"Israel Didn't Kill Charlie Kirk"

 

Or so says some nobody at CounterPunch.

Hamza Shehryar is a writer and journalist. He covers film, culture, and global politics.

I honestly don't really know that Israel killed Charlie Kirk.  But if you want to insist that Israel didn't do it, you'll have to do much better than this!  Let's begin ...

Since Charlie Kirk was killed on September 10, amongst the obfuscation and outright misrepresentation of his politics, and the weaponisation of his death by Trump and his cronies – with the support of establishment Democrats – to push the United States deeper into the depths of MAGA’s fascist dystopia, the Left has been caught off-guard. Some have been quick to condemn his killing and decry political violence, while others criticise the former for misrepresenting the life, politics and legacy of a heinous far-right figure. But among these divisions, an alternate perspective has emerged within segments of the global Left, one that is growing increasingly popular every passing day: Charlie Kirk was killed by Israel.

It’s not too surprising that this view has emerged. Over the last two years, during its genocide in Gaza, Israel has bombed sovereign countries, targeted journalists and activists, and unleashed a pervasive, all-reaching hasbara (propaganda) campaign to salvage its perpetually withering international standing. And Israel has, over the course of decades, also unleashed an assassination campaign that makes even the CIA’s pale in comparison – as is explored in extensive detail in Ronen Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First.

Hamza Shehryar misses the argument.  None of those actions by Israel mentioned above address the central point: Charlie Kirk was coming to the conclusion that his fan-base was turning against Israel for its genocide, its seeming manipulation of US politicians (to involve the USA in wars on Israel's behalf, to subsidize Israeli's standard-of-living while neglecting US-Americans', anti-semitism winning out over Christian zionism, etc.,) and he was in the beginning stages of disassociating TPUSA from Israel.  Which meant that Israel, having lost the support of the Democratic Party's voters, was [is] in danger of losing the grassroots of the Republican Party as well.

If Hamza Shehryar wants to refute the claim of some on the Left that Israel killed Kirk it would be helpful if he could actually address the points of their argument.

So, the presumption that Israel, which only two weeks ago killed 31 Yemeni journalists in a targeted attack – the second-deadliest recorded against journalists ever – would carry out a political assassination of an American citizen, even on US soil, is not far-fetched. Not least because Benjamin Netanyahu has, on multiple occasions, made statements explicitly saying that Israel did not kill Kirk, only fueling the flames for this theory among anti-Zionists the world over.

The words coming out of the mouth of Israel’s war-criminal prime minister must always be taken with scepticism; however, it is important to be critical in our justified criticism of Israel and the impunity with which it acts. Netanyahu is many things. He is a genocidaire, a racist Islamophobe, and a repulsive war criminal who has no regard for human life. But one thing he is not is stupid.

Um, the jury's still out on that one.  People credit "intelligence" to Doug Ford, or stephen harper, based on their electoral successes.  But I suspect that if you actually sat down and attempted an extended conversation with either of those two gentlemen you would soon find out that they were small-minded cretins.  Admittedly, both of those stupid assholes are possessed of a degree of cunning.  As well, they serve the capitalist oligarchy which puts many resources at their disposal and helps them achieve their victories, which serves to cover up their innate imbecility.

The same could be said of Netanyahu.

Anyway, besides possibly being stupid, Pestilence Naziyahoo is clearly insane.  Repeatedly going online and insisting he didn't kill Charlie Kirk could be rooted in all sorts of bizarre motivations.

The fact that he has, quite needlessly, made repeated statements regarding Kirk’s killing is telling, indicating that he sees a pragmatic purpose in keeping the rumour going. This was also pointed out by Drop Site News, whose September 18 newsletter stated: “Netanyahu’s decision to once again publicly deny the allegations gives oxygen to the storyline, suggesting Netanyahu paradoxically sees some public-relations benefit to it.”

So, Naziyahoo has ulterior motives for denying participation in Kirk's murder and that proves he had nothing to do with it?  How, exactly, does that work?!?

The public-relations benefit is that it offers Israel another opportunity to misrepresent the anti-Zionist movement by making baseless accusations of blood libel and anti-semitism for its criticisms of Israel and Zionism for the horrors it continues to unleash on the people of Gaza and beyond. Simultaneously, giving this theory oxygen keeps the anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine movement fractured, and it also keeps the lid on the actual covert assassination operations that Israel continues to conduct with impunity.

