INTRODUCTION John Mearsheimer

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

claim the Israel Lobby has caused the U.S. to pursue policies that are not in line with

American national interests. According to the authors, these policies diverge from

America’s true national interest and have consequently hurt American power. Yet

Mearsheimer and Walt do not claim these outcomes occurred because the lobby sought

to further Israeli interests at the expense of American interests. Nor do the authors claim

that the Israel Lobby is a monolithic bloc that all Jewish groups support. To the authors,

the Israel Lobby exists like any other special interest group in the United States, in that it

uses the normal channels of government to further its own preferences.

This desire to further both Israeli and American interests results from members of

the Israel Lobby not viewing their ethnic and national identities as exclusionary. These

non-exclusionary identities allow for members of the Israel Lobby to hold attachments to

both Israel and America. In accordance with certain American nationals supporting

Israel, Mearsheimer and Walt label those who actively lobby on behalf of Israel as

belonging to the Israel Lobby. However, by identifying the Israel Lobby as groups who

support a secure Israel as a territorially bound state, as well as those who support the

Jewish state for eschatological purposes, the authors understate the efforts and

intentions of the Christian Zionist Lobby. As a result, this research will contribute to the

influences on U.S.-Israel policy by presenting how the interests of the Israel Lobby are

not homogeneous. Accordingly, different actors within the Israel Lobby seek to shape

American-Israeli policy based upon different preferences.

CHAPTER I

RESEARCH OUTLINE

This research project sought to answer why America has provided nearly unconditional

support for Israel? I hypothesized that the Christian Zionist Lobby influences the

American government to pursue policies in support of Israel. To test the hypothesis two

case studies were conducted to analyze the Christian Zionists influence over the policy

shift from American support of the Road Map to the U.S. backing Israeli unilateralism.

The first case study centered on the organizational structure of the Christian Zionists in

order to understand the ways in which they influence the American government to

support Israel. The second case study focused on a specific time period in which the

U.S. supported a shift in policy from the Road Map to Israeli Unilateralism.

Research Question

In The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy it is claimed that the Israel Lobby causes

America to provide Israel with nearly unconditional support. This researcher instead

posits that the Christian Zionists pursue their own preferences in Washington, and in

doing so influence American policy towards Israel. As the literature review shows, the

Christian Zionist Lobby works to pursue policy preferences that are detached from the

rest of the Israel Lobby. These preferences are based upon eschatological beliefs, while

the Israel Lobby preferences are based upon securing a territorially based Jewish state.

Accordingly, when the objectives of the Christian Zionists are detached from the Israel

Lobby, the shaping of American policy toward Israel can be understood through a much

richer analysis.

Theoretical Framework

There are several International Relations theories that could be used to explain

American support for a stronger Israel. In Mearsheimer and Walt’s work they view the

Israel Lobby as a domestic group that attempts to shape the U.S. interests. As the

authors are Realists, this runs counter to their understanding of how states are to

formulate their interests. Realists see states as always defining their interests through

self-preservation, due to the anarchical nature of the international system. Their strive for

self-preservation leads states to clash due to each viewing the other’s power relative to

its own. Put another way, states see power in the international system as a zero-sum

game in which one unit of power lost by a state is a one unit gain in power by another

state. This view of power causes states to avoid alliances in their policy formation. For

states view other states’ intentions with distrust. This is not to say that states never form

alliances, but when they do, it is for the purpose of enhancing their own power.

This researcher holds the same view as Mearsheimer and Walt, in that the

anarchical structure of the system causes states to define their interests in selfinterested

terms. I also concur with the normative claim that domestic groups should not define a

state’s interest. For in redefining a state’s interest outside of self-preservation states may

undertake policies such as democracy promotion that will increase the power of other

states. This action which is not in accordance with self-interest will cause the state to use

valuable resources that could have been used to increase the power of one’s own state.

Further, this policy preference may cause the weaker state to drag the stronger state

down with it. To clarify, the weaker state will then cause the stronger state to pursue

policies, thereby sapping its power and making it weaker relative to other states in the

system.

The current U.S. administration follows a liberal hegemonic stability theory, as

was recently articulated in the National Security Strategy of May 2010. This theoretical

perspective is based upon the belief that a hegemon will have the capability to enforce

the rules of the system; the will to do so; and a commitment to the system which is

perceived as beneficial to the major states. The capability to enforce the rules of the

system depends on a large and growing economy; dominance in a leading sector, such

as technology or economics; and political power backed up by military power. To induce

other states to remain in the hegemonic system, the hegemon will pay the costs of

maintaining the system while allowing some states to free ride. The hegemon will also

promote the ideal that a prosperous international economic system with the hegemon at

the apex is the most beneficial economic system for all. A third way in which the

hegemon appeals to other states is through espousing the belief that its values are

universal and should be shared by all. Finally, the hegemon will either award states that

accept its leadership with greater integration or punish those states who challenge its

leadership through the denying of incentives. Although the hegemonic system will allow

the hegemon to dominate the international system in the short term, eventually other

states will emerge to challenge the hegemon. This challenge to the hegemon will be a

result of the very policies the hegemon championed. For instance, free riders may

eventually amass great power due to the not contributing to the burdens of ensure

international order, while the hegemon loses power due to bearing the costs of the free

rider.

Another theory to explain American support of Israel, and the one used for this

study, is Liberalism. This theory focuses on the actors within states, such as the Jewish

Diaspora and the Christian Zionist Lobby. In particular these actors advocate policies to

strengthen American support for Israel, which has developed into a strong friendship

between Israel and the U.S. In the process of domestic groups such as the Jewish

Diaspora and the Christian Zionist Lobby advocating their preferences regarding foreign

countries such as Israel, Americans have begun to see Israel as more like “us.” As a

result of these domestic actors in Liberalism, the theory holds that it is not the

international system that determines a state’s preferences but the lobbying forces within

the state. This access to policy formation allows domestic groups to shape policy which

is in line with their autonomous preferences.

Research Methodology

In order to examine the Christian Zionist Lobby in considerable detail, the

methodological design for this research is a case study. The type of case study in this

research is explanatory, because the research is based on a “why” question. In utilizing

the explanatory case study, it allows for the independent variable to be traced over time,

so as to show how it brings about a change in the dependent variable. In testing this

explanatory case study, operational links were traced and analyzed through the

technique known as pattern matching. This technique identifies operational links by

“compar[ing] an empirically based pattern with a predicted one”.

The first case study, which focuses on the organizational structure of the

Christian Zionists, utilizes the organizations identified by Mearsheimer and Walt. These

organizations include Christians United for Israel, National Christian Leadership

Conference for Israel, Unity Coalition for Israel, Christian Friends of Israeli Communities,

Christians’ Israel Public Action Committee, International Christian Embassy Jerusalem,

International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, and Stand for Israel. Data for this these

organizations was acquired from the individual Christian Zionist’ websites, as well as the

Better Business Bureau (BBB), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS)6. Where applicable,

data from the organizations social networking sites was also included.

In the search for evidence, this case study attempted to draw out the casual

connections between U.S. politicians associated with Christian Zionism and the

American policy shift from the Road Map to Israeli unilateralism. These connections

were sought in order to demonstrate how the Christian Zionist Lobby directly shapes

policy through its support for particular politicians. The politicians included were those

named by the Christian Zionists groups on their website or by Mearsheimer and Walt.

These politicians were then paired with the following search terms in the Google News

Archive: unilateralism, unilateral disengagement, road map, disengagement plan, Gaza

expulsion plan, hitnatkut (disengagement), separation wall, security fence, and security

barrier.

Data recording monetary contributions to U.S. politicians was sought by visiting

opensecrets.org. This website tracks financial contributions made to U.S. politicians by

lobbying groups. In this research, opensecrets.org was contacted to see if they could

provide an individual listing of pro-Israeli organizations by industry. They responded that

they could do this work, but at cost $125 per hour. Due to financial constraints, this

research was unable to include an individual listing of pro-Israeli groups by industry. Yet,

this research project was able to include opensecrets.org’s data on combined campaign

committees and leadership public action committees (PACs) by the pro-Israel industry.

Evidence for the second case study, which was the shift from the Road Map to

Israeli unilateralism, came in the form of document analysis where media materials were

collected through the Google News Archive search engine. The search terms imputed

into Google were the following: Christians United for Israel, National Christian

Leadership Conference for Israel, Unity Coalition for Israel, Christian Friends of Israeli

Communities, Christians’ Israel Public Action Committee, International Christian

Embassy Jerusalem, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, Stand for Israel;

as well as the more generic search terms of Christian lobby, Christian Zionists, Christian

Right, and evangelical lobby. The generic search terms were included so as not to omit

any important evidence. These search terms were then individually paired with the terms

unilateralism, unilateral disengagement, road map, disengagement plan, Gaza expulsion

plan, hitnatkut, separation wall, security fence, and security barrier.

The search engine used was the Google News Archive, since its web crawler is

able to collect a large number of primary and secondary sources. The Google News

Archive search engine returned articles from both freely accessible websites and

websites which required a fee to view their content. For the websites which required a

fee to view their content, the Access World News database was used. This database

was utilized because it was not feasible to purchase several different user licenses to

view the vast array of search results that Google News Archive returned. Instead,

through using this database, all fee based content was viewed in one place without

purchasing a license. However, it must be admitted that while the Access World News

database has archived content from over 2,000 different media sources, there was an

extremely small number of articles that it did not have archived. As a result of the very

small number of articles not found, and the fact that many of them repeated content that

I had cataloged elsewhere, I did not seek to include them as evidence in this research.

This second case study was bracketed to the dates of June 24, 2002 through

September 18, 2006. The first date indicated the day the Road Map to Peace was

presented by President Bush, while the second date was the day Prime Minister Olmert

officially abandoned the unilateral disengagement policy. However, as the authors note,

serious movement on the Road Map did not occur until March 7, 2003.

Finally, to ground the second case study to the time period under study, a

Google News archive search was conducted with the words “road map,” “U.S.,”

“America,” and “Israel.” The search results were isolated by using only The Guardian

newspaper archive. This random newspaper selection was chosen simply to narrow

down the vast quantity of web hits that the search returned.

