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
Support for Israel, Trump Gaza Peace Plan Remains High Among US Voters, New Poll Finds
Pro-Israel rally in Times Square, New York City, US, Oct. 8, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
A new national survey suggests that American support for Israel remains resilient overall but with notable generational divides that could shape the future political landscape.
According to the February 2026 Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll, strong majorities of US registered voters back policies aligned with Israel’s security posture and express approval of President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict in Gaza. At the same time, the data shows that support for Israel fluctuates significantly depending on age.
Notably, the survey was conducted last week on Wednesday and Thursday, just before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran over the weekend.
Among respondents, 73 percent of voters say they support Trump’s Gaza deal framework. The proposal, aimed at restructuring governance and stabilizing post-war conditions in Gaza, commands bipartisan backing in the poll’s toplines.
The plan calls for the dismantling of Hamas’s military and political control, the establishment of an interim administrative authority backed by regional Arab partners, and a major internationally funded reconstruction effort. Trump has also emphasized expanding normalization between Israel and Arab states, building on the Abraham Accords, as a cornerstone of long-term stability, while maintaining Israel’s security oversight during a transitional period.
Voters appear to prioritize stability and deterrence, responding favorably to an approach framed around preventing Hamas from reasserting control and reinforcing Israel’s long-term security.
The poll shows that a clear majority of Americans continue to side with Israel over Hamas and support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, support levels vary considerably by age group.
Older voters, particularly those over 55, show the strongest pro-Israel sentiment, with large majorities backing Israel’s military actions and expressing sympathy with Israel over the Palestinians. Voters between 35 and 54 also lean pro-Israel, though by narrower margins.
The sharpest contrast appears among younger voters. Americans under 35 remain more divided, with significantly lower levels of sympathy toward Israel and greater skepticism about its military campaign in Gaza. While even in this group Israel retains meaningful support, the margins are slimmer and opposition more vocal.
The generational gap reflects broader cultural and media consumption differences, as well as the impact of campus activism and social media narratives. Yet the topline remains clear: despite softness among younger voters, Israel continues to command majority support nationwide.
Further, strong and stable majorities support Israel over the Hamas terrorist group. According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans support Israel over Hamas. However, support for Israel heavily fractures along age lines. Per the poll, 82 percent of those over 55 years old support Israel, compared to only 62 percent between the ages 35-44. However, a striking 58 percent of those between the ages 18-24 support Hamas over Israel, indicating a groundswell of backing for a foreign terrorist organization among American youth.
In the nearly two-and-a-half years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, support for the Jewish state has seen significant declines across political and age lines in the US. Younger Americans, particularly, have largely turned against Israel. The increasingly tense relationship between Israel and US voters has become a flashpoint in Democratic primaries, with liberal political hopefuls increasingly vowing not to accept support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group in the US.
The February poll was conducted among 1,999 registered voters, with a margin of error of ±2 percentage points.
Uncategorized
US-Israel War Effort Bolstered by Growing Support in Middle East, Europe as Iran Left Isolated
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following United States and Israel strikes on Iran, as seen from Doha, Qatar, March 1, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
As Iran’s missile and drone attacks widen and prompt outrage, a loose coalition is forming of Middle Eastern and Western powers to act against Tehran, leaving the regime increasingly isolated as the US and Israel continue their military campaign.
On Monday, several Israeli media outlets reported that Qatar launched strikes against Iran over the last 24 hours, following what officials described as a series of Iranian attacks targeting the country and the broader region.
However, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Majid al-Ansari denied Doha’s involvement in “the campaign targeting Iran,” describing its actions as defensive in nature rather than part of any war effort.
“We exercised our legitimate right to self-defense and to deter Iranian aggression against our territory,” al-Ansari said in a statement.
The Qatari diplomat further confirmed that officials had prevented a planned attack aimed at Hamad International Airport in Doha.
“It is misguided to suggest that pressuring Gulf nations will bring Iran back to the negotiating table,” al-Ansari said.
“We received no advance warning from Iran regarding the missile strikes,” he continued. “The target was not limited to military installations, but extended to the country’s entire territory. Such attacks will not go unanswered.”
Amid escalating regional tensions, Saudi Arabia could also be drawn into the military campaign against the Islamist regime after two Iranian drones struck near the United States Embassy in Riyadh, igniting an explosion in the city. Saudi Arabia is considering a symbolic attack on Iran in response, according to Israeli media reports.
US President Donald Trump strongly condemned the attack, issuing a stark warning to Tehran and saying that Iranian aggression would be met with a forceful US response.
“They will soon learn the price of the attack on the US Embassy in Riyadh and the killing of American service members,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
Since the start of the war this past weekend, Iran has reportedly launched 450 missiles and 1,140 drones toward Gulf states, a barrage that has pushed regional governments to distance themselves from Tehran and align more openly with the Israeli and American offensive.
