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
Pressure Mounts on UK Government to Ban Kanye West After Festival Backlash
Rapper Kanye West holds his first rally in support of his presidential bid in North Charleston, South Carolina, US, July 19, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Randall Hill
The British government was under growing pressure on Monday to bar US rapper Kanye West from entering the country after he was named as the headline act for the Wireless Festival of rap and hip-hop music set for July.
West, now known as Ye, has been criticized in the past for antisemitic remarks and celebration of Nazism, which have led on several occasions to his social media accounts, including X, being barred.
The decision to book Ye prompted several companies to pull their sponsorship of the festival, while the main opposition Conservative Party wrote to Home Secretary [interior minister] Shabana Mahmood urging her to ban him from coming to Britain.
Asked by Reuters for comment, a Home Office source said ministers were currently reviewing his permission to enter the country.
The Home Office does not usually comment on individual cases, but Mahmood has powers to personally request Ye to be excluded from the UK. In January, the department revoked the Electronic Travel Authorization of Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a Dutch far-right activist for spreading false information.
Festival organizers and Ye’s representative did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
The Jewish Leadership Council last week condemned the organizers for booking Ye after a rise in attacks on Jewish people and Jewish targets.
‘DEEPLY CONCERNING’
Prime Minister Keir Starmer also described as “deeply concerning” the decision to book Ye for the London festival.
“Antisemitism in any form is abhorrent and must be confronted firmly wherever it appears,” Starmer said in comments first reported by the Sun on Sunday.
“Everyone has a responsibility to ensure Britain is a place where Jewish people feel safe and secure.”
A spokesperson for London mayor Sadiq Khan said the rapper’s comments did not reflect the city’s values and that the decision had been made by festival organizers.
Australia cancelled the rapper’s visa last July after he released “Heil Hitler,” a song promoting Nazism. The ban came a few months after Ye advertised a swastika T-shirt for sale on his website.
Ye took a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal in January to apologize for his antisemitic remarks, attributing his behavior to an undiagnosed brain injury and an untreated bipolar disorder. He also apologized for his past expressions of admiration for Adolf Hitler and use of swastika imagery.
The 48-year-old has not performed in Britain since he headlined Glastonbury in 2015.
Drinks companies Diageo and Pepsi, a long-running sponsor, said they had withdrawn their support for the Wireless event over the decision to invite Ye. Pepsi-owner PepsiCo also confirmed its Rockstar Energy brand had pulled its sponsorship.
A spokesperson for PayPal told Reuters on Monday its branding would not appear in any future Wireless festival promotional materials.
Uncategorized
Iran Rejects Ceasefire as Deadline Nears on Trump ‘Hell’ Ultimatum
President Donald Trump arrives from the Blue Room to speak about the Iran war from the Cross Hall of the White House on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, in Washington. Photo: Alex Brandon/Pool via REUTERS
Iran said on Monday it wanted a lasting end to the war with the US and Israel, and pushed back against pressure to swiftly reopen the Strait of Hormuz under a temporary ceasefire as the Americans and the Iranians weighed a framework plan to cease their five‑week-old conflict.
Iran conveyed its response to the US proposal for ending the war to Pakistan, rejecting a ceasefire and emphasizing the necessity of a permanent end to the war, the official IRNA news agency said on Monday. The Iranian response consisted of 10 clauses, including an end to conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, lifting of sanctions, and reconstruction, the agency added.
President Donald Trump, who has threatened to rain “hell” on Tehran if it did not make a deal by 8 pm EDT Tuesday (midnight GMT) to open the vital route for global energy supplies, rejected the Iranian proposal on Monday and said his deadline was final.
“They made a proposal, and it’s a significant proposal. It’s a significant step. It’s not good enough,” Trump told reporters at an annual White House Easter event, referring to Iran.
Trump, who had extended his initial deadline, gave no indication he would do so again.
“Highly unlikely. They’ve had plenty of time. In fact, they asked for seven days. I said, I’m going to give you 10. But at the end of 10, all hell’s going to break out if you don’t get there,” he said.
Iran responded to US and Israeli attacks in February by effectively closing Hormuz, a conduit for about a fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supply. The waterway’s stranglehold on the global economy has proved a powerful Iranian bargaining chip and on Monday it showed reluctance to relinquish it too easily.
The Pakistani-brokered framework for ending the war emerged from intense overnight contacts and proposes an immediate ceasefire, followed by talks on a broader peace settlement to be concluded within 15 to 20 days, a source aware of the proposals said on Monday.
Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, was in contact “all night long” with US Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, the source said.
Iran‘s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that Tehran’s demands “should not be interpreted as a sign of compromise, but rather as a reflection of its confidence in defending its positions.” He added that earlier US demands, such as a 15-point plan, were rejected as “excessive.”
