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
Syrian State Forces Deploy in Kurdish-Run City Under Ceasefire Deal
Syrian Interior Ministry security forces vehicles travel to enter the city of Hasakah in northeastern Syria, following an agreement between Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces reached on Jan. 30, in Al-hasakah, Syria, Feb. 2, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syrian government security forces deployed in a Kurdish-controlled city in the northeast on Monday, a first step toward implementing a US-backed ceasefire deal that foresees the Kurdish–run regions being merged with Damascus.
The deal, declared on Friday, staved off the prospect of further confrontation between President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which lost swathes of eastern and northern Syria to government troops in January.
Reuters journalists saw a convoy of more than 30 interior ministry vehicles begin moving towards the ethnically-mixed city of Hasakah from its outskirts in the early afternoon. Sources in the city said they entered shortly afterwards.
Members of the Kurdish Asayish security force observed as the convoy entered the city.
Government forces are expected to be stationed in Syrian state buildings in Hasakah’s so-called “security zone,” a Syrian official and a Kurdish security source told Reuters ahead of the deployment.
The accord declared on Friday foresees a phased integration of Kurdish fighters with government forces. The United States has hailed the agreement as a historic milestone towards unity and reconciliation after 14 years of civil war.
The SDF was once Washington’s main Syrian ally, playing a vital part in the fight against Islamic State terrorists.
But its status weakened as President Donald Trump built ties with Sharaa, a former al Qaeda commander who has now brought almost all of Syria back under the authority of Damascus.
The deal announced on Friday includes the formation of a military division that will include three SDF brigades, in addition to a brigade for forces in the SDF-held town of Kobani, also known as Ain al-Arab, which will be affiliated to the state-controlled governorate of Aleppo.
A convoy of 20 aid trucks entered Ain al-Arab, state–run Ekhbariya TV reported.
The deal also provides for governing bodies in SDF-held areas to be merged with state institutions.
The Syrian state news agency SANA reported that interior ministry forces had begun deploying in rural areas near Ain al-Arab on Monday.
Since rebels toppled President Bashar al-Assad 14 months ago, Sharaa’s efforts to bring the fractured nation under central rule have been complicated by deadly violence last year against Alawites and Druze, fuelling suspicion of his rule among minority communities despite his promises to protect them.
ANALYST SEES GAPS OVER INTEGRATION
SDF commander Mazloum Abdi, in comments to Kurdish broadcaster Ronahi published on Saturday, said there was an agreement on a limited number of government security forces entering the security zones of both Hasakah and Qamishli, another SDF-held city on the Turkish border.
Their mission would be only administrative, to follow up on the process of the integration of the Asayish, he said.
Abdi said government forces would not enter Kurdish villages and cities, adding that their administration would remain in the hands of their residents and local forces.
Nawar Rahawi, director of the government-affiliated Hasakah media center, told Reuters that some 125 to 150 members of the security forces had entered Hasakah on Monday, and another 15 to 20 vehicles would enter on Tuesday if the entry goes smoothly.
“If things go smoothly, as all Syrians hope, the process of integrating the Syrian Democratic Forces with the Syrian government forces will begin,” he said.
But Noah Bonsey, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group think-tank, said statements from both sides since Friday indicated gaps over how the integration of the SDF and Kurdish–run governing bodies in the northeast will pan out.
“What the practical details of integration look like will determine what continuing role SDF elements play on the ground, how much autonomy they retain, and how significant and extensive government command and control is,” he said.
Uncategorized
Iran, US to Hold Nuclear Talks on Friday, Some Regional Countries to Participate
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference after meeting with his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan, in Istanbul, Turkey, Jan. 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Dilara Senkaya
Iran and the United States will resume nuclear talks on Friday in Turkey, Iranian and US officials told Reuters on Monday, while a regional diplomat said representatives from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt would participate.
US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi will meet in Istanbul in an effort to revive diplomacy over a long-running dispute about Iran‘s nuclear program and dispel fears of a new regional war.
