The Israeli military said on Monday night that it killed Islamic Jihad’s commander in Lebanon, describing the operation as a major blow to the Iran-backed terrorist group’s capabilities. Israel struck multiple targets in Lebanon after Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel in support of Iran.
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.
Continue Reading
Uncategorized
The cafe as a refuge of Jewish culture
די ייִדישע ליטעראַטור האָט אַ היפּשע צאָל בולטע אימאַזשן פֿון קאַפֿע־הײַזער: מנחם–מענדלס שילדערונג פֿון „קאַפֿע פֿאַנקאָני‟ אין אָדעס; די ניו־יאָרקער „קיביזאַרנע‟ און „קאַפֿע–ראָיאַל‟ אױפֿן איסט–סײַד.
אָפֿט לײענט מען די דאָזיקע באַשרײַבונגען װי טשיקאַװע עפּיזאָדן, אָבער אין דער אמתן איז דאָס קאַװע־הױז געװען אַ װיכטיקע קולטורעלע אינסטיטוציע, בפֿרט ערבֿ דער צװײטער װעלט־מלחמה. דאָס בוך פֿון פּראָפֿעסאָר שחר פּינסקער, ”A Rich Brew“ [אַ גוט געקאָכטע קאַווע] האָט אַן אַמביציעזן אונטערקעפּל: „װי אַזױ די קאַפֿע־הײַזער האָבן געשאַפֿן די מאָדערנע ייִדישע קולטור‟. װען מען לײענט איבער דעם װאָגיקן באַנד זעט מען בפֿירוש, אַז די קאַפֿע־הײַזער אין אײראָפּע, אַמעריקע און ארץ־ישׂראל זײַנען געװען זײער אַ פּראָדוקטיװ אָרט, װוּ מען האָט געשריבן, געלײענט, געשמועסט און אַ סך זיך געאַמפּערט װעגן דער מאָדערנער ייִדישער קולטור.
די ליבע־געשיכטע צװישן ייִדן און קאַפֿע־הײַזער הײבט זיך אָן אין בערלין אינעם אַכצנטן יאָרהונדערט. „דאָס געלערנטע קאַפֿע־הױז‟ איז געװען אַ נײַער לאָקאַל, װוּ די בערלינער אינטעליגענץ האָט זיך געקאָנט טרעפֿן, לײענען צײַטונגען, שפּילן שאַך און שמועסן. צװישן די אַרײַנגײער אין דעם קאַפֿע־הױז איז געװען משה מענדלסאָן, דער „פֿאָטער‟ פֿון דער בערלינער השׂכּלה. קאַװע איז געװען כּשר און דאָס קאַפֿע־הױז האָט ניט געהאַט קײן קריסטלעכן טעם. דװקא דאָ האָט מענדלסאָן פֿאַרטראַכט זײַנע פּובליקאַציעס, װאָס זײַנען געװאָרן די בימה פֿאַר זײַנע משׂכּילישע אידעען.
די בלי־תּקופֿה פֿון ייִדישע קאַפֿעען האָט געדױערט פֿון סוף-19טן יאָרהונדערט ביזן חורבן. פּינסקער פֿירט דעם לײענער אױף אַ רײַזע איבער די װיכטיקסטע צענטערס פֿון דער מאָדערנער ייִדישער קולטור: אָדעס, װאַרשע, װין, בערלין, ניו–יאָרק און תּל־אָבֿיבֿ. ער האָט באַאַרבעט אַ ריזיקן מאַטעריאַל פֿון פֿאַרשידנאַרטיקע מקורים און אים מגולגל געװען אין אַ פֿאַרכאַפּנדיקער לעקטור. דאָס דאָזיקע בוך װעט זײַן סײַ ניצלעך פֿאַר די פּראָפֿעסיאָנעלע פֿאָרשער פֿון ייִדישער און העברעיִשער קולטור און ליטעראַטור, סײַ אינטערעסאַנט פֿאַרן ברײטן עולם.
דער װאַרשעװער „פֿאַראײן פֿון ייִדישע ליטעראַטן און זשורנאַליסטן‟ אױף טלאָמאַצקע 13 איז געװען דער סאַמע באַרימטסטער ייִדישער ליטעראַרישער קלוב, באַשריבן אין צענדליקער זכרונות און בעלעטריסטישע װערק. אָבער דאָס איז ניט געװען דאָס ערשטע ייִדישע קאַפֿע־הױז אין װאַרשע. קאַפֿעען זײַנען געװאָרן פּאָפּולער אינעם אָנהײב צװאַנציקסטן יאָרהונדערט, װען װאַרשע איז געװאָרן אַ מאַגנעט פֿאַר אָרעמע יונגע אינטעליגענטן, און בפֿרט ליטװאַקעס. אײניקע פֿון זײ האָבן געחלומט װעגן אַ ליטעראַרישער קאַריערע אױף ייִדיש אָדער העברעיִש. זײ האָבן זיך געפֿילט הײמיש בײַ יחזקאל קאָטיקן, דעם מחבר פֿון באַרימטע זכרונות װעגן דעם ייִדישן לעבן אין רוסלאַנד אינעם נײַצנטן יאָרהונדערט. מען פֿלעגט דאָ זיצן שעהען לאַנג און לײענען צײַטונגען, שמועסן װעגן ליטעראַטור און פּאָליטיק און אַפֿילו פֿירן געשעפֿטן. דערצו נאָך זײַנען די קאַפֿע–הײַזער װינטערצײַט געװען װאַרעם, װאָס איז אױך געװען װיכטיק פֿאַר די אָרעמע באַזוכער.
