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
Hamas Continues to Reject Disarmament as Fragile US-Backed Gaza Peace Plan Faces Hurdles
Palestinians walk among piles of rubble and damaged buildings in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, Nov. 24, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
As the US-backed Gaza peace plan falters amid mutual accusations of ceasefire violations, Hamas continues to refuse to disarm in accordance with the agreement, insisting that any decisions about the terrorist group’s weapons should be resolved through “internal Palestinian dialogue.”
In an interview published Wednesday with Saudi media outlet Al-Arabiya, Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said that any move toward disarmament “is connected to internal consensus, and is also tied to a real political process that leads to an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
The senior terrorist figure also said Hamas has “fully committed to everything required in the first stage in order to open the way for transitioning to the second stage, which Israel continues to obstruct.”
Last week, the United Nations Security Council formally backed US President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan — which went into effect last month — calling for an interim technocratic Palestinian government in the war-torn enclave, overseen by an international “board of peace” and supported by an International Stabilization Force (ISF) for at least two years.
Under Trump’s plan, the ISF — comprising troops from multiple participating countries — will oversee the Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, train local security forces, secure Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt, and protect civilians while maintaining humanitarian corridors.
In addition, the ISF would seemingly be expected to take on the responsibility of disarming Hamas — a key component of Trump’s peace plan to end the war in Gaza which the Palestinian terrorist group has repeatedly rejected.
Earlier this week, Hamas leader and chief negotiator Khalil al-Hayya said that the group’s disarmament remains under discussion, emphasizing that the issue “is tied to the end of the Israeli occupation.”
Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups have not only consistently refused to give up their weapons but also rejected key elements of Trump’s plan — including the ISF, which they have threatened to treat as a “foreign occupying force” and actively fight it.
Hamas officials rejected any “foreign guardianship” over Gaza and vowed to oppose any attempts to disarm “the Palestinian resistance.”
“Assigning the international force tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality and turns it into a party to the conflict in favor of the occupation,” the terrorist group said in a statement.
In his Wednesday interview, Qassem emphasized that Hamas’s senior delegation visit to Cairo this week reflects the group’s seriousness, signaling its intent to move forward and lay the groundwork for the next stage.
According to Qassem, Hamas has been meeting with Qatari, Turkish, and Egyptian mediators, as well as with Palestinian factions, “to consult and engage in dialogue, and to reach agreed-upon national political understandings.”
Turkey and Qatar, both longtime backers of Hamas, have been trying to expand their roles in Gaza’s reconstruction and post-war efforts, which experts have warned could potentially strengthen Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure.
Israeli officials have repeatedly rejected any Turkish or Qatari involvement in post-war Gaza.
Under phase one of Trump’s peace plan, Hamas released the remaining 20 living hostages still held in Gaza, along with the remains of most of the 28 others who died in captivity, while Israel freed 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including several hundred convicted terrorists.
Two deceased hostages – an Israeli and a Thai national – still remain in Gaza who were kidnapped during Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
Uncategorized
Crypto’s Role in Iran’s Global Terrorism Exposed by New Lawsuit Against Binance
The logo of cryptocurrency exchange Binance. Illustration: Reuters/Dado Ruvic
Cryptocurrency has come under increasing scrutiny for its alleged role in subverting the United States’ sanctions against Iranian state-sponsored terrorism, with the world’s top platform receiving an unwanted spotlight this week.
On Monday, lawyers in North Dakota sued Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, and its CEO, Changpeng Zhao, alleging the company had facilitated more than $1 billion in funding to designated terrorist groups backed by the Islamic regime in Iran. The US federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of victims of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
The suit represents the latest instance of cryptocurrency allegedly playing a role in Iran’s efforts to destroy the Jewish state. Leaders of Iran and its network of terrorist groups named in the complaint, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), routinely declare their goal of wiping Israel off the map.
Israel has previously clashed with Binance in its counter-terrorism efforts. In May 2023, the Jewish state seized nearly 200 accounts on the platform linked to Islamist groups, including ISIS. In November 2022, researchers at Nobitex said that since 2018, Binance had processed $7.8 billion through Iran-linked accounts.
