What Does a Reform Temple in Suburban Detroit Have To Do With Israeli Airstrikes in Lebanon?

Consider what I wrote the following concerning the thwarted terrorist attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan:

As of this writing, the now deceased assailant has not been identified. Whether the source of inspiration for the attack was white supremacy or Islamic fundamentalism, there is an anti-Semitic rot in this country which has escalated into violence.

The assailant has been since been identified as Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, a Lebanese born restaurant manager who came to this country in 2010, became a U.S. citizen a decade ago and resided in Dearborn Heights, a suburb about 20 miles west of Detroit.

However, instead of treating the attack as motivated by Islamic fundamentalism, we are being to headlines such as these from the Detroit News and The Guardian.

Temple Israel synagogue shooter's family recently killed in an air strike

Suspect in Michigan synagogue attack had lost family in Israeli airstrike in Lebanon

These headlines are most peculiar. It's as if they are justifying the killer's actions or, at the very minimum, rationalizing them.

Now, I'm not doubting the facts of the case. In other words, I am not doubting that Ghazali's brothers and a niece and nephew were killed by an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon.

Yet let me put it this way.

Let us suppose the brother of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, or for that matter Iran, were to see fit to avenge the death of his brother by attacking a mosque in the same manner in which Ghazali attacked Temple Israel. Somehow, I doubt either the Detroit News or The Guardian would treat us to these headlines:

Mosque shooter's brother was soldier killed by IED in Iraq

Suspect in Michigan mosque attack had lost brother in IED attack against U.S. military convoy

If such a horrible thing had come to pass, the Detroit News, The Guardian and a myriad of other media outlets would feature headlines feature words like Islamophobia and phrases like hate crime and white supremacy.

And not entirely without justification. After all, what would a mosque in suburban Detroit have to do with an IED attack in Iraq which killed an American soldier? 

The same holds true concerning yesterday's events. What does a synagogue in suburban Detroit have to do with Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon which killed civilians?

It is a question I must ask because of a lifetime of being lectured along the lines of "criticizing or condemning Israel isn't anti-Semitic". If that is the case, then why are people attending a day program at synagogue 6,000 miles away responsible for Israel's military actions?

In the case of yesterday's terrorist attack, one has to consider the very strong likelihood that Ghazali possessed a lifelong, violent hatred of Jews and a willingness to act out on that hate. Yes, I have no doubt that Ghazali was upset and in grief over multiple family members being killed by an Israeli airstrike. Yet I'm sure Ghazali had other relatives in this country who were equally upset by what happened but will manage to go through life without planning to carry out violence against a local synagogue.

Only a week elapsed between the time Ghazali's relatives were killed and Ghazali rammed his vehicle inside Temple Israel. Scarcely 48 hours before the attack, Ghazali bought $2,000 worth of explosives at a fireworks store. How did this purchase not raise a red flag?

While Ghazali did not have a previous criminal record, in light of his actions yesterday, one must wonder what his online activity was like or his interactions with his closest of friends. Perhaps this information will come to light in the not-too-distant future. Or perhaps we will never know.

Whatever the case, while no one is born a terrorist, one does not become this radicalized in just 7 days. I simply cannot fathom anyone doing what he tried to do to Temple Israel without a deep-seated and longstanding hatred of Jews.

Thoughts on the Thwarted Terrorist Attack at a Synagogue Outside Detroit

This afternoon there was a terrorist attack at Temple Israel, a synagogue in West Bloomfield Township which is about 25 miles northwest of Detroit.

The attacker drove his truck into the facility which also houses a school and a community center. The assailant then left the vehicle with a rifle and set a portion of the building ablaze. Fortunately, there were no fatalities among students and staff. One member of the Temple's security team sustained injuries but the terrorist was shot and killed.

While there is much one can criticize about the current direction of the FBI particularly on the question of fomenting anti-Semitism, the local office in Detroit did conduct an active shooter prevention and awareness training session this past January. I have little doubt this was crucial in preventing the loss of life today.

In recent months, there have been several attacks at other religious institutions in Michigan. In June 2025, a deacon at a church in Wayne used his vehicle to thwart a man wielding a rifle from injuring congregants as a Bible study class was going on inside the facility. The following month, four people were killed at a LDS church in Grand Blanc Township by an anti-Mormon zealot. The church was burned down in the process.

Nevertheless, in the wake of resurgent anti-Semitism since October 7th and amplified by the joint U.S.-Israel military campaign in Iran, it will be Jewish institutions and Jewish gatherings that will be most vulnerable to these attacks as demonstrated at the Capital Jewish Museum last May and at a march in solidarity with Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado last June

As of this writing, the now deceased assailant has not been identified. Whether the source of inspiration for the attack was white supremacy or Islamic fundamentalism, there is an anti-Semitic rot in this country which has escalated into violence. 

Because of this anti-Semitic rot, Jewish institutions have had to prepare themselves for such attacks as was the case with Temple Israel. While it is good Temple Israel took the steps necessary to prepare for the worst, it is also evidence that the standing of Jews in this country has diminished considerably since the October 7th attacks. 

