The reaction of the average American to the war also had little to do with the traditional just-war doctrine. The evidence even suggests that most American Christians are ignorant of just-war theory. It belongs to a larger moral tradition, that of natural law and human virtues, which has been discarded by most Protestants, as well as by those Catholics who are striving to transform the American Catholic Church into the nation's largest Protestant denomination. Thus a complete explanation of the overwhelming support for the war by American citizens, and American Christians in particular (as well as a complete explanation of the decision to go to war itself), must acknowledge the leading role of a quite different “war theory,” which was used to justify support for the present Iraq war. This theory is Zionism, including its “Christian” variant.
What is Zionism?
“The end of the road is coming eventually in Iraq, and once we reach it we will immediately have to take out another road map, this one showing the way to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.”
—Michael D. Evans2
“Zionism” is defined by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs as “the national movement espousing repatriation of Jews to their homeland – the Land of Israel – and the resumption of sovereign Jewish life there.”3 The problem, of course, is that other people had been living in this “homeland” for centuries. Establishing the Jewish state involved killing thousands of Palestinians and driving hundreds of thousands from their ancestral homes. Since then, Zionism has sought to expand and secure the borders of Israel. Wars are fought against neighboring countries – in the past with American weapons and money, at present by American soldiers. Arabs are treated as inferior persons – or as less than persons. Homes are razed, families are deported, children are killed, and when Palestinians retaliate, the media portray Israel as the innocent victim of unprovoked hatred. Although atrocities have been committed by both sides, it is not irrelevant to consider which side set the cycle of violence in motion.
The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring Zionism to be racist in 1975, but repealed it in 1991. The standard response to the charge that Zionism is racist is to change the subject: “A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews.”1 Chomsky, however, acknowledges the truth:
The notorious UN Resolution identifying Zionism as a form of racism can properly be condemned for profound hypocrisy, given the nature of the states that backed it (including the Arab states), and (arguably) for referring to Zionism as such rather than the policies of the State of Israel, but restricted to these policies, the resolution cannot be criticized as inaccurate.2
It is important for American Christians who believe they have much in common with Israeli Jews to understand that contemporary Jewish Zionism is primarily a secular ideology, the secularization of Jewish messianism. Moses Hess3 (1812–1875), an important contributor to the early development of both Marxism and Zionism, was a secular Jew, as were such important Zionist writers and leaders as Leo Pinsker (1821–1891), Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), Chaim Weizmann (1874–1952), Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880–1940) and David Ben-Gurion (1886–1973). When leading Christian fundamentalist, Ralph Reed, writes, “Unique among all nations in history, with the exception of Israel, America was settled by persons of faith,”4he makes a remarkable claim. In addition to being false on other counts, this statement is inaccurate regarding Israel. A majority of the Jews who settled Israel and a majority of the Jews living in Israel today were and are secular Jews. Martin Buber (1878–1965), a Jewish philosopher-theologian and Zionist, wrote to Mahatma Gandhi in 1939, “I must tell you that you are mistaken when you assume that in general the Jews of today believe in God and derive from their faith guidance for their conduct.”1Most Jewish Zionists do not and cannot claim that the Jews have a right to the Promised Land, since that would require belief in a Promisor.2 Among the sites considered for the Jewish national home before the First World War were Argentina and British East Africa. The subsequent decision to establish the homeland in Palestine was not based primarily upon considerations of Jewish theology. Many religious Jews are non-Zionists or anti-Zionists, on the grounds that the Jewish state should be brought about by divine intervention, not the efforts of secular Jews.3
Zionism is promoted in the United States by the powerful pro-Israel lobby, which includes the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, the American Jewish Committee, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Americans for a Safe Israel, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. It is also promoted by the so-called “neoconservatives” – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, et al. – who played leading roles in bringing about the invasion of Iraq.
In May 2004, Senator Ernest “Fritz” Hollings of South Carolina wrote for the Charleston Post and Courier:
With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq – and how to get out. Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 …. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area.1
Although it is doubtful that the neoconservatives desire a democratic Iraq, it is true that the purpose of the war was to promote Israel's security. Our Department of “Defense” has become an instrument of Israeli foreign policy, employed to further the aims of Zionism. It may seem remarkable that a member of the U.S. Government would speak so straightforwardly about Israel. But Hollings, who has represented his state in the Senate since 1966, decided to retire from the Senate and spoke candidly during what was his final term.
