Spain’s federation of Jewish communities reports a 14% increase in antisemitism there.

This comes as Jewish leaders have cautioned Madrid that a failure to tone down some of the rhetoric would result in such an increase.

It should be noted that antisemitism in Spain was prevalent long before Israel’s response to the October 7th terrorist attack, which many Jew haters cite as “justification” for their rhetoric and actions. As I’ve proposed before, for many antisemitic people, disagreeing with Israeli policies is just, for them, another opportunity to express their hatred.

For example. A recent reference I made to the upcoming 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks resulted in folks posting comments repeating the debunked blood libel that no Jews were killed in New York City on that fateful day because they’d been “warned” to stay home. To my point. Without one excuse for their vitriol, they’ll find another.

Back, now, to Spain.

I have an orthodox rabbi friend who married a woman from Spain. Long before October 7 and Israel’s response to the Gazan terrorists, he told his wife that when she took the children on their annual trips to Madrid to visit their grandparents, she should make their son take off his yarmulka. The rabbi felt concerns about his son’s safety outweighed his embracement of religious tradition.

Another, unaffiliated, Jewish friend with family in Spain says he too has felt a tension while visiting relatives there.

Identifying Jews for discrimination is not a new phenomenon in Europe. We all know where that led in the past.

That’s reason enough for government officials to listen to, and heed, the pleas of Jewish leaders who simply ask them to be cognizant of the ramifications resulting from the manner in how some of them express themselves.

It’s really not a big ask.

Or is it?

—

The opinions expressed are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

Rogers, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, and El-Sayed, the Democrat, were both invited to a debate at the Fox 2 Detroit studios. The deadline for committing was yesterday.

But yesterday came and went with no response from Rogers. According to the station’s website, “Mike Rogers has not answered FOX 2’s invitation to participate in the U.S. Senate debate.”

This could be the candidate ducking the opportunity. Or maybe an indication that his campaign staff let the invite fall between the cracks. Hard to tell. But it doesn’t help Rogers duck the “Mike Dodger” moniker slapped on him by the Democrats. They argue he has often been MIA on the campaign trail, missing events, such as this one. His campaign counters that’s an unfair characterization because he’s been meeting directly with voters.

In fairness to Rogers, he has agreed to a debate sponsored by Grand Rapids, Michigan TV station WOOD. So it’s not like he’s totally ducking El-Sayed.

You may be wondering why I’m writing about this at all. It’s because I have a particular interest in the schism this race has caused in the Jewish community in Michigan.

Many Jews feel uncomfortable with some of El-Sayed’s public comments and his campaigning with left wing influencer Hasan Piker who has made some pretty ominous proclamations about Jews and Israel.

Many Michigan Jews say they would never cast a vote for El-Sayed. But some, including Jewish Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, have a different viewpoint.

Nessel reportedly told a closed-to-the press gathering of Jewish Democrats in Birmingham, Michigan that they have a "moral imperative to place the needs of the world above even our own self-interest." She reportedly urged those at the gathering to "sacrifice the comfort, safety and security and even the very future of our own people in exchange for the opportunity to save the rest of humanity."

Now that’s a position that I acknowledge I can’t understand.

I’m traveling to Michigan soon and I want to start a dialogue with Jews who are struggling over which candidate they will vote for.

Rogers might help them make up their minds. If he’d only show up for the debate.

—

The opinions expressed are my own and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

Abolhasani is a nail technician who used her smartphone to videotape the burning of a neighborhood grocery store during the January protests in Iran.

That was enough to get the mother of two teenage girls arrested. And sentenced to death. For crimes against God, of all things.

I reported her story. And commented that it is the latest example showing that the Islamic Republic of Iran is evil.

You would think the facts of the atrocity would stand on their own. And that any backlash would be to challenge my conclusions. But that’s not where the pushback went.

I was slammed with “what about Israel” comments.

It didn’t matter that the topic had nothing to do with Israel. If a Jew raises an issue of injustice anywhere, he or she is met with this kind of rhetoric.

These are, obviously, people who obsessed with Israel. But they are also trying to call me out. As if to say, how dare I write or speak about Iran. When, in their opinion, I should be talking exclusively about Israel, echoing their viewpoints, not mine. Because, of course, in their minds, Israel is all that matters.