This is ridiculous.  Israel ALWAYS accuses its critics of being anti-semites, smearing Israeli society with blood libel.  Zionists ALWAYS say these accusations are baseless.  If they say it is anti-semitic to accuse Israel of committing a genocide in Gaza when Israel IS committing a genocide in Gaza, how does that make it anti-semitic to accuse them of assassinating Charlie Kirk?!?  And, if Israel has "actual covert assassination operations that [it] continues to conduct with impunity" how in the hell is it "anti-semitic" to argue that Kirk's murder was another covert assassination operation???

At a time when perpetually increasing numbers of people, including those politically detached, are opening their eyes to the malicious weaponisation of anti-semitism by Israel to mask its genocidal lust, Israel has found itself determined to push harder to obfuscate and confuse. This has taken the form of a significantly increased propaganda budget, which has undoubtedly been at the core of the bile it continues to disseminate through advertising, including by working directly with Google.

Let's remember that Hamza Shehryar has failed to address the actual argument of those on the Left who say that Israel was behind Kirk's death.  Kirk's highly influential conservative youth organization was beginning to turn agains Israel, that Netanyahu (and other zionists) were alarmed by this, and they addressed it by murdering Kirk so that they can replace him with a more loyal shill, perhaps the racist, untalented, nasally speed-talker Ben Shapiro.

Arguing that Israel will accuse those who make that argument as anti-semitic conspiracy theorists proves absolutely nothing.  Israel accuses all of its critics of anti-semitism and labels all descriptions of how it works to achieve its policies as "conspiracy theories."  That is not an "argument."  It is a "tactic."  Hamza Shehryar is asserting that blaming Israel for Kirk's death is wrong because it is false and, furthermore, Israel will use this falsehood to say that all the other accusations against it are false and that weakens the anti-zionist, anti-genocide movement.

But Shehryar hasn't proved that the accusation is false.  He hasn't even articulated what the accusation is.  He is just asserting (without evidence or rationale) that it is false and that it feeds into Israel's propaganda/disinformation campaign.  And now he's going to write in detail about Israeli propaganda and free-style improvise about how these false accusations [which might be true!] help Israel and harm the anti-genocide movement.

Here, amidst its international standing falling to previously unfathomable lows, especially in the West, Israel seeks to manufacture victimhood and play to both imagined and real fears. The fears of the mostly liberal voices, to echo the concern that, as a result of Israel’s policies, Jews will be blamed for any and everything – a sentiment that makes people uncomfortable, especially as there has been an increase in incidents of anti-semitism as a result of Israel’s malicious conflation of Judaism with Zionism for its ethno-supremacist project. Fuelling the conspiracy theory that Israel killed Kirk does just that: it further weaponises anti-semitism to create rifts within the broad coalition of people around the world who are appalled by the genocide.

But Shehryar hasn't proved that accusing Israel of assassinating Kirk IS a conspiracy theory!  And everything that Shehryar claims that the Israel/Kirk accusations does to hurt the "broad coalition ... appalled by the genocide" as well as and including all Jewish people (anti-zionist or not) can just as baselessly be said of all the Israeli crimes Shehryar agrees Israel is guilty of!  Accusing Israel of genocide?  "Antisemitic blood libel."  Accusing Israel of an organized propaganda campaign?  "Anti-semitic conspiracy theory."  Accusing Israel of assassinating anyone other than Charlie Kirk?  "Anti-semitic blood libel."  All of which serves to divide the Left, endanger the lives of Jewish people everywhere and weaken the anti-genocide movement.

Indeed, to illustrate the absurdity of this theory, one need only reflect on the circumstances that led to its development. If Israel really wanted to eliminate the online personalities and content creators seriously committed to worsening its already ruined reputation and standing, why would it choose to assassinate one of its most fervent defenders?

Some point towards a seemingly mysterious change in Kirk’s attitudes regarding Israel, even though, until the moment he was killed, he spoke candidly, often with joy, about his contentment at the destruction of Gaza and the killing of Palestinian civilians.

“I used to say: ‘If you, as a gay person, would go to Gaza, they would throw you off of tall buildings.’ Now they don’t have any tall buildings left,” he gleefully exclaimed at an event, not long before he was killed. He quickly followed that comment up with: “Maybe you shouldn’t kill Jews, stupid Muslims.” Is this the behaviour of someone so “anti-Israel” that they must be taken out?

Let’s consider, as some claim, that in spite of all of this, Kirk was on the brink of a complete reversal – turning his unwavering support and loyalty to the state and government of Israel into indifference. Even in such a scenario, it would be imprudent for Israel to assassinate Kirk, and not the countless other online personalities who have already been outspoken in their criticisms of Israel, including on the far-right, for almost two years now, some of whom command larger platforms than Kirk did.

