The Iran-Israel war reminds us that American anti-Semitism isn't confined to the left.

The feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk has died down, Musk having walked back his over-the-top attacks on the president. But never fear. The mainstream media has another intra-MAGA clash to tout — the one between Trump and Tucker Carlson over the Iran-Israel war.

This dispute, too, has the media drooling. The Independent proclaims that MAGA infighting over the Iran-Israel war has “plunged Trump’s movement into disarray.” The New York Times has an article to the same effect.

“Disarray”? Really? Congressional Republicans, with the exception of a handful of usual suspects, are backing Trump. Vice President Vance, as MAGA as it gets, has pushed back against MAGA critics of Trump’s stance, calling some of their writings “crazy stuff.” I don’t call moaning by a few fringe figures “disarray” in Trump’s movement.

The Trump-Musk feud was far from a clash of titans, but it was worth noticing. The Trump-Carlson feud? Not so much.

Trump brushed off Carlson as “kooky” and said:

I don’t know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network [show] and say it so that people listen.

Better yet, let him not.

I’m not denying that aggressive military involvement against Iran could cause political problems for Trump (our current help in defending Israel against missiles cannot). As with any military undertaking in modern America, if we engage directly with Iran and that involvement leads to significant American casualties or a “forever war,” then of course there will be political “disarray,” and not just in MAGA world. Tucker Carlson will be the least of Trump’s worries in that scenario.

But as things stand now, I view the Trump-Carlson disagreement as trivial.

Carlson represents what I’ll call the America First Neo-isolationist movement (AFNI). It’s instructive to compare its opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine with its opposition to U.S. support for Israel.

The opposition to support for Ukraine can be summarized by JD Vance’s pre-vice presidency statement that he doesn’t really care what happens to Ukraine. This is an expression of indifference, not hatred.

Sometimes opponents point out that Ukraine is “corrupt.” I consider this a weak argument for refusing to help Ukraine resist Russia, but there’s nothing toxic about it.

Sometimes opponents try to absolve Russia by citing the alleged threat of NATO expansion. This, though, is as much a criticism of NATO as of Ukraine. In any case, it does convey genuine animus towards Ukraine.

AFNI opposition to helping Israel often takes a much darker tone. For example, Candace Owens, once the darling of some mainstream conservatives, criticized Israel as “demonic” and claimed that Israel “has a bloodlust like no other” (not even Hamas, presumably).

Owens also said, “Get ready, white American men! It’s time for you to go die for Israel again.” (Emphasis added) The ignorance of this comment is staggering, though not surprising. While Israel relies on American arms and defense systems, it does not rely on “American men,” white or otherwise. It doesn’t even allow foreign troops to be stationed on its soil.

Carlson’s comments about the current war are similar to Vance’s statement about Ukraine. They’re misguided in my view, but are policy-based, not hate-filled.

But Carlson’s pal, historian Darryl Cooper, ranted:

If our government was going to be taken over by a foreign nation, why did it have to be the most paranoid and psychotic foreign nation on Earth?

Cooper urged that America “commence airstrikes on Tel Aviv immediately.”

The anti-Semitism of Owens and Cooper is obvious, and helps explain the difference between the way AFNIs talk about Ukraine and Israel. Claims that Israel has “bloodlust” hark back to the blood libel Jew haters have espoused for centuries. Cooper, an apologist for the Holocaust, is expressly advocating that the U.S. intentionally kill Jewish civilians.

Nick Fuentes, the notorious anti-Semite whom Trump once hosted at Mar a Lago, called the war with Iran “the final battle in Israel’s 50 year reign of terror to destabilize & destroy every country that resists their {sic} rule.” By “resisting Israel’s rule,” Fuentes seems to mean attempting to destroy the Jewish state.

It’s one thing to argue that the U.S. should not get involved in Israel’s fight. It’s quite another to demonize Israel in highly slanderous terms. The difference marks the dividing line between policy-based neo-isolationist criticism of the Israel and attacks driven by anti-Semitism.

Owens, Cooper, and Fuentes aren’t the only members of the AFNI movement who have crossed that line. Haley Strack calls out some of the others:

UFC fighter and podcaster Jake Shields is “sick and tired of paying for and fighting Jewish wars” and demanded the destruction of Israel. Dan Bilzerian said, “These jews just can’t help themselves, they attack Iran unprovoked, and they’ll be crying about how they don’t feel safe by morning,” adding, “If I was the president, I would round up every politician supporting Israel and have them all tried for treason.” These are just a few [example].

It’s tempting for conservatives to view anti-Semitism as an almost purely left-liberal phenomenon in today’s America. Certainly, the response by many on the left to the war against Hamas has given superficial credence to this view.

But the response by portions of the MAGA movement to the Israel-Iran war shows that anti-Semitism is a force on both sides of the political spectrum. Not nearly enough of a force on the MAGA side to have “plunged Trump’s movement into disarray,” but a force to keep an eye on and to denounce, nonetheless.