Uncategorized
Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isn’t taking to the streets over Israel’s judicial reform plan
(JTA) — Israel’s 75th anniversary was supposed to be a blowout birthday party for its supporters, but that was before the country was convulsed by street protests over the right-wing government’s proposal to overhaul its judiciary. Critics call it an unprecedented threat to Israel’s democracy, and supporters of Israel found themselves conflicted. In synagogues across North America, rabbis found themselves giving “yes, but” sermons: Yes, Israel’s existence is a miracle, but its democracy is fragile and in danger.
One of those sermons was given a week ago Saturday by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch of Manhattan’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, expressing his “dismay” over the government’s actions. Hirsch is the former head of ARZA, the Reform movement’s Zionist organization, and the founder of a new organization, Amplify Israel, meant to promote Zionism among Reform Jews. He is often quoted as an example of a mainstream non-Orthodox rabbi who not only criticizes anti-Zionism on the far left but who insists that his liberal colleagues are not doing enough to defend the Jewish state from its critics.
Many on the Jewish left, meanwhile, say Jewish establishment figures, even liberals like Hirsch, have been too reluctant to call out Israel on, for example, its treatment of the Palestinians — thereby enabling the country’s extremists.
In March, however, he warned that the “Israeli government is tearing Israeli society apart and bringing world Jewry along for the dangerous ride.” That is uncharacteristically strong language from a rabbi whose forthcoming book, “The Lilac Tree: A Rabbi’s Reflections on Love, Courage, and History,” includes a number of essays on the limits of criticizing Israel. When does such criticism give “comfort to left-wing hatred of Israel,” as he writes in his book, and when does failure to criticize Israel appear to condone extremism?
Although the book includes essays on God, Torah, history and antisemitism, in a recent interview we focused on the Israel-Diaspora divide, the role of Israel in the lives of Diaspora Jews and why the synagogue remains the “central Jewish institution.”
The interview was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You gave a sermon earlier this month about the 75th anniversary of Israel’s founding, which is usually a time of celebration in American synagogues, but you also said you were “dismayed” by the “political extremism” and “religious fundamentalism” of the current government. Was that difficult as a pulpit rabbi?
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch: The approach is more difficult now with the election of the new government than it has been in all the years of the past. Because we can’t sanitize supremacism, elitism, extremism, fundamentalism, and we’re not going to. Israel is in what’s probably the most serious domestic crisis in the 75-year history of the state. And what happens in Israel affects American Jewry directly. It’s Israeli citizens who elect their representatives, but that’s not the end of the discussion neither for Israelis or for American Jews. At the insistence of both parties, both parties say the relationship is fundamental and critical and it not only entitles but requires Israelis and world Jews to be involved in each other’s affairs.
For American Jewry, in its relationship with Israel, our broadest objective is to sustain that relationship, deepen that relationship, and encourage people to be involved in the affairs in Israel and to go to Israel, spend time in Israel and so forth, and that’s a difficult thing to do and at the same time be critical.
American Jews have been demonstrating here in solidarity with the Israelis who have been protesting the recent judicial overhaul proposals in Israel. Is that a place for liberal American Jews to make their voices heard on what happens in Israel?
I would like to believe that if I were living in Israel, I would be at every single one of those demonstrations on Saturday night, but I don’t participate in demonstrations here because the context of our world and how we operate is different from in Israel when an Israeli citizen goes out and marches on Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv. It’s presumed that they’re Zionists and they’re speaking to their own government. I’m not critical of other people who reach a different perspective in the United States, but for me, our context is different. Even if we say the identical words in Tel Aviv or on West 68th Street, they’re perceived in a different way and they operate in a different context.
What then is the appropriate way for American Jews to express themselves if they are critical of an action by the Israeli government?
My strongest guidance is don’t disengage, don’t turn your back, double down, be more supportive of those who support your worldview and are fighting for it in Israel. Polls seem to suggest that the large majority of Israelis are opposed to these reforms being proposed. Double down on those who are supportive of our worldview.
You lament in your book that the connections to Israel are weakening among world Jewry, especially among Jewish liberals.
The liberal part of the Jewish world is where I am and where the people I serve are by and large, and where at least 80% of American Jewry resides. It’s a difficult process because we’re operating here in a context of weakening relationship: a rapidly increasing emphasis on universal values, what we sometimes call tikkun olam [social justice], and not as a reflection of Jewish particularism, but often at the expense of Jewish particularism.
