Up Next
Max Blumenthal Exposes Charlie Kirk's Final 48 Hours and His Break from Pro-Israel Cause
20:39
Dave Smith and Ian Carroll Break Down Charlie Kirk Assassination Theories and Israel Connections
2:44:31
Dave Smith Reveals Charlie Kirk's Final Letter to Benjamin Netanyahu: Wrestling With Israel Support
21:35
John Mearsheimer Exposed Charlie Kirk's Turn Against Israel and Netanyahu's Scramble to Avoid Blame
John Mearsheimer breaks down the mounting evidence that Charlie Kirk fundamentally changed his position on Israel and US-Israeli relations before his death. Between high-pressure meetings with billionaire donors, private conversations expressing fear of Netanyahu, and public frustrations about being attacked for criticizing Israeli policy, Kirk appeared caught between his wealthy Zionist backers and a younger conservative base increasingly skeptical of Israel. Mearsheimer explains why Netanyahu issued two separate statements denying Israeli involvement, examines Israel's reputation for political assassinations, and reveals how Kirk's shift mirrors a broader generational change in conservative attitudes toward the US-Israel relationship.
Netanyahu Issues Unprecedented Double Denial
John Mearsheimer analyzes why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went on international television before Charlie Kirk's killer had been caught to deny Israeli involvement in his death. Mearsheimer notes that Netanyahu issued not one but two statements distancing Israel from Kirk's assassination, with the second emphasizing that Israel and Charlie Kirk were "the best of friends" and had "absolutely nothing to do with Charlie Kirk's death."
Bill Aman, a mainstream supporter of Israel who had been putting pressure on Charlie Kirk, also released a statement claiming he had "nothing but the highest respect for Charlie Kirk" and describing a "very positive meeting" with him. According to Mearsheimer, both the lobby and Netanyahu are scrambling to avoid blame for this event.
Israel's Reputation for Political Assassinations
Mearsheimer explains that Israel's reputation for assassinations is so extensive that Wikipedia had to break down their documented assassinations by decade because the list involves so many names. He identifies three major events in American history where conspiracy theories involve Israeli participation: the JFK assassination, 9/11, and now the Charlie Kirk killing.
With JFK, Kirk had tried to stop Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons through the Dimona project in the 1960s, with communications between Kennedy and David Ben-Gurion substantiating these claims just months before his death. Kennedy also attempted to force the American Zionist Council, the precursor to AIPAC, to register as a foreign lobby.
Regarding 9/11, Mearsheimer references the "dancing Israelis" incident, where a group of Israelis, some belonging to Israeli intelligence under the guise of a moving company, were filmed celebrating the attacks. They were detained and then released, with mainstream media dismissing questions as conspiracy theories. Tucker Carlson is reportedly producing a five-part series on 9/11 that will argue Israeli involvement.
Max Blumenthal's Reporting on Kirk's Final Days
While Mearsheimer initially suggested that Max Blumenthal argued for Israeli involvement in Kirk's murder, he clarifies that Blumenthal's reporting actually focused on the pressures Charlie Kirk was feeling. Blumenthal documented that Kirk had come to believe Netanyahu was a bully and that high-profile, wealthy donors were pressuring him to align more closely with Israel and "essentially become Ben Shapiro again" on Israeli issues. However, Blumenthal's piece explicitly states there is no evidence of an Israeli government role in Kirk's assassination.
According to Blumenthal's reporting, based on conversations with sources including someone present at the meeting with Aman and someone in the White House, Aman's people offered Charlie Kirk a tremendous amount of money, reportedly upwards of $150 million, if he would begin saying favorable things about Netanyahu. When Kirk refused, Aman invited him to his home on Long Island where they applied coercive pressure, which Kirk also refused.
Kirk's Growing Frustrations With Pro-Israel Pressure
About a month before his death, Charlie Kirk appeared on the Megyn Kelly show expressing frustration about the pressure he was facing. He stated: "The people that are attacking me are in a hyper paranoid state because they're at war and war tends to make things black and white. I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government without backlash than actual Israelis do. The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question, you're going to weaken and just basically deflate two of your strongest advocates if that continues."
