Biting the hand that feeds: Israeli minister wants sanctions on US

Biting the hand that feeds: Israeli minister wants sanctions on US

Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:15 UTC

Obama gets tough with the Israelis - or, rather, talks about getting tough - and hilarity ensues:

"In a sign of growing concern in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government over U.S. President Barack Obama's Middle East policies, Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled proposed Israeli sanctions on the U.S. in a letter to cabinet ministers on Sunday.

"In the 11-page letter, obtained by the Jerusalem Post from a minister on Monday, Peled recommends steps Israel can take to compensate for the shift in American policy, which he believes has become hostile to Israel."

According to Peled, the Obama administration will eventually come to realize the error of its ways, but for now the U.S. president seems intent on exerting "intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts, and advance the formation of a Palestinian state" - all steps previously agreed to by Israeli leaders, by the way, and now thrown in the trash bin by the far-Right nutballs who have captured the Israeli government.

"But in the interim," the Post reports, "the minister suggests reconsidering military and civilian purchases from the U.S., selling sensitive equipment that the Washington opposes distributing internationally, and allowing other countries that compete with the U.S. to get involved with the peace process and be given a foothold for their military forces and intelligence agencies."

The irony of someone "reconsidering military and civilian purchases" which are being made, or will be made, with our money is a real hoot - but the laughs are just starting!

There's just one conceivable answer to the suggestion that Israel should start "selling sensitive equipment that Washington opposes distributing internationally": when did they ever stop? The Israelis have been stealing U.S. technology and selling it to the Chinese - for one example - for years, much to Washington's chagrin. So does this mean they're going to be doing it openly, instead of sneaking around and doing it on the sly?

As for the idea of giving "other countries that compete with the U.S." a military foothold - go for it, Yossi! I can hardly wait until the Venezuelan army arrives to guard the Wall of Separation. And no doubt the Chinese - grateful for all the high-tech weaponry you've stolen on their behalf - will be more than happy to guard the illegal settlements you're building (with our tax dollars).

And although the French would be grateful, I'm sure, if the Israelis switched from Boeing to Airbus - as Peled suggests - they probably wouldn't want to get involved militarily. The most you can expect is that they'll displace Jerry Lewis from their national pantheon of comedic culture heroes and install this guy in his place.

Oh, but we haven't even gotten to the best part of this "news from Bizarro World" item:

"In what may be his most controversial suggestion, Peled recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel."

Israel intervene in U.S. politics - why, what a novel idea! If Peled hadn't suggested it, it would never - ever - have occurred to me.

Okay, now that you've stopped laughing, just consider: look at all the pro-Israel money that has flowed into the coffers of U.S. congressional candidates, and you have to wonder - is it really enough? Surely the Israelis can afford to ship a few million of those billions we give them directly back to Washington. And, when you think about it, isn't this a way for the Israelis to make up for their boycott of Boeing and other U.S. providers - by pumping extra millions into the U.S. economy, via the campaign chests of our elected officials? They don't call it a "special relationship" for nothing.

The reality, of course, is that the Israelis and their American amen corner are already buying up U.S. politicians by the dozen - no, AIPAC doesn't do it directly, they do it through a complex network of local and regional political action committees. As for the idea of Israel and its American friends exerting pressure on a U.S. official in exchange for under-the-table favors - like, say, intervening in an espionage case - well, it is absolutely unheard of...

Or is it?

You really can't make this stuff up, and, what's more, you don't have to bother. Because the last two times the Israelis went in and slaughtered a few thousands of their neighbors, the U.S. Congress voted to hail them as heroes. When it become clear that our president wouldn't be catering to the Israelis' each and every whim, AIPAC circulated a letter demanding that the White House not "pressure" Tel Aviv - and more than three-quarters of the U.S. Senate signed it, along with the vast majority of House members.

Congress is already "Israeli-occupied territory," as one wag famously put it, so Peled's suggestion is redundant, to say the least. What I suggest, however, is that they start a campaign to impeach Obama, and, once they've succeeded, they should finance and run their own candidate for the White House. After all, look how they got rid of Cynthia McKinney and filled her seat with a suitable replacement.

Yes, the laughs just keep on coming:

"Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions."

What a great idea: they can call the "new body" the "Elders of Zion" and put out a manifesto entitled - what else? - The Protocols. Then they can translate it into Spanish and pass it out at taco joints and factory gates (those that aren't closed on account of the recession and the Israeli boycott of U.S. goods and services). Now there's a winning strategy if ever I saw one!

