Islam Times - Why Is the US Subservient to “Israel”?

Islam Times - The recent escalation of conflict in Gaza has once again thrust into the spotlight the perplexing question of why the United States, a global superpower, appears submissive to “Israel”. To understand this dynamic, it is crucial to examine the complex relationship between American politics and the steadfast support for “Israel”, focusing on two key players: evangelical Christian groups and the American “Israel” Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC]. This essay explores the intricate relationship between these entities and US foreign policy in the Middle East, analyzing the key factors that have sustained this alliance.

1. The Transformation of Christian Attitudes Toward Jews and “Israel”

Historically, the relationship between Christianity and Judaism has been marked by conflict and deep-seated animosity. Many early Christians harbored negative sentiments toward Jews, primarily based on accusations of deicide—the belief that Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. This notion, rooted in specific interpretations of the New Testament, has fueled systemic antisemitism, marked by hatred and discrimination against Jews. Several passages in the New Testament reflect this sentiment. For instance, John 8:44, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, and Matthew 27:25 contain wording historically interpreted as placing blame on the Jewish people for Jesus' crucifixion. The latter verse, in particular, has been used to support the idea of collective Jewish guilt, with its phrase, “All the people answered, ‘His blood is on us and on our children!’”

In his provocative book, The Devil That Never Dies, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, a Jewish advocate, asserts a pervasive presence of anti-Semitic verses within the Christian Bible. He meticulously documents approximately four hundred and fifty instances of such verses exclusively within the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, averaging more than two per page. Goldhagen contends that this textual foundation has fueled anti-Jewish sentiments among influential political and cultural figures throughout history, culminating in calls for the extermination of Jews.

To illustrate his point, Goldhagen cites St. Augustine as a prime example of this theological antisemitism. The renowned theologian expressed a fervent desire for divine retribution against Jews, whom he considered adversaries of Scripture. Augustine's lament, "How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword so that there should be none to oppose your word!" epitomizes this sentiment.

Martin Luther, a vital figure of the Protestant Reformation, was noted for advocating the destruction of synagogues and viewed Jews as intolerant, asserting that they should live only where Christians did not. Similarly, John Calvin adopted a harsh view of Jews, advocating for their continual oppression due to their perceived obstinacy.

Evangelicals represent a diverse group of Christians united by foundational beliefs in personal conversion, the authority of the Bible, and the importance of evangelizing their faith. Central to evangelical thought is the notion of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, often referred to as being "born again". This conviction drives many evangelicals to engage in social and political activism anchored in their religious beliefs. Although "evangelical" is frequently linked to denominations such as Baptist, Pentecostal, and charismatic churches, it encompasses a broader range of beliefs and practices, resulting in various perspectives on various issues.

2. The Shift in Christian Theology and the Rise of Christian Zionism

During the latter half of the 20th century, Christian theology and perceptions of Judaism underwent significant transformation. This change was primarily prompted by the Holocaust, leading to a profound reconsideration of Christian doctrines related to Jews and Judaism. Many Christian denominations began to formally dismiss the concept of deicide and aimed to rectify harmful anti-Jewish interpretations in their teachings. A landmark moment in this evolution was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which released the Declaration Nostra Aetate. This historic document rejected the idea of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus. It recognized the shared spiritual heritage of Judaism, marking the beginning of a new era of dialogue and collaboration between Christians and Jews.

Simultaneously, the rise of Christian Zionism within American evangelicalism played a crucial role in reshaping Christian attitudes toward “Israel”. Christian Zionists interpret the establishment of the modern “State of 'Israel’” as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, heralding the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth. Verses such as Deuteronomy 30:5, seen as God's promise to regather the Jewish people to their homeland, and Psalm 122:6, which calls for prayers for the peace of "Jerusalem", are interpreted by Christian Zionists as divine mandates to support “Israel”. Additionally, they interpret Psalm 72:8, which reads, "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth," as a prophecy of this future kingdom encompassing a vast region, including much of the Middle East. This belief is rooted in a dispensationalist theology that views history as a series of distinct ages culminating in the end times.

A notable example of the changing dynamics between Evangelicals and Jews can be seen in the life of Reverend Billy Graham, a prominent Southern Baptist minister who became one of the most influential Christian figures of the 20th century. In the latter part of his life, some Jewish organizations hailed him as a strong supporter of “Israel”, recognizing his efforts to improve Protestant-Jewish relations. However, this was not always the case. In the 1970s, Reverend Graham held negative views toward Jews. This complexity became more evident when a recorded conversation from 1972 between Graham and President Richard Nixon was uncovered in the early 1990s. The dialogue revealed Graham's earlier sentiments, as he echoed Nixon's remarks about a powerful "left-wing Jewish media," suggesting that this alleged "stranglehold" needed to be dismantled for the country’s well-being, using the controversial phrase, "synagogue of Satan". Despite acknowledging his friendships with many Jews who supported “Israel”, Graham also expressed unease with some of their actions, highlighting the intricate and often contradictory nature of his relationship with the Jewish community.

The trajectory of Evangelical Christian attitudes toward Jews and the “State of 'Israel’” represents a complex and multifaceted transformation from historical animosity rooted in theological interpretations; a significant shift has occurred, culminating in fervent support for “Israel”. The rise of Christian Zionism and evolving biblical interpretations have been instrumental in forging this new alliance. The political influence wielded by Evangelical Christians, often in tandem with organizations like AIPAC, has transformed this theological orientation into a potent force in American foreign policy.

3. The Formation and Rise of AIPAC

While the transformation of Christian attitudes toward Jews laid the groundwork for increased support for “Israel”, the American “Israel” Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] has been instrumental in translating this support into tangible political power. Founded in 1963 by Isaiah L. Kenen, AIPAC has grown into one of the most influential lobbying organizations in the United States, shaping US policy towards “Israel” for decades.

Kenen, who had previously worked as a lobbyist for American Zionist organizations and “Israel's” Office of Information at the United Nations, established AIPAC to mobilize American political and financial support for “Israel”. Despite its strong alignment with “Israeli” interests, AIPAC has maintained its status as a domestic organization, thereby avoiding the need to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act [FARA]. This status has been a point of contention, with critics arguing that AIPAC effectively functions as a foreign agent because of its unwavering commitment to “Israeli” policies.

AIPAC's power derives from several key factors. First, it boasts a vast network of supporters and donors, including evangelical Christians who view support for “Israel” as a biblical mandate. Second, AIPAC employs sophisticated lobbying techniques, including grassroots mobilization, coalition-building, and direct lobbying of lawmakers. Third, it has cultivated close relationships with key policymakers, ensuring its pro-“Israel” agenda resonates within the corridors of power.

4. AIPAC’s Influence on US Politics and Policy

AIPAC's influence is perhaps most evident in the consistent US support for “Israel”, which includes substantial military aid, diplomatic backing, and the strategic use of veto power to block United Nations resolutions critical of “Israel”. The US provides “Israel” with $3.8 billion annually in military aid. Since its founding, “Israel” has received approximately $310 billion in total economic and military assistance from the US, adjusted for inflation.

The organization's influence is so pervasive that few elected officials risk openly opposing its agenda. Recent examples of AIPAC's power were demonstrated in its campaigns against progressive Democrats who have voiced criticism of “Israel’s” military actions in Gaza and have called for a ceasefire. On August 7, 2024, The Associated Press reported that progressive politicians face an existential threat from AIPAC, noting that there is little to stop its influence. AIPAC and other pro-“Israel” groups spent a combined $25 million on ads targeting Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush this summer. Liberals worry that this is only the beginning.

A 2014 article in The New Yorker, titled "Friend of ‘Israel’", drew parallels with the best-selling book The “Israel” Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, both esteemed political scientists associated with the realist school of thought. Together, the article and book presented a formidable critique of AIPAC, asserting that the organization exerts a singularly distorting influence on American foreign policy. The political climate has become such that Congressional representatives hesitate to question AIPAC's stance; those who do may face significant electoral challenges and be branded as anti-Semitic – a label commonly used by the lobby to silence dissent.

The power of AIPAC is further evident by statements from its former executive, Steven Rosen, who famously boasted that he could easily gather signatures of support from numerous senators on any given issue simply by writing it down on a napkin during a Senate gathering. This level of influence and mobilization reflects AIPAC's deeply entrenched role in shaping congressional attitudes and decisions.

In 2009, following a conflict between “Israel” and Hamas, the UN Human Rights Council released a report alleging potential war crimes by “Israel”. AIPAC condemned the report as “rigged,” leading to an AIPAC-backed resolution in the House a month later, which garnered the support of 344 members – many of whom had not even read the report. Former congressional representative Brian Baird recounted that the report accurately reflected the realities he observed in Gaza. Yet, he witnessed colleagues voting for the resolution without meaningful engagement with the evidence.

Having entered Congress in 1996, Brian Baird revealed that he had been instructed on how to engage with AIPAC to secure their endorsement. Their support proved pivotal in his electoral victory. Baird remarked on a troubling trend in which House representatives often prioritize AIPAC’s stance over the interests of the United States, stating, “During key votes, the prevailing question seems to be ‘How is AIPAC going to score this?’ rather than ‘What is right for the United States?’” He expressed concerns about a systemic dismissal of the US's legitimacy in questioning AIPAC’s influence, reflecting a broader view that Congress members are often viewed as being for sale, leading to self-censorship and complicity.

John Yarmuth, a member of Congress from Kentucky, also commented on AIPAC’s influence, noting its considerable clout among Republicans and the pressure some Democrats feel to align with its interests. He sees growing discontent among members regarding actions taken to appease AIPAC, which he believes do not necessarily serve US interests. He concluded with a poignant reminder of the oath all elected officials take, suggesting that AIPAC’s demands sometimes conflict with their responsibilities to their constituents and the nation.

Conclusion

The transformation of Christian attitudes towards Jews and the “State of ‘Israel’”, combined with the rise of AIPAC, has created a powerful alliance that continues to shape US foreign policy in the Middle East. What began as a religious shift, rooted in a re-interpretation of biblical texts, has evolved into a political force that wields considerable influence in Washington, D.C. As the recent conflicts in Gaza demonstrate, the question of US support for “Israel” remains as pertinent as ever, and understanding the historical and political dynamics behind this support is crucial for any meaningful discussion of US policy in the region.