In my not-so-humble opinion, Marjorie Taylor Greene is an anti-Semite as expressed by her passive-aggressive undermining sentiments when addressing the topic of Israel, especially when it intersects with broader U.S. foreign policy, military aid, or intra-party disputes.

Examples of Passive-Aggressive Behavior or Statements:

Criticizing U.S. Aid While Claiming Support:  Greene often states support for Israel while simultaneously criticizing U.S. military aid, implying that Israel should be more self-reliant or that U.S. taxpayers are being unfairly burdened. “I support Israel 100%, but we shouldn’t be sending billions of dollars abroad when Americans are struggling.” This kind of framing—"I support, but..."—is a hallmark of passive-aggressive positioning, especially when it subtly undermines the partner being discussed.

Using Israel to Score Political Points Against Fellow Republicans: Greene has called out GOP colleagues for being “more loyal to foreign countries than to America,” particularly in budget debates. Though often not naming Israel outright, these statements have drawn criticism for being dog whistles or casting doubt on pro-Israel Republicans. She has hinted that some Republicans "care more about foreign wars than our own border," often in the context of military aid packages that include funds for Israel.

Social Media Tactics:  Greene’s tweets or reposts sometimes include loaded comparisons or sarcastic digs related to Israel, such as juxtaposing Israeli defense funding with a lack of funding for domestic issues like border security or veterans' care.

Questioning Dual Loyalty—Then Denying It: In some fringe remarks, she has implied that certain U.S. politicians are too influenced by Israeli interests, only to quickly walk those statements back when pressed, blaming media distortion or “misinterpretation.”

Why It’s Considered Passive-Aggressive:

• She expresses nominal support for Israel while undermining key aspects of the relationship (aid, strategic alliance).
• She redirects blame or criticism at political opponents under the guise of budget concerns or “America First” rhetoric.
• Her tone often skirts the line between skepticism and solidarity, creating plausible deniability.

Here are some clear examples where Marjorie Taylor Greene has taken a passive-aggressive tone regarding Israel, supporting Israel in principle while undermining the relationship through criticism, provocative comparisons, or mixed messaging:

1.  Claiming support “but not funding the wars”

Greene posted on X in early June 2025: “I can easily say I support nuclear armed Israel's right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don't want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel's wars. Nor any other country for that matter. I'm sick of funding foreign aid and foreign countries and foreign everything. I want to fund American interests and issues.” <Source>

She affirms support for Israel while actively undermining U.S. military aid, using the classic “I support, but…” framing—undermining the whole without actually opposing it outright.

2. Misleading claims on U.S. aid to Israel

In November 2023, Greene tweeted: “Israel is literally dominating … and not one single American dollar has been spent on that war yet. Just think about that.”  <Source>

This tweet downplays decades of U.S.–Israel financial support. Commenters, and even X’s Community Notes corrected her, with Stephen King bluntly asking: “Are you tripping? We’ve given them aid and armaments for decades.” <Source>

By denying clear U.S. investment, she sends a message that Americans are unfairly bankrolling Israeli wars—even after professing solidarity.

3. Painting Israel aid as part of a selfish funding agenda

Greene tied military aid into a broader domestic vs. foreign trope back in October 2023:

“I will be voting NO on all funding packages for the Ukraine war … and now the Israel war. … The United States government needs to focus on spending Americans’ hard earned tax dollars on our own country and needs to serve the American people NOT the rest of the world.” <Source>

Here, support for Israel becomes conditional, cast as optional, and in tension with domestic priorities.

4. Distance from pro-Israel lobbyists

On May 14, 2025, she posted: “I’m not controlled by big pharma, the military‑industrial complex, or AIPAC.” <Source>

This sounds like an assertion of independence, not an attack, but subtly implies that most pro-Israel politics are controlled, distancing herself and casting others as puppets of powerful lobby groups.

5. Skepticism of Israeli claims

During the Israel–Iran conflict in mid‑2025, Greene said: “We’ve been told [Iran is developing nuclear weapons] for the past 20 years … Americans don’t want to bomb Iran for the secular government of Israel.” <Source>

She expresses doubt about Israeli-aligned intelligence claims while framing U.S. bombing through the lens of “secular Israeli” interests, not American. It plants the notion that U.S. involvement is driven less by American security and more by Israeli influence.

Across these examples, Greene:

• Asserts support but contradicts it by opposing aid;
• Denies U.S. investment despite clear evidence;
• Inserts Israel aid into domestic vs. foreign spending debates;
• Frames pro-Israel activism as controlled.
• Casts doubt on Israeli-driven foreign policy agendas.

