The neoconservative or "neocon" right in America has valued an alliance with Israel superficially due to an interpretation of Genesis 12:3 which states that God will bless those who bless Abraham and curse those who curse him. Saying the Jews are "God's chosen people" and that wronging them would bring upon God's wrath. Concluding that this continues to the modern state of Israel and therefore it is in our interests to maintain a strong alliance with them. While there are many theologians and sects which would dispute this, they historically have not been the ones in political control, so we focus on those in charge.
Although some sects will opt to, we will see that it is not strictly necessary to supersede the Abrahamic covenant, rewrite prophecy, or become hatefully antisemitic to realize that a drastic reassessment of our alliance with Israel and Judaism is warranted.
As of late our alliance has been weakening or at the very least evolving, which gives us insight into the trajectory of right wing politics and thought in the US. Many have reduced this trend to a simple resurging antisemitism which in bad faith evades discussing the evolving merits of the alliance. What we are doing here is distinct from a "Low IQ antisemitism" steeped in schizophrenic conspiracy theory and hateful attitude. As well it is distinct from anti-zionist, thirld world, or muslim interests. Rather, this document intends to be a thoroughly sourced, rational, and conclusive report on relations between Christians and Jews/Israel.
To date our alliance has been very expensive, costing the US approximately $330,000,000,000 from 1946 to 2024 in adjusted 2024 dollars including only direct military and economic support. Which adjusted for inflation is not far from the amount it took to build the entire national highway system, and is much more than the cost of the entire Apollo space program for reference. We could have quite a lot more than fixed potholes with this kind of budget. [1] Indirect support such as our military presence in the middle east could be considered as well, adding to the already high number. On our dollar Israel enjoys luxuries such as public healthcare, something the US doesn't even have itself. All of this putting the bar for justifying this alliance in cost-benefit and opportunity cost terms very high. Some rebut this by pointing out that military aid to Israel is required to be spent on US made equipment, bringing that money back into the US. However, that is only the military aid, one of many forms of aid. And the American citizen is not wrong for desiring that their tax dollars not dwell with defense contractors without good reason.
All it takes to overcome an unwarranted philosemitism is the right information. When all facts from history to theology are laid bare it becomes clear where we are in error and what must be done.
A fundamental theology underlying Christianity's relationship to Israel is simple. Christians are called not to sin or encourage sin. It can be proven that Israel sins and pushes us to sin regularly. Therefore Christians must be cautious in their relationship with Israel to avoid sin. The sources, details, and branches of this logic will be the subject this chapter.
With blessings begetting blessings in mind, are Christians blessing Israel by fighting frivolous wars in the middle east on their behalf, effectively committing murder? (See later chapters) Or should we instead focus on doing something the Bible commands Christians to do such as spreading the gospel to the Jewish people (Matthew 28:19) or peacemaking amidst conflicts (Matthew 5:9)? These are things the state of Israel has condemned many as antisemites for, yet they would constitute a blessing biblically. Should Christians prioritize Israel's selfish interests or the Bible's commands? When they don't happen to align it should be no question. It cannot be forgotten that Jews are not saved unless they submit to Jesus, and it is the greatest possible tragedy for them to reject that truth. The top priority of Christianity is to cultivate salvation.
If cursing Israel is effectively cursing God, and sins are also wrongdoings against God, when Israel pushes us to sin how could either action be correct? We are in a deep logical conundrum unless we can observe that Israel does not have the authority to define blessings and curses. Israel misrepresents what blessings and curses actually are because they may have a complex of entitlement around their status as "God's people". They often insist that anything which benefits their selfish interests is inherently in line with God's will, an idea which is misguided at best or idolatrous at worst. It is the duty of the Christian to rebuke this deception and assert biblical truths. In this case to rebuke the sins of murder, deception, and rejection of Jesus. To then seek out blessings such as spreading the gospel and peacemaking.
According to James 1:13-14 God does not tempt us to sin. Therefore, if Israel is pressuring us to sin they are not issuing a divine imperative, they are not in line with God. In such cases it is not our duty to follow their lead, but to admonish them.
