What specific statements did Tucker Carlson make about Israel's actions in Gaza in 2023?

1. Carlson’s core message in October 2023: “Urge restraint — risk of World War III”

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, Carlson used his X/Twitter show to argue Republicans should not reflexively back an all‑out Israeli retaliation and that “there’s a lot at stake in how we encourage Israel to respond,” warning a large Israeli offensive could drag the U.S. and other powers into a wider war — even “World War III,” a point he made in a widely shared clip ^{[2] [3]}. Major outlets summarized his posture as opposing U.S. military escalation and criticizing hawkish GOP calls to confront Iran on Israel’s behalf ^{[1] [8]}.

2. Specific, repeated claim: “Everyone who lives in Gaza is a terrorist because of how they were born”

Carlson told interlocutors that one reason he was angry about Gaza was Israel’s de facto position, in his words, that “everyone who lives in Gaza is a terrorist because of how they were born, including the women and the children” — a formulation reported and quoted by multiple outlets and later reiterated in conversations and interviews ^[4]. That line became central to critiques that Carlson was portraying Israel as treating Gaza’s civilian population as inherently criminal.

3. “They are not actually allies in any sense”: distancing US‑Israel ties

Carlson stated, according to reporting, that “they (Israelis) are not actually allies in any sense,” framing Israel as a country whose interests do not align with American interests — a stark departure from mainstream conservative rhetoric and a reason his remarks drew attention and controversy ^[5]. He used this argument to justify urging the U.S. not to become militarily entangled on Israel’s behalf.

4. Claims about churches and Christian victims — reporting and rebuttals

Carlson alleged Israel had “bombed churches” and killed Christians deliberately, an assertion picked up in commentary and op‑eds that accused him of reviving an antisemitic trope; Jewish Journal and other critics argued his wording presented those incidents as intentional targeting and amplified narratives that many saw as false or misleading ^[7]. Reporting also shows Carlson conducted interviews highlighting Palestinian Christian voices and pleaded that their suffering be recognized, which supporters say brought neglected perspectives to U.S. audiences ^{[6] [7]}.

5. How mainstream and conservative commentators reacted

Some conservative voices saw Carlson as an outlier. Haaretz and other outlets described him as one of the most prominent skeptics on the right of military aid and diplomatic support for Israel, whose influence might nevertheless push parts of the GOP toward a more skeptical posture ^[1]. Other conservatives criticized him for spreading “nonsense” about Christian mistreatment or for click‑baiting, showing the rightward debate was fracturing ^{[6] [2]}.

6. Broader context and competing interpretations

Advocates of Carlson’s approach argued he was practicing realism about U.S. national interest and warning against escalation with Iran and Russia; critics countered that his rhetoric crossed into demonization of Israel and echoed misleading or inflammatory claims about intentional targeting of civilians and religious sites ^{[8] [7] [1]}. Some outlets later catalogued his anti‑Israel trajectory as part of a wider shift that mixed paleoconservative skepticism of foreign wars with narratives common in Palestine‑solidarity movements ^[9].

7. Limitations of the available reporting

Available sources provide multiple direct quotes and summaries of Carlson’s 2023 statements but do not include full transcripts of every October 2023 episode or of all interviews where he repeated these themes; precise context around some paraphrases (tone, surrounding sentences) is not always provided in the cited summaries ^{[2] [4] [3]}. Where sources explicitly rebut or label claims as false, I cite those critiques; where sources do not detail verification of specific factual assertions (for example, whether particular strikes intentionally targeted churches), such verification is not found in current reporting ^{[7] [6]}.

If you want, I can compile the exact quoted lines from each cited article into a side‑by‑side list and note which outlets endorsed or disputed each line.