These tactics serve as passive-aggressive undermining: she appears supportive while subtly eroding the pro-Israel framing and questioning U.S.–Israel alignment.

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s positions on Iran are also well-known:

1. Opposed the U.S. bombing of Iran

   • On X (formerly Twitter), she wrote: “Americans don’t want to bomb Iran because the secular government of Israel says that Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb any day now.” <Source>

   • Later reaffirmed: “We should not be bombing foreign countries on behalf of other countries, especially when they have their own nuclear weapons…” <Source> 

2. Against regime change or intervention

   • She’s publicly rejected regime-change tactics, declaring: “MAGA is not for foreign wars. We are not for regime change. … The U.S. should not be involved in fighting nuclear‑armed Israel’s war with Iran.” <Source>

3. Criticized Trump’s strikes on Iran 

• After Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Greene condemned him: “Feel[s] like a complete bait and switch on the MAGA agenda.” <Source>
• She also stressed: “I can support President Trump … while disagreeing on bombing Iran … this is not our fight.” <Source>

4. Warned of division within the MAGA movement

   • Greene stated attacks on Iran risk fracturing Trump’s base: “It’s going to fracture it, and it’s already fracturing it.” <Source>

5. Supports ceasefire and U.S. non-involvement

   • Applauded the Israel‑Iran ceasefire and urged focus on peace: “Peace is the only answer… This was what we campaigned on… no more foreign wars.” <Source>

Marjorie Taylor Greene and others in the “America First” isolationist wing of U.S. politics often display a profound ignorance or willful dismissal of the strategic role Israel plays in countering a nuclear Iran, particularly in ways that benefit U.S. national security without direct American involvement.

Here’s how Marjorie Taylor Greene’s ignorance plays out in the real world:

1. Ignoring Israel as a Strategic Proxy -- Greene often frames Israel as a burden, saying, “I support Israel, but I don’t want to pay for their wars.”

This ignores the fact that Israel frequently acts independently to neutralize regional threats—such as nuclear development sites in Iran—without risking American lives.

Reality:  Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007)—both operations had global non-proliferation benefits. Israel’s intelligence operations (e.g., Mossad’s raid of Iran’s nuclear archive in 2018) exposed key data that the U.S. couldn’t access directly.

2. Downplaying Iranian Nuclear Threats -- Greene has mocked the idea of urgency: “We’ve been told for 20 years that Iran’s going to get a bomb any day now.”

This dismisses the intelligence consensus (from both U.S. and Israeli agencies) that Iran is deliberately enriching uranium toward weapons-grade capacity.

Reality: Iran has now enriched uranium to 60% purity, just steps from weapons-grade (90%). Israel’s constant sabotage operations slow down the clock, preventing a full-blown crisis that might require direct U.S. military involvement.

3. Framing Israel’s Actions as Selfish -- Greene regularly implies that Israel’s actions serve only Israeli interests, not American ones: “We should not be bombing foreign countries on behalf of Israel.”

This ignores how Israeli deterrence and intelligence provide a strategic buffer that keeps Iran focused regionally, rather than on projecting threats toward U.S. assets or allies.

Reality:  If Israel weren’t confronting Iran, the U.S. might have to. Israeli air defense systems, cyber warfare, and intelligence routinely benefit U.S. agencies, especially against Iran’s IRGC and proxy networks.

4. Overlooking the Cost of Inaction  -- By opposing U.S. support for Israel, Greene ignores the greater costs of allowing Iran to go nuclear unchecked.

Reality:  A nuclear Iran would trigger a Middle East arms race (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey). Israel’s unilateral actions prevent escalation to the point where the U.S. would be forced to act directly, saving American lives, treasure, and political capital.

Bottom Line

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is increasingly using her platform to launch passive-aggressive attacks against Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East. While cloaking her rhetoric in concern for U.S. interests, her statements often mirror talking points sympathetic to adversaries of the West, including Iran, a regime known for funding terror, spreading regional instability, and being directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens.

By questioning military aid, casting doubt on intelligence assessments, and amplifying conspiratorial narratives about Israel’s role in U.S. foreign policy, Greene risks giving aid and comfort to regimes that actively target Americans and our allies. This kind of rhetoric, whether intentional or ignorant, weakens U.S. deterrence, emboldens terrorist networks, and strains alliances vital to regional and global security.

It’s one thing to critique policy. It’s another to echo propaganda that aligns, intentionally or not, with the interests of hostile foreign states. Americans should take notice.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve