Tucker Carlson is not an antisemite

The well-known far-right pundit has repeatedly stated that he is not an antisemite. We should not be so sensitive, as Jews we are prone to be based on waves of persecution throughout many centuries. Why can we not listen when non-Jews try to calm us down, whenever we have one of our famous knee-jerk reactions to criticism? On the far left we are told that Jews are great, but Zionists are awful. Some secular and religious Jews agree with them, so what is the issue? On the far right it is even better. Not only do people like Tucker Carlson say that they like Jews, but they argue that they even like Israel. What is not to like about this genuine lovefest? The fact that this love can feel like a bear hug that is slowly crushing us should be ignored.

First of all, Tucker Carlson is an intelligent world-class journalist. He has seen it all and his career has shaped his views and they change, according to the times. As he told Ted Cruz on his show: he should not expect consistency from Carlson, only sincerity. The same Cruz seemed to believe that his appearance on Carlson’s show would amount to an informal chat between two minds who agree on most things. Cruz was grilled on his support for Israel as a Christian, his relationship with AIPAC, and his failure to list basic facts about Iran, a country where Cruz supports regime change. Cruz became agitated several times and suggested that Carlson was an isolationist and obsessed with Israel. Three words: how dare he?

Carlson laughed it off, but said he was offended that Cruz was suggesting that he was an antisemite. It was the main reason that he did not like talking about Israel, because it would lead to him being branded as one. Despite this, he spent considerable time on this two-hour discussion with Cruz talking about Israel. Why could American taxpayers not express their grievances about seeing their country “dying,” while the US is funding Israel endlessly? It is fair to have an honest discussion about this arrangement, as it makes sense to re-evaluate from time to time. For instance, in 2021 Yedioth Ahronoth’s Sever Plocker argued that the Israeli economy was robust enough, due to large foreign currency reserves that allowed it to replenish Iron Dome’s stocks by itself. It is fair for allies to talk about this. However, Americans do not wish to be dragged into a war to save Israel. Who could blame them? After all, it was Israel that forced George H. W. Bush to come rescue Kuwait and deter Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia – two countries that do not recognize Israel to this day – during the Gulf War and then let itself endure impacts from Iraqi SCUD missiles, without being allowed to respond. And in the twenty-first century, the United States invaded Iraq because it believed that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed WMDs. But these were not American decisions. When Americans go to war in the Middle East, some believe it has to be for Israel.

Why can you not be critical of Israel? Certainly, this happens in Israeli media on a daily basis. Urgent topics, such as the need to continue the war in Gaza, the plight of the hostages, violence in the West Bank, the toll the war is taking on the mental health of Israeli soldiers, the war’s effects on the Israeli economy, the postwar future of Gaza, the toll the war is taking on Gazans, and the possible return to a peace process in the short or long term, all of these are discussed and, in many instances, lead to heated debates across the political spectrum. So why not Tucker Carlson? Why can he not discuss AIPAC’s influence at length with Ted Cruz, despite remarking that it actually is not that influential anymore? Why can he not engage in a theological debate with Cruz about the need to support the modern state of Israel – where is it written that a Christian like Carlson should support it? Why can he not discuss the value of military aid to Israel, which is worth 3 billion dollars a year according to Cruz, and contrast that with him tripping over homeless people in DC and piles of drug addicts flooding American society? After all, cutting aid to Israel is necessary to save America. That money will be used to solve these problems once and for all. Who cares that Carlson does not have to explain how this sum of money will end homelessness and drug addiction in the US? That is a politician’s job.

Indeed, Carlson is perhaps the best journalist of our time. He never said that himself, but the numbers certainly do. After all, he is the top podcaster on Spotify now. An intelligent influencer who reaches millions of people. He came well prepared and pointed out weaknesses and inconsistencies in Cruz’s views. And he acknowledged that he makes mistakes all the time, while Cruz refused to discuss any errors he has made in his career, let alone apologize for them. For this alone, we should forgive Carlson, the eminent journalist, for repeatedly telling Cruz that Daesh was now running Syria. He is, of course, referring to Ahmad al-Sharaa and his transitional government which, ironically, is supported by Qatar – a country Carlson is particularly fond of. Does that make Qatar a Daesh supporter?  But why even discuss this, when the answer is so obvious? As Carlson suggested, Daesh is running Syria and that is Israel’s fault.

