Hijacked Memory: Charlie Kirk, Netanyahu, and the War Over What He Really Believed
Contributor Decker McCullough cuts through the noise to confront a narrative that’s been twisted beyond recognition. 9/17/25 1pm MST
Let’s Dig In!
The Spin Begins
Charlie Kirk’s death didn’t just spark grief—it ignited a firestorm of spin. From Netanyahu’s public tribute to the backlash from Kirk’s own allies, the story of his stance on Israel has been distorted, repackaged, and weaponized. Decker takes a sincere look at what Kirk actually believed about Benjamin Netanyahu, what’s been made public, and what’s been misleading—from donor pressure to Gaza outrage to the political hijacking of a man’s memory.
Within hours of Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement calling Kirk a “lion-hearted friend of Israel” who “stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization.” The tribute was sweeping, emotional, and—according to those closest to Kirk—deeply misleading.
The Public Narrative: Manufactured Devotion
Netanyahu’s statement wasn’t just a eulogy. It was a political maneuver. By framing Kirk as a staunch ally of Israel, Netanyahu sought to reinforce his own standing among American conservatives and deflect growing criticism of his government’s actions in Gaza. But the truth, as Tucker Carlson and others have revealed, is far more complicated.
Carlson, speaking on his show just days after Kirk’s death, said bluntly: “Charlie did not like Bibi Netanyahu. He said that to me many times and to people around him. He felt Netanyahu was a destructive force. He was appalled by what was happening in Gaza”.
Carlson’s claims weren’t speculative. He cited corroborative text messages and personal conversations. Former Congressman Matt Gaetz backed him up, saying, “I have personal knowledge as to many of the claims Tucker is making here. They are 100 percent true”.
IBehind the Curtain: Donor Pressure and Political Cost
Kirk’s discomfort with Netanyahu wasn’t just ideological—it was personal and professional. According to Carlson, Kirk faced relentless pressure from pro-Israel donors, many of whom were deeply embedded in the Turning Point USA ecosystem. “Donors tormented Charlie until the day he died,” Carlson said. “Just two days before his assassination, he lost a $2 million donation for pledging to bring me to the next Turning Point conference”.
Candace Owens echoed this, revealing that major Jewish donors demanded their names be removed from Turning Point buildings just days before Kirk’s death—only to reverse course after the assassination.
This wasn’t just about money. It was about control. Kirk’s evolving views on Israel—particularly his criticism of Netanyahu’s handling of Gaza—put him at odds with the very network that helped build his platform. And the cost was steep.
Gaza: The Breaking Point
Kirk’s disillusionment with Netanyahu crystallized around Gaza. According to Carlson, Kirk was “horrified by the deaths of children in Gaza” and believed Netanyahu was “draining the lifeblood of the United States to serve his own ambitions”.
This wasn’t a fringe opinion. It was a growing sentiment among younger conservatives, many of whom were increasingly critical of Israel’s military actions and skeptical of unconditional U.S. support. Kirk, ever the coalition builder, tried to navigate this divide. But the pressure was relentless.
In private conversations, Kirk expressed resentment that Netanyahu was using American political capital to prosecute wars that many believed were unjust. He didn’t hate Israel. He loved visiting. But he saw Netanyahu as a manipulator—a leader willing to hijack American grief and loyalty for his own ends.
The Evolution of a Misleading Legacy
So how did the public narrative get so twisted?
It starts with Kirk’s early career. As the founder of Turning Point USA, he built his brand on staunch conservatism, evangelical values, and pro-Israel messaging. He attended embassy openings in Jerusalem, waved Israeli flags at rallies, and defended Israel in campus debates.But as the political landscape shifted—and as Israel’s actions in Gaza drew global condemnation—Kirk’s views began to evolve. He started questioning the morality of the bombings, the treatment of Palestinians, and the influence of Israeli donors on American politics.
This evolution was subtle, often expressed in private. But it was real. And it made him a target.
