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
Anti-Israel Candidates for US Senate Boast Strong Polling Numbers in Michigan Democratic Primary
Mallory McMorrow, a Democrat running for US Senate in Michigan. Photo: Screenshot
Mallory McMorrow, a vocal critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and a candidate for the US Senate in Michigan, holds a narrow lead over the rest of the Democratic primary field, according to a new poll.
The Emerson College Polling/Nexstar Media survey shows McMorrow, a member of the Michigan state Senate, ahead of the pack with 22 percent of the vote. US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) sits in second place with 17 percent of the vote. Abdul El-Sayed, a physician with an anti-Israel policy platform, holds a respectable 16 percent of the primary vote.
McMorrow’s lead over the field may spark consternation among supporters of Israel, whose defensive military campaign in Gaza has been characterized by McMorrow as tantamount to “genocide.”
Just days before the anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, McMorrow called Israel’s response in Gaza a “moral abomination,” saying it was “just as horrendous” as the attack carried out by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists, who perpetrated the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
However, in a recent interview, McMorrow indicated tentativeness over her previous condemnation of Israel, admitting that the word “genocide” has become a “purity test” among progressive activists in Democratic primaries.
“I am somebody who looks at the videos, the photos, the amount of pain that has been caused in the Middle East, and you can’t not be heartbroken,” McMorrow said during an interview earlier this month. “But I also feel like we are getting lost in this conversation, and it feels like a political purity test on a word — a word that, by the way, to people who lost family members in the Holocaust, does mean something very different and very visceral — and we’re losing sight of what I believe is a broadly shared goal among most Michiganders, that this violence needs to stop, that a temporary ceasefire needs to become a permanent ceasefire, that Palestinians deserve long term peace and security, that Israelis deserve long term peace and security, and that should be the role of the next US senator.”
Conversely, Stevens has established herself as the favorite among pro-Israel Michiganders. Stevens scored an endorsement from the Democratic Majority for Israel in November 2025. In a statement, DMFI praised Stevens as someone who has “stood firm against extremism, antisemitism, and efforts to undermine America’s alliances.”
Stevens has routinely touted her pro-Israel bona fides, vowing to stand beside the closest US ally in the Middle East despite mounting pressure by party activists to cut ties with the Jewish state. The lawmaker promised that if elected she would continue to support legislation which bolsters Israel’s security.
“As a proud pro-Israel Democrat, I believe America is stronger when we stand with our democratic allies, confront antisemitism and extremism, and keep our promises to our friends abroad and our working families here at home,” Stevens said in a statement. “In the Senate, I’ll keep fighting to protect our democracy, support Israel’s security, ensure the ceasefire holds in Gaza, and deliver for Michiganders in every corner of our state.”
El-Sayed, the most far-left candidate in the race, has been especially critical of Israel’s war in Gaza. On Oct. 21, 2023, two weeks after the Hamas-led slaughter of 1,200 people and kidnapping of 251 hostages in southern Israel, the progressive politician accused Israel of “genocide.” The comment came before the Israeli military launched its ground campaign in Gaza.
He also compared Israel’s defensive military operations to the Hamas terrorist group’s conduct on Oct. 7, writing, “You can both condemn Hamas terrorism AND Israel’s murder since.”
In comments to Politico, El-Sayed criticized Democrats’ handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that they should become the “party of peace and justice” and said that they “ought not to be the party sending bombs and money to foreign militaries to drop bombs on other people’s kids in their schools and their hospitals.” He called on Democrats to stop supporting military aid for Israel, saying, “We should be spending that money here at home.”
Earlier this month, The Algemeiner reported that El-Sayed is facing scrutiny over his past fundraising and public support for a political advocacy group whose affiliates organized anti-Israel protests at Holocaust memorial sites in Washington, DC, and the Detroit metro area.
Uncategorized
Hamas Doubles Down on Refusal to Disarm as Trump Pushes Phase Two of Gaza Peace Plan
Palestinian Hamas terrorists stand guard at a site as Hamas says it continues to search for the bodies of deceased hostages, in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, Dec. 3, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer
As the United States and its allies prepare to roll out phase two of President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan, Hamas has doubled down on its refusal to disarm, clouding hopes for a breakthrough.
In an interview with the Qatari media network Al Jazeera on Wednesday, senior Hamas official Musa Abu Marzouk said the Palestinian terrorist group — which ruled Gaza before its war with Israel and still controls nearly half the enclave’s territory — never agreed to lay down its weapons under the ceasefire agreement.
“Not for a single moment did we talk about surrender the weapons, or any formula about destroying, surrendering, or disarmament,” the terrorist leader said, echoing repeated statements by Hamas officials saying they have no intention of disarming.
Abu Marzouk also reaffirmed that Hamas has moved to “restore order” in parts of the Gaza Strip from which Israeli forces withdrew as part of the ceasefire deal.
Currently, the Israeli military controls 53 percent of Gaza’s territory, and Hamas has moved to reestablish control over the rest. However, the vast majority of the Gazan population is located in the Hamas-controlled half, where the Islamist group has been imposing a brutal crackdown.
Disarmament “was never even presented to us,” Abu Marzouk told Al Jazeera.
“After a battle of this magnitude … and with the inability of Israel, America, and the West to disarm or destroy Hamas’s weapons, did they think they could obtain it through talks?” he continued.
The comments came one day before Trump said that Hamas would in fact give up its weapons.
