Moralne odwrócenie Europy wobec Izraela

Fiamma Nirenstein

Antisemitism, Islam and the future of the GOP

Jonathan S. Tobin

Megyn Kelly attends the U.S. Open Tennis Championship at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City on Sept. 5, 2025. Photo by John Nacion/Getty Images.

If lately you have been feeling as if the world is not quite spinning on its axis the way it used to, you’re not the only one. The shift in the political wind with respect to how antisemitism is treated is no longer merely a matter of hateful calls for genocide or violence against Jews uttered on college campuses or protests in the streets of U.S. cities. The main front where the battle against Jew-hatred is being fought these days is on popular podcasts. What is most disconcerting—and a sign of how much the world is changing—is that some of the bastions of the liberal establishment are doing their best to put their fingers on the scale in favor of the hate-mongers.

Simply put, we’re now living in a world where The New York Times is lending its considerable weight to boost one side in an increasingly bitter civil war on the political right. And the side that they are helping is the one championing the sort of antisemitism that even the newspaper acknowledges seems taken straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

‘Strange new respect’ for right-wing antisemites

The New York Times Magazine’s lengthy and astonishingly friendly profile of former Fox News host and current podcaster Tucker Carlson was a watershed moment. In the 1980s, the late Tom Bethell coined the term “strange new respect” to describe the way liberal media would shower a conservative with praise for “evolving” and adopting positions that they favored. Back then, it was usually reserved for Republicans who opposed President Ronald Reagan and accused him of being a radical. In recent years, the same phenomenon could be observed when it came to those in the GOP establishment or former Republicans who opposed President Donald Trump.

The latest instance of “strange new respect” is reserved for those who share the newspaper’s antipathy for Israel and its willingness to mainstream antisemitic tropes about the Jewish state and its supporters. Interviews like the one with Carlson are examples of what journalist Mark Helprin described as the Times’ embrace of “new heroes” who oppose Trump.

As the Manhattan Institute’s Jesse Arm noted, the newspaper “runs polished, quasi-glamorous profiles” of people like Carlson, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, former Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback, rather than mainstream conservatives or administration officials, to portray the right as a pack of “cartoonishly bigoted” fringe figures. But what all those people have in common is that they’ve parted company with Trump largely because of his support of Israel, as well as having all headed down the rabbit hole of antisemitic conspiracy theories.

What we’re observing is one more piece of evidence that illustrates how the nation’s political alignment is being altered by the surge of global Jew-hatred post-Oct. 7, 2023. During the last 31 months, the widespread demonization of Israel has fractured old assumptions about the limits of acceptable discourse, as well as what were once thought to be immutable differences between the right and the left.

Even before Oct. 7, it was already obvious that a bizarre red-green alliance of Marxists and Islamists was having an impact on European politics and culture, and starting to be felt in America. Left-wingers who had little in common with Muslim immigrants who brought with them reactionary attitudes about social issues bonded with them over their antipathy for Israel and the Jews.

Corbynizing Democrats and Republicans

A decade ago, Britain’s Labour Party was captured by the far left in the form of a faction headed by Jeremy Corbyn, who led it to two electoral defeats in 2017 and 2020. The “Corbynization” of Labour was theoretically undone by the election of Keir Starmer as prime minister in 2024. Still, the impact of the normalization of the far left lingers as the main parties splinter, and the Greens, which epitomize the alliance of left-wingers and Islamists, seem poised to topple Labour in the foreseeable future.

The “Corbynization” of the Democratic Party has been proceeding slowly and surely since the election of the first four members of the far-left congressional “Squad”—Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). Eight years ago, such people were marginal in the Democratic Party. Today, they are among its leaders and most popular figures, with the older, nominally pro-Israel establishment kowtowing to them. The party’s leaders are now even ready to support Israel-bashing extremists like Graham Platner or Abdul El-Sayed.

What we’re seeing in the United States goes beyond the hijacking of the Democrats by its intersectional left-wing anti-Israel base. Here, the promotion of blood libels about Israel committing “genocide” against Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip has spread from the left to the right. Young people have been disproportionately influenced by the algorithms of social-media platforms that favor anti-Israel talking points and lies, in addition to skewed news coverage. As a result, polls show young people are far more likely to be opposed to the Jewish state or to believe the Hamas propaganda about alleged Israeli crimes. And that seems to apply to young people, especially males, who otherwise describe themselves as conservative, as well as to those on the left.

