Uncategorized
The Pentagon fears the Vatican’s authority in a battle over Christianity’s power
The Vatican has not been a major player on the geopolitical stage in, well, at least a few centuries. The Catholic state is tiny, and has not had a real army or ruled land since, give or take a century, the days of Machiavelli.
Nevertheless, in January the Pentagon summoned Cardinal Christophe Pierre, then the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S., to a meeting, according to reporting from The Free Press. There, Elbridge Colby, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, sparred with the Catholic diplomat in light of Pope Leo XIV’s outspoken opposition to the war in Iran, and to wars in general.
According to the report, which cited anonymous sources, the Pentagon told the cardinal, has the military might to do “whatever it wants” and that the pope “better take its side.” NBC reported its own Vatican sources calling the meeting “most unpleasant and confrontational,” and Catholic outlet The Pillar reported a senior Vatican official describing the meeting as “tense” and “aggressive” though not overtly threatening.
Then, one of the Pentagon reps reportedly referenced the Avignon papacy, a niche bit of church history that the official transformed into a cudgel. During this period, from 1309 until 1376, the papacy moved to France, where seven different popes lived in the territory of Avignon, under the influence of the control and influence of the French crown.
Since the reporting broke, both Pierre and Pentagon representatives have rejected the framing of the meeting as a threatening one. Vatican representative Mateo Bruni said that the meeting “provided the opportunity for an exchange of views on matters of mutual interest.”
The Department of War’s X account posted that the meeting was a “substantive, respectful, and professional” one in which the participants discussed “morality in foreign policy, the logic of the U.S. National Security Strategy, Europe, Africa, Latin America, and other topics.” The department denied any mention of the Avignon papacy.
Still, the fact that the Pentagon met with the Vatican ambassador at all is a first, and notable for demonstrating the impact of the pope’s moral leadership and the importance of Christianity in driving and justifying U.S. military actions — in particular, the war with Iran. And the public’s engagement in the debate over the specifics of the meeting proves that the U.S. government is right to care what the church says about its wars; people take it seriously. Military might is not the only force for influence.
Pivotal to understanding what the meeting meant is the disputed reference to the Avignon papacy, a historical moment in which a country’s secular government clashed with the church over symbolic and moral authority. The fact that there is even uproar and debate over whether an esoteric piece of history was mentioned in the meeting is proof enough of the stakes of the meeting.
To understand why Avignon is so pivotal — and why a Jewish publication would even be covering a piece of Catholic ancient history — it’s important to understand that, during that time period, in the 1300s, Europe was Catholic. Martin Luther wouldn’t nail his 95 Theses to the door of the church for two more centuries, and Protestantism didn’t exist. That gave the Vatican massive influence as the leader of Christendom, which encompassed all of Europe, and arguably much more. Kings were seen as vassals of the Vatican, carrying out its orders.
When the French king, Philip IV, asked for the church to fund his war against Britain, the pope refused. In 1302, Pope Boniface VII drove the point home with a papal bull stating that submitting to the pope was required for eternal salvation, placing the Vatican’s authority over all royal power. And he threatened to excommunicate Philip.
In response, the king had Boniface VII beaten to a pulp, and he died shortly thereafter. His successor, not incidentally, forgave the king and restored his religious authority. France used its power at the time to stack the church with French-allied clerics, and the move to Avignon followed shortly thereafter, with the next seven popes all of French background.
Fundamentally, the Avignon papacy was a conflict over symbolic authority. Philip IV wanted his wars to be blessed, and righteous. The Pentagon, clearly, wants the same for the war on Iran, with historically freighted roles. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has declared the war a Christian mission for the U.S., fighting alongside Israel as the world’s Jewish state — together targeting the Islamic Republic.
The idea that the Pentagon might have summoned the ghosts of the Avignon papacy shows that the U.S. still cares about the moral authority of the peace-preaching Vatican as a rival to military might. And the debate over whether anyone referenced what sounds like a nerdy piece of history is really a debate over the influence of the U.S. as a world leader, and its bona fides as what the current government purports to be a Christian nation.
Catholicism is becoming increasingly high profile in the historically Protestant U.S. Six out of nine Supreme Court justices are Catholic. Vice President JD Vance is a Catholic convert. Unsubstantiated rumors are flying online that the pope is considering excommunicating Vance. There is clearly still power in the church, at least culturally.
