Dr. Yoram Hazony invokes Mordechai and Esther in his recent speech on antisemitism, delivered at the Diaspora Ministry conference on January 27. Be strategic court Jews, he urges – not prophetic truth-tellers. But Mordechai refused to bow to Haman, and Esther risked death to expose a genocidal plot.

The Book of Esther is not about political accommodation. It is about political courage at decisive moments. When Esther hesitates, Mordechai exhorts her: “It is for precisely this moment that you became Queen.” She is expected to use her position to defend the Jews, no matter the risk.

The speech begins promisingly. Hazony provides a damning catalogue of antisemitic content on Tucker Carlson’s show: Jews as “demonic force,” Jews “shot Kennedy,” Jews funded Churchill to start “an unnecessary war with Hitler,” the Hebrew Bible teaches “revenge and genocide.” He calls these “abusive, wild slanders.” So far, so clear.

Hazony misunderstands anitsemitism

Then comes the pivot. The problem, Hazony argues, is not that Tucker platformed blood libels to millions: The problem is that Jews responded with “political stupidity” – making moral arguments instead of building bridges to nationalists. The victim is recast as the architect of his own strategic failure.

Hazony claims Jewish groups are so unserious they never even assembled the evidence. This ignores years of documented criticism, from liberal and conservative circles alike, of Carlson’s repeated invocation of the Great Replacement Theory, his platforming of Holocaust revisionists, and his promotion of conspiracy theories including about the January 6 attacks. Repeated soft interviews with open racists and anti-Israel conspiracists ought not to require a highlight reel.

Hazony then declares “the fight over Tucker was lost” and moves on. But what fight? His entire speech argues that Jews should never have fought at all; they should have quietly cultivated nationalist allies instead of loudly objecting to antisemitic propaganda. He attacks the “antisemitism-industrial complex,” a remarkable phrase for a Jewish intellectual to deploy against fellow Jews concerned about antisemitism. It mirrors the very language antisemites use to dismiss Jewish concerns as manufactured grievance.

Political commentator Tucker Carlson arrives for a memorial service for slain conservative commentator Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium, in Glendale, Arizona, US, September 21, 2025.
Political commentator Tucker Carlson arrives for a memorial service for slain conservative commentator Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium, in Glendale, Arizona, US, September 21, 2025. (credit: REUTERS/CARLOS BARRIA)

A flawed model

To frame this accommodation, Hazony offers a three-faction model of the GOP: liberal Republicans are dying (25%), the alt Right is fringe (10%), and his National Conservatism project sits at the center of a 65% nationalist bloc that will rule “for a generation.” Jews must therefore court the nationalists or face irrelevance.

But the model collapses under the weight of a single example. Where is Steve Bannon in this analysis? The highly influential voice in MAGA media, whose “Economic Nationalism” sits at the heart of Hazony’s supposed mainstream, recently called Ben Shapiro a cancer at a Turning Point USA appearance.

If Bannon is in the nationalist 65%, then Hazony’s safe mainstream already contains open hostility toward prominent conservative Jews. If Bannon is in the alt-Right 10%, then the lines between mainstream and fringe are far blurrier than Hazony admits. Conspicuously, the speech never mentions him.

Neither does it mention the US vice president, who remains personally close to Carlson, nor the president, who continues to host Carlson at the White House. And also not the Christian nationalist theologians – Doug Wilson, whom Hazony himself has platformed, and Stephen Wolfe, whose book Hazony endorsed – whose postmillennial vision includes Jews losing rights in the “blood and soil” Christian nation they are building. The speech’s silences are as telling as its arguments.

The deepest evasion

This leads to the speech’s deepest evasion: Hazony never specifies what Jews must accept to join his nationalist coalition. Silence about Tucker’s content? Acceptance of Christian nationalist theology? Looking away when allies platform antisemites? The terms of admission are left carefully unstated, which is itself the answer.

Consider what Hazony presents as Tucker’s rehabilitation. Carlson said he is “not antisemitic” because Stephen Miller and Hazony are acceptable Jews, “you can’t generalize.” This is classic “good Jew, bad Jew” rhetoric. The antisemitic guests remain platformed, and the episodes stay online. This is what Hazony accepts as victory.

“Nationalist Republicans are not antisemites,” Hazony assures us. They are “mystified” why Jews attack them. But if the movement requires this much Jewish bridge-building to prevent antisemitism from dominating, then the indictment should be directed at the movement, not at Jewish strategy.

Hazony is right that moral pronouncements alone do not constitute political strategy. But politics without moral limits is not strategy either: it is capitulation. The question is not whether to be politically sophisticated – it is which principles are non-negotiable.

Hazony built National Conservatism on an inherent contradiction: uniting philosemitic Zionist Christians with a Christian nationalism rooted in supersessionist theology. This is the nature of coalitions, but the hyphen connecting Judeo-Christian values is strained to the breaking point. Tucker’s turn has exposed that fragility; Hazony’s response is to blame Jews for noticing.

A movement that treats Jewish objections to antisemitism as “political stupidity” has already answered the question of how much it values its Jewish members. Mordechai understood that some forms of bowing are not strategic, but rather surrender. Hazony’s speech, for all its sophistication, asks Jews to bow.

The writer is founding partner of Goldrock Capital and founder of The Institute for Jewish and Zionist Research.