Harvard Professor: Watching Donald Trump, I Understand How Hitler Came to Power

The Context

Danielle Allen, a liberal political theorist at Harvard University, recently wrote an article for The Washington Post urging fellow Democrats to register as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump. Why would she propose such a drastic measure?

Understanding History

There are people from all over the political spectrum sounding the alarm about Donald Trump, and Ms. Allen captured it perfectly in her article:

Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I've spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump's rise, I now understand. Leaving aside whether a direct comparison of Trump and Hitler is accurate, that's not my point. My point is rather about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Naziism, I have generally relied on the Jewish German philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow, people can understand themselves as, quote, just doing their job, yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine.

This philosopher also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called The Men in Dark Times. In this book, she describes all of those who thought Hitler's rise was a terrible thing, but chose internal exile or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation.

They knew evil was evil. But they too facilitated it by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

The Republic Is at Stake

Ms. Allen makes the point that Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country, split by strong partisan ideologies. She also believes we have reached the moment of truth.

Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across any ideological divides. The only way to stop him is to achieve that just kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within our own parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her. But it's also the case that she's a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton to Trump is unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Noting that Jeb Bush did the right thing by dropping out, Ms. Allen urged Kasich and Carson to leave the race if they care "about the future of the Republic."

A Suitable Candidate

While Ms. Allen makes the case that Rubio is best suited to beat Trump head-to-head, Glenn explained why he doesn’t believe that to be the case.

“She says here that Marco Rubio is the one, but she's buying into the bogus narrative, and we'll know this by Tuesday," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Marco Rubio is not ahead in any state. He's not going to win any state. In fact, he's running third in Florida. Ted Cruz is still at this time, still winning in a few states, including a huge, huge state of Texas. He is going to win states on Tuesday. ...But whoever doesn't win states on Tuesday must drop out. They have to drop out. And if that's Ted Cruz, then so be it. If it is Marco Rubio, then so be it.”

Common Sense Bottom Line

The chorus against Donald Trump is growing. Even the outspoken former Greek finance minister compared the popularity of Donald Trump to the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s.

What happens to our nation when we have a totalitarian leader? After seven years of division, look at the difference in our civility toward one another. What will happen when we have a president that pits people against each other even more than Barack Obama?

"I have news for you," Glenn said. "When I said a few years ago, 'Man, I have to tell you, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but I'd give my right arm for Bill Clinton over this guy.' I'm warning you now, you will say after two years of Donald Trump, 'I'd give my right arm for Barack Obama.'" I know that sounds crazy, but mark it down.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Give you my analysis on what is coming here in the next week coming up in just a second.

JD in Nevada. Caucused in Nevada last night.

Hey, JD, what happened?

CALLER: Yes. I was at Silverado High School. I want to -- what I found interesting. I got there at about 4:30. I'm 71 years old, and I've been active since the Eisenhower administration in politics. So I think I know what I'm talking about.

There was 1400 yards of people in line, which you can calculate how many people. It went rather smoothly. They were running out of ballots. I sat with a woman, who was a Trump supporter, about 45 years old. She lived in Manhattan. And she had been in Vegas for 14 years. Very nice gal.

I think what Trump has tapped into, Glenn, is that we're winners. It's American nationalism. I'm 71 years old, like I said. My father won the Second World War.

STU: Wow.

CALLER: My grandparents got through the depression. All my life, I've been a winner because of this country. And I heard the chants in the last three or four times that I've seen Trump on TV, and it's, "USA, USA," like the 1980 Olympics against the Russian hockey team.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

CALLER: I voted for Cruz. I'm a Cruz supporter. And I believe in Ted Cruz. But Trump doesn't have to say anything about how he's going to do anything. I believe the last pollster was 72 percent of the American people are against illegal immigration. So he taps into that. He taps into building the wall. He taps into making America number one again and making sure that he's a solid businessman that's going to make the government work and eliminate our debt.

I believe those are the things that Trump -- that is driving the Trump campaign. He doesn't have to talk about specifics. We're number one again. We're Americans.

He's appealing to patriotism. Build a wall. Stop the illegals. Stop paying for the schools. The police. The hospitals that all the illegal services eat up.

GLENN: I think you're exactly right. Thank you for your call, JD. He is attracting -- and it is the scariest form.

And this is why -- this is why the press is so out of control. Because they know this. Nationalism is extraordinarily dangerous. And it's why they made fun of everybody in the Tea Party: They're nationalists. They're Nazis.

