Does the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement need a Tucker Carlson to be credible?

[iluvatar5150]

But the timeline doesn't line up with when the major interventions actually occurred, which was well before Bush's "War on Terror"

1948 through the end of the Shah's reign would've been time period in which which Western powers were doing the most string pulling, correct?

No, not at all. The Shah's overthrow may have been the end of our pulling strings within the Iranian government, but that was hardly the end of our meddling in the region.


Either way, I'm not convinced that that chart is showing what it purports to be showing. The top graph, for example, has a caption about Islamic terror, while the lines are showing locations of terror attacks. There may be a strong correlation between the two, but they're not synonymous. Both WTC attacks, for example, would show up on the North America line.

On the bottom chart, the number of terrorist attacks supposedly spikes during wars. But how do they define "terrorist attack"? According to the source's methodology page:

Incidents were collected according to the following definition of terrorism:

"the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

Sounds to me like their accounting includes hitting a bunch of soldiers with an IED, which, yeah, of course those numbers are going to go up in a war.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I've been mulling this over for the past few days...

The Gaza issue is still "hot & heavy" in public discourse.

I've long maintained that it's a strategic error to have the "reign in the influence of Israel" movement defined and dominated by a political faction that seems to think that glorifying/celebrating Islamic Fundamentalism is the proper anecdote to it. (the people out in the streets wearing keffiyehs and waiving Palestinian and Iranian flags around, while burning the American flag)

I noted in a previous thread that it's a mistake to cheerlead for either side in a conflict for which both are acting unethically (especially when the "who to cheer for" decision is being made for rather superficial reasons)


Should some on the left welcome the recent statements of Tucker Carlson on this issue? -- as he's reaching people that nobody from their own side could ever reach on this particular issue?

Just on that one interview he did with Ted Cruz, it seems to have had a measurable impact on the Republican base...

In an Economist/YouGov poll conducted not long after the interview, only 23% of Republicans think the U.S. should get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel. (Down from 39% a few months prior to that interview)

I'd have to think that Tucker's grilling of Cruz played at least some part in that.

Are some progressives willing to accept the potential "help" on that issue, even if it comes from a source that may have contrasting viewpoints with them on other issues?

What exactly needs to be reigned in? Israel receives about $3 billion per year from the US. Should we stop providing defensive weapons to Israel, so Hamas can fire thousands of rockets ( 20 thousands) at Jerusalem and kill indiscriminately?

Israel is the sole democracy in the Middle East. No Israel has expressed interest in coming to my city and attack schools or restaurant or church and kill indiscriminately innocent American. Can you say the same about Palestinian or other Arab Muslims?

There is nothing to reigned in. American stand by with her ally! End of the story.

 

[durangodawood]

Only a credulous dupe can be credible?

Sounds about where we're at these days.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What exactly needs to be reigned in? Israel receives about $3 billion per year from the US. Should we stop providing defensive weapons to Israel, so Hamas can fire thousands of rockets ( 20 thousands) at Jerusalem and kill indiscriminately?

Israel is the sole democracy in the Middle East. No Israel has expressed interest in coming to my city and attack schools or restaurant or church and kill indiscriminately innocent American. Can you say the same about Palestinian or other Arab Muslims?

What does their budget look like compared to ours in terms of surpluses/deficits?

As of 2023, Israel had a budget surplus of $2.8B USD.

Whereas, we're running a 2 Trillion deficit.

I'm not suggesting that we deny them defensive weapons, but any particular reason they couldn't buy them from us as opposed to us gifting them to them?

Domestically, we make a lot of trade-offs to have that military equipment (meaning we forego spending in other areas).

If they're able to afford universal healthcare, 26 weeks of paid family leave, and heavily subsidized tuition (and have a surplus to boot), it doesn't sound like they're an impoverished country in need of hand outs.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

What does their budget look like compared to ours in terms of surpluses/deficits?

As of 2023, Israel had a budget surplus of $2.8B USD.

Whereas, we're running a 2 Trillion deficit.

