Hatred is an awfully strong word, one not generally employed when discussing political rivals.
Harsh disagreements? Yes. Enmity? Certainly. But hatred? That is a term usually reserved for sworn enemies, not two men who once served in the same elite army unit, fought the same enemy, and spent decades circling one another in Israel’s small political pool.
Yet when assessing the decades-long saga between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former prime minister Ehud Barak, hatred seems no exaggeration. Their feud has hardened into something more than political rivalry or jealousy. It has become a force that impacts their public choices, often in ways that harm the country itself.
When two men with such long shadows allow personal animus to spill into national policy and public diplomacy, the consequences extend beyond any domestic score-settling.
Barak has done this for years: traveling abroad, taking to international platforms, and describing Netanyahu as a danger to democracy – and Israel as a country losing its bearings. He is hardly alone in this practice, but he has done it so often with such passion that it sharpens the sense that it is more than political ideology that is driving him.
On Friday afternoon, it was Netanyahu’s turn.
Just before Shabbat, Netanyahu retweeted to his 3.5 million followers on X (formerly Twitter) an article from Jacobin, a hard-left, openly anti-Israel American magazine associated with Zohran Mamdani’s Democratic Socialists of America that routinely accuses Israel of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes.
The article, titled “Jeffrey Epstein Claimed to Have Meddled in Israel’s Elections,” centered on newly revealed emails in which Epstein boasted of advising Barak, with whom the article said Barak was associated, during the 2019 race, claiming involvement in efforts to unseat Netanyahu.
Netanyahu shares magazine article of anti-Israel writer
Were that the whole story, Netanyahu’s move could be dismissed as petty score-settling – amplifying a hostile article because it embarrassed a hated rival. But even that description understates the recklessness. Because it also matters who wrote the story, Netanyahu elevated.
The author, Branko Marcetic, is no neutral observer. In July, he published a piece with the subhead: “After October 7, Israeli society went into a vengeful genocidal tailspin, carrying out some of the most heinous crimes of this century again and again and again.”
Just last month, he wrote another article under the headline: “Israel’s Gaza War Is One of History’s Worst Crimes.”
This is the writer – someone who has portrayed Israel as a blood-soaked pariah state committing “genocide” – whose work the prime minister of Israel chose to broadcast to millions. By Sunday afternoon, Netanyahu’s retweet had five million views. His previous 23 posts on X during November averaged about 235,000 views.
But the Jacobin article went further still. Buried inside were long-standing, evidence-free conspiracy theories alleging that Epstein secretly worked for Israeli intelligence, even as a Mossad agent. These theories have circulated for years on the internet, based on little more than the fact that Epstein was Jewish, traveled to Israel, and knew Barak.
In recent months, however, those theories have gone mainstream. Tucker Carlson told a cheering audience this summer that Epstein “was working on behalf of intel services, probably not American,” implying Israel was the unnamed country.
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested Israel was suppressing Epstein-related information. And just last week, Joe Rogan – the most listened-to podcaster in the world – bantered with comedian Theo Von about whether “Israel killed JFK,” a modern blood libel disguised as podcast humor.
This is the poisonous ecosystem into which Netanyahu retweeted the Jacobin article.
To fully understand the impact, it is necessary to understand where the American conversation on Epstein and Israel stands at the moment.
In an August episode of her podcast with Charlie Kirk – recorded only weeks before Kirk’s murder – Conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly delivered a lengthy, emotional tirade responding to accusations of antisemitism she received for earlier suggesting that Epstein might have been a Mossad affiliate.
Her tone was wounded and indignant:
“You would be hard-pressed to find someone in the public eye who has been as outspoken a defender of Israel’s right to defend itself as yours truly,” she said. “I’ve been at the pointy end of the spear on this.”
But she argued that some in the pro-Israel world were too quick to label critics antisemitic:
“Some of us have earned the right to have credibility on Israel. And I don’t want to be called names when we have some mild pushback.”
She then referenced her earlier speculation about Epstein:
“We speculated about Epstein being a Mossad agent or affiliate. That has been turned around on me as antisemitic. What the hell? That’s bull****.”
Then she added: “I stand by the comment. These things should be explored. Saying Epstein might be a Mossad asset does not make you antisemitic. That’s f***ing crazy.”
This is the precise moment into which Netanyahu dropped his retweet, which Kelly quickly took as vindication:
“So I guess it’s not antisemitic to ask if Epstein was an asset for Israeli intel – and we shouldn’t just take Ehud Barak’s word for it that he wasn’t? Got it,” she posted on X with Netanyahu’s retweet and a paragraph from the story.
What was for Netanyahu apparently an impulsive political jab instantly became, for Kelly and undoubtedly others, evidence that their “questions” about Epstein being a Mossad agent were not bigotry but a valid inquiry.
But the story doesn’t end there.
Naftali Bennett, sensing a chance to make some political hay, went all-out hyperbolic:
“Netanyahu has just shared an article from the repulsive antisemitic and anti-Israel magazine Jacobin,” he wrote. “This gives a huge boost to a publication overflowing with accusations against Israel of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes. It harms Jews worldwide and endangers the security of the State of Israel.”
He later tweeted that this was the “greatest PR sabotage yet.”
Bennett then directly addressed Kelly, addressing her as “a decent and honest journalist,” and explaining that when the Epstein-Mossad theory surfaced, he checked it out with two former Mossad chiefs and a former prime minister:
“No. It never happened. 100% untrue,” he wrote. “Since the Pollard affair in the 1980s, Israel has not operated on American soil. This is simply a false theory. I have no personal stake here since the period in question was long before my tenure. I’m just describing the truth.”
But Bennett is missing something. He seems to believe that if he, Naftali Bennett, declares the conspiracy false, those trafficking in it will be persuaded. As though conspiracy theorists draw distinctions between the “good Israelis” and the “bad” ones.
They don’t. For people convinced that Israel killed Kennedy, was responsible for 9/11, ran Epstein to have leverage over US politicians, and had a hand in the Kirk assassination, the identity of the Israeli prime minister doing the denying is irrelevant. The villain is preselected. The narrative is predetermined.
In this toxic environment, a retweet by the prime minister can be badly misunderstood. Netanyahu’s retweet abroad was not seen within the framework of his toxic relationship with Barak, but rather as the validation of a conspiracy theory that will now be used against it by the likes of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.
This episode is not only about Netanyahu’s misstep, Barak, or the Epstein files. It is about the corrosive dynamic between Netanyahu and Barak – a relationship so venomous that both men, at different times, have been willing to give ammunition to Israel’s harshest critics just to wound each other.