reSee.it - Related Video Feed

One speaker recounts that he did not like Bibi Netanyahu, describing Netanyahu as a destructive force and saying he was appalled by what was happening in Gaza, and that Netanyahu was using the United States to prosecute wars for the benefit of his country, which he called shameful and embarrassing and bad for the United States, a view he resented. He also notes that he didn’t hate Netanyahu. After that speech, there was a sharp backlash against Charlie Kirk and, to a lesser extent, the speaker, with Kirk having about $100 million in donors and being heavily dependent on them because his project was nonprofit. They went after him and tormented him, while a small, very intense group offended by the speech tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died.

Speaker 0: Were I a Jew, I would be a Zionist. And my father pointed out to me, I did not need to be a Jew to be a Zionist, for I am. Israel is essential to security of Jews worldwide. Speaker 1: That this is not theoretical. This is not just about things that happen on Twitter. Antisemitism kills. Hate kills. Speaker 2: I come before you not only as The United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew. My grandfather, Maurice Blinken, fled pogroms in Russia. My stepfather, Samuel Pizar, survived concentration camps, Auschwitz, Dachau, Maidanic. Speaker 3: We have a common agenda to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and preventing Iran's aggression, maintaining the security and prosperity of this region, and seeking to expand the circle of peace. Speaker 4: On October 7, Hamas terrorists murdered nearly 1,200 people, including over 40 Americans, and kidnapped hundreds of civilians. They perpetrated the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Speaker 5: Holocaust. Holocaust. My grandfather fled Nazi Germany. Fled Nazi Germany. If we wanna create peace in the Middle East, resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, we don't need boycotts. We need business. We don't need divestment. We need investment. We don't need sanctions. We need startups. We need startups. They met with several Israeli companies looking to expand into The United States. Speaker 1: Actual, literal, no shit, Jews will not replace us anti Semites as very fine people. Speaker 6: I support Israel's ability to defend itself. Speaker 7: It's about time we stop those of us who support as most of us do, Israel and this body for apologizing for our support for Israel. There's no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3,000,000,000 investment we make. $3,000,000,000 investment we make. Speaker 8: two of us were brought together by Apex Education Foundation for a mission to Israel. We hear the call of our Jewish brothers and sisters. Israel was this place I had always felt an, I don't know, unexplainable pull. Speaker 5: And the Jewish people have been the recipients of boycotts for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Speaker 6: So I just had a frank and constructive meeting with prime minister Netanyahu. I told him that I will always ensure that Israel is able to defend itself, including from Iran and Iran backed militias such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Speaker 3: Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders. Speaker 9: Why does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way. Speaker 6: I've said it many times, but it bears repeating. Israel has a right to defend itself. Speaker 2: The message that I bring to Israel is this. You may be strong enough on your own to defend yourself, but as long as America exists, you will never ever have to. We will always be there by your side. Speaker 1: He is a friend of the Jewish people by aligning not even with Israel, but with a certain kind of politics within Israel. And I just think that the American Jewish community are a lot smarter than that. Speaker 7: And even suggested breaking from the long standing US policies on settlements. Jerusalem. Jerusalem. Speaker 9: I was one of the few in congress that said it's none of our business, and Israel should take care of themselves. Speaker 8: Perhaps he does not know that I am the child of a holocaust survivor. Perhaps he does not know that my mother lost almost all her family at the hands of the Nazis. At the hands of the Nazis. Speaker 9: Israel has 200, 300 nuclear missiles, they can take care of themselves. Why should we commit? We don't even have a treaty with Israel. We don't even have a treaty with Israel. Speaker 7: Were there not an Israel, The United States Of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region. Speaker 9: Why why do we have this automatic commitment that we're gonna send our kids and send our money endlessly, to to Israel?

