Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian immigrant, hurled Molotov cocktails into a peaceful gathering of Jewish demonstrators, using a homemade flamethrower to set several people ablaze.
By Dr. Tim Orr
On June 1, 2025, Boulder, Colorado, became the site of a brutal attack that shook the conscience of the nation. Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian immigrant, hurled Molotov cocktails into a peaceful gathering of Jewish demonstrators, using a homemade flamethrower to set several people ablaze. These demonstrators were part of a weekly event advocating for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Among the twelve injured was an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. The attacker shouted “Free Palestine” as he launched his firebombs, showing no regard for the lives he tried to destroy (Jewish Telegraphic Agency [JTA], 2025a). This act was not spontaneous or isolated. It was the result of a deliberate plan that had been developed over a year. Soliman later admitted to the FBI that he intended to kill “all Zionist people” and expressed zero remorse. His hatred was not born in America, but it was allowed to thrive here.
Soliman's method of attack reveals the chilling level of intent, as corroborated by FBI reports stating he used online tutorials to learn how to construct incendiary devices and methodically assembled a flamethrower from a garden hose and fuel (The Daily Beast, 2025), and ideological resolve behind the violence. He did not simply lash out with a firearm or improvised weapon in the heat of passion. Instead, he constructed a flamethrower from a garden hose and fuel, and built multiple incendiary devices by hand, studying online tutorials to perfect their design. His planning shows this was an act of terror fueled by long-held hatred rather than spontaneous rage. His choice to wait until after his daughter's graduation demonstrates that this attack was strategically timed, not emotionally impulsive. Such premeditation demands that we treat this act as ideological warfare, not merely criminal behavior. It reflects a deeper ideological system, one he carried with him across borders.
To understand what led Soliman to commit such a heinous act, we must examine the environment that shaped him, an Egypt where antisemitism is not merely tolerated, but embedded in the cultural and religious fabric of society. Following the creation of Israel in 1948, Egypt underwent a systemic purge of its Jewish population, expelling more than 80,000 Jews and confiscating their homes and businesses (Lewis, 1986). Since that time, the Egyptian media, educational system, and religious institutions have portrayed Jews as demonic agents of chaos and control. Children are raised on textbooks that present Jews as enemies of God. Clerics frequently use Friday sermons to reinforce conspiracies, often referencing antisemitic forgeries like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if they were historical truth (Taguieff, 2004). Even popular entertainment, such as Ramadan soap operas, has featured Jews as greedy villains and secret manipulators. In Egypt, antisemitism is institutional and systemic, not fringe. It is seen as patriotic, even sacred. Soliman grew up immersed in this worldview, and it formed the ideological foundation of his life.
Modern Egyptian antisemitism finds reinforcement not only in political rhetoric but also in religious texts misinterpreted to fuel resentment. Verses of the Qur’an and Hadiths are frequently weaponized in state-aligned religious discourse to paint Jews as deceitful, cursed, or adversaries of Islam. Though these interpretations represent a radicalized lens, they have become normalized through repetition and state validation. Moreover, Egypt’s partnership with Palestinian causes, particularly Hamas, creates a narrative where anti-Israel sentiment becomes a sacred duty. Any systemic voice of dissent did not challenge this deeply rooted hatred. Instead, it became embedded in the national psyche, transmitted through media, sermons, classrooms, and cultural memory. In such an environment, someone like Soliman would have internalized antisemitism not as one opinion among many, but as the moral consensus.
What pushed Soliman from hatred to violence, however, was not merely antisemitism in the classical sense; it was the modern, weaponized version of anti-Zionism. In Egypt and across the Arab world, “Zionist” is often used as a stand-in for “Jew,” allowing hatred to masquerade as political criticism (Taguieff, 2004). This shift has provided plausible deniability to extremists, who claim to oppose Israel’s policies while targeting Jewish civilians around the globe. Soliman didn’t attack Israeli soldiers or government officials. He attacked Jewish Americans who were exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly (The Daily Beast, 2025). His target was not political power, but rather the Jewish presence. This kind of anti-Zionism transforms legitimate debate over Israeli policy into a theological justification for murder. The chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are not merely protest slogans to men like Soliman; they are marching orders. In his mind, Zionism was a crime punishable by death, and every Jew was guilty.