There is a counter-argument, however, which you describe in your book: “some left-wing Jewish activists contend that alienation from Israel, especially among the younger generations, is a result of the failures of the American Jewish establishment” — that is, by not doing more to express their concerns about the dangers of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, for example, the establishment alienated young liberal Jews. You’re skeptical of that argument. Tell me why.
Fundamentally I believe that identification with Israel is a reflection of identity. If you have a strong Jewish identity, the tendency is to have a strong connection with the state of Israel and to believe that the Jewish state is an important component of your Jewish identity. I think that surveys bear that out. No doubt the Palestinian question will have an impact on the relationship between American Jews in Israel as long as it’s not resolved, it will be an outstanding irritant because it raises moral dilemmas that should disturb every thinking and caring Jew. And I’ve been active in trying to oppose ultra-Orthodox coercion in Israel. But fundamentally, while these certainly are components putting pressure on the relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry, in particular among the elites of the American Jewish leadership, for the majority of American Jews, the relationship with Israel is a reflection of their relationship with Judaism. And if that relationship is weak and weakening, as day follows night, the relationship with Israel will weaken as well.
But what about the criticism that has come from, let’s say, deep within the tent? I am thinking of the American rabbinical students who in 2021 issued a public letter accusing Israel of apartheid and calling on American Jewish communities to hold Israel accountable for the “violent suppression of human rights.” They were certainly engaged Jews, and they might say that they were warning the establishment about the kinds of right-wing tendencies in Israel that you and others in the establishment are criticizing now.
Almost every time I speak about Israel and those who are critical of Israel, I hold that the concept of criticism is central to Jewish tradition. Judaism unfolds through an ongoing process of disputation, disagreement, argumentation, and debate. I’m a pluralist, both politically as well as intellectually.
In response to your question, I would say two things. First of all, I distinguish between those who are Zionist, pro-Israel, active Jews with a strong Jewish identity who criticize this or that policy of the Israeli government, and between those who are anti-Zionists, because anti-Zionism asserts that the Jewish people has no right to a Jewish state, at least in that part of the world. And that inevitably leads to anti-Jewish feelings and very often to antisemitism.
When it came to the students, I didn’t respond at all because I was a student once too, and there are views that I hold today that I didn’t hold when I was a student. Their original article was published in the Forward, if I’m not mistaken, and it generated some debate in all the liberal seminaries. I didn’t respond at all until it became a huge, multi-thousand word piece in The New York Times. Once it left the internal Jewish scene, it seemed to me that I had an obligation to respond. Not that I believe that they’re anti-Zionist — I do not. I didn’t put them in the BDS camp [of those who support the boycott of Israel]. I just simply criticized them.
Hundreds of Jews protest the proposed Israeli court reform outside the Israeli consulate in New York City on Feb. 21, 2023. (Gili Getz)
You signed a letter with other rabbis noting that the students’ petition came during Israel’s war with Hamas that May, writing that “those who aspire to be future leaders of the Jewish people must possess and model empathy for their brothers and sisters in Israel, especially when they are attacked by a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish State.”
My main point was that the essence of the Jewish condition is that all Jews feel responsible one for the another — Kol yisrael arevim zeh bazeh. And that relationship starts with emotions. It starts with a feeling of belongingness to the Jewish people, and a feeling of concern for our people who are attacked in the Jewish state. My criticism was based, in the middle of a war, on expressing compassion, support for our people who are under indiscriminate and terrorist assault. I uphold that and even especially in retrospect two years later, why anyone would consider that to be offensive in any way is still beyond me.
You were executive director of ARZA, the Reform Zionist organization, and you write in your book that Israel “is the primary source of our people’s collective energy — the engine for the recreation and restoration of the national home and the national spirit of the Jewish people.” A number of your essays put Israel at the center of the present-day Jewish story. You are a rabbi in New York City. So what’s the role or function of the Diaspora?
Our existence in the Diaspora needs no justification. For practically all of the last 2,000 years, Jewish life has existed in the Diaspora. It’s only for the last 75 years and if you count the beginning of the Zionist movement, the last 125 years or so that Jews have begun en masse to live in the land of Israel. Much of the values of what we call now Judaism was developed in the Diaspora. Moreover, the American Jewish community is the strongest, most influential, most glorious of all the Jewish Diasporas in Jewish history.
