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
This Jewish family’s toy company challenged Trump’s tariffs. The Supreme Court agreed.
(JTA) — Stephen Woldenberg was in a meeting with his father last Friday, refreshing the Supreme Court’s website, when the news finally came through: Their company had prevailed in its legal challenge to the Trump administration’s tariffs.
“It’s all a bit surreal, I’ll be honest,” said Woldenberg. “It’s very gratifying, though, to see that our case has had an impact and that the Supreme Court ruled and agreed with our position.”
For Woldenberg, who is the fourth generation of his family’s Illinois-based educational toy company Learning Resources, the decision to challenge President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs was rooted in a moral obligation shaped by his family’s Jewish values.
“I think that for us, being Jewish, we felt like we wanted to stand up for what we thought was right, and, you know, not being afraid to take a stand,” said Woldenberg. “I think that that’s part of our identity, and I think that’s a core part of what this case was about. It’s a civil legal challenge, it isn’t political, but we felt like we weren’t going to stand by idly, and I think that’s part of our Jewish identity.”
Learning Resources was founded by Stephen’s grandmother Joan as a spinoff of a company run by her father-in-law Max Woldenberg, who immigrated from Poland as a child in the late 19th century. Joan’s son Rick is CEO, while Stephen and his sister both have high-level executive roles.
The family, longtime members of a Conservative synagogue in the suburbs of Chicago, has a record of Jewish philanthropy. Rick and his wife have donated to local Jewish organizations as well as to the Center for Jewish Life at Princeton University, his alma mater. Elana, who also graduated from Princeton, founded a Jewish philanthropy fellowship there. And Max Woldenberg’s brother Malcolm was a prominent New Orleans philanthropist for whom the Institute of Southern Jewish Life is named.
It was not philanthropy but Learning Resources’ bottom line that got the family fired up by Trump’s tariffs, which raised import costs for businesses that rely on overseas manufacturing. Trump authorized the tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, rather than by seeking approval from Congress.
Like many American companies, Learning Resources relies on Chinese factories and workers to make its products, of which perhaps the most widely recognizable are plastic bears used for counting practice that are staples of many preschool classrooms.
Stephen Woldenberg said that in 2025, after the tariffs were imposed, Learning Resources paid over $10 million in tariff-related taxes, compared to $2 million the year before.
“After ‘liberation day,’ tariff rates spiked up to 145%, which effectively was like an embargo on Chinese goods,” said Woldenberg. “We decided to take action. We aren’t really a company that likes to stand by idly. We weren’t willing to let a single politician sink the ship.”
Learning Resources’ legal battle culminated in a decisive Supreme Court victory, and a notable loss for Trump, who heavily criticized the decision during his State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
In his decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” The Supreme Court agreed 6-3 that the tariffs exceeded the law.
“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
Among the estimated 1,000 lawsuits filed against the tariffs, which ultimately collected over $130 billion for the United States, were others filed by Jewish-owned companies.
Rebecca Melsky, a former a Jewish day school teacher, was among the first to legally challenge the emergency tariffs last April through her children’s apparel brand Princess Awesome, which she co-founded to defy “gender stereotypes” in kids clothing.
In 2025, Melsky said Princess Awesome had paid over $30,000 in additional tariffs, a cost she said had hit her small business hard.
“We’re a very small company — that money came out of our paychecks,” said Melsky. “We pulled back on our production. We did not make as much stuff last year as we normally do, which we are feeling this year, as we start the year with less inventory.”
After Melsky and her co-founder, Eva St. Clair, took to Facebook to explain the costs of Trump’s tariffs to their customers last April, the pair were approached by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented them in federal court. (Princess Awesome’s lawsuit was put on hold pending the Learning Resources decision.)
For Melsky, the choice to take on Trump’s tariffs in court was also inspired in part by her own Jewish values.
“Even if something feels scary, even if you don’t necessarily know if it’s going to do something, standing up for what is right, is, like, we have a moral and ethical obligation to do that, even if that means taking a risk,” said Melsky. “And thankfully, my business partner, her Catholic faith brought her to the same place, too.”
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, Melsky and St. Clair took to Facebook again, posting a video shouting “we won!”
But the battle is not over for Melsky, Woldenberg or any of the other businesses that have sued the government over Trump’s tariffs. Following the ruling, Trump swiftly vowed to impose more tariffs, including a temporary 10% global import duty.
