By deciding on Israel, Bush is deciding the destiny of the United States

Under the pressure of left-wing evangelicals, Bush wants the division of the Promised Land between Jews and Palestinian Arabs

Julio Severo

In his recent trip to Israel, President George W. Bush called on the Israelis to withdraw from the “Arab lands”. That is, Bush called “Arab lands” the territorial parts of the Promised Land occupied by Palestinian Arabs. He caused a stir among Muslims by saying, “There should be an end to the [Jewish] occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people”. Such homeland would be created through great sacrifices from Jews, who will be forced to cede important parts of the Promised Land to Palestinian Arabs.

Pentagon advisor Bob Maginnis, an Army retired officer, says that as an evangelical Christian he is distressed by the president’s shift of policy in regards to Israel. Maginnis told, “The president rewrote history when he announced that, after 60 years of a U.S. policy stating very clearly that we believe that this land belongs to Israel”.

Under the pressure of left-wing evangelicals and political interests, Bush is pressuring Jews to surrender parts of Jerusalem and the Promised Land to Palestinian Arabs.

Yet, could Bush welcome the idea of relinquishing U.S. territorial parts in exchange of peace? Could he deliver them to Palestinian Arabs for the establishment of a Palestinian homeland?

Arab nations have much more territorial extension than Israel and have the same Muslim traditions of the most Palestinians, but they are unwilling to sacrifice any part of their own Muslim lands to establish a homeland for their faith and blood brothers.

Even Lula, the Socialist president of Brazil supporting Muslim dictators and the Palestinian cause, would not be willing to sacrifice the Amazonas state to create a Palestinian nation. There would be no problem if Lula did so, because there are no biblical promises saying that Amazonas state is of Brazilians forever. Yet, there are biblical promises for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In fact, that whole land is called Promised Land because it was promised to Jews, not to Brazilians, not to Americans and not to Palestinian Arabs.

By referring to the permanence of Jews in parts of the Promised Land as “military occupation”, Bush, advancing in the Bill Clinton policies of compelling Jews to relinquish their lands in exchange of peace, is also deciding the destiny of his country.

By insisting that Jerusalem is to be divided between Jews and Palestinian Arabs, Bush is at a point now where he may seal forever the final stage of the U.S. grandness. In this issue, Bush is following the steps of the liberal Clinton and distancing himself from the upstanding and sensible anti-socialist policies of Ronald Reagan. Reagan understood Jerusalem could not be divided, and that there cannot be a Palestinian state because the latter would spell the end of Israel.

“In Israel, free men and women are every day demonstrating the power of courage and faith,” Reagan once remarked. “Back in 1948 when Israel was founded, pundits claimed the new country could never survive. Today, no one questions that. Israel is a land of stability and democracy in a region of tyranny and unrest.”

Behind Reagan, there were many sensible evangelical leaders guiding him and helping him in the Israel issues. Those leaders had the positive perception that the Promised Land was only for Jews.

Today, there are also like-minded evangelical leaders trying to help Bush, but other evangelical leaders appeared in the scene. They think that God’s promises for Jews have no more validity and that the Promised Land can be divided between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

Before Bush’s trip to Israel, on January 8, 2008 the ultra-leftist Sojourners sent a message mobilizing left-wing evangelicals throughout the U.S. to sign a petition to press the U.S. government. The ideologically charged message says:

“The extreme right says U.S. Christians oppose peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Tell Condi Rice they don’t speak for you. As President Bush prepares to travel to the Middle East for the first time this week, he’s been hearing a lot from Christians on the extreme right who oppose a just peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. They’d like our political leaders to believe that their misguided fundamentalist theology… represent the views of all U.S. Christians. Tell Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the religious right doesn’t speak for you. Don’t underestimate how extreme these groups are — the leader of ‘Christians United for Israel’ has gone as far as to suggest that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God for U.S. support of Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip”.

To increase their pressure on Bush and his administration, those leaders issued the manifesto “An Evangelical Statement on Israel/Palestine”. It says:

“As evangelical Christians committed to the full authority of the Scriptures, we feel compelled to make a statement together at this historic moment in the life of the Holy Land. The Bible clearly teaches that God longs for justice and peace for all people. We believe that the principles about justice taught so powerfully by the Hebrew prophets apply to all nations including the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Therefore… We call on all evangelicals, all Christians, and everyone of good will to join us to work and pray faithfully in the coming months for a just, lasting two-state solution in the Holy Land”.

The manifesto, which closes by saying “Blessed are the peacemakers”, is undersigned by many evangelical leaders, including Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis (Sojourners editor) and David Neff, Christianity Today editor.

In Brazil, Ultimato magazine, copying ideologically Sojourners magazine, said:

“Because of a particular trend in the interpretation of Christian eschatology, many Protestants generally take the side of Israel… The appropriate attitude would be to fight for a definite recognition of both [Jew and Palestinian Arab] States [within the Promised Land]”.

The Holy Land, which was determined by God’s promise to be only one nation — Israel — is now under the determinations of left-wing evangelicals, who want turn the Promised Land into two totally opposite countries, antagonizing God’s purposes.

Evangelical leader Gary Bauer, a leading pro-Israel activist in America and member of the executive board for Christians United for Israel, declared, “I think they’re putting undue pressure on the state of Israel to make more concessions. I think that’s a dangerous, dangerous thing to do that will not only harm Israel, but ultimately harm the United States”.

Reagan was honored by God with the U.S. presidency and he used the opportunity to demonstrate and strengthen his friendship to Israel. Yet, Bush, who was equally honored, is giving way to the pressures of evangelicals that want the U.S. government to continue the Clinton policies on Israel.

By putting in danger the peace, the safety and the stability of the Promised Land — not mentioning God’s promises —, the United States is also putting in danger her own peace and safety, to suffer the curses coming on those interfering in God’s plans for Jews and their land.

The pursuit for peace by the sacrifice of the Promised Land and its rightful heirs will have a cost: “When they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction will come upon them”. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

Source: Last Days Watchman

Portuguese version of this article: Ao decidir sobre Israel, Bush está decidindo o destino dos Estados Unidos

Recommended reading:

I will bless them that bless thee

What every Christian should know about Israel

Reagan: A Staunch Friend of Israel