Luke Ford

Yoram Hazony says:

My speech at the Second International Conference on Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem, January 27, 2026.

I. Anti-Semitism in the Republican Party
I’d like to say a few words today about the place of Jews—and of anti-Semites—in the Republican party in America. The subject is pressing because since October 2023, Democrats have largely made their peace with the anti-Jewish hatred of the neo-Marxists and Muslim Brotherhood supporters in their party. In fact, the influence of anti-Semites on the American left has become so blatant and so ubiquitous that most of my American Jewish friends have concluded Jews have no future in the Democratic party of Zohran Mamdani and Ilhan Omar. And if the Republicans were to go down this same road, it’s not clear what would be left of Jewish life in America.
Over the past eighteen months, the possibility that the Republicans, too, would embrace anti-Semitism has become all too real, with some of the most influential podcasts on the political right transforming themselves into platforms for relentless anti-Jewish messaging: Not just for arguing against Israeli policies toward Gaza or Iran, but for the explicit and savage targeting of Jews, Judaism, and Zionism on a regular basis.
And so the question has to be asked—and it has been asked loudly and combatively by some of you over the past six months: Do these shows represent the future of the Republican party?

II. The Trump Administration and Tucker Carlson
The Trump administration and its allies have been blindsided by these podcasts, and by the Jewish outrage over them. For months, they largely failed to respond. But in recent weeks, the Trump administration has stepped in to impose order.
On January 11, President Trump took the clearest possible stand against anti-Semitism in his political coalition. Asked if he condemns anti-Semitism on the right, he said, “certainly,” and then added: “I think we don’t need them. I think we don’t like them.”[1]
But then on January 16, President Trump met with Tucker Carlson for lunch at the White House—which also arranged to have Tucker photographed together with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chief of Staff Suzie Wiles.[2]
Finally, on January 19, Tucker aired a show in which he said some kind things about two Jews sympathetic to the administration—Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and myself—and then concluded by saying: “That’s why I would never be anti-Semitic. You can’t generalize.”[3]
These events were obviously choreographed to put an end to six months of nightmarish infighting on the political right. Which makes sense. The Republicans are facing tough midterm elections in November, and they don’t want to lose Congress over anti-Semitism.

III. Tucker’s Show and Anti-Semitism
The problem is that by now, not too many Jews are likely to accept Tucker’s disavowal of anti-Semitism at face value.
Why? Because for the last eighteen months, Tucker’s interview show has become a circus of aggressive anti-Jewish propaganda. Anti-Semites know you can tune into Tucker’s show if you want to hear:

1. That Jews are a demonic force in history.
2. That Jews have a plan to systematically destroy every Christian community in the Middle East.
3. That Jews control the American government.
4. That Jews shot Kennedy.
5. That Jews propped up Winston Churchill financially so he could start an unnecessary war with Hitler.
6. That the Jewish Bible is about revenge and genocide, and doesn’t teach us to be gracious to one another.
7. That Christians who think Jews are God’s chosen people aren’t Christians at all, but heretics.
And so on.

There’s much more of this. But you get the picture.
These aren’t normal political messages, disagreeing with other members of the Trump coalition on legitimate policy issues. They’re abusive, wild slanders, and their repeated appearance on Tucker’s show has persuaded almost every Jew I know that the program’s purpose is to drive Jews—along with tens of millions of Zionist Christians—out of the Trump coalition and out of the Republican party.
And if that’s not anti-Semitism, then what is?

