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
Netanyahu returns to Washington — this time to shape a deal with Iran, not fight one
When President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House today – their 6th meeting in the U.S. in the last year – their discussion will focus on a shared commitment to confronting the Iranian nuclear threat, but the stakes are different for each of them.
For Trump, a nuclear agreement could cement his legacy as a peacemaker, perhaps even earn him a long-coveted Nobel Peace Prize. For Netanyahu, a deal could bolster his political standing back home in a difficult election year.
In 2015, when President Obama was on the verge of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, Netanyahu cast himself as the indispensable interpreter of the Iranian threat to Washington, as he has again. But back then, Netanyahu came to publicly oppose what he called “a very bad” Iran deal, pushing back against the U.S. president. Now, he is visiting the White House with the hope of shaping U.S. policy on Iran, not challenging the president.
Trump has described the first round of discussions with Iran as “very good,” even as U.S. aircraft carriers and other military assets build up in the region. He has insisted that Tehran is “wanting to make a deal very badly.” Israel, for its part, has made clear that any agreement must go beyond limits on uranium enrichment and also address Iran’s ballistic missile program and its network of regional proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis – that have been attacking Israel.
Netanyahu has said he plans to present the president with Israel’s approach to the nuclear talks led by Trump’s close advisers, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff.
Netanyahu is betting that intimacy equals influence. That being the leader who shows up in person — again and again — ensures Israel is not outflanked as decisions are made. Last June, that strategy appeared to pay off. Netanyahu launched a charm offensive aimed at drawing Trump into a more active role in dismantling Iran’s nuclear program. If talks fail, Trump could act again. “Either we will make a deal, or we will have to do something very tough like last time,” Trump told Axios.
But the frequency of these meetings also reflects some vulnerability. It showcases a prime minister who cannot afford distance and disagreement with the White House.
The domestic clock is ticking
The longest-serving Israeli leader is facing a real risk that Israel’s legislature, the Knesset, will dissolve in the coming weeks if his coalition fails to resolve the explosive issue of military conscription for Haredi yeshiva students. The Haredi parties have threatened to vote against the budget ahead of the March 31 deadline — a move that would trigger elections as early as June.
If Netanyahu emerges from the White House visit with rhetorical alignment or symbolic support, he could buy himself time and political oxygen.
These gestures matter for Israel, where the education minister, Yoav Kisch, has formally invited Trump to attend the Israel Prize ceremony on Independence Day in Jerusalem to receive the prestigious award for a “Unique Contribution to the Jewish People.” Israeli officials have also invited him to participate in the annual torch-lighting ceremony, one of the most emotionally charged moments on the Israeli civic calendar.
If Trump accepts the invitation and travels to Israel again, it would be a political gift of the highest order. For Netanyahu’s supporters, that imagery could energize turnout and blunt opposition momentum. For undecided voters, it reinforces a familiar argument: Whatever Netanyahu’s flaws at home, replacing him would risk destabilizing Israel’s most important relationship abroad and its closest ally in any confrontation with Iran.
But Trump’s current position on Iran may still cross Netanyahu’s red lines. And Trump has shown before that he is willing to act unilaterally, even without backing from allies.
Still, he is very popular in Israel, and that benefits Netanyahu. A new survey by the Jewish People Policy Institute showed that 73% of Israelis rate Trump as a better-than-average U.S. president for Israel’s interests and 54% of Jews in Israel view Trump as one of the best presidents in U.S. history.
The post Netanyahu returns to Washington — this time to shape a deal with Iran, not fight one appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
5 things to know ahead of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are set to meet at the White House Wednesday in a highly anticipated discussion. The primary focus of the meeting is expected to be the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran, particularly regarding Tehran’s treatment of protesters and the possibility of a renewed agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.
But it also comes amid intensifying debates over U.S. military assistance to Israel, eroding bipartisan support for that aid, and recent controversial Israeli moves in the West Bank, all of which could shape the conversation.
How US military aid to Israel works
U.S. military aid to Israel has long been governed by a 2016 memorandum of understanding under which Washington pledged $38 billion in assistance over a decade — $33 billion in military grants and $5 billion for joint missile defense programs. Israel receives roughly $3.8 billion annually, including approximately $500 million earmarked for missile defense. The agreement is scheduled to be renegotiated in 2028.
Since the outbreak of the Gaza war on Oct. 7, 2023, Congress has authorized at least $16.3 billion in additional aid. The flow of funds is subject to congressional review and measures such as the Leahy Law, which bars assistance to foreign security forces implicated in gross human rights violations.
US aid to Israel no longer enjoys the bipartisan support it once did
Amid the Gaza war and the rise of a U.S. anti-war, pro-Palestinian movement, American public support for Israel has declined significantly across both major parties.
A 2025 Pew Research Center study found that only 24% of Americans under 30 view the Israeli government favorably, compared with roughly half of those over 60. Among Republicans, negative views of Israel increased from 27% in 2022 to 37%, while among Democrats the rise was steeper — from 53% to 69%. Nearly 4 in 10 adults under 30 believe the U.S. provides “too much” aid to Israel, compared with one-third of adults overall.
The debate over U.S. aid to Israel played a significant role in last week’s Democratic congressional primary in New Jersey. A super PAC associated with the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC spent more than $2 million on negative ads that helped fuel the defeat of former Rep. Tom Malinowski, who describes himself as pro-Israel but who drew AIPAC’s fire because he is opposed to unconditional aid.
Why Netanyahu wants to reduce U.S. military aid
In recent weeks, Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have publicly expressed a desire to reduce Israel’s dependence on U.S. military assistance. Netanyahu has said he hopes to “taper off” U.S. aid over the next decade and has indicated that he does not intend to seek a full renewal of the 2016 agreement.
This push is rooted in frustrations during the Gaza war, when several allies, including the Biden administration, temporarily halted or delayed certain arms transfers over concerns that specific munitions could be used in ways that might cause excessive harm to Palestinian civilians. Israeli officials argue that these restrictions constrained Israel’s ability to fight at critical moments.
Israeli leaders also see strategic and economic value in redirecting the billions of dollars currently spent on U.S. weapons toward Israel’s own defense industry. At the same time, declining support for U.S. aid to Israel among both “America First” Republicans and Democrats concerned about Gaza casualties has made the Israeli government increasingly wary of relying on Washington for its long-term defense needs.
On Jan. 28, Netanyahu claimed that what he called an arms “embargo” under former President Joe Biden cost Israeli soldiers their lives — a statement former U.S. officials quickly condemned.
“Netanyahu is both not telling the truth and ungrateful to a president that literally saved Israel at its most vulnerable moment,” said Amos Hochstein, a former U.S. diplomat under Biden. Brett McGurk, who served in senior national security roles under presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Trump, as well as Biden, said the claim was “categorically false.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides added: “He is wrong. Biden’s support for Israel has been rock solid, and he provided it at enormous political cost.”
For its part, the Trump administration published its 2026 National Defense Strategy at the end of January, which states, “Israel is a model ally, and we have an opportunity now to further empower it to defend itself and promote our shared interests.”
The meeting’s focus: Iran
Discussions regarding Iran are expected to dominate the meeting. Iran and Israel have long been adversaries, with Tehran openly committed to Israel’s destruction. The meeting comes ahead of months of increased tension between the two nations. During the 12-Day War in June 2025, Israel struck key Iranian military assets, and the U.S., buoyed by prior Israeli military successes, attacked major Iranian nuclear facilities. The present condition of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs after the strikes is unclear, and Israel remains determined to eliminate the security threat posed by Iran.
Following the outbreak of anti-regime protests in Iran in mid-January, Trump encouraged demonstrators in a Jan. 13 Truth Social post, writing: “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! … HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
Shortly after the post, Netanyahu reportedly urged Trump not to strike Iran, citing fears of a major Iranian retaliation against Israel — an outcome Iranian officials have explicitly threatened. While Trump has repeatedly warned Iran of potential military action over Iran’s treatment of protesters, and moved a fleet of aircraft carrier strike groups to the Middle East, he has emphasized his preference for reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran, particularly focused on the country’s nuclear program.
