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
Antisemitism Exploding on the Far-Right: The Conspiracy Doesn’t Need an Event Anymore
Dan Bilzerian arrives at the Fashion Nova x Cardi B Collection Launch Party held at the Hollywood Palladium on May 8, 2019, in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, United States. Photo: Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
In April 2026, Dan Bilzerian — a social media personality with 29.6 million Instagram followers — filed to run for the US Congress against incumbent Randy Fine (R-FL). Within 10 days, he had been interviewed across right-wing, left anti-imperialist, manosphere, and tabloid outlets, calling his Jewish opponent a “fat Jew” and naming “Jewish supremacy” as the greatest threat to America.
My team at NYU’s Center for the Study of Antisemitism collected and coded 3,000 YouTube comments under six of these video appearances. Across the six videos, 41 percent of comments were antisemitic. The lowest single video came in at 23.6 percent. Under TMZ, where the hosts pushed back on Bilzerian on camera, the figure reached 52 percent — the highest of the six.
These are not numbers consistent with the way online antisemitism has usually been studied — including in my own previous work.
Most digital antisemitism research, including the studies my team has run after the Capital Jewish Museum shooting, the Charlie Kirk assassination, the Bondi Beach attack, the Temple Israel Synagogue attack, and the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, treats the discourse as event-driven. Something happens; comment sections respond. The highest antisemitism rate I have ever documented in those event studies sits in the 12 to 20 percent range.
Sadly, even Bilzerian’s quietest video outran the worst spike I have ever seen after a major attack. There is no event driving these numbers. There is just a candidate.
Online antisemitism is still being produced on the left, by Islamist actors, and by foreign malign-influence operations. None of that has gone away — and on the left in particular, the post-October-7 surge has not receded.
What has changed is that a second front has opened among right-wing influencers with mass audiences, and it is moving fast. Bilzerian comes from there. So did Candace Owens before him. So did Tucker Carlson.
Antisemitism and adjacent conspiracy narratives are now being normalized by these figures at an unprecedented pace, inside the broader Republican coalition, using platform infrastructures and institutional vehicles existing monitoring rarely even looks at.
Jewish institutions calibrated mainly to track the left or external state actors are now watching one front while a second one widens.
The pattern holds across audiences that have nothing else in common. Owen Shroyer is a former Infowars right-populist. George Galloway is a heterodox left anti-imperialist who was expelled from Labour in 2003 over his Iraq War statements. Sneako is a manosphere influencer and Muslim convert. Jimmy Dore is a left-populist commentator.
The antisemitism saturation is steady under all of them, because what is producing it is not the host or the audience but the speaker each is platforming. Under Galloway, a typical comment ran: “It is the Zionists in control of all our western governments that have promoted the illegal immigration issues we have all been experiencing for the past decade.” Under Sneako, where the title named “Jewish supremacy” directly, the wordplay register surfaced — “very Cohencidental,” “Cohencidence” — alongside lines like “anyone who shits on Jews is a legend.”
Under Jimmy Dore, where antisemitism reached 42 percent, the historical-authority register dominated: a Hitler quotation got 71 likes, with a reply reading, “Yes we owe that man AH a big apology.”
Bilzerian’s candidacy is more than a single bad actor. It is a convergence: manosphere reach built up over a decade — poker, weapons, wealth display — converted into a pre-loaded political audience; anti-establishment positioning that reads as left or right depending on the listener but is coherent only as anti-Jewish-power (anti-Trump, anti-AIPAC, anti-Iraq War, pro-Palestinian); eliminationist content visible across the comment sections, including Hadrian endorsements, death wishes referencing the Nova massacre directed at named Jewish commenters, and the line “FINISH THE JOB THIS TIME”; and a Republican primary as the institutional vehicle that cleared the FEC filing process without friction.
The TMZ result shows what happens when this baseline meets resistance. Hosts Harvey Levin and Charles Latibeaudiere did exactly what mainstream-media accountability journalism is supposed to do. They named “fat Jew” as antisemitic on camera. They challenged Bilzerian’s redirection toward Palestinians as the “real Semites.” They refused his pivot from his own rhetoric to attacks on Fine’s record. By the standards of on-camera adversarial framing, this was a textbook intervention. The replies came in at 52 percent antisemitic.
