Have you ever actually listened to him himself, or only to how the American left defines him?

The left has its own definitions of who is allowed to breathe the air of planet Earth, and who is merely “controversial,” which in leftist language means, “It would be better if he didn’t exist, but we’re cutting him some slack.”
From the left’s point of view, anything short of full justification of their views, publicizing them, and identifying with them at every opportunity means “stirring up strife,” “spreading hatred,” “evil,” and whatnot.

Andrei,
Repeated lies have a very clear definition of what is true and what is false,
at least in some cases.

The same goes for antisemitism.

The same goes for toxic discourse and spreading hatred.

And the rest of the murdered man’s “good deeds.”
This isn’t a matter of calling everything right or left.
Sometimes facts also have something to say.

Factually, he supported the State of Israel (maybe because he is full of hatred for Arabs), but hand in hand with that came spreading antisemitism to millions, lies, and more and more.

Your discourse is toxic and full of hatred. You clearly don’t know the man, and you’re already raising hypotheses that he supported Israel because he was against Muslims. You could just check, you know… his love for Jews is based primarily on his Christian faith—why make things up? It’s ugly to invent bad things about people, and ugly to judge people without knowing them at all. But it’s even uglier to do that precisely when they’ve just been murdered; that comes across as justifying the murder.

“Repeated lies have a very clear definition”—and so do your “other good deeds.”

I’m trying very hard to avoid language like this, but pardon me, your comments disgust me.

To the Rabbi—
So if I understood correctly, you mean that theoretically one really can arrive at the conclusion that a certain person needs to die—it’s not that it’s impossible or irrational to think that. But in practice we wouldn’t do it, not because it couldn’t be value-wise justified, but because of pragmatic considerations? Meaning, in the end if everyone starts killing whoever they think is evil and harmful, we’ll simply end up in total chaos?

To David—
I’ve known and listened to Charlie Kirk for years, like the whole other entourage (Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Jordan Peterson, etc.). More than once I agreed with him on certain things but not with his reasoning, which in my opinion was fairly weak. He always seemed like a nice guy, but sometimes it seemed to me that out of a desire not to let the progressives win, he preferred closing ranks on everything connected to the right rather than really dealing with arguments raised against the right that don’t get an answer (that is apparently the reason he stayed on good terms with actual antisemites like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson).

Daniel,
Regarding what you directed to Michi, I don’t think that’s the correct conclusion. He wrote that there has to be a clear pursuit that needs to be stopped in order to justify murder. Ideas are fought with ideas, not with violence.
Regarding what you directed to me, I think you’re right. He wasn’t the brightest of the bright, and that’s exactly why it’s hysterical overkill to go hunting through random statements across years of a turbulent career. He wasn’t a philosopher, and he wasn’t always right or always spoke wisely. You can still get the impression that he was a good and talented guy with his heart in the right place. As for closing ranks, that was explicitly true, for better and for worse. He said several times that he welcomed into his movement even people who identified with only some of the values, and he even invited trans people to take part, Heaven forfend (😉). The connection with Tucker and Candace is part of that; there wasn’t some deep friendship there or anything like that, and despite our sensitivities, they’re not really outright antisemites proper (maybe Candace a bit more). He fought antisemitism too, not only criticism of Israel.
It amazes me that the discussion today is about how extreme he was or wasn’t. That isn’t the issue at all when he was murdered over views he expressed in a civilized and calm way while listening to the other side. (For the doubters: his parents said he had radicalized to the left and hated Kirk, and he engraved on the shell casings, “Hey fascist, catch” and “Bella Ciao”—which is a popular slogan among Antifa, etc.) If we’re already having this unnecessary discussion, “extreme” isn’t just a relative expression; it’s measurable. So I ask: what is more centrist than him in the U.S., and where are the edges? Draw the distribution, and my guess is that he’d be somewhere around one or two standard deviations to the right. Almost any right-wing figure you bring up would be more extreme than he was (Walsh, Shapiro, Musk, Trump, Tucker, and so on).
He was very popular; that’s what caused the left to label him extreme. And it’s sad to see people here in Israel who don’t know him asking the wrong questions: “Is there any blame on the murder victim?” Come on already—forget sensitivity, where’s the common sense?? To me that’s disturbing. Even if an actual political figure were murdered and people started musing about whether there was some justice in it, that would be disturbing and a wake-up call; all the more so when we’re talking about a calm influencer who held very, very popular views in the U.S. (It’s easy to imagine such a thing happening in Israel. Unfortunately I assume there will be some who try to justify it. And again, even though that isn’t the issue, Charlie is not Bibi; he wasn’t even a politician.)