Uncategorized
The JTA conversation: Pogrom? Terrorism? What do we call what happened in Huwara?
(JTA) — On Sunday, after a Palestinian gunman shot and killed two Israeli brothers in the West Bank, Jewish settlers rioted in the nearby Palestinian town of Huwara, burning cars and buildings. A Palestinian was killed and dozens were injured.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the Jewish rioters for “taking the law in their own hands,” but many observers — including the top Israeli general in the West Bank and Abraham Foxman, director emeritus of the the Anti-Defamation League — used stronger language, calling the attacks a “pogrom.”
The use of the word, which most famously refers to a wave of anti-Jewish violence in the Russian empire beginning in the late 19th century, in turn became the subject of debate. Does using “pogrom” co-opt Jewish history unfairly and inaccurately by suggesting Jews are no better than their historical persecutors? Does avoiding the term mean Israel and its supporters are not taking sufficient responsibility for the actions of its Jewish citizens?
The debate is not just about language, but about controlling the narrative. Political speech can minimize or exaggerate events, put them in their proper context or distort them in ways that, per George Orwell, can “corrupt thought.”
We asked historians, linguists and activists to consider the word pogrom, and asked them what politicians, journalists and everyday people should call what happened at Huwara. Their responses are below.
Sidestepping the real issue
Dr. Jeffrey Shandler
Distinguished Professor, Department of Jewish Studies, Rutgers University
The meanings of the word “pogrom” in different languages are key here. In Russian, it means a massacre or raid, as it does in Yiddish; in neither language is it understood as specifically about violence against Jews. The Oxford English Dictionary concurs that pogrom means an “organized massacre… of any body or class,” but notes that, in the English-language press, it was first used mostly to refer to anti-Jewish attacks in Russia, citing examples from 1905-1906.
Therefore, though the association of pogrom with violence targeting Jews is widely familiar, its meaning is broader.
That said, because of English speakers’ widely familiar association of the term with Jews as victims, to use pogrom to describe violence perpetrated by Jews is provocative. As to whether it is appropriate to refer to recent attacks by Jewish settlers on Palestinians, it seems to me that this question sidesteps the more important question of whether the actions being called pogroms are appropriate.
Call it what it is: “settler terrorism”
Sara Yael Hirschhorn
’22-’23 Research Fellow at the Center for Antisemitism Research at the ADL, and author, “City on a Hilltop: American Jews and the Israeli Settler Movement”
Let me say first with a loud and clear conscience: What happened in Huwara was abhorrent, immoral, and unconscionable and certainly was not committed in my name.
But to paraphrase Raymond Carver’s famous formulation: How do we talk about it when we talk about Huwara? What kind of descriptive and analytical framework can adequately and contextually interpret that horrific event?
The shorthand of choice seems to be “pogrom” — but it isn’t clear that all who deploy the term are signifying the same thing. For some, pogrom is a synonym for pillage, rampage, fire, property damage and violence in the streets — a one-word general summary of brutal acts. For others, pogrom refers to vigilante justice, an abbreviated story of the non-state or non-institutional actors and their motivations.
More specifically, however, pogrom is seemingly being mobilized as a metaphor to Jewish history, juxtaposing the Jewish victims of yesterday to the Jewish-Israeli perpetrators of today, an implicit analogy to the prelude to the Shoah, recasting Zionists as organized bands of genocidaires (with or without regime sponsorship) like the Cossacks, the Nationalist Fronts or even the Einsatzgruppen. Some would use the word to incorporate all three meanings (and more).
As a historian, I am troubled by the haphazard and harmful use of terms that are attached to a specific time and place — such as the thousand-year history of Jews in the Rhinelands and Eastern Europe, with many layers of imperial, national, local, economic and religious forces that precipitated these events — in such an ahistorical manner. Nor do I find the parallels between Zionists and Nazis to be historically careful (if deliberately offensive) — the State of Israel is committing crimes in the West Bank, but not a genocide. The equivalence also all too easily and incorrectly grafts tropes of racism and white supremacy drawn from American history into the West Bank’s soil.
So what to say about Huwara? Israel — for reasons both political and lexiconographical — has failed to consistently adopt a term for such attacks. (Often the euphemism of “errant weeds” who are “taking matters into their own hands” is the choice of Knesset politicians.) To my mind, the best term is “settler terrorism,” which puts Jewish-Israeli acts on par with Palestinian terrorism. It should also mean that these actions merit the same consequences under the occupation like trial, imprisonment, home demolition and other deterrents enforced against all those who choose the path of violence.
Last but not least, a pogrom was historically an unpunished crime against humanity that led only to war and annihilation. Don’t we aspire for more in Israel/Palestine?
Palestinians call it “ethnic cleansing”
Ibrahim Eid Dalalsha
Director, Horizon Center for Political Studies and Media Outreach, Ramallah, and member of Israel Policy Forum’s Critical Neighbors task force
Palestinians generally view and describe what happened during Sunday’s Huwara attacks as “racist hate crimes seeking to destroy and dispossess the Palestinian people of their homes and properties.” While no specific term has been used to describe these attacks, it was likened to the barbaric and savage invasion of Baghdad by Hulagu, the 13th-century Mongol commander.
Palestinian intellectuals tend to use “ethnic cleansing,” savage and barbaric ethnically motivated violence against innocent civilians, as another way of referring to these attacks. When such events include killing, Palestinian politicians and intellectuals tend to use the term massacre, or “majzara,” to underline the irrational and indiscriminate violence against defenseless civilians. I don’t think the term “pogrom” and its historic connotation are widely known to most people here. From a Palestinian perspective, using such terms, including “Holocaust,” is not considered a mistake. In fact, even using “Holocaust“ to describe violence against Palestinian civilians in and around 1948 was not considered a mistake until very recently when it caused such a saga for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Germany.
View of cars burned by Jewish settlers during riots in Huwara, in the West Bank, near Nablus, Feb. 27, 2023. (Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90)
In the name of historical accuracy
Rukhl Schaechter
Yiddish Editor, The Forward
The recent attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians in Huwara are abhorrent. I commend those in Israel calling them peulot teror, “actions of terror,” and I trust that the perpetrators will be brought to justice. But these riots were not pogroms.
The word pogrom refers to one of the many violent riots and subsequent massacres of Jews in Eastern Europe between the 17th and 20th centuries. These attacks were committed by local non-Jewish, often peasant populations. They were instigated by rabble-rousers like Bogdan Chmielnicki, who led a Cossack and peasant uprising against Polish rule in Ukraine in 1648 and ended up destroying hundreds of Jewish communities. According to eyewitnesses, the attackers also committed atrocities on pregnant women.
Note that the massacres of Jews carried out by the Nazis, and the murders of Armenians by the Turkish government at the turn of the 20th century — as horrific as they were — were never called pogroms because in both cases, there was a government behind it. In the name of historic accuracy, let’s continue to use the word pogrom solely for mob attacks on and massacres of Jews.
When the Poles banned “pogrom”
Samuel D. Kassow
Professor of History, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut
In Poland in the late 1930s, altercations between a Jew and a Pole sometimes ended with either the Jew or the Pole getting badly hurt or even killed. When the victim was a Pole, mobs of Poles rampaged through Jewish neighborhoods smashing windows, looting shops and often beating or even killing Jews. Poles often held Jews collectively responsible for the death of one of their own. This happened in Przytyk, Minsk-Mazowieck, Grodno and other places. Jews called these riots “pogroms,” which they were. But the Polish government banned use of the term in the press. After all, “pogrom” was a Russian word, and “pogroms” happened only in a place characterized by barbarism and ignorance. Since Poland was not Russia, and since Poles were eminently civilized, logically speaking, pogroms simply did not take place in Poland. What happened in these towns were to be called “excesses” (zajscia). But certainly not pogroms!
I take it that since we Jews are so civilized, we too are incapable of pogroms. So should we label what these settlers did “‘excesses”? Or perhaps we should take a deep breath and call them pogroms?
A Jewish, but not exclusive, history
Henry Abramson
Historian
The word “pogrom” is rooted in time and place, although the type of violence it describes is as old as human history. It is a Russian word, but it entered the English language in the late 19th century through the medium of Yiddish-speakers, outraged at the wave of antisemitic disturbances that surged under rule of the last tsar of the Russian Empire, Nicholas II. Russians themselves used a variety of words for the ugly phenomenon, with translations like “riot” or “persecution,” but the term “pogrom” proved the most evocative: the Slavic prefix “po” suggests a directed attack, and the root “grom” is the word for “thunder.” A pogrom, therefore, meant a focused point where a great deal of energy was dissipated in a single dramatic act of violence.
The focused point, in the context of that dark history, was the civilian Jewish population in the tiny shtetls that dotted the Pale of Settlement. In this regard the word could be used to encompass attacks on Jewish populations from as long ago as the year 38 in Alexandria, Egypt. It does not, however, have any specific designation to indicate that Jews are the victims.