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature found that the Christian Zionists do not share the same policy preferences

as the rest of the Israel Lobby. While both the neoconservatives and Jewish Diaspora

sought to maintain a secure Israel as a territorially bound state, the Christian Zionists

pursued Israeli policies to fulfill religious prophecy. Thus, as a result of this literature

review, this research developed a better explanation of American policy toward Israel by

isolating the Christian Zionists and understanding them as their own lobby.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The crux of this research centers on the contentions claims made by John Mearsheimer

and Stephen Walt. Accordingly, this literature review focuses on the actors the authors

identify as seeking to influence U.S. policy toward Israel, otherwise known as the Israel

Lobby. Mearsheimer and Walt argue the Israel Lobby is “a powerful interest group, made

up both Jews and gentiles, whose acknowledged purpose is to press Israel’s case within

the United States and influence American foreign policy in ways that its members believe

will benefit the Jewish state”. Mearsheimer and Walt argue that through influencing

American Middle Eastern policy in favor of the Jewish state, the Israel lobby has actually

harmed U.S. and Israeli interests in the region. In fact, the authors believe the Israel

lobby has been more successful than any other special interest group in managing to

distort U.S. foreign policy in ways that are inimical to American national interest.

To Mearsheimer and Walt, the Israel lobby cannot be described as a single

monolithic entity. Instead the authors more loosely define the Israel lobby as “anyone

who works actively to preserve America’s special relationship with the Jewish

state”12.The authors identify some of the major actors who seek to advance U.S. foreign

policy in favor of Israel, including: members of the media, scholars, Jewish Americans,

Jewish civic associations (e.g. American Israel Public Affairs Committee), pro-Israel think

thanks and PACs (e.g. Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American

Friends of Israel PAC, respectively), neoconservatives (e.g. Richard Perle), and

Christian Zionists (e.g. Pat Robertson). While the members of these various groups all

seek a similar objective, they exercise their influence through a variety of ways.

The authors claim that Jewish Americans lobby for policies beneficial to Israel

with the mindset that their lobbying efforts will also benefit America13. Jewish civic

associations, such as the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish

Organizations, are one component of the Israel lobby. This particular group is composed

of fifty-one of the largest and most important Jewish civic organizations. The stated

mission of this Jewish association is to “‘forg[e] diverse groups into a unified force for

Israel’s well being’ and working to ‘strengthen and foster the special U.S.-Israel

relationship’”. Another component of the Israel lobby is the Pro-Israel think tanks which

serve to “shap[e] the prevailing climate of ideas”. Additionally, pro-Israel PACs work to

reward or punish politicians based upon their support of Israel.

The neoconservatives (or “neocons”) within the Israel Lobby pursue hawkish

policies, which they believe will benefit both the U.S. and Israel. The neocons in the

1980’s aligned with Reagan’s tough anti-communist stance and found that their interests

converged with the “shared liberal democratic values” of Israel. Over time this

neoconservative network grew, with those who embrace their approach now being found

in academia, the media, government, think tanks, and various lobbies. Finally, due to

many within the neocon movement having a Jewish ethnic background and close

relations with Israel, many critics have claimed that they care more about Israel than the

U.S.

The authors identify as the Christian Zionists as the last prominent group within

the Israel lobby. This group found its ranks galvanized by the outcome of the 1967 Six

Day War, as they saw the Israeli victory as a sign from God. In response to this outcome,

the Christian Zionist movement began to coalesce around evangelical concerns, among

which was support for Israel. The authors note several Christian

Zionist organizations in support of Israel, including Christians United for Israel, National

Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, Unity Coalition for Israel, Christian Friends of

Israeli Communities, Christians’ Israel Public Action Committee, International Christian

Embassy Jerusalem, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, and Stand for

Israel. Despite revealing claims that label the Christian Zionists as Israel’s “ultimate

strategic asset” or Netanyahu’s claim that Israel is dependent on the Christian Zionists,

Mearsheimer and Walt characterize the Christian Zionists as a “junior partner” and as an

“adjunct” to the Israel lobby.

In understating the Christian Zionists in relation to the pro-Israel Jewish groups,

the authors note a survey from the 1980’s showing little evidence of direct lobbying by

the Christian Zionists on the subject of Israel. They also note the lack of financial power

the Christian Zionists have in relation to pro-Israel Jewish groups. Another reason the

authors believe the Christian Zionists to be unequal is that Christian groups receive less

media attention than the pro-Israel Jewish groups when speaking on the matter of

Middle East politics26. Evidence of this type seems strong enough for the authors to

accept the Christian Zionists as secondary to the Jewish groups, yet important enough to

be subsumed under the broad categorization of the Israel lobby.

In the second half of their book, Mearsheimer and Walt conduct five case studies

to test their thesis. To this researcher, the case studies conducted by Mearsheimer and

Walt are the weakest part of their work. The case studies concluded in The Israel Lobby

and U.S. Foreign Policy lack the casual mechanisms to definitely show the Israel Lobby

having any affect on policy outcomes. Moreover, the Christian Zionists are largely absent

from the case studies Mearsheimer and Walt conclude.

In particular, in the chapter titled “The Lobby Versus the Palestinians,”

Mearsheimer and Walt place considerable emphasis on the Road Map to Peace and the

subsequent American policy shift to support unilateralism. The authors claim that

President George W. Bush, knowing a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was in

America’s best interest, set forth the outline to the Road Map to Peace in a speech on

June 24, 2002. This speech was particularly meaningful for two reasons. First, it set out

the position stating that Yasser Arafat would have to step down as leader of the

Palestinians if peace was to move forward, and there was eventually going to be a viable

Palestinian state. The second meaningful point of the speech was that Bush urged the

parties to the conflict to create a Palestinian state by 2005. In achieving this aim, the

Israelis would have to halt all settlement activity in the occupied territories. Furthermore,

the Israelis would have to gradually rescind their control over the occupied territories as

the security situation improved.

President Bush began to actively promote the Road Map on March 14,, 2002,

which was a week after Arafat resigned as leader of the Palestinian Authority. The

Quartet, whose members included the U.S., the United Nations, Russia, and the

European Union, presented the final details of the Road Map on April 30, 2002. Despite

the efforts of Bush to directly engage himself in the peace process, the Road Map made

little headway. The authors blame the lack of traction in implementing the Road Map to

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Israel Lobby who supported him.

Mearsheimer and Walt present several points of evidence allegedly

demonstrating that the Israel Lobby frustrated efforts to implement the Road Map, and

caused the U.S. to support Israeli unilateralism. One way in which the authors note the

Israel Lobby influenced U.S. policy was through Mort Zuckerman, the chairman of the

Conference of Presidents, labeling the Road Map to Peace the “road map to nowhere”.

The Israel Lobby also sought to influence the Road Map to Peace through voicing

criticism at a White House meeting with Condoleezza Rice.

To put additional pressure on Bush, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee

(AIPAC) drafted a letter that it circulated on Capitol Hill calling for Bush to scale down the

pressure he was applying to Israel and to require the Palestinians to fully meet the

Road Map’s security conditions before Israel would be required to concede anything.

This letter was eventually signed by a total of 368 congressmen, including all but fifteen

from the Senate. While AIPAC would eventually lend conditional support to the Road

Map, it did not seek to promote it. This lack of backing by AIPAC leads Mearsheimer and

Walt to reason that since AIPAC did not campaign for the peace plan, it allowed other

pro-Israel groups to torpedo the Road Map. According to the authors, the Israeli

government had also been assured by two neocons working within the National Security

Council that the United States would not come to bear pressure on Israel over the Road

Map.

When Israel began constructing the “security fence” within the occupied

territories, the Bush administration again attempted to exert pressure on the Jewish

state. According to the Israelis, the fence was being constructed to stop the influx of

Palestinian suicide bombers. While there may have been some truth to this reasoning,

the fact that the fence in many places was being constructed within the Palestinian side

of the green line raised questions as to whether Israel was trying to expropriate territory.

In response to growing unease within the White House over the fence, the Bush

administration threatened to withhold $9 billion in loan guarantees to Israel. Supporters

of Israel in Congress did not take this threat sitting down and ensured Israel that they

would receive the full loan guarantees.

To further thwart the Road Map and move toward their preferred policy of

unilateralism, the Israelis again mobilized the Israel lobby. In this instance it was felt in

the form of Elliot Abrams who met with Ariel Sharon in Rome. At this secret meeting in

Rome, the Israeli leader informed Abrams that he would be pursuing unilateralism

instead of the Road Map. While the Palestinians could claim the Gaza Strip, a large

portion of the West Bank would become part of Israel proper. As the authors note, this

policy would dictate what the Palestinians would receive, meaning in the end they would

not have their own state.

Presumably, an influencing factor in the U.S. accepting Israeli policy change was

Abrams. For the authors identify Abrams as belonging to the Israel Lobby, as well as

being a prominent neoconservative and director of the Near East and North African

Affairs on the National Security Council. Through this tenuous evidence and the facts

laid out above, Mearsheimer and Walt argue that the Israel Lobby influenced America to

discard the Road Map.

Mearsheimer and Walt note that the Conference of Presidents, which is part of

the Israel lobby, backed the unilateralist shift, with between 60 and 75 percent of the

proIsrael leaders viewing it favorably. This data is contrasted against polling results

which show that 55 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the Road Map, and

when given more information the level of support rose to 74 percent. Thus, the authors

claim the Israel lobby was able to effectively mobilize against American public opinion,

and influence American foreign policy in support of unilateralism.

Despite these intense efforts by the Israel Lobby, the unilateralist policy by Israel

was not to last. After withdrawing from and isolating the Gaza Strip, the Israelis faced

rocket attacks from Gaza and had two of their soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah. These

actions caused the Israelis to reassess their unilateralist policy. In the end, the Israelis

came to the realization that if they withdrew from the West Bank they would face many of

the same problems as they did in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Accordingly, the

Israelis shifted their policy back to negotiating a two state solution with the Palestinians.

The Neoconservatives

Before the publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy much of the scholarly

focus on the neoconservative movement was not as part of the Israel Lobby, but rather

as a standalone actor. Joel Beinin takes this view when arguing that “it is not the case

that Israel and its Jewish supporters in the second Bush administration have somehow

hijacked U.S. Middle East policy to promote a war with Iraq”. Instead, he argues there is

an overlap between the interests of neo-conservatives and the pro-Israel lobby. The

overlap was found in the Bush administration’s desire to impose its hegemonic ambitions

on the world, whereas the pro-Israel lobby sought to exploit Bush’s agenda to further

Israel’s interests. Beinin argues America’s foreign policy is not only driven by the Israel

lobby, but also through the neoconservatives who seek to influence U.S. policy.

