A firebombing in Boulder, Colorado. The killing of two Israeli Embassy workers in Washington, D.C. And an arson attack on the residence of the Jewish Pennsylvania governor with no foreign policy portfolio.
In less than two months, the United States has seen at least three major terror attacks on Jews by people opposing Israel’s conduct toward Palestinians. But as antisemitism rises across the country and violent attacks from pro-Palestinian actors increase, members of Congress who have been the most critical of Israel are unwilling to say that the movement supportive of reining in Israeli actions in Gaza has a problem with violence.
“There are people who are out there that are having a really hard time watching a genocide take place in real time,” Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota told The Dispatch. “Some of them seem deranged that they would take the actions that they did. You cannot be appalled by violence by committing violence, but I do not want them associated with everyone else that is out there genuinely upset that our government is actively funding the genocide of the people of Gaza.”
At a time when Democrats have been forced to reckon with a poor performance in an election that many in the party have blamed on the outsized influence of left-wing groups, original members of the progressive “Squad” in Congress have condemned the attacks but are reluctant to admonish the pro-Palestinian faction of the Democratic base.
Omar, as well as Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, all issued tweets condemning the violence in Boulder. Only Ocasio-Cortez said anything about the mood in the country generally, noting that “antisemitism is on the rise here at home, and we have a moral responsibility to confront and stop it everywhere it exists.” All the statements sounded similar, and none of the three members encouraged pro-Palestinian activists to tone down their anti-Israel rhetoric. Ocasio-Cortez made a distinction between political activists and violent attackers: “These individuals who engaged in these attacks were openly antisemitic. They were clearly violent,” she told The Dispatch. “I’ve made very clear that it is extremely important wherever we see instances of antisemitism that it must be confronted and shut down immediately—and if it is in spaces of movement or in spaces elsewhere.”
Following the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in which Hamas fighters killed around 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and took more than 250 hostages back to Gaza, people in the United States took to the streets to protest Israel and its ensuing military campaign that they alleged constitutes a genocide. Time after time, anti-Israel activists—especially those on college campuses—used antisemitic or pro-Hamas rhetoric. The following spring, students set up encampments on campuses across the country, and accompanying protests resulted in clashes with police and led Jewish students to feel threatened.
Though progressives in Congress have rejected any connection between pro-Palestinian supporters and the recent violent attacks, Republicans have taken the opportunity to put Democrats on the record about extremism in their ranks. “This type of antisemitic behavior needs to be dealt with, and it needs to be dealt with swiftly. And everyone—I’m going to repeat—needs to condemn this,” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Rep. Lisa McClain said at a press conference last week.
On Monday, Republicans put a resolution on the House floor condemning the Boulder attack, sponsored by Colorado Rep. Gabe Evans. More than 100 Democrats voted against it, objecting to the fact that leadership chose it over a bipartisan one from Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse, who represents the area where the attack occurred. Others did not like that the text of the resolution tied the firebombing to the immigration status of the alleged assailant, who overstayed both a tourist visa and a work permit, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The resolution also praised the efforts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
Following the passage of that resolution, the House voted on a narrower one, this time introduced by Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, which condemned “a disturbing pattern of targeted aggression against Jewish individuals in the United States,” mentioning the attacks in Boulder, D.C., and Pennsylvania. That resolution passed 400-0, but GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Tlaib voted “present.”
Asked about the Boulder attack, Tlaib told The Dispatch to contact her office, which forwarded a previously released statement explaining her votes on the Van Drew resolution and the Evans one, which she voted against. Both resolutions were “Republican-led attempts to cynically politicize tragic acts of violence—like the recent horrific attack in Boulder—to demonize immigrant communities, praise ICE, and pave the path for the further repression of our constitutional rights to free speech and protest in support of Palestinian lives and human rights,” the statement read. The statement also affirmed that Tlaib stood “firmly against antisemitism” and “firmly in support of a Free Palestine.”
Tlaib in particular has drawn controversy for her rhetoric since the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel. The House voted to censure her in November 2023, in part for her posting a social media video of protesters chanting the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which many see as antisemitic because Hamas and other terrorist groups use the slogan to advocate for Israel’s destruction. Tlaib’s office did not answer questions about whether she regrets the use of that phrase given the recent attacks or whether the pro-Palestinian movement has a problem with violence and antisemitism.
Asked about Tlaib’s use of “from the river to the sea,” Ocasio-Cortez said the country had to be “very, very careful about the over-policing of speech” with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “I think where we see clear antisemitic rhetoric, it should be confronted,” she told The Dispatch. “However, we also need to be very careful about the longstanding history in the United States of chilling any and all speech related to the advocacy for human rights for Palestinians. There are individuals who want to say that the phrase, ‘Free Palestine,’ is antisemitic, but Palestinians are literally trapped in Gaza.”
But while Squad members insist there is no connection between pro-Palestinian supporters and violent attacks in the cause’s name, more moderate Democrats are more critical of the movement. Last summer, Rep. George Latimer of New York capitalized on then-Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s anti-Israel posture that upset even liberal Jews to defeat him in a primary and win the seat representing Westchester County.
“We in America believe in free speech, and we believe in free assembly. If you use your free speech appropriately, you don’t slide into hate speech, and if you assemble where you’re supposed to, not take over buildings that you have no right to do, then you have every right to protest the policies that you feel,” he told The Dispatch. “But many times that protest has slid into hate speech. It’s slid into taking buildings over, intimidating Jewish students.”
“I think it’s the climate you create by the rhetoric you use, and if your rhetoric is hot and angry, you help provoke people into violent behavior,” Latimer added.
Republicans likely will continue to try to exploit radicalism within Democratic ranks in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Democrats who aspire to lead the country after President Donald Trump will need to respond to accusations that the party tolerates extremists while also not alienating the more progressive parts of the base. One person viewed as a 2028 contender is Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. When asked whether the pro-Palestinian movement has a problem with violence and antisemitism given the recent attacks, he did not respond directly.
“There’s no doubt that if you are attacking Jews based upon your views about Israel, that is textbook antisemitism, and we need to have zero tolerance for all of it,” he said.
Asked about Tlaib’s use of “from the river to the sea,” he declined to speak about that instance in particular.
“I’m not going to comment on any specific person’s rhetoric, but, of course, we have to be able to have a dialogue about U.S. policy towards Israel. People that don’t agree with Israel’s policy have to be able to verbalize that,” he told The Dispatch. “These attacks are horrific, but you have to be able … to have an honest dialogue that includes differences with Israel’s conduct. That’s our job as members of Congress.”
