Beware of the snake
In the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder, conspiracy theorists are weaponizing rhetoric and echoing centuries of blood libels to demonize Israel.
By Meira Kolatch
JNS
Oct 1, 2025
Candace Owens claims that Charlie Kirk was “turning on Israel” and so, inevitably, Israel must have assassinated him.
A curious idea has been wafting through the air these past days. It comes, unsurprisingly, from far-right political commentator Candace Owens and her disciples in the church of the perpetual conspiracy. They claim that conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was “turning on Israel” and so, inevitably, Israel must have assassinated him.
One almost admires the efficiency. It saves time, really. No need for facts, no need for evidence. Just string two words together, “Charlie” and “Israel,” add a hint of betrayal, and the leap to assassination is accomplished in a single bound.
But while most people have (rightly) dismissed Owens as unserious, there is a more dangerous voice at play. At the very event that was meant to celebrate Kirk’s life and faith, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson chose not to honor him, but to revive one of the deadliest lies in history—that the Jews killed Jesus. He wrapped it in a story, insinuating that Kirk met the same fate, silenced by the same sinister hand.
During his Kirk eulogy, Tucker Carlson revived one of the deadliest lies in history—that the Jews killed Jesus.
Unlike Owen’s wild theorizing, Carlson’s words carried the gravity of a “respectable” commentator. And that is precisely the danger. We should beware of the snake.
Free speech is not in question here. This is not about stifling dissent or unpopular ideas. It is about recognizing that rhetoric can be weaponized, that platforms matter, and that when words steeped in millennia of blood libel are given legitimacy, they do not vanish harmlessly into the air. They take root. They corrode.
So let us indulge the conspiracists. Suppose, for argument’s sake, that Kirk had decided to reinvent himself as the world’s foremost antisemite. Suppose that in private, he was rehearsing speeches denouncing the Jewish state, sketching out manifestos in the dark. What, precisely, follows from that? That Israel dispatched a hit squad to Utah? That the Mossad has moved from foiling terrorists to silencing talk-show hosts in the American Midwest? The idea is not only insane but insulting.
The truth is that Kirk’s private musings, if they existed at all, remain private. He never made a great public rupture. He never renounced the years he spent defending Israel. And even if he had, the claim is that Israel would what? Panic? Tremble? Plot his demise? That is the fever dream of people who have never looked reality in the face.
But conspiracists thrive on precisely this trick. The insinuation is always more useful than the proof. The “even if” is always more valuable than the “therefore.”
Owens knows this well. Carlson knows it even better. And both know that what really matters is not truth but attention, attention that comes at the expense of Israel, at the expense of Kirk’s legacy and at the expense of common sense.
What should be said is simple: Kirk was murdered, yes, but more importantly, he was martyred. And his martyrdom should stand for something larger: A legacy of faith, family, masculinity, strength and conviction, the very values America is aching to return to. That is the truth worth repeating. The question of his killer will be answered in due course through the legal process. What must not happen is the grotesque weaponization of his death into a slander against Jews.
So by all means, let’s say it once more: Even if Kirk had turned, even if he had made the most dramatic reversal in modern politics, it does not make Israel the murderer. To suggest otherwise is not just wrong. It is grotesque.
And if anyone is still uncertain, they might ask themselves why, in the wake of a man’s death, the loudest voices are not those remembering his life, but those eager to trawl his supposed secrets for their own political gain. There is a word for such behavior. It is not bravery. It is dishonor. And the snake that hisses it should be recognized for what it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment