Evangelicals, Christian Zionists and Approaches to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Public Opinion among Evangelicals
About 20 percent of all Americans cite religious beliefs as the primary reason for their position on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and most of those are evangelicals.62 White evangelicals are significantly more sympathetic to Israel than the national average, as well as far more sympathetic than any other Christian group in America. In parallel, the percentage of those who sympathized more with the Palestinians among evangelicals is about half the national average.63 (See Tables 4.1 and 4.2.)
Table 4.1. Percentage Sympathizing with Israel over the Palestinians, 2001–2009
* * *
Pre-9/11 (9/2001)8/20061/2009
General public 40 52 49
White evangelicals 54 64 70
* * *
Data from Pew Research Center64
Table 4.2. Percentage Sympathizing More with the Palestinians, 2001–2009
* * *
General public 12
White evangelicals 6
* * *
Data from Pew Research Center68
When it comes to U.S. policy, the difference between the general public and evangelicals grew more significant over the course of the 2000s, from an opinion gap to an opinion divide. By the end of the decade a majority of evangelicals thought that the U.S. should take Israel’s side, while a majority of the general public thought the U.S. should remain neutral (see Tables 4.3–4.5). Evangelicals were also more likely than any other group (apart from American Jews) to oppose U.S. pressure on Israel.65
Table 4.3. Percentage Agreeing that “the U.S. Should Support Israel over the Palestinians”
* * *
19922008
General public 28 40
Evangelicals 40 55
* * *
Data from National Survey of Religion and Politics69
Table 4.4. “What the U.S. Should Do If Israel Attacks Iran’s Nuclear Program,” 2012 (%)
* * *
Support IsraelNeutralOppose Israel
General public 39 51 5
White evangelicals 64 32 1
* * *
Data from Pew Research Center70
Table 4.5. Percentage Agreeing That “Protecting Israel Should Be a Very Important Goal of U.S. Foreign Policy,” 2011
* * *
General public 39
White evangelicals 64
* * *
Data from Pew Research Center71
On the question of whether Israel should build settlements in the West Bank, 67 percent of fundamentalists endorsed settlements, compared to about a third of other religious groups in America.66 Yet according to a poll conducted in 2003 by Christianity Today, a plurality of 49 percent of evangelicals would support a Palestinian state that recognized Israel and did not threaten its security, compared to 39 percent who rejected the idea. Similarly, 52 percent of evangelical leaders were in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state so long as it did not threaten Israel.67 Even Pat Robertson reckoned that President Bush would not have lost many evangelical votes by encouraging Israel to give up parts of the West Bank.73
This difference between fundamentalist attitudes towards settlements and evangelical attitudes to Palestinian statehood is part of a wider divide among evangelicals regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict that mirrors the broader theological and ideological divisions between traditionalist-conservatives, centrist-moderates, and modernist-liberals referred to earlier. Polling indicates that traditionalist-conservative evangelicals have been the most supportive of Israel (see Table 4.6). The different approach among evangelical elites is outlined in greater detail below.
Table 4.6. Evangelical by Theology and Political Ideology: Percentage Agreeing “The U.S. Should Support Israel over the Palestinians”
* * *
19962008
Evangelical traditionalists 50 73
Evangelical centrists 32 46
Evangelical modernists 24 36
* * *
Data from National Survey of Religion and Politics72
Evangelical Elites and Christian Zionist Organizations
Traditional-Conservative Evangelicals and Christian Zionist Organizations
Christian Zionist organizations draw their support overwhelmingly from those evangelicals who believe that the U.S. should support Israel over the Palestinians; and the overwhelming majority of these evangelicals are traditionalist-conservatives. The basic position of Christian Zionist organizations toward the Arab-Israeli conflict is close to that of the religious right in Israel and was summed up in the proclamation of the Third International Christian Zionist Congress held in 1996. It stated that:
the Land of Israel has been given to the Jewish People by God as an everlasting possession by an eternal covenant. The Jewish People have the absolute right to possess and dwell in the Land, including Judea, Samaria [the West Bank], Gaza and the Golan.74
At the same time, most Christian Zionists believe that the Arabs and Muslims are determined to sabotage this “eternal covenant.”75 Consequently, at the Christian Coalition’s 2002 rally, speakers exhorted Israel’s leadership to never give up any territory to the Palestinians,76 while Hal Lindsey compared the 2007 Annapolis peace conference to the 1938 Munich conference.77 These positions seemed to have a wide resonance among traditionalist evangelicals if the sales of Mike Evans’s book Beyond Iraq: The Next Move are anything to go by. The book which adopts the Far Right perspective outlined above, reached the New York Times best-seller list and briefly ranked at number 2 on Amazon.com.78
Christian Zionists are particularly strongly opposed to the division of Jerusalem. Thus, while Hagee was willing to concede that Israel may give up land if all the Arab terrorist groups lay down their weapons, he insisted that Jerusalem never be divided “for any reason with anyone.”79 Meanwhile Robertson referred to the idea of giving the Palestinians East Jerusalem as “Satan’s plan.” Robertson remained supportive of George W. Bush even after the latter promoted Palestinian statehood. However, he declared that if Bush pressured Israel to divide Jerusalem, he would leave the Republicans and form an alternative party.80 Christian Zionist leaders also view God as punishing those who give away territory in the Holy Land. Thus, Robertson declared that Rabin’s assassination was a punishment from God for withdrawing from territory as part of the Oslo process.81 Later on, he declared that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was a punishment from God for Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005. Robertson later apologized for these remarks. Similarly, following the disengagement, Hagee wrote, “I do not consider it an accident that the very same week Jews were driven out of Gaza and placed in tent cities in Israel, the hand of God, through Hurricane Katrina, drove Americans out of their homes to live in tent cities in America.”82