Anti-Zionism today often serves as a socially acceptable channel for antisemitic expression, especially in environments where direct expressions of Jew-hatred are condemned. Activists and public figures, such as former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters and British politician George Galloway, cloak genocidal intent in language about “resistance” and “liberation,” but their targets frequently include Jewish civilians, not combatants. This is precisely how Soliman justified his attack by conflating support for Israel with moral culpability. When Jewish people are presumed guilty for the actions of a nation-state, they cease to be individuals and become ideological targets. That conflation opens the door for dehumanization. When political rhetoric erases distinctions between Zionist and Jew, it legitimizes violence against both. Soliman’s worldview did not evolve in a vacuum. It was validated by a growing global discourse that increasingly refuses to distinguish between political critique and racial hate.
Equally alarming is how the U.S. immigration system under the Biden administration allowed Soliman to stay and plot this attack despite multiple red flags. He entered the U.S. in 2022 on a tourist visa, which expired soon after. He applied for asylum, received a temporary work permit, and then overstayed that as well. Yet at no point did the Department of Homeland Security take enforcement action against him (The Times, 2025). He lived openly in Colorado Springs, stockpiling gasoline, constructing incendiary devices, and monitoring Jewish gatherings. Soliman admitted he delayed his attack only because he wanted to attend his daughter’s high school graduation. This wasn’t a man flying under the radar. It was a man hiding in plain sight. The Biden administration’s leniency on visa overstays and lack of enforcement for expired permits created an environment where a radicalized individual could prepare for mass murder without interference. This is not just a policy failure. It is a national security breakdown.
The systemic loopholes in U.S. immigration enforcement have grown under the weight of political agendas that, while often well-intentioned and rooted in humanitarian compassion, prioritize appearances of inclusivity over effective security. Balancing empathy with vigilance is a complex and challenging endeavor. In the past, individuals like Soliman would have been flagged and removed upon visa expiration, especially after the expiration of a temporary work permit. However, the former administration’s deprioritization of enforcement and reluctance to pursue deportation except in extreme cases left gaps large enough for terrorism to grow unnoticed. While compassion must always have a place in immigration policy, compassion without prudence becomes complicity. Soliman’s ability to plan such a horrific act should prompt not only investigations but also deep reforms. National security has shifted to be more based on common sense. It has grown under the weight of political agendas that prioritize appearances of compassion over effective security. Soliman’s ability to plan such a horrific act should prompt not only investigations but also deep reforms. National security must begin with common sense.
Beyond policy failures, this case reveals a profound lack of cultural integration and moral education for those entering American society. Soliman arrived in the U.S. with a worldview forged in antisemitic ideology, but nothing in the asylum process challenged or addressed those beliefs. There were no programs to teach civic values, no vetting for extremist ideology, and no mechanism to detect whether an individual espoused hatred toward fellow citizens. America prides itself on being a land of refuge, but a refuge for whom? If we open our doors without discernment, we risk giving sanctuary not to the oppressed, but to the dangerous. The failure wasn’t simply that Soliman stayed; it was that he stayed unchanged. Our immigration system did not just overlook him. It failed to confront the very hatred that made him dangerous in the first place. Compassion without discernment is not a virtue. It is negligence.
The deeper failure lies not merely in bureaucratic negligence, but in the ideological vacuum into which migrants are received. While America opens its doors to those seeking refuge, it does not require those same individuals to understand or accept the foundational values of pluralism, religious freedom, and mutual respect. Multiculturalism, if not paired with cultural clarity, can become a breeding ground for imported extremism. Soliman brought with him a worldview shaped by systemic antisemitism, and no system in America asked him to disavow it. In our attempt to appear inclusive, we failed to be morally coherent. Immigration without integration creates not harmony, but division. And as this case illustrates, it can also lead to disaster.
