Tucker, Jews, and Isolationism

By David Engelhardt

I’ve been a pretty serious isolationist since January. Social-Media-isolationist. By that I mean, I’ve mostly been off X, IG, TIK TOK, and FB. Since then, I have been very much the proverbial canine and his emesis: deleting the apps, a few days later download, a few days later delete. Repeat. Vomit. Repeat. 

My isolationist position has correlated with a noticeable increase of peace, along with a few economic benefits. I’m not paying money for the blue IG checkmark, although I still have it on X due to the Grok benefit, and there is further an economy of dopamine reserve that appears more readily available and less jaggedly affected by likes and click bait.  

The intention of political isolationism is, in fact, peace. Less volatility. Fewer entanglements. And fewer checks to write—whether economic, moral, or emotional.

Benefits seems to be the question Tucker was asking in relation to the support of the secular state of Israel founded in 1948. There appear to be less benefits and instead national volatility, economic expense, and wasted dopamine reserves. I do not see the boon. 

I’ve long admired Senator Ted Cruz’s Count-Chocula-esque vibe and equally sharp toothed logic, but he weakly represented the position for the non-isolationist defense of Israel, because it is in fact a weak position.

The only political point that Sen. Cruz raised in defense of partnering with the secular state of Israel was that we get information from them. To quote him directly:

“We get massive benefits from Israel. Israel shares the Mossad is one of the best intelligence sources on the planet. The enemies of Israel, the people who hate Israel, they all hate us. It’s almost a perfect overlap. And so if we tried to recreate, if we’re just trying to defend America, we tried to recreate the national security benefits of our alliance with Israel, it would cost, I don’t know, 30 billion, 300 billion.”

Ok. So “intelligence sources” is the benefit, and that is why we need to defend their current geopolitical acts, because we want sources of intelligence as related to “our enemies.” I think that is a logically legitimate position. But it is a weak position. 

We have given Israel 318 Billion dollars. That’s approximately 4B a year, and while my math may not be exact, I want to know what empire saving intelligence have we received? Also, Isn’t that the job of the CIA? I.e., to strategically place intelligence sources in enemy nations? We currently run a 15B a year budget through the CIA for this precise purpose. 

Further, if the multi-hundred billion dollar expenditure for information was so beneficial, why didn’t we know about the guys who came here from the middle east, who were supported by the middle east, who were trained for months on our soil on how particularly to fly planes into buildings, and then did so a few blocks from my apartment?

While I likely agree with Senator Cruz on almost everything, he further used a general evangelical piece of colloquial theology to defend the secular nation state of Israel. In his own words:

"Where does my support for Israel come from? Number one, because biblically, we are commanded to support Israel. But number two…."

I want to be charitable to my friends who have different biblical positions, but defending a modern state’s foreign policy with the Twelth Chapter of Genesis–the fundamental story of the archetypal journey of faith, finding its fulfilled ultimate manifestation in the son of God–is mistaken. This morning I received a number of texts referencing Dr. Ron Cantor (MTh, Dmin)’s June 19, 2025 post titled: AN OPEN LETTER TO @TuckerCarlson ON WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT #ISRAEL. Again, his defense was not illogical, it was simply weak.

Strong arguments don’t rely on dismissive rhetoric. Tucker was allegedly “excruciating,” had “gotcha moment[s],”  has a “beloved Russia,” “throw[s] out [his] Bible,” would likely be “sacrificing [his] children to false gods” if not for…. That’s not exegesis—it’s exasperating, and annoying. 

Dr. Ron avoided verses that complicate his view: Galatians 3:16 (Christ is the seed of Abraham), Revelation’s warnings about those who “say they are Jews and are not,” and Paul’s repeated claim that true Israel is defined by faith, not flesh (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:7-8; John 8:39), as well as a myriad of other verses.

Like Senator Cruz position, Dr. Ron’s is weak. There is not currently a nuclear warhead flying through the air, nor is their a scripture to directly justify the particular defense of any modern nation state.

I believe the stronger and more defensible position both politically and theologically is rooted in Christian just war theory (which generally opposes pre-emptive strikes and definitely opposes unbalanced retributive actions). I think a stronger and more defensible position is caring about my sons Leon and Solomon, and consequently asking the question whether I want to gamble with a world war. I think a strong theological position as related to the Jewish people includes Romans 11:25 that states after the “fullness” of the gentles come to Christ, then the Jews hard hearts will soften and they will turn to Christ. I am not the arbiter of when, so evangalism to all people is the order of the day.

The secular state of Israel should be treated as all other secular nations: with justice, fairness, and scrutiny. It is not anti-Semitic to ask: what benefit comes from our support of your nation? That’s responsible governance.

That said, we must also recognize a sober warning: beneath some criticisms of Israel lies a deeper, demonic hatred for the Jewish people. This ancient hatred is real and must be named.

In the current discourse, I see three distinct approaches:

1. Demonically inspired anti-Semitism—a virulent hatred for Jews that transcends reason or policy.
2. Uncritical support for Israel—a reflexive justification of all state actions, often ignoring legitimate moral concerns.
3. Principled pursuit of justice—a position rooted in peace and grounded in historical Christian orthodoxy, aiming to treat all nations rightly.

I’ve been texting with my friend Charlie a non social-media-isolationist, as I believe he’s done an outstanding job rationally approaching these subjects and those justifying divergent approaches. At its core, the question is this: when is it justifiable to defend international allies? And, by what standard do we judge what is justifiable?"

As for me, I will justifiably re-enter the non-isolationist social media fray one of these days. And I’ll do so heartil, because as Chesterton said of religion and politics: they’re the only things worth talking about.

‍

Image from Unsplash: @Taylor Brandon

‍