The standard response to anyone who tells the truth about the pro-Israel lobby, Israel, and Zionism is to accuse him of “anti-Semitism.” As retired CIA officer Bill Christison puts it, “Supporters of Bush have launched a two-pronged counterattack, arguing first that the influence of the neocons over U.S. foreign policy is a myth and, second, that if you are dumb enough to believe the myth, it is almost a sure thing that you are also an anti-Semite.”2 Chomsky comments:
It might be noted that the resort to charges of “anti-Semitism” (or in the case of Jews, “Jewish self-hatred”) to silence critics of Israel has been quite a general and often effective device. Even Abba Eban, the highly-regarded Israeli diplomat of the Labor Party (considered a leading dove), is capable of writing that “One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism [generally understood as criticism of the policies of the Israeli state] is not a distinction at all.”3
Much progress is being made in accomplishing this task. The “Joint Declaration of the 18th International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee Meeting” of July 2004 states: “We draw encouragement from the fruits of our collective strivings which include the recognition of the unique and unbroken covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish People and the total rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism as a more recent manifestation of anti-Semitism.”1 Anti-Semitism, if understood as hatred of Jews, is a sin, inconsistent with the virtue of charity, without which no one can be saved. But opposing an unethical ideology does not require hating anyone; it may in fact be an act of charity toward its victims. One can be an anti-Zionist without being an anti-Semite, just as one can be a Jew without being
a Zionist:
Jews believe that Adam was created in G-d's image and that he is the common ancestor of all mankind. At this stage in human history, there is no room for privileged people who can do with others as they please. Human life is sacred and human rights are not to be denied by those who would subvert them for “national security” or for any other reason. No one knows this better than the Jews, who have been second-class citizens so often and for so long. Some Zionists, however, may differ. This is understandable because Judaism and Zionism are by no means the same. Indeed they are incompatible and irreconcilable: if one is a good Jew, one cannot be a Zionist; if one is a Zionist, one cannot be a good Jew.2
Not surprisingly, Hollings was accused of anti-Semitism. With the courage of a politician freed from the fear that the pro-Israel lobby would destroy a future re-election campaign, he responded on the floor of the Senate:
I have, this afternoon, the opportunity to respond to being charged as anti-Semitic when I proclaimed the policy of President Bush in the Mideast as not for Iraq or really for democracy …. I can tell you no President takes office – I don't care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat – that all of a sudden AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] will tell him exactly what the policy is …. Yes, I supported the President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled. There weren't any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaeda. This is the reason we went to war. He had one thought in mind, and that was re-election.3
Christian Zionism
The Jewish Zionists who succeeded in persuading America to fight a war for the security of Israel owe much of their success to the support of Christian Zionists.1 Tens of millions of American Christians, most of whom are opponents of secular Jews on issues such as abortion and “homosexual marriage,” allied themselves with Jewish Zionists in supporting their country's unjust war of aggression against Iraq. Christian Zionist spokesmen, such as television show host and former presidential candidate Pat Robertson, use the Bible to defend political stances alongside those of secular-Jewish Zionists:
Israel is the spiritual capitol [sic] of the world. This is what God calls the navel of the earth in the Old Testament. Why are all of the nations so concerned about Israel? I will tell you why. Because it is God's outpost, and it would be, in a sense, a black eye against Him if His plans were frustrated by human beings. And He will not let people frustrate His plan.
… There is no such thing as a Palestine state, nor has there ever been. Now we're going to make something that never happened before in contravention to Scripture. God may love George Bush. God may love America. God may love us all, but if we stand in the way of prophecy and try to frustrate what God said in His immutable word, then we're in for a heap of trouble. And I think this is a warning we should all take.
This road map, as it is set up now, with the United Nations, with the European Union, and with the Russians coming together in the so-called Quartet, these are all enemies of Israel. If we ally ourselves with the enemies of Israel, we will be standing against God Almighty. And that's a place I don't want us to be.2
This writer was raised as an evangelical Protestant and Christian Zionist. My childhood memories include the joy with which news of Israel's victory in the Six-Day War was received in my thoroughly Protestant hometown (as well as jokes, such as the one about Egyptian tanks having five speeds, one forward and four reverse). We were witnessing the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. I converted after being introduced to the Catholic intellectual tradition and coming to the realization that Protestantism is fundamentally irrational – a fact that some Protestants acknowledge and regard as a virtue. Many Protestants, not only Lutherans, reject Church Tradition and believe the Bible only. This is irrational, because the doctrine of sola Scriptura cannot be found in Scripture, only in Protestant tradition. Among the other irrational beliefs of many American fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants – not unrelated to sola Scriptura – is Christian Zionism.
