sorry, but "let's perhaps not call it a pogrom" is just another spin to get back to the preferred narrative of "attacks on Israelis" (your words) "Israelis were targeted" (your words) "victims were targeted for being Israeli or Jewish" (your words) etc which has been thoroughly debunked already
I get that @nytimes.com is geared towards a culture strongly conditioned not to know better, but to come back to a story from weeks ago in faux-amenable faux-educational tone just so you can turn the clock back on a narrative and ignore the debunking.... YIKES, that's in poor taste (=understatement)
The objection against the use of the term pogrom in this context wasn't because of jewish history you chose to dig up for the article, the objection was because it reversed victims and offenders in what happened in Amsterdam weeks ago. To ignore that and revert the narrative is beyond sinister.
Comments