A remarkable exchange took place yesterday on GBN, the British news network. Regarding the attempted mass shooting at Temple Israel in Michigan yesterday, Stephen Kent and Angela McCahey went back and forth on whether, essentially, the synagogue was an understandable target:
McCahey: “This was an Israeli temple, it was aligned with Israel.”
Kent: “A Jewish temple. A Jewish synagogue is not an Israeli temple.”
McCahey: “It’s called the ‘real Israel temple.’”
Kent: “They’re Jewish, they’re the people of Israel.”
McCahey repeated herself once more: “So, they’re called the ‘real Israeli temple,’ yes? And they do align with Israel and their beliefs.”
Kent’s heroic attempts to correct McCahey went nowhere, but bless him for trying.
This exchange is important because we tend to take for granted that of course it’s wrong to kill random Jews because of something that happened thousands of miles away. But this is not actually a universally held principle. It seems barbaric, but it’s true: whether or not all Jews anywhere are considered an outpost of the armed forces of the state of Israel is considered a legitimate debate.
Yesterday, as the terrorist’s identity was released, English-language pro-Hamas propaganda sites reported that the man had lost relatives in an Israeli strike in Lebanon. Thus began a reframing of an attempted massacre of young children as some kind of tit-for-tat. The mayor of the terrorist’s town, Dearborn Heights, put out a statement that mentioned this detail right at the top and never mentioned the words “Jews” or “anti-Semitism.” He did, however, mention Ramadan.
This mayor, Mo Baydoun, said he reached out to the town supervisor of the town where the attack took place. Perhaps the town supervisor can pass on his message to the local Jewish community.
To call Baydoun’s statement cynical would be too kind. It is a sign that the anti-Semitic “collective guilt” rule, as applied to Jews, is gaining purchase in American politics. And it is because there are lots of people out there like McCahey, who are simply blundering out of ignorance or naivete into repeating versions of this calumny.
Yet the designation of synagogues as legitimate subjects of grievance is not new. In early December, a mob descended on a synagogue in New York City that was having an event for those considering making aliyah. Mayor Zohran Mamdani infamously responded: “every New Yorker should be free to enter a house of worship without intimidation,” but that “these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.”
There was no promotion of activities in violation of international law, of course. Mamdani didn’t even bother to check. He just fed the mob’s idea that synagogues are fair game in the new global intifada.
The most prominent Islamic pressure group in America is the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In 2021, its San Francisco director, Zahra Billoo, said that “we need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues.” She told the audience to “know your enemies,” which included “the Zionist organizations” and shuls and “polite Zionists.” In response to the ensuing outcry, CAIR said it would “proudly stand by Zahra and all American Muslim leaders who face smears and threats because they dare to express an opinion about Palestinian human rights.” A synagogue in Texas was taken hostage a month later.
Jewish institutions have since October 7 been attacked for being “Zionist institutions.” Campus Hillels, the centers for Jewish life on campus along with Chabad houses, continue to be widely targeted. Chabad too—witness the recent target put on those houses of worship by Tucker Carlson. Kosher restaurants and Jewish-owned cafes are a common target too.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the Michigan attack, the deranged rationalizations for going after synagogues caught on. For example, influencer Wally Rashid posted a picture of Temple Israel staff visiting the Temple Mount, as many Jews do. Responding to that post, University of Utah economics professor Marshall Steinbaum said of Temple Israel: “And don’t forget we taxpayers are paying for their security.”
So the synagogues of Jews who visit Israel are fair game for attack? Or is Steinbaum just upset that American Jews will be protected from terrorist attacks?
The fact that the concept of Jewish collective guilt is getting a hearing in America is a pretty clear indication of the direction of anti-Semitic discourse. And it’s why Jews must increasingly fortify their houses of prayer.