As the conflict widened, Iran extended its attacks beyond Israel, targeting what it described as “US interests” across the region and launching missile and drone strikes that reached several Gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.
Iran “is now in complete isolation in the entire world, including among the Gulf states,” Darar al-Hol al-Falasi, a former member of the UAE’s Federal National Council, told the Israeli broadcaster Kan News. “The attacks were like the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Media reports also indicated Iranian strikes in the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq, reportedly to preempt any uprising from Kurdish opposition groups, and an Iranian-made drone, likely launched by Iran-backed Hezbollah from Lebanon, striking a British base in Cyprus.
According to analysts, Iran appeared to believe that expanding the war and targeting Gulf states would push regional governments to press Washington toward de-escalation. However, the move has instead reinforced regional resistance and prompted closer alignment against Tehran.
Meanwhile, both Washington and Jerusalem have indicated that there is no fixed timetable for ending their military operation, stressing that actions will continue as long as necessary to neutralize the threat posed by Iran
“From the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that, we’ll do it,” Trump said in a statement.
“This was our last best chance to strike … and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime,” he continued.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar also said there is no set timeline for the joint military effort with Washington against Iran, describing the strikes as a necessary step to weaken Tehran’s leadership and strategic capabilities.
Initially cautious, European Union members are now gradually increasing their involvement, moving to safeguard strategic assets in the region against Iranian drone and missile threats.
On Tuesday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot announced an increased French military presence in the region, confirming the deployment of fighter jets to the UAE after an Iranian drone struck a French military installation in Abu Dhabi.
“Discussions are underway with France’s allies in the Middle East regarding the provision of equipment to strengthen their defensive capabilities,” Barrot said.
France will dispatch a warship and anti-missile and anti-drone systems to help protect British facilities in Cyprus after two drones targeting the British air base at RAF Akrotiri were intercepted.
Greece also announced its support for Cyprus, deploying four F-16 fighter jets and two frigates, including one carrying the Centauros anti-drone jamming system, while pledging to defend the island “by all necessary means.”
Britain said it would deploy the Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon and two Wildcat helicopters armed with Martlet missiles to strengthen defenses in the Eastern Mediterranean.
European support is expanding beyond Cyprus. French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday said France was sending its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Mediterranean and working to build a coalition that would help secure maritime traffic.
“We have economic interests to protect, because oil prices, gas prices, and the international trade situation are being profoundly disrupted by this war,” Macron said in a televised address.
As Iran presses ahead with its regional escalation despite growing opposition, the United States, along with Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, issued a joint statement strongly condemning Tehran’s “indiscriminate and reckless missile and drone attacks” against sovereign territories across the region.
“We stand united in defense of our citizens, sovereignty, and territory, and reaffirm our right to self-defense in the face of these attacks,” the statement read.
Britain, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have also condemned what they described as “the indiscriminate and disproportionate missile attacks” by Iran on regional countries, saying the strikes pose a broader threat to regional stability.
“Iran’s reckless attacks have targeted our close allies and are threatening our service personnel and our civilians across the region,” the statement said.
“We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source,” it continued. “We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.”
Meanwhile, China and Russia — despite their close ties to Iran — have so far limited their response to diplomatic statements and calls for de-escalation, echoing their restrained posture during last year’s 12-day war with Israel.
Moscow convened emergency meetings and publicly denounced the attacks but stopped short of offering material assistance to Tehran, despite the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty the two countries signed last year.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed that Beijing opposes unilateral military action and supports Iran’s right to defend itself.
“China supports Iran in upholding its sovereignty, security, territorial integrity, and national dignity, while safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests,” the Chinese diplomat said in a statement.
“Major powers should not exploit their military superiority to launch arbitrary attacks on other nations, and the world must not return to a law of the jungle,” she continued.
Beijing is even urging Tehran to avoid disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — a vital passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and a key route for global energy shipments — as escalating conflict threatens international oil and gas supplies.
Iran has long threatened to close the waterway in the event of war with the US.
Uncategorized
‘Solidarity’: Faculty for Palestine Groups Urge Students to Stand With Jihadists, Remnants of Iranian Regime
A woman holds a photo of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as she takes part in anti-US protest outside the White House. Photo: Matrix Images / Gent Shkullaku via Reuters Connect
Anti-Zionist faculty on college campuses are cajoling students to support Islamism, jihad, and terrorism by recruiting them to participate in demonstrations for the revolutionary government of Iran, a regime which is responsible for killing American soldiers through proxy groups across the Middle East.
“Dear Students, I know it is very short notice, but for those who would like to participate in social protest against the US and Israeli war on Iran, Angelenos are gathering in 2 hours at City Hall,” Elizabeth Ribet, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, wrote on Saturday, signing off the note with “solidarity.”
