Correction — September 9, 2026: An earlier version of this post swapped the names the wrong way. The intended thought experiment replaced the name Tucker Carlson with Adolf Hitler. The text below has been corrected.
At
the September 3 White House briefing, Kerry Picket of the Washington Times
asked JD Vance about his friendship with Tucker Carlson, who has called for the
president’s impeachment and uses his platform to spread vile smears against the
Jewish people and hateful rhetoric about Israel. Instead of disavowing that
friendship—which the Jews and most of the GOP keep hoping he’ll do—he doubled
down. Friendships (apparently even with despicable antisemites), the VP says,
shouldn’t bend to politics.
“I’m
not going to play the game where I throw friends under the bus because I have
political disagreements with them.”
Because
loyalty, Vance says, is what holds the republic together.
It
sounds good: loyalty and friendships binding the nation together. But let’s run
a thought experiment with the briefing transcript. Let’s qualify the kind of
company this man Vance keeps and swap the name “Tucker Carlson” with “Hitler.”
Would
JD’s loyalty to a friend with that name help America, or hurt it?
And
if JD Vance becomes president, will his friendship with an antisemite make
things better for Americans—or worse?
What
do you think?
***
Kerry Picket: Vice President, Adolf Hitler has called for the president's impeachment, and many accuse him of trying to jeopardize U.S.-Israel relations. What do you say to those who are uneasy with your close relationship with Hitler and claim that you're avoiding addressing a lot of these issues, which may be causing divisions within the GOP?
JD Vance: Well, look, I'm not avoiding addressing anything. Everybody knows that Adolf Hitler and I are friends. And I think it's very obvious that Hitler has said some things that I disagree with. He said some things about the president of the United States that I think are just wrong . . .
. . . And I remember when I became the vice presidential nominee, one of the hardest things for me personally is not when people attacked me, but when people attacked my wife, including friends of hers who knew her heart, who knew what a good person she was. And I remember thinking to myself, what a travesty it is that in the United States of America, we let political disagreements define who our friends are going to be and not going to be. So yeah, Hitler is a friend of mine.
Hitler is a friend, despite the fact that we disagree on a number of things. And I'm not going to play the game where I throw Nazi friends under the bus because I have political disagreements with them. I think that is a terrible place for the United States to go. And if you have a disagreement with a Nazi friend politically, even over a deeply held issue, you should still be friends with that Nazi person, because the whole republic depends on people of different perspectives being able to talk to one another.
That's how I try to live my life, and I encourage everybody else to do the same. All right. Let's -- let's go -- let's go to, um --
JD has a weird thing going on with his dog Tucker Carlson/Youube
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
I started out writing something totally different, tonight.
Something about the dangers of a Vance presidency considering his arrogant comments at
TPUSA. The things the vice president said bear out my belief that JD Vance is not just an
isolationist, but a hater as well. In fact, the isolationism may only be cover for his true feelings about Jews. Who knows? But according to JD Vance, I am definitely allowed to say these things. As an American.
As I looked at all that wealth of information relating to hate among conservatives, I happened on a debate between Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan about whether Israel qualifies as an "ally." I was appalled and nauseated by both men.
I created a transcript of their debate when I couldn't find a good one online. I am sharing it here for the benefit of those, who like me, prefer text, having no patience with video. I read fast, and would far rather read a transcript then space out as two arrogant men pontificate. Perhaps some of my readers share my preference for text.
But first a few (okay, so not a few) prefatory comments.
I called it right when I was taken aback by Vance’s reaction to a motion to declare sovereignty in Judea and Samaria coming before
the Knesset just as Vance’s plane was arriving at Lod Airport. When asked by a
reporter how the vice president felt about that, he said that it was weird and insulting.
Not long after that, there was a bit of a ruckus on X when it was discovered that JD's assistant is Buckley Carlson, none other than the
son of Tucker Carlson. This, we are made to believe, is perfectly normal. Besides, said Vance, we have no right to judge the son
according to the father. He was disgusted by any suggestions to the contrary.
Sloan Rachmuth is a "journalist" who has decided to obsessively attack a staffer in his 20s because she doesn't like the views of his father.
