Features
Martin Scorsese’s ‘Casino’ is 25 years old. Here’s a primer on its Jewish protagonist and Hollywood’s other Jewish gangsters.
By STEPHEN SILVER
(JTA) — “Casino,” Martin Scorsese’s examination of the mob’s control of Las Vegas in the 1960s and 70s, debuted in theaters on Nov. 22, 1995 — 25 years ago.
It may be a tick below “Goodfellas,” which came out just five years earlier, in terms of its reputation in the eyes of film historians. But the three-hour epic remains one of Scorsese’s most ambitious and gorgeously realized films. It also may be the best crime film with a Jewish protagonist at its center.
That was Sam “Ace” Rothstein, the character played in the film by Scorsese mainstay Robert De Niro. Rothstein is depicted as a Jewish associate of the Chicago Outfit, an expert bookmaker and sports handicapper who is sent to Vegas to run the Tangiers, one of the largest casinos on the Strip. The character is based on Frank Rosenthal, a real Jewish gambling expert from Chicago who had ties to the Chicago Outfit and eventually headed to Vegas to run casinos for them.
While the film is somewhat fictionalized, Rosenthal really did pioneer the idea of sports books in casinos, really did survive an assassination attempt by car bomb and really did have his license denied by a state gaming commission, which was led in real life by Harry Reid, before he was a senator.
Rothstein, as depicted in the film, is sort of a gangster, and sort of not; he is with the mafia, but not of the mafia, because of his ethnic identity. Like Henry Hill, the protagonist of “Goodfellas,” Rothstein can’t ever be a “made guy” because he’s not fully Sicilian.
However, Ace sees his work running the casino as having a certain degree of above-board legitimacy and is constantly worried that his longtime friend Nicky (Joe Pesci), a fully “made” mobster, is ruining that reputation with his loose cannon antics.
In the film, the viewer never hears Rothstein himself address his Jewishness or what it means to him, and he appears to lead a largely secular life. The topic is mentioned, however, by Pesci’s character, in a somewhat pejorative way.
“I gotta make sure no one f***s around with the golden Jew,” Nicky says at one point. As their relationship begins to sour, he says things like “Jew motherf*****,” and threatens to “take a piece out of your Jew ass.”
“Casino” also featured a supporting cast full of famous Jewish comedians, including Don Rickles, Alan King and Kevin Pollak.
In the end, Rothstein is the perfect symbol of how Jews could find great success in mid-20th century America — even in the crime world — yet remain outsiders, through no fault of their own.
After Frank Rosenthal’s death in 2008, it was revealed that he had long been an FBI informant. In an interview prior to his death, Rosenthal was asked whether his heritage protected him while dealing with underworld figures.
“No, when you excel at anything — my expertise was sports and thoroughbred wagering — you rise to a very high level,” he said. “Some people were impressed and took special notice that I could beat the odds. To have recognition, in my judgment, opened certain doors for me. It put me in a semi-celebrity category.”
Another fact surrounding the Rothstein character is that he was portrayed by the non-Jewish De Niro — something that could have raised eyebrows today. Of course, this can go the other way, too: Actor James Caan has said in interviews that he’s had to turn down “Italian-American of the Year” awards multiple times because even though he played Sonny Corleone in “The Godfather,” he is in fact the son of German Jewish immigrants.
Rothstein is far from the only major Jewish character in the canon of American gangster movies. Here’s a quick recap of some of the others:
-The “Godfather” movies featured a pair of prominent Jewish gangsters, both allies-turned-antagonists of the Corleone Family: Moe Greene (Alex Rocco) in the first film, and Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg) in the second. The two men were based, respectively, on real-life Jewish gangsters Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel and Meyer Lansky. Roth, like Lansky, would even seek political asylum in Israel — “I wished to live there as a Jew in the twilight of my life.”
Hyman Roth, according to a deleted scene in “The Godfather Part II,” was originally named Hyman Suchowsky — but the character changed his name out of admiration for the real-life Jewish gangster Arnold Rothstein (not to be confused with the fictional Ace), later shortening it to Roth. “I’ve loved baseball ever since Arnold Rothstein fixed the World Series in 1919,” the character says in the film.
-Hollywood has offered plenty of other depictions of all three of those real-life gangsters. Bugsy Siegel was played by Warren Beatty in the 1991 biopic “Bugsy,” which Beatty also directed.
-Michael Lerner played Arnold Rothstein in “Eight Men Out,” John Sayles’ 1988 movie about the fixing of that same 1919 World Series.