IV. How Was the Fight Over Tucker Lost?
For at least the last six months, Jews and Zionist Christians have been saying that Tucker is one of the leading promoters of anti-Semitic propaganda in our time—and that for this reason, he shouldn’t be treated as a partner in good standing in the Trump coalition. They said it to Charlie Kirk. They said it to Kevin Roberts. And they’ve been saying it to the Trump administration.
So how is this effort to distance Tucker from power and influence in the Republican party going?
Judging by President Trump and Secretary Rubio’s photo op with Tucker at the White House two weeks ago, I’d say it’s been a total failure.
How do we explain this defeat?
One possibility is that Tucker is just too powerful, and no one’s going to touch him politically right now. Tucker is an influential supporter, the Republicans need him to win elections, and that’s just the way it’s going to be.
A second possibility is that Jews and Christian Zionists are just too weak in Republican circles to take him down a notch politically. A lot of people have this idea that we Jews are connected all over the place in the Republican party. But maybe that view isn’t exactly right. I’ll come back to this point in a moment.
A third possibility is that Jews and Zionist Christians have plenty of connections in the Republican party, but that the case against Tucker over the last six months just wasn’t presented in a way that was professional, serious, and competent enough to be persuasive.
Sure, many of you think that Tucker is a leading promoter of anti-Semitism, and that the Trump movement should just ditch him.
But that’s obviously not what President Trump thinks about Tucker, who did extraordinary work building up the Trump movement over seven years as a host on Fox News. On top of that, Tucker is a very smart, passionate, and very likeable man when you meet him in person. I had lunch with him once, years ago, and I thought he was great. I invited him to NatCon 1 and he gave one of the best speeches we have ever hosted.
And Tucker has been saying—as clear as the day—that he is not an anti-Semite.
Now, if you think otherwise, you are going to have to convince people. You will have to make your case, in a persuasive way, to people who don’t spend a lot of time watching podcasts.
Have Tucker’s critics done that? Well, if they have, where is the 15-minute explainer video, that I can show my friends on the political right, which proves that this very serious accusation against Tucker is true? Where is the carefully assembled research, with links and dates and timestamps, that could convince an impartial public figure who is open to being convinced?
The answer is: There is no such 15-minute explainer video. There is no such serious research. They don’t exist because, for some reason, there are no Jews or Zionist Christians, who think it’s their job to produce such things. Or if there are people who think it’s their job, they haven’t circulated anything of the sort—to me or to anyone else in Washington who’s in a position to do anything with it.
This is an extremely high level of incompetence by the entire anti-Semitism-industrial complex, some of whose representatives are sitting right here in this room. Maybe some of you think you were persuasively “fighting anti-Semitism” over the last six months. But the unfortunate truth is that you weren’t.

V. Jews and the Republican Party
Let’s go back to the question of how well-positioned Jews and Zionist Christians are to have a say in the Republican party today. Right now, the party is divided into three distinct factions:
First, there’s what I’ll call the liberal wing of the Republican party, which is led by figures such as Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, Ted Cruz. This liberal wing once dominated the party. But since 2016, it’s been shrinking, and it’s unlikely that a candidate with liberal-Republican views would win the support of more than 25 percent of the party’s primary voters today.
Second, there’s the nationalist wing of the Republican party, as represented by President Trump, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth. This camp is distinguished from liberal Republicans by its support for an industrial policy to restore America’s manufacturing capabilities, its outspoken rejection of compromise on immigration issues, and its skepticism of long foreign wars. The nationalist camp today represents the great majority in the Republican party, with a likely vote-share of 65 percent or more in a contested primary.
Finally, there’s the alt-right(or “alternative right”), which was mostly a fringe phenomenon until 2023, when big-name media figures Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens moved into this space. Still, it’s unlikely that more than 10 percent of Republican voters would support a presidential candidate with alt-right views.
As you know, liberal Republicans are very supportive of Jews, Judaism, and Israel these days, whereas the alt-right is strongly anti-Semitic.
That leaves the nationalist wing, which has been pretty quiet on these issues over the last six months, leaving the whole, noisy shooting match to be fought out between the liberal wing of the party and the alt-right. So it’s been Mark Levin or Ted Cruz, for example, dishing it out and taking it from Tucker Carlson—week after week, month after month.

