More than 100 House Democrats took a stand against a GOP resolution condemning a Boulder attack, claiming it was less about antisemitism and more about keeping political pot shots toasty warm.

The heated debate surrounding the resolution, which was introduced in reaction to a June 1 attack on pro-Israel activists that injured fifteen and featured some serious DIY weaponry, has highlighted a divide within Congress. While the resolution passed with a substantial bipartisan vote of 280 to 113, many Democrats argued that its focus on political enemies and sanctuary jurisdictions overshadowed its purported mission to tackle antisemitism. Hence, it seems the only thing getting roasted more than the alleged Molotov cocktails is the political discourse itself.

Rep. Gabe Evans spearheaded the resolution following the alarming attack perpetrated by Mohammed Sabry Soliman. On that fateful day, Soliman allegedly employed Molotov cocktails and an improvised flamethrower, leading to a rather fiery situation—though hardly the kind that most Americans would feel comfortable sharing at a family barbecue. However, this resolution, rather than strictly aiming to condemn antisemitism, included pointed language that took aim at blue-leaning sanctuary jurisdictions and illegal immigrants. Clearly, it was a complex menu of issues served with a side of political seasoning that some Democrats found unpalatable.

Despite the resolution's heavy-handed emphasis on certain politically charged subjects, 75 Democrats chose to cross party lines and actually support it. Perhaps they were swayed by the smell of bipartisanship wafting through the halls of Congress, or they simply realized that being a member of the House means occasionally having to swallow some less-than-savory resolutions. Meanwhile, more than 100 House Democrats revealed their distaste by voting against the measure, hinting at an internal squabble that has all the hallmarks of Thanksgiving dinner arguments—everyone is mildly uncomfortable, and nobody wants to dive into the political casserole just yet.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke out vehemently against the resolution, claiming it lacked sincerity in the fight against antisemitism. "This is not a genuine effort," he stated, as he presumably waved a hand dismissively at the opposition. Rather, Jeffries argued it seemed more like a strategic chess move designed to leverage the ongoing narrative surrounding antisemitism while simultaneously taking a few well-aimed political jabs. To paraphrase, if this resolution was intended as some kind of universal remedy, it appears it may have needed a second opinion from the House of Commons—or at least a decent PR team.

Rep. Dan Goldman, a Democrat of Jewish descent, voiced similar concerns from the House floor. According to him, the resolution reeked of political theater—a mere charade and not a substantial effort to combat the deeply troubling rise in antisemitism. "This is about optics," he insinuated, channeling the frustration of his peers as if they were all watching a poorly directed play unfolding. Rather than addressing the important issues at hand, lawmakers found themselves embroiled in discussions of political posturing and the artifacts left on Capitol Hill, akin to leftover campaign paraphernalia after an exhausting election season.

While the contentious condemnation resolution passed, it is essential to highlight the separate resolution that garnered a unanimous 400-0 vote, condemning the rise in antisemitic attacks in the U.S. This suggests that when the House members want to, they can truly unite. Perhaps that resolution was reminiscent of finding the last piece of chocolate cake that everyone collectively agrees should be eaten. But will this newfound unity translate into genuine progress? That remains to be seen and might depend on how many Molotov cocktails are involved in the debate.

As Congress faces a sea of divisive issues, it appears that some members feel compelled to craft resolutions based not merely on principles of justice but on the desire to score political points. Perhaps the next resolution should come with a warning label for political overexposure.