Did Candace's Criticism of Israel's Conflict Cause Her Cancellation?

Candace Owens no longer has a home at The Daily Wire.

Photo by Taylor Brandon on Unsplash

Some people enjoy listening to books on tape. I enjoy talk radio. When traveling in my car, I listen to Dan Bongino—my favorite conservative host since Rush passed. He’s humorous, passionate about America, and his career experiences lend a different take on issues facing our country. I also enjoy Ben Shapiro’s dry wit and have been a fan of Candace Owens, though I don’t get to listen to either as often.

Recently, my interest in the latter two hosts was piqued when there began to be a public rift between them. Honestly, at first, I thought it was a publicity stunt until yesterday when The Daily Wire and Candace Owens parted ways. Face it, The Daily Wire is a privately owned company who can hire and fire as they please. But there are erroneous statements that Ben Shapiro fired her, which need clarification. Though Ben may be an original founder of The Daily Wire, his position at the company today does not give him the ability to fire anyone. Regardless, this divorce is causing what Candace Owens, herself, has long been a critic of—extremism based on emotion.

We are seeing team Ben versus team Candace in a media war that has no losers. Ben will continue with The Daily Wire and Candace will, most likely, end up having a show on X and write a book about her days at The Daily Wire.

Why, exactly, The Daily Wire cut ties with her is mere speculation. But since there are rumors saying that the conscious uncoupling was due to her stance on Israel, I decided to watch what many are saying was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Candace had a podcast post last week entitled “This is crazy! Rabbi Barclay Attacks Me for Things I Never Said.”

On this particular episode, Candace invited Rabbi Barclay to have a discussion with her since he wrote his own article for pjmedia.com entitled, “Let’s Be Honest: Candace Owens is a Jew Hating Bigot.” For purposes of this Common Folk 365 post, I attempted to locate the article to make sure that what I write would be in the proper context; however, pjmedia.com has retracted the entire article saying, “Upon further review, we have determined that the following article does not meet PJ Media’s editorial standards. We apologize to our readers for the oversight.” This is quite interesting, and one can only imagine it was after Candace’s podcast with Rabbi Barclay that his article was removed.

The podcast between Candace and her featured guest lasted one hour and forty-three minutes, and there were numerous times Rabbi Barclay appeared befuddled. He thought that going toe-to-toe with Candace was going to bring about a sort of Jewish-thought conversion and illicit an apology from her for statements regarding the Palestinian attack and subsequent actions of Israel.

Spoiler Alert: Candace doesn’t back down.

Here’s a quick summary: Rabbi Barclay called Candace Owens an anti-Semite because, though she condemned October 7th terror attack on Israel, she feels equally unsettled by the killing of innocent Palestinian children. He particularly took issue with her appearance on Tucker Carlson’s X show, where she stated:

“I have seen every single person, including myself, condemn what happened on October 7th because who wouldn’t condemn terrorism? Who would not condemn innocent Israelis dying? But if you then say that it is also sad when an innocent Palestinian child dies, suddenly this is pro-Hamas or you need to say, even when you are talking about how sad it is that a child dies, you need to button that statement by saying, ‘But that child was a human shield.’ That’s not going to be my response, um, first of all as a mother. That’s not going to be my response as somebody about to give birth when I see these images of children involved on both sides of the conflict…I am even keel on this matter, and, yet, people think that you need to be extreme…”

Rabbi Barclay emphatically disagrees with this moderate view and used as an analogy the contrasting emotions Christians and Jewish people have toward Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. In his estimation, Christians feel powerful connections to the suffering of Jesus who is their savior. But for the Jewish population who, of course, do not believe Jesus is their savior, the movie (in Barclay’s eyes) has stereotypic, anti-Semitic tropes.

His point was to show Candace’s lack of understanding of Jewish suffering because she is a Christian. To follow Rabbi Barclay’s logic: Because of her ignorance of Jewish religion and rabbis, her unshakable perspective, and her moderate views on the Israel-Hamas conflict, Candace is anti-Semitic. But couldn’t the same be said of Rabbi Barclay toward Christians or Muslims or Hindus? The idea that you need to walk in the shoes of whomever you criticize is untenable. I don’t need to be a mayor to criticize one.

