Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: JD Vance

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
— JD Vance (@JDVance) November 16, 2025

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.

Piers Morgan: Boom.
Tucker Carlson: You’re blowing my mind, Piers Morgan.

***

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

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:

“It won’t happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”

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.