B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!
alchehrm@gmail.com
---
The Jew-hating, anti-Zionist crowd of far leftists and their intersectional Islamist and Black radical allies are almost invariably haters of America as well. There is that coherence to their venom: It is spread evenly across its primary, strategically linked, targets with an homogenized consistency.
In contrast, those on the Right who revile Israel and seek to undo the Israel-America alliance commonly insist that they do so out of devotion to America, often even identify as MAGA enthusiasts, and bask in the inconsistency of their at once ostensibly loving America and disdaining an ally that serves vital American interests.
Some seek to justify their stance by depicting themselves as advocates of a true, neo-isolationist, America First agenda, determined to avoid foreign entanglements. They decry the rapport with Israel as inexorably drawing America into precisely such entanglements. But the opposite is true. No isolationist stance will allow America to safely extricate itself totally from the Middle East. All of the nation’s major allies are dependent on Middle East developments and the United States could not countenance developments that dramatically damage its allies and serve the interests of China and Russia. Could America do nothing if, for example, Middle East oil were cut off from Japan and South Korea? Israel actually serves the function of allowing America to lessen its presence in the region as it serves to keep those bent on harming America’s interests at bay. What would a nuclear Iraq under Saddam Hussein or a nuclear Syria under Hafez Assad have done to American interests? Israel destroyed both nuclear programs (in 1981 and 2003 respectively) without involvement of American troops or any American assistance.
In addition, those who claim that Israel was somehow behind failed American entanglements in the region point to the supposed role of American Jews - so-called neo-conservatives - and of Israeli leaders in, most notably, George W. Bush (Bush 43)’s Iraq war. But the assertion is a gross distortion of reality. None of the top officials in the administration that supported and undertook the war - for example, the president, vice president, secretary of state, national security advisor, secretary of defense, CIA chief - were Jewish neo-conservatives. And major Israeli leaders, far from promoting the war, were opposed to it, but - viewing Bush as a sympathetic ally - were reluctant to publicly challenge Bush’s determination to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Israeli opposition was grounded in anticipating that the chief beneficiary of deposing Saddam’s regime would be Iran, which Israeli leaders typically regarded as much more dangerous than Iraq. They anticipated this because Iraq is a majority Shi’a country then under control of a Sunni minority. Iraqi Shi’a leaders had close ties to Iran and could be expected to dominate Iraq and build on those ties after the removal of Saddam’s regime; which is precisely what happened. As Lee Smith has written regarding Israeli misgivings about the war: “‘I’m not losing any sleep over the Iraqi threat,’ said Israel’s chief of staff, dismissing the Americans’ concerns. The chief of Israeli military intelligence said that the Iraqis were at least four years away from building a nuclear weapon, an assessment that directly challenged the Bush team’s public messaging warning that Hussein already had the bomb. It got so bad that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly told his own cabinet ministers to stop criticizing the Bush White House about its Iraq plans.”
How then to understand those who promote what they claim to be an anti-Israel policy based on pro-American priorities?
To address this question, consider first a brief history of the evolution of the strategic alliance between the United States and Israel:
From Israel’s founding in 1948 until its victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Americans were widely sympathetic to the Jewish state, but American administrations largely kept Israel at arm’s length in strategic terms. This was primarily because Israel was seen as militarily vulnerable. despite its success in beating back attempts to destroy her following the UN’s 1947 declaration of support for Israel’s founding and through subsequent terrorist onslaughts. Great nations are reluctant to be closely tied to vulnerable states whose vulnerability may draw a larger ally into a costly, and even ultimately losing, war.
Such calculations changed, however, after Israel’s 1967 trouncing of the armies that had arrayed themselves around her in anticipation of her impending destruction. America began to see Israel as a potentially valuable ally that could defend itself without external help and that was politically stable, overwhelmingly pro-American and open to close alignment with the United States. Arms sales to Israel followed, and relations gradually became more substantial. (One consequence was that, in reaction, the Soviet Union, competing with America in the Middle East, launched a propaganda war against Israel that introduced the anti-Israel and antisemitic tropes that are now so popular among Western leftists and Islamists and so widely parroted on American and European college campuses and even in grade schools: Israel is a nefarious Jewish and American creation that has stolen Arab lands to advance American colonial capitalist interests.)
