Violence in the name of Palestine is not just unacceptable, it will also harm the movement

A woman lays flowers and a flag at the site of the attack outside the Boulder County Courthouse in Boulder, Colorado. AFP

The US has seen two major “lone wolf” attacks targeting Israel-related events in the past fortnight. On Sunday, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian man in Boulder, Colorado, is alleged to have thrown Molotov cocktails at a group of demonstrators who had gathered in solidarity with Israeli hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza. Eight of the demonstrators were injured. Mr Soliman, 45, is said to have shouted “Free Palestine” as he carried out his attack.

The same words were shouted by Elias Rodriguez, who shot dead two young Israeli embassy staff members, Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, at an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington on May 21.

The Washington attack provoked conflicting reactions. The way in which the attack itself and the subsequent reactions were viewed and used by pro-Israel organisations and a few pro-Palestinian advocates has been disturbing, and has perhaps set the stage for the public conversation that will inevitably follow what has just happened in Boulder.

There is no doubt that what Mr Rodriguez, the man who was charged with killing the two staff members, did was terrorism. It was certainly not heroic, revolutionary or 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 Mr Rodriguez himself acknowledged that this was his goal. There should also be no doubt that the act was anti-Semitic. 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 a Jewish museum and that his victims would most likely be Jews. And, as he allegedly made clear in a since-uncovered manifesto, he thought that while peaceful protests had not 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 huge loss of life and destruction of properties resulting from Israel’s 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 demonise the entire pro-Palestine movement, arguing that their anti-Israel rhetoric has fostered anti-Semitism creating the environment that led Mr 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 conflict 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 organisations 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 the US Congress to expand the definition of anti-Semitism 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.

People attend a candlelight vigil at Lafayette Square, near the White House, after the deadly shooting of two Israeli embassy officials. AFP

Mourners gather outside the White House to light candles to honour Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, who were killed near a Jewish museum in Washington. AP

A screengrab from a video shows suspected gunman Elias Rodriguez, who shouted ‘free Palestine’ as he was arrested. He is alleged to have ties to a left-wing group.

The scene of the attack is cleaned, after the embassy staff were shot dead near the Capital Jewish Museum. Reuters

Emergency workers at the scene of the shooting, which took place late on Wednesday. Reuters

US Attorney General Pam Bondi and Yechiel Leiter, Israel's ambassador to the US, at the site. Reuters

The two victims, a man and a woman, were leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum when a gunman approached a group of four people and opened fire, police said. Reuters

The shooting occurred at about 9pm, near Georgetown University’s Law School and the FBI’s Washington field office. Reuters

Police took the suspect into custody at the scene. Reuters

Israel's ambassador to the US said the victims were a young couple engaged to be married. AP

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 killings in Washington, pro-Israel advocates cruelly ignore Palestinian humanity and deny the legitimate feelings of solidarity the protesters 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, and denounce them as enablers of what many legal experts deem to be a genocide in Gaza, 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 does not advance the cause as much as it fosters deeper hostility and polarisation. Those who use such tactics ignore the fact 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 anti-Semitism have taken a toll on the psyche of many Jewish Americans.

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 Mr Rodriguez has been charged with committing 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 a Jewish museum. Mr Soliman’s actions should be seen in a similar light. In both of these contexts, the chant “Free Palestine” is especially infuriating because the men who shout it have abused this noble cause with an act of deplorable violence in order to serve the narcissistic fantasy that they were advancing the cause of Palestinian freedom and opening the way to a change in policy.

In the end, they have done neither. Their crimes have caused death and injury, damaged the cause they claimed to support and will be used to provide justification for more repression.