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
Norway Police Apprehend 3 Suspects in US Embassy Bombing
Police vehicles outside the US embassy, after a loud bang was reported at the site, in Oslo, Norway, March 8, 2026. Photo: Javad Parsa/NTB/via REUTERS
Norwegian police said on Wednesday they had apprehended three brothers suspected of carrying out Sunday’s bombing at the US embassy in Oslo, in an attack investigators have branded an act of terrorism.
The powerful early-morning blast from an improvised explosive device (IED) damaged the entrance to the embassy‘s consular section but caused no injuries, Norwegian authorities have said.
The three suspects, all in their 20s, are Norwegian citizens with a family background from Iraq, police said.
“They are suspected of a terror bombing,” Police Attorney Christian Hatlo told reporters.
“We believe they detonated a powerful bomb at the U.S. embassy with the intention of taking lives or causing significant damage,” Hatlo said, adding that none of the suspects had so far been interrogated.
One of the men was believed to have planted the bomb while the two others were believed to have taken part in the plot, Hatlo said.
The brothers, who were not named, had not previously been subject to police investigations, he added.
A lawyer representing one of the three men said he had only briefly met with his client and that it was too early to say how the suspect would plead.
Lawyers representing the two others did not immediately respond to requests for comment when contacted by Reuters.
“Although it is early in the investigation, it is important that the police have achieved what they characterize as a breakthrough in the case,” Norway‘s Minister of Justice and Public Security Astri Aas-Hansen said in a statement.
Images of one of the suspects released by police on Monday showed a hooded person, whose face was not visible, wearing dark clothes and carrying a bag or rucksack.
Investigators on Monday said one hypothesis was that the incident was “an act of terrorism” linked to the war in the Middle East, but that other possible motives were also being explored.
Police are now investigating whether the bombing was done on behalf of a foreign state, Hatlo said, reiterating that they were also looking into other possible motives.
Europe has been on alert for possible attacks as the US and Israel conduct air strikes on Iran and Iran strikes Israel and US targets in the Middle East.
On Monday, a synagogue in the Belgian city of Liege was damaged by a blast that authorities called an antisemitic attack. It was not clear who was behind it.
Uncategorized
Belgium’s Jewish Community Sounds Alarm on Rising Antisemitism After Liège Synagogue Attack
Police secure the site of a synagogue damaged by an explosion early on Monday, in Liege, Belgium, March 9, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
Just days after a synagogue in Liège, Belgium was struck in an apparent antisemitic bombing, the local Jewish community is sounding the alarm over a surge in hostility and targeted violence against Jews across the country.
In an interview with the local news outlet La Première on Tuesday, the president of the Committee of Jewish Organizations in Belgium (CCOJB), Yves Oschinsky, called on government authorities to deploy soldiers to protect Jewish sites and institutions if police protection proves insufficient.
Following the attack on a synagogue in Liège, a city in the country’s eastern region, early Monday morning, Oschinsky warned that the Jewish community faces a far greater threat than authorities publicly acknowledge, emphasizing that Jewish institutions remain at heightened risk.
He also slammed the government for failing to appoint a national coordinator to fight antisemitism, while urging political parties and officials to take urgent, concrete action to protect the Jewish community.
Like most countries across the Western world, Belgium has seen a rise in antisemitic incidents over the last two years, in the wake of the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
According to the Belgian Interfederal Center for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism and Discrimination (Unia), which tracks antisemitism nationwide, 192 reports of antisemitism and Holocaust denial were filed in 2025, following a record 270 cases in 2024 — marking two consecutive years well previous years.
Before the Oct. 7 atrocities, only 31 antisemitic cases had been reported in Belgium in 2022.
On Tuesday, the Brussels-based Jonathas Institute released a new report warning that antisemitic prejudices remain widespread and deeply entrenched in Belgium.
“The results are clear: the study highlights that the population of Brussels continues to hold many antisemitic stereotypes ‘inherited from the past’ of a religious or political nature,” the institute said in a statement.
The newly released report found that 40 percent of respondents in Brussels agreed with the claim that Jews control the financial and banking sectors, while one in four blamed Jews for various economic crises.
According to the study, these stereotypes are “sometimes expressed as obvious truths” without overt hostility, a pattern the report warns makes them especially prone to being trivialized, particularly online.
More than one in five Belgians believe Jews are “not Belgians like the others,” while 21 percent label Jews an “unassimilable race.”
“The attack on the synagogue in Liège confirms that it is no longer just antisemitic speech that has been unleashed, but antisemitic acts as well. This aggressive antisemitism continues to rise,” the institute said.