Beinin notes how the neocon think tank Project for a New American Century

(PNAC) attempted to influence American foreign policy formulation through sending a

letter to President Clinton in 1998 advocating that the U.S. attack Iraq. When Clinton did

not act upon their call, PNAC sent letters to the Republican Speaker of the House and

Senate Majority Leaders, asking them to advocate a war with Iraq. Although the letters to

the influential Republican Congressmen did not bring about the desired change in policy,

PNAC was able to gain passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which “announced

the switch in US Iraq policy from disarmament to regime change”.

Finally the author states how those of the neo-conservative persuasion and the

Israeli lobby converged with the election of George W. Bush. Richard Perle in being

named to the Defense Policy Board of the second Bush administration argued that

regardless of a lack of evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, Iraq

should be considered as part of the War on Terror. WINEP and the neocon

administration also pursued an Israeli policy which did not require Israel to negotiate with

the Palestinians because the conditions were not right, all the while allowing the Jewish

state to continue creating facts on the ground43. In sum, Beinin claims the neocons

pursued an Israel policy that would further American hegemony, while also furthering

Israeli interests.

Kathleen Christison focuses on the forces that shaped Bush’s policy toward

Israel. The author notes how those of the neoconservative persuasion have long had an

interest in reshaping the Middle East, dating back to the Reagan administration. The

neocons have long sought to overturn the Oslo process, for they believed it was

weakening Israel through territorial concessions. The neoconservatives have also sought

to implement their policy preferences through think tanks, which offer pro-Israel, hawkish

advice to policymakers. Further, many of those who belong to the neoconservative

persuasion can be found in crucial areas of government. As evidence, the author states

that neoconservative theoreticians worked within the subcabinet level of the second Bush

administration. These individuals drafted policy, which was then endorsed and carried out

by the neocons at the senior levels of government.

While it is has been shown that the neoconservatives seek to influence the

American government in support of Israel, more should be drawn out as to why the

neocons hold this preference. Max Boot, himself a neoconservative, claims the common

thread of the neocon movement has been advocacy of “aggressive and, if necessary,

unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free

markets and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world”. Boot draws out how the term

neocon has become synonymous with the term “Jew” simply because some members of

the movement are Jewish. Boot claims this should not imply that the neoconservative

movement reflects an ethnic tie. Instead the author claims neoconservativism should be

seen as an ideological position. Yet critics continue to relate the two terms, allowing for

the old dual-loyalties canard to be resurrected. This dual loyalties charge was most

pronounced with the invasion of the Iraq War, with some critics charging the neocons of

doing Israel’s bidding.

The author states that instead of seeing defense of Israel in religious or ethnic

terms, it should be understood as defending shared liberal democratic values. Further,

the author claims defense of Israel is justified as the American public supports the

Jewish state. This supposed support stems from the appreciation Americans have for

Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East and the knowledge that we share the

same enemies.

Kevin MacDonald argues the neocons have been influenced by Straussian ideals

to pursue democracy promotion in the Middle East. One such ideal advocated by

Strauss is the adoption of the in-group/out-group languages. According to the author,

Strauss believed that to communicate to out-groups an exoteric language should be

adopted to frame issues as a larger public concern. Internally the exclusive group would

use an esoteric language to communicate their real interest to one another. For example,

Michael Lind has brought attention to the neocons exoteric language in calling for

democracy promotion, while embracing the Straussian esoteric views of democracy by

rule of the manipulative elite51. Neoconservatives have applied this doublespeak in

supporting the democratic state of Israel and its apartheid-like policies The author claims

that in Israel “democracy is little more than an instrument of ethnic warfare rather than an

expression of Western universalism”.

In further efforts to deceive the public, MacDonald claims the neocons within the

Office of Special Plans in the Department of Defense, used the mass appeal language of

“weapons of mass destruction” and Al-Qaeda to frame the conflict with Iraq. The

neocons included in this deception were Abram Shulsky, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas

Feith. MacDonald mentions that Shulsky received his Ph.D. under Strauss, while Feith

was a longtime member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the

Zionist Organization of America. The author claims the disinformation crafted by this

department was more readily acceptable than selling the war to the American public as

an attempt to achieve Israeli foreign policy aims.

Gary Leupp adds to the neocon literature with his claim that within America there

is a sizeable amount of the population who believes the U.S. should transform the

Middle East and guarantee Israel’s security based upon a reading of the book of

Revelations. As a result of the strong religious fervor surround eschatological beliefs,

neoconservatives have found it beneficial to manipulate the language of religion in order

to implement their chosen policy preferences. Ultimately this framing of policy has little to

do with religion, and more properly should be understood in terms of the neocon’s view

that American and Israeli interests are nearly identical.

The Jewish Diaspora

Another group Mearsheimer and Walt identify as belonging to the Israel Lobby is the

American Jewry. This is certainly not a homogenous group in regards to policy

preferences toward Israel. Theodore Sasson frames the topic of the Jewish Diaspora

through that of lobbying. He asserts that since 1993 most lobbying on behalf of Israel

occurred through a direct engagement model. This method of lobbying departed from

mass mobilization as the dominant means of lobbying since 1948. As a result of the shift

in lobbying practices, organizations no longer felt the requirement to mirror the policy of

Israel and instead sought to further their own preferences.

Sasson states that between 1948 and 1993 the Israel lobby sought to influence

Congress for the purpose of seeing Israeli and American interests as shared. This

framing of interest allowed for the Jewish Diaspora to press Congress to support military

and economic aid to Israel in an effort to keep them safe from the surrounding totalitarian

countries. While there were sources of contention within the Jewish diasporic lobby, as a

whole they tended to support U.S. policies that were favorable to the Jewish state.

The shift in policy stance after 1993 occurred as a result of the Oslo Accords and

Netanyahu’s trip to the U.S. to rally Jewish opposition. The right-wing Zionist

Organization of America (ZOA) was the first and most ardent supporter of Netanyahu’s

case during his trip to the U.S. The ZOA actively lobbied the U.S. congress to attach

conditions to any assistance to the Palestinian Authority, which was against the wishes

of both the Israel government and pro-Israel U.S. groups. Since the Oslo Accords and

the Netanyahu trip, groups within the Israel Lobby from both the left and right have been

less hesitant to lobby for policies that Israel itself may not favor.

John Newhouse focuses on the impact of foreign lobbyists on foreign policies that

are beneficial to their home state. The author notes how the use of foreign lobbyists to

achieve foreign policy aims reflects a growing trend in the “privatization of diplomacy”.

Newhouse claims one reason for the decline in traditional diplomacy may be that foreign

lobbyists have the ability to identify with a domestic ethnic bloc that has a significant

influence in shaping U.S. foreign policy. These lobbying groups can also be understood

as surrogates of the mother country who are able to put forth uncomfortable arguments

and arrangements on Capitol Hill, which the mother country through traditional

diplomacy cannot.

The ability of foreign lobbyists to navigate the American political system is a result

of the open trade and investment climate that they help to promote. Foreign lobbyists

claim that their work is indistinguishable from that of domestic lobbyists, a point which

Newhouse openly refutes. As the author notes, lobbying by foreign firms can serve to

“challeng[e] the sensible and balanced formation of foreign policy”.

Newhouse states AIPAC is the very best lobbying group that aims to change U.S.

foreign policy. Although not registered as a foreign lobby, AIPAC has been able to

influence American foreign policy in support of Israel through a variety of methods.

These methods include playing off internal rivalries within Congress and Congressional

committees, prompting members to inundate Congressmen with angry calls, and making

reelection campaigns difficult for those Congressmen who do not vote in accordance

with their preferences.

As a potential counter to the power of AIPAC within the Israel lobby, a newer

domestic group called J-Street has emerged to advocate a pro-Israel, pro-peace

position63. However, the ability of J-Street to change American foreign policy towards

Israel in a more pro-peace direction faces an uphill battle for several reasons. First,

Congressmen on Capitol Hill have become conditioned to acting in favor of the wishes of

AIPAC, who are considered the professionals of Washington politics. Second, the

members of AIPAC are much more numerous than those of J-Street and tend to favor

hard-line positions. Third, there is a deep fear of Arab intentions, causing most Jews to

favor AIPAC’s more hawkish policies.

Beinin also acknowledges that AIPAC is “a significant force” in American Middle

Eastern policy, especially after the 1967 Six-Day War. He also sees the founding of the

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985 as an important organization

that influences Middle East policy. This importance began with WINEP publishing its

1988 report titled "Building for Peace: An American Strategy for the Middle East." This

report, which was prepared for the incoming president, advocated not engaging the

Palestinians until conditions were fully in Israel’s favor.

While this report by itself did not cause a fundamental shift in U.S. policy towards

Israel, the author notes that six members of the committee which drafted the report

joined the first Bush administration. Hence, the author states that after the first Gulf War,

when the first Bush administration sought to reward its Arab allies for their cooperation

through the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the U.S. did not force Israel to

negotiate with the PLO. The author also remarks that WINEP has been successful in

advocating the belief to the American government that Israel is not a liability in the

spread against Islamism but in fact is a “reliable ally”67.

The author goes on to demonstrate how WINEP has been involved in advancing

the cause of Israel within subsequent administrations. For example, Beinin discusses

how former WINEP member Martin Indyk became the Special Assistant to the President

and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security

Council for President Clinton. Indyk is probably best known for the policy drafted while at

WINEP known as “dual containment.” Once Indyk was officially working for the Clinton

administration this policy was implemented for the purpose of isolating two of America’s

enemies during the 1990’s, Iran and Iraq. In relation, this policy also served to contain

Israel’s two most dangerous adversaries.

Mahmood Mamdani, in looking for causal explanations to explain the U.S.

support for Israel, claims scholars have begun to look more closely at the influence of

the Israel Lobby. He states that while critics have traditionally looked at oil as the driving

force of American foreign policy in the Middle East, Israel after 9/11 has become a

central explanation to U.S. policy in the region. The author notes as the costs of

America’s Israel policy have increased over the years, it has become increasingly difficult

to rationalize how it is beneficial to U.S. interests.

Mamdani claims the most powerful groups within the Israel lobby are AIPAC and

the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. These groups

and others within the lobby function as an “ethnic donor machine” which coordinate

around economic and social issues, as opposed to just organizing behind particular

candidates. In addition to using their power to influence economic and social issues, the

Israel lobby seeks to appoint representative friendly to their interests within government.

For example, Mamdani notes the appointments of long term veterans of the

U.S. and Israeli defense and foreign policy establishments, Richard Perle and Douglas

Feith, to positions of influence over Israel policy within the second Bush administration.

