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
Authentic Hasidic tales, translated into Polish
פֿאַר חסידישע מעשׂיות איז שטענדיק פֿאַראַן אַן עולם. אָט, אַ שטײגער, װעט באַלד אַרױס אַ נײַע דײַטשישע איבערזעצונג פֿון דעם פּױלישן שרײַבער סטאַניסלאַװ װינצענטס בעל־שם־טובֿ־לעגענדעס. װעגן דעם האָט זיך אַ מאָל (אױף פּױליש) באַקלאָגט דער ייִדישער קריטיקער בער מאַרק, אַז דװקא די „פֿינצטערע חסידות“ נעמט אױס בײַם ניט־ייִדישן לײענער־עולם.
דאָ ניט לאַנג האָט מען אױך אַרױסגעלאָזט פֿון ס׳נײַ די זכרונות פֿון עסטרײַכישן אױטאָר זאָמאַ (שלמה) מאָרגנשטערן, װאָס דערצײלט װעגן דער חסידישער גאַליציע פֿון זײַנע קינדער־יאָרן.
בנוגע דער באַליבטקײט און דעם כּישוף פֿון חסידיזם האָט װאָלף לאַצקי־באַרטאָלדי, מיט אַ יאָר הונדערט צוריק, געשריבן: „אונדזער ייִדישקײט איז פֿאַרגליװערט, אָבער מיט חסידות קאָן מען נאָך מגייר זײַן. והא ראַיה: משׂכּילים און פֿאַרשײַטע אַפּיקורסים האָבן זיך אומגעקערט צו ייִדישקײט אױפֿן װעג פֿון דער חסידות.“
אױך אין פּױלן איז לעצטנס אַרױס אַ נײַער באַנד חסידישע מעשׂיות. נאָר דאָס איז אַ בוך פֿון אַן אַנדער פֿאַרנעם, פֿון אַן אַנדער מדרגה. דאָ גײט ניט דװקא אין חסידישן ראָמאַנטיזם, נאָר אין אַ זאַמלונג עכטע חסידישע מעשׂיות מכּל־המינים, איבערגעזעצטע אױף פּױליש. אַזאַ כּוללדיקע זאַמלונג באַװײַזט זיך צום ערשטן מאָל אין װאָסער ניט איז לשון.
נאָך אַ חידוש: דער באַנד פֿון כּמעט 1,000 זײַטלעך גײט אַרױס אין דער ערשטער סעריע פֿון דער פּוילישער „נאַציאָנאַלער ביבליאָטעק“. אין דער צװײטער סעריע גיט מען אַרױס װערק פֿון דער „פֿרעמדער“ ליטעראַטור, אין דער ערשטער — װערק פֿון דער פּױלישער ליטעראַטור גופֿא. ס׳איז ניט דאָס ערשטע מאָל װאָס מע נעמט אַרײַן אין דער ערשטער סעריע אױך װערק אָנגעשריבענע לכתּחילה אױף אַן אַנדער שפּראַך. ס׳איז אָבער פֿון די געצײלטע בענד װאָס נעמען אַרײַן ליטעראַטור ניט פֿון קײן קריסטלעכע מחברים, און דערצו פֿון אַ נאַציאָנאַלער מינדערהײט.
ניט געקוקט אױף דעם פֿאַקט װאָס אָט די געקליבענע חסידישע מעשׂיות זאָלן מיט זיך פֿאָרשטעלן אַ חלק פּױלישע קולטור־נחלה, רעכנט מען זיך אָבער ניט מיט קײן מלוכישע גרענעצן. פֿאַרקערט, מע האָט זיך באַמיט צונױפֿזאַמלען מעשׂיות פֿון גאַנץ ייִדישלאַנד, אױך פֿון די „נײַע“ גלותן מעבֿר־לים, און פֿון אַלע תּקופֿות.
אױך זשאַנערן פֿון פֿאַרשײדענע סאָרטן זײַנען דאָ פֿאַראַן: לענגערע דערצײלונגען, כּמו־װיסנשאַפֿטלעכע כראָניקעס און גאָר קורצע מעשׂהלעך. לאָמיר עפּעס פּאָסמאַקעװען פֿון אָט דער פֿיל־מיניקער זאַמלונג.