VI. Jews and Nationalist Republicans
However, the struggle for the soul of the Republican party is not taking place in these overheated, firing-squad-style, online confrontations between the liberal Republicans and the alt-right.
The actual battle over the future of Jews in the Republican party is taking place where the majority is: Within the big nationalist camp at the center of the party.
Many Jews, including some Israelis, mistake the online fights for political reality. So you get all these Jews jumping on the bandwagon and amplifying the rhetoric and arguments coming out of the liberal Republican camp. They think that by retweeting Mark Levin, they’re somehow “fighting anti-Semitism.”
But they aren’t doing anything of the kind. That’s because most nationalist Republicans aren’t too inclined to trust the arguments and rhetoric of the liberal camp on very many issues, including this one. In fact, most nationalist Republicans still remember how liberals spent eight years falsely accusing President Trump of anti-Semitism. So it’s not surprising that they find the overheated rhetoric coming out of the liberal camp on the subject of anti-Semitism to be bellicose, alarmist, and unconvincing.
For example, most nationalist Republicans don’t think America today is anything like 1930s Germany. They don’t see any Nazi party in America poised on the threshold of victory. And for that reason, they don’t jump to deplore the agitprop of right-wing podcasters the way liberal Republicans want them to. And when they don’t, this drives liberal Republicans—both Jews and non-Jews—to start misbehaving. They start lashing out at the nationalists, and accusing them of being anti-Semites, or of protecting anti-Semites, or of protecting Nazis, or of being Nazis.
I’ve heard all of this with my own ears. It’s a disgrace. And if the goal is to persuade Trump’s nationalists to build an alliance with Jews on these and other issues, it is also counter-productive.

VII. Political Stupidity of the Jews
In June 1999, I invited Irving Kristol to deliver a public lecture in Jerusalem. His topic was “The Political Stupidity of the Jews.”[4]His thesis was that because Jews don’t have a living tradition of thinking about political power, we tend to respond to political situations by pronouncing moral judgments—as if pronouncing moral judgments in an agitated way was going to win us friends in high places.
What we’ve seen over the last six months is a textbook case of the same “political stupidity of the Jews” that Kristol described. It’s clear who is in charge of the Republican party: The nationalists are in charge. And they may be for a generation or more.
Given this fact, what would Jews and Zionist Christians be doing right now if they were thinking politically, and were willing to “fight anti-Semitism” using political means?
In short, what would Mordechai and Esther do?

1. They’d be doing everything they can to understand how nationalist Republicans think, what they care about and what’s important to them.
2. They’d be looking for ways in which Jewish interests can be the basis for common ground with nationalist Republicans.
3. They’d be looking for ways to build bridges and friendships and rock solid, mutually beneficial alliances with nationalist Republicans.

But that simply not what’s been happening.
Mostly what Jews and Zionist Christians have been doing for the past six months is sitting outside the nationalist camp—looking at it from a distance, through the distorting medium of tendentious leaks and conspiracy theories, which certain liberal publications regularly publish with the aim of hurting the Republican party as much as they can.
It’s absurd, but a lot of Jewish Republicans and Israeli Likudniks buy into this rubbish. Why? Because it’s a lot easier to believe whatever you read in Jewish Insider—thereby allowing yourself to become a tool in the hands of the left—than it is to do the difficult political work of opening doors and building bridges to the American nationalist camp.
What would you find if you actually invested the time and effort, and opened those doors? Mostly, you’d discover that nationalist Republicans are not anti-Semites. That they are strongly committed to having Jews in their coalition. That they would like to have closer relations with the Jewish community. That many of them see Israel as an inspiration and wish America were more like Israel. In short, you’d discover that most of them are potential friends and allies.
And you’d discover that nearly all them are mystified as to why so many Jews and Zionist Christians invest so much time and energy in attacking them—instead of trying to build strong friendships with them.

VIII. An Opportunity to Build Bridges
At this point, we know that much of what was done in the name of “fighting anti-Semitism” in America over the last 50 years was a complete failure. None of it prevented the takeover of the Democratic party by anti-Jewish movements. None of it appears to be helping in the present battle over the place of Jews in the Republican party either.
But the good news is that the future relationship between nationalist Republicans and Jews hasn’t been decided yet. To a significant degree, it’s up for grabs. Which means we are looking at a truly historic opportunity: The opportunity to build bridges and a potentially solid alliance with the dominant nationalist camp in the Republican party, which could stand for a generation or more.
Finding common ground with nationalist Republicans is the most important thing we could be doing to actually “fight anti-Semitism.” And if we do that well, then maybe we have a shot at pushing anti-Semitism back into the embarrassing irrelevance it deserves.

Gemini says: Yoram Hazony’s speech provides a textbook map of Alliance Theory in action. He describes a political landscape not as a debate over ideas, but as a high-stakes struggle for coalition maintenance. Using your framework, here is how the speech breaks down:

1. The Realignment of the “Alliance Hubs”
Hazony identifies three distinct hubs within the Republican Party: the shrinking Liberal Wing (Graham, Cruz), the dominant Nationalist Wing (Trump, Vance), and the emerging Alt-Right (Carlson, Owens).

