Uncategorized
Tucker Carlson’s Latest Attack on Jews Is His Worst Yet
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024, during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
Tucker Carlson has said some ugly things over the years, but even by his standards, last week was a new low.
In a monologue framed as a warning — because demagogues often pretend they’re just “warning” — Carlson delivered one of the most explicit and chilling mainstream threats toward American Jews in decades.
Speaking about people like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin, Tucker said:
Give us the money for our preferred little country, or else we’re going to denounce you … Man, those attitudes are incompatible with leadership and in fact with democracy itself. You can’t have a country of 350 million people governed by boutique goals concerns … It doesn’t work. It’s illegitimate. If you keep it up, you’re flirting with real backlash. Like a real one … Not Nick Fuentes. Like a real one. So cool it. Don’t treat people like cattle.”
“Preferred little country.”
“Boutique goals.”
“Backlash.”
“Cool it.”
This was not analysis.
This was menace.
And it came wrapped in projection so brazen it would be funny — if the history behind it weren’t so deadly.
Because while Carlson accuses American Jews of disloyalty, coercion, and anti-democratic behavior, he has spent years whitewashing, rationalizing, or outright promoting the most openly anti-American movements operating on US soil: the anti-Israel campus mobs, the “resistance” celebrations of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the organizations openly seeking the dismantling of the American “empire” itself.
Carlson has nothing to say about movements that literally burn American flags
Let’s start with what Carlson ignores — because the silence is the tell.
Over the past two-plus years, anti-Israel protesters across the country have:
- burned American flags on college campuses and in major US cities,
- praised terrorists who murdered American citizens on Oct. 7,
- chanted “Death to America,” “Glory to our martyrs,” and “Resistance is justified from Gaza to New York,”
- waved Hezbollah, Hamas, IRGC, and even Houthi flags,
- shut down airports, highways, and Federal buildings,
- declared their goal is to “dismantle the US settler colony” (SJP),
- and demanded that America “collapse so a new world can be born.”
Not once — not even once — has Tucker Carlson accused any of these groups of “dual loyalty,” “treason,” “boutique goals,” or “corrupting democracy.”
Not once has he warned them of a coming “backlash.”
Not once has he urged them to “cool it.”
It turns out his concern for “American democracy” applies only to one group: Jews who support America’s democratic ally, Israel.
Meanwhile, the pro-Israel demonstrators Carlson smears wave American flags
Attend any pro-Israel rally in America and you’ll see a sea of US flags.
Mainstream Jewish Americans — whom Carlson now accuses of “treating other Americans like cattle” — regularly:
- thank US soldiers,
- praise America’s democratic traditions,
- and celebrate the shared values between the US and Israel.
The people Carlson calls “disloyal” attend rallies that look like Fourth of July parades.
The people he ignores are waving terror flags and chanting for America’s destruction.
Is this “America First”?
Of course not.
It is not patriotism driving Carlson.
It is obsession.
And obsession of this type always has a name.
What Carlson calls “boutique interests” are simply American Jews participating in American democracy
Carlson’s rant targeting Jewish media figures like Shapiro and Levin — two men whose “crime” is advocating policies Tucker himself embraced until he discovered the profitability of being the chief podcaster of the woke-right — is as familiar as it is poisonous:
- Jews advocating for a strong US–Israel alliance = anti-democratic “boutique interests.”
- Jews engaging in politics = “corrupting democracy.”
- Jews influencing policy (like everyone else) = “flirting with backlash.”
This is indistinguishable from Charles Lindbergh’s 1941 warning that Jews were steering America toward disaster and would deserve the “backlash” that followed.
The “America First” movement Carlson imagines has always carried this rot.
He’s just comfortable saying it out loud.
Carlson accuses Jews of:
- political coercion,
- ideological dominance,
- and treating opponents like “cattle.”
But his movement features:
- Nick Fuentes, the neo-Nazi Carlson now rehabilitates as a kind of misunderstood populist, who openly calls for stripping Jews of civil rights.
- Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose Christian nationalism rejects pluralistic democracy.
- Pedro Gonzalez, a figure Carlson helped mainstream, was caught pushing overt antisemitic tropes about Jewish “control,” the very rhetoric his movement now feeds on.
- Influencers in Carlson’s orbit who praise Putin, the IRGC, and the Houthis — America’s enemies.
This is the camp lecturing American Jews about “loyalty”?
Carlson’s rant wasn’t just hypocritical.
It was textbook projection.
And then there’s his selective outrage about “foreign influence”
Carlson says American Jews undermine America because they support Israel — America’s only reliable democratic ally in the Middle East.
But here’s what he never mentions:
- Anti-Israel campus groups receive support from networks tied to Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood.
- Iran’s propaganda arms amplify the same talking points as the woke-right.
- Anti-Israel leaders openly praise the IRGC and Hezbollah.
- Many anti-Israel protesters literally call for America’s collapse.
Yet the only “foreign subversion” he sees … is Jews?
He sees “treason” in pro-Israel Americans.
He sees “populism” in pro-Iran activists.
Carlson himself went to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin and give him a puff piece — and then offered the same courtesy to Iran’s “death to America” president.
Again: the silence is the tell.
Why Carlson targets Jews and not America’s real enemies
Because his movement needs a villain — one the far-right and far-left can share. And that villain — once again, as always — is the Jew.
There is no principle behind Carlson’s position. Only narrative:
- When Jews oppose Hamas → they are warmongers.
- When Jews support a strong America and strong US–Israel alliance → they are disloyal.
- When Jews engage politically → they corrupt democracy.
- When Jews defend themselves → they threaten national stability.
It’s the longest-running script in history.
Carlson just updated it for 2025 and put it on primetime.
At a time when genuine anti-American extremism is flourishing — in campus encampments, online propaganda networks, and foreign-backed organizations — Tucker Carlson has chosen to threaten the Americans waving US flags.
He has chosen to smear: Americans committed to democratic values.
He has chosen to accuse of treason: Americans whose “foreign cause” is a US ally under attack by terrorists who also kill Americans. Perhaps Tucker has forgotten how Iran’s proxies have killed literally hundreds of American service members — as they are enemies of both Israel and America.
And he has chosen to threaten a “real backlash” against: the one minority that history shows gets blamed whenever demagogues need a villain.
This is not patriotism.
It is not conservatism.
It is not “America First.”
It is the oldest hatred wearing a new mask.
And the mask isn’t slipping.
It’s off.
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, antisemitism, and Jewish history and serves on the board of Herut North America.
Uncategorized
How Billy Wilder and B&H Dairy birthed ‘The Only Living Pickpocket in New York’
Noah Segan’s crime thriller The Only Living Pickpocket in New York has drawn comparisons to NYC auteurs Spike Lee, Elaine May and John Cassavettes. While the writer-director is far from anxious about these influences, he notes another, less obvious touchpoint: a Billy Wilder comedy.
“There’s a line in The Apartment, where the very kindly Jewish neighbor doctor says to Jack Lemmon’s character, after he’s been through all of this meshugas with his apartment,” Segan, wearing a shirt that reads “I [Image of a heart-shaped pretzel] New York,” said in a Zoom interview.
The neighbor advises Lemmon’s befuddled, hyper-gentile character to “be a mensch.” In explaining what it means, he says, “just be a person.”
In Pickpocket, Harry Lehman (John Turturro), the titular gentleman thief, calls his neighbor across the hall a mensch for looking out for his wife. Her response: “I’m just being a person.”
While the film, about what happens when an old-school filcher accidentally lifts a high-tech MacGuffin, has its share of grit and cynicism for an increasingly impersonal, online world, its open-hearted menschlikeit shines through.
I spoke with Segan about the film, his sophomore feature after his 2022 Jewish vampire romp Blood Relatives, about Yiddish, B&H Dairy and whether Turturro is the GOAT of non-Jewish actors playing Jews. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
How did you arrive at this idea of an ode or elegy to a Luddite New Yorker?
