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
Pennsylvania’s Jewish governor, Josh Shapiro, faces Trump-backed challenger in reelection bid
(JTA) — The stage is officially set for Pennsylvania’s Jewish governor, Josh Shapiro, to vie for reelection against GOP opponent Stacy Garrity in November.
The matchup comes as no surprise, as the two candidates won their respective primaries uncontested on Tuesday.
Shapiro is seen as the strong favorite to win. But Garrity, who is popular among Republicans and endorsed by President Donald Trump, could mount a competitive challenge. She became the only person to earn more votes than Shapiro in Pennsylvania history when she was reelected as state treasurer in 2024.
The matchup could pose a hurdle for Shapiro’s potential 2028 presidential ambitions even if Garrity loses in November. A hard-fought race in a purple state will allow Republicans to test attack strategies against Shapiro.
Shapiro is a pro-Israel Democrat in a party where supporting Israel is an increasing liability. Garrity, too, has gone to bat for Israel. As state treasurer, she has more than tripled Pennsylvania’s investment in Israel bonds. She invested $20 million following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, and another $25 million in July 2025.
“Israel is our greatest ally in the Middle East, and I will continue to stand by them in their fight to achieve peace,” Garrity said when announcing the $25 million investment last year.
“Israel bonds are a smart, dependable investment with a proven track record — and it’s especially important to show our support at a time when Israelis and Jews — both abroad and here in the United States — continue to face horrific acts of antisemitism,” she wrote. “I’m proud to announce this significant new investment, continuing the strong relationship between Pennsylvania, Israel, and the Jewish Community.”
Garrity is embracing her endorsement from Trump, whom she has said she believes won in her state and nationally in 2020, when President Joe Biden prevailed.
Garrity’s early attacks on Shapiro have implicated his record on Jewish issues. Last year, she took a shot at Shapiro in response to an article by politically conservative website the Washington Free Beacon. In the story, a group of Philadelphia parents said Shapiro had “completely ignored” their pleas for help addressing antisemitism in public schools during the war in Gaza.
“I know Josh Shapiro understands the evils of antisemitism — he’s lived it,” Garrity wrote on X. “That’s why it’s painful to see him turn away from Jewish parents begging for help as their kids face N*zi salutes and teachers praising Hamas.”
Shapiro’s team denied that the governor had neglected parental concerns. He is widely regarded as being outspoken against antisemitism, and has maintained a pro-Israel outlook that includes support for U.S. military aid to Israel. The man who confessed to committing an arson attack on Shapiro’s residence in 2025 said he thought Shapiro was contributing to violence against the Palestinian people.
The post Pennsylvania’s Jewish governor, Josh Shapiro, faces Trump-backed challenger in reelection bid appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Massie Ousted From Congress, Makes Antisemitic Jab in Concession Speech
US Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the US Capitol on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
US Rep. Thomas Massie was defeated in Tuesday’s Republican primary by Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein in a closely watched race in Kentucky widely viewed as a referendum on party loyalty and US support for Israel.
In his concession remarks, Massie drew immediate attention when he said he had to “find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv” to concede, a remark widely interpreted as a reference to what he and his supporters have described as substantial pro-Israel backing for Gallrein’s campaign.
“I would’ve come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede. And it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv,” Massie said.
Gallrein, a retired Navy SEAL and political newcomer, garnered approximately 54.9 percent of the vote compared to Massie’s 45.1 percent, emerging victorious by nearly a 10-point margin. With the defeat, Massie will depart Congress at the conclusion of his 7th term.
Gallrein was endorsed by US President Donald Trump and benefited from significant support from pro-Israel donors and aligned advocacy networks. The race attracted national attention, with Trump-aligned groups and conservative super PACs spending roughly $19 million in support of Gallrein’s campaign. For many observers, Gallrein’s victory underscores both Trump’s continued influence in Republican primaries and the party’s generally unified stance on Israel policy.