From an Alliance Theory perspective, the Liberal Wing’s “cardinal sin” is its failure to maintain its status as the gatekeeper. They are lashing out at the Nationalists—calling them Nazis or enablers—because they have lost their ability to enforce coalition boundaries. Hazony views this as “political stupidity” because it ignores the blunt reality of power: the Nationalists are the new center. By attacking the center, the Liberal Wing is effectively exiling itself from the very alliance it hopes to lead.

2. Tucker Carlson as a “Rival Legitimation” Source
The speech frames Tucker Carlson not merely as a podcaster, but as a rival alliance builder. By hosting figures like Nick Fuentes or Darryl Cooper, Carlson is signaling to a different constituency.

Hazony notes that Carlson’s White House lunch on January 16, 2026, was a “choreographed” event. In Alliance Theory terms, this was alliance signaling. By photographing Carlson with Marco Rubio and Susie Wiles, the administration was attempting to “domesticate” Carlson—bringing him back into the tent to prevent a fracture before the midterms. Carlson’s subsequent disavowal of anti-Semitism on January 19 was the “price of admission” to remain a partner in good standing.

3. Selective Skepticism and Evidence Standards
Hazony’s most biting critique of his own “in-group” is their incompetence in coalition defense. He points out that while Jewish and Christian Zionist groups claim Carlson is a promoter of anti-Semitism, they have failed to produce a “15-minute explainer video” or “carefully assembled research.”

In Alliance Theory, claims are only as good as their ability to persuade the hub. If the Nationalists (the hub) don’t spend time on podcasts, they treat the Liberal Wing’s outcries as “alarmist noise” from a rival faction. Hazony argues that the “anti-Semitism-industrial complex” is failing because it relies on moral posturing rather than strategic coordination. They are acting like truth-seekers in a world that only responds to coalition reliability.

4. The Path Forward: Bridge Building as Survival
The conclusion of the speech is a pure Alliance Theory prescription. Hazony argues that Jews and Zionist Christians must stop “sitting outside the nationalist camp” and looking through the “distorting medium” of legacy media leaks.

Instead, he calls for:

Common Ground: Finding where Jewish interests align with Nationalist goals (industrial policy, skepticism of foreign wars).

Friendship as Infrastructure: Building “rock solid, mutually beneficial alliances” to ensure survival within the new dominant group.

Hazony is essentially telling his audience to stop being “pious” and start being “political.” If they do not integrate into the Nationalist alliance hub, they will be outcompeted by the Alt-Right hub, which is already working to delegitimize them.

History provides a brutal, recurring lesson on how gentile nationalisms affect Jews: the “national home” for the majority often becomes a “waiting room” for the minority. Using the lens of Alliance Theory, gentile nationalism is the ultimate act of exclusive coalition building. It defines the nation as a closed alliance based on shared blood, language, or history—a definition that, by its very nature, classifies the Jew as a “perpetual guest” or a “foreign element.”

The “Guest” Problem and the End of Toleration

In the pre-modern era, Jews lived under “toleration,” a transactional relationship where they were protected as long as they were useful to the monarch or the ruling class. Nationalism destroyed this arrangement. As 19th-century Europe shifted from dynastic empires to nation-states, the source of legitimacy moved from the King to “The People.”

If “The People” are defined as ethnically German, French, or Russian, the Jew suddenly lacks the credentials for membership. History shows that when these gentile nationalisms strengthen their internal bonds, they almost always do so by clarifying their “enemy” distinctions. The Hep-Hep riots of 1819 in Germany and the later Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were not just random acts of hate; they were boundary-maintenance rituals. They served to signal to the gentile majority who truly belonged to the national alliance and who was a “parasitic” outsider.

The Double-Bind of Emancipation

The period of Jewish Emancipation (roughly 1800–1914) created a paradox. In exchange for civil rights, nationalisms often demanded “total assimilation.” This was a “status closure” trap. If Jews assimilated, they were accused of “infiltrating” and “corrupting” the national culture (the völkisch critique). If they remained distinct, they were accused of “clannishness” and “dual loyalty.”