Every time I see a public attack on Buckley it's a complete lie. And yes, I notice ever person with an agenda who unfairly attacks a… https://t.co/bjFVuM2yBI
But while we aren't free to say what we think, Vance is. Tucker is his friend. It's okay to listen to
his hate speech and conspiracy theories. Which makes me wonder if Vance thinks that, in theory, it would be okay to laugh
at the victims of Bondi Beach or to listen to someone laugh at that, as if that were a totally normal thing to do. Nothing worthy of remark. Because freedom.
This would, after all, be the perfect application of Tucker
Carlson’s "principles" as outlined by Carlson and Piers Morgan, in their February
2025 debate.
Just now at TPUSA, we had an opportunity to see how people are lining up. We heard things like, “We can have a
conversation about that.”
What does it mean to JD Vance, Candace Owens, Megyn
Kelly, Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, to have a "conversation?" It means they
are permitted to hate Israel and the Jews—and that it is their right as Americans to
express that hate openly—even in hearing of little children, if they wish.
Commenting on the the coming out of Megyn Kelly at TPUSA, my Facebook friend Moshe Z. Matitya said, "The overnight transmogrification of the big RW influencers feels like something straight out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
"The first tweet from Megyn Kelly below is from 2 months ago; the second one is from two days ago."
Moshe shared two screenshots of Kelly's X posts.
To JD Vance and his associates, perhaps, this is the essence of what it means to be free. The right to express hateful views and also to remain
friends with those who express them. In theory, this would make it okay to say
that a little Australian girl deserved to die. And then lie about it.
Because that would be their right. As Americans. The supreme application of freedom in the good old USA.
***
TRANSCRIPT: Piers Morgan on The Tucker Carlson Show February 8, 2025 · 12:51 a.m.
Piers Morgan: Why do you support Israel against Hamas, for example? Why do you support America giving them billions of dollars? Tucker Carlson: Well, I don’t.
Piers Morgan: You don’t support Israel being supported by America? Tucker Carlson: Well, I… support Israel in the sense that I really like Israel. I brought my family on vacation.
Piers Morgan: But do you agree with America supplying them with a lot of arms? Tucker Carlson: To the extent that it helps the United States, I’m for it, of course. I think what we need is—
Piers Morgan: So you do believe in America interfering in countries a long way away. It just depends which country. Tucker Carlson: No. I, I—
Piers Morgan: Your principle, it doesn’t really apply in Israel. Tucker Carlson: I’ll articulate it for the third time, just to be totally clear. I believe the United States, like every country, should, to the extent that it can, act on behalf of its own people and their perceived interests. We can debate what those interests are.
Piers Morgan: But that doesn’t apply in Israel. Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what you mean.
Piers Morgan: America is supporting Israel because it’s an ally. Tucker Carlson: I don’t even know what those words mean. I’m just saying my principle is—
Piers Morgan: I mean, but isn’t it—they’re an ally, right? I mean, they both know what— Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what that means to be an ally. I mean, we have no—
Piers Morgan: It means that when Israel wants to attack in Gaza and attack Hamas, America will help it because it’s its ally. Tucker Carlson: That’s not what it means to be an ally.
Piers Morgan: So it gives it billions of dollars’ worth. Tucker Carlson: That’s not what it means to be an ally, okay?
Piers Morgan: Well, it fundamentally does. Tucker Carlson: I have no greater allies than my own children. When they come to me and say, “I want to do this,” I assess whether it’s good for them or not. If I don’t think it is, I don’t support it.
Piers Morgan: Right. Tucker Carlson: Because they’re my true allies. They’re my children.
Piers Morgan: But why would you support America getting involved in Israel? Tucker Carlson: Just because a country that’s your ally says, “I want to do this,” does not mean axiomatically you support it. Maybe it’s not good for you or me.
Piers Morgan: So do you support America supporting Israel to the tune of billions of dollars? Tucker Carlson: It depends. If you can make—
Piers Morgan: What’s in America’s interest? Tucker Carlson: It depends in all cases. It’s not just about Israel.
Piers Morgan: But do you support what’s happening then in the support in the attacks in Gaza, for example? Because I don’t see the difference between that and what’s happening in Ukraine. This is a long way away from America. There’s no direct involvement with America. There’s no mainland involvement with America. And yet you think it’s right that America supports Israel. Put words in your mouth. But you don’t think it’s right— Tucker Carlson: I don’t think those are the words that came out of my mouth.
