How did Ben Shapiro respond to Candace Owens' Israel statements?
Executive summary
Ben Shapiro publicly and forcefully repudiated Candace Owens’ comments on the Israel–Hamas war, calling her remarks “disgraceful,” urging her to quit The Daily Wire if her views conflicted with the outlet, and later castigating her on-stage as part of a broader denunciation of what he called antisemitic conspiracism among right-wing figures [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows his response combined private employer pressure, public shaming, and explicit rhetorical distancing from Owens’ framing of the conflict, though some sources differ on tone and motive and a few outlets mix factual reporting with partisan or fringe framing [1] [2] [4].
1. Public rebuke: “disgraceful” and an on-stage takedown
Shapiro’s earliest widely reported public response to Owens’ statements about the Israel–Hamas war was blunt condemnation: he labeled her remarks “disgraceful” at an event in November, an epithet that signaled clear moral disapproval rather than a merely strategic disagreement [1]. That sentiment resurfaced in December when Shapiro used a major conservative conference platform to excoriate Owens alongside other commentators he said trafficked in antisemitic insinuations, calling her and others “frauds and grifters” and publicly distancing himself from their narratives [3] [5].
2. Employer leverage: “by all means quit”
Beyond moral denunciation, Shapiro moved to translate disapproval into institutional pressure: after Owens posted religious quotations and criticism online, Shapiro tweeted an invitation for her to resign from The Daily Wire—“Candace, if you feel that taking money from The Daily Wire somehow comes between you and God, by all means quit”—a formulation that framed the dispute as one of loyalty to the outlet and its pro-Israel posture [1]. Multiple outlets describe this exchange as part of a larger public falling-out in which corporate and personal lines blurred, with Shapiro using his cofounder status to signal that Owens’ views were incompatible with The Daily Wire’s stance [2].
3. Substance of the disagreement: genocide language and antisemitism claims
The immediate spark was Owens’ post asserting “No government anywhere has a right to commit a genocide, ever,” language she said was general but that critics read as implicitly condemning Israel amid intense Israeli military operations in Gaza; Shapiro and others saw that framing as either naive to the context or a step toward narratives that echo historical antisemitic tropes [2] [1]. Reporting from The Times of Israel and Forbes places the clash within a broader conservative split over what constitutes antisemitism and what legitimacy can be granted to critique of Israeli policy—Shapiro aligned with those who view certain criticisms as dangerously close to demonization [1] [2].
4. Tone, escalation, and the wider battlefield on the right
Shapiro’s responses mixed institutional leverage, moral denunciation, and personal reproach; the feud escalated into exchanges where Owens attacked Shapiro’s character on her podcast and social posts, while Shapiro continued to emphasize standards and push back publicly against what he described as conspiratorial and antisemitic rhetoric [2] [6]. Coverage varies on whether Shapiro sought to “cancel” Owens or to enforce a public boundary against antisemitism: outlets sympathetic to Shapiro framed his actions as necessary moral leadership, while critics portrayed them as intra-right power plays; some sources included in the dataset, such as The Unz Review, carry overtly hostile agendas and should be treated as partisan or extremist commentary rather than neutral fact-reporting [7] [4].
5. Limits of available reporting and alternative perspectives
The sources document Shapiro’s words—“disgraceful,” his public admonitions at events, and the “by all means quit” tweet—and frame the dispute as emblematic of a larger rupture on the right over Israel and antisemitism [1] [2] [3]. What the provided reporting does not settle is the private internal dynamic at The Daily Wire beyond public statements, nor does it conclusively adjudicate whether Owens’ initial genocide wording was meant as a general moral principle or an implicit critique of Israel; Owens herself has said she was being maligned, a claim covered in the Times of Israel summary [1]. Readers should note variation in source reliability and occasional mixing of opinion and fact, and consider both parties’ stated positions when assessing motives and consequences.