The Economist interviewer: Anyone who criticises Israel is vulnerable to being called anti-Zionist or antisemitic.
Tucker Carlson: By whom?
interviewer: There is conflation by the same people you have been referring to, within the broader political discussion.
TC: Do you think that is a good faith response or a tactic?
interviewer: I was about to ask you that. We have both been critical of the Israeli government. I want to clarify the terms.
TC: I have been very critical of the Israeli government.
interviewer: I have also been critical. As I said at the start, we opposed this war.
TC: What do you think of Gaza?
interviewer: The war in Gaza, initially, was a reasonable response to the events of October 7th. Now, the situation is catastrophic. I have been there since the war began.
TC: They would not let me into Gaza.
interviewer: It is catastrophic. Around 72K dead. I went in with the IDF, which is the only way to enter. You see a flattened place. It is a disaster—for the future of Israel, for the Palestinian people, a horror.
TC: Why describe it first as a disaster for the future of Israel?
interviewer: I am making multiple points.
TC: Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, but you frame it first as a disaster for Israel?
interviewer: I did not say “first.” I made several points.
TC: It is foremost a disaster for the families of the dead children.
interviewer: Absolutely. Let me clarify …
TC: Everyone defers to Israel in a way that suggests fear. People say calling others antisemitic allows real antisemitism to flourish.
interviewer: Let me respond …
TC: The real issue is accusing innocent people of crimes they did not commit. The real crime in Gaza is killing people who did nothing wrong.
interviewer: Yes.
TC: No one can say that without first saying, “October 7th was bad.”
interviewer: I do not follow your point. We are having a discussion.
TC: Everyone watching understands.
interviewer: Let’s address it directly. You are critical of the Israeli government. Do you believe Israel has a right to exist? Would you describe yourself as a Zionist under that definition?
TC: What does “a right to exist” mean?
interviewer: The continued existence of the political state of Israel as it currently exists.
TC: What does that “right” mean?
interviewer: That the state should continue to exist. You do not align with positions that call for its destruction.
TC: Define the question clearly so I can answer. You asked two different things: whether Israel has a right to exist, and whether it should continue to exist. Those are not the same.
interviewer: Israel was created as a political entity in 1948 …
TC: Are you asking whether it has a right to exist?
interviewer: I am asking whether it should continue to exist. That is how I am defining Zionism in this context.
TC: The phrase “right to exist” comes from the Israeli government. What does it mean?
interviewer: Answer the question.
TC: I cannot answer without clarity. Are you asking whether I want it to exist, or whether I believe it has a right?
interviewer: Do you seek its destruction?
TC: No. I do not seek its destruction.
interviewer: That is clear.
TC: I have already said I do not want Israel destroyed or forced into nuclear war.
interviewer: Then, under that definition, you would be considered a Zionist.
TC: I am not a Zionist. I do not want any country destroyed, and I do not support killing innocent people. That is a basic principle.
interviewer: So you are not a Zionist?
TC: I do not know what the term means as you are using it. Define it properly.
interviewer: I defined it as supporting the continued existence of Israel as a state.
TC: Again, what is the source of that “right”? What are you asking?
interviewer: You are avoiding the question.
TC: I am asking for clarity. I have said I do not want Israel destroyed. You are asking about a “right to exist.” Does Britain have that right? Does the United States?
interviewer: There is a post-1945 international order that rejects aggression and recognises the existence of states within borders.
TC: I agree with that.
interviewer: Good.
TC: Which is why Israel’s actions in southern Lebanon contradict that principle. It has taken territory from another country, as it has done before, and this is rarely acknowledged. If states have that right, then Lebanon does as well. Gaza had that right too. Yet only one state is consistently granted it.
interviewer: I did not say that.
TC: I believe in universal standards. If they are not universal, they are meaningless.