Seriously, though, what gets me are the disingenuous responses to the Peled sanctions campaign from our pro-Israel lobbyists. "He's right," said Shoshana Bryen, senior director for security policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, but maybe he shouldn't talk so loud: "She warned that such expressions could 'take on a life of their own,'" the Post reports, "and that some of Peled's policy prescriptions could be less than helpful for the Jewish state."

Well, yes, Bryen does have a point: what if the U.S. suddenly stopped the $3 billion-plus in annual aid to the Jewish state? That might prove less than helpful, to be sure. And, even worse, the idea that our Israeli "allies" are faithless, spoiled, and have an unjustifiable sense of entitlement might take on a life of its own, so to speak - and help ensure that the aid cutoff is total, and permanent.

Not that this will ever happen, you understand, not even if the Israelis bombed Washington with those U.S.-bought-and-paid-for fighter jets. Smarties like Ira Forman are way ahead of Peled on this:

"Democratic political activists in Washington dismissed out of hand Peled's suggestions, saying that such an approach would have little chance of influencing Congress' posture on Israel. 'It shows Yossi Peled is terribly uninformed about U.S. politics,' said National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Director Ira Forman. 'He doesn't understand the politics of the American Jewish community. He doesn't understand the politics of the Democratic Party.'"

In short, Peled doesn't understand that the U.S. Congress has already been bought and sold by pro-Israel money - and that any more cash would be redundant. Peled also doesn't understand that no one is supposed to talk about this, unless they're an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for president who never had much of a chance anyway. Nothing is ever said, yet the quid pro quo is all-too-well understood.

The Post reports Forman's comment that "such efforts, if attempted, would neither shift congressional support away from Obama nor boomerang to hurt Israel's backing on Capitol Hill," and I'd lay odds on it. Before any "boomerang effect" sets in, at least in the hallowed halls of Congress, the Israelis would have to set off a couple of nukes in major American cities - and even then, there would probably be a congressional resolution expressing undying support for the "special relationship" in spite of all that bothersome radioactivity.

Okay, we've all had our laugh for the day, a light moment that enables us to rise above the depressing everyday reality, but before we return to the mundane world of the distinctly non-amusing, let's consider just who Yossi Peled is, and his place in the Israeli political landscape. Surely he's some fire-breathing extremist, a Kahanist or a supporter of Avigdor Lieberman's neo-fascist party - right? Wrong. According to the Jerusalem Post, he's a "moderate," a relative "dove" who's a Likudnik, albeit on the "left" flank of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's party. In which case, can you imagine what the real extremists are wont to do in response to Obama's new policy?

For years, we've heard about how "pro-American" the Israelis are: why, they're just like us - a democratic and inherently Western state that is embedded in an anti-American sea. Well, not anymore. Today, the Foreign Ministry of Israel is run by a man who could be compared, with much justification, to the failed painter from Vienna, or at least a Bizarro World Jewish version of the same.

Israelis want to deport their Arabs, seize their land, and construct a "Greater Israel." What's more, anti-Americanism is on the rise in Israel - as Peled's comments suggest - and the most anti-American of them all appear to be those Israeli-American dual citizens who vote in U.S. elections and go to Israel regularly, where Max Blumenthal recently captured their rabid anti-American sentiments on video.

What I want to know is this: when, oh, when will the American people wake up to the basic absurdity of the "special relationship" - and put an end to it, forever? Their president, it seems, is aware that our national interests are not served by this condition of mutual resentment and dependency. Now that Israel's true face is showing, how long before all the public relations efforts in the world fail to mask the ugly reality?

And the reality is this: Israel has been a burden, not a benefit, to the U.S. and its national interests abroad. By giving the Jewish state our unconditional support, we have, ironically, set ourselves up for some "blowback" from Israel's direction - and it isn't pretty, is it?

Canada: Peacekeepers No More

Canada becomes Israel

Yves Engler
The Electronic Intifada
Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:25 UTC

© EI Illustration

Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper's government publicly supported Israel's brutal assault on Gaza and voted alone at the UN Human Rights Committee in defense of Israel's actions three weeks ago. Now Canada has taken over Israeli diplomacy. Literally.

