In the evening of Wednesday 21st of May the American Jewish Committee (AJC) held its annual Young Diplomats Reception in Washington DC. The event brings together junior staff working in the various embassies in DC. This year’s event, held at the Capitol Jewish Museum, turned tragic when two young people who work at the Israeli embassy were shot and killed by a pro-Palestinian terrorist. We share our condolences with the families and co-workers of the victims and the wider US and Israeli community.
The victims
Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky were a couple who worked in the Israeli embassy. Yaron was preparing to prose to Sarah the following week. They were committed to Middel East peace and building bridges between Arabs and Jews.
Sarah, aged 26, was an American Jew from Kansas. She had worked in the Israel Embassy’s Department of Public Diplomacy, as a local staff member, for a year a half. She was a lay leader in AJC, active in the Young Professional Division, AJC ACCESS. A graduate of the University of Kansas, American University, and the United Nations’s University for Peace, she studied environmental studies, international affairs, and Sustainable development. She also spent time in India, learning from social service agencies there and taking courses at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai. AJC described her as “warm and compassionate, committed to peacebuilding and passionate about sustainability and people-to-people relations.”
Yaron, aged 30, was a German and Israeli member of the Messianic Jewish community, a Christian group that makes up about 0.02% of the Israeli population. He was born in born in Nuremberg, Germany, to a Jewish father and Christian-Evangelist mother, and moved to Israel with his brother at the age of 16. He had served for two years as a research assistant in the Political Department at the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. He completed three years of service in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), then completed a bachelor’s degree majoring in international relations and Asian affairs at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, followed by a master’s degree in government, diplomacy and strategy from Reichman University (previously known as IDC Herzliya. He has only recently completed the Masters.
How it unfolded
The attack occurred around 9pm as people left the event. The attacker has been pacing back and forth outside the museum. He approached a group of four people exiting the event, then shot Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky at close range with a handgun, running out of bullets and reloading to continue, before getting rid of the gun and walking into the museum. As he appeared “distraught”, and one of the event organisers provided him with a cup of water, not realising what had occurred. Police arrived and he implied he was responsible for the shooting, then shouted “Free, free Palestine” as they led him away in handcuffs. He was charged in federal court on Thursday (DC time) with two counts of first-degree murder, murder of foreign officials, causing death with a firearm and discharging a firearm in a crime of violence.
The terrorist
Elias Rodriguez is a 30 year old man from Chicago. He previously worked for a non-profit documenting the lives of Black Americans, and his current employer was a medical professional association, the American Osteopathic Information Association.
He has a history of far-left political activism. He was a representative of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a US based communist political party. In 2017 a Gofundme was used to raised money for him to attend the inaugural meeting of the People’s Congress of Resistance. The People’s Congress of Resistance, brought far left (e.g. PSL was one of the organisations behind it) and some far-right groups (e.g. the Nation of Islam’s Akbar Muhammad was one of the initial convenors) together against the mainstream political parties.
Social Media
Before the attack Rodriguez posted a manifesto on his X account (now closed). The post has the text “Escalate for Gaza. Bring the war home” then screen captures of a document. The post went viral with at least a few hundred thousand views and around a thousand likes. The account has since been closed by X. At least one far left group in the United States has since turned this into a booklet while calling Rodriguez a “political prisoner”.
In a post 5 months ago Rodriguez commented that violence didn’t need to happen, but was a valid response to violence. This is a different idea to defending one self from violence and instead justified retaliatory violence.
On November 18 2024 Rodriguez, like many others, tried moving to BlueSky. He made only one post there before returning to X. His profile on BlueSky features the image of two terrorists carrying out an attack that killed six people at a Tel Aviv train station in October 2024. The image has been mirrored (reversing the left and right) in an effort to avoid automated identification. The same image (which in full shows the gun pointed at a body on the ground) can be seen in multiple news articles. The posts itself highlights how he was using X to send content to someone by direct message urging them to commit suicide.
The manifesto
The manifesto opens by saying it is an attempt to provide the meaning behind his attack.
