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
Billie Eilish and the Erasure of Antisemitism After Australia’s Terror Attack
Police officers stand guard following the attack on a Jewish holiday celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, in Sydney, Australia, Dec. 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Flavio Brancaleone
On Sunday, December 14, the Australian Jewish community was shattered by a horrific terrorist attack that claimed the lives of 15 people, including a Holocaust survivor, a rabbi, and a 10-year-old girl.
This was not random violence. The attackers did not open fire indiscriminately on beachgoers or people passing by, nor was this an abstract failure of gun control or public safety.
The shooters deliberately targeted Jews gathered for a Hanukkah event, firing toward a clearly identifiable Jewish celebration. The intent was unmistakable. This was a targeted, ideologically motivated antisemitic terror attack.
They didn’t shoot the surfers or swimmers, bathers running for their lives or the brave lifeguards at Bondi.
They just shot the Jews.
Only the Jews.That’s the issue. Everything else is spin and gaslighting
— Brian Carlton (@Spoonyman) December 15, 2025
Yet some public figures rushed to reframe it as something else.
Musician Billie Eilish, for example, described the attack as “devastating” while emphasizing the need for stricter gun control in the United States and Australia — a response that sidestepped both who was targeted and why.
That framing is difficult to separate from Eilish’s own record. She has publicly accused Israel of committing “genocide” and proudly worn the Artists4Ceasefire pin featuring a red hand, an image uncomfortably reminiscent of the blood-stained hands displayed by terrorists after the lynching of Israelis in Ramallah during the Second Intifada.
Australia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world; its last mass shooting occurred in 1996.
In the wake of last week’s attack, the Australian government again pledged to enforce even tighter restrictions. Whether Eilish was aware of this context is ultimately beside the point. What matters is her refusal to acknowledge the antisemitic motivation of the attack and the Jewish community it targeted.
A similar omission appeared in Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s initial statement following the attack, which made no mention of Jews as the intended victims, despite the well-known presence of a large Hanukkah event nearby. Although Albanese later corrected course, that first statement helped set the framework through which much of the public understood the attack, blurring its antisemitic nature at the outset.
This instinct to default to safe political talking points while avoiding uncomfortable truths about antisemitic violence is increasingly common among celebrities and politicians alike. But the terror attack in Australia did not occur in a vacuum. It followed more than two years of escalating antisemitic incidents across the country, during which Jews have been physically threatened, verbally abused, and spiritually targeted.
Synagogues have been firebombed. and Jewish-owned businesses vandalized. Crowds openly chanted calls to “gas the Jews.”
Notably, some public figures did acknowledge this context. Film star Ashton Kutcher warned that antisemitic rhetoric “carries a cost.” Actor Josh Gad observed that the tragedy occurred because antisemitism has become “acceptable and cheered.” Their responses recognized a reality others chose to obscure.
Those who removed antisemitism from their condemnation of the attack did not merely omit context; they distorted it. By refusing to name the motive, they minimize the danger facing Jewish communities and help sustain a climate in which hatred can continue unchecked.
Naming the problem is not divisive. Refusing to do so is.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
‘Furious but Not Surprised’: UK Jewish Groups React After Bob Vylan Not Charged for ‘Death to the IDF’ Chant
Bob Vylan lead singer Bobby Vylan. Photo: BANG Showbiz via Reuters Connect
The Embassy of Israel in London as well as British Jewish groups have lambasted the decision by the UK’s Avon and Somerset Police on Tuesday to conclude its investigation into “death to the IDF” chants made during a Bob Vylan performance at the Glastonbury Festival and to take no further action against the British punk rap duo.
The police force decided not to bring charges against the London-based band after its lead singer Pascal Robinson-Foster, known by his stage name Bobby Vylan, led the audience in repeatedly chanting “death, death to the IDF” during their set at Glastonbury on June 28. The set was broadcast live on BBC.
“We have concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that it does not meet the criminal threshold outlined by the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] for any person to be prosecuted,” Avon and Somerset Police said in a statement. The force added that every potential criminal offense “was thoroughly considered,” police “sought all the advice [it] could to ensure we made an informed decision,” and “no further action will be taken on the basis there is insufficient evidential for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction.”
In a statement posted to X, the Embassy of Israel in London said it was “deeply disappointing that vile calls for violence, repeated openly and without remorse, continue to fall on deaf ears.”
“Especially in the wake of the terror attacks in Manchester and Bondi, when will such calls finally be recognized for what they are: a real and dangerous instigator of bloodshed?” the embassy continued. “Pascal Robinson-Foster of Bob Vylan should have been held accountable for his bigotry and racism. Failing to act only emboldens those who seek to harm Jews.”
The British charity Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) also lamented the police’s decision in a statement, describing it as another blow to the Jewish community in the UK.
“British Jews will be furious but not in the least surprised,” a CAA spokesperson said.