Speaker 1 questions the letter's truth; Speaker 2 confirms, "Yeah. I mean, it's it's real." They reference Nick Fuentes claiming Israel killed Charlie and mention "the call, like, Israel called him and told him to to to." Speaker 2 summarizes Charlie's Israel stance as nuanced: "he wanted people who controlled The Holy Land to be civilized people" and "didn't want it to be in the hands of Islam," preferring "a civilized group ... friendly to the West" over hostile Muslim nations. He was frustrated at being unable to criticize Israel without being labeled an anti Semitic, and had vehement disagreements about how the war was prosecuted and messaged; he wanted it to be over and saw more freedom to criticize America than Israel. "Even Tucker Carlson" noted Charlie Kirk's anti Semitic labeling; "BB's comments" were odd; he hosted critics like Dave Smith and recognized that "young people were much more Israeli skeptic," arguing that silencing debate would be a "huge disservice to the conservative movement."

I was shocked and sickened by the reaction of the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death. He basically made it all about him and redirected the grief toward support for his project. "Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all." "BB's defenders, on the Internet will call me a liar or a kook, but that's a fact." "what he said was completely untrue." "Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews. He loved the state of Israel. He loved going there." "He did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times." "He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force." "He was resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country." "Shortly after that speech, there was a very intense attack on Charlie; he had $100,000,000 worth of donors." "Two days before he died, he lost a $2,000,000 donation because he had publicly pledged to bring me to the next Turning Point Conference in December." "They put out a flyer basically saying that I was going to be at this event giving a speech."

- "So something I would like to raise, which was actually my first published paper, was how you and the Likud party are cut from the same ideological cloth as Trump and the GOP in America." - "And so specifically with Charlie Kirk's assassination, who was a big mentor of mine, he's my first mentor in the space." - "Evangelicals, from all my research, evangelicals are the reason that Israel has been supported in public sphere outside of just Jews." - "So with Charlie's assassination and with the kind of trajectory that we see with, like, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson." - "I guess I'm curious about what's another game plan if we lose evangelical support for the state of Israel." - "What's our backup plan to be strong, like, outside of the diaspora? Thank you."

Asked about the last meeting with Charlie, it wasn't 'about, like, this is what you should say,' but 'talking through the issues' with Charlie asking questions and 'then saying, Okay, I think I'm going to approach this issue this way and this is going to be my position on it.' They discussed 'USA to Israel,' and 'I'm opposed to USA to Israel. I want it to be drawn down,' noting Netanyahu's stance. They talked through 'why is Israel actually an American interest?' 'Why is it in America's interest to support Israel?' Charlie was a listener, and 'the open marketplace of ideas' was a core fundamental. He believed in that, which is why he annoyed people by platforming Tucker Carlson and others, because for Charlie, 'the idea that you're supposed to silence any opinion was anathema.' 'Do I think he went too far with it? Well, yes.'

I was shocked and sickened by the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death, basically made it all about him and his country, redirecting the grief toward support for his projects. Charlie Kirk did not hate Jews. "Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews." He did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he felt that B. Netanyahu was a very destructive force; "he was above all resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for The United States, and he resented it." After that speech, there was an intense attack on Charlie; "He had $100,000,000 worth of donors." Two days before he died, he lost a $2,000,000 donation because he had publicly pledged to bring me to the next Turning Point conference in December. The American Jewish Committee called Charlie Kirk an anti Semite and "dangerous." He was not an anti Semite. He was the opposite, and he was a great lover of people and a purveyor of peace. Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage, because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. This is a trend.

Speaker 0 says Charlie bridged foreign policy gaps due to "genuine affection for Israel," and he privately expressed that he "love Israel." He argued, "we should not have another forever war, regime change war against Iran," and that view made him approachable because "this person doesn't hate me. It doesn't need to get existential. It's not about disliking me or some weird bigotry." He urged continuing in "the spirit that he operated in, which is one of love for other people, including people we disagree with." Speaker 1 notes Charlie was "a hardliner on immigration" who "wanted us to control our borders as much as possible" and who "wanted us to ramp up the deportations." He recalls Charlie asking, "why aren't the deportations higher? Why aren't you doing more?" He adds, "I'm a free citizen. I love you guys. I supported you guys, and I'm going to use my platform to try to accomplish as much good as I possibly can." He concludes, "I think that made him such an effective operator."