נאַט אײַך אַ מעשׂה פֿון די סאַמע ערשטע דורות חסידישע גוטע־ייִדן: די הײליקע ברידער ר׳ אלימלך און ר׳ זושע זצ״ל זײַנען אַװעק אָפּריכטן גלות כּדי צוצוציִען ייִדן צו חסידות. זײ האָבן אַזש אָנגעשפּאַרט ביז צו דער דײַטשישער גרענעץ אין קאַטאָװיץ. װען זײ האָבן זיך גענומען גײן װײַטער, האָט זיך אָבער באַװיזן דער שׂטן און געזאָגט זײ: טאָמער װעט איר אַריבער די דײַטשישע גרענעץ, טאָ זײַט װיסן אַז דעמאָלט װעל איך פֿאַרװאַנדלען אַלע ייִדן — אין חסידים. די ברידער האָבן זיך שטאַרק איבערגעשראָקן, אַז זײ האָבן דערזען, װי שלעכט ס׳װעט זײַן פֿאַר דער חסידות, װען די ברײטע מאַסן זאָלן זיך אײַנשליסן אין אירע רײען, װאָרן דעמאָלט װעט די חסידות אין גאַנצן פֿאַרלױרן גײן. און זײ האָבן זיך אומגעקערט אַהײם, אין זײער לאַנד.
טשיקאַװע: יענע ערשטע פֿאַרשפּרײטער פֿון חסידישקײט האָבן גאָר מורא געקראָגן זײער נײַע תּורה זאָל זיך ניט צעשפּרײטן צו פֿיל, כּדי זי זאָל חלילה ניט אָנװערן איר תּמצית. אַנדערש מיט עטלעכע דורות שפּעטער — אַזאַ מין ליטעראַרישער נבֿיא פֿונעם בעל־שם־טובֿס תּורה װי מאַרטין מרדכי בובער האָט דאָך געהאַלטן, אַז דאָס פֿירט דװקא ער צוריק צום לכתּחילהדיקן קװאַל, װען ער האָט ברײט אױפֿגעפּראַלט „די שערי־תּשובֿה פֿון חסידישן ראָמאַנטיזם“. אַזױ צי אַנדערש, האָט די ליטעראַרישע חסידות לױט בובערס און פּרצעס נוסח טאַקע אַנטפּלעקט דעם „נפֿשות־באַשאַפֿנדיקן כּוח“ פֿון דער חסידות (ציטאַטן פֿון לאַצקי־באַרטאָלדי).
די אַרױסגעבער פֿון דער פּױלישער אַנטאָלאָגיע „חסידישע מעשׂיות“, די פֿאָרשער מאַרטשין װאָדזשינסקי און װױטשיעך טװאָרעק, זשאַלעװען ניט קײן כּוחות אױף מפֿרסם צו זײַן דאָס בוך. אַחוץ די געװײנטלעכע מיטלען — ליטעראַרישע אָװנטן, נסיעות אױף ביכער־ירידן, ראַדיאָ־אינטערװיוען און דאָס גלײַכן — לאָזן זײ אַרױס אַ שײנע סעריע פֿילמעלעך מיט מער־װײניקער באַרימטע פּערזענלעכקײטן װאָס לײענען אָדער דערצײלן איבער מעשׂיות פֿון דער אַנטאָלאָגיע.
די אױבן געבראַכטע מעשׂה, למשל, לײענט זײערער אַ קאָלעגע פֿון ברעסלױער אוניװערסיטעט, דער פֿילאָלאָג יאַן מיאָדעק. מיאָדעקן קען אין פּױלן שיִער ניט יעדעס קינד. ער גיט שױן צענדליקער יאָרן עצות װי אַזױ צו רעדן אַ לײַטיש פּױליש. בײַ גלײַך מיט די אַנדערע פֿאָרלײענער, גיט אױך מיאָדעק אַ מאָל צו אַ זאַץ בשעתן לײענען. דער רבי ר׳ אלימלך און זײַן ברודער ר׳ משולם־זושע קערן זיך אום אַהײם, אין זײער לאַנד — קײן פּױלן, הײסט עס, גיט צו מיאָדעק און קוקט דעם צושױער־עולם אין די אױגן אַרײַן.
