Carlson Sparks Controversy by Blaming Israel for Jihad Against the U.S.

Peloni:  Of course he does…

A clear look at history shows that blaming the Jewish state for Islamist terror distorts truth and ignores centuries of Islamic aggression.

Israfan | January 29, 2026

Tucker Carlson speaking with attendees at the 2023 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Photo by Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Tucker Carlson, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=142959457Tucker Carlson speaking with attendees at the 2023 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Photo by Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America – Tucker Carlson, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikipedia

For years, Israel has been at the center of heated debates about Middle East politics, but one argument that has lately emerged in public discourse is both historically inaccurate and unjust. Some commentators now suggest that modern jihadist terrorism against the United States and its allies exists because of America’s support for Israel. This claim is not only misleading it diverts attention from the real roots of Islamist terror.

Attributing global jihad to Israel’s existence ignores more than a millennium of documented Islamic warfare and obscures the theological motivations that have animated many jihadist movements. It also distorts the history of terrorism directed at the United States itself. Understanding this history is essential if we care about truth and global peace.

The claim goes something like this there was no problem with Islamist terrorism before Israel was established in 1948, so the Palestinian issue, and by extension the Jewish state, must be the cause. But that assertion collapses under scrutiny. The United States faced violent attacks from Muslim forces long before the 20th century. In the late 18th century, American sailors and merchants were seized by North African corsairs who explicitly cited Islamic law as justification for their actions. These were not isolated incidents; they triggered the creation of the U.S. Navy in 1798 to protect American interests and citizens from repeated raids. Islamic motivations in those attacks were clear and documented by the leaders of the time.

Some may argue this was not like the modern terrorism we think of today, but such distinctions are artificial. Violence driven by the belief that Islam entitles adherents to wage war against unbelievers is at the heart of both early corsair raids and later jihadist attacks. To assert that terrorism only began with the creation of Israel is to ignore the historical record and the lived experience of those who suffered violence long before 1948.

Critics also misunderstand the demographic context of the United States. It is true that before the late 20th century, there were relatively few Muslims living in America. This is one reason why the U.S. did not experience significant domestic Islamist attacks before the 1990s. But the absence of such incidents before certain dates does not mean there was no ideological motivation or history of violence it simply reflects population patterns. To focus narrowly on demographic changes while ignoring broader historical causes is to distort the truth.

When commentators suggesting that Islamist terrorism stems from Western involvement in the Middle East, they are echoing a long-standing argument against interventionism. While America’s military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere deserve critique on many grounds, claiming that such actions are the cause of all jihadist terrorism is a leap that conflates foreign policy with deeply rooted ideological imperatives. Jihadist groups have repeatedly stated their aims in religious terms, often citing texts and doctrines that call for expansion and conflict with non-believers. These theological elements cannot be dismissed as mere reactions to Western policy.

To be clear, questioning specific U.S. foreign policy decisions is valid. Debates about strategy, human rights, and diplomacy are essential in any healthy democracy. But suggesting that the existence of Israel is the primary root cause of extremist terror against America and its allies is historically unfounded and dangerously misleading. It feeds into long-standing antisemitic tropes that blame Jews for conflicts and violence they did not instigate. Such narratives have no place in honest analysis.

Israel, as a democratic nation surrounded by hostile actors, has faced its own share of terrorism and war. Israelis have defended their homeland against threats that seek to delegitimize and destroy it. Linking the actions of violent extremists exclusively to support for Israel ignores the complex interplay of ideology, politics, and religion that motivates jihadist groups. Worse, it unjustly makes Jewish people and the Jewish state a scapegoat for a phenomenon with much deeper, much older origins.

When discussing terrorism and global security, precision matters. We must distinguish between legitimate criticism of policies and arguments that veer into conspiracy or prejudice. History demands that we acknowledge the real roots of conflicts so that solutions can be built on fact, not distortion.

Israel remains a vibrant, innovative, and essential partner in the fight against terrorism and extremism. Its contributions to global security, technology, medicine, and culture are well known and widely respected. Standing with truth means rejecting simplistic explanations that unfairly blame one nation or people for centuries of global challenges.

January 30, 2026 | 1 Comment »

Leave a Reply

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. The Historian Glut by Russel Baker

    1994

    History is constantly being revised these days. It’s because there is a glut of historians. Revising history is the only way to keep them busy.
    The historian glut results from the Government’s Vietnam War policy of granting draft deferments for staying in college. Young men who would happily have left the campus and gone into honest work were naturally tempted to stay on, and on, and on.
    This required them to study something. They studied history. What do you study, after all, when you face a long sentence to college, but lack a head for science or mathematics, go to sleep the instant somebody says “economics,” aren’t built for professional sports, were never any good at Latin or French, and find out they aren’t giving Ph.D.’s for daydreaming?
    You study history.
    Sure, first you think you’ll study literature. It would be swell, you think, to sit around sewing leather elbow patches on your tweeds and reading Spenserian sonnets, metaphysical poets, Alexandrine couplets. It sounds perfect. Imagine wowing the engineering students by casually tossing off phrases from Milton.

    “. . . in Heaven yclept Euphrosyne . . .”
    “. . . filled her with thee, a goddess fair, so buxom, blithe and debonair . . .”

    Sounds perfect, but why do you fall into deep coma three minutes after plunging into the essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson?
    Because literature is not vital, that’s why. Not vital for a turbulent age like the age that is forcing you to stay in college forever when, given your druthers, you’d like to be out in the great national hurly-burly, working as an honest shoemaker, or driving a cab and meeting such fascinating people, or . . .
    Well, not vital in a violent age. History is to blame for your fate. You are a victim of history. It’s only natural that having got literature out of your system you will, first, want to study history and, then, take your revenge on history.

    Somebody has to pay for the mess history has made of life. Why not take it out on the historians who wrote it, show they were all wrong about practically everything and, if they hadn’t been, the world wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today.

    Ordinarily a country manages to get by with 10 or 12 historians per generation. With the historian explosion created by Vietnam, however, thousands were suddenly coming down the pipeline.
    How could they be kept busy? Newspaper editors could print only a limited number of letters correcting foolish reporters’ errors about Benedict Arnold and Mary, Queen of Scots. With the Vietnam War over, students no longer needed to study history; college therefore no longer needed history professors in boxcar lots. The obvious solution for excess historians: revising the history they had been taught.
    Now they are going at it with gusto. No reputation is safe anymore. Not even Adolf Hitler’s. Scarcely a day passes now without some re-examiner of the past announcing that Hitler wasn’t such a bad chap after all. That he probably didn’t even know people were being exterminated, poor misunderstood guy.

    Mussolini’s reputation is bound to be revised upward now that the revival of Fascist politics in Italy invites the attention of historians desperate for something to revise.
    Thomas Jefferson has been revised so far down that I recently read a newspaper columnist — a newspaper columnist! — asserting her own moral superiority to him. Even the once-sainted Abraham Lincoln can no longer be spoken of admiringly without issuance of the prefatory apology:
    “I realize of course that he was a racist.”
    The trend in history, they say, is to dwell on the social developments of the past, a sort of how-they-lived story of humanity’s miserable passage up the geologic clock. This of course revises the old idea of what history is. Historians like Macaulay, Trevelyan and Prescott made history an entertaining romp down the years, starring characters of the sort who fascinated people in the movies.
    History is always bound to be wrong, of course, including the revised versions. This being so, who would give up Prescott’s Hernando Cortez, that Spanish Errol Flynn swashbuckler, for the modern historian’s study of the diet of roof thatchers in 1750?