--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- In XKMK_ITB :
Mangkanya sudah benar : eling-waskita-waspada.
Sok gaya agama-ultra-kanan tidak bagus.
Spiritualitas Timur Asli memperkaya jiwa.
Lucifer Dajjal gentayangan....hehe....cegah ateis praxis.
Salam Damai.
--- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lha kalau ini bagaimana ki? Kok 'udreg' terus sih?
salam
*******************************************
US Christian Right's grip on Middle East policy
By Stephen Zunes
(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus)
In recent years, a politicized and right-wing Protestant
fundamentalist movement has emerged as a major factor in US support
for the policies of the rightist Likud government in Israel. To
understand this influence, it is important to recognize that the rise
of the religious right as a political force in the United States is a
relatively recent phenomenon that emerged as part of a calculated
strategy by leading right-wingers in the Republican Party who - while
not fundamentalist Christians themselves - recognized the need to
enlist the support of this key segment of the US population in order
to achieve political power.
Traditionally, US fundamentalist Protestants were not particularly
active in national politics, long seen as worldly and corrupt. This
changed in the late 1970s as part of a calculated effort by
conservative Republican operatives who recognized that as long as the
Republican Party was primarily identified with militaristic foreign
policies and economic proposals that favored the wealthy, it would
remain a minority party. Over the previous five decades, Republicans
had won only four out of 12 presidential elections and had controlled
Congress for only two of its 24 sessions.
By mobilizing rightist religious leaders and adopting conservative
positions on highly charged social issues such as women's rights,
abortion, sex education and homosexuality, Republican strategists
were able to bring millions of fundamentalist Christians - who as a
result of their lower-than-average income were not otherwise inclined
to vote Republican - into their party. Through such organizations as
the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, the Republicans
promoted a right-wing political agenda through radio and television
broadcasts as well as from the pulpit. Since capturing this pivotal
constituency, Republicans have won four out of six presidential
races, have dominated the Senate for seven out of 12 sessions, and
have controlled the House of Representatives for the past decade.
As a result of being politically wooed, those who identify with the
religious right are now more likely than the average American to vote
and to be politically active. The Christian Right constitutes nearly
one out of seven US voters and determines the agenda of the
Republican Party in about half of the states, particularly in the
South and Midwest. A top Republican staffer noted: "Christian
conservatives have proved to be the political base for most
Republicans. Many of these guys, especially the leadership, are real
believers in this stuff, and so are their constituents."
The movement takes office
The Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State recently quipped: "The good news is that the Christian
coalition is fundamentally collapsing. The bad news is that the
people who ran it are all in the government." He noted, for example,
that when he goes to the Justice Department, he keeps seeing lawyers
formerly employed by prominent right-wing fundamentalist preacher Pat
Robertson.
As the Washington Post observed, "For the first time since religious
conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of
the United States has become the movement's de facto leader." Former
Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed marked the triumph by
chortling, "You're no longer throwing rocks at the building; you're
in the building." He added that God "knew [President] George [W] Bush
had the ability to lead in this compelling way".
US liberals have long supported Israel as a refuge for persecuted
Jews and have championed the country's democratic institutions (for
its Jewish citizens). Historically these liberals, bolstered by the
disproportionate political influence of Zionist Jews within the
party, prompted Democrats to adopt a hard line toward Palestinians
and other Arabs. Though more hawkish on most foreign-policy issues,
Republicans traditionally took a somewhat more moderate stance partly
due to the party's ties to the oil industry and in part because of
Republican concern that too much support for Israel could lead Arab
nationalists toward a pro-Soviet or - in more recent years - a pro-
Islamist orientation. But this alignment has shifted, thanks to the
influence of the Christian Right. Though Christian fundamentalist
support for Israel dates back many years, only recently has it become
one of the movement's major issues.
As a result of renewed fundamentalist interest in Israel and in
recognition of the movement's political influence, American Jews are
less reluctant to team up with the Christian Right. Fundamentalist
leader Gary Bauer, for example, now receives frequent invitations to
address mainstream Jewish organizations, which would have been
hesitant toward the movement prior to the Bush presidency. This is
partly a phenomenon of demographics: Jews constitute only 3% of the
US population, and barely half of them support the current Israeli
government.
The Israelis also recognize the Christian Right's political clout.
Since 2001, Bauer has met with several Israeli cabinet members and
with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Former prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu noted, "We have no greater friends and allies" than right-
wing American Christians.
