On December 16, 2025, the ongoing debate within American conservative circles over the United States’ relationship with Israel took an unexpected turn, as far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones publicly criticized prominent MAGA influencers for what he called their damaging obsession with Jewish people and an emerging willingness to find common ground with Muslim countries. In a fiery broadcast, Jones, known for his provocative rhetoric and polarizing presence, appeared to single out figures such as Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson—though he stopped short of naming them directly. The latter, Carlson, had recently encouraged his followers to visit Qatar, a country long accused by critics of hosting Hamas leaders.
According to Mediaite, Jones labeled these MAGA personalities as “fake nationalists” and “fake Christian Patriots,” accusing them of promoting an unhealthy fixation on Jews and facilitating alliances that, in his view, undermine the very foundations of American sovereignty. “I worry about you guys. It’s not the criticism I care about; it’s about you,” Jones said, launching into a series of biting analogies. “If I had a glass of water here and a glass of water right here, and one had a couple tablespoons of arsenic in it, and the other had a couple tablespoons of cyanide in it, and I’m like, ‘Don’t drink the arsenic and don’t drink the cyanide.’ You’re like, ‘Why are you covering up for the arsenic?’”
Jones’s analogies didn’t stop there. He compared the situation to choosing between deadly spiders, warning his audience against the dangers of aligning with either side—be it Jewish or Muslim interests—without critical scrutiny. “There’s a box right here and it’s got five or six black widows in it and five or six brown recluses, both deadly, both can kill you. And I don’t want to stick my hand in either box. Can you understand that?” he continued. His message was clear: both alliances, if taken to extremes, could be perilous for American populism.
But Jones’s critique went further, accusing certain right-wing populists of embracing Islam as a tactical move to oppose Israel’s influence. “There’s a lot of right-winger populists—not a lot, but it’s a big minority—that literally love Islam. They all kissy-fishy all over the internet, and they have joint symposiums together, and they talk about the, you know, national white alliance with Islam. You guys are idiots. Absolute,” Jones declared. He suggested that Muslim actors, in his view, were funding much of the anti-Israel sentiment in order to take over populist movements and weaken Western resolve.
“The Muslims are funding a lot of this Israel obsession that Israel is in total control of everything, including what time you have a bowel movement, to try to take over our populist movements so that we’ll stand down and let them take over,” Jones warned. He insisted that it was possible—and necessary—to stand up for sovereignty both when Israel “tries to push us around” and when “the Muslims” do the same. “The threat is real. Yeah, Europe’s further down the rat hole than we are, but we’re getting dragged into it too. And there’s not long to turn this around. Good God.”
While Jones’s remarks drew immediate backlash and astonishment on social media, they also highlighted a growing rift within the right-wing movement about the direction of US foreign policy and the role of Israel. His comments arrived on the heels of a separate, but thematically linked, development from Doha, where senior Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal delivered a pointed message to former US President Donald Trump and his MAGA base.
Speaking to Drop Site on December 16, 2025, Meshaal urged Trump to abandon what he called Washington’s “Israel-first” policy. He argued that even Trump’s own supporters now see Israel as a “burden” that restricts and harms US interests. “Unfortunately, one of the problems with the US administration is that it prioritizes Israel’s interests more than the United States’ own interests,” Meshaal said, adding, “even Trump’s people—MAGA—came to realize that Israel is a burden on them, restricting and harming US interests.”
Meshaal’s comments came at a sensitive time, roughly two months after a US-, Egypt-, and Qatar-mediated ceasefire took hold in Gaza. Despite the halt in large-scale fighting, Meshaal insisted that Israeli violations continued and stressed the need for Israel to fully comply with the first phase of the ceasefire agreements before moving to subsequent stages. He also outlined Hamas’s willingness to work with the US and the international community to stabilize Gaza, facilitate reconstruction, prepare for democratic elections, and lay the groundwork for negotiations toward a future Palestinian state.
However, Meshaal drew a red line at the prospect of any non-Palestinian authority inside Gaza. “Any attempt to establish a non-Palestinian authority inside Gaza is first unacceptable and second doomed to fail,” he said. “Any non-Palestinian authority—meaning foreign authorities or foreign forces inside Gaza—would be treated by Palestinians as an occupying authority, as an occupying power.” Meshaal’s position was unambiguous: “Why would Palestinians reject Israeli occupation but accept another form of foreign occupation?”
As Washington floated the idea of an international stabilization force for Gaza, seeking contributions from Muslim and Arab nations, Meshaal noted that many regional states had already refused to participate in any operation aimed at disarming or confronting Palestinian resistance groups. “What we will not accept is occupation, guardianship, or support for an occupier. We criticize the United States not because it is the United States—no—but because it provides Israel, our occupier, with complete support in all forms,” he added.
Meshaal also addressed the critical issue of Hamas’s defensive capabilities. While open to the idea of “freezing” or storing weapons, he made it clear that Hamas would not agree to disarmament unless it came as part of the creation of a Palestinian army or security force capable of defending itself against Israeli aggression. “It is in the interest of the United States and Western capitals to pursue positive engagement with Hamas and with the Palestinian people, because we are the future, and this occupation will become part of the past,” he said.
In a final appeal, Meshaal asserted that only the US—specifically President Trump and his administration—has the leverage to compel Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to respect the agreements related to Gaza. “President Trump and the American administration alone are capable of compelling Israel and [the Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to respect the agreements, so they bear this responsibility before we assign responsibility to any regional or international party,” Meshaal emphasized.
These parallel developments—one from the heart of American right-wing media, the other from the leadership of Hamas—underscore the shifting sands in the debate over US policy toward Israel and Palestine. As voices on both sides question long-held alliances and strategies, the future of American engagement in the Middle East appears more unsettled than ever.
The clash of rhetoric and interests, from Alex Jones’s warnings about “fake Christian Patriots” to Khaled Meshaal’s call for a new US approach, reveals the complexity and volatility of the current moment. With both American and Palestinian leaders urging a reexamination of old certainties, the coming months may determine whether these debates spark genuine change—or simply fuel more division.