Piers Morgan: You don’t think it’s right America supports Ukraine when Russia invades it? Tucker Carlson: I have a simple solution. Let me explain what I think, and then that way we’ll get—
Piers Morgan: Am I wrong? Tucker Carlson: We’ll get right to what I think.
Piers Morgan: Am I wrong? Tucker Carlson: I actually tuned out midway through. I’m not exactly sure what you said.
Piers Morgan: You can’t tune out when I’m right. Tucker Carlson: I did, I did, I did, I did.
Piers Morgan: Just because I’m right. You can’t tune out. Tucker Carlson: I didn’t follow everything you said.
Piers Morgan: You can’t tune out when I’m right. Tucker Carlson: No, it was more a lecture about what I think, and then I’m like, “Wait, I know what I think. I think I’m the world’s expert on what I’m thinking. I think I’m the uncontested premier of my own head.”
Piers Morgan: That is true. Tucker Carlson: So, I’m going to unload its contents on you right now.
Piers Morgan: Explain what is America’s national interest in Israel? Tucker Carlson: I’ll define the parameters as well, because I’m happier with that, okay? I would say I support the right of all sovereign nations to act within what they believe is their own interest. (laughing) Like we don’t always know our own interest in our personal lives or between nations. Like, we think it’s good for us, but it may not be. The vodka in the morning analogy. Not good, actually, but I thought it was. Now I know it’s not. But to the extent that we think we know, I think countries should act on behalf of their own citizens. That’s the basic idea in democracy. Okay? And there’s certainly—you could make a case that whatever we’re giving to Israel this year in the form of direct aid, military assistance, loan guarantees, however we’re doing it, is good for the United States. I think you just have to make that case.
Piers Morgan: Why is it good for the United States? Tucker Carlson: Well, you could make that case.
Piers Morgan: But why is it? Tucker Carlson: I’m not convinced.
Piers Morgan: What is the case? Tucker Carlson: Well, I don’t know. You’d have to be an advocate for it. You are a vociferous advocate for it. So why don’t you tell me?
Piers Morgan: For what? Tucker Carlson: For U.S. aid to Israel in the current conflict.
Piers Morgan: Actually, I haven’t expressed a view about that at all. I’m just curious about your… the difference in your— Tucker Carlson: You’re not an Israel hater, are you? Why do you hate Israel?
Piers Morgan: Not at all. Not at all. Tucker Carlson: Why are you attacking Israel? I don’t know why. What problem do you have with Israel, Piers?
Piers Morgan: I have no problem with Israel. Tucker Carlson: The press likes this. They secretly hate Israel.
Piers Morgan: I have no problem with Israel whatsoever. Tucker Carlson: It feels like you do. Is Netanyahu a dictator?
Piers Morgan: Actually, I don’t like Netanyahu. I think you should— Tucker Carlson: You hate Israel.
Piers Morgan: I think you should go. Let me, just, I’m going to ask you one more time— Tucker Carlson: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Piers Morgan: Hang on. Hang on. Tucker Carlson: Now we’re getting into… I’m not comfortable with this.
Tucker Carlson: Here’s my question. Should I be platforming you? That’s my question. You just said you don’t like Netanyahu. Piers Morgan: I’m trying to work out whose brand suffers more when we platform each other. But let me ask you this. Let me ask you this.
Tucker Carlson: All right, I’m going to need a second.
Piers Morgan: One more time, just quietly for the people at the back. You don’t like America getting involved in helping Ukraine against Russia because there’s no national interest for America in doing that in your eyes. Tucker Carlson: Well, there’s a negative national interest.
Piers Morgan: Okay. Tucker Carlson: I found one.
Piers Morgan: So I get that. Tucker Carlson: We’re losing the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency because of this war.
Piers Morgan: All right. Fine. Tucker Carlson: There’s no greater national interest.
Piers Morgan: Your position is America first. There’s no interest for America. Shouldn’t be doing it. Every country should act for this. It’s a problem between Ukraine and Russia. Okay, that’s fine. A lot of people have that view. I respect it. What I can’t understand is the difference in your logic and principle about supporting Israel in its war with Hamas, which is many thousands of miles away from America. There’s no direct— Tucker Carlson: If I’ve been a great advocate for the war in Gaza, I missed that part of the conversation.
