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.
Fact check: What are Candace Owens' current views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Executive Summary
Candace Owens in 2025 publicly criticized Israel’s conduct in Gaza, arguing no government has the right to commit genocide, and that stance precipitated a high-profile rift with The Daily Wire and Ben Shapiro that culminated in her departure from the outlet in early December [1]. Separately, Owens has promoted contentious claims about Israel’s origins and recent conservative figures—accusations labeled antisemitic by critics—and she has publicly accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of misrepresenting Charlie Kirk’s views [2] [3].
1. How Owens’ “No government may commit genocide” line Broke the tent and forced a public split
Candace Owens’ explicit statement that “no government has the right to commit genocide” became a flashpoint in December 2025, framing her criticisms of Israel’s military actions in Gaza and setting up a public confrontation with Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro. Reporting shows the exchange escalated into calls for her departure from the network, and The Daily Wire and Owens confirmed the end of their working relationship within days [1] [4]. This sequence connects Owens’ public policy stance to tangible organizational fallout, illustrating how a single declarative claim can alter media alliances and careers in polarized political media ecosystems [1] [4].
2. Claims about Charlie Kirk and Netanyahu: a battle over context and motive
Owens has pushed a narrative that Charlie Kirk was reassessing his position on Israel and that Benjamin Netanyahu mischaracterized a letter Kirk wrote, urging publication of the full text to prove Kirk’s supposed change of heart [3]. The allegation frames Netanyahu as politically motivated in his portrayal of U.S. conservative figures and seeks documentary evidence to shift public interpretation. The underlying timeline shows Owens raising these charges in mid-September 2025, months before her December split from The Daily Wire, indicating a sustained effort to question mainstream pro-Israel messaging within U.S. conservative circles [3].
3. Antisemitic conspiracy allegations: specifics and timing of the most inflammatory claims
Reporting documents that in an October 6, 2025 livestream Owens advanced narratives tying Israel’s founding to a group she labeled—incorrectly framed by many observers as a historic Jewish sect—and alleging involvement in heinous crimes, an argument widely denounced as an antisemitic conspiracy theory [2]. These assertions intensified criticism of Owens, contributed to the portrayal of her comments as beyond mainstream dissent about Israeli policy, and provided part of the public rationale invoked by those who said her rhetoric warranted condemnation or distancing by partners [2].
4. The Daily Wire split: sequence of events and public statements
Multiple reports record that Ben Shapiro publicly told Owens she could “by all means quit” after her anti-Israel post, and that within a day or two Owens and The Daily Wire announced their separation, with Owens saying she felt “finally free” [1] [4]. The proximate cause presented in the coverage is Owens’ online statements about Israel and Gaza; the coverage also connects her earlier livestream and Kirk-Netanyahu exchanges as part of a longer pattern of strident criticism that culminated in the December break. The timing suggests escalating public pressure and reputational risk motivated the split [1] [4].
5. How different outlets framed Owens: protest vs. vilification
Sources reflect two distinct framings: one emphasizes Owens’ humanitarian claim—that genocidal conduct is indefensible—and portrays her as a dissenter within conservative media [1]. The other emphasizes her October livestream’s allegations and labels those statements as antisemitic conspiracy-mongering, presenting a rationale for critics who argued she crossed a line from policy critique into hateful rhetoric [2]. Both framings rely on the same set of public statements but differ in which comments are foregrounded and how they link rhetoric to outcomes like the Daily Wire split [1] [2].
6. What is documented and what remains disputed or unverified
Documented items include Owens’ public statements about genocide and Gaza, her October livestream content, her claims about Kirk and Netanyahu, and the December 2025 end of her relationship with The Daily Wire [1] [3] [2] [4]. Disputed elements center on intent and meaning: whether some comments constitute antisemitism or are political critique, and whether Netanyahu misrepresented Kirk. Those interpretive questions remain contested because dispute hinges on private documents and motivations that have not been fully disclosed publicly, leaving room for competing narratives [3] [2].
7. Big-picture implications: media alliances, accountability, and the Israel debate
The episode reflects broader shifts in how U.S. conservative media handles Israeli policy dissent: a public repudiation precipitated by a mix of policy critique and inflammatory conspiratorial claims produced both career consequences and intense debate about acceptable rhetoric. Owens’ trajectory shows how criticisms of Israeli military conduct can collide with allegations of antisemitism, forcing media organizations to weigh partnership risks, reputational damage, and internal ideological cohesion when a high-profile figure crosses contested rhetorical lines [1] [2].