Why conservative American evangelicals are among Israel's strongest supporters
WASHINGTON — One of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's first meetings in the United States this week was not with American Jewish leaders but with evangelical ones.
The conservative Christians met with Netanyahu on Monday at Blair House, a residence for visiting foreign officials near the White House. The gathering came ahead of the Israeli leader's meeting with President Trump on Tuesday that led to Trump's dramatic proposals about the future of Gaza.
'The fact that our meeting took place before his meetings with President Trump and U.S. elected officials is indicative of the strength of the historic friendship that exists between Israel and Christians in America,' said Pastor Jentezen Franklin, who leads a Georgia megachurch and has served as a Trump spiritual advisor.
Among those in attendance were former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist pastor and Trump's pick to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel, and Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council.
Many of those in attendance were Christian Zionists, including Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, an evangelical organization that claims 10 million members.
'The Prime Minister is here — as his country begins to conclude its longest war — to effectively reset the U.S.-Israel relationship after the damage done by four years of, at best, lukewarm support for the Jewish state,' Hagee told the Associated Press via email.
Christian Zionism is an ideology among some evangelical Christians, particularly in the United States, that interprets the Bible as promising the land of Israel eternally to the Jews and asserting that God would bless Israel's supporters. Some proponents also interpret the Bible as predicting many Jews' eventual conversion to Christianity.
The meeting was a reminder that evangelical Christian Zionists are among Israel's strongest supporters in the U.S. — and they wield considerable influence as Trump begins his second term. They have also backed controversial sentiments expressed by Republicans and Trump this week over the territories of Gaza and the West Bank.
Trump, during a shocking news conference with Netanyahu on Tuesday, suggested that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip could be removed and resettled elsewhere, with the U.S. taking over the war-torn region.
The president, echoing his real estate developer past, said he envisions a Gaza that could be 'the Riviera of the Middle East.'
'This could be something that could be so valuable. This could be so magnificent,' Trump said, adding that the people who live there would be able to live in peace.
Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and a key White House advisor during his first term, has also praised the 'very valuable' potential of Gaza's 'waterfront property.'
'I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,' Kushner said a year ago.
The national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Nihad Awad, assailed Trump's proposal.
'Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people, not the United States, and President Trump's call to displace Palestinians from their land either temporarily or permanently is an absolute nonstarter,' Awad said in a statement.
'If President Trump wants to make history with some sort of grand peace deal, he must start by accepting that the way to make permanent peace is to end the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.'
Trump's proposals underscore 'the colonial nature of the Palestinian struggle,' said Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
'Any forced relocation of the Palestinian population will only escalate violence and resistance, leading to more instability in the region,' he said. 'Anti-American sentiment will spike even further than what we have witnessed over the last year.'
Among U.S. Jewish leaders there were mixed views.
The president of an umbrella group representing relatively progressive congregations, Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Union for Reform Judaism, was skeptical.
'While this moment indeed requires bold thinking to bring safety and autonomy to Israel and the Palestinians, what we heard yesterday will not build that future; it will undermine it,' Jacobs said.
'A peaceful Palestinian state alongside a secure Jewish state of Israel has to be reached through a negotiated agreement between the two parties,' he added. 'Forcibly removing either populace will only perpetuate the conflict.'
The executive vice president of a more conservative group, Rabbi Moshe Hauer of the Orthodox Union, said Trump's pronouncements about Gaza 'were certainly a shock' and might be viewed in some quarters as insane.
Yet he described the policies affecting Gaza for the last two decades as 'utter insanity,″ with Hamas holding control and then invading Israel in 2023.
'There may be in this new proposal something to digest and think about,' he said. 'We have gotten into a very unproductive place, an insanity that keeps repeating itself. Let's take a step back, and think, 'What if this really works, and bodes well for the future of everybody.''
Trump's proposals were praised by Sam Markstein, communications director for the Republican Jewish Coalition.
'President Trump is a disruptor, and after decades of failed policies, we are encouraged that the president is pursuing a bold, new vision for the region. ... As the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history, we are confident in President Trump's ability to bring security, peace and prosperity to this troubled region.'
One longtime goal of Christian Zionists, and their allies, got a boost this last week when Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) reintroduced legislation that would require all official U.S. documents and materials to use the term 'Judea and Samaria' instead of the 'West Bank.' The legislation was introduced in the House by Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.)
'The Jewish people's legal and historic rights to Judea and Samaria goes back thousands of years,' Cotton said. 'The U.S. should stop using the politically charged term West Bank to refer to the biblical heartland of Israel.'
