The Blogs: Antisemitic Discourse after the Washington Embassy Shooting

“Kvetching Intensifies”: Antisemitic Discourse Online after the Washington Embassy Shooting

By Matthias J. Becker

Lead Decoding Antisemitism

University of Cambridge

Senior Research Fellow AddressHate (NYC)

On May 21, 2025, Yaron Lischinsky, a 30-year-old Israeli-German diplomatic staff member, and Sarah Milgrim, a 26-year-old American who had attended a diplomatic reception, were killed in a shooting outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. The attack, which took place shortly after a gathering at the nearby Lillian & Albert Small Capital Jewish Museum, is being investigated as a potential hate crime. The perpetrator, Elias Rodriguez, a 31-year-old from Chicago, was apprehended at the scene, reportedly shouting political slogans, including “Free, free Palestine!” But the violence did not end there.

The digital aftershock of the attack—captured in the comment sections of YouTube videos posted by mainstream English-speaking media outlets—offers a sobering view into how social media users responded. Rather than expressing solidarity, mourning, or concern, many users reacted with mockery, blame, and explicit dehumanization. Some comments trafficked in conspiracy myths, claiming the attack was staged or orchestrated by Jewish or Israeli actors. Others openly celebrated the violence or framed it as justified.

These responses were not confined to the margins. They reflected a broad and unsettling pattern: the denial of empathy, the ridicule of Jewish grief, and the portrayal of Jewish lives as politically expendable. Antisemitic tropes—long embedded in global culture—resurfaced with renewed force, now sharpened by the logic of digital communication. When expressions of mourning are dismissed as performance, and when violent death is reframed as political karma, the moral ground for rejecting antisemitism begins to erode.

As previous work by the Decoding Antisemitism project and in my own analysis has shown, online hate speech is not spontaneous. It draws on deep historical biases and is amplified by current events. It thrives in digital ecosystems that reward outrage over accuracy, and engagement over compassion. When incitement is disguised as critique, when the suffering of victims is mocked, and when human dignity is systematically denied, the threshold for real-world violence begins to fall.

This article examines responses to the Washington shooting across eight YouTube channels, showing how quickly antisemitic narratives emerge. A longer, in-depth report will follow. For now, this piece aims not merely to document the rhetoric but to analyze how hate operates online: the arguments it co-opts, the emotions it manipulates, and the way it turns atrocity into propaganda.

What emerges is a disturbing picture of digital complicity—and a warning about the technological and cultural conditions that allow hate to flourish with speed, sophistication, and alarming ease.

Dataset & Methodology

To understand how digital audiences responded to the Washington Embassy shooting, this article draws on an original dataset of user comments from YouTube videos published by major English-language news outlets. The selection spans a broad spectrum of editorial perspectives—from public broadcasters to international and independent media—offering a cross-section of how viewers across the Anglophone world interpreted the event through political, social, and moral lenses.

For each outlet, 200 user comments were analyzed qualitatively using linguistic and multimodal close reading, alongside sequence analysis. The study used qualitative comment analysis, supported by the Decoding Antisemitism Lexicon—an analytical framework developed to categorize both explicit and implicit forms of antisemitic expression in contemporary communication. Designed to account for coded language, sarcasm, and visual memes, the lexicon enables a systematic mapping of how antisemitic content is disguised, normalized, and disseminated across digital platforms.

The dataset draws from the comment sections of the following YouTube channels:

Among the channels analyzed, Al Jazeera English featured the highest proportion of flagged antisemitic content, with 66% of relevant comments exhibiting such language or themes. Viewers often framed the incident through conspiratorial lenses or weaponized antisemitic tropes to push specific political narratives—one notable thread involved fixations on the name of the alleged attacker, twisting it into a supposed Jewish identity to cast doubt on the reporting.

Times News followed closely, with 54% of the comments containing antisemitic content. Here, users engaged heavily in what can be termed relativizing antisemitism—downplaying it or denying its validity altogether—alongside more coded language such as memes and dismissive commentary (“Kvetching intensifies”) that diminish the reality of Jewish victimhood.

CTV News, a major Canadian broadcaster, also presented a high rate of antisemitic responses at 50%. Justifications for the attack often rested on claims of genocide and mass starvation in Gaza. This mode of commentary tended to treat the attack not as an isolated act of violence but as a retaliatory blow, thus shifting the moral burden entirely away from the perpetrator.

BBC News and The Guardian, two of the UK’s most prominent news organizations, recorded 42% and 40% respectively. In both, conspiracy theories were particularly prominent—commenters cited shadowy government operations or invoked religious imagery to paint Jews as globally powerful and inherently culpable. On The Guardian’s channel in particular, many users sought to justify the violence as proportional or inevitable, framing it as a response to alleged Israeli actions in Gaza rather than as an act of antisemitic aggression.

Sky News showed similar patterns, with 40% of comments flagged. In this case, affirmations of violence—explicit endorsements or defenses of the act—surfaced with disturbing frequency, often coupled with conspiratorial accusations.

