When did the anti-Israel stance start from the right?

Stopped_lurking · May 23, 2026

A New Dawn said:
The $1.7 Billion Iran received was from a pre-1979 weapons deal that was ordered by the Shah but never fulfilled. The amount of that deal was $400M, the rest was interest on that money. That money was returned to guarantee the release of the hostages Iran was holding.

I did state (if you had read my post) that the money came from two sources, but it was all Iranian money. None of it (unless you count the interest) was US money.

A New Dawn said:
Iran received $101.7 Billion from the US under JCPOA and the other bank settlement under Obama. Trump put other sanctions in place, but they received the money under Obama.

I just thought received was a strange choice of words. You were the one earlier trying to separate the 1.7 from the 100 billion in relation JCPOA.

A New Dawn said:
There were two separate cash transactions:
The first was $100 Billion that was being held frozen in sanctions. This money was unfrozen in the JCPOA AGREEMENT.
The second was $1.7 Billion that was the bank settlement for the cancelled arms transaction which was separate from the JCPOA agreement.

Let's get back to the more important question, Trump reinstated sanctions so that Iran thought that the US did not honor the agreement. In effect, Trump ripped the agreement up.

Stopped_lurking · May 23, 2026

A New Dawn said:
The deal was a UN deal, with the rest of the 5 nation security council supporting it. The US can place sanctions on a country unilaterally, but there were other nations who in the EU that were still abiding by the deal till Iran pulled out.

No it wasn't a UN deal, it was at most a UN supported deal but the UN was not part of the negotiations. The other members of 5+1 continued to deal accordingly with Iran. When Iran left JCPOA, they also reinstated sanctions. Remember after the US ripped up JCPOA the incentive was diminished for Iran. The US ripped up the deal.

A New Dawn · May 23, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
I just thought received was a strange choice of words. You were the one earlier trying to separate the 1.7 from the 100 billion in relation JCPOA.

Let's get back to the more important question, Trump reinstated sanctions so that Iran thought that the US did not honor the agreement. In effect, Trump ripped the agreement up.

There were two separate money transactions (however you want to word it). The $100billion from the JCPOA deal and the $1.7 billion bank settlement for the unfulfilled weapons deal. This is what I have said ALL ALONG.

And I see no problem with sanctions especially when the other country is doing terrorist activities that affect most of the region and, frankly, most of the world.

essentialsaltes · May 23, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
Remember after the US ripped up JCPOA the incentive was diminished for Iran. The US ripped up the deal.

Not only did the US start beating Iran with sticks again, but the US has a particularly big stick -- access to the dollar-based international financial markets and banks.

A New Dawn · May 23, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
No it wasn't a UN deal, it was at most a UN supported deal but the UN was not part of the negotiations. The other members of 5+1 continued to deal accordingly with Iran. When Iran left JCPOA, they also reinstated sanctions. Remember after the US ripped up JCPOA the incentive was diminished for Iran. The US ripped up the deal.

I linked the UN page in a previous post.

Stopped_lurking · May 23, 2026

A New Dawn said:
I linked the UN page in a previous post.

Did it say the UN was a negotiating party? No.

From your link:
"On 20 July 2015, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2231 (2015) endorsing the JCPOA. The Security Council affirmed that conclusion of the JCPOA marked a fundamental shift in its consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue, expressed its desire to build a new relationship with Iran strengthened by the implementation of the JCPOA and to bring to a satisfactory conclusion its consideration of this matter."

It was not a deal between the UN and Iran. The UN endorsed the deal, that is what I said (ok, I used the word supported)

After the US unilaterally broke the deal, there was not much incentive for Iran to stay within it. It all started with Trump pulling the US out and imposing his maximum pressure sanctions.

A New Dawn · May 23, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
Did it say the UN was a negotiating party? No.

From your link:
"On 20 July 2015, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2231 (2015) endorsing the JCPOA. The Security Council affirmed that conclusion of the JCPOA marked a fundamental shift in its consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue, expressed its desire to build a new relationship with Iran strengthened by the implementation of the JCPOA and to bring to a satisfactory conclusion its consideration of this matter."

It was not a deal between the UN and Iran. The UN endorsed the deal, that is what I said (ok, I used the word supported)

After the US unilaterally broke the deal, there was not much incentive for Iran to stay within it. It all started with Trump pulling the US out and imposing his maximum pressure sanctions.

The UN is what brought the EU into it, removing the European sanctions. Just because the US broke the US deal (the JCPOA) doesn’t mean that the UN deal was broken. Two things can be true at the same time.

Stopped_lurking · May 23, 2026

A New Dawn said:
The UN is what brought the EU into it, removing the European sanctions. Just because the US broke the US deal (the JCPOA) doesn’t mean that the UN deal was broken. Two things can be true at the same time.

Eh, no.

The EU was at the negotiating table, we were represented by Catherine Ashton in the early negotiations and by Federica Mogherini when the deal was reached.

Yes, it does since it was the JCPOA (including the US) was what was endorsed by the UN security council. If one party backs out, the deal is undermined. Still Iran didn't back out until 2019.

