So Bad, They Deleted It

In partnership with

Master ChatGPT for Work Success

ChatGPT is revolutionizing how we work, but most people barely scratch the surface. Subscribe to Mindstream for free and unlock 5 essential resources including templates, workflows, and expert strategies for 2025. Whether you're writing emails, analyzing data, or streamlining tasks, this bundle shows you exactly how to save hours every week.

Subscribe for Your Free Bundle

That’s a swing and a miss. The recent incident involving Megyn Kelly, The Babylon Bee, and Tim Pool serves as a stark reminder of the growing fissures within the Republican Party, particularly over the contentious issue of U.S. support for Israel. What began as a satirical jab by the conservative humor outlet (Babylon Bee) quickly spiraled into a broader debate about free speech, foreign policy loyalty, and the limits of political humor in an increasingly polarized era. The Babylon Bee’s now-deleted post, which awkwardly suggested that Kelly had ditched an old pager to avoid an Israeli assassination—a nod to the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions linked to Mossad—struck a nerve. Rather than eliciting laughter, it ignited a firestorm, prompting its removal and exposing the fragile balance between pro-Israel and emerging anti-Israel voices within conservative circles. In this context, Megyn Kelly and Tim Pool have emerged as voices of reason, advocating for open discourse and challenging the reflexive pro-Israel stance that has long dominated GOP rhetoric.

The incident itself is rooted in a real-world event that happened just last year, the 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks. In that operation, Israeli intelligence allegedly embedded explosives in pagers sold to Hezbollah, resulting in significant casualties. This audacious move was a tactical success for Israel, and showed the precision its secret service possesses. The Babylon Bee’s satire though misfired by implicating Kelly, a prominent conservative commentator (and not to mention an American citizen) who has recently voiced reservations about the unconditional U.S. alliance with Israel. Her stance, coupled with Tim Pool’s defense of her position, highlights a critical shift within the party—one that prioritizes American interests and free expression over blind allegiance to a foreign ally.

For years, the Republican Party has been a bastion of pro-Israel sentiment, driven in part by evangelical Christian support and the influence of wealthy donors like Sheldon Adelson, who tied their financial backing to staunch Zionist policies. This alignment once unified the party, but recent developments suggest a growing divide. Kelly’s critique, for instance, reflects a broader frustration among some conservatives who feel the party has been too quick to shield Israel from scrutiny, even as global perceptions of the nation’s actions—particularly in Gaza and Lebanon—have soured. She has argued that American media and voters should not be pressured into silence when questioning a foreign government’s policies, a position that resonates with a segment of the GOP base increasingly wary of foreign entanglements. Pool, similarly, has positioned himself as a defender of this viewpoint, suggesting that the satire’s deletion was less about protecting Kelly and more about avoiding offense to Israel.

This split is not merely ideological but generational and strategic. Younger conservatives, many of whom consume media through platforms like Pool’s podcasts, are more likely to question traditional alliances, influenced by a digital culture that values unfiltered debate. Kelly, with her decades of experience in conservative media, bridges this gap, bringing credibility to the argument that the GOP must evolve. Her recent comments on the decline of Israel’s global credibility and her defense of figures like Candace Owens—who has faced backlash for her own criticisms of Israel—signal a willingness to challenge the status quo. Pool’s support reinforces this, as he has used his platform to argue that the party risks alienating its base by enforcing loyalty tests on foreign policy issues.

The backlash to the Babylon Bee’s post underscores the stakes of this internal conflict. Critics within the party accused the satire of crossing a line, with some suggesting it implied Israel assassinates Americans—a charge that, while exaggerated, taps into real anxieties about U.S.-Israel relations. Yet, Kelly and Pool’s response has been measured: they advocate for a return to first principles, emphasizing that humor, even when edgy, should not be censored unless it incites violence. This stance aligns with a broader conservative value of free speech, which they argue has been compromised by the pro-Israel faction’s hypersensitivity.

The broader context reveals a party at a crossroads. Historically, Republican support for Israel was bipartisan, but as Democratic support wanes—driven by progressive critiques of Israeli policy—the GOP has doubled down, risking a split that could redefine its identity. The influence of evangelical voters, who see Israel’s existence as a biblical imperative, clashes with a growing libertarian streak that questions foreign aid and military overreach. Kelly and Pool represent a middle ground, urging the party to balance its principles with a pragmatic reassessment of alliances. Their defense of open dialogue, even in the face of controversial humor, suggests that the GOP can remain pro-Israel without becoming a mouthpiece for every Israeli action.

Ultimately, this incident is a microcosm of a larger struggle. The Babylon Bee’s misstep and subsequent deletion reflect the pressure to conform within conservative media, while Kelly and Pool’s pushback offers a path forward. By championing free speech and critical thinking, they challenge the party to embrace a more nuanced foreign policy stance—one that supports Israel as an ally but not at the expense of American sovereignty or intellectual honesty. As the Republican Party navigates this divide, the voices of Kelly and Pool may well shape its future, ensuring that dissent remains a strength rather than a liability.