As the attacker steers his truck toward the synagogue of West Bloomfield, more than 100 children and about 50 adults are on the premises of the largest Reform congregation in the United States. The truck, as later emerges, is loaded with a large quantity of fireworks, along with canisters containing an explosive liquid. This deadly cargo the driver rams through the entrance doors and drives through the foyer before he is stopped by armed security personnel, likely also blocked by another vehicle. In the exchange of fire that follows, the attacker is killed.
The children are hurriedly evacuated and remain unharmed. How great the danger nevertheless was is shown by one detail: due to the fire ignited in the truck, 63 police officers and firefighters who rushed to the scene suffer such severe smoke inhalation that they must be hospitalized.
Shortly after the attack in the U.S. state of Michigan, which took place last Thursday, the name of the attacker becomes known: Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, 41, immigrated from Lebanon, an American citizen for ten years. The mayor of Dearborn, where the previously unremarkable man lived, announces: several relatives of Ghazali had recently been killed by Israeli attacks in Lebanon—two brothers, a nephew, and a niece. Was Michigan therefore the act of revenge of a desperate bereaved man? The Israeli army reported on Sunday that it had specifically killed the attacker’s brother, Ibrahim Mohamad Ghazali, identified as a Hezbollah commander responsible for rocket attacks on Israel. Hezbollah had already praised two of the attacker’s brothers, Ibrahim and Kassim Ghazali, as martyrs.
Maram Stern 70, is the son of two Auschwitz survivors. The holder of a doctorate in medicine has been responsible for foreign policy at the World Jewish Congress for forty years. Today he is its Executive Vice President.
We still do not know the truth about the attacker from Michigan, his motives. At the World Jewish Congress (WJC), the largest Jewish umbrella organization worldwide, where in emergencies information from the communities converges, we are also still waiting for the findings of the investigators. But one thing we can say with certainty: for more than two years, the war in the Middle East has been used to justify violence against Jews and Jewish institutions in the West, even though they have nothing to do with this war—indeed often oppose it.
Especially in liberal congregations like “Temple Israel,” whose biblical name does not refer to the state of Israel, Israel’s conduct of the war is sharply criticized. The entire Jewish community argues about the purpose and meaning of the current war, about the choice of means, about Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon. Even those who consider the attack by Israel and the United States on Iran to be justified must never forget or downplay the suffering of the civilian population.
But does that justify indiscriminately attacking Jews? No. Unfortunately, I am no longer sure whether this is the majority view in the West. The recent series of antisemitic attacks has, in any case, triggered alarmingly little attention. Did you know that in the Norwegian city of Trondheim, on the very same day that “Temple Israel” in Michigan was attacked—on March 12—two young men planned a terrorist act against a synagogue but were stopped? Did you know that just three days earlier, on March 9, in the Belgian city of Liège, an incendiary device blew open the door of a synagogue? Claim videos appeared on a Telegram channel, along with the announcement of another attack in Greece—where on March 11 an apartment was attacked. On Telegram came the threat that the next target would be the Netherlands, and indeed on March 13 there was an arson attack on a synagogue in Rotterdam. Shortly afterward, four teenagers were arrested who were on their way to another synagogue. Then on March 14 an explosive device detonated in front of a Jewish elementary school in Amsterdam.
What comes next? As Vice President of the World Jewish Congress, I am not easily shaken. Most of my life I have been a diplomat and have worked for understanding, especially with the Arab-Muslim world. I do not believe in military solutions for the Middle East. After October 7, I spent two years fighting for the release of the Israeli hostages, ultimately for peace with the Palestinians. Again and again I traveled to the Gulf states. But I had to observe with shock that my partners stonewalled. And with horror I saw how, in the West, the view took hold that Israel is to blame for everything. By now it seems legitimate not only to hate the Jewish state but also to attack Jews outside Israel indiscriminately.
Many now believe this is a logical consequence of the war against Iran. I believe it is antisemitic. Only a few days before the new series of attacks, I was in Sydney. There we commemorated the victims of the Bondi Beach massacre. It already lies three months back, has disappeared into the thicket of other disaster reports. That is understandable, but not the perspective we Jews have on the catastrophe. For us, Bondi Beach is not simply the act of two radical lone perpetrators, but a link in a chain of anti-Jewish violence, from Pittsburgh 2018 to Halle 2019, Sydney 2025, and now Michigan.
Why Sydney of all places? In Australia we had always felt safe. Certainly, antisemitism also has a long history here, but never before had there been a deadly attack. The roughly one thousand Jews who wanted to celebrate Hanukkah on the beach were unaware of any danger. In Germany we would never have dared to hold such a celebration without police protection. In Australia it seemed harmless. It was the same misconception I often encountered in the United States—that antisemitism is a problem in Europe, but not here. Since Pittsburgh, we know better. There are no safe places; it can happen anywhere.