My main point is that until the US pulled out there was no large-scale enrichment of uranium in Iran. This sits firmly at the feet of Trump.

ViaCrucis · May 23, 2026

As someone who has never been shy about voicing my criticism of the State of Israel, I'm rather uncomfortable with--at least in online spaces--the way the discourse has shifted from political criticism to blatant anti-semitism. Rightwing antisemitism isn't new, it may have fallen out of vogue in certain conservative circles, but it's always been around. Leftwing anti-semitism, I know less about, but I won't pretend like I haven't seen an upward trend in it over the last couple of years.

My conclusion is that people are using criticism of Israel becoming more socially acceptable as a rationale to voice their antisemitic views. Regardless of the reasons, it's foul. Antisemitism is, like all forms of bigotry, utterly foul.

Gene2memE · May 24, 2026

A New Dawn said:
CFR.

??

A New Dawn said:
Show me where we targeted hotels and schools and mosques and synagogues and hospitals.

Hotel: Israeli attack on hotel in Lebanon’s Beirut kills four

School: 2026 Minab school attack - Wikipedia

Synagouge: Synagogue in Tehran ‘completely destroyed’ in US-Israeli attack

Mosques: Destruction of cultural heritage sites during the 2026 Iran war - Wikipedia

Hospitals: At least 13 hospitals and health facilities hit during attacks on Iran, WHO says

A New Dawn · May 24, 2026

Gene2memE said:
??

Hotel: Israeli attack on hotel in Lebanon’s Beirut kills four

School: 2026 Minab school attack - Wikipedia

Synagouge: Synagogue in Tehran ‘completely destroyed’ in US-Israeli attack

Mosques: Destruction of cultural heritage sites during the 2026 Iran war - Wikipedia

Gene2memE said:
Hospitals: At least 13 hospitals and health facilities hit during attacks on Iran, WHO says

The statement I made used a specific word. That word was targeted. The school that was bombed was likely fallout of the attack on a military base that was only blocks away. And I believe it was Israel that bombed it, not the US. Same with the hotel that Israel bombed. That was not the US.

What was targeted by the US was nuclear facilities and military bases. I also believe that the president had to tell Israel to back off and not target non-military installations.

RedLetterJoe · May 24, 2026

FireDragon76 said:
A generational shift. Millenials and Gen Z often don't have the same sentiments about Israel as Boomers. Less holocaust guilt and Christian zionism. Younger Evangelicals tend towards amillenialism or post-millenialism, not dispensationalism.

A bunch of very good reasons to give thanks to Yah.

Stopped_lurking · May 24, 2026

A New Dawn said:
The statement I made used a specific word. That word was targeted. The school that was bombed was likely fallout of the attack on a military base that was only blocks away. And I believe it was Israel that bombed it, not the US.

So far, it seems that it was the US. The final word is probably not said yet.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-us-school-strike-07d8ffac

From what I can remember, Israel tries to distance themselves from that strike.

A New Dawn said:
Same with the hotel that Israel bombed. That was not the US.

What was targeted by the US was nuclear facilities and military bases. I also believe that the president had to tell Israel to back off and not target non-military installations.

There is no lack of killed civilians in Iran. It seems that civilians is a large part of the total number killed. It is of course difficult to get any hard numbers, but if more than 10% is collateral damage (which doesn't seem unlikely, early estimates are much higher) then there should be some soul-searching whether or not the strikes were necessary. My guess is that is not going to happen with Hegseth at the wheel.

A New Dawn · May 25, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
There is no lack of killed civilians in Iran. It seems that civilians is a large part of the total number killed. It is of course difficult to get any hard numbers, but if more than 10% is collateral damage (which doesn't seem unlikely, early estimates are much higher) then there should be some soul-searching whether or not the strikes were necessary. My guess is that is not going to happen with Hegseth at the wheel.

There is no lack of civilians killed in Iran by the Iranian government. Many moreso than by any, or all of the attacks put together, by the US and Israel. Last count I heard was upwards of 35,000, and yet not one person on the left has voiced concern over those deaths. And let’s not forget about all the Christians killed, on purpose, by the Iranian terrorists.

Yes, it’s sad when civilians are unfortunately killed in a war that is trying to end a terroristic regime, but I find the double standard being applied by the left in all of these cases where the terrorists target their own people to be a convenient outrage when they only rage against the people trying to end the terror and not against the terror, itself.

Stopped_lurking · May 25, 2026

A New Dawn said:
There is no lack of civilians killed in Iran by the Iranian government. Many moreso than by any, or all of the attacks put together, by the US and Israel. Last count I heard was upwards of 35,000, and yet not one person on the left has voiced concern over those deaths.

It is not a left-right issue. The largest left leaning party in Sweden condemned Iran over its response to the protest.

Iran being bad does not excuse the US doing bad things. The risks of collateral damage must be proportional to what is gained.

A New Dawn said:
And let’s not forget about all the Christians killed, on purpose, by the Iranian terrorists.

