Criticizing Israel Is not Antisemitism — and Heritage’s Kevin Roberts Just Said So

Kevin Roberts draws a crucial line between policy critique and bigotry, restoring clarity to conservative discourse on Israel

In recent weeks, former Fox News host and now hugely popular conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson has been relentless in denouncing what he sees as the intolerable influence of foreign lobbies — most notably the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — in shaping U.S. policy. A few days ago, he was sharply criticized for interviewing Nick Fuentes, founder of the so-called “Groyper” movement, which promotes an ethnonationalist vision of American identity — a figure whose views on Jews and the Holocaust have, rightly, provoked outrage and condemnation.

There has been speculation that @Heritage is distancing itself from @TuckerCarlson over the past 24 hours.

I want to put that to rest right now—here are my thoughts: pic.twitter.com/F8bcxBIqKI

— Kevin Roberts (@KevinRobertsTX) October 30, 2025

That is why it caused such a stir in conservative circles when Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, publicly defended Carlson in a video posted on X last Thursday. Roberts did more than lend support to a friend under attack: he may have initiated a long-awaited turning point in how the American conservative movement talks about Israel and antisemitism.

Roberts drew the outlines of a crucial distinction: “Christians can criticize the State of Israel without being antisemitic. And of course, antisemitism should be condemned.” A brief, understated remark — but an eloquent one. For decades, American conservatives have been expected to treat unconditional support for the Israeli government as a moral litmus test. Any questioning of Israeli policies or of Washington’s automatic alignment with them risked being branded “antisemitic.” That accusation has often shut down honest debate and, ironically, trivialized genuine antisemitism by confusing it with political disagreement.

Roberts’s statement matters not only because of who said it — the head of the most influential conservative think tank in America — but because it signals a return to reason and common sense at a crucial moment. On one hand, Roberts clearly rejects Fuentes’s vile statements, affirming that antisemitism has no place in public life. On the other, he refuses to join the mob calling for Tucker Carlson to be “canceled.” It’s a combination — moral clarity without hysteria — that conservatism once prided itself on.

You may agree or disagree with Tucker Carlson, with his tone or his questions, but his opinions deserve debate, not excommunication. The idea that Congress or the White House might be “too deferential” toward any foreign state — Israel included — is not antisemitic; it’s a legitimate concern for national sovereignty. The Founding Fathers themselves warned against “foreign entanglements.” Is it now forbidden to echo their wisdom?

Let’s be clear: defending Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself is one thing; equating that defense with blind approval of every action taken by its government is another. A mature alliance, like a mature friendship, can withstand disagreement. In fact, it thrives on intellectual honesty.

That’s why Roberts’s statement may well mark a watershed moment. It reminds us that love for Israel, like love for any nation, should be grounded in truth, not fear or idolatry. Unfortunately, some prominent conservatives have blurred that golden rule. Senator Ted Cruz, for instance, recently told Tucker Carlson, “As a Christian, I was taught by the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed” — adding that, of course, he would rather “be on the side of blessing.”

There is no doubt that Senator Cruz spoke with sincere faith, yet his interpretation — loosely (and poorly) drawn from Genesis 12:3 — has too often been elevated to a general rule: that Christians are biblically commanded to support the modern State of Israel. Theologically speaking, however, this confuses the spiritual Israel of Scripture with the modern nation-state. God’s covenant is not a mutual defense pact, and divine blessing cannot be reduced to foreign policy. To suggest otherwise risks turning faith into geopolitics — and elevating earthly governments above divine truth.

Carlson and others have rightly pushed back against this quasi-religious absolutism. It’s not about rejecting Israel; it’s about rejecting the notion that criticizing Israel amounts to apostasy. There is a profound difference between loving the Jewish people — as every Christian is called to do — and suspending moral judgment over the political actions of a nation-state. Confusing the two serves neither side.

Roberts’s Project Esther, launched to combat genuine antisemitism, demonstrates that moral vigilance need not come at the expense of free expression. Precisely because antisemitism is abhorrent, we must preserve the integrity of the term — not dilute it by applying it to anyone who dares to question Benjamin Netanyahu or the IDF. When everything becomes “antisemitism,” nothing truly is.