“Over the last two years, trust in the authorities has collapsed,” the spokesperson added. “With most British Jews now considering whether they have a future in the UK at all, over and over again it falls to us to explore all legal avenues to take action because the authorities will not.”
The Community Security Trust (CST), which aims to provide safety for Jewish communities in the UK, said the decision is “incredibly disappointing” and “sends completely the wrong message at the worst possible time,” as reported by The Guardian.
Avon and Somerset Police said that as part of their investigation into the anti-IDF chants, they conducted “a voluntary police interview under caution” with a man in his mid-30s in November. Officers also spoke to “approximately 200” members of the public to see if they “may be a victim of a criminal offense.” In an effort to gain “an understanding of any legal precedents,” police additionally contacted other police forces in the UK who have investigated similar incidents and sought advice from the National Police Chiefs’ Council hate crime leads, the CPS, and an “independent barrister” before concluding its investigation.
“We sought specific consideration around the words stated, in terms of the intent behind them, the wider context of how people heard what was said, case law, and anything else potentially relevant, including freedom of speech,” the statement continued. “Every case must be treated on its own merits. Consistently the advice we have received has highlighted fundamental evidential difficulties that cannot be ignored,” police said.
“We believe it is right this matter was comprehensively investigated, every potential criminal offense was thoroughly considered, and we sought all the advice we could to ensure we made an informed decision,” authorities added. “We are committed to working positively with all our communities across Avon and Somerset in relation any matters that may arise in the future, because there is no place in society for hate of any kind.”
Bob Vylan commented on the police decision in a lengthy Instagram post on Tuesday. The band claimed the investigation was “never warranted in the first place” because the anti-IDF chant during their Glastonbury set was “evidently not hateful,” but rather “a display of solidarity with the Palestinian people.” They also falsely accused the IDF of wantonly murdering Palestinians.
“Over the past six months, the media and politicians have consistently attacked us for using our art and platform to take a stand against the actions of Israel and its illegal occupying military force,” they wrote. “We hope that this news inspires others in the UK and around the world to speak up, and continue speaking up, in support of the Palestinian people, without fear. We have had our shows cancelled, visas revoked, our names tarnished and our lives upended, but what we have lost in peace and security, we have gained tenfold in spirit and camaraderie. And that is unbreakable.”
The band concluded in part by declaring “Free Palestine” and saying that they hope “all oppressed people the world over, resist the boot of tyranny on the neck of freedom.”
Uncategorized
Netanyahu: Israel to Spend $110 Billion to Develop Independent Arms Industry in Next Decade
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a joint press conference with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (not pictured) after a trilateral meeting at the Citadel of David Hotel, in Jerusalem, Dec. 22, 2025. Photo: ABIR SULTAN/Pool via REUTERS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that Israel would spend 350 billion shekels ($110 billion) on developing an independent arms industry to reduce dependency on other countries.
“We will continue to acquire essential supplies while independently arming ourselves,” Netanyahu said at a ceremony for new pilots.
“I don’t know if a country can be completely independent, but we will strive … to ensure our arms are produced as much as possible in Israel,” he said. “Our goal is to build an independent arms industry for the State of Israel and reduce the dependency on any party, including allies.”
Netanyahu’s comments came about a month after he denied reports that his country was seeking a new 20-year military aid deal with the US, insisting that Israel was working to wean itself off American assistance.
“I don’t know what they’re talking about. My direction is the exact opposite,” Netanyahu said on “The Erin Molan Show” last month when asked by the Australian journalist about a new Axios report saying Israel was pursuing the security agreement.
According to Axios, the deal under discussion would include “America First” provisions to win the Trump administration’s support. The current 10-year memorandum of understanding between the two countries — the third such agreement signed — expires in 2028. It includes around $3.8 billion of annual military aid to Israel, which spends nearly all the assistance in the US to purchase American-made weapons and equipment.
Netanyahu’s latest comments come amid growing criticism in the US among progressives and, increasingly, some conservatives over American military support for Israel, especially among younger Americans.
“Now, I want to make our arms industry independent, totally as independent as possible,” Netanyahu said last month. “I think that it is time to ensure that Israel is independent.”
Netanyahu added that US defense aid to Israel is a “tiny fraction” of what Washington spends in the Middle East.
“We have a very strong economy, a very strong arms industry, and even though we get what we get, which we appreciate, 80 percent of that is spent in the US and produces jobs in the US,” he continued, saying he wants to see “an even more independent Israeli defense industry.”
The Israeli premier went on to stress that his country has never asked a single American solider to fight for Israel.
“Israel does not ask others to fight for us,” he said. “Israel is the one American ally in the world that says, ‘We don’t need boots on the ground, we don’t need American servicemen fighting on the ground for Israel or around Israel. We’re fine.’ We fight our own battles, but in doing so, we serve important American interests, like preventing countries that chant ‘Death to America’ from having nuclear bombs to throw at America.”