After Charlie Kirk’s Assassination, Israelis Warn: ‘The Hatred and Weapons Are Here’
Warnings multiply, from journalist Ben Caspit to activist Yosef Haddad, scholar Eytan Gilboa and senior journalist Yoni Ben-Menahem, that incitement and polarization are pushing Israel toward an American-style crisis
The images of Charlie Kirk’s assassination in Utah, captured almost in real time, reverberated across the world. For Israelis, the footage struck a raw nerve: the murder of a political figure, celebrated or excused by some, raised the question of whether such a scene could unfold in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Haifa.
The menace of political violence—etched into Israel’s history since the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at a peace rally in Tel Aviv—hovered over conversations in cafes, radio studios and the protest camps that dot Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv, the epicenter of demonstrations against the government since 2023.
If you ask me whether I’m afraid there will be political murder in Israel, my answer is ‘yes’
“If you ask me whether I’m afraid there will be political murder in Israel, my answer is ‘yes.’ The hatred and the weapons are here,” said Ben Caspit, senior columnist for Walla, Maariv and Al-Monitor, and one of the country’s most prominent political commentators, speaking to The Media Line. “It is all very similar now to the United States.”
Caspit’s warning is anchored in both memory and statistics. “In Israel, 95 percent of political violence comes from right to left, not the other way around,” he stressed. “The Israeli left, unlike the radical left abroad, is much less violent. Yet even 1 percent flirting with violence is enough to bring disaster.” He recalled Rabin’s refusal to wear a bulletproof vest in the mid-1990s despite escalating incitement, only to be murdered at a peace rally. “In the end, the prime minister who was murdered here was from the left. That is not theory, it is fact.”
The parallel with Kirk’s killing—an American conservative whose views sharply divided public opinion but who was gunned down in broad daylight—has sparked unease in Israel. “Even if you oppose all of Charlie Kirk’s views, murder is murder. It must always be condemned,” Caspit insisted. “Journalists and citizens alike must be clear: No flirting with violence, not even as an idea.”
For Yosef Haddad, an Arab Israeli journalist, advocacy activist for Israel and CEO of Together—Vouch for Each Other, the threat is already personal. “Unfortunately, the answer is yes, it is possible,” he told The Media Line when asked if Israel could see its own Kirk-like moment. “Among extremists—even if they are a tiny minority—there is a real danger. Every morning, I receive threats like, ‘We want to kill you, we want to put a bullet in your head.’ That is terrifying.”
Haddad leaned forward as he described the weight of those threats. “The amount of times that I was assaulted by extremists, I can’t even start counting,” he said. “My family was attacked with me, and my mother’s hand was broken. This is not theoretical. It is real.” After Kirk’s assassination, he admitted to canceling public appearances. “I can’t take risks right now,” he said. “When you see murder glorified online, you understand how thin the barrier is between words and bullets.”
The extremists shout louder, intimidate and use violence, creating the illusion that they are the majority. They are not.
“The extremists shout louder, intimidate and use violence, creating the illusion that they are the majority. They are not. But they dominate the conversation and put fuel on the fire,” he explained. For him, the lesson of Kirk’s assassination is not distant—it is a mirror of his daily inbox. “As an activist, as someone who advocates for freedom of speech on all sides, I welcome dialogue. But there is a difference between freedom of speech and incitement. We need to understand that thin border.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Professor Eytan Gilboa, expert on US-Israel relations at Bar-Ilan University and senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, told The Media Line that the danger of political murder is no longer hypothetical. “Political murder in Israel has become more likely because of two dangerous factors: extreme polarization and the easy availability of weapons,” he warned. “We know that many weapons are stolen from the Israeli military or smuggled across the Jordan River. And in the last two years, the minister of national security distributed hundreds of thousands of weapons. Availability of weapons is always a factor in political murder.”
Gilboa emphasized that high-level politicians are well protected, but activists are increasingly vulnerable. “If we look at the Charlie Kirk example, this could happen in Israel. It is more likely here than an attempt on a minister or the prime minister,” he said. “If the motivation is to eliminate someone because of their political opinions or position, then this is a political assassination. And in Israel today, there is much incitement to violence on both sides, but especially from the coalition, which speaks of traitors, betrayal and the radical left.”
Caspit pointed to what he calls a “poison machine” embedded in parts of Israel’s media ecosystem. “If you open Channel 14, a pro-government television station, or listen to the pro-government channels, you hear endless incitement. They spread fake news, conspiracy theories, blood libels. It is not journalism, it is a poison machine,” he said. The presence of such rhetoric, he added, is dangerous precisely because Israel’s legal tools against incitement are weak. “Israeli law sets the bar very high in order to protect free speech. That doesn’t mean it’s not incitement. But the institutions themselves—the police, the justice system—are under immense political pressure, and this weakens enforcement.”
Yoni Ben-Menahem, senior Israeli journalist and former director general of the Israel Broadcasting Authority, offered a different perspective. Speaking to The Media Line, he cautioned against blaming only the right for incitement. “The current war has shown that there is also danger from the left. You had left-wing activists firing flares at the prime minister’s residence and even an older activist who tried to acquire an RPG to kill the prime minister. The tendencies toward violence today don’t come only from the right.”
Ben-Menahem added that both journalists and politicians are increasingly at risk. “Reporters from Channel 14 are attacked on the street, labeled as a ‘poison machine,’ just as left-wing journalists are. This can escalate into murder, regardless of whether the target is right or left.” While he acknowledged the growing number of weapons in civilian hands, he argued the real danger comes from rhetoric.
“The presence of weapons after Oct. 7 is not the main problem. Guns are meant for defense against terrorism and have proven useful. But the real issue is the climate of incitement that can turn verbal violence into physical violence in the streets.” He concluded: “There is no real difference between political assassination and terrorism. Both are ideological violence meant to silence and intimidate. Killing someone because of their views is terrorism of thought—it is the same act.”
Haddad, who often lectures abroad and confronts anti-Israel activism on campuses, sees the same phenomenon online. “Social media is taking a very, very crucial role in amplifying hate,” he said. “I’ve seen many accounts glorifying murder. That is fuel for incitement. These accounts should be banned because the only ones who gain from it are the extremists on both sides.”
Gilboa noted that Israel’s internal dynamics—the war in Gaza, the hostage crisis, Netanyahu’s political survival—are fueling the flames. “Polarization does not come on its own. It is created by politicians who benefit from it. In Israel, the prime minister and his coalition partners are responsible for disseminating much hatred,” he said. “The war in Gaza, the hostage crisis and both the political and personal survival of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who still faces an ongoing corruption trial—these factors have contributed to more incitement. And when incitement increases, the potential for political assassination grows.”
Caspit, too, sees reality shifting in a dangerous direction. He noted the surge in privately held firearms under the current government. “Unlike a few years ago, Israel today has an unparalleled amount of weapons distributed to its citizens. Hundreds of thousands of weapons in a country of a few million. Today, to get a lethal weapon—even if you’re not a security guard or soldier—is easy.”
Gilboa compared Israel’s situation with the United States. “The radical right in Israel has enormous influence inside the government itself. This is not the case in the United States, where Trump and Biden did not appoint radicals from their extremes. That difference makes Israel more vulnerable,” he explained. “There is a fine border between free speech and incitement. Legal authorities walk a tightrope, but when leaders themselves cross the line with extreme rhetoric, they bear direct responsibility for any future political murder.”
He dismissed claims from Netanyahu’s allies that violence could emerge from the protest movement. “It is ridiculous and it is funny,” Caspit said, visibly irritated. “In the end, almost all cases of violence come from the right. The left in Israel, unlike the world’s radical left, is much less violent. Yet I tell my friends in the protest: Do not even dream of flirting with violence. Because if half a million people think Netanyahu is a threat to the state, and even 1 percent act on it, we face disaster.”
Haddad echoed the same caution. “We must act firmly against extremists, but through the law, not through citizens taking revenge,” he said. “Dialogue and respectful debate are the only way to keep society from collapsing into violence. Anyone who wants to promote Israel’s improvement—even if they see things differently from me—I welcome that dialogue. But if you incite against my country or support terrorist agendas, that is not dialogue—it is incitement.”
Unfortunately, our leaders are not responsible. Some current and former leaders speak in such worrying ways that I can’t even comprehend those words coming out of their mouths
Both men pointed to the responsibility of leaders to set the tone. “Unfortunately, our leaders are not responsible,” Haddad said. “Some current and former leaders speak in such worrying ways that I can’t even comprehend those words coming out of their mouths. They must tone it down and take responsibility before we step into the same abyss as the United States.” He cited President Donald Trump’s decision to lower the American flag after Kirk’s death as an example of symbolic leadership. “I don’t care if he gains politically from it or not. What matters is that the president of the United States took time to say murder is unacceptable. That message matters.”
Caspit was more skeptical about politicians’ sincerity. “There is violence every day—by police, by right-wing activists against protesters. They burn tents, they assault families of hostages. Yet when one person mutters about killing the prime minister, it becomes a national festival. They have a complete propaganda machine that turns it into headlines.”
Still, he conceded that journalists cannot remain silent. “Even if you are a leftist Israeli journalist, you must condemn a murder like Kirk’s. Because murder is murder. What is the point of investing your energy in telling Israel’s story to the world if you cannot say the simplest thing—that killing a person for his views is unacceptable?”
As Israel braces for another season of protests and political turmoil, Caspit, Haddad, Gilboa and Ben-Menahem all recognize the fragility of the moment, even as they differ on where the greatest dangers lie.
“The assassination of Charlie Kirk may have taken place thousands of miles away,” Gilboa concluded, “but in Israel it sharpened a haunting question: When incitement spreads and polarization deepens, how far is the next bullet?”
