What we know about the 2 Israeli Embassy staffers killed in DC shooting: 'Young couple with bright future'
Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, two staff members at the Israeli Embassy, were killed outside an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday night, according to Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar.
The young couple were not diplomats, but instead Lischinsky was a researcher in the political department of the Israeli Embassy, and Milgrim organized U.S. missions to Israel.
"The couple that was gunned down tonight were about to be engaged," Yechiel Leiter, Israeli ambassador to the United States, said during the press conference. "The young man purchased a ring this week with the intention of proposing next week in Jerusalem."
Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador in Germany and friend of Lischinsky, described the two victims as a "young couple with a bright future planning their life together."
Here is what else we know about the young couple that was killed:
Lischinsky, who was born in Nuremberg, Germany, was a Christian, and a "true lover of Israel" who "chose to dedicate his life to the State of Israel and the Zionist cause," Prosor said on X.
During his work the past two years as a research assistant at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., Lischinsky was responsible for "keeping the department up to date on important events in the Middle East & North Africa, conducting research on topics of interest to our diplomatic staff, liaison with other diplomatic missions, maintaining relationships with the local think tank community and helping to organize delegation visits from various Israeli ministries," according to his LinkedIn profile.
MORE: 2 Israeli embassy staffers killed in apparent 'targeted attack' in Washington, DC
He received a master's degree in government, diplomacy and strategy from Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, and a bachelor's degree in international relations and Asian studies from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, his profile said. He was fluent in English, Hebrew and German.
He wrote on his profile that he moved from Germany to Israel when he was 16 years old and had "the privilege of calling both Jerusalem and Nuremberg my home."
Lischinsky also served in the Israel Defense Forces for three years, Prosor said
Prosor described Lischinsky as "bright, curious, [and] engaged" and said he "embodied the Judeo-Christian values and set an example for young people worldwide."
Milgrim worked in the embassy's department of public diplomacy for almost two years, beginning in November 2023, according to her LinkedIn profile.
She described herself as a "dynamic professional," saying her passion lies "at the intersection of peacebuilding, religious engagement and environmental work," her profile said. She was an American citizen, according to The Associated Press.
Before her time at the embassy, she worked in Tel Aviv for Tech2Peace, which "provides high-tech and entrepreneurial training alongside conflict dialogue to young Palestinians and Israelis," according to its website.
Milgrim received two masters degrees -- one in international affairs from American University and another in natural resources and sustainable development from the University of Peace in Costa Rica -- and a bachelor's degree in environmental studies from the University of Kansas, according to her profile.
KU Hillel, the University of Kansas' Jewish community, said Milgrim's friends described her as "the definition of the best person" and that she made "meaningful contributions that continue to resonate today."
"Sarah's bright spirit and passion for the Jewish community touched everyone fortunate enough to know her," the group said in a statement on Thursday.
What we know about the 2 Israeli Embassy staffers killed in DC shooting: 'Young couple with bright future' originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dawn, there is nothing funny about October 7
Dawn French has become the latest 'national treasure' to betray a complete lack of understanding of the conflict in the Middle East. Following hot off the heels of that other self-styled Professor of Palestine, Gary Lineker, the comedian insisted there was nothing 'complicated' or 'nuanced' about the ongoing war in Gaza. In a video posted on X, she put on a whiny childish voice to mock Israelis over invoking the October 7 attacks, in which 1,195 people were murdered. Credit: X/@Dawn_French 'Bottom line is no,' she insisted. Then, in a childish voice: 'Yeah but you know they did a bad thing to us. [Serious voice] Yeah but no. [Childish voice] But we want that land and there's a lot of history and urgh… [Serious voice] No. [Childish voice] Those people are not even people are they really? [Serious voice] No.' Like so much of French's output, she appeared under the illusion that she was being funny. In fact, it amounted to an obnoxious and offensive piece of useful idiocy, dressed up as performance art. Imagine being so warped that you would dismiss the rape and murder of Israeli women – the slaying of children and babies – as 'a bad thing'. The implication is that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. That it has acted disproportionately. But there is nothing remotely proportionate about recording a video about Gaza without even mentioning Hamas. Almost everyone and everything you can think of is funnier than Dawn French. What's truly hilarious is that these luvvies think they have enough expertise to emote on such issues. Like your average 'Free Palestine' ranting student marcher, her infantile outburst appeared to have largely been informed by things she's seen on social media. Anyone with any actual knowledge of the region understands that it is, in fact, an extremely complex issue with a very chequered history. Oh, and that it involves terrorists. Stunts like this do nothing to advance the debate. They simply debase it with ignorance and intolerance. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Trump's threat to pull Columbia's accreditation is so ominous
