On March 12 a truck loaded with explosives (fireworks) was driven into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, a suburb of Detroit, Michigan, in the Untied States. After demolishing part of the building, the driver began shooting. The Temple Israel site that was targeted includes a synagogue, a Jewish nursery school, and a Jewish school catering to children from pre-kindergarten through to year 12.

As a headline in the New York Times put it, there was, “A Crash, Gunfire and Then a Race to Save a Synagogue Full of Children“. The article describes what happened:

“A truck had rammed through the building doors and down a corridor, past the nursery where infants slept, veering toward the gym where children played. Debris was falling from the ceiling and crumpled walls. Rabbi Arianna Gordon saw an overturned stroller surrounded by broken glass and a security guard rushing by with his weapon drawn.

Then the sound of gunfire ricocheted through the building, reaching the administrative offices and classrooms, and the ears of dozens of children enrolled in the preschool. The truck became engulfed in flames, filling the halls and offices with smoke.”

Children were evacuated as the attacked engaged in a shootout with security, before killing himself with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

It has since emerged that the attacker, Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, was a 41-year-old man born in Lebanon and who has moved to the US and become a US citizen. He lived 20 minutes away in Dearborn Heights, another suburb of Detroit, and one with a large Muslim community. Mayor Mo Baydoun of Dearborn Heights said that earlier this month Ghazali lost a number of family members, including a niece and nephew, to an Israeli strike in Lebanon. Ghazali attack on the synagogue was deliberate, he sat in his car outside the synagogue for 2 hours before driving into it.

The anti-Zionist Video

The Instagram account “davidsaysstuff” was created in May 2025 by David Spevak. At the time of writing it has 138k followers and has made 250 posts. The full name of the account is “david spevak – jewish palestine israel anti-zionist” and its about details start with “Media inquiries:” and his email address. It is clear an anti-Zionist account looking for attention.

A quick search found a Facebook post promoted by a Palestinian advocacy group sharing a video of David in which he seems to make out that Zionist Youth Movements are the same as Hitler Youth. This is not only a demonization of Zionism, but an example of Holocaust distortion. Of course he does this while speaking “as a Jew”, with a giant label to make this clear, and he goes on to say he is a grand child of Holocaust survivors. He comparison is sloppy, has inaccuracies about both Zionist Youth Movements and the Hitler Youth, and would in fact work better if he was speaking about a group like the Scouts. The point is not to provide a full analysis of this video, but to give some background.

The video (you can watching and if you like report it here) that we are looking at on the Temple Israel attack again starts with the “I’m Jewish” imagery, as he speaks “as a Jew”. It also boldly states “Ramming a Synagogue isn’t antisemitism. It’s revenge.” Then is includes a picture of two children, we must assume Ghazali’s niece and nephew, with a label “Murdered by Israel”. Before even looking at the video, let’s unpack this imagery.

• Antisemitism: An attack on a place of worship, chosen as a target because it is a place of worship of a particular religious community, is a hate crime. When the target is a synagogue, it is an antisemitic hate crime.
• Revenge: The idea that being motivated by revenge makes it not antisemitic is deeply flawed. By that logic, if Israel was deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians, it would ok if it was in “revenge” for October 7. And the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7 that clearly did target civilians would be justifiable as “revenge” for past Israeli actions. And those actions would be justifiable because of… this logic doesn’t stop hate and violence, it feeds it.

David’s account description says he is about “breaking bias & fear” and “break the cycle”, clearly he isn’t. These are just words to make him look less extreme and more reasonable to those media people he wants to contact him.

On to the video…

He starts by building an emotional connection to the attacker. “I’m so angry and so frustrated, this man lost his entire family. They were killed by an Israeli air-strike in Lebanon.” He uses this to provide a justification for the attack, saying, “So what he did, crashing into a synagogue, yes it was horrific, but it was not an act of antisemitism. It was an act of revenge.”

In Australia we have seen similar arguments justifying, sometimes even glorifying, the attack on a Jewish celebration at Bondi Beach that left 15 innocent people dead in December 2025. We discussed this is detail in our recent report into the attack.

Let’s be a clear. When Jews are targeted, because they are Jews, that is antisemitism. It absolutely does not matter why the attacker thinks Jews should be targeted. What matters is that they have decided to target a group of people chosen because of their identity, not because of anything those specific individuals have done.

The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism gives as one of its examples of antisemitism, “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” That’s exactly what this attack was. Ghazali was, quite reasonably, distraught at the loss of his niece and nephew and he blames Israel. He has a right to his distress and his anger – even if Israel’s attack was entirely lawful, even then he has a right to that. That does not make it ok to target Jews. The logic that, “the attack was carried out by a state with a Jewish majority, and a Jewish culture, so I’m going to go find some Jews to kill” is both racist and an example of violent extremism (i.e. terrorism). Imagine if someone upset with any of the 57 countries that have a Muslim majority and a Muslim culture decided that because of what that country was doing, they were going to go and attack mosques and Islamic schools. This example in the IHRA definition not only makes sense, but calls out antisemitism example like we have just seen in Michigan, and last December in Sydney.