“A lot of people said they’ll never disarm. It looks like they’re going to disarm,” Trump told a cabinet meeting on Thursday.
The US president also asked his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, for an update on the situation.
“We’ve got the terrorists out of there and they’re going to demilitarize. They will because they have no choice,” Witkoff said. “They’re going to give it up. They’re going to give up the AK-47s.”
Last week, Trump warned that Hamas “will be blown away very quickly” if it refuses to disarm and cooperate with the second phase of his administration’s 20-point peace plan.
According to multiple media reports, Washington is expected to announce a deadline in the coming days for the terrorist group to lay down its weapons, in an effort to set the terms of the disarmament process.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted that the next phase of the ceasefire deal would focus on disarming Hamas and demilitarizing the enclave, rather than on reconstruction.
“We are at the threshold of the next phase: Disarming Hamas and demilitarizing the Gaza Strip,” the Israeli leader told parliament, shortly after he officially announced that the remains of the last hostage had been recovered.
“The next phase is not reconstruction,” he continued. “We have an interest in advancing this phase, not delaying it. The sooner we do so, the sooner we will complete the objectives of the war.”
Under phase one of Trump’s peace plan, a ceasefire took effect and Hamas was required to release all remaining hostages, both living and deceased, who were kidnapped by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists during the group’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The body of the final hostage, Israeli police officer Ran Gvili, was returned on Monday, and he was buried on Wednesday.
In exchange for Hamas’s releasing nearly all the hostages, Israel freed thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including many serving life sentences for terrorism, and partially withdrew its military forces in Gaza to a newly drawn “Yellow Line,” roughly dividing the enclave between east and west.
The second stage of the US-backed peace plan is supposed to establish an interim administrative authority, a so-called “technocratic government,” deploy an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to oversee security in Gaza, and begin the demilitarization of Hamas.
In an effort to advance his regional peace initiative, Trump launched the so-called Board of Peace last week, inviting several countries — including Turkey — despite Israel’s opposition to its participation.
Israeli officials have repeatedly rejected any Turkish role in Gaza’s postwar reconstruction, warning that Ankara’s push to expand its regional influence could bolster Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure, as Turkey has been a longtime backer of the Islamist group.
Under Trump’s Gaza peace plan, the newly created Board of Peace will oversee the interim technocratic Palestinian government in the enclave, supported for at least two years by the ISF.
The ISF — comprising troops from multiple participating countries — will oversee the ceasefire deal 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. Even though several countries — including Hamas backers Qatar and Turkey — have expressed interest in joining the international peacekeeping force, no final agreement has been reached.
Further Israeli military withdrawals in Gaza are tied to Hamas’s disarmament.
During his Wednesday interview, Abu Marzouk declared that “nobody can enter Gaza without understandings with Hamas,” emphasizing that the group will not give up control of the enclave.
“If Hamas doesn’t agree to the administrative committee, it cannot enter the Gaza Strip,” he told Al Jazeera, asserting that the group has the final say over who sits on it.
Trump’s peace plan, which has been endorsed by the United Nations, calls on Hamas to relinquish any governing role in Gaza.
Despite Hamas’s comments, the peace plan is moving forward with a transitional technocratic Palestinian administration in Gaza. The newly established 15-member body is led by Ali Shaath, a former deputy minister in the Palestinian Authority.
According to media reports, Hamas is looking to position around 10,000 members of its police force within the new Palestinian administration for Gaza.
Uncategorized
Forverts podcast, episode three: The cemetery
דער פֿאָרווערטס האָט שוין אַרויסגעלאָזט דעם דריטן קאַפּיטל פֿונעם ייִדישן פּאָדקאַסט, Yiddish With Rukhl. דאָס מאָל איז די טעמע „דער בית־עולם“. די פֿאַרגאַנגענע וואָך איז זי געווען „ליבע“. צו הערן ביידע קאַפּיטלען גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ.
אין דעם איצטיקן קאַפּיטל לייענט שׂרה־רחל שעכטער פֿאָר צוויי אַרטיקלען, „אַ טראַדיציאָנעלער מינהג געפֿירט פֿון פֿרויען: פֿעלדמעסטן און קנייטלעך לייגן“ פֿון אַנאַבעל כּהן, און „דאָס אַרײַנלייגן אין דר׳ערד: די פֿאַרשידענע ווערטער און אויסדרוקן פֿאַרן וואָרט ׳בית־עולם׳“ פֿון הערשל גלעזער.
אויב איר ווילט אויך לייענען דעם געדרוקטן טעקסט פֿון די אַרטיקלען, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ און קוקט אונטן בײַם סוף פֿון דער זײַט.
אין דעם וואָכיקן פּאָדקאַסט לייענט די פֿאָרווערטס־רעדאַקטאָרין שׂרה־רחל שעכטער פֿאָר געקליבענע אַרטיקלען וואָס דער פֿאָרווערטס האָט געדרוקט במשך פֿון די יאָרן. דערווײַל איז דער פּאָדקאַסט בלויז אַ פּראָבע פֿון פֿינעף קאַפּיטלען. אויב ס׳וועט ווײַטער וואַקסן דער אינטערעס צו אים, וועט ער ווערן אַ געוויינטלעכער טייל פֿונעם פֿאָרווערטס.
טאָמער האָט איר קאָמענטאַרן אָדער פֿאָרלייגן, שרײַבט אַ בריוול דעם פֿאָרווערטס: schaechter@forward.com
The post Forverts podcast, episode three: The cemetery appeared first on The Forward.