And Leo XIV has leaned into that cultural authority. In numerous speeches, including his Easter address, the pope has appeared to directly respond to American government officials and decisions, expressing sympathy for migrants as Trump’s deportation efforts accelerated, and critiquing “imperialist” military might as he entered into war with Iran. Despite being the first American pope, he has refused multiple invitations to the White House, including one for July 4 this year to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday; instead, he is pointedly visiting migrants on the same day.
“The Pope may well never visit the United States under this administration,” a Vatican official told The Free Press.
The particular clash between the White House and the pope also centers in large part around Hegseth, who is a member of an extremist Reformed Christian church, not a Catholic. (Though he does have a tattoo reading “Deus Volt,” a rallying cry during the Crusades — which were certainly Catholic.) After Hegseth gave a speech declaring that God had blessed the war with Iran and asking troops to pray for military victory, the pope said that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” Despite their different Christian movements, summoning a Vatican representative to the Pentagon, whatever was said, shows that Hegseth wants the pope on his side, and recognizes his speeches as a major factor in geopolitics.
The battle for Christian moral authority between the government and the pope also comes alongside a more internal Catholic clash in the U.S. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is fighting high-profile Catholic influencers such as Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, who regularly justify their open antisemitism with Catholicism. Though the pope himself has yet to weigh in, it’s another face of an ongoing struggle to define what Christianity means.
In today’s world, it’s hard to imagine a speech from the pope or the threat of excommunication carrying real weight, among so many churches with many theologies about war, antisemitism and the Middle East. The Vatican is no longer the singular authority over the West, and the pope’s power is largely symbolic. Whether or not anyone in the Pentagon meeting said that the U.S. has the military force to do anything it wants, it’s true.
Yet the fact that the government is engaging so seriously with the Vatican is a sign of the increasing centrality of Christianity, both Catholic and otherwise, in the U.S. government, and in American society. As Christian nationalists in the Trump administration seek to go back to the imagined glory days of Western culture, when Christendom rules, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the oldest, largest and most public face of the religion, or to deny its moral authority.
In a world in which the Vatican has only soft power, the pope’s decrees carry only as much power as they are given. But however soft the pope’s power may be, that surreal Vatican visit to the Pentagon suggests that even the best-armed military in the world is afraid of it.
The post The Pentagon fears the Vatican’s authority in a battle over Christianity’s power appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israeli Report Sounds Alarm Over ‘America Only’ Faction Influencing US Right
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism has published a new report warning of a high-stakes schism among US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement propelled by an “America Only” alliance known for advancing antisemitic invective.
“The picture emerging from the report is concerning: Alongside significant American support for the war against the Iranian terror regime, a discourse is expanding in the US that attempts to present Israel as acting manipulatively, as if it dragged the US into war,” Amichai Chikli, minister for diaspora affairs and combating antisemitism, said in a statement announcing the research.
“This is a dangerous discourse that often devolves from political and diplomatic criticism into conspiratorial rhetoric with a sharp antisemitic aroma,” he continued. “Our role is to identify these trends in time, alert people to them, and act together with our partners to understand deep-seated trends and know how to prepare and respond to them.”
Avi Cohen-Scali, the government ministry’s director general, added that “we identify an increasingly tightening connection between internal political debate in the US and the dissemination of anti-Israel and antisemitic messages online.”
The report, released on Thursday, analyzes the public sentiment of Republicans and conservatives regarding the US-Israeli military campaign against the Islamic regime in Iran. It defines two alliances on the American political right which have voiced opposition to the joint strikes: so-called “America First” and “America Only.” The Israeli researchers characterize the former faction as “restraint-oriented,” noting that adherents argue “”the strikes contradict anti-war campaign rhetoric, risk drawing the United States into another prolonged Middle East conflict, and impose economic costs that undermine domestic priorities.”
Advocates of this approach have also advanced narratives around the term “Israel First,” which the report describes as “including antisemitic claims alleging disproportionate Israeli or Jewish influence over US foreign policy, as well as slogans such as ‘dying for Israel’ that frame the war as serving foreign rather than American interests.”
The report names and profiles three prominent podcasters it identifies with this mentality: Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Joe Rogan, as well as streamer Sneako (Nicolas Kenn De Balinthazy).
In contrast, the Israeli researchers name “a more radical fringe, sometimes referred to as ‘America Only,’ which promotes extreme isolationism combined with conspiratorial, white nationalist, and antisemitic narratives.”
