(Blog) Is America Turning Against Israel? - Ep. 929 - June 19, 2026

Is America Turning Against Israel?

When a politician with one of the most pro-Israel records in modern American politics starts criticizing Israel in public, people notice. On The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland treated Donald Trump's recent remarks as a warning sign, not a passing headline.

Their concern reached well beyond one interview. They tied Trump's comments to America's weakening support for Israel, the rise of socialism at home, and a biblical view of Israel that they believe much of public life no longer shares. That tension ran through the whole discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkzzOcDFe3A

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Is America Turning Against Israel? - Ep. 929 - June 19, 2026

Why the conversation started with socialism, not Israel

Smith and Rowland did not begin with foreign policy. They began with America itself, and the mood was grim. Before they ever got to Trump and Israel, they were talking about self-described Democratic Socialists winning elections in major cities and gaining cultural ground in places like New York, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

For them, that was not a side issue. It was part of the same story. They see socialism as a direct threat to free speech, religious liberty, and the country's form of self-government. Smith said as much in blunt terms, arguing that he would rather face war than watch America surrender those freedoms from within.

The number that set them off was a reported approval rating of 63% for socialism in America. They did not present it as a dry polling point. They treated it as evidence that the country's political memory is fading fast.

They cited a reported 63% approval rating for socialism in America.

That fear shaped the way they read everything else. If the public no longer instinctively values freedom, then support for Israel becomes more fragile too. In their view, both changes come from the same drift, a country forgetting what it once believed about liberty, national identity, and moral clarity.

Smith also brought up a warning he connected to Alexander Dugin, the idea that America could be overtaken without a shot being fired. His point was cultural surrender. If enough citizens stop resisting bad ideas, then the damage happens long before a battlefield appears. That was the frame for the rest of the episode, and it explains why their comments on Trump and Israel carried so much urgency.

Trump's comments on Israel and Lebanon drew the sharpest response

The strongest reaction in the episode came when the hosts turned to Trump's recent comments about Israel's war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. What made those remarks sting was Trump's history. Smith and Rowland both acknowledged that Trump has been one of the strongest supporters of Israel ever to sit in the White House.

A short recap helps explain why that matters.

That record is why the newer remarks sounded jarring. Smith and Rowland were working through a Prophecy News Watch article, and the article summarized comments that they believed showed Trump pulling back from Israel in public.

The Lebanon comments that raised concern

The hosts focused on several statements. Trump reportedly said Israel had been fighting Hezbollah too long and that too many people were being killed. He also criticized strikes on apartment buildings, saying Israel did not need to bring down a whole building every time it was targeting one person because civilians were inside.

He went further than that. Trump said he did not like one of Israel's strikes in Beirut and had let Israeli leaders know it was "too much." The comment that hit hardest was his suggestion that Syria could deal with Hezbollah if Israel could not do the job without killing civilians. He also said Benjamin Netanyahu needed to be more responsible regarding Lebanon and added that he was not happy with how Israel had handled Hezbollah.

Smith and Rowland did not dispute that leaders can disagree. Their problem was the setting. They said a private phone call is one thing, but public criticism in front of cameras is something else. In their view, it sends a message that the United States is creating distance between itself and Israel at the very moment that Israel is under military pressure.

Why those comments felt like a bigger shift

Rowland said the remarks looked like more than frustration. To him, they suggested that Trump was trying to pressure Netanyahu into a course of action he preferred. Smith pushed the argument further and wondered whether Trump might be hedging before the midterms because support for Israel has been falling in parts of the American public.

That was their real concern. A disagreement over tactics can happen between allies. Publicly scolding your ally while it is fighting Hezbollah is different. They believed it made Israel look isolated, and they believed it encouraged the same anti-Israel sentiment that has been growing in politics, universities, and online commentary.

They also tied that shift to a broader media pattern. More voices on the right now criticize Israel in ways that used to come mostly from the left. Smith mentioned names such as Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly as part of that change in tone, and he was plainly unsettled by it. To him, Trump's comments did not stand alone. They sounded like part of a wider turn.

Why public criticism of allies felt like a deeper problem

Smith and Rowland drew an important distinction that often gets lost. They said supporting Israel does not require agreeing with every move made by the Israeli government. Smith put it plainly, saying he does not have to agree with any of it in order to support Israel.

That distinction mattered because they were not defending every tactical decision in war. They were defending the alliance itself. They described support for Israel as both a political duty and a spiritual honor, while also saying their larger hope is the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the land of Israel.

From there, they turned to etiquette, and their point was simple. If Trump and Netanyahu have serious differences, then those differences should be handled in a room, not on television and not on social media. Rowland said you get on a plane, sit down together, and speak plainly face to face. You do not air your "dirty laundry" before the world.

