Uncategorized
Philip Roth’s latest biographer wants Jews to read him again — without the guilt
It was a scandal right out of a Philip Roth novel: Days after the publication in 2021 of his long-awaited biography of Roth, author Blake Bailey was credibly accused of sexual misconduct. The publisher pulled the book, pulping all the copies.
Even before the uproar, many younger readers lumped Roth among the “great white males” of mid-20th-century literature, and throughout his career Roth was dogged by accusations that he was a misogynist, both in his fiction and his private life. The scandal seemed to confirm these accusations by proxy, conflating the author and his biographer.
Stanford historian Steven J. Zipperstein had already begun his own biography of Roth before the author died in 2018 and while Bailey’s book was under contract. “Philip Roth: Stung by Life,” part of Yale University Press’s “Jewish Lives” series, isn’t meant as a corrective to Bailey’s book or the fallout. But it does argue why Roth remains relevant and vital, especially to current Jewish discourse.
Writes Zipperstein: “He would probe nearly every aspect of contemporary Jewish life: the passions of Jewish childhood, the pleasures and anguish of postwar Jewish suburbia, Israel, diaspora, the Holocaust, circumcision, the interplay between the nice Jewish boy and the turbulent one deep inside.”
Zipperstein is the Daniel E. Koshland Professor in Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University, whose previous books include “Pogrom: Kishinev and the Tilt of History.” He first met Roth when he invited the author to speak to his colleagues and graduate students at Stanford. Roth showed up with a blonde woman in a silky blouse — not his wife at the time, actress Claire Bloom — and proceeded to spend the session flirting with her. His students were not amused.
They met again over the years under less antic circumstances and Roth gave his blessing to Zipperstein’s project. “We carried on a series of conversations, and he introduced me to his loyal entourage, and made it clear to them that they could share things with me that they otherwise might not have shared,” Zipperstein told me.
In our conversation, held over Zoom this week, Zipperstein and I spoke about how Roth scandalized the Jewish world with early works like “Goodbye, Columbus” and “Portnoy’s Complaint,” how he both resented and cherished his Jewish readers, and why so much of his prodigious output still holds up.
The interview was edited for length and clarity.
How did you come to write a biography of Philip Roth? He already had an authorized biographer, so what did you hope to bring to your book?
I’d met Roth years ago at Stanford — there’s a brief mention of it in the book. After I finished “Pogrom” there was this long pause before it came out [in 2018], and I started wondering what I might do next. I’d helped found the “Jewish Lives” series, and Roth seemed a pretty good fit.
But honestly, he’d been in my head long before that. I first read him in Partisan Review — a chapter from “Portnoy’s Complaint” called “Whacking Off” — just before I went off to the Chicago yeshiva. I was raised in an Orthodox family, wrestling with whether I could stay in that world. And Roth’s voice — it stuck with me. Not because of the masturbation, but because Portnoy has all this freedom and he’s miserable. That hit home. It told me that leaving the world I was raised in wasn’t going to be simple, and that freedom wouldn’t necessarily make me happy. That realization — about freedom and its discontents — has stayed with me my whole life as a historian.
Then, years later, I came across the recording of the Yeshiva University event in 1962 — the one Roth described as a kind of Spinoza-like excommunication. The tape told a completely different story. That was the moment I thought: there’s a book here, about the distance between Roth’s memory and reality.
Steven J. Zipperstein said his training as a historian helped him separate truth from fiction in writing his biography of Roth. (Yale University Press)
Let’s talk about that Yeshiva University event. Roth at the time was the young author of “Goodbye, Columbus,” which includes stories that some rabbis and others in the Jewish community said portrayed Jews in a negative light. Roth was invited to sit on a panel with Ralph Ellison and an Italian-American author to talk about “minority writers,” and Roth would later insist that the audience “hated” him. What did you find when you listened to the recording?
Well, Roth remembered it as this traumatic scene — the audience attacking him, shouting him down. But on the tape, the audience loves him! They’re laughing, applauding. The only confrontation comes from a few guys who come up to the stage afterward to argue.