American aid to Israel was increased, as was aid to Egypt, in the context of the 1978 Camp David peace accords between the two nations. Military aid was subsequently formalized in long-term agreements. Presently the relevant agreements entail about 3.8 billion dollars annually for Israeli arms purchases, and that amount has been supplemented in the last two years by additional grants in the context of the post-October 7, 2023, wars. The core figure, 3.3 billion dollars, to be spent essentially on purchasing American arms, reflects a consistent decrease in actual value of the aid package since the inception of multi-year agreements, due both to dollar amount decreases initiated by Israel and to inflation. The additional half-billion dollars currently part of the package was instituted following Israel’s own development of unique anti-missile systems and American eagerness to share Israeli successes via an arrangement in which America has access to Israel’s systems in exchange for financing both American production of system parts for Israel and joint additional Israeli research and development.
The overall perspective of American military strategists is that the military and related advantages derived from the alliance with Israel - including lessons drawn from Israeli battlefield experience with American weapons and related modifications of American weapons, other Israeli defense research and development readily available to America, the work of unique Israeli intelligence capabilities in the Middle East likewise readily available to America - very much more than offsets American outlays. Political echelons in the United States have generally shared this assessment. This perspective is, of course, reinforced by the general conviction that Israel and America face the same enemies; in particular, Islamist forces in the Middle East of both the Sunni and Shi’a variety. Both camps have a world-dominating agenda and both view Israel - in the formulation of the Iranian theocracy - as the little Satan and America as the great Satan. Or, in a variation on the same theme, their agenda is first the elimination of Saturday’s people and then of Sunday’s people.
Of course, as two sovereign nations, Israeli and American policy priorities and objectives can and do at times differ. But over the years, particularly with American administrations focused on the nation’s strategic standing, there has been increasingly more convergence than difference. For example, a major concern among some American officials in the early years of the alliance was that the ties to Israel would universally alienate the nations of the Arab world and would hurt America’s standing in the Middle East and benefit its foes. But, in fact, the opposite ultimately occurred. As happened with Egypt after the 1973 war, Arab nations saw Israel as a regional power and realized they could only deal with it through America, which actually strengthened America’s position in the region.
The valuing of Israel as a vital ally has typically been embraced even by American leaders who have not been particularly sympathetic to Jews generally. Perhaps the most notable in this regard was President Nixon. He was quoted on many occasions deprecating American Jews, not least for their lack of political support for him, but he was perhaps second only to Trump as the best friend Israel has had in the White House. Nixon’s perspective on Israel was reinforced by such events as Israeli action in response to Syria’s armored invasion of Jordan in 1970 in support of the Palestinian terror organizations’ attempted takeover of Jordan in what has come to be known as Black September. Nixon was fearful of King Hussein’s potential downfall in Jordan and eager to see the Syrian invasion stopped. Israel obliged by sending ground forces to the Jordanian border and aircraft to overfly the Syrian tank formations that had entered northern Jordan, making clear that this was prelude to an imminent attack, and the Syrians soon withdrew. The American objective had been achieved without any direct American involvement.
Whatever Nixon’s anti-Jewish animus, he valued American strategic well-being, and therefore the alliance with Israel, above any such predilections. (It is also noteworthy regarding this valuing of Israel that General Alexander Haig, Nixon’s White House chief of staff and subsequently the same for Gerald Ford and then Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, is often quoted as having said, “Israel is the largest U.S. aircraft carrier, which does not require American soldiers on board, cannot be sunk and is deployed in a most critical region—between Europe-Asia-Africa and between the Mediterranean-Red Sea-Indian Ocean-Persian Gulf—sparing the U.S. the need to manufacture, deploy and maintain a few more real aircraft carriers and additional ground divisions, which would cost the U.S. taxpayer some $15 billion annually.” Nixon’s Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, voiced similar assessments of Israel’s value to America.)
