Kirk’s Murder Can’t Erase His Antisemitism

On the 10th September 2025 Charlie Kirk was shot dead. It was a horrible murder, senseless, brutal, irrevocable. His death should never have happened. 

But grief doesn’t erase complexity. Within hours of the news, I saw Jewish friends and acquaintances begin to lionize him: “a true friend of the Jews,” “defender of Israel,” “warrior for our cause.” I understand why. When someone who seems aligned with your values is struck down, there’s an instinct to embrace that alignment, to praise publicly, to mourn tribally.

Reading these eulogies worries me deeply, because while empathy is essential, glossing over antisemitism because the speaker otherwise “supports us” is morally bankrupt, and dangerous. It suggests that Jewish safety, dignity, and moral clarity are contingent: contingent on whether the antisemitism comes from the “other side.” If he were a left‑wing figure, would these same friends shout his praises so uncritically? If he had trafficked in similarly demeaning tropes against Jews, would we excuse him, rationalize him, contextualize him away?

I write this not to lay blame on any individual, but to insist that grief does not allow for toxic myth-making. We can mourn Kirk’s death without making him a saint. We can feel sadness at human loss without excusing harm.

I am fully aware that this type of selective excusing of antisemitism is not a right wing phenomenon, the left are equally as bad. To illustrate my point I have created two case studies: one from the right (Charlie Kirk), one from the left (Hasan Piker). I examine their words, the Jewish responses to them, and then I run a “reverse test”: would our response differ if the speaker were from the other side? Along the way I’ll ask: does being pro‑Israel guarantee one is not antisemitic? Spoiler: it doesn’t. And being critical of Israel doesn’t automatically mark one as hateful. But that ambiguity is where moral slippage occurs.

Case Study 1: Charlie Kirk

1. Who He Was

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was a commanding voice among conservatives. He was young, bold, unafraid of culture wars. He aligned himself closely with pro‑Israel rhetoric, presented himself as a defender of Jewish interests, and was admired by many for standing against what he called “leftist elites,” “cultural Marxism,” and threats to traditional American values.

1. Problematic Statements

Here are a few instances that illustrate what I mean, words that many Jewish people found unsettling, not despite Kirk’s pro‑Israel stances, but because of them. I include caveats where exact transcript verification is incomplete; in some cases, we rely on watchdog organizations and secondary media accounts.

• “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” — reported by Media Matters. This kind of inversion is dangerous because it both projects and normalizes grievance in a way that mirrors classic antisemitic rhetoric. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-defends-elon-musks-antisemitism-some-largest-financiers-left-wing-anti
  
• “The number one funding mechanism of radical, open border, neoliberal, quasi‑Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits is Jewish donors … They control not just the colleges; it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.” again from Media Matters. This echoes longstanding conspiracy tropes about Jewish money and Jewish control of culture. https://www.mediamatters.org/antisemitism/charlie-kirk-turns-antisemitic-stereotypes-amid-israel-hamas-war
  
• Political Research Associates observes that Kirk has “a record of relying on antisemitic tropes in his public comments,” especially those concerning power, money, and influence. https://politicalresearch.org/strategy/pra-news/establishment-rights-alliance-open-bigots-under-new-kind-pressure
  

1. Jewish Response

Even among those who share some of Kirk’s political values — or who appreciate his support for Israel, these statements were not without critics.

• The Anti‑Defamation League issued a backgrounder accusing Turning Point USA of being “a vast platform for extremists and far‑right conspiracy theorists.”  https://forward.com/fast-forward/768187/charlie-kirk-shooting-netanyahu-israel/
• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency observed that although Kirk often vowed to defend Jews and Israel, he “weathered frequent accusations of antisemitism as he rose to prominence.” https://www.jta.org/2025/09/10/united-states/charlie-kirk-conservative-activist-who-considered-himself-a-defender-of-jews-and-israel-is-dead-at-31

And yet, in death, many have chosen to overlook these troubling elements. The pro‑Israel alignment becomes a shield, the problematic language becomes background noise.

Case Study 2: Hasan Piker

1. Who He Is

Hasan Piker is a progressive commentator, streamer, and cultural influencer with millions of followers on platforms like Twitch and YouTube. He is younger than Kirk, but similarly dominant in his media ecosystem. To many on the left, particularly younger, internet-savvy progressives, he is a sharp, unfiltered voice of moral clarity against capitalism, empire, and Zionism.

Piker is also a harsh critic of Israel and a vocal defender of Palestinian rights. That’s not inherently antisemitic. But there is a line between criticizing Israel and dehumanizing Jews — and Piker has been accused, repeatedly, of crossing it.

1. Problematic Statements

As with Kirk, the pattern matters more than any single statement. Also like Kirk, some of these statements come through watchdogs, public letters, or social media.

• In a formal letter to Twitch and Amazon, Congressman Ritchie Torres accused Piker of calling Orthodox Jews “inbred” and referring to a Jewish man as a “bloodthirsty pig dog.” Torres described this as “dangerous, dehumanizing rhetoric.”
  (RitchieTorres.house.gov)
  
• In the same letter, Piker is quoted as saying: “It doesn’t matter if rape happened on October 7th. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me.” This in the context of Hamas’s atrocities is chilling.
  
• The New York Post, covering public backlash to Piker’s appearance at The New Yorker Festival, reported that he “called Israelis inbred” and “mocked Jewish trauma” on his stream.
  (nypost.com)
  

Again, context matters. Some defenders argue that these quotes are clipped or sarcastic. But irony and rage don’t excuse slurs. And the very fact that defenders feel the need to explain “what he really meant” is telling. No one is asking for that when the slur comes from the right.