Christian Zionists

The final group Mearsheimer and Walt identify as belonging to the Israel Lobby are

Christian Zionists. Donald Wagner illustrates the detailed history of the interactions

between Christian Zionism and the U.S. government starting with the Christian Zionist

William Blackstone. This prominent Christian Zionist organized a major newspaper

campaign in 1891 with a petition signed by 400 prominent Americans. The campaign,

which preceded Theodor Herzl’s World Zionist Congress by six years, called for

President Harrison to create a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. Thus, Wagner

claims that America Christian Zionists have an extensive history of seeking to recreate

biblical Israel through lobbying public officials.

Yaakov Ariel details the history of Christian Zionism, and claims its earliest traces

can be found in seventeenth century with Protestant Messianic groups. These particular

Protestants tended to read the bible literally, and thus believed that the Jews needed to

restore the kingdom of Israel73. According to the author, in the nineteenth century

Christian Messianism split between the “historical” and “futurist” branches. While both

groups agreed that God had a special plan for Jews in the holy land and that Christian

Messianic groups should be involved with conversion efforts involving Jews, Christian

Zionists differed as to when the end times would actually occur. The historical branch

focused on identifying current events within the biblical passages, while the futurist

branch saw God’s plan as still being played out. Eventually the futurist branch would

become the leading view of Christian Zionism, especially in America.

The author expounds on this futurist branch, or the premillenialist

dispensationalists, stating these followers believe in the last days all those who

committed themselves to Jesus will be saved in the rapture. In addition to these

individuals, all those who died before the rapture are to rise from the dead and meet with

Jesus in heaven. These individuals will come to stay with Jesus for seven years (or three

and a half years by some accounts), while those on Earth experience the evils of the

anti-Christ. During the time both the Christians and Jesus are away from Earth, the Jews

will return to Israel without accepting Jesus and instead accept the anti-Christ as their

ruler. When Jesus eventually returns to Earth, premillenialist believe he will battle with

and defeat the anti-Christ, causing some Jews to accept him as the savior. Ultimately, by

the end of the battle about two-thirds of humanity will have been killed75.In accordance

with this belief, premillenialist supporters see any move to trade “land for peace” as a

move against God’s divine plan.

Paul S. Boyer claims evangelicals saw the second Bush administration’s foreign

policy as the catalyst to the divine plan. This claim reflects polling showing over forty

percent of Americans believing there is a divine plan that will occur sequentially. In

anticipation of the end of days, dispensationalist’ Christians throughout history have

identified many different leaders and institutions as the embodiment of the anti-Christ.

This list includes Saladin, the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, the European Union, and

the United Nations. The author believes the strong religious beliefs within the United

States inspired George W. Bush to frame American foreign policy in theological terms in

order to galvanize support amongst evangelicals. It is claimed this framing expressed to

evangelicals their desirable belief that they were living in the final stages of history78.

Colin Shindler traces the evolution of the Christian Zionist movement, noting how

early dispensationalist thinking broke with the traditional understanding of the church

being the “new Israel”. Viewing the church as the new Israel was based upon the belief

that the Jews had been exiled from Israel and were unlikely to return in the future. This

dispensationalist view was eventually altered and instead it was posited that the while

the church remained favored in God’s eye, the Jews would remain a chosen people. To

the dispensationalists, when the Messiah ultimately returned and many Jews were

converted to Christianity, “the Jewish character of Jesus’” millennial reign will be

paramount and the Church’s role would be almost secondary.

Melani McAlister argues that there is an emerging consensus between traditional

religious social conservatism and evangelical radical liberalism which sees the end-times

prophecies as imminent and Israel as the central component in the end of days. In

viewing these apocalyptic prophecies as happening in their midst, the Christian Right

have called for close ties with Israel and support for the Jewish state’s Middle East

policy. While championing support for Israel is not new amongst the Christian Right, the

author claims that within the second Bush administration contemporary Christian

Zionists seemed to be more successful than past attempts at influencing Middle East

policies.

McAlister traces the importance of American evangelicalism back to John Darby

and the Scofield Reference Bible. The author notes this particular bible’s interpretations

provided generations of evangelicals with the belief that the bible’s accuracy can be

tested against political developments82. In particular, these developments are contrasted

against events involving Israel, as the bible predicts that the Jews will return to their

homeland, an anti-Christ will emerge, and both Jews and Christians will be killed for their

beliefs.

Eventually the prophecy holds that there will be a mass conversion of Jews as

they come to realize that Jesus is the true Messiah. Israel will then face the most

powerful nations of the world, who will have grouped together to destroy the Jewish

nation. Before the ultimate battle occurs, the bible holds that Jesus will return to defeat

the anti-Christ, ushering in one thousand years of peace83.

Robert O. Smith explores the theological influences on the relationship between

Israel and the United States. The author gives particular attention to Christian Zionism

and its relationship with American Jews. This special relationship has enabled a

successful lobbying campaign since it frames the Jewish ethnic groups’ policy in terms of

American values that are consistent with U.S. national interest84.

The author notes that Christian support of Israel has a long history dating back to

the days of the early church. Occurring in the mid-nineteenth century the theological

perspective known as premillenialist dispensationalism supported the restoration of

Israel as a homeland for the Jews. Key historical thinkers for the premillenialist

dispensationalist movement include and Henry Finch, Louis Way, John Nelson Darby,

and C.I. Scofield. These premillenialist thinkers believed that history is divided into

distinct eras (dispensations), which are defined by how God interacts with particular

groups. The movement holds that in the seventh and final dispensation Jesus will return

to defeat evil and rescue His believers.

Mark Beeson asserts that the American evangelical movement won the 2000

presidency for George W. Bush, and the movement continues to exert a growing

influence over national policy. The author remarks how the evangelical movement

passionately backed George W. Bush because they saw his beliefs as genuine, making

him their “political and religious leader”. This deep influence of the evangelical

movement in not only selecting the president but also in policy formation is seen as a

“form of ‘political fundamentalism’ that is reshaping American politics”.

The reshaping of American politics was a result of marriage between

neoconservatism and evangelicals which brought conflicting goals in relation to Israel.

Many of the neocon persuasion share with the evangelical movement deep attachments

to Israel and support for a strong Jewish state. However, the neocons do not share the

sentiments of the Christian Zionist movement who support Israel as a result of a literal

reading of the book of Revelations. These Christian Zionists hold that the kingdom of

Israel needs to be reestablished to initiate the return of Christ, ushering in the end of

days and hell on Earth for all unbelievers. While this belief remained an ongoing point of

contention between neoconservatives and Christian Zionists, these groups remained

influential in shaping American support for Israel.

CHAPTER III CASE STUDY I: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF

THE CHRISTIAN ZIONIST LOBBY

Findings

Of the seven Christian Zionist organizations under study, four had a 501(c)(3) listing with

IRS. According to the IRS website this meant these organizations cannot use their

earnings to “inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an

action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of

its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political

candidates” The key word in this description is “substantial.” This word alone means that

these organizations can to a degree lobby some politicians, but they cannot incorporate

“too much” lobbying into their activities. Subsequently, these Christian Zionist

organizations may keep their tax exempt status by engaging in limited attempts at

influencing legislation.

Amongst the Christian Zionists Lobby, the most common form of lobbying was

mass mobilization. The Christian Zionists groups in this study often sent out e-mails,

newsletters, or press releases to call on their constituency to contact politicians with

proIsrael messages. In making contact with political representatives, the Christian Zionist

Lobby hoped to alter American legislation in a pro-Israel direction. While it is hard to

measure the amount of influence contacting one’s official carries, given that considering

measuring the intent of a public official is impossible, this method of influence should still

be considered an important variable. For some members of Congress hold strong

religious views and any contact made by their constituents may reinforce these views

and prompt them to pursue pro-Israel legislation.

Another way in which the Christian Zionist could lobby public officials was to

make monetary contributions. While only CIPAC claimed to be an actually lobby, other

Christian Zionists individually or collectively make donations to politicians with pro-Israel

positions. While the data was unattainable to make precise connections between those

donating to PAC’s and their political recipients, certain broad measures were found. This

data can be found in Table 1.

Yet, the data from Table 1 does not imply that Pro-Israel donations came

exclusively from Christian Zionists. The table does indicate the financial strength of those

that the Christian Zionist Lobby counts as allies. Accordingly, the financial contributions

to these politicians by Christian Zionists allows for these individuals to remain in areas of

influence over Israel policy. These politicians can then work to alter the interests of

America towards Israel through the pursuit of a premillenialist agenda.

Table 1: Campaign Committee & Leadership PAC Combined by Pro- Israel

Industry*

politician 01-02 03-04 05-06

**Richard Armey

N/A

^Shelley Berkley

153,536

122,570

122,750

^Roy Blunt

5,500

38,350

29,150

**Tom Delay

71,650

82,250

91,450

**James Inhofe

46,550

47,550

51,550

^Joe Lieberman

230,710

244,486

1,194,640

*in dollars by election cycle

**identified as Christian Zionist by Mearsheimer/Walt

^ Associated with CUFI

Source: opensecrets.org (online:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/index.php)

Another common method of lobbying by Christian Zionist was holding rallies. The

impact of this form of lobbying is difficult to measure. Rallies certainly hold the benefit of

allowing a group of people to gather to share ideas about how to achieve their common

preferences. Rallies also, if impactful enough, can persuade political leaders to change

course and pursue an alternate policy. A third outcome of rallies can be that they garner

media attention, which in turn may draw more participants to a cause. This media

attention could influence politicians with strong religious convictions and persuade them

to further premillenialist preferences. In addition, the size of the rallies could be used as

evidence to persuade politicians to follow premillenialist preferences.

Finally, it was worth noting that as with the Israel Lobby, the Christian Zionist

Lobby is not a homogeneous group. The Christian Zionists Lobby includes both

Christians and Jews from a range of denominations. Moreover, support for Christian

Zionism can be found in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Table 2 provides

how these politicians identify both politically and religiously.

Table 2: Religions and Parties of Politicians who associate the Christian Zionist

Lobby

politician religion party

**Richard Armey

Methodist

Rep.

*Shelley Berkley

Jewish

Dem.

*Roy Blunt

Baptist

Rep.

**Tom Delay

Baptist

Rep.

**James Inhofe

Presbyterian

Rep.

*Joe Lieberman

Jewish

Indep.

