Tucker Carlson has been critical of Israel for many years. According to
this article in TRTWorld,
Carlson, on his self-titled programme on September 17, said Kirk had often expressed negative views about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “He did not like Bibi Netanyahu and he said that to me many times and he said to people around him many times. He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force,” Carlson said on his show.
So Charlie Kirk didn't change his stance just because 'Jewish' donors didn't want him to have Tucker on his show. He was actually critical of their influence long before then, but more for "supporting institutions that breed anti-Semites and endorse genocidal killers" and "controlling the colleges, the nonprofits, the movies, Hollywood, all of it". That's why he posted "Jewish donors play into all the
stereotypes".
Which shows that he was indeed "complicated and nuanced", despite the characterizations of him from both the left and right.
But here's where it gets interesting. Charlie Kirk apparently confided the day before his death that "I think they are going to kill me". Combine this with questions over the wound in his neck, decoys in the crowd, and the FBI's claim that the shooter changed clothes three times and disassembled and reassembled the rifle twice, and you have all the ingredients of a conspiracy theory. People are comparing it to JFK. All we need now is for Tyler Robinson to claim he was a patsy and it's all on.
Who had motive to kill Charlie Kirk? Netanyahu did - because Charlie had a big influence with young republicans, who are already starting to turn against Israel. Democrats turned a while ago so if Bibi loses Republicans it's goodbye to US military aid. Netanyahu has stated this publically so we all know he knows the stakes. Israel has a
long history of assassinating people they consider to be their enemies, using methods that include car bombs and drive-by shootings, so it wouldn't be surprising if they had decided to silence Charlie before he turned opinion against them.
Of course this isn't what happened. As usual it was just an individual whose motives related to their personal life and frame of mind. When Charlie said 'they' he probably meant liberal extremists. Of did he? Either way it doesn't matter, because he didn't have any evidence of who 'they' were.