Charlie Kirk Was Not Turning Against Israel

In the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Kirk shooting, a cascade of competing theories surfaced regarding the identity and motives of the gunman. As usual, the early speculation ranged from the absurd to the ideologically convenient, some claimed the shooter was transgender, others suggested it was a groyper1 lashing out. But one theory gained traction with astonishing speed and persistence: that Charlie Kirk had been assassinated by agents of the Israeli state.

Unlike the usual noise surrounding high-profile events, this theory didn’t remain confined to obscure forums or anonymous Twitter accounts. It exploded into the mainstream, with well over 10,000 tweets openly suggesting or alluding to Israel’s involvement. The reaction was swift and telling. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself issued a formal denial, an extraordinary move that only underscores how widely this belief had penetrated public discourse.

More significantly, the theory has been taken seriously by some of the most credible and intellectually rigorous voices in the field. Figures such as Laurent Guyénot, Kevin MacDonald, and Ron Unz have all laid out comprehensive cases exploring Israel’s possible role in orchestrating the assassination, examining both motive and means in meticulous detail.

Nevertheless, despite the growing consensus among many dissident thinkers and independent researchers, I take a different view. In this article, I will argue that Israel, contrary to prevailing suspicions, had no involvement in the killing of Charlie Kirk.

What Kirk Did And Did Not Believe

Before we can even begin to entertain the theory that Charlie Kirk had somehow turned against Israel, and that this ideological reversal might have sealed his fate, we must first establish just how deeply entangled Kirk was with the Zionist project. And the evidence is overwhelming: Kirk wasn’t merely sympathetic to Israel. He was a devout partisan, a religious Zionist in every meaningful sense of the term.

Kirk, a devout Evangelical, publicly declared that Christians had a divine obligation to “bless the Jews,” aligning himself with the most extreme dispensationalist interpretations of scripture. He parroted Israeli propaganda almost verbatim, denying that Palestinians were even a real people. According to Kirk, they were not only unfit to govern themselves, they were, quite literally, nonexistent. He denied the mass starvation in Gaza as fiction, and repeated the grotesque lie that Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. Even when it came to military aggression, Kirk stood firm with Israel. Despite some rhetorical hedging, he ultimately endorsed Trump’s bombing of Iran, another clear indication of his unwavering loyalty to the Zionist war agenda.

This is not a comprehensive catalog of Kirk’s Zionism, far from it, but even this abbreviated list should be sufficient to demonstrate that he was, with quasi-religious fervor, an unambiguous servant of Israel’s interests. So, where then do the claims come from that Kirk had begun turning against Israel?

The source appears to be a mix of short, context-free video clips and anonymous whispers, hearsay passed off as evidence. Unz, in his article, references one such clip originally posted by Dan Bilzerian, in which Kirk appears to admit that some of the largest donors to anti-White causes have been Jewish. On the surface, this might seem like a significant deviation from the standard Zionist script. But a closer look reveals a very different picture.

The clip in question was not some spontaneous confession. Kirk was responding to a post Elon

Musk had made on X, and even then, his statements were entirely within the boundaries of standard Hasbara talking points. In fact, Kirk had made the same argument ten days prior. His point was not to attack Jewish influence, far from it, but to warn liberal Jews that their own ideological activism was endangering Israel’s long-term survival.

Kirk’s statement was clear: “Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years. Stop supporting causes that hate you.” He then tied this directly to the future of Israel. According to Kirk, if you train an entire generation to view the world through the lens of oppressor versus oppressed, that lens will inevitably be applied to Israel—and Israel will not survive the scrutiny. “Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West,” he warned, “there will not be a safe future. I’m not going to say Israel won’t exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy.”

This is not anti-Semitism. It is not even criticism. It is a tactical warning, entirely consistent with Israeli PR strategy. In the very same episode, Kirk praised the fact that wealthy Jews were finally pulling their money out of the universities they had previously funded—institutions now pushing anti-Israel narratives. This is pure Hasbara, the sort of rhetoric that has been echoed for decades by pro-Israel Jewish intellectuals themselves. One need look no further than Stephen Steinlight’s 2001 essay, The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography, to see that this narrative has long been in circulation within the Jewish community.

Another clip frequently circulated as proof that Kirk was somehow breaking with Zionism is the one in which he remarks that Israel is going to “ethnically cleanse Gaza.” On the surface, that might appear to be a damning admission. But listen carefully to what he actually says. Kirk’s point was not a condemnation:

“This [Oct 7th] is the closest thing to the Holocaust that any of us have lived through. But the fact is now, Bibi and the Israeli hard right government has a mandate [sighs] gotta be careful the way I say this, to – they’re going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza, and I don’t use that term lightly, okay? They’re talking about basically removing 2.5 million people from there, okay? And honestly, they [Israel] have a mandate to go seek justice and revenge, they do. This idea that they [Israel] need to have a truce or a peace treaty, that’s morally crap, after you see [Israeli] women and children be burned alive and dragged through the streets.”