In solidarity with Gaza, Venezuela expelled Israel's ambassador at the start of the bombardment and then broke off all diplomatic relations two weeks later. Israel need not worry since Ottawa plans to help out. On 29 January, The Jerusalem Post reported that "Israel's interests in Caracas will now be represented by the Canadian Embassy." This means Canada is officially Israel, at least in Venezuela.

Prior to the recent bombing in Gaza, the Harper government made it abundantly clear that it would support Israel no matter what that country did. It publicly endorsed Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon, voted against a host of UN resolutions supporting Palestinian rights and in January 2008 refused to criticize illegal Israeli settlement construction at Har Homa near Jerusalem (even Washington publicly criticized these settlements). Canada was also the first country (after Israel) to cut off financial aid to the elected Hamas government and Ottawa has provided millions of dollars as well as personnel to create a US-trained Palestinian police force to act as a counterweight to the Hamas government and to oversee Israel's occupation.

Harper's support for Israel is extreme, but despite what many well-meaning commentators claim, it is not a break from Canada's role as an "honest broker" in the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is a long history of Canadian support for Zionism, a European settler ideology that has violently dispossessed Palestinians for more than six decades.

The idea for a Middle Eastern Jewish homeland to serve Western imperial interests has a long history in Canada. Since at least the 1870s Christian Zionists called for their biblical prophesies to be fulfilled under British auspices. By November 1915, Solicitor General (and then Prime Minister) Arthur Meighen publicly proclaimed, "I think I can speak for those of the Christian faith when I express the wish that God speed the day when the land of your [Jewish] forefathers shall be yours again. This task I hope will be performed by that champion of liberty the world over -- the British Empire." Two decades later Prime Minister RB Bennett began a national radio broadcast of the United Palestine Appeal with a speech about how the Balfour declaration and British control over Palestine was a step towards Biblical prophecies. "Scriptural prophecy is being fulfilled," he noted. "The restoration of Zion has begun."

During the 1947 UN negotiations over the British mandate of historic Palestine, Canada played an important role in creating Israel. Lester Pearson (then under-secretary of state for External Affairs) who chaired two different UN committees dealing with the mandate and Supreme Court Justice Ivan C. Rand, a member of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), played central roles in the negotiations that led to partition. In State in the Making, David Horowitz (the first governor of the Bank of Israel and first director general of Israel's ministry of finance) writes: "It may be said that Canada more than any other country played a decisive part in all stages of the UNO [United Nations Organization] discussions of Palestine."

The UN's 1948 partition plan gave the new Jewish state the majority of Palestine despite the Jewish population owning roughly seven percent of the land and representing a third of the population. Rand's assistant on UNSCOP, Leon Mayrand, provides a window into the dominant mindset at External Affairs: "The Arabs were bound to be vocal opponents of partition but they should not be taken too seriously. The great majority were not yet committed nationalists and the Arab chiefs could be appeased through financial concessions, especially if these accompanied a clearly declared will to impose a settlement whatever the means necessary." A dissident within External Affairs, the department's only Middle East expert, Elizabeth MacCallum, claimed Ottawa supported partition, "because we didn't give two hoots for democracy."

Above all else support for partition was driven by a geostrategic worldview. An internal report circulated at External Affairs explained: "The plan of partition gives to the western powers the opportunity to establish an independent, progressive Jewish state in the Eastern Mediterranean with close economic and cultural ties with the West generally and in particular with the United States." The Ottawa mandarins largely supported Israel as a possible western outpost in the heart of the (oil-producing) Middle East.

When the first Palestinian intifada broke out in 1987, then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney told the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) that Israel's brutal suppression of rock throwing Palestinian youth was handling the situation with "restraint." When questioned by a CBC reporter about the similarity between the plight of Palestinians and Blacks in South Africa, Mulroney replied that any comparison between Israel and South Africa was "false and odious and should never be mentioned in the same breath."

A decade later, Ottawa signed a free trade agreement with Israel. It was only Canada's fourth free trade agreement. Begun January 1997, the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of where Israel's custom laws are applied.

The political motivation for supporting Israel has not changed significantly over the years. The government in Ottawa today receives limited electoral support from the Jewish community, but is close to a right-wing Christian Zionist movement. Most importantly, the Harper government strongly supports Western (US-led) imperialism in the Middle East. This is why Canada has taken over Israeli diplomacy in Venezuela.

Les Visible Nails It Again

Smoking Mirrors has to be one of the best editorial sites on the Web. SOTT always features the best of their best. Enjoy.