I looked in the mirror. (Laughs) I’m sort of a Luddite New Yorker — at heart. But a realist, I guess.
It started with a character. It started with Harry. You go, “OK, what is he going through? How is he functioning? What are his challenges?” And then you go, “Oh man, this guy is New York. And this can happen in New York. And I’m from New York.” You’re looking for patterns, you’re looking for the thing that works for you — but is it a chicken and the egg? Is it New York? Is it Harry? Are they the same thing? But once you get those two aspects, the rest of it can blossom naturally.
Your embodiment of New York is an old Jewish guy.
The embodiment of me is an old Jewish guy! (He fishes out a chai necklace from under his collar.) I got my little chai. Represent for the Forward.
In your previous film, Blood Relatives, you were a Jewish vampire. You said in an interview you were thinking about the fear of “otherness.” I’m wondering if there’s something in that choice of making Harry Jewish. Someone with community, but kind of on the margins. Obviously, in New York we don’t think of ourselves as being marginal, but maybe it’s indicating a change.
I think for the first film, part of the conversation was how to discuss otherness through both a realistic lens: that of a Jew, and through a cinematic lens, that of a vampire. The more you think about things like blood libel, the more you think about things like how Jews were murdered, all of that colors that dynamic. In Pickpocket, it’s a little bit different because Harry isn’t really an “other” he is one of. Not just because there are lots of Jews in New York, but there’s lots of everybody in New York!
I think that New York is often unified less based on religious and racial lines, much more so on socioeconomic lines, which of course is something this movie talks about.
Part of the texture there is Yiddish as a kind of lingua franca. We have Giancarlo Esposito and Lori Tan Chinn — older, non-Jewish characters. They all use it. I know we all say “schlep,” but I teach kids at City College, they don’t all know the word “mensch.” Is that a disappearing part of New York for you, in the same way Harry is recognizing his obsolescence?
To me, it’s not a disappearing part because I run into it all the time, and I think most New Yorkers know a little bit of Yiddish, just like most New Yorkers know a little bit of Spanish and that’s how you get by.
You’ve spoken of the Jewish-Italian handshake, a principle in casting that lets Robert DeNiro play Ace Rothstein and James Caan play Sonny Corleone. I have long maintained that John Turturro is probably the greatest living non-Jewish portrayer of Jews.
I think the idea with John is that he embodies New York to such a degree, that he truly does get to do any version of a New York character. This is a guy who just is New York, and so if you let him be a New York-coded character, it is what it is. It is whatever it needs to be. That man knows more about Philip Roth than anybody I’ve ever met, which makes me feel like that makes him definitely an honorary Jew.
Harry’s doorpost has a mezuzah and he goes to visit his daughter and there’s a wreath on the door. I was wondering about that bit of set dressing.
The mezuzah on the door — it’s like painted over. The idea that it had been there a long time was really important to me. That this is a matter of fact of one’s life. There is probably a question of how much Harry’s culture and religion influenced his daughter, who he left at a young age, and her choices to identify or not with that. Obviously, who knows who she married and how they practice. There are Jews who feel jolly and put a wreath on their door, so there’s no rule about that. But I do think that it is safe to say that there were historic, cultural, ethnic identifying aspects that Harry did not pass on. And that is part of the tragedy, of course, of leaving one’s family.
Did you shoot the film before the death of the MetroCard, and do you think Harry would have been able to figure out OMNY? I feel like the transition from tokens might have been difficult for him.
The transition from tokens was definitely difficult for him. We still had MetroCards when we shot the movie. I think it was a combo. But he doesn’t have a phone to tap! So what’s he gonna do? He’s gonna get an OMNY card and load it up? I mean, I guess that’s sort of like having a MetroCard.
The other day my phone died, so I just used my credit card. So you could do that in theory.
I don’t know if Harry has a credit card.
He deals in cash.
