Connect with us

Uncategorized

Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The op-ed was typical of the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page, extolling the virtues of moderation in all things.

The difference was that the author of the piece published Wednesday, Bezalel Smotrich, has a reputation for extremism, and the political landscape he was imagining is in Israel, not America.

Experts who track the U.S.-Israel relationship say the op-ed had a clear purpose: to quell the fears of American conservatives whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long cultivated as allies and who may be rattled by his new extremist partners in governing Israel. 

Those partners include Smotrich, the Religious Zionist bloc leader and self-described “proud homophobe” whom Israeli intelligence officials have accused of planning terrorist attacks — and who was sworn in as finance minister in Netanyahu’s new government Thursday. They also include Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted of incitement for his past support of Jewish terrorists, who will oversee Israel’s police.

The presence of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and their parties in Netanyahu’s governing coalition has alarmed American liberals, including some in the Biden administration. But insiders say conservatives are feeling spooked, too.

“The conservative right was with [Netanyahu] and now he seems to be riding the tiger of the radical right,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who just returned from a tour of Israel where he met with senior officials of both the outgoing and incoming governments. “And I think that is bound to alienate the very people who counted on him being risk-averse and to focus on the economy.”

In his op-ed published on Tuesday, two days before the new Israeli government was sworn in, Smotrich sought to persuade Americans that the new government is not the hotbed of ultranationalist and religious extremism it has been made out to be in the American press.

“The U.S. media has vilified me and the traditionalist bloc to which I belong since our success in Israel’s November elections,” he wrote. “They say I am a right-wing extremist and that our bloc will usher in a ‘halachic state’ in which Jewish law governs. In reality, we seek to strengthen every citizen’s freedoms and the country’s democratic institutions, bringing Israel more closely in line with the liberal American model.”

The op-ed is at odds with the stated aims of the coalition agreements; whereas Smotrich says there will be no legal changes to disputed areas in the West Bank, the agreements include a pledge to annex areas at an unspecified time, and to legalize outposts deemed illegal even under Israeli law. He says changes to religious practice will not involve coercion, but the agreement allows businesses to decline service “because of a religious belief,” which a member of his party has anticipated could extend to declining service to LGBTQ people.

Netanyahu has alienated the American left with his relentless attacks on its preference for a two-state outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he perceives as dangerous and naive. (He also differs from them on how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.) He has instead cultivated a base on the right through close ties with the Republican Party and among evangelicals, made possible in part because he has long espoused the values traditional conservatives hold dear, including free markets and a united robust Western stance against extremism and terrorism.

But his alliance with Smotrich and others perceived as theocratic extremists may be a bridge too far even for Netanyahu’s conservative friends, who champion democratic values overseas, said Dov Zakheim, a veteran defense official in multiple Republican administrations.

“Traditional conservatives are much closer to the Bushes, and Jim Baker and those sorts of folks,” he said, referring to the two former presidents and the secretary of state under the late George H. W. Bush.

Jonathan Schanzer, a vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the op-ed was likely written at Netanyahu’s behest with those conservatives in mind. 

“The Wall Street Journal piece was designed to appeal to traditional conservatives,” he said. “It was designed to send a message to the American public writ large that the way in which Smotrich and perhaps [Itamar] Ben Gvir have been described is based on past utterances and not necessarily their forward-looking policies.”

The immediate predicate for the op-ed, insiders say, was likely a New York Times editorial on Dec. 17 that called the incoming government “a significant threat to the future of Israel” because of the extremist positions Smotrich and other partners have embraced, including the annexation of the West Bank, restrictions on non-Orthodox and non-Jewish citizens, diminishing the independence of the courts, reforming the Law of Return that would render ineligible huge chunks of Diaspora Jewry, and anti-LGBTQ measures.

Smotrich in his op-ed casts the changes not as radical departures from democratic norms but as tweaks that would align Israel more with U.S. values. He said he would pursue a “broad free-market policy” as finance minister. He likened religious reforms to the Supreme Court decision that allowed Christian service providers to decline work from LGBTQ couples. 

“For example, arranging for a minuscule number of sex-separated beaches, as we propose, scarcely limits the choices of the majority of Israelis who prefer mixed beaches,” Smotrich wrote. “It simply offers an option to others.”