While the Trump administration said during the Supreme Court battle that suing parties would “assuredly receive payment” if they lost, the court did not stipulate in its decision what would happen to the tariffs that had already been collected.
As companies seek refunds following the decision, they are likely to be met by a lengthy legal process, with Trump already dismissing calls for refunds as a process that would take “years.”
“The government, the administration, did not have a hard time taking the money, they found that to be quite easy, and so they should be able to turn around and send it right back to us,” said Woldenberg. “They know what everybody paid, and they know how to get the money.”
Melsky said that she felt her company was now in “limbo,” awaiting the Trump administration’s next move.
“It feels a little bit less chaotic, but we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, and certainly we have no idea what will happen with refunds and if they are approved, when that money would come,” said Melsky.
Despite the uncertainty, Woldenberg said he hoped his family’s victory would “inspire” others that they too can make a difference.
“It doesn’t matter the size of the company or the notoriety of the individual,” said Woldenberg. “The American system is set up in a way where anyone can make a difference, anybody can have an impact.”
The post This Jewish family’s toy company challenged Trump’s tariffs. The Supreme Court agreed. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A compelling horror series from Israel — even if you don’t like horror movies
In general, I steer clear of genre entertainment. For me, films awash in horror and the paranormal are gory, frightening and in the end relentlessly dull — a lethal combination.
But to my surprise, The Malevolent Bride, an Israeli horror series now streaming on Chaiflicks, is so compelling and has such page-turning momentum that I had to know what happened next.
Set in Jerusalem’s ultra-Orthodox community, the series — which is the brainchild of Noah Stollman, and director Oded Davidoff, creators of, respectively, Fauda and The Beauty Queen of Jerusalem — recounts a wave of inexplicable, blood–curdling crimes. But beyond its mystery and thriller elements, the picture embodies an amalgam of Kabbalah, feminism, humanism, and, yes, even quantum field theory.

Here, the line between the scientific world and Jewish mysticism, each requiring its own brand of blind faith, is blurred. Interwoven throughout are themes related to the crippling power of religion and the cost of repressed sexuality that comes in its wake. Like many horror flicks, it has its share of high camp comedy too.
The characters (well, at least the secular ones) are relatable and appealing. The lead, Tom Avni playing Be’er Dov, a physicist, is sympathetic and appealing (easy to look at too). An ex-Hasid who has shed all religion, he lives openly with his equally non-religious doctor girlfriend. Be-er also advocates for the daughter of a Hasid. He’s a feminist too.
The performances are uniformly superb. Even the grotesque moments, and there are some, work entertainingly, if not credibly, within the parameters of the genre’s over-the-top sensibility, which can at times recall The Exorcist.
The series begins with the wedding night of a Hasidic couple — the terrified virgin bride, swathed in white, is soon to be deflowered by a man she’s met perhaps twice. Moments later, we see her clutching shards of glass, her hand bloodied, her gown covered in blood as she charges towards the groom; his corpse is on the floor.
Later in jail, eyes wild, and demonically possessed, she utters a sing-songy phrase, “oxyn, oxyn” that becomes the first part of a satanic refrain that more and more Hasidic women spew forth as they too are overtaken by a curse. Dybbuk imagery is evoked. Violent atrocities ensue.
Giovanni, a police officer (convincingly played by Hisham Suliman), uncovers evidence that connects Be’er to each of these women who owns a book, presumably given to them by Be’er. His name, in each case, appears on its pages as its original owner. The book in question is about Raizel, an archangel out of the Kabbalah who has magical knowledge and powers. Sketches of diabolical figures and illegible writings are scribbled across its pages and in its margins.
Be’er insists he knows none of these women. Nonetheless, with his career at risk, he realizes he must uncover the truth to save his reputation. Through flashbacks, we learn that as a young Yeshiva student he was drawn to the Kabbalah and had a clandestine and shockingly forbidden affair with a Hasidic girl named Yedidia to whom he did indeed gift the book.
At the same time, Dr. Malki Price (Leeox Levy), an Orthodox clinical psychologist who heads a mental health facility for deeply troubled girls, is also grappling with the growing menace. Some of her own patients have channeled the free-floating demon, leading to murder, suicide and terrifying occult acts.
Be’er and Malki join forces in order to track down Yedidia who, for reasons that are not entirely clear, seems to be the origin of this epidemic of violence and mysticism. Levy brings an understated compassion to her role that is riveting to watch.