Massie, long one of the most independent voices in the House Republican Conference, had frequently broken with GOP leadership on foreign policy issues, including US military aid to Israel, funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system, and the Iran war. Massie also drew criticism from pro-Israel groups for opposing aid packages, skipping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, and accusing Israel of targeting civilian infrastructure during military operations in Gaza and Lebanon while omitting that terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah embed military infrastructure within civilian areas.
Beyond issues of foreign policy, Massie also drew sharp criticism from Trump after he co-sponsored and pushed for legislation to release the Justice Department’s files related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein alongside prominent House Democrats, leading the president to frame Massie as a party disruptor and disloyal Republican.
The race unfolded amid growing tensions within the Republican Party over antisemitism, foreign policy, and support for Israel. Though older Republican voters continue to support Israel in substantial numbers, a growing number of polls indicate that younger Republican voters are far more skeptical of the US-Israel alliance, with many wanting to end aid to Israel and cease foreign military campaigns. Critics accused Massie of amplifying antisemitic rhetoric within segments of the Republican coalition by engaging in certain behaviors, such as making repeated appearances on the podcast of Tucker Carlson, a political pundit frequently accused by critics of promoting antisemitism.
In the days leading up to the election, Massie faced mounting criticism over a series of remarks and associations that Jewish organizations and pro-Israel activists condemned as antisemitic.
On Friday, he declared the election “a referendum on whether Israel gets to buy seats in Congress.”
Over the weekend, he invited antisemitic social media personality Ryan Matta to his home for a meet-and-greet event. He posed for a photo with Matta wearing a shirt emblazoned with the phrase “American Reich,” a direct reference to the Nazi regime. Massie has not commented on the incident or distanced himself from Matta.
Massie also came under fire over an advertisement released by a pro-Massie super PAC targeting billionaire Republican donor Paul Singer, a prominent Jewish supporter of pro-Israel causes who has backed efforts to defeat the incumbent. The ad characterized Singer as a “pro-trans billionaire” and displayed a rainbow-colored Star of David behind his image — imagery critics condemned as antisemitic.
Further, on Sunday, Massie lambasted the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), an organization that aims to increase the number of Jews within the Republican Party, accusing the group of using Gallrein as a “puppet” and claiming they are “running his race.”
Gallrein campaigned on a platform aligned closely with Trump’s foreign policy approach, emphasizing continued US security assistance to Israel and a more traditional Republican posture on Middle East policy. His campaign was boosted by outside groups and donors supportive of a strongly pro-Israel agenda.
The outcome reinforced the increasingly narrow political space within the GOP for lawmakers who break with Trump and the party’s dominant pro-Israel posture.
Once known for his libertarian-leaning independence, Massie increasingly found himself isolated as GOP voters and donors coalesced around candidates aligned with both Trump and pro-Israel priorities. The race also reflects a broader trend in Republican primaries, where alignment with Trump and with pro-Israel policy positions has become a key predictor for viability in many competitive districts.
In a statement, the RJC congratulated Gallrein and accused Massie of “trafficking in antisemitism and bottom-of-the-barrel nativism at a time when Jew-hatred is on the rise,” calling Massie’s conduct “wildly unacceptable and outrageous from an elected member of Congress.”
Uncategorized
Jewish Groups Call on US Congress to Combat Union Antisemitism in Health Care
Anti-Israel demonstration at Johns Hopkins University, which has one of the best medical schools in the world, in Baltimore, Maryland, US, April 30, 2024. Photo: Robyn Stevens Brody/SIPA USA via Reuters Connect
Jewish community advocates on Wednesday called on the US Congress to use its lawmaking power to stop health care unions from spreading antisemitism in the workplace through anti-Zionist advocacy, arguing unions have wasted resources and countenanced flagrant discrimination of Jews throughout the field of medicine.
Addressing the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, lawyers, health workers, and civil rights activists shared a stream of claims alleging that union bosses have effectively converted labor unions into political action committees for the anti-Zionist movement. The consequence, they argued, has been to embolden those who mistreat Jews as a “proxy” for Israel, leading to incidents of bigotry which would be decried were they perpetrated against other minority groups.