After his death, Netanyahu and others rushed to reclaim Kirk’s legacy, painting him as a martyr for Israel. Murals went up in Ashdod. A traffic circle in Netanya was renamed in his honor. Israeli missiles were even inscribed with his name.
But these tributes, while heartfelt, were based on a version of Kirk that no longer existed.
The Media’s Role: Amplifying the Myth
Mainstream media outlets played a key role in perpetuating the myth of Kirk’s unwavering support for Netanyahu. Obituaries and tributes described him as a “lion-hearted friend of Israel,” glossing over his recent criticisms and the donor backlash he faced.
Even outlets that acknowledged the controversy often framed it as a fringe theory or partisan dispute. The New York Times corrected a report that falsely attributed antisemitic remarks to Kirk, but still insisted he was “repeatedly accused of antisemitism” despite his support for Israel.
This selective framing allowed Netanyahu’s narrative to dominate, drowning out voices like Carlson, Owens, and Greene—figures who had firsthand knowledge of Kirk’s evolving views.
Coalition Builder or Political Casualty?
Kirk wasn’t just a commentator. He was a movement architect. He tried to hold together a fractured Republican coalition, bridging generational divides and ideological rifts. His stance on Israel reflected this balancing act.
According to Semafor, Kirk’s “No. 1 concern was that this was ripping the MAGA movement apart.” He was trying to keep young Republicans inside the tent, even as they grew increasingly critical of Israel’s war in Gaza.
But the pressure was immense. Kirk confided in allies that he felt “under siege,” unable to criticize Israel without risking his career. “I have less ability to criticize the Israeli government than actual Israelis do,” he said.
This tension—between personal conviction and political survival—defined Kirk’s final months. And it’s been erased from the public narrative.
The Epstein Factor: A Flashpoint of Controversy
One of the most explosive claims came from Carlson, who said Kirk wanted to discuss Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged ties to Mossad. Carlson refused, fearing backlash. But Kirk insisted.
This wasn’t just conspiracy-mongering. It was part of Kirk’s broader concern about foreign influence and the suppression of dissent. He believed certain narratives were off-limits—not because they were false, but because they threatened powerful interests.
Owens and Megyn Kelly corroborated this, saying Kirk was under intense pressure to toe the line on Israel. “They wanted him to lose everything for changing or even slightly modifying an opinion,” Owens said.
The Hijacking of Grief
Netanyahu’s tribute wasn’t just misleading—it was opportunistic. Carlson called it “ghoulish and repulsive,” accusing the Israeli leader of trying to “redirect grief toward support for his own projects”.
This sentiment was echoed across the right. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted text messages from Kirk, warning against AIPAC and foreign influence. “Do not allow a foreign country and another religion to tell you about Charlie Kirk,” she wrote.
The backlash wasn’t just political. It was personal. Kirk’s friends and allies felt his memory was being hijacked—his legacy rewritten to serve agendas he no longer supported.
Decker’s Final Word: Truth Over Tribute
Charlie Kirk’s death was tragic. But the real tragedy is what came after.
His legacy has been distorted, his beliefs repackaged, and his memory weaponized. The truth—that he questioned Netanyahu, mourned Gaza’s children, and resisted donor control—has been buried beneath murals, missiles, and media spin. With that said, This editorial isn’t about vilifying Israel or sanctifying Kirk. It’s about reclaiming truth. About honoring a man’s actual convictions, not the convenient caricature.
Charlie Kirk was evolving. He was questioning. He was resisting. And for that, he paid a price.
Let’s not let his memory be hijacked. With that said, Netanyahu isn’t leveraging American support to protect Israel—he’s leveraging it to protect himself. From Gaza bombardments to diplomatic cover, U.S. resources are being funneled into the prosecution of Netanyahu’s personal agenda, not the collective will of the Israeli people. When a foreign leader can redirect American grief, money, and military might toward his own political survival, that’s not alliance—it’s exploitation. And yes, we want to hear from YOU!
