Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christian Zionism On The Right

On the political left, antisemitism has long been cloaked under the garb of anti-zionism. Those advocating for Palestinian rights insist they have no animosity towards Jews, but simply reject Zionism: the belief that Israel is the Jewish state. The defense of Zionism invariably falls to Jewish people, who explained that this purported anti-zionism was little more than a ruse for anti-semitism. And in recent times, Jews found allies on the right with Christians who zealously supported Zionism as both a matter of policy and faith. But a rupture is forming. A rising tide on the right is attacking Zionists and Christian Zionists alike. In every civilization, antisemitism has morphed to match the circumstances of the day on all sides of the political spectrum. Regrettably, this movement to oppose Christian Zionism is little different than left-wing anti-Zionism on college campuses. As the very bounds of conservatism continue to ebb and flow, stark lines are being drawn of how those on the right view Israel and the Jewish people. Conservatives need to account for how this shift is drastically altering American domestic and foreign policy.

It is tempting to start this analysis with Kevin Roberts’s ill-fated defense of Tucker Carlson. But we should step back a bit further. It has been widely reported that Carlson did nothing to push back against Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust denier, when Carlson interviewed him. But Carlson did express some opinions of his own. He described Christian Zionists as a “Christian heresy” whom he “dislikes more than anybody.” Among these heretics were Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, Senator Ted Cruz, former President George W. Bush, and others. Carlson actually said that Cruz was “serving for Israel.” Tucker charged that this Zionism is a “brain virus.” The implication was clear: disloyal American Jews have infected Christians to advance Israeli interests over American interests. Stop me if you’ve heard this trope before.

Many Christians became Zionists based on scripture that described Israel as the land for the Jewish people. Other Christians view the Jewish state of Israel in messianic terms as a step towards the second coming. Most conservative Christians recognize that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and should be a natural ally of the United States. There are so many reasons why well-meaning people on the right support a Jewish state in Israel. It is insulting and degrading to argue, as Carlson does, that these Christians are under some sort of Jewish spell. 

Roberts, the President of Heritage, publicly defended Carlson and refused to cancel him. But in the process, Roberts gave credence to Carlson’s insinuation about Israel. Roberts’s prepared message stated:

I’ll have more to say on this in the coming days, but today I want to be clear about one thing. Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic. Of course, anti-Semitism should be condemned. My loyalty as a Christian is to Christ first and to America always. When it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with other allies, we do so with partnerships on security, intelligence, technology. But when it doesn't, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or their mouthpieces in Washington. The Heritage Foundation didn’t become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians, and we won’t start doing that now.

Much of Roberts’s statement is attacking a strawman. No one said that Christians cannot critique the state of Israel. Jews in America and in Israel routinely criticize Israeli policy. No one in America seriously argues that Israel’s interests should come before America’s interests. But Roberts does say the quiet part out loud: he alleges that some unnamed figures are trying to subvert American foreign policy. Who is the “globalist class or their mouthpieces in Washington?” The answer is Jews and Christian Zionists who are speaking on behalf of Jews. As the argument goes, Christian Zionists will not allow any criticism of Israel, and these heretics, distorted by Globalist Jews, are not putting America first. The charge that Jewish people are disloyal to their home country is as old as time. Yet this trope continues to be proven wrong in every generation. More than 100,000 Jews fought for Germany during World War I. How many of these Jews were later deemed disloyal and murdered in the Holocaust?

There is nothing new under the sun. The John Birch Society (JBS) indulged antisemitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial. Birchers promoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous piece of propaganda charging that a shadowy cabal of Jews secretly controlled the world. Today, conservatives celebrate William F. Buckley, who served as the “tablet keeper” and worked to keep JBS out of the conservative movement. I acknowledge that some scholars challenge the complex role that Buckley played in this decades-long process, but the lesson learned by the Reagan coalition was clear: these conspiracy theorists, especially those who deny the Holocaust, have no place in the tent. But that lesson has been lost.

To this day, Kevin Roberts’s video has not been taken down. And I doubt he disagrees with the underlying message. What he said has become standard fare in some corners of the right. At Turning Point’s AmericaFest, Vice President J.D. Vance rejected  “endless, self-defeating purity tests” and would not “bring a list of conservatives to denounce or to deplatform.” Making the point more plainly was Yoram Hazony, one of the founders of the National Conservatism movement. Hazony declared, “nobody ever said that to be a good Natcon you have to love Jews.” Hazony, an Orthodox Jew, is unquestionably not himself an antisemite, but reads from the same gospel as Roberts and Vance: antisemites, Hitler revisionists, and Holocaust deniers are welcome under this tent. Jews, Christian Zionists, and other classical conservatives can leave if they are uncomfortable. (In September 2025, I spoke at NatCon with some hesitation; I have come to regret my attendance at that conference.)