That is apparently the core audience of Carlson’s podcast and that of others on the far right, such as those of openly antisemite Candace Owens or neo-Nazi groyper Fuentes.

Muslims like the antisemitic right

These purveyors of hate are also getting a boost from the growing Muslim population. As Kelly, who was once a mainstream pro-Israel conservative but actively defended Carlson and Owens in the last year, said this past week, all three are getting a major boost in Internet clicks and YouTube views from Muslims. And so, they have adjusted their views to suit their new fans.

Like Carlson, Kelly is now also professing that Jews and the pro-Israel community have been spreading negative ideas about Islam that should be refuted. Only in January, she was correctly stating that Islamism was a threat to Western freedoms and that accusations of Islamophobia were merely an attempt to shut down those who told the truth about hate emanating from the Muslim world.

Now, she says that she and Tucker are rejecting pro-Israel influence and “standing up for Islam.” By shedding their support for the Jewish state while also floating vile antisemitic conspiracy theories about Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, such as dragging Trump into war with Iran, or being behind the Jeffrey Epstein sexual scandal, they are being rewarded with an enthusiastic audience of listeners and viewers.

In part, this flip-flop is connected to Kelly’s all-consuming quest for the clicks and views extremism and Jew-hatred draw, monetized in ways that pad her bank account.

Yet their podcasts must be understood as more than an internet kerfuffle or marketing ploy. Rather, it is the soundtrack of a civil war being fought within the Republican Party that will determine whether it, too, will follow the Democrats down the path of the abandonment of Israel and the normalization of antisemitism.

One of the two sides in this battle consists of conservatives who are loyal to Trump and believe in the U.S.-Israel alliance. Their opponents are right-wingers who are essentially mimicking the pro-Hamas propaganda and blood libels about Israel that are part of the basic script of the political left these days.

Mainstreaming antisemitic tropes

Carlson and Kelly are determined to mainstream the notion that Trump and the United States are acting as the “slaves” of Israel and Netanyahu—a vicious trope of Jew-hatred that seems taken straight out of 1930s Nazis propaganda, as well as the anti-Zionist script written for the left by the Soviets in the 1960s and ’70s. In doing so, they have largely dropped the distinction between their programs and the supposedly more marginal and extreme ones of Owens and Fuentes, which nonetheless also number in the millions.

The question is whether they are capable of helping to turn GOP voters against Trump.

The Times seems to think so. In a subsequent article published this week, it sought to depict conservative pro-Israel influencer and former Republican congressional candidate Lara Loomer as waging a losing battle against Carlson and his allies. To buttress this claim, they point to the attention that anti-Israel Fishback has gotten in his underdog campaign for governor. They cite the willingness of someone like veteran conservative campaign operative and former Trump ally Roger Stone not merely to attack Loomer, but to claim that supporters of Israel are traitors betraying both the president and America. The article also quotes pessimistic statements made by Loomer in which she says she told Trump that he would be the last pro-Israel president and that his party is slipping into the hands of those who hate the Jewish state.

To date, the evidence for such a development is nonexistent; polls show both Republicans and, especially, those who identify as members of Trump’s MAGA base, as still supportive of Israel. For one thing, pro-Israel evangelicals vastly outnumber Muslim Americans.

The fight for the conservative future

Yet the decline of support for Israel among young conservatives does raise the question about the future and whether a post-Trump GOP will, like the Democrats, fall into the hands of those who are hostile to Israel. Carlson, and other Israel-bashers and antisemites on the right, are still hoping that Vice President JD Vance—still considered the frontrunner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination—will champion their cause. Their main worry is that he might be tainted by association with the Iran war.

While progressives speak of Israel and Jews in the jargon of the intersectional left as “white” oppressors, the antisemitic right talks of them as manipulating hapless non-Jews into waging wars against American interests. The practical effect of both is to isolate Jews and the Jewish state. And just as Islamists have successfully aligned themselves with progressives—the coalition that elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is an obvious example—Carlson’s and Kelly’s boasts of their growing Muslim audience is evidence that they’d like this to be repeated on the right.