I think what he’s doing is he’s just waiting for somebody to open the emergency door for him. And then he passes them a couple bucks.
How do you think he would feel about Mamdani and the Knicks championship?
I don’t know if Harry votes. I think he likes to stay off the rolls. The more off-the-grid he could be, the better. But I do think that he would be very pleased about the Knicks. I don’t know if he’d be as pleased as John is. But I think he would be very pleased about the Knicks.
We feel that the days of Harry and his analog life are numbered, but there’s also a glimmer of hope when we see him mentoring a younger guy in the old ways of the five-finger discount.
All hope is never lost, especially in New York. New York is a hopeful place. Because it is sarcastic and cynical and has a sense of humor and it’s very fast. People think that that somehow makes it not an optimistic or hopeful place. But no. New Yorkers are the most resilient people on earth — that’s why the all the Jews move here!
Any there other Jewish tidbits that you’re not going to get a chance to to speak about with the general press?
You picked up on B&H right?
I don’t know if I did!
The first scene with Harry, he’s having his matzo brei at B&H.
Oh! I wasn’t thinking of B&H Dairy. I was thinking of B&H Photo.
There used to be a whole cottage industry of these places that that showed up at the turn of the century called B&H, and people go, “Well, why is it called B&H.” It’s Baruch Hashem. It wasn’t anybody’s name. It was just like, ‘Well, I guess thank God we opened up a store.’
(Author’s Note: Regrettably, in the case of the dairy establishment, this tidbit, while widely believed, appears to be apocryphal; the founders of B&H, who catered to Yiddish actors on Second Ave. were named Abie Bergson and Jack Heller and gave their initials to the enterprise.)
B&H is such a great example of New York because it is still kosher. It is still signed off on by a rabbi. The rabbi puts the stamp on it. Remains kosher. It is run by a Catholic Polish lady, her Muslim-Egyptian husband, and the head chef is Mexican. And if you buy the T-shirt, the T-shirt says “Challah por favor.”
It is a great New York, multi-ethnic, multicultural institution, and I’m very proud that we got to shoot there.
The post How Billy Wilder and B&H Dairy birthed ‘The Only Living Pickpocket in New York’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A synagogue and Jewish-owned shops damaged in French riots
(JTA) — PARIS – Jewish-owned shops in Marseille were set ablaze and a synagogue in Paris was vandalized as part of widespread property damage caused by riots across France Saturday and Sunday, according to the Jewish Community Protection Service.
It is too early to assess the full extent of the riots protesting the rising cost of living and the damage they’ve caused, but various elements in the media have described them as civil unrest and chaos.
From Lille in the north to Marseille in the south and in the major cities in between, media estimate that nearly 800,000 people took to the streets and some 2,000 shops were vandalized or looted. Public buildings were set on fire, and hundreds of people or more were injured, including 150 police officers, with thousands arrested.
The riots followed a student uprising that blocked entrances to high schools across the country in recent weeks. Palestinian flags and keffiyas have been a recurring motif in most of the violent protests, acts of vandalism and looting.
But according to SPCJ, known as the Service de Protection de la Communaute Juive in French, there was no evidence that Jewish institutions or businesses were deliberately targeted.
Vandals broke into the Ohalei Yaakov synagogue in Paris’ 19th district overnight between Saturday and Sunday. On Sunday morning, members of the Jewish community discovered that their temporary place of worship had been broken into. The permanent synagogue building is currently undergoing renovations.
Inside the sanctuary, prayer books, tefillin, and various objects — taken from boxes and cupboards — were found scattered on the floor. The rabbi’s office was also searched. Despite the mess, the Torah scrolls appeared to be unharmed.
According to a member of the synagogue committee, the incident primarily points to an attempted theft. The suspects may have been looking for money, but nothing was believed to be missing.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post A synagogue and Jewish-owned shops damaged in French riots appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
How much will Trump’s endorsement help Netanyahu?
(JTA) — JERUSALEM – Within minutes of President Donald Trump endorsing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a post on Truth Social Sunday, Netanyahu’s campaign team had released a 30-second clip showing all the times Trump has lavished praise on the Israeli leader over the past few years.