In the West Bank, Smotrich said, his finance ministry would promote the building of infrastructure and employment which would benefit Israeli Jewish settlers and Palestinians alike. “This doesn’t entail changing the political or legal status of the area.”

Such salves contradict the stated aims of the new government’s coalition agreement, Anshel Pfeffer, a Netanyahu biographer and analyst for Haaretz said in a Twitter thread picking apart Smotrich’s op-ed.

“Smotrich says his policy doesn’t mean changing the political or legal status of the occupied territories while annexation actually appears in the coalition agreement and his plans certainly change the legal status of the settlements,” Pfeffer said.

Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said foreign media alarm at the composition of the incoming government was premature.

“I suspect that the vast mass of people will maintain the support that they have for Israel because it hasn’t got anything to do with the passing of one government to another and has everything to do with the principle that Israel is a pro-American democracy in a region that’s pretty important,” she said.

That said, Pletka said, the changes in policy embraced by Smotrich and his cohort could alienate Americans should they become policy.

“I think a lot of things can change if the rhetoric from Netanyahu’s government becomes policy, but right now, it’s rhetoric,” she said. “What you tend to see in normal governments is that they need to make a series of compromises between rhetoric that  plays to their base and governance.”

Pletka said Netanyahuu’s stated ambition to expand the 2020 Abraham Accords to peace with Saudi Arabia would likely inhibit plans by Smotrich to annex the West Bank. In the summer of 2020, the last time Netanyahu planned annexation, the United Arab Emirates, one of the four Arab Parties to the Abraham Accords, threatened to pull out unless Netanyahu pulled back — which he did.

“It’s not just the relationship with the United States,” she said. “This might alienate their new friends in the Gulf, which, at the end of the day, may actually have more serious consequences.”

Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to relay the impression that he will keep his coalition partners on a short leash.

“They’re joining me, I’m not joining them,” he said earlier this month. “I’ll have two hands firmly on the steering wheel. I won’t let anybody do anything to LGBT [people] or to deny our Arab citizens their rights or anything like that.”

Zakheim said that Netanyahu, who is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, from 1996 to 1999 and then from 2009 to 2021, has proven chops at steering rangy coalitions — but there are two key differences now. 

Netanyahu wants his coalition partners to pass a law that would effectively end his trial for criminal fraud, and so they exercise unprecedented leverage over him. Additionally, Netanyahu in the past has faced the greatest pressure from haredi Orthodox parties, who are susceptible to suasion by funding their impoverished sector. That’s not true of his new ideologically driven partners.

“If you look at his past governments, he has really never been forced into real policy decisions  by those to the right of him,” Zekheim said. “Now he’s got a problem because these 15 or so seats of those to his right are interested in policy, not just in money.”

Makovsky said Netanyahu appears to be leaving behind a conservatism that was sympathetic to the outlook of its American counterpart.

“His success has been that he’s a stabilizer. He’s risk-averse. He’s focused on the prosperity of the country, with high-tech success. He’s the one to be seen as the tenacious guardian against Iranian nuclear influence,” he said. “And those are things people could relate to. Now,  it just seems like he’s just throwing the playbook out the window.”


The post Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

This Jewish family’s toy company challenged Trump’s tariffs. The Supreme Court agreed.

(JTA) — Stephen Woldenberg was in a meeting with his father last Friday, refreshing the Supreme Court’s website, when the news finally came through: Their company had prevailed in its legal challenge to the Trump administration’s tariffs.

“It’s all a bit surreal, I’ll be honest,” said Woldenberg. “It’s very gratifying, though, to see that our case has had an impact and that the Supreme Court ruled and agreed with our position.”

For Woldenberg, who is the fourth generation of his family’s Illinois-based educational toy company Learning Resources, the decision to challenge President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs was rooted in a moral obligation shaped by his family’s Jewish values.

“I think that for us, being Jewish, we felt like we wanted to stand up for what we thought was right, and, you know, not being afraid to take a stand,” said Woldenberg. “I think that that’s part of our identity, and I think that’s a core part of what this case was about. It’s a civil legal challenge, it isn’t political, but we felt like we weren’t going to stand by idly, and I think that’s part of our Jewish identity.”