They used the language of alliance again and again. Israel, in their view, is America's only ally that has proved dependable when it matters. Rowland cited J.D. Vance's claim that Trump was the only head of state supporting Israel, then flipped the statement around and said Netanyahu may be the only head of state standing with the United States. That was their way of saying the bond cuts both ways.

They also argued that NATO has shown itself to be far less dependable than many Americans assume. Because of that, they see public conflict with Israel as reckless. If your list of reliable friends is short, you do not weaken one of them in public unless you are ready to live with the consequences.

Hezbollah, civilian shields, and the fear of another temporary peace

A large part of the discussion turned on the reality of how Hezbollah fights. Smith and Rowland leaned on the argument from the Prophecy News Watch article, which said Hezbollah embeds fighters, weapons, and command structures inside civilian neighborhoods. Apartment blocks, schools, mosques, hospitals, and dense urban districts become military space by design.

That point matters because it changes how outside criticism sounds. When headlines focus only on destruction, the hosts said, they often skip the harder question of why the military target was placed there in the first place. In their view, Hezbollah benefits from civilian casualties because those deaths increase diplomatic pressure on Israel.

They reduced the pattern to a simple cycle:

• Militant networks rebuild after a pause.

• Outside allies help them rearm.

• Israel faces another round of attacks.

That cycle also shaped their uncertainty about the latest arrangement with Iran. Both men said the jury was still out, but neither sounded confident that peace terms would hold. Rowland's concern was direct. Deals like this can buy time, and time allows enemies to recover.

They widened the lens from Lebanon and Iran to the whole regional and global mess. Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Iran, and the United States all entered the conversation. Smith argued that Russia is likely to keep helping Iran rearm. Rowland pointed to the long-term military cooperation between Moscow and Tehran and connected it to the alliance described in Ezekiel 38.

At the same time, they said the war in Ukraine shows how proxy conflict works in practice. Weapons move through other countries, governments back opposing sides, and human beings die by the thousands each week. Both hosts said corruption stains both Russia and Ukraine, but their sharper point was that large powers increasingly fight through smaller states. In that environment, temporary calm can be misleading.

Why support for Israel is theological for Smith and Rowland

The deepest disagreement in the episode was not military at all. It was theological. That came into focus when the hosts addressed Trump's reported statement, "Without me there would be no Israel." Smith and Rowland rejected that line outright.

Their objection was not mainly political pride, though they heard that too. It was spiritual order. In their view, no leader gets to place himself at the center of Israel's survival because Scripture reserves that place for God alone.

"Instruments are not the source. God is."

That thought sat at the center of the discussion. They argued that America may be used as an instrument of protection. Trump may have been used in that way as well. But Israel's existence, in their understanding, does not rest on Donald Trump, the White House, or any other one leader.

To make the point, they pointed to Israel's long history of survival. Israel outlasted Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, the Islamic caliphates, the Crusades, centuries of exile, the Holocaust, and repeated attempts by neighboring states to destroy it. Smith asked the obvious follow-up. If a nation has endured all that, does anyone really think it has forgotten what war looks like or how unreliable hostile neighbors can be?

That theological frame also explains why they care so much about dispensational teaching and the covenant relationship between God and Israel. They argued that America's support for Israel, especially since 1948, has been strengthened by a Bible-reading tradition that sees Israel and the church as distinct in God's plan. Smith linked that tradition to the King James Scofield Reference Bible and said attacks on dispensational theology are weakening public support for Israel.

From there, they named the alternative plainly: replacement theology. In their view, once you erase Israel's continuing place in biblical prophecy, political support becomes easier to discard. That is why they worried aloud that anti-dispensational influences may now be operating around Trump, whether he recognizes them or not.

They also connected current events to prophecy. Smith said he believes American action in the Iran conflict may reflect a cyclical fulfillment of Jeremiah 49. Both men said the growing Russia-Iran partnership aligns with Ezekiel 38. Whether readers agree with that reading or not, it explains the weight they placed on this moment. They do not see foreign policy alone. They see divine favor, judgment, and prophetic movement.

Final thoughts

The strongest takeaway from this episode is not that Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland suddenly turned against Trump. It is that they believe America's support for Israel is growing weaker, more conditional, and more public in its frustration.

For them, the danger is larger than one politician or one war. When support for Israel starts to depend on headlines, personalities, or polling shifts, the country is forgetting both the strategic value of the alliance and the spiritual convictions that once undergirded it.

That is why Trump's comments hit them so hard. In their view, if the bond can be unsettled this easily, then the deeper change started long before this week.