Building Broad Coalitions

Ben Lorber: We understand Christian Zionism as referring to a movement among Christians, mostly charismatic and evangelical, whose interpretation of the Bible mandates their political support for expansionist, exclusionary, and anti-democratic policies in the state of Israel. Christian Zionism can’t be fully separated from the Christian Right as a whole. Many of the earliest leaders of the Christian Right, such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and many others, were Christian Zionists and saw their support for the Israeli Right as of a piece with their broader assault against LGBTQ communities—and their slow project to roll back the separation of church and state and promote theocracy in the U.S. 

Christian Zionism, as a political force in the U.S, rose alongside the growth of the Christian Right since the 1970s and 80s. And today its influence over U.S. support for Israel, and particularly the U.S. Right, is massive. One of the most prominent Christian Zionist organizations, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), currently claims over 10 million members. And just for reference, that’s about two and a half million more people than there are Jews in the United States. It’s estimated there are tens of millions of Christian Zionists in the U.S., many more millions worldwide. And the movement is rapidly growing in the Global South. 

The Trump administration provided us some of the most vivid examples of the continuing political influence of Christian Zionism. Vice President Mike Pence was an avowed Christian Zionist. So was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Trump enjoyed close relationships with many prominent Christian Zionists in his Evangelical Advisory Board; the Israeli Ambassador [under Trump,] David Friedman, enjoyed close relationships with Christian Zionists. Their Christian Zionist influence was a major factor in many of the most hard-right U.S. foreign policy Middle East decisions during the Trump administration, such as moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, Trump’s cancelation of the Iran nuclear deal, and many others. In a nutshell, the Christian Zionist movement supports the expansionist and colonial agenda of the Israeli Right, the agenda that favors permanent occupation, a permanent apartheid system, denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return. And in general, Christian Zionism favors the perpetuation of the status quo of political instability, escalation, and conflict in the Middle East. 

The reason that the Christian Zionist movement orients in this direction is directly tied into their political theology. Many of the leaders of the Christian Zionist movement, such as the leader of Christians United for Israel, Pastor John Hagee, ascribe to an apocalyptic End Times theology in which it’s necessary for the Middle East to be plunged into constant war. And it’s necessary, in his vision, for all Jews to move “back” to the land of Israel in order to further End Times processes that will end with the end of the world, the return of the Christian messiah, the evaporation of much of the earth into war and bloodshed, and the rapture of the remnant of the Christian faithful to heaven. And at the conclusion of this End Times scenario, the Jews in Israel, the Palestinian Muslims in Israel, all non-Christians basically, will be forced to either convert to Christianity or to perish. Not a pretty picture for the end of the world envisioned by many Christian Zionist leaders. 

This isn’t a theology that’s explicitly articulated by all of the millions of Christians who support Israel in this country. There are many complex reasons why many Christians support the state of Israel and identify as a Zionist in the U.S. and around the world. But nonetheless, this disturbing End Times eschatology is a major theological influence for many of the most powerfully positioned leaders and thinkers of the Christian Zionist movement, and often throughout the broader Christian Right. And it’s very concerning for the prospects of peace in the U.S. and the Middle East and around the world. 

Christian Zionism, first and foremost, is anti-Palestinian. The movement is a key international driver and supporter of the current status quo in Israel-Palestine, which translates to historic and present-day loss of land for indigenous Palestinians, which translates to a continuation of occupation and apartheid policies, which contributes to the inability of Palestinian refugees to return home, and which contributes to the perpetuation of a status quo that blocks any possibility of a just peace in the region. 

It’s also deeply Islamophobic. Christian Zionism, like much of the Christian Right, is motivated by a clash of civilizations mentality, that frames the “Judeo-Christian West” as locked in a perpetual conflict with what they imagine to be the civilization of global Islam—which they demonize as violent, inherently warlike, demonic, and basically the manifestation of evil, which is echoed in many of the theological proclamations of leaders like Pastor John Hagee, as well as Christian Right leaders in the present, and especially since the opening of the U.S. War on Terror. 

