The recent Shabbat dinner at TPUSA’s AmericaFest in Phoenix highlighted a growing tension surrounding the discussion of Israel. Prominent speaker Steve Bannon upbraided Ben Shapiro, labeling him “a cancer.” The atmosphere crackled with unease. This contention underscores a persistent concern: at what point does criticism of Israel morph into something more sinister? The complexity of this debate remains largely unresolved.
During the dinner, many attendees backed Shapiro’s staunch condemnation of antisemitism and expressed their displeasure with Carlson’s perspectives. However, Rabbi Pesach Wolicki chose a more reflective route. He emphasized spirituality by engaging participants in prayer and song rather than diving deep into contentious politics. His comments offered a contrast to the heated rhetoric surrounding the topic. When asked about Bannon’s assertions, he acknowledged their friendship but pointedly stated, “Steve is not an antisemite,” highlighting the delicate dynamics at play.
On the main stage, Megyn Kelly echoed sentiments of division within the movement, asserting, “Those two are very pro-Israel… But they don’t get to dictate how the rest of us feel.” This statement encapsulates the disarray of viewpoints, revealing a tendency for both critics and supporters of Israel to talk over one another. Critics argue they face censorship, yet they voice their opinions loudly before a sizable audience. Conversely, the pro-Israel camp often perceives genuine concerns about antisemitism, sometimes mistaking valid criticism for bigotry.
Compounding these tensions is the call from various factions for the exclusion of dissenters from the conservative movement. However, with no central authority in conservatism to enact such measures, this leads to a rather futile exchange of ultimatums. Notably, while the controversy heats up, many attendees expressed that Israel is not a primary concern for them. One attendee from Ohio pointedly remarked, “it’s like the last issue I think about.” This observation suggests that while the debate is alive among key figures, the average conservative voter might not prioritize it as heavily.
The situation raises concerns about the future, particularly regarding how emerging leaders might view Israel. Historically, President Trump has been a staunch ally, but there are questions about whether potential future leaders, such as JD Vance—who has attracted critics of Israel—would adopt the same stance.
This internal struggle reminds one of ongoing interpretations of Shylock in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice.” In the early 1980s, actors Patrick Stewart and David Suchet portrayed the character through strikingly different lenses. Stewart, who isn’t Jewish, argued that Shylock’s alienation stems from his actions rather than his faith. In contrast, Suchet posited that Shylock’s outsider status is intrinsically linked to his Jewish identity. This discord mirrors the current debate at AmericaFest, where critics of Israel maintain that their commentary is devoid of antisemitic intent. Many in the Jewish community, however, find such sentiments hard to reconcile.
At the Shabbat dinner, discussions about the small global Jewish population underscore the heightened sensitivity surrounding the issue. The figures paint a sobering reality—Jews represent only 0.2% of the world’s population. The historical fear of extinction looms large in the Jewish collective consciousness, further complicating discussions where antisemitism might be perceived.
As tensions rise, a call for moderated discourse among powerful voices is essential. Currently, the debate appears more about personal bravado than a sincere exchange of ideas. Unity among conservatives benefits the movement as a whole. The hope is that conversations can transition from divisive rhetoric to a shared commitment to mutual respect and understanding, emphasizing what unites rather than what divides.
"*" indicates required fields