The survey also found that 70 percent of respondents believe Jews form a “close-knit or closed community.”
In relation to the war in Gaza, 39 percent of Belgians claim that “Jews are doing to Palestinians what the Nazis did to them.” This view is particularly common among 18- to 35-year-olds, who are more likely to compare Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis.
Within far-right circles, 69 percent believe Jews exploit the Holocaust, while 72 percent say Jews use antisemitism for their own interests.
Based on these findings, the Jonathas Institute urged authorities and policymakers to strengthen historical education, improve digital literacy, and remain vigilant against narratives that normalize or justify hostility toward Jews, warning that such discourse can ultimately spark real-world violence.
The institute also calls for formalizing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, aiming to better distinguish “legitimate criticism of Israel” from “forms of anti-Zionism that revive antisemitic patterns.”
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.
Uncategorized
Iran, Russia Push Disinformation to Spread Antisemitism, Undermine the West
Iranian protesters carry a portrait of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a Yemeni flag as they burn an Israeli flag during an anti-US and anti-British protest in front of the British embassy in downtown Tehran, Iran, Jan. 12, 2024. Photo: Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
Iran and Russia have both used propaganda and disinformation to promote antisemitic narratives as part of an effort to undermine the West, according to analysts who this week exposed some of their methods and the damage they have caused.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center on Tuesday hosted an online briefing with experts who laid out how the Islamic regime in Iran deploys a variety of propaganda as weapons. One day earlier, the Gino Germani Institute for Social Sciences and Strategic Studies published an in-depth report detailing the history of Russia’s disinformation expertise.
“There is the kinetic battlefield, of course, but there’s also the information battlefield, the war for hearts and minds. Modern wars are fought not only with missiles, but with memes, not only with military force, but with persuasion,” said Vlad Khaykin, executive vice president of social impact and partnerships at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, opening the briefing.
“The Iranian regime and the networks aligned with it across Russia, China, and various proxy movements have spent decades building a global propaganda architecture designed for moments exactly like this,” Khaykin warned.
Rachel Kantz Feder, a senior researcher at the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, and Jacki Alexander, CEO and president for media watchdog Honest Reporting, offered their analyses of the subversive media techniques utilized by Tehran to advance the regime’s ideological objectives.
Speaking from Israel amid the current war with Iran, Kantz Feder prefaced her response by saying, “I hope I won’t have to run off for a siren,” referencing the warning that Israeli residents of incoming rocket fire receive telling them to seek shelter. In the briefing’s final 20 minutes, Kantz Feder had to do just that, apologizing and leaving to take cover from Iranian drone and missile fire.
Before the session’s interruption, Kantz Feder defined information warfare as “the strategic use of information and communications to influence perceptions and decision-making systems.” She said this can include “disinformation, cyber attacks, and good old-fashioned propagandistic efforts. And it is so central, I think, to Iran’s strategy right now because it’s so effective. And I think that the Iranian regime is seeing real yields from it, certainly in the realm of influencing certain media ecosystems.”
“We find that actually Iran started to forge ties with American figures from the far right and far left as well already by the end of the 1990s,” Kantz Feder noted, explaining that online dynamics today have roots going back decades.
One example she cited of this cultural diplomacy was the critical success of Iranian filmmakers in the 1990s, which the regime leveraged by holding international film festivals to try and influence Hollywood.
According to Alexander, the same online influencers who promoted falsehoods of Israel intentionally targeting civilians and committing a genocide in Gaza have now pivoted to comparable rhetoric about the current conflict with Iran.
“And these networks all work together to amplify each other. Each of their posts will get millions of views,” Alexander said. “And then ultimately that seeps into the podcast network. Tucker Carlson will pick it up. Candace Owens will pick it up.”
Owens and Carlson have emerged as two of the most prominent anti-Israel commentators in the US, often using their platforms to promote antisemitic conspiracy theories.
The Honest Reporting chief also revealed Iran’s targeting of those who eschew the ideological extremes.
“You start having situations like mainstream Western American news unironically using things like Fars News Agency, Iranian state TV, as a legitimate source without letting their viewers know that this is actually Iranian state propaganda,” she explained.
Khaykin asked Kantz Feder to explain the role of antisemitism in both the Islamic regime’s ideology and its propaganda techniques. She described a recent development that “officially, Iran has tried to make a distinction between Zionism and Jews in its revolutionary ideology. This is actually something that in the past few years we’re seeing less of. This is new.”
