Secretary of State John Kerry with President Barack Obama. Photo: White House.

More than a week has passed since Israeli embassy employees Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky were murdered in an antisemitic terror attack in America’s capital, Washington, D.C.

In the immediate aftermath of the heinous killing, which occurred at a May 21 event hosted by The American Jewish Committee (AJC), leaders from around the world and across the ideological spectrum offered words of support to the Jewish community, and expressed outrage at the brutal slaying.

Notably, one high-profile couple who preferred to stay quiet following last week’s murders is former US President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, who co-hosts the IMO Podcast with her brother Craig Robinson.

Nearly 10 years after leaving the White House, the Obamas remain pivotal and revered figures within the Democratic Party establishment. With almost 130 million followers, Barack Obama retains the second-largest following on the social media platform X.

Over the last decade, he has leveraged his influence to weigh in on a host of issues while campaigning alongside celebrities on behalf of Democratic candidates.

The choice of Obama to deliver the keynote address on the second night of last summer’s Democratic National Convention (DNC) illustrates how the former president is still setting the ideological tone of the Democratic Party and is considered the leader best suited to straddle the interests of progressives and centrists, as Democrats grapple with the direction of their coalition.

It is precisely this phenomenon that renders the Obamas’ actions since the October 7 massacre in Israel so troubling. Whether it’s feckless statements or marked silence, there is perhaps no couple that bears more responsibility for indulging the Democratic Party’s tolerance of the antisemitic and anti-Israel movement than the former first couple.

Pro-Israel Americans might very well conclude that their refusal to publicly condemn Lischinsky and Milgrim’s Jew-hating murderer is tied to a warped belief that placing sole blame on the gunman is to discount the geopolitical reasons behind his wicked rage. (Though it’s recently come out that besides hating Jews, he was also hoping for a genocide of white people).

The Obamas’ perverse silence and inversion of reality can be seen to convey that because they supported and worked on behalf of Israel, the murdered couple bear some culpability for their demise.

It was within this contextual framework that Obama implored Israel, in an October 23, 2023, column that was published in Medium, to exercise restraint in its war against Hamas.

That piece was followed by a November 2023 interview he gave on the Pod Save America podcast, an outlet whose hosts are, incidentally, both Obama administration alums and who, during a recent episode, shamelessly accused Israel of genocide.

During the 2023 discussion, as Israelis were still in the throes of memorials and fighting against Iranian proxy attacks, it was former President Obama who advanced a narrative popularized in progressive political orbits by claiming that “nobody’s hands are clean” — seemingly attempting to draw a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

For her part, former first lady Michelle Obama, who has consistently tried to position herself as a paragon of feminist virtue, has yet to say a word about the October 7 brutal rape, torture, and mutilation of Israeli women at the hands of Palestinian terrorists.

Horrifying accounts by female captives of the sexual violence they were subjected to daily have failed to move the former first lady, who seems to devote most minutes of her new podcast to talking about herself and dispensing with any divorce rumors surrounding her marriage to “Barack.”

Michelle Obama’s stony silence in the face of Hamas’ assault against Israel stands in stark contrast to her expressed outrage back in 2014 over the ISIS-aligned foreign terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of Nigerian school girls. At the time, the former first lady appropriately and publicly joined the global “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign.

The Obamas’ refusal to acknowledge the murder of Sarah Milgrim, who was the same age as the former first couple’s eldest daughter at the time of her killing, and Yaron Lischinsky join their pattern of behaving with indifference and outright malice when it comes to confronting antisemitic violence.

The operational freedom that the “Free Palestine” movement enjoys across US cities and campuses, coupled with recent polling showing nearly half of younger Americans back Hamas over Israel, are crucial data points confirming that the grievance-driven playbook seemingly backed by the Obamas has inculcated a generation of Americans that is openly hostile to Israel and, by extension, Jews.

According to the Obamas’ intersectional worldview, Jewish victims are complicit in fomenting the antisemitic terror that now haunts them. Years after leaving the White House, they continue to permit this distorted thinking to enter the political consciousness of millions of Americans, and at least for the foreseeable future, the former president will be primarily tasked with shaping the Democrats’ discourse that, with rare exception, is turning against Israel. That is a very troubling sign for the future — both for Jews and all Americans.

Irit Tratt is an American and pro-Israel advocate residing in New York. Follow her on X @Irit_Tratt.

The post Jewish Blood Is Spilled, and the Obamas Stay Silent first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

A general view shows the plenum at the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in Jerusalem. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

In the midst of Israel’s ongoing political and judicial tensions, each side has become increasingly convinced that the other represents an existential threat to the nation we all love. The right fears that judicial overreach is undermining democratic will; the left fears democratic erosion and the loss of crucial checks and balances. Both sides believe they are fighting to save Israel, yet it is this polarization itself that poses, perhaps, the greatest danger to our collective future.

The question we must all ask ourselves, as honestly as possible, is deceptively simple but deeply challenging: How do I know whether I am part of the problem or part of the solution?

