The Populist Moment Against Israel

The Populist Moment Against Israel

László Molnárfi

The Mondoweiss article by Matt Seriff-Cullick published on the 2nd of December 2025^[1] and popularized as an Instagram reel a few days later^[2] serves as an intervention in the ongoing debate as to whether the Right’s nascent anti-Israel sentiment is permissible within the pro-Palestine movement.

Recent interviews between Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, and between Candace Owens and Norman Finkelstein, have brought increased attention to right-wing critiques of U.S. support for Israel.

It argues that it is not. A lot of comments underneath the reel disagree with what is perceived as a ‘purity test’, ‘gatekeeping’, ‘divide and conquer’, ‘countersignalling’ and such. This is all fair. The crux of the issue, however, is an error of philosophy. The arguments put forward serve as a case study in the difference between mechanical and dialectical materialism.

Zionism is a settler colonial movement, aligned with U.S. imperialism, and deeply imbricated from its origins with European fascism, racialism, and antisemitism. Anti-Zionism is a transnational, anti-imperialist & decolonial movement that has been led intellectually and materially by the Palestinian resistance. Contemporary right-wing critiques of U.S. support for Israel, by contrast, are grounded in one or both of two tendencies: 1) a particular form of hyper-nationalism (one that often refers to itself as “isolationist” or “anti-internationalist”), and 2) antisemitic conspiracy theory.

But critically, neither tendency has anything to do with actual anti-Zionism, since both are fully compatible with underlying Western imperialist and settler colonial logics of Zionism, including ethnonationalism, white supremacy, and Islamophobia.

With that said, there is a troubling alignment that must be named between right-wing and center-left/liberal critique of U.S. support for Israel (as distinct from leftist, decolonial anti-Zionist critique). Specifically, both camps – right and center-left – rely on the misguided premise that this support is contrary to U.S. national interests, and is driven primarily by the outsized influence of the “Israel Lobby.” In fact, as Max Ajl, Hebh Jamal, and others have shown, the U.S.-Israel “Special Relationship” is driven by a profound alignment of interests between the two partners in imperialism and settler colonialism, not by the machinations of a special interest group that bends U.S. politics to its will. Likewise, both Democrats and right-wing pundits routinely claim that certain egregious, genocidal acts by Israel are contrary to U.S. values or interests, rather than acknowledging that genocidal, settler colonial violence is at the heart of the American project.

(emphasis mine)

The mechanical materialist assumes that there is an unfixed nature to the Empire, which, pursuing a geopolitical and thus economic alignment of interests as its ‘base’, is then auto-reflected in the subjective consciousness of its leaders, which forms the ‘superstructure’. In contrast to this, the dialectical materialist understands that the base gives rise to the superstructure, but the superstructure affects back on the base. This is part of what is called a ‘dialectical cycle’. The superstructure is thus relatively-autonomous in relation to the base. Ideological contradictions, such as that which arises between the hyper-nationalist drive towards sovereignty, is, at each moment in the dialectical cycle, pitted against Zionist control of State institutions. There is, in fact, no such thing as a fixed “U.S national interest”, because Capital must be mediated through the subjective consciousness of people. The drive to profit is not axiomatic, and the Empire can take decisions which contradict the base, through changes in the superstructure. In other words, objective interests can be overridden by the subjective element, as each dialectical cycle gives rise to moments of decision. The subjective moment is then slotted back into the series of objective moments; rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Thus, contradictions can weaken the Empire even if they arise from reactionary sources. Imperialist ideology is able to birth anti-imperialist moments, if contradictions are accentuated. Take, for instance, Donald Trump’s ideological insistence on cutting off USAID – a key arm of imperialism – which inadvertently led to a weakening of the Empire.

