Uncategorized
Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments
(JTA) — When the New York Times journalist Jodi Kantor was reporting the 2017 Harvey Weinstein sexual assault story that earned her a Pulitzer prize, the powerful Hollywood producer and his team tried to influence her by using something they had in common: They are both Jewish.
“Weinstein put [Jewishness] on the table and seemed to expect that I was going to have some sort of tribal loyalty to him,” Kantor told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on a video call from the New York Times newsroom. “And that was just not going to be the case.”
Now, that exchange has been immortalized in “She Said,” a new film adaptation of the nonfiction book of the same name by Kantor and her collaborator Megan Twohey that details their investigation into Weinstein’s conduct, which helped launch the #MeToo movement.
The film, directed by Maria Schrader with stars Zoe Kazan as Kantor and Carey Mulligan as Twohey, is an understated thriller that has drawn comparisons to “All the President’s Men” — and multiple subtle but powerful Jewish-themed subplots reveal the way Kantor’s Jewishness arose during and at times intersected with the investigation.
In one scene, the Kantor character notes that a Jewish member of Weinstein’s team tried to appeal to her “Jew to Jew.” In another, Kantor shares a moving moment with Weinstein’s longtime accountant, the child of Holocaust survivors, as they discuss the importance of speaking up about wrongdoing.
Kantor, 47, grew up between New York and New Jersey, the first grandchild of Holocaust survivors — born “almost 30 years to the day after my grandparents were liberated,” she notes. She calls her grandmother Hana Kantor, a 99-year-old Holocaust survivor, her “lodestar.” Kantor — who doesn’t often speak publicly about her personal life, including her Jewish background, which involved some education in Jewish schools — led a segment for CBS in May 2021 on her grandmother and their relationship. Before her journalism career, she spent a year in Israel on a Dorot Fellowship, working with Israeli and Palestinian organizations. She’s now a “proud member” of a Reform synagogue in Brooklyn.
Kantor spoke with JTA about the film’s Jewish threads, the portrayal of the New York Times newsroom and what Zoe Kazan’s performance captures about journalism.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.
JTA: How did you feel having Zoe Kazan, who is not Jewish, play you? Kazan has played some notably Jewish characters before, for example in the HBO miniseries “The Plot Against America.”
JK: I feel Zoe’s performance is so sensitive and so layered. What I really appreciate about her performance is that she captures so many of the emotions I was feeling under the surface in the investigation. You know, when you’re a reporter and especially a reporter handling that sensitive a story, it’s your responsibility to present a really smooth professional exterior to the world. At the end of the investigation, I had the job of reading Harvey Weinstein some of the allegations and really confronting him. And in dealing with the victims, I wanted to be a rock for them and it was my job to get them to believe in the investigation. And so on the one hand, you have that smooth, professional exterior, but then below that, of course you’re feeling all the feelings. You’re feeling the power of the material, you’re feeling the urgency of getting the story, you’re feeling the fear that Weinstein could hurt somebody else. You’re feeling the loss that these women are expressing, including over their careers. And so I think Zoe’s performance just communicates that so beautifully.
What Zoe says about the character is that there are elements of me, there are elements of herself, and then there are elements of pure invention because she’s an artist, and that’s what she does.
I think the screenplay gets at a small but significant line of Jewish sub-drama that ran through the investigation. It went like this: Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew. And they’ve done this more recently, as well. There have been times when Harvey Weinstein was trying to approach me “Jew to Jew,” like almost in a tone of “you and I are the same, we understand each other.” We found dossiers later that they had compiled on me and it was clear that they knew that I was the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, and they tried to sort of deploy that. So speaking of keeping things under the surface, I privately thought that was offensive, that he was citing that. But your job as a reporter is to be completely professional. And I wasn’t looking to get into a fight with Weinstein. I just wanted to find out the truth and I actually wanted to be fair to the guy. Anyway, even as he was approaching me “Jew to Jew” in private, he was hiring Black Cube — sort of Israeli private intelligence agents — to try to dupe me. And they actually sent an agent to me, and she posed as a women’s rights advocate. And she was intimating that they were going to pay me a lot of money to appear at a conference in London. Luckily I shooed her away.
To some degree I can’t explain why private Israeli intelligence agents were hired to try to dupe the Hebrew speaking, yeshiva-educated, granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. But it’s not my job to explain that! It’s their job to explain why they did that.
