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
Epstein and Iran are an antisemitism mega-crisis. Here’s what Jewish organizations should do about it.
So far, 2026 has been a banner year for antisemites.
All hateful ideologies have slivers of truth within them; that’s why they work, moving from partial truth to wild exaggeration to scapegoating all members of the group for the perceived sins of some of them. Which is why 2026 has been a bonanza.
First, the release of the Epstein Files revealed a massive network of rich, connected elites — disproportionately Jewish and connected to Israel — who, at the very least, socialized and worked with a convicted sex offender, and in some cases may even have participated in his crimes. .
Then, Israel’s prime minister lobbied a U.S. president in the Situation Room (completely unprecedented), persuading him to launch a rash, costly, bloody, and thus far unsuccessful war on Iran, in violation of everything “America First” was supposed to stand for.
Worse, for some on the internet, those two stories are connected. The conspiratorial compulsion to manufacture facts to fit the larger theory leads to a fictional storyline: Epstein was working for Israel, Epstein handed the Israelis kompromat, Israel is blackmailing Trump, Israeli interests are dictating American foreign policy, and only Iran and China are standing up to the ‘Epstein Government.’
To be clear, there is no evidence for this hyperbole and speculation, which moves beyond valid critique of Israel into antisemitic conspiracy-mongering. Donald Trump has been pushing for war on Iran for 40 years, he wanted to push the Epstein Files out of the news, Epstein was working for himself not the Mossad, and there are some geopolitical reasons why some people might’ve seen this war as a good idea. Nor do Benjamin Netanyahu’s lobbying or AIPAC’s influence in Congress, however nefarious one may believe their intentions to be, amount to a Zionist conspiracy. The tech industry, the Christian Right, the fossil fuel industry, Big Pharma, Wall Street and other groups exert equal degrees of influence, often for equally nefarious ends.
But there is at least some basis for these false claims, and online influencers are connecting the dots. And whatever I may write in this article, it will be read by around .001% of the people who’ve seen China’s “White Eagle” videos or Iran’s “Lego” videos, which have gone viral online and amassed tens of millions of views, not to mention interviews by Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson. Sometimes these commentaries cross into overt antisemitism, sometimes they ‘merely’ allege a sinister conspiracy of Zionists or Epstein Associates to control the United States. Sometimes they’re from the Right, sometimes from the Left, and sometimes they horseshoe together. But this combination of real-world events and motivated propaganda is now a five-alarm fire, Defcon-1 crisis.
This crisis demands a response. But so far at least, what we’ve heard from the Jewish Establishment has been… crickets.
Unbelievably, the ADL’s website is focused on its “Best Schools in Antisemitism Report Card,” as the organization still obsesses over campus activists and professors instead of addressing the explosion in antisemitism since the Epstein Files release and Iran war, largely from networks of right-wing antisemites in government and online.
And, to my knowledge, no major Jewish organization has put out a statement in response to the Epstein Files, and the avalanche of revelations they have contained about his social and business relationships with Jewish figures and organizations, particularly in the years after his 2008 conviction in Florida for procuring sexual massages from a teenager. Indeed, files released last January revealed that prosecutors had prepared a much more significant indictment against Epstein, charging him with abusing more than a dozen girls over a period of six years, but set it aside when Epstein pled to lesser state charges.
(The Wexner Foundation, whose patron Les Wexner was Epstein’s leading client for two decades and who one witness claimed was a participant in his sexual parties, wrote a letter to its alumni following Wexner’s evasive congressional testimony saying that, at present, “we are only listening. We will sit in a posture of taking in your feelings and feedback.”)
However much the people in Epstein’s orbit did or did not know, or did or did not do, they must be brought to account. Yet there has been no reckoning, no accountability, hardly any response at all from the Jewish mainstream.
This has been a profound moral failure. In the words of Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, who has spoken out forcefully on the issue, “That there has been overwhelming silence since the release of era-defining information on the theft and raping of children — including not only the nation’s most powerful leaders, but Jews who routinely gave prestigious talks in our community — is a moral desecration and abdication of duty. Our sacred obligations require us to show up unequivocally for those harmed — especially children! — and to condemn all sexual abuse and violence. I do not know why this might ever seem complicated.”