Learning Resources was founded by Stephen’s grandmother Joan as a spinoff of a company run by her father-in-law Max Woldenberg, who immigrated from Poland as a child in the late 19th century. Joan’s son Rick is CEO, while Stephen and his sister both have high-level executive roles.

The family, longtime members of a Conservative synagogue in the suburbs of Chicago, has a record of Jewish philanthropy. Rick and his wife have donated to local Jewish organizations as well as to the Center for Jewish Life at Princeton University, his alma mater. Elana, who also graduated from Princeton, founded a Jewish philanthropy fellowship there. And Max Woldenberg’s brother Malcolm was a prominent New Orleans philanthropist for whom the Institute of Southern Jewish Life is named.

It was not philanthropy but Learning Resources’ bottom line that got the family fired up by Trump’s tariffs, which raised import costs for businesses that rely on overseas manufacturing. Trump authorized the tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, rather than by seeking approval from Congress.

Like many American companies, Learning Resources relies on Chinese factories and workers to make its products, of which perhaps the most widely recognizable are plastic bears used for counting practice that are staples of many preschool classrooms.

Stephen Woldenberg said that in 2025, after the tariffs were imposed, Learning Resources paid over $10 million in tariff-related taxes, compared to $2 million the year before.

“After ‘liberation day,’ tariff rates spiked up to 145%, which effectively was like an embargo on Chinese goods,” said Woldenberg. “We decided to take action. We aren’t really a company that likes to stand by idly. We weren’t willing to let a single politician sink the ship.”

Learning Resources’ legal battle culminated in a decisive Supreme Court victory, and a notable loss for Trump, who heavily criticized the decision during his State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

In his decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” The Supreme Court agreed 6-3 that the tariffs exceeded the law.

“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”

Among the estimated 1,000 lawsuits filed against the tariffs, which ultimately collected over $130 billion for the United States, were others filed by Jewish-owned companies.

Rebecca Melsky, a former a Jewish day school teacher, was among the first to legally challenge the emergency tariffs last April through her children’s apparel brand Princess Awesome, which she co-founded to defy “gender stereotypes” in kids clothing.

In 2025, Melsky said Princess Awesome had paid over $30,000 in additional tariffs, a cost she said had hit her small business hard.

“We’re a very small company — that money came out of our paychecks,” said Melsky. “We pulled back on our production. We did not make as much stuff last year as we normally do, which we are feeling this year, as we start the year with less inventory.”

After Melsky and her co-founder, Eva St. Clair, took to Facebook to explain the costs of Trump’s tariffs to their customers last April, the pair were approached by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented them in federal court. (Princess Awesome’s lawsuit was put on hold pending the Learning Resources decision.)

For Melsky, the choice to take on Trump’s tariffs in court was also inspired in part by her own Jewish values.

“Even if something feels scary, even if you don’t necessarily know if it’s going to do something, standing up for what is right, is, like, we have a moral and ethical obligation to do that, even if that means taking a risk,” said Melsky. “And thankfully, my business partner, her Catholic faith brought her to the same place, too.”

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, Melsky and St. Clair took to Facebook again, posting a video shouting “we won!”

But the battle is not over for Melsky, Woldenberg or any of the other businesses that have sued the government over Trump’s tariffs. Following the ruling, Trump swiftly vowed to impose more tariffs, including a temporary 10% global import duty.

While the Trump administration said during the Supreme Court battle that suing parties would “assuredly receive payment” if they lost, the court did not stipulate in its decision what would happen to the tariffs that had already been collected.

As companies seek refunds following the decision, they are likely to be met by a lengthy legal process, with Trump already dismissing calls for refunds as a process that would take “years.”

“The government, the administration, did not have a hard time taking the money, they found that to be quite easy, and so they should be able to turn around and send it right back to us,” said Woldenberg. “They know what everybody paid, and they know how to get the money.”

Melsky said that she felt her company was now in “limbo,” awaiting the Trump administration’s next move.

“It feels a little bit less chaotic, but we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, and certainly we have no idea what will happen with refunds and if they are approved, when that money would come,” said Melsky.

Despite the uncertainty, Woldenberg said he hoped his family’s victory would “inspire” others that they too can make a difference.