Blue Ibis
***************************************
You want Flies with That?

Les Visible
Smoking Mirrors
Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:18 EST

In a meeting with Khomenei Putin stated that an attack on Iran should be viewed as an attack on Russia. No wonder then that Zionista shill Amanpour did her little sleaze piece on him...Putin...dark Czar...fixed election....whispers of murder....Putin this... Putin that. Good thing they don't get up to that sort of thing in the USA. We be squeaky clean.

See, this is what happens when you play the game of Risk on the big board. This is what happens when you try to take over the world. The other players move accordingly. Russia moves. China moves. No one ever takes over the world. They just ruin other people's lives trying. Sometimes I think Diderot was right - "There won't be any peace until the last politician is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Close enough to what he said... I think.

It's all coming clear now; the footsie with North Korea... we'll be heading for Taiwan directly... bombs in Lebanon... bombs in Algeria... Al Qaeda this... Al Qaeda that. Someone want to tell me how this global terror network operates? Someone want to tell me how Bin Laden, who's been dead for years, manages to orchestrate all this surgical mayhem with no evidence of anything except some extremely suspect phone call from somewhere, "Yeah, we did it." from our plush caves in Pakistan. Someone want to tell me why people who know better keep talking about Bin Laden? Al Qaeda sounds like Starbucks. They're a lot more effective and organized than they can possibly be.

Bin Laden never said he did 9/11, in fact, he said he didn't do it. FACT; ...go to the videotape. No... not those videotapes, long proven to be frauds. There isn't any Al Qaeda in the way it's presented but... you know that. It's impressive how someone gets the whole world to believe this bullshit.

Oh, but are they angry out there in fascist land. The Likudniks are frothing at the mouth because they haven't quite been able to elbow the Americans into attacking Iran for them. You get a little cocky after you've pulled off sucking America into all those bogus wars and then find out the horse got hobbled by some honest people at the NIE. It sure is convenient about that assassination in Lebanon. Cut to: sold out mouthpieces sticking microphones in front of everyone they can find and asking, "Do you think Syria was behind this?" Of course, what they mean is Iran.

Here are some things we know - and if we don't know them then we are, stupid, don't want to know, don't care or are involved; 911 was an inside job. Both of the last two presidential elections were fixed. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did Bin Laden. Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. A small group of powerful individuals is behind the surgical use of terrorism that is designed for the purpose of social control. Organized religion is in on the scam. Corporations are backing the efforts with their front men in various world governments. The media reports what they tell them to.

I could add to this. I could dissect it... so could you. There is also a small group of individuals that know what this other small group is up to. We are all over the world. We all know the same things. When we speak about them, other people in our group of 'the informed' all know what each other are talking about.

Meanwhile... there is something that worries me. It doesn't worry me the way you might be concerned about something bad happening - sure, there's some of that, but I know the difference between what I can affect and what I have no control over. No... it worries me the way a tongue worries a troubled tooth. It pulls at my attention in the back of my mind and I try to grasp what it is but I haven't been able to. What it is, is... how come people can't see what's happening? It's right there. It keeps happening. Surely by now the public should know that they are being lied to. Surely the fantastic inconsistencies of 9/11 should have a place in the human mind right next to the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Surely we should all be seeing that every time some newscaster's lips are moving that they are lying. You can see the news being shaped; Syria this, Iran that... Putin bad... Chavez... bad. Surely you should be able to see. I can clearly see that American leaders are slandering, stealing and killing to support a lifestyle that is over the border of sense and reason, while actively reducing that lifestyle for everyone but the wealthy, and that it's going to break down.

It's not just America, it is in many places. But America is the most defiant about their privilege to have more than anyone at everyone's expense, including their own, and America has the guns. We have become the bad guys. We torture and engineer terror attacks in order to react against them and set policies that guarantee our right to protect ourselves against enemies we have created for this purpose.

So... here's the thing. We know that they put things in the soft drinks that make you fat and rot your teeth and god knows what else. We know that really strange things are going on at every level. We know there are all these experiments... all these new crowd control weapons... all these studies and tell me... is it something in the water? Are they doing subliminal work on TV... in the movies... on the radio? It's a simple procedure. Is it some kind of a ray that operates through cellphones? Is it microwave?

