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
Israel’s supreme court says Arab parties can run in Oct. 27 election
(JTA) — TEL AVIV – Israel’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of Arab parties to run in the Oct. 27 election could make it more difficult for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new coalition after the election.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Joint Arab List and Ra’am, the two Arab-led political lists competing in Israel’s elections, could run. The ruling overturned a decision by the Central Elections Committee, a largely political body in which parties in Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition hold a majority of the seats, which had voted last month to bar the lists from running.
“The court found that the materials submitted to the Central Elections Committee did not meet the standards established in the case law for disqualifying a list of candidates,” the court said in its ruling, which did not include extensive reasoning.
The decision restored the parties that traditionally represent Israel’s more than 2 million Arab citizens and in doing so helped the opposition block. Now a wide constituency that rejects working with Netanyahu will have a reason to head to the polls rather than stay home.
Most polls have shown that the opposition bloc would need to include the parliamentary seats held by the Ra’am party, led by MK Mansour Abbas, in order to gain the lead over Netanyahu’s coalition. Unlike Ra’am, the Joint Arab List has never sat in an Israeli coalition and there is no expectation that it would join with Zionist Jewish-led parties to do so.
The court also took a number of other steps regarding the upcoming election. It overturned the committee’s decision to disqualify Ofer Cassif, a Jewish lawmaker running as part of the Joint List. In Cassif’s case, the decision was made by a 7-2 majority.
The Supreme Court justices said they “strongly condemn the outrageous statements and actions by Cassif that evoke revulsion.” At the same time, they ruled that “these statements or actions do not meet the stringent tests established” for disqualifying a candidate.
According to the petition seeking Cassif’s disqualification, he had legitimized Palestinian violence during the war, referred to those seeking to attack Israeli soldiers as “freedom fighters” and taken actions against Israel in international legal forums.
The most significant development, however, came in the case of Sami Abu Shehadeh, the leader of Balad, one of the parties that make up the Joint List.
During a Thursday hearing, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of indicating to Abu Shehadeh that a majority of the justices were inclined to disqualify him and recommended that he withdraw his candidacy.
Following internal consultations, Balad announced that Abu Shehadeh would withdraw his candidacy, rendering the court’s expected ruling on his disqualification moot.
“Sami Abu Shehadeh did not retract his positions and did not flee the struggle. Only after the court itself announced its intention to uphold the disqualification did he decide to withdraw his candidacy,” Balad said in an official statement.
A central part of the case against Abu Shehadeh focused on an article he published on Oct. 8, 2023, one day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, in which the terror organization killed 1,200 people in Israel and took another 251 hostage.
In the article, Abu Shehadeh described the Oct. 7 events as an “important historic event” and suggested that lessons could be learned from how Hamas had managed to surprise Israel and carry out its invasion. His comments were cited as evidence that he supports armed struggle against Israel, one of the grounds on which candidates can be disqualified under Israeli law.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said there was “a consensus that the things said by Mr. Abu Shehadeh are painful, outrageous and revolting.” The decision to disqualify Abu Shehadeh was also supported by the Democrats, Israel’s most left-wing Zionist party.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Abu Shehadeh acknowledged that “this paragraph was not written correctly.” He said, “I have never supported violence in my life,” and said that he knows victims of the Oct. 7 attack.
Balad said Abu Shehadeh would continue to lead the party’s political activities even without serving in the Knesset.
The Joint List sharply criticized the court’s handling of the case. In a statement, the list said that “the heart of the matter” was “preventing an Arab political leader from running in the elections and infringing on our public’s right to choose its representatives.”
The list accused the court of acting “following a campaign of incitement and political persecution led by the fascist and Kahanist right, joined by the leaders of the Zionist opposition parties.”
“The court must bear responsibility for its disgraceful decision before our public and before public opinion in Israel and around the world, for providing judicial cover for political exclusion. This ruling is another link in the chain of persecution of our public.”
Right-wing Israeli politicians also criticized the court for declining to issue a ruling formally disqualifying Abu Shehadeh rather than merely pressing him to withdraw.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, an ultranationalist member of Netanyahu’s government, called the court’s proposal “too merciful” and said it “harms the democracy of the State of Israel.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Israel’s supreme court says Arab parties can run in Oct. 27 election appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A town in the Alps that rescued Jews from the Nazis
על-פּי צופֿאַל האָב איך הײַיאָר פֿאַרבראַכט עטלעכע טעג אין די פֿראַנצייזישע אַלפּן-בערג. די בילעטן זײַנען נישט געווען אַזוי טײַער, און „בוקינג“ האָט רעקאָמענדירט אַ דאָרף נישט ווײַט פֿון ניצע (ניס).