אָן װאַרשעװער קאַפֿעען, און על–אחת–כּמה–וכמה אָן דעם שרײַבערקלוב אױף טלאָמאַצקע 13, װאָלט די ייִדישע ליטעראַטור אַװדאי געװען אָרעמער און שיטערער. פּינסקערס בוך איז װי אַ מין ייִדישע ליטעראַטור־געשיכטע, װאָס באַטראַכט די טעמע פֿונעם שטאַנדפּונקט פֿון קאַפֿע־טישן. די װאַרשעװער קאַפֿעען זײַנען געװען װיכטיק ניט נאָר פֿאַר „ייִדישע‟ ייִדן, נאָר אױך פֿאַר אַזעלכע, װאָס האָבן געשריבן אױף פּױליש, װי יוליאַן טובֿים אָדער אַנטאָני סלאָנימסקי.
דער עפּילאָג פֿון דער װאַרשעװער ייִדישער קאַפֿע־קולטור האָט זיך אױסגעשפּילט אינעם געטאָ, װוּ עס זײַנען אױך געװען עטלעכע קאַפֿעען: „דער געטאָ־קאַפֿע איז אַ קאָמפּליצירטער אָרט פֿון קאָלאַבאָראַציע, קולטורעלן לעבן, קאָמערץ און עליטיזם,‟ שליסט פּינסקער זײַן קאַפּיטל װעגן װאַרשע.
אין װין און בערלין זײַנען געצײלטע קאַפֿעען געװאָרן אַ מקום־מקלט פֿאַר ייִדישע אימיגראַנטן און פּליטים, װאָס זײַנען לרובֿ געקומען נאָך דער ערשטער װעלט־מלחמה. די דאָזיקע דײַטשיש–רעדנדיקע הױפּטשטעט האָבן צו יענער צײַט שױן געהאַט פֿאַרמאָגט אַ רײַכע קולטור פֿון ליטעראַרישע און קינסטלערישע קאַפֿעען. בײַ אַ סך ייִדישע ליטעראַטן זײַנען די קאַפֿעען געװאָרן „סטאַנציעס אױף דעם טראַנס־נאַציאָנאַלן זײַדן־װעג‟ פֿון עמיגראַציע, װאָס האָט זײ סוף־כּל–סוף געבראַכט קײן אַמעריקע אָדער ישׂראל. דערבײַ האָבן זײ מיטגעבראַכט שטיקלעך פֿון דער דאָזיקער קולטור מעבֿר־לים, קײן ניו־יאָרק און תּל־אָבֿיבֿ. די ניו־יאָרקער קאַפֿעען װערן געשילדערט אין דער אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור, װי למשל „שלומס קאַפֿע‟ אין דוד איגנאַטאָװס ראָמאַן „אין קעסלגרוב‟. איגנאַטאָװ שילדערט דעם דאָזיקן לאָקאַל װי אַן „אָרט פֿון קאָנפֿראָנטאַציע צװישן פֿאַרשידענע השׂגות װעגן דער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור‟. ניט װײניק הײסע סיכסוכים האָט מען דאָ געפֿירט אױך װעגן דער ראַדיקאַלער פּאָליטיק.
צום שלוס שרײַבט פּינסקער: „די שטאָטישע קאַפֿעען האָבן געדינט ניט נאָר װי צענטערס פֿון מיגראַנטישע קולטורעלע נעצװערק, אָבער אױך װי אַ מקום–מקלט פֿאַר הײמלאָזע מענטשן, פֿאַר קאָסמאָפּאָליטישער פֿילשפּראַכיקײט, װאָס איז געװען אין געפֿאַר פֿון צעשטערונג מצד די נאַציאָנאַליסטישע אידעאָלאָגיעס.‟ אָבער הײַנט, איז פּינסקער משער, שפּילן די קאַפֿען מער נישט אַזאַ חשובֿע קולטורעלע ראָלע. „פֿײסבוק‟ און אַנדערע װירטועלע לאָקאַלן האָבן איצט פֿאַרנומען זײער אָרט.
