JustASC

A colleague, in light of Hagee’s remarks, is baffled by the Jewish embrace of Christian Zionism. She writes:

What I don’t understand is the shortsightedness of those who so enthusiastically and uncritically accept the embrace of the pro-Israel evangelists. Don’t they see that the evangelists’ hunger to restore biblical Israel is for the sake of swallowing up Israel and the Jews and bringing about Christian salvation? It’s like gleefully accepting a hug that is designed one day to turn into a suffocating and murderous chokehold.

I would argue that the Jewish pro-Israel establishment, with perhaps one notable exception, welcomes the Christian embrace of Israel PRECISELY because it so deeply based in theology — however condescending or anti-Jewish that theology ultimately (and I do mean ultimately) is. As the Obama candidacy is proving (and see page one of today’s Times) pro-Israel Jewish activists much prefer those who support Israel in their kishkes and deepest beliefs over those who have come to their pro-Israel positions through a rational or expedient route. Rational support for Israel, like any rational idea, can change when the holder is presented with newer, more compelling counter-evidence. But a religious belief, however creepy, is by its nature irrational and can’t be shaken by facts on the ground.

For example, the following is from Philadelphia Jewish Exponent editor Jonathan Tobin’s most recent column:

Bush’s speech [to the Israeli Knesset] was noteworthy because it expressed a passionate support for Zionism in a way that only an evangelical Christian such as the 43rd president would find congenial. While some of his predecessors such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (“Shalom, chaver”) have spoken
with affection of Israel, it was remarkable to hear a president describe the re-creation of Jewish sovereignty in terms that a religious, as opposed to a secular, Zionist would use.

It’s one thing to talk about common values, but quite another to speak of Israel’s independence as ‘the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David – a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael,’ as Bush did. [Emphasis added.]

Unless I am misreading Tobin, he finds Bush’s religion-based claims for Israel more “remarkable” than the “common values” upon which Clinton and Reagan based their support for Israel. Clinton and Reagan were “affectionate”; Bush is “passionate.”