דאָס דאָרף, סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי , איז פֿאַרשפּרייט אויף אַ באַרג אין דרום-פֿראַנקרײַך, און די קאָלירפֿולע הײַזער גיבן אָנצוהערן, אַז עס געפֿינט זיך נישט ווײַט פֿון דער איטאַליענישער גרענעץ. אין מיטן דעם דאָרף איז פֿאַראַן אַ טײַך, און אַלץ איז מלא-חן, פֿול מיט סאָסנע־ביימער און רײַפֿע טרויבן. אויף אַזעלכע ערטער זאָגט מײַן מאַמע: „מײַן באָבע האָט אויך נישט געהערט פֿון דעם.“
אָבער עס ווײַזט זיך אויס אַז מײַן באָבע וואָלט יאָ געקאָנט הערן פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. שוין אינעם ערשטן טאָג האָב איך געפֿונען דאָרטן אַ ייִדיש פּינטעלע, און דווקא גאָר אַ וויכטיקס. די וועגווײַזערין פֿון דאָרף, אַן סיווירין, האָט אונדז דערציילט אַז אין דער צײַט פֿונעם צווייטן וועלטקריג איז סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי געווען כּמעט אַ יאָר לאַנג אַ מקום-מיקלט פֿאַר מער ווי 1,200 ייִדן.
צווישן די ייִדן זײַנען געווען פּליטים פֿון דײַטשלאַנד, פּוילן, האָלאַנד און בעלגיע, וואָס זײַנען אַנטלאָפֿן צו דער „זאָן ליברע“ – דעם פֿרײַען געביט, ד״ה דרום־פֿראַנקרײַך, וואָס איז אין די ערשטע צוויי יאָר פֿון דער מלחמה געבליבן פֿרײַ פֿון די נאַציס. אויך מײַן באָבע פֿייגע, צוזאַמען מיט דער משפּחה, האָט פּראָבירט אַנטלויפֿן פֿון בעלגיע קיין דרום־פֿראַנקרײַך, אָבער צוליב פֿאַרשיידענע סיבות איז עס נישט געלונגען, און די משפּחה איז געבליבן אין אַנטווערפּן.
אין נאָוועמבער 1942 זײַנען די דײַטשן אַרײַן אינעם „פֿרײַען געביט“, און זייערע אַליִירטער, די איטאַליענער, האָבן אָקופּירט די דרום-מזרחדיקע געביטן פֿון פֿראַנקרײַך. פֿאַר די ייִדן איז עס דווקא געווען אַ גוטע בשׂורה. כאָטש די איטאַליענער האָבן געפֿירט זייערע אייגענע „ראַסע-געזעצן“, האָבן די ייִדן אין איטאַליע — און דערווײַל אויך אין דרום-פֿראַנקרײַך — געקאָנט לעבן; און לעבן איז גאָר נישט געווען קיין קלייניקייט אין סוף 1942, בשעת ס׳רובֿ ייִדן פֿון אייראָפּע האָבן די דײַטשן שוין דערמאָרדעט.
אַ דאַנק די באַמיִונגען פֿון אַנדזשעלאָ דאָנאַטי, אַן איטאַליענישן ייִד וואָס האָט געוווינט אין ניצע, האָבן די איטאַליענער מסכּים געווען צו שאַפֿן אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי אַ צענטער פֿאַר ייִדישע פּליטים, וווּ זיי זאָלן קאָנען לעבן כּמעט אַ נאָרמאַל לעבן. אַזוי זײַנען אָנגעקומען אין דאָרף מער ווי 1,200 ייִדן. פֿאַר דער מלחמה האָט דאָ געוווינט נאָר איין ייִדישע משפּחה — די משפּחה לעווין-דריזדאָ, און מיט אַ מאָל איז עס געוואָרן ממש אַ ייִדיש שטעטל.
אין מיטן דער מלחמה, צווישן די אַלפּן-בערג און די וועלדער, האָבן ייִדן פֿון אָנהייב 1943 זיך געלערנט, געדאַוונט, געאַרבעט, געשאַפֿן יוגנט- און ספּאָרט-אָרגאַניזאַציעס, און אַפֿילו חתונה געהאַט. די אײַנוווינער, די פֿראַנצויזן, האָבן זיי בדרך-כּלל פֿרײַנדלעך אויפֿגענומען, און אַ סך האָבן זיי געגעבן עסן און געהאָלפֿן אויף אַנדערע אופֿנים — אַ זעלנטקייט, און נישט נאָר אין פֿראַנקרײַך.
אין אָנהייב סעפּטמבער 1943, נאָך דעם ווי די איטאַליענער האָבן קאַפּיטולירט, איז אָבער געקומען אַ סוף צו דעם גן-עדן. די דײַטשן זײַנען אַרײַן אין איטאַליע, און אין אַ פּאָר טעג אַרום זײַנען זיי אָנגעקומען אויך אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. ווען די ייִדן האָבן דערהערט די נײַעס זײַנען אַ סך פֿון זיי, מיט דער הילף פֿון די אָרטיקע, אַנטלאָפֿן אין די בערג, מיט דער כּוונה צו גנבֿענען די גרענעץ קיין איטאַליע. די טעג זײַנען געווען קאַלטע און רעגנדיקע, און יציאת-סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי איז געוואָרן שווער אָן אַ שיעור (אויך פֿאַר מיר, ווי אַ טוריסט, איז דאָס קלעטערן געווען כּמעט אוממעגלעך).
אין איטאַליע האָבן הונדערטער ייִדן געפֿונען נײַע באַהעלטענישן, אָבער אַ סך האָבן די דײַטשן דאָרטן געכאַפּט. צוזאַמען מיט ייִדן וואָס זײַנען געבליבן אין דאָרף — מסתּמא אַלטע לײַט און קינדער — האָט מען זיי דעפּאָרטירט קיין דראַנסי, לעבן פּאַריז, און פֿון דאָרטן קיין אוישוויץ.
אָבער אויך דעמאָלט זײַנען צענדליקער ייִדן געבליבן אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי, און אָרטיקע מענטשן האָבן זיי באַהאַלטן אין פֿאַרשיידענע ערטער. פֿאַרשטייט זיך, נישט אַלע אין דאָרף האָבן זיי געהאָלפֿן, אָבער ס׳רובֿ אײַנוויינערס, וואָס האָבן געוווּסט וואָס קומט פֿאָר, האָבן דאָס קיינעם נישט אויסגעזאָגט. נאָר איין ייִד האָט מען געמסרט — דעם ייִד וואָס האָט געוווינט דאָ פֿאַר דער מלחמה.
מיט דער צײַט האָט „יד־ושם“ אַנערקענט צען אָרטיקע מענטשן, וואָס האָבן געראַטעוועט ייִדן ווי „חסידי-אומות-העולם“.
אויב איר האָט גאָרנישט געהערט פֿון דעם העראָיִשן, באַשיידענעם דאָרף זײַנט איר נישט די איינציקע. אַפֿילו אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי האָט מען יאָרן לאַנג נישט גערעדט וועגן די געשעענישן במשך פֿון דער צווייטער וועלט־מלחמה. „עס זײַנען געווען די וואָס האָבן געהאָלפֿן און די וואָס האָבן קאָלאַבאָרירט, און אַלע האָבן געדאַרפֿט לעבן אין איינעם נאָכן קריג“, האָט דערקלערט די וועגווײַזערין, אַן סיווירין. „אָבער איין טאָג האָט אַ יונגע פֿרוי געהערט, ווי די אַלטע לײַט ריידן צווישן זיך וועגן ׳די באַהאַלטענע ייִדן׳, און די פּאַנדאָרע-קעסטל האָט זיך צעעפֿנט.“
פֿון דעמאָלט אָן שטאָלצירן די איינווינערס פון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי מיט דעם וואָס די מענטשן פֿון זייער שטעטל האָבן געהאָלפֿן ראַטעווען ייִדן בעת דער מלחמה. אין יעדן פֿראַנצייזישן דאָרף שטייט אַ דענקמאָל לזכר די געפֿאַלענע במשך פֿון די צוויי וועלט־מלחמות (און אויך אַנדערע קריגן). לעבן דעם גרויסן דענקמאָל אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי שטייען הײַנט דרײַ גרויסע דענקמעלער: איינער לזכר די אומגעקומענע ייִדן; אַ צווייטער אין אָנדענק פֿון די „חסידי-אומות-העולם“, און אַ דריטער וואָס דערציילט די גאַנצע געשיכטע.
