We Will Not Move on After Attacks in Washington and Boulder Newsday By AJC CEO Ted Deutch June 2, 2025 A week after receiving hundreds of supportive messages from around the world following the heartbreaking antisemitic murders of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, I received what a friend considered helpful advice: “It’s time to move on from the murders.” Just a few days later, a terrorist threw Molotov cocktails at a group of people in Boulder, Colorado who were gathered to raise awareness about the 58 hostages who have been held by terrorists in Gaza for more than 600 days. So, no — we will not move on. We cannot and will not move on to other issues and act like these attacks are somehow just par for the course in America today. I will not give credence to the thought that wanting to prevent more Jewish blood from being spilled is somehow exploitative rather than an obligation borne from grief and self-preservation. Two people were assassinated in our nation’s capital — gunned down leaving a Jewish event, at a Jewish museum, hosted by a Jewish organization. Multiple people were injured, some lit on fire, at an event in Colorado focused on the most basic of human rights — freedom from captivity. We need to get a few things straight. Society must finally acknowledge and address what Jews have been saying for years — and especially in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas terror attack: that antisemitic and anti-Zionist language is dangerous, and when left unchecked, deadly. We warned about this before Pittsburgh, before Paris and Brussels, and before Washington and Boulder. We were told: It’s just protest, just a slogan — they don’t actually mean it as a call to violence. But the shooter who murdered Sarah and Yaron shouted “Free Palestine” and “I did it for Gaza” as he was being led away by police. The attacker in Boulder was also heard screaming “Free Palestine” as he threw flames at the crowd. They did it after hearing people glorify terrorists with chants of “Globalize the Intifada” over and over again — “intifada” referring to suicide bombers blowing themselves up on buses and in nightclubs and pizza parlors that killed and injured more than 1,000 Israelis 25 years ago. The D.C. shooter packed his gun in his checked luggage, flew from Chicago to Washington, and murdered two people in front of a Jewish museum after repeatedly hearing “resistance by any means necessary.” The suspect in Boulder assembled Molotov cocktails, drove to a weekly event hosted by the Jewish community, and firebombed the gathering after repeatedly hearing “there is only one solution, Intifada revolution.” Stop telling us that these are just the latest protest chants of a well-meaning movement when these so-called social justice warriors are waging war against Jews. Stop telling us to be less defensive, to be less alarmed, when the people on offense want us dead. Antisemitism rears its ugly head in ways that are blatant and subversive — through language and symbols that have morphed over millennia. But at its core, antisemitism is a conspiracy theory. One that holds the Jews responsible for all the ills in society. Jews have studied our past, learned from our elders, and mastered how to recognize antisemitism — even in its infancy, because we had to — for our survival. Stop gaslighting us, stop telling us that we are looking for darkness where it doesn’t exist. Stop bending over backward to defend anti-Zionists from charges of antisemitism when their fervent anti-Zionism leads to violence against Jews. Stop being afraid to call them out. Listen to Jews when we tell you something is antisemitic. For years, we have pressed governments all over the world, at every level, to adopt a clear definition of antisemitism. Why? Because far too many people don’t understand what it is, cannot identify it, and still refuse to see it when we show them. We told you that “there is only one solution, Intifada revolution” was a call to violence. We told you that people marching in the streets chanting Hamas and other terrorist group slogans, wearing their bandanas, and proclaiming “glory to the martyrs” wouldn’t stop there. Unfortunately, we were right. When you invert the Holocaust — twisting the attempted annihilation of the Jewish people to fit a warped narrative — and peddle the outrageous lie that Israel, and the people who support it, are committing genocide in the face of attacks from a terror group whose very charter calls for our destruction, this is what happens. No group — Jews included — should have to worry about becoming a target when they gather together to pray at a house of worship, to socialize at a community center, to learn about humanitarian aid and diplomacy at a Washington museum, or to call for the release of 58 people kidnapped by terrorists. We need you to acknowledge that, to say that, and to prevent that. We need you to speak out loudly and clearly against the people whose words and actions have created this environment for the Jewish community. If society wouldn’t tolerate this for any other group, why is it tolerated for Jews? The answer is clear. And that’s not exploitative, it’s the truth. We can’t afford, America can’t afford, and the Jewish people can’t afford to move on. Moving on would mean capitulating to those who have, through sick and twisted logic, decided that Sarah and Yaron’s murders are acceptable “resistance” instead of brutal, deadly hatred. We will not move on. We will not be silent. And we need everyone fighting this vicious Jew-hatred with us.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment