Tucker Carlson’s speech at Charlie Kirk’s memorial in Arizona has reignited accusations of antisemitism, with critics pointing to his comparison of Kirk’s assassination to the crucifixion of Jesus as a dangerous dog whistle. Addressing tens of thousands of mourners, Carlson described a “lamp-lit room with men eating hummus” deciding how to silence Jesus, language widely viewed as echoing antisemitic tropes. While Carlson did not explicitly mention Jews or Israel, his insinuations suggested cultural or political responsibility, prompting Jewish groups and pro-Israel voices to condemn the speech. This episode reflects a broader pattern in Carlson’s commentary, where his critiques of Israel often blur into conspiracy theories and stereotypes about Jewish identity.
Tucker Carlson’s use of antisemitic tropes and coded language
Carlson’s remarks at the Kirk memorial revived imagery historically tied to the “blood libel” myth used to justify persecution of Jews. By comparing Kirk’s killing to the crucifixion of Jesus and implying “the people” schemed to silence him, Carlson reinforced narratives long associated with Jewish culpability. Jewish organizations, including Stop Antisemitism, argued his “hummus room” analogy implied Jewish or Israeli involvement in Kirk’s assassination — despite police attributing the crime to a 22-year-old trans man in Utah who confessed. Beyond the memorial, Carlson has repeatedly used coded language that mirrors antisemitic conspiracy theories. In interviews and podcasts, he has suggested Israel “controls” U.S. foreign policy or manipulates media narratives. Such claims, while indirect, align with stereotypes about Jewish global influence and are often interpreted by audiences as confirmation of antisemitic conspiracies.
A pattern of controversy
Carlson’s controversies are not isolated. He has previously hosted guests with Holocaust denial views, drawing criticism from mainstream Jewish organizations. Media outlets such as Jewish Insider and The Jewish Chronicle have tracked a pattern of language in his commentary that revives conspiracy theories about Jewish involvement in global events.Even conservative figures have criticized him. Senator Ted Cruz, for instance, rejected Carlson’s attempts to tie Kirk to anti-Israel sentiment, emphasizing Kirk’s clear opposition to antisemitism. Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies called Carlson’s narrative “distressing,” pointing out that Carlson’s family background and earlier advocacy for Israel sharply contrast with his recent rhetoric.
Mixing legitimate critique with stereotypes
Although Carlson has at times expressed support for Israel, his commentary often blurs legitimate political critique with antisemitic undertones. For instance, he has accused Israel of manipulating American politics, echoing tropes about Jewish control. His platform has also given airtime to guests linked to Holocaust denial and antisemitic views, further amplifying extremist narratives.At the Kirk memorial, Carlson’s analogy went beyond policy critique, implying Jewish cultural or religious responsibility for Kirk’s death. Critics argue this rhetorical strategy allows him to maintain plausible deniability while feeding conspiratorial interpretations among his far-right audience.Carlson’s rhetoric resonates strongly with nationalist and isolationist segments of his audience. By framing Jews and Israel as undermining “traditional” values, sovereignty, and national identity, he appeals to anxieties about immigration, media control, and geopolitical power.For example, Carlson has accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza while simultaneously suggesting Jewish leaders hold disproportionate influence in American politics.He also claimed that Charlie Kirk “did not like Bibi (Netanyahu),” framing Kirk in opposition to mainstream Jewish political leadership. This selective framing subtly aligns with far-right narratives that portray Jewish figures as antagonists to conservative ideals. Go to Source