Christians are called to imitate Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1) We should consider the whole of Christ's behavior regarding the Jews of His time. Matthew 23 will be a major reference for this topic. In their rejection of Christ they have shut themselves and their followers off from the kingdom of heaven, for this Christ rebukes them in verse 13. Verse 15 calls them "sons of hell". Verse 25 accuses them of robbery and self-indulgence, a pattern that remains unchanged to this day with practices of indulgent praise for being "God's chosen people". Verse 32 they are "a brood of vipers". Verse 34 they are accused of killing, crucifying, persecuting, and flogging the prophets. Verse 37 He grieves over Jerusalem's betrayal of Christ, citing their unwillingness to accept Him. Saying "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate" as a consequence. Note also John 2 and the fashioning of a whip to drive out money changers in the temple. Among many other dramatic actions which would be considered "antisemitic" by today's standards. Indicating that todays standards are out of line with biblical truth and the example of Christ.
To follow Christ's example we are to show love, kindness, mercy, and the popular biblical traits. But we are also to strongly rebuke deception, hypocrisy, self indulgence, and rejection of Christ. Especially when such sins are coming from Jews and Israel because they of all people should know better.
Despite everything, many politicians such as Ted Cruz prioritize Israel to the point of saying he entered politics with the goal of "being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate". Prioritizing your loyalty to a foreign country in such a way is traditionally considered treasonous. Historically, people who betray their country or their religion do it for power or money, as Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Among Cruz's top campaign contributors are pro-Israel organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who manages individual donors providing Cruz at least $563,593 from 2011 to the time of this article's writing and likely much more if AIPAC affiliations can be uncovered in other individual donors. [1] [2]
Among such examples of Christians neglecting their religion and country could be the numerous Protestant Zionists who will happily display the Star of David publicly but are not seen representing Christianity. They don't even get paid to do it like politicians do. A Christian publicly representing a religion which denounces Jesus is incredibly misguided. Christians would do well to read Matthew 23 8:10. Only One is your teacher, father, and leader, and it isn't Israel.
Christians who obsess over the traditions, practices, and beliefs of Judaism should consider Matthew 15 3:9 where its traditions are found to be in violation of God's commandments and are rebuked by Christ. There is some danger to Jewish traditions. Being Jewish does not inherently make something a source of exclusive or superior insight, infact, the opposite is often the case. A very cautious nuance must be exercised if a Christian intends to participate in any Jewish output which isn't the inspired word itself.
Consider the case of the star of david. Archeologically, it appears in all cultures as a decorative element because it is very easy to draw or carve. Its association with Jewish culture began with a branch of Judaism called Kabbalah which indulges in the occult, reincarnation, esotericism, sorcery, and mysticism. [3] Its scholars associated the symbol with the shield of king David and protection against evil. [4] In Prague in the 14th century emperor Charles IV granted Jews permission to bear their own flag for which they chose it as their symbol. From there it grew, becoming widespread by the 17th century. In 1897 the First Zionist Congress chose the symbol to officially represent their cause, solidifying its inclusion in the later Israeli flag. [5] Little about the history of this symbol represents Christian interests. Instead its origins are extremely recent in religious terms, not representing an original Yahwism prior to Christ but a modern Kabbalistic and misguided religion. Display of this symbol by Christians without any disclaimers or context is likely a result of deception.
Another similar example being the suggestion that Christ's baptism or attendance of the temple in childhood constituted a bar mitzvah. The bar mitzvah is not a tradition which appears in scripture and is not something Jesus would have gone through symbolically or literally because it is a post-Christ construct of talmudic Judaism. During the talmudic period (roughly 70-600 AD) rabbis established 13 as the age of adulthood with minimal ritual significance. The ritual of the bar mitzvah was then invented by rabbis in the middle ages to mark and celebrate adulthood and release from the father's accountability. Consider whether it makes theological sense for Jesus to be unaccountable to His Father. The interpretation that Christ went through a bar mitzvah shows that protestant zionists are not very educated on Jewish tradition or its presence in scripture. But they are strangely enthusiastic to apply its teachings to their beliefs.