Then the theme reappeared with Irwin Reiter, Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years, who kind of became the Deep Throat of the investigation. I quickly figured out that Irwin and I were from the same small world. He was the child of survivors, and had also spent his summers at bungalow colonies in the Catskills just down the road from mine. I don’t bring up the Holocaust a lot. It’s a sacred matter for me, and I didn’t do it lightly. But once I discovered that we did in fact have this really powerful connection in our backgrounds, I did gently sound it with him – I felt that was sincere and real. Because he was making such a critical decision: Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years is still working for the guy by day and he’s meeting with me at night. And I felt like I did need to go to that place with him, saying, “Okay, Irwin, we both know that there are people who talk and there are people who don’t. And we both grew up around that mix of people and what do we think is the difference? And also if you know if you have the chance to act and intervene in a bad situation, are you going to take it?”
We didn’t talk a lot about it, because I raised it and he didn’t want to fully engage. But I always felt like that was under the surface of our conversations, and he made a very brave decision to help us.
That was a very powerful scene in the film, and it felt like a turning point in the movie that kind of got at the ethical core of what was motivating your character. Was that a scene that was important to you personally to include in the film?
What Megan and I want people to know overall is that a small number of brave sources can make an extraordinary difference. When you really look at the number of people who gave us the essential information about Weinstein, it’s a small conference room’s worth of people. Most of them are incredibly brave women, some of whom are depicted, I think, quite beautifully in the film. But there was also Irwin, Weinstein’s accountant of all these years, among them. It’s Megan and my job to build people’s confidence in telling the truth. And as we become custodians of this story for the long term, one of the things we really want people to know is that a tiny group of brave sources, sometimes one source, can make a massive difference. Look at the impact that these people had all around the world.
Did you feel the film captured the New York Times newsroom? There’s a kind of great reverence to the toughness and professionalism in the newspaper business that really came through.
Megan and I are so grateful for the sincerity and professionalism with which the journalism is displayed. There are a lot of on screen depictions of journalists in which we’re depicted as manipulative or doing things for the wrong reasons or sleeping with our sources!
We [as journalists] feel incredible drama in what we do every day. And we’re so grateful to the filmmakers for finding it and sharing it with people. And I know the New York Times can look intimidating or remote as an institution. I hope people really consider this an invitation into the building and into our meetings, and into our way of working and our value system.
And we’re also proud that it’s a vision of a really female New York Times, which was not traditionally the case at this institution for a long time. This is a book and a movie about women as narrators.
“Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew,” Kantor said. (The New York Times)
There have been comparisons made between this movie and “All the President’s Men.” One of the striking differences is that those journalists are two male bachelors running around D.C. And this film has scenes of motherhood, of the Shabbat table, of making lunches. What was it like seeing your personal lives reflected on screen?
It’s really true that the Weinstein investigation was kind of born in the crucible of motherhood and Megan and my attempt to combine work with parenting. On the one hand, it’s the most everyday thing in the world, but on the other hand, you don’t see it actually portrayed on screen that much. We’re really honored by the way that throughout the film you see motherhood and work mixing, I think in a way that is so natural despite our obviously pretty stressful circumstances.
I started out alone on the Weinstein investigation, and I called Megan because movie stars were telling me their secrets but they were very reluctant to go on the record. So I had gone some way in persuading and engaging them, but I was looking to make the absolute strongest case for them. So I called Megan. We had both done years of reporting on women and children. Mine involved the workplace more and hers involved sex crimes more, which is part of why everything melded together so well eventually. I wanted to talk to her about what she had said to female victims in the past. But when I reached her, I could hear that something was wrong. And she had just had a baby, and I had had postpartum depression myself. So we talked about it and I gave her the name of my doctor, who I had seen. Then she got treatment. And she not only gave very good advice on that [initial] phone call, but she joined me in the investigation.
I think the theme is responsibility. Our relationship was forged in a sense of shared responsibility, primarily for the work – once we began to understand the truths about Weinstein, we couldn’t allow ourselves to fail. But also Megan was learning to shoulder the responsibility of being a parent, and I had two kids. And so we started this joint dialogue that was mostly about work, but also about motherhood. And I think throughout the film and throughout the real investigation, we felt those themes melding. It’s totally true that my daughter Tali was asking me about what I was doing. It’s very hard to keep secrets from your kid in a New York City apartment, even though I didn’t tell her everything. And Megan and I would go from discussing really critical matters with the investigation to talking about her daughter’s evolving nap schedule. It really felt like we had to get the story and get home to the kids.