It used to be that Republican administrations had the ability to
withstand pressure from Zionist lobbying groups when it was deemed
important for US interests. For example, the administration of Dwight
Eisenhower pressured Israel during the Suez Crisis of 1956, the
administration of Ronald Reagan sold AWACS (Airborne Warning and
Control System)-equipped planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981, and the
administration of George H W Bush delayed a US$10 billion loan
guarantee for Israel to await the outcome of the pivotal 1992 Israeli
election.
With the growing influence of the Christian Right, however, such
detachment is no longer as easily achieved. For the first time, the
Republican Party has a significant pro-Israel constituency of its own
that it cannot ignore. Top White House officials, including Elliott
Abrams, director of the National Security Council on Near East and
North African Affairs, have regular and often lengthy meetings with
representatives of the Christian Right. As one leading Republican put
it: "They are very vocal and have shifted the center of gravity
toward Israel and against concessions. It colors the environment in
which decisions are being made." Indeed, the degree of the Bush
administration's support for Sharon has surprised even the most
hardline Zionist Jews.
Rising power of Christian Zionists
It appears, then, that right-wing Christian Zionists are, at this
point, more significant in the formulation of US policy toward Israel
than are Jewish Zionists, as illustrated by three recent incidents.
After the Bush administration's initial condemnation of the attempted
assassination of militant Palestinian Islamist Abdel Aziz Rantisi in
June 2003, the Christian Right mobilized its constituents to send
thousands of e-mails to the White House protesting the criticism. A
key element in these e-mails was the threat that if such pressure
continued to be placed on Israel, the Christian Right would stay home
on election day. Within 24 hours, there was a notable change in tone
by the president. Indeed, when Rantisi fell victim to a successful
Israeli assassination in April this year, the administration - as it
did with the assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin the
previous month - largely defended the Israeli action.
When the Bush administration insisted that Israel stop its April 2002
military offensive in the West Bank, the White House received more
than 100,000 e-mails from Christian conservatives in protest of its
criticism. Almost immediately, Bush came to Israel's defense. Over
the objections of the State Department, the Republican-led Congress
adopted resolutions supporting Israel's actions and blaming the
violence exclusively on the Palestinians.
When Bush announced his support for the roadmap for Middle East
peace, the White House received more than 50,000 postcards over the
next two weeks from Christian conservatives opposing any plan that
called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The
administration quickly backpedaled, and the once-highly touted
roadmap in essence died.
Good versus evil
Messianic theology is centered on the belief in a hegemonic Israel as
a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ. Although this
doctrine is certainly an important part of the Christian Right's
support of a militaristic and expansionist Jewish state,
fundamentalist Christian Zionism in the United States ascribes to an
even more dangerous dogma: that of Manichaeism, the belief that
reality is divided into absolute good and absolute evil.
The day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush
declared, "This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil,
but good will prevail." The United States was targeted - according to
Bush - not on account of its support for Arab dictatorships, the
large US military presence in the Middle East, US backing of the
Israeli occupation, or the humanitarian consequences of US policy
toward Iraq, but simply because they "hate our freedom". Despite the
Gospels' insistence that the line separating good and evil does not
run between nations but rather within each person, Bush cited
Christological texts to support his war aims in the Middle East,
declaring, "And the light [the US] has shown in the darkness [the
enemies of the US], and the darkness will not overcome it [the US
shall conquer its enemies]."
Even more disturbing, Bush has stated repeatedly that he was "called"
by God to run for president. Veteran journalist Bob Woodward
noted, "The president was casting his mission and that of the country
in the grand vision of God's master plan," wherein he promised, in
his own words, "to export death and violence to the four corners of
the Earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of
evil". In short, Bush believes that he has accepted the
responsibility of leading the free world as part of God's plan. He
even told then-Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas that "God
told me to strike al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed
me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did." Iraq has become the
new Babylon, and the "war on terrorism" has succeeded the Cold War
with the Soviet Union as the quintessential battle between good and
evil.
Cultural affinities
The esprit that many Americans have with Israel is rooted in a common
historical mission. Each country was settled in part by victims
fleeing religious persecution who fashioned a new nation rooted in
high ideals with a political system based on relatively progressive
and democratic institutions. And both peoples established their new
nations through the oppression, massacre and dislocation of
indigenous populations. Like many Israelis, Americans often confuse
genuine religious faith with nationalist ideology.
John Winthrop, the influential 17th-century Puritan theologian, saw
America as the "City on the Hill" (Zion) and "a light upon nations".