Let's use Global Warming as an example. Everybody has a theory. Forget all that... it's happening - that we know. It's happening. Maybe it's a natural cycle. So maybe it's a natural cycle that people are turning into quivering Jello Pudding-bots and religious hystericals. Maybe it's natural that people are getting much stupider than they were a few years ago. Maybe it's natural that they don't react and protest as you might expect them to and on and on... or maybe it's 'enemy action'.

Look... everything didn't get this frightening, dangerous, tacky and banal all on its own. This is intentional. The (some call it) music and all the ridiculous entertainments didn't just happen. Someone made them happen. Why make it happen that way? Why is there a common moral code that most people tried to live by, and most agree upon, that now comes up against an FDA approved cultural trend which wars against everything that is commonly acceptable? The result is schizophrenia on a national scale. There must be some reason for this. We're not being improved by it.

Sane and intelligent discourse has disappeared from the airwaves. It is acceptable to shout down and mock everyone who disagrees with the madness. Forget about telling the truth. It's acceptable to do anything and to such a degree that even a rube should see after awhile that something is rotting in the sun.

Is it just a natural de-evolution as the culture declines? Billions of people can't be united in agreement that what is happening is good. There are definite solutions to many problems. Even I know what a lot of these solutions are and that's not my field. Common sense tells me how things should be. Surely millions can see as well. So, tell me... is there some kind of 'stupid ray'? How come the education system stopped teaching people how to think? I see all of these connections. It's like when you keep finding clues everywhere you look. There's a whole effort afoot to deceive and manipulate the public so, logically, aren't they doing other things too?

I keep trying to find the answer but the answer isn't there. These collective pathologies must have a source. How can people be so stupid? How can they swallow unbelievable lies?

I'm saying these things because I want people to think about them. I know it's fuel for my small cadre of detractors but I enjoy the way it sets flames shooting off of their heads when I force them to think about this. I must admit to some satisfaction when the spittle and invective fly; not here but in other locations. Think of it as tough love. Sure, I'm crazy but I know for a fact that I'm not as crazy as most everyone else. I know better than to step in or buy into what is definitely shit, mixed with lies and mystery meat. I know better than to eat it just because somebody served it to me warm. I guess what I want to know is, "Do you want flies with that?"

Even a five year old 'used to' know enough to say, "yuck, that's gross..."

The New Question: WWJK???

Oh that it were a joke. Falwell has been sent off by his sheeple to moulder in false hopes of "the glorious return of Jay-sus" (not!). Part of the legacy of this hateful man and his evil ilk is fostering the mindset of millions of Americans that non-evangelical "christians" are less than human and bound for the fiery lake. When a human being becomes an "it", they may be extinguished without a second thought. We've seen the Germans crush the Jews, and now the Israelis crushing the Palestinians, and the leaders of the Christian right (who are neither) are ready to take out all who do not conform to their ideology.

Blue Ibis
********************************************************************

Who Would Jesus Kill?

Doug Bandow
AntiWar.com
Sun, 20 May 2007 10:30 EDT

©

Religion, not patriotism, truly is the last refuge of the scoundrel. While most believers want to worship God and serve their fellow human beings, a few people twist the sacred for personal and political profit. Indeed, claiming that "God is on my side" plays the ultimate trump in any dispute.

Yet ambitious fraudsters are usually found out. More dangerous are those who genuinely believe that they are commanded to do ill. When bad policy is perceived as divine dogma, innocent people inevitably suffer.

So it has been with the Iraq war. Some self-professed Christians have so fervently backed the conflict that they might as well be sporting wristbands emblazoned with the slogan, "Who Would Jesus Kill?"

Today most people of faith believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The strongest opposition, according to a recent Gallup poll, comes from black Protestants, 78% to 18%, and Jews, 77%-21%. Catholics followed, with 53% to 46%.

But Mormons backed the war, 72% to 27%. White Protestants continued to support the conflict, 55% to 43%. Evangelicals have been among the Bush administration's most consistent backers. Although even their support for the war has dropped, last fall 58 percent of evangelicals still endorsed the invasion.

Moreover, many of the most important and visible members of the Religious Right, from the late Jerry Falwell to Pat Robertson of the 700 Club to James Dobson of Focus on the Family to Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, backed President George W. Bush's decision to go do war. The image is jarring: followers of the Prince of Peace enthusiastically advocating war, celebrating the decision to loose death and destruction upon other peoples.