-None other than Joe Pesci played another Lansky stand-in named “Mayakofsky” in the 1983 film “Eureka,” while Dustin Hoffman was Lansky in the 2005 drama “The Lost City,” a film that covered the gangster’s adventures in Cuba. Richard Dreyfuss played Lansky in a 1999 HBO movie “Lansky,” which was written by Jewish playwright David Mamet.
-Harvey Keitel, who is Jewish and is another veteran of Scorsese gangster pictures, is set to play an aging version of Lansky in an upcoming biopic, also called “Lansky.” That film is being directed by Eytan Rockaway, whose father Robert wrote a book in 1993 called “But He Was Good to His Mother: The Lives and Crimes of Jewish Gangsters.”
-On the HBO TV series “Boardwalk Empire,” which Scorsese executive produced, Michael Stuhlbarg (famous for his role in the Coen brothers’ “A Serious Man”) played Rothstein and Michael Zegen, later of “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” portrayed Siegel. In the short-lived cable series “Mob City,” Edward Burns was Siegel and Patrick Fischler was Lansky. In the lightly regarded 1991 film “Mobsters,” Richard Grieco played Siegel, Patrick Dempsey played Lansky and F. Murray Abraham portrayed Rothstein.
-There have been many fictional Jewish gangsters as well. For example, in 1990’s “Miller’s Crossing,” written and directed by the Coen brothers, John Turturro played bookie Bernie Bernbaum, about whom it is said “he’s got a mixed reputation, but for a sheeny, he’s got a lot of good qualities.” “Sheeny” is an anti-Jewish slur from the 19th century.
-In the 2006 crime drama “Lucky Number Slevin,” Ben Kingsley played a crime boss who was also a rabbi, and was called simply “The Rabbi.” The current season of the FX TV adaptation of the Coen brothers’ film “Fargo” features a character known as “Rabbi Milligan,” played by Ben Whishaw, who was traded among different ethnic crime families. One of those is the Jewish outfit known as the Moskowitz Syndicate.
-And on “The Sopranos,” there was Herman “Hesh” Rabkin (Jerry Adler), a veteran Jewish gangster and longtime associate of the Soprano family. In one episode, Christopher Moltisanti warns that an upcoming sit-down involving Hesh is likely to be a tough negotiation, because “I’ve heard his opinions on giving back pieces of Israel.” Adler also guest-starred on an episode of “The West Wing” as the father of Richard Schiff’s character Toby Ziegler, who was estranged from him due to his long-ago involvement with the Jewish organized crime group Murder, Inc.
Features
Are Niche and Unconventional Relationships Monopolizing the Dating World?
The question assumes a battle being waged and lost. It assumes that something fringe has crept into the center and pushed everything else aside. But the dating world has never operated as a single system with uniform rules. People have always sorted themselves according to preference, circumstance, and opportunity. What has changed is the visibility of that sorting and the tools available to execute it.
Online dating generated $10.28 billion globally in 2024. By 2033, projections put that figure at $19.33 billion. A market of that size does not serve one type of person or one type of relationship. It serves demand, and demand has always been fragmented. The apps and platforms we see now simply make that fragmentation visible in ways that provoke commentary.
Relationship Preferences
Niche dating platforms now account for nearly 30 percent of the online dating market, and projections suggest they could hold 42 percent of market share by 2028. This growth reflects how people are sorting themselves into categories that fit their actual lives.
Some want a sugar relationship, others seek partners within specific religious or cultural groups, and still others look for connections based on hobbies or lifestyle choices. The old model of casting a wide net has given way to something more targeted.
A YouGov poll found 55 percent of Americans prefer complete monogamy, while 34 percent describe their ideal relationship as something other than monogamous. About 21 percent of unmarried Americans have tried consensual non-monogamy at some point. These numbers do not suggest a takeover. They suggest a population with varied preferences now has platforms that accommodate those preferences openly rather than forcing everyone into the same structure.
The Numbers Tell a Different Story
Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy receive substantial attention in media coverage and on social platforms. The actual practice rate sits between 4% and 5% of the American population. That figure has remained relatively stable even as public awareness has increased. Being aware of something and participating in it are separate behaviors.
A 2020 YouGov poll reported that 43% of millennials describe their ideal relationship as non-monogamous. Ideals and actions do not always align. People answer surveys about what sounds appealing in theory. They then make decisions based on their specific circumstances, available partners, and emotional capacity. The gap between stated preference and lived reality is substantial.
Where Young People Are Looking
Gen Z accounts for more than 50% of Hinge users. According to a 2025 survey by The Knot, over 50% of engaged couples met through dating apps. These platforms have become primary infrastructure for forming relationships. They are not replacing traditional dating; they are the context in which traditional dating now occurs.
