Did Israel Kill Charlie Kirk? Five Takeaways from The FloodGate Podcast

September 25, 2025 Articles, Features

By Romana Rubeo  

Ramzy Baroud and Robert Inlakesh unpack Charlie Kirk’s assassination, highlighting his deep ties to Zionist donors, signs of a political shift, Israel’s propaganda crisis, Netanyahu’s denials, and the challenge of navigating disinformation.

The assassination of American conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has sent shockwaves through US politics and beyond. His death sparked not only grief and outrage, but also fierce debate about his ties to Israel, his relationship with Zionist donors, and whether he was beginning to shift away from the staunchly pro-Israel stance that shaped much of his career.

In a recent episode of The FloodGate Podcast, investigative journalist and analyst Robert Inlakesh examined Kirk’s trajectory, his connections to the donor networks of David Horowitz, and the wave of theories that have followed the killing. 

Speaking with Palestinian journalist and editor of the Palestine Chronicle, Ramzy Baroud, Inlakesh also reflected on Israel’s influence operations in the United States, the unusual response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the broader challenge of navigating disinformation in such a politically charged case.

Here are five takeaways from their conversation.

The Horowitz Machine

Inlakesh argued that Kirk’s rise was no accident. He described Kirk as the direct product of David Horowitz’s political machine, built on a web of Zionist donors and right-wing think tanks.

“Charlie Kirk is really the product of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the interconnected web of donors and think tanks… At the center of it was David Horowitz.”

Kirk himself acknowledged the centrality of these networks.

“When (Horowitz) passed away, Charlie Kirk himself said that Turning Point USA — all those original donors, about 90% of them — came through the connections that David Horowitz provided,” Inlakesh said.

For Inlakesh, understanding this network is essential to understanding not only Kirk’s political trajectory, but also the broader constellation of right-wing influencers shaped by Horowitz’s money: “These narratives and this rhetoric were really, at least started, and the initial push came from David Horowitz and these Zionist donors.”

Signs of a Shift: Tactical or Genuine?

While Kirk never publicly broke with Israel, Inlakesh suggested that a shift was underway. Those close to him — including Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens — testified to an evolution in his views.

“Charlie Kirk never came out and stood against Israel — that would be a mischaracterization. But we do know from people close to him… There was a sort of evolution in his views. Not to say he was going to oppose Israel, but he was starting to criticize,” Inlakesh said, explaining that this reflected broader trends among young conservatives.

“He was starting to come closer to his base, which is the Republican youth. And we know the vast majority of them are now — the younger population — anti-Israel. It reflects what has happened with public opinion”.

Reports also surfaced that Kirk feared his donors.

American journalist “Max Blumenthal… had sources claiming that Charlie Kirk was essentially scared of the Zionist donors and that he was trying to fight back and push back in some way. And he was undergoing a kind of evolution,” Inlakesh said.

The Question of Motive

Inlakesh stressed that there is no evidence linking Israel to Kirk’s death. However, he argued that Israel’s aggressive information campaigns targeting US conservatives help explain why some believe a motive existed.

“If perhaps Kirk was turning on them… they founded Kirk. They made him big. They funded Turning Point USA. And right now they have a campaign pouring millions into trying to capture the exact people Kirk has influence over,” he said.

If Kirk moved away from this narrative, Israel could risk losing an entire generation of Republican youth.

“If he was going to pivot against them, this would collapse their whole propaganda strategy and they would lose at least the youth of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in the United States.”

Netanyahu himself had acknowledged Israel’s crisis.

“Netanyahu publicly said that we’re losing the information war… and the Israeli government then decided in July that they’d pump millions and millions into this new PR campaign specifically targeting right-wing conservatives in the United States.”

Netanyahu’s Denials

One of the most striking developments was Netanyahu’s decision to issue two video statements denying Israeli involvement. According to Inlakesh, such repeated denials only deepened suspicion.

He wondered: “It’s like if I walked past a murder in the street and no one’s looking at me… But then I’m like, ‘I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it.’ Well, somebody’s going to point at him. Why is he saying this?”

Israel’s long history of assassinations worldwide also loomed large.

“With such a long track record of these kinds of extrajudicial killings across at least four different continents… people are going to ask the question, why are they denying it so vociferously?”

For Inlakesh, the spectacle of denial backfired: “They keep coming out and saying again and again, we didn’t do it. We didn’t do it. And it raises suspicions.”

Navigating Rumors

Inlakesh concluded by urging caution and responsibility. He rejected both blind conspiracy and outright dismissal, arguing that journalists must carefully evaluate the evidence while acknowledging why suspicions arise.

Inlakesh cautioned against unfounded conclusions.

“We have to reserve judgment… Would there be a motive? Sure. But we can’t go forth and say Israel definitely did this with no evidence because it’s just not credible at the end of the day,” he said.

However, he also said that “it’s good to address (theories) rather than just ridicule and push them to the side, because I don’t think that does anyone any good. We shouldn’t treat the public as if we have contempt for them.”

The responsibility of independent media, he added, is to offer critical but honest analysis.

“Our job should be to look at things critically, to assess them — not just to ridicule or take an ideological stance. The corporate media does that… They’re stenographers. People don’t trust them because of it.”

(The Palestine Chronicle)

– Romana Rubeo is an Italian writer and the managing editor of The Palestine Chronicle. Her articles appeared in many online newspapers and academic journals. She holds a Master’s Degree in Foreign Languages and Literature and specializes in audio-visual and journalism translation.