Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper
The debates within the US Republican Party about the limits of criticism directed at the Israeli government are taking an accelerated turn, after Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, defended journalist Tucker Carlson following his interview with the supporter of white supremacist theories and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.
The scene, which initially seemed like a mere media controversy, quickly turned into an intellectual and moral crisis within the American right, revealing a deep ideological division between those who see defending Israel as part of conservative identity, and those who consider criticizing it legitimate and not considered anti-Semitism and the Jewish religion.
In a video recording he posted on the “X” platform, Roberts considered Carlson’s critics to be “a toxic alliance seeking to abolish him,” stressing that the former presenter on “Fox News” is a close friend of the Heritage Foundation, and will remain so.
Although he stressed his “complete rejection of Fuentes’ ideas,” he considered that “abolition is not the solution,” calling for confronting extremist ideas through dialogue, not punishment.
This public defense, issued by one of the most powerful right-wing think tanks in Washington, came at a sensitive moment, when the Republican Party is facing an identity crisis after a series of incidents involving right-wing figures who were accused of promoting anti-Jewish statements or sympathetic to Nazi symbols.
A crisis that goes beyond Carlson and Fuentes
Carlson, who is considered one of the most influential conservative voices after his departure from Fox News, faced severe criticism following his interview with Fuentes, who is known for his denial of the Holocaust and his statements in which he spoke about “organized Jews” and their “control of the media.”
During the interview, Carlson mocked some Republicans’ support for Israel, considering that figures such as Senator Ted Cruz and former Ambassador Mike Huckabee were infected with a “brain virus.”
Reactions within the party were quick and sharp. Huckabee mocked X, saying that he did not know that Carlson “hated him,” but that he was accustomed to being “ignorant of the Bible and history.”
As for Cruz, he considered Huckabee “a pastor and a patriot who loves America, Israel, and Christ,” stressing his “pride in belonging to his side.”
However, the crisis went beyond the limits of personal debate, to re-raise the broader question within the American right; Is criticism of Israel automatically classified as anti-Semitism?
A growing Republican divide
This crisis coincides with the escalation of anti-Jewish rhetoric in some circles of the young right within the Republican Party.
Politico recently revealed messages in Telegram groups from Republican youth leaders that included jokes about the Holocaust and praises of Adolf Hitler, which led to the dismissals and closure of local branches.
Paul Ingrassia, Trump’s former nominee for a senior position in the Department of Justice, also withdrew after his Nazi tendencies were revealed and his participation in rallies with Fuentes.
Senator Ted Cruz warned of “an unprecedented rise in anti-Semitism on the American right,” while Vice President J.D. Vance, who is close to Carlson, chose to shift the debate toward the Democratic Party, recalling that some of its candidates faced similar accusations.
During a university event for the “United States Turning Point” movement, Vance received a question from one of the participants about why Washington supports Israel “which persecutes Christians.” He responded that American policy “must be America first,” and that the relationship with Israel is “based on interests, not religious emotions,” calling for “equal cooperation that protects holy Christian sites without dependency.”
“Heritage” is in internal turmoil
Since its founding in the 1970s, the Heritage Foundation has been the intellectual reference for American conservatives and has provided road maps for the policies of all Republican administrations since Ronald Reagan. However, the positions of its current president, Kevin Roberts, express a remarkable ideological shift within the institution, which has become closer to “Trumpian” populism than to the classic line of conservatives, according to some observers.
But Roberts’ crisis did not stop with his defense of Carlson. The Washington Post revealed an unprecedented internal rebellion within the institution, with mass resignations from the “anti-Semitism team” and accusations of “covering up for the far right.”
During a stormy staff meeting, Roberts faced calls to resign over what he saw as a “moral failure to confront hate,” after he said that Fuentes was “an evil person, but he has an audience that can be attracted to conservatism.”
The division extended to Heritage’s board of directors, where one of its prominent members, Princeton University professor Robert George, called for “the expulsion of white supremacists and anti-Semites from the conservative movement,” stressing that “defending freedom of expression does not mean allying with hatred.”
These unrest come after months of disagreements over the massive “Heritage” political project known as “Project 2025,” which sparked criticism even among traditional conservatives. Because of some policies that were considered “populist.”
This tension, along with accusations of mismanagement and internal complaints related to discrimination against women, has contributed to deepening the crisis of confidence in an institution that has long been considered “the intellectual engine of conservatives.”
Support for Israel declines
According to Pew polls, the percentage of Republicans who view Israel “very positively” decreased from 64 percent in 2018 to less than 50 percent in 2024, an indication of a decline in the traditional enthusiasm associated with supporting Israel within the right-wing base.
Analysts believe that this shift reflects “fatigue with foreign wars” and a desire to focus on internal affairs.
But this tendency, researchers warn, has made it easier for “extremist parties” like Fuentes to promote a nationalist discourse that mixes criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.
According to American reports, Carlson is attracting this group through his speech, which some commentators describe as “a soft recycling of old conspiracy theories about the influence of Jews in politics and the media.”
A report in “The Atlantic” magazine indicated that Carlson “turned his program into a platform to wash the reputation of extremist ideas and make them acceptable in the conservative community,” noting that President Trump described him as “an eccentric,” while newspapers such as “The Wall Street Journal” and “National Review” attacked him as “a promoter of hatred under the guise of patriotism.”
Between “cancel culture” and confronting hate
Roberts and his supporters see that what they call “the toxic alliance within media and politics” is using the charge of anti-Semitism as a weapon to silence voices critical of Israel, in what they call “cancel culture.”
In contrast, traditional conservatives argue that this logic confuses freedom of expression with the normalization of hatred, and threatens to undermine the moral foundations of the conservative movement.
Between these two trends, the Republican Party finds itself facing a difficult equation. How can he clearly condemn anti-Semitism without being accused of being subject to Israeli influence, and how can he accommodate the rising populist wing without losing his moral and political balance.
Some warned of a looming split in the “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) movement led by President Trump, accusing Carlson of being the media figure who most threatens to divide this movement.
The Carlson-Roberts crisis shows that the division is no longer between “right and left,” but rather between two wings within the right itself. One is an isolationist nationalist who invokes populist symbols, and another is an institutionalist who sees Israel as a strategic ally that cannot be neglected.
As tension continues within the Republican Party over the definition of anti-Semitism and the limits of criticism of Israel, it seems that the United States is facing a stage of intellectual restructuring within the ranks of the right, which will inevitably be reflected in American foreign policy and Israel’s position in the conscience of conservatives in the coming years.
Foreign policy is under the test of internal division
These intellectual debates are directly reflected in the foreign policy of the Trump administration, which is trying to balance the increasingly influential right-wing populist base with the traditional conservative movement represented by a number of his advisors in the White House.
While Trump continues to affirm his commitment to Israel’s security and his rejection of the establishment of a Palestinian state, observers notice a relative decline in his enthusiasm for engaging in Middle East conflicts, in exchange for his focus on confronting China and rearranging relations with Russia.
While some analysts believe that the division within the Republican Party over the definition of anti-Semitism may limit Trump’s ability to formulate a unified discourse towards Israel, others believe that this discrepancy reflects a deeper shift in the conservative American mood, as Israel is now being treated as an “ally among allies,” rather than a fundamental axis in the political doctrine of the American right.