History teaches that gentile nationalism rarely accepts the Jew as an “individual.” Instead, it treats the Jew as a representative of a rival global coalition. Whether as the “international financier” of the Right or the “rootless cosmopolitan” of the Left, the Jew is framed as the one actor whose alliances transcend the sacred national borders. This makes the Jewish community the first target when the national alliance feels under stress or perceives its sovereignty is being eroded by “global” forces.

The Zionist Realization

The most significant historical response to this pattern was Zionism itself. Figures like Leon Pinsker and Theodor Herzl looked at the rise of modern nationalism and reached a grim, Alliance Theory conclusion: Integration is a social fiction. They argued that as long as Jews are a minority within someone else’s national alliance, their safety is purely conditional. They are “tenants” whose lease can be canceled by the “landlord” at any time. Herzl’s insight was that anti-Semitism is a permanent feature of gentile nationalism because a nation needs an “other” to define itself. This led to the “normalization” strategy—the belief that the only way for Jews to survive a world of nationalisms was to build a nationalist alliance of their own.

As Yoram Hazony argues today, this history suggests that Jews have two choices when facing gentile nationalism:

The Bridge-Building Strategy: Seeking a “mutually beneficial alliance” with the dominant nationalist group by demonstrating shared interests (e.g., opposition to neo-Marxism).

The Sovereign Strategy: Maintaining a distinct national power (Israel) that does not depend on the “toleration” of others.

History suggests that without one of these two forms of strategic coordination, the Jew remains the “out-group” of choice whenever a gentile nation decides to close its ranks.

Do Jews have an instinctive wariness of gentile nationalisms? The wariness is less an instinct and more a learned historical defense mechanism. Jews have lived as a permanent minority for two millennia, often under a status of “toleration” that could be revoked at any moment. Gentile nationalism, by its nature, seeks to close the group and define the “true” member of the nation. For a Jew, that closing almost always means being cast as the outsider.

The 19th century made this clear through the failure of emancipation. When nations like France and Germany shifted from monarchies to nationalisms, they offered Jews rights on the condition of total assimilation. The deal was simple: “To the Jews as a nation, nothing; to the Jews as individuals, everything.” But this was a trap. Even when Jews assimilated, the nationalist majority often viewed their success as a “clannish” infiltration of the national culture.

Alliance Theory helps explain the specific fear of the “hidden alliance” accusation. Because Jews maintain connections with other Jews globally, they are easily framed by nationalists as a “fifth column” with dual loyalties. This is the “rootless cosmopolitan” slur. In a world where you must choose a side, the person who appears to have ties beyond the border is viewed as an existential threat to the coalition.

This explains why many Jews gravitated toward liberal universalism. Liberalism promises a world where identity is private and the state is neutral. It offers a larger, more open alliance that doesn’t require “blood and soil” credentials. However, as Yoram Hazony argues, this can be an illusion. If the liberal order fails, the minority is left without a protector.

The Zionist movement was the ultimate realization of this wariness. It took the logic of gentile nationalism and applied it to Jews. If every other group is forming a nationalist alliance to protect their own, Jews should do the same. This was a shift from seeking “toleration” in someone else’s hub to building a hub of their own.

For most American Jews, they are American first and Jewish second, and the proof is they choose to reside in America and not in the Jewish state.

Choosing America over Israel is the ultimate signal of where most American Jews find their primary alliance. For over a century, the United States has served as the most successful and hospitable “alliance hub” in Jewish history. By remaining in America, they affirm a social contract that values individual citizenship and economic opportunity over the ethnic-nationalist mission of the Jewish state.

Recent data supports this “American first” priority. While roughly 70 percent of American Jews report an emotional attachment to Israel, only a tiny fraction—well under one percent annually—actually chooses to make Aliyah. This reveals a clear hierarchy of needs. The security, standard of living, and cultural integration of the American alliance outweigh the ideological pull of the sovereign Jewish homeland.

In terms of Alliance Theory, this choice creates two distinct modes of Jewish existence:

The American Mode: This is an alliance based on liberal universalism. Jews in America succeed by being reliable members of professional, political, and social coalitions that are not explicitly Jewish. They depend on the stability of the American legal system and the “melting pot” social contract.

