This is a brilliant short video by Max Blumenthal, shot during the recent big meeting held in Washington DC by a big Evangelical organization called Christians United for Israel (CUFI).
Blumenthal, who’s Jewish, goes to the conference in the role of naive reporter. He gets some great footage of an interview with recently disgraced GOP Speaker of the House of Representatives Tom DeLay, and of him (MB) questioning CUFI head “Pastor” John Hagee about whether he really thinks– as written in one of his books– that the Jews have only themselves to blame for all the times they’ve been persecuted.
The “vox pop” discussions with CUFI members in the hotel lobby are really revealing… Also, the extremely scary parts where you see a large roomful of people swaying and dancing– one even doing a cheerleading-type hop– with Israeli and US flags clasped to their breasts… And we see two uniformed soldiers, one in US camo and the other in Israeli camo and a prayer shawl, come up to the front and salute each other. Religion, ecstasy, and militarism all tied up together in one big package.
I believe that use of a US forces uniform in such a context is actually illegal?
And yes, the vox pop people do talk a bit about how “the Muslims” are “the enemy.”
Then– Joe Lieberman!! I had read some of the disturbingly fawning remarks he made there about Hagee, before. But to see him make them on the video… Well, I am almost speechless.
I think it’s been the case for a while now that the Christian Zionists– who have very, very long roots in this country– have been a stronger base of support for Israel here than the Jewish-American Zionists. And of course, given that the beliefs of many of these Evangelical Zionists are that at the time of “Armageddon” all the Jews will either become converted to Christianity or get consumed by fire, there are many Jewish Americans who are still fairly wary about the Evangelicals’ strong support for Israel.
The game plan for these Evangelicals (as also laid out lovingly in their extremely well-selling though in practice almost unreadable novels about “the End Time”) is that first, the Jewish people all need to be “ingathered” into Israel, and then soon after there will be “Armageddon” and the “Second Coming.” And along the way there, there’ll be great fighting against “Babylon” (or Baghdad) and perhaps even some nuclear war…
But it’s all– from these people’s very scary point of view– in a good cause.
I want to note that I know that not all Evangelical Christians in the US are like these ones. I have a number of Evangelical friends who are deeply committed to social-justice causes including to the pursuit of just peace between Palestinians and Israelis. However, sadly, so far it seems to be the well-organized Christian Zionists among them who seem much stronger than the other lot.
Meanwhile, huge kudos to Max Blumenthal and his videographer Thomas Shomaker for making this great and informative little piece of live-reporting video. (Did I tell you they got kicked out of the conference toward the end of the movie. I wonder what they missed? No matter. What they got was excellent.)
71 thoughts on “Meet the Evangelical Zionists”
Comments are closed.
A great piece…these folks are the “bushbollahis”, as I like to refer to them as.
Yikes!
KDJ
Here’s full text of Lieberman’s speech.
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=279110
Notice he characterizes Bush as a “Christian zionist.” I likely think he is, but he’ll be loathe to ever admit it in public….
Say Kevin, nice term, but I don’t think it fits. As I understand Christian “zionism,” it very much is a movement founded not on conventional politics or neoconservatives, but on a “dispensationalist” method of interpreting modern day events in the “light” (sorry Helena) of end times (eschatological) scriptural “prophecies.” (which includes vision of great suffering for all those, including Jews, who are not “raptured” away….)
Hagee, as Blumenthal’s clip confirms, lately has realized the sensitivity of the matter and has tried to say that that “rapture” and “end times theology” is not the basis of their “Amen chorus” role for whatever tune Israel plays….
Hogwash. It’s the core of it. Go back to Hal Lindsay’s “Late Great Planet Earth” (#1 bestseller of the 1970’s). And As Helena mentions, the runaway best selling novel series of the past decade by Tim LaHaye — he’s sold 61 million copies last I checked — emphatically works from the “rapture” thesis….
See http://www.christianzionism.org
as a humble recent antidote effort by evangelical and reformed Christians who don’t march to the same drummer….
Anyway, back to the core point, the Christian-Likud-Hagee worldview begins with of, by, and for Israel…. (not Bush) Israel, by defintion, as God’s chosen people, can do no wrong.
I still remember Pat Robertson’s repeated argument that, never mind anything else going wrong in America, if America ever dares to cross Israel, then God’s wrath will fall down on America…. (for that reason ALONE)
So Bushbolahi is the wrong term. If Bush/Rice would actually get serious about peacemaking in the middle east (or not going through with bombing the hell out of Iran), then the Christian Likudniks will be out in force condeming Bush to hades too…..
jwn readers in March might remember “meeting” Hagee & the gang back in a rather long winded reflection of mine on “The Mother of all Sermons.” (Hagee is covered in section IV – “the Godfather of all sermonds” — where I deconstructed Hagee’s sermon to AIPAC)
https://vintage.justworldnews.org/archives/002447.html
Blumenthal was attending the CUFI session — which is supposed to be the Christian equivalent of AIPAC….
Scott
How much awareness is there amongst the general public of Israel about the danger posed by the Christian Zionists. Sure most Israelis don’t support the Christian Zionists’ contempt for all non Fundamentalist Christian religions and their plan to bring about Armageddon. Israelis got outraged at Pat Robertson’s comments about God punishing Sharon for allegedly dividing up the Holy Land. Can someone start a movement in Israel to force the government to cut off all connections to this depraved movement?
Listen to many religious Christian’s TV shows and reading some books, and other sources, with the last 50 years of US blindly supporting Israel, many put all the blame on “AIPAC”.
We can say this will be approve that the vast majority of Americans support the fails statements by those who spread these climes of ” anything else going wrong in America, if America ever dares to cross Israel, then God’s wrath will fall down on America….”.
Otherwise then the Americans should be heard long time ago of their opposition and their loud vices to thrown these climes by those extremists groups.
BTW, Is “AIPAC” lobbing to support State Israel “Jewish State” or they lobing for “Christian Zionists’or “Christian Likudniks” wounder which way they doing thier businesses?
