Megyn Kelly's false dilemma

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is an enormous tragedy, whose historical and political components will shape the future of the United States. However, with brazen baseness, when not even the family had managed to process the news, already the woke right-wing embarked on instrumentalizing his death to appropriate his legacy, trying to turn him posthumously into a dissident against Israel. This petty maneuver is just a symptom of a broader and more worrisome phenomenon: the post-October 7, 2023, wave of Jew-hatred that is increasingly gaining ground in sectors of the right.

The reluctance of leading conservative voices to denounce - or simply disagree with - Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens has generated a huge controversy with soap opera star gossip overtones. Megyn Kelly finds herself in the eye of that controversy, for which she has received much reproach. Recently, she summed up her impatience with the criticism in a post on X where she made it clear that she has no obligation to separate herself from anyone and decides what to share her opinions about. She added that if someone needs her to condemn Carlson or Owens to listen to her, then perhaps her program is not for those critics, and that her fight is with the left, not with the two of them. She further invoked the friendship with Carlson and the pressure Owens is already under as reasons not to criticize them.

Of course, Kelly has every right to do and say whatever she wants. But that right does not immunize her from criticism, because those who express an opinion also have the right to express themselves. In the rough territory of political debate, journalists, influencers, podcasters, and politicians are exposed to feedback - negative or positive - for their positions; it is, literally, the product they sell. Impartiality does not exist in this ecosystem and Kelly knows this better than anyone: she has built a successful career precisely thanks to her forceful stances. If she now chooses corporate solidarity with Tucker and Candace over intellectual coherence, it's only natural that the public will chide her. It's part of the trade.

The central debate, in which seemingly sane people have been swept up in Owens' mystical delusions, is whether Kirk was disillusioned with Israel. Speculation gained momentum when this professional Israel-hater began insinuating that the Israeli secret services allegedly have a connection to his assassination. Owens' wild comments prompted the Israeli prime minister to publicly intervene, citing a letter he had received from Kirk expressing his support for Israel.

Owens blatantly claimed that Netanyahu was lying about the contents of that letter, and Kelly eagerly joined in Candace's whimsy by claiming that the conversations Kirk had had on his podcast contradicted the letter Kirk himself had signed! The role-playing ended up splashing them both equally.

Now that the full contents of that letter have been released, it can be seen, to no one's surprise, that Owens was lying and that Kelly is trying to cover for her. The letter makes it clear that the claims that Kirk had turned against Israel were false. Moreover, Kirk was concerned that Israel was losing support because of the battle for information, which, in the case of the war in Gaza, as in many other areas, continues to be won by the left.

Kirk was not doubting Israel at all, but rather lamenting the way some voices respond to criticism of the Jewish state. That seemed to go unnoticed by Kelly. Kirk's concern was genuine and deep. The pogrom that sparked the war and is going on two years, has unleashed an unabashed antisemitism that even the most pessimistic would not have imagined. Wokism, even exposed in its violent radicalization and ridiculousness, continues to win victories in the information war. The media and the field of spectacle and culture continue to be the patrimony of rancid and dialectizing progressivism. If they have such an easy time with such a shamelessly manipulated subject, what can they not do from now on.

Precisely, following a narrative that seems traced from an antifa pamphlet, Kelly defended during a recent episode of his show on SiriusXM Owens's comments, which included false accusations against Benjamin Netanyahu and Bill Ackman, as well as recommendations to his followers to be suspicious of those who asked them to stop asking questions about the Charlie Kirk murder. This is the same shortcut the entire woke right-wing has been using: the "I'm just asking questions." But it so happens that when the answer to those questions doesn't endorse their conspiracy theories and anti-Israel blood libels, they simply dismiss it and further victimize themselves. At the end of the day, it's not questions they ask, but thinly disguised innuendo.

The woke right-wing has joined the Islamo-left chorus with no qualms about using the Hamas narrative - even though a thousand times and with data it has been proven false. But moreover, they have been showing zero interest in honest debate. Their symbiosis with what they criticized all their lives is really striking. The most visible figure in this movement is Tucker Carlson.

Carlson has moved deeper and deeper into the world of criticism of Israel and the very role of the U.S. in the West. And the point is that Kelly, like so many others, is turning a blind eye to this issue, dodging the elephant in the room, which has generated a crisis in the conservative movement. This is undoubtedly a gift to the Democratic Party, so obvious that it's sometimes hard to think it's not on purpose. They, as conspiracy professionals, should know what this looks like from the outside.

When The New York Post published the full text of Kirk's letter to Netanyahu, and Owens' scam was exposed, Kelly could see how Owens had lied to use Kirk's murder to further her years-long anti-Semitic crusade. If she had already opined on the subject, shouldn't she now have said whether Owens was right or wrong about the letter? How could she think that the "brilliant" Owens is a credible source on Israel, after Candace made one of the stupidest blunders in the history of journalism by saying that the historic Muslim quarter of Jerusalem was a ghetto where Muslims were confined? Doesn't Kelly note that Candace, the "brilliant" one, is profoundly ignorant? Does Kelly agree with the worldview shared by Carlson and Owens?

The other, longer-term problem is that much of the right is becoming what the left always said it was.

Kelly claims to be focused on fighting the left, including progressive anti-Semites, but endorses the anti-Jewish crusade of Carlson and Owens; whether genuine friendship or by misjudgment. But neither sham do-goodism nor friendship justifies letting falsehoods go unchallenged, least of all for someone who made their reputation by saying the most controversial things.

The current anti-Semitic fad on the left is going to pass as the MeToo, BLM and the fight for the whales movements passed, and the left will pretend it was never in that trench. Instead, the right will be portrayed as Judeophobic and bigoted precisely because voices like Kelly refused to denounce the woke right-wing when it mattered most to do so.

Kelly freely chooses her path, but she can't get angry about generating disappointment. It is her responsibility not to distinguish between legitimate criticism and blood libel, between healthy skepticism and conspiracy theory. Kelly feels she has been unfairly singled out, but her blindness to the role Carlson and Owens have played in spreading Jew-hatred, as well as her indignant reaction to the questioning of her association with them, is untenable.

History will judge harshly those who chose complicit silence out of tribal loyalty. Because it is necessary to be clear, it is not a dilemma; it is a choice. And choices have consequences.