Moreover, when Candace asked for a definition of anti-Semitism, Rabbi Barclay said that the definition has altered over time, which puzzled me. But currently, “[it'] has to do with what the feelings are. It has to do with anti-Zionism, number one. That is a definition. Anti-Zionism, anti-Israel is anti-Semitism.” And Barclay makes it clear to Candace that Jewish people themselves can be anti-Semitic, which, to me, finally explains why so many Jewish people in the United States consistently vote for Democrats who have no feeling for Israel. Chuck Schumer is anti-Semitic for his desire for humanitarian aid to Gaza, for example.

Rabbi Barclay continues to tell Candace, “You may not have the desire to have [anti-Semitism] in your heart. But what I’m trying to tell you is by having a conversation with Tucker Carlson under the umbrella of October 7th, which is what that segment was about, and saying that you have a moderate stance, that there should be able to be discussion just like there is about NATO, invalidates the reality of the absolute evil that is unique to October 7th…”

The sparring between the two continued into a bizarre confrontation regarding the word “hag,” which I will spare you. The point is that Candace Owens has made enemies within the black community for being conservative. Now she is deemed an anti-Semite because of statements in support of Kanye West and his beliefs about the entertainment industry, and her moderate stance on Israel’s war with Hamas. Candace is getting it from all sides, so this could be viewed as a form of equal opportunity castigation!

The biggest point of contention shouldn’t be about her opinions, though. Instead, it is whether we want to live in a country where people are fired or slandered because of their opinions. In a podcast world, the listeners will decide whom to hear or watch. If her audience dwindled, advertisers would walk and she wouldn’t have a show.

Additionally, had Candace crossed a line and called for the complete annihilation of Israelis or Palestinians, or had she called for the assassination of Netanyahu or any other world leader, the FBI would be knocking on her door. If Candace is merely challenging the notion of Israel’s continued attacks and wanting a peaceful solution for the sake of innocent children on both sides, then she shouldn’t have been pushed out. Her feelings are not just about Hamas and Israel; her stance is similar regarding the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Since I am a free speech advocate, I have no fear telling you that I completely disagree with Candace. Hamas is a terrorist organization posing as a government. They have done nothing to help Gazans since coming to power. In contrast, they have left their own to starve in order to enrich themselves. Without doubt, Hamas has an overriding intention of wiping out all Israelis. On October 7th, Hamas committed unspeakable acts and still have hostages all while using its own Palestinian people as human shields. Contrary to popular belief, the Gaza Strip isn’t occupied; and, even Egypt wants nothing to do with harboring “innocent” Palestinians. The United Nations, as well, condemns Israel alone and wants Israel to end a conflict they didn’t start but will finish. In other words, Israel is being treated unfairly.

Thus, Rabbi Barclay is correct as far as October 7th. It is unique because Hamas wants to exterminate all Israelis. Russia, on the other hand, wants to take over Ukraine for land. Though both situations are obviously wrongheaded, there is no moral equivalence between the two. Yet, Barclay’s ever-changing definition of anti-Semitism based on what century we are in is like the ever-changing definitions of racism, sexism, and what it means to be a woman. Plus, the ridiculousness of not being able to use the word “hag" because of its ancient meaning toward Jews is beyond comprehension; but, he is entitled to his opinion.

See, supposedly, we live in a free speech and free expression nation. Arguments like these are instructive; so, instead of shutting people down, there needs to be more dialogue. Regretfully, we are living in a world where you either agree with EVERYTHING someone says, or they are no longer respected. There is no reason to apologize for offering an opinion just because it hurts someone’s feelings.

As I stated in the introduction, I enjoy listening to Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, and Candace Owens, but that doesn’t mean that I lap up everything said and robotically repeat their words without critically thinking. No one should do that.

The Daily Wire controversy is a microcosm of what is wrong in our society overall. There is no longer room for dissenting opinions. I truly hope that there is more to the story of Candace Owens and The Daily Wire than what meets the eye.

If not, you can decide whether Candace Owens is anti-Semitic, ignorant, or taken out of context.