The mechanism is the finding. The audience did not register the host pushback as journalistic accountability. It registered the pushback as further evidence of the conspiracy Bilzerian was naming. TMZ co-founder Harvey Levin’s documented appearance in the Epstein files — a real fact in the public record — became the activation trigger. One commenter, with 30 likes: “the owner of TMZ is in the Epstein files and plays the victim. These people support actual genocide. They are using words as a shield.” Another, with 73 likes: “He would win with ease but I don’t think the tiny hats would ever allow him to run.” A Goebbels quotation circulated through six different stations of one mega-thread, accumulating endorsements at each stop — “based,” “my daddy.” Latibeaudiere, the Black co-host, was recoded as a racial subordinate to a Jewish boss: “his boss and co-partner is a Jue,” “he figures it’s better to be in the house than in the fields.” A single counter-comment in the entire 500-comment sample, detailed and factually correct, arrived sixteen days late and received zero likes.
The dominant strategy that Jewish institutions, journalists, and platforms have for handling antisemitic public figures is on-camera adversarial framing: bring them on, push back, make them defend the indefensible. The assumption is that the audience will absorb the pushback as suppression. The TMZ case shows this assumption breaking. When the audience has already been primed — by years of speaker supply on other platforms — to read the host as part of the system being challenged, adversarial framing does not suppress the saturation. It feeds it.
Antisemitism in this material is not one hate register among several. It is the organizing logic for the others. Anti-Black framings, misogyny, anti-Muslim and anti-trans rhetoric all appear under the videos — but not as parallel categories. They appear under the conspiracy frame, organized by formulations like “the media is run by Jews and pushes X.” Monitoring systems that track hate categories separately measure each layer in isolation and miss the architecture connecting them.
Two things follow.
For Jewish institutions: a Congressional candidate with 29.6 million followers and a steady four-in-10 antisemitism saturation in his comment sections is not a fringe figure. The fact that he can be interviewed on TMZ and the replies come out at 52 percent is not a journalism problem. It is a structural condition. Strategies that depend on the host’s standing to push back will fail when the audience has already coded the host as compromised. And the threat is now coming from a direction the field has been slow to map: the Republican coalition, mass-audience right-wing creators, and the convergence of manosphere reach with anti-establishment populism.
For those tracking online antisemitism: the methodology to see this exists. The bottleneck is not detection. It is the analytical assumption that antisemitism is something that happens around events. When the speaker is the event, the existing framework cannot register what is in front of it.
The FEC filing was processed without friction. The primary ballot will list a candidate calling a sitting Jewish Congressman a “fat Jew” on national television. Both of those institutional doors opened on schedule. The architecture passing through them did not announce itself as extremism, because by the time it arrived it was wearing the credential of a federal Congressional campaign.
Matthias J. Becker, PhD, is AddressHate Research Scholar at NYU’s Center for the Study of Antisemitism. He is the founder and lead of Decoding Antisemitism — now its successor project, Decoding Hate — Research Advisor to AddressHate, and Editor-in-Chief of Digital Hate Review.
Uncategorized
Iranian Rapper Releases Persian Remix of Israeli Song, Calls for Revenge Against Regime
British-Iranian rapper 021Kid in the music video for his Persian remix of the song “Harbu Darbu” (feat. Stilla & Ness). Photo: Screenshot
British-Iranian rapper 021Kid has released a Persian remix of the song “Harbu Darbu” by Israeli rap duo Ness & Stilla, and in the lyrics, he calls for the death of the Iranian regime forces responsible for the killing and oppression of their own people.
The rapper, whose real name is Tony Mohraz, sings in both Farsi and English in “Harbu Darbu,” which was originally released by Ness and Stilla in 2023 in response to the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7.
In the Persian remix, 021Kid calls for the destruction of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an Iranian military force and internationally designated terrorist group, as well as the Basij parliamentary force that operates underneath it. The regime uses the Basij to violently suppress protests and crush political opposition across the country.
The rapper, who was born in Tehran but now lives in the United Kingdom, also sings about Iranian leaders and senior military figures who have been killed in US and Israel strikes. He mentions by name Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force Commander Qasem Soleimani, former Iranian Air Force Commander Aziz Nasirzadeh, and Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force.
021Ki further targets the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that has been persecuted by the regime and seeks its overthrow but was a US-designated terrorist group from 1997 to 2012.
“We don’t want mullah, neither MEK. Smoke ’em on site, show no mercy,” 021Kid raps in English. He then sings in Farsi, “I’m standing with Iran till the end … We get our country back, just watch.”
The song includes some Hebrew phrases as well. “My Persian Jews, Irani Chai and that’s why Am Israeli Chai,” 021Kid raps in the song. “I pull up Tel Aviv, Ma Nishma? [How are you?].”