The one president who sought to diminish ties with Israel was also the one who was least concerned with America’s strategic well-being: Barack Obama. Obama, who campaigned on a promise of “hope and change,” stressed the “change” in steering America’s foreign policy. He regarded America not as a force for good in the world but as an imperialist bully. Shortly after his inauguration, he embarked on an international “apology tour,” seeking to make amends for what he regarded as past American abuses in the international arena. In the Middle East, he threw his support to the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of Sunni Islamist radicalism, and courted the “death to America”-chanting Ayatollahs of Iran.
The former embrace led to the overthrow of pro-Western Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak and installation in 2012 of a Muslim Brotherhood regime. (Mubarak had for many years fended off Western criticism of his authoritarian governance by pointing out that the only alternative to his control of Egypt was the Muslim Brotherhood. But the tack failed to daunt Obama, for whom that alternative was an attraction.) When Egyptian pro-Western military leaders, with popular support, subsequently overthrew the Islamist regime in 2013, Obama condemned the coup.
The courting of the theocrats in Iran led ultimately, of course, to the nuclear agreement with Iran, which promised, in return for some years of curtailing its pursuit of nuclear weapons, an internationally recognized path to a nuclear arsenal. Iran’s ongoing calls for Israel’s annihilation did not inhibit Obama’s outreach to the ayatollahs or his providing them with a roadmap to nuclear weapons; but then neither did Iran’s calls for America’s annihilation give pause to Obama’s pursuit of the nuclear deal.
Obama also turned a blind eye to Iran’s backing of terror proxies such as Hezbollah (which had killed hundreds of Americans), Hamas, and other such groups. In courting the ayatollahs, he released to them in excess of a 100 billion dollars in embargoed funds, enabling Iran to greatly improve and grow its missile forces, secretly advance its nuclear program and lavishly fund its terror proxies. Another aspect of this courting was to close down American efforts to interdict, and bring to trial, Iranian terror proxies running drug traffic into America; a traffic that likely claimed thousands of American lives and further financed their terror activities.
Elsewhere, too, Obama ignored American strategic interests, as in his courting of Putin and his weak response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of the Ukraine.
It is no surprise, then, given his cavalier attitude towards America’s strategic well-being, that Obama would have a jaundiced view of the alliance with Israel.
But, again, how is one to understand the anti-Israel stance - even when associated with anti-Jewish sentiment - by those who claim to be America First advocates and insist that their commitment to America’s strategic well-being drives their hostility to the alliance with Israel?
Tucker Carlson is in many respects the leading figure in this regard. He claims to be a MAGA stalwart and is close to MAGA figures, yet he attacks American ties to and support of Israel, insists they are counter to American interests, and has been intensely critical of President Trump’s backing of the Jewish state. He declared that that backing, including for Israel’s campaign against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, and Trump’s ultimately joining Israel in targeting Iranian nuclear installations, was exposing America to potentially triggering World War III and causing incalculable American casualties. The President, in turn, responded with, “Someone please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.” Yet Carlson continues to have close ties with major figures within the Trump administration and, again, continues to characterize himself as a MAGA supporter.
The dissonance between his claimed backing of American strategic strength and his hostility to the American alliance with Israel co-exists with Carlson’s notable hostility to Jews in recent years. That hostility appears grounded in religious bias. He is reported to have moved from his Episcopal upbringing to a greater affinity for Catholicism, but his attitude towards Jews suggests that affinity is to a pre-Vatican II Catholicism. For example, in his remarks at the Charlie Kirk memorial, he bizarrely related the Kirk assassination to Jewish complicity in the killing of Jesus. (It is perhaps ironic that his pursuing this line coincides with the Catholic Church’s celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of Vatican II and its promulgation of “Nostra Aetate,” which denounced “hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone”; spoke of the “spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews”; and also declared that Jews are not collectively responsible for the death of Jesus.)
The religious dimension to Carlson’s anti-Israel predilections is also suggested by his bitterness towards Christian Zionists, whom he states he hates more than any other group and whom he characterizes as embracing a heretical Christianity. (One would think this intense animosity is hardly consistent with Christian charity towards others, and certainly inconsistent with Catholic efforts in recent decades to find common ground and draw closer to Evangelical Christians, the prime embracers of Christian Zionism. Also, to hate Christian Zionists for sympathizing with a people who have endured two thousand years of persecution at the hands of the Church and in Jesus’s name - to construe that sympathy as unChristian and heretical - seems not only a rejection of Vatican II and “Nostra Aetate” but genuinely, again, bizarre. Are Christian Zionists also heretical for supporting Jews being reestablished by the widely recognized right of national self-determination in their ancestral home as endorsed by the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations and their being in a position after two millennia to defend themselves? Are they heretical for regarding that support as an obvious act of Christian atonement and redress?)