A concise statement of the central beliefs of Christian Zionism is provided by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com. He asks – “Why do American Christians support Israel so loyally and enthusiastically?” – and then replies:
1. The strong evangelical church in America can read the Bible and see that the Jews' only historic home is in Israel.
2. Most Christians understand that Jesus was a Jew who lived in a Jewish state, albeit one under the colonial rule of the Roman Empire.
3. They understand that God chose to reveal Himself to the Jewish people and the nation of Israel.
4. They don't see a nation of Palestine mentioned in the Old Testament or New – with good reason: it never existed before or since, except in the imaginations of people like Yasser Arafat.
5. They believe God made certain promises to the nation of Israel and that today's Jewish state is a manifestation of those promises.
6. They understand that their Holy Scriptures indicate God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse it. They don't want to be on the wrong side of that spiritual equation.
7. They understand their own salvation, in the person of Jesus, chose to come through the House of David and minister principally to the Jews.
8. They grasp that the Jews alone – with the help of God, of course – have made the deserts bloom in that Holy land, just as the prophets predicted.
9. They comprehend that the Jews alone formed a free society in the Middle East.
10. They can see that Israel has been an ally to the United States and a friend to the free world throughout its 50-year history of rebirth.1
The Intertwined Histories of Jewish and Christian Zionism
Although I have distinguished Jewish and Christian Zionism, their respective histories are so intertwined that they should be regarded as a common history. Zionism is a single genus with a variety of species, some religious and some secular, some Jewish and some non-Jewish. The historical roots of Zionism as a political movement are found primarily in the history of Protestantism, only secondarily in Jewish traditions:
From the days of the Reformation to the ascent of Napoleon III in France and the digging of the Suez Canal, there were no Jewish leaders in the Zionism movement, despite repeated British and French attempts to recruit them. The non-Jewish origin of Zionism is further illustrated by the simple fact that the ideas of Restoration developed first in England (with no Jewish population) instead of Germany, Poland, or Russia (where the bulk of European Jewry lived).1
A complete account of the origin and development of Zionism would have to include discussion of many factors: geopolitical, commercial, military, etc. In order to understand the kind of Christian Zionism that motivated so many Americans to support the invasion of Iraq, however, it is necessary to focus on theological factors. Christian Zionism can be best understood as the reductio ad absurdum of sola Scriptura.
Donald Wagner identifies several British, Protestant “proto-Christian Zionists”:
One of the early expressions of fascination with the idea of Israel was the monograph Apocalypsis Apocalypseos, written by Anglican clergyman Thomas Brightman in 1585. Brightman urged the British people to support the return of the Jews to Palestine in order to hasten a series of prophetic events that would culminate in the return of Jesus. In 1621, a prominent member of the British Parliament, attorney Henry Finch, advanced a similar perspective when he wrote: “The (Jews) shall repair to their own country, shall inherit all of the land as before, shall live in safety, and shall continue in it forever.” Finch argued that based on his interpretation of Genesis 12:3, God would bless those nations that supported the Jews' return.2
Among the most important figures in the history of Zionism is John Nelson Darby (1800–82), who left the Anglican priesthood to join the Plymouth Brethren. This “non-denominational” denomination “taught the priesthood of all believers, therefore had no pastor, but depended upon the Holy Spirit for their leadership.”3 It also stood squarely in the tradition of sola Scriptura: “In no un
certain terms the Brethren proclaimed the Scriptures to be absolutely inspired by God and the sole authority for faith and practice.”4
Darby contributed to the development of a theological system known as “premillennial dispensationalism” (or “dispensational premillennialism”). It is “dispensational” because Scripture and history are compartmentalized into different dispensations of grace, and “premillennial” because it teaches that the Second Advent of Christ will take place before the millennium. The scriptural authority for compartmentalizing Scripture in this manner is 2 Tim. II:15: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling [King James Version: 'dividing'] the word of truth.” Divorced from Tradition, Scripture can say anything anyone wants it to say.
Although there exists some disagreement among dispensationalists regarding the number of dispensations, the most common listing includes seven:
1. The Age of Innocence (Creation to the Fall).
2. The Age of Conscience (Fall to Noah).
Neo-Conned! Again Page 22