Forbes, a platform more typically associated with business and policy content, had a lower but still notable antisemitic presence at 28%. As with Sky News, users were more likely to affirm the legitimacy of the attack or promote the idea of systemic Jewish guilt, though less prone to religious or genocidal themes.

Finally, LiveNow from Fox, while comparatively lower at 24%, still featured significant antisemitic discourse. Comments here frequently questioned the newsworthiness of the event itself or pushed familiar conspiracy narratives, suggesting a deep-seated skepticism toward Jewish victimhood or representation in the media.

The data reveals how online audiences often react to anti-Jewish violence not with sympathy, but with suspicion, mockery, or even celebration.

The Rhetoric of Hate: Breaking Down the Language of Antisemitism in YouTube Responses

1) Conspiracy Myths

One of the most dominant and recurrent patterns across all eight YouTube channels was the propagation of conspiracy-based antisemitism. Commenters frequently framed the Washington Embassy shooting not as a hate crime or act of terrorism, but as a calculated operation by Israeli or Jewish actors—allegedly designed to manipulate public opinion, deflect criticism, or justify further violence.

These narratives commonly invoked shadowy intelligence services and covert geopolitical strategies. References to “Mossad playbook,” “CIA false flag,” and the “Hannibal Directive” were widespread. The latter—a controversial Israeli military protocol—was cynically repurposed by commenters to suggest that Israel orchestrated the attack and sacrificed its own citizens in order to attract sympathy or steer global media narratives.

On Al Jazeera English, commenters repeatedly suggested that the shooting was a false flag operation—allegedly orchestrated by Israel itself. These narratives were often accompanied by claims that the true motive was to divert international attention away from Israel’s supposed crimes in Gaza:

“Elias [the perpetrator’s name] is a Jewish name.”
“MOSSAD playbook.”
“Finding ways to get deviated from gen*cide as usual CHOOSEN PEOPLE.”

Readers of major UK outlets such as BBC News and Sky News echoed these themes, often expressing overt skepticism about the authenticity of Jewish suffering:

“They kill their own and lie about it. Or just make up numbers.” (BBC)
“They feel no way about killing their own.” (Sky)
“And yet the Israelis let it happen???” (Sky)

On LiveNow from Fox, the rhetoric escalated into full-blown fabrication:

“Police have already detained one man wearing a kaffiyeh and a fake beard, reportedly working for Mossad by the name of Moishe Goldenberg.”
“It is very clear that this is a fake attack made by the Israeli Mossad and the American CIA! Another (False Flag) made by the Israelis.”

This blend of fabrication, ridicule, and reappropriated historical myth—such as references to the Lavon Affair (a 1950s Israeli covert operation) or the dancing Israelis trope from post-9/11 conspiracy culture—surfaced across channels:

“They kill their own then blame others. Lavon affair.” (BBC)
“Were the Israelis of the dancing variety, perhaps?” (Al Jazeera)
“Were they the ones known for dancing?” (Forbes)

There were also mocking references to October 7 and derisive commentary about the credibility of Israeli claims:

“40 beheaded babies? Fake.” (BBC)
“Apparently 100,000 beheaded babies huh?” (BBC)
“Okt 7 was full of lies by Izrayl.” (Sky)

These statements do not arise in isolation. They rely on entrenched antisemitic narratives that cast Jews as inherently duplicitous, globally manipulative, and unworthy of compassion. The logic is self-reinforcing and totalizing: if Jews are harmed, it must be a trick; if they mourn, it must be performative.

Some users extended the conspiracies to broader geopolitical alignments, suggesting the attack was part of an international manipulation involving the United States:

“Definitely because America left Israel alone to attack Iran and he is speaking with Hamas without Israel so of course Israel will do something to take Trump’s attention.” (Guardian)
“Trump is only embarrassing South Africa because they filed charges of genocide against Israel at the UN and Trump serves satanic Jewish interests.” (Times)
“Free America from AIPAC.” (LiveNow)

These comments fuse classic antisemitic tropes—depicting Jews as secretly powerful and politically disloyal—with modern geopolitical resentments. The result is not only the denial of Jewish victimhood but its recasting as a calculated provocation.

2) Instrumentalization of Antisemitism

A second, increasingly visible antisemitic concept is the stereotype that Jews instrumentalize antisemitism—not by denying that they are targeted, but by ridiculing or downplaying the significance of such targeting. This rhetorical strategy often appears in sarcastic or dismissive language, aiming to trivialize Jewish suffering and portray it as exaggerated, manipulative, or politically expedient. Two illustrative examples demonstrate this mockery:

“Kvetching intensifies.” (Times)
“Is that the emoji for ‘Oy Vey’?” (Times)

The term “kvetch” originates from Yiddish and means “to complain.” In these contexts, it is used to sneer at Jewish expressions of pain or fear, reducing them to mere grumbling. Similarly, “oy vey”—another Yiddish phrase typically used to express genuine grief, dismay, or anxiety—is invoked mockingly, stripping it of its emotional weight and turning it into a tool of ridicule. Such comments transform a moment of mourning into spectacle, framing Jewish responses as insincere or theatrically exaggerated:

“They needed a boost in the victimhood.” (Al Jazeera)
“They renewed victimhood for 2 more months. Zionists. We read you. We know your tricks. Stop trying.” (Al Jazeera)
“You mean Israeli playbook, killing tens of thousands of kids, attacking multiple states then playing the victim.” (BBC)

Another variant appeared in the form of media critique:

“Mainstream media seems to think it must be genocide since two people died.” (Sky)

This line cynically equates the coverage of Jewish deaths with media exaggeration, again implying that expressions of mourning are inflated and unearned. The subtext is that Jewish suffering is not only overemphasized—but calculated, rehearsed, and designed to hijack public sympathy.