It is a mistake to suggest that Jewish tradition is inherently a meaningful spiritual insight, nearly all of it is post-Christ rabbinical construct. Judaism post-Christ is an obsolete way of thinking indicative of rebellion and deviance more than spiritual insight. Indulgence in an obsolete religion and its centuries of iteration into deeper falsehood is not something that is useful to Christianity.
Christians must understand that their religion is not strictly an iteration of Judaism and the two religions are not as related as propaganda about "Judeo-Christianity" would have you believe. Christianity is derived from Christ, who is transcendent of and superior to Judaism, being a new covenant. (Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:13) That new covenant being a key factor which weakens the idea of lineage from Judaism to Christianity. To some, Judaism warrants intrigue for its older archetypal status, perhaps it is more connected to the point of origin. However, the idea of a new covenant refutes that by placing the point of origin for Christianity with Christ. Christians approach in good faith a religion which deeply resents Christ and approaches Christianity in bad faith. Judaism does not consider Christianity to be its equal, rather it sees the good faith of Christians as a resource to be exploited towards its own ends.
Some are quick to point out prophecy as a reason to support Israel. Saying that in order for the sequence of events in Revelation to take place the state of Israel must exist to play its predicted role. However, pointing out a need for Israel's existence is not a justification for the various sins Israel commits and is not an imperative for the US to involve itself in such sin. Strangely, such propaganda often comes from Israeli diplomats and spokespeople despite Judaism not believing in Revelation as valid prophecy. They are willing to "play the game" of Christianity disingenuously if they can spin it it towards their desired ends. The implication of prophecy is that there may be a need to support the peaceful existence of Israel with defensive aid, but anything beyond that could be considered participation in its sins. A condition of our support should be that Israel's betrayal of Christan morals must stop and be disavowed. Our support should work in the interests of peacekeeping. If this is to be fully biblical it warrants thorough reimagining.
In Psalm 122:6 David prays for peace in Jerusalem. An example that peace is to be prioritized over warmongering.
Among Jews an attitude of supremacy permeates their culture coming from their narrative of being the chosen people. This has become so egregious that spitting on Christians has become a custom among some Jewish groups. [6] Christ by offering salvation to the gentiles rejected that attitude and drew a deep resentment and rejection from the Jews of His time and the Jews of the modern day. It is a common deception from Israeli operatives to suggest a interfaith respect or phenomenon of "Judeo-Christianity" with some implication that the Jewish religion associates with Jesus. This is a deception done to exploit the good faith of Christians. The truth is that Judaism deeply resents Christ and rejects him as a false prophet. Consider Joe Rogan Experience episode #1276 where Rogan's guest Ben Shapiro stated "I don't believe in zombies" referring to the resurrection. He described the crucifixion inaccurately as Christ having "tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble". Reducing Christ to a simple insurrectionist criminal. Shapiro, representing the views of his Orthodox Jewish religion denies Christ having any divine qualities.
When Christian denominations such as radical Calvinists exhibit a similar attitude of "chosen supremacy" it is rightfully reprimanded as an afront to the Christian message of humility. Yet it seems that Jews receive an exception for the same behavior, pointing to a double standard within much of Christianity. Christianity is a religion of universalism and absolute morality. Actions cannot be judged as right or wrong by subjective categories, only by adherance to fundamental principles. It does not grant exemptions based on "chosen" status. Sins are still sins regardless of who commits them. Christians have been behaving as if morality is relative in regards to Israel, sins of murder, warmongering, deception, etc are supported, but the same sins coming from anyone else are swiftly rebuked.
In Genesis 50:20 the case is made that God can use evil to accomplish good. Some Christians have said this as a roundabout justification for Israel's sins. While the core point of Genesis 50:20 is true, using it in that way is missing the point that God would prefer if good was achieved without sin. Refer again to James 1:13-14, God does not tempt us to sin, therefore no sin is the will of God, even if God can miraculously use it to achieve good.