And yet, the only place in the Jewish world where the Jewish community is growing is in Israel. More Jewish children now live in Israel than all the other places in the world combined. The central value that powers the sustainability, viability and continuity of the Jewish people is peoplehood. It’s not the values that have sustained the Jewish people in the Diaspora and over the last 2,000 years, which was Torah or God, what we would call religion. I’m a rabbi. I believe in the centrality of God, Torah and religion to sustain Jewish identity. But in the 21st century, Israel is the most eloquent concept of the value of Jewish peoplehood. And therefore, I do not believe that there is enough energy, enough power, enough sustainability in the classical concept of Judaism to sustain continuity in the Diaspora. The concept of Jewish peoplehood is the most powerful way that we can sustain Jewish continuity in the 21st century.
But doesn’t that negate the importance of American Jewry?
In my view, it augments the sustainability of American Jewry. If American Jews disengage from Israel, and from the concept of Jewish peoplehood, and also don’t consider religion to be at the center of their existence, then what’s left? Now there’s a lot of activity, for example, on tikkun olam, which is a part of Jewish tradition. But tikkun olam in Judaism always was a blend between Jewish particularism and universalism — concern for humanity at large but rooted in the concept of Jewish peoplehood. But very often now, tikkun olam in the Diaspora is practiced not as a part of the concept of Jewish particularism but, as I said before, at the expense of Jewish particularism. That will not be enough to sustain Jewish communities going into the 21st century.
I want to ask about the health of the American synagogue as an institution. Considering your concern about the waning centrality of Torah and God in people’s lives — especially among the non-Orthodox — do you feel optimistic about it as an institution? Does it have to change?
I’ve believed since the beginning of my career that there’s no substitute in the Diaspora for the synagogue as the central Jewish institution. We harm ourselves when we underemphasize the central role of the synagogue. Any issue that is being done by one of the hundreds of Jewish agencies that we’ve created rests on our ability as a community to produce Jews into the next generation. And what are those institutions that produce that are most responsible for the production of Jewish continuity? Synagogues, day schools and summer camps, and of the three synagogues are by far the most important for the following reasons: First, we’re the only institution that defines ourselves as and whose purpose is what we call cradle to grave. Second, for most American Jews, if they end up in any institution at all it will be a synagogue. Far fewer American Jews will receive a day school education and or go to Jewish summer camps. That should have ramifications across the board for American Jewish policy, including how we budget Jewish institutions. We should be focusing many, many more resources on these three institutions, and at the core of that is the institution of the synagogue.
—
The post Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isn’t taking to the streets over Israel’s judicial reform plan appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Iran Set to Enforce Death Penalty for Starlink Satellite Internet Use
A batch of 60 Starlink test satellites stacked atop a Falcon 9 rocket, close to being put into orbit. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Iran has prepared to implement new legislation that would make using Starlink or similar satellite internet equipment a crime which could result in death sentences under certain conditions, deepening the Islamic regime’s campaign to control information and communications while the country’s overall use of executions continues to explode.
The law — called “Intensifying Punishment for Espionage and Cooperation with the Zionist Regime and Hostile Countries Against National Security and Interests” — has been approved by the Guardian Council, which holds veto power over Iran’s parliament, according to the news website IranWire. It was transmitted by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to President Masoud Pezeshkian for implementation. The Iranian parliament initially passed the bill in June during the 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel.
The statute explicitly targets “unauthorized electronic satellite internet communication devices such as Starlink.” Under Article 5, those who possess or use Starlink face sixth-degree imprisonment (six months to two years) and equipment confiscation, while production, distribution, installation, or import for sale carries two to five years. If authorities believe the Starlink use was done “with intent to confront the Islamic Republic” or for espionage, and the individual is treated as an “enemy force,” the punishment is execution. Lesser offenders would still face five to ten years of imprisonment.
Article 6 allows courts to increase sentences by up to three degrees if offenses occur during wartime or “security situations,” as determined by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Legal observers say the statute’s reliance on abstract ideas like “intent to confront the system” invites obvious abuse.
The move comes as Iran has accelerated the speed of its executions. A new annual assessment by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported at least 1,537 hangings between October 2024 and October 2025, the highest total in a decade and an 86 percent increase from the previous year’s 823. HRANA said more than 94 percent of executions were carried out secretly and never acknowledged by official sources. Nearly half (48.34 percent) involved drug charges and 43.46 percent involved murder cases, with other counts including rape, “moharebeh” (waging war against God), espionage, and “corruption on earth.” The report identified Ghezel Hesar Prison in Alborz Province as the leading execution site with 183 reported hangings.
HRANA also tracked organized protests inside the prison system. As of Oct. 7, prisoners across 52 facilities continued hunger strikes under the “Tuesdays No to Execution” campaign, now in its 89th consecutive week, and urged the United Nations and foreign governments to take “urgent and coordinated action” to halt the surge and press for legal reforms.