Years ago, while lecturing in America during the Obama administration, I proposed a litmus test: If you cannot name three positive aspects of the opposing political perspective, there is a high probability that, regardless of whether your position is factually correct, you are contributing to the problem rather than helping solve it.

This insight traces back to the Garden of Eden. According to Maimonides’ interpretation of Genesis, humanity’s original sin was essentially subjectivity, confusing what feels good with what is good, and what feels bad with what is bad. Once trapped in this subjective bubble, we convince ourselves that those we dislike do only wrong, while those we admire do only right. The human mind becomes an exceptional attorney, skillfully marshaling evidence to support our predetermined conclusions while dismissing contradictory facts.

This pattern repeats across contexts: in marriages heading toward divorce, in fragmenting communities, and in nations tearing themselves apart politically. If you cannot engage in self-criticism while acknowledging something positive about your opponents, you usually have become part of the destructive cycle.

After proposing this test during my American lecture, an audience member immediately responded, “I completely agree, I wish the Democrats understood that.” I just paused, and after letting her statement sink in, I responded, “Okay, can you say three good things about Barack Obama?” And she said, “Sure.” I said, “Go on.” And she paused, for a long while until she finally said, “He’s a good family man.” I said, “No, can you tell me anything about his policies or his politics?” She was stuck. I told her, “I’m not blaming you, but the statistical likelihood that all the good is on one side and all the problems are on the other side is statistically zero.” The same holds true for us here in Israel, and in every polarized society. The statistical probability that all wisdom and virtue reside on one side of a complex political divide — while all error and vice occupy the other — is effectively zero.

Israel’s situation demands this same honest self-reflection. Our judicial reform debates have exposed deep fault lines in Israeli society, with each side viewing the other through lenses clouded by fear and anger. These emotions, while natural, distort our perception and impair our judgment.

The healing of our nation begins with individual responsibility. We must learn to see the world through the eyes of other — not necessarily to agree with them, but to understand why reasonable, ethical people might hold views diametrically opposed to our own. Often, we discover that others share our fundamental concerns, but approach them from different angles.

Half the country did not suddenly decide to embrace evil. Whether left-wing or right-wing, our leaders’ rhetoric responds to and amplifies genuine worries felt by large segments of the population. If you cannot recognize the legitimacy of concerns on both sides, you are contributing to our national discord rather than its resolution.

The Torah teaches us that before we can repair the world, we must first repair ourselves. Israel’s healing will emerge first through individual transformation, then through small community dialogues, and only then will our national leadership respond to this grassroots change. Our leaders reflect our divisions because we, the people, remain divided.

This approach requires tremendous courage. It means questioning our certainties, acknowledging our biases, and recognizing that wisdom rarely belongs exclusively to any single perspective. It means being willing to say, “Perhaps I don’t have all the answers. Perhaps I need to listen more and judge less.”

The path forward for Israel requires us to move beyond seeing political opponents as enemies and instead recognize them as partners in a shared national project, even when we profoundly disagree. Our strength has always come from our diversity of thought and our capacity for vigorous debate within a framework of mutual respect and common purpose.

The solution to Israel’s discord runs through each of us individually as well as collectively. It begins when we look in the mirror and acknowledge our own contributions to the problem. It continues as we build bridges across divides, listen with genuine curiosity rather than waiting to respond, and seek understanding before demanding agreement.

Only then can we transform this period of conflict into an opportunity for growth and emerge as a stronger, more united Israel, not through imposed uniformity of thought, but through a richer, more nuanced appreciation of our shared destiny and diverse perspectives.

Rabbi Daniel Rowe currently serves as the Educational Visionary of Aish, a global Jewish educational institution, and resides in Jerusalem. He is originally from Manchester, UK, and is writing several books as well as his doctoral thesis on the Philosophy of Mathematics. Rabbi Rowe studied for almost a decade in Israel in various Talmudic institutes. Rabbi Rowe is known for his ability to tackle difficult topics and has numerous videos and articles online. He is an expert on Jewish and Muslim history and has given several talks on the subject of the Judeo-Muslim dynamic and interactions in the modern world.

The post The Solution to Israel’s Political and Judicial Discord Runs Through Each of Us first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim who were shot and killed as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum, pose for a picture at an unknown location, in this handout image released by Embassy of Israel to the US on May 22, 2025. Photo: Embassy of Israel to the USA via X/Handout via REUTERS

You may not have heard of Guy Christensen — but perhaps you should have. Not because he has anything remotely insightful to offer (he doesn’t), but because millions of Gen Z users do hear him, every day.

And understanding Guy Christensen helps explain why so many American college campuses have become incubators for an anti-Israel movement that is less “progressive” than it is unapologetically pro-Islamist.

Born in 2005, Christensen is part of a growing cohort of American influencers who discovered both their political awakening — and their monetizable moment — in the wake of Hamas’ October 7 massacre. Before then, his Instagram resembled that of any ordinary teenager: fishing trips, photos of his girlfriend, the typical adolescent blend of leisure and self-regard.