Kirk told friends and colleagues in the weeks and days before his murder that he was afraid for his life and that he couldn't stand and didn't trust Netanyahu. Harrison Smith reported that an unnamed friend of Charlie Kirk said Kirk was afraid Israel would kill him, a post Smith made in August before Kirk was shot.
Netanyahu's Response and Omissions
In his video statement, Netanyahu invoked Joseph Goebbels, saying "the bigger the lie, the faster it will spread," and called accusations of Israeli involvement "a monstrous big lie." He claimed Charlie Kirk "loved Israel" and "loved the Jewish people," citing a letter Kirk sent him months earlier where Kirk wrote: "One of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel and forming alliances with Jews to protect Judeo-Christian civilization."
Netanyahu said Kirk encouraged him "to make the case directly to the American people about how vital Israel is to US national security" and noted that Kirk told him "The Holy Land is so important to my life, it pains me to see support for Israel slip away." Netanyahu added that he had invited Kirk to visit Israel again shortly before his death.
However, Netanyahu omitted key details. According to unnamed sources, Kirk turned down the Israel trip invitation. He also failed to mention that Kirk denounced what was happening in Gaza in the same letter he referenced. Sources close to Kirk reported that he viewed Netanyahu as manipulative and a bully, and was frustrated that Netanyahu was essentially dictating presidential personnel decisions, surrounding the administration with hardcore Zionists like Keith Kellogg, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Mike Waltz, and Kash Patel.
Kirk's Shifting Position on Israel
Mearsheimer argues that what was happening with Charlie Kirk, which is very well documented, is that he was changing his mind in a fundamental way on Israel and Israel's role inside the United States. Kirk had been at one point super supportive of Israel, but he began to change his mind. Tucker Carlson released a video discussing his conversations with Charlie Kirk that tell the same story as Max Blumenthal's reporting.
However, the full picture is more nuanced. Kirk was uniquely positioned in the conservative movement, having to thread the needle between wealthy Zionist donors like Bill Aman and Seth Dillon who wanted him to toe the line on Israel, and a young activist base on college campuses. Young people, even conservative young people, are not nearly as pro-Israel as their parents, and every poll confirms this generational shift.
Kirk's events reflected this tension. He had Tucker Carlson speak at a recent event, where Carlson stated it wasn't anti-Semitic to criticize Israel and suggested Jeffrey Epstein was probably working for Israel. Kirk also hosted a debate between Dave Smith and Josh Hammer, where Smith received a more positive reception than Zionist Hammer at a Young Conservatives event, signaling where the barometer of young conservatives is shifting on Israel.
Yet even late in his life, on July 29th, Kirk posted hardcore Zionist propaganda denying that starvation was happening in Gaza as a deliberate government campaign, calling it "Hamas propaganda." In his August interview with Megyn Kelly, while expressing frustration with pro-Israel pressure, he also aligned with Kelly in promoting Hasbara talking points about not trusting pictures from Gaza because "Gazans are propagandists" and "Hamas would want nothing more to show that kids are starving."
Why Conspiracy Theories Flourish
Mearsheimer identifies two key problems Netanyahu faces. First, almost everyone believes Netanyahu lies constantly, a perception that exists in Israel as well as the United States. When he claims he's telling the truth and others are lying, it's not an argument that sells well.
Second, the Israelis run around the world assassinating people on what appears to be a daily basis. When someone like Charlie Kirk or JFK gets assassinated, it doesn't take much for people to link Israel to those assassinations. In a world where it's very hard to tell what the truth is and most people think the government lies to them, it's very easy for conspiracy theories to take root. When thinking about assassinations, the first country that comes to mind is Israel, and that's the fundamental problem Netanyahu faces.
Implications for US-Israeli Relations
Mearsheimer argues that Israel isn't vital to US national security but is actually destructive of it. He goes further, stating it's reaching the point where the relationship is destructive of American liberal democracy as well. Many people in recent years have begun to rethink how they view Israel and Israel's relationship with the United States, a shift that Charlie Kirk appeared to be experiencing.
