11 Nov FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS EMBRACE ANTISEMITES

I still remember a

slogan from a well-
known public service

announcement from
my youth: “Friends
don’t let friends drive
drunk.” Simple yet
profound, it captured
the essence of true friendship: stepping in
when someone else’s choices could cause
harm.
That slogan came to mind this week in a
different context when “friendship” became
the excuse and defense for standing by
those who platform antisemites and
disseminate hate.
Tucker Carlson was one of highest-rated
hosts in network news. His shift to
independent media has only expanded his
global reach and influence, with views for
his individual episodes on X often in the
tens or hundreds of millions. During that
same shift, he has faced repeated accusations
of spreading antisemitism, amplifying
conspiracy theories, and promoting
extremist views.
The controversy reached its peak when
Carlson hosted Nick Fuentes, a far-right
figure known mostly for extreme antisemitic

rhetoric and Holocaust denial. While
Carlson framed the interview as an attempt
to understand Fuentes’ perspective, it was
hard to see it as anything other than giving
legitimacy to hate speech and normalizing
extremist ideology, particularly as Tucker
failed to ask difficult questions, condemn
deplorable comments, or challenge Fuentes
or hold him accountable for his views.
While for the last couple of years, Carlson
flirted with the line of anti-Israel bias and
antisemitic beliefs, several recent
comments, coupled with the Fuentes
episode, have firmly and undeniably put
him over the line and raised real questions.
Was he always filled with this latent hate, or
did his views and opinions change over
time? Can he still be brought back, or is he
hopeless and irredeemable?
Whatever the answers to those questions, it
has become clear that it is time for those
who align with him politically to call out
and confront Carlson, and that is exactly
what Ben Shapiro did last week on a special
episode of his podcast. Using clips from
Carlson and Fuentes themselves, Ben called
Tucker an “intellectual coward” and an
“ideological launderer,” someone who
softens “hideous ideas” and gives them

wider audiences. He did not
call for cancellation but
instead issued a call for moral
clarity and accountability, a
line drawn that others had
been hesitant to draw.
The episode drew over 36
million views on X, quickly
becoming a flashpoint within
the conservative world. With
moral lines now unmistakably
drawn, many praised Ben for
his clarity and conviction,
while others, especially those
aligned with Tucker, Fuentes, and their
ideological circle, reacted with hostility.
His decision to speak out may appear
straightforward and a low bar, but it
demanded genuine courage. Speaking out
against someone from his own side of the
aisle comes with risks that are not
theoretical, and challenging powerful
figures and entrenched audiences comes at
a cost: to one’s safety, reputation, and
professional influence alike. In an era when
moral equivocation has become the easier
path, we should be both proud and
profoundly grateful that one of the most
visible Jews in public life, a man whose
yarmulke is as recognizable as his voice,
is using his platform to articulate moral
truth when so many others remain silent.
Ben didn’t stop there. In the last few
days, he has risked relationships by
confronting conservative colleagues and
challenging them on their silence
surrounding the Carlson-Fuentes episode.
Megyn Kelly had Ben on her show to
discuss these developments and when he
confronted her on failing to speak out
against people like Candace Owens, she
defended herself by saying, “My position
is it’s really none of my business,” and
“I’m not mother of the internet.” When
pushed on Carlson, Kelly defended her
friendship and spoke about loyalty.
I don’t envy Megyn Kelly and others in
the conservative world who have been
caught between prominent, popular, and
highly influential friends. They express
that this isn’t their fight, they aren’t
responsible to police everything that
everyone says or monitor who they host.
They argue that when it comes to friends,
criticism and reproach should be shared
privately, never in the public sphere.
This tension between loyalty and moral
responsibility is not unique to public
figures, though for them it is a different
calculation and conclusion. The truth is
we all face these issues in our private
lives: friends who make ethical missteps
or betray trust, loved ones who engage in
harmful or criminal behavior. How far

should friendship go? Does standing by
someone implicitly condone their actions or
associate us with their behaviors? Is silence
a sign of loyalty, or a betrayal of our own
values?
Certainly, there are differences between
public figures and private friends. There
are support roles for rabbis and professionals
to play and that often differs from how
individuals should navigate these
complicated decisions.
The Mishna in Pirkei Avos teaches: “Rav
Yehoshua ben Perachia taught, make for
yourself a rabbi, acquire for yourself a
friend and judge every person favorably.”
The Rambam notes that it doesn’t say make
for yourself a friend or befriend other
people. It specifically says “acquire”
because when it comes to friendship, one
cannot be casual or complacent. We have to
bring the same attention, critical thinking
and seriousness in searching for a friend
who will bring out our best and hold us
accountable, that we bring to major
acquisitions.
Perhaps with the choice of that word, our
rabbis also intended another subtle message
about friendship. K’nei, acquire also has
the same root as l’sakein, to repair. Real
friends reproach and seek to repair one
another. Real friendship is not loving
someone so much that you let anything they
do slide. It is caring so much that you are
willing to confront and call out when you
are concerned your friend has lost his way.
Perhaps it is time for a modern update to my
childhood PSA: “Friends don’t let friends
embrace antisemites.” Antisemitism, like
any form of hate, clouds judgment,
endangers others, and corrodes the soul.
Standing by those who embrace it is not
friendship, it is enabling. Moral courage,
even at the cost of discomfort or
confrontation, is the highest expression of
care.
Friendship, loyalty, and ethics intersect in
complex ways, but one thing is clear: love
and loyalty do not absolve hate. True friends
hold each other accountable and protect the
moral health of their community and of
their movement.