The silence has also fanned the flames of antisemitism, especially because, as a Jewish Studies colleague put it to me, antisemitism thrives on the claim that you aren’t supposed to talk about when Jews in powerful positions act wrongly.
Now, if you’re of the opinion that antisemitism is a mysterious, baseless hatred that has always existed and always will exist, maybe you don’t think this news matters much. Today they hate us for Epstein and Iran, tomorrow will be something else.
But that view is dead wrong.
First, it flies in the face of the data that shows massive increases in antisemitism in the wake of Trump’s nationalism, and, later, the Gaza war. The hatred underlying antisemitism may be timeless, but it is fueled by the times. It is not a binary; it rises and falls and rises again.
Second, the Judeo-Pessimistic view ignores how antisemitism feeds off of conspiracy theories, political ideologies and resentment. The “Jews will not replace us” chant did not come from nowhere; it came from the nationalist right’s Great Replacement Theory. And the recent explosion in attacks on American Jews came as a response to the Gaza War; just as innocent German Americans and Japanese Americans were scapegoated during World War II, innocent Jewish Americans are scapegoated today.
Nothing Jewish leaders say or do will eradicate antisemitism. And preschoolers at a Michigan synagogue are not in any way responsible for the crimes of Epstein or the machinations of Netanyahu. Any time Jews are scapegoated and targeted for the perceived misdeeds of others, that is antisemitic, full stop. But, to paraphrase the Yom Kippur liturgy, we can mitigate the severity of the decree.
What might that look like? Let’s look at Epstein first, Iran second.
First, we need a real, public reckoning with the Epstein Files and the long relationships Epstein had with notable and/or rich American Jews (Wexner, Larry Summers, Howard Lutnick, Leon Black, Alan Dershowitz, Woody Allen, Ehud Barak, Robert Maxwell, Leon Botstein, and, most notably for antisemites, Lynn Forester and Ariane de Rothschild), and his support of Jewish and Jewish-adjacent institutions (including Ramaz, Hillel International, Harvard Hillel, YIVO, the Jewish National Fund, Mount Sinai Hospital, UJA-Federation of New York, Seeds of Peace, Touro College, Friends of the IDF, American Jewish Committee, and several Orthodox yeshivas).
This isn’t about outing or shaming; individuals or organizations who dealt with Epstein before 2008 can honestly claim they had no knowledge of his criminal behavior. Rather, it is about public, communal teshuvah, recognizing that our community institutions failed, our ethical values failed, and some of our wealthiest members failed as well. We did not protect the vulnerable (Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:16), judge rich and poor alike (Deuteronomy 1:17, Leviticus 19:15), or treat all people as made in the image of the Divine (Genesis 1:27).
These should not be mere performative statements. We should act, as a community, to repair what is broken – first and foremost by listening to Epstein’s victims, financially compensating them, and sharing their stories. There should be a community-wide campaign to fund organizations that combat sexual abuse and domestic violence, and help victims recover. (Examples include Za’akah, Shalom Bayit, as well as initiatives at Mount Sinai and many Jewish federations.) And our organizations should also use this moment to revisit their own politics on preventing misconduct and abuse. There should be strong words and even stronger actions.
Regarding the Iran War, the problem runs deeper.
A large majority of American Jews oppose the Iran War, just as they opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza. Yet individuals and organizations that publicly take such positions are marginalized in the Jewish community, and are often banned or shadow-banned from Jewish gatherings and religious institutions. (For example, 70% of American Jews oppose unconditional aid to Israel, but AIPAC targeted a pro-Israel congressional candidate for taking that view, leading to an anti-Israel opponent being swept into office.) We like to say that our community tolerates a wide range of views, but our institutional rhetoric of “standing with Israel” and a quick glance at the speaker list of any mainstream Jewish gathering makes it clear that some views are more favored than others.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu and Trump say, repeatedly, that anyone opposing the Israeli government’s policies (let alone the state itself) is a self-hating Jew, a traitor, or an antisemite. They are the antisemites’ best partners, insisting that there is no daylight between Israel’s actions and American Jews. That you’re either for us or against us.
