What specific comments did Charlie Kirk make that prompted reactions from Israeli, Palestinian, and U.S. leaders?

1. “A lion‑hearted friend of Israel”: Israeli leaders’ praise after his remarks and death

Israeli officials publicly celebrated Kirk’s stance toward Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called him a “lion‑hearted friend of Israel” and other ministers, including Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, called him an “incredible friend,” framing Kirk as a defender of Judeo‑Christian values and an ally against what they described as hostile narratives ^{[1] [2]}. Israeli praise focused on his long record of supportive comments, visits to Israel and settlements, and his public rebuttals of accusations leveled at the Israeli government ^{[4] [2]}.

2. Specific pro‑Israel claims that drew reaction: denial of “starving” Gaza and backing overwhelming force

Kirk publicly rejected allegations that Israel was starving people in Gaza and said Israel “has every right to respond with overwhelming force” following attacks such as October 7, positioning himself as a vigorous defender of Israel’s military choices; those lines were repeatedly cited in international coverage as central to why his Israel commentary generated strong responses ^{[1] [3]}. News outlets reported he used his platforms to counter accusations of civilian targeting and to argue Israel was justified in its military responses ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Controversial language on Palestinians and place names cited by critics

Some reporting quotes Kirk asserting that “Palestine and Palestinians don’t exist” and reframing the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria,” language that Palestinian advocates and critical outlets flagged as erasing Palestinian identity and normalizing Israeli settlement claims—an element that amplified Palestinian and pro‑Palestinian backlash to his remarks ^[4]. Coverage also notes visits to occupied West Bank settlements and symbolic acts—such as raising an Israeli flag near the Ibrahimi Mosque—as flashpoints that inflamed critics ^[4].

4. U.S. reactions: mixed praise, strategic counsel, and criticism from across the political spectrum

U.S. responses were mixed: conservative allies and some Israel advocates emphasized Kirk’s loyalty and strategic messaging—he reportedly counseled that Israel was being “CRUSHED” on U.S. social media and suggested PR strategies to counter accusations of “apartheid” and “genocide,” a stance used by supporters to defend his role as an advocate ^[5]. Conversely, progressive and Palestinian‑sympathetic outlets and commentators criticized him for denying civilian suffering and for rhetoric some described as Islamophobic or antisemitic in other contexts, citing multiple controversial past statements ^{[6] [3]}.

5. How journalists and analysts framed his “defiance” and internal conservative debate

Analysts placed Kirk’s remarks in a shifting political landscape: some argued he remained a staunch supporter of Israel while occasionally pressing its leaders or warning that unconditional support could backfire politically; others said his comments reflected a broader conservative recalibration on Israel prompted by social‑media debates and younger voters’ attitudes ^{[7] [5]}. This framing explains why both effusive praise and sharp criticism emerged around the same statements—different audiences read the same remarks as either steadfast defense or problematic rhetoric ^{[5] [7]}.

6. Limits of the available reporting and what is not found

Available sources do not provide a comprehensive catalogue of every phrase Kirk used nor verbatim transcripts for all cited remarks; instead, reporting highlights representative quotes (e.g., denial of starvation, “overwhelming force,” place‑name assertions) and describes reactions from named Israeli leaders and critics ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Detailed responses from Palestinian political leaders in their own words are not quoted at length in the provided material—those specifics are not found in current reporting excerpts supplied here ^{[4] [7]}.

In sum, the documented comments that provoked responses were primarily: denials that Israel was starving Gaza, endorsement of Israel’s right to “overwhelming force,” reframing Palestinian territory names, and public support for Israeli actions—remarks that drew praise from Israeli officials and pushback from Palestinian advocates and many U.S. critics ^{[1] [3] [4]}.