CEASEFIRE PROPOSAL ‘ONE OF MANY IDEAS’
Trump later told reporters that Iran could be taken out in one night, “and that night might be tomorrow night,” warning Tehran it had to make a deal by Tuesday night or face the consequences.
“The entire country can be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night,” he told a White House press conference.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the briefing that the largest volume of strikes since day one of the operation against Iran would take place on Monday and warned Tuesday would have even more.
A White House official told Reuters that the president is considering multiple options for how to proceed but that military operations will continue.
“This is one of many ideas, and [Trump] has not signed off on it. Operation Epic Fury continues,” they said, referring to the US name for the operation against Iran.
Brent crude futures LCOc1 were up 0.5% to $109.60 a barrel at 1545 GMT.
In a post laden with expletives on his Truth Social platform on Sunday, Trump threatened further strikes on Iranian energy and transport infrastructure if Iran failed to make a deal and reopen the Strait by Tuesday.
Anwar Gargash, an adviser to the president of the United Arab Emirates, said any settlement must guarantee access through Hormuz. He warned that a deal that failed to rein in Iran’s nuclear program and its missiles and drones would pave the way for “a more dangerous, more volatile Middle East.”
Fresh aerial strikes were reported across the region on Monday, more than five weeks since the US and Israel began pounding Iran in a war that has killed thousands and damaged economies by sending oil prices surging.
Iranian state media said the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence chief, Majid Khademi, has died. Israel on Monday claimed responsibility for his death.
A US-Israeli attack hit the data center at Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, damaging infrastructure underpinning the country’s national artificial intelligence platform and thousands of other services, Fars News Agency said on Sunday. According to US and Israeli officials, the Iranian regime has used the facility for military purposes.
ISRAEL VOWS TO DESTROY IRAN‘S INFRASTRUCTURE
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz in a statement issued on Monday threatened to destroy Iran’s infrastructure and hunt down its leaders “one by one.” The Israeli military also said they had targeted Iran‘s air force through a series of strikes on the Bahram, Mehrabad, and Azmayesh airports over the previous night.
Iran said on Monday two of its petrochemical complexes were attacked.
Emergency and firefighting teams brought a blaze under control at the South Pars complex in Asaluyeh, Iran‘s National Petrochemical Company said. No casualties were reported.
An Israeli attack in mid-March on the South Pars gas field that Iran shares with Qatar prompted an escalation in the war, with Iran striking energy targets across the Middle East.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that the strike on the petrochemical facility in southern Iran was part of dismantling Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards “money machine.”
“Iran is no longer the same Iran, and Israel is no longer the same Israel. Israel is stronger than ever, and the terrorist regime in Iran is weaker than ever,” Netanyahu said in a statement.
Trump has repeatedly warned Iran he could expand US strikes to include civilian infrastructure, such as power plants and bridges. Critics have said such actions would be war crimes, while others have noted that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an internationally designated terrorist organization, has embedded itself in such infrastructure to enrich itself and fuel its operations.
IRAN CONTINUES TO FIGHT BACK
Iranian weekend strikes on petrochemical facilities and an Israeli-linked vessel in Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE underscored the country’s ability to fight back despite Trump‘s repeated claims to have knocked out its missile and drone capabilities.
Israel saw a heavy day of rocket volleys on Monday, with the sounds of sirens and missile interception booms ringing out across the country throughout the day.
Israel’s military told Reuters there had been 20 missile launches from Lebanon and five from Iran during the day. Several of the attacks resulted in impacts, although it was unclear whether it was from falling missile debris or direct strikes. A missile hit Haifa overnight tearing a building apart and killing four under the rubble, taking the death toll in Israel to 23, according to Israel’s ambulance service.
Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis said on Monday that they also carried out missile and drones attack against Israel.
About 3,540 people have been killed in Iran in the war, including at least 244 children, said US-based rights group HRANA.
Israel has also invaded southern Lebanon and struck Beirut in a fight against Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists, who initially launched rockets at northern Israeli communities, that has become the most violent spillover of the war on Iran.
Lebanon’s heavy casualties include 1,461 killed, including at least 124 children, Lebanese authorities say.
Thirteen US service members have died, and hundreds of others have been wounded.
Uncategorized
Ukraine Missile Maker Targets ‘Game Changer’ Air Defense System by 2027
An employee works with FP-1 long range drone at a production facility of Fire Point company, amid Russia’s attack on Ukraine, in an undisclosed location in Ukraine, April 2, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Valentyn Ogirenko
Fire Point, maker of Ukraine‘s Flamingo cruise missile, is in talks with European companies to launch a new air defense system by next year, a senior executive told Reuters, creating a low-cost alternative to the increasingly hard-to-get Patriot system.
With governments seeking to defend their skies as the wars in Ukraine and Iran sow global instability, Fire Point’s co-founder and chief designer Denys Shtilierman said it aimed to slash the cost of intercepting a ballistic missile to below $1 million.
Shtilierman also said Fire Point was awaiting government approval for an investment by a Middle Eastern conglomerate that valued the company at $2.5 billion and would open the door to new business opportunities, including low-orbit satellite launches.
Years of know-how gained on the battlefield fighting Russian forces have made Ukraine a leading innovator in low-cost defense tech. With the outbreak of war in the Gulf, Kyiv has leveraged that expertise to sign security agreements with governments across the region.
Many Ukrainian defense firms are now seeking to export their excess capacity and cash in on a global boom in military spending. While the government recently loosened wartime export restrictions, each proposed deal is still subject to stringent checks and state approval.
DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PATRIOT SYSTEM
Ukraine and many other Western-allied nations rely heavily on the US-made Patriot system to stop ballistic missiles.
But Patriot missiles are in increasingly short supply amid extensive deployment in the Gulf against Iranian attacks. And Europe’s only anti-ballistic system, the Italo-French SAMP/T, is produced in relatively small numbers.
To bring down a ballistic projectile, the Patriot system – manufactured by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin – often requires two or three air defense missiles, each costing several million dollars, Shtilierman said.
“If we can decrease it to less than $1 million, it will be … a game changer in air defense solutions,” he said in an interview. “We plan to intercept the first ballistic missile at the end of 2027.”
Shtilierman declined to name the European companies involved in the discussions to develop the new system but said Fire Point is “deeply interested” in collaboration on radar, missile target-seeking and communications systems – areas where it lacks expertise.
European companies including Weibel, Hensoldt, SAAB, and Thales have good radar solutions, he noted.
Founded after Moscow’s 2022 invasion, Fire Point is Ukraine‘s biggest maker of the long-range drones used in the majority of strikes deep inside Russia.
In recent months, its FP5 long-range cruise missile – commonly known as the Flamingo – has also been used to hit Russian military facilities and arms factories, including a ballistic missile plant nearly 1,400 km (870 miles) inside Russian territory.
Shtilierman said Fire Point was now in the final stages of developing two supersonic ballistic missiles.
The smaller FP-7 missile, with a range of around 300 km, will have its first military deployment “in the close future,” he said, describing it as similar to Lockheed Martin’s ATACMS short-range ballistic system.
The larger FP-9, capable of carrying an 800 kg warhead up to 850 km, is about to enter testing and would place Moscow within range of Ukraine‘s ballistic arsenal, he added.
Shtilierman said strikes on Moscow, which is ringed by some of the world’s most formidable air defenses, would cause a “mass shift in the Russian mind and the mind of top guys in Russia.”
Russia’s defense ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
Fabian Hoffmann, a missile expert and senior researcher at the Norwegian Defense University College, said that, while Russia has experience in successfully downing ATACMS, more widespread use of ballistic missiles could stretch Russian air defenses, already degraded by Ukrainian strikes.
And while Fire Point’s 2027 target for launching a low-cost air defense system was “ambitious,” he said that, beyond Ukraine‘s own military needs, there would be strong demand from governments even if its kill rates per missile were less effective than the Patriot’s.
UAE INVESTMENT COULD START SATELLITE VENTURE
Ukraine‘s anti-monopoly authority has until around October to decide on the proposed $760-million acquisition of a 30% stake in Fire Point by the Middle Eastern investor, Shtilierman said.
Ukrainian media have identified the suitor as Emirati defense firm Edge Group. Edge Group and Ukraine‘s anti-monopoly authorities did not respond to a request for comment.
The investment would be the first step in a project to build a space launch terminal in the UAE, with the aim of eventually establishing a constellation of low-orbit European satellites. Shtilierman said the country’s location next to the Indian Ocean and geographical conditions were favorable for space launches.
“We built a carbon winding machine, which allows us to wind a big solid rocket booster for satellite delivery,” he said, noting the project remained at the conceptual stage although there were already agreements “with a couple of Western companies.”
Regardless of whether the UAE deal proceeds, Shtilierman said Fire Point would not take on further investors until after it had demonstrated success with its missile defense system, which will use the company’s FP7 missile.
Fire Point has, meanwhile, received interest from Gulf states for purchases of its existing drone products and is awaiting approval from Ukraine‘s government to begin exports. Shtilierman said the company has monthly capacity to export up to 2,500 long-range drones.
Exporting the Flamingo missile, however, is much more difficult due to regulatory barriers, he said.
Fire Point says it makes hundreds of long-range strike drones a day, each costing about 50,000 euros ($57,775) to produce, and three Flamingo missiles, at a cost of about 600,000 euros apiece. He acknowledged some “bottleneck” issues with the Flamingo, including with engine production.
Fire Point will increase production of the Flamingo when a new, in-house engine goes into mass production in October and a rocket fuel plant in Denmark comes online later this year, he said. The plant is awaiting two final approvals from Danish authorities.
($1 = 0.8654 euros)