What interested me wasn’t just that Roth misremembered it — it’s how he misremembered it. It tells you something about how he experienced the world. The people who criticize him are the ones who loom largest. That was revealing to me, both as a biographer and as someone who’s taught for decades. The people who dislike you — they’re the ones you remember.
But there is an almost literary bookend to that event: In 2014, the Jewish Theological Seminary awarded Roth an honorary doctorate. How did he react to that?
He was stunned! It was a casual decision by the institution, but a momentous decision as Philip saw it. He said in his speech, “This is the first time I’ve been applauded by Jews since my bar mitzvah.” He meant it sincerely.
Roth wasn’t a historian; he was a novelist. He remembered as he felt, not as it happened. My job was to separate those two things, not to punish him for it, but to understand the gap.
Roth once said, “The epithet ‘American Jewish writer’ has no meaning for me. If I’m not an American, I’m nothing.” As someone who insisted that he was first and foremost an American writer, as opposed to a Jewish writer, would he have liked being part of the *Jewish Lives” series?
Oh, I think so. He thought it was fair. We never talked about it directly, but I suspect he would’ve liked the company — King David, Solomon, Freud, Einstein.
There’s this anxiety about calling writers like Roth or [Saul] Bellow or [Bernard] Malamud “Jewish writers,” as though that makes them smaller. No one says Chekhov isn’t Russian enough. But say “Jewish writer” and people start to hedge.
I once said an American Jewish writer is someone who insists he’s not an American Jewish writer. Roth fit that perfectly.
There was a time when the Jewish experience was seen as a lens through which to understand modern life. Jews were central, not peripheral. Roth captured that paradox: Jews as both insiders and outsiders, too white and not white enough, privileged yet insecure. That ambivalence is his great theme.
“Portnoy’s Complaint” came out in 1969 and both delighted and scandalized readers with its descriptions of the narrator’s sexual adventures and fraught relationship with his Jewish parents. The reaction was extraordinary. I think it may be hard in our current era to imagine a literary novel selling so many copies and becoming such a part of the pop culture landscape.
[Critic] Adam Kirsch said it best — it was one of the last times a novel could set off the kind of cultural frenzy that today only Taylor Swift can provoke. The timing was perfect: Censorship had loosened, the sexual revolution was on, and “Portnoy” hit a nerve.
Roth claimed afterward that he didn’t want that kind of fame again. But of course he missed it. He hoped “Sabbath’s Theater” [his 1995 novel] would do it again. He knew it wouldn’t. He was mourning the loss of a serious readership, even as he kept writing as if it still existed.
Roth’s reputation seems tied up in how he portrayed women in his fiction and how he treated women in his personal life. You describe his serial relationships with many, many women, which often ended as soon as the sexual excitement wore off. At the same time, many of these same women remained loyal, and many gathered at his bedside as he lay dying, and some have written admiring memoirs. How did you approach that paradox?
I tried to be honest without being prurient. Roth decided very early that he was going to be a great writer — perhaps as great as Herman Melville or Kafka — and he came to conclude that there’s not a whole lot of discretionary time for relationships.
He’d fall in love hard, live with someone for two or three years, then move on. I didn’t moralize about it. Many of those women remained close to him. Others didn’t. He was loyal in his own way.
And his relationships with men, except for one significant detail, are not vastly dissimilar from those that he has with women. They’re utilitarian. Incredibly loyal friends hang on, because they’re so enamored by Roth and they feel deeply protective of Roth.
He also listened more intently than anyone I’ve ever met — though you were never sure whether it was you he was listening to, or the story he was going to write next.
Philip Roth receives an honorary doctorate at the Jewish Theological Seminary’s commencement in New York on May 22, 2014. (Ellen Dubin Photography)
Tell me about your book’s subtitle, “Stung By Life.”
It’s a phrase I found in a eulogy Roth wrote for his friend Richard Stern. He said Stern was “stung by life,” and I thought, that’s Roth.
He was perpetually shocked by existence — by what people do, by what happens to them, by what happens to him. Zuckerman, his alter ego, is defined by ambivalence — about women, about Jewishness, about America. Roth described everything well, but ambivalence best of all.
