Joe Kent, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned on March 17 in an act of protest over the war in Iran. Kent self-identifies as a proponent of the America First ideology. He claimed in a letter posted on X that Israel deceived President Donald Trump into believing that war with Iran was necessary. Trump has said the war in Iran was his choice alone.
Before praising Kent’s actions, it should be noted that his resignation reveals a stark divide within the Republican Party, which has pitted America First advocates against those who believe the U.S. should offer uncompromising support to Israel. Kent’s resignation highlights fault lines that threaten to fracture the Republican Party and the evangelical voting bloc.
In a February interview between right-wing YouTuber Tucker Carlson and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, this tension was on full display. Both Carlson and Huckabee are deeply conservative, but there is one issue where the two drastically diverge: Israel.
On one side was Carlson, a Christian and an America First acolyte. The America First movement can be described as an ideology that prioritizes American interests over the interests of any other nation. On the other side was Huckabee, a Christian Zionist and Southern Baptist minister. Christian Zionists believe that the state of Israel has a divine right to possess the land, based on a popularized and decontextualized reading of God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15. While both men generally adhere to conservative principles, their disagreement on Israel’s role in American politics exposes the growing civil war within the Republican Party.
In one revealing exchange, Carlson asks Huckabee, as a Christian minister, how he responds to the deaths of Christian Palestinians and children in Gaza. Huckabee, while conceding that many Christians were victims and that thousands of children had been killed, quickly pivots back to the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks and ultimately places the blame for civilian deaths on Hamas. In defending Israel’s actions in Gaza, Huckabee insisted that Israel’s treatment of civilians was more humane and superior to that of any other country, implying that Israel was more conscientious of civilian casualties than even the U.S. This prompted Carlson to ask whether Huckabee’s true allegiance was to Israel or the U.S. While Carlson and Huckabee may differ their support for Israel, both men embrace a political theology that is based on exclusivism and violence.
In The Violent Take It By Force, Matthew Taylor warns of the imminent dangers posed by theologies and ideologies of violence and nationalism. He reflects on the theologies and ideologies that led to the violent insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, which he calls a “crystallizing event.” Ultimately, Jan. 6 was “a turbulent microcosm that mirrored our embedded forms of extremism back to us. What had been subtext became text. What had been innuendo became a riot. The forcible discourse of spiritual violence tipped over into actual violence before our very eyes.”
Like Jan. 6, the “crystallizing event” of America First and Christian Zionism is already visible. America First peddles extreme antisemitism and conspiracy theories, leaving Jews across the world in peril. Christian Zionism, on the other hand, ignores or condones the killing of Palestinians, with many Christian Zionists believing that Christ’s return is connected to the state of Israel. For Christian Zionists, Jesus’ return will initiate the conversion of a remnant of Jews to Christianity, while those Jews who reject Christ will be eradicated. For both the America First and Christian Zionist crowds, the outcome is extremism and violence. But while the two ideologies converge here, they also diverge in significant ways.
A growing rift: America First
America First is a political ideology that typically argues the U.S. should prioritize its own interests over those of other nations. In practice, it often functions as “me first” politics. It can include proposals to end or drastically reduce foreign aid, including USAID, and to stop military aid to foreign countries, such as Israel.
This tension came into public view when Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes in October 2025, drawing criticism from fellow Republicans (Fuentes is a white nationalist and Holocaust denier). Although Carlson and Fuentes overlap in their criticism of Israel and Zionism, Fuentes’ posture is more overtly shaped by antisemitism. Right-wing opposition to Zionism is not new but has existed in various forms since at least the early 20th century. As researcher Ben Lorber noted for Jewish Currents in May 2024, this opposition began “when a prominent ‘Old Right’ coalition of Midwest conservatives, Southern Democrats, and libertarian intellectuals—known chiefly for its opposition to the New Deal and to US entry into World War II—combined America First isolationism and nativism with cultural conservatism and anti-Zionism.” The new fractures in the American right wing are deeply rooted disagreements emerging anew in the 21st century.
Another proponent of America First politics is conservative pundit Candace Owens. In 2024, Owens was forced out of the right-wing outlet The Daily Wire, for antisemitic comments and opposition to the U.S. supporting Israel’s war in Gaza. Owens has promoted several conspiracy theories, many of them antisemitic, such as falsely positing that Israel was behind 9/11 and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This idea—that Israel is in control of world events—also reflects how Kent understood the current war in Iran (Kent also suggested in an interview with Carlson in March that pro-Israel forces were behind Kirk’s assassination). Owens, in service of her own antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories, has criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza, as well as the U.S.-Israel war against Iran.
Even as these right wing figures posture themselves against the state of Israel, they often do so by utilizing Palestinian lives for their own political ends. As Lorber notes, “Apart from those who see Israel as a model and dream of ‘white Zionism,’ the white nationalist movement has long been mostly anti-Zionist, typically seeing Israel as a front for Jewish world domination.” When right-wing influencers like Carlson and Owens criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians or the war in Iran, it is appropriate to suspect they are doing so for their own political goals.
What makes this difficult to navigate is the concern for antisemitism and the ongoing discussion around our current definitions. The conversation and strategy for addressing Israel’s war crimes is complicated by bad-faith criticism on the Right and the prevailing definition of antisemitism, as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism has been adopted by 35 U.S. states. Writing for Jewish Currents in 2020, Lara Friedman, the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, observed that parts of the IHRA definition conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel and opposition to Zionism. “There exists today a veritable cottage industry of organizations dedicated to promoting the IHRA definition as a legally-mandated litmus test, designed to delegitimize if not criminalize criticism and activism on Israel, and especially boycotts.” This conflation is not only inaccurate but also harmful to Jews, since it can restrict their freedom to criticize the state of Israel when they believe such criticism is necessary.
