regime prepares for the possibility of a US strike, its proxy terrorist groups have so far held back from publicly pledging to take part in any confrontation — although some have vowed to join in the event of an attack on Iran.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem stopped short of promising a direct response to an attack on Iran, opting for cautious language while expressing public support for Tehran.
“We do not want war, but we are ready to defend ourselves and will not surrender,” Qassem said during a televised speech.
However, Israel has made it clear that if Hezbollah joins a potential war scenario, it will face a severe and damaging response.
The Houthis have warned against any “adventure” against Yemen, signaling the terrorist group could take part in any retaliatory escalation, reportedly with the US presence in the region as a primary target.
In Iraq, pro-Iranian militias urged fighters to prepare for what they described as a “total war” in support of Iran.
“It must be made clear to our enemies that war against Iran will not be a walk in the park — they will taste the terrible bitterness of death, and nothing of them will remain in our region,” terrorist leader Abu Hussein al-Hamidawy said in a statement.
On Tuesday, in response to US and Israeli threats, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei shared an AI-generated image depicting a US aircraft carrier sinking to the bottom of the ocean.
“The US president constantly says that the US has sent a warship toward Iran. Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware,” the Iranian leader wrote in a post on X. “However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.”
US and Israeli pressure is not the only challenge facing Tehran, as the European Union on Thursday formally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, freezing its funds and financial assets in EU member states and prohibiting EU operators from making economic resources available to the group.
Meanwhile, the regime continues to face growing domestic unrest, with Iranians now marking the traditional chehelom — a Shiite mourning ritual observed 40 days after a person’s death — not only in cemeteries but also in streets and hospitals to honor those killed during last month’s violent government crackdown on nationwide anti-government protests.
Uncategorized
IHRA Definition of Antisemitism Advances Toward Approval in Two US States
Part of an exhibit on the Holocaust supported by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Photo: courtesy of IHRA.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism continues to make progress through state legislatures across the US, with the Wisconsin State Assembly on Tuesday approving a measure which would apply it to hate crime prosecutions and anti-discrimination statutes.
The bill, AB 446, allows for government officials to refer to the IHRA definition for guidance when “evaluating evidence of discriminatory intent for any law, ordinance, or policy in this state that prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin” or determining “enhanced criminal penalties for criminal offenses” in which a criminal chooses their victim based on racial, ethnic, or religious hatred.
AB 446 passed easily in the State Assembly by a vote of 66-33. Another similar bill awaits consideration by the Senate. If it succeeds there, both legislative proposals will have to be reconciled into a single, signable bill before being presented to Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat.
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
On Monday, the Missouri House of Representatives also passed a bill to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a reference tool for assessing civil rights violations and a provision of policy handbooks for educational institutions. That bill also has a companion in the upper house of Missouri’s bicameral legislature.
The legislation, which would require schools to use the definition, aims to combat antisemitism in K-12 schools and on college campuses. In addition, the bill would require schools to outline prohibited antisemitic actions in their codes of conduct.
Both states advanced the legislation weeks after the City Council of Chicago voted to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
The measure was passed on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which commemorated the 81st anniversary of the day when Jewish prisoners were liberated from Auschwitz, the Nazis’ deadliest extermination camp during World War II.
“Chicago now proudly joins a global consensus of more than 1,200 entities worldwide, including the United States, 37 US state governments, and 98 city and country bodies who have adopted this definition,” city council member Debra Silverstein, alderman of the 50th Ward, said in a statement at the time praising the action. “At a time when antisemitic hate crimes are surging locally, this unanimous City Council action sends an unmistakable message that anti-Jewish hate has no place in Chicago.”
Local governments’ embracing the IHRA definition of antisemitism comes amid a historic surge in antisemitic incidents across the US and the world.
In 2024, as reported by the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) latest annual audit, there were 9,354 antisemitic incidents — an average of 25.6 a day — across the US, creating an atmosphere of hate not experienced in the nearly thirty years since the ADL began tracking such data in 1979. Incidents of harassment, vandalism, and assault all increased by double digits, and for the first time ever a majority of outrages — 58 percent — were related to the existence of Israel as the world’s only Jewish state.