In this category, the report offers six profiles, leading with former US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who features “America Only” in her descriptor and banner on her X social media account where she routinely shares her views with 1.6 million followers. The report notes five others and includes data about their followings on billionaire Elon Musk’s X website: white nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes (1.3 million), former mixed martial arts fighter Jake Shields (over 900,000), British-American influencer Sam Parker (over 300,000), neo-Nazi Lucas Gage (over 286,000 but now blocked), and radio host Stew Peters (over 900,000).
According to the report, “the core distinction between right-wing populists (America First) and white nationalists (America Only) lies in how they define the in-group.”
While America First advocates “emphasize culture, nativism, and hostility toward elites,” those in America Only “place race and ancestry at the center of their worldview and openly support either the maintenance or restoration of white dominance. Their ideology prioritizes the preservation of ‘ethnic purity’ and often rests on explicit racial doctrines that can also shape their positions on foreign and international policy.”
Researchers describe how these voices “play a central role in shaping discourse, particularly among younger audiences, amplifying anti-war messaging and framing the conflict as misaligned with American interests.”
Noting that polls show Republican support for the war with Iran is limited with voters expressing caution about sending soldiers back to the Middle East, the report says that “divisions within conservative media and among some Republican figures, particularly within ‘America First’ and ‘America Only’ circles, indicate that support could weaken if the conflict becomes prolonged, expands operationally, or imposes sustained economic costs.”
These divisions do not remain in the domestic sphere. The ministry describes how pro-Iran networks “amplify narratives of American opposition to the conflict to deepen perceived divisions. These trends may have implications for Jewish and Israeli communities in the United States, particularly in relation to the risk of increased antisemitic discourse and incidents.”
The report cites polling showing a collapse of the American public’s sympathy for Israel (down to 36 percent, according to a recent Gallup survey) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with – for the first time ever – more Americans now aligning with the Palestinians (41 percent). This has flipped from February 2025 when 46 percent stood with the Jewish state and 33 percent supported the Palestinians.
While most of this rising anti-Israel sentiment has grown among Democrats, the report notes that “among Republicans, the same tendencies are evident to some degree, but the changes are significantly smaller. Among Republicans, sympathy for Israel decreased from 80 percent in 2021 to 70 percent in 2026, while sympathy for Palestinians edged up from 10 percent to 13 percent.”
A survey of 1092 people conducted from March 26-30, released on Thursday by YouGov and the Center for Public Opinion at UMass Lowell, offers further illumination about the potential levels of American enthusiasm for these ideologies.
Asked whether the close US-Israel alliance does more to help or harm the American national interest, 42 percent said more to hurt, 29 percent said more to help, and 29 percent said neither. Among Republicans those figures were 23 percent more to hurt, 52 percent more to help, and 24 percent neither.
Analyzing the survey results, CNN senior political reporter Aaron Blake shared data and noted that “Tucker Carlson isn’t that popular among Republican-leaners anymore,” with 31 percent having a favorable opinion compared to 24 percent unfavorable. Overall, 38 percent of respondents said they have an unfavorable view of him, compared to 17 percent favorable.
Even among Carlson’s heaviest bloc of backers – self-identified conservatives — the former Fox host showed limited support. While 34 percent of conservatives expressed a favorable opinion, 26 percent affirmed “unfavorable,” 31 percent offered no opinion at all, and 10 percent had never heard of him. Meanwhile, the poll showed that 7 percent of Democrats and self-described liberals expressed favorable views.
The pollsters also researched how Carlson would potentially fare against California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), two widely floated potential Democratic presidential candidates, in the 2028 contest.
Head-to-head with the California leader, 25 percent of voters would support Carlson, while 33 percent would vote for Newsom and 20 percent would refuse to vote. Two percent of Democrats said they would back Carlson while six percent of Republicans said they would vote for Newsom, as did 7 percent of conservatives.
Up against Ocasio-Cortez, the numbers remained similar with 25 percent saying they would support Carlson and 32 percent backing the leader behind the so-called “squad” of left-wing congressional representatives.
Many observers in the media have speculated that Carlson could run for president in 2028.
Uncategorized
Antisemitic Social Media Personality Dan Bilzerian Launches Longshot US Congressional Bid Against Randy Fine
Dan Bilzerian arrives at the Fashion Nova x Cardi B Collection Launch Party held at the Hollywood Palladium on May 8, 2019, in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, United States. Photo: Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
Antisemitic social media personality Dan Bilzerian launched a bid for the US Congress this week, setting off a firestorm of controversy as he seeks to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Randy Fine in Florida’s 6th Congressional District, a race already defined by personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric.
