White House Relies On Christian Zionists For Stance On Israel
The Village Voice reports,
It was an e-mail we weren’t meant to see. Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that “the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level”—this to a group whose representative in Israel believed herself to have been attacked by witchcraft unleashed by proximity to a volume of Harry Potter. Most of all, apparently, we’re not supposed to know the National Security Council’s top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.
But now we know.
I wonder how all the folks cheering through Bush’s speech to AIPAC today would feel about this… (c/o Mitch)
New Voices just did a cover piece on this. http://newvoices.org/cgi-bin/articlepage.cgi?id=216
run for the hills, the sky is falling!! xtians have entered the whitehouse, talked to jews, talked to non jews, been supportive of israel, all for xtian theological reasons: oh the horror, oh the inhumanity!!!
considering that christian zionists are helping israel because they need us there for their god to come and kill us all, i think we have pretty good reason to be suspicious of their support, and to refuse it.
jerry falwell, recipient of the 1981 jabotinsky award, for his service to israel: “the antichrist is alive and is a jewish male.”
“considering that christian zionists are helping israel because they need us there for their god to come and kill us all”
We shall cross that bridge when the time (jesus) comes. Until then, israel can use any friend it can find.
>israel can use any friend it can find.
wonder if that is what the cia said when they trained bin laden.
I think I’d come across here first, so many have probably read it already.
Israel may need all the friends it can get, but even my mother told me you don’t make friends with everyone, just because they’re available. Bush and his ilk are seemingly determined to throwing the entire world into turmoil. What sort of friends are these to have?
weird. the link i tried to embed didn’t show up…..
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12174
whould have followed “I think I’d come across….” in my comment above.
Schneider wrote:
“>israel can use any friend it can find.
wonder if that is what the cia said when they trained bin laden.”
Why would the cia say that they can use any friend they could find? I only said it with regard to israel because israel existence is being threatened and has the support of very few. Is the CIA being threatened and so lacking support that they could use any friend they can find? No, which is why it was a stupid to compare the cia to israel.
Mitch wrote:
“Israel may need all the friends it can get, but even my mother told me you don’t make friends with everyone, just because they’re available. Bush and his ilk are seemingly determined to throwing the entire world into turmoil. What sort of friends are these to have?”
It all boils to to a cost-benefit analysis: Normally, if something that can help you in the short run but can harm you in the long run, it may not be wise to accept such assistance. However, if you are in such dire need of help that you are struggling to just “make it through” the current situation then it isnt rational to worry about the long term effects, because without accepting support, you may not last long enough to find out.
Now im not saying that israel is about to be destroyed, but the situation is bad enough that if they turn away the support they are currently receiving it could cause irreversible damage to the state of israel.
You may choose to disagree with me and think that israel isnt in such bad shape, or that or the the risk (cost) of such support far outweighs the benefit. However, stating that israel shouldnt accept this support simply because there is a risk that something bad may possibly happen down the road, is just being dangerously cautious.
Jimbo-
I think I do agree with you on the gravity of the situation Israel finds herself in, but I also firmly believe that in this case the cost most definitely outweighs the benefit. Bush is either a fool or a madman. Israel should not align herself with the likes of him. We have Kings and Chronicles to look to for our own Biblical history of faulty alliances…
If anyone has actually read Revelations, and has a fuller view of the “endgame scenario” in which the Christian Zionists believe, will see that it’s not simply a matter of “when messiah comes we’ll figure it out.” Before any of that, there’s massive global destabilization, and all the nations of the world march on Israel. So, yes, they want us to have Judea, but they also want all the armies of the world to attack Israel as well. This alone should preclude any short-term alliance with such people. And the horrifying aspect is that the Bush administration seems bound and determined to set the entire Middle East ablaze. Yes, there’s always a time where you have to “fish or cut bait,” but is that really the confrontation that would serve Israel, or the entire world for that matter, best? I don’t hink so.
Shalom Y’all
mc
mitch, so its your belief that bush is supporting israel now so that he can later marshall all the armies of the world against israel to destroy her (when all he would have to do now is leave the middle east to the ministrations of the un who would even sooner destroy israel).mmmmm first we have mobius channeling the view that nich berg was killed by the us, now we have the mitch conspiracy theory — a lot of aliens are doing a lot of broadcasting through those gold fillings!
You read a great deal into the unwritten Avi. I ascribed no such aims to Bush. The fact that he caters to the Christian Right is well documented, however. His team makes decisions based almost solely upon political opportunities and threats and little else.
For the record, i have no gold fillings and own no tinfoil hat. But you, AVi, have you not yet grown tired of the taste of the Kool-Aid?