The speaker says a figure has annoyed the Jewish community over the last few months with criticisms of Israel. He cites a Jerusalem Post piece about backlash after Tucker Carlson spoke at SAS, where people were calling him an anti Semite. "I know Charlie and here he's little do they know half the time he's on college campuses, all he's doing is Hasbara and defending Israel. And he doesn't even wanna be. He doesn't even know the issues that well, but he's forced to." "But he dutifully with a smile on his face, defends Israel left and right." We saw him in England, at the debate, passionately defending Israel. And that's not even what he wants to be doing. Now he's getting criticized as an anti Semite. So I wrote that piece in the Jerusalem Post basically saying, listen, everybody. Stop with the purity tests for every single view that he has to line up with, I don't know, B. B. Cabinet decisions. "Relax. Okay? This is our greatest ally. Yes, he has questions. Yes, he's influenced by the other side as well." "Good. I'm talking to him."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Charlie's approach. They note his genuine affection for Israel, and his private belief: "I love I don't think we should have another forever war, regime change war against Iran," which helped him bridge foreign-policy gaps because "this person doesn't hate me" and "it's not about disliking me or some weird bigotry." They caution against outsiders claiming to represent his cause. Charlie is described as a hardliner on immigration—"why aren't the deportations higher?"—yet he remained a constructive voice, saying, "I'm a free citizen. I love you guys," and using pressure to push for good outcomes rather than divisiveness. He worried about turning Iran strikes into a "regime change war," supported Israel, and, while backing strikes on a nuclear facility, insisted "no more" and "this can't become a bigger thing." He "never bent. He never became better" and kept integrity to the very end.

Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all. "Bibi is despised by many people, in Israel." There are "huge divisions within the Israeli government," and "parts of the intel world in Israel that do not support some things Benjamin Netanyahu has done recently." "his attempt to hijack Charlie's memory and use it for his own political ends, particularly because what he said was completely untrue." "Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews. He loved the state of Israel, loved going there." He "did not like Bibi Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times, and to people around him many times." "He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force." He was "appalled by what was happening in Gaza," and he "resented Netanyahu using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for The United States."

I really pushed hard for this meeting and called a lot of people who know him and were in regular contact with him. I went to see some of those people directly. Please, can you help me get a sit down for five minutes with Benjamin Netanyahu? I probably called or met with six, seven, eight, maybe more people on this question. People in official capacities, people in the Israeli government. I know a number of people in the Israeli government, people in Israel, a friend of mine in California who knows him. I really, really tried. And I did so for two reasons. One, because there was a threat to my family. The Israeli government and Netanyahu himself tried to punish two members of my family. I won’t be more specific, but actually punished two members of my family because he, as he has said in public many times, believes in blood guilt. Amalek, you know, when someone commits a crime against you, you punish not just him, but his family, his bloodline. There’s no idea that’s less Western than that, more anti Christian than that. Christians reject that. Netanyahu doesn’t. That’s why he’s talking about Amalek, and he was going after my family, literally. So I felt very threatened by that. But, moreover, I think it’s bad for my country to have people using that kind of language, round them up, bring them to the camps, gas chambers, Nazis, antisemitism. It scares the heck out of people. It makes people crazy and hysterical. And certainly in my case, none of that is true. I hate collective punishment. I hate attacking people on the basis of their bloodline. I hate antisemitism and anti white racism and all of this or any kind of racism, period. And I’ve said that a lot. So using that kind of language against someone who is not fundamentally your enemy, just, in my case, I want Christians in areas controlled by Israel to be treated with dignity, to have rights. And I don’t want the US government involved in a war, a regime change war with Iran. Those are my priorities and I’ve said them out loud. I have no secret agenda.