But there is a basic problem with the belief that the right is doomed to undergo its own version of Corbynization, at least as far as Israel and antisemitism are concerned. A conservative movement that rejects, as Carlson advocates, the idea of a Judeo-Christian heritage is rejecting core conservative values about liberty. To “speak up for Islam” and deny the threat that the theocratic terror regime in Iran poses to the West and America is not so much a blow against Israel, but one against a Western civilization that is being assaulted by woke progressives as well as Islamists. Should the views of Carlson and Kelly prevail in a post-Trump era, it will not be so much the U.S.-Israel alliance that will suffer but traditional American beliefs that give substance to the conservative critique of the left.

Antisemitism would be enabled by such a development, but so would the woke push to erase American exceptionalism that Carlson once opposed so articulately before he became obsessed with Israel. The ideas that fueled the backlash against the left on family values and national security that sent Trump back to the White House in 2024 would be negated.

A political alignment in which the far-right joins forces with the far left is a nightmare scenario for Jewish Democrats as well as Republicans. But more than that, it is a fifth column effort that would sink American conservatism. That movement traces its roots back to the writings of William F. Buckley, the triumphs of President Ronald Reagan, and now, the efforts of Trump to roll back the woke tide that has taken possession of the education system, pop culture, the fine arts and much of journalism in recent years.

Successfully resisting this antisemitic alliance won’t just save the Republican Party, but also any hope of preserving America and the West from the worldview of the ayatollahs, AOC and Mamdani.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Israel denies entry to YouTuber who claimed Jews ‘invaded’ NY, NJ

JNS Staff, Amelie Botbol

Wikipedia Tyler Oliveira
Tyler Oliveira (born January 6, 2000) is an American YouTuber, described by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency as a “right-wing YouTube provocateur”.^[1] He made several challenge videos before transitioning to videos centred on man-on-the-street interviews, which have covered topics including drug decriminalization in Canada and the Springfield pet-eating hoax. News organizations and civil rights advocacy groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League and The Forward, have argued that Oliveira has spread misinformation and made content that relies on antisemitic stereotypes. In 2026, Oliveira was denied entry to Israel after the country’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism cited his content as including “inciting statements against Jews and the dissemination of content with antisemitic characteristics.”^[2]

An El Al aircraft takes off from Israel’s Ben-Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv, January 2026. Photo by Matt Kaminsky/JNS.

Israel on Monday barred entry to American YouTuber Tyler Oliveira, known for viral videos that claimed Jews had “invaded” parts of New York and New Jersey.

Oliveira was stopped at Tel Aviv’s Ben-Gurion International Airport and deported back to the United States, Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Amichai Chikli confirmed to JNS on Tuesday.

“It was my decision,” Chikli said. “We have a direct line of communication with the Population and Immigration Authority, and when we submit the name of a person or organization that should not be allowed entry, they are not allowed in,” he said.

“Of course, this requires proper justification,” he said. “In this case, it is clear that this individual’s entire purpose was to stage ugly antisemitic provocations, just as he does in the United States. There is no reason for someone who makes a living off antisemitism to set foot in the State of Israel.”
.

Social-media users had spotted Oliveira boarding an El Al flight to Tel Aviv from New York on Sunday, with some expressing concern about the influencer’s plans in the Jewish state, given his history of producing antisemitic content.

Earlier this year, Oliveira posted a series of videos purporting to investigate the “Jewish invasion” of the United States, visiting heavily Haredi communities he described as being controlled by “welfare-addicted Jews.”

Last week, Oliveira made an appearance on the podcast of Tucker Carlson, who has turned sharply against Israel and its supporters in recent years.

During their conversation, Oliveira told Carlson that the “entire lifestyle” of Jews in the ultra-Orthodox towns he visited was “designed to extract and exploit these welfare systems to the maximum degree.” He added, “It is strategic. It is not happenstance. It is not coincidental. It is by design.”

Speaking about the backlash he received for his Jew-hatred, Oliveira told Carlson that “seemingly, there are a lot of powerful Jewish people who own significant media enterprises—websites that seem to bend the knee at least to what they view to be antisemitic dialogue.”

Under the Visa Waiver Program, American citizens may enter Israel for short visits without a visa, while Israeli nationals receive reciprocal visa-free access to the United States for temporary stays. However, travelers remain subject to border-control inspections and can be refused entry on security, immigration, criminal or public-order grounds.

Israeli law grants the government broad discretion to bar tourists whose presence is deemed harmful to public security or national interests. Jerusalem has previously denied entry to anti-Israel activists, including those promoting antisemitism or boycotts.