The religious element in Carlson’s anti-Israel bias is reflected as well in his many false claims of anti-Christian actions by Israel. His various assertions of attacks on Christian sites by Israel since the onset of the post-October 7 wars are untrue, as established by witnesses on the ground. For example, he claims that Israelis set an ancient West Bank church on fire whereas - as shown by Ambassador Huckabee’s visit to the church - it is a stone ruin and bears no sign of fire damage, the fire was to grassland some distance from the church, and the fire had been set by Palestinians and authorities were alerted to the blaze by Israelis.
Similarly, Carlson never notes that Israel is virtually the only Middle East country in which the Christian population is growing, and that Palestinian authorities have largely forced Christians out of the areas under their control. It is also the only country in the region in which Christians enjoy equal rights. It is notable in this regard that, in the Jewish state, the average education level achieved by Christian students at Israeli schools and universities actually exceeds the average level attained by Jewish students.
Like his ignoring the abuse of Christian populations in the Muslim countries around Israel, Carlson also plays down attacks on Christians by Muslim populations elsewhere, as in his contradicting President Trump’s calling out the genocidal attacks on Christians in Nigeria. It seems Carlson will voice concerns about Christian populations only when he can wield his professing of such concerns in the context of false indictments of Israel.
But, again, one could have negative attitudes towards Jews in general and still value the alliance with Israel. Perhaps the difference with Carlson is that, whereas the jaundiced view towards Jews entertained by Nixon and others like him is based on American Jews’ predominantly left-leaning politics, and that view does not extend to Israelis, Carlson’s anti-Jewish animus clearly does extend to Israelis. Or the explanation may lie less in the breadth of his hostility to Jews and more in the shallowness of his love of America.
Support for this latter thesis includes the parade of his podcast guests who are in various ways anti-American and whom he nevertheless fawns over. In a particularly noted episode, the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi/white supremacist Nick Fuentes talked of his perception of Hitler as “cool,” his admiration of Stalin, his high regard for the Chinese Communists’ treatment of the Uyghurs (including his musing on their invading America and doing the same to Harlem and Chicago’s south side: “Is that not ideal?”), his hostility to Blacks and gays and women as well as Jews, his murderous attitude towards Jews - all with nothing but softball responses and frequent nods from Carlson. Fuentes has also described Vice President JD Vance as “a fat, gay, race traitor that married a j**t [derogatory slang for Indian].” (Thomas D. Howes, writing for the Civitas Outlook, observes: “If one considers how radical, illiberal, bigoted, and anti-American Nick Fuentes is, one sees clearly that Tucker Carlson is leading an army of fury and unreason. Those who have followed Carlson to this point had better jump off if they do not want to lose everything that ever mattered to American conservatism and to our country.”)
Another far right figure, Darryl Cooper, whose neo-Nazi sentiments were confirmed in a Mother Jones article, was characterized by Carlson as the “best and most honest popular historian in the United States” and used his appearance with Carlson to call Churchill “the chief villain of the Second World War” and to downplay the Holocaust.
But Carlson’s embrace of anti-American figures is not limited to those on the Far Right. Another frequent Carlson guest is Jeffrey Sachs, who has a history of Far Left predilections. Sachs has made light of Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs and has urged American abandonment of Taiwan. He has also attacked Trump as “the worst president in our history,” “a fool and a crook,” and “an ignoramus.” Another Far Left figure favored by Carlson is Glenn Greenwald, an avowed socialist who has expressed admiration for “revolutionary and subversive” AOC. Both Sachs and Greenwald are of Jewish extraction, but both are viciously anti-Israel, no doubt another point endearing them to Carlson.