I'm not suggesting that we deny them defensive weapons, but any particular reason they couldn't buy them from us as opposed to us gifting them to them?

Domestically, we make a lot of trade-offs to have that military equipment (meaning we forego spending in other areas).

If they're able to afford universal healthcare, 26 weeks of paid family leave, and heavily subsidized tuition (and have a surplus to boot), it doesn't sound like they're an impoverished country in need of hand outs.

Fair enough.

When the Israeli government can afford to purchase weapons from the US, they should do so rather than receiving them as aid.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Is starvation and dehydration one of the natural deaths you say shouldn't be counted?

It could have never happened and it has always in the power of Hamas to end it any time.

Hamas could stop attacking their own people attempting to get aid packages and food deliveries.
Hamas could stop putting rocket launchers in schools and hospitals and then scream bloody murder when innocents get killed.
Hamas could allow their people to leave area's where the Israelis warned them that military action is about to happen. Instead they have such little regard for life they use woman and children as human shields.
Hamas could stop launching thousands of rockets into civilian area's of Israel.

So why don't they?

In the original Hamas charter - they called for the elimination of the Jews - they don't want Jewish land - they want Jewish people off the face of the earth.

They have been offered two state solutions repeatedly - they have been rejected by HAMAS repeatedly - why?

They want the elimination of the Jews.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Fair enough.

When the Israeli government can afford to purchase weapons from the US, they should do so rather than receiving them as aid.

Do you feel the same about Ukraine?

 

[Always in His Presence]

As for Tucker Carlson - I've never listened to him - I thought he got fired?

 

[wing2000]

Are some progressives willing to accept the potential "help" on that issue, even if it comes from a source that may have contrasting viewpoints with them on other issues?

While I don't consider my views to be "progressive" I do think Carlson's comments will give cause some of his followers to question the amount of aid we provide Israel.

IMO, the current Israeli government's actions in Gaza are immoral and do not serve the long term interest of Israel (nor the U.S.). I believe many Israelis share that opinion.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Do you feel the same about Ukraine?

The suggestion is that if Israel can afford it, they should buy weapons from us instead of receiving aid is a “compromise” with those who don’t want to support Isreal unconditionally.

You and I have engaged in previous debates, so you may already be familiar with my position. I support the US-Israel relationship in the same way that I support the US-Ukraine relationship. Providing aid, funds, and weapons to defend Israel or Ukraine is of greater importance than any monetary value. It is in the United States' interest to assist Israel just as it is in its interest to support Ukraine. I wish we could send more aid to Israel and Ukraine.

However, there is a growing bipartisan movement to limit Israel's influence, as seen in this thread. Although I disagree with both sides, all Americans have the right to their opinions. If the compromise is allowing Israel to purchase weapons from the US with its own funds and only providing aid when necessary, I prefer that over ending support for Israel entirely, as some advocate.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As for Tucker Carlson - I've never listened to him - I thought he got fired?

He got let go from Fox, and then started his own show.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The suggestion is that if Israel can afford it, they should buy weapons from us instead of receiving aid is a “compromise” with those who don’t want to support Isreal unconditionally.


I support the US-Israel relationship in the same way that I support the US-Ukraine relationship. Providing aid, funds, and weapons to defend Israel or Ukraine is of greater importance than any monetary value.

No support/aid (monetary other otherwise) should ever be "unconditional"

Diplomacy, aid, and governance should never be done via "blank check"


The goal of aid should be to position the recipient so they can eventually no longer need aid.

For instance, if there was an impoverished nation with perpetual food shortages spanning decades, the goal shouldn't be just "we have to unconditionally buy and export food to them forever on our dime, because starvation prevention is worth more than money", the goal of aiding them should be to put things in place that prevent/correct the things that caused them to require aid in the first place.

That often times means attaching conditions to the help.

Similar to how some changes were demanded of Greece as part of the austerity measures.

Germany and a few other nations agreed to bail them out for "the greater good", but they attached certain conditions to that.