Perhaps the most counterintuitive aspect of their ideology is that Christian Zionism is also highly antisemitic. And this can be confusing to some because Christian Zionists loudly proclaim their support for the state of Israel and for the Jewish people, and their opposition to antisemitism. And obviously, support for Israel does not translate to support for the Jewish people, because Jews hold a variety of positions related to the state of Israel. This notion frequently expressed by Christian Zionists, that Jews basically are or should be loyal to the state of Israel, is itself antisemitic. Beyond the Christian Zionist theology I laid out, you can tell it doesn’t really end well for the Jews, or anyone who doesn’t adhere to their fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. Many describe Christian Zionism as “philosemitic.” They claim to vociferously love Jews and love Israel, and yet really what they love is a fetishized image of the role that Jews play in their broader political theology. And speaking as a Jewish person, I can say these are not the kind of allies that we need. 

Lastly, I just want to touch on why it is important to build broad coalitions to confront Christian Zionism as part of our work confronting the Christian Right. We need all hands on deck. We need broad, tight coalitions to confront the Christian Right, coalitions that can pull us together rather than apart. The more consistency we can build in our understanding of the broader Christian Right and its impact, both domestically and abroad, the more likely that we are to be able to hold together powerful coalitions to defend multiracial democracy and block the growth of theocratic authoritarianism in the US and around the world. 

Christian Zionism is really not separable from the broader Christian Right, and many of the same Christian Zionist leaders and organizations are also leading fights against abortion, fights against trans and queer folks and their rights, as part of a larger theocratic authoritarian agenda. We at PRA understand Christian Zionism, and we also understand the Israeli Right, as part of a rising global tide of theocratic authoritarianism and anti-democratic movements. And we envision the powerful movements in which Jewish communities, Christian communities of conscience, Muslim communities, basically everyone who cares about preserving a multiracial democracy—we all have a stake in confronting the Christian Right and Christian Zionism, and we need powerful, durable coalitions. And part of that is identifying common threats. We believe that identifying and making visible the Christian Zionist movement as a common threat to all of our communities can be a really, really powerful way to build the coalitions that we need to make it through these dark times.

Jonathan Brenneman: I want to jump off from one of the main points that Ben made, which is just how massive Christian Zionism is. It’s estimated that 20% of the U.S. population—that’s not the U.S. Christian population, the entire U.S. population—20% believe basic Christian Zionist tenets, like that the current nation-state of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. This makes Christian Zionists by far the largest “pro-Israel” bloc in the country and, I would argue, the most influential one as well. For a long time I thought that was a pretty controversial statement, and took a long time to back up that claim that Christian Zionists are one of the most influential groups in America pushing for “pro-Israel” policies. But then the former Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer actually made the point for me in an interview, saying, “People have to understand the backbone of Israel’s support in the United States is the evangelical Christians. That’s the backbone. And it’s true because of numbers and also because of their passionate and unequivocal support for Israel. Look at numbers.” 

I want to talk a little bit about how broadly-held these ideas are and how old they are as well, because Christian Zionism has been harming Palestinians basically since the beginning. It was actually a Christian Zionist in the mid-1800s who coined the dehumanizing and colonial phrase “a land without a people for a people without a land.” That quote comes 50 years before Theodor Herzl would found political Zionism. And it was a Christian Zionist, Arthur Balfour, himself a virulent antisemite, who gave the backing of the British Empire to the fledgling Zionist movement to colonize Palestine. And today, Christian Zionists continue to funnel massive amounts of funding directly to Israeli settlements, organizations like Christian Friends of Jewish Communities being a key example. 

The influence is even more pronounced on the ideological level; basically how the US in general looks at the so-called Middle East. This racist Christian mythology is inextricably tied to many other meta-narratives in the US., like Manifest Destiny, but with ‘civilized’ Israelis that are good and ‘barbaric’ Palestinians that are bad. Or like the September 11th narratives, where Israel was like a wall against the evil Muslims. All of this is predicated on fitting the understanding of Palestine into a racist framework, rather than engaging with the realities of what’s happening on the ground. 

It’s deeply tied with Christian nationalism. It’s basically the foreign policy of Christian nationalism. Within a Christian Zionist conception, Muslims and Arabs—and rarely do they ever differentiate between the two—inevitably must play the role of the enemies of God’s will. And Christian Zionism’s virulent anti-Muslim bigotry has influenced U.S. administrations: not just their policies towards Palestinians, but towards other Muslim nations. Now all of this has led to the U.S.’s unconditional support for Israel’s most brutal treatment of Palestinians, which at this very moment includes holding [an estimated] 500 Palestinian children in military prison [each year]. Currently, Israel is forcibly displacing nearly 2,000 people out of their homes and off of their farmlands in Masafer Yatta, and putting an entire population of 2 million people in Gaza on a starvation diet, which has left half a million children suffering with anemia. 

And the U.S. continues to say nothing, largely because the narrative around Palestine and Israel is influenced by a Christian Zionist idea that Israel is infallible. Because even though “pro-Israel” evangelicals seem obsessed with Israel, they know about as much about the political realities I just talked about as the average American, which is to say hardly any at all. This is a key and dangerous gap, as U.S. foreign policy towards Israel is a key part of the evangelical political ideology. This gap of knowledge is exploited to perpetuate Christian Zionism: the less people actually know about what’s really happening, the easier it is to warp the situation to fit their ideological story. Preachers can preach that what’s happening in Israel was preordained in the Bible so long as no one knows how to call them on the fact that it’s not. In this way, Christian Zionism functions like every other religious extremism: it feeds off insularity and ignorance. 

Christian Zionism is not actually a very deeply held belief. It’s one of the more peripheral of the Christian nationalist ideologies. So when people are challenged on this, there’s actually some space when they are confronted with the truth. I know it’s hard to believe in this day and age that when people are confronted with the truth, they might actually shift their thinking. But we’ve seen it be effective because, though it’s so broadly held, it’s not very deeply held at all. It’s a very shallow idea.

One of the ways that I personally saw this was I helped set up a speaking tour for two Palestinian Christians who specifically wanted to go into Christian Zionist spaces and speak. We got them to speak with a group of local Christians United for Israel leaders in Ohio, and after an hour and a half lunch they had convinced all of them to change their minds. Palestinian Christians have really been leading the charge on challenging Christian Zionism. 

A lot of denominational groups have been challenging [Christian Zionism] within their church structure. And that has been fruitful. But I think a point that really needs to be made is, this needs to be outside of just a Christian conversation. Christian Zionism and, more broadly, Christian nationalism affect us all. And if people who are working for justice, and particularly working for Palestinian rights, don’t understand the amount of power and influence that Christian Zionists have, they’re going to be missing a key dynamic in what is perpetuating the oppression of Palestinians. 

Yousef Munayyer: I want to remind us of an unfortunately horrific incident which took place a few years back in 2018, which was the attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. One of the things that struck me about that act of terror was the perpetrator behind the attack was motivated by a very particular ideology, and he made it clear that he was targeting Jews. But one of the reasons why he sought to target Jews and sought to target that particular synagogue was because it had a relationship with an organization called HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, which did a lot of work to resettle refugees, including refugees from Muslim countries and from Africa and elsewhere. And this fit into one of these virulent antisemitic stereotypes: conspiracy theories that Jews are trying to undermine White Christian, American society by these subversive methods. They don’t have the numbers themselves to do it, but they want to bring in people that are not White, not Christian, and don’t fit the sort of traditional mold that the Christian Right wants to uphold. And in doing so, weaken America from within and so on and so forth. 

This event reminded me of how important it was to view the threat of antisemitism, the threat of racism, and the threat of Islamophobia as a unified threat that must be also confronted in unison. Approaching it in any other way is really going to divide all of us who are threatened by those forces, and going to weaken our effort to do so. 

There is this sense that Israel, in many ways, is held up as this sort of ethno-nationalist prototype of what America can and should be: that there is a space that is for Jews, and America should support it; and America should be a space that is for White Christians. And it should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that it remains that way and that White Christians continue to dominate in America, as Jews dominate in Israel and Palestine. 

One thing that I would add to the point about the Christian Right as the major force behind “pro-Israel” politics in the United States: I think that this is correct, certainly in terms of numbers. There’s no doubt that the Israeli government understands the importance of the Christian Right in this country for maintaining “pro-Israel” policies. At the same time, I think it’s important to note the way in which this plays into partisan politics here in the United States. When we look, for example, at religiosity in the United States, that’s actually not the [only] factor that correlates with support for Israel. When we look at, for example, Republicans who are regular churchgoers versus Democrats who are regular churchgoers, you see a huge drop off in support for Israel among that same demographic. The partisan divide is very real here. 