So, here we see that Shehryar has finally gotten around to addressing the actual argument behind the accusation of Israel assassinating Kirk.  But, as we see, he does so inaccurately.  He provides extensive quotes of Kirk's pro-zionist, racist, islamophobic past statements, but fails to mention that nobody who is asserting that Israel assassinated Kirk disputes that Kirk had been pro-Israel in the past.  Nobody who says that Israel killed Kirk is saying that Charlie Kirk was a great humanitarian and a light unto the world.  He was a racist grifter, financed by oligarchs, to deliberately foment divisions (that were already present) in US-American society, to enable said oligarchs to achieve their domestic and foreign aims.

Israel served the USA's ends by crushing Arab nationalism and threatening Arab puppet monarchies should they step out of line.  But, decades of wars from North Africa to Central Asia, combined with increasing Israeli belligerance and arrogance, has turned even US right-wingers against the status quo.  The US-American right-wing voter has embraced isolationism and Donald Trump's stated opposition to the "forever wars" was an important factor in his winning control over the Republican Party.

Kirk (belatedly) recognized this and, should Shehryar ever bother to acknowledge it, there is a very detailed depiction of his last angry confrontations with zionist financiers, as well as the evidence of the well-recieved appearances of isolationists like Tucker Carlson, and other voices against slavish support for genocidal zionism, at recent TPUSA events.

Shehryar, while neglecting to mention any of these facts and arguments, calls the whole theory "absurd" and pretends that it is a "mystery" how anyone could believe that Kirk would have done what many insiders have said he was doing, and it is a "mystery" how anyone could believe that the TPUSA crowd enthusiastically applauded speakers opposed to slavish devotion to genocidal Israel, even though the TPUSA really did applaud them.

Is Shehryar being deliberately dishonest or is he just blinded by his own prejudices?

In a weird turn, Shehryar says that even if all of the insider testimonies, and the evidence of anti-Israel sentiments at TPUSA rallies, and [I neglected to mention] the cancelling of financial contributions to TPUSA by zionist contributers, are true, it is still, presumably, "absurd" to say that Israel killed him, because that would have been "imprudent."  Forgetting for a moment that Israel has "imprudently" cratered its economy, made itself an international pariah, attacked Hezbollah and got its ass kicked until it began to slaughter hundreds of Lebanese civilians in a cowardly air campaign to get Hezbolla to stop, bombed Qatar to get at Hamas thus alarming the Gulf monarchies to the point where Saudi Arabia signed a defence pact with nuclear armed Pakistan, and, most "imprudently" of all, attacked Iran which resulted in a retaliation that forced Israel to run behind the knees of the USA and scream for a ceasefire,  ... forgetting all that, ... Israel [Shehryar says] could not have killed Kirk because it would be "imprudent" to kill Kirk and not "countless" other [unnamed] conservative critics of Israel, some of whom [he says] had larger followings than Kirk did.

That's an interesting defence to say the least.  "Your honour, I could not have killed the man riddled with bullets from the smoking gun I was holding over his corpse!  Look at the COUNTLESS other people who are still alive!"

Any serious credence one may want to attach to the theory that Israel killed Kirk falls apart the moment one looks at the events and the political context surrounding this killing, with the backbone of the claim being little more than Netanyahu’s constant and seemingly unnecessary denials.

Again, Netanyahu is not stupid. He recognises that the weaponisation of this claim, its potential to create divisions within the anti-Zionist movement, and its capacity to mask Israel’s sophisticated killing machine all benefit Israel. In fact, when one is sceptical and critical of the assertion that Israel killed Kirk, unless they are already well-versed with Israel’s covert assassination machine, this may only make it likelier for them to assume that other claims of Israeli assassinations are unsubstantiated, even though that is far from the truth.

No, Hamza Shehryar, the backbone of the claim is far bigger than the insane Netanyahu's repeated denials of involvement.  You are either ignorant of the facts or you are lying.  Your own argument "falls apart" when it is pointed out that everything you say about the damages caused by the Israel murdered Kirk accusaton (it opens its proponents to charges of anti-semitism, divides Left opposition to zionism, etc.,) could be said of ANY accusations against Israel.  ALL accusations against Israel are labelled "antisemitic" and harmful to Jews everywhere and they are baseless conspiracy theories.  

Somehow, in Hamza Shehryar's twisted mind, saying that Israel assassinated Charlie Kirk "masks" Israel's actual "covert assassination machine."  It's bizarre.  Shehryar states as a fact that Israel does, in fact, have a machine that assassinates its opponents, and it is not anti-semitic to say that, but it is "absurd" and anti-semitic to say that they used it to kill Charlie Kirk!  So let's all shut-up about Israel assassinating Charlie Kirk!  And Hamza makes this stupid argument while ignoring the actual evidence of the rise of anti-Israel sentiments at TPUSA events and ignoring the claimed testimony of TPUSA insiders about pressure being brought to bear on Kirk by zionists, and the documented pulling of funding by angry zionist supporters of TPUSA.

