Loading record
Public disputes concerning politically motivated violence, threats, attacks, and claims about the causes or consequences of such violence.
Browse cases, people, and recent statements connected to this topic. How we classify topics
Coverage
Case
A livestream passage prompted disagreement over whether Piker warned that conflating Jewish identity with Israel could fuel antisemitic violence, or instead blamed and implicitly threatened American Jews.
Case
Hasan Piker affirmed a hypothetical preference for Hamas over Israel through lesser-evil reasoning. Jon Favreau disputed the moral comparison, while the ADL cited it as whitewashing terrorism. Piker later acknowledged Hamas war crimes and denied endorsing its domestic policies, while maintaining that Israeli occupation was the overriding concern.
Case
After an armed assailant attacked Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed condemned the attack and antisemitism but connected the assailant's actions to an Israeli airstrike that killed members of his family, describing violence as a cycle. Critics said the framing rationalized an antisemitic terrorist attack or shifted responsibility toward Israel and Jews. El-Sayed denied justifying the attack and later apologized for introducing context when the victims needed an unqualified condemnation.
Role at the time: UC Santa Cruz professor and UC Ethnic Studies Council member, quoted email
Responding to
Mosab Hassan Yousef’s call for Muslims to leave the United States at the Jewish American Summit
"his strategic silence, which amounts to sanctioning violence"
The email directly criticizes Sures; the allegation remains attributed to Hong rather than adopted as a finding.
Role at the time: Author and former labor secretary, personal essay
Responding to
Abdul El-Sayed's cycle of violence framing after the Temple Israel attack
"it’s clear he was merely trying to explain and give context for the violence."
The essay directly rejects the central criticism of El-Sayed's framing; this is more specific than the accompanying electoral endorsement.
Role at the time: Member of the Knesset
Responding to
Was Netanyahu warned by the UAE about a major Hamas operation before October 7?
"It is difficult to know how events would have developed if Netanyahu had acted and the security establishment had received the information."
His response criticizes the failure to transmit the alleged information but expressly avoids claiming that action would certainly have prevented the attack.
Role at the time: Israeli opposition politician and former prime minister
Responding to
Was Netanyahu warned by the UAE about a major Hamas operation before October 7?
"Three weeks before the massacre, I warned the Prime Minister at a press conference that this was what was going to happen."
He directly blamed Netanyahu for failing to act on multiple warnings and tied that failure to the attack’s occurrence.
Role at the time: United States representative, Meet the Press interview
Responding to
Hasan Piker’s “Hamas over Israel” comparison
"I think all of that is an irrelevant distraction."
His answer minimizes the electoral focus on Piker but contains an explicit condemnation of Hamas, so it is not a Hamas endorsement or a refusal to answer.
Role at the time: Journalist and editor, The Grayzone
Responding to
Yousef's remarks and the audience applause constituted anti-Muslim hate and warranted an apology and repudiation from the summit and its sponsors.
"The Israeli Shin Bet tortured Mosab to the point that he now sounds like Hitler and looks like Herzl."
Despite its own provocative wording, the comparison unmistakably condemns Yousef's rhetoric.
Role at the time: Turning Point USA spokesperson and political media host
Responding to
El-Sayed's cycle-of-violence framing rationalized the antisemitic attack or improperly shifted explanatory responsibility toward Israel and Jews.
"Michigan CANNOT afford to elect a guy like Sayed."
The authored post expressly endorsed criticism centered on El-Sayed's Temple Israel response and urged electoral rejection.
Role at the time: Co-host and founder of The Young Turks
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"condemns the synagogue attack. Of course, any person would, there's no question, and he did, there's no question about that."
He treated causal explanation as legitimate and rejected the claim that El-Sayed's context negated his condemnation.
Role at the time: Co-host of The Young Turks
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"walk into a room full of people and apologize for something that he shouldn't have apologized for."
She directly defended the substance of the original causal explanation and rejected the need for an apology.
Role at the time: Clergy of Temple Israel, collectively
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"declined to comment"
This is a documented refusal to comment on the apologies, not silence on the broader controversy; Rabbi Jen Lader had already criticized the original March framing.
Role at the time: Michigan rabbi and Jewish communal leader
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"nonapology apology"
The criticism directly challenges the sufficiency and substance of the apology.
Role at the time: Vice president of the United States
Responding to
El-Sayed's cycle-of-violence framing rationalized the antisemitic attack or improperly shifted explanatory responsibility toward Israel and Jews.
"A person who will apologize for a murderer so long as he looks the right way."
This is a strong condemnation, but Vance's wording overstates El-Sayed's literal statement, which repeatedly condemned the attack.
Role at the time: Democratic strategist and commentator
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"He admitted he was wrong. He apologized."
She emphasized corrective action without defending the original statement.
Role at the time: United States representative
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"I take him at his word. All of us deserve second chances."
He treated the apology as credible and sufficient for political support.
Role at the time: Michigan Democratic activist
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"insufficient"
He treated the apology as inadequate and politically calculated rather than a sufficient correction.
Role at the time: Michigan Jewish Democratic organizer
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"The remarks were broadly well received, but there is never context for targeting preschoolers."
The response combines approval of the outreach with a continuing substantive objection.
Role at the time: Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Michigan
Responding to
El-Sayed's immediate response should have stopped at an unqualified condemnation; adding causal context at that moment was a mistake.
"I made a mistake. It wasn't the time for context."
He conceded timing, judgment, and harm but did not retract the underlying causal analysis.
Role at the time: Interview subject and political livestreamer
Responding to
Piker’s wording encouraged or justified violence against American Jews.
"Virtually all of my critics, ironically enough, have been saying the exact same thing that I’m saying."
This is the subject’s own denial of the allegation and explanation of intended meaning, not independent corroboration.
Role at the time: Political writer, The Atlantic
Responding to
Piker’s wording functioned as an implied threat against American Jews.
"a barely veiled anti-Semitic threat"
The quoted phrase explicitly characterizes the remarks as both antisemitic and threatening.
Role at the time: Israel-studies professor, personal analysis
Responding to
Hasan Piker’s remarks about American Jews, Israel, and antisemitic violence
"Jews are entitled to have an attachment to Israel."
He agrees with the need to distinguish Jewish identity from Israel while explicitly separating his position from the safety condition he attributes to Piker.
Role at the time: United States senator from Georgia
Responding to
Hasan Piker’s remarks about American Jews, Israel, and antisemitic violence
"I unreservedly reject reckless and dangerous rhetoric suggesting that policy advocacy invites violence against the Jewish community or any community."
Ossoff expressly rejects the framing as reckless and dangerous.
Role at the time: Host, The David Frum Show; staff writer
Responding to
Piker’s wording functioned as an implied threat against American Jews.
"That’s a pretty contemptible offer. You’ll guarantee my physical safety if I submit?"
The response treats the passage as a coercive implied threat rather than a neutral warning.
Role at the time: Journalist and commentator
Responding to
Piker’s wording encouraged or justified violence against American Jews.
"He has neither ‘encouraged’ nor ‘justified’ violence against American Jews. Literally zero evidence for that."
The post expressly denies the central characterization advanced by Brad Sherman.
Role at the time: Host, America First
Responding to
Piker’s wording encouraged or justified violence against American Jews.
"He does justify violence against Jews, and that’s unacceptable. He’s a real anti-Semite."
The wording is an explicit condemnation, but Fuentes also said he had not heard the exact statement; that limits its evidentiary weight.