It starts with a discussion of Gaza, speaking of “atrocities committed by the Israelis against Palestinians”, quotes the death toll according to the “Gaza health ministry”, and speaks of “imminent famine due to Israeli blockade, all enabled by Western and Arab government complicity”. It goes on to cast doubt on the figures suggesting they are likely even larger. This part ends with a statement that, “We who let this happen will never deserve the Palestinian’s forgiveness. They have let us know as much.” This signals a pressure from Palestinian activists on their supporters to do more, go further, and in this case that pushing amounted to incitement to violence. The post’s text shows the link, this deadly violence is both an escalation from peaceful protest to violence, and an effort to “bring the war home” and the violence to American streets and indeed the Capitol.
The manifesto continues by claiming that public opinion has shifted against Israel (which he calls a “genocidal apartheid state”) but that the US government is ignoring public opinion. He expressed anger that the war has not ended despite people sacrificing themselves, referring to one person who self-immolated outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC in protest in early 2024. He states this cannot be in vain, and sees it as justification to escalate further.
He then seeks to justify his actions with stories of witnesses of violence, and those who stood up to politicians who allowed violence, seeking to cast himself in this same light. He continues with a justification for violence saying he sypathises with those who say “perpetrators and abettors have forfeit their humanity”, he disagrees saying inhumanity has become common, but perpetrators and abettors are still “monsters” and not exempt from accountability.
He goes on to claim his actions would have been justified even 11 years ago when he first became aware of the Palestinian struggle, but at that time it would have been seen as insane to most Americans. He feels that today many Americans will support his actions and see it as the “only sane thing to do”. He ends expressing love for his family then “free Palestine” and his name.
Online Response
The online response to this event has been, predictably, mixed. There are users who have condemned the attack, with some simultaneously expressing solidarity with Palestinian victims of the Gaza conflict. But many users have also responded to this news with antisemitism. In this section we look at three common narratives that have appeared in social media commentary around this incident:
- Incitement and glorifying violence celebrating the attack
- Racist Anti-Zionism justifying and excluding the attack
- False flag allegations spreading disinformation and denial it occurred
Inciting and glorifying violence
The most obvious form that this antisemitism is taking is inciting and glorifying violence towards Jews. Below, we see users on Tiktok responding to the news with comments like “MORRRRE PLEASE” and “only 2??”, thereby implying that more Jews should be killed.
Other comments minimise or glorify the violence, without explicitly calling for more. One post on Instagram says that “elias rodriguez did the whole world a favour by shooting israeli officials responsible for genocide”. Whatever one thinks of the accusations of genocide against Israel, to suggest these two embassy workers, neither of which were diplomats, and only one of which was even Israeli, were “responsible” for it is simply a justification of killing any Israelis or indeed any Jews anywhere. It is an excuse for murder, nothing more.
Racist anti-Zionism
Another user on X responds with the comment “Two dead nazis, fuck them”. As well as glorifying the murder of Jews, this uses the atrocities experienced by the Jewish community during the Second World War against them by calling them Nazis.
This Holocaust inversion of calling Jews, Israelis, or supporters of Israel Nazis, is part of the rising antisemitism we discussed in our report Online Antisemitism After October 7 2023. It took on a new twist after October 7 becoming what we described in the report as Racist Anti-Zionism (see page 205-210). Here is an extract:
Racist Anti-Zionism is a phenomenon that has evolved from silencing and excluding participation within particular political groups or activities, into an effort to exclude Jews from society at large, and to exclude consideration of antisemitism from the broader considerations of racism, persecution, and oppression. Racist Anti-Zionism moves beyond opposition to Zionism as an ideology, and into expressions of hostility and incitement to hate and violence against people who identify as Zionists or have expressed positivity towards Israel. It rejects or simply disregards the idea that this is antisemitic.
…
Racist Anti-Zionism starts with the proposition that Zionism is not the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, but rather a unique evil in the world.
…
In some Racist Anti-Zionism, not only is Israel called racist, but it is called a Nazi state. This is more than just a poor analogy, and means that Israelis, Zionists, or those deemed to be Zionists, are then called Nazis. This leads to calls to treat them as the far-left would treat Nazis – with abuse, doxxing, and violence.