Lastly, it is frustrating to see so many who are rightly appalled by and enraged by Israel’s genocide have chosen to hyper-fixate on Kirk’s killing, with some even misrepresenting Kirk’s politics and legacy, and elevating him to the status of martyrdom. Not least because the horrors that Israel has subjected Gaza and the world in only the time since Kirk was killed are infinitely more important to focus on.

Except for the fact that nobody, not Max Blumenthal, not Aaron Mate, not Katie Halper, nobody making this claim on the Left is saying that Charlie Kirk was heroic friend of humanity.  Furthermore, having an opinion on this subject is not "hyper-fixating" on it.  If the actual argument behind the assassination accusations [an argument that Hamza Shehryar is either deliberately distorting or is genuinely ignorant of] is true, then its fairly important.  That Israel, seeing in the loss of Charlie Kirk and TPUSA, the continued loss of organized pro-zionist sentiment in the country most vital to Israel's continued existence, decided to assassinate Kirk and replace him with a more compliant shill.

Continuing on this [not] "absurd" line of thinking, Israel's leaders, especially Naziyahoo, didn't just think: "We'll murder Charlie Kirk and have absolutely no thoughts about what we do afterwards.  We won't (for instance) have our boy Trump blame the Left for Kirk's death thus dividing worrisome left-right consensus building against Israel.  Trump (and others) will elevate Kirk into a martyr and use his death to justify a crackdown on the Left (our most consistent and principled critics) and anti-zionist sentiments in general.  And, if anyone accuses us of killing Charlie Kirk after we kill him, our labelling that an absurd, antisemitic conspiracy theory will just be our typical knee-jerk reaction."

On the day Kirk was killed, Israel bombed the sixth sovereign country in a period of 72 hours. In the days since, it carried out brutal targeted strikes on Yemeni newspaper offices and has marked individuals on the boats that are a part of the Global Sumud Flotilla – a humanitarian non-violent mission to provide aid to the besieged people in Gaza – which includes activists, actors, and sitting members of parliament, including Greta Thunberg, Adèle Haenel, Mariana Mortágua and Rima Hassan, among others, as terrorists. All of this while it continues to kill and starve everyone in Gaza, with some estimates emerging now that Israel’s assault may have killed a third of Gaza’s pre-October 7 population.

Israelis would condemn everything written in that quote as antisemitic blood libel.  And I will say that it is all irrelevant to the accusation that Israel assassinated Charlie Kirk.  The accusation that Israel assassinated Charlie Kirk is coherent, rational and based on documented evidence of zionist displeasure with Kirk providing a forum for conservative critics of Israel.  One could argue that Hamza Shehryar is irrelevantly listing these other crimes of Israel to establish his anti-zionist bona fides and to deflect from the weakness of his opposition to the claim that Israel assassinated Charlie Kirk.

Our focus should not move away from these realities, not least in the defence of the death of one of Israel’s most committed defenders, who never let any opportunity to be racist or Islamophobic slide. Fixating on tying Kirk’s death to Israel does little beyond taking focus away from the genocide and playing into the traps of Israel’s withering propaganda machine.

Having read through this garbage in its entirety, one could be justified in wondering whether this non-entity of Hamza Shehryar is a shill for the zionists. Undoubtedly, if Israel wanted to disguise its hand in Kirk's murder, it would put out propaganda by hack writers who would do the usual routine of labelling a charge against Israel as "anti-semitic."  It wouldn't matter if the propaganda is unconvincing and incoherent because it [necessarily] avoids mentioning all the evidence that shows that Israel had a clear motive for killing Kirk.  It would be great if the propaganda could blather on about how accusing Israel of killing a conservative who was coming to oppose Israel, and who was thereby joining the Left in its opposition to zionism, is actually divisive!  The Israelis will divide the US-American public by pinning the blame for Kirk's murder on leftists, and they will use our hack writer to insist that blaming them for the assassination is what is really divisive.  Everything they do could be used to divide this bipartisan sentiment, this right-left consensus that Israel is a dangerous, genocidal monstrosity.

I'm not insisting that Hamza Shehryar is a paid hack for Israel.  I'm just saying that he couldn't have written an article more counter-productive to the anti-zionist movement if he tried.  That Jeffrey St Clair saw fit to host such a poorly-argued, ignorant, counter-productive essay is further testimony to his intellectual incapacities.