But we should not dramatize. Most people are not antisemites, but share our shock and our grief. After Sydney, more than 50,000 people voluntarily donated blood. Many countries and also the EU today have commissioners for combating antisemitism. Unlike for centuries, the police do not stand aside when Jew-haters commit violence. And certainly the German state does not pursue antisemitic policies as during the “Third Reich.” But unfortunately, all this is not enough.
In Sydney, the police were on the scene just a few minutes after the first shots, shortly afterward both perpetrators were dead. Nevertheless, by that time 14 people already lay dead on the ground, and 40 were partly seriously injured. Two fanatics and six minutes were enough to cause a bloodbath.
Halle, Pittsburgh, and Sydney may have been isolated cases. But Michigan only turned out lightly because the congregation had armed security personnel. In Europe, this is often not the case. Chance may decide the outcome of attacks; their target is not random: it hits Jews because they are Jews.
Those responsible for the attacks in Liège, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam were apparently the group Aschab al-Jamin, which organizes itself on Telegram; its logo is modeled on that of Hezbollah. After the attack in Liège, the group posted: “Oh mujahideen of Islam, defend your religion. Rise for jihad. Let the light of truth shine through your strength, spread justice and light in every corner of the world.”
The far-right perpetrator of Halle saw all Jews as part of a world conspiracy; his kindred spirit, the far-right perpetrator of Pittsburgh, blamed us for Muslim immigration. The two mass murderers of Sydney, in turn, acted in the name of the Islamic State. The attackers in Liège praised the terror of Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards. To the first attacker, we Jews were too powerful; to the second, too friendly to Muslims; to the third and fourth, too hostile to Muslims. The antisemite sees us as it suits him. Now the tottering mullah regime has declared European Jews a target, and we know that Iranian agents are inciting young people in particular. Once again, the know-it-alls are on the scene who offer simple answers: the problem has been imported through immigration from the Middle East, as if there were no right-wing antisemitism. Antisemitism unfortunately exists in all parts of the world and in many different forms. It exists where many Jews live just as where we are few. Even without Jews there are antisemites. Antisemitism has existed for millennia; it has survived even Auschwitz.
The hope that it might disappear is unrealistic. There are foolish antisemites and highly educated ones. That is why the reflexive call for more education is only an expression of helplessness. I am not against education. But first we need protection: Jewish institutions must be guarded even better. The sight of police in front of synagogues may be frustrating, but it is better than the sight of Jewish corpses upon the arrival of the police—as in Sydney.
Even for me, who has devoted 40 years of my life to the fight against antisemitism, this is a sobering realization. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. I was born in 1955 in Berlin as the son of Holocaust survivors. During my student years, I realized that hatred of Jews in Germany had not died with Hitler. Unpleasant incidents at the university forced me to engage more deeply with my Jewish identity than I, who considered myself a secular German, had thought possible. Today I believe: if Jewish life is only possible under police protection, that is terrible, but still better than no Jewish life.
I have given up hope for normality; I want maximum security. Only then come education, awareness, remembrance. Attacks like those in Sydney and Michigan show that we are not safe. After the attack in Halle, the then new President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, responded with strong words: “Antisemitism is poison for our community. It is the task of all of us to fight it, prevent it, and eradicate it.” She coupled this with a comprehensive action plan. The office of the antisemitism commissioner was strengthened, and in 2021 the Commission presented a strategy to protect Jewish life. This innovation led to many improvements. Von der Leyen acted not only out of human conviction, but also out of historical obligation. Before the Holocaust, Europe was home to nearly two-thirds of all Jews worldwide. Combating antisemitism is therefore a European matter. Von der Leyen was aware of this. And she also knew that this obligation relates to Israel, the only Jewish state in the world, our refuge in case of emergency. Thus, after October 7, she had the Commission building illuminated in the colors of the Israeli flag. Only a week later, she traveled to Israel.
In terse words, warnings were issued that the Middle East conflict could make Europe’s Jews a target. Yet no one condemned the arbitrary scapegoating of all Jews for Israel’s policies. Not a word about the fact that Jew-hatred had reached unprecedented levels since October 7th. There was no commitment to combating all antisemitism, including that related to Israel. One can debate Israel, but the EU must guarantee the safety of all its citizens, including ours. Why is it tolerated that we are threatened in a way not seen since the Holocaust? After the recent attacks, Europe’s Jews are hoping for a sign from the President. I am certain that von der Leyen has not changed her original position. Will she break her silence? We Jews need allies now more than ever.
The World Jewish Congress also has an antisemitism commissioner. Ernest Herzog aptly summarizes our security situation: « Antisemitism in Europe never disappeared. What is intensifying now is violence, humiliation, normalization, and the political justification of hostility toward Jews. Extremist movements use antisemitism to divide societies and weaken democracies. » I agree with Ernest Herzog when he says that history teaches us: « Hatred of Jews is not simply hatred. It is a weapon. »
This editorial was originally published in German by Die Zeit.
La source de cet article se trouve sur ce site