Christian Zionists have forged links with the Israeli Far Right, especially the former Member of Knesset Benny Elon, who often travels to the U.S. to raise funds and cultivate support from Christian Zionists. Elon even wrote a book specially designed for the Christian market entitled God’s Covenant with Israel: Establishing Biblical Boundaries in Today’s World.83 There are also links with the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), a right-wing American Jewish organization. Some of the money raised by evangelicals has gone to settlements.84 In 1995, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities was founded to aid Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It has gotten about fifty churches to “adopt a settlement.” It claims to have raised a few million dollars.85 Its leader estimates that more than half of the settlements in the West Bank receive direct or indirect funding from Christian communities.86 It is estimated that the settlements received more than $200 million in tax-deductable gifts from Christian Zionist organizations from 2000 to 2010.87
Against such claims, Hagee has stated that the vast majority of his donations are made within the 1967 boundaries. Indeed, while Christian Zionism is ideologically close to the Far Right in Israel, its support for Israel
is not narrowly defined by a right-wing political agenda. Thus, the overwhelming bulk of the money raised by Christian Zionists does not go to settlements, nor does it go toward causes that are directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict or Israeli politics. Rather, the focus has been on social welfare, especially immigration and absorption.88
Pro-Israel Moderate Evangelicals
Like traditionalist-conservatives, moderate evangelicals also tend to be Christian Zionists. As such, they generally affirm that Israel plays a special role in the Second Coming and feel a biblical duty to support the State of Israel, but not in an unconditional or uncritical way. In the 1990s they thought that biblical promises gave Israel a right to at least its pre-1967 borders and guaranteed security. At the same time they were willing to support the peace process and a two-state solution on condition that they perceived there to be a genuine partner willing to recognize Israel and committed to peaceful coexistence.89 In this vein, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, stated, “I would argue that nothing could be more secure for Israel than creating a viable, self-sustaining Palestinian state that agrees to live in peace and agrees to suppress terrorism.”90 While for Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, there was no theological reason to either require or forbid the creation of a Palestinian state: “The question for me is one of prudence, and not of theological principle.”91
In the wake of the collapse of the Oslo process and 9/11, centrists primarily blamed Arafat and the Palestinians for the failure to achieve peace.92 Yet like Richard Land, they tended to support the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza. The fact that the Disengagement was an Israeli initiative was an important factor in this. As Land explained, “If our American government were perceived as putting pressure on the Israeli government to make decisions that it was felt by the Israeli people … to endanger their security, it would cause a serious and cataclysmic failure in the level of support for George W. Bush or any American [president].”93 Another leading prominent evangelical supporter of Israel, Jack Hayford, described the Disengagement as ‘Christ-like’ because its purpose was to try to make peace. Going one stage further, Ted Haggard, leader of the National Association of Evangelicals from 2003 to 2006, told Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2004 that Israel’s security barrier should not cut into Palestinian land.94
Still, even moderate evangelicals, who are not deeply committed to eschatological theology, appear to put Jerusalem in a different category from the rest of the West Bank.95 Thus, in the estimation of Richard Land, if Israel were to give the Palestinians the Temple Mount and part of the Old City of Jerusalem, evangelicals would rise up and protest – though even here Land estimated that they would ultimately acquiesce so long as it was a decision freely taken by Israel.96
Evenhanded and Pro-Palestinian Evangelicals
As explained above, modernist-liberal evangelicals are the smallest ideo-theological evangelicals group. They tend to advocate an evenhanded approach or a clearly pro-Palestinian approach to the peace process. The leading theologist promoting this approach is Rev. Dr. Gary Burge. In his book, Whose Land? Whose Promise? Burge affirms Israel’s right to exist while also invoking passages in the New Testament to portray Israel’s existence as a violation of Christian theology. Additionally, he makes Jewish sovereignty in modern Israel contingent on faithful adherence to Judaism. In taking this position, Burge singles out Israel. No other people in the world have their right to statehood made contingent on such a requirement. Like Jimmy Carter, Burge also equates Israel with apartheid South Africa.97 David Neff, the editor of Christianity Today, effusively praised the volume and the magazine gave it an “award of merit.” Indeed, since the early 1990s most articles about the conflict in Christianity Today adopted either a balanced or a pro-Palestinian approach to the conflict, which has involved significant criticism of Israeli policies.98 Almost no articles adopted the position of the conservative Christian Zionists, though several articles adopted a moderately pro-Israel position.99 Meanwhile, in the political arena, pro-Palestinian evangelicals have adopted a moderate tone. For example, two letters sent to President George W. Bush by more than thirty evangelical leaders in 2002 and 2007 supported a negotiated two-state solution and condemned Palestinian terrorism and Israeli settlements, while calling for the U.S. to adopt an evenhanded approach to the conflict.100 In any case, such lobbying has been massively overshadowed by the efforts of conservative Christian Zionists. It is to this that we now turn.
Christian Lobbying for Israel: “right OR WRONG?”
There are two key questions concerning Christian Zionist lobbying for Israel. First, do Christian Zionists lobby for the elected government of Israel even if it clashes with their own policy preferences? Second, how much influence has Christian Zionism had over U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially during the administration of George W. Bush, who is himself an evangelical Christian? These issues are addressed below.
The Likud Party came to power in 1977. It recognized that Christian Zionists shared its positions, and so it encouraged them to lobby, though Christian Zionists were only a very minor player in the 1980s.101 In 1989, Dispensationalists founded the Christian Israel Public Action Campaign (CIPAC), which was the first registered Christian pro-Israel lobby. It fostered ties with AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations. In the 1990s CIPAC lobbied on a variety of issues; some of these were directed against the policy of the Israeli government.102 For example, when Labor was in power (1992–1996), CIPAC sought to prevent the stationing of U.S. peacekeepers on the Golan Heights in the event of an Israeli withdrawal and fought against giving U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority; both policies were supported by the Rabin government.
The issue of Jerusalem was the focus of Christian Zionists’ limited lobbying efforts in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1995 they worked with other pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC, and their efforts led Congress to pass the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, which called for the embassy to be moved to Jerusalem by 1999. (However, the bill contained a waiver that allowed the president to suspend implementation at six-month intervals, which is what every president has done since then.) The Israeli government did not want to proceed with the campaign, fearing that raising the issue at this stage would cause serious damage to the peace process.103 A year later, when Netanyahu came to power, he worked closely with the Republican-led Congress and Christian Zionists to ease pressure from the Clinton administration on Israel regarding the peace process. Thus, in early 1998 Netanyahu met with Falwell and also spoke at a large public meeting attended by evangelicals who, following his speech, chanted, “Not one inch.” This occurred just prior to Netanyahu’s planned meeting with President Clinton, to maximize the political effect.104
Nonetheless, in the 1980s and 1990s, Israel remained a secondary issue for most evangelicals, even for the Christian Right. In 1981, although the Moral Majority strongly opposed the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia, no senators with ties to it voted against the sale.105 In 1992, Falwell endorsed George H. W. Bush for president despite Bush’s major clash with Israel over settlements. In 1996 Falwell endorsed Pat Buchanan despite Buchanan’s anti-Israel positions. Moreover, studies from the mid-1990s demonstrate that there was no positive correlation between the pro-Israel activities of congressmen and the number of evangelicals in a congressmen’s constituency, which reinforces the impression that Israel was not a major political concern at that time for most evangelicals.106
However, after 9/11 and the collapse of the Middle East peace process, Israel did take on a more central role. Thus, at the 2002 Christian Coalition conference, foreign policy, including support for in Israel, was the main topic for the first time; there was even a “Solidarity with Israel” rally at the conference.107 This shift was also evident in Congress. In the latter half of the 1990s, evangelical members of the House of Representatives were not especially supportive of Israel; however, from January 2001 to December 2003, evangelical conserva
tives in the House became strong supporters of Israel, promoting resolutions that clearly took Israel’s side against the Palestinians.108
George W. Bush, Christian Zionism, and the Second Intifada
It has been argued that George W. Bush is a Dispensationalist and that this heavily influenced his policy toward the Middle East.109 On the one hand, the president’s underlying attitude toward Israel was at least partly influenced by his faith. Bush described a visit to Israel before becoming president as one of the most moving experiences of his life. In a speech to the Knesset in May 2008, Bush stated that the modern State of Israel represents “the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham, Moses and David – a homeland for the chosen people.”110 However, there is a big difference between an underlying sympathy for the State of Israel based on the Bible and adopting a foreign policy based on end-times theology. Indeed, according to numerous people who worked in the Bush White House as well as personal friends of the president, end-times theology was alien to Bush and his administration’s approach to the Middle East.111
Most significant, Bush adopted policies diametrically opposed to the position of the Christian Right and Dispensationalists. For example, after 9/11 he became the first American president to officially endorse the creation of a Palestinian state – in the face of opposition from the Christian Coalition.112 He also supported Israel’s disengagement from Gaza and sponsored the Annapolis process. Finally, in September 2008, Bush himself tried to convince the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to accept the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert’s peace plan. The plan involved Palestinian statehood, a shared Jerusalem, and an Israeli withdrawal from about 94 percent of the West Bank, including a territorial swap of about 6 percent to make up the difference.113 Abbas rejected the offer, but the fact that Bush favored the plan in the face of a lot of opposition from the Christian Right makes the point.114
The Arab_Israeli Conflict Page 16