Then there is Carlson’s offering support in his own voice for America’s enemies. He has expressed praise for Communist China’s “national unity” as something “we could actually learn from,” and for China’s authoritarianism. He has also defended Venezuela’s Marxist strongman Maduro and hosted a registered foreign agent of the Maduro government to concur with his support. (And another frequent Carlson guest, former military officer Douglas Macgregor, claimed that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Machado would - if she came to power - “move the Venezuelan Embassy to Jerusalem” in accord with the desires of “a small group of billionaire oligarchs.”) The registered agent for Maduro hosted by Carlson was also a former representative for an Islamist leader involved in the butchering of Christians in Nigeria.
Beyond hosting others who downplay Islamist attacks on Christians, Carlson has in his own voice expressed support for Islamic extremism. As Kenneth Timmerman (who characterizes himself as a Christian Zionist) notes: “[Carlson] has called Hamas and the Iranians ‘peacemakers,’ and promoted guests who call Sharia law a perfectly benign legal system.” He, of course, also hosted a puff piece interview with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian shortly after the June 2025 war.
His embrace of America’s enemies has also extended to Vladimir Putin, likewise provided a softball interview.
So, which figures more prominently in shaping the inconsistency of Carlson’s at once claiming to be committed to America’s well-being and yet vehemently opposing America’s alliance with Israel: Is it his bigoted view of Jews and therefore of Israel, or his compromised, half-hearted dedication to America’s strategic security as illustrated by his sympathy for America’s enemies and downplaying of the threats they pose? Or a toxic combination of the two?
Several decades ago, Carlson called out Pat Buchanan’s anti-Jewish and anti-Israel drumbeating as antisemitic. But, as others have noted, Tucker’s extreme isolationist views - the belief that foreign alliances and overseas commitments are a threat to America and can only have destructive consequences - can reasonably be compared to Buchanan’s isolationism. And Carlson has now embraced Buchanan’s seeking to explain America’s failure to adopt his isolationist vision as due to “the Jews.”
Buchanan suggested America’s involvement in World War II was a tragic mistake for the nation and blamed - as did 1930’s isolationists such as Charles Lindbergh - Britain and “the Jews” for drawing America into the war. But it was America’s interwar isolationism that was the tragedy. Hitler could easily have been stopped if there had been a response to his early military moves - for example, his military seizure of the Rhineland in 1936 - even before the British and French sell-out of Czechoslovakia in 1938. But England and France were too war-weary to act. And America was absent. American involvement only started with our being attacked at Pearl Harbor, and with Hitler then declaring war on us; and among the tens of millions of lives lost in the avoidable war were over 400,000 Americans who, had it not been for American isolationism prior to the war, could very well have been spared. Just as America’s post-1945 rejection of isolationism and continued involvement in the defense of western Europe prevented another major “hot’ war in Europe during the years of the cold war.
But Carlson’s Buchanan-like isolationism, together with his hostility towards an America that eschews his isolationism, entails critiques of American involvement in numerous overseas “entanglements,” not only the alliance with Israel. The primary motivation for his supportive statements regarding America’s enemies in the world - Putin’s Russia, Communist China, the Iranian theocracy, its terrorist allies such as Hamas, Venezuela’s Maduro, the Islamist slaughterers of African Christians - is in large part in support of the thesis that hostility towards all of them is a reflection of misguided American overseas involvement and that, at least to him, none of these enemies would be enemies were it not for American provocations. In the same vein, he would characterize all our allies in the conflicts with those enemies as likewise relationships that would be unnecessary if America gave sufficient precedence to avoiding foreign entanglements.
Why, then, given these myriad entanglements - in terms of both enemies and allies - has Carlson chosen to focus on Jews and on the alliance with Israel, especially when the bond with Israel is arguably the most cost-effective of America’s overseas ties?
One can explain it in terms, again, of antisemitism combined with a compromised commitment to an America that does not adhere to his forcefully embraced image of proper national priorities. (Some have suggested Carlson’s hostility to American Jews and Israel may also reflect some financial link to those abroad who are financing antisemitism and antizionism in America, most notably Qatar and its in excess of $20 billion spent primarily to advance antisemitism and antizionism in American universities and grade schools. Carlson has - as he has with others hostile to America or supportive of America’s enemies, in Qatar’s case the Muslim Brotherhood - provided softball treatment to the Qatari leadership, but no financial ties have been definitively established.) But another likely factor shaping Carlson’s anti-Jewish agenda and not thus far mentioned is the rise of antisemitism as a popular tool in other areas of American political discourse.