It’s part of an organized campaign. These are folks who look for excuses to bring Israel into the discussion when it’s not the topic. Just to give them the opportunity to, once again, express their displeasure with the Israeli government.

It’s the same mentality that results in attacks on Jews worldwide. If Jews don’t want to be attacked, then Israel had better change its ways, is the argument.

No matter that Jews in the United States and other countries have nothing to do with Israeli policy.

It’s not that they are hiding this tactic. They are upfront about it. Remember Hasan Piker’s comment:

"If Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone is going to come around and take action, not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews."

This wasn’t a friendly warning to Jews. It was an ominous message.

The first time what about Israel comments were fired my way, I could feel my blood pressure rise. But no longer. I understand the people behind the comments. They are Jew haters. And they will use any excuse to disparage Jews in general and Israel in particular. Even when Judaism and Israel are not the topics.

How might they react when they criticize Israel if they were met by a barrage of comments like, “what about Sudan?” Or, “what about Burma?” Or, “what about the Uyghurs in China?” Or, “what about the Tigrayans in Ethiopia?”

I’m certain that, like my postings about atrocities in Iran, if I write about any of these I will be asked, “what about Israel.”

Maybe they should come up with a new tactic. This one is getting old. And boring.

—

The opinions are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

The findings underscore a persistent failure of the Education Department to address and curb antisemitism in classrooms.

The remaining reported incidents of antisemitic incidents in schools mainly involved circulars containing messages and images of Jewish hatred.

Once again, we see an indication of the city not properly addressing an increasingly concerning problem that puts people in physical danger.

New York is home to the largest Jewish population in the nation. But there is no data on the number of Jewish students enrolled in the public school system.

The report was compiled by United Jewish Teachers. Which is pressuring the school district to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The group is also asking the district to require that all hate graffiti be reported to the NYPD.

And they want these policies in place before school reopens on September 10.

Let’s hope this dangerous trend gets addressed before something really untoward occurs.

—

The opinions are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

That’s how they frame their comments.

They are concerned about the Palestinians.

They are concerned about all minorities.

Both tactics are effective. Tactics that divert attention from the rising incidents of Jew hatred. Tactics that dilute those concerns by talking about the plight of others. They are means of ignoring or discounting the documented increase in both physical and lethal attacks on Jews.

Here are the two main ways it is done. How do I know? I’ve been the target of both.

The first is to talk about Gaza.

The topic is not Israel, of course. The topic raised is antisemitism. The attacks on Jews in the United States and around the world.

Tactic number one is to accuse those who document assaults on Jews of not caring about the treatment of the Palestinians.

I was accused of being a supporter of baby killing in Gaza for reporting on antisemitism.

I have suggested that many of the cases of vandalism and assaults on Jews are motivated by hatred of Israel. Ironically, the accusation, is an acknowledgment of that point.

The other strategy is to make it seem like the person reporting Jewish hatred is myopic and not concerned about attacks on other minorities. My reporting, just yesterday, of an attack at the Central Synagogue in Manhattan is a prime example. It was met with comments about how we should be concerned about all hatred in our society.

It’s interesting. When I write about hatred against other groups, no such suggestion is ever made. I discussed extensively attacks on Asian people during the COVID-19 crisis. When I did, no one suggested that I should have instead been talking about hatred against all minorities, not just Asians.

The use of such tactics is clever, because those who use them can’t be accused of spreading antisemitism. Nope. They can take cover by pointing out that they are just expressing concerns about other minorities.

It’s not a message they send to Palestinians advocating for the rights of Palestinians. It’s not a message they send to Asians standing up for Asians. It’s not a message they send to advocates of any other minority suffering discrimination. It’s a message reserved for the Jews.

Here’s what’s interesting. Traditionally, when other minorities come under attack, Jews rise to their defense. Jewish individuals and organizations have always answered the call. From a heavy participation in the civil rights movement to, more recently, support of immigrant rights.

We don’t use events to “justify” mistreatment of other minorities. And we don’t try to minimize concerns about the pain one minority group feels by saying, “we should focus on all minorities who suffer hate.”