Scott,
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis of the Chrisitian-Zionist movement; why the term Bushbollahis? I use the term referring to their hard-core presence within the Republican right-and their lobbying power within the Bush Admin, although I have read some press which actually articulates a growing resentment within the “moderates” of the Bushite movement-however, I do believe that while your politico-cosmological analysis this movement is very nuanced, the term applies to their role in the Bushite movement-from way back.
I just read J.L. piece-how obnoxious all of this-I know legislators who are simply careerists have absolutely no problem with this stuff-of course the integrity gap is high; however, I wonder what others must think of having to appear amidst this kind religio-political madness?
LeHaye might have sold 61 million copies of his book but how many have been read? Cult leaders use book sales as a primary method of fund raising. Do you imagine that many Germans read Mein Kampf? I supect that the Christian Zionist phenomenon is the proverbial mile wide and inch deep.
“the Christian-Likud-Hagee worldview”
What the hell is the “Likud worldview”. If you are going to use terms to generalize views and objectify people, at least take the trouble to be accurate.
Surely JES you know, eh? Yet fair question, I distinguish between a more generic “evangelical/dispensationalist” sympathy for Israel (e.g. “Christian-zionism”) from that of the more ideologically hard-core, “for the land and the Lord” crowd — e.g., the “Christian-Likudists.” For the latter, any talk of giving back any inch of the land that God gave ancient Israel is forbotten. Likewise, they’d be extremely suspicious of the word “peace” — as that would delay the return of Christ. (e.g., the rapturous pre-tribulation trigger for the “final countdown.”)
(Ok, I realize that eschatology scholars might quibble that some Christian-Likudists take a “mid-tribulation” or even a post-trib view of the end-times sequencing of horrors and wars…. — before the “thousand year rule of Christ” )
In any case, to most of this C/L genre, working for “peace” is doing the anti-Christ’s work….
Bevin, that might be a comforting thought to some, comparing the “ravings” and “visions” of Hitler and LaHaye — and assuming nobody reads LaHaye.
Unfortunately, I can personally attest that not only do the people (including several of my relatives) who buy these books read them intensely, they also share them “fervently” with their friends — to get them hooked.
Worse, at a lot of fundamentalist churches, these are some of the hottest circulating items in their church libraries….
By the way, I came across a number yesterday claiming that the sales figures for the “Left Behind” series are now above 65 million….
Tyndale (namesake of the publisher that spits out this war-monger fiction) would be turning over in his grave….
Likewise, they’d be extremely suspicious of the word “peace” — as that would delay the return of Christ.
Indeed. We Zionists discuss these matters all the times at our meetings. Since of course “big [sic] evangelical movements” like ‘CUFI’ are completely representative of US-based support for Israel.
Max Blumenthal is Jewish? Who’d have guessed?
The term “Christian Zionist” is becoming the next “Likudnik” or “neocon.” It has become used in a way that it has little meaning except to tar supporters of Israel who happen to be of a certain faith.
Scott says that he distinguishes between “Christian Zionism” (those with a dispensationalist ideology) and a “Christian Likudist” view (hard core ideological support).
Perhaps Scott should also add categories for those who support Israel because they believe it is a key ally in the war on terror. And those who support and appreciate Israel for the vital role it played in the cold war. And those who support Israel because it is a democratic and liberal state fighting against genocidal bigots who want to annihilate it. And those who support Israel because they recognize that Jews, like any other group of people, should have a state of their own (i.e. “Human Equality Now”).
The bottom line is that most Christians who support Israel, or for that matter, most Evangelicals who support Israel, are not these wild ideological extremists with some bizarre agenda. Rather, like most Americans, they support Israel because it is a valued friend defending itself from destruction.
One need not subscribe to dispensationalist end of times theology to support Israel. All one needs is some common sense and the ability to examine the situation rationally.
Yes, Blumenthal is Jewish, as is Norman Finkelstein.
There are honnest Jews to find everywhere, who don’t fall in the trap of Sionism.
Too bad that they have to suffer from “Berufsverbot” in the US.
Interesting angle you just raised Vadim (even if in jest). It reminds me of a certain dinner at an Arab embassy in DC over 15 years ago — (one Helena may remember) wherein I then raised the factor of “Christian-Zionism” as important in understanding America’s disposition towards the Mideast. There, my concern was discounted as “not really” a key part of the Washington decision-making mix…. Perhaps not then, yet I anticipate future texts on US ME foreign policy will need to evaluate it more closely….
Again, check Lieberman’s CUFI text…. (provided in an earlier response above) He (and Gold) recognize quite well how important Hagee, LaHaye, & co are to maintaining unquestioning support for whatever Israel wishes to do…. (provided it doesn’t result in any lasting peace)
If that latter quip grates on the ears, don’t shoot the messenger, go read the LaHaye series…. (To misquote Michael Oren, “it’s in there!”)
Of course, many Jewish and Israeli intellectuals and leading figures have long been “uncomfortable” with the basis of such C-Z support — as I pointed out in my late March missive.
(and that brings us back to the narrow “reason” why Blumenthal got “tossed” from the CUFI conference, for daring to quote Hagee — to contradict Hagee….)
And to complicate the picture further, see the following recent essay by Jonathan Falwell, heir to his father Jerry’s ministry in Lynchburg, Virginia:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56552
Notice who was at the “historic meeting” between evangelical/fundamentalist “leaders” and Arab ambassadors, via the Egyptian embassy….
I’m checking more on the meeting from other sources and may comment at length later….
I was struck by Falwell’s references to the common ground found — very minimal, and yet…. Note especially this line:
“We told the ambassadors that we loved the Arab people no more, but certainly no less, than the Israelis. We shared the scriptural truth that God loves the entire world and sent His Son to die for all, regardless of their nationality. Thus, we stated that our love for Arabs was just as important a priority to us as is our love for Israel.”
a start….
Alas, Falwell’s essay appears via “worldnetdaily,” which is one of the more “enthused” forums for “Christian Likudism” — for examples, see their links at the end of the essay….