“It doesn’t matter the size of the company or the notoriety of the individual,” said Woldenberg. “The American system is set up in a way where anyone can make a difference, anybody can have an impact.”

The post This Jewish family’s toy company challenged Trump’s tariffs. The Supreme Court agreed. appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

A compelling horror series from Israel — even if you don’t like horror movies

In general, I steer clear of genre entertainment. For me, films awash in horror and the paranormal are gory, frightening and in the end relentlessly dull — a lethal combination.

But to my surprise, The Malevolent Bride, an Israeli horror series now streaming on Chaiflicks, is so compelling and has such page-turning momentum that I had to know what happened next.

Set in Jerusalem’s ultra-Orthodox community, the series — which is the brainchild of Noah Stollman, and director Oded Davidoff, creators of, respectively, Fauda and The Beauty Queen of Jerusalem — recounts a wave of inexplicable, blood–curdling crimes. But beyond its mystery and thriller elements, the picture embodies an amalgam of Kabbalah, feminism, humanism, and, yes, even quantum field theory.

Hisham Sliman and Leeoz Levy in a scene from ‘The Malevolent Bride.’ Courtesy of ChaiFlicks

Here, the line between the scientific world and Jewish mysticism, each requiring its own brand of blind faith, is blurred. Interwoven throughout are themes related to the crippling power of religion and the cost of repressed sexuality that comes in its wake. Like many horror flicks, it has its share of high camp comedy too.

The characters (well, at least the secular ones) are relatable and appealing. The lead, Tom Avni playing Be’er Dov, a physicist, is sympathetic and appealing (easy to look at too). An ex-Hasid who has shed all religion, he lives openly with his equally non-religious doctor girlfriend. Be-er also advocates for the daughter of a Hasid. He’s a feminist too.

The performances are uniformly superb. Even the grotesque moments, and there are some, work entertainingly, if not credibly, within the parameters of the genre’s over-the-top sensibility, which can at times recall The Exorcist.

The series begins with the wedding night of a Hasidic couple — the terrified virgin bride, swathed in white, is soon to be deflowered by a man she’s met perhaps twice. Moments later, we see her clutching shards of glass, her hand bloodied, her gown covered in blood as she charges towards the groom; his corpse is on the floor.

Later in jail, eyes wild, and demonically possessed, she utters a sing-songy phrase, “oxyn, oxyn” that becomes the first part of a satanic refrain that more and more Hasidic women spew forth as they too are overtaken by a curse. Dybbuk imagery is evoked. Violent atrocities ensue.

Giovanni, a police officer (convincingly played by Hisham Suliman), uncovers evidence that connects Be’er to each of these women who owns a book, presumably given to them by Be’er. His name, in each case, appears on its pages as its original owner. The book in question is about Raizel, an archangel out of the Kabbalah who has magical knowledge and powers. Sketches of diabolical figures and illegible writings are scribbled across its pages and in its margins.

Be’er insists he knows none of these women. Nonetheless, with his career at risk, he realizes he must uncover the truth to save his reputation. Through flashbacks, we learn that as a young Yeshiva student he was drawn to the Kabbalah and had a clandestine and shockingly forbidden affair with a Hasidic girl named Yedidia to whom he did indeed gift the book.

At the same time, Dr. Malki Price (Leeox Levy), an Orthodox clinical psychologist who heads a mental health facility for deeply troubled girls, is also grappling with the growing menace. Some of her own patients have channeled the free-floating demon, leading to murder, suicide and terrifying occult acts.

Be’er and Malki join forces in order to track down Yedidia who, for reasons that are not entirely clear, seems to be the origin of this epidemic of violence and mysticism. Levy brings an understated compassion to her role that is riveting to watch.

Malki, we later learn, is a transgender woman as is Levy in her first major film role, which reinforces the series’ themes of tolerance and mutual respect. The Jewish mysticism with its scary folkloric and mythic warnings and taboos underscores the series’ embrace of sexuality and the fluidity of gender identity. After all, in the Kabbalah tradition, the Messiah will be both male and female.

