Biblical foreign policy --the unholy alliance of bloodthirsty Christians and Washington warmongers

Who has legitimate rights to the land of Palestine?  According to scripture, there is no debate:  God gave Palestine to his chosen people, the Jews. 

So says John Hagee, Christian fundamentalist and founder of an organization called Christians United for Israel (CUFI).  Like all good Bible thumping fundamentalist preachers, Hagee reads the Bible literally:

"But the Palestinians have never owned the land. I want you to hear this very clearly. The Land of Israel was given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their seed in an eternal covenant. It is recorded in the book of Genesis. The boundaries are there in the Bible. And that land belongs to the Jewish people today, tomorrow and forever because it is their covenant by the word of God."

Arab Muslims would argue that they too are followers of Abraham and descended from one of Abraham's sons.  But that misses the larger issue raised by the creation of groups like CUFI:  Who decided that we should base our foreign policy on the Bible? 

Make no mistake.  Religion and politics are thoroughly intertwined when it comes to American policy in the Middle East, particularly in the unflagging American support of Israel by politicians in both the Republican and Democratic parties. 

Consider those in attendance at a recent Hagee-moderated CUFI rally in Washington.  Speakers included Joe Lieberman, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Roy Blunt, and a message from George W. Bush praising the Christian -Israeli  alliance for "laying the foundations for peace."  When Bush says peace, he means war --in Iraq, and soon Iran.  Support for the war in Iraq and the upcoming war in Iran is something CUFI and the politicos in attendance are in complete agreement on.

It appears unlikely that a Democratic successor to Bush would alter the U.S. policy of support for Israel and hostility to Iran, certainly not if Hillary is the next President.  And probably not if Obama or Edwards prevail.  All three have expressed support for our current  policy vis a vis Israel and Iran. (Well, maybe not so much Edwards.)

Why would born again Christians align themselves with the Jews they believe are condemned to suffer for their refusal to accept Jesus as their Savior?  Simple.  The road to the Rapture runs through Jerusalem.  The second coming of Christ, according to their reading of the Bible, can only occur after Israel is restored and the temple rebuilt.  Therefore the enemies of Israel, the Palestinians, Iran, and virtually every Arab  country in the region must be dealt with harshly. 

Particularly Iran.  A piece  entitled "Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism" published in the Nation lays it out clearly:

"For Hagee and for CUFI, all roads lead to a 'nuclear showdown: with Iran. Diplomacy would only make God angry.' As Hagee warns in Jerusalem Countdown, 'Those who follow a policy of opposition to God's purposes will receive the swift and severe judgment of God without limitation.' "

Again I ask, since when do we base our foreign policy on the rantings of religious extremists like John Hagee?  The man obviously has clout in Washington.  Listen to what leading warmonger and apologist for Israel, Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said in his remarks to CUFI:

"[Hagee] is an 'Ish Elokim,' a man of God and those words really do fit him; and, I'd add something else, like Moses he's become the leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the promised land."

We can only hope that Lieberman's colleagues in Congress, and our next President, turn a deaf ear to the "religious" mutterings of "Holy Joe" and those like him who help craft American foreign policy. 
 

Comments

[marcia]

More like Holy Crap! There are some scary people running this country.

[Craig]

The problem is far larger than Hagee and Holy Joe. The problem is religion in general.

Over the last two millenia (and longer) most wars have been fought in the name of religion or because of religious differences. The list is long, but just to name a few: the militant expansion of the Holy (note Holy) Roman Empire; the militant expansion of Islam; the Crusades; the 100 Years War; the Irish Civil War; the Middle East wars since 1948; and the current threat from Al Qaeda.

If you're anti-war, the logical solution is not just to oppose nutcases like Hagee, but to get rid of all religions.

As Christopher Hitchens says in the title of his book, "God is not great."

[Steve R.]

Neocon atheists like Hitchens and Sam Harris use atheism as a cudgel to bludgeon Muslims. They are certainly not anti-war. Both have been very supportive of the Bush/Cheney war agenda, and Harris does some amazing logical contortions to justify torture in his book The End of Faith.