You haven't heard them say this about Donald Trump, have you? And yet, let me give you this. This is from the Washington Post, written by Danielle Allen. She is a political theorist at Harvard University.

This is what she wrote: Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I've spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump's rise, I now understand. Leaving aside whether a direct comparison of Trump and Hitler is accurate, that's not my point. My point is rather about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Naziism, I have generally relied on the Jewish German philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow, people can understand themselves as, quote, just doing their job, yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine.

This philosopher also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called The Men in Dark Times. In this book, she describes all of those who thought Hitler's rise was a terrible thing, but chose internal exile or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation.

They knew evil was evil. But they too facilitated it by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

I have to tell you, that's what I was feeling this morning when I got up. And all I kept hearing in my prayers was silence in the face of evil is evil itself.

She goes on. We can see both of this phenomena unfolding right now. The first shows itself, for instance, when journalists cover every crude and cruel thing that comes out of Trump's mouth and, thereby, help acculturate all of us and what we are hearing. Are they not just doing their jobs, they will ask, in covering the Republican frontrunner? Have we not already been trained to hear these things by 30 years of popular culture becoming more and more offensive and inciting comments?

Yes, both of these things are true, but that doesn't mean journalists ought to be Trump's megaphone. Perhaps we should just shut the lights out on offensive. Turn the mic off when somebody tries to shout down others. Reestablish some standards on what counts as worthwhile for the public debate.

That seems counter to journalistic norms, yes, but why not let Trump pay for his own ads when he wants to broadcast foul and incendiary ideas? He still has plenty of access to the freedom of expression. It's time, America, to draw a bright line.

One spots the second experience in any number of water-cooler conversations at dinner party dialogues. Yes, it's terrible. Can you believe what he said? Have you ever seen anything like it? Have we really as Americans come to this?

I know, it's terrible.

Then somebody says, "But what are we going to do?" And silence falls. Very many of us, too many of us are starting to contemplate accepting internal exile.

Are we joking about moving to Canada? Yes, but more seriously than usually. But over the course of the past few months, I've learned something else that goes beyond the ideas that were expressed in the 1940s in the Banality of Evil and the feelings of impetus in the face of danger.

Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country. The truth is, the vast majority of voting Americans think Trump is unacceptable as a presidential candidate. But we're split by strong partisan ideologies and cannot coordinate a solution to stop him.

In the same way, a significant part of voting Republicans think that Trump is unacceptable, but they too thus far have been unable to coordinate a solution. Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across any ideological divides. The only way to stop him is to achieve that just kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within our own parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her. But it's also the case that she's a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton to Trump is unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Jeb Bush did the right thing by dropping out, just as he did the right thing by being first alongside with Rand Paul to challenge Trump. The time has come. John Kasich. Ben Carson, leave the race. You expressed a powerful commitment to the good of your country and to its founding ideals. But if you care about the future of the republic, it is time to endorse Marco Rubio.

Kasich, there's little wind in your sails, but it's not enough. Your country is calling on you. Do the right thing.

Ted Cruz, I believe is pulling votes away from Trump. For that reason, he's useful in the race. But Mr. Cruz, you're drawing too close to Trump's policies. You should change course.

Now, she says here that Marco Rubio is the one. But she's buying into the bogus narrative, and we'll know this by Tuesday. Marco Rubio is not ahead by any state. He's not going to win any state. In fact, he's running third in Florida. Ted Cruz is still at this time, still winning in a few states, including a huge, huge state of Texas. He is going to win states on Tuesday.

Marco Rubio will win none on Tuesday. Now, that could change. But whoever doesn't win states on Tuesday must drop out. They have to drop out. And if that's Ted Cruz, then so be it. If it is Marco Rubio, then so be it.

But this guy has got to be stopped. That's my commentary.

Let me go back. Democrats, your leading candidate is too weak to count on as a firewall. She might be able to pull off a general election victory against Trump. But then again, she might not. Too much is uncertain this year. You too need to help the Republicans beat Trump. This is no moment for standing by passively. If your deadline for changing your party affiliation has not yet come, reregister and vote for Rubio, even if like me, you cannot stomach his opposition to marriage equality. I would prefer Kasich as the Republican nominee. But pursuing that goal will only make it more likely that Trump will take the nomination, and the republic cannot afford that.

Finally, to all -- see, I disagree with her here because I don't think you beat a Democrat with another Democrat.