Your valuable post deserves the widest distribution. The Christian Zionist future of war and destruction is certainly a future we can create, but other futures as well can be created. The steps are not as hard as politicians make it appear. For some of the choices concerning Palestine and ways to think about them, see http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com/2007/06/palestinian-futures-part-i.html.
Christiane:
“There are honnest Jews to find everywhere, who don’t fall in the trap of Sionism. [sic]”
Are there “honnest” Jews who ARE Zionists? Or are all Zionist Jews dishonest in your book.
I’m wondering if Helena will take you to task for your jejeune name calling and attacks on those who disagree with you.
A question for Joshua (you have one of the best names, Joshua-why so prickly?)
What do you think about “post-zionist” discourse?
It just seems like Israel is being used by the American Christianists. The American fundamentalists want The End, believe in The End, and see Israel as the vehicle to enable The End. Now, … that is not really good for Israel, is it?
Hey Kdejesus, from my understanding of American Protestant Zionism, there is no “post.” We’re all in Heaven or Hell or Wherever.
Too bad that they have to suffer from “Berufsverbot” in the US.
Ja wohl!. Were it not for the Zionist thought police, surely 29 year old Max Blumenthal would have a column in the Washington Post, instead of merely a national magazine with 185k in circulation. But how did you pick up on his anti-Zionist politics, Christiane? Was it a coded message? I don’t think Blumenthal has written much on Israel and if he’s anything like his father he’s a pretty unlikely ‘post-Zionist.’
What do you think about “post-zionist” discourse?
Why don’t you ask JES this question? Since it’s his country you’re hoping to “fix.” What do you think about the “post-Arab” discourse advanced over on Daniel Pipes’ site?
“What do you think about “post-zionist” discourse?”
I think if someone believes that Israel no longer serves their purpose, that’s fine and well. They don’t have to move there.
Or if they live there, they can join the minority of residents who vote for “post-Zionist” parties. And if they don’t like the results of the democratic process, I suppose they can either live there understanding that their views are not prevailing, or they can look elsewhere.
Perhaps, if they are looking to really demonstrate the viability of a “post-Zionist” state in the area, they can try to convince their Palestinian neighbors that as part of a “secular democratic state” that a new state of Palestine should allow Jews to live as equal citizens. To catch up with Israel, that new state would need to attract about 1 million Jews to live in it. Of course, since the prevailing attitude seems to be the expulsion of Jews, that “post-Zionist” worldview may take a while to catch on with the neighbors.
As vadim aptly points out, most people who fancy themselves “post-Zionists” are playing with someone else’s country, and often supporting those who call for a very forceful and violent end to it.
Joshua wrote :
“And those who support Israel because they recognize that Jews, like any other group of people, should have a state of their own (i.e. “Human Equality Now”).”
I think it is a very dangerous idea. The idea of one people = one country has drawn to many many wars in Europe and elsewhere. It drove the Nazi to invade all the German speaking countries in EU. It caused many wars in the Balkans. Yet there are very few people where one people = one country in the world. Most of the countries are composed of several people of different enthnical background. And this isn’t new. The US for instance is far from being one people / one country.
Do you think that Italians are one country/one people ? wrong, in North Italy lives German speaking ethnies and Ladin speaking ethnies. In the North West of Italy the frontier between French speaking and Italian speaking was blurred for a long time. In Belgian they have two different languages and ethnies.
In fact each country is formed by a mosaic of different ethnies, often still speaking different languages and having a different cultures. Not to speak from the new immigrants coming from far away due to globalization.
This notion of one country/one people is a purely ideological notion coined in the 19th century at the time when the big EU nations modern nations were created in their modern form. But again, it’s a very dangerious notion, one who served to justify wars and to justify exclusion and racism.
(btw, Sionism is the french translation of Zionism, sorry for the mistake)
Christiane, it sounds to me as if you want to do away with nationalism altogether. I wonder why you’d choose Israel as the laboratory for your political theories, and not your own country first (isn’t jus sanguinis also the basis for Swiss citizenship?)
Redrawing the borders & altering the internal makeup of a foreign state, against the will of the people living there is what neocons and imperialists are all about. Unless you find comparisons to Paul Wolfowitz flattering, I’d leave the issue of Israeli national identity to the Israelis.
Your “dangerous idea” has been a recognized state for sixty years. It’s high time you accept this “idea” as a reality and move on.
“This notion of one country/one people is…a very dangerious notion, one who served to justify wars and to justify exclusion and racism.”
Israel – composed of Jews, Christians, Arabs, Druze, Bedouins, Circassians – is not a very good example of “one country/one people”.
Scott,
I don’t think you answered my question. What does the “Land that God gave…” have to do with Likud?
Chrisitane,
Just for the record, I am both an honest Jew and a Zionist, but thanks for the insulting, prejudiced remark anyway.
Re. your remarks ethnicity and nationalism, I think you are quite in error. True multi-ethnic nations are, I believe, the exeption. In fact, in the late 20th century we saw a good number of them fall apart – some of them quite violently.
States that have a single national identity but multiple ethnic citizens are another thing, as Truesdell has pointed out. Your country has non-Christian ethnic minorities, but they don’t demand that you change the symbol on your flag, do they? The UK also has significant ethnic minorities for whom singing “God Save the Queen” amounts to blasphemy, but they don’t demand that Great Britain change its national anthem (or its monarchy).
Oh, and I don’t consider Norman Finkelstein to be particularly honest.
“Also, the extremely scary parts where you see a large roomful of people swaying and dancing– one even doing a cheerleading-type hop– with Israeli and US flags clasped to their breasts… And we see two uniformed soldiers, one in US camo and the other in Israeli camo and a prayer shawl, come up to the front and salute each other. Religion, ecstasy, and militarism all tied up together in one big package.”
Ever seen the assortment that shows up at Cindy Sheehan’s rallies?