With polls showing that Netanyahu and his governing coalition are slipping in their struggle to retain power in the upcoming Oct. 27 election and lag behind the opposition bloc, an endorsement from the president of the United States is a powerful statement.
But is it enough to tip the scales?
“I don’t think it will change anything,” said Ilana Shpaizman, a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University.
Of course, she said, “Netanyahu will say this is the proof that I’m a leader and all that, and I can speak to Trump … But so what? His followers already know that and they believe in him. They don’t need the endorsement.”
Those who oppose him, Shpaizman continued, “know that Trump forced him (Netanyahu) to accept the ceasefire in Gaza and accept the hostage deal, and that Trump runs the show around Iran. So they also don’t need the endorsement either,” Shpaizman said.
Some pundits speaking on Israeli news outlets criticized Trump for “interfering” in Israel’s election, while others put it down to the fact that Trump does not want America to return to fighting Iran alone if Netanyahu, who is hawkish on Iran, is replaced by someone less willing to act militarily. If Netanyahu loses, that is a scenario that could play out.
“This is the first time ever that the president, at least publicly, endorses a candidate in Israel’s election,” Bushinsky, a political commentator and former adviser to Netanyahu, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Bushinsky said he remembered Netanyahu complaining about U.S. intervention in previous elections in 1999 and 2001, when presidents less enamored of him were in office. He even pushed for an initiative that would block foreign funding for election campaigns.
Now, Bushinsky said, “I guess he is not complaining,” adding that the endorsement serves Netanyahu in two ways.
First, it signals that Trump thinks that Netanyahu is the most suitable guy for the job. Second, it puts Netanyahu’s election campaign back on track, refocusing attention on an issue where Netanyahu is strong – Iran.
“It lets him say ‘I can now finish a job, and I can finish a job with Trump,’ and ‘without Trump or without me, the job will not be finished,’” said Bushinsky.
He said that in the last few days, the political debate had pivoted to other issues such as Ashkenazim vs Sephardim, the draft law and the contentious efforts by the outgoing government to overhaul the judiciary.
“This [endorsement] is the ultimate campaign boost for Netanyahu,” Bushinsky said.
But that boost might not be enough.
Most of the polls taken in recent days show the opposition bloc led by former IDF chief Gadi Eisenkot pulling ahead of Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, but give neither bloc enough seats to gain the necessary 61 of 120 seats in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, to form the next government.
“I think this might give Netanyahu one more seat, one more mandate, but not more than that,” said Bushinsky.
Prof. Tamar Hermann, director of the Israel Democracy Institute’s Viterbi Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research, said that the timing of Trump’s support for Netanyahu in this election race had come both “too late and too early.”
“It’s too late because people have already decided electoral preferences. They may shift within each bloc, but will not move between the blocs because of this,” she said. “And it’s too early because there are nine days to go to the elections, and we can already see other American leaders spilling some cold water over what he said, even on the Republican side of the aisle.”
This criticism, Hermann continued, will be transmitted to Israeli voters, and they will see that Trump is facing a huge battle in the upcoming midterm elections.
“The image of President Trump has deteriorated significantly since April 26, when he started the negotiations with Iran,” she said, pointing to one of the IDI’s recent public opinion surveys that found the president’s popularity had plummeted after he stopped the war with Iran without totally removing the threats against the State of Israel.
According to that poll, the Israeli public’s confidence in Trump as someone dedicated to Israel’s security fell from around 70% to just 42%.
“In my view, the endorsement will not make a big change,” Hermann added. “It will just strengthen Netanyahu’s political supporters, who will see it as a sign that he is still the internationally known figure that even the president of the United States is endorsing.”
She concluded, “The meaning of endorsement in Israel is totally different than in the United States … we are not that used to this kind of move, and it will not make people change their minds.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post How much will Trump’s endorsement help Netanyahu? appeared first on The Forward.