The post The cafe as a refuge of Jewish culture appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran Loses Contact With Palestinian Terror Proxies Amid US-Israel Strikes: Report
Smoke rises following an explosion, after Israel and the US launched strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 3, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The Israeli-American offensive targeting Iran’s military and security apparatus has led to a loss of communications between the Iranian regime and its Palestinian terrorist proxies, according to a new report.
Palestinian factions both in and outside of Gaza, especially Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have lost contact with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) since the US and Israel began launching large-scale strikes against Iran this past weekend, the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Tuesday.
It remains unclear whether the IRGC officials responsible for dealing with the Palestinian terrorist groups were killed in the strikes or are operating with special safety measures. However, sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Iranian commanders conveyed messages in different ways during last June’s 12-day war with Israel, indicating a disruption in reliable communication channels during the current conflict.
The US and Israel have killed dozens of top Iranian officials over the past few days of military action.
“Normally, messages are transmitted in encrypted ways, either electronically or in other ways. Since the beginning of this war, no messages have been received,” the Palestinian sources said.
Iran has long supported and expanded its regional network by providing financial and military assistance to its terrorist proxy groups, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, among others.
Palestinian factions — particularly Palestinian Islamic Jihad and smaller groups — have been facing a severe financial crisis for months amid a sharp decline in Iranian support, as Tehran grapples with mounting international sanctions and domestic crises that have constrained its ability to sustain funding, arming, and training for its terrorist networks.
Even prior to the Israeli-American strikes, Palestinian sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that they feared “the collapse of the Iranian regime, which would mean the end of support without return.”
The consequences are expected to be significant but less severe for Hamas, which has been ramping up efforts to rebuild its military capabilities and maintain tight control inside the Gaza Strip through a brutal crackdown on internal opposition, reflecting its broader network of support compared with Islamic Jihad and other smaller factions that remain heavily dependent on Iranian backing.
Uncategorized
Support for Israel, Trump Gaza Peace Plan Remains High Among US Voters, New Poll Finds
Pro-Israel rally in Times Square, New York City, US, Oct. 8, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
A new national survey suggests that American support for Israel remains resilient overall but with notable generational divides that could shape the future political landscape.
According to the February 2026 Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll, strong majorities of US registered voters back policies aligned with Israel’s security posture and express approval of President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict in Gaza. At the same time, the data shows that support for Israel fluctuates significantly depending on age.
Notably, the survey was conducted last week on Wednesday and Thursday, just before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran over the weekend.
Among respondents, 73 percent of voters say they support Trump’s Gaza deal framework. The proposal, aimed at restructuring governance and stabilizing post-war conditions in Gaza, commands bipartisan backing in the poll’s toplines.
The plan calls for the dismantling of Hamas’s military and political control, the establishment of an interim administrative authority backed by regional Arab partners, and a major internationally funded reconstruction effort. Trump has also emphasized expanding normalization between Israel and Arab states, building on the Abraham Accords, as a cornerstone of long-term stability, while maintaining Israel’s security oversight during a transitional period.
Voters appear to prioritize stability and deterrence, responding favorably to an approach framed around preventing Hamas from reasserting control and reinforcing Israel’s long-term security.
The poll shows that a clear majority of Americans continue to side with Israel over Hamas and support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, support levels vary considerably by age group.
Older voters, particularly those over 55, show the strongest pro-Israel sentiment, with large majorities backing Israel’s military actions and expressing sympathy with Israel over the Palestinians. Voters between 35 and 54 also lean pro-Israel, though by narrower margins.
The sharpest contrast appears among younger voters. Americans under 35 remain more divided, with significantly lower levels of sympathy toward Israel and greater skepticism about its military campaign in Gaza. While even in this group Israel retains meaningful support, the margins are slimmer and opposition more vocal.
The generational gap reflects broader cultural and media consumption differences, as well as the impact of campus activism and social media narratives. Yet the topline remains clear: despite softness among younger voters, Israel continues to command majority support nationwide.
Further, strong and stable majorities support Israel over the Hamas terrorist group. According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans support Israel over Hamas. However, support for Israel heavily fractures along age lines. Per the poll, 82 percent of those over 55 years old support Israel, compared to only 62 percent between the ages 35-44. However, a striking 58 percent of those between the ages 18-24 support Hamas over Israel, indicating a groundswell of backing for a foreign terrorist organization among American youth.
In the nearly two-and-a-half years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, support for the Jewish state has seen significant declines across political and age lines in the US. Younger Americans, particularly, have largely turned against Israel. The increasingly tense relationship between Israel and US voters has become a flashpoint in Democratic primaries, with liberal political hopefuls increasingly vowing not to accept support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group in the US.
The February poll was conducted among 1,999 registered voters, with a margin of error of ±2 percentage points.