The Trump administration met with Iranian officials in Oman over the weekend in the hopes that a deal might be struck. With talks expected to continue next week, Netanyahu is now seeking to broaden the scope of any potential agreement between the U.S. and Iran. According to a statement from his office, Netanyahu hopes the Trump administration will push for provisions addressing Iran’s ballistic missile program and Iran’s support for regional militant groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, as well as ensuring Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
On the sidelines, Israel makes controversial moves in the West Bank
Recent Israeli decisions regarding the West Bank may also surface during the meeting, following announcements on Sunday by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defense Minister Israel Katz of new measures expanding Israeli control over territory in the West Bank presently controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The steps will make it easier for Jewish Israelis to purchase land in the West Bank and could allow Israeli police to demolish homes in areas under PA jurisdiction — moves that would violate the Oslo Accords.
The recent Israeli decisions run counter to explicit Trump administration requests that Israel avoid controversial actions in the West Bank, particularly as Arab states have warned that steps toward annexation could jeopardize their willingness to help manage postwar Gaza or normalize relations with Israel.
Trump told Axios on Tuesday, “We have enough things to think about now. We don’t need to be dealing with the West Bank.” U.S. officials also reiterated Trump’s opposition to Israeli annexation of the territory, stating, “A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration’s goal to achieve peace in the region.”
With a potential deal with Iran on the table, U.S. military aid to Israel under growing scrutiny, and Israeli actions in the West Bank complicating regional diplomacy, Wednesday’s meeting comes at a unique moment for the U.S.-Israel relationship. But as past meetings between Trump and Netanyahu have shown, there is a very real chance the meeting could veer off script.
The post 5 things to know ahead of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Florida’s anti-Israel GOP candidate James Fishback is railing against ‘goyslop.’ What is he talking about?
(JTA) — At a campus campaign stop last week, Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate James Fishback dropped some unusual verbiage while inveighing against junk food in school cafeterias.
“I’m not saying that the test scores are the result of the Pop-Tarts,” Fishback told a crowd at the University of Central Florida, in remarks boosting locally grown produce over convenience foods. “But if you wanted kids to fail, if you wanted to set our kids up for failure, you would feed them the absolute goyslop in our cafeterias.”
Goyslop?! What was Fishback talking about?
The term has skyrocketed in use in recent months among the very online far right, the ecosystem that gave rise to the candidacy of the 31-year-old investment banker and political outsider. It’s a portmanteau of “goy,” the Yiddish word meaning non-Jew that white nationalist groups have increasingly repurposed into an antisemitic badge of honor, and “slop” — a popular way to refer to low-quality content, especially digital content.
The term is making the rounds among the largest white nationalist and antisemitic influencers. Clavicular, a popular manosphere influencer recently seen dancing and singing to Ye’s “Heil Hitler” at a Miami nightclub, appeared on a recent livestream with white nationalist Nick Fuentes to lament how “the entire grocery store is filled with goyslop.”
One popular X account known for spewing antisemitism recently defined the term “goyslop” as “fast food”; it has also been used by accounts to describe everything from the Super Bowl to the Epstein files.
It’s the sort of trolling language that Fishback has used frequently since entering the race last year. He has repeatedly praised followers of Fuentes and indicated familiarity with the antisemitic podcaster Myron Gaines. He has called U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, his opponent and the leading candidate in the GOP primary, a “slave to donors.” (Donalds is Black.)
Fishback has also embraced anti-Israel talking points. He opposed Florida’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism because — as he recently claimed to Tucker Carlson — it would make it “against the law to criticize Israel.” He has said he would “divest every penny from Israel on day one,” setting up an ideological battle in a state with a substantial Jewish population where lawmakers are on the verge of forcing the term “West Bank” to be replaced in educational materials with “Judea and Samaria.”
During the same UCF campaign event in which he uttered “goyslop,” Fishback also inveighed against politicians who “visit another country” and wind up “kissing a stupid wall,” a clear reference to Israel’s Western Wall.
Fishback’s goyslop comments came as he was responding to a question about whether he planned to remove fluoride from the state’s tap water system and replace it with creatine — the amino-acid compound beloved among health influencers for purportedly boosting athletic performance.