1. The Jewish Response

Here, the inconsistency comes to light. While Rep. Torres and a handful of Jewish figures have publicly condemned Piker, many progressive Jews have remained silent, equivocal, or defensive.

• The Anti‑Defamation League criticized The New Yorker for platforming Piker, calling it “the latest example of mainstream media normalizing his brand of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.”
  (Jewish Insider)
  
• But many progressive Jews, particularly in media, academia, and activism, have either ignored Piker’s comments or defended them as legitimate political speech.
  
• Some argue that criticism of Piker is weaponized by the right to silence pro‑Palestinian voices. That may be true in some cases, but it’s not a reason to ignore antisemitic slurs. If your political cause relies on excusing bigotry, the cause is no longer just.
  

We cannot allow ourselves to become moral ventriloquists: using different standards of outrage depending on whether we like the speaker. If these statements came from a conservative, we’d be in the streets. But when they come from someone aligned with our broader worldview, we look away. Or worse, we justify.

IV. The Reverse Test

If the same words came from the other side, would you still excuse them?

Imagine Charlie Kirk saying this:

“It doesn’t matter if rape happened. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me.”

Would any left-leaning Jew defend that as sarcasm, or contextualize it as a rhetorical device? Would they ask us to consider the broader critique of empire behind the statement?

Of course not.

Or imagine Hasan Piker saying this:

“Jewish donors are funding cultural Marxism. They control the colleges, the media, the nonprofits, all of it.”

Would the Jewish right accept that as criticism of elite influence? Would they cite it approvingly as legitimate dissent?

Again, of course not.

The reverse test reveals our moral instincts. And those instincts are increasingly tribal, not principled. We excuse what we would otherwise condemn, not because it’s right, but because it’s ours.

This is a sickness in Jewish political culture today. Right and left, we have grown more comfortable with antisemitism, so long as it serves the broader identity politics. So long as the slur is packaged in Zionist pride or anti-Zionist rage, we let it slide.

Being Pro-Israel Doesn’t Make You a Friend of the Jews

There’s a trap many Jews fall into, especially those desperate for allies in a hostile world: we confuse support for Israel with support for Jews.

Charlie Kirk played directly into this. He visited Israel, praised it, defended its policies. His statements about Hamas were unequivocal. For many Jews, especially on the political right, this made him not just an ally, but a hero.

But saying “I support Israel” doesn’t cancel out saying “Jewish donors are controlling everything” or “Jewish communities have been pushing hatred against whites.” It doesn’t neutralize conspiracy theories about Jewish money, culture, and influence, the very same tropes that fueled centuries of antisemitic violence, from The Protocols to Pittsburgh.

To accept Kirk’s Zionism as evidence of his philosemitism is to flatten Jewish identity into a single political relationship. It is to say: as long as you support our state, we will ignore what you say about our people.

But support for Israel can come from the worst of places. Far-right nationalists have long admired Israel, not because they love Jews, but because they see it as a model of ethnic strength, border security, and militarism. They admire the wall, not the people behind it.

Likewise, antisemitism can thrive behind the mask of Zionist loyalty. A person can claim to love Israel and still believe that Jews at home are subversive, powerful, or untrustworthy. These are not contradictions. They are just different flavors of the same poison.

And on the flip side, Piker’s rejection of Israel doesn’t automatically mark him as antisemitic. But when his criticism slips into dehumanization, into mockery of Jewish suffering, into racialized language about “inbred” Orthodox Jews, then it is no longer about policy, it is about us.

The distinction is vital: Support for Israel is not a litmus test for loving Jews. And the opposite is also true: being critical of Israel does not mean you hate Jews, but it doesn’t give you a free pass to do so either.

What’s important is the rhetoric, the framing, the empathy, not the tribal flag.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just about Kirk or Piker. It’s about us, the Jewish community, and the danger of letting political loyalty override our moral clarity.

We are a people whose survival has often depended on our refusal to compromise on core values. We insisted on our right to live, to speak, to resist, even when no one else would stand with us. That moral stubbornness is our legacy.

But today, many Jews, on both left and right, have become morally pliable. We look the other way when “our side” plays with antisemitism. We say, “Well, they’re good on Israel,” or “They’re fighting for Palestine,” and so we excuse the rest.

We do this because we are afraid of being politically homeless. Because it is painful to confront the ugliness in our own tent. Because admitting that someone who shares our values also hates us is too lonely to bear.

But every time we choose loyalty over truth, we make the world more dangerous for Jews. We validate the idea that antisemitism is negotiable, that it can be tolerated, even weaponized, as long as the bigger fight is worth it.

And when we do that, we teach others, including our perceived enemies, that Jews are a people who will trade safety for influence, who will excuse hatred as long as it comes from their tribe.

That lesson always ends the same way.

If we don’t have integrity, why should anyone take us seriously?

We need to be consistent. That’s all. Not perfect, not neutral, not above politics, but consistent.

If a person on the right spreads conspiracies about Jewish money and cultural control, they are an antisemite, even if they visit Jerusalem and wrap themselves in the Israeli flag.

If a person on the left mocks Jewish victims, dismisses rape on October 7th, and refers to Orthodox Jews as “inbred,” they are an antisemite, even if they stand for justice, equality, and peace for others.

And if we, as Jews, fail to name both, because one suits our politics better, then we are not fighting antisemitism. We are enabling it.

There is no safety in that. No strength. No dignity.

We deserve better from our allies. But we must demand better from ourselves.