Piers Morgan: Well, you support America supporting Israel. Tucker Carlson: No.
Piers Morgan: You don’t support America supporting Ukraine. Tucker Carlson: No. I don’t support America supporting any nation on the planet to its own detriment. Every element of our foreign policy should serve the United States.
Piers Morgan: Okay. Tucker Carlson: That’s the point of our government: to serve the people who live there, called citizens. That’s what democracy is. There’s no other reason. So, if I’m in charge of a country and I decide, actually, I should do this because people who pay me want me to do it or I’m making money to do it, then I’m by definition illegitimate. That’s not democracy. That is a species of oligarchy or whatever. You could assign a name to it. That’s not democracy. So I just believe in our system, and our leaders should act on behalf of their own people or what they think is their own people’s interests. And I would apply that to Israel. I’d apply it to Ukraine. I think there have certainly been times where we have benefited from our alliance with Israel. You know, it’s an alliance. Just like we have an alliance with our country?
Piers Morgan: They are allies then. Tucker Carlson: I don’t know what ally means.
Piers Morgan: It’s short for alliance. Tucker Carlson: Yeah, you’re right. It is.
Piers Morgan: Yes! Tucker Carlson: It’s so funny. I never knew that.
Piers Morgan: I’ve got you. Tucker Carlson: You got me.
Piers Morgan: You’ve literally just— Tucker Carlson: When it comes to etymology, you are the unchallenged king.
Generally, when
dignitaries and officials visit Israel, they make a point of stopping at the
Western Wall — the Kotel — and they refrain from invoking Jesus Christ. This is
done out of respect for the fact that Israel is the Jewish State, something the
United States has always recognized.
Over the years, the Wall
stop has become almost a diplomatic ritual: a solemn photo-op that signals
respect for Jewish history and friendship with Israel. To skip it is to make a
statement.
The Making of a Statement
During his October 2025
visit, Vice President J.D. Vance made just such a statement. The official
itinerary, released on October 21, listed a visit to the Wall and a joint press
conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But that is not what
happened.
Instead, Vance went to
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre — a Christian pilgrimage site — where he spoke
openly about Jesus. “I know that Christians have many titles for Jesus Christ,
and one of them is the Prince of Peace,” he told reporters. “And I’d ask all
people of faith, in particular my fellow Christians, to pray that the Prince of
Peace can continue to work a miracle in this region of the world.”
To many, his words might have sounded well-intentioned — a sincere call for peace. But in the context of the Jewish State, invoking Jesus in public remarks was tone-deaf and inappropriate. In diplomatic language, symbols matter. To skip the Wall and choose a Christian site, to publicly invoke Jesus in the Jewish State, is not a neutral act. One analysis noted that “Vance did not visit the Wall, and went instead to honor and pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre” — a move seen as a quiet rebuke to Netanyahu amid friction over Israel’s new sovereignty bill.
The truth is, I’m
perfectly fine with Vance visiting a church instead of the Wall — especially
since he did visit the Wall on a previous trip to Israel. But it seemed he was
hammering home a point, and in doing so, crossed a line. Suggesting that people
of faith — which presumably includes Jews — should pray to the “Prince of
Peace” is, frankly, offensive to Jews.
He’s welcome to believe
in any deity he likes. I only wish he respected our beliefs as much as I
respect his right to believe in his. The visit to the church, coupled with a
public call for Jews to pray to Jesus, felt off.
The Sovereignty Bill
What truly drove the
point home, however, was Vance’s attitude toward Israel’s sovereignty bill. The
Knesset had just granted preliminary approval to a measure ending the state of
martial law in Judea and Samaria — a step many see as Israel finally asserting
sovereignty over its own heartland.
Israel deliberately left
the status of these territories vague after capturing them in 1967, hoping to
keep the door open for negotiations. But after decades of failed peace
processes, terror, and external meddling, many Israelis now believe it’s time
to end the ambiguity. Declaring sovereignty, for us, is an act of
self-preservation.
The world, after all, keeps
declaring that our land is “Palestine.” Yet these are Jewish ancestral
territories, won in a defensive war. There is no reason why Israel should not claim them formally as part of the Jewish State.