Speaker 0 described a man who wrote me a letter on May 2 and who said, 'one of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel and forming alliances to defend Judeo Christian civilization.' A few weeks before the tragedy yesterday, I I called him and I spoke to him and I said, please come to Israel. Sadly, that visit will not take place. He was 'a defender of our common Judeo Christian civilization.' He was 'unbelievably excited to walk at the footsteps of Jesus here.' He 'valued our bond, the bond between America and Israel' and 'did so many things to defend free speech.' He 'had his truth' and 'stood up for it.' 'But he said, you can you can come and debate me' and 'He invited that debate.' It is a worldwide problem, as extremists 'use violence to try to take down their enemies.' 'It's just heartbreaking.'

I think it's a terrible personal trait. I haven't spoken to him since. Right? Like, I didn't talk to him. Fuck. I thought he wanted to make a deal more than Netanyahu. And I will be honest. I had a great meeting with him, Abbas. Right? I had a great meeting with him, and we spent a lot of time together, talked about many things. And it was almost like a father. I mean, you know, he was so nice. Couldn't have been nicer. And after meeting with Bibi for three minutes, I looked at him and said, you don't wanna make a deal, do you? And he said, well, and the fact is I don't think Bibi ever wanted to make a deal. Why I thought the Palestinians were impossible, and the the Israelis would do anything to make peace on a deal.

Speaker argues that 'you and the Likud party are cut from the same ideological cloth as Trump and the GOP in America.' They reference 'Charlie Kirk's assassination, who was a big mentor of mine' and say 'Evangelicals, from all my research, evangelicals are the reason that Israel has been supported in public sphere outside of just Jews.' They note 'So with Charlie's assassination and with the kind of trajectory that we see with, like, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson.' They ask 'what's another game plan if we lose evangelical support for the state of Israel.' 'What's our backup plan to be strong, like outside of the diaspora?'

Speaker 0: So something I would like to raise, which was actually my first published paper, was how you and the Likud party are cut from the same ideological cloth as Trump and the GOP in America. And so specifically with Charlie Kirk's assassination, who was a big mentor of mine, he's my first mentor in the space. Evangelicals, from all my research, evangelicals are the reason that Israel has been supported in public sphere outside of just Jews. So with Charlie's assassination and with the kind of trajectory that we see with, like, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson. I guess I'm curious about what's another game plan if we lose evangelical support for the state of Israel. What's our backup plan to be strong, like, outside of the diaspora? Thank you.

Charlie was loyal to people with whom he had shared history. He would never say an ill word about Candace and refused moral blackmail. He stayed loyal to old donors and Turning Point colleagues, avoided airing dirty laundry, and, though he disagreed with Candace and Tucker on the Israel issue, he recognized Tucker’s value and invited him to events. He could not be controlled or bought, and when faced with threats to cut large donations, he reacted with defiance: “screw me. No. Screw you.” He loved Israel and the Holy Land, and, amid a surge of anti-Israel sentiment on the right, he tried to chart a path forward for sympathizers. He wrote to Bibi: “You are losing the PR war. You need to change how you do your PR. You need to change your messaging to the American right,” suggesting a more passive relationship and opposing Islamic migration. He vented privately when accused of antisemitism, but publicly avoided such disclosures.

Speaker recounts meeting with Charlie: it wasn’t about 'this is what you should say,' but 'talking through the issues' as Charlie asked questions and began forming positions. He would 'approach this issue this way' and decide his stance on topics like 'USA to Israel,' which speaker opposed, wanting it drawn down; Netanyahu has said he wants it drawn down. Charlie would articulate his position more quickly than the speaker. They discussed why is Israel actually an American America's interest to support Israel and explored approaches to justify it, not just those favored by Israelis or the Israeli government, but ways to help Charlie feel comfortable with a position. Charlie is a 'listener' who believes in the 'open marketplace of ideas'—his existential core—and he platformed Tucker Carlson; silencing any opinion was 'anathema' to him because of truth seeking. 'For all of us, our best traits we often have to a fault.'

