Why turning Charlie Kirk into a Christ figure martyred in a passion play courts an ancient, lethal lie. Not only Jewish and Israeli fans of the formerly Israel-loving version of their hero had better wake up fast before their devotion transforms into victimization and incitement.

The horrible footage is etched indelibly and traumatically into public memory: Charlie Kirk suddenly slumping as blood spurts violently from his neck. For millions who watched, the horror was undeniable, the trauma unforgettable. 

Yet even as the shock remained raw, something more grotesque began: the transformation of injury into myth, wound into wind-up, suffering into theater, pro-Zionist politics into theology and back to politics, this time weaponized against Israel and the Jews. Just wait and see. A deadly game is afoot.

To sanctify a man in blood while weaponizing his disappearance from the public stage is to lead followers into a trap. Already, supporters call it martyrdom. Critics, however, hint in whispers of a psy-op, a crudely-staged fake.

But either way, real assassination or fake, the risk is the same: that Israel and the Jewish people are cast as Judas, branded as betrayers, forced again into the dock of history’s oldest slander. Held liable for the libel of not just genocide but deicide.

The Precedent in Butler, with Kirk Role-Playing Christ

At first glance, the wound looked vividly real. Curdled blood spurted on video. That made the moment–repeated in hundreds of millions of views and shares–unforgettable. But with video from every angle, the evidence soon became rapidly clouded and cluttered with apparent gunshots, suspicious shadows, and bizarre irregularities that raise more questions than answers. Not one but several potential assassins appeared in Kirk’s midst, with hand signals and signs of holding and firing concealed weapons. 

Yet, shockingly, none of this seemed to interest the authorities, from the FBI on down, who persisted in chasing a patsy with not even a recovered bullet or a photo or even an autopsy of the body to speak of. It was a fiasco of law enforcement malfeasance.

Police never secured the perimeter. Cameras near the stage were hastily removed within minutes by unidentified unofficial hands within 5 minutes. No bullet was recovered. No blood spattered on walls. Autopsy reports were withheld. Embalming proceeded with disturbing haste. These are not minor bureaucratic oversights. They are fissures in the record that allow poison to seep in. If they were not accidents, but intended, that is a real crime.

It’s not as if this hasn’t happened before. Blaming a patsy, a lone gunman, is always the default script.

Only months earlier, American mainstream media uncharacteristically focused on a campaign rally in Butler, PA. They never did so before, but this time they brought in their best telephoto lenses. Donald Trump, grazed by a bullet, fell as chaos erupted. Yet even while he was still on the ground, staffers were directing photographers to the front of the podium and raising the American flag as backdrop.The “iconic shot” was captured—bloodied face framed by the flag, a leader reborn in defiance. “Fight! Fight! Fight!” In that moment, he won the election.

It was textbook theater. “What bleeds, leads,” as the newsroom maxim goes. The wound became a banner, and the banner became a rallying cry. But if Butler sanctified Trump as a defiant political survivor, Kirk’s collapse went further. He was not merely a politician under fire. He was framed as a Christ-like figure, cut down in his prime.

That is the grotesque danger. Theater became scripture. The precedent of Butler turned into the passion play of Kirk. And passion plays, historically, end with Jews cast as the betrayers. The blood of a handsome, charismatic, thirtysomething, was spilled on an altar, and sacrificed before the eyes, eventually, of billions. But by whom?

The Widow’s Vow to Make the Evildoers Pay

No moment deepened the myth more than Erika Kirk’s vigil by her husband’s casket. In a bizarre Instagram post, she caressed his face and hands, her eyes dry, her voice steady, her words alternating between whispers and heavy-handed threats.

“The evildoers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they’ve done. They don’t know the people they have just awakened. If you thought my husband’s work died with him, you were wrong. You have unleashed something you cannot control.”

It was a vow, not a lament. It was a recipe for revenge, a script for a reality-show widow’s ascent to vengeful power. Her caresses of what passed for her husband’s lifeless hands were as cringeworthy as they were terrifying. Her suddenly whispered protestations of love could not help but remind one of the speaking style of “creepy Joe Biden.”

Authorities insisted that it was the act of a lone gunman, a 22-year old kid who until recently was a straight-A student and scholarship winner. But social media influencers rushed to interpret the grieving widow’s “evildoers.” Her words became elastic, stretched to fit conspiracies like the oversized gold rings on her fingers. Posts equated “they” with Israel and the Jews: the “synagogue of Satan.” 

