Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim Wanted Peace, Not More Hatred
Before one writes critically about the murders of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim in Washington by 31-year-old pro-Palestinian Chicago resident Elias Rodriguez, one must first offer a few obvious though necessary qualifications. First, the killing of these two Israeli Embassy employees was an act of terrorism and therefore a moral abomination, regardless of whatever injustice may have inspired it. Second, Rodriguez could not possibly have known anything about the two people at whom he randomly shot, save the fact that they were attending a Jewish charity event at a D.C. Jewish museum. He could not have known where they worked, nor their nationalities, nor even their views on Israel/Palestine.
Their murder is therefore unarguably an antisemitic hate crime. Third, while Rodriguez allegedly told police, 'I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza,' what he actually 'did' was set back the Palestinian cause immeasurably in the United States and likely further Palestinians' immiseration almost everywhere, nowhere more so than in Gaza.
But then comes the harder part; the part that asks us, metaphorically speaking, to walk and chew gum at the same time. There's a line in Proverbs that 'death and life are in the hands of the tongue,' as Rabbi Jill Jacobs of the rabbinical human rights and democracy organization T'ruah told the readers of Time. But, as she added in conversation with me, 'You can say that language that dehumanizes Jews and Israelis can lead to violence. But that doesn't mean it should be used as an excuse for criminalizing speech.'
Criminalizing speech in defense of the Palestinians—most particularly those now faced with starvation, homelessness, and likely epidemiologic disaster in Gaza following Israel's killing of more than 50,000 of its residents in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attack—is, however, exactly how some pundits, politicians, and public figures are presently seeking to exploit Rodriguez's heinous act. Listen to Florida Republican Representative Randy Fine, who told Fox News after the shooting, 'The fact of the matter is, the Palestinian cause is an evil one.' He then tweeted, 'There is nothing peaceful about this movement, and … these demons must be put down by any means necessary.' ('Means,' in which he included, believe it or not, the use of a nuclear weapon.)
His incendiary rhetoric was not the outlier one would expect. For instance, Pat Fallon, a Texas Republican, insisted that 'the 'Free Palestine' movement is fundamentally intertwined with support for barbaric terrorism,' before adding, 'The U.S. should not tolerate these pro-Hamas agitators, whether on college campuses, on our streets, or in our government.'
To be fair, these positions and the violent rhetoric that so often accompanies them can be fairly viewed as simply echoes of that emanating from Israel's extremist right-wing government and its desire to support the quashing of all criticism of Israel on American campuses and elsewhere. Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter jumped on the news of the killings with a press conference where he blamed U.S. college campuses as places where 'we have useful idiots running around in support of the destruction of Israel.'
Israel's deeply unpopular prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is also on trial for corruption and is seeking, like Donald Trump, to destroy the foundations of free speech and democratic dissent in his own country, used Rodriguez's chant of 'Free Palestine' during his arrest to suggest that to be pro-Palestinian is to seek the death of all Jews: 'For these neo-Nazis, 'Free Palestine' is just today's version of 'Heil Hitler.''
Ironically, those lamenting the connection between incitement and violence were rarely interested in the actual neo-Nazis who make up an increasingly significant part of the MAGA movement, particularly its most violent constituencies like violent demonstrators in Charlottesville whom Trump called 'very fine people.' Some Democrats also could not resist joining in the effort to use the murders to suppress pro-Palestinian speech.
Representative Josh Gottheimer, for instance, who is running for governor of New Jersey, promised to sign legislation in New Jersey that would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's restrictive definition of antisemitic speech, which even its principal author, Kenneth Stern, has called 'an attack on academic freedom and free speech' that 'harm[s] not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.'
Meanwhile, legacy Jewish organizations also added fuel to this anti–free speech fire. William Daroff, the CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which consists of 54 of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish organizations in America, wrote on X, 'There is a direct line between demonizing Israel, tolerating antisemitic hate speech in the public square, and violent action.'
The Anti-Defamation League's Jonathan Greenblatt relied on that group's ideologically defined, and therefore inflated, statistics to claim, in an essay in Time, that 'last year was the worst for antisemitic incidents since ADL began tracking over four decades ago.' The guilty parties, according to Greenblatt: the 'people who excuse antisemitism as merely 'anti-Zionism,' who dismiss our outrage as an attempt to serve another agenda, and contort themselves into pretzels as they claim a right to free speech.'
Jonathan Jacoby, whose Nexus Project promotes a far less politically charged and incendiary notion of what constitutes antisemitic speech, responded to Greenblatt in a phone call with me: 'This is not a time for sensationalism. This is a time to build a coalition against antisemitism and all forms of hate.'
Some pro-Palestinian organizations appeared ready to do just that. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, called the violence 'completely unacceptable' and said that it does not represent the millions of Americans peacefully supporting an end to U.S. support for Israel's war in Gaza.' Jewish Voice for Peace, an intensely anti-Zionist group that often organizes protests on campus, also condemned the killings.
I should note that not all pro-Palestinian groups have done so. As of this writing, Students for Justice in Palestine, among the most disruptive of those organizations causing chaos on certain U.S. campuses, had issued no statement whatsoever on the killings. They also had nothing but praise for the October 7 attacks.
The ADL published an article titled 'Swaths of Anti-Zionist Movement Legitimize Killings of Israeli Embassy Staff at D.C. Jewish Museum,' but to be honest, the groups mentioned are not ones that your author has ever even heard of, much less concerned myself with their positions. These positions, while morally repugnant, are unlikely to enjoy any influence whatsoever outside the microscopic precincts of their miscreant followers.
Ditto the groups with which Rodriguez is supposedly affiliated: the People's Congress of Resistance and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Both are splinter groups so marginal that even most leftists and those dedicated to the Palestinian cause have likely never heard of them. The latter is also closely tied to the ANSWER coalition, whose Chicago branch meetings and demonstrations Rodriquez also apparently attended.
Its main contribution to the history of protest since the American invasion of Iraq has been to scoop up protest permits faster than anyone else, forcing liberals and other democratic leftists to choose between joining in demonstrations sponsored by people with whom they disagree or staying home.
Most recently, just one day after the Hamas October 7 terrorist attack, a PSL member speaking at an ANSWER rally in Times Square, thrilled to the fact that 'there was some sort of rave or desert party where they were having a great time, until the resistance came in electrified hang gliders and took out at least several dozen hipsters.' Its website, however, does not contain calls to 'globalize the intifada' or other statements that could be reasonably interpreted to be incitements to violence of any kind.
Perhaps the best way to prevent the 'dehumanization' of the victims of the antisemitic attack that killed them is to consider their own individual humanity. Yaron Lischinsky was a photographer, a soccer enthusiast, and a 'Messianic Jew,' or what in my youth we called a 'Jew for Jesus,' with beliefs at odds from almost all Christians and Jews, who wished to dedicate his life to diplomacy.
His girlfriend, Sarah Milgrim, daughter of a Christian mother and Jewish father, had worked with a joint Israeli-Palestinian NGO called 'Tech2Peace,' designed to provide Palestinians access to tech opportunities. In the past, she participated in the group's trip with 12 Israelis and Palestinians at the planned Jewish-Palestinian village Neve Shalom-Wahat al-Salam. More recently she dedicated herself to the cause of the Israeli women who were the victims of sexual assault during the attacks of October 7.
I'm sure the memories of both of these young people are a blessing to those who knew them. Their murder, alas, will undoubtedly prove a curse to all who seek peace and justice, but especially for the Palestinians, whose need for both is as great as almost any group anywhere on earth, and whose suffering will now be increased as their voices are further silenced.
As Republicans and conservative Jewish legacy leaders seek to exploit their tragedy to silence legitimate concern about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and attack Americans' right to speak up against Israel's horrific war in Gaza, the memories of these two innocents will continue to be tarnished by those who profess to honor them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

an hour ago
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Vance says Musk's public feud with Trump is a ‘huge mistake,' hopes billionaire ‘comes back into fold'
Vice President JD Vance said it was a huge mistake for Elon Musk to be at war with President Trump amid their escalating feud and is hopeful that the billionaire Tesla founder 'comes back into the fold.' 'Elon is entitled to his opinion,' Vance said during an interview with comedian Theo Von, which was released on Saturday. 'I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying. I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man — I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — to be at war with the world's most powerful man, who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody in my lifetime.' Advertisement Vance's appearance on Von's popular podcast, 'This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von,' was recorded as Trump and billionaire Musk traded barbs on social media over the latter's complaints about the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, 'yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue.' But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so,' Vance said. 'Hopefully, Elon figures it out, comes back into the fold. I know the president was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon. But I think it has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk. And I actually think that if Elon chilled out a little bit everything would be fine.' Advertisement 3 Vice President JD Vance appeared on Theo Von's podcast. X/JDVance The SpaceX founder signaled support for impeaching Trump and replacing him with Vance in one of several jabs directed at the commander in chief. 'President vs Elon. Who wins? My money's on Elon. Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him,' right-wing commentator Ian Miles Cheong wrote on X. To which Musk replied: 'Yes.' Advertisement Vance appears to be fully in Trump's corner amid the public spat between the two billionaires — and expressed his support of the president in an X post late Thursday night. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads. I'm proud to stand beside him,' the veep wrote. In an earlier post, as the Trump-Musk drama was simmering down on social media, Vance had teased that he would be appearing on Von's show. 'Slow news day, what are we even going to talk about?' Vance wrote on X. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump points at Elon Musk during a conversation inside the Oval Office of the White House on March 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 3 Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump and vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance appear on the first day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisc. on July 15, 2024. Getty Images Musk shared the vice president's post and reacted with a laughing emoji. Von previously interviewed both Vance and Trump in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. Trump's August 2024 appearance on Von's show racked up nearly 17 million views on YouTube. The podcaster later attended Trump's inauguration and made a surprise appearance at a US air base in Qatar, where the president spoke to service members and their families last month.