One often hears of antisemitism’s protean nature; that is, it can take innumerable, unrelated and even contradictory, forms. But two factors are notable as virtual constants that contribute to its popularity: It is low-cost, with limited pushback and downside for promoting it; and, in the context of strident political differences, it is an effective tool to use against political enemies.
The tremendous influx into Europe by Muslims from the Middle East and north Africa, from countries where Jew-hatred is promoted in government schools, media and mosques and is virtually universal, made open expressions of antisemitism in the public arena in Europe much more common. Leftist Jew-hatred, always a feature of the Far Left if somewhat subdued in the wake of the Holocaust, drew on this Islamist Jew-hatred as license for greater expression of its own antisemitism in the context of the red-green, Far Left-Islamist, alliance. The same occurred in America, with the process accelerated by billions of dollars spent, primarily by Qatar but by other foreign actors as well, to promote antisemitism and antizionism in universities, in K-12 education, and in other arenas of potential influence. The Far Right, opposed to large-scale immigration, including that of Muslim populations, and drawing on the greater latitude now given to open expressions of Jew-hatred, was emboldened to unleash more of its own antisemitic venom, to capitalize on anti-immigrant sentiment and to argue for its own versions of Jew-hatred.
Islamist/Palestinian wielding of antisemitism in the Middle East is not only an anti-Israel tool but is wielded against whatever there is of moderate forces in the Arab and wider Muslim world, to win and maintain popular support and to undermine Muslim opponents. In the West, with the Islamist agenda of ultimately converting the West to Islam, it is used to sow dissension and, again, win support, defaming Jews to open fissures in Western societies while pushing the characterization of any pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish sentiment as Islamophobic and intolerable. And it has been successful, with virtually every Western nation tolerating terror-affiliated Islamist groups to function and flourish in their societies even as they do all too little to counter the anti-Jewish onslaught.
A comparable, essentially anti-American, agenda underlies the Jew-hatred promoted by other groups in America as well as elsewhere in the West. The progressive Left’s promotion of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its action agenda - diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) - targets Jews and promotes Jew-hatred in academia, in grade schools and in industry and unions. It characterizes Jews, particularly successful in America, as therefore particularly unfair beneficiaries of white privilege. The Left’s doing so plays on Jewish support for integration and meritocracy, and the anti-Jewish attacks are aimed at undermining those in society who likewise support integration and meritocracy, undermining them by linking them to “the Jews.”
Henry Lewis Gates, Jr., who has been chairman of Harvard’s program on African and African-American Studies, has noted a similar pattern with regard to the high level of Black antisemitism in America. He sees the hate as emanating primarily from radical Black groups like the Nation of Islam; groups that seek to draw Blacks away from the broader society. And he construes the Jew-hatred as aimed at countering the integrationist, meritocratic agenda of the mid-twentieth century American Black leadership and their followers, smearing them - and their aspirations - for their connections to American Jews.
Carlson is obviously aware of the success of each of these groups in spreading their poisonous Jew-hatred across American society and advancing their political goals. He has engaged with purveyors of each of them and seeks similarly to enlist Jew-hatred in his campaign against the still dominant non-isolationist Right. He downplays the threats posed by all of America’s enemies in the world, is willing to risk those threats for his ultra-isolationist vision, and is prepared to use American Jews and Israel as pawns, to smear American Jews and Israel as the chief, illegitimate proponents of a foreign policy that pushes engagement with the world and that is prepared to cultivate alliances and to confront what Carlson would insist are imaginary enemies of America. The message to Right-leaning Americans: You should abandon conservatives’, and the Republican Party’s engagement with the world because its chief proponents are Jews and the Jewish foreign country, Israel. It is a politics built on a morally bankrupt promoting of Jew-hatred and playing of Russian roulette with America’s security.
It is ultimately, as originally suggested, a politics built on hating Jews more than loving America.
Jews Under Attack - Substack
