Macklemore performing on stage at Rock In Rio Lisbon, in Lisbon, Portugal, on June 22, 2024. Photo: Nuno Cruz via Reuters Connect

A major Jewish organization in Germany and the country’s commissioner for the fight against antisemitism have warned Jews against attending a large German music festival in July because the headliner is Grammy-winning American rapper Macklemore, who has a history of making antisemitic and anti-Israel comments.

Macklemore, whose real name is Benjamin Hammond Haggerty, is scheduled to perform as the main act at the Deichbrand Festival in Cuxhaven that will run from July 17-20. Approximately 60,000 people are reportedly expected to attend the festival this summer.

In his lyrics and comments on and off stage, the Seattle-based “Thrift Shop” rapper has promoted antisemitic stereotypes; repeatedly accused Israel of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes; and compared the struggles that Palestinians have in the West Bank to the horrors Jews experienced in the Holocaust.

The “Can’t Hold Us” singer made numerous anti-Israel claims in his songs last year titled “F—ked Up,” “Hind’s Hall,” and “Hind’s Hall 2,” and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “colonizer.”

The Central Council of Jews in Germany said on Tuesday that Macklemore’s invitation to perform at the music festival sends a “sobering signal” that antisemitism is welcome “on the big stage.”

“The fact that Macklemore spreads antisemitic propaganda and trivializes the Holocaust in his lyrics and videos seems to be of little interest,” the Jewish organization added. A spokesperson for the Central Council of Jews in Germany further told German media that following Macklemore’s invitation to perform at the music event, “the Deichbrand Festival is therefore no longer a safe place for Jews.”

Felix Klein, the federal government’s commissioner for Jewish life in Germany and the fight against antisemitism, also condemned Macklemore’s scheduled performance at the music festival. Klein told the German news outlet RND that Macklemore promotes “very real hatred against Jews” and should not be offered a stage in Germany to perform on.

The Deichbrand Festival responded to backlash about Macklemore’s upcoming performance. “We do not tolerate discrimination in any form, including antisemitism, racism, sexism, queer and transphobia, ableism or aggressive behavior,” said a spokesperson for the festival’s organizers.

In his pro-Palestinian song “Hind’s Hall,” Macklemore applauded protests at American colleges and universities that criticize Israel’s military actions during the Israel-Hamas war. In the same song, he accused the Jewish state of occupation and suggested that the deadly Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, were an act of “resistance.” The track’s title refers to the Columbia University building Hamilton Hall, which anti-Israel student protesters broke into and occupied and renamed “Hind’s Hall” in honor of Hind Rajab — a child killed in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war.

In “Hind’s Hall 2,” Macklemore featured performers who sang “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a slogan that is widely interpreted as a call for the destruction of Israel, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and for it to be replaced with “Palestine.”

Macklemore has also supported efforts to fund the controversial United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which has faced widely corroborated allegations that several of its employees are active Hamas members and participated in the terrorist group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel. All proceeds from “Hind’s Hall” went to UNRWA and the rapper participated in a pro-Palestinian concert in his hometown of Seattle in September 2024 in which proceeds were given to various groups, including UNRWA.

The post Jews Urged Not to Attend German Music Festival Headlined by Anti-Israel Rapper Macklemore first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright speaks to the media, outside of the West Wing of the White House, in Washington, DC, US, March 19, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kent Nishimura

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Friday that the United States could stop Iran’s oil exports as part of President Donald Trump’s plan to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program.

The January return to the White House of Trump, who in his first term withdrew the US from a 2015 nuclear accord with Tehran and clamped down on its oil exports, has again brought a tougher approach to the Middle Eastern power over its nuclear work.

Wright, speaking to Reuters on a visit to Abu Dhabi, said he thought the Gulf allies of the United States were extremely concerned about a nuclear-powered Iran and shared the US resolve that this is an outcome that is in no one’s best interest.

Iranian oil exports recovered under Joe Biden, who became president after Trump’s first term, and so far in 2025 have yet to show a decline, according to industry data. China, which opposes unilateral sanctions, buys the bulk of Iran’s shipments.

“That’s actually very doable. President Trump actually did it in the first term,” Wright said when asked how the United States can enforce its maximum pressure policy on Tehran. “We can follow the ships leaving Iran. We know where they go. We can stop Iran’s export of oil.”

Asked if the US would directly stop Iranian ships at sea, he said, “I’m not going to talk about the specific methodology of how that’s going to happen. But can we turn the screws on Iran? 100 percent.”

Iran said on Friday that it was giving high-level nuclear talks with the United States on Saturday “a genuine chance” after Trump threatened bombing if discussions failed.

Asked if military action against Iran would lead to regime change, he said he would not talk specifics but “everything is on the table.”

“In the short run, because of the strength of American energy production and our relations with our allies, we‘re going to tighten the sanctions and tighten the ability for Iran to export oil. You start economic, you start with negotiations, we hope that’s enough. But the end of the day is, no nuclear armed Iran.”