And the reason I want to mention this is because I think it plays into strategy and organizing when we think about how we create change, and how we confront the Christian Right on these issues. This partisan divide shows us there is a lot more space to seek accountability for human rights violations of Palestinians among the Democratic side of the aisle. And the exact opposite is true among Republicans. Among Democrats, the validators and the influencers are primarily still in the American Jewish community and establishment American Jewish organizations, which hold a “pro-Israel” line. And there is a great amount of tension here because, at the same time, we know that the American Jewish community overwhelmingly aligns itself with democratic values, votes democratic, and is not supportive of most of the other policies that are supported by the Christian Right. We are seeing in recent years that tension play out in divides among Democrats around support for Israel. Of course, among Republicans, there is no divide whatsoever.

All that being said, there are interesting trends that we’ve seen in public opinion among evangelical Christians in recent years, particularly among the younger demographics within that community, that show declining support for Israel. So even among this hardcore constituency, we are starting to see some shifts. It is important to note that there is a softening there that could, at some point in the future, create opportunities to work to move Republicans on these issues. 

One of the places where we see these alliances take shape is among the repressive organizing and tactics that we’ve seen directed at Palestinian activists and people who support Palestinian rights activism here in the United States. And that’s where this antisemitism piece comes in. 

I will start chronologically with the earliest wave: anti-BDS legislation. There was a wave of legislation at the state level that essentially sought to coerce, intimidate, and repress Palestinian rights activism—boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, time-honored and valued tactics of social movements across the world—here in the United States, in dozens of states in this country. And we began to see the proliferation of these laws at the state level in the middle of the last decade. Around 2014, 2015, we started to see it spread broadly. When you look to see where these were coming from, who were the actors behind them, what you find is that it was a network of right-wing evangelical legislators that were active in passing these laws in various states. Often these laws were of cookie cutter variety or template laws that were circulated through an organization called ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. And this same network that supported these anti-BDS laws had previously supported a wave of state-level laws in 2011/2012 that responded to the Obama administration’s calls for a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. Their resolutions then were not focused on BDS, but were focused on supporting Israel because it was God’s gift and God’s call to support Israel, and there’s no such thing as occupation, and so on and so forth. 

What we are seeing today is a continuation of these anti-BDS efforts, but also the proliferation of a new weapon, which is an effort to reframe antisemitism in a way that targets Palestine activism and targets speech in support of Palestinian rights. This new weapon takes the shape of something called the IHRA—the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance–definition of antisemitism, which includes within it various examples of antisemitism, which are then construed or misconstrued to fit various forms of Palestinian political expression. 

One of these examples is that claiming that Israel’s establishment was a racist act is antisemitism, or claiming that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist is an example of antisemitism. So if you are a Palestinian and you call for the rights of Palestinian refugees to be respected, as is enshrined in international law and in United Nations resolutions, well, then under this definition, because you’re calling for refugees to come back into Israel, and that could mean a change in the demographic balance, and a demographic balance where Jews dominate in Israel is required for the existence of a Jewish majority and therefore required for the existence of a Jewish state, then you’re an antisemite because you’re [supposedly] denying the Jewish people a right to self-determination. 

Some of the biggest supporters of this definition, and of the adoption of this definition by legislators and institutions, are members of the Christian Right. There are these alliances being formed between right-wing Zionist forces and right-wing Christian forces who are giddy at the opportunity to displace responsibility for antisemitism on Palestinians, so as not to have to address the antisemitism within their own ranks. If you take a brief survey of some of the far-right parties in Europe who are also big supporters of this IHRA definition of antisemitism, [I think you’d] find plenty of examples of antisemitism and the type of racist, xenophobic, nativist policies and positions that really are apiece with antisemitic conspiracy theories. 

This just shows us how central these forces are, not just in targeting Palestinian rights, Palestinian speech, and Palestinian activism, but also targeting the kind of future so many of us want to see—one that is pluralistic, one that is accepting, one that is actually democratic. The implications of these policies and these positions are not just anti-Palestinian. They’re anti a lot of things, and a lot of people, that aren’t White Christian males.