A better definition of antisemitism can be found in the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which states, “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” The declaration further clarifies how critiquing the state of Israel and standing up for the dignity of Palestinians do not constitute antisemitism. So, while antisemitism is real and on the rise, not every critique of Israel should be treated as an antisemitic attack.
Christian Zionism
But for Christian Zionists, every critique of Israel is antisemitic. Christian Zionists hold sway over large voting blocs and powerful lobbying networks such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Christians United for Israel. AIPAC exists to strengthen the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and has recently implemented a strategy that focuses on ousting progressive candidates in favor of those aligned with its positions. However, with the catastrophe in Gaza and the declining support for the war in Iran, a number of high-profile Democrats have distanced themselves from the lobbying group. CUFI, another lobbyist organization, largely supports the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran because of intertwining religious and political commitments. For example, John Hagee, the founder of CUFI, gave a sermon in early March and declared that the war with Iran was part of God’s “divine plan.” If this is to be believed, then critiquing the U.S.-Israel war with Iran is to disobey God.
What ties this all together is the lobbying support from AIPAC and CUFI, which leads to concrete outcomes such as financial and political support for Israel. Israel is the largest recipient of foreign aid in total economic and military assistance since World War II. Adjusted for inflation, Israel has received $300 billion since 1946, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The “crystallizing event” of this support can be seen in the dehumanization of Palestinians, both in the U.S. and Israel. Christian Zionism acts as a religious justification for uncritical support of a modern nation-state, and even elevates the reverence for the state to the point of idolatry. This unwavering support enables grave abuses against Palestinians, including war crimes and ethnic cleansing. Approximately 75,200 Gazans have been killed, according to The Lancet Global Health journal; more than 83% of Gaza’s buildings have been damaged or destroyed. The material circumstances on the ground have spurred major human rights groups such as B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International to raise the alarm about Israel’s human rights violations.
READ MORE: Evangelical Support for Israel Is Fueled By Apocalyptic Hopes
Not only is Christian Zionism anti-Palestinian, but it is also antisemitic. This theological framework treats Jews as a means to an end—namely, ushering in Christ’s return. In modern Christian Zionist apocalyptic frameworks, the pretribulation period, or a time of conflict and upheaval that precedes Christ’s return, is when “Israel,” defined as the geopolitical state of Israel, will be “purged.” In this scheme, only a third of the total population survives as a remnant, while two-thirds perish, based on a decontextualized understanding of Zechariah 13:8-9. This “leftover” group or “remnant” then becomes the vehicle through which the return of Jesus is brought about.
So, as Christian Zionism and evangelicalism seek to create and sustain a strong alliance with Israel, much of their theological undercurrent ebbs and flows with apocalyptic rhetoric and harm toward others. Within this theological and moral horizon, Jews once again bear the brunt of a violent and dangerous ideology.
A better proposal
So much of our current religious and political discourse is trapped in false binaries. As writer David Katibah noted for Sojourners in July 2025, Palestinian dignity and opposition to antisemitism are of one piece. We can and should uphold the dignity of all people while resisting every form of dehumanizing rhetoric.
Yet that task is not simple. As philosopher Elad Lapidot observed in a conversation with Jewish Currents, the present moment exposes a deep paradox. Actions such as war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, along with right-wing anti-immigrant politics and restrictions on free speech carried out in the name of combating antisemitism, can reproduce antisemitic dynamics. For instance, when Jewish students stand up for Palestinian dignity, the current administration tries to label them antisemitic, ultimately perpetuating the exclusion that these policies are supposedly meant to combat.
For Lapidot, the solution is not to abandon Judaism but to transform it from the inside. He argues that the path forward “involves changing Judaism or insisting on what Judaism should be: a Judaism that is not the ideology of oppressive state power, but aligned with those subjected to it.” I think the same insight must be applied to Christianity. We must do the difficult work of transcending simplistic narratives and spotlight the parts of our traditions that confront harmful systems of injustice and stand for the dignity of all.
The ideologies of America First and Christian Zionism are ultimately tethered to acts of violence against immigrants, Palestinians, Iranians, and Jews. The deterioration between these factions makes it clear that both movements are fundamentally shaped by injustice.
For Christians who are dissatisfied with both camps but have genuine concerns about how Palestinians are being treated, I want to invite you to imagine an alternative that seeks to bring people to the table rather than accepting war, violence, and destruction as inevitable. This vision can be found in the work of Jewish and Palestinian liberation theology. These theologies seek the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6) for everyone—Jews and Palestinians alike—and centers the words of Jesus in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). A better path becomes possible when human dignity is centered, when the lives of our neighbors are cherished, and when justice is pursued in our common life.
Rubin James Yi McClain is an opinion writer for the 2026 Sojourners Journalism Cohort.
| | Rest that Your Soul Has Been Craving The new book Light for the Way brings together 50 years of wisdom from Sojourners magazine on how contemplation, rest, and community fuel justice work. With voices like Julia Alvarez, Walter Brueggemann, and Richard Rohr, this is your guide to sustaining prophetic resistance. Action Alert: No War With Iran! Contact Congress now to demand peace and an end to the war with Iran. As Christians we know that each and every life is precious and every step must be taken to avoid bloodshed. Instead of recklessly pursuing a policy of escalation, we demand an end to violence and vigorous oversight from Congress in pursuit of peace. | | |
|