Israel's government refers to the West Bank by its biblical name, Judea and Samaria, and considers it the historical heartland of the Jewish people. Palestinians and the U.S. government refer to the occupied territory as the West Bank.
Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 along with the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — territory the Palestinians seek for a future state. The U.S., along with most of the international community, has traditionally supported the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines.
American Christian Zionists often use the biblical terms Judea and Samaria as a signal of their support for Israel and its annexation of the West Bank. Speakers at the annual conference of Christians United for Israel frequently invoke the biblical language as an applause line.
Huckabee has repeated that the West Bank belongs to Israel, and recently said 'the title deed was given by God to Abraham and to his heirs.'
Ironically, Judea and Samaria were once part of an ancient two-state scenario. For at least 200 years of Israel's royal history, Judea and Samaria represented separate kingdoms: Judea continued the dynasty of King Solomon while Samaria was the capital of the northern kingdom, called Israel.
Stanley writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Mariam Fam contributed from Egypt. Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with the Conversation, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters
Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent it from distributing devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into machine guns. The lawsuit stems from a May 16 settlement agreement between the Trump administration and Rare Breed Triggers, a company that manufactures devices known as forced reset triggers. The lawsuit also includes Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C. What are forced reset triggers? Forced Reset Triggers, or FRTs, are aftermarket triggers that enable semi-automatic guns to fire as fast as fully automatic weapons. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ordered the company to halt sales and declared that FRTs would be considered machine guns under federal law, which consequently made them subject to tighter restrictions. Rare Breed Triggers disputed the ATF's stance and continued selling its FRTs, leading the federal government to file a lawsuit against the company in 2023. At the same time, the National Association for Gun Rights sued the ATF in federal court in Texas, challenging its classification of the FRT-15 as a machine gun. The May 16 settlement ended the litigation between the U.S. government and Rare Breed Triggers. "The Department's agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue," an announcement by the Department of Justice read. Under the lawsuit, ATF can stop enforcing the law against FRTs and can redistribute the devices previously seized by the agency. "Forced reset triggers turn semi-automatic firearms into weapons of war capable of inflicting devastating impacts on Maryland communities," said AG Brown. "The Trump administration's decision to send these previously seized firearms back to Maryland, where they are illegal, makes our neighbors and children more vulnerable to mass shootings." Suing over forced reset triggers With the lawsuit announced Monday, the states hope to prevent FRTs from being redistributed. "We're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the redistribution of forced reset triggers into our states," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said Monday morning. "This is just part of what we're doing in New Jersey and in the states we're representing to reduce gun violence." Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said the state banned rapid-fire devices in 2022. Maryland criminal law also bans rapid-fire activators. "These devices enable firearms to fire up to 900 bullets per minute," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said. "The increased rate of fire allows carnage and chaos to reign on the streets. Everyone nearby becomes vulnerable to serious injury or death." Maryland sues gun manufacturer over machine gun converter In a similar move, Maryland and Baltimore sued gun manufacturer Glock in February, alleging the company violated the state's Gun Industry Accountability Act. The lawsuit alleged that Glock contributed to the gun violence crisis by promoting the use of switches, a device that converts a pistol into a machine gun. During the Maryland General Assembly, lawmakers proposed a bill banning a list of weapons that can be converted from semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic using an attachment referred to as an auto-sear, or "switch." Just last week, Baltimore Police arrested a group of teens who they said had multiple guns and ammunition, along with an auto-sear attachment.