The music video also features clips from Ness and Stilla’s music video for the Hebrew version of “Harbu Darbu.”
021Kid explained the intention behind his new song in an Instagram post.
“After what happened in Golders Green, London a few days ago where a Jewish man was stabbed — it’s a reminder that hate doesn’t just live online, it shows up in real life,” he wrote, referring to the antisemitic stabbing attack in which two Jewish men were injured in late April.
“Since January, the people of Israel & the jewish [sic] community have shown strength, resilience, and unity and solidarity standing next to us Iranians. As Persians and sons of Cyrus the Great we see it we respect it,” 021Kid further wrote on social media. “In times like this, real allies don’t stay silent. We stand together against hate, against violence, and for something bigger than politics — humanity, strength, and loyalty … From Persians to Israelis — we stand with you, to the very end AM IRANI CHAI & AM ISRAEL CHAI.”
In the original “Harbu Darbu,” released after the Oct. 7 attack in 2023, Ness & Stilla call for revenge against Hamas and Hezbollah, and threaten celebrities who voiced support for the terrorist groups or condemned Israel. The rappers name Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and top Hamas officials Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh, saying “every dog’s day will come.” All three have since been killed by Israel.
In 2024, Ness & Stilla claimed that were denied visas to enter the United States because of the song. The track also received backlash from pro-Palestinian activists who called for it to be removed from YouTube, claiming that it violated the platform’s harassment policies, but YouTube ultimately decided to let the song remain on its website.
Watch the music video for 021Kid’s “Harbu Darbu [Persian Remix]” featuring Ness & Stilla below.
Uncategorized
California man pleads guilty in 2023 death of pro-Israel protester
The man accused in the 2023 death of a pro-Israel protester will avoid a prison sentence after pleading guilty this week to all charges against him.
Loay Alnaji, 53, was at a pro-Palestinian protest in Ventura, California, in November 2023 when he allegedly struck a pro-Israel counterprotester named Paul Kessler with a megaphone. Kessler, who was 69, then fell, hitting his head on the pavement. He died several hours later, with the death ruled a homicide by blunt-force trauma.
Trial proceedings had been set to begin next week, with Alnaji facing up to four years in prison. But Ventura County Superior Court judge Derek Malan offered Loay Alnaji, 53, a deal on Tuesday that allowed Alnaji up to one year in jail followed by three years on probation.
Alnaji accepted the offer. His attorney, Ron Bamieh, told the Ventura County Star that Malan had determined “two old guys had a dispute and an accident happened.”
Alnaji pleaded guilty to the two counts against him — felony involuntary manslaughter and felony battery causing serious bodily injury — and admitted aggravating factors, namely that he used a weapon and that the victim was particularly vulnerable.
He will be sentenced June 25.
The plea deal was too lenient in the eyes of Kessler’s family — which wanted the maximum sentence, according to the Star — as well as Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko.
“Alnaji should be sentenced to prison for his violent behavior, and our office strongly objects to any lesser sentence,” Nasarenko said in a statement. “While no amount of punishment will ever fully account for the Kessler family loss, a prison commitment underscores the severity of this crime and will deter others from committing similar acts of violence.”
The Kessler family could not be reached for comment.
The guilty plea brings a tragic saga that began in the early days of the Israel-Hamas war closer to an end. Kessler and Alnaji were among 75 to 100 people who descended upon a busy intersection in Thousand Oaks — about 25 miles north of Los Angeles — for dueling protests related to the Israel-Hamas war.
What happened during the altercation remains unclear. Bamieh said Kessler put his phone in Alnaji’s face; when Alnaji swatted the phone away, the megaphone inadvertently hit Kessler’s face. (He also said Kessler had previously been diagnosed with a brain tumor, though the coroner has stated the tumor was not a factor in his death.) After Kessler’s fall, he was bleeding from the head and mouth, but was responsive at the scene and evacuated to a hospital. His condition worsened overnight and he died there early the next day.
Alnaji, who at the time was a computer science professor at Moorpark College, was placed on administrative leave by the school after his arrest and subsequent release on $50,000 bail.
Rabbi Noah Farkas, chief executive of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, welcomed the guilty plea for what he called a “heinous crime.”
“While we would have liked a harsher sentence that better reflects the pain of the Kessler family, we respect the legal process,” Farkas said in a statement. “Our hope is that today’s news helps bring closure to his family and gives our community the ability to demonstrate safely.”
The post California man pleads guilty in 2023 death of pro-Israel protester appeared first on The Forward.