We need the opposite of such false binaries and false equations. We need space for legitimate criticism, precisely so that illegitimate antisemitism can be recognized and called out. It’s not always easy to do so: The Nexus Project, which works to disentangle antisemitism and valid critique of Israel, has produced a helpful three-page guide to doing so in the context of the Iran War, in which the difference is often one of degree, rather than kind.
For example, it is indeed outrageous that Netanyahu pitched this war in the way he did to our increasingly demented-seeming president. One doesn’t need to resort to conspiracy-mongering to note that. Was this war ever in the American national interest? Did anyone really think the Iranian people would rise up against their government after America blew their cities to smithereens? All these are valid questions. Yet often they are posed in terms of antisemitic imagery depicting Jews, or Israel, as a giant puppetmaster or octopus manipulating world affairs. By validating legitimate criticisms, we can better call out illegitimate ones.
Honestly, I’ve long ago given up on most large Jewish organizations making space for diversity of opinion, because their donors tilt to the right, a structural reality I wrote about in this publication 10 years ago.
So my call, instead, is to Jewish centrists, moderates and progressives. If you want a Jewish community that reflects your Jewish values, you need to pay for one: You need to donate at the same levels as right-wing donors do. You need to take back the mainstream Jewish community by spending money and dictating your priorities.
To repeat, these efforts won’t end the scourge of antisemitism; there is no use arguing with bigots. But the bigots are not our audience — rather, the point is to combat the narratives that are persuading more and more people to join their ranks. By standing up for our values, we can put some space between Jeffrey Epstein (and his accomplices) and the Jewish community as a whole. And we can differentiate between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and antisemitic conspiracy theories based on them. We can stand up to the lies about Jews that are spreading like wildfire right now — by proudly and forcefully telling the truth.
The post Epstein and Iran are an antisemitism mega-crisis. Here’s what Jewish organizations should do about it. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In major shift, all but 7 Senate Democrats vote to block weapons sales to Israel
(JTA) — A record number of Senate Democrats voted on Wednesday to block the sales of certain weapons to Israel, marking a sharp rise in the number of senators backing the move.
Wednesday was the third time in as many years that the Senate voted on resolutions to limit weapons sales to Israel, introduced and promoted by the Vermont independent and progressive leader Bernie Sanders.
In 2024, 19 Democrats voted for at least one of the “Block the Bombs” resolutions on the table at the time. Last year, 24 senators endorsed the move.
Now, 40 senators — all but seven Democrats — voted for at least one of the two resolutions they faced on Wednesday, more than doubling the support in two years. The new backers include several Jewish moderates who describe themselves as pro-Israel as well as multiple senators who are seen as likely 2028 presidential candidates.
“I have struggled with these Joint Resolutions of Disapproval as much as any vote since I joined Congress,” said Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a moderate from Michigan, in a statement calling the issue of support for Israel “raw, painful and personal.”
“My entire life, I have been — and continue to be — a strong supporter of a Jewish and democratic State of Israel. The people of Israel, like all people throughout the region, deserve long-term security and peace,” Slotkin said. “But being pro-Israel today is not about simply supporting the political or military agenda of Prime Minister Netanyahu, just like being pro-American should not be equated with loyalty to President Trump.”
All three measures fell short in the Republican-led Senate. Still, the vote on the weapons sales resolution in particular offered a powerful demonstration of shifting sentiment in the party about Israel. A survey released this week found that 80% of Democratic voters hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up sharply over the last three years. The findings correlate with a growing number of polls showing rising opposition to Israel in both parties, with a steeper rise among Democrats.
In addition to Slotkin, three other Jewish senators newly voted for the resolutions: Adam Schiff of California, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Jon Ossoff of Georgia.
Mark Kelly of Arizona, who is seen as a likely presidential contender and is married to the Jewish former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, said in a speech on the Senate floor that he “cannot and will never abandon Israel” but was voting to stop the weapons transfers because he opposes “the reckless decisions being made by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump.”