“This email is a blatant example of a professor abusing her academic authority to politicize the classroom,” Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, higher education expert and executive director of the campus watchdog group AMCHA Initiative, told The Algemeiner in an exclusive statement. “AMCHA Initiative’s latest report documents hundreds of similar examples and concludes that when faculty blur the line between teaching and anti-Israel political advocacy, antisemitic hostility on campus rises. Recognizing this danger, more than 350 UC [University of California] faculty have recently urged the Regents to act. UC leaders must recommit to academic integrity and ensure classrooms remain places of scholarship and rigorous inquiry, not platforms for political mobilization.”
Ribet’s note is one of many communications that pro-jihadist student and faculty groups have issued since the US and Israel launched military strikes against Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei over the weekend.
Since then, The Algemeiner has reviewed over a dozen examples of faculty, specifically the Faculty for Justice in Palestine organization, proclaiming solidarity with Iran’s Islamist, authoritarian regime and lambasting the US and Israel for their joint operation.
“These u.s.-backed attacks are designed to spark a regional war, sacrificing the people of Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and beyond to further amerikkkan and zionist domination [sic],” said a post liked by the University of California Ethnic Studies Council, a body of professors who proposed an ethnic studies high school requirement for UC admissions. Critics have noted that the proposal pushed anti-Zionism in the classroom.
“Every drop of their blood spilled ignites our rage, our grief, and our duty,” the post continued. “We must continue to organize in solidarity with the Palestinian people, until the end of zionism [sic] and the liberation of Palestine.”
It added, “RESISTANCE IS GLORIOUS.”
The UC Ethnic Studies Council also shared a post by the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism, a far-left group that has defended terrorism against Israel, which said, “We reject imperialist and wear mongering narratives that position Iran as the intruder in the region, rather than US military bases and US interventionism.”
In Bronxville, New York, Sarah Lawrence College’s Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) chapter posted a volley of messages which called for “de-platforming Zionists” and ending military operations in Iran. The group also shared false claims that the US opened fire on Pakistani civilians.
Just miles away, Saint John’s University FJP group shared agitprop falsely alleging that the US intentionally targeted an Iranian school with an airstrike and has “always … sacrificed” children. The group also called for sabotaging the war effort by refusing to file taxes or to file by paper to delay the government’s receiving revenue. Meanwhile, the post suggested that agents in the government are prepared to participate in the conspiracy.
“The absolute bare minimum those of us in the imperial core should be doing is NOT FUNDING THIS SH—T,” said the post. “For example even just filing your taxes via paper slows down the IRS and makes it easier for other tax registers to make an impact with their actions as well.”
Bowdoin College, New York University, Bryn Mawr College, and Haverford College all have Faculty for Justice in Palestine groups sharing similar social media content.
The posts come after the Iranian regime killed tens of thousands of civilian anti-government protesters last month in a brutal crackdown. Iran for years has also been the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, according to Western intelligence agencies. For example, Iran funded, armed, and trained Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that perpetrated the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
College faculty not only promote terrorism but also play a singular role in triggering and accelerating the campus antisemitism crisis, according to a recent study by AMCHA Initiative.
Focusing on UC campuses as case studies, the study exposed Oct 7 denialism; faculty calling for driving Jewish institutions off campus; the founding of pro-Hamas, Faculty for Justice in Palestine groups; and hundreds of endorsers of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
“While students are the most visible actors, faculty and academic departments are key institutional drivers of the hostile environment,” the AMCHA Initiative said following the report’s publication. “Across three campuses, many faculty who promoted anti-Israel activism through university channels had previously endorsed an academic boycott of Israel (academic BDS). The boycott’s guidelines explicitly call on supporters to implement ‘anti-normalization’ in their professional roles. These include excluding Zionist perspectives, speakers, and programs from academic life.”
The report followed previous studies revealing the extent of faculty misconduct in higher education promoting anti-Israel animus and even outright antisemitism.
Just last month, The Algemeiner learned that, according to a lawsuit, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University assigned a Jewish student a project on “what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.”
Similar incidents have come at a fast clip since the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre: a Cornell University praised the terrorist group’s atrocities, which included mass sexual assaults; a Columbia University professor exalted Hamas terrorists who paraglided into a music festival to murder Israeli youth as the “air force of the Palestinian resistance”; and a Harvard University chapter of FJP shared an antisemitic cartoon which depicted Zionists as murderers of Blacks and Arabs.
“The report documents how concentrated networks of faculty activists on each campus, often operating through academic units and faculty-led advocacy formations, convert institutional platforms into vehicles for organized anti-Zionist advocacy and mobilization,” the report stated. “It shows how those pathways are associated with recurring student harms and broader campus disruption. It then outlines concrete steps the UC Regents can take to restore institutional neutrality in academic units and set enforceable boundaries so UC resources and authority are not used to advance activist agendas inside the university’s core educational functions.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.