The Israeli Mode: This is an alliance based on particularism. It is a closed-loop system where the state exists specifically to protect and promote the Jewish people as a collective.

The friction you see today—especially between younger American Jews and the Israeli government—stems from these colliding incentives. Most American Jews are deeply embedded in coalitions (universities, corporations, the Democratic Party) that view ethnic nationalism with suspicion. To maintain status within these American circles, many Jews now feel pressured to distance themselves from Israeli policy. As of early 2026, polls show that while a majority of American Jews still identify as Zionists, over half express low confidence in the Israeli leadership.

Choosing to reside in America is a vote for the “American model” of identity, where being Jewish is one of many social roles rather than the defining political fact. This residency is the proof that, for the vast majority, the benefits of the American alliance remain far more compelling than the call of the sovereign one.

Jews who identify as American nationalists are increasingly framing their position as a “civilizational alliance.” They reject the idea that Jewish identity and American nationalism are in conflict. Instead, they argue that the survival of the West depends on a “grand Jewish-Christian alliance” rooted in shared biblical values.

Prominent voices like Josh Hammer argue that the American experiment is a “biblically rooted balancing act” modeled after the covenant at Sinai. In this framework, the United States is not just a place of residence; it is a “covenantal twin” to Israel. They explain their nationalism as a defense against three specific “hegemonies”: radical Islamism, “wokeism,” and global neoliberalism. For these individuals, being an American nationalist is a way to protect the “Judeo-Christian” foundations that allow Jewish life to thrive in the first place.

From an Alliance Theory perspective, these nationalists are performing several key strategic moves:

Civilizational Friend-Enemy Distinction: They frame the “enemy” not as the gentile majority, but as external threats like “globalism” or internal threats like “neo-Marxism.” This allows them to build a high-status alliance with the dominant “Nationalist Wing” of the Republican Party.

The “Maccabean” Identity: They use historical parallels—like the Maccabees fighting the Seleucid-Greeks—to argue that Jews must be “authentic and proud” participants in the nationalist struggle. They explain that “when the ultimate target is Christendom, the Jews will always be the first ones in the crosshairs,” so an alliance with Christians is a matter of mutual survival.

Normalization through Sovereignty: They argue that Israel’s success as a nationalist state provides a blueprint for America. Figures like David Rubin suggest that America should learn from Israel’s “authenticity” and its rejection of “universalist” ideologies that erode national identity.

This group often faces intense criticism from “Liberal Hub” Jews who see nationalism as an inherent threat to minorities. The nationalist Jews respond by claiming that the “Liberal Hub” has already betrayed the community by making peace with anti-Zionist factions on the left. They position themselves as the “intellectually grounded minority” willing to bear the social cost of an alliance with the MAGA movement.

For them, the choice is simple: either you join the dominant nationalist coalition that respects your civilizational roots, or you remain a “homeless” liberal in a coalition that is increasingly hostile to Jewish power.

Jewish nationalism, or Zionism, created deep tensions for gentiles precisely because it challenged the “universalist” social contract that many western nations used to integrate their Jewish minorities. Through the lens of Alliance Theory, Zionism was a pivot from seeking membership in a gentile alliance to building an independent, sovereign one.

The Collapse of the “Universalist” Deal

In the 19th century, liberal gentile nations offered Jews a specific trade: legal equality in exchange for the dissolution of Jewish communal autonomy. The motto was “everything to the Jews as individuals, nothing as a nation.” This was an attempt to merge Jews into a single, unified national alliance hub.

Zionism essentially rejected this deal. By asserting that Jews were a distinct nation with a right to their own land, Zionist leaders like Theodor Herzl signaled that the “assimilation” project had failed. For gentiles who believed in a singular national identity, this felt like a “breach of contract.” It suggested that Jews would always maintain a “hidden” or secondary alliance that superseded their loyalty to the gentile state.

The “Dual Loyalty” Friction

The most persistent tension for gentiles is the problem of “dual loyalty.” From an alliance perspective, a state requires its citizens to prioritize the national hub above all others. Zionism created a rival hub. When American or British Jews advocated for a Jewish state, gentile nationalists viewed this as a “fifth column” maneuver—the use of domestic political power to benefit a foreign entity.