The problem of war has long bedeviled Christendom. Pacifism is the most consistent Christian response. But pacifism does not prevent war or end violence. It only changes who triumphs after violence is unleashed.

In some cases, where war was begun over essentially frivolous causes between largely civilized powers with extremely limited ends, nonresistance might be the best, that is, least harmful, policy. However, in cases of aggression by evil, malignant powers, pacifism would expand the scope and magnify the consequences of evil. Unfortunately, war almost always presents Christians with difficult moral choices in complex geopolitical situations.

The ancient doctrine of "just war" should aid Christians in making such judgments. War must be a last resort; the authority waging war must be legitimate; the force employed must be proportional to the injury; non-combatants must not to be targeted; the war must be fought to redress a wrong; there must be a reasonable chance of success; the ultimate goal must be to reestablish peace. Unfortunately, however, though these principles are sound, they have been routinely used by war advocates to justify even the most dubious conflicts. Including Iraq.

Instead of critically reviewing the case for and against invading that nation, many evangelicals blithely accepted the Bush administration's war rationale. They implicitly trusted the president, their co-religionist, relying on the administration's dubious (and quickly discredited) claims.

For instance, Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson cited administration arguments in explaining that just war theory should be "stretched" to include preemption of terrorism. He added: "Of course, all of this presupposes solid intelligence and the goodwill of U.S. and Western leaders." Alas, it turns out that such intelligence was entirely lacking.

Richard Land pointed to Hussein's development "at breakneck speed of weapons of mass destruction he plans to use against America and her allies" and the "direct line from those who attacked the U.S. [on 9/11] back to the nation of Iraq." Of course, both claims were false.

Other evangelical leaders made a humanitarian case for war. James Dobson argued that "we are faced with another brutal tyrant. Saddam Hussein must be stopped. Appeasement of tyrants is never successful." Gary Bauer, Chairman of Campaign for Working Families, observed that "Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a hell hole of torture and mass murder" and that "he allowed Iraq to become a safe haven for terrorists."

Rev. Falwell entitled one article "God is Pro-War." Until Christ's return, he contended, "Christians must live as Galatians 6:2 instructs: 'Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ'." Charles Stanley, pastor of Atlanta's First Baptist Church, argued that there are "biblical grounds" for a government to go to war "to liberate others in the world who are enslaved."

Scripture does tell believers to lay down their lives for others. But it does not instruct Christians to lay down other people's lives, as in taking the nation into war. Believers get no credit from instructing other people to do the sacrificing. Moreover, the consequences of the Iraq war and occupation - horrific violence and hundreds of thousands of deaths - is anything but humanitarian.

A number of religious leaders now rely on a bootstrap argument: the U.S. cannot leave because of what Iraq has become after the president followed their earlier advice to invade. That is, Washington must clean up the geopolitical mess that it created. In this view, the explosion of terrorist activity and sustained slaughter means the U.S. obviously cannot (and perhaps never can) leave. Said James Dobson of President Bush: "When it comes to the threat of terror, he gets it." Richard Land contended that evangelicals "want Iraq to become a stable democracy and they're not willing to give up yet."

But the Bible emphasizes the importance of wisdom, which naturally leads to prudence in making public policy. Indeed, James explained: "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." (James 1:5) The exercise of this wisdom suggests that the continuing occupation of Iraq is creating more terrorism and more deaths. Godly wisdom also counsels against increasing human sacrifice on behalf of goals that appear to be growing ever more distant.

Some on the Religious Right emphasized politics over policy. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church denounced war opponents: "Why any churchman would choose to support [Saddam Hussein's regime] rather than to support our own president, I don't know." Pat Robertson, who previously had kind words for African dictators Mobutu Sese Seko and Charles Taylor, announced in late 2005 that "carping criticism" of President Bush "amounts to treason." Although scripture enjoins prayer for and obedience to the political authorities, it does not demand blind support for bad, indeed, catastrophic (and arguably immoral), policy decisions by those leaders.

Finally, a desire to spur evangelism may have animated some on the Religious Right to back the war. Roberta Combs of the Christian Coalition argued in November 2003: "In the new country, under the new democracy, why should the official religion be Muslim? I think as Iraq becomes a democracy, there are going to be a lot of churches springing up." Although a bevy of Christian ministries moved into Iraq after the U.S. invasion, the subsequent explosion of violence has ended most organized proselytizing. Moreover, as many as half of Iraq's historic Christian community has fled the country in response to rising persecution. In short, Christians are now among the biggest victims of U.S. policy.

Obviously, people of good will can differ on the justification for any war, including Iraq. Christians can legitimately, though unpersuasively, in my view, believe that this war was necessary and just. However, the pro-war claims by leading representatives of American evangelicalism are embarrassing - actually, shockingly humiliating - after four years of war. Especially since few of the religious warriors even now are willing to reflect on the wisdom of their support for a war that has failed disastrously. For the most part, big-name evangelicals continue to believe that there was nothing wrong with initiating aggressive war against Iraq. Rather, they essentially see the problem as Washington's failure to kill enough Iraqis. (Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals was one of the few to be pained by the consequences of the war. Richard Land argued that the problems in Iraq were caused by an inadequate number of troops. Several other war advocates refused to respond when I contacted them.)

The evangelical community has softened a bit in its support for the war, but it remains among the deepest reservoirs of administration support. While the war may have dampened turnout last fall, most conservative Christians stuck with the administration. Those who drifted away did so out of disgust with the Mark Foley scandal or GOP spending abuses more than because of Iraq. After the election white evangelicals were far more likely to cite values than the war as the most important election issue.

Further evidence of conservative Christian enthusiasm for the Iraq war is surprising support for Rudy Giuliani for president. More white Protestants back Giuliani than the other leading Republicans even though he is a social liberal. They point to his tough attitude towards terrorism, apparently conflating Iraq with efforts to prevent new terror attacks.

Continuing conservative Christian support for the war centers around three arguments: 1) terrorists must be defeated; 2) freedom must be guaranteed for the Iraqi people; and 3) Israel must be safeguarded. The sad irony is that the war makes all three goals harder to achieve.

Iraq has created a cause celebre that has spurred terrorist recruitment, both of Iraqis and jihadists in nations around the world, including Britain, Indonesia, and Spain, all of which have suffered devastating terrorist attacks. Iraq also has created a perfect training ground for urban terrorism; the problem is likely to worsen so long as the U.S. occupies the country.

America's presence in Iraq has not and will not create a liberal, capitalist, democratic state. The primary problem for Iraq is sectarian division, not terrorism, which is exacerbated by the U.S. occupation. Ultimately, only the Iraqis will be able to find the path to peace and unity. Washington erred in believing that it could impose a Western political order on Iraq, that the latter possessed the underlying civic culture and civil institutions necessary for a functioning liberal democracy. Unfortunately, the U.S. invasion unleashed untold death and violence rather than civic mindedness and religious tolerance. Washington must not commit the further mistake of assuming that a continuing military occupation can create the necessary culture and institutions.

As for Israel, there is no special Christian duty to what is, after all, a secular nation ruled by atheists. Modern Israel shares geography with ancient Israel, nothing more. Anyway, Israel is a regional superpower capable of deterring any of its neighbors; many proud Israelis bridle at the image of their nation as a helpless pygmy requiring Washington's protection.

Israel's primary problem is internal: how to maintain a state that is both Jewish and democratic while occupying territory containing several million Muslim Palestinians. Christian supporters of Israel face the same conundrum, since the dictates of Biblical justice apply to Palestinians no less than to Israelis. The path to peace is never going to be easy, but by stoking Islamist passions the U.S. occupation of Iraq inflames still further Arab antagonism towards Israel and increases the terrorist forces likely to turn their eventual attention to Israel. Indeed, many Israelis today fear the spread of al-Qaeda to the territories, perhaps the one Muslim area yet free of bin Laden's pestilent activities.

All of these arguments, then, recommend an American withdrawal from Iraq. The administration's case for continued occupation is based on the same ideological fantasies which led to the initial invasion. The Bush administration and its neoconservative Greek chorus have been wrong about every issue - Iraq's WMD threat and terrorist ties; the reception to be accorded U.S. troops; the popularity of Iraqi exiles maneuvering for power; the number of American soldiers and amount of American money necessary for reconstruction; the willingness of other nations to aid the U.S. effort; the evolution of a tolerant and liberal Iraqi democracy; and the spread of pro-American democracies throughout the Middle East. No one should treat seriously the administration's latest promises of progress in Iraq. American evangelicals, in particular, should stop being fooled simply because the president shares their theology.

Of course, Iraq is not the only foreign policy issue for the Religious Right. Many of the movement's forays into international issues have been modest - backing legislation to pressure North Korea on human rights and combat AIDS in Africa. Evangelicals such as Richard Land also are pressing immigration reform which combines improved border control with legalization of the millions who already have entered America.