Uczestnicy Marszu Żywych w byłym niemieckim obozie Auschwitz II w Brzezince. Fot. PAP/Jarek Praszkiewicz

Marsz Żywych w hołdzie ofiarom Holokaustu i przeciw antysemityzmowi

szf/ dki/

Kilka tysięcy osób przeszło we wtorkowe popołudnie w Marszu Żywych z byłego niemieckiego obozu Auschwitz I do byłego Auschwitz II-Birkenau., by uczcić pamięć ofiar Holokaustu oraz zamanifestować sprzeciw wobec antysemityzmu.

Breaking the Architecture of Iran’s Regime Power

Ahmed Charai

• For decades, Tehran has delayed, promised, denied, escalated, and recalibrated — all while rebuilding its capabilities… and preserving the machinery of regime survival.
• The Iranian regime is not sustained by ideology alone. It is sustained by money, contracts, ports, banks, smugglers, foundations, front companies, privileged merchants, terrorist proxies, and commercial collaborators. Washington… must target the networks that feed it.
• The regime does not move money through uniforms and official titles. It moves money through family members, front companies, exchange houses, shipping firms, insurance brokers, commodity traders, gold dealers, charities, banks, and offshore accounts. Every one of these channels must be mapped, exposed, and disrupted.
• [W]holesalers, currency dealers, gold traders, import-export operators, shipping intermediaries, and commercial families who help the IRGC evade sanctions, manipulate markets, launder money, or finance repression should face direct consequences.
• The objective is not to destroy Iranian commerce. The objective is to liberate it from the regime.
• The [US] strategy should …reward defection.
• [T]he regime’s networks do not stop at Iran’s borders. They extend across the region through proxies, terrorist cells, cyber units, propaganda platforms, and intelligence operations.
• The Abraham Accords should not only be a diplomatic framework. They should become a protected strategic architecture against Iranian coercion.
• The message to the Iranian people must remain clear: the conflict is not with Iran as a nation, nor with Persian civilization, nor with ordinary families struggling to survive. The target is the regime’s theft of Iran’s economy. Iran is not poor because it lacks resources. Iran is poor because the Islamic Republic has converted national wealth into repression, missiles, militias, corruption, and foreign adventurism.
• Hormuz must be reopened, but the regime’s economic, financial, military, and proxy networks must be dismantled.

The regime does not move money through uniforms and official titles. It moves money through family members, front companies, exchange houses, shipping firms, insurance brokers, commodity traders, gold dealers, charities, banks, and offshore accounts. Every one of these channels must be mapped, exposed, and disrupted. Pictured: The Strait of Hormuz as seen from NASA’s Terra satellite (Image source: MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA GSFC)

As the United States moves to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore freedom of navigation, Washington must not lose sight of the larger strategic reality: Hormuz is not the core issue. It is the latest instrument of Iranian blackmail.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has long mastered the politics of manipulation. It uses propaganda to project strength, disinformation to confuse public opinion, threats to intimidate the region, and negotiations to buy time. For decades, Tehran has delayed, promised, denied, escalated, and recalibrated — all while rebuilding its capabilities, consolidating its networks, and preserving the machinery of regime survival.

This is one of the regime’s most effective methods: turning the original problem upside down.

At the beginning, the issue was Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missiles, its terrorist proxies, and the future of the regime itself. Today, Tehran wants the world to discuss something else: how to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, how to avoid energy disruption, how to prevent escalation, and how to negotiate a temporary exit from the crisis. This is not diplomacy. It is strategy.

The regime creates a crisis, then demands to be treated as the indispensable party to solving it. It threatens regional stability, then asks for recognition when it reduces the threat. It uses escalation to shift the agenda from accountability to de-escalation.

Washington should not be fooled again.

The United States and its allies have tried nearly every approach: engagement, sanctions relief, warnings, indirect negotiations, limited pressure, and diplomatic patience. None has changed the essential nature of the Islamic Republic. The regime has used time not to moderate, but to adapt. It has used diplomacy not to reform, but to survive. That is why the next phase of Western strategy must begin from a different premise.

The Iranian regime is not sustained by ideology alone. It is sustained by money, contracts, ports, banks, smugglers, foundations, front companies, privileged merchants, terrorist proxies, and commercial collaborators. To weaken it, Washington must move beyond targeting only the men who command the regime. It must target the networks that feed it.

Break the economic architecture, and the political architecture begins to crack.

The Islamic Republic is not merely a government. It is an ecosystem of coercion. The clerics provide ideological cover. The Revolutionary Guards provide force. The security services provide repression. The propaganda machine provides fear. But the economic networks provide oxygen.

Without that oxygen, the system cannot breathe.

Iran today remains dangerous, but it is not strong. It can still threaten shipping lanes, activate proxies, repress its citizens, and destabilize its neighbors. But these are not signs of confidence. They are symptoms of a regime that has lost the ability to inspire, persuade, or govern.

The Islamic Republic survives by turning loyalty into a business model. Those who serve the regime receive contracts, licenses, access to foreign currency, import privileges, protection, and immunity. Those who oppose it face exclusion, surveillance, prison, exile, or death.

This is not ideological strength. It is organized corruption protected by violence.

At the center of this system stands the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC is not only a military institution. It is an economic empire, a political machine, a sanctions-evasion network. Its influence extends through construction, energy, ports, telecommunications, transport, procurement, smuggling, banking, and foreign operations.

To weaken the IRGC, it is not enough to sanction commanders. The commercial universe that sustains them must be dismantled.

The regime does not move money through uniforms and official titles. It moves money through family members, front companies, exchange houses, shipping firms, insurance brokers, commodity traders, gold dealers, charities, banks, and offshore accounts. Every one of these channels must be mapped, exposed, and disrupted.

This requires a shift from individual sanctions to network sanctions.

The same logic applies to the Bazaar. The United States and its allies should not punish Iran’s merchant class as a whole. Many ordinary merchants are themselves victims of inflation, corruption, currency collapse, and the IRGC’s domination of trade. But regime-linked commercial networks operating inside and around the Bazaar must be treated as part of the regime’s survival structure.

There must be a clear distinction between legitimate private commerce and collaboration with the regime economy. Ordinary traders should be separated from the system. But wholesalers, currency dealers, gold traders, import-export operators, shipping intermediaries, and commercial families who help the IRGC evade sanctions, manipulate markets, launder money, or finance repression should face direct consequences.

The objective is not to destroy Iranian commerce. The objective is to liberate it from the regime.

Pressure must also create incentives for separation. Business figures who break with the IRGC economy, expose sanctions-evasion channels, reveal corruption, or stop financing the regime’s machinery should have pathways to avoid punishment. The strategy should not only punish loyalty. It should reward defection.

That is how economic pressure becomes political pressure.

But the regime’s networks do not stop at Iran’s borders. They extend across the region through proxies, terrorist cells, cyber units, propaganda platforms, and intelligence operations.

The recent dismantling of Iran-linked networks in the UAE and Bahrain should be treated as a strategic warning. These were not isolated incidents. They were symptoms of a broader Iranian method: use commerce as cover, finance as oxygen, proxies as weapons, and regional instability as leverage.

The United States should therefore intensify intelligence cooperation with regional partners targeted by Iranian-backed networks, especially countries that have joined the Abraham Accords. These states should receive stronger intelligence-sharing, cyber defense, maritime protection, counterterrorism coordination, financial-investigation support, and early-warning capabilities.

The Abraham Accords should not only be a diplomatic framework. They should become a protected strategic architecture against Iranian coercion.

The message to the Iranian people must remain clear: the conflict is not with Iran as a nation, nor with Persian civilization, nor with ordinary families struggling to survive. The target is the regime’s theft of Iran’s economy. Iran is not poor because it lacks resources. Iran is poor because the Islamic Republic has converted national wealth into repression, missiles, militias, corruption, and foreign adventurism.

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz is necessary. But it is not enough. Freedom of navigation must not become a substitute for strategic clarity. The United States should not allow Tehran to transform a crisis it created into a diplomatic escape route. Hormuz must be reopened, but the regime’s economic, financial, military, and proxy networks must be dismantled.

The Islamic Republic survives because repression is financed, loyalty is purchased, corruption is protected, and national wealth is privatized by the regime’s guardians. That fortress can be dismantled.

Break the money machine, break the proxy machine, and the political machine begins to fail.

Ahmed Charai is the Chairman and CEO of World Herald Tribune, Inc., and the publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, TV Abraham, and Radio Abraham. He serves on the boards of several prominent institutions, including the Atlantic Council, the Center for the National Interest, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the International Crisis Group. He is also an International Councilor and a member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.