The data align with trends The Algemeiner reported last month. Rights monitors documented a sharp acceleration in 2025, with at least 152 executions in August alone, a 70 percent jump over August 2024, and an overall trajectory that suggested Iran would surpass its 2024 total of 930 by year’s end. Those figures, drawn from organizations such as Hengaw and HRANA, highlight the regime’s frequent use of vague national-security charges (including “corruption on earth”) and recurring allegations of forced confessions aired on state television.
The Starlink measure dovetails with Tehran’s broader effort to tighten control over information flows after years of mass protests — many coordinated online — and amid repeated attempts by authorities to throttle or block major platforms. By criminalizing the devices themselves and tying their use to espionage or “confronting the system,” the law gives prosecutors a new tool to treat independent connectivity as a national-security offense. In practice, rights advocates warn, amorphous intent standards and security designations from the Supreme National Security Council could be used to transform ordinary digital activity into a capital case.
While Tehran hardens penalties at home, Washington announced fresh measures aimed at Iran-aligned militias and their financial networks. On Tuesday, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated entities and individuals accused of enabling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and Iraqi militia proxies — including Kata’ib Hizballah — to launder funds, smuggle weapons, and siphon Iraqi state resources through front companies and bank access. The action, taken under Executive Order 13224, targets, among others, the Muhandis General Company (described by Treasury as a conglomerate tied to Kata’ib Hizballah) and executives allegedly exploiting Iraq’s commercial banking sector to benefit IRGC-QF and aligned groups.
The US has designated both the IRGC and Kata’ib Hizballah as terrorist organizations.
Treasury said the network backs operations that have endangered US personnel and undermined regional stability. It framed the designations as part of a broader effort to choke off revenue and logistics to Iranian proxies. The step follows earlier OFAC actions over the summer against Iranian oil smuggling operations that allegedly misrepresented Iranian crude as Iraqi, and comes amid periodic militia attacks on US and partner interests across the Middle East.
Uncategorized
‘Conversion therapy is having a moment’ — what will that mean for LGBTQ+ Jews?
The Supreme Court dove into the culture wars again this week by hearing arguments on conversion therapy — a controversial pseudoscientific practice that attempts to change LGBTQ+ patients’ sexuality to align with heterosexual desires. In Chiles v. Salazar, Kasey Chiles, an evangelical therapist in Colorado, is alleging that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban violates her 1st Amendment rights, leaving her unable to work with patients who want to live a life “consistent with their faith.”
Conversion therapy is not solely an evangelical Christian problem. In 2012, a group of plaintiffs in New Jersey successfully sued a group called Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, alleging that it had committed consumer fraud by selling services that it claimed could turn someone heterosexual. The organization, known as JONAH, promised religious Jews that they could change their sexual orientation via methods that included being forced to strip naked and beat pillows that represented their mothers.
When JONAH was forced to disband after losing in court in 2015, it reformed just 11 days later as a new organization called the Jewish Institute for Global Awareness. In 2019, a judge found this was a violation of the original court order and shut down JIGA as well. Yet conversion therapy in the Orthodox world persists to this day. One new organization, Jewish Family Forever, led by Dr. Koby Frances, claims that “modern ideologies are leading people away from their values,” and its website prominently states that they are “encouraging Torah traditional heterosexual marriage.”
Chaim Levin, one of the plaintiffs who sued JONAH, is now a first-year law student at Drexel University and has been a vocal advocate for LGBTQ+ Jews.
I spoke with Levin, who was raised in a Chabad household in Brooklyn, over the phone about Chiles v. Salazar, and how the Orthodox community currently navigates homosexuality. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Can you share what your conversion therapy experiences with JONAH were like?
I had been seeing a frum therapist in Flatbush since I was 15 for several reasons, including being gay. She actually was helpful for some of those other issues. But when I was older, and finally “acting out” on my attraction to men, she said she couldn’t help me anymore.
Two weeks before I turned 18, I talked to the director of JONAH after being referred to them by a rabbi. I then went on my first weekend retreat with them shortly after my 18th birthday, and was with JONAH for about a year and a half to two years.
There was bullying, there was nudity. There was staged humiliation, where they would have us recreate traumatic experiences. There was what they called “healthy touch,” which was where typically older men cuddled with younger men as a form of “father-son bonding” — in hindsight, a very sexualized experience.