*associated with CUFI

**identified as Christian Zionist by

Mearsheimer/Walt

Source : Religious Affiliations of U.S. Congress (online:

http:www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html)

Christians United for Israel

According to the CUFI Facebook page, Christians United for Israel was incorporated into

John Hagee Ministries in 2006. In addition to seeking out details on the organization

structure of CUFI from its website, data from the BBB and IRS websites pertaining to

CUFI and John Hagee Ministries was sought. However, the BBB and IRS websites did

not have any data on the organizational structure of CUFI or John Hagee Ministries.

The relevant information provided by the CUFI website was in regards to the

organization’s statement of purpose, goals and objectives, and associations with

religious and political leaders. The website states CUFI’s purpose is to “provide a

national association through which every pro-Israel church, parachurch organization,

ministry or individual in America can speak and act with one voice in support of Israel in

matters related to Biblical issues”. The national association that is CUFI grew from a

2006 meeting involving 400 Christian leaders discussing how best to respond to threats

against Israel. Since this time CUFI has become “the largest pro-Israel organization in

the United States and one of the leading Christian grassroots movements in the world”.

This includes having church memberships in all fifty states. CUFI also organizes

proIsrael events throughout the year, as well as a Washington Summit to “make their

voices heard in support of Israel and the Jewish people”.

The CUFI website lists its first goal is “to educate Christians about the Biblical

and moral imperatives about supporting Israel”. The second listed goal is “to

communicate Pro-Israel perspectives to our neighbors, newspapers and elected

officials”96. Religious leaders associated with CUFI according to the website are Gary

Bauer, Jonathan P. Falwell, Keith A Butler, David Brog, Mac Hammond, Michael Little,

and John C. Hagee. American Political leaders posting endorsements of CUFI on the

organization’s website include Joseph Lieberman, Shelley Berkley, and Roy Blunt.

National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel

The National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI) is listed as a 501(c)(3)

charity on the IRS website. However, there are no records of the NCLCI on the BBB

website. Also, the NCLCI website was down for two weeks before recently becoming

operational again. Efforts to explain the inaccessibility of the NCLCI website were

unsuccessful, while the media materials search indicated the organization is still active.

The NCLCI website describes the organization as being “active in local events on

Israel, the Holocaust and Christian-Jewish relations”. The website claims the NCLCI

issues public statements regarding important events surrounding Israel. The website

also state the NCLCI seeks to further its preferences through making presentations at

national conferences, publishing papers, monitoring denominational publications for

inaccurate reporting, and conducting fact-finding missions in Israel98.

Unity Coalition for Israel

The Unity Coalition for Israel (UCI) is listed as a 501(c)(3) charity on the IRS website. Yet

there are no records of the UCI on the BBB website. The UCI website states UCI was

founded in July 1991 through an alliance of Christian and Jewish organizations as a way

of supporting Israel. The website claims that with the organization’s 200 autonomous

partners it is “the largest network of Pro-Israel groups in the world”. UCI claims these

autonomous partners include “churches, synagogues, prayer networks, think tanks and

thousands of individuals” comprising more than 40 million Americans.

The stated mission of UCI is “to focus the efforts of secular and religious

organizations and individuals for whom the existence of the State of Israel is central and

essential to the future of the free world”. To further this mission, the website states the

UCI regularly contacts the media through e-mail. This media includes 700 religious radio

stations, 245 Christian TV stations, and all secular media. In addition UCI contacts

secular newspapers and magazines, 120 Christian newspapers, and 70 Jewish

newspapers.

According to the website, UCI furthers its message by holding “monthly educational

meetings in Washington, D.C. for member organizations and congressional staffers on

Capitol Hill, which feature knowledgeable speakers on current issues”. The organization

also “publishes pro-Israel resolutions and policy statements/position papers on current

critical issues”. Finally, UCI holds “press conferences on dominant issues - in the Capitol,

at the National Press Club and at the National Religious Broadcasters annual convention

- with leaders of national stature”.

Christian Friends of Israeli Communities

The Christian Friends of Israeli Communities is listed as a 501(c)(3) charity on the IRS

website. The BBB website provided the most basic contact information and listed the

CFOIC as a non-profit organization. The CFOIC website states the organization was

founded in 1995 in response to the Oslo Process. The organization saw these moves as

devastating, since they gave Jewish lands to the Arabs. The CFOIC in response to any

territorial conciliatory moves by Israel works to support Jewish communities in order to

fulfill Biblical prophecy.

The mission of the CFOIC is to “build bridges of love and mutual respect between

Christians and Jews”. These bridges may include the CFOIC “adopt-asettlement”

program which provides financial support for Israeli settlements and projects they

undertake. The website claims that thousands of individuals have contributed to this

adopt-a-settlement program and made a real difference for these communities. The

CFOIC also encourages Christians to visit Jewish communities in Biblical Israel in order

to become better connected with the people living there.

Christians’ Israel Public Action Committee

Christians’ Israel Public Action Committee (CIPAC) was not listed as a charity on the IRS

website. This was to be suspected as the CIPAC website labels the organization as a

lobby. However, when searching for CIPAC on opensecrets.org, no listing was found on

the website of this organization as a lobby. There was also no listing of the organization

on the BBB website.

As mentioned, the CIPAC website states that the organization is a registered

U.S. lobby. It adds that CIPAC was founded in 1989 by Richard Hellman in order to

“educate and mobilize Christians to act on behalf of sound laws and policies regarding

Israel in the U.S. Congress”. This mobilization involves a grassroots push for members

to write, call, or fax elected officials in support of Israel.

According to the website CIPAC represents those who wish to see Israel fulfill its

biblical prophecy. Thus, as the website claims, “If Israel is to survive, no new Palestinian

state should be created”107. This mission, CIPAC claims, sets them apart from other

lobbying groups as they are the only ones who clearly oppose a two-state solution,

which in effect makes them the “completely Pro-Israel Lobby”.

International Christian Embassy Jerusalem

The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) was listed as a charity on the IRS

website. When visiting the BBB website there was no listing of the organization. The

ICEJ website states it was founded in 1980 by Christians as an act of solidarity with the

Jewish people’s claim to Israel. Today the ICEJ claims to represent millions of people

from over 125 countries, with active representation in eighty countries and over fifty full

time staff. This staff regularly publishes position papers, pamphlets, tapes, DVD’s, and

other teaching materials in support of Israel. The ICEJ website also states it is the

world’s largest Christian Zionist organization.

The ICEJ works to “comfort Israel, educate the Church, celebrate God’s

faithfulness, and confront anti-Semitism”. This mission is carried out through multiple

outlets. One such way is through supporting social assistance projects, which include

taking care of the “needs of children, elderly, disabled, lone soldiers, new immigrants and

needy families” within Israel. The ICEJ is also an active supporter of the aliyah, through

sponsoring transport operations to Israel.

International Fellowship of Christians and Jews

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ) is listed on the IRS website

as 501(c)(3) charity. It also has extensive records on BBB website. According to the

BBB, the IFCJ was incorporated in Illinois in 1983. The IFCJ also has affiliates in Canada

and Israel. It’s stated purpose is "to support and assist institutions providing religious and

secular education, social services or charitable aid in the Holy Land of Israel; assist Jews

in need around the world; to seek the support of religious communities in the United

States and create bridges of cooperation between them; and to create links between

American religious communities, the Jewish people and the Holy Land of Israel" . The

IFCJ has four programs operating within it. These programs are On Wings of Eagles,

Isaiah 58, Guardians of Israel, and Stand for Israel. In 2006 the expenses of these four

programs were the following: On Wings of Eagles $18,961,727;

Guardians of Israel $16,460,598; Isaiah 58 $12,842,026; and Stand for Israel $319,381.

The BBB lists the chief executive of the IFCJ as Yechiel Eckstein who is paid an

annual compensation of $581,411. The board size of the IFCJ is sixteen people with the

Chair of the Board listed as John P. French and Robert R. Mazer as co-chair of the

board. The paid staff size of the IFCJ totals fifty-five people.

Ibid. 42

The methods of fundraising include direct mail, telemarketing, print

advertisements, television, radio, internet appeals, planned giving, and cause-related

marketing. Fund raising costs in 2006 were 14% of related contributions. The related

contributions stemmed from donations received from fund raising activities and totaled

$72,616,244. Informational materials and activities cost the IFCJ $31,005,107 in 2006.

Out of this total, $17,942,318 went to program expenses; $10,462,683 went to program

expenses; and $2,600,106 went to administrative expenses.

The major source of funds for the IFCJ in 2006 came from contributions which

totaled $72,103,303. Investment income brought in $1,493,988 for the IFCJ, while

catalog sales provided additional income of $512,941. Tour, conferences, and other

income was the least profitable component of revenue for the IFCJ bringing in $105,079.

Following this extensive overview of the IFCJ by the BBB, the organization’s website

adds very little. The website states Rabbi Eckstein has devoted his life to building

bridges between Christian and Jews in support of Israel. The mission stated on the

website is to “reverse [the] 2,000-year history of discord [between Christians and Jews]

and replace it with a relationship marked by dialogue, understanding, respect and

cooperation”113.

Stand for Israel

Stand for Israel is easily the most confusing organization to understand out of all the

Christian Zionist organizations researched. In fact it may not even be properly

categorized as an organization, as the BBB regards it as a program within the IFCJ.

Nevertheless, Stand for Israel is not listed on the IRS website. Nor are there records of

113

Stand for Israel on BBB website. Attempts were also made unsuccessfully to contact

Stand for Israel through both e-mail and phone.

The link to Stand for Israel is directly linked to the IFCJ website, while its website

provides little information about its organizational structure. Mearsheimer and Walt state

Stand for Israel was founded in 2002 through an alliance with Ralph Reed and the IFCJ.

However, this information is nowhere to be found on the Stand for Israel website.

The mission statement that is available on the website and it calls on members to

“translate love and commitment for Israel and the Jewish people into action”. A statement

within the BBB website for the IFCJ states Stand for Israel is “an effort to strategically

mobilize leadership and grassroots support in the Christian community for the State of

Israel”. This mobilization is done through contacting local officials and informing them

that the U.S. should keep strong ties with Israel. The Stand for Israel website also calls

on members to ask local officials to meet with their church or civic group to discuss

Israel. The website advises members to also educate themselves with their

representatives voting record on Israel. Finally, members are instructed to be an

advocate through monitoring the media for Israeli bias and then writing e-mails and

letters to the media to hold them accountable.