Younger users encounter more relationship styles on these platforms because the platforms allow for it. Someone seeking a conventional monogamous partnership will still find that option readily available. The presence of other options does not eliminate this possibility. It adds to the menu.
Monopoly Implies Exclusion
The framing of the original question suggests that niche relationships might be crowding out mainstream ones. Monopoly means one entity controls a market to the exclusion of competitors. Nothing in the current data supports that characterization.
Mainstream dating apps serve millions of users seeking conventional relationships. These apps have added features to accommodate other preferences, but their core user base remains people looking for monogamous partnerships. The addition of new categories does not subtract from existing ones. Someone filtering for a specific religion or hobby does not prevent another person from using the same platform without those filters.
What Actually Changed
Two things happened. First, apps built segmentation into their business models because segmentation increases user satisfaction. People find what they want faster when they can specify their preferences. Second, social acceptance expanded for certain relationship types that previously operated in private or faced stigma.
Neither of these developments amounts to a monopoly. They amount to market differentiation and cultural acknowledgment. A person seeking a sugar arrangement and a person seeking marriage can both use apps built for their respective purposes. They are not competing for the same resources.
The Perception Problem
Media coverage tends toward novelty. A story about millions of people using apps to find conventional relationships does not generate engagement. A story about unconventional relationship types generates clicks, comments, and shares. This creates a perception gap between how often something is discussed and how often it actually occurs.
The 4% to 5% practicing polyamory receive disproportionate coverage relative to the 55% who prefer complete monogamy. The coverage is not wrong, but it creates an impression of prevalence that exceeds reality.
Where This Leaves Us
Niche relationships are not monopolizing dating. They are becoming more visible and more accommodated by platforms that benefit from serving specific needs. The majority of people seeking relationships still want conventional arrangements, and they still find them through the same channels.
The dating world is larger than it was before. It contains more explicit options. It allows people to state preferences that once required inference or luck. None of this constitutes a takeover. It constitutes an expansion. The space for one type of relationship did not shrink to make room for another. The total space grew.
Features
Matthew Lazar doing his part to help keep Israelis safe in a time of war
By MYRON LOVE It is well known – or at least it should be – that while Israel puts a high value of protecting the lives of its citizens, the Jewish state’s Islamic enemies celebrate death. The single most glaring difference between the opposing sides can be seen in the differing approach to building bomb shelters to protect their populations.
Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah have invested untold billions of dollars over the past 20 years in building underground tunnels to protect their fighters while leaving their “civilian” populations exposed to Israeli bombs, not only has Israel built a highly sophisticated anti-missile system but also the leadership has invested heavily in making sure that most Israelis have access to bomb shelters – wherever they are – in war time.
While Israel’s bomb shelter program is comprehensive, there are still gaps – gaps which Dr. Matthew Lazar is doing his bit to help reduce.
The Winnipeg born-and raised pediatrician -who is most likely best known to readers as a former mohel – is the president of Project Life Initiatives – the Canadian branch of Israel-based Operation Lifeshield whose mission is to provide bomb shelters for threatened Israeli communities.
Lazar actually got in on the ground floor – so to speak. It was a cousin of his, Rabbi Shmuel Bowman, Operation Lifeshield’s executive director, who – in 2006 – founded the organization.
“Shmuel was one of a small group of American olim and Israelis who were visiting the Galilee during the second Lebanon war in 2006 and found themselves under rocket attack – along with thousands of others – with no place to go,” recounts Lazar, who has two daughters living in Israel. “They decided to take action. I was one of the people Shmuel approached to become an Operation Lifeshield volunteer.
Since the founding of Lifeshield, Lazar reports, over 1,000 shelters have been deployed in Israel. The number of new shelter orders since October 7, 2023 is 149.
He further notes that while the largest share of Operation Lifeshield’s funding comes from American donors, there has been good support for the organization across Canada as well.
One of the major donors in Winnipeg is the Christian Zionist organization, Christian Friends of Israel (FOI) Canada which, in September, as part of its second annual “Stand With Israel Support” evening – presented Lazar and Operation Lifeshield with a cheque for $30,000 toward construction of a bomb shelter for the Yasmin kindergarten in the Binyamina Regional Council in Northern Israel.
Lazar reports that to date the total number of shelters donated by Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry (globally) is over 100.
Lazar notes that the head office for Project Life Initiatives is – not surprisingly – in Toronto. “We communicate by telephone, text and Zoom,” he says.
He observes that – as he is still a full time pediatrician – he isn’t able to visit Israel nearly as often as he would like to. He manages to go every couple of years and always makes a point of visiting some of Operation Lifeshield’s projects.