You’ve written books of history, and biographies of other Jewish literary figures, including the Zionist thinker Ahad Ha’am and Isaac Rosenfield, the American-Jewish writer who died in 1956 when he was only 38. What challenges did you find writing about a figure like Roth, who was still alive when you began work on the book, and what do you think you brought to it that maybe others couldn’t?
I’ve written and taught biography for years. Roth spent his entire life writing about himself, but not telling the truth about himself. That puzzle fascinated me.
Some Jewish figures — Isaiah Berlin, for example — chose biographers who didn’t quite understand the Jewish stuff. I wanted to do the opposite. I wanted to understand him from the inside out.
I loved his work before I started. I love it even more now. Words were my way out of a world where answers were predetermined by Maimonides. Roth fought that battle too —against dogma, against certainty, through language.
Sometimes I think Roth’s gifts as a comedian have overshadowed other qualities of his work — for example, everyone who read “Portnoy” remembers the slapstick about masturbation, but I love his lyrical descriptions of his old Weequahic neighborhood in Newark and heading down to the park to watch “the men” play softball. Was he worried that he’d be shelved in the “humor” section of the bookstore?
He liked to say he was a comic writer in the tradition of Kafka and [Heinrich] Heine — not Shecky Greene, [the Catskills comedian].
But yes, he could be incredibly funny. In many ways, “The Ghost Writer” [1979], as beautiful and lyrical as it is, is all written in order for Philip to have that punchline about Anne Frank.
The book’s narrator, Nathan Zuckerman, a writer like the young Roth, imagines that Anne has survived and that he can heal a rift with his family by bringing her home as his fianceé.
“Nathan, is she Jewish?” “Yes, she is!” “But who is she?” “Anne Frank.” In many ways, those were the lines that begat that brilliant book.
I also feel people overlook how much he wrestles with the Jewish condition — and not just Jewish mother jokes or nostalgia for the old Weequahic neighborhood. In books like “The Counterlife” and “Operation Shylock” Roth was writing about Zionism, assimilation, extremism and the tension between Israel and the diaspora when few other serious novelists were. Does he deserve to be more widely read as part of the very current Jewish debate over these topics?
Yes. I think in sort of more conservative, traditional Jewish quarters, he ended up being seen as an enemy of the Jews. But thinking about your question, it’s hard to think of any piece of extraordinary fiction that’s really made its way into the Jewish communal debate.
But Roth actually entered emphatically into the Jewish conversation. At one point in the late 1980s, Roth gives an interview to his friend Asher Milbauer. And he admits that the Jewish readership is his primary readership. He says writing as an American Jew is akin to writing for a small country where culture is paramount. As for other readers, he said, ”I have virtually no sense of my impact on the general audience.”
How would you describe that impact, and why should he still be read and admired?
Because he closes his eyes to nothing. He looks straight at the things we’d rather look away from — sex, aging, death, hypocrisy, joy. He writes about the child of good parents, the lover, the son, the dying man — all the selves we carry.
He shows how truth and illusion coexist, how clarity is always fragile. And he does it with language that’s alive. That’s what endures.
Does he still feel relevant to you?
Completely. Even among his contemporaries — [John] Updike, Bellow — Roth feels less dated. Maybe that’s because he was never comfortable. He kept interrogating everything, including himself.
That’s why he’s still with us. The rest of us are still trying to catch up.
Learn about Philip Roth’s “Portnoy’s Complaint” and other classics in a new course from My Jewish Learning: “Funny Story! The Best Jewish Humor Books of the Past 75 Years.” Taught by Andrew Silow-Carroll, the four-session course starts on Monday, Oct. 27 at 6 p.m. ET. Register here.
—
The post Philip Roth’s latest biographer wants Jews to read him again — without the guilt appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Qatar, Turkey Try to Circumvent Hamas Disarmament as Terror Group Escalates Crackdown in Gaza
Palestinians walk past the rubble of destroyed buildings, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Jabalia, northern Gaza Strip, November 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
As the United States pushes for the second phase of President Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire to begin, Israel is warning that Qatar and Turkey are trying to shield Hamas from disarmament as the Palestinian terrorist group seeks to reassert control over the war-torn enclave.