2 John 7:11 prophetically addresses the situation of Christians being deceived by those who reject Christ.
Pledging your unconditional support to someone who is by John's definition "the deceiver and the antichrist" would constitute participating in his evil deeds or worse. Should Christians consider their beliefs and interests equal or even secondary to deceivers and antichrists? Clearly not. This contradicts the popular "Judeo-Christianity" narrative of interfaith respect and alliance peddled by zionists who have much to selfishly gain from an alliance. It is hard to imagine a scenario where Judaism is simultaneously our sister religion and an antichrist. The only connection between the two is belief in the Abrahamic God. However, as John said, anyone who rejects Christ "does not have God". The principle established here is to never receive someone who rejects Christ. If taken as an absolute or even just general principle there is little room to entertain Judaism or Israel.
1 John 2:23 notes that he who does not have The Son does not have The Father, meaning that Judaism despite its appreciation for the Abrahamic God does not truly "have" Him.
Jeremiah 3 diagnoses the condition of Israel, one of being "divorced" from God, after having "prostituted herself" with other Gods, with various sins, and later, their rejection of Christ. This state of divorce continues to the time of Jesus where he says in Matthew 23:39 that He will not return until Israel welcomes him back by calling out "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord", which is prophecied to happen in Revelation at the height of persecution, ending that state of divorce and reuniting them with God. With this state of divorce in mind Christians can rethink what "supporting Israel" means biblically. Our current idea of support could be argued to enable the divorce and perpetuate the sins that caused it. Instead we should focus on bringing about a reuinification by defending the Gospel, creating the conditions for them to call out to Jesus. Knowing that divorce is the time of the gentiles, it is our duty to teach the Jews the truth they are missing. It is not only possible but imperative to admonish Jewish sin without placing yourself in opposition to prophecy.
In Matthew 21:19 the dramatic image of a fig tree becoming barren at Christ's command can be said to symbolize the unfruitfulness of the Jewish people at their rejection of Him. Verses 33:42 contain the parable of the landowner, depicting a landowner leasing his land to some vine growers who then murder and mistreat his slaves, until the landowner sends his own son whom the growers murder. Analogous to the killing of the prophets and Christ by the Jews. 43 states "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit." These words of Jesus to the Jewish pharisees point to the sidestepping of the Jews and the beginning of the time of the Gentiles.
Among the numerous incompatibilities Judaism has with Christianity is its stance on abortion. Jewish law (Halakha), theology, and culture are highly individualistic and autonomous, prioritizing personal autonomy above many other things. Concluding that a woman's autonomy is to be prioritized over the life of a child she carries because the child is only "potential" life. Making abortion not only permissible but obligatory if the woman feels that her autonomy is violated by childbearing. Jewish organizations and high-profile individuals have lobbied for the legality of abortion on the grounds that banning it is a violation of Jewish religious freedom. Making for offensively out of line First Amendment lawsuit cases. Christians may find this unbelievable coming from their "greatest ally" but it is consensus among rabbis and is extremely well sourced. [7] [8] [9] [10] These sources suggest abortionism is a deeply rooted function of Jewish religion and culture, not a cherrypicked case of extremism. Although there do exist some exceptions such as Ben Shapiro, the broader pro-choice pattern remains true.
The neocon case seems to rest entirely on one verse in Genesis to inform an unconditional loyalty and support for Israel and all of its sins. As we can see with even a cursory bit of research, such a position constitutes an incomplete understanding of scripture which in its most extreme cases could be "Judeolatry" or worship of something other than God.
Considering Israel's condition it is understandable why so many have chosen simply to opt out, to suggest isolationism or zero involvement in foreign affairs. However, as Christians we should want to see the holy land saved. Our involvement from a religious perspective should be to glorify God and advance Christian interests, not to enable the sins of a misguided ethnoreligion and state.
It is a matter of Christian morality to treat all humans with a basic level of dignity and respect without passing unnecessary judgement. This has been passed down to our enlightenment ideals of equality and justice. Thus spawning the counterarguments "not all Jews" or "treat them as individuals". Saying that the observations we have made about Jewish religion, culture, and state are a wrongdoing on our part, even if they are true, because "good Jew" exceptions probably exist. This is a clear logical error, we are not making the case that people shouldn't be granted basic individual dignities, only that there exist patterns within the Jewish religion, culture, and state of Israel that are counter to the interests of Christianity. The existence of exceptions does not disprove that pattern or negate its danger. A realistic Christian must be capable of navigating the complexities of individual human dignity while also appreciating the larger interests of Christianity in honesty, without denying reality.