Charlie Kirk faced mounting pressure about Israel debates. "I'm an American citizen. Yes. I want Israel to win. Yes. I'm a Christian." He says "the sum of the mess" and that "my moral character is now being put into question" while insisting "I love Israel. I want Israel to win." He recalls "thousands of tweets" and a pattern "similar to what my grandparents saw in nineteen thirties Germany online?" as well as threats to "pull out money" and "nasty text messages." The discussion centered on Tucker Carlson and why Charlie would allow voices like "Dave Smith, who by the way is Jewish" on stage. Beebe Netanyahu allegedly staged "an intervention" by "Bill Ackman" with "threats" after which Charlie "denied that funding" and was invited to Israel, an invitation Charlie "said no to Bebe." "Just take the last step, Charlie." Charlie was praying the rosary. Charlie was going to mass.

Over the past year and a half I became closer to Charlie Kirk, joining a group chat he called his 'brain trust.' We discussed Israel, Jewish–Christian relations, antisemitism. He was an adamant opponent of antisemitism. Campus talks exposed him to questions, including about the Talmud, and he provided 'very good answers'—'better answers than probably 98% of Jews probably could offer there.' We strategized to turn back the tide against rising antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment. Charlie said roughly half, 50% of the questions that he got asked were all on Israel, Jews. He organized a Zoom call the night before Utah Valley University event, the first stop of a tour, with me, Pesach Willicki, producers, and one Christian pastor. The fact that he was seeking our counsel... calls into question this narrative that he was getting ready to renounce his lifelong support for the Jewish people, for the state of Israel.

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting politics to be shaped by biblical principles, but the experience did not meet that expectation. The event opened with a speaker who immediately criticized Candace Owens, calling her evil and antisemitic, and stating that what she’s doing is evil. I wanted to leave, but security was intense—armed men were stationed all around the venue, and there was even an armed man on stage with a hand on his gun. The security presence made me uncomfortable. Inside, the speaker talked extensively about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, portraying them as evil and antisemitic. He argued that Christians should support Israel because Jesus was a Jew and Judaism underpins Christianity, while claiming that what Israel is doing is evil and corrupt. He suggested that refusing to support Israel would be anti-Semitic. I disagree with this framing, and it struck me as not aligning with what I expect from biblical politics. I also noted that the speaker referenced Charlie Kirk (though I recall it as Charlie Cook) and suggested that Kirk would not endorse the positions being discussed, referencing Kirk’s and Owens’ friendship and his past critiques of Israel. Throughout, the speaker’s preaching style resembled name-calling rather than traditional preaching. He labeled the political left as “idiots,” “freaks,” and “losers,” and spent much of the time denigrating liberals rather than offering constructive biblical guidance. This approach felt discordant with Christian teachings I associate with Jesus, who, as the speaker himself stated he loves, “ate with sinners,” including prostitutes. I felt the message was spreading hate rather than embodying the inclusive example I expect from Christian doctrine. A major concern was the impact on young attendees. Teenagers and young Christians appeared to be absorbing the message, treating this figure as a leader and a future guide for their faith, which raised alarms about further division within the Christian community. In summary, the event did not teach the biblical political perspectives I anticipated. The emphasis was on discrediting the left and on framing Israel in terms of Jewish loyalty, rather than engaging with broader Christian concerns. The speaker’s approach—name-calling of political opponents, calls for aggressive stances, and a heavy focus on left-wing critique—left me feeling that the session did not align with constructive faith-based political discussion. The speaker also touched on issues like men in women’s sports, but stated this was not the most important topic for Christians to discuss amid broader national concerns.

Charlie Kirk's perspective on Israel was not starting to shift. It had shifted entirely. Israel knew that. Turning Point USA knew that because Charlie was explicit. He wrote of his deep love for Israel. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? And then did he, just forty eight hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our on stage reunion could happen?

