I’ve had four potential posts on Israel, anti-Israel actions and antisemitism this week. As new events occur, the old post falls to the wayside. I was stuck on whether I should pick one, or try to weave the events together into some kind of narrative and draw conclusions. I’ve decided I can’t, or don’t want to, do either. And I wonder how much of the morass Israel-Palestine discourse feels stuck in is due to our compulsion to create such a narrative.

A horrifying terrorist attack

The first, and most recent, incident, was the tragic murder of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky by an anti-Israel activist in Washington, DC. The two worked at the Israeli embassy, and were about to be engaged. The attacker killed them as they were leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum. There’s no indication the attacker knew they worked for the Israeli embassy (although I will update this if such information comes out); as it is, it seems he wanted to kill Jewish people because of his anger at Israel.

I’m not a pundit. I’m not trying to come up with a pithy quote that goes viral on BlueSky

This is a terrorist attack. The attacker shouted “Free Palestine” after the attack. And journalist Ken Klipperstein claims to have the shooter’s manifesto, which makes it clear the attack was meant to send a political message.

It would be a terrorist attack if the attacker knew they were Israeli government employees, as he committed violence in order to send a political message. There is some question over whether attacks on military targets in wartime should count as terrorism, but generally people accept attacks on civilian government employees as terrorism. The exception, of course, are radical figures who argue violence against what they view as unjust targets is legitimate; they either argue terrorism is justified or that it doesn’t count as terrorism. To these people, Israeli government employees, and even Israeli citizens, would be legitimate targets.

But, as I said, I doubt the attacker knew they worked for the Israeli embassy. It’s hard to believe someone would track embassy workers’ movements and then kill them outside a crowded public event. If I’m right, and he was targeting Jewish people in general, then this is clearly antisemitism. I’d hope no reasonable person would argue that every Jewish person is a legitimate target of anger at Israel’s policies.

A Eurovision “scandal”

And then there’s Eurovision. As a big Eurovision fan I wanted to write on the weekend’s contest, but it would have been a copy of my post from last year. Despite being snubbed by professional judges, the Israeli contestant got a lot of popular support, indicating the protests against her inclusion in the contest were not shared by much of the public. This picture was even more clear this year, with the Israeli contestant–Yuval Raphael–briefly gaining the top slot after popular votes came in. The only reason the winner, Austria’s JJ, beat her was because the judges love the sort of ballad he sang. Personally, I wanted Estonia’s Tommy Cash to win.

The controversy over Israel’s showing was more pronounced this year. Instead of just protests by performers–although JJ said he doesn’t think Israel should compete next year in Vienna–multiple public broadcasters called for Israel’s exclusion. But the complaints took on a touch of envy and conspiracy-theorizing, with people claiming the voting rules–in which any person can vote 20 times–favor Israel. It’s a little unclear how; if Israel’s fans are more passionate, that’s how voting works. Going beyond that would require arguing there’s a global Jewish conspiracy behind the wins, which I’d hope people would not claim.

Diplomatic upheaval

And there is the diplomatic friction.

Haaretz described official criticisms of Israel in as a growing “diplomatic tsunami.” Canada, France and the UK are considering sanctions against Israel, while the UK suspended trade talks. Over two dozen countries have expressed concern over Israel’s renewed offensive in Gaza, while there is talks among EU representatives and ministers of re-evaluating Israel’s relationship with the body. European countries are pushing Israel to do more to provide aid to Gazans suffering under the war. European states have not been as pro-Israel as the United States, but these developments do suggest a growing consensus and willingness to take concrete actions against Israel.

I wonder if resisting the urge to tie these events together may be the best I can do.

Even US President Donald Trump, whom many assumed would be a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, has disappointed some in Israel. Trump cut Netanyahu out of negotiations to free an American-Israeli held by Hamas, and has deprioritized normalizing Saudi-Israeli ties (which his predecessor pushed) in favor of trade deals with the former. Trump also seems willing to negotiate a deal with Iran that Netanyahu opposes. Obviously Trump’s foreign policy can be erratic, but Trump is placing deal-making over close ties with Israel (for what it’s worth, I raised this possibility last year to a Middle East expert, who laughingly dismissed it, but I won’t comment on Middle East studies’ flawed common wisdom again).

What does it all mean?

If I were a pundit, I would tie these stories all together to make a broad point about the state of Israel and opposition to Israel. Nuance be damned, I would find a way to make these align, hopefully in a way that fits with my preconceptions about the issue.

Does the combination of popular support for Israel in Eurovision combined with elite rejection and official criticism suggest anti-Israel attitude is not as widespread as many think? Or, as I’ve argued before, would it suggest that Israel’s critics aren’t trying very hard to really persuade people?

Does the terrorist attack in DC suggest that anti-Israel rhetoric has gone too far? That it’s a short step from questioning the legitimacy of a country to questioning the right of people tied to that country to live?

Or maybe Europe’s criticism of Israel tied with the Trump Administration’s willingness to ignore it suggests Israel has lost all international legitimacy? Maybe the support for its Eurovision contestants is because of the quality of their songs or sympathy for what the singers–especially this year’s–have gone through. Maybe it’s not due to support for Israel.

Maybe we can call the terrorist attack horrible, but argue it doesn’t reflect on the entire anti-Israel movement. The progressive activist who attacked Republican members of the US Congress in 2017 wasn’t the fault of Bernie Sanders, so why would this be the fault of BDS?

But I’m not a pundit. I’m not trying to come up with a pithy quote that goes viral on BlueSky. Ironically, the only time I went viral on BlueSky was due to commentary on Israel, but it wasn’t the good viral (sidenote–my one time going viral on Twitter was when I attracted the ire of the pro-hydration community, which apparently exists).

I’m an academic who’s increasingly focused on improving the discourse about Israel-Palestine, rather than positioning myself to be a policy-relevant voice. And I wonder if resisting the urge to tie these events together–especially degrading the tragedy of Milgrim and Lischinsky’s murder by trying to score political points–may be the best I can do.