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Ron Insana says Trump's spending bill unlikely to generate the economic boom he promised
As he did in his first term as president, President Donald Trump is once again predicting an economic boom the likes of which the U.S. has never before seen. In reviewing the publicly available economic data since Ronald Reagan, the period in which the U.S. grew the fastest with the most job creation did not occur in Trump's first term and is unlikely to do so in this term, the reasons why to be explained shortly. First, a brief review of recent economic history where the biggest economic boom actually took place. Former President Bill Clinton's eight years in office produced nearly 4% annual growth, over 240,000 jobs added per month and an inflation rate that averaged less than 3%, considered very low for that time. The unemployment rate when Clinton first took office was 7.3% and bottomed at 3.8% by April 2000. By contrast, in Trump's first term, the economy added under 200,000 jobs per month, roughly equal to that of former President Barack Obama, while GDP growth averaged 2.3%, again, roughly equal to Obama's last three years in office, while inflation was less than a quarter percentage point lower than in Obama's second term. (Trump's numbers, of course, were skewed by the Covid crisis, which featured the steepest and shortest recession in U.S. history.) All that leads me to the notion that a boom, the likes of which we have not seen, is unlikely even if the "Big Beautiful Bill" passes through Congress and lands on Trump's desk. And here's why. Nothing new to help growth First, the bill largely extends existing tax rates that were put in place in 2017, without further lowering corporate taxes, as once promised, from 21% to 15%. There are no major additional tax cuts included in the bill. The bill simply makes much of the existing code permanent. No change, no gain. It's true that taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security payments may be eliminated, but that could also lead to employers seeking out ways, in the first two cases anyway, to pay lower wages if tips and overtime go untaxed. Beyond that, there's not much new in the bill that would accelerate economic growth, nor would a failure of the bill's passage lead to a 68% tax increase for everyone in America, as the president has warned . Published analyses have suggested that 68% of Americans could see a 7% increase in their taxes, but not a 68% increase in what they pay. Given the prospects for rising inflation amid recently imposed tariffs, and a subsequent slowing in consumer spending, some of which is already taking place, the economy appears to be downshifting rather than speeding up. Job growth , as we saw on Friday, has moderated for several months in a row and while not reflective of a recession, we're also witnessing a jump in jobless claims, announced layoffs and, according to some published reports, consumers maxing out credit cards to buy the basics. Add to that the reductions in support for the poorest Americans, whether its access to Medicaid or food stamps, and the ingredients for a further slowdown are embedded in the bill, especially for those who can least afford to have government assistance reduced in a meaningful way. Big changes needed The Department of Government Efficiency spending cuts are also affecting government stimulus in so far as key funding in technology, medicine and education are being slashed, threatening the very areas that make the U.S. economy competitive and very much growth-oriented. The bill, by most accounts, also adds from $2.4 trillion to $3.3 trillion to the budget deficit over the next decade. With the current national debt standing at a record $36.2 trillion, higher federal borrowing needs could further push up borrowing costs as investors, especially international ones, now nervous about America's fiscal position could demand higher yields to compensate them for the risk, however unlikely, that the U.S. runs into trouble in paying its bills. During the Clinton administration, tax rates were higher, and yet growth was stronger, 22.7 million jobs were added and the budget deficit turned to surplus by the end of his term. None of those metrics are supported by existing or proposed policy initiatives today. The Clinton boom was second only to that of FDR, whose economy grew strongly as Roosevelt took over, quite literally, at the very bottom of the Great Depression. In modern times, Clinton's economy was stronger than that of any president who came before or after him. None of the policies currently being pursued by this administration offer the same prospects for growth though, even like Clinton, this president has a major technological revolution underway. That big, beautiful bill would require some big, bountiful changes if it hopes to stimulate growth in a way in which all Americans, rather than perhaps a handful of billionaires, will share meaningfully in any future prosperity.
Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Tesla stock gets a fresh downgrade, with the Musk-Trump fight fueling uncertainty and risk of 'brand damage'
Tesla stock got a fresh downgrade on Monday following a dramatic public feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump last week. Analysts at Baird downgraded shares of Tesla from "Buy" to "Neutral," saying the Musk-Trump spat has heightened the potential for brand damage. "The recent incident between Musk and President Trump exemplifies key-person risk associated with Musk's political activities," senior research analyst Ben Kallo wrote in a client note Monday. "While we have no indication of how the relationship may change or what either will do, we see the situation as adding uncertainty to TSLA's outlook." The note added that "brand damage has occurred and, when coupled with increasing competition, will fuel bearish narratives regarding demand." Shortly after leaving the White House earlier this month, Musk took to social media to criticize Trump's "big beautiful" tax and spending bill that has been moving through Congress. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk said on X. As Musk's criticisms ramped up, Trump eventually responded, with the president threatening to cut Musk's government contracts with his companies, like SpaceX. But Baird said the public feud is just one reason for its downgrade. Rising competition from China in the EV space could eat into Tesla's market share, the firm said, and tariffs could disrupt its supply chains in the near term. Investors' expectations for Tesla's robotaxi rollout are also too high, Baird said. "Musk has said there will be hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road by 2H next year," Kallo wrote. "We model 6K, and while we don't think the volume of cars matters in the near term as much as establishing a presence in the arena, we do think the robotaxi business will be harder (and likely less profitable) than the lofty expectations held by several investors." Tesla shares have risen nearly 70% in the last 12 months but have fallen 26% so far in 2025.