However, religious conservatives increasingly are promoting military action abroad. More than a century ago President William McKinley claimed that he prayerfully decided to seize the Philippines after ousting Spain in the Spanish-American war - an occupation resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths among Filipinos who resisted U.S. imperialistic control. But later it was religious progressives who seemed most enthused about war, enthusiastically campaigning for Woodrow Wilson's supposed crusade for democracy in World War I, for instance.

Today, however, some evangelicals promote conflict all over. A number of Christians put the interests of Israel ahead of those of America. (A more benign interpretation is that they view the most extreme policies of Israel's Likud party as also benefiting the U.S., but the practical consequences are the same.) So-called Christian Zionists demand that Washington support Israel irrespective of its actions, so long as Israel is expanding at the expense of surrounding Arab populations. For instance, evangelical leaders ranging from John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, to James Dobson did more than just support Israel's invasion of Lebanon; they urged Israel to attack more broadly and fiercely.

Some evangelicals also target Iran. Dobson, trading his expertise in family psychology for opinions in foreign policy, recently compared Iran's president to Adolf Hitler. Dobson then proclaimed: "somebody ought to be standing up and saying, 'We are being threatened and we are going to meet this with force - whatever's necessary'."

Intervention in Sudan, though predominantly a left-wing cause, also has gained traction among the Religious Right. Last October a couple of dozen evangelical leaders, including such Iraq war enthusiasts as Richard Land, signed a letter supporting military action in Sudan. So does Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), the evangelical turned Catholic running for president.

A preference for hawkish intervention influences other political issues. For instance, last fall Concerned Women of America called for the confirmation of John Bolton as UN ambassador. Although well-qualified for the post, Bolton is highly controversial, a partisan lightening rod loved by the right and detested by the left. CWA cited Bolton's "background and credentials," leaving unexplained why his appointment was a religious issue.

None of these positions is ipso facto illegitimate. But Christians should be particularly humble before advocating war. War means killing, of innocent and criminal alike. It means destroying the social stability and security that creates an environment conducive for people to worship God, raise families, create communities, work productively, and achieve success - in short, to enjoy safe and satisfying lives. Wars rarely turn out as expected, and the unintended consequences, as in Iraq, often are catastrophic.

Indeed, in Iraq the U.S. has essentially killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of humanitarianism. Christians, even more than their unbelieving neighbors, should be pained by the horror of sectarian conflict unleashed by the actions of their government with their support. Believers especially should eschew nationalistic triumphalism in pursuit of war. And when they err, like predicting health, wealth, liberty, and happiness in occupied Iraq, they should acknowledge fault - and seek forgiveness. At the very least they should exhibit humility before saddling their white horses to begin another crusade.

Thankfully, some religious activists have begun to fight for the political soul of Christian warrior wannabees. There is a small evangelical religious (and antiwar) left, represented by Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine, for instance

The website Believers Against the War warns: "many of God's people have forsaken the gospel of Christ and turned their hearts toward the corrupted teachings of men. Political allegiances have been bought in exchange for the love of sound doctrine - many are being led astray." The group advocates that believers "learn what the Bible has to say about peace," talk to their ministers, protest against the war, contact legislators and journalists, learn about the military, and pray. Believers against the War asserts simply: "The war in Iraq is ungodly, immoral, and unconstitutional - and we should pull all of our combat troops out immediately!"

Another like-minded group is KingdomCitizenship.org. Founder Timothy L. Price is no pacifist, but understandably worries that "to America's enemies, Jesus, who is the alleged focus of Christianity, becomes the advocate of the invaders as He was in the Crusades." Price appropriately asserts "the Kingdom of God as wholly separate from America or its interests."

There is no one Christian foreign policy. Christians and other people of faith can legitimately disagree about the validity of war, including Iraq, and its consequences. But by any measure Iraq today is a disaster, the product of a very un-Christian mix of callousness, ignorance, partisanship, selfishness, incompetence, and hubris. The experience in Iraq should prompt religious conservatives to step back in humility and reconsider their tendency to confuse ideology with theology, and politics with faith. The debacle in Iraq has discredited much of America's political establishment, but perhaps none more than members of the Religious Right. Followers of the Prince of Peace should be particularly ashamed of serving as the apostles of war.