Mark Levin, a well-known conservative radio host, recently stirred controversy by suggesting that Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, may hold anti-Semitic views. This claim is particularly striking given that Witkoff is Jewish himself.
In an interview with Breitbart, Witkoff criticized what he termed the “neocon element” in U.S. foreign policy. He argued that this group tends to see military action as the only solution to international problems, ignoring the potential consequences of such actions. Witkoff stated, “The neocon element believes that war is the only way to solve things.”
Levin responded to Witkoff’s comments on social media, dismissing them and suggesting that Witkoff sounded like “fifth column isolationists.” He also implied that the term "neocon" is often used as a pejorative for Jewish people, calling it “unbelievable” that such a label could be applied in this context.
The situation escalated as the Community Notes feature on X (formerly Twitter) provided context for Levin’s remarks, explaining that while many neoconservatives are Jewish, the term itself refers to a political philosophy advocating for active foreign policy to promote democracy. The feature emphasized that labeling someone as anti-Semitic for advocating diplomacy over military action is misleading.
Critics of Levin’s comments, including Tucker Carlson, have pointed out the absurdity of calling Witkoff an anti-Semite, especially given his Jewish background. Carlson expressed his respect for Witkoff and questioned Levin’s judgment in making such an accusation.
The debate highlights a broader tension within conservative circles regarding foreign policy. Many neoconservatives have historically accused critics of their hawkish stance of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments. However, this tactic is increasingly being challenged, especially as anti-war sentiments gain traction among conservatives.
Even Donald Trump weighed in on the issue during a recent speech in Saudi Arabia, criticizing neoconservatives for their past failures. His remarks suggested a potential shift in the Republican Party’s approach to foreign policy, moving away from the interventionist strategies long championed by neocons.
As the conversation continues, it remains to be seen how these dynamics will reshape the future of conservative politics and foreign policy discussions.