In a remark that has sent shockwaves through the American right, influential MAGA commentator Charlie Kirk has ignited a political inferno by accusing the Israeli government of "murdering" its own citizens during the Hamas-led 7 October attacks.
The incendiary claim, made on his podcast, has drawn a swift and severe condemnation from the highest levels of the Israeli government, threatening to fracture the traditionally staunch alliance between Trump's base and the state of Israel.
A Furious Response from Jerusalem
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued a blistering retort, branding Kirk's comments "absurd and disgraceful". The official statement from Jerusalem vehemently rejected the accusation, a rare public dressing-down aimed at a key figure in conservative American media.
The backlash underscores the intense sensitivity surrounding the events of 7 October and the unwavering official Israeli stance on the matter. The episode marks a significant moment where the normally solid pro-Israel consensus within the Republican party shows visible cracks.
The Divisive Comment That Started It All
Kirk's controversy stems from his analysis of the Hamas assault, during which he suggested, without providing concrete evidence, that Israeli forces were responsible for the deaths of some of its own people in the chaotic crossfire. This theory, often relegated to the furthest fringes of discourse, is now causing a mainstream firestorm due to Kirk's substantial platform.
His comments have placed other MAGA-aligned figures in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between unwavering support for Israel and loyalty to a powerful voice within their own movement. The incident reveals a growing tension between the Trump world's America-first nationalism and its longstanding support for key international allies.
A Rift in the MAGA Universe
This is not the first time Kirk has courted controversy with his views on Israel. He has previously criticised the level of US aid sent to the country, framing it through a populist, domestic-focused lens. This latest outburst, however, represents a dramatic escalation that many see as crossing a red line.
The fallout presents a major test for the movement's cohesion and highlights a potential shift in the foreign policy priorities of a significant segment of the American right, moving away from traditional hawkish interventionism towards a more insular outlook.
