I’m reading Benny Morris’s new book 1948. Pretty damn good, but flawed (but then what isn’t?). Morris uses the word “pogrom” to describe Arab riots aimed at Jews in the Arab world following the U.N. partition vote in 1947. According to Wikipedia, pogrom is a Russian word for “violent outbreak.” And it is an emotionally/politically-laden term for Jews. I grew up hearing about late-19th-century pogroms against my ancestors in Russia. It’s completely legit of Morris to import the term to Arabia. Myself, I use the word “pogrom” to describe the possibility of violence against Jews in the U.S., which I regard as highly unlikely.
I bring this up, though, to point out that much of the objection to “apartheid,” also a politically-laden term that has crossed boundaries, is persnickety casuistry, aimed at limiting criticism of Israel. Apartheid describes a system of legally-enforced racial separation. It is a fine word. Yes it originated in a particular time and place, but it too can cross borders when the situation arises, say the heinous separation that is now occurring in portions of the West Bank.