Along their journey, Be’er and Malki meet an array of great characters and despite their differences grow increasingly attached to one another. The final romantic scene between Be’er and Malki is simultaneously unnerving, comic, and unexpected, though it shouldn’t be. Yet another hallmark of an original fun series.

 

The post A compelling horror series from Israel — even if you don’t like horror movies appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Why was Tucker Carlson pushing for DNA testing for Jews? What to know about the ‘Khazar’ theory that antisemites can’t shake.

(JTA) — During Tucker Carlson’s interview last week with Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, both men made considerable waves with their takes on history and theology.

Huckabee sparked a diplomatic row by citing the Bible to argue that Israel had a divine right to claim all of the Middle East — even though he didn’t back doing so politically.

But Carlson’s own interpretation of Israeli sovereignty was also notable, as the far-right pundit insisted that Israelis should undergo genetic testing to determine if they have a rightful claim to the land.

“Why don’t we do genetic testing on everybody in the land and find out who Abram’s descendants are?” Carlson asked Huckabee at one point, using the name Abraham used before he made a covenant with God to become the first Jew. “It’s really simple. We’ve cracked the human genome. We can do that. Why don’t we do that?”

At another point, Carlson singled out Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically as an illegitimate Israeli.

“What you’re saying is that certain people have a title to a highly contested region. They own it, in some deep sense,” he told Huckabee. “So I think it’s fair to ask, who are they, and how do we know? So the current prime minister’s ancestors weren’t from here within recorded history. He has no deed. Bibi Netanyahu, on one side, his family’s from Poland, they’re from Eastern Europe. So how do we know he has a connection to the people who God promised the land to?”

The line of questioning made little sense to many Jewish listeners, who understand Judaism as a blend of religion, ethnicity and community in which converts have always been accepted. For Jewish listeners, too, the idea of tracing bloodlines is often associated with the Nazis, who chose their victims based on how many Jewish ancestors they had.

But both Carlson’s critics, and supporters across the ideological spectrum who have agreed with his views on Israel, understood what he was getting at. They identified his line of questioning as a variation on the “Khazar theory”: the belief that Ashkenazi Jews, like Netanyahu, are genetically descended from a Turkic minority that converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages rather than from the 12 tribes of Israel. 

“The people currently occupying Israel are Khazarian Turks,” far-right pundit Candace Owens, a promoter of many antisemitic conspiracy theories, wrote on X.

“He has ZERO ancestral connection to the land. He’s Polish,” the far-left influencer Shaun King wrote on X about Netanyahu in praise of Carlson’s interview. “His real last name is Mileikowsky.”

The theories as to why the Khazars, who were a real people, would have converted en masse to Judaism have varied according to the teller; one tale holds that a Khazar royal held a debate between representatives of Judaism, Islam and Christianity to hold the best religion, and Judaism won out. But no matter how it happened, the theory goes, Jews who trace their genetics to Eastern Europe should not be considered rightful heirs of Israel, and should instead claim the Caucasus as their ancestral home.

The Khazar theory has a long history but was largely discredited with the advent of DNA analysis. Yet it has grown in prominence among antisemitic circles since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks in Israel and ensuing Gaza war, according to research by the Anti-Defamation League

“Antisemites suggest that if Jews are descended from people not native to Israel (i.e., Khazars), then they have no legitimate claim to the land,” the ADL’s own description of the theory’s popularity notes. “In addition, because Nazis sought to expel Jews and others from their homes in Europe in order to obtain lebensraum (‘living space’) for ‘Aryan’ people, antisemites have argued that Jews are doing the same thing because they have no historic claim to the land of Israel.”

The ADL also notes that, setting aside the validity of the theory, most Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi but rather trace their roots to North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The origins of the Khazar theory date back centuries and have always had some promulgation from Jews; Hungarian Jews in the 19th century latched onto the theory, according to researchers. The Khazar theory has also been promoted by some Jewish and Israeli scholars in more recent years, including Arthur Koestler in his 1976 book “The Thirteenth Tribe”; Shlomo Sand, a historian at Tel Aviv University who identifies as “post-Zionist,” in his controversial 2008 book “The Invention of the Jewish People”; and Israeli geneticist Eran Elhaik

This has further boosted the theory’s seeming validity among proponents: Owens, for example, has cited Sand’s book on X as evidence for the theory.