A very common response to the attack in DC has been to claim Israel’s actions in Gaza somehow justify these murders in the United States. This of course reflects the attackers own justification. One user on X writes that “There is no red line that Israel did not cross first”, referring to the Israeli military attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
The attack on the Iranian Embassy was a targeted strike that killed Iran’s Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which is a prescribed terrorist group according to Israel, the United States, Canada and soon the UK. Israel is strongly suspected of being behind the attack, but has not claimed responsibility. While there may be a legitimate military or counter terrorism goal, embassies are still off limits in war according to international treaties and customary international law. Regardless, it is very different to the DC shooting which targeted random workers from the embassy and occurred outside a Jewish museum, at an event hosted by a Jewish civil society organisation. This DC attack was an antisemitic terrorist attack and the attempted comparison to the Damascus incident is nothing but an excuse.
A different poster argued the murders were not antisemitic, and falsely states they occurred at the Israeli embassy in an effort to make the attack look more “reasonable”. This poster claims they are “the result of live-streaming Israel’s own Holocaust”. This is another example of justifying “resistance by any means” including terrorism and considering any Israeli, Jewish, or pro-Israel person an acceptable target.
In another comment thread, a user suggests that the victims “can only blame themselves”, while another states that they feel “zero sympathy”.
False Flag
Another common response has been the suggestion that these murders were a “false flag” operation carried out by Jews in order to generate sympathy for Israel and help justify their actions in Gaza. This narrative positions the Jewish community as the architects, rather than victims, of this attack, and implies that they are undeserving of sympathy.
Comments on another post, wrongly claiming it was an attack on the Israeli embassy, say:
- “CIA MOSSAD job 100%”
- “Screams false flag”
- “Nice try Zio-Mossad Agent”
- “This is a Mossad gig”
A video post has similar comments saying:
- “Such convenient timing”
- “It’s too suspicious, it’s because everyone’s speaking up now”
- “Something feels fishy”
Analysis
The manifesto reflects someone who has been in an echo chamber of radicalization. The one sided and absolutist narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provides an “Us and Them” narrative. Note how the main difference they see between 11 years ago and now is in their expected reaction of the American public.
The Hamas led terrorist attack of October 7 2023 does not exist in their narrative, either it is considered unimportant or not real. There is no mention of Jews or antisemitism and this is antisemitic as it targeted an event by a Jewish community organization that was hosted at a Jewish institution. It would be antisemitic for that reason alone, even if no Jews has been killed. An example of this is the antisemitic Halle Synagogue attack where the security kept the attacker outside, and they ended up choosing other targets. To the attackers mind, however, Jews and Israel are in the way of what Palestinians want and they seek to remove them. They justify this as meaning they are pro-Palestinian, not anti-Jewish, when in fact they are both.
Some Palestinian activism, particularly since October 7, has taken a dangerous turn and sought to promote, justify, or excuse terrorist groups. Hezbollah flags have been flown at rallies in Melbourne. Laws have been strengthened in response. In the UK, images of paragliders, as used by some October 7 perpetrators to enter Israel from Gaza, appeared at protests a week after the October 7 attack and a court concluded they were clearly glorifying the attack. This sort of glorification and support for extremism overseas opens the door to domestic extremism, as has been seen in the United States.
Their BlueSky account shows a reverence for what they describe as an “action” i.e. a deadly terrorist attack targeting civilians. It also shows a lack of respect for life both in the image and in their post.
Their targeting of the Israeli embassy staff highlights both a selection of targets, and a lack of distinction between civil and military targets. It also shows a deliberate importation of international conflict into a domestic setting. It highlights why it is so important that people and communities maintain dialogue in countries like the US and Australia. It highlights the danger of activism in echo chambers where people are drawn in, and can then reject and ignore anything outside the echo chamber.
This attack was an example of left-wing violent extremism. In the last 30 years there has been only one other far-left terrorist attack in the United States, the murder of Aaron Danielson in October 2020. Right-wing violent extremism and Islamist violent extremism have accounted for most violent extremism in Western countries in the last few decades, but prior to this left-wing violent extremism was dominant. Palestinian terrorism was a significant part of this left-wing extremism with groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an explicitly Marxist–Leninist Palestinian terrorist group, carrying out many plane hijackings around the world.
The current and sustained intensity of far-left Palestinian advocacy, particularly in forms which promote “resistance by any means” are in some sense a return of the left-wing extremism of decades past. It may give rise to future far-left violent extremism.
Report prepared by Dr Andre Oboler.
Updated 24 May 2025 to include “Online Responses” Section.