The incident that ultimately caused me to leave and to sue JONAH was when my life coach forced me to get naked and fondle myself in front of him, after I repeatedly said I did not want to.
What was your first reaction when you heard SCOTUS was taking up a case on conversion therapy?
I’m a legal nerd and a law student, so I knew it was coming. I knew that federal courts disagreed on this issue. Conversion therapy is having a moment now. It’s a resurgence driven by panic and hysteria over trans people. I’m feeling incredibly frustrated, to be honest.
Why is that?
It’s unclear how conversion therapy bans are enforced. I actually don’t know of a single example of a ban being enforced. They’re a symbolic gesture, and many advocacy groups pushed for them and spent millions of dollars to get them passed. All it did was to drive conversion therapy underground.
No person offering conversion therapy is going to call it that. They’ll offer treatment for “sex addiction,” “men’s issues,” or “intimacy issues.” All the conversion therapy bans are also solely targeting licensed medical professionals. There are specific carveouts for religious counseling and life coaches, so this practice is unfortunately still thriving.
In Chiles v. Salazar, the prosecutors are presenting conversion therapy as a free speech issue. They argue that there is a difference between the speech of a medical professional versus their conduct. In their view, simply discussing or supporting a hypothetical patient’s desire to become straight is not harmful. How do you see this argument?
It’s a really good question: is it speech, or is it conduct?
In my case, the life coach told me to take my clothes off and touch myself as part of my conversion therapy. He wasn’t doing anything himself, but he was inducing me to engage in that conduct. I found out that another star witness for JONAH had the same life coach as I did, and he ordered him and another man to masturbate each other to the point of orgasm. Is that solely speech?
As a future lawyer, I almost have a little bit of sympathy for the prosecutor’s arguments. Yet I don’t believe any of these people are genuinely concerned for the well-being of queer people. They’re pushing an agenda.
How do you think the Orthodox Jewish community has evolved (or not) on homosexuality and conversion therapy in the last decade since your lawsuit?
I want to be sensitive. But I don’t believe that it’s a safe place for gay or queer people. I certainly am not going to tell people to leave the community. I don’t think that’s the answer.
But a community can only be as safe as it wants to be. There are still tons of therapists and life coaches in the Orthodox community offering conversion therapy. Their rabbis don’t want to deal with the problem of queer people.
I think JQY and Eshel are amazing and doing important work. But those organizations are not what I would classify as being in the mainstream. It’s not for lack of trying — they have turned into some of the only safe spaces for LGBT Jews given the climate we’re living in.
Do you buy the free speech, or free practice of religion, arguments when it comes to the conversion therapy you see still happening in the Orthodox world?
I don’t think free speech means you are absolved from consequences. I think people can be held accountable.
The thing I’ve encountered a lot with these conversion therapy providers is that they don’t claim they’re using religion in their counseling. I’ve always heard: “We’re a Jewish group, we’re religious people, but our therapy is not religious.” If you’re going to tell me “our therapy is prayer,” that’s one thing, but I’ve never seen conversion therapy in the form of prayer.
I just don’t buy it. You can’t use your religion to harm people in a way that doesn’t comport with reality. You don’t have a religious or constitutional right to hurt people.
The post ‘Conversion therapy is having a moment’ — what will that mean for LGBTQ+ Jews? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
‘Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes,’ Charlie Kirk wrote in leaked text messages before his murder
In the days before his murder, Charlie Kirk was frustrated — and he wasn’t hiding it from his friends. The conservative influencer complained in a WhatsApp group that his “Jewish donors” were “playing into all the stereotypes” and said they were pushing him to “leave the pro-Israel cause.”
Those messages surfaced and were confirmed as authentic this week, giving new insight into what was on Kirk’s mind before his death.
“I cannot and will not be bullied like this,” Kirk wrote in the group WhatsApp conversation, which included Jewish associates.
The messages, along with the recently revealed full text of a letter Kirk had sent to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu several months before his death, provide additional evidence that Kirk’s frustrations with the behavior of Israel and its supporters were boiling over.
Kirk’s views on Israel and Jews have become one of the most scrutinized aspects of the millennial pundit’s legacy in the wake of his assassination on a Utah college campus. They also reveal the deepening trenches on the right over Israel, as young conservatives are showing signs of turning against its conduct of the Gaza war and some have percolated conspiracy theories alleging that Israel played a role in Kirk’s murder.
Pro-Israel backers of Kirk, including Netanyahu, rushed after his death to label the pundit as an unwavering friend and supporter of Israel — even as Kirk, during his life, was on record as supporting aspects of the Great Replacement theory and making other comments disparaging Jews. Netanyahu also posted his own video just prior to Kirk’s funeral refuting the idea that Israel was involved in the influencer’s murder.
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson, a friend and associate of Kirk’s who has leaned more heavily into anti-Israel and conspiratorial rhetoric in recent years, alluded to Kirk’s assassins “eating hummus” during a eulogy at the pundit’s funeral that was also attended by President Donald Trump.
Carlson and fellow conspiratorial right-wing personality Candace Owens, also a longtime friend of Kirk’s, are at the center of the leaked texts as well. In them, Kirk discussed what he implied was Jewish blowback to his associations with both of them, including plans to invite Carlson to an event staged by his group Turning Point USA.
“Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker,” Kirk wrote, adding, “I’m thinking of inviting Candace.” Another member of the thread, whose identity has not been revealed, responded, “Ugghhh”; later someone adds “Please don’t invite Candace.”
The text messages don’t name any donors, but the New York Times reported earlier this month that Robert Shillman, a tech mogul and supporter of pro-Israel causes, grew angry at Kirk and canceled a $2 million donation to TPUSA over Carlson’s participation at a TPUSA event.
The texts were first revealed this week by Owens, on her YouTube show. Their authenticity was later confirmed by Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for TPUSA, in his appearance on Kirk’s own eponymous show Wednesday.
At least one pro-Israel Jewish associate of Kirk’s, Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer, has confirmed he was on the text thread.
Owens, who claimed the texts were sent “48 hours” before Kirk’s murder and that their recipients included “a rabbi,” sought to paint the texts as evidence that Kirk had recently made powerful enemies in the pro-Israel sphere. On X, she has insinuated that Hammer may have had foreknowledge of Kirk’s murder.
Kolvet was more sanguine about what they revealed.
“I actually am really excited that the truth is out there,” Kolvet said on the show, adding that Kirk’s texts were “consistent with public frustrations he voiced many times” about the pro-Israel movement.
“What is the truth about the way Charlie felt about Israel? Well, it’s complicated and it’s nuanced, and it was a wrestle that was going on for months,” Kolvet said. Later, he added, “Charlie was wonderfully defiant. He was wonderfully independent, and he believed in the freedom of speech, and he felt like he deserved, as a friend of Israel over many years, the right to speak out and have criticisms.”
Kolvet noted that Kirk tended to strike “a more moderate tone in public” on the subject of Israel than the way he came across in the texts, while also sharing past interviews in which Kirk had expressed frustration that some pro-Israel circles were portraying him as an antisemite. Prior to his death, Kirk had sent a letter to Netanyahu warning him that Israel was “losing support even in conservative circles.”
Hammer, addressing the texts, wrote on the social network X on Thursday that Kirk “was blowing off steam in a private group chat setting.” He spoke with Kirk about Israel hours later, he said, adding, “Charlie sought out our advice for how to better communicate the Israel issue on campus so as to be most effective with a younger Gen Z audience.”
“Donors have every right to withhold donations, and organization CEOs/chairmen have every right to then be upset when donors withhold those donations,” Hammer wrote by way of explaining the emotions behind the texts. He added, “the notion that Charlie Kirk was ‘turning’ on his career-long friendships with the Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel—as opposed to (sarcastically!) blowing off steam in a private group chat setting—is an egregious lie and is belied by the facts.”
On Kirk’s show, Kolvet discussed Israel with Blake Neff — a former writer on Carlson’s Fox News show who resigned from the network in 2020 after it was revealed he had written numerous anonymous racist posts.
Neff on Wednesday continued the Israel discussion by holding up a copy of “Righteous Victims,” a 1999 book about the Arab-Israeli conflict by prominent Israeli historian Benny Morris whose scholarship on the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict casts significant blame on Israel. Neff said that he had finished reading it just before Kirk’s shooting in Utah.
“I read this book because Charlie said, ‘Blake, get really well versed on this so you can help me whenever it comes up,’” Neff recalled.
No evidence has been shared linking the only suspect to be charged with Kirk’s murder to Israel. Yet Kolvet, adding fuel to the conspiratorial fire, stated that he had turned over the texts about “Jewish donors” to the FBI in the wake of the shooting.
“We wanted to leave nothing unturned,” he said, later suggesting that speculation on Kirk’s relationship with his Jewish donors could wind up “tainting a jury pool.”
—
The post ‘Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes,’ Charlie Kirk wrote in leaked text messages before his murder appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.