I suspect that even casual followers of the news have heard about the ongoing battles between the government and higher education. First there's House Republicans' plan to increase taxes on university endowments, and now President Donald Trump's administration is threatening Columbia University's accreditation. As a college president, I know what these threats mean, but I've found myself having to explain them to folks who aren't higher ed nerds like me. Accreditation, I tell them, is what people Gen X or older might think of like a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, but for colleges and universities, accreditation is not just something that's nice for a university to have; it's something a university needs to have if it expects to offer any kind of financial aid to its students. The vast majority of college students receive some form of financial aid, so even the wealthiest of institutions understand that accreditation is important. That's why it's so ominous that the Trump administration, which claims that Columbia insufficiently handled expressions of antisemitism on its campus, contacted the university's accreditor alleging that the university is no longer eligible to be accredited. According to a statement from the Department of Education, Columbia 'failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment on Columbia's campus and consequently denied these students' equal access to educational opportunities to which they are entitled under the law.' Columbia issued a statement that said it is 'deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus,' that it's 'aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today,' and that it has 'addressed those concerns directly' with its accreditor. Prior to the first Trump administration, there were seven regional accreditors that were responsible for assuring that most colleges and universities operate at standards that signify what they do is done well and in order. Each accrediting agency developed a set of standards requiring that an institution, generally in five- to 10-year intervals, conduct a self-study to ensure that it continues to meet them. The institution must then submit a report to its accrediting agency. Then, a team of colleagues reviews the materials, and depending on the agency and its timelines, that team or another visits the campus to certify that what was submitted is accurate and that the institution is in good standing and keeps its 'seal of approval.' During the first Trump administration, the practice of regional accreditors as the primary determinants of accreditation was changed. All accreditors are viewed as national accreditors, including some with more of a niche focus like Christian colleges, that have the same power to certify that an institution is eligible for federal financial aid. This provides several options now for schools to be accredited, and more than 30 accreditors exist today. Accreditation is essentially about continuous improvement through constant assessment. Even the peer review process is designed not to simply determine if the standards are met, but if they are not, to identify weaknesses and provide feedback for improvement to meet those standards. While not meant to be a punitive process, the various agencies do have a series of steps in place to heighten an institution's urgency to address any deficiencies. There are generally levels of sanctions that an institution might receive, from a monitoring report to show progress made on deficiencies, to a public warning, which allows anyone to know what the institution must do to improve, and finally some kind of probationary period in which significant deficiencies must be corrected. While rare, accrediting agencies can cease to recognize an institution for failure to meet the standards set. It would take several years, though, for a school to get to the place where it loses accreditation — and even if accreditation is lost, most agencies have processes in place that allow schools to appeal that decision. There are multiple examples of schools successfully appealing a loss of accreditation and working their way back into good standing. When the Trump administration contacted the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which accredits Columbia, it simply began a process to review the charges. Different commissions might handle these notices in different ways. Under the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, the accrediting agency I'm most familiar with, 'unsolicited information,' such as a letter from the federal government or a local news article covering a negative event, could begin such a review. But accreditation is a process, so even a letter from the administration would not create an immediate negative action as accreditors engage in a thoughtful and deliberate process to verify compliance with the standards. Again, the goal is continuous improvement, not punishment. If a school is out of compliance, the accreditor will take action. But this would occur only after working closely with the institution, giving it a chance to correct course on its own. Columbia, in the short term at least, doesn't appear to be at any risk of not being able to provide its students financial aid. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