Qatar and Turkey have proposed alternatives to a central provision of Trump’s peace plan, according to Israeli media reports. Rather than requiring Hamas to disarm, Qatari and Turkish officials have pushed for the Islamist group either to hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority or place them in secure storage under international oversight.
As part of this plan, Qatar and Turkey are reportedly advocating a two‑year grace period during which Hamas could legally retain its weapons.
However, Israeli officials have rejected these options as unacceptable, arguing they would allow the terrorist group to maintain its influence in Gaza, which Hamas has ruled for nearly two decades.
Israel has made clear it will allow Hamas just a few months to give up its weapons, warning it will act unilaterally if the group is not disarmed promptly.
Turkey and Qatar, both longtime backers of Hamas, have been trying to expand their roles in Gaza’s post-war reconstruction, which experts have warned could potentially strengthen Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure.
Israeli officials have repeatedly rejected any Turkish or Qatari involvement in post-war Gaza.
The first stage of Trump’s peace plan, which took effect in October, included Hamas releasing all the remaining hostages, both living and deceased, who were kidnapped by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists during their Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. In exchange, Israel released thousands of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, including many convicted terrorists serving life sentences, and partially withdrew its military forces in Gaza to a newly drawn “Yellow Line,” roughly dividing the enclave between east and west.
Currently, the Israeli military controls 53 percent of Gaza’s territory, and Hamas has moved to reestablish control over the other 47 percent. However, the vast majority of the Gazan population is located in the Hamas-controlled half, where the Islamist group has been imposing a brutal crackdown.
The second stage of the US plan is supposed to install an interim administrative authority — a so-called “technocratic government” — deploy an International Stabilization Force — a multinational force meant to take over security in Gaza — and begin the demilitarization of Hamas.
As the international community works to implement phase two of the ceasefire deal, Qatar and Turkey are now insisting that Israel must withdraw from Gaza before Hamas can disarm — a demand Jerusalem vehemently opposes, warning it would give the terrorist group time to reassert full control over its half of Gaza and remove any incentive to disarm later on.
On Saturday, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said the international community has only achieved a “pause” in fighting, but not a full ceasefire, stressing that Israel would need to withdraw from the entire enclave to make it possible.
“A ceasefire cannot be completed unless there is a full withdrawal of the Israeli forces, there is stability back in Gaza [and] people can go in and out, which is not the case today,” Al Thani said during a press conference.
The Qatari leader also said that the mediating countries, including Turkey, Egypt, and the US, are “getting together in order to force the way forward for the next phase.”
However, Al Thani emphasized Qatar considers phase two to be “temporary,” arguing that addressing the immediate situation in Gaza alone is insufficient without tackling what he described as the underlying causes of the conflict.
“This conflict is not only about Gaza, but also the West Bank. It’s about the rights of the Palestinians for their state,” he said. “We are hoping that we can work together with the US administration to achieve this vision.”
According to the ceasefire plan, the Israeli army is required to withdraw further as the disarmament process unfolds. However, Israel has made clear that it will not pull back until Hamas disarms and other conditions are met.
“We will not allow Hamas to reestablish itself. We have operational control over extensive parts of the Gaza Strip, and we will remain on those defense lines,” Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said on Sunday. “The Yellow Line is a new border line, serving as a forward defensive line for our communities and a line of operational activity.”
Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said a credible Palestinian civil administration and a vetted, trained police force should be established before Hamas can disarm.
In a press conference, Fidan emphasized that without these conditions, expecting Hamas to disarm is neither “realistic nor doable.”
However, Hamas continues to reject full disarmament, saying the group is only open to storing or freezing its weapons in order to preserve “the Palestinians’ ability to defend themselves.”
“Hamas is willing to discuss these ideas in the context of a ceasefire or long-term truce within a political process that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” senior Hamas official Basem Naim said in a statement.