But, anyway: Finally, to all of you Republicans who have already dropped out, one more great act of public service awaits you. As candidates, you pledged to support whomever the Republican Party has nominated. It's time to revoke that pledge. Be bold. Stand up. And shout that you will not support Trump if he's your primary nominee. Do it together. Hold one big mother of a news conference. Endorse someone together. It's time to draw a bright line. You are the ones whom this burden falls. And no one else can do it.

Okay. So this is coming from a Harvard person. All right. Good. We don't like Harvard.

Let me give you this. Outspoken former Greek finance minister compared the popularity of Donald Trump to the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s. So we now have somebody in Harvard that's saying that this is the rise of the 1930s. I think this is the rise of the 1930s. Here is the Greek finance minister saying the same thing.

He ran Greece's economy during the crucial bailout talks and resigned last year. Monday, he spent 90 minutes asking -- asking questions on Quora.

Trump has provoked the left with his comments on Muslims. Blah, blah. But here's what he wrote when you think about Donald Trump's political success in the U.S.

Anger is prevalent. Common folks follow a good instinct when they want to punish an establishment that has lied to them for decades and treated them with contempt and considers them useful idiots to be bought by the highest bidder.

Unfortunately, this good instinct often leads fed-up conservatives to the wrong leader, camp, and campaign. We saw this in the 1930s. We're seeing it today in France with the rise of Le Pen.

Our duty as Democrats is to offer disaffected voters, including conservatives, a way to indulge their impulsive urge to punish the establishment without becoming hostage to people like Trump or Le Pen. We saw the rise of the right-wing autocratic fascist dictatorships in Italy, Spain, and Germany, while France Marine Le Pen leads in the far right national party, which recently enjoyed a boost in popularity.

Yada, yada. This is what's happening, America. And I saw it firsthand. Good Americans standing in line last night. And I talked to a lot of Trump supporters. Some I didn't. Because they were just the most nasty, vile -- I think some of the most dangerous people I've ever encountered. Some of them were reasonable. And I talked to them.

And I said, "Why Trump?" One lady said, "Well, I'm Jewish. And Ted Cruz is just going to baptize all of us." And I said, "That is crazy. That's not who he is. He's a constitutionalist." She

said, well, I am -- I said, "Who are you voting for?" She said, "I'm voting for Donald Trump." And I said, "The guy who said he's going to -- you're Jewish. He's remaining neutral between the Palestinians and Israel." She had just turned off. She said, "In the end, I just want change."

Okay. Next guy. Talking to a guy outside. Reasonable guy. I said, "Who are you going to caucus for?" And he said, "You're not going to like the answer." And I said, "It doesn't matter. We're all Americans. Who are you caucusing for?" And he said, "Donald Trump." And I said, "Why?" And he said, "You're not going to like the answer." I said, "I got it. I got it. Why?" He said, "I just want change."

Last night, the anger was more visible in Nevada than it was in South Carolina. The anger in our country is growing.

Donald Trump has already said that he's going to do universal health care. Let me ask the Republicans in the audience, how are you going to feel when Donald Trump puts through universal health care? When Donald Trump tells you to shut up and sit down, he knows what's right? What are you going to do when he starts doing the things that only Democrats would do?

And I know that's crazy. I know that's crazy. But we've seen it happen with Mitch McConnell. We've seen it happen when we have -- under George W. Bush, they have done things because we have to do it.

Donald Trump agreed with the bailouts. He even called for the nationalizing of the banks. When our economy collapses and he bails out or allows the banks to do a bail-in and then talks about nationalizing the banks, are you going to feel betrayed?

What happens when you feel betrayed by Donald Trump? Do you think he allows you to continue to speak out? For the good of the nation, should you be punished?

What do you think happens to our nation when we have a leader -- we've already seen what happens. Look at the difference in our civility to one another, between now and 2006. 2007. We had a guy who pitted people against each other, and look how vile we are to each other now.

What do you think is going to happen when you have a guy who is on the road, pitting people against each other, far more than Barack Obama ever did? I have news for you. When I said -- when I said a few years ago, "Man, I have to tell you, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but I'd give my right arm for Bill Clinton over this guy" -- how many of us feel this way, that I would give my right arm for Bill Clinton over Barack Obama? We all have said that. I'm warning you now: Donald Trump -- you will say in two years of Donald Trump, "I'd give my right arm for Barack Obama." I know that sounds crazy. But mark it down.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a caucus night watch party at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino on February 23, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The New York businessman won his third state victory in a row in the 'first in the West' caucuses. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.