What is revealing about this video is the extent to which the US faces its own battle with religion, secular rationalism and the state-armageddon as foreign policy is indeed worrisome
Now, here is something from someone who, for many, epitomizes Likud ideology:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/888011.html
How does this relate to the use of the term “Likudnik”, as used by Scott and others here, for purposes of objectification?
JES, I’m not sure what you mean by this: Ever seen the assortment that shows up at Cindy Sheehan’s rallies?
Actually, my answer is ‘Yes.’ I saw her in Charlottesville last year. It was a huge public event in the MLK auditorium at the city high school. There were perhaps 1,500-2,000 local people who had turned out to see her and the other speakers. The discussion was deep and honest. There were combat vets and all kinds of peace activists and people who were not peace activists but wanted to hear what she had to say, anyway.
It notably was not like “a combination of militarism, ecstasy, and religion all tied up in one package.”
I’m not sure what your point there was, anyway? Are you saying, as an Israeli, that you really think these CUFI people are fine, wonderful people whose values and actions (including their deliberate attempts to conjoin the values of religion, flag-waving ultra-nationalism, and militarism) you admire and embrace? And that you think their position that there should be no peace process, no two-state solution, is all just swell?
Tell us what you think about CUFI. That would be more germane to the topic of this thread than the side-swipes on other topics that you’ve contributed here so far.
It is common for Europeans to believe that the concept of peoplehood or nationhood is their 19th century invention, and that Zionism is simply Euro-nationalism rubbing off on the Jews of Europe.
The concept of Jews as a people, and the actual experience of that, is, to put it mildly, a bit older than that. So was the concept and desire for a homeland.
When soveriegn countries are formed, of course, it’s rare that everyone is a member of a particular people. So Israel, like most other countries, has people from different backgrounds and different groups.
Israel is certainly not perfect in its relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. I’m surprised they aren’t a heck of a lot worse, given that the overwhelming majority of surrounding Arab and Muslim nations have taken a position of rejectionism and hostility for 60+ years. Nevertheless, Israel is significantly more pluralistic and tolerant than, say, most European countries (particular vis a vis Arab communities, who have it remarkably bad in most of Europe).
When I watched Blumenthal’s video, I expected a real horror show. To be frank, I think the view of end times that these participants had is wierd.
In the end though, all you see are interview fragments and snippets that are designed to take these people and put them in the worst light possible.
JES is right on the money, despite Helena’s objections, you can see people with much more frightening and bizarre views at anti-war rallies and teach ins. A while back I posted some videos and photos from the San Francisco anti-Israel protests which showed some horrifying anti-semitism and outright loony behavior. Helena got hysterical, attacking the source as biased and insisting that the footage was improperly taken out of context (though I’m not sure how chants like “Don’t believe the news it’s controlled by the Jews” can be put in any other context).
Not surprisingly, when the participants at a conference are pro-Israel, Helena drops any critical eye of the report, because it serves her malicious purpose to continually portray Israel, and more importantly anyone who likes Israel, in the worst light possible.
Ultimately, you can always find people at these types of events to say something that makes the rest look bad. As I noted above, I am not particularly attracted to the “end times” scenario discussed in the report. But, considering the history of Christianity toward Judaism over the past couple of millenia, the views of these conference goers are, to put it very mildly, not the worst of our concerns when it comes to the Christian community. If the “scariest” thing we have to worry about is that a woman carries a U.S. and Israeli flag and does “a cheerleading hop” then that’s not so bad. I’m more concerned with so called “peace activists” who fawn over and apologize for Hezbollah, and in fact serve as cheerleaders when they commenced an ACTUAL war against Israel.
“there are many Jewish Americans who are still fairly wary about the Evangelicals’ strong support for Israel”
not wary enough, in my opinion….. those folks want to see the end of the world via blowing up the entire Middle East, Israel included.
“end times” is their hope and dreams. I don’t think they will succeed, but they sure could do a lot more damage in the upcoming years, while they inspire one and all Middle Easterners to play “Let’s you and him fight”
If you have no morals, go invest in military industrial stocks. you will do well.
joshua writes:
The bottom line is that most Christians who support Israel, or for that matter, most Evangelicals who support Israel, are not these wild ideological extremists with some bizarre agenda. Rather, like most Americans, they support Israel because it is a valued friend defending itself from destruction.
this is pretty far from the case, as you can see from even a cursory reading of the theology that guides the most vocal christian zionists. i’d recommend paul boyer’s “when time shall be no more: prophecy belief in modern american culture” as an excellent recent overview of this strain of ‘end-times’ christianity.
what’s clearest, in any case, is that regardless of the rhetoric of ‘valued friends’, christian zionist support for the state of israel follows this logic:
for christ’s thousand-year reign to come, the jews must be ‘ingathered’ to jerusalem to play their proper part in the wars of the tribulation. the 144,000 ‘righteous jews’ will survive (some say by being raptured up, most seem to think otherwise), while the rest will die horribly like all other heathens and sinners. the earthly jerusalem will be utterly destroyed, and replaced by the heavenly jerusalem of christ’s rule. so all those who wish to see this end result – christ’s reign, but also including the destruction of jerusalem and death of (assuming 2007 population numbers) more than 12 million jews – must commit themselves utterly to the ingathering of the jews, and thus to the zionist project.
by me, it’s a pretty bizarre agenda. even more bizarre, i’d say, than spending your time breeding a spotless red heifer. and, more to the point, premised on a religiously motivated hope for the destruction of the vast majority of jews.
needless to say, this vision of massacre makes it pretty easy to combine unwavering support for the israeli state with blatant anti-jewish racism and prejudice. prominent cases in point include jerry “the antichrist is a jewish man alive today” falwell and pat “jews are spiritually blind and deaf” robertson.
what’s strangest about the whole situation to me is the eagerness of ‘mainstream’ u.s. jewish organizations to overlook these open expressions of anti-jewish belief and not merely accept the support of these men for the zionist cause but honor them. back in 2002, jewish women watching called for “abstinence from strange bedfellows” after the zionist organization of america gave robertson a ‘friendship award’, the israeli embassy in the u.s. hosted falwell and others of his ilk at a prayer breakfast, and the anti-defamation league (of all people) honored ralph reed in a NYTimes ad. no major u.s. jewish organization responded. if anyone needed further evidence of how the zionist movement has fucked with many jewish folks’ minds, this spectacle should do.
