What are Candace Owens' views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Candace Owens has publicly broken with much of the American right by sharply criticizing Israel’s conduct in the Israel–Palestine conflict, describing Israeli actions as genocidal or a “holocaust” in some posts and highlighting Palestinian civilian suffering; these remarks drew praise from some pro-Palestinian commentators and condemnation from conservative allies [1] [2] [3]. Major outlets and advocacy groups characterize her stance as an anti‑Zionist, anti‑Israel turn that has split conservative circles and prompted accusations of antisemitism from organizations such as the ADL [3] [4].
1. A conservative icon turns critical: what Owens says and where she’s been quoted
Owens, long known as a Black conservative commentator, has used her platform to criticize Israeli policy and U.S. support for Israel, sometimes using incendiary language — including posts that suggested Israel’s retaliation could amount to genocide and comparisons some read as invoking “holocaust” language — and amplifying Palestinian suffering, including Palestinian Christians killed in Gaza [1] [3] [2]. She has also devoted long-form interviews to the topic, for example speaking with Norman Finkelstein on her podcast about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict [5] [6].
2. Reaction split: applause from the left, alarm from the right
Owens’s critique produced an unusual cross‑spectrum response: pro‑Palestinian activists and some journalists welcomed her opposition to mass civilian harm and to what they see as a one‑sided narrative, while leading conservative figures — notably Ben Shapiro and others — publicly rebuked her, framing her remarks as a rupture with mainstream pro‑Israel conservative orthodoxy [1] [3] [7]. That split is consequential because Owens occupies influence among right‑wing audiences who normally back Israel.
3. Labels and accusations: anti‑Zionist, antisemitic, or principled humanitarianism?
Advocacy groups such as the Anti‑Defamation League have described Owens’s recent trajectory as “explicitly antisemitic, anti‑Zionist and anti‑Israel,” citing statements where she alleges undue Israeli influence in the U.S. and other claims that target Jewish communities and Israel [4]. By contrast, outlets and commentators sympathetic to Palestinians frame her comments as challenging a dominant narrative and centering Palestinian civilian casualties [8] [7]. Sources therefore present competing frames: moral humanitarian critique versus rhetoric that some see as crossing into antisemitism [4] [8].
4. How Owens grounds her critiques: religion, civilians, and media narratives
Owens has invoked Christian imagery and the Bible to condemn violence and to spotlight the deaths of Palestinian Christians; she argues that Western media and powerful interests shape coverage to shield Israel from criticism and to demonize Muslims and Palestinians — a claim echoed by some critics of mainstream coverage but controversial when advanced by a conservative commentator [8] [3]. Her rhetorical strategy mixes humanitarian concern with institutional critique of media and political influence [8] [3].
5. Political fallout and broader implications for the U.S. right
Observers say Owens is part of an emerging faction on the far right that mirrors some critiques traditionally associated with the left — a phenomenon that has prompted public feuds (for example between Owens and Ben Shapiro) and reconfigured alliances on Israel policy within conservative media [3]. That realignment matters because it shifts where questions about U.S. policy and humanitarian standards toward Gaza are being raised in American political discourse [3] [7].
6. Limits of available reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources document Owens’s statements, podcast interviews, and the political fallout, but they do not provide a comprehensive timeline of every relevant statement nor exhaustive transcripts showing whether she consistently uses the same terminology in every context; several outlets also interpret her intent differently [5] [6] [4]. Sources do not mention, for example, a full catalogue of any policy prescriptions she advocates for resolving the conflict beyond public condemnations and moral appeals (not found in current reporting).
7. Bottom line for readers
Candace Owens has moved from a conventional pro‑Israel conservative posture to a public critic of Israeli conduct and U.S. policy toward Palestine, prompting praise from pro‑Palestinian voices and formal condemnations from Jewish advocacy groups and some conservatives; whether one views her as a principled humanitarian critic or as someone whose rhetoric crosses into antisemitic territory depends on which sources and quotes one privileges [1] [4] [3]. Readers should weigh direct quotes, the context of each statement (podcast, tweet, interview), and the distinct framings used by outlets such as The Times of Israel, Newsweek, the Arab American News, and the ADL [3] [1] [8] [4].