פֿאַרשטײט זיך אַז די אַרױסגעבער האָבן ניט אײנע אַליין באַװיזן אױפֿטאָן אַזאַ עובֿדה פֿון „אומקערן אַהײם“ די פּױלישע צדיקים מיט זײערע מעשׂיות. זײ האָט געהאָלפֿן אַ גאַנצע בריגאַדע איבערזעצער: צװישן זײ זײַנען דאָ דערפֿאַרענע מיט אַ לאַנגן סטאַזש און אַ נאָמען, נאָר אױך אָנהײבער אינעם פֿאַך, תּלמידים פֿון די אַרױסגעבער, װאָס האָבן זיך אַזױ אַרום געדרוקט צום ערשטן מאָל. צו זאָגן דעם גאַנצן אמת, בין איך הקטן אַלײן בײַגעװען בײַ די ערשטע שטאַפּלען פֿון פּראָיעקט. אַזױ האָב איך געקענט זען אַז מע לאָזט ניט אױף הפֿקר די איבערזעצער, נאָר מע זאָרגט מע זאָל זײ געבן אַן אָרנטלעכן אַרײַנפֿיר אינעם חסידיזם.
דערמיט האָט זיך פֿאַרנומען ניט אַבי װער, נאָר װיכטיקע מומחים, בתוכם די לינגוויסטקע לילי קאַהן װאָס האָט אײַנגעפֿירט דעם עולם אין די כּללים פֿון חסידישן לשון־קודש, צי דער היסטאָריקער גדי סגיבֿ (סאַגיװ) װאָס האָט אָפּגעהאַלטן אַ װאַרשטאַט װעגן חסידישן שטײגער דערצײלן מעשׂיות.
אױך דער פּױלישער לײענער װאָס נעמט אין האַנט אַרײַן דעם באַנד „חסידישע מעשׂיות“, איז זוכה צו אַן אַרײַנפֿיר, װי גאָט האָט געבאָטן. די רעדאַקטאָרן זײַנען מקדים די דערצײלונגען מיט „אַ װאָרט אַפֿריִער“ פֿון אַ צװײ הונדערט זײַטלעך — אַ מין מאָנאָגראַפֿיע פֿאַר זיך און, בײַם הײַנטיקן טאָג, דער סאַמע גרונטיקער טראַקטאַט װעגן חסידיזם װאָס איז פֿאַראַן אױף דער פּױלישער שפּראַך.
די מעשׂיות גײען לױטן כראָנאָלאָגישן סדר. װײַטער האָט מען זײ אײַנגעטײלט לױט געאָגראַפֿיע און טעמעס. לאָמיר צום סוף ברענגען נאָך צװײ בײַשפּילן. אינעם חלק װעגן חורבן און װידערגעבורט געפֿינען מיר אַ מעשׂה — װעגן פּױלישן פּױפּס, יאַן פּאַװעל דעם צװײטן. דער בלאָזשעװער רבי, ר׳ ישׂראל שפּיראָ, גיט דאָרט איבער אַז אַ פּױפּס איז ער געװאָרן — אין זכות פֿון אַן עצה װאָס ער, יאַן פּאַװעל, דעמאָלט אַ יונגער גלח אױפֿן נאָמען קאַראָל װױטילאַ, האָט געעצהט אַ פּאָליאַטשקע פֿון די חסידי־אומות־העולם װאָס האָט אױסבאַהאַלטן אַ ייִדיש ייִנגל פֿון די נאַצישע רוצחים, אַז זי דאַרף איבערגעבן דאָס קינד די אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישע קרובֿים, עס זאָל װאַקסן בײַ די אײגענע און טאַקע אַ ייִדיש קינד.
אַז מע האַלט שױן בײַ חסידישע מעשׂיות װעגן די קאַטױלן, איז אָט נאָך אַן אינטערעסאַנטע דוגמא, אַ מעשׂה װעגן כּוח פֿון דערצײלן מעשׂיות. אַ מאָל איז געװען אַ ייִד, און זײַן װײַב האָט ניט געבױרן קײן קינדער, האָט ער געבעטן אַן עצה בײַ ר׳ מרדכי טשערנאָבליער און ר׳ ישׂראלטשקע רוזשינער זי״ע, װאָס האָבן זיך פּונקט פֿאַרהאַלטן אין אײן שטעטל. דעמאָלט האָט דער רוזשינער רבי איבערגעגעבן אַ מעשׂה, אַ סגולה פֿאַר װײַבער װאָס קענען נעבעך קײן קינדער ניט האָבן.
ס׳האָט געטראָפֿן אין רױם, אַז אַ פֿרומער קריסט האָט געהאַט אַ טאָכטער, װאָס ער האָט זי געלערנט אַלע קאַטױלישע דינים און מנהגים. איז זי אונטערגעװאַקסן אַ געלערנטע. די יונגע פֿרױ האָט אָבער מקנא געװען די גלחים װאָס פֿאַרמאָגן אַ סך כּוח און מאַכט. האָט זי זיך איבערגעטאָן אין מאַנסבילשע קלײדער און איז אַװעק אין טעאָלאָגישן סעמינאַר. זי האָט אַזש אַריבערגעשטיגן אַלעמען דאָרט מיט איר בקיאות און קענטעניש. װען מע האָט געדאַרפֿט צוקלײַבן אַ נײַעם פּױפּס, האָט מען דעריבער אױסגעװײלט זי װי דעם ממלא־מקומו. איז זי אָבער אַראָפּ פֿון גלײַכן װעג און פֿאַרגאַנגען אין טראָגן. פּונקט װען מע האָט געהאַלטן אין פּראַװען אַ גרױסע חגא אױף די גאַסן פֿון שטאָט, האָט זי געקראָגן די װײען און געגאַנגען צו קינד. פֿון דעמאָלט אָן איז מען בודק צי דער מענטש איז ניט אַ מאָל אַ נקבֿה, אײדער מע קלײַבט אים אױס פֿאַר אַ פּױפּס.
בײַם פֿאַרענדיקן די מעשׂה האָט דער רוזשינער באַלד אױסגערופֿן: מזל־טובֿ, דײַן װײַב קומט אַ מזל־טובֿ, זי האָט ערשט געהאַט אַ זון. די דאָזיקע מעשׂה טוט אַ פּעולה, אַפֿילו אַ פּשוטער בשׂר־דם זאָל זי איבערדערצײלן.
אױך דעם פּױלישן לײענער־עולם קומט אַ מזל־טובֿ װאָס ער האָט זוכה געװען צו אַזאַ גאָלדענעם צוגאָב צו דער פּױלישער קולטור־ירושה. ס׳װילט זיך אױך מאַכן אַ שהחיינו לכּבֿוד די חסידישע מעשׂיות װאָס מע האָט זײ אײַנגעבירגערט אינעם פּױלישן ליטעראַרישן קאַנאָן אױף אַזאַ לײַטישן אופֿן.
The post Authentic Hasidic tales, translated into Polish appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
This national park would honor a Jewish philanthropist — if Republicans get back on board
The political climate is hardly favorable for a new national park centered on racial justice.
President Donald Trump this week called for sweeping budget cuts to the National Park Service and, in January, for the removal of slavery-related exhibits he said portray American history in a “woke manner.”
Yet a campaign to establish a national historic park honoring Julius Rosenwald — the Jewish philanthropist who funded schools for rural Black communities during the Jim Crow era — is pressing ahead.
Dorothy Canter, who launched the campaign in 2018, sees an opening for the park to finally become a reality. In February, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced legislation to create the Rosenwald National Historic Park, backed by seven Democratic co-sponsors.
But advancing the bill out of committee — much less to President Trump’s desk — will require Republican support. At a time when even the mildest celebration of diversity can be deemed an excess of the “woke” left, Canter is betting that Rosenwald’s story will be the exception.
“The environment is not the best, obviously, but this is a story that should appeal to anyone,” Canter told the Forward. “This is a positive story. Nobody can say it’s DEI.”
Rosenwald’s Legacy
Rosenwald was born in Springfield, Illinois, the son of German-Jewish immigrants. At 16, he dropped out of high school to pursue the family clothing business.
