As the joint American-Israeli military campaign in Iran continues, President Trump’s coalition is starting to exhibit some cracks. The war in Iran has emerged as a proxy battle over a broader, long-simmering conflict within the right about Israel. And the fight over Israel is, in some important ways, a proxy battle about Jews in general.
Big picture, what we’re seeing now is that the traditional divisions on the right between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives, between hawks and doves, are being reshaped into a battle over Israel specifically. It’s a very difficult subject; this issue has become highly emotional and personal for those on both sides, and even in my world, it’s set friends against one another. How far do the emerging divisions go, and how should we respond?
As a youth movement, the anti-Israel faction will only swallow up greater market share on the right
First, the baseline. Both factions in this debate seem to have accepted the fact that President Trump has a very personal and long-standing pro-Israel position. Even those who oppose America’s support of Israel acknowledge that Trump will continue to support Israel with the full force of the American government. But it seems that the anti-Israel faction – they would say “anti-Zionist” – believes that it can ride a wave of public, mostly online energy and youthful voter enthusiasm to change the posture of the Republican party over time and perhaps influence the next president.
We see this dynamic playing out with Vice President J.D. Vance. The Vice President has been very cautious, on the one hand supporting and rationalizing Trump’s policies, but on the other hand, being careful not to alienate Tucker Carlson and other influencers on the other side of the Israel issue. The anti-Israel faction, cognizant that it can’t change Trump, wants to make the debate about the GOP’s future, and Vance is awkwardly positioned between the two sides.
This is a significant development. For many decades, Israel has had virtually universal – and in some ways fanatical – support on the right. And the change is being spurred mostly because young right-wingers have shifted dramatically on the Israel issue, with growing segments explicitly opposed to Israel and much larger swaths feeling indifferent.
Trump is a baby boomer. The most fervent pro-Israel senators and congressmen are standard-issue, factory-made Republicans who are also above the age of 65. There is a linear generational change happening on the right: the oldest are the most pro-Israel, and the youngest are the most anti-Israel. As a youth movement, barring some dramatic change in trajectory, it will only swallow up greater market share. When David Duke was doing his anti-Israel routine, he could be dismissed out of hand. But this current shift seems more durable. Those of us who are generally pro-Israel must grapple with this transformation.
I’ve noticed that many well-intentioned people on the right have entertained the idea of using censorship or smear campaigns to tamp down anti-Israel sentiment. This is a mistake. During the woke era, our political institutions tried fighting “disinformation,” sanitizing the epistemic sphere, and conducting digital hygiene so that only “correct” opinions could be reached. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. There has been an enormous top-down attempt to control or stop the divisions on the right over Israel. But the truth is that this debate is beyond containment.
Likewise, reflexive smears and accusations are not a productive way forward. By liberally making accusations such as “anti-Semite,” which some prominent Republicans have been doing, the coalition is harming its ability to make meaningful distinctions between actual anti-Semites and good-faith critics of American foreign policy, which makes mediating this dispute more difficult. The browbeating, moralizing boomer is only going to push young, disaffected right-wingers further toward cartoonish characters on the internet, who harvest resentment about Israel to garner attention and monetized content.
As someone with sympathies toward Israel, it’s imperative, to my mind, that we grapple with the anti-Israel faction’s arguments honestly and sincerely, as best we can. If there is a widespread debate about any subject in the United States, we should have both the constitutional freedom and the intellectual honesty to have a reasonable debate about it. If we have a country where most people can respond reasonably, we can have democracy. But if we can’t have reasonable and sincere debates, what are we doing? Why do we even have democracy in the first place?
If we’re going to have these divisions, the best time to have this debate is now – not during the 2028 primary. Take reasonable representatives from both sides, make substantive arguments, take them to the people, and let the chips fall where they may.
This article originally appeared on Christopher Rufo’s Substack.
Comments