And also, we were reporting on our own cohort. A lot of Weinstein victims were and are women in their 40s. And so even though we were very professional with this and we tried to be very professional with the sources, there was an aspect of looking in the mirror. For example, with Laura Madden, who was so brave about going on the record, it was conversations with her own teenage daughters that helped her make her decision.
We didn’t write about this in our book because it was hard to mix the motherhood stuff with this sort of serious reporter-detective story and all the important facts. And we didn’t want to talk about ourselves too much in the book. But the filmmakers captured something that I think is very true. It feels particular to us but also universal. When Zoe [Kazan] is pushing a stroller and taking a phone call at the same time, I suspect lots of people will identify with that. And what I also really like is the grace and dignity with which that’s portrayed.
It must have been surreal, seeing a Hollywood movie about your investigation of Hollywood.
I think part of the power of the film is that it returns the Weinstein investigation to the producer’s medium, but on vastly different terms, with the women in charge. Megan and I are particularly moved by the portrayals of Zelda Perkins, Laura Madden and Rowena Chiu — these former Weinstein assistants are in many ways at the core of the story. They’re everyday people who made the incredibly brave decision to help us, in spite of everything from breast cancer to legal barriers.
Working with the filmmakers was really interesting. They were really committed to the integrity of the story, and they asked a ton of questions, both large and small. Ranging from the really big things about the investigation to these tiny details. Like in the scene where we go to Gwyneth Paltrow’s house and Megan and I discover we’re practically wearing the same dress — those were the actual white dresses that we wore that day. We had to send them in an envelope to the costume department, and they copied the dresses in Zoe and Carey’s sizes and that’s what they’re wearing. There was a strand of extreme fidelity, but they needed some artistic license because it’s a movie. And the movie plays out in the key of emotion.
—
The post Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Two Argentine Jewish Tourists Assaulted in Milan as Antisemitic Incidents Surge Across Italy
A protester uses a pole to break a window at Milano Centrale railway station, during a demonstration that is part of a nationwide “Let’s Block Everything” protest in solidarity with Gaza, with activists also calling for a halt to arms shipments to Israel, in Milan, Italy, Sept. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Claudia Greco
Two young Argentine Jewish tourists were violently assaulted in Milan by a group of North African migrants after being targeted for wearing kippahs, in one of the latest antisemitic attacks amid a relentlessly hostile climate toward Jewish communities across Europe.
According to Italian media reports, the two 19-year-old Argentine tourists were attacked late Sunday night outside a 24-hour supermarket in Milan, a city in the northern part of the country, at Piazzale Siena after leaving the store when a group of about 10 people approached them.
After spotting the kippahs worn by the two young men, the attackers began shouting antisemitic insults, including “f**king Jews,” before violently assaulting them, leaving one of the victims with a broken nose.
Authorities and emergency responders were quickly dispatched to the scene following the attack, with police and paramedics providing assistance before transporting the two victims to a local hospital.
Local law enforcement has now opened a criminal investigation into the assault, reviewing surveillance camera footage and analyzing cell phone data from areas surrounding Piazzale Siena.
The European Jewish Congress (EJC) strongly condemned the incident, describing it as a sign of rising antisemitic hostility and calling for renewed efforts to safeguard Jewish communities across Europe.
“This disturbing incident highlights the very real dangers Jews continue to face in public spaces across Europe simply for expressing their identity. Antisemitic violence must be confronted with the utmost seriousness,” EJC said in a statement.
“Authorities must ensure that those responsible are swiftly identified and brought to justice. No one in Europe should fear being attacked for being visibly Jewish,” it continued.
Two young Jewish tourists from Argentina were violently assaulted outside a supermarket in Milan after being identified as Jewish by their kippahs.
The attackers first hurled antisemitic insults before punching the victims, leaving one with a broken nose.
This disturbing… pic.twitter.com/Ch0IzlgWt4
— European Jewish Congress (@eurojewcong) March 4, 2026
Amid heightened tensions tied to the recent US-Israeli joint military campaign against Iran, Walker Meghnagi — president of the Jewish community of Milan — called on authorities to strengthen protection for Jewish schools and synagogues.
“We must remain vigilant. We have asked the prefect to increase surveillance around our schools and places of worship, as well as to safeguard our freedoms, but we cannot isolate ourselves,” he said.
“We are Italians and deserve to be respected as such. We are a free people, and we will not hide — we must stand firm in defense of our freedom,” Meghnagi continued.