The same consideration should be given to Jews.

—

The opinions expressed are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

Jews who defend Jews are often held in contempt.

I have been writing pretty extensively about Jews under duress in the United States and elsewhere. I have pointed out, accurately, that in many of these cases the perpetrators use Israel’s policies as “justification” for their attacks.

What I have not done is comment on Israel’s policies. That’s not the point of my postings. My intent is to alert the populous of the way Jews are being treated in our society. Believing that good minded people will join in the condemnation.

Most people I know agree what’s happening is horrible. But not all.

Some try to reframe the discussion as that in support of the policies of the state of Israel.

Others frame the comments as anti-Muslim. Where that comes from I have no idea. If one defends Jews, that makes him Islamophobic?

Of course, when one posts on the internet one is subject to missives from folks who bring their own agendas to the party. But this article is really not about me. It’s about how defending Jews against bias is somehow viewed differently by a significant segment of our society than defending other minorities.

No one questions the motives of those who defend blacks, gays, Muslims or any of a number of other minority groups. But a Jewish man, simply pointing out the senselessness of attacks on Jews, is attacked.

Those who do, ought to engage in some self-reflection. And should be ashamed of themselves.

—

The opinions expressed are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

A popular Kosher restaurant was set on fire. So intense was the blaze that it gutted the building. Which then collapsed.

Where is the outrage?

Bibi Netanyahu, in an interview, said he’s going to address global antisemitism. Comparing today’s attacks on Jews around the world to the 1930s.

“Good,” I told a devoutly Christian friend. “It’s time he spoke up about these attacks.”

“Well, you know there are reasons for them,” my friend responded.

“No,” was my reply. “There is never justification for anyone being attacked because of their religion.”

Remember, I was speaking with a very religious church going person. You’d think, then, my words would resonate. After all, what if it were Christians under attack? And by the way, in some areas of the world they are.

“Not everyone likes what Israel is doing,” was the response.

Ah. There we have it. The “justification” surfaces.

"I have nothing to do with the policies of the state of Israel,” I responded. “So why should I be attacked because of my religious beliefs?”

My friend, literally, had no words. Sighing in exasperation and with arms literally thrown in the air, the friend turned and walked away.

Whenever I write on social media about spiraling hate crimes targeting Jewish people, I get comments accusing me of supporting whatever it is they perceive Israel is doing wrong. Interesting, because I’ve not been writing about Israeli policy. I’ve written about the mistreatment of Jews. They are the ones who are conflating the two. Their thought process, and argumentation, is, as Mr. Spock might remind Captain Kirk, “illogical.”

But worse, it signals a growing acceptance of the “justification” for attacks on Jews.

Taking a look at the news photos of what remains of the Montreal kosher restaurant, it would seem that Netanyahu’s comparisons to the 1930s in Europe are not far off the mark.

—

The opinions expressed are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

—

The opinions expressed are mine alone and not those of anyone who employs me.

I’m happy to say that I’ve heard about a fledgling movement on campuses among Catholics to face antisemitism head on.

The group calls itself the Coalition of Catholics Against Antisemitism. A chapter is being formed on one college campus. One that organizers hope will be a blueprint for a nationwide movement.

One of the most important tools they hope to use is discourse. Conversations with fellow Catholics who might harbor misimpressions about Jews.

The Catholic news site, EWTN quotes Colin Reitmeyer, who is president of the group’s Franciscan University chapter as saying, “we seek to befriend them, help them see why their ideology is flawed, and help them better embrace the church’s position on the Jewish people.”

As with discrimination against any minority, it is incumbent upon us all, including those who are not members of that minority group, to work to mitigate the harm spread by the haters. The Coalition of Catholics Against Antisemitism represents an excellent example of this. I wish them well, and I am pleased to report about their initiative.

—

The opinions expressed are mine and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

It got me thinking about how crazy a language English is. For example, if you say, “that’s cool” it’s a good thing. But if you say “that’s cold” it isn’t.

And if something’s hot, it’s either not safe to touch. Or very popular.

I grew up thinking that to drop something was a bad thing. But when in the music or movie industries, if something is “dropped” it means it has been released.

Depending on the context, “bad” can mean something terrible. But it’s often used in slang as “good” or “impressive.”

“Sick” generally means someone is ill. But some people use the word to describe something that’s awesome. “Man that sportscar is sick.”

Does “right” mean a direction or someone is “correct?”

I think confusing non-native speakers even more are the differences between American English and British English. To me, a boot is something you wear. In the UK it’s the trunk of a car.

There are a lot of other examples, of course, but you get the point.

So, when a newcomer is struggling with English, we should consider the hurdles our language presents to them. Because, like Ringo Starr sings, with English, “it don’t come easy.”

—

The opinions expressed are my own and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

Many of the proponents of such killings do so openly but often from the protection of the pulpit in radicalized mosques.

Others protect their identities hiding behind masks. The cowards! If they want to call for the killings of Jews, at least step up and show yourselves to us!

The old buzz words are being tossed around to try to convince the uninitiated listener that they are not engaging in religious hatred when calling for the demise of others. They substitute Zionists for Jews, claiming they are making a distinction. But rest assured, while they want to convince us they are, they certainly are not.

How do I know about all this? They aren’t exactly being secretive about making these calls for killing. They are so emboldened that they record themselves doing so. And then post their sick pronouncements online.

I suppose they’re hoping that by doing so they will recruit likeminded people to their cause. Perhaps they are correct.

But in reviewing these vile videos, there’s a new word that’s been cropping up lately. Increasingly, in addition to calling for the killings of Jews or Zionists, they call for the killings of Christians.

Perhaps one of the reasons this is not widely known is that most of the videos are in Arabic and one must rely on a translation to know what they are advocating. But it’s there. In plain view. For anyone to see. To listen to. To translate.

I’ve heard it suggested that people ought not to be allowed to make such broad suggestions. That they should be stopped. Others who have been following this dangerous trend have wondered aloud why the government isn’t investigating the people making the threats and those mosques that support them.

I ask again, a different question. Why is there no outcry?

Imagine if people were publicly calling for the killings of any other minority. Pick the one of your liking as you visualize this. Would there not, and rightly so, be a groundswell of very vocal criticism?

But when it comes to the calling for the killing of Jews, there seemingly is not.

Perhaps if it becomes widely known that some of these people are also calling for the killing of Christians, this will change.

—

The opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect those of anyone who employs me.

—

The opinions are mine alone and don’t reflect anyone who employs me.

—

The opinions are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

It’s an emotive issue, for sure. And we all know the arguments proffered by those who believe their stays should be extended, perhaps indefinitely, and those who point out that the status is, as its name tells us, temporary.

Both arguments can be made passionately and respectfully. But Kelly really crossed over the line on this one. So much so that others, including Don Lemon, are calling her comments racist.

I had a vibrant discussion with a Republican friend about this very issue. In which he strongly argued in favor of the Supreme Court ruling. Telling me in no uncertain terms that the folks the president is sending back, while probably great people, knew that when they came the status was never designed to be permanent. The order to return, he argues, ought to have been expected. Even if they have engrained themselves into our society.

But he never put the people down. His was an argument of law. Which is exactly how Kelly could have framed it. But, sadly, she did not.

“Go home!” she said. “Get out. We know our country’s better than yours. That’s because we filled it with our work ethic, culture and values. You being here only dilutes it for us, those who built it and lived it. And half of you people, more than half, you won’t assimilate. We don’t want you. We don’t care if you’re offended. Get out. Go home. Go back to fucking Haiti. Sorry.”

Just yesterday I had a long discussion with an astute observer of social media platforms. He argues, if you want to gain followers, you have to be controversial. You have to say things, whether they are accurate or not, that tug at people’s emotions. That get them angry. Riled up.

Kelly certainly understands this. She has, my internet research tells me, some 3.7 million followers on X. And some 2 million on Instagram.

That doesn’t count her SiriusXM satellite radio listenership, which isn’t published.

But at what cost?

Do we really need to demean an entire population to make our points?

I’ve written a lot about such debasing of Jews. But, obviously, others are subject today to such ridicule.

As of this posting, again based on internet research, Kelly has not apologized for her remarks. Just as I pointed out in my previous posting, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani hasn’t apologized for his comments about AIPAC members.

These are people who have great influence. With influence comes responsibility. That responsibility should always outweigh their chasing for online followers. Or votes.

—

The opinions expressed are my own and not those of anyone who employs me.

Lies about the Jewish people, designed to gin up anti-Jewish sentiment, are nothing new. They’ve been in vogue for centuries, although, arguably, they are more dangerous today because of the reach of social media. But sometimes I wonder how these antisemites say what they say with a straight face.

Remember the Messi hat trick in the Argentina World Cup match against Algeria? The Algerian team thought Messi got away with unfair play that never got carded and after the game filed a complaint with FIFA which, of course, is their right.

But here’s where it gets weird. According to the Jerusalem Post, an Algerian sports analyst is suggesting that the perceived bias of the officiating staff is because of .... wait for it ... wait for it ... “the Jewish lobby.”

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

Here’s the exact quote as reported by the Post:

“Messi is protected by the Jewish lobby. This lobby controls the world. They run it however they want as if they were the mafia.”

You might think this just some crazy sports analyst from an African nation who might never be heard from again and who has no influence. But it follows a basic theme we’ve all heard. A theme that deserves being called out whenever it’s articulated.

Among the comments was this:

“If it wasn't for social media the new generation wouldn't be aware that the Jews have been terrorising the Palestinians since 1948 .”

And:

“That sentiment is correct .There is a Jewish lobby . They have huge influence .Stop gaslighting Gary .’’

Notice that my initial posting to which he comments said nothing about Israel. It was pointing out the stupidity of blaming the so-called “Jewish lobby” for what was seen by the Algerians as poor officiating at a soccer match.

And it shows how easily the haters conflate their supposed critique of the policies of the state of Israel to Judaism. As I said in my initial posting, they gin up hatred toward Jews. They use Israel as an excuse.

Of course, for centuries Jews were persecuted, most notably relatively recently during the Holocaust. When there was no modern state of Israel to blame. Further illustrating that so-called opposition to Israel’s policies is just a convenient way to demean Jews.

It used to be these haters would protest that they aren’t opposed to Jews. It’s the Zionists, they would say. Insisting there is a distinction.

But of late, as we see here, they don’t even try selling that lie any longer.

—

The opinions are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.

But lately, my values have been challenged. Ironically, one of my most vocal critics is also a journalist who has been at it almost as long as me. Forty-seven years, in his case.

At any rate, one of the things traditional reporters like me have engrained in our brains is we are supposed to provide the facts as we know them. Not our opinions.

One radio news executive for whom I have great admiration is fond of saying, “nobody cares what you think.” I believe she is correct. But I’ll get back to her guidance in a moment.

After decades of doing this, I think most folks who know my work believe I am as fair as I can be in my reporting.

That’s something more valuable than any award.

But lately. Lately I’ve been criticized. Not for including my opinions. But for withholding them.

Let me be clear. This criticism doesn’t have anything to do with my actual job. It has to do with my social media postings. Which tend, unlike this missive, to be short. A headline, if you will. Alerting folks to something I’ve learned that I feel worth sharing.

As one might imagine, the criticism comes when I post something the president says. Mind you, I don’t endorse nor condemn his pronouncements. I simply share his latest statements with folks. People, I think, are capable of judging his veracity without me telling them what to believe or disbelieve.

And that, my friends, is a trigger for some people, including my journalist friend. You see, they seem to think that by not calling the president a liar and by not parroting their beliefs that he lies all the time, I am his mouthpiece and I am therefore endorsing what he says. They go so far as to say that, although these are social media posts, my failure to comment, negatively, about what he says, shows that I’ve lost it as a journalist.

Interestingly when I post what his opponents say, also without commentary, such criticism is non existent.

Look. I’m not thin skinned about any of this. But I do wonder if it’s an indication that the public’s expectations have shifted.

Perhaps, now, despite what my radio news executive friend says, people do care what I think.

—

The opinions expressed are mine alone and don’t reflect those of anyone who employs me.