The Washington shootings
Their killer shouted "Free Palestine" after gunning a young Jewish couple down. But this wasn't political activism. It was murder, plain and simple.
COMING UP: Join me and
for Hot Takes Happy Hour TODAY at 5:30pm. On the menu: the terror attack in Washington, Trump’s ambush of South Africa’s president and Dany’s raging crush on Tom Cruise that inspired her cocktail below. LINK TO LIVE HERE
The murder of two young Israeli embassy staffers outside Washington's Capital Jewish Museum forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: we are witnessing the deadly consequences of what happens when legitimate political discourse becomes poisoned by hatred, and when the lines between criticism of Israeli policy and outright antisemitism become deliberately blurred.
The painful irony cuts deep. Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim had just left an event dedicated to bridge-building between war-torn and politically divided regions when they were gunned down. According to organizer JoJo Drake Kalin, the American Jewish Committee's Young Diplomats reception, had brought together Jewish and non-Jewish leaders from 30 embassies to “turn pain into purpose” and counter the "us vs. them" narrative. Instead of finding shared humanity, they encountered its violent opposite – a man with a gun who saw only enemies to be eliminated.
Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim weren't politicians or military officials. They were young people working at an embassy, planning a future together – Lischinsky had just bought an engagement ring. Their killer shouted "Free Palestine" after gunning them down, but this wasn't political activism. It was murder, plain and simple.
As a journalist who has covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades, I've always maintained that criticism of Israeli government policies is not inherently antisemitic. I still believe that. But what we're witnessing now is something far more sinister: the weaponization of legitimate grievances to justify violence against Jews, wherever they may be.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing growing global opposition to Israeli military campaigns as civilian casualties mount. It's the natural trajectory of every conflict. The war in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and created a humanitarian catastrophe. These are facts that demand acknowledgment and response. The international community's growing condemnation, including threats of "concrete action" from Britain, France, and Canada, reflects genuine horror at the human cost.
But here's where the narrative becomes twisted and dangerous. In the current global environment, we're seeing two extremes that feed off each other in toxic ways. On one side, there are those for whom Israel can never do right – where every action is viewed through the lens of antisemitism rather than legitimate policy critique. On the other, there are Israel's defenders who insist the country can do no wrong, labeling any criticism as hatred of Jews.
The problem is that between these poles lies a vast gray area where bad actors thrive. When protesters chant "Globalize the Intifada" – a call that explicitly references violent uprisings – they're not engaging in political discourse. They're calling for violence. When criticism of Israel's military actions morphs into holding random Jews responsible for those actions, we've crossed from politics into prejudice.
The suspect in Washington, Elias Rodriguez, posted a manifesto titled "Escalate For Gaza, Bring The War Home." This wasn't about Palestinian rights or humanitarian concerns. It was about bringing violence to American streets, targeting Jews as proxies for a government thousands of miles away. The fact that he chose a Jewish museum – not an Israeli government facility – speaks volumes about the true nature of this hatred.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar's accusation that European leaders bear responsibility for creating a climate of "toxic antisemitic incitement" that lead to the latest shootings is both understandable and problematic. Yes, the rhetoric has intensified. Yes, some criticism has crossed lines. But conflating legitimate diplomatic pressure with incitement to violence is precisely the kind of overreach that makes addressing real antisemitism more difficult.
When Britain's Foreign Secretary calls for an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, that's not antisemitism – it's diplomacy. When France threatens sanctions over civilian casualties, that's not hatred – it's attempting to enforce international law. But when someone takes those political positions and uses them to justify murdering Jews at a museum, that's where legitimate discourse ends and hatred begins.
The distinction matters because both antisemitism and humanitarian catastrophes are real. The accusations of Israel perpetrating famine in Gaza aren't antisemitic conspiracy theories – they're assessments from humanitarian organizations watching an 11-week aid blockade create desperate conditions. Acknowledging this reality while condemning those who would use it to justify violence against Jews shouldn't be controversial, yet here we are.
What's particularly dangerous about this moment is how it mirrors the pattern I wrote about after October 7 – the mainstreaming of antisemitism cloaked in progressive politics. The shooter wasn't a far-right extremist; he was someone who participated in social justice movements and pro-Palestinian activism. His radicalization represents a failure to maintain crucial boundaries between legitimate political activism and violent extremism.
Netanyahu's response, calling this "the terrible cost of the antisemitism and wild incitement against the State of Israel," is both accurate and incomplete. Yes, there is wild incitement. Yes, antisemitism is surging. But using these murders to deflect from legitimate criticism of his government's policies does a disservice to both the victims and the fight against real hatred.
The international community faces a delicate balance. How do we maintain pressure for humanitarian relief and peace while ensuring that pressure doesn't become cover for violence? How do we distinguish between those genuinely concerned with Palestinian suffering and those using that suffering as a pretext for ancient hatreds?
For Jewish communities worldwide, from Paris to London to Washington, the message is chilling: you can be targeted not for anything you've done, but for what a government you may not even support is doing. This collective punishment – holding all Jews responsible for Israeli policy – is textbook antisemitism.
Yet we must resist the urge to silence all criticism in response. When everything becomes antisemitism, nothing is. When legitimate diplomatic pressure is equated with incitement to murder, we lose the ability to identify and combat actual threats.
The path forward requires moral clarity on all sides. Criticism of Israeli policies must be accepted without being labeled antisemitic. But that criticism must never cross into dehumanization or calls for violence. Those who claim to support Palestinian rights have to forcefully reject those who would hijack their cause for hatred. And those who support Israel must acknowledge that defending against antisemitism doesn't mean defending every government action.
The blood on that Washington sidewalk demands more than finger-pointing. It demands that we recognize both the reality of rising antisemitism and the legitimacy of humanitarian concerns, without allowing either to be weaponized against the other. Only then can we hope to break this cycle where political disagreement becomes justification for murder.