Even as Roberts’s video remains, many of his colleagues have fled Heritage. I resigned from my role as senior editor of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. My resignation letter explained that Roberts’s video “gave aid and comfort to the rising tide of antisemitism on the right.” Moreover, almost all of the employees in Heritage's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies have moved to Advancing American Freedom (AAF), an organization founded by Mike Pence, a proud Christian Zionist. One of the senior legal fellows, Hans Von Spakovsky, had a very personal reason for leaving. He explained that “My mother grew up in Nazi Germany, my father was Russian and actually fought the Nazis.” Von Spakovsky added, “I am just shocked and dismayed at the rise of anti-Semitism, particularly on college campuses, and it's very clear to me that AAF wants to help lead the fight against that.”

Another Heritage resignation spoke directly to the inner turmoil within Heritage. Andrew Hale, who is not Jewish, left Heritage for AAF because he saw a “tolerance” and “overlooking of antisemitism.” Hale explained that he was “calling out a problem that exists at Heritage and exists in the conservative movement.” Hale implored the right “to exorcize it in a way that the Left has not done well.” We should all heed Hale’s warning: “I believe antisemitism has recently been normalized in some quarters on the right and we are right back in the 1930s – and everyone should be aware of where that led.”

Did this message have any affect on Heritage? I am doubtful. On January 18, Roger Severino, a Vice President at Heritage, posted to X, “Before people make strong statements about Christian Zionism they would do well to ask the continuous Christian community in the Holy Land what they think about it first.” He included a screenshot of a statement from an organization known as “The Patriarchs and Heads of the Churches in Jerusalem.” The group echoed Carlson's points, points that Roberts reaffirmed: “Recent activities undertaken by local individuals who advance damaging ideologies, such as Christian Zionism, mislead the public, show confusion, and harm the unity of our flock.” Christian Zionism, which for many is a biblical truth, is now degraded as a “damaging ideology.” And are those “local people” the mouthpieces who spread this damaging “brain virus”? Severino prudently took down his post. That is much more than can be said for Roberts, who left his post up, even after many board members and dozens of employees resigned. Severino stated that “I didn’t mean to stir the pot or cause offense and under-appreciated the several ways it would be interpreted.” But Severino, like Roberts, did not repudiate the attack on Zionism in general, or Christian Zionism in particular. The message remains: Christian Zionists are no longer welcome in this corner of the right. 

From a strategic perspective, this choice seems perplexing. Do the Anti-Christian Zionists realize what those who oppose Israel think about America? Take a look at any college campus after October 7 for a preview. Many of these student groups are supported by hostile nations, including Iran, that hate America. They do not put America first. They favor death to America.

Moreover, Zionism is but another form of nationalism. There should be a natural affinity between nationalists and Zionists. Glenn Loury stated the issue plainly in First Things:

Zionism is, in essence, a communitarian nationalism: the assertion of a people’s right to self-determination in its ancestral homeland. It is a repudiation of cosmopolitan universalism in favor of historical continuity and particular identity. . . . The nationalist wing of the American right — which champions cultural sovereignty and civilizational rootedness — should admire Zionism. Israel is the very embodiment of the communitarian values that the New Right claims to defend: tradition, identity, faith, resilience.

I recently published an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal about the Heritage exodus. As often happens, some of the best parts are cut during editing. Here is how my first draft ended:

Roberts is now free to rebuild Heritage in his own image, unencumbered by board members and scholars who challenged his vision. Going forward, Heritage should not be viewed with rose-tinged nostalgia glasses, but instead through a sober, present-day assessment. To understand the future of conservatism, everyone must know what time it is.

Perhaps there is some room for hope. In a recent interview, the New York Times asked President Trump, “Do you think there’s room within the Republican coalition, the Make America Great movement, for people with antisemitic views?” Trump replied, “No, I don't. I think we don’t need them. I think we don’t like them.” Trump is right. It is perverse to include Anti-Zionists and cozy up to antisemites. Christian Zionists should be welcomed, and antisemites excluded. 

Josh Blackman holds the Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston, is a contributing editor to Civitas Outlook, and is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.