This week’s suit adds further evidence of the recurring link between Iranian terrorism and cryptocurrency, identifying the high profit potential for those willing to attempt to dodge US sanctions against terror financing.
Binance has declined to discuss the lawsuit but told Reuters that “we comply fully with internationally recognized sanctions laws.”
Jonathan Missner, the attorney who represents the Oct. 7 victims and their families named as plaintiffs in the suit, said that Binance’s alleged facilitating of payments to terror groups “was not a compliance” but rather “a business model.”
“Our investigation shows that Binance built systems designed to evade oversight, using its off-chain network and weak controls to move enormous sums for sanctioned groups,” he said in a statement.
The lawsuit states that “by knowingly moving and concealing the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars for Hamas, the IRGC [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], Hezbollah, and PIJ, Defendants Binance Holdings Limited, Changpeng Zhao, and Guangying ‘Heina’ Chen provided pervasive and systemic assistance to these terrorist organizations.”
Chen is described in the suit as a co-founder of Binance and “de facto CFO.” The lawsuit charges that Zhao and Chen “materially contributed to the Oct. 7 attacks and to subsequent terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas, Hezbollah, and PIJ.”
One of the plaintiffs named in the suit is Eyal Balva, whose son Omer died in combat following the Oct. 7 atrocities while serving in the Israel Defense Forces. “Binance’s platform moved the money that helped fund the violence that destroyed our family,” he said.
Zhao and Binance — the world’s largest crypto trading platform with $300 billion in daily trades and more than 280 million users — have previously faced penalties for criminality. As part of a 2023 settlement agreement with the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Binance paid $4.3 billion in fines and restitution. Zhao was previously convicted of money laundering and served four months imprisonment. US President Donald Trump pardoned Zhao, with analysts noting the decision came following a sizable investment by Binance into the Trump family Crypto exchange platform World Liberty Financial.
The lawsuit also notes a money laundering scheme involving transferring gold from Venezuela to Iran to overcome American sanctions, and that Binance “pitched itself to terrorist organizations, narcotics traffickers, and tax evaders as beyond the reach of any single country’s laws or regulations.”
On Wednesday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi put out a statement condemning the possibility of potential US military action against Venezuela, labeling the Trump administration’s posture a “bullying approach.”
The filing against Binance comes in a year in which Australian authorities have highlighted the alleged role of cryptocurrency in directing antisemitic hate crimes in Melbourne and Sydney, prompting the expulsion of Iran’s ambassador in August.
Australian Security Intelligence Organization (Asio) chief Mike Burgess said that his team had found connections “between the alleged crimes and the commanders in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC.”
He added, “They’re just using cut-outs, including people who are criminals and members of organized crime gangs to do their bidding or direct their bidding.”
Cryptocurrency has long functioned as a tool of Iran to evade US sanctions. The high energy costs from the so-called “mining” of cryptocurrency — powerful computers must run complex programs in order to generate additional tokens for trading — has put a strain on Iran’s electrical system. Mohammad Allahdad, Iran’s deputy director of power generation, said that the business practice “represents around 5 percent of total electricity consumption” and “it accounts for up to 20 percent of the current power deficit.”
Allahdad also warned that the heat from crypto mining devices was “intense” and could cause fires. “We’ve had multiple reports from fire departments about fires linked to mining rigs, some of which spread to neighboring homes,” he noted.
Now is potentially the worst time for fires in Iran, given a persistent devastating drought and ongoing government mismanagement of the water system. The situation has reached the point that Iran’s president said last week that the country had “no choice” but to evacuate and move the capital Tehran.
“The truth is, we have no choice left — relocating the capital is now a necessity,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in a speech.
The US State Department recently noted that Iran has provided Lebanese Hezbollah with more than $100 million each month this year. Critics of the regime have pointed out that funds spent in the war effort to destroy Israel could have gone toward improving infrastructure to better support the civilian population. Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that one-third of the water supply to Tehran is lost through leaks and theft.