Bilzerian, who grew a massive social media presence by showcasing his hedonistic lifestyle, formally filed paperwork on Tuesday to run as a Republican, challenging Fine in what is shaping up to be one of the most unconventional GOP primaries of the 2026 election cycle.
During an interview with TMZ this week, Bilzerian was confronted over his previous comments referring to Fine as a “fat Jew.” He responded by condemning Fine as a “Jewish supremacist and he puts Israel ahead of America, and I think that, you know, he should be tried for treason.” Bilzerian also dismissed antisemitism as a “made-up term.”
“I think we just have a big Jewish supremacy problem in the country, and everyone’s talking about it, and nobody’s doing anything about it,” he told the Daytona Beach News-Journal in a separate interview, echoing a message he has previously posted on social media.
The remarks drew swift backlash online and placed Bilzerian’s candidacy under intense scrutiny, raising questions about the viability of the campaign.
Fine responded forcefully, arguing that Bilzerian’s comments were not accidental but reflective of deeper hostility. He said the rhetoric demonstrated that his challenger is unfit for public office and outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse.
“This isn’t about disagreement,” Fine said in a media appearance. “It’s about whether someone who speaks this way about an entire group of people belongs anywhere near Congress.”
Fine responded directly to Bilzerian’s condemnations, suggesting to TMZ that the social media provocateur views the Jewish religion “as some sort of negative thing.”
During the TMZ discussion, Bilzerian also used the n-word, comments which drew sharp criticism from Fine.
“It’s my view that anyone who can use that word so easily, probably uses it in their everyday language and that’s not a word that I believe has any place in the Republican party and I’m not interested in platforming it,” Fine said.
The congressman has pledged not to back down and also touted his close ties to US President Donald Trump.
“Congressman Randy Fine is the only person in America that President Trump has endorsed three times in the past two years, including in his current reelection,” a spokesperson for the lawmaker told The Hill, describing the Florida Republican is one of Trump’s “greatest allies.”
“Randy Fine will never back down in the face of any effort to impeach President Trump and obstruct the will of the American people,” the spokesperson added.
The clash has highlighted the unusually combative tone of the race. While Fine has positioned himself as a mainstream conservative with strong ties to Trump, he is no stranger to controversy himself. Critics have previously pointed to his own inflammatory statements about Muslims and Palestinians, which resurfaced in recent interviews as the campaign feud intensified.
Fine has repeatedly justified Islamophobia as “rational” rather than a form of bigotry.
“We need more Islamophobia, not less. Fear of Islam is rational,” Fine wrote on X.
He has warned about the “Islamification of America” and cautioned that the growing influence of Islam could lead to the banning of pet dogs.
“If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one,” Fine posted on X.
Despite weathering a bevy of controversies, Fine has sought to reinforce his standing with conservative voters. He announced this week that he is joining the House Freedom Caucus, a move that underscores his alignment with the GOP’s most conservative faction and signals an effort to consolidate support ahead of the primary.
Despite the backlash, Bilzerian has not backed down. He has insisted that his remarks are being mischaracterized and has continued to attack Fine on social media.
In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, Bilzerian transformed his public image from a social media provocateur to a prominent critic of Israel and Judaism writ large.
Bilzerian has engaged in Holocaust denial, saying during an interview with British journalist Piers Morgan that casualty figures of the genocide have been “revised” and he “would bet [his] entire net worth that it was under 6 million.” He has also declared that “Jewish supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today” and denied that Jews experience antisemitism in any meaningful way, asserting that Palestinians are “the real semites.” Bilzerian has also parroted the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Israel orchestrated the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy and claimed that the Israeli government also killed Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
“I wasn’t there, but everything I’ve seen, evidence-wise, points to Israel,” Bilzerian said.
For now, the race remains heavily tilted in Fine’s favor, given his incumbency, established political track-record, and close relationship with Trump.
Bilzerian, a Florida native, currently resides in Las Vegas, Nevada and possesses no political experience. His repeated antisemitic and anti-Israel commentary is likely to serve as a liability in a conservative district with a significant Jewish population.
Uncategorized
42 Jewish authors slam Jewish Book Council for ‘bias toward centering Israeli and Zionist voices’
(JTA) — Dozens of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish authors are criticizing the Jewish Book Council, a historic literary group, for what they said was a “bias toward centering Israeli and Zionist voices” and “narrowing its vision to a Zionist approach to Jewish culture.”
A new open letter signed by 42 authors argues that the council, which was founded in 1925, should commit itself more to spotlighting Jewish voices who disagree with traditional Zionism and should not have showcased Israeli and Zionist voices after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.