הײַנט קאָן מען לייענען וועגן דער פּרשה אין פֿאַרשיידענע ביכער: איין ביכל אויף פֿראַנצייזיש, וואָס סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי האָט אַרויסגעגעבן: „די ייִדן און ‘צדיקים’ פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי“; אַ בוך אויף ענגליש: „די חורבן־אָדיסייעס: די ייִדן פֿון סאַן־מאַרטען־וועזובי און זייער פּליטה דורך פֿראַנקרײַך און איטאַליע“, און אויך אַ ראָמאַן אויפֿן סמך פֿון יענעם קאַפּיטל געשיכטע.
סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי שטאָלצירט מיט נאָך עפּעס. אינעם גרויסן קלויסטער פֿון דאָרף שטייט אַ הייליקע סטאַטוע פֿון דער מאַדאָנע, אַ הילצערנע סטאַטוע וואָס די אָרטיקע הייליקן שוין הונדערטער יאָרן. לכּבֿוד דער אַלטער מאַדאָנע מאַרשירן זיי יעדעס יאָר אין אַ גרויסן פּאַראַד צו די בערג, על-פּי דער טראַדיציע איז איר מקור. אין גײַסט פֿון יענער טראַדיציע האָבן די אײַנוויינערס פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי, מיט בערך 10 יאָר צוריק, באַשלאָסן אײַנצופֿירן אַ נײַע טראַדיציע: יעדן 3טן סעפּטעמבער מאַרשירן זיי לכּבֿוד די ייִדן וואָס זײַנען אַנטלאָפֿן אין די בערג, ביז דעם באַרגפּאַס אויף דער גרענעץ מיט איטאַליע. דאָרטן, לעבן דעם טאָוול לזכר די ייִדן, דערמאָנען זיי די אומגעקומענע און די וואָס זײַנען ניצול געוואָרן אַ דאַנק די אַמאָליקע אײַנווינערס פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. אויך די קינדער אָדער אייניקלעך פֿון די געראַטעווטע ייִדן נעמען צו מאָל אַן אָנטייל אין די פּראָצעסיעס.
אויפֿן טאָוול שטייט געשריבן, אויף איטאַליעניש און פֿראַנצייזיש: „דורך דעם באַרגפּאַס, אין סעפּטעמבער 1943, זײַנען דורכגעגאַנגען הונדערטער ייִדן פֿון גאַנץ אייראָפּע, וואָס האָבן געזוכט מיטלען זיך צו ראַטעווען פֿון די אַנטיסעמיטישע רדיפֿות.“
און גלײַך נאָך דעם בײַט זיך דער טאָן פֿון די ווערטער אויף אַ גאָר רירנדיקן אופֿן: „דו, וואָס דו גייסט דאָ אין דער פֿרײַ, דאַרפֿסט געדענקען אַז דאָס קאָן געשען ווען מע לאָזט נישט אַלע מענטשן געניסן פֿון די זעלבע רעכט.“
The post A town in the Alps that rescued Jews from the Nazis appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democratic socialists scored big primary wins. But that’s not the whole story.
(JTA) — A string of U.S. House primary successes for democratic socialists, most of whom are sharp Israel critics, was hailed as a major shift in party politics over the course of the summer. But now that the primaries have concluded, a full picture of the results shows that the group’s victories were concentrated in House races in the deepest-blue districts, while few politicians have scored wins in Senate races.
During the primary season, candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won seven out of the 25 U.S. House primaries in which they competed, securing two wins in Michigan, one in Colorado, three in New York and one in Pennsylvania, according to the DSA’s vote tracker. However, these wins have all occurred in Democratic strongholds: New York City, Detroit, Denver and Philadelphia.
“It’s a little bit dangerous to overinterpret a handful of elections compared to all the others,” Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Calling the DSA the new big kid on the block is a little bit premature.”
In addition to the seven DSA primary winners, another DSA candidate who ran in a California nonpartisan primary advanced to a U.S. House runoff against a Democratic incumbent in November. Two additional democratic socialists, from Kansas and New Hampshire, withdrew before their respective House primaries.
Of the DSA’s 18 House primary losses, seven occurred in deep-blue areas – demonstrating that even in the country’s most progressive pockets, democratic socialists often weren’t popular. These defeats notably included one in St. Louis, where incumbent Wesley Bell trounced DSA firebrand and anti-AIPAC crusader Cori Bush.