They didn't say "here's a pile of money to get you back above water, come back in a few months when you need more, just keep doing what you were doing" -- because what they were doing was the thing that caused them to get in a bind and need a bailout in the first place.

 

[Always in His Presence]

However, there is a growing bipartisan movement to limit Israel's influence, as seen in this thread. Although I disagree with both sides, all Americans have the right to their opinions. If the compromise is allowing Israel to purchase weapons from the US with its own funds and only providing aid when necessary, I prefer that over ending support for Israel entirely, as some advocate.

Here is where we differ.

We supported NATO with weapons, spending multi billions of dollars they said they could not afford it. Why, because they are allies.

We support Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars in monies and weapons, because they could not afford it. Why, because they are allies

Israel is also our ally - why would it be different for them?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Here is where we differ.

We supported NATO with weapons, spending multi billions of dollars they said they could not afford it. Why, because they are allies.

We support Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars in monies and weapons, because they could not afford it. Why, because they are allies

Israel is also our ally - why would it be different for them?

I agree with your support for Israel; we're on the same page.

US aid to Israel, whether $3 billion or $10 billion annually, is a relatively small amount.

But , If I must compromise with those who do not support unconditional aid to Israel, I am willing to make concessions. Given a choice between no aid or providing aid when needed, I would choose to provide aid to Israel.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

No support/aid (monetary other otherwise) should ever be "unconditional"

Diplomacy, aid, and governance should never be done via "blank check"

I support Israel unconditionally with blank check, but you are free to have a different view. That's democracy—everyone has their own opinion, and we must coexist.

 

[durangodawood]

No support/aid (monetary other otherwise) should ever be "unconditional"

Diplomacy, aid, and governance should never be done via "blank check"


The goal of aid should be to position the recipient so they can eventually no longer need aid.

For instance, if there was an impoverished nation with perpetual food shortages spanning decades, the goal shouldn't be just "we have to unconditionally buy and export food to them forever on our dime, because starvation prevention is worth more than money", the goal of aiding them should be to put things in place that prevent/correct the things that caused them to require aid in the first place.

That often times means attaching conditions to the help.

Similar to how some changes were demanded of Greece as part of the austerity measures.

Germany and a few other nations agreed to bail them out for "the greater good", but they attached certain conditions to that.

They didn't say "here's a pile of money to get you back above water, come back in a few months when you need more, just keep doing what you were doing" -- because what they were doing was the thing that caused them to get in a bind and need a bailout in the first place.

You seem to view aid to Israel through the lens of geopolitics. So you might be talking at cross purposes with those who view it in terms of religious commandments and/or eschatology.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

While it's true that Arabs living in Israel are not terrorists, there have been several terrorist attacks carried out in Israel by Arab Israeli Citizens.

Below are a few examples:

Haifa stabbing attack leaves one Israeli dead

Off-duty soldier killed, another wounded in terror stabbing by Arab citizen at Karmiel mall

Beersheba bus station shooting

Israeli Arab man arrested over Tel Aviv bus bombing

Two Killed, Seven Wounded in Shooting at Tel Aviv Pub

I never said there were not incidents...we all know about the suicide vested Arab bus bombers.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

What exactly needs to be reigned in? Israel receives about $3 billion per year from the US. Should we stop providing defensive weapons to Israel, so Hamas can fire thousands of rockets ( 20 thousands) at Jerusalem and kill indiscriminately?

Israel is the sole democracy in the Middle East. No Israel has expressed interest in coming to my city and attack schools or restaurant or church and kill indiscriminately innocent American. Can you say the same about Palestinian or other Arab Muslims?

There is nothing to reigned in. American stand by with her ally! End of the story.

Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror groups with millions...Israel is our ally, Iran is NOT

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The Arabs living inside Israel are second-class citizens, with enormous prejudice against them.

The Arabs living in Israel's concentration camps have been systematically treated like human garbage by an oppressive apartheid like regime for generations. Gee - I wonder what could go wrong?