OIL PRICES

Wright also predicted that there would be a positive outlook for oil demand and supply in the next few years under Trump’s policies, and the concern of markets about economic growth will be proven wrong.

Comfortable oil price levels are “not meaningfully different from where we are today,” he said.

“But of course industry’s got to be profitable to drive growth. And I think that’s going to come from a combination of structural impediments that are removed by the Trump administration and innovation by the industry.”

There was “no direct coordination” between the US and the OPEC+ producer group about its decision to boost supply “but we have very close relationships with our key allies” in the Gulf, Wright said, adding he believed they share the Trump administration’s view that “the world needs more energy.”

Trump, days after taking office, publicly called on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its de facto leader Saudi Arabia to reduce oil prices. OPEC and allies including Russia comprise the wider OPEC+ group. Its supply boost deepened an oil price plunge triggered by Trump’s sweeping tariffs announcement last week.

Wright will fly to Saudi Arabia for his next stop of a Middle East tour that is his first trip abroad in his role, followed by a visit to Qatar.

China will likely have slower oil demand growth over the next few years, he said when asked about the impact of Trump’s tariff policies, but said demand growth would come from places like South Asia and Latin America.

The post US Energy Secretary Says Washington Can Stop Iran’s Oil Exports first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The New York Times coverage of the US-Iran nuclear talks seems written from Iran’s perspective.

One Times article reports that the talks “come at a perilous moment, as Iran has lost the air defenses around its key nuclear sites because of precise Israeli strikes last October. And Iran can no longer rely on its proxy forces in the Middle East — Hamas, Hezbollah and the now-ousted Assad government in Syria — to threaten Israel with retaliation.”

For Israel and America, it’s a less perilous moment, as we no longer have to worry about our planes getting shot down by Iranian air defenses. “Perilous” seems to be from the point of view of the Iranian terror-sponsoring regime. For America and Iran, it’s a hopeful moment, as we may finally eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat or, even better yet, the terror-sponsoring and oppressive Iranian regime.

The same Times article, by David Sanger and Farnaz Fassihi, reports,  “Many Iranians have begun to talk openly about the need for the country to build a weapon since it has proved fairly defenseless in a series of missile exchanges with Israel last year.”

That spins the Iranian nuclear weapon as a matter of Iranian defense, when in fact the Iranians have been pursuing it for decades as part of their goal of wiping Israel off the map. Even the Times article concedes as much later on, reporting that “Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been operating for decades and is spread around the country, much of it deep underground.”

The same Times article goes on to contend, “If Mr. Trump does not achieve full dismantlement, he will be forced to confront questions about whether he got anything more than the Obama administration got a decade ago. Mr. Trump dismissed that accord as a ‘disaster’ and an embarrassment, noting it would lift all restrictions on Iran’s nuclear production by 2030. Now his challenge, experts say, will be accomplishing more than Mr. Obama did.”

Who are these unnamed “experts”? Even if Trump simply walks away from the negotiating table without giving Iran the sanctions relief that Obama and Biden did, relief that that allowed funds and weapons to flow to Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, he’ll accomplish more than Obama did. The Obama deal provided a $700 billion subsidy to the terror-sponsoring nation that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, in exchange for unverifiable short-term promises of a pause in work on nuclear weapons, so “accomplishing more than Mr. Obama did” is a low bar. The Times “experts” apparently don’t include any with that opinion, or, if they do, the Times doesn’t share that view with readers.

In another article, the Times portrays it as a “concession” that Iran is merely willing to talk to America.

Iran has been ardently pursuing negotiations with the US for 30 years, since the Clinton administration, because those negotiations have the potential to pay off in sanctions relief of the sort granted by President Obama’s nuclear deal, which enriched the Iranian regime so that it was able to fund more Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.

The Times reports in another piece previewing the negotiations, also by Farnaz Fassihi: “On Saturday, Iran and the United States will hold the first round of talks in Oman. If this progresses to face-to-face meetings, it would be a sign of a major concession by Iran, which has insisted it does not want to meet Americans directly.” That’s ridiculous. Merely negotiating isn’t a “major concession”—if anything, it’s a concession by America, which might reasonably take the position that Iran must shutter its nuclear weapons and missiles programs, release political prisoners, and cease its backing of terrorist organizations before earning a meeting with the US For Iran, a “major concession” would be verifiably abandoning the nuclear and missiles programs or ending its hostility toward Israel and America. Simply having a meeting is not a “major concession.” That’s Iranian spin, which the New York Times is passing along unlabeled to readers.

The New York Times has a long and not credible history of cheerleading for Iran nuclear deals with the US. Back in 2022, it relentlessly, breathlessly hyped a deal:

March 8, 2022: “Iran Nuclear Deal Nears Completion…”

January 31, 2022: “US and Allies Close to Reviving Nuclear Deal With Iran….”

January 12, 2022: “…the US and Iran Inch Closer to a Nuclear Pact”

Yet that deal never happened, and the Times never really adequately explained to readers why it so misled them about the likelihood of it.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.

The post New York Times Takes Iran’s Side in US-Iran Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.