“this is pretty far from the case, as you can see from even a cursory reading of the theology that guides the most vocal christian zionists.”
What “the most vocal” christian zionists may say, is not representative of what most people who support Israel think. It’s almost always the case that others will report and hype the “vocal” ones as representative of the group. It makes for good TV (or good youtube).
I find it highly amusing that the participants here who are most stridently anti-Israel all of a sudden express concern about the supposed anti-semitic views of Israel’s supporters.
In the meantime, I am more concerned about those who support groups such as Hamas, who have an openly genocidal agenda and act on it.
I’m not sure what your point there was, anyway? Are you saying, as an Israeli, that you really think these CUFI people are fine, wonderful people whose values and actions (including their deliberate attempts to conjoin the values of religion, flag-waving ultra-nationalism, and militarism) you admire and embrace? And that you think their position that there should be no peace process, no two-state solution, is all just swell?
Did I say anything even remotely like this? If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, you might want to take a look at the “brilliant short video” here (scroll down a bit to the photo of Cindy Sheehan):
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Just to make things clear, I neither “admire” or “embrace” CUFI, and I think that both the people interviewed by Blumenthal and those filmed at the Sheehan exhibition are a bunch of millenarian wingnuts – they just have different concepts of the messiah.
Further, I don’t see any “side-swipes” or my comment lacking relevance. After all, you are the one who brought up swaying women who are dressed funny as a frightening prospect. I simply agreed with you!
Now, if you want to be germane, perhaps you’d like to answer about the use of the term “Likudnik”. I didn’t get a real answer from Scott.
I find it highly amusing that the participants here who are most stridently anti-Israel all of a sudden express concern about the supposed anti-semitic views of Israel’s supporters.
Joshua, you do know that the best way to shut people up is to bring up anti-Semitism?
What’s interesting is how directly these posts on extremist “Christian Zionists” parallel the doings over at MEMRI (a group we’ve seen described as “inflammatory and blood libelous”) — smearing one side through association with extremists.
Well, I couldn’t find any Cindy Sheehan as I scrolled down that blog, JES. But I didn’t “bring up” swaying women who are dressed funny as a frightening prospect It was the sight of women swaying and dancing in religious ecstasy with two national flags clasped to their breasts that I found scary… and then, the little stage-managed thing where the two country’s soldiers come up and salute each other…
Have you read my recent paper on “Religion and Violence”? (Link on JWN sidebar.) As I wrote there, all kinds of different religions have been used (abused?) as ways to further extremely violent and coercive agendas– and these same religions, in different “flavors”, have been used as potent vehicles for healing and social repair. I would say that mixing up any kind of religious ecstasy (Christian, Jewish, or any other) with a militantly expressed agenda of support for Greater Israel and explicit, expressed opposition to peacemaking is pretty scary.
Not just the swaying. I have been known to dance a bit myself, from time to time. Though not as part of worship. That was the Shakers, not the Quakers.
Concerning “any other”, I also find the mix of “religion, ecstacy and militarism” quite scary when practiced by Hamas members or the followers of Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah. I also find it scary when religious Jewish settlers on the West Bank mix the three. You see, I’m consistent about my fear of millenarian wingnut movements combining “religion, ecstacy and militarism”. I don’t characterize one group as brave and disciplined, and the other as just “scary”.
“It was the sight of women swaying and dancing in religious ecstasy with two national flags clasped to their breasts that I found scary…”
Personally, I prefer my celebrations to be more restrained. But I don’t that it’s “scary” for a woman to display fervor and passion for a close friendship and bond between the two countries.
You should look again. What I found particularly frightening was the scene at the end with the lady in a pink burqa waddling away from the Sheehan demonstration.
Not sure what the fuss is here over the term “Christian Likudnik” compared to a more generic “Christian Zionist.” Within the Israeli political perspective, JES surely knows those more incline toward Likud politics would be far more to the right — far less willing to contemplate giving up the occupied territories. As such, my own reference to many of the “leading” (e.g. bestselling author) Christian zionists as “Likudists” fits that general pattern — as being more ideologically prone to take the most hard-ball, right wing perspective. (a more generic Christian zionists, in my experience and reading, might be just as prone to supporting Israel, yet quite willing to support Israel too if it should find a way to implement a two-state solution.)
Now why is that so hard to comprehend?
As for the anti-semetic angle, go back to my post from late March. It’s prominent Jewish commentators who in my view fairly raise the concern that despite their ardent support for Israel politically, it’s their eschatology (ends times assumptions) that have the rather horrendous views re. the post-rapture scenarios for all those “left behind.”
And therein the irony — that the modern state of Israel gets so much help from Amerca (esp. now) in very large part because of a politically influential non-Jewish slice of America that yearns for the 2nd coming (the tribulation and all that….)
Of course, you knew that already anyway.
I should hasten to add that I suspect the vast majority of “evangelical zionists” would have no ideal what “Likudism” might imply in the Israeli scheme. It’s my own way of assessing the fanatical devotion of this genre of Church going “folk” in the USA. To me, calling them mere “Christian zionists” doesn’t get at the extent of the devotion of the left behind readers….
But never mind my conceptualization, I am among those analysts who do take this movement very seriously and deem it a major cog in the American political landscape.
(Now of course there will be those who take the Michael Oren Israeli line and make the argument that Americans of all political and theological passions have had romantic attachments to Israel and negative dispositions towards Arab — ever since the 1780’s…. Obvsiously that’s why Oren was present at AIPAC last summer to introduce John Hagee to the throngs…. to in effect take the edge off…. (Blumenthal was “merely” putting it back on….)