Fishback later winkingly professed ignorance about the word.
“I used a term recently this week that I got a lot of flak for, about referring to the food in our public cafeterias,” he told a crowd while eating a fried Oreo at the Florida State Fair. “I don’t know what that term was.”
But Jews in Florida knew. “Just last night, at a local event, he mocked efforts to bring quality education to Florida schools, using the slang ‘GOYSLOP’ in a context clearly meant to belittle,” Joseph Feldman, an Orthodox Jewish Miami resident, wrote about Fishback in the Hasidic publication VINNews. “These remarks are not accidental gaffes; they are calculated, designed to play on prejudice for political gain.”
Searches for “goyslop” have spiked over the last three months after being essentially dormant prior to that, according to Google Trends.
“Consume less goyslop, piggy,” the right-wing influencer Ian Miles Cheong posted on X last month, mocking heavy-set anti-ICE protester in Minneapolis. Cheong frequently engages on the platform with the site’s owner and multi-billionaire Elon Musk, and his account commands a following of 1.2 million on its own.
The term and a variant, “zogchow,” originated on message boards like 4Chan as early as 2019, and user-submitted definitions of the term appear on Urban Dictionary date back to 2021. In its original usage, “goyslop” refers to corporate fast food or other low-quality food, including school lunches, which antisemites believe is promoted by Jews to keep “goyim” unhealthy and dissatisfied. (“ZOG,” short for “Zionist-occupied government,” is an acronym that emerged in white supremacist circles in the 1970s and is now widely used in antisemitic rhetoric.)
Some who have employed the term “goyslop,” including leftists who have absorbed and adapted far-right talking points on Israel and Zionism, may not understand its origins. “Ever since I saw someone say they thought the goy part of goyslop was a combo of gay and soy, I’ve been wondering how many other people have no idea what the f–k they’re saying half the time,” the progressive author Ashley Reese tweeted last week.
But others are fully aware. The Anti-Defamation League’s online glossary of hate terms notes that antisemites have increasingly used “goy” in reference to antisemitic conspiracy theories.
For example, the phrase “The goyim know” — as in “shut it down, the goyim know!” — has circulated on antisemitic forums for years. It imagines the speaker as a Jew whose villainy has been exposed, and depicts Jews as “malevolent puppet-masters, manipulating the media, banks, and even entire governments to the benefit of themselves but to the detriment of other peoples,” according to the ADL.
“Slop,” meanwhile, is online slang that has caught on with the mainstream in a big way, most notably as a reference to junky or untrustworthy content generated by artificial intelligence. The dictionary publisher Miriam-Webster declared “slop” its 2025 Word of the Year, defining it as “digital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence.”
From AI, “slop” has spread to the real world as a catchall term for degrading quality control in all manner of institutions. The New York Times this week, in a trend piece about one-bowl, no-fuss meals called “boy kibble,” referred to the meal as “slop.” A conspiratorial fixation on “slop” foods also dovetails with the popularity of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement and various influencer podcasts.
Fishback’s inversion of Jewish terminology didn’t end with “goyslop.” At the UCF event, following a round of laughter and applause from the gathered crowd after he employed the word, the candidate added, “And that is on gentile, OK?”
That term — a seeming riff on “on fleek” — is even harder to parse. Most X users who noted the phrase seemed to be encountering it for the first time, and there is no online record of it being circulated by other figures or on other platforms.
Fishback is polling in the low single digits in the GOP primary, according to most current pollsters. The heavily favored, and Trump-endorsed, candidate is Donalds (whom Fishback, borrowing an insult once leveled by the left at Hakeem Jeffries, has also dubbed “AIPAC Shakur”). The state’s lieutenant governor and former House speaker are also in the race, with Casey DeSantis, Florida’s current First Lady, also reportedly mulling a run.
If Fishback’s meme-heavy campaign gains traction outside of the antisemitic fringe, he may prove a new political axiom: Slop sells.
The post Florida’s anti-Israel GOP candidate James Fishback is railing against ‘goyslop.’ What is he talking about? appeared first on The Forward.