In effect, there is a kind of American Zionism assuming a divinely
inspired singularity that excuses what would otherwise be considered
unacceptable behavior. Just as Winthrop defended the slaughter of the
indigenous Pequot peoples of colonial Massachusetts as part of a
divine plan, 19th-century theologians defended America's westward
expansion as "manifest destiny" and the will of God. Such
theologically rooted aggrandizement did not stop at the Pacific
Ocean: the invasion of the Philippines in the 1890s was justified by
president William McKinley and others as part of an effort
to "uplift" and "Christianize" the natives, ignoring the fact that
Filipinos (who by that time had nearly rid the country of Spanish
colonialists and had established the first democratic constitution in
Asia) were already more than 90% Christian.
Similarly, today - in the eyes of the Christian Right - the Bush
doctrine and the expansion of US military and economic power are all
part of a divine plan. For example, in their 2003 Christmas card,
Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne included the
quote, "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His
notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
But is such thinking normative in the US? Polls show that the
ideological gap between Christian conservatives and other Americans
regarding the US invasion of Iraq and the "war on terrorism" is even
higher than the ideological gap between Christian conservatives and
other Americans regarding Israel and Palestine.
In many respects, much of the American right may be at least as
concerned about how Israel can help the US as about how the US can
help Israel. Because of the anti-Semitism inherent in much of
Christian Zionist theology, it has long been recognized that US
fundamentalist support for Israel does not stem from a concern for
the Jewish people per se but rather from a desire to leverage Jewish
jingoism to hasten the second coming of Christ. Such opportunism is
also true of those who - for theological or other reasons - seek to
advance the American empire in the Middle East. And though a strong
case can be made that US support for the Israeli occupation
ultimately hurts US interests, there remains a widely held perception
that Israel is an important asset to US strategic objectives in the
Middle East and beyond.
Strategic calculation trumps ethno-religious card
Ultimately, Washington's championing of Israel - like its approval of
other repressive governments - is part of a strategic calculation
rather than simply ethnic politics. When a choice must be made,
geopolitical considerations outweigh ethnic loyalties. For example,
for nearly a quarter of century, the US supported the brutal
occupation of East Timor by Indonesia and to this day supports the
Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, despite the absence of
powerful Indonesian-American or Moroccan-American ethnic lobbying
forces. The US was able to get away with its support for occupations
by Indonesia and Morocco because of their relative obscurity. This is
certainly not the case with Israel and Palestine. (Interestingly,
even though the East Timor situation involved a predominantly Muslim
country conquering, occupying and terrorizing a predominantly
Christian country, virtually no protests arose from the Islamaphobic
Christian Right.)
The Christian Right has long been a favorite target for the
Democratic Party, particularly its liberal wing, since most Americans
are profoundly disturbed by fundamentalists of any kind influencing
policies of a government with a centuries-old tradition of separating
church and state. Yet the positions of most liberal Democrats in
Congress regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are far closer to
those of the reactionary Christian Coalition than to those of the
moderate National Council of Churches, far closer to the rightist
Reverend Pat Robertson than to the leftist Reverend William Sloan
Coffin, far closer to the ultraconservative Moral Majority than to
the liberal Churches for Middle East Peace, and far closer to the
fundamentalist Southern Baptist Convention than to any of the
mainline Protestant churches.
Rather than accusing these erstwhile liberals of being captives of
the Jewish lobby - a charge that inevitably leads to the
countercharge of anti-Semitism - those who support justice for the
Palestinians should instead reproach congressional Democrats for
falling captive to the Christian Right. Such a rebuke would be no
less accurate and would likely enhance the ability of those who
support peace, justice and the rule of law to highlight the profound
immorality of congressional sanction for the Israeli occupation.
Those who support justice for the Palestinians - or even simply the
enforcement of basic international humanitarian law - must go beyond
raising awareness of the issue to directly confronting those whose
acquiescence facilitates current repressive attitudes. It will not be
possible to counter the influence of the Christian Right in shaping
US policies in the Middle East as long as otherwise socially
conscious Christian legislators and other progressive-minded elected
officials are beholden to fundamentalist voting pressures. It is
unlikely that these Democrats and moderate Republicans will change,
however, until liberal-to-mainline churches mobilize their resources
toward demanding justice as strongly as right-wing fundamentalists
have mobilized their resources in support of repression.
Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of politics and chair of the
peace and justice studies program at the University of San Francisco.
He serves as Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus
project and is the author of Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the
Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
--- End forwarded message ---
--- End forwarded message ---
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/BRUplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih
Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.arsip.da.ru
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:
1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru;
4. Posting: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