Vance’s Dismissal
Asked by reporters about
the bill, Vance replied:
“That was weird. I was
sort of confused by that… When I asked about it, somebody told me that it was a
political stunt that had no practical significance. It was purely symbolic… If
it was a political stunt, it was a very stupid political stunt, and I
personally take some insult to it. The West Bank is not going to be annexed by
Israel. The policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not
be annexed by Israel. That will continue to be our policy. And if people want
to take symbolic votes, they can do that, but we certainly weren’t happy about
it.”
If I’d been there, I
might have asked him: What’s weird about Jews declaring sovereignty over
land that rightfully belongs to them? Why would that confuse a Bible-believing
Christian? Surely you know this is land God gave the Jewish people.
To call it “symbolic” is
wrong. It was an act of survival. We see the writing on the wall: the world is
preparing to carve up our land again and hand it to those who burned, raped,
and murdered our people on October 7. Enough. It’s time we took control. It’s
our land.
There is nothing “weird”
about Jews who love their land enough to protect it.
Bibi’s Balancing Act
Prime Minister Netanyahu
had little choice but to downplay the vote, calling it “symbolic” to placate
Washington. In spite of Likud’s abstention, the bill still passed its first
reading 25–24 — a small but historic majority.
I understand the
realpolitik: during a fragile “ceasefire,” the timing looked bad to Vance. And
yes, Arab states may have pressed the U.S. to rein Israel in. But Israel’s
right to its land should never be a bargaining chip for diplomatic convenience.
What Vance said
was shocking. “Very stupid”? “Insulting”? To whom, exactly? To say that a Jewish
decision about Jewish land is meaningless or offensive — that is the real
insult.
Trump Doubles Down
Trump later backed him up
in an interview with Time Magazine:
Which is ironic, because
just seven weeks earlier, U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee told Israeli media:
“The United States has
never asked Israel not to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. We respect
Israel as a sovereign state and will not tell it what to do.”
Unlike Vance, Huckabee
refuses to use the propaganda term West Bank. He calls the area by its proper
geographical designation: Judea and Samaria. In 2017, he said:
“There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement.
They’re communities. There’s no such thing as an occupation.”
Vance, by contrast,
parrots the old Washington line, warning that annexation would “embolden
extremists on both sides” and “undermine trust.” Someone should tell him that
we cannot annex what is already ours.
Amb. Huckabee seated to the right of Vance
Language and Truth
Words matter.
“Annexation” implies we are seizing something foreign. But Judea and Samaria
are as integral to Israel as Safed or Jerusalem. The proper term is not
annexation, but sovereignty — the right of a nation to rule its own land.
We Jews have waited
millennia for this sovereignty. We have bled for it, prayed for it, and
reclaimed it piece by piece. No American politician, no matter how high his
office or how lofty his faith, has the right to tell us it “won’t happen.”
A Visit Full of Meaning
In the end, Vance’s visit
was about symbolism — not just the church or the Wall, but the deeper question
of whose faith and whose history command respect. To pray at the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre while scolding Jews for wanting sovereignty over Judea is to miss
the moral center of this land entirely.
Yet we would never ask
Vance to believe as we do, or share our faith. We ask only that he respect our
beliefs and rights — and stop presuming to decide what Jews may do in the land
that God gave them.
Vance’s visit was full of symbols, and symbols often speak even louder than statements. Skipping the Wall for the church might have been meant as a gesture of faith, but to many of us it felt like a gesture of distance — from Israel, from Jewish history, from understanding what this land means to its people.
Faith, after all, is personal.
But our connection to this land is not only a matter of belief — it is the
story of our people, written into our prayers, our bones, and our history. That
is what Vance failed to grasp: that our faith, our story, and our land are
bound together, a holy bond that can never be severed and never surrendered —
not even to Donald Trump and his vice president.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Lurking Doubts Behind October 6-7, 2023
-
What is driving right-wingers about the accusations that the debacle of
October 7, 2023 was solely due to Binyamin Netanyahu? Why do they promote a
consp...
Good News, Bad News
-
Shabbat Shalom!
This was a Dry Bones cartoon from 2018. It is still true today. Even though
Israel has sealed or blown up much of the system, a lot rem...
Elder of Ziyon
-
Love of Israel is in no way contradictory to love of America. American Jews
are very appreciative to live in a country that is not only welcoming of
Jews b...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Sunday, September 06, 2026
Buy 
.png)
