Reactions to the Shooting at the Capital Jewish Museum
Washington Watch
June 2nd, 2025
Dr. James J. Zogby ©
President
Arab American Institute
The murders of two young Israeli Embassy staff members, Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, shook Washington and provoked conflicting reactions. What follows are some observations on the murders and the disturbing way they were viewed and used by pro-Israel organizations and a few pro-Palestinian advocates.
Let me clear from the outset that I believe what Elias Rodriguez did was terrorism, plain and simple. And, regardless of stated intent, the murders were antisemitic. They were certainly neither heroic, revolutionary, nor an act of justice.
The classic definition of terrorism is the use of violence or intimidation to create fear in order to accomplish a political objective. There can be no argument about this as Rodriguez acknowledges that this was his goal. There should also be no doubt that the act was antisemitic. He went to a Jewish event and randomly shot and killed two people, not knowing who they were or what they did. All he knew was that it was an event at the Capital Jewish Museum and that his victims would most likely be Jews. And, as he made clear in his “manifesto,” he thought that while peaceful protests hadn’t stopped the mass murders in Gaza, maybe the shock created by his act held the possibility of hastening political change.
The murders have generated commentary in articles and on social media. A few outlier pro-Palestinian voices have dangerously argued that the murders were a justified response to the massive loss of life and destruction of properties resulting from Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. They say that defenders of Israel can be held responsible for the crimes committed by that state. The other side, which has included many of the major institutional voices in the pro-Israel community, has used the murders to dangerously demonize the entire pro-Palestine movement, arguing that their anti-Israel rhetoric has fostered antisemitism creating the environment that led Rodriguez to commit his crime.
Though coming at the murders from radically different perspectives, both views engage in perilous reductionism.
Israel’s policies are indeed grotesque and have horrified a generation of young people who for 19 months have been witnessing this genocide play out in real time. While Israel’s supporters denounce the growing anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian activism on campuses as if it grew out of thin air, they are loathe to give any credence to the reality that Israel’s actions are the root cause of growing anti-Israel sentiment. With the tide of public opinion turning against Israel, pro-Israel organizations have worked hard to stifle anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian manifestations. They have used their influence with the White House, university administrators, and allies in Congress to expand the definition of antisemitism to include criticisms of Israel, using this to silence protesters through intimidation, punishment, and force, when possible. The reality is that there is a power imbalance in this debate over Gaza. Israel’s backers have the wind in their sails. They have most elected officials and many university administrators with them. The pro-Palestinian activists do not. They can be arrested, suspended from school, silenced or cancelled, and have their diplomas withdrawn.
By ignoring the legitimate outrage that spawned the protests against Israel’s war on Palestinians, and by accusing the protesters of fostering the environment that led to the DC killings, pro-Israel advocates cruelly ignore Palestinian humanity and deny the legitimate feelings of solidarity the protestors have for Palestinian suffering. Similarly, those who, in the name of defending Palestinian humanity, strike out against any and all Jewish Americans who identify with the State of Israel, denouncing them as enablers of genocide, are also guilty of crude reductionism. In this context, the use of harsh rhetoric, threatening actions, or name-calling may provide some a momentary sense of empowerment, but in the end it is counterproductive and doesn’t advance the cause as much as it fosters deeper hostility and polarization. What those who use such tactics ignore is that just as the trauma of the Nakba has shaped the Palestinian identity, so too the trauma of the Holocaust, the pogroms, and the reality of antisemitism have taken a toll on the psyche of many American Jews. And so, striking out against supporters of Israel only serves to stoke those fears and given the imbalance of power, they ultimately increase the likelihood of increased intimidation and repression of pro-Palestinian voices.
Given this, the crime committed by Elias Rodriguez must be seen for what it was—an act of murder that took the lives of two young people who, regardless of where they worked or what they believed, were shot to death because they were at an event at Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum. His chant “Free, Free Palestine” is especially infuriating because he abuses this noble cause with an act of deplorable violence in order to serve the narcissistic fantasy that he was advancing the cause of Palestinian freedom and opening the way to a change in policy. In the end, he did neither. His crime took the lives of two young people, damaged the cause he claimed to support, and will be used to provide justification for more repression.
