Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have Jewish organizations responded to Candace Owens' views on Israel?
Executive summary
Jewish organizations have publicly pushed back against Candace Owens’ statements about Israel and Jewish people, calling specific allegations false, defamatory, and antisemitic; Ohr Torah Stone’s leaders explicitly rejected an Owens claim about bribing pastors as “entirely false, baseless, and defamatory” [1]. Advocacy groups and Jewish commentators have also criticized Owens for promoting conspiracy theories and Holocaust-distorting rhetoric, while some pro‑Israel activists have condemned her as having “blind Jew‑hatred” [2] [3].
1. A concrete rebuke from an Israeli Jewish institution
When Candace Owens accused Rabbi Shlomo Riskin and Ohr Torah Stone of offering Bitcoin to pastors to preach against her, Ohr Torah Stone’s leadership answered directly: Rabbi Kenneth Brander said the accusation was “entirely false, baseless, and defamatory,” and the organization emphasized it “does not engage in smear campaigns,” explicitly distancing itself from Owens’ allegation [4] [1].
2. Jewish media and watchdogs catalogue a pattern
Jewish news outlets and advocacy organizations have documented a series of Owens remarks about Israel and Jewish people that they say amount to antisemitic conspiracy‑mongering and Holocaust distortion. The Anti‑Defamation League’s backgrounder describes Owens as a public figure who has “come to espouse explicitly antisemitic, anti‑Zionist and anti‑Israel views,” citing post‑October 7 comments, Holocaust‑distorting podcast content, and other statements that provoked backlash [2].
3. Religious and communal leaders push back on specific claims
Ohr Torah Stone’s rebuttal to Owens shows how Jewish communal leaders respond: instead of debating broad criticism of Israel in the abstract, they focused on factual denial and reputational defense when accused of paying pastors to target Owens—labeling her specific evidence as unverifiable and her claim defamatory [4] [1]. That pattern—correcting alleged fabrications—recurs when organizations are personally implicated.
4. Conservative and pro‑Israel figures have also condemned Owens
Some pro‑Israel and religious commentators have framed Owens’ rhetoric as a turn from prior conservative alliances to open hostility toward Jews and Israel. Reporting highlights criticism from figures such as Laurie Cardoza‑Moore and commentary in outlets like Aish, which described Owens in strongly negative moral terms and accused her of promoting “virulent” hostility toward the Jewish state and people [3] [5].
5. Different forums, different responses: media, watchdogs, opinion pieces
Responses range by outlet type: watchdogs like the ADL analyze patterns and label her rhetoric antisemitic [2]; mainstream Jewish news organizations fact‑check and solicit institutional responses when allegations concern named organizations [4] [1]; opinion pieces in religious‑affiliated outlets deliver moral denunciations and label her a threat to Jewish welfare [5]. Each response serves different functions—countering misinformation, protecting institutional reputations, or mobilizing communal sentiment.
6. Owens’ defenders and her reaction to criticism
Available sources describe Owens denying antisemitism and challenging pro‑Israel groups’ definitions of antisemitism; for example, after being labeled “Antisemite of the Year” by StopAntisemitism, she dismissed the charge and accused pro‑Israel organizations of watering down the term [6]. Sources also note that some public figures and audiences continue to support Owens’ right to question Israel, but detailed examples of organized Jewish defenses of Owens are not found in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. Where sources converge and where they disagree
Sources consistently report that Jewish organizations and leaders have publicly rebutted specific Owens claims [4] [1] and that watchdogs view her later rhetoric as antisemitic [2]. Where views diverge is less in the factual denials and more in tone and interpretation: some outlets treat her comments as conspiracy and antisemitism [2] [5], while Owens frames herself as a critic of Israeli policy and an unfairly smeared commentator [6]. The reporting does not show major Jewish institutions defending Owens’ claims; instead it shows institutional denial and condemnation [4] [1] [2].
8. Limitations and open questions
Available sources focus on a handful of high‑profile incidents—Owens’ accusation against Ohr Torah Stone and broader ADL analysis of her rhetoric—but they do not provide a comprehensive catalog of every Jewish organization’s response nationwide or globally (not found in current reporting). Also, while opinion pieces capture communal anger, systematic polling of American Jewish organizations’ positions on Owens is not present in these sources (not found in current reporting).
Conclusion
Jewish organizational responses documented in the provided reporting have been predominantly critical: factual denials when organizations are accused directly, watchdog labeling of broader rhetoric as antisemitic, and moral condemnation in opinion outlets. Owens’ own rebuttals—denying antisemitism and attacking critics—are also recorded, leaving a public dispute over intent, facts, and definitions that the current sources document but do not fully reconcile [4] [1] [2] [6] [5] [3].