Moreover, uncritical alignment with any foreign capital — be it Jerusalem, Kyiv, or Brussels — undermines the very sovereignty conservatives claim to defend. America’s friendship with Israel should rest on shared values and mutual respect, not on emotional blackmail or theological confusion. That friendship is strongest when both nations can speak honestly, as equals.

Roberts’s unexpected defense of Tucker Carlson has reopened a door that, in America, had long been sealed by fear — fear of being misunderstood, misquoted, or smeared. True courage today lies not only in denouncing hatred of Israel (which is real and deeply rooted in some quarters), but also in defending the right to dissent.

If conservatives cannot have an honest conversation about Israel without being accused of antisemitism, then they have already surrendered the intellectual high ground they claim over progressives. Roberts refuses to do so. In doing that, he reaffirms a conservative tradition grounded not in conformity, but in the courage of conviction.

By standing with Tucker, Kevin Roberts reminded conservatives of something they should never forget: that truth and friendship with Israel do not require silence — they require integrity. And integrity, especially in times like these, demands clarity.

Candace Owens: Polarizing Voice and Media Force in Contemporary American Conservatism

[This is the second in a series of portraits of leading figures in the American political debate.
I decided to write them because there are intellectuals, journalists, and politicians I often reference in my articles, yet rarely have the time or space to explain who they really are—or what they actually believe in—amid today’s complex crossroads for America and the world.]

From Media Star to Political Firebrand: Owens and the Shifting Landscape of American Conservatism

Candace Owens has become one of the most high-profile and controversial figures in U.S. conservatism. Known for her sharp commentary, media savvy, and outspoken style, she occupies a space where politics, entertainment, and social media collide. Owens has built a reputation as a provocateur, capable of commanding both public attention and ideological debate, making her a key figure for anyone trying to understand today’s American right.

Her Connection to Charlie Kirk and the Quest for Answers

Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens speak
at the University of Colorado Boulder campus
on October 3, 2018. 

Owens’ relationship with Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, went beyond mere professional collaboration. Their friendship grew into a deep personal and political bond. Following Kirk’s death in September 2025 during a public event, Owens publicly positioned herself as a guardian of the truth, insisting that his death raised serious questions. In a widely cited statement, she said: “Charlie Kirk, my friend, is dead, and he was publicly executed.” In another podcast episode, she added: “I want war with all of you”, signaling her intent to confront those she believes are responsible for concealing information. These statements underscore both the personal stakes and her readiness to engage in public battles over accountability.

Owens has accused Turning Point USA leaders and major donors—particularly those with pro-Israel affiliations—of applying pressure on Kirk to align with more conventional political stances. While some messages and screenshots she shared have been verified, the situation remains contentious and under debate, reflecting the complexity of media-driven narratives within political movements.

Shifting Views on Israel

In recent years, Owens has taken a notable departure from the traditional pro-Israel stance commonly associated with U.S. conservatives. She has openly criticized Israeli policies and questioned the influence of pro-Israel lobbying on American politics. These positions, controversial within her party, have placed her in closer alignment with media personalities like Tucker Carlson, helping to form a faction of conservative thought that challenges long-standing alliances.

Alignment with Tucker Carlson and the MAGA Network

Owens’ relationships extend beyond ideology into practical collaboration. She shares common ground with Tucker Carlson and other prominent MAGA figures on topics such as cultural nationalism, skepticism of the establishment, and distrust of financial and media conglomerates that, in their view, shape political outcomes. Her network bridges populist digital media outlets—like The Daily Wire, The Blaze, and Rebel News—with more traditional conservative publications, including National Review and The Washington Examiner. This positioning allows her to influence both grassroots audiences and mainstream conservative circles.

Personal Background, Beliefs, and Faith

Born in 1989 in Stamford, Connecticut, Owens often draws upon her personal story as a foundation for her worldview. Raised in a Christian evangelical environment, she emphasizes personal responsibility, critiques identity politics, and promotes traditional family and cultural values. Her faith underpins much of her political messaging, giving her arguments both a moral and cultural frame that resonates with a significant portion of the conservative base.