“Because the JBC is our most visible and longstanding Jewish literary institution, its focus on Zionist authors and books gives both Jewish and non-Jewish readers the false impression that Jewish books are inherently Zionist,” the open letter, published Thursday by “a Concerned Group of Jewish Writers,” argues.
Notable signatories include Israeli-Dutch novelist Yael van der Wouden, whose 2024 debut “The Safekeep,” a Jewish LGBTQ romance set in postwar Amsterdam, was shortlisted for a Booker Prize and won an award from the Jewish Book Council; memoirist Qian Julie Wang, whose book “Beautiful Country” was a New York Times bestseller, recommended by former President Barack Obama and winner of an award given by the council; novelist Adelle Waldman, author of “Help Wanted”; and Michael David Lukas, a professor at San Francisco State University and past winner of both the National Jewish Book Award and Jewish literature’s prestigious Sami Rohr prize for his 2018 novel “The Last Watchman of Old Cairo.”
Yael van der Wouden, winner of the 2025 Women’s Prize for Fiction, during The Women’s Prize Trust Summer Party & Awards Ceremony 2025 at Bedford Square Gardens on June 12, 2025 in London, England. (David Levenson/Getty Images)
The Jewish Book Council was founded to support and award Jewish authors and topics. In addition to handing out the annual National Jewish Book Awards, the council also connects authors with Jewish speaking engagements, publishes reviews of Jewish books, and provides other forms of support. In 2024, after a list purporting to expose “Zionist” authors circulated online, the council launched a hotline to report antisemitism in the books world.
The council’s CEO, Naomi Firestone-Teeter, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency the letter represented a “difference in expectations” about what the institution can stand for.
The authors said they initially contacted the council’s leadership in private last year, engaging in a dialogue over a list of specific concerns. Those included the council’s failure to define antisemitism in its reporting tool, as well as its stated support of Israel and Israeli authors in recent awards ceremonies.
The authors also urged the council to state that criticism of Israel “is not inherently antisemitic,” and to “create programs and content in the coming year that reflect a more genuine diversity of Jewish views on Israel/Palestine and create spaces for Jews and cultural workers engaged with Judaism to have these difficult conversations.”
When the council didn’t follow up on their requests, the authors claimed, they decided to take their letter public. “We were—and remain—concerned that the institution’s apparent bias toward centering Israeli and Zionist voices is not only exclusionary but harmful, contributing to the dehumanization of Palestinians and advancing a system of cultural apartheid,” they wrote.
The open letter was the latest salvo in a series of dust-ups about Jews and Israel throughout the book world. Literary free-speech organization PEN America, after months of protest over its perceived Zionist tilt, this year replaced its leadership and retracted a statement standing in solidarity with an Israeli comedian whose performances had been cancelled. Bestselling authors have called to boycott Israeli literary institutions, and Guernica magazine experienced an internal upheaval after publishing an essay about the Gaza war by an Israeli writer arguing for coexistence.
The Jewish Book Council, however, had not experienced much public pushback from within its ranks of authors, until now.
“What the open letter is reflecting is a difference in expectations about our role as an institution, not a lack of engagement,” Firestone-Teeter told JTA. “Our role is to be a platform for literary exchange. We’re not a political advocacy group.”
Firestone-Teeter said that, contrary to the authors’ claims that the council had failed to follow up on their requests, she had “engaged in good faith” and made the council’s position clear to them. She said she disagreed with their assessment that the council deprioritizes Jews who are critical of Israel.
“You will see the diversity of the Jewish community represented, including some of these voices,” she said. “Jews are not a monolith. Our writers write with a lot of nuance, a lot of complexity.”
She also defended the council’s decision not to narrowly define antisemitism for its hotline, noting that they received hundreds of antisemitism reports and that different authors have different ideas of what constitutes antisemitism. The council intends to analyze the data it received. “We have not used the tool to take punitive action,” Firestone-Teeter said.
In addition, she said, it was appropriate for the council to spotlight Israeli authors after Oct. 7. “We are an organization that supports Jewish authors in America, Israel and beyond. Israel is a key part of our efforts to support the Jewish community,” she said. “Our Israeli authors represent a very wide range of views, politically and otherwise.”
Despite the authors’ objections, Firestone-Teeter told JTA, the council still considered them part of its constituency: “These are Jewish authors.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post 42 Jewish authors slam Jewish Book Council for ‘bias toward centering Israeli and Zionist voices’ appeared first on The Forward.