The betrayal narrative was waiting to be written. Kirk, once one of Israel’s most visible allies in the conservative movement, had turned cold in recent months. He platformed voices hostile to Israel, sparred publicly days before the event with Ben Shapiro, and reportedly rejected Netanyahu’s invitation to visit and offers to infuse Turning Point with cash. To buy him off? To blackmail him? Or to coax him back to the fold? Rumors swirled of donor overtures to repair the breach—denied, but never dispelled.

Trope becomes trap. It becomes easy to paint Judas. Israel is then cast in the role of executioner, appearing to kiss him, but silently ordering his execution. The script writes itself, and history’s most destructive accusation is reloaded. Painted in blood, ready to be spilled, as payback for Christ’s own. Charlie could escape retribution, avoid feared execution, get some plastic surgery, perhaps join Epstein and Elvis in a new identity somewhere in Valhalla.

Netanyahu’s Uneasy Denial—and Premature Embraces

Netanyahu, for his part, called the rumors and accusations “insane conspiracy theories.” When asked about possible Israeli involvement, he became agitated, uncharacteristically stumbling. He spoke, bizarrely, about accusations that the Jews moved the sun and the moon, and how Jews were blamed for everything. He called him lion-hearted and recounted having inviting Kirk to visit Israel shortly before the killing. Bibi didn’t mention Kirk’s refusal to play ball. He didn’t mention that his invitation to Israel was rejected. 

Jews and Israelis must be wary of the extreme danger. Nostalgia for “the old Charlie”—the one who once rallied alongside Israel—can blind us to the reality of his turn. In his final months, he repeatedly amplified voices labeling Israel guilty of “ethnic cleansing” or even “genocide” in Gaza, giving oxygen to Israel’s fiercest critics. 

Kirk suggested Israel was guilty of staging a false flag on October 7. He even went to Washington to urge Trump not to bomb the Iranian nuclear plants. To ignore Kirk’s sudden shift now is to court confusion and invite manipulation.

Love for “the old Charlie” cannot obscure his late-stage platforming of Israel’s accusers, a betrayal of his long-time backers—or the attempt by some to use his legacy to indict Jews for his apparent martyrdom.

Here lies the grotesque danger. If Kirk was really murdered, opportunists will exploited it to blame the Jews. If it was a staged psy-op, then the exploitation was the point all along. And the protagonists will resurrect hatred to drive their cause.

Either way, martyrdom is weaponized. Donations will surge. Turning Point will grow. Youth will flock to the churches. Loyalty hardens. A movement sanctifies its leader in blood. Who bleeds, leads. The risk is not simply political. It is theological. Once Kirk has been canonized, no facts can compete.

From Theater to Theology

And so we come to the heart of the danger. Theater becomes theology. Judas is not merely the shooter, or a vague “they.” Judas becomes Israel. The Jew. Netanyahu.

This is not speculation. The speed of that pivot is breathtaking. The martyrdom of Kirk—whether his apparent death was real or staged—risks becoming a new gospel of hate.

The demand must be for clarity. Release the forensic record. Preserve and publicize the footage. Interrogate the security detail and those seen holding and even firing concealed weapons. Identify the failures. Name the opportunists. If there were killers, or attempted assassins, they must be brought to justice.

Kirk’s security, especially those signaling on or around the stage, or concealing weapons, must be interrogated. Same for any suspicious individuals in the crowd. They are all traceable with facial recognition and phone tracking. 

Those who took down cameras or withheld video must be subpoenaed and searched. Erika Kirk should be interviews about her allegations of a conspiracy, her incitement, and possible involvement in a hoax. 

And if, oy va voy, the facts point to Israeli involvement, that too must come out. Israel is not a stranger to assassination. It’s an expert. But on US soil, it acts as a subcontractor. And, given the conduct of the US authorities in handling this alleged crime, it seems inconceivable that Israel would be regarded as a prime suspect here.

To not raise these questions and doubts, however uncomfortable they may be, is to be complicit is a crime of silence, to allow the blood libel of two millennia ago, to be repeated with consequences soon to be seen. Things were not so pretty for US Jews. They are about to get uglier. If this theater is allowed to become scripture, and a script for mass action, the consequences will not be confined to political theater. There will be blood.

This personal view seeks to keep true to the principle that Charlie Kirk upheld throughout his life: freedom of expression.