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

Pommer · 2025-07-14T18:46:09-0500

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
It appears that you are unable to provide scriptural evidence supporting the claim that modern-day Israel differs from what is described in the Bible.

Oh, have the Israelis reinstituted the animal sacrifice demanded of them by their Deity?
I must have missed that important development.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Thank you for sharing your perspective; however, I do not find it compelling. As I mentioned, I am willing to reconsider my position if you can present relevant scripture.

The modern secular world isn’t always going to be reflected in the ancient writings, trying to wedge them in (to scripture) is a futile effort, most times.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Based on our discussion thus far, it seems you have not provided any. I will continue to place greater trust in the word of God than in human opinions.

The Bible, (AFAIK), doesn’t purport itself to be the be-all and end-all of human knowledge.

Pommer · 2025-07-14T19:13:20-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
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?

My inner pendant irks at the “reign” in the title…wouldn’t this better be “rein”?

ThatRobGuy · 2025-07-14T19:22:09-0500

Pommer said:
My inner pendant irks at the “reign” in the title…wouldn’t this better be “rein”?

meh, I'll leave it, I'll chalk it up to a casualty of using voice-to-text

Hans Blaster · 2025-07-14T19:54:35-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
No,

No? I was literally speaking of the narcissistic tendency in American discourse to ignore anything that isn't directly related to us, not just foreign human rights violations.

ThatRobGuy said:
they're more interested in anything that can be compartmentalized into the "oppressed vs. oppressor" narrative under the guise of it being a "human rights thing"

a "human rights thing" typically involves an oppressor, so I don't see what you think is special about that.

ThatRobGuy said:
Case in point:

Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq have all mistreated the Palestinians (including things like expulsion, subjecting them to poor living conditions, occupation, raiding their camps, starving them, restricting their movement, giving them sub-par rights in their own countries, etc... -- sound familiar with regards to some of the modern critiques we're hearing?)

Yet, the only times I see the Palestinian flags getting busted out for demonstrations here in the US, it when it's a conflict involving Israel (who's aligned with the US)

First we need to remind ourselves who exactly is a "Palestinian". The are the Arab peoples of Mandatory Palestine. By definition, they are not Egyptians, (Trans-)Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis, or Syrians, so the only reason there would be because (a) they were kicked out of Mandatory Palestine by Jewish/Israeli settlers, or (b) during the occupation of the Arab Palestinian portions by Arab nations between 1945 and 1967 when the Israelis occupied all that was left of Mandatory Palestine.

Given that this "only care when it is Israel causing harm" focus is a fairly recent thing (from my estimate only after the Oslo Accords took the PLO out of the terrorism business) we are well past any non-Israeli countries occupying Palestinian territory, it all comes down to the actions of Israel.

ThatRobGuy said:
It very much comes across as "activism of convenience", where the protesting only kicks in to full gear when there's a way they can make it about "their thing"

Just like anything else. I don't post here on every topic that even mildly interests me or even on all of the topics I think have moral equivalent to the ones I do comment on. That's just the way people are.

A2SG · 2025-07-14T22:45:51-0500

Pommer said:
My inner pendant irks at the “reign” in the title…wouldn’t this better be “rein”?

Surely you meant your "inner pedant."

-- A2SG, my inner pedant had to speak up on that one....

Search

Search

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

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

More options

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

More options

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd

More options

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.

More options

A2SG

Gumby

More options

Need help?

Similar threads