The Stand for Israel website also has a link to make donations. This link brings

members to a page involving four different groups, one of which is Stand for Israel. A

donation to Stand for Israel will support “engag[ing] people both spiritually and politically

on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people by encouraging them to pray for Israel and

teaching them to advocate for the Jewish state”. The other groups are Guardians for

Israel, Isaiah 58, and Wings of Eagles. A donation to Guardians of Israel will provide

Ibid. 44

“food, clothing, shelter, housing and other urgent needs for all Israelis, including children

and the elderly, who are suffering due to poverty, terrorism and war”. A donation to Isaiah

58 will provide “children and elderly Jews in the former Soviet Union with food, clothing,

heating, and other necessities by funding humanitarian programs throughout the FSU”. A

donation to On Wings of Eagles will enable Jews to “make aliyah

(immigrate to Israel) from around the world, and helps them with their klitah

(resettlement) needs once they arrive in the Holy Land”119.

119

CHAPTER IV.

CASE STUDY II: FROM THE ROAD MAP TO UNILATERLAISM

Findings

The findings of this case study were unable to neither confirm nor fail to confirm my

hypothesis. What this case study displayed was that the Christian Zionism Lobby was

opposed to both the Road Map and the Gaza disengagement component of Israeli

unilateralism. In regards to the security fence, there was not a clear lobbying effort to

stop its construction by the Christian Zionist Lobby. However, one should be careful not

to equate absence of evidence with evidence of absence. In the case of the Road Map

there was an overwhelming amount of evidence displaying Christian Zionist opposition to

the Road Map. In the case of the security fence there was a minimal amount of evidence

showing Christian Zionist support. These displays of evidence are contrasted against the

sparse amount of evidence regarding unilateralism, which ultimately leads this research

to its inconclusive conclusions.

2003

In March of 2003, President Bush delivered a speech on his Road Map to Peace that

was notable for its silence on the status of Israeli settlements. The day after this speech

in which President Bush promised to push the Road Map forward, Prime Minister Ariel

Sharon vowed to the Israeli Knesset that settlements would remain in place. This pledge

Ibid. 46

by Sharon, in addition to the ongoing political erosion of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.)

and the continued construction of the security wall, worked to undermine the Road Map

before it was even officially implemented.

The continued push to stifle the Road Map and build settlements in Israel has

been assisted by the funding on the American Christian Right. These evangelical groups

provide tens of millions of dollars a year to expand settlements in the Occupied

Territories. When not providing financial support to Israel, Christian Zionists have found it

beneficial to provide rhetorical support. Accordingly, the NCLCI in early March 2003

issued a press release calling on the Palestinian Authority to stop making excuses and

assume responsibility for their own independent democratic state. The press release

went on to further express support for the construction of the security wall, claiming it is

every state’s responsibility to protect its citizens.

Concurrent to these efforts by Christian Zionist Lobby, political leaders such as

House Leader Tom Delay also voiced opposition to the Road Map. Speaking to Jewish

leaders in March 2003, DeLay claimed Israel has the right to defend itself and should not

be forced to accept agreements that put its security at risk. He went on to characterize

the Quartet members as being more concerned with their popularity amongst Arab

leaders than the security of the world124.

Against the criticisms of Tom DeLay and the Christian Zionist Lobby, the Bush

Administration pushed forward the Road Map to Peace. President Bush stated publicly

124

that once Arafat ceded some power and allowed a new Palestinian Prime Minister to

come to power, he would unveil the Road Map. In continuing this quest for a two-state

solution, the Palestinians were also to control violence directed against the Israelis, while

the Jewish state was to stop settlement construction.

While the Quartet claimed the two-state solution would bring peace to the Israelis

and Palestinians, U.S. Congressmen associated with Christian Zionism saw the Road

Map as a threat to Israel’s security. In early April 2004, both Democrat and Republican

congressman, including some of Bush’s allies, voiced their displeasure over the plan.

Speaking before Congress, DeLay claimed that "negotiating with these men . . . is folly,

and any agreement arrived at through such empty negotiations would amount to a

covenant with death". DeLay would later add that the Road Map is “a confluence of

deluded thinking between European elites, elements within the State Department

bureaucracy and a significant segment of the American intellectual community"127.

Dozens of U.S. congressman upset with the Road Map stated that they would send

President Bush a letter appealing for him to more firmly back the Sharon government. A

key Bush ally and a congressman associated with Christian Zionism by the name of Roy

Blunt signed this letter.

In the same month, the Christian Zionist Lobby remained diligent in opposing the

Road Map. In South Carolina, evangelicals who supported strengthening ties to Israel

paid for billboard sign along the Ayalon Highway in Israel. The billboard stated "There's

no land for peace". In the United States Pat Robertson went to the TV media to lambast

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. Robertson’s message to Shalom was: “Who do

you think you are, handing Jerusalem over to Arafat?"

Ibid. 48

At a “Stand for Israel” event in Washington of April 2003, sponsored by the IFCJ,

600 supporters of Israel gathered. At this gathering Tom DeLay was presented with the

friend of Israel award. Janet Parshall, a popular Christian radio host, addressed the

gathering telling the crowd that if she were the president of the U.S. she would classify

all Palestinians as enemies of America, take away all Palestinian territory and weapons,

dissolve all peace agreements, and eliminate Palestinian refugee camps. She added

that she opposes the dismantling of any Israel settlements and that the Christian

community is amongst the groups that thinks Israel should stop giving away land133.

Despite these vociferous objections by the Christian Zionist Lobby, the unveiling

of the two-solution remained on track. For his part, Ariel Sharon in the media played the

role of peacemaker, who was ready to make painful concessions and deal with the

Palestinians. Yet, despite portraying himself as a man of peace, Sharon continued to

expand the settlements. Sharon also began unilaterally disengaging from the

Palestinians through the construction of the security fence before the Road Map was

even formally published. Sharon for his part claimed the security fence was the only way

to prevent terrorists from entering Israel135.

After Abu Mazen was finally sworn in as Palestinian Prime Minister in May of

2003, the Road Map was officially unveiled by the White House. Israel immediately

claimed that despite pledges by the P.A. to reign in terrorism and curb violence, Hamas

135

and Islamic Jihad remained intransigent towards Israel. Toward this end, Israel argued it

should not be bound to the original time scale set out in the Road Map or be required to

militarily disengage from West Bank towns. Regardless of these objections by Israel, the

United States remained on course with the implementation of the Road Map.

Israel was not the only party upset with the United States over the Road Map. In

America, the Bush administration was met with instantaneous criticism from the Christian

Zionist Lobby. The National Unity Coalition for Israel also displayed its displeasure by

partnering with another Christian Zionist organization, National Prayer

Team, to craft an online petition addressed to President Bush opposing the Road Map.

The opposition to the Road Map amongst Christian Zionists was evident, as the petition

registered more than 22,500 signatures. More opposition to the Road Map could be

found at an interfaith Conference between Christians and Jews where bumper stickers

were passed out to the attendees stating “pray that President Bush will honor God’s

covenant with Israel”. Finally, the Christian Zionists groups also voiced their criticisms to

the Road Map in publications such as The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street

Journal.

In May 2003 Israeli Minister of Tourism Benny Elon took a trip to the United

States for the purpose of promoting tourism to Israel. Elon, an outspoken critic of peace

with the Palestinians, used the trip to voice his opposition to the Road Map. Elon while in

the United States met with prominent Christian Zionists including Tom DeLay and Gary

Bauer. It was expressed to Bauer by Elon that if there were to be an independent

Palestinian state, Israel would be undertaking massive security risks.

This belief that Israel’s security was at risk as a result of the Road Map was later

echoed by twenty-two American Christian conservative leaders. These leaders met at an

interfaith Zionist summit whose purpose was to oppose rewarding “murderous

Ibid. 50

Palestinian terrorism” with statehood. Out of the summit a letter arose addressed to

President Bush that stated the Road Map could lead to a disaster”. The leaders listed as

signatories to the letter included Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Elwood

McQuaid, Janet Parshall, and Michael Little. Other Christian Zionist leaders who signed

the letter included Richard Hellman (CIPAC), Ester Levins (UCI), and David A. Lewis

(CUFI).

The Christian Right also expressed its displeasure toward the Road Map through

Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network. Gordon Robertson, son of Pat, called

on viewers to write the State Department and White House regarding U.S. Assistant

Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns comments on Christian and

conservative objections to the peace plan. Apparently the comments by Burns inferred

that Christians and conservative viewpoints of the peace plan lack common sense.

Robertson went on to add that from the Israeli point of view the Road Map was “dead in

the water”145.

Against these pressures from the Christian Zionist Lobby, the U.S. government

remained unified in its policy stance supporting the Road Map. The same could not be

145

said of the Israeli government. On May 25, 2003 the Israeli cabinet, divided in their

votes, decided to accept the terms of the Road Map. In order to protect their interests

however, the Israeli cabinet insisted that fourteen objections be inserted into the Road

Map representing a red line, which if crossed would cause Israel to withdraw from the

peace process. Two of these objections included the fate of the Israeli settlements and

the timetable for implementation.

In early June 2003 the Israelis, Palestinians, and U.S. were scheduled to meet to

discuss the Road Map. However, before the summit even took place Ariel Sharon made

inflammatory remarks in which he stated that Israel could not go on “holding three-anda-

million people under occupation”. This comment was meant to imply that the Israelis

would seek to keep the occupied territories, while displacing the Palestinians. Sharon

added in a separate interview that he would not declare an “end to the occupation” at the

summit.

Although these comments by Sharon could have been seen as working against

the Road Map, Sharon was not labeled a roadblock to peace. Instead the IFCJ published

an editorial a week after the summit praising the American, Israeli, and P.A. leaders for

working toward peace. In the same article the IFCJ advised the leaders involved in the

Road Map to be weary of Arafat, as he was an obstacle to peace. The reason for caution

according to the author of the article, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, was that changes in the

political leadership of the Palestinian Authority had occurred in name only. Behind the

scenes Eckstein claimed Arafat still held the real power, which in turn meant Israel could

not let its guard down. The editorial went on to praise the Israeli

leadership for including the fourteen conditions in the Road Map that would allow the

state to withdraw if Israel’s security were threatened.

While the IFCJ focused on Arafat as the destroyer of peace, Israeli began an

intensive targeted assassination campaign against the Palestinians. Israel, facing

criticism over this assassination campaign, claimed that regardless of the Road Map it

had the right to wage war against Hamas “without restrictions”. In response to this

assassination campaign Hamas began targeting Jewish civilians with suicide attacks.

As a consequence of the suicide attacks, the IFCJ published another editorial

claiming that the Israelis should not be required to follow the Road Map. According to the

author, Rabbi Eckstein, Israel should not allow the international community to offer

concessions to the Palestinians, since they have no desire for peace. Only after this

peaceful partner is found should Israel seek to have a lasting peace with the

Palestinians. The editorial made no mention of the Israeli targeted assassination

campaign.

To encourage the Israelis to reengage the Road Map and show the Palestinians

that America was serious about the Road Map, the Bush administration dispatched Colin

Powell to the region. The task for Powell was to bring the Israelis back to the negotiating

table after the spate of suicide attacks, while concurrently negotiating a cease fire with

Hamas. Within a few days of Powell visiting Israel, the Israelis assassinated another

Hamas leader, making Powell’s effort all the more difficult. In what followed, Powell was

rather critical in his remarks, claiming the Israelis were not ready to move forward and

work toward peace.

Upon hearing the critical remarks by Powell regarding Israel’s sincerity towards

peace, Tom DeLay requested a meeting with President Bush’s aides. At this meeting

DeLay informed Bush’s aides that he would promote a congressional resolution in favor

of Israel’s actions. The Resolution “express[ed] U.S. solidarity with Israel and

condemn[ed] recent Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians”. DeLay framed the

vote for the resolution in the following way: ''A vote for this resolution reaffirms the

House's commitment to Israel and to the moral clarity of our war on terror. So I just urge

all members to cast that vote and join Israel's heroic stand against evil”.

As the peace process played on through June 2003, the criticism emanating from

the White House regarding Israel became noticeably less vocal. One such example of

this change in behavior occurred with the Gaza pullout in accordance with the Road

Map. On their way out particular towns in Gaza, Israeli soldiers destroyed everything, yet

the response from the White House was muted. Instead the Bush administration chose

to focus on the withdrawal from Gaza itself, labeling it a step in the right direction.

In July the White House again faced the Christian Zionist Lobby when it hosted

twenty leading Christian Zionists, including Yechiel Eckstein. These Christian Zionist

leaders met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Middle East advisor

Elliot Abrams to express their opposition to the Road Map. In response to this opposition

from such a key constituency in American politics, Rice informed the leaders that White

House was sympathetic to their positions. Eckstein claimed that this meeting was the

first time leaders of the Christian Right discussed Israel policy with high level White

House officials.

Additional displeasure from the Christian Zionists Lobby regarding the Road Map

came from Gary Bauer. Americans for a Safe Israel was a group created by Bauer which

began placing billboards and distributing bumper stickers across America with a

message from Genesis stating: "And the Lord said to Jacob...'Unto thy offspring will I

give this land"'. Bauer also expressed the belief that any Palestinian state will be used as

a base for terrorist operations against Israel. Another actor within the Christian Zionist

Lobby, CFIC, also sought to influence the Road Map by donating $200,000 to Israeli

settlers in 2002 to help build new settlements.

In late July the Christian Zionist Lobby continued to oppose the Road Map as

Tom DeLay, before leaving on a trip to Israel, spoke against President Bush’s decision to

provide $20 million directly to the Palestinian Authority for the purpose of supporting

Abbas. DeLay claimed that he was not against giving the Palestinians aid, but he was

against providing aid directly to the Palestinian Authority. Implicit in DeLay’s remarks was

the notion that the P.A. was duplicitous and could not be trusted. This framing of the P.A.

as distrustful was reinforced when DeLay arrived in Israel where he claimed that a

Palestinian state cannot even be discussed until Palestinian terror was addressed.

In an effort supposedly to address Palestinian terror, the Israelis continued to

work on a security barrier that wound through the West Bank. President Bush with all his

power was unable to convince Sharon to stop construction of the security wall. While it

was acknowledged that the existing wall would make the Road Map harder to

implement, the disclosure that Israel would not stop the construction of state-sponsored

settlements made achieving the Road Map a herculean task.

Regardless, the onus to prove they were committed to peace lay with the

Palestinians, not the Israelis. The ability to show commitment to peace was greatly

reduced by the efforts of the Israelis who increasingly made Abbas look weak to his own

people through taking steps contra to the Road Map. This weakness in turn did not allow

Abbas to crack down on Palestinian militant groups as the Israelis had requested, for he

feared it would cause a civil war.

With a recalcitrant Israel paired with a P.A. powerless to stop terrorism, the Road

Map began to resemble the article of appeasement the Christian Zionists claimed it to

be. Still on his trip in Israel, DeLay let the Jewish state know the U.S. stood with them as

an ally and that the U.S. would pay to be on the right side against evil.165. For in this

battle, DeLay continued, there was no middle ground, just right and wrong166. Thus,

DeLay sought to sooth Israeli notions that he would allow the U.S. to deal away Israeli

land while the Jewish state still faced security risks.

In the beginning of August 2003 following the deaths of four Jewish settlers,

Israel called for a halt in the withdrawal from Palestinian cities. Israel added that there

would be no further releases of Palestinian prisoners. Stopping the withdrawal from

Palestinian territories ran counter to what was agreed upon in the Road Map, while the

release of prisoners was a critical component to the truce Abbas negotiated with

Palestinian militant groups. Israel in response claimed withdrawals and prisoner releases

would again commence once the Palestinian leadership cracked down on terrorism.

While Israel was playing hardball with the Palestinians, the U.S. attempted to get

tough on the Israelis. This was evident in Bush administration’s threat to freeze Israel’s

loan guarantees if they continued to build the wall through Palestinian territory. However,

the Bush administration also stated that it did not disagree with Israel’s right to build the

security wall, it just had objections with the wall’s path.

While the security fence was still being constructed, the Road Map was

continuing to fall apart. Throughout August violence became more frequent in Israel and

the Palestinian territories. Frustration was also apparent between Palestinian and Israel

leaders who left a meeting on August 17, 2003 without any agreements for further

withdrawals from Palestinian cities. Israel again claimed they could not undertake further

withdrawals due to threats against their security169. Yet as Abbas received formal

permission from Arafat and began cracking down on militants, Israel again started

targeting Palestinians for assassination. This move by Israel was coupled with the Israeli

military once again occupying Nablus and Jenin.

These tumultuous days of August 2003 gave credence to Christian Zionist

organizations that stood firmly opposed to the Road Map. Leading Christian Zionist Gary

Bauer claimed the Bush administration was pushing the Israelis to make dangerous

concessions and he threatened to retaliate against these moves by asking Christian

voters to say home on Election Day 2004. Another evangelical, Ed McAteer helped to

raise $70,000 to pay for one hundred billboards to urge Christians to contact the White

House to show their displeasure over the Road Map. McAteer also had plans to send out

a press release to one thousand newspapers across the country indentifying Christian

individuals who regularly meet with the White House, but fail to speak out against the

Road Map. CIPAC also mobilized against the Road Map through organizing a

Washington rally in September 2003 in support of Israel.

Before CIPAC could even hold its rally in September, the Bush administration

came to the realization that the Road Map had “stalled”. The cumulative effect of suicide

bombings, Israeli assassination attempts, and P.A. institutional weakness had finally

derailed the peace process. Instead Israel would continue to claim that as it did not have

a credible partner in peace, and Ariel Sharon would begin to take unilateral measures to

disengage from parts of the occupied territories. These steps would include relocating

settlements in the Gaza Strip and intensifying the construction of the security fence.

2004

Despite the Road Map losing its drive, Christian Zionist groups were not overly

enthusiastic regarding Sharon’s unilateralism either. In fact Israeli settlers and the

Christian Right traveled to Washington in February 2004 to pressure Bush not to accept

the pullout plan for Gaza. Other Christian Zionists groups claimed Sharon was guilty of

compromise and betrayal.

In February 2004, the American government tacitly approved Sharon’s

disengagement plan, conditional upon Israel not annexing settlements in the West Bank

nor extending the security fence through the Jordan Valley. Sharon claimed that by

ridding Israel of the Gaza Strip and pulling the military out of the West Bank, it would

leave in place a limited government that would eventually cause the Palestinians to take

control of their future and reenter peace talks. While the motives by Sharon were

questioned within the U.S., the Bush administration felt as though any movement

regarding Israel and the Palestinians was progress179.

By April 2004 the Bush administration had given full approval to the

disengagement plan, with Bush calling Sharon’s plan “historic and courageous actions”.

The disengagement plan approved by Bush called for removing all settlements in the

Gaza Strip, while allowing Israel to retain control over a significant portion of the West

Bank. In addition to evacuating settlers from Gaza, the plan also called for Israel to

remove four small settlements in the West Bank. Another key component of Bush’s

approval of the disengagement plan was the American acceptance of the Israeli right to

continue building the security fence. However, President Bush stated the fence should

not be seen as a permanent political boundary.

In late June of 2004 the U.S. Congress also moved to acknowledge the Israeli

right to unilaterally disengage from the Palestinians. The House passed Concurrent

Resolution 460, sponsored by Tom DeLay, to express their “strong endorsement” of

President Bush’s support for the disengagement plan. In mid-July 2004 the Democrats

within Congress also drafted a platform emphasizing the close relationship between

Israel and the U.S., and the belief that the Green Line cannot be the basis for peace

negotiations with the Palestinians. This claim regarding the Green Line openly

expressed the conviction that there would not be a right of return and that Israel did have

some legitimate claims to the West Bank. The bill was drafted by Shelley Berkley,

another politician who associates with the Christian Zionists.

While the U.S. Congress and President was busy expressing their solidarity with

Israel’s disengagement plan, the International Court of Justice at the Hague (ICJ) was

active in deciding the legality the security fence. The ICJ rejected the Israeli claim that

the security fence was the best defense against Palestinian suicide bombers, and

instead viewed the fence as an infringement upon Palestinian rights. This ruling by

fourteen out of fifteen judges was followed by the non-binding recommendation that

Israel immediately halt construction of the fence and compensate those Palestinians

affected by its presence. The U.S. in response to this ruling claimed the ICJ was not the

proper forum to discuss the security fence, since they viewed it as a political issue that

should be dealt with through the Road Map184. Christian Zionist, Roy Blunt added: "Both

the president and the House have recently made it clear that the United States will not

allow this power play by the United Nation's judicial arm to undermine its commitment to

Israel's security".

While the ICJ ruling over the security fence was met with disapproval by

Christian Zionists, the withdrawal from Gaza was not met with the same condemnation.

UCI issued a press release in September 2004 backing Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for a

national referendum before evacuating the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements.

The UCI claimed the disengagement plan may increase terrorist attacks within Israel and

could embolden countries such as Iran to attack Israel. The UCI release went on to state

that due to Sharon’s unwillingness to air objections to the plan within his own cabinet

and his dismissal of the idea to holding a national referendum on the issue, critics of

Israel may claim Israel is no longer a genuine democracy187.

Notwithstanding these calls by UCI and Netanyahu to abort the disengagement

from Gaza, Ariel Sharon fully embraced this policy while officially abandoning the Road

Map in mid-September 2004. Sharon, despite previously expressing disengagement as

a step within the Road Map, stated: “Today, we are not following the Road Map. I am not

ready for this”. He added that Israel would stay in the West Bank territories after

disengagement and continue its war on terrorism.

Although Sharon may have believed the Road Map to be no longer binding, Tony

Blair had other ideas. In December Mr. Blair called for a meeting in early 2005 between

members of the Quartet and Abbas for the purpose of strengthening the Palestinian

Authority and getting the Road Map back on track. The proposal by Prime Minister Blair

came after the death of Arafat and the resulting reorganization of power within the

Palestinian political community. Israel declined to attend the event but called it an

“important initiative”.

2005

In the early months of 2005 Christian Zionists were actively opposing both the Road Map

and the disengagement from the Gaza Strip. One Christian Zionist leader coordinated a

postcard campaign amongst churches in order to send 50,000 pieces of mail to the

White House denouncing the Road Map. Another Christian Zionist group planned to

travel to the Gaza Strip to protest the withdrawal, on the grounds that it violates God’s

plan. By April of 2005 it was reported that thousands of both Christians and Jews were

ready to join the struggle of the settlers in Gaza. In April 2005 the Road Map was still

actively protested against by Christian Zionist groups, as the UCI organized a protest

right outside Bush’s Crawford ranch as the American president met with Sharon.

The UCI claimed the Road Map would reward the Palestinians for their terrorism.

In March of 2005 as the world was preparing for Israel to remove itself from the

settlements in the Gaza Strip, Israel moved to build 3,500 more homes in the West

Bank. The new settlements would connect Maale Adumim with Jerusalem, thereby

allowing Israel to further consolidate control around Jerusalem. To his critics, Sharon

answered that he was not violating any tenets of the Road Map, for the U.S. had

assured him that Israel would retain control over any major settlement blocs in a

peace agreement.

By July 2005, Israel remained a month away from the Gaza disengagement plan.

The ICEJ in protest published a press release written by its executive director, Malcolm

Hedding. The statement read that the ICEJ is convinced that Israel is placing itself in

“grave and serious danger” through withdrawing from Gaza. The press release went on

to say that the Bible is clear that those nations who attempt to divide the land of Israel

will incur God’s disfavor. The ICEJ reasoned that these nations attempting to divide

Israel will “fall into the hands of the living God”196. The press release ended with the ICEJ

focusing on the plight of the settlers being evacuated. It was emphasized that the settlers

had been encouraged to settle in Gaza by the government, only to later to have their

families uprooted by the same government.

On August 15, 2005 Israel began its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Israeli

Defense Forces (IDF) were brought in to evacuate those settlers who refused

government orders to leave. By August 20, 2005 the IDF had evacuated all but four of

the Gaza settlements, and were operating weeks ahead of schedule. Ariel Sharon made

it clear at this time that he had no intention to evacuate any other settlements and would

wait for the Palestinians to end terror before returning to the Road Map.

2006

On January 4, 2006 Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke at his ranch in the Negev

desert. Sharon suffered paralysis of the lower body and was placed in an induced coma.

Pat Robertson commenting on Sharon’s condition claimed in early February that the

stroke occurred because he attempted to divide God’s land. He went on to say that when

Bush proposed the Road Map in 2002, he warned the president to abandon it based on

appeals to his own faith.

By April 2006, it was reported that new Prime Minister Olmert would begin to

withdraw from more settlements in the West Bank as part of a larger disengagement

plan. When asked about these plans, John Hagee claimed that his organization would

continue supporting Israel. Other groups with the Christian Zionist Lobby were not as

supportive. Leaders of the Christian Right and neo-conservatives took out a full page

add in the Washington Times to denounce the plan by stating “friends don’t let friends

commit suicide” The ad was signed by six evangelical groups.

Olmert continued to pursue what he called his convergence plan in the pursuit of

unilaterally dictating Israel’s borders. This continued until June 12, 2006 when Hezbollah

conducted a cross border raid, surprising the IDF and kidnapping two of their soldiers.

This caused Israel to undertake a massive invasion of Lebanon for the purpose of

punishing Hezbollah and recovering their missing soldiers. This action by Hezbollah

caused Olmert to come to the realization that even if Israel were to withdraw from the

occupied territories there would be no guarantee that the Jewish’s states security would

increase. Israel unilateralist policy officially came to an end on September 18, 2006.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Analysis

The evidence in this research allows for multiple interpretations of how much influence

Christian Zionist groups had on U.S. policy toward Israel. In analyzing the organizational

structures of the Christian Zionists, it was found that they actively lobbied the American

government to support their policy preferences. Yet many of these groups were

designated as “charities,” meaning they could not substantially lobby on behalf of their

preferences. Instead these organizations engaged in attempts to influence policy through

actions such as mass mobilization and media campaigns. These actions were evident in

the second case study, were the Christian Zionists used these tactics to actively oppose

the Road Map.

The actions stemmed from the maximalist positions held by the Christian

Zionists, who saw attempts at dividing god’s land as sacrilegious. These actions came in

the form of activities such as writing editorials, organizing conferences, and encouraging

letter writing campaigns. However, although evidence in these forms was found, there

were not strong causal linkages to show that the Christian Zionist lobbying caused the

U.S. to shift its policy in support of Israeli unilateralism. Moreover, the death of evidence

collected regarding Israeli unilateralism did not show whether the Christian Zionists

actually favored this policy to the Road Map. Due to this lack of evidence and weak

linkages between the evidence that was found I am unable to draw conclusions about

my hypothesis through the chosen theoretical perspective.

In order to better test this hypothesis in the future I would first conduct the

research with additional sources of evidence. One such way to gather more evidence

regarding the U.S. policy shift would be to interview politicians who support Christian

Zionist causes. A questionnaire could be given to them to find out how strongly they feel

the Christian Zionist Lobby impacts the decisions they make regarding Israel. It would

also be interesting to find out how strongly their own religious affiliations direct their

decisions on Israel, and whether their own religious convictions ever conflict with the

Christian Zionist groups that they associate with.

Another source of evidence would be to analyze archived statements and

newsletters from both the Christian Zionists organizations and the U.S. government.

Although some of the organizations did keep online archives of the statements they

released to the media, often the records only dated back as far as 2006. This was not

beneficial to this research since official statements were sought as far back as 2002.

Access to these public statements could show how the Christian Zionist organization’s

official statements and newsletters framed the issue for their supporters, and in what

ways they encouraged their supporters to take action to further their preferences. In

regards to data on the U.S. government, archived statements from the U.S. executive

branch could be acquired from the Department of State Office of the Historian. Likewise

archived statements from the legislative branch could be acquired from the

Congressional Record.

Moreover, if in the future this study were to have funding, it would be beneficial to

pay opensecrets.org the $125 an hour fee to provide an individual listing of pro-Israeli

organizations by industry. This would allow for the broadening of Christian Zionist

organizations not mentioned by Mearsheimer and Walt to be researched. Finally, if the

funding were available, opensecrets.org could provide a more extensive listing of

politicians that the pro-Israel industry attempts to influence.

Any listing provided by opensecrets.org could also provide me with a more

complete listing of Christian Zionist groups. This would allow for me to eliminate some of

the current organizations I have listed as belonging to the Christian Zionist Lobby, while

possible adding others. These new organizations could then offer new sources of

evidence to test my hypothesis against. Therefore, by refining the organization under

study I could eliminate some groups suspected as not truly being part of the Christian

Zionist Lobby, but more closely resembling part of the Israel Lobby. For in using the

groups listed by Mearsheimer and Walt, it was found that some supposedly Christian

Zionist organizations were run by Jewish individuals. This is not to say that these Jewish

individuals would not lobby for Christian Zionists preferences, but instead to claim that it

would highly unlikely that they would lobby for these preferences due to their

selfdefeating ends.

In addition to creating more sources of evidence, more cases could be added to

test the hypothesis. These case studies would involve the same question in this research

focusing on why the U.S. provides nearly unconditional support for Israel.

Three case studies that immediately come to mind involving the interests of the Christian

Zionists would be the Egypt-Israel Peace agreement, the Oslo Accords, and the

IsraeliSyrian peace talks of 1999.

For the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty, Israel agreed to return the Sinai

Peninsula to Egypt in return for a full peace. In this case the U.S. allowed Israel to sign a

bilateral treaty with Egypt instead of pushing the Jewish state to sign a multilateral

comprehensive peace with the Arab states in the region. This case study would test how

the Christian Zionists lobbied for or against this policy for the purpose of providing Israel

with the most favorable outcome. I would expect to find evidence of the Christian

Zionists opposing this policy, and as a result, the American government not fully

engaging the peace process with Egypt and Israel. This reluctance of the Christian

Zionist to approve of this peace is attributed to the return of Sinai, which was promised to

the Jews in both Numbers and Ezekiel. While this would be an intriguing case study to

conduct, one problem would be that out of the Christian Zionist groups in this study, only

the NCLCI existed in 1979. Accordingly, for this case study to be conducted Christian

Zionist groups which existed in 1979 would have to be found and the range of actors in

the research expanded.

A case study involving the Oslo Accords would also be appealing to add to future

research. Although the Oslo Accords did not initially include any stipulations for a

Palestinian state, it did call for limited self-rule in the Gaza Strip and West Bank by

Palestinians. Once again Christian Zionists would find fault with these agreements

because Jews would be losing control over the land promised to them by God. Thus,

due to Christian Zionist influence I would expect to find evidence showing the U.S.

showing more support to Israel during the Oslo Process. This case study would not have

the same difficulty of the aforementioned one, as all the Christian Zionist groups were

organized during this time frame except Stand for Israel and Christians United for Israel.

Finally, the Syrian-Israeli peace talks of 1999 study would be attractive for the

same reason as the first two case studies. Mainly, the Christian Zionists would see the

Israeli government as going against God’s will by returning land promised to them. In this

case I would expect the U.S. to again provide Israel with support in dealing with the

Syrians or even ending the peace talks altogether. Again in this case all the Christian

Zionist groups could be included except for Stand for Israel and Christians United for

Israel.

Students also viewed