Like most countries across Europe and the broader Western world, Italy has seen a rise in antisemitic incidents over the last two years, in the wake of the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
According to newly published figures, antisemitism in Italy surged to record levels in 2025, reflecting a broader climate in which Jews and Israelis across Europe have faced harassment, vandalism, and targeted violence.
In Italy, the Milan-based CDEC Foundation (Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation) confirmed that antisemitic incidents in the country almost reached four digits for the first time last year.
Of 1,492 reports submitted through official monitoring channels, the CDEC formally classified a record high 963 cases as antisemitic, according to the EJC and Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI), the main representative body of Jews in Italy.
By comparison, there were 877 recorded incidents in 2024, preceded by 453 such outrages in 2023 and just 241 in 2022.
Uncategorized
New York Judge Overturns Disciplinary Sanctions for Columbia University Students Who Occupied Hamilton Hall
Protesters gather at the gates of Columbia University, in support of student protesters who barricaded themselves in Hamilton Hall, in New York City, US, April 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/David Dee Delgado
A New York state judge has overturn disciplinary sanctions imposed on a group of anti-Israel protesters who illegally occupied Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall and interned janitorial staff while destroying property to protest the Israel-Hamas war, raising concerns that colleges may be deprived of the power to punish severe misconduct perpetrated by students who claim to be advancing progressive causes.
Twenty-two current and former students, all of whom contested their punishments anonymously, may soon walk away without being held accountable following Judge Gerald Lebovits’s ruling last Friday that Columbia’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious.” Lebovits went further, citing the students’ concealment of their identities with masks and keffiyeh scarves as evidence that the university lacked evidence to determine that they were actually in Hamilton Hall despite that they had been arrested on the scene by the New York City Police Department (NYPD).
“In the disciplinary proceedings against the 22 Columbia students, the sole evidence that they were present in Hamilton Hall during its occupation was a report reflecting that petitioners had been arrested,” he wrote. “No evidence was offered in the disciplinary proceedings of actions taken inside Hamilton Hall by any particular student, as opposed to the conduct of the group of occupiers as a whole.”
Lebovits, after arguing that the group should not be disciplined even as he described their infractions, then argued that illegally occupying Hamilton Hall is “decades-long tradition.”
He continued, “Others might see the occupiers’ actions as manifestations of an ugly hatred against Jews, using rhetoric about Gaza mainly as a pretext. But the task for this court is not to decide between these perspectives, or to opine on the moral or political issues implicated by the actions of the parties to this proceeding.”
In a statement shared with The Algemeiner on Wednesday, Columbia University noted that Lebovits’s vacating the disciplinary sanctions does not take effect for 30 days, during which time university lawyers may pursue other legal avenues.
“The order does not take effect for at least 30 days, and no student who was disciplined for the occupation of Hamilton Hall can return to campus at this time,” a university spokesperson said. “Columbia is considering all of its options, including seeking a stay of the order and appealing the decision.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, in April 2024, anti-Israel agitators occupied Hamilton Hall, forcing then-university president Minouche Shafik to call on the NYPD for help, a decision she hesitated to make. During a search of the scene, the NYPD found a number of disturbing items, including “gas masks, ear plugs, helmets, goggles, tape, hammers, knives, ropes, and a book on TERRORISM [sic].” Police also found signs which said “death to America” and “death to Israel.”
During the same period, a group that calls itself “Columbia University Apartheid Divest” (CUAD) commandeered a section of campus and, after declaring it a “liberated zone,” lit flares and chanted pro-Hamas and anti-American slogans, according to numerous reports. When the NYPD arrived to disperse the unauthorized gathering, hundreds of students reportedly amassed around them to prevent the restoration of order.
“Yes, we’re all Hamas, pig!” one protester was filmed screaming during the fracas, which saw some verbal skirmishes between pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist partisans. “Long live Hamas!” said others who filmed themselves dancing and praising the al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian terrorist organization.
Beyond the occupation of school property, Columbia has produced some of the most indelible examples of antisemitism, pro-jihadist sentiment, and extreme anti-Zionism in American higher education since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023. Such incidents include a student who proclaimed that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself and administrative officials who, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, participated in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes that described Jews as privileged and grafting.
In July, interim then-university president Claire Shipman said the institution would hire new coordinators to oversee antisemitism complaints alleging civil rights violations; facilitate “deeper education on antisemitism” by creating new training programs for students, faculty, and staff; and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — a tool that advocates say is necessary for identifying what constitutes antisemitic conduct and speech.