Controversy Surrounding Charlie Kirk’s Widow

Owens has not shied away from conflict, extending her scrutiny to Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk. She has publicly questioned the transparency of statements surrounding Charlie’s death, igniting debate within conservative circles about the balance between public accountability and personal privacy. These tensions highlight the ethical challenges faced by high-profile media figures when engaging with sensitive events.

Relationship with Donald Trump

Owens has consistently supported Donald Trump and his agenda, advocating for nationalist policies and the skepticism toward elites that defined his political brand. While her commentary aligns closely with Trump’s messaging, she maintains an independent voice, occasionally critiquing established party norms and asserting her perspective on ideological and cultural matters.

Understanding Contemporary America Through Candace Owens

Owens embodies the intersections of media, politics, and personality-driven influence in today’s America. She demonstrates how modern conservatism is shaped not just by policy debates but by media narratives, performative activism, and the personalization of political conflict. Her story reflects the power of social media, the blurring of private and public life, and the contested nature of authority within American conservatism.

For readers seeking insight into contemporary U.S. politics, Owens offers a lens into a movement where ideology, ambition, and media strategy collide. Her mix of provocation, personal storytelling, and ideological commitment makes her one of the most consequential figures in understanding the trajectory of the American right.

Jeffrey Sachs: the Disenchanted Globalist

A former architect of globalization turned moral critic of American power, Jeffrey Sachs embodies the paradoxes of an age torn between idealism and empire.

[This is the first in a series of portraits of leading figures in the American political debate.
I decided to write them because there are intellectuals, journalists, and politicians I often reference in my articles, yet rarely have the time or space to explain who they really are—or what they actually believe in—amid today’s complex crossroads for America and the world.]

---

From Globalist Wunderkind to System Critic

Among the many paradoxes of contemporary American and global politics, one stands out as particularly curious: while the liberal left has increasingly become interventionist, while many American Republicans have rediscovered their isolationist instincts, and while several European conservatives have turned out to be more pacifist than the usual rainbow-flag wavers, one of the loudest voices against war and the “American empire” comes from an economist who was once a leading symbol of progressive globalism.

His name is Jeffrey Sachs — and for years he has been one of the most provocative and widely heard figures in international debate.

A Jewish-American economist, public policy analyst, and professor at Columbia University, Sachs rose to fame in the 1980s as the “wunderkind” of transition economics. He was the architect behind the shock therapies meant to move Bolivia, Poland, and later Russia from planned economies to free markets.

At the time, he embodied the archetype of the neoliberal technocrat: he believed in markets, globalization, and in the power of international finance to “fix” the world.

---

The Turning Point

Then, slowly, something changed. Perhaps it was his experience working with African governments, or his time within the UN machinery (he led several sustainable development projects), or simply the realization that neoliberalism had failed to deliver on its promises.

Whatever the cause, Sachs evolved into a radical critic of the very system he once served. Today, he accuses the United States of being dominated by a warlike elite — what he calls “the party of permanent war.”

In recent years, his views have become explicitly anti-neoconservative. Sachs argues that Washington is ruled by a bipartisan establishment — Republican neocons and Democratic “liberal interventionists” — united by the belief that American dominance must be defended by force.

In his vocabulary, this bloc includes figures such as Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan: “the elite that dragged the United States into useless wars — Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine — and now risks pushing us into conflict with Russia or China.”

Within this framework, Sachs also condemns America’s “complicity” with Israel and speaks openly of “genocide in Gaza.” Coming from a Jewish-American intellectual, such language struck like blasphemy in the temple of the progressive establishment.

---

Sachs and Trump: Opposite Sides of the Same Coin

It might be tempting to imagine that an anti-neocon like Sachs could sympathize, at least in part, with Donald Trump, who in his 2016 campaign promised to “end the endless wars” and make America focus on itself again.

In fact, quite the opposite happened. To Sachs, Trump represents the other side of the same imperial coin — not an outsider, but an impulsive populist who ultimately reinforced America’s most dangerous tendencies.

He accuses Trump of “economic illiteracy” for his tariff policies; of “one-person rule” for his autocratic management style; and of destabilizing the international order without any coherent vision.