This tragedy also forces us to confront the broader Western trend of tolerating, and sometimes excusing, antisemitic ideologies when they are cloaked in activist language. College campuses, activist circles, and even mainstream media frequently platform voices that demonize Israel with theological intensity, portraying it as the root of all global injustice. While criticism of Israeli policy is entirely legitimate, when it crosses the line into denying Jewish people the right to self-determination or equating Jews with colonial oppressors, it fuels hatred like Soliman’s. These narratives provide ideological oxygen for violence. What begins as slogans ends as firebombs. And too often, the moral clarity that should distinguish between protest and persecution is lost. The West must wake up to the fact that antisemitism is evolving, not disappearing. And it now wears the mask of moral progress.
The West’s intellectual elite often overlooks or excuses antisemitic rhetoric when it comes in the language of anti-colonialism or decolonization. The fashionable academic framing of Israel as a “settler colonial” state has created a moral binary in which Jews are cast as oppressors and Palestinians as perpetual victims. This has emboldened extremists to view any Jewish support for Israel as complicity in systemic evil. Moreover, progressive coalitions often silence or exclude Jews who defend Israel, thereby normalizing antisemitic narratives in social justice discourse. These dynamics make it easier for radicals like Soliman to believe that their violence will be praised or at least understood. And when major institutions fail to denounce these lies, they share in the responsibility for the consequences that follow.
So what must be done? First, the U.S. must reform its immigration policies with wisdom and security in mind. Visa overstays should be tracked with real consequences, and asylum seekers should include ideological screening to ensure those we welcome do not harbor hatred for others. Second, we must confront antisemitism in its modern, anti-Zionist forms. That means educating the public, especially in schools and universities, on the history of Jewish persecution and the theological, political, and cultural dimensions of antisemitism (Lewis, 1986). Third, we need a cultural shift that refuses to tolerate antisemitic speech, even when it is politically fashionable. Social media companies must be held accountable for spreading incendiary content, and religious institutions, both mosques and churches, must be proactive in preaching the dignity of all people. Finally, our Jewish neighbors need to see that we will stand with them, not just in words, but in action. Jewish safety is not just a Jewish issue, it is a civilizational one.
Mohamed Soliman lit the fire, but he was not alone in building the pyre. His actions were shaped by Egyptian indoctrination, nourished by Western ideological confusion, and permitted by American political negligence. If we fail to act, if we continue to ignore the growing fusion of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, we will see more fires. And not just in Boulder. We are not simply dealing with isolated extremists, but with an international ideology that calls for the death of Jews wherever they live. This is a spiritual, cultural, and policy crisis. Let Boulder be the wake-up call we heed, not the one we mourn in retrospect.
We stand at a cultural and spiritual crossroads. One path leads to indifference, complacency, and more bloodshed, where each new act of terror is met with temporary outrage, followed by silence. The other path demands moral resolve: to name the evil, confront it, and build a culture rooted in truth and justice. Jewish history reminds us that when societies tolerate antisemitism, they eventually unravel from within. Boulder is not just a Jewish tragedy. It is an American test. Will we protect the innocent and uphold our values, or will we continue to sacrifice both at the altar of appeasement?
Jewish Telegraphic Agency. (2025a, June 3). Man charged with hate crime in Boulder firebombing wanted to kill all Zionist people, FBI says. https://www.jta.org/2025/06/03/united-states/man-charged-with-hate-crime-in-boulder-firebombing-wanted-to-kill-all-zionist-people-fbi-says
Lewis, B. (1986). Semites and anti-Semites: An inquiry into conflict and prejudice. W. W. Norton.
Taguieff, P.-A. (2004). Rising from the muck: The new anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee.
The Daily Beast. (2025, June 3). Why Colorado terror suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman says he waited a year to carry out attack. https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-colorado-terror-suspect-mohamed-sabry-soliman-says-he-waited-a-year-to-carry-out-attack
The Times. (2025, June 3). Boulder suspect 'plotted anti-Zionist attack for a year'. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boulder-terror-attack-live-today-latest-news-xt2w3nsjz
Tim serves full-time with Crescent Project as the assistant director of the internship program and area coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London.
In addition to his ministry work, Tim is a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, and Islamic feminism. He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK—including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran—and has published widely in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals. Tim is also the author of four books.