But such studies are largely refuted by established historical scholarship. “This claim, pardon my chutzpah, is nonsense,” Shaul Stampfer, an emeritus history professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has said about the Khazar theory in college lectures.

In Stampfer’s own research into the Khazars, he said that while there were a few Jews among the Khazars, he has found no genetic links between the ancient Central Asian tribe and modern Ashkenazi Jews (whose own genetics have been thoroughly studied owing to a preponderance of genetic diseases in the population). There are, however, genetic links between Ashkenazi Jews and ancient Palestine, as well as to North Africa, he says. 

In addition, there are very few Turkic origins to be found in Yiddish, while there are extensive Latin origins in Yiddish, further boosting evidence of broader Jewish migration to Europe and decreasing the likelihood of mass migration from Turkey.

There are other practical considerations, too, Stampfer told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency this week.

“Take a look at a map,” he wrote in an email. “Even if the Khazars had converted, they would not have dragged themselves to Poland. It is far away and cold in the winter.”

The National Institutes of Health, too, published an extensive genetic study in 2013 that found “no evidence from genome-wide data of a Khazar origin for the Ashkenazi Jews.” 

The researchers assembled what they called “the largest data set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins,” as well as available genome sets from the Caucasus. Their conclusion, the abstract notes, “corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations.”

None of the evidence has stopped the Khazar theory from emerging as a lodestar of modern antisemitism, thanks in part to influential right-wing personalities such as Carlson. This is not the first time he has toyed with the idea of genetics testing for Jews, though he previously seemed to be aware that such an ask would carry undesirable connotations. 

“In order to determine who’s actually inherited the land, we would have to conduct global genetic testing to award property on the basis of the results,” he texted right-wing filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza months ago, according to D’Souza, who shared the text on a recent podcast. Carlson continued, “Sounds like a Nazi project to me. As a Christian, I reject that.”

“I don’t think that’s necessary any more than it’s necessary to genetically test Indians to make sure their ancestors are from India,” D’Souza, who is Indian-American, responded. “Remember Jews maintained their tribal identity. Very little intermarriage. They didn’t try to convert people, as Christians did.”

D’Souza continued, “Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’ conveys the picture very vividly. The Jews don’t mix. So their continuity as a group is generally more secure than virtually any other group.” (“The Merchant of Venice,” which features the Jewish villain Shylock, is generally seen as promoting antisemitic stereotypes.)

Carlson responded by returning to the genetics question — and this time seeming more open to it than when he first called it a Nazi project. “I agree with all that and I admire it. I’m hardly against Jews,” he texted D’Souza. “But if the claim is that Jews have a genetic right to certain pieces of land, it’s going to be necessary to do genetic testing.”

The broader lurch into conspiratorial thinking on the right, exemplified by the views on the Jews and Israel espoused by Carlson, increasingly has some other conservatives worried about losing control of the narrative.

“The most popular digital content on the Right is now ‘Erika Kirk killed Charlie,’ ‘Epstein was leading a pedophile blackmail ring for the CIA’ and ‘Jews are a diabolical power destroying the world,’” Christopher Rufo, an influential right-wing thought leader who helped orchestrate the larger push against diversity initiatives, warned on X. “In these instances, we need to correct public opinion, rather than cave to it.”

For his part after the Carlson interview, Huckabee accused his interrogator of drawing on a “dangerous conspiracy theory” from “some of the darkest realms of the Internet” for his genetic testing line of questioning.

“I do know that the discredited idea that most Ashkenazi or European Jews descended from the ancient Turkic kingdom of Khazaria is bunk,” Huckabee wrote on X. “It’s also been weaponized by people trying to deligitimize [sic] Jews, to strip them of their history, and to call them ‘imposters’ or ‘fake Jews.’”

Stampfer was hesitant to diagnose why the Khazar theory may be growing in popularity today. 

“People who don’t like Jews might be attracted to the idea that this is one more Jewish lie,” he offered. Yet, he added, “Explaining why people believe what they believe is a tough business.”

The post Why was Tucker Carlson pushing for DNA testing for Jews? What to know about the ‘Khazar’ theory that antisemites can’t shake. appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News