As an atheist myself, I find myself agreeing with their rejection of belief in the supernatural, but repulsed by their pro-war stances.

[Terry]

When I wrote this post I expected some response from you, Craig, maybe something intelligent and analytical. What I get instead is your all too predictable rant against religion. Ban religion and there'll be no more war blah blah blah. What utter nonsense!

I don't know where you've been for the last century, but I can't think of any major war in that time period that had anything remotely to do with religion, not even the illegal aggression in Iraq, which is all about oil and extending American power and securing markets and "promoting democracy." Islamists are merely the bogeymen used to justify that aggression.

Me, I'm a Jesus kind of guy, meaning I tend toward the pacifism Jesus advocated. You know, "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies", that sort of thing. I have little patience for the "true believers", whether religious or secular, who countenance violence to force people to live according to their doctrines.

Hagee is an extreme example of the religious "true believer", while Stalin and his successors (including the warmonger Hitchens) exemplify the certitude of atheism and materialism. I think you'd be hard pressed to disprove that, of late, greater atrocities have been committed in the pursuit of the secular, rather than the religious, ideal.

[marcia]

Terry, While we may see it as a war for oil...the Islamists see it as a Jihad.

[Craig]

Jesus is a crutch. You don't need Jesus or Buddha or Mohammed or any other prophet or false god to love thy neighbor.

As for wars fought wholly or partially in the name of religion or because of religious differences over the past century, where have you been?

I'll give you WWI, which had no significant religious content as far as I can recall. WWII, of course gave us the Holocaust. Many others have had more explicit religious bases or origins.

A partial list:

-- The Irish Civil War (Protestants against Catholics)

-- All the wars from 1948 to the present between Israel and its neighbors

-- The Sudanese Civil War (Phase I began in 1957. Phase II broke out in 1985 when the Khartoum government tried to impose Sharia law on the non-Muslim southern region.)

-- The war in Kashmir between surrogates of Islamic Pakistan and Hindu India

-- The insurrection in Russia between Muslim Chechnyans and the Russian government

-- The 8-year war between Iraq (Sunni-dominated at the time) and Iran (Shiia)

-- The current civil war between Sunnis and Shiias in Iraq

-- The ongoing attempt by insurrectionists in Algeria to overthrow the government and impose a strict Muslim government.

-- The civil war in Lebanon (Shiia Hezbollah versus secular Muslims and Maronite Christians)

-- The civil war in Sri Lanka (Buddhists versus Hindus)

Some scholars argue that the Cold War was also religious in that Communism was an ideology that had many of the same attributes as a religion. It was ideological, organized, messianic, and expansionist. I refer you to the 1949 book by Arthur Koestler entitled "The God That Failed." The book documents how he and other communists lost faith -- yes faith -- in communism.

-- And, of course, the current biggie -- the worldwide terrorist attacks of Al-Qaida and its affiliates since at least 1993. Al-Qaida is not associated with a specific country, but its announced objective is to establish an Islamic caliphate.

You can make all kinds of arguments about how Israel, Israeli policies, the U.S., and U.S. policies helped give birth to Al-Qaida. But even if these are true or partially true, you have to be willfully deaf or biased to ignore the fact that AQ explicitly justifies its attacks in the name of Islam.

Ban all religions.

[Terry]

No, but you probably do need Jesus to accept the "unreasonable" suggestion to "love your enemies", which is what I wrote.

None of the biggies --the ones with the most casualties-- of the 20th century had anything to do with religion, even WWII. It's a stretch to attribute Hitler's hatred of the Jews to any religious sentiment. The others --Korea and Vietnam-- were fought to stymie the spread of communism.

Speaking of which, you confirm what I wrote about the certitude of atheism in turning communism into a religion. All the true belief "isms", including secularism, have characteristics of institutionalized religion.

Humans are by nature religious. Why else would anyone love his neighbor?