The question remains whether this incident will turn more people away from Israel as they learn about the pressures Kirk faced, his fears about Netanyahu, and the broader pattern of Israeli influence in American politics. Netanyahu's need to issue two separate denials and blame "radical Islamists" before any suspect was even apprehended suggests deep concern about Israel's reputation and the growing skepticism among Americans, particularly younger conservatives, about the US-Israel relationship.
Video Transcript
The fact is that what was happening with
Charlie Kirk and it's very well
documented is that he was changing his
mind in a fundamental way on Israel and
Israel's role inside of the United
States. So both the lobby or Israel's
supporters in the United States and
Netanyahu are scrambling to avoid blame
for uh this event. John Mirshimer just
exposed Charlie Kirk's unmistakable turn
against Israel in his final days. And in
this clip, he talks about what
Netanyahu's response to this tells us
about his reputation and what this means
for US-Israeli relations going forward.
So, let's get his take on this. Please
like the video and subscribe to the
channel. Why would Netanyahu go on
international television
before uh Charlie Kirk's killer had even
been caught and deny that the Israelis
had anything to do with his death? Is
their reputation that bad?
>> Well, actually,
>> that he had to do that.
>> The answer is yes. But I would note to
you that Max Blumenthal, who has done
ymanlike work breaking that story, uh
actually put out a tweet today uh that
showed that Netanyahu has just issued
another statement where he talks about
the fact that Israel uh and Charlie Kirk
were the best of friends and uh that
Israel had absolutely nothing to do with
Charlie Kirk's death. Now the question
you ask is why is this the case? And the
answer is there are three big events in
recent American history uh where people
believe there was a conspiracy involved
and that conspiracy involved Israel. One
is the assassination of JFK. Two is what
happened at 911 or on 911 and three is
the Charlie Kirk killing. This is a huge
problem for the Israelis. I'm not saying
that the Israelis were involved in any
three of those events, but there are a
lot of people who believe that the
Israelis were involved in Kennedy's
assassination, what happened on 911. And
by the way, I would note that Tucker
Carlson is doing a five-part series.
It's due to come out reasonably soon on
what happened on 911, and he will make
the argument that the Israelis were
involved. And then, of course, there's
the Charlie Kirk business. and all sorts
of people think uh and this is in
keeping with Max Blumenthal's superb
reporting that uh that the Israelis uh
were involved in uh what happened to
Charlie Kirk. So,
>> okay. So, a few things here. Number one,
he's absolutely right about Israel's
reputation for assassinations and in
particular political assassinations.
Just look at the Wikipedia site on this.
It became a meme recently when they had
to break this down by decade because it
involves so many names. Look at this.
This is so ridiculous. This is Israeli
assassinations that are documented on
Wikipedia. And then the last one's of
course the assassinations in Doha. So
that's true. As far as the things that
Mirheimer talked about regarding
Kennedy, a lot of people say this is
just conspiracies, but it's not without
base with Kennedy. He tried to stop
Israel from acquiring a nuclear weapon
from the United States, essentially
stealing it in what's known as the
Deamona project in the 1960s. We have
communications between him and David
Bengurian, you know, substantiating the
claims. He tried to stop that just
months before his death. And he also
tried to get the American Zionist
Council to register as a foreign lobby.
This was the precursor to APEC. It's
what Apac was called before that. So
that explains that with 9/11, it's the
dancing Israelis. If you don't know
about this story, there was a group of
Israelis that at least some of them
belong to Israeli intelligence under the
guise of being in a moving company
filming the attacks as they took place,
you know, putting up their lighters and
kind of celebrating it. And they were
held for a time and then, you know, just
released. And this was swept under the
rug. The mainstream media said
everything was a conspiracy theory. And
then you have Charlie Kirk. The one
thing I want to correct him on though is
with the Charlie Kirk thing here, he had
said that this sub that Max Blumenthal
argued Israeli involvement in Kirk's
murder, but he doesn't actually do that.