In fact, the entire article is based on semantic confusion which serves to short-circuit thinking by making mechanistic reductions, equalizing Zionism with Empire, as if they were necessarily inseparable, rather than contingently related in the current historical juncture. If one follows the line of argumentation that the behaviour of the Empire can be altered, it becomes clear that the so-called “U.S values or interests” which are at “the heart of the American project” are not fixed. These are ever-changing. The heart of the American project is not a metaphysical property, but the people’s productive activity itself. Zionism can be extracted from the Empire, with and without acknowledgement of the fact that the American project was birthed from “genocidal, settler-colonial violence”. The American nation is not a fixed entity, rather, its constituent elements can be surgically shifted, removed and inserted. History is not made by abstracted frameworks, but by the material activity of the masses, which are not mechanistically following a fixed drive to profit. The ship of capitalism does not steer itself.

Thus, the messaging put forward by “Democrats and right-wing pundits”, as well as left-populists, is meant to redefine what it means to be American within the realm of ideology, in the superstructure, which affects back on the base. What is “American” (and its off-shoots, such as “America First”) are shifting signifiers. Here, it is possible to introduce a subjective override of objective interests.

1. If the Left insists that the Empire is of a fixed nature, and refuses to re-define what America means, insisting that it is at heart a settler-colonial, genocidal regime which must be Zionist, it is cutting itself off from the discursive activity of millions and will be left unable to influence it in an anti-Israel direction. Conversely, if the Left participates in the sociocultural discourse about what ‘America’ is meant to be, putting forward an alternative vision rather than pure negation, then it can reclaim terrain in national politics. Additionally, then it can compete with the Right within this realm, clawing away at its base and turning them to the Left.
2. The Right will put forward a hyper-nationalist justification for withdrawing support for Israel, and this is evidently compatible with the “underlying Western imperialist and settler colonial logics of Zionism, including ethnonationalism, white supremacy, and Islamophobia”, if examined theoretically, but practically, the end result remains all the same. Recently, America First Republican candidate for Florida’s Governor seat James Fishback announced that if elected, he will divest $385 million from Israel and re-invest into welfare programs^[3]. This is only the natural conclusion of the anti-Israel attitudes of the Right.
3. The redefinition of what America means, and the exclusion of Israel within this discourse, is arising from both the Left and the Right, which, competing and cooperating, will reach a zenith and converge into a world-historical populist moment against Israel, the sum being greater than its parts. A global populist movement against Zionism is necessary to stop Israel’s brutal campaign of annihilation against Palestinians and does not bolster antisemitism, but in fact is an integral part of its destruction.

If this happens en-masse, then the ultimate result is that U.S funding for Israel is reduced or withdrawn altogether. There is surely nothing more anti-Zionist than this!

1. Seriff-Cullick, Matt. “Stop Calling Right-Wing Criticism of Israel “Anti-Zionism.”” Mondoweiss, 2 Dec. 2025, mondoweiss.net/2025/12/stop-calling-right-wing-criticism-of-israel-anti-zionism/. Accessed 28 Dec. 2025. ↑
2. Mondoweiss on Instagram. “Mondoweiss on Instagram: “Tucker Carlson Criticizing Israel Doesn’t Make Him Anti-Zionist. Actual Anti-Zionism Is a Decolonial Movement Led by Palestinians. While It’s Being Described as “Anti-Zionist”, Right-Wing “Criticism” of Israel Is Actually Centered on Nationalistic Principles like “America First”. Critics like Carlson and Candace Owens Are Still Fine with Ethnostates, Islamophobia, and Imperialism. You Know, the Foundation of Zionism. Produced by @Trishestalks 🔗 in Bio to Read the Full Article!”” Instagram, 9 Dec. 2025, www.instagram.com/p/DSC44H7E8D-/. Accessed 28 Dec. 2025. ↑
3. Fishback, James. “As Florida Governor, I Will Divest the Entire $385 Million Currently Invested in Israeli Government Bonds and Launch a $385 Million down Payment Assistance Program to Help Married Florida Couples Buy Their First Home.” X (Formerly Twitter), 2025, x.com/j_fishback/status/2004955982846460250. Accessed 28 Dec. 2025. ↑