Yes, it’s sad when civilians are unfortunately killed in a war that is trying to end a terroristic regime, but I find the double standard being applied by the left in all of these cases where the terrorists target their own people to be a convenient outrage when they only rage against the people trying to end the terror and not against the terror, itself.

This isn't an either or situation. What leftist in the US did come out and called the iranian response to the protests good? Or thought it was unproblematic that the protests were put down with violence? It was not hard to find people on both sides (isn't these two, one democrat and one republican?) of the aisle condemning Iran's violence towards protestors.

Congressmen Cohen and McClintock Condemn Iran’s Brutal Suppression of Protesters

WASHINGTON – Congressmen Steve Cohen (TN-9) and Tom McClintock (CA-5), the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus, today released the following statement:“We stand in solidarity with the people of Iran as they courageously rise to demand their fundamental rights...

cohen.house.gov

A New Dawn · May 25, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
It is not a left-right issue. The largest left leaning party in Sweden condemned Iran over its response to the protest.

Iran being bad does not excuse the US doing bad things. The risks of collateral damage must be proportional to what is gained.

This isn't an either or situation. What leftist in the US did come out and called the iranian response to the protests good? Or thought it was unproblematic that the protests were put down with violence? It was not hard to find people on both sides (isn't these two, one democrat and one republican?) of the aisle condemning Iran's violence towards protestors.

Congressmen Cohen and McClintock Condemn Iran’s Brutal Suppression of Protesters

WASHINGTON – Congressmen Steve Cohen (TN-9) and Tom McClintock (CA-5), the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus, today released the following statement:“We stand in solidarity with the people of Iran as they courageously rise to demand their fundamental rights...

cohen.house.gov

In the US, it is most definitely a left-right issue. The left refuses to back Trump on any issue, no matter how ethically or morally correct his position is and, conversely, how morally or ethically wrong of a position that puts the left in.

It’s great that they made a statement like that, but did they follow it up with support for the war? (I’m talking about the Democrats on that committee.)

It’s all well and good to hold to an ideological position that no civilian should be killed during a wartime endeavor, but it is not a position that anyone can realistically hold unless they are armchair critics. The reality is that, as horrible as it is that anyone should get killed during a military endeavor, people will be killed just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. PAAP (peace at any price) ends in total subjugation or annihilation of the countries that oppose or disagree with them.

RedLetterJoe · May 25, 2026

I'm neither anti Israel or Anti Semitic.
Perhaps it would be helpful if we defined our terms.

The nation state of Israel certainly exists, but it is not true Israel, that would be the Body of Christ. I am not opposed to the true Israel.

What is a Semite? Semite is a linguistic term that describes all who speak Semitic languages, which includes Arabs.

Words mean things. If we allow a group of people to claim titles that do not belong to them, and to change the definition of terms to suit their agenda, how can we ever arrive at the truth in our deductions?

Stopped_lurking · May 25, 2026

A New Dawn said:
In the US, it is most definitely a left-right issue. The left refuses to back Trump on any issue, no matter how ethically or morally correct his position is and, conversely, how morally or ethically wrong of a position that puts the left in.

Starting a war can conceivably be viewed as wrong.

A New Dawn said:
It’s great that they made a statement like that, but did they follow it up with support for the war? (I’m talking about the Democrats on that committee.)

Why should they? It is perfectly acceptable to find Iran's actions reprehensible and not support a war, one might just have seen it as unlikely to have a good chance of success. So far it haven't done anything about removing hardliners from power (and that ambition seems to have taken a backseat for now).

A New Dawn said:
It’s all well and good to hold to an ideological position that no civilian should be killed during a wartime endeavor, but it is not a position that anyone can realistically hold unless they are armchair critics. The reality is that, as horrible as it is that anyone should get killed during a military endeavor, people will be killed just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. PAAP (peace at any price) ends in total subjugation or annihilation of the countries that oppose or disagree with them.

If you save the civilians by killing as many of them as you do the other sides military you might find that not all appreciate the saving. I'm not a proponent of peace at any price. I strongly support Ukraina's efforts to defend themselves.

A New Dawn · May 25, 2026

Stopped_lurking said:
If you save the civilians by killing as many of them as you do the other sides military you might find that not all appreciate the saving. I'm not a proponent of peace at any price. I strongly support Ukraina's efforts to defend themselves.

CFR

But you are a proponent of a terroristic regime murdering tens of thousands of their own people and thousands of Christians because they disagree with them ideologically or religiously?

Stopped_lurking · May 25, 2026

A New Dawn said:
CFR

What is CFR short for?

A New Dawn said:
But you are a proponent of a terroristic regime murdering tens of thousands of their own people and thousands of Christians because they disagree with them ideologically or religiously?

No. This part of the discussion started with you asserting some strange things about the school that most probably was targeted (from what we know now, we'll see if it was because of faulty intel) and destroyed by the US military.

ETA: If there had been a popular uprising first, I would be in support of the use of military force to support that.

When did the anti-Israel stance start from the right?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Fact-Based Lifeform

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Newbie

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Member

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Member

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads