Stephen Zunes is professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project <www.fpif.org> and is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003). Segments of this article originally appeared as a foreign-policy report for Foreign Policy in Focus in June 2004.
Recent years have seen the emergence of a politicized and right-wing Protestant fundamentalism as a major factor behind
U.S. support for the policies of the rightist Likud government in Israel. Indeed, given that a willingness by the U.S. government to pressure Israel to make the necessary compromises is crucial if there is to be a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, there may be no greater threat to the revived peace process than the influence of the American Christian Right. To understand this influence, it is important to recognize that the rise of the religious right as a political force in the United States is a relatively recent phenomenon. It emerged as part of a calculated strategy by leading conservatives in the Republican party who – while not fundamentalist Christians themselves – recognized the need to enlist the support of this key segment of the American population in order to come to power.
Traditionally, American fundamentalist Protestants were not particularly active in national politics, long seen as worldly and corrupt. This changed in the late 1970s as part of a calculated effort by conservative Republican operatives who recognized that, as long as the Republican party was primarily identified with militaristic foreign policies and economic policies that favored the wealthy, it would remain a minority party. Over the previous five decades, the Republicans had won only four out of the twelve presidential elections and controlled Congress for only two of its 24 sessions.
By mobilizing rightist religious leaders and adopting conservative positions on a number of such highly charged social issues as women’s rights, abortion, sex education and homosexuality, they were able to bring into their party millions of fundamentalist Christians who – as a result of their lower-than-average incomes – were not otherwise inclined to vote Republican. Through such organizations as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, they promoted a right-wing political agenda in radio and television broadcasts as well as from the pulpit. Since that time, Republicans have won five out of seven presidential races, and have controlled the Senate for eight out of thirteen sessions, and have controlled the House of Representatives for the past six.
Those who identify with the religious right are now more likely than the average American to vote and to be politically active. They constitute nearly one out of seven American voters. The Christian Right firmly controls the Republican agenda in about half of the states, particularly in the South and Midwest. A top Republican staffer noted, “Christian conservatives have proved to be the political base for most Republicans. Many of these guys, especially the leadership, are real believers in this stuff, and so are their constituents.”1
The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State noted, “The good news is that the Christian Coalition is fundamentally collapsing. The bad news is that the people who ran it are all in the government.” He noted, for example, how, whenever he goes to the Justice Department, he keeps seeing former lawyers of the prominent right-wing fundamentalist preacher Pat Robertson.2 As The Washington Post observed, “For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement’s de facto leader.” Former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed noted his movement’s triumph this way: “You’re no longer throwing rocks at the building; you’re in the building.” He added that God “knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way.” 3
THE RIGHTWARD SHIFT TOWARD ISRAEL
Due to the longstanding support for Israel as a refuge for a persecuted people and respect for the country’s democratic institutions (for its Jewish citizens) by American liberals, as well as the disproportionate political influence of Zionist Jews within the party, the Democrats traditionally took a harder line toward the Palestinians and other Arabs than did the Republicans. By contrast, Republicans – who generally tended to be more hawkish on most foreign-policy issues – traditionally took a somewhat more moderate stance.
This was due to the party’s ties to the oil industry and concern that too much support for Israel could lead Arab nationalists toward a pro-Soviet or – in more recent years – a pro-Islamist orientation. This is no longer the case, thanks to the influence of the Christian Right.
Though Christian-fundamentalist support for Israel dates back many years, only recently has it become one of the movement’s major issues. As a result, in recognition of their political influence, there has been a notable decrease in the reluctance among many American Jews to team up with the Christian Right. Fundamentalist leader Gary Bauer, for example, now receives frequent invitations to address mainstream Jewish organizations. This would not have occurred prior to the Bush presidency. It is partly a phenomenon of demographics: Jews constitute only 3 percent of the U.S. population, and fewer than half support the policies of the current Israeli government.Israelis also recognize the power of the Christian Right: Since 2001, Bauer has met with a number of Israeli cabinet members and with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted that “we have no greater friends and allies” than right-wing American Christians.4
It used to be that Republican administrations had the ability to overcome pressure from AIPAC and other Jewish Zionist lobbying groups when it was deemed important for American interests. The Eisenhower administration put pressure on Israel during the Suez Crisis of 1956; the Reagan administration sold AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981; and the first Bush administration delayed the $10-billion loan guarantee until after the pivotal 1992 Israeli election. Furthermore, since a sizable majority of Jewish Americans tended to vote Democratic, there was a sense that Republicans had little to lose for occasionally challenging Israel.
Thanks to the rise in influence of the Christian Right, however, this is no longer the case. For the first time, the Republican party has a significant pro-Israel constituency of its own that it cannot ignore. Top White House officials, including National Security Council Near East and North African Affairs director Elliot Abrams, have regular and often lengthy meetings with representatives of the Christian Right.
As one leading Republican put it, “They are very vocal and have shifted the center of gravity toward Israel and against concessions. It colors the environment in which decisions are being made.”5 Indeed, support for Sharon has surprised even the most hard-line Zionist Jews.
It appears, then, that right-wing Christian Zionists are, at this point, more significant in the formulation of U.S. policy toward Israel than are Jewish Zionists. Here are a few examples of their influence under the administration of President George W. Bush:
- After the Bush administration’s initial condemnation of the attempted assassination of militant Palestinian Islamist Abdel Aziz Rantisi in June 2003, the Christian Right mobilized their constituents to send thousands of e-mails to the White House protesting the criticism. A key the degree of the Bush administration’s element in these emails was the threat that if such pressure continued to be placed on Israel, they would stay at home on election day. Observers noted that within 24 hours, there was a notable change in tone by the president. Indeed, when Rantisi fell victim to a successful Israeli assassination in April 2004, the administration – as it did with the assassination of Hamas leader Shaikh Ahmed Yassin the previous month – largely defended the Israeli action.
- When the Bush administration insisted that Israel stop its April 2002 military offensive in the West Bank, the White House received over 100,000 e-mails from Christian conservatives protesting its criticism. Almost immediately, President Bush came to Israel’s defense. Over the objections of the State Department, the Republican-led Congress adopted resolutions supporting Israel’s actions and blaming the violence exclusively on the Palestinians.
- When President Bush announced his support for the Roadmap for Middle East peace, the White House received more than 50,000 postcards over the next two weeks from Christian conservatives opposing any plan that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The administration quickly backpedaled and the once-highly touted Roadmap essentially died.
MANICHAEAN VIEWS
Christian Zionism is based in large part on the belief that a hegemonic Israel is a necessary precursor of the Second Coming of Christ. Ironically, this theology also assumes that upon Christ’s return “unrepentant” Jews would be subjected to eternal damnation. This essentially places the Jews in a crucial supporting role but bars them from the final act. Yet, while this millennialist theology is certainly an important part of the Christian Right’s support of a militaristic and expansionist Jewish state, fundamentalist Christian Zionism in America may be largely a subset of an even more dangerous heresy: Manicheanism, the belief that reality is divided into absolute good and absolute evil.
The day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush declared, “This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail.”6 The reason America was targeted – according to President Bush – was not U.S. support for Arab dictatorships, the large U.S. military presence in the Middle East, U.S. backing of the Israeli occupation, or the humanitarian consequences of U.S. policy toward Iraq, but simply that they “hate our freedoms.”7
Ignoring a key point in the Gospels – that the line separating good and evil does not run between nations, but within each person – President Bush cited Christological texts to support his war aims in the Middle East, declaring, “And the light [America] has shone in the darkness [the enemies of America] and the darkness will not overcome it [American shall conquer its enemies].”8 Even more disturbingly, Bush has stated repeatedly that he was “called” by God to run for president.
Veteran journalist Bob Woodward noted, “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God’s Master Plan.” Bush had promised, in his own words, “to export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil.”9
President Bush believes that he has accepted the responsibility of leading the free world as part of God’s plan. He even told then-Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas that “God told me to strike Al-Qaeda, and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”10 Iraq has become the new Babylon, and the “war on terrorism” has succeeded the Cold War with the Soviet Union as the quintessential battle between good and evil.
A great many Americans identify emotionally with Israel. This may be based in part upon the fact that the two countries share a foundational contradiction. They were both settled in part by those fleeing religious persecution, who established a new nation rooted in high ideals and a political system based upon relatively progressive and democratic institutions. Yet both established their new nations through the oppression, massacre and dislocation of the indigenous population. Like many Israelis and their supporters, Americans often confuse genuine religious faith with nationalist ideology.
John Winthrop, the influential seventeenth-century Puritan theologian, saw America as the “City on the Hill” and “a light unto nations.” In effect, there is a kind of American Zionism that assumes a divinely inspired singularity that excuses what would otherwise be considered unacceptable behavior. Just as Winthrop defended the slaughter of the indigenous Pequot peoples of colonial Massachusetts as part of a divine plan, nineteenth-century theologians defended America’s westward expansion as “manifest destiny” and the will of God. Such theologically rooted aggrandizement did not stop at the Pacific Ocean. The invasion of the Philippines at the turn of the previous century was justified by President William McKinley and others as part of an effort to “uplift” and “Christianize” the natives. This ignores the fact that the Filipinos (who by that time had nearly rid the country of the Spanish colonialists and had established the first democratic constitution in Asia) were already over 90 percent Christian.