I suspect that as time goes on anti-Semitism will be increasingly tolerated. With such tolerance for intolerance, fewer government agencies will be willing to assist Jewish communities in protecting themselves. In which case, the Jewish community could find itself in a familiar place - on our own.

Sandberg Inadvertently Echoes Musk on Blaming Jews for Anti-Semitism

On Sunday, former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg spoke at the Birthright Israel Excelerate26 Summit at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York City and I am perturbed by what she said:

We have to be really strategic. And I’m not sure we’re all always doing that because it’s hard

The thing about antisemitism is, it is really bad, massively on the rise, on the right, on the left. It is a massive problem. But it is still a fringe problem. The average person in this country is not antisemitic. And the problem is that if we run around telling everyone that everyone’s antisemitic, we will cause everyone to be antisemitic. That’s what all the data shows us.

And I do think as a Jewish community, as we’ve gotten alarmed about the rise of antisemitism, I am worried that some of us are inadvertently kind of spreading it. And I think we need to be really, really careful.

For starters, Sandberg is plainly contradicting herself. In a matter of seconds, Sandberg says anti-Semitism is a massive problem and then says it is a fringe problem. At best, she is sending mixed messages. It's well and good to be strategic about anti-Semitism but it is difficult to formulate a strategy if she cannot determine whether anti-Semitism is a fringe problem or if it is a massive problem.

Second, who is running around tell everyone that everyone's anti-Semitic? If "that's what all the data shows us" then it might have been helpful had she cited a specific example in support of her argument. 

Third, I think the notion that Jews are inadvertently spreading anti-Semitism is a dubious notion because it has the effect of absolving the people who are quite advertently spreading anti-Semitism whether it is Tucker Carlson or people in the streets of New York praising the October 7th attacks.

In so doing, Sandberg also inadvertently echoes Elon Musk who argued on his X platform in September 2023 - more than a month before the October 7th attacks:

The ADL, because they are so aggressive in their demands to ban social media accounts for even minor infractions, are ironically the biggest generators of anti-Semitism on this platform!

As I argued at the time:

In other words, the Jews are to blame for anti-Semitism by speaking out against it, and we ought to keep our mouths shut. 

By making this claim, Musk effectively absolves responsibility from those who actually harbor hatred towards Jews while giving them a blank check to defame us at every opportunity. 

In such an environment, anti-Semitism would be bound to become mainstream in the United States. And if this comes to pass then pogroms will be sure to follow.

Now I could see Sandberg objecting to my third paragraph and going so far as to cite it as an example of Jews inadvertently spreading anti-Semitism. If she were to tell me that directly, I would ask her the following question:

So how would anti-Semitism not become mainstream in an environment where those who openly spread it flourish with impunity and those who call out such behavior are considered responsible for anti-Semitism?

To claim without evidence that Jews are responsible for spreading anti-Semitism, even inadvertently, is an act of cowardice which takes our eye off the ball. By taking our eye off the ball, we do not put pressure where it belongs - on the anti-Semites who spread their hatred.

Why Was There a Girls' School Near One of Iran's Military Bases?

At the outset of the U.S.-Israeli military action against the Iranian regime, the latter's state media claimed that the U.S. and Israel had bombed an Iranian girls' school.

Some such as Marjorie Taylor Greene accepted the story at face value despite its provenance with Iranian state media.

The fact was that at the time of the incident in question, it could not be determined who was responsible.

However, it does now appear the United States was responsible for the act in question which killed 168 people mostly children despite the claims of President Trump that Iran was responsible. Here is how The Bulwark put it this morning:

Iran’s government has flatly denied that it targeted its own civilians in the strike. And while the Iranian regime has a wretched human-rights record and has been perfectly happy to butcher their own citizens in even the extremely recent past, the idea that this particular tragedy was some sort of friendly-fire strike is contradicted by available evidence. This morning, the New York Times published video analysis confirming that the IRGC base adjacent to the school was hit by a Tomahawk missile—which no belligerent in the war uses except for the United States—and that the school was damaged at around the same time. Ergo: We bombed the school. It seems in all likelihood that this wasn’t a case of Iran intentionally targeting civilians, but of the United States accidentally killing civilians.

Yes, but The Bulwark is missing one very key point here.

Why is there a girls' school situated near one of Iran's military bases? 

Based on the preliminary investigation, U.S. intelligence wrongly identified the area as still being part of the military installation. If this is the case, then the Iranian regime then carved out that portion of the military installation and built a girls' school. How recent this development is far from clear. But if the Iranian military knew there would come a day when there would be an American or Israeli attack at their base then why not build a girl's school and maximize civilian casualties? Should such an attack happen, the world would focus on characterizing American and Israeli forces as child killers instead of questioning why the Iranian regime would build a girls' school in an area that was one part of a military base.

The long and the short of it is that Iran were using that girls' school as a human shield. Given Iran's history long history of funding Hamas which has long used the populace in Gaza as human shields it is fitting that the Iranian military would deploy the same tactic.

Of course, it doesn't change the fact it was a U.S. strike which caused the deaths of these Iranian children. President Trump's insistence on lying also doesn't help matters. Yet it was the Iranian regime which saw fit to build a girls' school on land which was once part of one of their military bases. Surely, this cannot be the only piece of civilian infrastructure which replaced portion of an Iranian military base. Where there is one school then there are others? Not to mention hospitals and homes for the elderly.

The Iranian regime does not care a whit about these dead girls. For them, they serve only as propaganda tools which far too many in the U.S. and the West accept a face value.

I Hope The Iranian People Will Be Given The Space to Reject Mojtaba Khamenei

(ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect)

The Islamic Republic of Iran's so-called Assembly Experts has chosen Mojtaba Khamenei to be the country's Supreme Leader following his father's assassination just over a week ago.

I hope the United States and Israel will pause their military offensive just long enough to give the Iranian people the space necessary to publicly reject the younger Khamenei as well as the Islamic Republic at large.

After all, the Iranian people had no say in Khamenei's ascension.

While President Trump has previously publicly stated that he found Mojtaba Khamenei to be "unacceptable" he also wants to choose Iran's next leader. I think Trump making that choice would be every bit as wrong as the Assembly of Experts making that choice.

Now that the world's attention is centered upon Iran, the world needs to see that the Iranian people do not want Khamenei nor for Iran to continue as an Islamic Republic. This is especially true when one considers the spectacle of public demonstrations in New York City's Washington Square Park proclaiming the elder Khamenei as a "man of social justice."

It is essential that the Iranian people disabuse Americans and the West of our collective ignorance whatever legitimate reservations might be had concerning the present military conflict.

If nothing else, we owe the Iranian people the courtesy of our attention.

U.S. Intelligence Report Says Military Action in Iran Unlikely to Oust Regime

A classified U.S. intelligence report prepared one week before the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes in Iran concluded that such a military operation was unlikely to topple its regime, according to the Washington Post:

The report, completed about a week before the United States and Israel initiated the war on Feb. 28, outlined succession scenarios stemming from either a narrowly tailored campaign against Iran’s leaders or a broader assault against its leadership and government institutions, the people familiar with its findings said. In both cases, the intelligence concluded that Iran’s clerical and military establishment would respond to the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by following protocols designed to preserve continuity of power, these people said.

The prospect of Iran’s fragmented opposition taking control of the country was described as “unlikely,” said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a classified report.

It is not clear if President Trump saw this report. If he did then it clearly did not influence his thinking on the subject, such as it is.

Of course, it is possible this assessment could be wrong. After all, the Post notes the report did not make any assessment to the Iranian regime's future if either U.S. ground troops or if Kurdish rebels were armed. The former is unlikely, but the latter scenario is not beyond the realm of possibility. However, such action carries the risk of fomenting civil war within Iran thus giving the regime yet another lifeline.

As I have previously written, my main fear regarding military action in Iran is that the regime would be kept intact and Trump would permit the installation of a new Ayatollah. Even if Trump isn't inclined in this manner, this report would indicate that the regime will be far more difficult to topple than he anticipated.

Despite Trump's rhetoric of "unconditional surrender", I suspect that he will want an easy way out even if it means keeping the existing regime in Tehran and undermining Israel in the process. He'll declare victory, find someone within the regime who he thinks is palatable, permit their ascension into power, and invite the new Iranian leader to sit on his Board of Peace. If Trump was prepared to prop up the Taliban and Hamas, then why wouldn't be prepared to do so the same for the Iranian mullahs?

Meanwhile, Israel will have gained nothing from this military action. There will still be the threat of a nuclear Iran even if the new regime softens its rhetoric. Their actions behind the scenes will invariably tell a different story. If the Iranian regime cannot be dislodged and remains an existential threat to Israel, then I think Israeli voters will oust Benjamin Netanyahu from power come October. 

Needless to say, the Iranian people will also have gained nothing from this military action.

Trump Wants to Choose Iran's Next Leader

President Trump proclaimed that his desire to choose Iran's next leader.

He told Reuters:

We're going to have to choose that person along with Iran. We're going to have to choose that person.

We want to be involved in the process of ​choosing the person who is going to lead Iran into the future, so we don't have to go back every five years and do this again and again. We want somebody that's going to be great for the people, great for the country.

So much for Trump telling the Iranian people to take over your government. 

To drive the point home, Trump also told Axios, "I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy [Rodriguez] in Venezuela."

This is exactly what I was afraid of a week ago today only 48 hours before military action in Iran commenced:

Yet let us suppose there is military action in Iran. Who can say it would be any different than what occurred in Venezuela earlier this year where they extracted Nicolas Maduro only to install his vice-president as his replacement? Meet the new Ayatollah. Same as the old Ayatollah. 

If Trump was capable of bestowing legitimacy upon the Taliban during his first term, then it certainly isn't conceivable the Iranian regime will remain in place during his second term.

Whoever becomes Iran's new leader, even if they are up to the task and move the country from theocracy to democracy, will be perceived as Trump's puppet in view of his overt desire to choose a leader of his pleasing rather than giving the space necessary for the Iranian people to choose.