JES surely knows those more incline toward Likud politics would be far more to the right — far less willing to contemplate giving up the occupied territories. As such, my own reference to many of the “leading” (e.g. bestselling author) Christian zionists as “Likudists” fits that general pattern — as being more ideologically prone to take the most hard-ball, right wing perspective.
All this tells me is that you know next to nothing about Israeli politics, and probably less about the Likud. I suggest again that you take a look at Moshe Ahren’s op-ed I posted from today’s Ha’aretz. He’s pretty much a typical Likudnik – from the Herut wing, no less. In general, Likud members tend to be quite secular – both Shamir and Sharon were extremely so. The party also comes from a variety of very different roots, all of which have influenced the makeup of the party, so it’s really quite difficult to categorize it as a monolith in any sense. There are many supporters in the Likud who are quite supportive of a two-state solution. On the whole the Likud’s position is quite a bit to the right of my own, but hardly to the extent that you try to characterize it.
I’d suggest that your attempt at objectifying with the term is far less successful than that of KDJ, which you criticized earlier.
the jews must be ‘ingathered’ to jerusalem to play their proper part in the wars of the tribulation. the 144,000 ‘righteous jews’ will survive (some say by being raptured up, most seem to think otherwise), while the rest will die horribly like all other heathens and sinners.
Hmmmm. And didn’t Nasrallah once say something to the effect that it’s good that the Jews gather in Occupied Palestine, because that way we don’t have to go far to kill them all? I wonder, who should I fear more?
“And therein the irony — that the modern state of Israel gets so much help from Amerca (esp. now) in very large part because of a politically influential non-Jewish slice of America that yearns for the 2nd coming (the tribulation and all that….)”
Except that it doesn’t. The reasons for American support for Israel are because it is, and has been, broadly supported by citizens and their representatives from both sides of the ideological spectrum as well as those in between.
But I guess your formulation is better than chalking it up to the “Jewish lobby.” Then again, maybe you’re just shifting the target of the smear.
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down
Ye-eah we wept, when we remembered Zion.
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down
Ye-eah we wept, when we remembered Zion.
When the wicked
Carried us away in captivity
Required from us a song
Now how shall we sing the lord’s song in a strange land
When the wicked
Carried us away in captivity
Requiering of us a song
Now how shall we sing the lord’s song in a strange land
Let the words of our mouth and the meditations of our heart
Be acceptable in thy sight here tonight
Let the words of our mouth and the meditation of our hearts
Be acceptable in thy sight here tonight
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down
Ye-eah we wept, when we remembered Zion.
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down
Ye-eah we wept, when we remembered Zion.
By the rivers of Babylon (dark tears of Babylon)
There we sat down (You got to sing a song)
Ye-eah we wept, (Sing a song of love)
When we remember Zion. (Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah)
By the rivers of Babylon (Rough bits of Babylon)
There we sat down (You hear the people cry)
Ye-eah we wept, (They need that ???)
When we remember Zion. (Ooh, have the power)
Joshua,
the reasons for American support for Israel are because it is, and has been, broadly supported by citizens and their representatives from both sides of the ideological spectrum as well as those in between.
Israel used US support in a manner that advanced both Israel’s national security and US geopolitical interests with no blowback
U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
JES,
whatever your reasons of fear from Nasrallah I think you hide that most of Arab states have talk with State of Israel this not mine this came from your officials of your government.
If you try to be a scare mongering here form Nasrallah, as did Israelis before about Arab states (surprisingly they did not win any war with Israel) I think this too stupid to be said that this man he can demolish State of Israel, you went after him in 33 days war you destroyed Lebanon and killed thousands of people in name of “Nasrallah” and you know very well Nasrallah have minor support from Arabs and you know who created him and who related to and from where his support he got, your historical rescuers from Babylonians JES….
I wonder, who should I fear more?
JES just reminder with your words long time ago that you said same in regards to Hamas, you said you went to an event where one Hamas leaders have speaking with his guards holding their klashinkof but they did not kill you because you’re a Jewish!! Is that right JES?
Is that right JES?
No Salah. You have me confused with someone else.
I think you missed my point. I think that both Nasrallah (and the Iranian Mullahs who support and, perhaps, guide him), and Christian religious fanatatics are scary – although there’s no doubt as to who presents the more immediate threat. I think that Hams is eqully “scary”, for the same reason, as are messianic Jews – particularly when they are armed.
BTW, I’d stay away from the hyperbole, if I were you. Israel (and certainly I) did not “destroy” Lebanon, neither did Israel (and certainly not I) kill “thousands” of Lebanese last summer.
Salah:
“U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan”
I doubt it will happen. But it sounds like that’s a good thing to me. Don’t you agree? Perhaps Iraq & Israel can serve as a shining example of cooperation between neighbors in the Middle East.
JES,
Apologies some times I use “You” I mean Israel forgive me frind JES for this typo.
Joshua
Iraq & Israel can serve as a shining example of cooperation between neighbors in the Middle East.
as for your doubt, Jordanian as far I know have hidden started some work toward this project from 2003, and more convincing to this project, west Iraq “Sunni Triangular as US media and official call it) is more concerned area in Iraq that Americans need to cleaned and prepared to control the land that will be the pipes pass through what we see of on going fights and nation cleansing is more related to this future project.
I wish too, but not before Israel drops all conditions to meet Arab in negotiating complete comprehensive peace deal under UN or World umbrella not one by one, as this case it not just border issue its a complete historical political issue all Muslims and mainly the Arab have to agree with you to end this unsolvable case.
I wish I weak up and I hear that Israelis do what we waiting 60 years now.
Salah,
Iraq has no territorial claims against Israel. Israel does not occupy an inch of Iraqi land.
There are some Israelis who were refugees (or more accurately, displaced persons) from Iraq who had their property confiscated. That issue will have to be resolved. But it should not be something which hinders the normalization of relations between Iraq and Israel, and should not hinder economic cooperation between the two countries.
