Iraq is an unalloyed disaster. War with Iran would be even worse. Lebanon's Cedar Revolution has empowered
groups hostile to America.
Where is the new democratic dawn in the Mideast
that the administration promised?
It certainly isn't represented in the
Israeli-Palestinian "peace process." The West Bank is still
occupied and Gaza
is nearing civil war. Whether peace is possible if the two peoples separate
is unknowable. The only worse option is for Israel to maintain a system of
militarized apartheid-like rule over millions of Palestinians.
Yet some of President George W. Bush's
domestic supporters oppose the slightest Israeli concession to the
Palestinians. Before the 2004 election, Gary Bauer, one-time presidential
candidate and head of American Values, lectured
the president: "The land
of Israel was
originally owned by God. Since He was the owner, only He could give it away.
And He gave it to the Jewish people."
Actually, God still owns the land of Israel.
And that of America,
for that matter. But that isn't a reason to oppose the Bush administration's
peace plan.
Washington's fulsome embrace of Israel
has long generated controversy – consider the fevered reaction to the
famous (or infamous, depending on your viewpoint) paper
by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard
on domestic support for Israel.
One can argue whether or not there is an "Israel Lobby," but there
obviously are lobbies for Israel.
That's unexceptional: interest groups have long attempted to influence
American foreign policy. Eastern European ethnic groups pushed for NATO
expansion, African-Americans lobbied to invade Haiti,
ethnic Albanians pushed Washington to attack
Serbia.
(Sadly, such groups rarely seek peace; most often they want Washington to back their side in war.)
What makes support for Israel unique
is the fact that part of it, at least, rests on theology. But not primarily
Judaism. Even the vast majority of American Jews who support Israel do so
more on cultural and ethnic than on religious grounds. It is some American
Christians who are attempting to turn the U.S. government into a de facto
arm of the church.
Most of those who hold such views are
evangelicals. Neither Catholics nor mainline Protestants have so heavily
rested their spiritual faith on the machinations of a secular state
identified with another religion, whose residents largely see themselves in
ethnic rather than religious terms. Non-evangelicals are far more likely to
perceive the harm to Americans and injustice to others resulting from turning
Mideast policy into an aberrant variant of
Christian theology.
Developing an intelligent solution to the
conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians is insanely difficult. Moreover, sympathy toward Israel is
understandable: there is no excuse for suicide bombings that slaughter and
maim.
But Washington
needs to develop a Mideast policy that advances America's
national interests by reducing the likelihood of war involving the U.S. and
attacks on Americans – basically staying out. Yet a number of Israel
advocates appear to see their support as an outgrowth of their Christian faith.
For instance, former Christian Coalition head and candidate for Georgia lieutenant governor Ralph Reed wrote,
"[T]here is an undeniable and powerful spiritual connection between Israel and
the Christian faith. It is where Jesus was born and where he conducted his
ministry." True, but so what? This has nothing to do with the
formulation of foreign policy for the secular nation of America,
which represents non-Christians as well as Christians.
Columnist Maggie Gallagher writes, "[M]y
support is based on an inchoate sense that if put into words would be
something like this: As Christians, we just cannot sit by and let Islamic
nations exterminate the Jewish people." Not that the Arab nations have
that capability, but never mind. Should Christians care less about the
killing of Christians by Muslims in Kosovo, Indonesia, and Nigeria? Or the killing of
Christians and Muslims by Hindus in India?
Another contention is that the U.S. should back whatever the Israeli
government wants to do because God gave Israel to the Jews. As Bauer
explains, "The Bible is pretty clear that the land is what is called
covenant land, that God made a covenant with the Jews that that would be
their land forever."
Bill Wilson of Koenig
International News argued that Bush's "peace efforts and personal
commitments on the surface sound good but they are biblically wrong."
After all, the president's position means the "he will be responsible
for the forceful evacuation of Jews by Jews off the land God gave to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants."
Equally
fervent is activist Ed McAteer: "I believe without any reservation
whatsoever that every grain of sand on that piece of property called Israel
belongs to the Jewish people. It's not because I happen to think that. It's
not because history gives a picture of them being in and out of there. It's
because God gave it to them."
Oklahoma Baptist minister Jim Vineyard ran a
full page ad in The Washington Times
last year denouncing the "deportation" of Jews from Gaza. He complained
about "Prime Minister Sharon's 'disengagement' giveaway to
Gentiles." Apparently a Christian can be so pro-Israel as to become a
self-hating Christian. (Indeed, Israel is notably frosty toward
Christians who are more interested in promoting Christianity than Greater
Israel.)