“The issue is not whether health care workers may hold political views,” Deena Margolies, litigation staff attorney for the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told the committee. “The problem arises when health care unions use their authority and resources to promote antisemitic campaigns outside their labor mission. Jewish and Israeli health care professionals are then placed in an impossible position: The union that is supposed to represent them is also helping to create the hostile work environment they must endure.”
Anti-Zionist union activity even affects patient care, Margolies added, noting that some mental health practitioners now offer services which they say can “decolonize” patients of pro-Zionist viewpoints. The enterprise is predicated on the idea that Zionism, which an overwhelming majority of Jews say is central to Jewish identity, is a pathology.
“Congress can and should act,” she said.
Dr. Jacob Agronin, a cardiology fellow at Temple University Hospital, told Congress that Jewish workers should have the right to permanently suspend payment of union dues.
“What I would hope for is the option for those that disagree with this union on a fundamental level not be compelled to pay dues to this union,” Agronin said. “I think it’s absurd that the union can call for blatant discrimination against Israeli colleagues and then compel those same colleagues to pay them.”
The Algemeiner has reported extensively on how a wave of antisemitism swept health care following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. So widespread was the problem that it became the subject of a 2025 study which found that 62.8 percent of Jewish health care professionals employed by campus-based medical center reported experiencing antisemitism, a far higher rate than those working in private practice and community hospitals. Fueling the rise in hate, the study noted, were repeated failures of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives to educate workers about antisemitism, increasing the likelihood of antisemitic discrimination.
Months earlier, the StandWithUs Data & Analytics Department found through its own survey that nearly 40 percent of Jewish American health care professionals have encountered antisemitism in the workplace, either as witnesses or victims. A substantial number of the 645 Jewish health workers who responded to its questions also said they were subject to “social and professional isolation,” and 26.4 percent felt “unsafe or threatened.”
Outside the US, the crisis of antisemitism in health care has manifested in medical settings around the world, including in South America, Australia, and across Europe.
As for union antisemitism, the subject continues to be a focus of Jewish civil rights activism.
Earlier this month, the Brandeis Center filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the National Education Association proliferated antisemitism across its interstate network of chapters, offices, and K-12 schools by systemically enacting policies which resulted in Jews being blocked from promotions, mentorship opportunities, and participation in social justice initiatives. The disturbing document went further, arguing that antisemitic discrimination at the NEA is more than an invisible, bureaucratic force which disappears Jews from governance roles. According to the complaint, it is a force applied by anti-Zionists who lead mobs against Jewish delegates attending union conferences; perpetrate acts of physical intimidation; and delete guidance on teaching students about the Holocaust from official documents.
“The NEA’s conduct is both completely illegal and morally unjustifiable,” Brandeis Center chairman and founder Kenneth Marcus said in a statement announcing the action. “This is exactly the type of discrimination against which Title VII was designed to protect.”
In New York City, the federal government is investigating reports that members of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) are procuring students for membership in anti-Zionist study groups teaching that Israelis are “genocidal white supremacists” and that Hamas terrorists are “martyrs.” The initiative there is funded by a nonprofit titled “Rethinking Schools,” which itself has been a recipient of exorbitant financial gifts from the NEA.
Meanwhile, students at Columbia University recently escalated their fight against a graduate workers union dominated by anti-Israel advocates by filing a federal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The students allege that the bosses who run Student Workers of Columbia (SWC), an affiliate of United Auto Workers (UAW), devote more energy and resources to pursuing “radical policy proposals” than improving occupational conditions. In collective bargaining negotiations, it allegedly pressures the university to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and to enact other measures, such as ending its partnership with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and closing a dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University.
“All of this adds up to a union that is out of control, and I note that they don’t have an agenda against the mullahs in Iran, against the dictator who runs Turkey, against the Chinese communists who oppress their citizens or the North Koreans. But they have an agenda against Israel, the one democracy in the Middle East,” Glenn Taubman, staff attorney for the National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), told The Algemeiner during an interview at the time.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.