On a Zoom call the night before his death, I was giving Charlie advice for how to message on this issue on his forthcoming campus tour, and he joked, “Josh, I'm gonna mention your book, Israel and civilization, and it's so good.” He referenced a letter to Netanyahu read in June or July; the opening sentence is, “As a Christian, one of my greatest joys in life is making friendships with the Jewish people and defending the state of Israel.” After his death, critics claimed he was turning on Israel, but that letter begins this way: “As a Christian… defending the state of Israel.” “Filth. Okay? Absolute filth. I I don't understand it.” “There was no truth in him.” He says three people claimed Charlie said within twenty four hours he thought they would kill him, and questions Josh Hammer about “the night before.” He warns: “if I get a text message… I will release it instantly. There'll be no place that you can hide.” He sent around a life insurance policy package with “text messages, emails, private communications, videos, and private legal documents.” He says, “If anything happens to me, … they have my explicit permission to release it all, detonate it all, expose all of these people in politics and in the movement who behave like this behind the scenes. It's necessary.” He cites Kanye: “Everything that Kanye said was so real. … Kanye was right” and urges to “leave me alone. Let me say what I believe, you say what you believe. Fight fair.”

I was shocked and sickened by the reaction of the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death. Basically made it all about him and all about his country immediately trying to take the energy, the sadness, the grief that people felt over Charlie's murder and redirect it towards support for whatever project he's involved in. Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all. Bibi is despised by many people in Israel. There are huge divisions within the Israeli government. I mean, are certain parts of the intel world in Israel that do not support some things that Benjamin Netanyahu has done recently. Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews. He had tons of friends who were Jews. He loved the state of Israel. Loved going there. He did not like B. B. Netanyahu, and he said that to me many times, and he said to people around him many times. He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force. He was appalled by what was happening in Gaza. He was above all resentful that he believed Netanyahu was using The United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country, and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for The United States, and he resented it. There's no question that BB's defenders on the internet will call me a liar or a kook, but that's a fact. Enough text messages exist that I think it can probably be verified in pretty short order.

The speaker condemns Ian Carroll for making videos that claim Israel is behind conspiracies about Red Lobster, Applebee's, and Burger King, and for a live stream asking, “Where are you Nick? … Why are you with them?” He asks where the evidence is and notes the tendency to attribute almost every event to Israel, stating, “the heuristic seems to be Israel is behind literally everything,” past and future, which he calls ridiculous. He points to a September 7 tweet where Carroll said Charlie Kirk is “working for the Jews that killed Jesus,” and contrasts it with Carroll’s certainty on September 11 that Israel killed him to silence him, questioning what changed in those four days and suggesting Carroll may have ESP or telepathy. He accuses Carroll of grifting, intellectual laziness, and dishonesty, and refuses to be pulled into blaming Israel for killing the number one Israel defender in America. The speaker asserts personal history and credibility, saying, “I’ve been over here. I was at Charlottesville” in 2017, and that in 2019 he led the Gruyper war against Charlie Kirk, labeling Kirk as an “Israel shill.” He claims that from Turning Point’s founding in 2012 to today, the organization has been “owned by Israel and served Israel.” He recounts a June text in which Charlie Kirk told Dinesh D’Souza, “Nick Fuentes is vermin,” and notes the ongoing fight against him for six years, including Kirk’s August statement calling him “anti Semitic garbage” and his refusal to debate. The speaker describes Charlie Kirk’s inner circle and media connections: Kirk’s right-hand man Andrew Colvin comes from Salem Media, a Christian Zionist outlet aligned with Israel, with Melissa Strait having connections to Salem and Prager University and IDF unit 12082. He notes Colvin led a “struggle session about Israel” after a Turning Point SAS conference in July. He claims that when Israel bombed Qatar in contravention of Trump’s foreign policy, Kirk invited Ben Shapiro to present Israel’s position, while Kirk acted as moderator, and on the day Kirk “was shot,” he prepared to defend Israel with his rabbi at Provo as he drafted a book on the Jewish Sabbath. The speaker emphasizes that the person accused of fighting Israel was “the guy that was murdered,” and expresses pity for those who would believe that. He asserts, “I’m right here where I’ve always been, following the facts, following the money, looking at the information,” claiming to be light years ahead of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, and rejecting the idea that their ideology is about Netanyahu or Israel’s foreign policy, concluding, “No, sorry. Absolutely not. That’s totally ridiculous.”