Before all this, Christians, Muslims and Jews lived together peacefully for many generations. Then 1948 and in the very founding of the country, Israel became utterly weaponised, run by a defensive military culture that has exceeding influence on the government.

Did you know there was some discussion of a Jewish state in other sites? They were evaluating a spot in Australia at one point! World history would look very different if that had been the case. But it didn't - and the result is generations of Jewish consciences being forced to turn a blind eye to the atrocities their government policies deal out.

It's telling that:-

1. Israel's arms sales have increased 13% since this recent war with Hamas.
2. western liberal democracies like Canada and the UK and France have to speak up against their only 'democratic' ally in the Middle-East!
3. Israel's media constantly presents them as the victims - rather than the perpetrator. The propaganda at home blinds the population to the atrocities being dealt out on the ground.
4. any time someone like the UK Prime Minister raises these issues Bibi yells "Anti-Semitism!" because Israel is always, always the victim - despite a 50 to 1 kill ratio! Despite:-
   1. using white phosphorous.
   2. testing new thermal bombs that take out a building AND send an explosive thermal compression wave that crushes and burns lungs for about 300 meters around the building. Yeah - that's a targeted strike! (NOT!) Trying to limit collateral damage - or just wipe out the population?
   3. the UN now accusing Israel of very similar crimes to what Israel's grandparents were fleeing in their own holocaust.
   4. defying international law for generations, and keeping Hamas in the world's largest concentration camp - and nibbling away at the West Bank until it resembles a block of cheese - with the tiny little holes the Palestinian bits.
   5. the local Arabs being more semitic! The great irony is that Israel has a quite high skin-cancer ratio because genetically there are so many European Jews that they are second only to Australia in skin-cancer rates. The local Arabs are more semitic than their persecutors whining about antisemitism! This is just a reflection on the weird language of political persuasion - not a go at the Jews themselves. For me this is all about the hypocrisy of the Israeli state.
5. Jews like Antony Loewenstein who grow up outside Israel - raised to believe Israel is a beacon of goodness surrounded by evil barbarians - who then study history and go home and see what's happening in the West Bank write books like "The Palestine Laboratory". (Here is the 4 part podcast summary of his findings.)

Hmmm...wonder why Arabs were allowed to hold seats in the Knesset since 1949? Does not sound like second-class citizens, with enormous prejudice against them. 1000s of missiles launched into Israel does not make nice neighbors. The rest is your revisionist history and silly Jew hatred....

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Here is where we differ.

We supported NATO with weapons, spending multi billions of dollars they said they could not afford it. Why, because they are allies.

We support Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars in monies and weapons, because they could not afford it. Why, because they are allies

by the way, the U.S. didn't just provided weapons to NATO because NATO member can’t afroed them—it was also to prevent Europe from becoming independent of American influence. After WWII and the formation of NATO, there were concerns about preventing a single dominant power like Germany in Europe. The U.S. promised to protect NATO members to counter the USSR and maintain influence. This arrangement has provided mutual benefits: Europe relies on the U.S. for defense, and the U.S. gains strong allies. It's been effective for over 70 years. Since World War II, both US political parties have supported a policy that prioritizes maintaining US dominance over China and Russia by ensuring a strong NATO, even if it means the US bears most of the costs.

Criticism of the US defense budget and foreign interventions has historically come from members of the political left, while these concerns were often not addressed by the majority of Democrats and Republicans. However, there is now a notable increase in similar critiques from individuals on the right, including the current President, making these issues more prominent in contemporary political discussions regarding US defense spending, foreign engagement, and support for NATO.

As I have stated repeatedly, I am a supporter of the foreign policies of Presidents Reagan and W. Bush. The financial contributions made by the United States to NATO and Israel cannot be assessed solely in monetary terms, as the value of these alliances is immeasurable. The United States' global leadership stems largely from its robust partnerships with NATO members. While encouraging NATO allies to become more self-reliant might yield short-term fiscal savings and reduce national debt, the potential rise of a military power such as Germany in the next twenty years could impose far greater costs and threat on the United States than any current expenditure.