If you read the Left Behind series, or check out raptureready.com — these people really do think a huge army needs to march on Israel in order for the battle of Armageddon to happen. Pointing out that they believe this hardly requires alien transmissions. Whether they themselves are recieving such transmissions is another matter.
Mitch (and sam, i think)-
For you to believe that the costs outweigh the benefits, you must believe that bush/relgious right, have a realistic chance of actually implementing there plan one day. Which i dont think they really do. The odds of that actually happening are just so low, that it cannot be considered a legitimate “cost” in the equation. (if you have evidence to the contrary, i would like to hear).
For you to think that bush would actually try to do such a thing sounds more like political bias than reasonable criticism. Just remember, the people who have been pushing the last few wars, and who strongly favor israel (rums, cheney, wolfowitz, etc.) are not part of the religious right, and do not proscribe to Christian beliefs.
In all likelihood, the reason you guys dont want help from bush and Co, is simply cause you dont agree with him politically.
No. I don’t understand why you would think I’m attributing this “let’s get the End Times rolling” strategy to Bush and company. Do you think it’s lost on me that most of his neoconservative advisors are Jews and (in their own hearts and minds I’m sure they believe this to be true) supporters of Israel? No. What I mean to say about the “Christian Zionists” is that they have a not-so-hidden agenda that, in my opinion, conflicts with what would be best for Israel. What I mean to say about Bush is that his administration has willfully screwed up the world in a fashion I never could have imagined, and continue to do so. I also mean to say, about Bush and his administration, that they are making decisions based on internal US political goals. You (and Avi) have merely filled in the spaces between my comments as you saw fit. That doesn’t make you right.
be peace friends.
Mitch, your posts are beginning to sound incoherent. I cant even tell what your point is.
You first wrote:
“Before any of that, there’s massive global destabilization, and all the nations of the world march on Israel. So, yes, they want us to have Judea, but they also want all the armies of the world to attack Israel as well. This alone should preclude any short-term alliance with such people. And the horrifying aspect is that the BUSH administration seems bound and determined to set the entire Middle East ablaze.”
You then wrote:
“I don’t understand why you would think I’m attributing this “let’s get the End Times rolling” strategy to Bush and company.”
If you didnt want attribute the “lets get the end times rolling” strategy to bush, you shouldnt have written the above statement. Im sure you know what you are trying to say, but you seem to have a difficult time getting it across on paper (computer). Think your argument through carefully, and only then start writing.
I have one question for you: Why should we fear the Christian zionists and turn away their help if there is no chance that they will be able to implement their end of days strategy?
Jimbo, dig…in English, we have these things called periods. They separate one thought from another. As in, yes, the Chirstian Zionists expect and believe “massive global destabilization, and all the nations of the world march on Israel” being necessary precursors to their savior’s return, and so “yes, they want us to have Judea, but they also want all the armies of the world to attack Israel as well.” We follow that period with a (separate and distinct) statement about Bush’s foreign policy decisions.
I stand by both of the thoughts in your first pasting, and the singular thought in your second. I’m crazy flexible like that.
And, just for the record, I don’t “fear” CZ’s at all, not for their beliefs nor for what they hope to see occur on the world’s stage. But what is “their help,” exactly? The money they send to settlements? Money and what it buys? Is that it? Is that how we, as Jews, should determine who is friend or ally?
now i’m done. take care.
mc (Massively Coherent)
Your arguments are indeed incoherent.
Your wrote:
“So, yes, they want us to have Judea, but they also want all the armies of the world to attack Israel as well. This alone should preclude any short-term alliance with such people. >>> (emphasis added) the horrifying aspect is that the Bush administration seems bound and determined to set the entire Middle East ablaze.”
When you start a sentence with with “and” it usually means youre continuing the previous thought. It also doesnt make any sense to start a new argument in the middle of a paragraph, without any indication of such.
Mitch, do you always randomly throw in statements regarding your displeasure with George Bush in every unrelated argument you make? What was that bush statement even doing there if it was unrelated?
The final reason why you are difficult to understand is because you keep on changing your argument. First you claim that israel shouldnt take the help of CZs because of their true motives. Now, after i pointed out that there is little reason to fear them, you completely change your argument and say they shouldnt take help because their help isnt really that useful (“But what is “their help,” exactly? The money they send to settlements? Money and what it buys? Is that it?”)
Your arguments and reasoning are a complete mess. You do a disservice to your cause, and apologize to Sam (who, although i disagree with, still makes sense)for lumping him together with mitch.
Whoops
the sentence i quoted should read “AND (emphasis added) the horrifying aspect is that the Bush…”
You’re funny Jimbo.
When you start a sentence with “and,” it usually means you’re violating a basic rule of grammar, and I did that.
You’re right. I should return the awards won and money earned from my writing, give back my post-graduate degrees and beg your forgiveness, Jimbo, as the ultimate authority on exposition. I’ll tell my students, as well, that they should ignore everything I’ve taught them, even if they too have become practicing professionals. I’ll send them your way for your tutelage, sir.
please.
however, i do see where clarity may be an issue in the comment you quote, and i should address it. What I meant to imply was, on top of all of the CZ aims, and how they influence American foreign policy decisions (because the Bush administration and the GOP in general court the evangelical vote, which is a very substantial bloc), add to this situation (which is what I should have written, rather than “and”) the fact that Bush, for whatever reason (oil, money, geopolitical power, ideology, or even, as he might see such, true and faithful religious belief), seems hellbent, whether intentionally or as an unfortunate byproduct of a faulty strategy, on destabilizing the entire globe (the Caribbean and Africa in addition to the Middle East).
Is that more clear? If not, I’m afraid I give up.
Oh, i take it back. I didnt know you had students, and won awards. I guess i was foolish for pointing how garbled and incoherent your previous post are. I hope you would never accept a paper from your students in which two unrelated arguments are jumbled together in a small paragraph, without any support for either.
Even your reponse when you tout your credentials is incoherent.
You start by saying that “im too funny.” Next you write how i was correct to say you were unclear. Followed by your sarcastic rant touting your credentials (which, btw, dont sound that impressive) and mocking me for claiming you were unclear. Finally, you end your post agreeing with me that you were unclear in your earlier post.
So which one is it? Am i ridiculous for criticizing the clarity of your posts? (especially considering your impressive credentials) Or was i correct, and your earlier posts did need clarification?
The worst part is, you have changed your argument once again.
You first wrote:
“As in, yes, the Christian Zionists expect and believe “massive global destabilization, and all the nations of the world march on Israel” being necessary precursors to their savior’s return, and so “yes, they want us to have Judea, but they also want all the armies of the world to attack Israel as well.” We follow that period with a (separate and distinct) statement about Bush’s foreign policy decisions.”
Now youre saying:
“What I meant to imply was, on top of all of the CZ aims, and how they influence American foreign policy decisions (because the Bush administration and the GOP in general court the evangelical vote, which is a very substantial bloc)…”
So clarify this for me once again, are the CZa goals “separate and distinct” from bush’s polices, or do they heavily influence bush’s policies?
Look, im not saying this to be confrontational
*WHoops again, the last part got cut off*
Look, im not saying this to be confrontational, but all your posts thus far have really been unclear and inconsistent.
Gotta love those Christian Zionists…
Yup. They support Israel – and they do so fervently despite the fact that with respect to domestic issues, mainstream Jews do not see eye to eye with them.
Mainstream Jewish organizations support a woman’s right to choose, CZs definitely don’t and yet they still support Israel. Mainstream Jewish organizations are fervent advocates for a continued separation of church and state, CZs definitely don’t and yet they still support Israel. I could go on and on. The point is that CZs HAVE to support Israel, (it’s part of their religion after all) – this despite the fact that American Jews can hardly be said to be supporters of the CZ domestic agenda.
So if there is a friendship, it’s definitely one sided. That sucks if you are a fundamentalist Christian but where’s the downside for the Jews?
I mean these people keep voting for Republicans too, and while its gotten them lots of lip service, what major policy shifts have fundamentalist Christians gotten from successive Republican administrations? Pretty much nada. Abortions are still available in the US, Church and state are pretty much separate etc. etc. The Republicans know that the fundamentalists can only vote for Republicans. I know too that the Christian Zionists have to support the State of Israel. They can be my friend all they like, but I will never be their friend, and thats fine with me.
I think the problem is that they do influence the Bush administration, and that they believe the end-times are so imminent that it makes no sense to even try to achieve peace in the Middle East. So, they tend to support various solutions that push peace farther away, and they don’t care about people’s actual ruined lives. That’s what I see as the problem.
Thats a good point Sam.
The ultimate goal is peace. However, i dont agree with you that the current proposed solutions (returning all west bank) will actually improve the situation (for either side) or bring peace, so i dont really mind pushing “peace” further away. But i do agree with your above assessment of these Christian groups.
Oh, and sam, why arent you posting on protocols anymore?
Oh, and sam, why arent you posting on protocols anymore?
Protocols? That’s another blog, right? I think you’re thinking of a different sam.