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
The exceptional translator Barbara Harshav has died
פֿון אַבֿיה קושנער און שחר פּינסקער
באַרבאַראַ הרשבֿ, פֿאַררעכנט פֿאַר איינעם פֿון די וויכטיקסטע איבערזעצערס פֿון דער העברעיִשער און ייִדישער ליטעראַטור, איז אַוועק אין דער אייביקייט צו 85 יאָר.
הרשבֿ, באַקאַנט ווי באָבי בײַ אירע פֿרײַנד און קאָלעגעס, האָט איבערגעזעצט און אַרויסגעגעבן מער ווי 40 ביכער פּאָעזיע, דראַמע, בעלעטריסטיק, פֿילאָסאָפֿיע, עקאָנאָמיק, סאָציאָלאָגיע און געשיכטע. צווישן אירע איבערזעצונגען זענען געווען די ווערק פֿונעם נאָבעל־לאָרעאַט שמואל יוסף עגנון און די פּאָעטן אַבֿרהם סוצקעווער, מענקע קאַץ און יהודה עמיחי.
אַחוץ דעם וואָס זי איז געווען אַן ערשט-ראַנגיקע איבערזעצערין איז זי אויך געווען שטאַרק באַליבט בײַ אַנדערע אַקאַדעמיקער און איבערזעצער איבער דער וועלט, סײַ ווי אַ וועגווײַזערין אינעם געביט פֿון איבערזעצערײַ סײַ צוליב איר מענטשלעכקייט און ברייטהאַרציקער שטיצע פֿאַר אירע קאָלעגעס.
אַ צענטראַלער אַספּעקט פֿון איר קאַריערע איז געווען איר ברייטע און פֿרוכפּערדיקע צוזאַמענאַרבעט מיט איר מאַן, בנימין הרשבֿ (אַ העברעיִזירונג פֿונעם נאָמען הרושובסקי). צוזאַמען האָבן זיי איבערגעזעצט און רעדאַקטירט אויף ענגליש אַ ריי וויכטיקע טעקסט־זאַמלונגען ווי למשל דעם אייגנאַרטיקן באַנד „אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישע פּאָעזיע: אַ צוויישפּראַכיקע אַנטאָלאָגיע“ (1986), וואָס האָט אַרײַנגענומען סײַ דעם אָריגינעלן ייִדישן טעקסט סײַ די פּרעכטיקע ענגלישע איבערזעצונגען. אַזוי אַרום האָט דער לייענער געקענט אָפּשאַצן די קוואַליטעט פֿון די ווערק אויף ביידע שפּראַכן.
איינער פֿון הרשבֿס גרעסטע אויפֿטוען איז געווען דאָס וואָס זי האָט נישט פֿאָרגעשטעלט די ייִדישע פּאָעזיע סתּם ווי נאָסטאַלגישן פֿאָלקלאָר, נאָר האָט זי געשילדערט אינעם קאָנטעקסט פֿונעם גלאָבאַלן מאָדערניזם. דער באַנד האָט אַרײַנגענומען סײַ אַוואַנגאַרדישע עקספּערימענטן סײַ שטאָטישע טעמעס, צוזאַמען מיט די וויזועלע קונסטווערק פֿון בען שאַהן און ראַפֿאַעל סויער, וואָס האָבן געהאַט אַן ענלעכן הינטערגרונט ווי די פּאָעטן.
מיט איר מאַן האָט זי אויך אַרויסגעגעבן דאָס בוך, „זינג, פֿרעמדער: הונדערט יאָר פֿון אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישער פּאָעזיע“, וואָס האָט אַרײַנגענומען ווערק פֿון די „סוועטשאַפּ“־פּאָעטן מאָריס ראָזענפֿעלד און דוד עדעלשטאַדט, ווי אויך „אינזיכיסטן“ ווי ציליע דראָבקין.