(He adds that his wife, Nola, gets to Israel two or three times a year – not only to visit family, but also in her role as president of Mercaz Canada – the Canadian Conservative movement’s Zionist arm.)
“This is something I have been able to do to help safeguard Israelis,” Lazar says of his work for Operation Lifeshield. “This is a wonderful thing we are doing. I am glad to be of help. ”
Features
Patterns of Erasure: Genocide in Nazi Europe and Canada
By LIRON FYNE When we think of the word genocide, our minds often jump to the Holocaust, the mass-scale, systemic government-led murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, whose unprecedented scale and methods led to the very term ‘genocide’ being coined. On January 27th, 2026, we will bow our heads for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 80th year of remembrance.
Less frequently do we connect genocidal intent to the campaign against Indigenous peoples in Canada; the forced displacement, cultural destruction, and systematic killing that sought to erase Indigenous peoples. The genocide conducted by the Nazis and the genocidal intent of the Canadian government, though each unique in scale, motive, and implementation, share many conceptual similarities. Both were driven by ideologies of racial superiority, executed through governmental precision, and justified by the perpetrators as a moral mission.
At their core rests the concept of dehumanization. In Nazi Germany, Jews were viewed as subhuman, contaminated, and a threat to the ‘Aryan’ race. In Canada, Indigenous peoples were represented as obstacles to ‘progress’ and seen as hurdles to a Christian, Eurocentric nation. These ideas, this dehumanization, turned human beings into problems to be solved. Adolf Hitler called it the ‘Jewish question,’ leading to an official policy in 1942 called the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question,’ whereas Canadian officials called it the ‘Indian problem.’ The language is similar, a belief that one group’s existence endangers the destiny of another. The methods of extermination differed in practice and outcome, but the language of intent resembles one another.
The Holocaust’s concentration camps and carefully engineered gas chambers were designed for efficient, industrial-scale killing, resulting in mass murder. The well-organized plan of systematic degradation, deadly riots, brutal camp conditions, and designated killing centres were only a few of the ways the Nazis worked to eliminate the Jews. The Canadian government’s weapons were policy, assimilation and abandonment. Such as the Indian Act, reserves, and residential schools, which were all meant to ‘kill the Indian in the child,’ cutting generations off from their languages, families, and cultures. Thousands of Indigenous children died in residential schools, buried in unmarked graves near schools that called themselves places of learning. Both systems were backed by either religion or ideology; Nazi ideology brought together racist eugenic policies and virulent antisemitism, while Canada’s genocidal intent was supported by Christian Protestantism claiming to save Indigenous souls by erasing their heritage.
The Holocaust was a six-year campaign of complete industrialized extermination, mass murder with a mechanized intent, on a scale that remains historically unique. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes Canada’s indigenous genocide as a cultural one that unfolded over centuries through assimilation and the destruction of indigenous languages and identities. The Holocaust ended with the liberation of the camps and a global recognition of the atrocities committed. However, the generational trauma and dehumanization of antisemitism carry on. For Indigenous peoples in Canada, the effects of the genocidal intent continue to this day, visible in displacement, poverty, and intergenerational trauma. While these histories differ in form and timeline, both are rooted in dehumanization and the belief that some lives are worth less than others.
A disturbing similarity lies in the aftermath: silence and denial. The Holocaust forced the world to confront the atrocity with the vow of ‘Never Again,’ which has now been unearthed and reformed as ‘Never Again is Now,’ after the October 7th, 2023, massacre by Hamas. The largest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the denial of the atrocities committed on October 7th, highlight the same Holocaust denial we see rising around the world. In Canada, for decades, the genocidal intent was hidden behind narratives of kindness and social progress. Only in recent years, through survivor testimony for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the discovery of unmarked graves, has the truth gained recognition. But acknowledgment without justice risks repeating the same patterns of erasure.
Comparing these atrocities committed is not about comparing pain or scale; it is about understanding the shared systems that enabled them. Both demonstrate how racism, superiority, and dehumanization can be used to justify the destruction of human beings. Remembering is not enough in Canada. True remembrance demands accountability, land restitution, reparations, and education that confronts Canada’s ongoing colonial legacy. When we say ‘Never Again is Now’, we hold collective action to combat antisemitism in all forms. The same applies to Truth & Reconciliation; it must be more than a slogan; we must apply action to Truth & ReconciliACTION.
Liron Fyne is a 12th-grade student at Gray Academy of Jewish Education in Winnipeg. They are currently a Kenneth Leventhal High School Intern at StandWithUs Canada, a non-profit education organization that combats antisemitism.