Along with Kelly, Ossoff and Slotkin, two other possible presidential candidates also newly voted against weapons sales to Israel: Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona. (Both have Jewish family members.)
Senate Democrats also voted as a bloc to restrict President Donald Trump’s ability to continue the war against Iran, which he launched jointly with Israel in February without congressional approval. Trump entered a ceasefire last week without achieving the varying goals he had outlined.
The weapons resolutions would have blocked the sale of D-9 bulldozers, widely used in military operations, and 1,000-bombs to Israel, while not affecting the sale of smaller and defensive munitions. Four senators who voted to block the bulldozer sales voted not to block the bomb sales.
Jewish critics of the war and the Israeli government applauded the votes.
“It’s encouraging to see a growing number of senators recognize that unconditional US military support for Israel is no longer tenable in light of the Netanyahu government’s policies,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, which this week came out against U.S. support for Israel’s defensive systems for the first time.
Morriah Kaplan, executive director of the progressive group IfNotNow, said the vote represented “a powerful step toward shared safety” in the Middle East and a bellwether of change in the United States.
“Establishment Jewish institutions will spend the next week writing angry letters to the Senators who voted ‘yes’ and trying to convince U.S. Jews that these politicians are putting our community in danger,” Kaplan said. “But our community is no longer falling for the disastrous lie that our safety will come through bombs, bulldozers, walls, or repression.”
There was little sign of immediate public condemnation by the Jewish groups that historically have taken aim at lawmakers who vote against support for Israel. Following the votes, the American Jewish Committee tweeted only, “Thank you to the Senators who continue to stand by Israel as it continues to face ongoing terror threats on multiple fronts.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post In major shift, all but 7 Senate Democrats vote to block weapons sales to Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
On Yom Haatzmaut — a tribute to the mallow plant
במשך פֿון דער זעקס-וואָכיקער מלחמה מיט איראַן, וואָס האָט זיך געענדיקט מיט אַ פֿײַער־שטילשטאַנד דעם 8טן אַפּריל, זײַנען מיר, ישׂראלים, און בפֿרט די אײַנוווינערס פון תּל-אָבֿיבֿ, געבליבן נאָענט צו דער היים צוליב די סכּנה פֿון דערווײַטערן זיך פֿון אַ שוץ-קעלער. די צאָרן און דער צער זײַנען געוואַקסן פון טאָג צו טאָג: ס׳איז מיר קלאָר געווען אַז דאָס איז אַ געפֿערלעכער שפּיל מיט פֿײַער, אַן איבעריקע מלחמה, און מיר — און די אײַנוויינערס פֿון איראַן — וועלן באַצאָלן דעם פּרײַז. (אונדזער דירה איז טאַקע אַ ביסל צעשעדיקט געוואָרן אין איינער פֿון די באָמבאַרדירונגען). דערפֿאַר קאָנט איר זיך פֿאָרשטלען מיט וואָס פֿאַר אַ פֿרייד האָב איך אָנגענומען דעם פֿײַער-איבעררײַס; תּיכף נאָך דעם בין איך טאַקע אַרויסגעגאַנגען פֿון דער שטאָט, און גלײַך אין דער נאַטור.
און עס איז ווי געשען אַ נס: די נאַטור האָט זיך מכּלומרשט אָפּגעשטעלט אין דער צײַט פֿון דער קריג. דער פֿרילינג, וואָס ענדיקט זיך דאָ בדרך-כּלל פֿאַר פּסח, האָט דאָס מאָל געוואַרט אויף אונדז, זײַנע פֿאַרערערס. כּמעט די גאַנצע צײַט פֿון דער קריג איז געווען ווינטערדיק, מיט אַ סך רעגנס, און איצט, סוף חודש ניסן, איז נאָך אַלץ געבליבן גרין, פֿול מיט בלומען און געוויקסן — אַ זעלטנקייט.
צווישן די פֿאַרשיידענע בלומען און געוויקסן האָב איך באַמערקט אַז אויך די מאַלווע, וואָס אויף העברעיִש הייסט עס חוביזה, בליט נאָך מיט אירע חנעוודיקע וויאָלעטע בלומען. די בלומען בליִען, די קליינע פֿרוכטן זײַנען רייף, און די בלעטער זײַנען נאָך גרין.
די מאַלווע וואַקסט אין אַפֿריקע, אַזיע און אייראָפּע, און ישׂראל בתוכם. בדרך-כּלל שפּראָצן די ערשטע בלעטער פֿון דער מאַלווע אַרויס נאָך די ערשטע רעגנס פֿון ווינטער — אַרום דעצעמבער. זי וואַקסט פֿון זיך אַליין אין דער נאַטור, אָבער אויך אין די שטעט, אין די הויפֿן און אין נאָכגעלאָזטע גערטנער. אין פֿאַרגלײַך מיט די רקפֿות (ציקלאַמען), למשל, אָדער אַנדערע איידעלע בלומען, איז זי נישט קיין מפֿונק, און וואַקסט אומעטום.
די בלעטער קאָן מען עסן פֿריש, אָדער געקאָכטע צי געפּרעגלטע (ווײַטער אונטן וועט איר געפֿינען אַ רעצעפּט דערפֿאַר). עס איז אַ ביסל שלײַמיק; איר טעם דערמאָנט אין שפּינאַט, און זי האָט אַ סך געזונטע קוואַליטעטן. אין די פֿריסטע סטאַדיעס איז די מאַלווע גאָר נידעריק, אָבער אַרום פֿעברואַר דערגרייט זי ביז דער הייך פֿון אַ מענטשן. אַרום מערץ באַווײַזן זיך שוין די שיינע בלומען פֿון דער מאַלווע און דערצו די רונדיקע קליינע פּירות, וואָס קינדווײַז האָבן מיר אַלע געגעסן מיט הנאה.
די מאַלווע וואַקסט טאַקע ווילד, אָבער זי איז נישט סתּם קיין פּראָסטע געוויקס. קודם-כּל, איר נאָמען אַליין: דאָס וואָרט „חוביזה“ איז אַן אַראַבישער טערמין, כובעזאַ. אויף אַראַביש הייסט עס „אַ קליין ברויט“ („כובז“ איז ברויט), און טאַקע, אויך אין עבֿרית רופֿט מען עס אַמאָל „לחם ערבֿי“ (אַראַביש ברויט). עס האָט אייגנטלעך אַן אָפֿיציעלן נאָמען: „חלמית“ (לויט דער משנה כלאיים ח, א), און דערצו אַ וויסנשאַפֿטלעכן נאָמען: malva. אויף ענגליש הייסט עס Mallow. אָבער אַ חוץ אַ קליינער צאָל מומחים, רופֿט קיינער דאָ עס נישט אַנדערש ווי כובעזאַ.
צוליב איר ברייטהאַרציקער מנהג צו וואַקסן אומעטום, האָט מען באַנוצט די כובעזאַ, מאַלווע, אויך אין דער צײַט פֿונעם „מצור“, די בלאָקאַדע פֿון ירושלים אין יאָר 1948. אין די ווינטער־חדשים וואָס ירושלים איז געשטאַנען איבערגעריסן פֿונעם ייִשובֿ, האָבן די ירושלימער באַלאַבאָסטעס אָפּגעריסן די מאַלווע־בלעטער און געמאַכט פֿון זיי פֿאַרשיידענע מאכלים, בפֿרט קאָטלעטן. לזכר דעם האָט מען שפּעטער, אין די פֿופֿציקער יאָרן, פֿאָרגעשלאָגן אַז מע וועט דערלאַנגען די באַרימטע קאָטלעטן לכּבֿוד יום־העצמאות (דעם אומאָפּהענגיקייט-טאָג). אָט למשל האָט דער דערציִונג-מיניסטעריום אין 1955 פֿאָרגעלייגט אַן אָפֿיציעלער יום-טובֿדיקער מעניו: כובעזאַ-קאָטלעטן אין פּאָמידאָרן ראָסל, סאַלאַט-כובעזאַ אין טחינה, יויך מיט קרעפּלעך, „שבֿעת המינים“-טאָרט אאַז״וו. אַזאַ מעניו קאָן מען געפֿינען אויך אין דעם פּאָפּולערן קאָכבוך „365 שולחנות ערוכים“ (365 געדעקטע טיש), וואָס איז אַרויס אין 1961, און וואָס מײַן מאַמע האָט געהאַלטן כּמעט ווי אַ שולחן-ערוך.
