Submitted by Carmen Waggoner, Ph.D.(United States), Jul 15, 2003 at 11:32
Yes, Christian Zionism is presently Israel's best weapon; in the process, it is also Israel's best ally. It makes sense, since christianity found its origin in judaism. It is surprising to see that so many christians do not seem to know that Jesus was a jew. However, a solid base of fundamentalist christians are knowledgeable and recognize the old testament as part of their religious beliefs. Given this solid common ground, a greater understanding is possible between jews and christians. In contrast, it seems that the gap is too wide between muslim ideology and judeo-christian ideology.
Finally, there is also the question of mindset; the mode of thinking between members of the two groups is diametrically opposite, a fact which might account for the constant failure of the negociations that occurred with the Palestinians. Arafat is the prime example of a master liar and a consumate actor whose sole belief is his true belief in his own lies. Encouraged by the success of his lies and the naivete (French word) of the Americans, the gap between muslims and the judeo-christian world has widened: American christians and jews are not stupid, and finally understand why Israelis' use of force is the only way to counter the efforts of Islam, a nation whose goal is to destroy and conquer Israel. Ergo, negociations cannot succeed, and Christian Zionists are justified to fight for their belief; contrary to muslisms, who interpret their creed according to their political longing (a dream of dominance of the world), zionists are justified by their genuine belief in the Bible; they are honest, and understand compassion and altruism.
Carmen Waggoner, Ph.D.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.