Malki, we later learn, is a transgender woman as is Levy in her first major film role, which reinforces the series’ themes of tolerance and mutual respect. The Jewish mysticism with its scary folkloric and mythic warnings and taboos underscores the series’ embrace of sexuality and the fluidity of gender identity. After all, in the Kabbalah tradition, the Messiah will be both male and female.
Along their journey, Be’er and Malki meet an array of great characters and despite their differences grow increasingly attached to one another. The final romantic scene between Be’er and Malki is simultaneously unnerving, comic, and unexpected, though it shouldn’t be. Yet another hallmark of an original fun series.
The post A compelling horror series from Israel — even if you don’t like horror movies appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Why was Tucker Carlson pushing for DNA testing for Jews? What to know about the ‘Khazar’ theory that antisemites can’t shake.
(JTA) — During Tucker Carlson’s interview last week with Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, both men made considerable waves with their takes on history and theology.
Huckabee sparked a diplomatic row by citing the Bible to argue that Israel had a divine right to claim all of the Middle East — even though he didn’t back doing so politically.
But Carlson’s own interpretation of Israeli sovereignty was also notable, as the far-right pundit insisted that Israelis should undergo genetic testing to determine if they have a rightful claim to the land.
“Why don’t we do genetic testing on everybody in the land and find out who Abram’s descendants are?” Carlson asked Huckabee at one point, using the name Abraham used before he made a covenant with God to become the first Jew. “It’s really simple. We’ve cracked the human genome. We can do that. Why don’t we do that?”
At another point, Carlson singled out Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically as an illegitimate Israeli.
“What you’re saying is that certain people have a title to a highly contested region. They own it, in some deep sense,” he told Huckabee. “So I think it’s fair to ask, who are they, and how do we know? So the current prime minister’s ancestors weren’t from here within recorded history. He has no deed. Bibi Netanyahu, on one side, his family’s from Poland, they’re from Eastern Europe. So how do we know he has a connection to the people who God promised the land to?”
The line of questioning made little sense to many Jewish listeners, who understand Judaism as a blend of religion, ethnicity and community in which converts have always been accepted. For Jewish listeners, too, the idea of tracing bloodlines is often associated with the Nazis, who chose their victims based on how many Jewish ancestors they had.
But both Carlson’s critics, and supporters across the ideological spectrum who have agreed with his views on Israel, understood what he was getting at. They identified his line of questioning as a variation on the “Khazar theory”: the belief that Ashkenazi Jews, like Netanyahu, are genetically descended from a Turkic minority that converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages rather than from the 12 tribes of Israel.
“The people currently occupying Israel are Khazarian Turks,” far-right pundit Candace Owens, a promoter of many antisemitic conspiracy theories, wrote on X.
“He has ZERO ancestral connection to the land. He’s Polish,” the far-left influencer Shaun King wrote on X about Netanyahu in praise of Carlson’s interview. “His real last name is Mileikowsky.”
The theories as to why the Khazars, who were a real people, would have converted en masse to Judaism have varied according to the teller; one tale holds that a Khazar royal held a debate between representatives of Judaism, Islam and Christianity to hold the best religion, and Judaism won out. But no matter how it happened, the theory goes, Jews who trace their genetics to Eastern Europe should not be considered rightful heirs of Israel, and should instead claim the Caucasus as their ancestral home.
The Khazar theory has a long history but was largely discredited with the advent of DNA analysis. Yet it has grown in prominence among antisemitic circles since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks in Israel and ensuing Gaza war, according to research by the Anti-Defamation League.
“Antisemites suggest that if Jews are descended from people not native to Israel (i.e., Khazars), then they have no legitimate claim to the land,” the ADL’s own description of the theory’s popularity notes. “In addition, because Nazis sought to expel Jews and others from their homes in Europe in order to obtain lebensraum (‘living space’) for ‘Aryan’ people, antisemites have argued that Jews are doing the same thing because they have no historic claim to the land of Israel.”
The ADL also notes that, setting aside the validity of the theory, most Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi but rather trace their roots to North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East.
The origins of the Khazar theory date back centuries and have always had some promulgation from Jews; Hungarian Jews in the 19th century latched onto the theory, according to researchers. The Khazar theory has also been promoted by some Jewish and Israeli scholars in more recent years, including Arthur Koestler in his 1976 book “The Thirteenth Tribe”; Shlomo Sand, a historian at Tel Aviv University who identifies as “post-Zionist,” in his controversial 2008 book “The Invention of the Jewish People”; and Israeli geneticist Eran Elhaik.