טאַקע אַ שיינער אײַנפֿאַל — עסן כובעזאַ-קאָטלעטן לכּבֿוד יום־העצמאות — נאָר איין חיסרון האָט עס. ווי געזאָגט, וואַקסט די מאַלווע ווינטערצײַט, און אַ חוץ הײַיאָר, און נאָך זעלטענע יאָרן, זײַנען די בלעטער אין דער צײַט פֿון יום־העצמאות שוין אויסגעטריקנט, אָדער די אינסעקטן (וואָס האָבן אויך ליב כובעזאַ) האָבן זיי שוין אויפֿגעפֿרעסן. דערפֿאַר קאָן מען נישט פֿאַקטיש גרייטן די כובעזאַ-קאָטלעטן אָנהייב מײַ, ווען עס פֿאַלט בדרך-כּלל אויס יום־העצמאות.
מע דאַרף זיך מודה זײַן אַז בכּלל, מיט די יאָרן, האָט מען אַ ביסל גרינגעשעצט אָט די „לחם עוני“, די אָרעמע מאַלווע/כובעזאַ. ישׂראל איז געוואָרן רײַכער, און אין יום־העצמאות האָט מען אָנגעהויבן עסן דער עיקר פֿלייש „על האש“ – דאָס הייסט באַרבעקיו. אין די לעצטע יאָרן, נאָך דער „יורידישע רעוואָלוציע“ פֿון יאָר 2022, און בפֿרט נאָך דעם 7טן אָקטאָבער 2023 און די בלוטיקע מלחמות זינט דעמאָלט, האָבן אַ סך ישׂראלים בכּלל פֿאַרלוירן דעם אַפּעטיט צו יום־העצמאות. ווי עס שטייט אין קהלת: „לשׂמחה מה זו עושה“ (אויף לוסטיקייט — וואָס טוט זי אויף?). די פֿײַערונגען פֿון די לעצטע אומאָפּהענגיקייט-טעג האָבן עפּעס אַ ביטערן נאָך־טעם.
אָבער אפֿשר דווקא דאָס יאָר, לכּבֿוד דעם שפּעטערדיקן פֿרילינג און דער האָפֿענונג אַז עס וועט שוין נעמען אַ סוף צו דער מלחמה, קאָן מעט זיך צוריקקערן צו די באַשיידענע גוטע בלעטער. דערבײַ קאָן מען אַ תּפֿילה טאָן אַז ישׂראל זאָל אַליין אויפֿגעריכט ווערן, און איך גלויב נאָך אַלץ אַז עס קאָן זײַן בעסער סײַ פֿאַר אונדז און סײַ פֿאַר אונדזערע שכנים.
צום סוף, אָט איז דער צוגעזאָגטער רעצעפּט פֿון די געשמאַקע מאַלווע-קאָטלעטן:
500 גראַם מאַלווע־בלעטער, גוט געוואַשן
ציבעלע, צעהאַקט און געפּרעגלט
2 ציינדלעך קנאָבל, צעריבן
2 אייער
½ גלאָז מצה-מעל צי ברייזל (ברויט-קרישקעס)
זאַלץ און פֿעפֿער
איילבערט־בוימל
קאָכט די מאַלווע־בלעטער אין וואַסער אַ פּאָר מינוט. קוועטשט אויס דאָס וואַסער, און צעהאַקט די בלעטער. דערנאָך גיט צו די אַנדערע אינגרעדיענטן, און קנייט אויס רונדיקע קאָטלעטן. פּרעלגט (אָדער באַקט) זיי ביז זיי ברוינען זיך צו.
The post On Yom Haatzmaut — a tribute to the mallow plant appeared first on The Forward.