Shipman also announced new partnerships with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other Jewish groups while delivering a major blow to the anti-Zionist movement on campus by vowing never to “recognize or meet with” the infamous organization CUAD, which had serially disrupted academic life with a number of other unauthorized, surprise demonstrations attended by non-students.
However, Columbia University has retained a professor, Joseph Massad, who celebrated Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel — where the Palestinian terrorist group sexually assaulted women and men, kidnapped the elderly, and murdered children in their beds — allowing him to teach a course on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Speaking to The Algemeiner in January, Middle East expert and executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Asaf Romirowsky said that Massad’s remaining on Columbia’s payroll is indicative of the university’s hesitance to enact meaningful and lasting reforms.
“Joseph Massad is a notorious tenured antisemite who has spent his career at Columbia bashing Israel and Zionism, a poster child for BDS and a scholar propagandist activist. Furthermore, he has shown his true colors time and time again defending Hamas and calling the 10/7 barbaric attack on Israel ‘awesome,’” Romirowsky said.
Noting that Columbia’s own antisemitism task force said in a December report that the institution employs few faculty who hold moderate views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he added, “By allowing Massad to continue teaching and spreading his venom, Columbia is only codifying the dearth of knowledge as it relates to the Middle East. It should take the finding of the report and act upon it by getting rid of the tenured radicals they allowed to hijack the institution.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
California Governor Gavin Newsom Likens Israel to ‘Apartheid State’
California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at a press conference, accompanied by members of the Texas Democratic legislators, at the governor’s mansion in Sacramento, California, US, Aug. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday ignited controversy after suggesting it is “appropriate” to describe Israel as an “apartheid state” and questioning the future of US military assistance to the Jewish state during an event to promote his new memoir.
Speaking during a book event in Los Angeles with “Pod Save America” host Tommy Vietor, Newsom said that recent policies pursued by Israel’s current government have made the term increasingly common in international discourse. While framing his comments as reluctant, the Democratic governor said it “breaks my heart,” but argued that the trajectory of Israeli leadership leaves the United States with “no choice” but to reconsider aspects of its longstanding support such as providing military aid.
“I mean, Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately – sort of an apartheid state,” Newsom said in reference to New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman.
“It breaks my heart because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice but to have that consideration,” Newsom said.
The remarks place Newsom among the most high-profile American elected officials to publicly entertain the apartheid label — a characterization Israel has consistently rejected as false and inflammatory. Israeli officials across the political spectrum have long argued that such comparisons distort the complex security, legal, and historical realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while ignoring the equal rights afforded to Israel’s Arab citizens and the ongoing security threats facing the country.
Newsom reportedly directed much of his criticism at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, describing its policies in the West Bank and toward Palestinians as contributing to growing international unease. His comments come amid continued tensions in the region, including the future prospect of Israeli military operations against Hamas in Gaza and ongoing military conflict with Iran and its regional proxies.
Newsom also directed criticism toward the current war in Iran, accusing Jerusalem of pushing the White House to pursue military conflict with Tehran. The California governor suggested that Israel should not be trusted to lead a successful campaign against Iran, given Jerusalem’s failure to topple Hamas in Gaza. He also suggested that Netanyahu bamboozled US President Donald Trump into pursuing a war against Iran.
“They couldn’t even – I mean, we’re talking about regime change?” he said, “For two years, they haven’t even been able to solve the Hamas question in Israel. So, this is, I mean, you know, I wanna be careful here, but, you know, in so many ways, that influence in the context of the conversation of where Trump ultimately landed on this is pretty damn self-evident.”
Trump was asked at the White House if Israel dragged the US into conflict with Iran and rejected the notion.
“I might have forced their [Israel’s] hand,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he met with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.”
In Jerusalem, officials have frequently pushed back against the apartheid accusation, noting that Israel is a multiethnic democracy with an independent judiciary, free press, and Arab representation in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. Critics of the apartheid claim also point to the repeated rejections by Palestinian leadership of past peace proposals that would have established a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Newsom’s statements arrive at a sensitive moment in US-Israel relations. As the 2028 Democratic primary begins to set in motion, progressive voices within the Democratic Party have increasingly called for conditioning or reducing military aid to Israel. Newsom, widely viewed as a potential contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, now appears to be navigating that internal party divide.
In a recent podcast appearance with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, Newsom rejected the argument that Israel has committed a so-called “genocide” in Gaza and expressed support for the country’s right to defend itself from Hamas terrorism.
Netanyahu has said in several interviews over the past few months that he intends to “taper off” Israeli dependence on US military aid in the next decade.