הרשבֿ איז געבוירן געוואָרן אין דעטרויט, מישיגען, אין 1940. זי איז נישט געווען קיין נאַטירלעכע רעדערין פֿון העברעיִש אָדער ייִדיש. „איך בין געווען 34 יאָר אַלט ווען איך האָב אָנגעהויבן זיך לערנען העברעיִש און איך האָב זיך ממש פֿאַרליבט אין דער שפּראַך,“ האָט זי דערציילט בעת אַן אינטערוויו אין 2012. מיט דער צײַט האָט זי אָנגעהויבן איבערזעצן די וויכטיקסטע העברעיִשע ווערק.
דערנאָך האָט זי זיך גענומען צו ייִדיש. „ייִדיש איז די לעצטע שפּראַך וואָס איך האָב זיך אויסגעלערנט. צוליב דעם וואָס איך האָב שוין געקענט דײַטש און העברעיִש, האָב איך שוין פֿאַרשטאַנען אַרום 90% פֿון ייִדיש.“ כאָטש אירע טאַטע־מאַמע האָבן געקענט ייִדיש האָבן זיי עס בלויז געניצט צווישן זיך ווען זיי האָבן נישט געוואָלט אַז די קינדער זאָלן פֿאַרשטיין. „דערצו בין איך סײַ ווי נישט געווען אַזוי פֿאַראינטערעסירט אין וואָס זיי זאָגן,“ האָט זי געזאָגט.
איין סיבה פֿאַר וואָס זי איז געוואָרן אַן איבערזעצער — האָט זי דערקלערט — איז „ווײַל די איבערזעצונגען וואָס איך האָב געלייענט זענען געווען אַזוי שלעכט. כ׳האָב דעמאָלט געוווינט אין ירושלים און כ׳האָב זיך באַקענט מיט אַ שרײַבער וואָס האָט זיך באַקלאָגט פֿאַר מיר, און טאַקע מיט רעכט, וועגן די אומגעלומפּערטע איבערזעצונגען וואָס מע האָט געמאַכט פֿון זײַנע ווערק. האָב איך אָנגעהויבן לייענען יענע איבערזעצונגען און דערפֿילט אַז איך קען דאָס טאָן בעסער. ס׳איז מיר אָבער געווען אַ חידוש, ווען מײַן ערשטער פּרוּוו איז טאַקע פּובליקירט געוואָרן אין אַן אַקאַדעמישן זשורנאַל.“
אַחוץ איר אַרבעט ווי אַן איבערזעצער האָט הרשבֿ אויך געדינט ווי די פּרעזידענטין פֿון דער אַמעריקאַנער אַסאָציאַציע פֿון ליטעראַרישע איבערזעצער, און האָט געפֿירט איבערזעצונג־וואַרשטאַטן אינעם דעפּאַרטמענט פֿון פֿאַרגלײַכיקער ליטעראַטור אין יעל־אוניווערסיטעט, דערבײַ שטיצנדיק יונגע איבערזעצער זיך צו פֿאַרנעמען מיט דער ייִדישער און העברעיִשער ליטעראַטור. זי האָט זיך אויך איבערגעגעבן צום קאַמף פֿאַר געשלעכט־גלײַכקייט און פֿאַר שלום און גערעכטיקייט אין ישׂראל/פּאַלעסטינע.
אין 2018 איז הרשבֿ געוואָרן די ערשטע העברעיִשע און ייִדישע איבערזעצערין צו באַקומען די „פּען/מאַנהײַם מעדאַל פֿאַר איבערזעצונג“.
פֿאַר אונדז וואָס האָבן זי געקענט, איז באָבי געווען אַ בריליאַנטענע, ברייטהאַרציקע פֿרײַנדינע און קאָלעגע, שטענדיק גרייט צו העלפֿן אַנדערע מיט עצות און הדרכה.
The post The exceptional translator Barbara Harshav has died appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Rahm Emanuel: Pursuit of Greater Israel as ‘fanatical’ as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’
(JTA) — The pursuit of Greater Israel is a corrosive fantasy, veteran Democratic politician Rahm Emanuel is expected to tell a Tel Aviv audience on Wednesday, calling it as “destructive and fanatical” as the chant “from the river to the sea.”
Emanuel, who has held multiple top roles in the Democratic Party, in Congress and in the Obama White House, is a potential 2028 presidential candidate.
He will warn that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the country to a “dead-end” that has turned the country into a “pariah” and is threatening Israel’s historic alliance with the United States, according to an advance copy of his speech shared with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Tuesday.
He blamed as “our mistake” America’s assumption that “the best thing Washington could do for Jerusalem was to blindly and silently stand behind your government, without conditions, without demands, and without consequences.” That path has led to policies including Israeli extremists terrorizing West Bank Palestinians and Gazans suffering from a lack of food that means “Israel has never been so isolated,” a situation that he terms “a countdown clock” for Israel’s security.
Instead, his remarks state, “we need a fundamentally new and different approach to the alliance.”
At the same time, he criticized the Palestinians for what he said were mistakes and obstacles to peace over the years. He lambasted their supporters in the United States who support replacing Israel with a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
“Those chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ need to hear this loud and clear: they will never have their way,” he declares in his prepared remarks. “But those calling for a greater Israel must also hear this loud and clear: you’re never going to have your way, either. Both are fantasies chanted by fanatics.”
Emanuel, who is a former U.S. congressman from Illinois as well as a former Chicago Mayor and served as White House Chief of Staff under President Barack Obama, is considering a presidential run in 2028. His trip has garnered media attention given that his ideas on Israel could signal the direction of his party on the issue, particularly as they come from a Jewish politician with close ties to the country. Emanuel once volunteered as a civilian with the Israeli army and his father was an Israeli citizen.
His trip to Israel to underscore the importance of the Israeli-U.S. alliance and to advocate for a new regional diplomatic initiative comes at a time when politicians in his Democratic Party are increasingly disavowing Israel to gain an edge in upcoming elections as the country’s reputation plummets.
A Pew Research Center Poll published in April found that 60% of Americans had an unfavorable view of Israel, but its standing was worse among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents, where 8 out of 10 had negative views about Israel.
According to his prepared speech, Emanuel is set to highlight his deep connection to the Jewish state and his family’s sacrifice in bringing about its creation, noting that his uncle, who was a member of the pre-state underground, is buried on Jerusalem’s Mt. of Olives. His father, Benjamin, was born in Jerusalem in 1927 and fought in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence before immigrating to the United States, where he raised his family in Chicago.
Emanuel plans to recount Israel’s history of overtures in the name of peace and in the face of Palestinian violence during the second intifada and the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on southern Israel. He will explain that he understands Israel’s cynicism regarding any future arrangement with the Palestinians since Israel’s past offers of Palestinian sovereignty in exchange for security were frequently met with violence.
“I understand why, even if you oppose the Netanyahu government, you’re so prone to dismiss criticism from the outside world,” Emanuel wrote, underscoring that a “corrupt Palestinian leadership has never lived up to the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.”
Still, he wrote, Israel’s future can’t be “held hostage to a past defined exclusively by recriminations,” warning that such a stance will endanger its “historic alliance with the U.S.,” which is now “at a crossroads.” Israel must embark on a path that pairs military and diplomatic efforts, rather than relying solely on military prowess, he wrote.
“Israel will be alone if its leaders choose to attempt to annex the West Bank and pursue the fantasy of a greater Israel,” Emanuel plans to say.
“America will not and cannot be complicit or complacent in that endeavor,” he wrote, explaining that it has erred in the past by “blindly and silently” supporting Netanyahu’s government.
The speech calls for an end to the “American taxpayer’s subsidy of Israel’s defense budget,” maintaining that Israel should buy U.S. arms with the same financial terms and restrictions as every other ally “that abides by our laws.”