He even called Trump’s foreign policy “a populist farce doomed to fail,” built on the illusion that America could “raise its national income by stealing from someone else.”

These are the kind of scathing critiques one might expect from a European Christian Democrat — sharing the same inability to connect with the mindset of contemporary American conservatives, now light-years away from both the Reagan and Bush eras.

---

Unexpected Convergences

And yet, curiously enough, on foreign policy, Trump and the broader MAGA movement have ended up partially converging with some of Sachs’s battles: opposing NATO expansion, U.S. involvement in Ukraine, and the madness of sanctions upon sanctions.

But their motivations could not be more different.

Where Sachs sees the risk of an empire ravaging the world in the name of a “moral mission,” Tucker Carlson — America’s most famous conservative commentator, now a kind of sovereigntist tribune — sees instead a betrayal from within: an elite that despises its own nation and squanders U.S. power on globalist ideologies.

For Carlson and other MAGA leaders, including the late Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, the goal is not to dismantle American power but to reclaim it for a healthy nationalism — one that defends borders and American culture.

Sachs, by contrast, seeks the opposite: to reduce U.S. power, restore sovereignty to other nations, and build a multipolar order based on cooperation.

---

Two Worlds, Two Philosophies

Where Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Laura Ingraham, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Dan Bongino speak of patriotism, Sachs speaks of interdependence.
Where they denounce the moral decay of the West, he denounces the economic and military dominance of the West.
They all attack the neocons — but from almost mirror-opposite perspectives.

Ultimately, the difference is more philosophical than political.

The MAGA movement is anti-interventionist because it wants to save America from itself — from progressive ideology, from the bureaucratic empire, from the betrayal of its founding values.
Sachs is anti-interventionist because he wants to save the world from America — from military dominance, from unipolar arrogance, from geopolitical hubris.

Carlson, Owens, Ingraham, and Senator J.D. Vance speak of God, family, and borders.
Sachs speaks of international law, diplomacy, and sustainable development.

The former defend American civilization; the latter dreams of a global community of equal nations.
All of them, in opposing ways, have broken with liberal orthodoxy — and for that reason are labeled “populists” or “pro-Putin.”

---

The Prophet and the Realists

Yet there is a persistent tension in Sachs’s thinking: his moralism.
In condemning America’s sins, he often uses almost prophetic language — “genocide,” “war crimes,” “imperial sin” — which places him more on moral than strategic ground.

That’s why many American realists (such as John Mearsheimer) regard him as an uneasy ally: they share his diagnosis, but not the secular theology that comes with it.

Still, Sachs’s voice matters — even for those who disagree.
In an era when foreign policy has been reduced to slogans and sanctions, he brings the debate back to deeper questions:

What does it truly mean to be a “power” in the 21st century?
To command — or to cooperate?
To defend oneself — or to dominate others?

---

Conclusion

In the end, Jeffrey Sachs is not a man of any party.
He is a disillusioned intellectual who looks at America with a mix of sadness and indignation.
He is not a neocon, not a Trumpist, not a fashionable progressive.
He is a former “son of the system” who chose to denounce the system from within — and perhaps that’s precisely why he manages to irritate just about everyone.

Ireland’s ‘Leprechaun Economics’ Meets Trump’s America First

 

It’s a bitter wake-up call for Ireland, and another example of Trump settling scores on the money front.
My latest on American Thinker.

For those of us not particularly versed in the secret workings of international economics and finance, but moved by simple intellectual curiosity, until just a few days ago, it was both a mystery and a source of deep wonder to see how a country once as poor as, if not poorer than, Southern Italy had managed in just a few years not only to climb into the middle tier of the world’s economic ranking, but to leap straight into the very top positions.

I’m talking about Ireland, a country that in my tourist memories from what feels like a geological era ago is forever linked to the strong smell of burning peat, old smoky pubs, and countless sheep clogging impossibly narrow country roads.

Then, suddenly, the mystery dissolved, exactly when The Economist recently published its annual ranking of the world’s richest countries.  This year, Ireland was excluded because its GDP per capita data turned out to be “polluted by tax arbitrage” — that is, the practice multinational corporations adopt of declaring income, capital gains, and transactions in the country that offers the lowest or most advantageous tax rate.  Yet the overwhelming majority of those profits do not remain in Ireland; they are immediately shifted to parent companies or other tax havens (often via dividend or royalty payments), a phenomenon known as “profit shifting.”  In short, the profits artificially moved by multinationals to Ireland inflate its economic statistics.