This tension is not just about anti-Semitism; it is about the mechanics of coalition defense. If a group within your alliance appears to be coordinating with an outside power, the internal trust of the coalition degrades. This explains why even philosemitic gentiles, like some British imperialists, were wary; they feared that Zionism would drag their own national alliances into conflicts (like those in the Middle East) that did not serve the majority’s interests.

The Problem of “Normalization”

Zionism sought to “normalize” the Jews by making them “a nation like all other nations.” However, for many gentiles, this was a paradox. They had spent centuries viewing Jews as a religious or “cosmopolitan” minority. Seeing Jews adopt the “blood and soil” language of European nationalism was jarring.

In the eyes of some gentile elites, Jewish nationalism was “too successful.” By building a highly disciplined, technologically advanced, and militarily capable state, Zionism created a new power center that gentile coalitions now had to negotiate with as an equal, rather than manage as a protected minority. This shifted the relationship from one of “toleration” (high status for the gentile, low for the Jew) to “competition” (rival nationalist hubs), which inherently increases friction.

The Christian Zionist “Counter-Alliance”

Interestingly, Zionism also created a unique positive tension through Christian Zionism. Some gentile groups—specifically evangelical Christians—saw Jewish nationalism not as a threat, but as a “theological alignment.” They formed a “triple alliance” (as some historians call it) between Jewish Zionists, Christian Zionists, and conservative nationalists.

This created a different kind of tension: it fractured the gentile majority itself. Secular or liberal gentiles often resent this alliance because it brings “biblical” priorities into national policy, while nationalist gentiles who don’t share these religious views see it as a distraction from “America First” or “Britain First” goals.

Today, Jewish nationalism (Zionism) creates tension for gentiles by acting as a “litmus test” that forces them to choose between competing alliance hubs. In early 2026, we see this tension fracturing both the political Left and the political Right, but for different reasons.

The Conflict of Universalism (The Left)

On the Left, the tension arises from the clash between liberal universalism and Jewish particularism. Most elite institutions (universities, NGOs, the legacy press) are organized around the idea that ethnic nationalism is a primitive or “oppressive” force. In this alliance hub, moral status is granted to those who align with universal human rights and decolonization narratives.

Zionism is a direct challenge to this hub because it asserts that a specific people has a unique, sovereign right to a specific piece of land. For many young gentiles in these circles, supporting Israel feels like a betrayal of their coalition’s core values. This is why you see such vitriol on campuses; it is not just a policy disagreement, but a fight over the boundaries of the “progressive” alliance. To remain a member in good standing, many now feel they must cast Zionism as an “exclusionary” ideology.

The Problem of Consistent Nationalism (The Right)

On the Right, the tension is different. It is a struggle between civilizational nationalists and isolationist populists.

Civilizational Nationalists (like the “Nationalist Wing” of the GOP) see Israel as a vital ally in a shared struggle against radical Islam and globalism. They view the Jewish state as a blueprint for a healthy, border-defending nation.

Isolationist Populists (the “Alt-Right” faction Hazony mentions) see Zionism as a foreign entanglement. Their “America First” logic is strictly inward-looking. To them, any alliance that requires billions in aid or risks military involvement for another nation’s security is a “hidden alliance” that subverts the primary national interest.

The Theological Fracture (The Church)

We also see a sharp new tension within Christianity. In January 2026, the Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem issued a joint statement labeling “Christian Zionism” a “damaging ideology.” This has created a “civil war” among gentile believers:

Traditionalists (Catholic and Orthodox) view Jewish sovereignty as a threat to the Christian presence in the Middle East and a violation of “supersessionist” theology.

Evangelicals (Protestant Zionists) view the restoration of Israel as a non-negotiable biblical truth.

For the gentile observer, Zionism is no longer a distant foreign policy issue. It is a wedge that forces them to decide whether their primary alliance is with a global “decolonization” movement, a specific theological tradition, or a nationalistic “civilizational” front. As Hazony notes, the middle ground is disappearing, and the tension is the sound of the old alliances being torn apart.

LF: TabletMag responded to Yoram Hazony:

Tucker Carlson could goose-step down Pennsylvania Avenue butt-naked with a swastika carved into his forehead and it would be the fault of “the anti-semitism industrial complex” for not making the case “clear enough” to “Republican nationalists.”