Also, we should forgive a world-class journalist for being rigorous on occasion. After all, it is not about consistency, it is about sincerity. So, he can offer a platform to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on his show, while grilling Ted Cruz on another day. He can ask Pezeshkian simple questions and allow him to give simplistic answers, evade answering them or even feign ignorance. So, when Carlson asks if Americans should fear Iran, Pezeshkian can answer by mostly vilifying Israel; he can reply that Iran’s negative attitude towards the Israeli regime, as he calls it, has to do with the suffering in Gaza – it has nothing to do with the fact that Khomeini dubbed Israel the “little Satan,” revoked recognition of Israel, and all this immediately after the revolution had been established in 1979 – and say that he does not recall that the Iranian theocracy bought Israeli weapons during the Iran-Iraq War, despite the fact that Pierre Razoux in his book The Iran-Iraq War, published in 2013 and translated into English in 2015, estimated the value between one and two billion dollars, from 1980 to 1986. In fact, it was perfectly valid to let Pezeshkian repeatedly state that Iran wants peace and tranquility in the region, without asking him about its role in propping up Assad and sponsoring armed groups throughout the Middle East, let alone the regime’s endless calls for the destruction of Israel, such as through Khamenei’s plan on Twitter in 2014, or ask him about the deaths of American soldiers at the hands of Iranian-sponsored militias. And why should you ask the President about explaining why it needs nuclear facilities, despite the fact that it is an exporter of oil and gas and its only nuclear power plant is in Bushehr? Why did it build Fordow in a mountain, complete with a bunker deep underground where enriched uranium was stored? Why are the types of nuclear facilities Iran built very different from the facilities in say Japan, Germany or the Netherlands, countries that use their facilities for peaceful purposes? Why did Carlson not engage Pezeshkian in a theological debate, when the latter lamented the Iranian civilian casualties as a consequence of Israeli airstrikes, but argued that it was God’s will, when he argued that Israel had tried and failed to assassinate him? After all, Pezeshkian sees himself as a true believer and believes that God decides when a person dies. If that is the case, then why would he lament the deaths of Iranians at the hands of Israel? Is that not simply God’s will and does that not make Israel God’s instrument? No need to ask any of these tough questions, as the object was to let the President give his perspective. Carlson said so himself and even thanked Pezeshkian for it.

Again, we should not nitpick, as many of his commenters praised him for doing this. One popular joke was that Israel apparently could not prevent Americans from talking to Iranians. But we should forgive these people for either being too young to remember or having been asleep for the last twenty-odd years, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed Columbia students in 2007, after being invited to do so; the same Ahmadinejad gave an interview to ABC in 2011; former President Hassan Rouhani even did a tour of American media, being interviewed on CNN in 2013, 60 Minutes in 2015, NBC in 2019, and Fox News in 2019; the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi was interviewed on the American program 60 Minutes in 2022; and, before I forget, Ahmadinejad was interviewed by the same 60 Minutes in 2007.

We should not fret about Tucker Carlson’s lengthy conversation with Darryl Cooper last year, whom he presented to his audience as the most important popular historian of our time. Indeed, Darryl Cooper comes across as very intelligent, immersing himself in historical events, a voracious reader who prepares himself thoroughly, researches a topic and then makes long podcasts about them. It is perfectly understandable that he devoted much time to studying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many people across the globe do. He researched Zionism up until 1948, but casually mentioned that he could not provide his listeners with a complete bibliography, as he did not keep track of everything he read – why should he, no historian keeps track of the primary and secondary sources he or she analyzes, right? Cooper spoke with Israelis about his podcasts and mentioned how many had thanked him, because they understood the other side better now. That is actually laudable, as we should try to understand each other better. Cooper and Carlson agreed that hate blinds us. However, the fact that Cooper seems determined to be a contrarian on every topic he researches is surprising. So, next to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he was researching the Second World War and concluded that Winston Churchill was the chief villain. In fact, Churchill was a psychopath. No need to point out that Churchill was not Prime Minister, when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. No need to argue that while Churchill wanted the US to join the war against Nazi Germany, it was actually the December 11, 1941 German declaration of war against the United States that officially brought Roosevelt and the American people into war with Germany – perhaps Churchill manipulated Hitler into doing this? No need to point out that Cooper’s assertion that Operation Barbarossa’s military successes in the opening months in 1941 had complicated matters for the Germans, causing them to throw people into camps where they expired is severely flawed, to say the least. No need to discuss, for instance, the existence of ghettos in Poland or the fact that prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union the Nazis had already started preparing such plans as the Final Solution, the Generalplan Ost and the Hunger Plan. For example, this was explained by historian Adam Tooze in his 2006 book called The Wages of Destruction. Who cares that Cooper makes the bold statement that Churchill was a psychopath and then subtly adds that he was a Zionist booster? And how dare Bari Weiss point towards Cooper’s posts on X, where he considered a picture of Hitler touring Paris to be preferable to the images of the opening of the Paris Olympics last year, argued that the Romans were basically an instrument of God, intended to put an end to Judaism once and for all, and suggested that Hitler was in heaven? All of these posts were uploaded by Cooper, before coming on Carlson’s show. Insignificant details, surely.

So, no, Tucker Carlson is not an antisemite. But is it not odd for someone who likes Israel to state that Iran targeting the Al Udeid air base in June was so sad, because that base exists to protect Israel – I thought that Al Udeid, primarily at least, served to allow the United States to oversee air operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. That he would grill Ted Cruz, but give people like Masoud Pezeshkian and Darryl Cooper a platform? That many foreign governments try to influence American foreign policy, yet Carlson feels it is especially important to discuss Israeli influence? That I might consider the rational arguments used by the far right concerning Israel, despite their “love” of the country, to feel like a bear hug?

Just as he told Ted Cruz: I am simply asking questions…