Granted, the DSA victories are still unprecedented in a country where socialism has long been anathema. The candidates might have only succeeded in deeply Democratic districts – but that means they are all but assured victory on Election Day. Taken together, they’ll constitute a larger contingent in Congress than ever before.
Many of the DSA candidates made Israel and its supporters central issues during their campaigns, and there’s little doubt that their presence will tilt the Democratic caucus in the Congress further away from Israel.
The DSA’s official stance on Israel includes an end to the country’s “colonization and occupation of all Arab lands,” the “self-determination of the Palestinian people” and the cessation of “U.S. complicity in Israel’s genocide and apartheid.” Although the DSA has won fewer races than it has lost, the victories would more than triple the group’s presence in the U.S. House, with five newcomers in addition to Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
Jeff Robbins, a Boston-based attorney and former Democratic Senate staffer, said that supporters of Israel should be concerned by the wins, even if they don’t constitute a wave.
Robbins, who also served as a delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights under former president Bill Clinton, warned that if anti-Israel DSA politicians keep racking up wins, Democratic strategists will discourage candidates from supporting Israel’s response to Hamas after the Oct. 7 attacks.
Recommending any action to the contrary, he argued, will result in “the quickest campaign you’ve ever seen.”
“It will be over before you can say ‘the Golan Heights’,” Robbins quipped.
And yet, although the media spotlight has shone on the DSA’s standout victories, establishment candidates have secured more wins at the ballot box from a numerical perspective. In addition, democratic socialists have focused more on the House than the Senate, where they would need to appeal to broader statewide electorates to win seats.
One major exception to that rule is Florida DSA member Angie Nixon, who pulled off a stunning primary victory in a state that Trump won by about 13 percentage points in 2024. But she didn’t join the DSA until shortly before the election and she didn’t get its endorsement.
Another DSA Senate candidate, Gregory Levy of Ohio, will be running in the November general election as an Independent.
But the three other staunchly progressive Senate candidates who will be on the Democratic ballot in November – in Maine, Michigan and Minnesota – don’t define themselves as democratic socialists. While many are still highly critical of Israel, they have differences with DSA and are more interested in making sure they appeal to the more politically diverse populations they will face statewide. They face close races where swing voters who don’t identify strongly with either party are likely to make the difference.
For instance, though many of Abdul El-Sayed’s positions are similar to DSA policies, last month he told The Wall Street Journal that he is “not technically or practically DSA” and that he doesn’t oppose capitalism. At the same time, he has earned the support of many democratic socialist politicians, including Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Kamarck observed that Michigan, which has a huge Arab-American population, remains the nerve center of the Democratic Party’s pro-Palestinian movement. Yet although polls forecast a landslide victory for El-Sayed, who sharply criticized Israel throughout his primary campaign, she termed his victory in early August as “a squeaker.”
“It was a one-point race,” she said. “What that says is that this is not finished.”
Haile Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said in a statement at the time that although her group was disappointed in El-Sayed’s victory, his “razor-thin margin isn’t the resounding win for the far-left that was predicted.”
An Economist model issued shortly after El-Sayed’s victory predicted that the Democratic Party’s chances of winning in November fell to 48% following the primary. But a Marist poll published on Wednesday gave El-Sayed a seven-point lead over Republican Mike Rogers, with a 3.8% margin of error.
Meanwhile, post-primary predictions showed that Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan would secure an easy victory in her blue state’s Senate race. However, a new KSTP/SurveyUSA poll found that her five-point lead over Republican Michele Tafoya had narrowed to a statistical tie. Like many party progressives, Flanagan has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
As for Maine’s Jackson, the progressive was trailing Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a five-term incumbent, by 3 points, with a 3.1% margin of error, according to an AARP poll released on Thursday.
Nixon in Florida was 11 points behind Republican Sen. Ashley Moody, with a 4% margin of error, a Stetson University from late last month poll found. On the other hand, St. Pete Polls placed the candidates in a dead heat just the week before, giving Moody just a 0.3-point edge, with a 3.2% margin of error.
In a testament to the growing power of the DSA – even in a red state – Moody reportedly told Fox News Radio this week that she is “seeing way-too-close-for comfort polls in many Republican Senate races.”
And in an email blast sent the same day, according to Florida Politics, Moody warned that “the polls have been all over the place.”
“Some have us up. Two have us tied,” she wrote. “We’re in the final stretch, where everything we do, and your support, really matters.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Democratic socialists scored big primary wins. But that’s not the whole story. appeared first on The Forward.