Similarly, today in the eyes of the Christian Right, the Bush Doctrine and the expansion of American military and economic power are part of a divine plan. For example, in their 2003 Christmas card, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne included the quote, “And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”11 It is noteworthy that polls show that the ideological gap between Christian conservatives and other Americans regarding the U.S. invasion of Iraq and related Bush-administration policies in the “war on terrorism” is even higher than the ideological gap between Christian conservatives and other Americans on Israel and Palestine.
In many respects, much of the American right may be at least as concerned about how Israel can help the United States as how the United States can help Israel. Due to the antisemitism inherent in much Christian Zionist theology, it has long been recognized that Christian Right support for Israel does not stem from a concern for the Jewish people per se, but a desire to use the Jews to hasten the Second Coming of Christ. This is also true for those who, for theological or other reasons, seek to advance the American empire in the Middle East.
And while a strong case can be made that U.S. support for Israeli policies ultimately hurts U.S. interests, there remains a widely held perception that Israel is an important asset to American strategic objectives in the Middle East and beyond. The Christian Right is, in effect, willing to fight the Muslims down to the last Jew.
THE SILENCE OF THE LIBERALS
The Christian Right has long been a favorite target for the Democratic party, particularly its liberal wing, since most Americans are profoundly disturbed by fundamentalists of any kind influencing policies of a government with a centuries old tradition of separating church and state. Yet we find most liberal Democrats in Congress taking positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are far closer to the reactionary Christian Coalition than to the moderate National Council of Churches, far closer to the rightist Rev. Pat Robertson than the late leftist Rev. William Sloan Coffin, far closer to the ultraconservative Moral Majority than the liberal Churches for Middle East Peace, and far closer to the fundamentalist Southern Baptist Convention than any of the mainline Protestant churches. Rather than accuse these erstwhile liberals of being captives of the “Jewish lobby” – a charge that inevitably leads to the counter charge of antisemitism – those who support justice for the Palestinians could just as accurately accuse them of being captives of the Christian Right. Shifting the focus away from ethnic politics and towards the dangerous fundamentalistideology that is currently at least as influential in shaping U.S. foreign policy toward the region might advance the ability of those who support peace, justice and the rule of law to highlight the profound immorality of support for the Israeli occupation.
It will not be possible to counter the influence of the Christian Right in shaping American policies in the Middle East, however, as long as otherwise progressive minded elected officials continue to support the same policies.
Ironically, the Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the “peace churches” and the mainline Protestant churches – while firmly supporting Israel’s right to exist in peace and security – oppose the occupation and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, support Palestinian independence and call for a shared Jerusalem. Despite this, both the Republican and Democratic parties reject such a moderate position. Instead they back the policies of the right-wing Israeli government. These churches – which collectively represent the majority of elected officials and the majority of Americans overall – have rarely challenged U.S. Middle East policy with the same intensity with which they have challenged government policies in regard to such issues as poverty, racial justice and the nuclear arms race.
It is unlikely, therefore, that the Democrats and moderate Republicans will be willing to challenge the Christian Right over Middle East policy until the liberal-to mainline churches mobilize their resources in support of peace and justice for Israel and Palestine as strongly as the right-wing fundamentalists mobilize their resources in support of occupation and repression.
1 Ken Silverstein and Michael Scherer, “Born-Again Zionists,” Mother Jones, September/October 2002.
2 Matthew Engel, “Meet the New Zionists,” The Guardian, October 28, 2002.
3 Dana Milbank, “Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office: Bush Emerges as Movement’s Leader after Robertson Leaves Christian Coalition,” The Washington Post, December 24, 2001.
4 Timothy P. Weber, “How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend,” Christianity Today, October 5, 1998.
5 Silverstein and Scherer, op. cit.
6 President George W. Bush, “The Deliberate and Deadly Attacks . . . Were Acts of War,” White House Press Office, President’s Address from Cabinet Room following Cabinet Meeting, September 12, 2001.
7 President Bush, White House Press Office, Address before Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001.
8 Juan Stam, “Bush’s Religious Language,” The Nation, December 22, 2003.
9 Bob Woodward, Bush at War (Simon & Schuster, 2002).
10 Cited in Al Kamen, “Road Map in the Back Seat,” The Washington Post, June 27, 2003.
11 Associated Press, “Cheney Says despite Christmas Card, U.S. Does Not See Itself as an Empire,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 24, 2004.
Middle East Policy is fully accessible through the Wiley Online Library
Click below to subscribe to the online or print edition of Middle East Policy and gain access to all journal content.