“The distinction between Zionists as an enemy and Jews as the enemy of Iran is starting to erode as the regime looks for new ways to legitimize its rule and conjure up images of Iran’s enemies and what they’re facing,” she continued. “In terms of the influence operations directed abroad, this is essential.”
The Jew-hate acts as a glue, enabling what Kantz Feder described historically as how “Iran starts to position itself as a hub for transnational extremist far-right networks. And then so, of course, we saw that come to fruition with the Holocaust conferences.”
In 2006, Holocaust deniers gathered for a two-day event titled “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision,” which organizers characterized as based in science. Attendees included former KKK leader David Duke, Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, and members of Jews United Against Israel. Duke said at the time that “it’s a shame that Iran, a country we often call oppressive, has to give this opportunity for free speech.” He also described Israel as “a terrorist state” and “the No. 1 terrorist state in the world.”
According to Kantz Feder, antisemitism, “whether it be the Holocaust denial or other forms of it,” is the “entry point and it binds together a lot of these different ideas, movements and ideological orientations.”
Agreeing with Kantz Feder’s emphasis on Iran’s role in promoting Holocaust denial, Alexander said that “what they’re doing is they’re poisoning the information, the information sources, the wells where people are getting their information.”
Alexander explained the downstream impacts of what she called antisemitic “poisoning of information,” noting that “61 percent of adults worldwide are getting information increasingly from AI, and 36 percent of those are using it weekly … And there has been a movement for about 15 years to poison the source that AI then goes to for information that most prominently is Wikipedia, though not entirely.”
Describing Iran’s Wikipedia infiltration efforts, Alexander said that Iran is “now paying a new group of editors on Wikipedia to start changing even further information that is there so that when you go to AI to ask it a question, you’re going to get a garbage answer. And it will be things like Holocaust denial or erasing Jewish sovereignty and history from the state of Israel going back 3,000 years ago.”
Alexander described how a prominent Russian disinformation narrative since the 1970s had begun to recirculate online. “You know what narrative has started trending again? ‘Zionism is racism,’” she said. “We’ve gone back 50 years, and it’s because Russia has a deep connection to this.”
In November 1975, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism — the national movement of the Jewish people to reestablish a state in their ancient homeland — with “racism,” reflecting long-standing antisemitic stereotypes and anti-Israel agendas pushed by the Soviet Union. The measure was ultimately overturned in 1991
For understanding the connection, Massimiliano Di Pasquale, an associate researcher at the Gino Germani institute and director of the Ukraine Observatory, wrote “Antisemitism and Russian Active Measures From the Tsars to Putin,” a 141-page report three years in the making.
Translated from Italian, the Gino Germani Institute described how the study “traces the direct link between the tsarist and Soviet eras and the regime of Vladimir Putin in the specific evolution of instrumental antisemitism and demonstrates how the Kremlin continues today, in its cognitive war and in its active measures, to use false historians and conspiracy theories, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to feed hatred, distort perceptions and destabilize Western democratic values and systems.”
According to the Institute, “Di Pasquale shows how Russian antisemitic narratives come to justify military aggression in Ukraine, or how, after the Oct. 7 attack, Moscow instrumentalized the Israel-Hamas conflict to pursue three main objectives: strategic distraction, erosion of Western cohesion, double-standard accusations.”
Di Pasquale’s report details the history of Soviet Russia’s disinformation turn against the Jewish state, noting the 1967-1982 period under Leonid Brezhnev, general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which “was characterized by a period of heated antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism. It was during this period that Moscow helped sow the seeds of the current anti-American and anti-Israeli hatred in the Arab and Muslim world — hatred that resurfaced in full vehemence after Oct. 7, 2023 — both through a series of sophisticated and covert KGB operations and through a massive international propaganda campaign that began in 1967 and continued until 1988.”
Di Pasquale writes that in the 16 years (1967-1982) during which Yuri Andropov, future general secretary of the party, headed the KGB, “Zionism was second only to the United States in terms of the Kremlin’s active measures.”
According to the report, the five antisemitic propaganda narratives Andropov chose to unleash around 1967 were “Jews (Zionists) are responsible for antisemitism; Zionist organizations worldwide are involved in espionage activities; Zionism is a Trojan horse for imperialism and racism in the Third World; Jews collaborated with the Nazis during World War II; and reversal of the Holocaust, i.e., Israelis as Nazis.”
The report cites Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc and former spymaster to Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, who called Andropov “the father of a new era of disinformation that revived antisemitism and spawned international terrorism against the United States and Israel.”