In 1895, he invested $37,500 in Sears, Roebuck & Company — a decision that would ultimately make him one of the wealthiest men in the United States in the early 20th century.
But guided by the Jewish value of tzedakah, he gave much of that fortune away. In 1911, he met Booker T. Washington, the formerly enslaved founder of the Tuskegee Institute, a training center for African American teachers. Washington urged Rosenwald to invest in Black education in the South.
Rosenwald would go on to help fund nearly 5,000 schools for Black students across 15 states. By 1928, one in three Black students in the rural South attended a Rosenwald school. Alumni of Rosenwald schools would include congressman John Lewis, poet Maya Angelou and civil rights activist Medgar Evers.
Canter, a retired biophysicist and national parks enthusiast, first learned about Rosenwald as an adult through a documentary — and was struck that this story of Black-Jewish cooperation was not more widely known.
“I knew that there was not one national park unit among the more than 400 that commemorated the life and legacy of a Jewish American, or told the story of Rosenwald schools,” Canter said. “And I can tell you that today, almost 11 years later, that is still the case.”
There are national historic sites and monuments honoring Jewish Americans, including the Rosenwald family home and the David Berger National Memorial. But a national historic park — a designation that often spans multiple sites and has greater cultural cache — has yet to honor a Jewish American.
Part of Rosenwald’s relative obscurity, Canter said, stems from his own philosophy. Rosenwald embraced a “give while you live” approach and did not believe in permanent endowments, requiring that the Rosenwald Fund spend all of its money within 25 years of his death.
That approach has yielded severe financial challenges decades later. Today, only about 10% of the more than 5,000 Rosenwald school structures remain, according to Brent Leggs, executive director of the African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund at the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
The Trust placed Rosenwald schools on its 2002 list of America’s 11 most endangered historic places, warning of an “urgent crisis of erasure, abandonment and deterioration.”
Many of the schools were built in rural areas that have since been abandoned, Leggs said, adding that the buildings were made of wood that has slowly decayed. The loss is personal for him: Upon researching the history for his job, Leggs discovered that both of his parents attended Rosenwald schools in Kentucky.
“It was a transcendent moment for me,” he said, “because I remember being at a school building that was literally vanishing history.”
The surviving schools have mixed ownership, Leggs said. Some act as local community centers, while others operate as commercial or office spaces, such as the Caldwell Rosenwald School in Huntersville, North Carolina — today, home to Burgess Supply, a carpet store.
A bipartisan issue?
In the final days of his first presidency, Trump gave a significant boost to the campaign for a Rosenwald national park.
He signed the Julius Rosenwald and the Rosenwald Schools Act into law, directing the Department of Interior to conduct a study assessing the feasibility of establishing the park. Eight Republicans had cosponsored the bill, and it passed with broad bipartisan support.
The study “resulted in positive findings,” concluding that the San Domingo School in Sharptown, Maryland, met all the criteria for a national park and recommending that Congress create a grant program to support the preservation of additional Rosenwald schools.
But Republican backing for a national park honoring Rosenwald’s legacy now appears to have waned.
The Forward called and emailed the three Republicans who cosponsored the 2020 bill and are still in office. None responded to the Forward’s question about their position on Durbin’s bill to establish the Rosenwald park.
A White House spokesperson directed the Forward to the national historic site at the Rosenwald family home but declined to say whether Trump was supportive of the national park commemorating Rosenwald schools.
Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, went so far as to send a letter to President Joe Biden in 2024 expressing his support for “the expedited designation of a Julius Rosenwald And Rosenwald Schools National Park.”
His office did not respond to the Forward’s request for comment.
Nor did the office of Tim Scott, the Republican senator from South Carolina who previously advertised his support for the restoration of Rosenwald schools in his state. “Booker T. Washington helped build thousands of schools for Black children, advancing impactful educational opportunities throughout the South,” he tweeted in February 2024. “With the restoration of Rosenwald School, his legacy lives on in South Carolina. #BlackHistoryMonth”
‘A story for our time’
Durbin’s bill arrives just as the agency that would create a park faces drastic proposed cuts: Trump this week proposed funding for the already understaffed National Park Service be reduced by $736 million, or 25% of its budget.