The ADL also reported dramatic rises in incidents on college campuses, which saw the largest growth in 2024. The 1,694 incidents tallied by the ADL amounted to an 84 percent increase over the previous year. Additionally, antisemites were emboldened to commit more offenses in public in 2024 than they did in 2023, perpetrating 19 percent more attacks on Jewish people, pro-Israel demonstrators, and businesses perceived as being Jewish-owned or affiliated with Jews.
New York City, under its new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, recently revoked the IHRA definition along with a series of other executive orders enacted by his predecessor to combat antisemitism
US Jewish groups have sharply criticized the move.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry similarly lambasted the reversal as an invitation for intensified bigotry against Jewish New Yorkers, saying, “On his very first day as New York City mayor, Mamdani shows his true face: He scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel. This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Green Party Congressional Candidate Vows to ‘De-Zionize’ US Government
Former US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) is running for Congress again in the 2026 election cycle, this time as a Green Party candidate. Photo: Screenshot
Former US Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has launched a bid to return to Washington under the Green Party, unveiling a campaign platform that sharply denounces Israel and accuses the US government of being controlled by what she calls a “dual-loyalty regime.”
In a statement posted to her campaign website, McKinney alleges a “powerful Zionist lobby has infiltrated every level of our government,” claims US tax dollars are funding what she describes as a “genocide” in Gaza, and calls the US–Israel alliance “a hostage situation.” She further references the “Epstein files,” a series of documents detailing the communications of deceased serial sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, to suggest Israeli intelligence has engaged in criminal wrongdoing, allegations for which she provides no evidence.
McKinney’s platform proposes sweeping measures such as immediately ending all US military aid to Israel, revoking tax-exempt status for organizations she characterizes as foreign agents, supporting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, backing Palestinian “right of return” claims, and ceasing US diplomatic protection for Israeli officials at international courts.
Additionally, she has posted campaign graphics calling to “De-Zionize the government” and shared a quote blaming her 2006 reelection loss on pro-Israel supporters, claiming “Zionists undermined Dr. McKinney’s reelection.” The candidate also shared a quote from the antisemitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan which claimed that she lost reelection because “she was not pro-Zionist.”
The rhetoric marks one of the most stridently anti-Israel campaign platforms in recent US political history. While debate over US policy toward Israel has intensified amid the ongoing war in Gaza, McKinney’s framing goes well beyond the positions held by most Democrats, including many progressive lawmakers critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
Advocacy groups and Jewish organizations have long warned that language describing a shadowy “Zionist lobby” controlling American institutions echoes historical antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty and secret influence. Mainstream critics of Israeli policy typically distinguish between opposition to specific government actions and broader conspiratorial claims about Jewish political control.
McKinney, who represented Georgia in Congress for six terms before losing her seat in 2006, has a history of clashing with pro-Israel groups and Democratic leadership. After her congressional career, she became the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2008. She has also previously participated in attempts to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza, including voyages on the SS Dignity and Spirit of Humanity.
Moreover, McKinney is running to fill the seat previously vacated by former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene came under fire over issuing a series of antisemitic remarks suggesting that Israel exerts control over US foreign policy and that the war in Gaza is a “genocide.”
The US–Israel relationship, spanning more than seven decades, includes extensive military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and economic ties. Israel is widely viewed by US officials as a key strategic ally in the Middle East.
Under US law, foreign lobbying is regulated through the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and tax-exempt status is governed by strict Internal Revenue Service rules. Legal experts note that broad revocations based on political advocacy would face significant constitutional hurdles.
McKinney’s campaign announcement comes at a moment of heightened polarization over the Israel-Hamas war and US involvement in the Middle East. Whether her uncompromising platform resonates with Georgia voters remains to be seen, but it is likely to reignite debate over the boundaries between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and rhetoric critics say veers into conspiracy and antisemitism.