This has further boosted the theory’s seeming validity among proponents: Owens, for example, has cited Sand’s book on X as evidence for the theory.
But such studies are largely refuted by established historical scholarship. “This claim, pardon my chutzpah, is nonsense,” Shaul Stampfer, an emeritus history professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has said about the Khazar theory in college lectures.
In Stampfer’s own research into the Khazars, he said that while there were a few Jews among the Khazars, he has found no genetic links between the ancient Central Asian tribe and modern Ashkenazi Jews (whose own genetics have been thoroughly studied owing to a preponderance of genetic diseases in the population). There are, however, genetic links between Ashkenazi Jews and ancient Palestine, as well as to North Africa, he says.
In addition, there are very few Turkic origins to be found in Yiddish, while there are extensive Latin origins in Yiddish, further boosting evidence of broader Jewish migration to Europe and decreasing the likelihood of mass migration from Turkey.
There are other practical considerations, too, Stampfer told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency this week.
“Take a look at a map,” he wrote in an email. “Even if the Khazars had converted, they would not have dragged themselves to Poland. It is far away and cold in the winter.”
The National Institutes of Health, too, published an extensive genetic study in 2013 that found “no evidence from genome-wide data of a Khazar origin for the Ashkenazi Jews.”
The researchers assembled what they called “the largest data set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins,” as well as available genome sets from the Caucasus. Their conclusion, the abstract notes, “corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations.”
None of the evidence has stopped the Khazar theory from emerging as a lodestar of modern antisemitism, thanks in part to influential right-wing personalities such as Carlson. This is not the first time he has toyed with the idea of genetics testing for Jews, though he previously seemed to be aware that such an ask would carry undesirable connotations.
“In order to determine who’s actually inherited the land, we would have to conduct global genetic testing to award property on the basis of the results,” he texted right-wing filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza months ago, according to D’Souza, who shared the text on a recent podcast. Carlson continued, “Sounds like a Nazi project to me. As a Christian, I reject that.”
“I don’t think that’s necessary any more than it’s necessary to genetically test Indians to make sure their ancestors are from India,” D’Souza, who is Indian-American, responded. “Remember Jews maintained their tribal identity. Very little intermarriage. They didn’t try to convert people, as Christians did.”
D’Souza continued, “Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’ conveys the picture very vividly. The Jews don’t mix. So their continuity as a group is generally more secure than virtually any other group.” (“The Merchant of Venice,” which features the Jewish villain Shylock, is generally seen as promoting antisemitic stereotypes.)
Carlson responded by returning to the genetics question — and this time seeming more open to it than when he first called it a Nazi project. “I agree with all that and I admire it. I’m hardly against Jews,” he texted D’Souza. “But if the claim is that Jews have a genetic right to certain pieces of land, it’s going to be necessary to do genetic testing.”
The broader lurch into conspiratorial thinking on the right, exemplified by the views on the Jews and Israel espoused by Carlson, increasingly has some other conservatives worried about losing control of the narrative.
“The most popular digital content on the Right is now ‘Erika Kirk killed Charlie,’ ‘Epstein was leading a pedophile blackmail ring for the CIA’ and ‘Jews are a diabolical power destroying the world,’” Christopher Rufo, an influential right-wing thought leader who helped orchestrate the larger push against diversity initiatives, warned on X. “In these instances, we need to correct public opinion, rather than cave to it.”
For his part after the Carlson interview, Huckabee accused his interrogator of drawing on a “dangerous conspiracy theory” from “some of the darkest realms of the Internet” for his genetic testing line of questioning.
“I do know that the discredited idea that most Ashkenazi or European Jews descended from the ancient Turkic kingdom of Khazaria is bunk,” Huckabee wrote on X. “It’s also been weaponized by people trying to deligitimize [sic] Jews, to strip them of their history, and to call them ‘imposters’ or ‘fake Jews.’”
Stampfer was hesitant to diagnose why the Khazar theory may be growing in popularity today.
“People who don’t like Jews might be attracted to the idea that this is one more Jewish lie,” he offered. Yet, he added, “Explaining why people believe what they believe is a tough business.”
The post Why was Tucker Carlson pushing for DNA testing for Jews? What to know about the ‘Khazar’ theory that antisemites can’t shake. appeared first on The Forward.