In Gaza, Hamas’s brutal crackdown has continued to escalate dramatically as the terrorist group moves to reassert control over the enclave and consolidate its weakened position.
Following the death of Yasser Abu Shabab, the leader of an armed anti-Hamas Palestinian faction, last week, Hamas has given militants a 10-day ultimatum to surrender in exchange for promises of amnesty, according to Israel’s Channel 12 and reports on social media.
Abu Shabab, a Bedouin tribal leader based in Israeli-held Rafah in southern Gaza, had led one of the most prominent of several small anti-Hamas groups that emerged in the enclave during the war that began more than two years ago.
He died last week while mediating an internal dispute between families and groups within the militia, dealing a setback to Israeli efforts to support Gazan clans against the ruling Islamist group.
Since the ceasefire took effect two months ago, Hamas has targeted Palestinians who it labeled as “lawbreakers and collaborators with Israel,” sparking widespread clashes and violence as the group moves to seize weapons and eliminate any opposition.
Social media videos widely circulated online show Hamas members brutally beating Palestinians and carrying out public executions of alleged collaborators and rival militia members.
Uncategorized
Ted Cruz Blasts Tucker Carlson for Plan to Buy Home in Qatar, Conduct at Doha Forum
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
The ongoing foreign policy feud between US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and anti-Israel podcaster Tucker Carlson continued over the weekend, with the legislator responding bluntly to the former Fox News host’s conduct and declarations at the Doha Forum in Qatar.
In reply to Carlson’s announcement on Sunday that he intended to purchase a home in Doha and reports of anti-Israel sentiments at the event sponsored by the country’s ruling monarchy, Cruz asked, “I thought fellatio was illegal in Qatar?”
Carlson had a sit-down discussion with Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani during the forum, during which the far-right media provocateur referenced widespread speculation that he was receiving Qatari money. Analysts have revealed in recent reports that Qatar, a longtime supporter of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood’s global network more broadly, has spent tens of billions of dollars to influence US policy making and public opinion in Doha’s favor.
“I have been criticized as being a tool of Qatar, and I just want to say – which you already know – which is I have never taken anything from your country and don’t plan to,” Carlson said over the weekend. “I am, however, tomorrow buying a place in Qatar. I like the city; I think it’s beautiful. But also want to make a statement that I’m an American and a free man and I’ll be wherever I want to be. I have not taken any money from Qatar, but I have now given money to Qatar.”
Carlson later confirmed his views of Qatar to the Doha News, saying that “I like it here a lot.” He previously told his fellow far-right podcaster Steve Bannon that “they know I’m not working for Qatar.”
Cruz also responded to an X post by Carlson’s longtime business partner Neil Patel which had tagged him and featured the podcaster extending a middle finger with the text, “Greetings from the booodthirsty, terror-supporting slave state of Qatar.”
The senator affirmed the sarcastic taunt, writing, “Fact check: true.”
Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, also a frequent critic of Carlson who has previously deployed the epithet “Qatarlson,” wrote on Monday that “Neil Patel was top policy adviser to Dick Cheney. Tucker Carlson worked for Bill Kristol. Now they’re both monarchists — Qatar first lapdogs for a terrorist dictatorship.”
The Al Thani family monarchy has run Qatar since the 1800s and has long supported the Muslim Brotherhood. The country has provided the Hamas-run government in Gaza with an estimated $1.8 billion and allows the terrorist group to host an office in Doha.
The US State Department has affirmed severe human rights abuses in Qatar, including “enforced disappearance; arbitrary arrest; political prisoners; serious restrictions on free expression, including the existence of criminal libel laws; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations; restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully in free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; extensive gender-based violence; existence of laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct, which were not systematically enforced; and the prohibition of independent trade unions and significant or systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association.”
US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) defended Carlson from Cruz’s criticism.
“Canadian born Zionist Texas Senator Ted Cruz has lost his mind over Tucker Carlson,” Greene wrote Sunday on X. “You would think a United States Senator would be gravely concerned about affordability for Americans, the looming healthcare crisis, and actually passing appropriations with another government funding deadline coming end of January. But instead he’s gone mad with Tucker living rent free in his head.”
