Thoughts On A Socialist Murderer (Guest Post) ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Friday, May 23, 2025

Thoughts On A Socialist Murderer (Guest Post)

A guest post

The murderer of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky wrote a manifesto before setting out to commit a premeditated cold blooded dual murder. His manifesto sounded strangely familiar. I had heard an old friend of mine say similar things. My old friend is also a Socialist, and a Marxist, and a Harvard graduate, and is now a sitting professor. When we were friends in grade school, he was a peace activist who often quoted Martin Luther King. He strongly believed in non-violent protest. He opposed the Vietnam War. In fact, he opposed all wars. He believed that all conflicts could be solved through UN negotiations and peace treaties. He believed all crimes should be adjudicated in international courts, since he did not trust the US court system. He believed the US was corrupt, while the major Communist dictatorships were utopian. His parents had a poster of Che Guevarra, and a bust of Karl Marx prominently displayed in their home. He had a strange fascination with Carlos The Jackal. I knew there was something odd about his family and the belief system he had grown up with, but I did not place him within the same groups of radical lunatics portrayed in Hollywood movies. After all, he was a straight-A student, and he was very well read in literature, history, philosophy, and the sciences. He was a Renaissance man. He would read the entire Sunday edition of the New York Times every weekend. His teachers all loved him. He was admitted to Harvard on a scholarship, without the help of any family connections. He later became a university professor. I admired his accomplishments, and I thought he must be doing something right.

We lost touch after graduating high school, but we re-united when he moved to a nearby town to accept a new faculty position. It was about a year after the 9/11 attacks and the Second Intifada in Israel. I was upset by the news of the day, since the intifada was an attack against my birthplace, and the 9/11 attacks were against my new adopted home. When we met, the conversation soon turned to the middle east. It was unexpected, since throughout our grade-school friendship we never discussed middle east politics. Looking back, I don't recall ever hearing him supporting the PLO, despite his Communist ideology. He knew I was Israeli, so he probably avoided the subject out of courtesy. But when we re-united, he expressed open support for the Palestinian terrorists who slaughtered over a thousand Israelis during the Second Intifada. The murders were not all concentrated within a single day, as had happened on the Simchat Torah massacre, but the antisemitic carnage was devastating for Israelis around the world. Despite the sensitivity of the topic, he did not hesitate to express solidarity with Hamas "freedom fighters." I was shocked by what he said. This was not the same person I grew up with. This was not a peace activist. I confronted him. I reminded him of his peacenik past. I asked what had changed in his principles. He replied that "sometimes violence is needed in the pursuit of justice." I reminded him that he used to criticize vigilante justice. I reminded him that he once opposed capital punishment. I reminded him that the judicial process does not consist of summary judgement and execution on the spot. I asked him how he could so easily discard all the pacifist principles he once cherished. He had no response. He had lost the concept of morality. How did this happen to such an intelligent person?

I asked him if the recent bombing of the Sbarro pizza parlor in Jerusalem, or the bombing of the cafeteria at Hebrew University did anything to advance justice. He still had no response. I felt outraged, but I maintained my composure. Despite my previous admiration of his education and intellect, I would not let him have the last word about Israel. I knew far more about this subject than he did. I was determined to educate him about Israel, patiently, using lots of facts. I thought a Harvard educated professor would relate to a well-reasoned and thoroughly researched argument. I purchased several copies of The Case For Israel, by Allen Dershowitz, another Harvard alum, and later a Harvard law professor. I gave him a copy, gave several copies to my family members, and kept one for myself. I read Mitch Bards essays about Israel, Michael Oren's Six Days of War, and anything else I could find. I spent the next two months meeting with my friend to discuss my side, the Israeli side of the conflict. We discussed the massive Mizrahi Jewish immigration to Israel, a subject he knew nothing about, despite his supposedly extensive reading about the middle east. We discussed the many UN resolutions about Israel, the foundation of the state, the countless wars, and my personal memories as a child during the '67 war. After a half dozen discussion sessions, each lasting at least two hours, he was still unmoved. I could not get him to change his viewpoints. He even told me that he burned his copy of The Case For Israel in his backyard. I asked if he had bothered to read it. He replied that he did not. So, in a final effort, I explained to my friend that Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization. He replied that it depends on one's perspective. I replied that Hamas is defined as a terrorist organization by both the US Departments of State and Treasury. I reminded him that by US law, aiding or abetting a terrorist organization is illegal. That does not assume any "perspective." I also informed him that I would do my part to enforce US law if I learned of someone aiding Hamas. He got the message. Friendship has its limits.

Circling back to Elias Rodrigues, I have to wonder if my friend would be capable of committing a similar crime. If he expressed support for Hamas in 2001, he is no different than the campus activists organizing the hundreds of marches and encampments supporting "the Gaza resistance" today. If a college professor has no morals, and makes political allegiance with barbarians, than the question is a valid one. My conclusion is that it is a moot point. Even if the professor wouldn't actually pull the trigger, I have no doubt that these professors would do nothing to stop the actual "trigger man." The guilt is shared by the entire ideology that justifies vigilante murder in the name of a deranged interpretation of social justice. I shudder to think how many seemingly normal people are walking around with this latent leftist brainwashing. It reminds me of The Manchurian Candidate. Is this life mimicking art, or was the story a guidebook for a long-term Soviet project?