He does talks about the pressures that
Charlie Kirk was feeling and the fact
that he was frightened of Netanyahu, the
fact that he came to believe Netanyahu
was a bully and that his highprofile,
high rank, high money donors were trying
to pressure him to get right back on
board and essentially become Ben Shapiro
again on in on uh Israel. But he does
write that there's no evidence of an
Israeli government role in Kirk's
assassination. Just wanted to state that
for the record. Let's continue. What's
happening here is Netanyahu is
scrambling and he's scrambling to go to
great lengths to distance self distance
Israel from what happened uh on u with
regard to Charlie Kirk uh and and by the
way Bill uh Aman uh who is a mainstream
supporter of Israel and was putting
pressure on Charlie Kirk as well has
gone to great lengths to put out a tweet
that uh says he had uh nothing but the
highest respect for Charlie Kirk and had
a very positive meeting with him and so
forth and so on. So both the lobby or
Israel's supporters in the United States
and Netanyahu are scrambling to avoid
blame for uh this event.
>> Yeah, no doubt Netanyahu came out right
after the fact and said this and then
doubled down in another video today
responding twice to this. You know, it's
because people are pointing fingers at
Israel and obviously so after these
pieces at the very least raise eyebrows
and things that Candace Owens and Tucker
Carlson have said about this and the
fact that Charlie Kirk was feeling
pressured. He was on the Megan Kelly
show about a month ago talking about the
pressure he was feeling and the
frustration of having his character
called into question over this. So yeah,
Mirheimer's exactly right. And who did
Netanyahu blame for this murder right
away? Like he always does, radical
Islamists. Right after this happened,
before there was a suspect, before any
suspect was apprehended or indicted, he
blamed radical Islamists. If you don't
believe me, take a look at that Greta
Van Sustran interview. And then there
was another one on Fox News he did where
he reiterated this absurd. Uh Max
Blumenthal did a rather extraordinary
piece here on this show right after
having spent a few hours on the phone
with sources whom he described as a
person who was at the meeting with Aman
and um um and Charlie and a person in
the White House and Max is come to has
come to the conclusion that Aman offered
Aman's people offered Charlie a
tremendous amount of money. It's been
reported not by Max but by others to be
upwards of $150 million
uh if he would begin to say things
favorable about Netanyahu and Charlie
refused. That's when Aman and company
invited him to Aman's home on Long
Island
and they began some sort of coercive
pressure on him and he he refused that.
>> Yeah. I mean, they viewed this as if he
was an alcoholic or something. This was
a Zionist intervention, you know, tow
the line or else. And Bill Aman wrote
indeed a long essay about this on
Twitter about how he had nothing to do
with it and all sorts of other stuff. It
was, I think, about a thousand words.
So, he's absolutely right about that.
And he told friends in the weeks and
days before he was murdered that he was
afraid for his life. and he told friends
and colleagues that he couldn't stand
and didn't trust Netanyahu.
Um, but here is Netanyahu
saying what you just said. Now, there's
a lot in here to unpack. It's not that
long. It's only about a minute long, but
he does say, you'll hear this. He and
he, meaning Kirk, encouraged me to make
the case directly to the American people
about how vital Israel is to the US
national security. Hold your fire.
Here's Netanyahu yesterday.
>> As if he had to recommend that to
Netanyahu. By the way,
>> Joseph Gerbles, the Nazi propaganda
minister, said that the bigger the lie,
the faster it will spread. Well,
somebody has fabricated a monstrous big
lie that Israel had something to do with
Charlie Kirk's horrific murder. This is
insane. It is false. It is outrageous.
Charlie Kirk was a giant, a once- ina
century talent who defended freedom,
defended America, defended our common
Judeo-Christian civilization. Charlie
loved Israel. He loved the Jewish
people. He told me so in a letter that
he sent me just a few months ago. One of
my greatest joys as a Christian, he
said, is advocating for Israel and
forming alliances with Jews to protect
Judeo-Christian civilization.
He encouraged me to make the case
directly to the American people about
how vital Israel is to US national
security. He told me, "The Holy Land is
so important to my life, it pains me to
see support for Israel slip away." Now,
if Charlie disagreed with a policy of
mine or a decision here and there, not
only did I not mind, I welcomed it. This
is the essence of Charlie. This is the
essence of a free country. It's exactly
what Charlie stood for. And I knew that
his suggestions always came from the
heart, from his love for Israel and from
his love for the Jewish people. A few
weeks before his death, I spoke to
Charlie. I invited him to visit Israel
again. And sadly, that won't happen.
Now, some are pedalling these disgusting
rumors, perhaps out of obsession,
perhaps with Qatari funding. What I do
know is this. Charlie Kirk was a great
man and a great man deserves honor, not
lies. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.
>> It's always Qatari funding, right?
Carter and Russia has more influence in
the US government if you trust the
mainstream media and BB Netanyahu than
if you actually look with your own two
eyes and actually use reason and
deductive logic. But there's a lot of
things that he omitted there. It is true
that he invited Charlie to go to Israel.
He said unfortunately that won't happen.
But what he's leaving out is apparently
according to this article, this unnamed
source that Max Blumenthal covered, it
was because he turned the trip down, not
because, you know, just timing called
for it. Also, what's known from this
piece is that this unnamed source close
to Charlie Kirk, which corroborates a
lot of the things that Candace Owens and
Tucker Carlson are saying about him, is
that he viewed Netanyahu as a bully. He
didn't like him. He was manipulative and
he hated the fact that Netanyahu was
essentially dictating the president's
personnel decisions in his cabinet. And
that is true by the way. Surrounding
yourself with people like Keith Kellogg
and Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabe and for
a while Mike Waltz and Cash Patel that
the most hardcore Zionist imaginable in
this administration. That is true. I
mean say a lot what you can about
Charlie Kirk. He was very pro-Israel
generally speaking. And if you, you
know, take some selected bits, it does
raise eyebrows. There is something here.
This is a story. But he wasn't Ben
Shapiro on Israel. He wasn't Mark Levvin
on Israel. He was kind of in between the
Dave Smith and Ben Shapiro on Israel.
Well,
he references a letter that Kirk sent to
him. Of course, he won't read the second
part of the letter in which Kirk
denounced what was happening in Gaza.
With this sentence, he encouraged me to
make the case directly to the American
people about how vital Israel is to US
national security.
Israel isn't vital to the US national
security. It's destructive of US
national security. Is that not so?
>> Well, it's more than destructive of
American national security. It's
reaching the point where it's
destructive of American liberal
democracy as well. But let's leave that
aside for a second. The fact is that
what was happening with Charlie Kirk,
and it's very well documented, is that
he was changing his mind in a
fundamental way on Israel and Israel's
role inside of the United States. Uh, a
lot of people in recent years have begun
to rethink how they view Israel and
Israel's relationship with the United
States. And what happened with Kirk is
that he was at one point, as Prime
Minister Netanyahu describes, super
supportive of Israel, but he began to
change his mind. And uh Max Blumenthal
lays the story out again very clearly in
his interview with you. And for anybody
who hasn't seen that, they should watch
it. And by the way, Tucker Carlson has
put out uh a video where he talks about
his lame discussions with Charlie Kirk
that basically tell the same story that
Max tells. So, it's quite clear that
what was going on here is that Kirk had
flipped on Israel and on Israel's
relationship with the United States. So,
>> so he did to some extent. He was
frustrated about Israeli influence in
the United States. But if you listen to
some of those clips in isolation, you
would think that he did totally turn.