But like many others, Christensen sensed an opportunity. The fusion of performative compassion for Palestinians and the algorithmic rewards of antisemitism proved irresistible. And so, in May 2025, he posted a video so brazen and grotesque that it achieved precisely what he seemed to desire: outrage, attention, and media coverage.

In the now-deleted post — eventually taken down by TikTok and Instagram — Christensen, who frequently appears on camera draped in a keffiyeh, openly endorsed the murders of Israeli embassy staffers Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim. The couple was gunned down outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., on May 21.

Guy Christensen on Instagram

We are not reproducing the footage. But Christensen’s words are worth documenting — if only to illustrate the depths to which online “activism” has sunk.

“I do not condemn the elimination of the Zionist officials who worked at the Israeli embassy last night,” he declared. He urged his followers to “support Elias’s actions,” referring to Elias Rodriguez, who has since been charged with two counts of murder. “He is not a terrorist. He’s a resistance fighter,” Christensen insisted. “And the fact is that the fight against Israel’s war machine, against their genocide machine, against their criminality, includes their foreign diplomats in this country.”

Rodriguez reportedly told police at the scene: “I did it for Palestine. I did it for Gaza.” After his arrest, he was witnessed chanting “Free Palestine.” Federal prosecutors are treating the attack as an act of terrorism. Rodriguez could face the death penalty. He also said he supported a genocide against white people.

Christensen, meanwhile, may face some type of investigation, with Department of Justice civil rights attorney Leo Terrell stating that he intends to “review all leads.” But the likelihood of real legal consequences remains low. Christensen is a US citizen — and in today’s climate, incitement to murder “Zionists” online exists, as we have seen, in a murky legal gray zone.

The Christensen saga — from teenage TikTok trends to online advocacy for antisemitic violence — is a textbook example of real-time online radicalization. What began as vague, aestheticized “anti-war” rhetoric swiftly mutated into explicit incitement. And millions of young people watched it happen.

In a November 2024 interview with the World Socialist Web Site, which introduced him as a “pro-Palestinian activist” who has “educated many young people [about the] genocide in Gaza,” Christensen explained how it began.

According to him, he already had a large following “prior to October 7th,” when his feed began to fill with “pro-Israel posts about Gaza and Hamas.” He admits: “I knew absolutely nothing about Israel or Palestine.”

“I was seeing all these videos, and I had no idea what they were talking about,” he said. “The idea I got was that Hamas was terrible, that the Palestinians were terrible human beings — and it was a little weird to hear this because it was borderline hateful.”

Then, he says, a pair of comments appeared on his TikTok feed: “Google Nakba” and “Google open air prison.” He did — and, as he puts it, “What I found took me down a path that changed my whole entire life.”

That path, notably, began not with a book, a class, or a conversation — but with two pieces of highly ideological terminology. The first, Nakba — Arabic for “catastrophe” — is the term used to describe the very existence of the State of Israel. The second, “open-air prison,” is an oft-repeated but absurd phrase for a territory that, prior to the current war, saw Hamas leaders living in opulence, amassing enormous wealth, and building a vast arsenal of rockets to fire at Israeli civilians.

As simplistic as Christensen’s radicalization story may seem, it is instructive. It reveals how uninformed young creators can be swept up — and swiftly weaponized — in a digital ecosystem flooded with bot activity, algorithmic amplification, and moral absolutism.

Pro-Palestinian bot networks have been documented spamming platforms like TikTok and Instagram, mass-reporting pro-Israel content while boosting anti-Israel messaging. It’s not far-fetched to suggest that high-follower Gen-Z influencers like Christensen were both targeted and elevated by such manipulation.

The result is that TikTok stars like Christensen are now promoting a worldview that merges antisemitism, anti-Americanism, and political violence — rebranded as “anti-Zionism,” repackaged for a young social media audience, and delivered at viral scale.

Guy Christensen’s TikTok feed

The question is no longer whether this content is dangerous, but rather: who is going to do anything about it?

At a minimum, colleges and universities must stop pretending this is merely youthful dissent. If a student openly glorifies murder, why should they be welcomed on campus and rewarded with a degree?

And employers, take note: do you want your brand associated with someone who advocates violence against Jews?

Most urgently, social media companies must be held to account. The murders of Yaron and Sarah are not abstract tragedies. Their deaths are the irreversible consequence of a culture that rewards incendiary content and enables its spread.

Though Instagram and TikTok eventually removed the specific video in which Christensen applauded the killings, the rest of his content — much of it laced with the same veiled incitement — remains online, racking up likes, shares, and impressions.

Since October 7, content like Christensen’s hasn’t merely persisted — it has flourished. His follower count has soared. Bots flood hashtags. Pro-Israel voices are drowned out. And the platforms, far from restraining this trend, continue to profit from it.

It is not enough to remove a single video after the damage is done.

It’s time to stop rewarding hate with reach. It’s time to stop monetizing murder.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post Guy Christensen: The Gen-Z TikTok Star Inciting His 3.4 Million Followers to Murder ‘Zionists’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.