You seem to support the idea that all outstanding territorial and political claims must be resolved between Israel and EVERY Arab country for Israel to have relations with ANY Arab country. If that were the case, there would be no peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and we would be even further from peace then we are now.
You may think Israel should give up land to the Palestinians or the like. You may think of this so strongly that you personally don’t want to visit or have anything to do with Israel. But that should not be an impediment toward other Iraqis and Israelis who are prepared to get on with their lives and work together. If everyone in Iraq really doesn’t want to visit or cooperate with Israel, that’s their choice.
Let them make that choice for themselves! If an Iraqi wants to visit Israel, however, let them make that choice as well! If anything, the increased cooperation would ENCOURAGE peace between Israelis and Palestinians, because it would demonstrate to Israelis and their officials that there are benefits to cooperation and that their neighbors are, in fact, willing to make peace with them!
That, my friend, is real Peace Activism!
As such, my own reference to many of the “leading” (e.g. bestselling author) Christian zionists as “Likudists” fits that general pattern — as being more ideologically prone to take the most hard-ball, right wing perspective.
Except that the most hardball, right-wing ultranationalist political figures in Israel are generally not to be found in the Likud. It’s true that the Likud Party has some hard-line elements, including the leftover Herutniks like Uzi Landau and a marginal but vocal national-religious wing led by Feiglin. However, the real ultra-nationalists have typically found their home in the parties farther to the right, such as Chayil, the modern Herut and the factions that make up the Ichud Leumi (National Union). And the Likud itself, which is built at least as much on Mizrahi identity politics and class antagonism as on nationalism, is a complicated beast that can’t be reduced to a simplistic ideological caricature. Did you know, for instance, that Druze Israelis are over-represented on the Likud Central Committee?
I realize that the use of “Likud” and “Likudnik” as shorthand for the Israeli right wing is common parlance outside Israel, and that “Christian Likudnik” is more immediately understandable to a foreigner (not to mention more euphonious) than “Christian Ichud Leuminik.” Nevertheless, as JES points out, this isn’t an accurate characterization of either CUFI (whose politics are more in line with the national-religious stream in Israel) or the Likud.
just to clarify: as a secularist, i’m pretty much equally scared by and opposed to any religious right movement, regardless of the religion. the christian right in the u.s., the jewish right in israel, the muslim right in saudi arabia, the hindu right in india – to me, the theology doesn’t matter much, since they all want me not to exist and they all have the decisive voice in state policy.
i’m pretty interested in all of their theologies, though, for that very reason. and i’ve generally had quite pleasant conversations with christian and muslim right folks outside of the political sphere, or in parts of it where we were forced into collaboration. the members of the jewish right have been more hostile – as i have been towards them – because there’s less cultural distance between us. and i haven’t had the opportunity to chat with any brown-shorts, as my bengali friends call the sangh parivar-niks.
i’m fascinated, though, by the reluctance on the part of the zionists on this list to consider the notion that the u.s. christian right might actually believe what they say, both about the reasons for their support for the israeli state, and about jews. i don’t hear similar doubts expressed about, say, moledet. (and thanks, JES and Jonathan Edelstein, for pointing out the inaccuracy of ‘likudnik’)
as for the likes of hamas and hizbullah, i’m not a fan. but since they neither run the state i live in (as the christian right does) nor have a base within my own community (as the jewish right does), i take my cues on how to struggle against them from my friends and comrades in groups like helem (lebanese queers) and aswat (palestinian gay women). both of whom deserve your support as well.
i’m fascinated, though, by the reluctance on the part of the zionists on this list to consider the notion that the u.s. christian right might actually believe what they say, both about the reasons for their support for the israeli state, and about jews. i don’t hear similar doubts expressed about, say, moledet.
Where do you see such reluctance? And what doubts would you care to here about, say, Moledet? Just becuase a person doesn’t drayen kopf about these groups doesn’t mean that they don’t consider them and their agendas.
Your choice of Moledet is quite interesting, and relates to another point. As I have expressed earlier, I don’t think that this kind of scary religious fanaticism requires a belief in God. Moledet was primarily a non-religious – even secular – movement (as was its equally scary precurser the Thiyya Party). Just another example of the propensity for apparently secular movements to combine “ecstacy, religion and militarism” in a scary fashion.
BTW, because we find something “scary” doesn’t mean that we have to be afraid of it.
because we find something “scary” doesn’t mean that we have to be afraid of it
Excellent point, JES. It’s a word I use too often, I know. It seems like a good shorthand for– well, what?
Personally I don’t think I’m a fearful person. So it is probably true that I am not actually fearful of organizations like CUFI. Sure, I am very, very concerned about the effects they can have on US policy. I am also (with good cause) very concerned about the effects that various Zionist discourse-suppression organizations– probably including CUFI but certainly not limited to it– have on the free exchange of ideas and information in the US public sphere.
That makes me fearful in a slightly general sort of way. Fearful firstly about the effects of all this on those of my friends who are Palestinians desperate to hang onto their ancestral homeland and be able to raise their kids in safety, dignity, dignity and hope there. Fearful also about the extremely destructive fallout from the Zionist armlock on US policy on the war/peace situation throughout the whole Middle East.
So at one level, no, I am not personally intimidated by these people or all their bullying, ill-informed attempts at discourse suppression and, too often, personal belittlement. (Many of those folks, I feel quite sorry for, and I’m sure on other issues I could find quite a lot in common with them.)
But I do, literally, feel very fearful about the effects that these v. powerful organizations have on US policy and on the world that is so much affected by US policy.
So thanks for raising the question of the meaning of the word “scary”.
Helena-
I have been out of touch for a long time, living down under.
It is great to come back to JWN and find the dialogue continues.
So shameful, though, the likes of Joshua, JES and Vadim who persist in their amatuerish verbal backhands.
Will these blokes ever understand?
What is the practical difference between a religious right wing nut who supports Israel’s right to hold onto every inch of historic Judea and Samaria, and a secularist follower of Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall” philosophy, such as Bibi Netanyahu, who argues that Israel’s security “Red Lines” requires the Zionist entity not return to its pre-1967 borders?