A person with an ounce of either humility or caution in their nature would have realized by this point that the fault doesn’t lie with the Jews for being targeted by political arsonists. It lies with those people themselves, and with those who have given them political and intellectual cover, yourself included. Your version of blood and soil nationalism is rooted in Europe and not in America. You manifestly fail to understand the uniqueness of the American religious and political tradition, because you are emotionally and intellectually rooted in Europe and not here.

Moreover, your lack of feeling for our history and tradition has led you to make alliances that are intellectually bankrupt and politically stupid. You do not understand American Christianity, and as a result you reflexively marginalize the Protestant majority that created this country and the Enlightenment traditions that it embraced with epithets like “Christian Zionism” while promoting rancid European ideas in place of our actual history and traditions. The result of your imported foreign politics will be electoral failure — whether that failure comes with the defeat of your chosen faction within the Republican party or else the catastrophic electoral defeat of a political party led by Tucker Carlson and his creepy allies.

You owe American Jews and our friends and allies in this country an apology for helping to nurture a political faction that openly despises both us and the religious and political culture that made this country great, not more self-important lectures.

Gemini says: Tablet Magazine’s response to Yoram Hazony is a textbook example of a boundary-maintenance ritual within Alliance Theory. While Hazony is arguing for a strategic “merger” with the new nationalist center, Tablet is sounding the alarm that this merger requires the sacrifice of the Jewish community’s core status and safety.

1. The Betrayal of the “American Hub”

Tablet’s primary charge is that Hazony is an “outsider” who fails to understand the specific American alliance hub. In Alliance Theory, a coalition is held together by shared myths and traditions. Tablet argues that American Jews are embedded in a tradition of Enlightenment liberalism and Protestant pluralism.

By contrast, they frame Hazony’s “blood and soil” nationalism as a foreign (European) import that is fundamentally incompatible with the American social contract. From Tablet’s perspective, Hazony is not building a bridge; he is trying to replace a functioning, protective American alliance with a “rancid” European model that historically ends in Jewish exclusion.

2. The Refusal of “Victim-Blaming” Coordination

Hazony’s speech criticized the “anti-Semitism industrial complex” for failing to be persuasive to the Nationalist wing. Tablet identifies this as a form of forced coordination. Hazony is essentially saying: If the Nationalists don’t like you, it’s because you aren’t signaling your value to them correctly.

Tablet rejects this incentive structure entirely. In their view, Hazony is providing “intellectual cover” for a group (Tucker Carlson and his allies) that acts as “political arsonists.” By demanding that Jews provide better “explainer videos” to justify their own safety, Hazony is shifting the burden of alliance maintenance from the aggressor to the victim. Tablet sees this as “politically stupid” because it signals weakness to the very people Hazony is trying to court.

3. The Threat of “Status Closure”

Tablet identifies a move toward status closure on the Right. They argue that Hazony is helping to nurture a faction that “openly despises” Jews. In an alliance, when one partner begins to despise another, the alliance is no longer a partnership; it is a host-parasite relationship.

Tablet’s response serves to:

Clarify the Friend-Enemy Distinction: They are naming Carlson and his “creepy allies” as the enemy, refusing the “normalization” that Hazony’s White House photo-op lunch provided.

Predict Electoral Failure: They argue that Hazony’s chosen alliance is “intellectually bankrupt” and will lead to a catastrophic defeat. This is a threat to the Nationalists: If you choose Carlson’s hub over the traditional Jewish-Protestant hub, you will lose power.

4. Particularism vs. Universalism (Again)

Hazony wants Jews to be “Nationalist First.” Tablet is arguing that Jews are “American First” specifically because the American tradition is a universalist alliance that protects minorities. By marginalizing the “Protestant majority” and the “Enlightenment traditions,” Hazony is destroying the very infrastructure that made America a safe harbor.

Tablet’s demand for an apology is a demand for Hazony to recognize that his strategic coordination with the Alt-Right has compromised the safety of the broader Jewish coalition. They are effectively excommunicating Hazony from the “respectable” American Jewish alliance for being a “reliable member” of a rival, hostile hub.