But I want to be clear here for
clarification. Don't take my word for
it. View that entire interview with
Megan Kelly about a month ago. I think
it was on Octo not October, August 6th
on Megan Kelly show. They do, you know,
offer a lot of Hasbro Zionist propaganda
in that same show along with Kirk's
frustrations with the push back he was
getting from his donors and people
calling him into question. They talk
about how, you know, it's not a genocide
and all this nonsense about how you
can't trust the pictures coming out of
Gaza because, you know, the Gazins are
propagandists. Hamas would want nothing
more to show that kids are starving and
they want to do that. So, we shouldn't
trust that kids are starving. Both of
them align on certain things, but truly
Charlie did wrestle with this issue to
some extent. That's very true. And
again, in Max's piece, he says, you
know, he was frightened by the backlash
he was starting to get from some of his
donors. He had Tucker Carlson come to a
recent event of his and speak. And
famously, Tucker Carlson not only
strongly suggested that it was probably
Israel that Jeffrey Epstein was working
for, he not even strongly suggest he
said that. And he also said it's not
anti-semitic to criticize Israel and you
should criticize Israel if there is a
critique toward Israel given that the US
is bankrolling that country. And both of
those things are not what Zionist
donors, especially rich ones, want to
hear. Also, he had Dave Smith debate
Josh Hammer at that event. And Dave
Smith got more of a positive reception
than Zionist Josh Hammer at a young
conservative event. Really tells you
where the barometer of young
conservatives is shifting when it comes
to Israel. in a very important way. Uh
what's going on here is that Netanyahu
is not telling the truth.
>> What else is new though?
>> Yeah, that's right. But the problem is I
mean there are two problems here. First
of all, everybody, not everybody, but
almost everybody believes uh that
Netanyahu lies all the time. Uh that's
true in Israel as well as in the United
States. So when he says he's telling the
truth and others are lying, it's not an
argument that's going to sell very well.
>> Yeah. It's funny when he cites Gerbles
about the power of lies and big lies
being easier to spread. Well, he's the
mass purveyor of lies when it comes to
foreign policy, the US-Israeli
relationship, even using propaganda in
that speech to say, you know, the
Judeo-Christian tradition as if that's
something that we're just innately bound
into. Well, he uses that language on
purpose to suggest that it's just
obligatory for the two powers to be
aligned in everything, no matter what.
No matter how many wars Israel drags us
into, no matter, you know, killing 34
sailors in 1967 on the US liberty, you
know, stealing nuclear weapons, you
know, drawing the US into a war versus
Iran, bombing Carter, ostensively a US
ally, and then just the US looking the
other way. All of this nonsense. The
other problem that he faces and the
Israelis face more generally is they run
around the world assassinating people on
a daily basis. It's really quite
stunning. So when someone like Charlie
Kirk gets assassinated or someone like
JFK gets assassinated,
it doesn't take much for people with
creative minds to link Israel to those
assassinations. Now, I'm not saying for
one second that that's true, but in a
world like the one that we live in where
it's very hard to tell what the truth is
and most people think the government,
and here we're talking about the
American government, lies to us, it's
very easy for conspiracy theories to
fester. And again, as I said, uh when
you think about assassinations, the
first country that comes to mind uh is
Israel. And uh that's the problem that
Netanyahu faces here.
>> There is there's obvious reasons for
that. We delve into delved into the list
of assassinations Israel has done, but
that's the reputation they've gained,
such as why Netanyahu felt forced to
respond to that not only once right
after it happened, but twice and again
today. So that's where we're at here.
Here's uh Charlie Kirk 24 hours
after the meeting with Bill Aman with my
friend and former colleague uh Megan
Kelly. Chris, cut number 12.
>> Megan, you're hitting on something very
potent and important. The people that
are attacking me are in a hyper paranoid
state because they're at war and war
tends to make things black and white and
you're a hammer looking for a nail. I
have less ability sometimes online to
criticize the Israeli government without
backlash than actual Israelis do.
Personality types like you, myself, and
Tucker. The more that you guys privately
and publicly call our character into
question when the hostile reaction is
that now Megan and Charlie are enemies,
>> right? Boy, I'll tell you like you're
you're you're you're you're going to
you're not going to I won't say lose,
but you will weaken and just basically
deflate two of your strongest advocates
if that continues.
>> Is obviously talking about the people he
had spent the the day before with at Mr.
Aman's home uh in Long Island uh New
York.
>> Indeed, man, that interview, you can
tell his frustrations just leaping out
of the screen. And that's the way I've
described it in several other videos and
we've discussed this in other videos and
I've talked about it at length. You
know, in isolation, man, that looks
rough. That looks to confirm everything
out of Max's article, what Tucker
Carlson's saying, what Candace Owens
saying, what Harrison Smith's source
says. Harrison Smith talked to another
unnamed friend of Charlie Kirk who said
that Charlie Kirk was afraid that Israel
would kill him. He posted this back in
August, by the way, before Kirk was
shot. So, a lot of things are aligning
to at least raise eyebrows. And whether
or not you think Israel has culpability
here, it seems like Kirk was shifting in
some ways on Israel. Now, again, I don't
think that's on always. You know, in
some of the other clips, I think are
total nothing burgers. And a lot of
Charlie's position might be explained by
things other than his own, you know,
pensions, his own proclivities toward
Israel. And the reason I say that is
he's he was uniquely positioned in the
conservative movement. He wasn't like
Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens in a
way. He kind of had to thread the needle
between two different distinct forces
within his organization. Number one, the
wealthy Zionist donors, the Bill Amans
and the Seth Dillons in the world that
only want you to tow the line on Israel.
They want you to be Ben Shapiro. They
need you to be Ben Shapiro. And that's
it. No deviations. And then you had
Charlie working with this young activist
base on college campuses. And we know
that young people, even conservative
young people, are not nearly even close
as pro-Israel as their parents, as their
boomer Fox News watching parents. And
that's a generality. I know that there
are boomers that despise the US-Israeli
relationship, but they're fewer and far
between. That's just a fact. And every
poll confirms that. So, he was kind of
in a rock and a hard place. And you
know, part of his opinions, especially
when it comes to lately and the number
of corpses pile up in Gaza over this
genocide that the US funds, you'd know
that his ideas are shifting based upon
some of the things he said. And again,
another, you know, reference point on
July 29th, he posted a really hardcore
Zionist propaganda video where he denied
that any starvation was happening in
Gaza as a deliberate campaign by the
government. He said, "There's not
starvation. And this is just Hamas
propaganda. He recorded a long video to
that extent on X. You can still see that
on his timeline today. So he was still
doubling down on some of the propaganda,
but behind the scenes and in terms of
the frustrations he was feeling toward
the end, there did seem to be some
shifting. So that's where we're at. And
it's only natural that people will point
fingers at Israel. I have no reason to
have a narrative, you know, have a
thread, a through line that proves
Israeli involvement whatsoever. But this
is a story regardless of how you feel. I
keep saying that because I don't
necessarily think that all the the
theories are great without some linkage.
We need some linkage. Like the fact
that, you know, the FBI wiretapped
Martin Luther King, he tried they tried
to convince him to commit suicide and
that's why his family believed the FBI
was involved. I think we need something
solid to go, but this is enough to be a
story to raise eyebrows to talk about. I
wouldn't shut down conversation in that
direction whatsoever. Glad to hear Mir
Shimer weighs weigh in on this. We
largely agree on our perceptions here. I
think he buys into that that Charlie
shifted a little bit more than I do. But
what do you guys think? Let me know in
the comments below. Please let me know.
Did Israel have any involvement in his
murder? Is it just natural based on the
course of history that people would have
suspicions about Israel? And what does
this mean for USIsraeli relations going
forward? Will this turn more people away
from Israel if more people learn about
this? Let me know in the comments.
Please like the video, subscribe to the
channel, also subscribe to Judge
Npalitano. Thank you for this interview,
Judge. It was awesome. And it would mean
the world to me if you decided to join
as a member on Liberty Vault. If you
click the join button below, you can
help support this channel. And in
return, I'll give you all my videos
before they go live to the general
public on YouTube. you'll essentially
have advanced viewing of them. And until
I see you guys next time, no more war,
no more debt, no more inflation, and no
more empire. Peace out, guys. Catch you
in the next one.