Turkey and other regional allies have sought de-escalation.
“Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt, as well as some other countries, will attend the Istanbul meeting. There will be bilateral, trilateral, and other meetings,” the diplomat said.
US NAVAL BUILDUP NEAR IRAN
Tensions are running high amid a US naval buildup near Iran, following a violent crackdown against anti-government demonstrations last month, the deadliest domestic unrest in Iran since its 1979 revolution.
US President Donald Trump, who stopped short of carrying out threats to intervene during the crackdown, has since demanded Tehran make nuclear concessions and sent a flotilla to its coast. He said last week Iran was “seriously talking,” while Tehran’s top security official Ali Larijani said arrangements for negotiations were under way.
Iranian sources told Reuters last week that Trump had demanded three conditions for resumption of talks: zero enrichment of uranium in Iran, limits on Tehran’s ballistic missile program, and ending its support for regional proxies.
Iran has long rejected all three demands as unacceptable infringements of its sovereignty, but two Iranian officials told Reuters its clerical rulers saw the ballistic missile program, rather than uranium enrichment, as the bigger obstacle.
PREPARATIONS FOR POTENTIAL US–IRAN TALKS
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran was considering “the various dimensions and aspects of the talks,” adding that “time is of the essence for Iran as it wants the lifting of unjust sanctions sooner.”
A Turkish ruling party official told Reuters that Tehran and Washington had agreed to re-focus on diplomacy and possible talks this week, in a potential reprieve for potential US strikes.
Witkoff was expected to visit Israel to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s military chief, two senior Israeli officials said separately on Monday.
‘BALL IN TRUMP’S COURT’
The Iranian official said “diplomacy is ongoing. For talks to resume, Iran says there should not be preconditions and that it is ready to show flexibility on uranium enrichment, including handing over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium, accepting zero enrichment under a consortium arrangement as a solution.”
However, he added, for the start of talks, Tehran wanted US military assets moved away from Iran.
“Now the ball is in Trump’s court,” he said.
SATELLITE IMAGERY SHOWS SOME REPAIR WORK AT IRANIAN SITES
Tehran’s regional sway has been weakened by Israel’s attacks on its proxies – from Hamas in Gaza to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq – as well as by the ousting of Iran‘s close ally, former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
In June last year the United States struck Iranian nuclear targets, joining in at the close of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Since then, Tehran has said its uranium enrichment work has stopped.
Recent satellite imagery of two of the targeted sites, Isfahan and Natanz, appears to show some repair work since December, with new roofing over two previously destroyed buildings. No other rebuilding was visible, according to the imagery provided by Planet Labs and reviewed by Reuters.
Washington-based think tank ISIS said satellite images from late January showed construction work on tunnel entrances at Isfahan that could “indicate a preparation for additional military strikes” as was seen ahead of last year’s US strikes.
It could also signal the movement of assets from other facilities, it added.
NUCLEAR TALKS STANDOFF
After five rounds of talks that have stalled since May 2023, several hard-to-bridge issues remained between Tehran and Washington, including Iran‘s insistence on maintaining uranium enrichment on its soil and refusal to ship abroad its entire existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
The UN nuclear watchdog has called on Iran repeatedly to say what happened to the highly enriched uranium stock since the June attacks.
Western countries fear Iran‘s uranium enrichment could yield material for a warhead. Iran says its nuclear program is only for electricity generation and other civilian uses.
The Iranian sources said Tehran could ship its highly enriched uranium abroad and pause enrichment in a deal that should also include the lifting of economic sanctions.
Uncategorized
Iran Fears US Strike May Reignite Protests, Imperil Rule, Sources Say
People walk on a street in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 31, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Iran’s leadership is increasingly worried a US strike could break its grip on power by driving an already enraged public back onto the streets, following a bloody crackdown on anti-government protests, according to six current and former officials.
In high-level meetings, officials told Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that public anger over last month’s crackdown — the bloodiest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution — has reached a point where fear is no longer a deterrent, four current officials briefed on the discussions said.
The officials said Khamenei was told that many Iranians were prepared to confront security forces again and that external pressure such as a limited US strike could embolden them and inflict irreparable damage to the political establishment.
One of the officials told Reuters that Iran‘s enemies were seeking more protests so as to bring the Islamic Republic to an end, and “unfortunately” there would be more violence if an uprising took place.
“An attack combined with demonstrations by angry people could lead to a collapse [of the ruling system]. That is the main concern among the top officials and that is what our enemies want,” said the official, who like the other officials contacted for this story declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.
The reported remarks are significant because they suggest private misgivings inside the leadership at odds with Tehran’s defiant public stance toward the protesters and the US.
The sources declined to say how Khamenei responded. Iran‘s Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment on this account of the meetings.
Multiple sources told Reuters last week that US President Donald Trump is weighing options against Iran that include targeted strikes on security forces and leaders to inspire protesters, even as Israeli and Arab officials said air power alone would not topple the clerical rulers.
PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY ANGRY, SAYS FORMER OFFICIAL
Any such uprising in the wake of a US strike would stand in contrast to Iranians’ response to Israeli and US bombing attacks on Iran‘s nuclear program back in June, which was not followed by anti-government demonstrations.
But a former senior moderate official said the situation had changed since the crackdown in early January.
“People are extremely angry,” he said, adding a US attack could lead Iranians to rise up again. “The wall of fear has collapsed. There is no fear left.”
Tensions between Tehran and Washington are running high. The arrival of a US aircraft carrier and supporting warships in the Middle East has expanded Trump’s ability to take military action if he so wishes, after repeatedly threatening intervention over Iran‘s bloody crackdown.
‘THE GAME IS OVER,’ SAYS FORMER PRIME MINISTER
Several opposition figures, who were part of the establishment before falling out with it, have warned the leadership that “boiling public anger” could result in a collapse of the Islamic system.
“The river of warm blood that was spilled on the cold month of January will not stop boiling until it changes the course of history,” former prime minister Mirhossein Mousavi, who has been under house arrest without trial since 2011, said in a statement published by the pro-reform Kalameh website.
“In what language should people say they do not want this system and do not believe your lies? Enough is enough. The game is over,’” Mousavi added in the statement.
During the early January protests, witnesses and rights groups said, security forces crushed demonstrations with lethal force, leaving thousands killed and many wounded. Tehran blamed the violence on “armed terrorists” linked to Israel and the US.
Trump stopped short of carrying out threats to intervene, but he has since demanded Iran make nuclear concessions. Both Tehran and Washington have signaled readiness to revive diplomacy over a long-running nuclear dispute.
SIMMERING ANGER, ‘DANGER OF BLOODSHED’
Analysts and insiders say that while the streets are quiet for now, deep-seated grievances have not gone away.
Public frustration has been simmering over economic decline, political repression, a widening gulf between rich and poor, and entrenched corruption that leaves many Iranians feeling trapped in a system offering neither relief nor a path forward.
“This may not be the end, but it is no longer just the beginning,” said Hossein Rassam, a London-based analyst.
If protests resume during mounting foreign pressure and security forces respond with force, the six current and former officials said they fear demonstrators would be bolder than in previous unrest, emboldened by experience and driven by a sense that they have little left to lose.
One of the officials told Reuters that while people were angrier than before, the establishment would use harsher methods against protesters if it was under US attack. He said the result would be a bloodbath.
Ordinary Iranians contacted by Reuters said they expected Iran‘s rulers to crack down hard on any further protests.
A Tehran resident whose 15-year-old son was killed in the protests on Jan. 9 said the demonstrators had merely sought a normal life, and had been answered “with bullets.”
“If America attacks, I will go back to the streets to take revenge for my son and the children this regime killed.”