The Economist’s annual ranking doesn’t just look at GDP per capita.  It also considers two additional measures: the impact of prices or cost of living, and how many hours people work to earn their wealth.  Using all three, Forbes explains, provides “a more realistic overview of a country’s wealth in relation to its inhabitants.”  With these corrections, The Economist ranked Norway, Qatar, and Denmark as the top three richest countries.  Belgium and Switzerland came in fourth and fifth, while the United States placed sixth.

Ireland’s economic mystery has a year of birth: 2015.  That year, Ireland implemented new international accounting rules (known as the “Double Irish” phase-out).  The result was an unprecedented event: GDP grew by 26.3% in a single year — an impossible growth rate for a developed economy without extraordinary events.  It was then that American economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described the phenomenon by coining the term “leprechaun economics” (the leprechaun being a popular figure in Irish folklore, belonging to the family of fairies, gnomes, and sprites — depicted as a tiny, bearded old man dressed in green, notoriously cunning and a master of trickery).  He highlighted how GDP and tax revenue were distorted by the fact that a handful of giant corporations, including none other than Apple and Microsoft, were declaring their massive profits in Ireland.  That “miraculous” growth, then, was due not to an explosion of productivity or domestic consumption (a bit like  Italy’s “miracolo economico” of the 1950s and 1960s), but rather to corporate inversions and relocations of intangible assets (such as patents and intellectual property) by multinational giants (mainly American ones) lured by favorable tax policies.  In practice, enormous amounts of financial and intellectual capital were legally booked in Ireland to benefit from low taxation, artificially inflating GDP without bringing real benefits to the local economy.

By the way, President Trump has repeatedly criticized that practice, calling it a “scam” that hurts U.S. taxpayers and arguing that Ireland has “stolen” U.S. pharmaceutical and tech firms by offering them a tax haven.  According to Trump, past American leaders were “stupid” for allowing this to happen.  That’s why he is now combining tariffs, tax cuts — he is pushing to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate to 15%, close to Ireland’s — and reshoring policies to pull corporate profits back to America, posing a serious challenge to Ireland’s economic model.  Irish economists warn that if Trump’s measures succeed, Ireland could lose billions in corporate tax revenues tied to American multinationals.  The Irish government, in turn, admits that it faces major risks, especially with housing and cost-of-living crises already straining the country.

What we’re seeing now with Trump and his team targeting Europe, and singling out Ireland in particular, is a classic case of his administration’s “America First” doctrine in action.  It’s not just a broad grievance; it’s a targeted, multi-front attempt to settle what they see as old scores and rebalance deals in America’s favor and a deliberate tactic to highlight what the administration sees as the core of the problem: a Europe that expects American protection while simultaneously undermining American economic interests.

The Economist’s decision was, of course, methodologically sound.  Including Ireland in standard rankings based on GDP per capita would have been misleading and would have distorted comparisons with countries where GDP more faithfully reflects domestic economic activity.

Within Ireland, most economists, financial journalists, and informed citizens welcomed the decision.  It was an argument that had been circulating there for years.  Many were embarrassed by rankings that artificially placed them above countries like Luxembourg and Switzerland.  They knew those figures didn’t reflect the reality of everyday life, where the Irish face a severe housing crisis and high cost of living.  The Economist’s move put an end to this embarrassing paradox.

Bitterly, The Irish Times notes that successive governments over the years have done almost nothing to prepare for the shock the inevitable correction will bring to the economy.  “Do we feel ‘truly rich,’” the country’s leading newspaper asks rhetorically, “when our kids can’t afford to buy — or even rent — a home, and now can’t even afford college accommodation and are emigrating in droves?  No, we don’t. ... As the storm clouds gather, we might do well to scrutinize how successful countries use and develop their key resources, because we may very soon have the rug pulled out from under us and realize that the deficit between tax and spending can no longer be avoided.”