TV broadcaster Pat Robertson also believes
that all of the territory presently occupied by Israel is God's. He contended
that the State Department – as well as the UN, Russia, and
Europeans – would incur the "wrath of God" for dividing God's
land.
Even Israelis are at risk of receiving God's
judgment, in his view. The inimitable Robertson suggested that God struck
down Prime Minister Ariel Sharon because the latter disengaged from the Gaza
Strip. Explained Robertson:
"For any prime minister of Israel
who decides he will carve [Israel]
up and give it away, God said, 'No, this is mine.'" Although Robertson
apologized, he often has voiced similar sentiments. Last August he
declared, "God says 'I am going to judge the nations who have parted
my land.' He said 'I am going to bring judgment against them.'"
But Robertson has pointed to something even
more important than God's supernatural judgment: evangelicals' political
judgment. He apparently believes this issue should trump any domestic
concern. Before the
2004 election, he threatened that if Bush "touches Jerusalem
and really gets serious about taking east Jerusalem and making it the capital of a
Palestinian state, he'll lose virtually all evangelical support."
Evangelicals would then form a third party, he predicted. Who cares about
abortion, Social Security, taxes, the budget deficit, and war in Iraq when it comes to supporting Israel's authority over Jerusalem?
If these views were expressed during an
occasional Sunday school class, they wouldn't matter. But this curious
theology has reached the floor of the U.S. Congress. Recently retired Rep. Tom Delay
(R-Texas) said while visiting Palestinian lands: "I don't see
occupied territory; I see Israel."
Sen. James Inhofe
(R-Okla.) forthrightly declared that Israel had a right to the area
"because God said so." At least one leading politician understood
the implications of his stand. Former Majority Leader
Richard Armey (R-Texas) advocated "transporting" millions of
Palestinians elsewhere. He didn't specify voluntarily or involuntarily.
Yet the traditional premise of Christianity is
that God's covenant promises to the Jewish nation of Israel were voided by
disobedience and disbelief, and thus now run to the body of Christian
believers (as distinct from cultural Christians). Even if the covenant
remains valid with religious Jews, why assume that nonreligious Jews who set
up a secular state in the Mideast ruled by
nonbelievers are entitled to the same land once held by religious Jews
following in the line of Moses? As
Marvin Olasky, editor of World Magazine,
notes, "A biblical case can certainly be made that Israelis who are
atheists have tossed away their inheritance just as Esau did."
Moreover, if the land was to belong to Jews
forever, why did they lose control of it? Why assume they are supposed to get
it back at this moment? And with Washington's
help? In short, how do Christian Zionists know what God's plan really is,
especially in terms of both events and timing?
It's one thing to claim, as does Pat
Robertson, that "We believe God has a plan" for Israel. It's
quite another to suggest that God can't implement his plan without the help
of American politicians.
It is particularly strange to argue that God
requires the assistance of the secular nation state of America to
give the land back to the Jews. Imagine: the God of all creation, ruler of
heaven and earth, who was before all and is beyond all, just hasn't been able
to get it right. So the federal government needs to lend a hand.
Finally, if those who say that God gave the
land to Israel really
believe their argument, then they shouldn't stop at Israel's
borders. In Genesis 15, God says to Abraham, "I will give your
descendants the land east of the Shihor
River on the border of Egypt as far as the Euphrates River."
Which suggests ownership of Jordan
and chunks of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Perhaps Washington
should simply hand over Iraq
to Israel.
That would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Of course, it also
would require war with three other Arab nations, two of them formally allies,
but why sweat the small stuff?
A number of Christians, primarily
fundamentalists and evangelicals, also back Israel because they hold a
dispensationalist eschatology, or end-times theology. This minority view
presumes a gathering of the Jewish people in the Mideast, conveniently
achieved by the state of Israel,
who will then be attacked by enemies; the battle of Armageddon and Christ's
Second Coming eventually will follow.
In short, backing Israel is supposed to accelerate
Christ's return. Says
Ed McAteer: "When the nations gather against Israel, I
believe at that time the Scriptures will be fulfilled."