Uncategorized
Mamdani Draws Fury After Naming Activist Booted From Women’s March for Antisemitism to Transition Team
Tamika Mallory at the Wilmington Public Library in Wilmington, Delaware, Sept. 19, 2024. Photo: Saquan Stimpson/Cal Sport Media/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Tamika Mallory, the former Women’s March co-chair who was forced out of the organization amid allegations of antisemitism, has been appointed to New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s transition team, according to newly released staffing lists.
Mallory was selected to serve on the Committee on Community Safety, one of several advisory bodies shaping the incoming mayoral administration’s approach to policing, public safety, and community relations. Her appointment has already drawn sharp criticism from Jewish communal organizations, which say the decision raises serious concerns at a time of rising antisemitic incidents across the city.
Mamdani himself has also faced allegations of antisemitism, and his electoral victory earlier this month raised alarm bells among Jewish New Yorkers, many of whom expressed concern about their future with an ardent anti-Israel activist in office.
Mallory resigned from the Women’s March leadership in 2019 after extensive reporting said that she and other senior figures had allowed antisemitic rhetoric to permeate the organization. A widely discussed investigative article at the time claimed Mallory referenced conspiracy theories portraying Jews as exploiters of black and brown communities and echoed false claims linking Jewish financiers to the transatlantic slave trade.
She denied making the statements but continued to face criticism for her longstanding praise of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has repeatedly made antisemitic remarks such as comparing Jews to termites, describing Judaism as a “dirty religion,” calling the Jewish people “Satan,” publicly questioned the Holocaust, sharing anti-Israel conspiracy theories, and blamed Jews for pedophilia and sex trafficking. Mallory called Farrakhan “the greatest of all time because of what he’s done in black communities.”
Transition team members typically serve in an advisory capacity, though their recommendations often help shape early policy direction.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a prominent Jewish civil rights organization, condemned the new appointment, arguing that Mallory is “simply the wrong choice” to join the Mamdani transition team, citing her “highly insensitive remarks about Jews and money.”
Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist who has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his young political career, has filled several transition committees with progressive activists, criminal-justice reform advocates, and academics associated with police abolition movements. His Community Safety Committee includes multiple figures known for their opposition to traditional law-enforcement models.
Jewish and allied leaders said the decision to include Mallory reinforces fears that the incoming administration may sideline concerns about antisemitism.
“New Yorkers are shocked to learn that Zohran Mandani has appointed Tamika Mallory to his team. Mallory is a notorious trafficker of Jew-hatred in America, a defender for Louis Farrakhan’s vicious vitriol against Jews,” The Lawfare Project, which provides legal services to victims of antisemitism, posted on social media. “We must be vigilant and carefully scrutinize who Mamdani appoints to key positions and, more importantly, what they do once in office. Protecting Jewish civil rights means taking action whenever they are violated.”
Mallory’s appointment isn’t the only one to draw concern due to allegations of antisemitism.
For example, Hassaan Chaudhary, an adviser to Mamdani who describes himself as the political director for the mayor-elect’s transition team, once used the word “Jew” as a slur. In 2012, he wrote Jew hoga tera baap,” which means in English, “Jew will be your father.” He also referred to Israel as a “cancer which will be eliminated very soon.”
The appointments come as New York City has seen a major spike in anti-Jewish hate crimes over the last two years, following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. According to police data, Jews were targeted in the majority of hate crimes perpetrated in the city last year. Meanwhile, pro-Hamas activists have held raucous — and sometimes violent — protests on the city’s college campuses, oftentimes causing Jewish students to fear for their safety.
Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist and anti-Zionist, is an avid supporter of boycotting all Israeli-tied entities who has been widely accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide”; refused to recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and refused to explicitly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been associated with calls for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.
A recently released Sienna Research Institute poll revealed that a whopping 72 percent of Jewish New Yorkers believe that Mamdani will be “bad” for the city. A mere 18 percent hold a favorable view of Mamdani. Conversely, 67 percent view him unfavorably.