Meanwhile, the president has sought to recast historical narratives at existing parks. In January, Trump ordered the National Park Service dismantle an exhibit about nine people enslaved by George Washington. Earlier this month, the Trump administration directed the removal of a pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument in New York City.
Yet Rosenwald’s story doesn’t fit neatly into the culture-war themes that Trump has singled out. Rosenwald himself was a political conservative, a laissez-faire businessman and steadfast Republican who believed in fostering economic self-sufficiency through education.
Dennis Ross, a former Republican congressman from Florida who retired from office in 2019 and has supported the Rosenwald park campaign, told the Forward he sees Rosenwald’s story as one conservatives should embrace.
“I’ve heard the argument that this is a way of trying to backdoor DEI. I totally disagree and take issue with that. This is showing what American history is all about,” Ross said. “If you were to dwell on the oppression of slavery, then maybe that argument might work. But I think the important thing is to look at the transition, the evolution from slavery to success.”
Canter is also optimistic, and said she plans to meet with a Republican senator — she declined to provide a name — whose staff has expressed interest in the park. As to whether Trump would sign the bill: She hopes the campaign will have the opportunity to put it on his desk.
“People with different backgrounds and cultures were able to come together, work together, find common ground and move this country forward,” Canter said. “So if that isn’t a story for our time, I don’t know what is.”
The post This national park would honor a Jewish philanthropist — if Republicans get back on board appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump Says Gas Prices May Remain High Through November Midterm Election
U.S. President Donald Trump takes questions from reporters while Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio look on, as they attend a meeting with oil industry executives, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 9, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
US President Donald Trump said on Sunday that the price of oil and gasoline may remain high through November’s midterm elections, a rare acknowledgement of the potential political fallout from his decision to attack Iran six weeks ago.
“It could be, or the same, or maybe a little bit higher, but it should be around the same,” Trump, who is in Miami for the weekend, told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo” when asked whether the cost of oil and gas would be lower by the fall.
The average price for regular gas at US service stations has exceeded $4 per gallon for most of April, according to data from GasBuddy. Trump’s comments on Sunday came after weeks of asserting that the spike in prices is a short-term phenomenon, though his top advisers are cognizant of the war’s economic impacts, officials have said.
Earlier on Sunday, Trump announced on social media that the US Navy would blockade the Strait of Hormuz and intercept any ship that paid a crossing fee to Iran, after marathon talks between the US and Iran in Pakistan over the weekend did not yield a peace deal.
“No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas,” he wrote on Truth Social.
Any US blockade is likely to add more uncertainty to the eventual resolution of the conflict, which is currently subject to a tenuous two-week ceasefire. The new tactic is in response to Iran’s own closure of the strait’s critical shipping lanes, which has caused global oil prices to skyrocket about 50%.
UNPOPULAR WAR HITS TRUMP’S APPROVAL
The war began on February 28, when the US launched a joint bombing campaign with Israel against Iran. The scope quickly expanded as Iran and its allies attacked nearby countries, while Israel targeted Hezbollah with massive strikes in Lebanon.
The war has buffeted global financial markets and caused thousands of civilian deaths, mostly in Iran and Lebanon.
Trump’s political standing at home has suffered, with polls showing the war is unpopular among most Americans, who are frustrated by rising gasoline prices.
The president’s approval rating has hit the lowest levels of his second term in office, raising concern among Republicans that his party is poised to lose control of Congress in the midterm elections. A Democratic majority in either chamber could launch investigations into the Trump administration while blocking much of his legislative agenda.
US Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned the strategy behind Trump’s planned blockade.
“I don’t understand how blockading the strait is going to somehow push the Iranians into opening it,” he told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.
In a separate appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Warner said the blockade would not undermine Iranian control of the waterway.
“The Iranians have hundreds of speedboats where they can still mine the strait or put bombs against tankers in closing the strait,” he said. “How is that going to ever bring down gas prices?”
Although Trump has repeatedly said that the war would be over soon, Republican US Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday that achieving US aims in Iran “could take a long time.”
“It’s going to be a long-term project,” said Johnson, who was not asked about Trump’s proposed blockade. “I never thought this would be easy.”