Arguments over eschatology rapidly become
tedious, since it is impossible to prove what God actually intends. But the
dispensationalist case is particularly strained. For example, for years some
armchair prophets claimed that the old European Common Market was going to
yield up the Antichrist when it hit 10 members. Current candidates for the
Antichrist include the Pope, the European Union's Romano Prodi, and England's
Prince Charles.
In fact, the book of Revelation is best
understood in the context of the Roman Empire,
when it was written. Its predictions foreshadow an apocalyptic end of
mankind; they do not provide an exact timeline of detailed events.
Equally problematic, as noted earlier, this
view arrogantly suggests that God needs man's help to achieve his ends. (To
his credit, the
Rev. Jerry Falwell says that "I am not one who believes, as some
Christian Zionists do, that we are here to help usher in the Kingdom.")
The God who reconciled mankind through the sacrifice of his son requires the
assistance of Washington
to get the end right? Christ can't return to fulfill his prophecy unless the U.S. gives Israel a boost?
This lack of faith in God's ability to act has
resulted in other curious behavior. For instance, a few years ago
a Texas Pentecostal minister and rancher named Clyde Lott decided to try to
breed a red heifer, which must be sacrificed before Jews can rebuild the
third temple. (Where would God be if he didn't have an American cattleman to
come up with an appropriate breeding program?) Of course, this requires the
destruction of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques on Islam's third-most
holy site, Jerusalem's Temple Mount.
Such an event certainly would trigger all
sorts of, er, interesting events, including, some Christians hope, a biblical
Armageddon. This is why Jon Utley has
written of the "Armageddon Lobby." Yet how can Christians
believe they are able to accelerate God's timing? Indeed, a number of
Orthodox Jews are hostile to Zionism precisely because they view it as
hubris for man to try to supplant God's timetable in reestablishing a Jewish
state.
(Other Jews are understandably uncomfortable
about working with Christians whose fondest desire, lovingly advanced, of
course –"nothing personal, it's just theology" – is for
Israel
to be destroyed. "I am not enthusiastic about this cooperation because I
have no desire to be cannon fodder for the evangelists," explained
former Knesset member Yossi Sarid.)
Another argument of some Christian Zionists is
that only by supporting Israel
will America
be blessed and protected from terrorism. For example, McAteer cites the
promise that "I will bless them who bless you and curse them who curse
you." Two decades ago, the Rev. Falwell declared that God had been kind
to America only because
"America
has been kind to the Jews."
In fact, the Bible nowhere explains that to
bless the Jewish people or to be kind to them requires that a secular state
run by nominal Christians do whatever a secular government run by ethnic Jews
wants done several thousand years later. This is junk theology at its worst.
Or almost worst. Sen. Inhofe said in a speech
after Sept. 11 that "One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was
opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy
of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure,
not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have
been launched against them."
Eh? God was punishing the American people
because their government, which long supported Israel more firmly than any
other, was insufficiently pro-Israel? Wow, it's good to know that Sen. Inhofe
has a special line to heaven.
There are lots of perfectly sensible arguments
to make for supporting Israel,
and Christian leaders like Olasky and Reed do so. Even then there is reason
to exercise judgment and balance, however.
Friendship does not require blind support.
Indeed, the best way to bless Jews in Israel today would be to help
them make peace with the Palestinians. Nor does wishing Israel well require adopting policies that
make the U.S.
more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
But the worst reason to support Israel is for
reasons of religion. Warns
a statement organized by faculty members of the Knox Theological Seminary,
an evangelical Christian institution:
"Lamentably, bad
Christian theology is today attributing to secular Israel
a divine mandate to conquer and hold Palestine,
with the consequence that the Palestinian people are marginalized and
regarded as virtual 'Canaanites.' This doctrine is both contrary to the
teaching of the New Testament and a violation of the Gospel mandate. In
addition, this theology puts those Christian who are urging the violent
seizure and occupation of Palestinian land in moral jeopardy of their own
bloodguiltiness. Are we as Christians not called to pray for and work for
peace, warning both parties to this conflict that those who live by the sword
will die by the sword? Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can bring both
temporal reconciliation and the hope of an eternal and heavenly inheritance
to the Israeli and the Palestinian. Only through Jesus Christ can anyone know
peace on earth."
American Christians should be concerned about
American foreign policy, as should all citizens. If the former want to
support Israel
irrespective of its conduct or U.S. interests, they are entitled
to do so. But they should remember that they are making public policy for a
secular republic. Crackpot theology is no substitute for thoughtful analysis
in developing foreign policy.