David continues in the video saying, “And pretending that this violence came out of nowhere is a lie”. There is absolutely no requirement that antisemitic violence be “irrational”, nor that it “came out of nowhere”. The same is true of violence against any other group. Violence that targets a group based on its identity always has a reason. It may be a poor reason, it may be based on disinformation, indoctrination, and radicalising content, but an antisemitic attack or other hate crime won’t ever have come from nowhere. Anyone who said the attack came out of nowhere would have meant the local community had no reason to expect that they specifically would be targeted. The choice of target after all had nothing to do with this place of worship, anyone who prays there, or any of the children who attend school there. It was simply the closest large Jewish target to the attacker found once they decided they wanted to engage in an antisemitic attack and try to kill Jews.

David continues, “And now, of course, the immediate response, a woman crying on the news that we need more security at synagogues?” He said this as if it is totally unreasonable. He said it as if a community that has just been attacked and witnessed a shootout between the attacker and its security guards, and which might have seen many people, particularly young children, killed if it weren’t for those security guards, is behaving unreasonably by calling for better security. Places of worship, kindergartens, and schools, should all be safe. If they are being target with violence they have every right to call on the state provide greater protection. Keeping people safe is the first job of any government.

David disagreed. He continues with an emphatic “No” saying “What we need is for Israel to stop murdering people”. He uses this to justify the attack saying “Stop acting like you don’t know where this man’s rage has come from.” Then comes the outright lie as David continues, “He doesn’t care that you are Jewish.” If that was the case, he would not have targeted a Jewish place of worship. He clearly did. That is what makes it antisemitic. It really is that simple.

David continues, “He’s mad that his entire family was murdered by an Israeli bomb. So hello! People don’t just randomly hate Jews. So stop gaslighting us, as to think that we have no clue how all of this could have happened. This man was pushed to the edge because of Israel’s complete disregard for human life.” What he has done here is:

1. Imply hating Jews is an acceptable response to Israeli actions – it’s not.
2. Falsely claiming those saying it is an antisemitic attack are gaslighting the public by ignoring the “justification” he provides for the attack (he is effectively demanding that Jewish communities open themselves up to attack as “they deserve it because of Israel” – exactly what IHRA explains is antisemitic, and it is an argument that is clearly insane if made about any other community, whether ethnic, religion, or national)
3. Excuse the attacker targeting a Jewish place of worship
4. Claim Israel is killing people out of a complete disregard for human life, gratuitously if you will, rather than as part of a war in which it has legitimate military targets. It ignores the attacks on Israel from Lebanon.

He goes on to attack the idea of improving security saying, “So bringing more security, how about we arm Rabbis. None of that addresses the real problem.” For a community living in fear of another attack, it very much does address the problem. It improves safety and can save lives. Regardless of anything else, rejecting better security is a callous move.

He ends by saying, “The real problem is Israel need to stop murdering people”. This completely ignores the issue of antisemitism, of Jews around the world being targeted by those who oppose Israel’s military actions, or indeed its existence. A response to at attack on a synagogue is entirely about that. He has sought to reframe and blame Israel, encourage a commendation of Israel, and a justification that urges understanding be shown to those who attack Jewish communities.

In final comment he said, “And to the Zionists who are coming for me, speaking out is how we save Jewish lives.” During the Holocaust there were prominent Jews who joined the Jewish Councils set up by the Nazis. They argued they were saving Jewish lives by doing with the Nazis wanted. If they fill the quotas, selecting who will be taken, perhaps that is better than refusing and having the whole ghetto liquidated at once. This sounds similar. Today, most Jews believe it is better to have a Jewish state, with the military might to defend itself, and that will act to protect Jews or provide a safe place should it look like another Holocaust is about to unfold. Israel has acted, absorbing Jews who were persecuted an expelled from Arab countries. Air lifting 49,000 Yemenite Jews to Israel and safety in 1949-1950. Absorbing Russian Jews fleeing the persecution of soviet Jewry. There are many other examples.

He continues, “We must speak out against what Israel is doing”, adding in a mocking tone, “Not by crying about extra security”, and continues emphatically, “but by speaking our against Zionism. Because that’s the biggest threat to the Jewish people.” In this he is not just demanding an end to the war, or objecting to Israel’s policies, he is demanding its dismantlement and arguing it is Israel’s existence, and its effects to provide a space place for Jews, and a country with a Jewish culture, just like the 47 countries with a Muslim culture, that is the problem.

So to recap, the video shows:

• An attempt to redefine antisemitism so it only counts if the attacker has no coherent rationalisation for attacking Jews (a false definition that eliminates all antisemitism)
• An attempt to justify the attack on a Jewish place of worship and a Jewish school and kindergarden
• An attempt to argue that holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel is ok, rather than antisemitic
• A rejection of calls for enhanced security after the attack, seeking to keep Jewish spaces as easier targets for violence
• A suggestion attacking a Jewish target in outrage at Israel is legitimate, and the Jews should just take it
• An instance that if only Israel would roll over and die, then Jews would be safer
• A demand that Jews join him in calling for Israel’s destruction in order to be safe

All this is done “AAJ” or “As a Jew”.