Such comments exemplify a broader shift in digital discourse, where antisemitism is no longer always expressed as outright hatred, but as dismissive irony. These rhetorical moves deny the legitimacy of Jewish trauma, reduce it to political theater, and implicitly accuse Jews of monopolizing victimhood to protect power.

3) Affirmation and Justification of Violence

In a notable subset of comments, users did not merely rationalize or downplay the violence—they endorsed or justified it. These responses reflected a worldview in which the victims were not regarded as innocent civilians, but as political actors complicit in broader state violence. Several commenters endorsed the violence more explicitly:

“Supporting Israel in a professional matter is an assumption of risk.” (CTV)
“Can you be innocent if you work for the Israeli government and its war machine?” (Guardian)

These statements collapse the distinction between state policy and personal identity. In this framework, any association with Israel—professional, ethnic, or symbolic—is construed as grounds for moral culpability.

As a result, Jewish professionals, diplomats, and even civilians are rhetorically repositioned as legitimate targets of violence. This framing is reinforced by visual cues as well, such as the inverted red triangle, which has circulated online as a symbol used to mark individuals as “targets” of supposed complicity:

“You are supporting child murder and diaper soldiers.
“Complicity is dangerous. Just saying.” (CTV)
“Supporting Israel in a professional matter is an assumption of risk.” (CTV)

These moves go further than blaming victims—they portray Jewish mourning as suspect or manipulative. In doing so, they delegitimize Jewish suffering and erode the very category of Jewish victimhood.

4) Israel’s Alleged Guilt: Inversion of Victimhood

Another recurring rhetorical strategy across the analyzed comment sections is the inversion of victimhood, in which users shift moral responsibility for the Washington Embassy shooting away from the perpetrator and onto Israel itself. Here, the attack is not interpreted as an act of antisemitism, but as an inevitable reaction to Israel’s alleged crimes in Gaza. Some framed this reversal explicitly:

“Radicalized by genocide.” (LiveNow)
“Blame Satanyahu.” (Sky)

Others used sarcasm to undermine the legitimacy of Jewish grief:

“What about 60k yes 60,000 sixty thousand people killed in palestine!!!! ” (Sky)
“Just two? That’s it? Now let’s see the Gaza numbers from the last 2 hours.” (Guardian)

Such comments suggest Jewish deaths are dismissed as insignificant, judged by comparative suffering. This quantitative moral reasoning doesn’t merely contextualize the violence—it justifies it, recasting the murder of Jews as a proportional or even logical outcome of state policy. Still more comments shifted the focus to Jewish deception or emotional manipulation:

“Here we go with the drama again…!!!! You cry for 2 people and how about the kids in Gaza? Enough acting, now the whole world knows the truth.” (Guardian)
“Imagine carrying out a G E N O C I D E and still thinking you’re the victims… PATHETIC!” (Guardian)

Such statements reflect a rhetorical reversal in which the aggressor becomes the victim, and the victim becomes the manipulator. Jewish mourning is portrayed not only as illegitimate but morally offensive—a performance meant to distract from real atrocities.

This inversion aligns with long-standing antisemitic tropes: that Jewish suffering is self-inflicted, that Jews, by virtue of their perceived power, cannot be true victims, and that any recognition of Jewish trauma must be challenged or undermined. It is a form of blame displacement that simultaneously denies antisemitism and legitimizes violence. One particularly telling example ties these themes together:

“What is Netanyahu doing in Palestine?” (Guardian)

This comment implies not just political critique but moral causality: that Israelis, by being “in the wrong place,” bear inherent blame for violence against them—even abroad. It reinforces the idea that Israeli presence itself provokes justifiable retribution, thereby extending the guilt narrative beyond geopolitics to personal vulnerability.

In online spaces where outrage trumps nuance, such arguments allow users to frame murder as moral equilibrium—a rebalancing of global injustice. In doing so, they contribute to a broader narrative ecosystem in which Jewish victimhood is discredited, and empathy itself is denied.

Conclusion

This analysis shows how antisemitism mutates online, shifting from sarcasm to pseudo-analysis but always reinforcing familiar logics. These narratives are often coded, sarcastic, or framed as justice. But at their core, they serve the same function: to deny empathy, deflect accountability, and dismantle Jewish legitimacy.

In this environment, hate is not fringe—it is circulated, rewarded, and scaled, often without resistance. What we are seeing is not only the erosion of boundaries between critique and hate speech, but the normalization of dehumanization itself. And that normalization carries consequences far beyond the screen: it lays the groundwork for the escalation of antisemitic violence and prepares the ground for real-world harm.