He explicitly declared that such an action would be good, that Israel had a mandate for justice requiring rightful revenge, and that the pursuit of peace was not necessary. The hesitation in his delivery was not an inner conflict about supporting the remark, but rather his effort to frame his Zionism in the most favorable and optical way possible.

Unz and others have also highlighted that Tucker Carlson spoke at Kirk’s TPUSA annual convention, where he stated openly that Epstein was a Mossad agent running a blackmail operation. Kirk himself echoed the same point in early 2024. On its face, this too might suggest that Kirk was veering into dangerous territory. Yet the timeline tells a different story. After the convention, Kirk met with Trump, and the following week announced on his own program that he would no longer discuss Epstein. His words were explicit: “Plenty was said this last weekend at our event about Epstein. Honestly, I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being. I’m gonna trust my friends in the administration, I’m gonna trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it, ball’s in their hands.” That was the end of it.

Some have suggested that merely allowing Tucker Carlson to speak at the TPUSA convention created irreversible damage, while others have pointed to Kirk’s role in facilitating a debate with Josh Hammer, a Jewish political commentator, and Dave Smith, a Jewish full time comic and part time critic of Israel. But this argument collapses under scrutiny. If Carlson or Smith were truly a threat, they, not Kirk, would have drawn the ire of Israeli intelligence. Carlson has more than double Kirk’s audience on X, and he has delivered far harsher criticisms while hosting far more controversial guests. If silencing dissent were the motive, he would have been the obvious target.

Smith’s case is even weaker. He is Jewish, and he has publicly stated his position as “not antiIsrael.” Smith has even gone so far as to argue that Zionists should welcome the fact that non-Jews such as himself and Darryl Cooper (n.d.p. Martyr Made) criticize Israel, since otherwise such criticism would be left to genuine anti-Semites. That position hardly qualifies as subversive.

The reality is that Tucker Carlson himself has long been embedded within the establishment. His father, Dick Carlson, served as director of Voice of America, an institution historically backed by the CIA. Tucker later denied knowing about this, but his career provides ample evidence of alignment with U.S. intelligence interests. From his activities in Nicaragua during the revolution to his involvement in promoting Javier Milei in Argentina during elections, Carlson has consistently worked in ways that serve Washington’s agenda. And because Washington’s agenda is inseparable from Israel’s, Carlson is no enemy of Israel.

The most serious claim that Kirk had turned against Israel rests on nothing more than anonymous sources presented as supposed friends of his. The most widely circulated account appeared in an article at the GrayZone, and the timing is telling. That article was only published after Kirk’s death. If the story were genuine, why was it not released earlier? Such a revelation would have generated immediate controversy and almost certainly forced Kirk to respond directly.

Aside from that piece, the only other suggestion came from a tweet by Harrison Smith. Even then, Smith merely stated that Kirk was afraid to criticize Israel, not that he had actually done so. Combined with Kirk’s own public decision to stop discussing Epstein and his consistent record of avoiding direct criticism of Israel, the pattern is clear enough. It is plausible that Kirk felt pressure and fear, but what followed was compliance, not resistance.

And the so-called evidence itself remains remarkably thin. These are just claims of an anonymous source, without verification, identity, or corroboration. At best, they amount to vague hearsay. There is no concrete proof that such a source even exists, much less that it carried meaningful knowledge of Kirk’s private views.

Blumenthal has now gone so far as to claim that Trump himself fears for his life if he criticizes Israel. But Trump has never shown such hesitation. He has bluntly said he does not know “what the fuck Israel is doing,” and while he has occasionally voiced frustration, those comments produced no meaningful pushback. In practice, Trump has done nothing but comply with Israel’s demands.

Candace Owens publicly charged that Bill Ackman had staged an intervention for Charlie Kirk, pressuring him over a supposed change in his views on Israel, even going so far as to offer him large sums of money to remain quiet. Ackman has denied this account. According to him, it was Kirk who first approached him, expressing concern that young conservatives were drifting away from Zionism. Acting on Kirk’s suggestion, Ackman then financed a major gathering of prominent young conservatives to discuss why this shift in opinion was taking place. Ackman has since published screenshots of messages he had with Kirk collaborating his telling of events.

Far from being an intervention designed to silence Kirk, the meeting was organized at Kirk’s own initiative, with the explicit purpose of equipping conservatives to defend Israel against the growing skepticism in their ranks. The situation was the inverse of what the Israel theory claims. Kirk was not threatened into compliance. He was actively working to reinforce the pro-Israel line.

The final pieces of evidence further demonstrate that Kirk was not turning against Israel. He was scheduled to travel to Israel on January 4, having accepted an invitation from Amichai Chikli, the Minister of Diaspora Affairs, to serve as a key speaker at a conference dedicated to opposing antiSemitism.

Even more telling, just one day before his assassination Kirk held a Zoom call with his personal rabbi, focused entirely on how to argue more effectively on Israel’s behalf. Advocates of the Israel theory seized upon the headline of this report and suggested that Kirk had been in some sort of conflict with his rabbi. The text itself shows the opposite. Hours before his death he was preparing for campus debates, rehearsing responses to the “smears against Israel” he expected to face. “He was working out talking points, playing the role of devil’s advocate, pushing us on these issues, trying to sharpen the iron,” said Wolicki, a rabbi specializing in Jewish-Christian relations. Wolicki emphasized that Kirk was in a “combative mood,” which he regarded as a positive sign of preparation for the coming challenges.

It should be obvious what this means. A man who travels with a “personal rabbi” and spends his last day alive refining pro-Israel arguments was not moving away from Zionism.

Addressing Other Discrepancies

Many have raised questions regarding the first man that was arrested, George Zinn. Speculation quickly spread that Zinn was a Jewish actor, planted as a decoy to let the real killer escape. Yet the facts do not support this claim. A 2002 article covering a local Utah election identifies Zinn as being of Greek heritage. The same piece even credits his political advocacy for helping secure a

Republican victory. Far from being a Zionist impostor, Zinn’s presence at the Kirk event is entirely explicable. He was a conservative activist. His behavior in the chaotic video is not evidence of conspiracy. In fact, the Guardian has reported Zinn stated he distracted the police to be a martyr for Kirk. Due to the fact he also confessed to have child pornography on his phone, and he has a history of outrageous stunts (such as calling in a fake bomb threat after the Boston bombing) this behavior of Zinn’s fits perfectly in line with his character.

As for the actual shooting distance, expert assessments suggest that a 200-yard shot with a bolt action rifle is not unusually difficult. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the gunman may not even have struck his intended target. The shot appears aimed for the chest but hit the neck instead. This does not require the precision of a professional sniper. The accused shooter grew up around firearms, and photographs posted on his mother’s Facebook years earlier show him at the gun range. The background is consistent with basic training and experience, not an elaborate cover for a highly trained operative.

Finally, there has been speculation about a private jet that departed from Provo, Utah, just five minutes from the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, roughly an hour after the shooting. The plane then switched off its ADS-B transponder as it approached the northern Arizona border. On the surface, this seemed suspicious, and was quickly folded into the larger narrative of a cover-up.

The aircraft’s owner, Derek Maxwell, has provided a straightforward explanation. According to him, the plane carried no passengers when it left Provo, landed in Page, and only there took on seven passengers before returning to Utah. He further explained: “Radar services with air traffic control were terminated in mutual agreement between Denver FAA center and N888KG approximately 10 miles from landing at PGA, which is consistent with generally accepted standard practice when flying in and out of non-towered airports like PGA…N888KG pilots followed all FAA requirements and protocols, tower directions and the predetermined flight plan.” In other words, the decision to terminate communications was entirely standard procedure, consistent with normal operations at small, non-towered airports. By itself, this would be a completely routine matter, and under ordinary circumstances it would draw no notice at all. It only became a point of discussion because it was folded into the larger conspiratorial narrative surrounding Kirk’s assassination.

Conclusion

The temptation in moments like this is to leap into the loudest conspiracy. But the truth is far more valuable. Declaring Israel guilty of orchestrating Kirk’s assassination without evidence does not strengthen the case against them, it undermines it. One wrong call outweighs ten correct ones, and the result is that every other conspiracy accusation is cast into doubt.

The reality is simple: Israel already controls the levers of American government. They did not need Kirk dead to achieve their goals. They did not need to manufacture legislation through assassination. They did not need to silence a rogue propagandist. The facts show that Kirk, until his final day, was fully aligned with their program.

The record must be clear. Charlie Kirk was not an enemy of Israel, and there is no evidence per today’s date that his murder was ordered by them for this reason. To proceed otherwise is to risk trading away the only advantage that matters: the ability to be right every single time.

https://www.unz.com/article/charlie-kirk-was-not-turning-against-israel