The speech laid out a broad-based policy with regard to a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that rejects extremist Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians and illegal West Bank settlement building but does not spell out prescriptions for divisive issues such as the future of Jerusalem or using the pre-1967 lines for determining the borders of a Palestinian state.
Emanuel does not mention the U.S.-based political advocacy group J Street in his speech, but the text picks up on the 23-state policy idea that J Street put forward last year, involving 21 Arab states, alongside Israeli and Palestinian ones, that would include recognition of Israel by the Arab League.
Such a regional integration would allow for Israel and the larger Middle East to become a technological and transit hub for trade between Europe and India, he plans to say.
To achieve this regional peace, Emanuel continues, the Arab states would have to support a Palestinian governing entity that would accept the Jewish historic connection to Israel, stop teaching its children to hate Israel and end the “heinous practice” of financially rewarding terrorists who kill Jews.
Israel, he wrote, would have to halt unilateral actions in the West Bank, stop nurturing harmful organizations and support “real partners in pursuit of peace.”
This scenario rests on a three-part U.S. policy in the region that would leverage the Arab world’s desire for stability, Israel’s need for security, and Palestinian demands for sovereignty.
“The political benefits for all parties would be far greater than a two-state solution could ever offer. But to get there, everyone would need to make good on their piece of the bargain,” he wrote in his speech.
The alternative path, he wrote, is one that has seen Israel isolated and turned it into a pariah state.
“Israel has failed to convert its military wins into strategic advantages,” Emanuel is expected to say, noting that the country has “lost Europe” and its support in the U.S. is plummeting. U.S. unconditional support for Israel without demands and consequences has been a mistake, he added in his speech, in which he blamed Israel’s poor global standing on Netanyahu’s policies.
A centrist Jewish Democrat embracing a policy promulgated by J Street, a group founded in 2008 to counter the influence of what was then the mainstream pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, illustrates the degree to which the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its credo of creating a bipartisan consensus of support for Israel has eroded.
Emanuel plans to recall his own tensions with Netanyahu, who during his time as White House Chief of Staff labeled him a “self-loathing” Jew for opposing West Bank settlement construction.
Netanyahu, he wrote in his prepared remarks, “cannot fight indefinitely against a world that has stopped believing you have the right to fight. You must instead find a new sustainable path to peace, security, and prosperity.”
Alternatively, he wrote, the United States would stand “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Israel as it pursued peace and security.
The post Rahm Emanuel: Pursuit of Greater Israel as ‘fanatical’ as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US launches ‘powerful strikes’ against Iran
(JTA) — The U.S. military announced that it had launched strikes against Iran Tuesday evening, marking the latest exchange of blows between the countries amid a fragile ceasefire.
In a post on X, U.S. Central Command announced that American forces had begun launching a “series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway.
“The U.S. strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” the post continued. “Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire.”
The latest round of violence could further imperil U.S. negotiations over fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reviving talks over Iran’s nuclear program.
Israel has treated the U.S.-Iran negotiations warily, chafing especially at the proposed imposition of terms of engagement with Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran has not claimed responsibility for the attacks on commercial vessels. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed Al Ansari wrote in a post on X that the country held Iran “fully legally responsible” for an attack on the Qatari ship Al-Rekayyat in the strait.
“We demand that the Islamic Republic of Iran immediately cease all practices that undermine regional security or threaten the safety of international maritime navigation, & refrain from endangering global energy supplies & the resources of the countries of the region in pursuit of narrow interests,” Al Ansari wrote.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry also condemned Iran’s alleged attack on a Saudi tanker, in a post on X shortly before the U.S. strikes were announced.
“The Kingdom affirms that these reprehensible attacks constitute an assault on the security and safety of international navigation and on the security of global energy supplies,” the post read.
The strikes come over a week since the last known round of U.S. strikes on the country late last month, which followed Iranian attacks on both Bahrain and Kuwait.
The post US launches ‘powerful strikes’ against Iran appeared first on The Forward.