—
The post The JTA conversation: Pogrom? Terrorism? What do we call what happened in Huwara? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
UNC Student Newspaper Publishes Tropes About Jews and Money
In May 2024, Students for Justice in Palestine poured red paint which resembles spilled blood on the steps of the South Building, an office for administrative staff and the chancellor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Photo: UNCSJP/Screenshot
The Daily Tar Heel, the student-led newspaper of the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, recently featured commentary that some view as antisemitic.
On Feb. 26, Kyle Bublic began a column by writing, “The 2022 congressional race for North Carolina’s 4th District was puppeteered by the wallet of Benjamin Netanyahu, as he whisked away the last of our previously honest lawmakers with American Israel Public Affairs Committee money.”
The American Jewish Committee explains why it is antisemitic to allege that Jews are political puppet masters:
Myths of control portray Jews as secret puppet masters, ruling over others and manipulating the world’s economies and governments. For centuries, Jews were blamed for controlling world events behind the scenes, leading “blind” leaders into wars and debt to enrich themselves and further their own hidden agenda …
The imagery of Jewish leaders pulling the strings of politicians was featured in Nazi propaganda … Antisemitic propaganda continues to spread the idea that rich or influential Jews are behind the scenes conspiring to further their plans of world domination.
It is a serious matter to state or imply that the Prime Minister of Israel is in any way financing or directing an American election. According to Congress, “Federal campaign finance law and regulation prohibits foreign money in U.S. elections.”
I reached out to five of the paper’s editors for comment. None responded.
Later in his column, the op-ed’s author repeated the antisemitic puppet master trope, writing:
While I would like to imagine Israel’s investment into Durham and Orange County was driven by their prime minister’s love for Cosmic Cantina [a local restaurant], it seems like his motivation was more nefarious. Nida Allam, Foushee’s most fearsome competitor in the 2022 election, represented everything that makes our puppet masters shudder — a principled and young candidate fighting under a truly progressive ticket.
The student column focused on the primary election in NC’s 4th Congressional district held last week between Democratic Congressional incumbent Valerie Foushee and her challenger, Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam. Israel became a major focus of this Democratic primary, with anti-Israel radicals embracing Allam.
I previously reported that in 2018, Allam tweeted, “This is the United States of Israel,” which is consistent with centuries-old antisemitic propaganda that Jews seek to dominate the world. Allam ended up issuing a public apology for her antisemitism.
The Daily Tar Heel endorsed Allam in the Nov. 3 primary. Foushee narrowly beat Allam in the election.
UNC Professor of Medicine and longtime Jewish communal leader, Dr. Adam Goldstein, told me:
It’s truly disappointing to see the UNC student newspaper endorsing a partisan description of a Congressional race in 2026 as “puppeteered by the wallet of Benjamin Netanyahu’” in 2022, with references to “Bibi’s pockets.”Such descriptions echo longstanding antisemitic tropes portraying Jews as secretly controlling political systems through money. This moves beyond criticism of a current candidate’s policies into shameful demonization of a longtime progressive Congresswoman, and those that support her, through language that is itself manipulative and corrupting.
The Daily Tar Heel’s policy page claims that it seeks “to be a leader in espousing the ethical standards of the industry [and] to serve as a beacon of journalistic integrity.” Yet, the paper fails UNC students, our community, and the people of North Carolina, by allowing these tropes about Jews and money in its pages.
Peter Reitzes writes about antisemitism in North Carolina and beyond.
Uncategorized
CNN Shames Itself By Shilling for Iran
Images of Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei and late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are displayed at a gathering to support Mojtaba Khamenei, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 9, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
There’s a reason why the Iranian regime, which murdered thousands of its own citizens just months ago, only allowed one American network access to the country. It picked CNN, because it thought it would get coverage either that was favorable in some way, or at least not critical.
We are no longer in the era of Mike Wallace. Not long after Ayatollah Khomeini took over in 1979, Wallace interviewed him in Iran. Wallace had the guts to mention that Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat called him a disgrace to Islam and a “lunatic.” The Ayatollah responded by saying that Sadat was not a Muslim and was united with their enemies. He called for the people of Egypt to overthrow Sadat. Sadat was assassinated two years later.
Wallace sat on the floor during the interview, as did the Ayatollah, and asked if he could go visit the American hostages and talk to them. He was refused.
Back to now. CNN’s Frederik Pleitgen interviewed shopkeepers who said they were scared for their lives because there were bombs.
Of course, none of the people Pleitgen would interview are capable of criticizing the regime, or they’d be beaten or killed. Pleitgen himself might be killed if he reports anything the regime doesn’t want. The reports do include the line: “CNN operated in Iran only with government permission.” But that’s meaningless.
There is value to being on the scene in a war zone, but CNN, which gets much of its ratings from bashing Trump, will no doubt find citizens who will curse Trump. And no one they talk to will support the war in any way. Is simply putting in a line that you are reporting only with the permission of the government good enough? Do the ends justify the means in this case?
Pleitgen reported that “oil-filled rain” is falling from the sky. Is he able to report on what the true process was for the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new leader? Doubtful. What about the real number of its citizens they killed? Of course, they won’t get that. What about why they apologized for striking Gulf countries, and then continued to do so? If we won’t get any real answers to real questions, why is CNN really there — other than to do the bidding of the Iranian regime?
What is surprising is that I thought they’d send the CNN reporter to the girls school that was said to have been hit by American forces. Why not let him speak with some of the parents whose children have been killed? One would think this is exactly what Iran would want. That they have not done so raises suspicions. Was it a school not marked as a school, as part of an Revolutionary Guard Corps facility? Are there some discrepancies Iran doesn’t want the world to know?
It goes without saying that there is propaganda from every country in a war. It’s not always easy to get to the truth, and all countries only want certain information to be public. I’d like to know more about the Iranian ship sunk by America. Was it really unarmed when it was coming back from exercises with India? That’s what Iran says, but the US says that’s a lie. How about an interview with one of the 32 who survived? That would be an interesting interview.
If you’re going to report from an enemy country in war, can you at least have some unique and engaging content? It will be interesting to see if CNN decides to leave Iran, realizing their reputation will be hurt and it’s not worth it to aid an enemy’s propaganda war.
The author is a writer based in New York.
Uncategorized
Self-Reliance Is Israel’s Strategic Imperative
A US Marines F-35C Lightning II is staged for flight operations on the flight deck of the US Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of the Operation Epic Fury attack on Iran from an undisclosed location March 3, 2026. Photo: US Navy/Handout via REUTERS
History has taught the Jewish people many painful lessons, but perhaps the most enduring one is this: survival can never depend entirely on the goodwill of others. Alliances matter. Partnerships strengthen nations. But the responsibility for defending the Jewish state ultimately rests with Israel itself.
For decades, the alliance between Israel and the United States has been a cornerstone of Israel’s national security. This partnership has saved lives and deterred wars. Yet responsible leadership requires looking forward, not backward.
The global order is shifting. The United States faces growing domestic polarization, rising debt, and strategic competition with China that increasingly dominates its foreign policy priorities. Within parts of American political discourse, support for foreign aid in general, and Israel in particular, is no longer a consensus issue. While bipartisan support for Israel remains somewhat in place at the institutional level, the tone and intensity of the debate have changed.
This does not mean America is abandoning Israel. But it does mean that Israel cannot afford complacency.
The Jewish State was founded in the shadow of embargoes and isolation. In 1948, when the newborn nation faced invasion, it did not enjoy the luxury of dependable suppliers. Those early experiences forged a national doctrine of self-reliance. Over the decades, Israel built one of the most advanced defense industries in the world — precisely because it understood that sovereignty without military independence is fragile.
Today, Israel produces cutting edge missile defense systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow. It leads globally in unmanned aerial systems, cyber capabilities, electronic warfare, and advanced battlefield technologies. Israeli defense exports reach Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, including countries that once viewed Israel as an adversary. Innovation is not merely an economic asset for Israel. It is a strategic necessity.
However, critical dependencies remain. Israel does not manufacture its own fifth generation fighter jets. Its air force relies heavily on American platforms such as the F-35 and F-15. Certain precision munitions and key components are sourced from abroad. Moreover, financial frameworks tied to foreign military assistance inevitably create political considerations beyond Israel’s direct control.
If the geopolitical winds shift, even slightly, those dependencies could become vulnerabilities.
Recognizing this reality does not diminish the importance of Israel’s alliances. It strengthens them.
Israel must accelerate investment in domestic production of critical munitions, expand its aerospace capabilities, and secure independent supply chains for raw materials and advanced components. It must ensure that during prolonged conflict, it can sustain itself without waiting for external political approvals. This is not an act of isolation. It is an act of national responsibility.
Israel cannot gamble its security on the internal debates of other nations, however friendly they may be. The Jewish people returned to their homeland to reclaim agency over their destiny. That agency must extend to every dimension of national defense.
In a region where weakness invites aggression, strength guarantees peace. The strongest message Israel can send to both allies and adversaries is clear: we value partnership, but our security will never be outsourced.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.