On Monday, Greene shared graphics on X critical of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) support for President Donald Trump, writing, “I AM AMERICA FIRST. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -MTG.” One green image of a smiling, colorful Greene from “TrackAIPAC” affirms $0 in donations. This juxtaposes with a red image of a black and white, scowling Trump who has allegedly received over $230 million.
AIPAC, a prominent American lobbying group, seeks to foster bipartisan support for a strong US-Israel alliance.
In a Sunday interview with “60 Minutes,” Greene defended her decision not to vote for a measure condemning antisemitism, saying, “We don’t have to get on our knees and say it over and over again.”
Mark Dubowitz, CEO at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, reflected on Carlson’s remarks in Doha by recalling the man’s father: “Watching Tucker in Doha, I think of Ambassador Richard W. Carlson — my former @FDD colleague and mentor. A true American patriot. A steadfast friend of Israel and the Jewish people. A fearless opponent of Islamists and Communists. May his memory be a blessing.”
While many observers both within and outside the American political right have expressed concerns about increases in antisemitic sentiment, Vice President JD Vance pushed back on the claim over the weekend.
“I think it’s kind of slanderous to say that the Republican Party, the conservative movement, is extremely antisemitic,” he said. “Do I think the Republican Party is substantially more antisemitic than it was 10 or 15 years ago? Absolutely not.”
Vance, who employs one of Carlson’s sons in his office and is reportedly friends with the podcaster, added, “I just don’t see the simmering antisemitism that’s exploding that some people claim.”
Uncategorized
French Nanny Faces Trial for Poisoning Jewish Family in Case Stirring Outrage Amid Rising Antisemitic Attacks
Sign reading “+1000% of Antisemitic Acts: These Are Not Just Numbers” during a march against antisemitism, in Lyon, France, June 25, 2024. Photo: Romain Costaseca / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect
An Algerian woman residing illegally in France is set to stand trial on Tuesday on antisemitism-aggravated charges after admitting to poisoning the food of the Jewish family that employed her as a nanny, in a case that has intensified public outrage amid a surge of antisemitic attacks across the country.
The 42-year-old nanny, who has worked as a live-in caregiver for a family with three children aged two, five, and seven since November 2023, will now appear at the criminal court in Nanterre, just west of Paris, accused of poisoning them by contaminating their food and drinks with toxic substances, according to French media.
She is expected to face multiple charges, including “administering a harmful substance that caused more than eight days of incapacity for racial or religious reasons.”
The nanny, who has been living in France in violation of a deportation order issued in February 2024, is currently in custody and faces additional charges for presenting her employers with a forged Belgian identity document.
The shocking incident, first reported by Le Parisien, in January last year occurred just two months after the caregiver was hired, when the mother discovered cleaning products in the wine she drank and suffered severe eye pain from using makeup remover that had been contaminated with a toxic substance, prompting her to call the police.
After a series of forensic tests, investigators detected polyethylene glycol — a chemical commonly used in industrial and pharmaceutical products — along with other toxic substances in the food consumed by the family and their three children.
According to court documents, these chemicals were described as “harmful, even corrosive, and capable of causing serious injuries to the digestive tract.”
When the mother explained that only her family and the nanny had access to the house, she was promptly taken into police custody for questioning.
Even though she initially denied the charges against her, the nanny later confessed to police that she had poured a soapy lotion into the family’s food as a warning because “they were disrespecting her.”
“They have money and power, so I should never have worked for a Jewish woman — it only brought me trouble,” the nanny told the police. “I knew I could hurt them, but not enough to kill them.”
According to her lawyer, Solange Marel, the nanny has withdrawn her confession, maintaining that there is no proof of an antisemitic motive and that jealousy and a perceived financial grievance were the primary factors.
She also emphasized that the substances were found only in the parents’ drinks, not the children’s.
Yonathan Arfi, president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF) — the main representative body of French Jews — is set to appear before the court on Tuesday as a witness for the family.
He described the case as “revealing of structural violence, whose singular severity should neither be minimized nor concealed.”