The way Joshua/JES/Vadim/JE (or for that matter, Bibi) retreat to the comfort of Zionist state secularism, as though this makes them different from the middle aged women of CUFI who dance like cheerleaders with the flags of Israel and America clutched to their breasts, as though Jabotinsky’s secular credentials amount to more than a hill of beans, as though the secularist Sharon’s 2000 walk around the “Temple Mount” had nothing to do with asserting religious claims to pre-1967 Palestinian territory in the Old City of Jerusalem is a sign of unbelievable cultural ignorance.
How can these commentator(s) on JWN actually expect to be taken seriously as participatants in mature debate about the problems wracking the world today?
i’m fascinated, though, by the reluctance on the part of the zionists on this list to consider the notion that the u.s. christian right might actually believe what they say, both about the reasons for their support for the israeli state, and about jews.
While I can speak only for myself, it doesn’t seem that any of the Zionists on this list are doing that. Instead, they appear to be arguing that (1) CUFI isn’t necessarily representative of all Christian Zionists in its ideological or theological positions, and (2) many non-Jews who don’t identify as “Christian Zionists” might support Israel for reasons completely different from CUFI’s theology.
Again speaking purely for myself, I believe that CUFI means exactly what it says, and I have no love for either the organization or its positions. I don’t care for national-religious politics either in the United States or Israel, and I certainly don’t care for the synergy of the two. Nor do I think that Israel is well served by people who have no stake in its well-being other than apocalyptic theology and who support the most reactionary elements in Israeli politics. CUFI is dedicated to undermining the type of Zionism I support and practice, so I have no desire for it to gain power.
This has been an important discussion, revealing on many levels-particularly indicative of how much time, energy, money is devoted to Israel. It is no wonder that winning hearts and minds in the region is so difficult-
Hateful Helena is at it again.
“Zionist discourse-suppression organizations”
“Zionist armlock on US policy on the war/peace situation throughout the whole Middle East.”
Go ahead Helena, you might as well just go ahead and use “Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG).”
Helena’s latest comment is outright bigotry, pure and simple. And she has the gall to complain about “name calling.” What a hypocritical bigot she is.
In the jwn sidebar, Helena flagged a recent letter from an interesting group of evangelical “leaders.”
http://www.esa-online.org/Display.asp?Page=LettertoPresident
They raise the important point, of course, that not “all” evangelical Christians are against a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine — even as they pull out the reference to the covenant with Abraham as applying to Israel.
I know of most of the fine leaders who signed this letter. Nice to see Donald Neff of CT sign it too.
Yet unfortunately, one might wonder how much of “evangelicalism” these leaders might speak for in the US landscape. (Perhaps its growing, given recent polling data on those Americans deeming themselves evangelical…. Past experience though has me cautious.)
Also, most of these signers are of one of two “evangelical” dispostions — the “red letter” types w/n the small yet growing evangelical “left” — and secondly, those from the Presbyterian/reformed wing of Christianity — which does not embrace dispensationalist theology. (favoring instead the focus on a “new testament covenant” — as supplanting the Genesis covenant…. Hagee & co seem to operate from the opposite premise — that the covenant w/ the Abraham & his descendants (excluding Ishmael) trumps everything else….
So yes, the letter is welcome from ESA, even as I will look for more signs such sentiments might be increasing.
As I’ve brought up another term than might be unfamiliar to many, here’s a quick intro to the notion of “red letter christians”:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.redletterchristians
But I hasten to add that only some, but not all, of the signers of the evangelical letter to Bush would be from this general direction. Also, (to add yet another level of caveats) the RLC’s are not, per se, just “evangelicals,” but include more “mainline” Christians & Catholics….
Interesting term:
I am curious as to what you thought of the use of the following terms.
“Zionist discourse-suppression organizations”
“Zionist armlock on US policy on the war/peace situation throughout the whole Middle East.”
Joshua,
How are these terms that you quote from Helena bigoted and hateful? I think they’re rather sober and descriptive, for my part. It’s amusing how you then throw in an expression that Helena *didn’t* use in order to suggest that she could use that, too? Why don’t you deal with her actual assertions. Would you even recognize an honest argument if one landed right in front of you? Luckily, more and more Americans seem to be waking up to the sort of hatred and intellectual dishonesty you exemplify. And, oh, by the way, Yes there is an Israel lobby that exerts substantial influence on our media and politicians. And, gee, this could have something to do with the anti-Palestinian, general anti-Arab/Persian bias of our foreign policy. Get over it. This is basic empirical correspondence here, buddy. It’s like me looking out the window on a clear day and saying the sky is blue.
Didn’t one of those “proud zionists” that post here just describe Israel as a “democratic and liberal” country? A country that refuses to define its borders, a country that approves illegal colonial settlements, ethnic cleansing and racial laws, a country that ignores international law at will? If these “proud zionists” consider such actions as describing a “democratic and liberal country”, why are some of us surprised that they would hook up with the likes of the “Christian zios” such as Hagee?
And just to remind us how the wind blows, from Haaretz: US House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told Haaretz on Wednesday that the Democrats would seek to avoid a policy on Iraq that ‘will leave chaos and will endanger Izzyland’.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/891358.html
Another doozy “revelation” (pardon the pun) from Max Blumenthal, this time focusing on “Operation Straight Up” — an official Pentagon arm.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=220960
“We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region….”
Note the heavy emphasis on Tim LaHaye material….
Worth a read….
As a related side note, I’m impressed to see that even Marvin Olasky had orchestrated a campaign to condemn and yank the “Left Behind” video game — which includes a segment to reward players for killing (sic) UN soldiers (servants of the anti-Christ)….
And this is being still distributed to our soldiers?
Footnote on Olasky, he happens to be a “Jewish Christian” and is best known as “Mr. Compassionate Conservative” and edits the widely read (esp. in “conservative evangelical” realms) “World” Magazine ….