To rein in our highly critical attitude thus far, the inherent narrative beauty of the savior arriving from the Jews is not to be forgotten. And the great tragedy of their decline into false religion is not to be celebrated. Their final acceptance of Christ is the conclusion of humanity's greatest story, something to be anticipated enthusiastically.
All things considered Christians are called to support Israel's salvation. But no honest inquiry could conclude that you should trust them. It can only be concluded that Judaism and Israel are much more sinister than protestant philosemitism is willing to acknowledge.
Christians should consider if praising Israel and its sins has a negative effect on their ministry. Proud association with murderous, deceitful, and genocidal antichrists is not what the Christian message will benefit from. If Christians are going to recklessly insist on identifying with Israel anyway it should come with a disclaimer disavowing their sins. This is necessary lest Christianity compromise its core objective of successfully spreading the Gospel.
With a more comprehensive theology in mind we can move on to analyze history and politics through that lens.
If we are to build a case that Israel sins excessively and involves or victimizes others in its sin then it is necessary to thoroughly document their sins to support our case. These brief histories will serve as practical examples of our prior theological conclusions.
April 1948, during the Arab-Israeli war the IDF and its predecesor Haganah conducted Operation Cast Thy Bread, a secret biological warfare campaign targeting Arab/Palestinian water sources. Water sources were contaminated with typhoid bacteria, causing severe sickness among the locals. This intended to make Palestinian villages difficult to retake during the war. Striking the fear into unknowing Palestinians that Israel had access to divine power to summon plagues. Note Israel's historic pattern of suggesting that their interests will be defended by divine intervention. This war crime hints at them manufacturing that narrative through covert operations. [1] A literal well poisoning to compliment a long list of figurative ones. Israeli diplomatic staff attempted to prevent investigations by accusing anyone who brought it up of "antisemitic incitement". Establishing an ever-present pattern that accusations of "antisemitism" usually have an ulterior motive.
Summer 1954, the young state of Israel is conducting a false flag operation to convince the British government to continue occupation of the Suez Canal. The Israelis are attempting to undermine the interests of Egypt and other Arab powers so their state can continue to establish itself without resistance. Their plan is to covertly plant bombs in American, British, and Egyptian civilian targets. Albeit timed to explode when the targets were hopefully unoccupied. The bombs are to be blamed on muslim organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood to convince the west to maintain or grow hostility against Arab powers. Notably, Israel is still trying to convince the west of the Muslim Brotherhood's terrorist intent to this day, without success. This plan fails, the agents involved are caught, and the incident is remembered in history as The Lavon Affair. Israel never apologized for this, instead denying any involvement until 2005 where it publicly awarded the surviving agents.
This early history establishes a pattern that will define Israel's behavior for the coming decades. That is a strong disregard for allies, even the lives of their allies citizens, and a ruthlessly self interested, manipulative, and intelligence-focused approach to geopolitics. The amorality exhibited in their operations reveals one of their underlying motives. Deriving from the narrative of being "the chosen people" they view their inhumane acts through a lens of ethnoreligious supremacy. Acts which benefit them are often seen as morally justifiable on that merit alone even if they are harmful or criminal. Other groups and their interests are seen as lesser. For an endless list of examples the Wikipedia article "Israeli War Crimes" is an interesting read. [2] Where it is routinely the case that they justify many horrific acts without hesitation. They seem to believe they can do no wrong.
Following The Lavon Affair the west rightfully maintained a cautious and neutral-leaning relationship with Israel, during which another notable event took place which continued the established pattern. In June 1967 the USS Liberty sat in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, perhaps a risky place to be during the Six Day War. US officials report that Israel failed to properly communicate their intent to sink all unidentified ships. An irresponsible thing to do in international waters regardless of whether or not you communicate it. The USS Liberty was spotted by the Israelis and subsequently attacked for approximately 2 hours despite carrying an identifiable American flag the entire time. Killing 34 Americans and injuring many more. Only after the attack did the Americans receive a notice about Israel's plans. There are some believable conspiracy theories suggesting the attack was intentional to prevent US intelligence gathering due to the Liberty's role as a spy ship. However, the official narrative suggests that it was due to Israeli negligence and disregard for parties potentially affected by their decision. In either case the established pattern with Israel's behavior remains the same. That being their enthusiasm to cause harm to gentiles in the belief that they are chosen and can do no wrong.
On 9/11/2001 The FBI arrested five Israelis who were found celebrating, filming, and photographing the 9/11 terror attacks. The Israelis' official reason for doing so was "documentation". However, their celebration and preparedness demanded inquiry into possible foreknowledge or involvement in the event, as well as why they would celebrate while watching the deaths of thousands of Americans. In hindsight the reason for celebration is clear, they knew that this would lead to US military action against Israel's middle eastern enemies, caring about nothing else. When it comes to their foreknowledge or potential Israeli involvement in 9/11 the FBI would not release results, deporting them back to Israel with little conclusive reporting but much suspicion about intelligence connections. [3] Even though incentives and evidence point to a reason for Israel to be involved in 9/11, proof does not yet exist. Involvement or not, celebration is not an appropriate response and points to Israelis having a dehumanizing attitude towards gentiles, seeing their deaths in this case as a good thing because it will lead to Israel's preferred military outcomes.
In 2003 the Bush administration invaded Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein based largely on now debunked intelligence suggesting that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons with the intent to support Al-Qaeda with them. While some amount of this intelligence was gathered by the Americans and the British, the primary regional source of intel was Israel. In 2002 Benjamin Netanyahu's political career amounted almost entirely to lobbying for the Iraq war. Testifying under oath before congress to aggressively push for preemptive American military action. Netanyahu: "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons,” “Once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons,”. It is now understood that Israel intentionally overestimated Iraq to encourage the Americans to invade. Israeli regional interests against Iraq were greatly benefitted by the resulting invasion, destablization, and Iraqi civil war. The cost was the sacrifice of over 4,000 American soldiers, trillions of dollars, and many thousands of Iraqis, all with no benefit to the US itself as the supposed threat posed by Iraq was nonexistent. This has come with no apology from Israel or Netanyahu, only celebration for our involvement in destabilizing their enemies.
In 2025 prior to the "signalgate" controversy where Mike Waltz was fired from his position as national security adviser, he was engaged in "intense coordination" directly with Benjamin Netanyahu about military intervention in Iran which frustrated the President and his "no new wars" stance. This set the stage for Waltz' later firing over poor signal group chat OPSEC. This event reveals a disturbing pattern, that even the Israeli prime minister himself is in communication with US officials attempting to bring about wars that conveniently serve Israeli interests without them having to sacrifice their own soldiers. Notably Netanyahu denies this ever occuring, despite Trump's frustration over it. (What was he bothered by if it didn't happen?) Once again following Israel's established pattern of covert warmongering, this time via the infiltration of the US government itself through its officials. [4] [5]
With all of this history and much more in mind we can only conclude that it is and always has been one of Israel's primary goals to con and deceive us into fighting, funding, or otherwise supporting deadly and sinful wars for their interests with no benefit to us. Israel is perhaps the first world's foremost warmonger aside from maybe Russia. Is this a blessing?
Strangely, all of the curses listed here are the result of our positive alliance with Israel. The neocon narrative would say that curses only happen when we curse Israel, so how is it we are being cursed for blessing them? The neocon case is likely mistaken in some way.
It is clear that a case which rests on Israel's excessive sinfulness is not starved for evidence.
Mainstream conservatives bring up various blessings, largely technological inventions, again referring to Genesis 12 where it is said that through Abram all the nations of the world will be blessed. How much weight do these claims actually carry? Most of them are passed around very casually with little citation, making them hard to research or dispute. But when details can be obtained they tend to fall apart under scrutiny. Consider the most widely used examples, the cell phone, the camera phone, the smart phone, and ballpoint pens. Historically these are understood to be the products of sizable research and development teams in Motorola, Kyocera/Sharp, Apple, and Bic accordingly, none of which are Jewish companies.
It is disingenuous to attribute many of these inventions to Jews as a whole or Israel itself. Conservative/Zionist ideologues who peddle these ideas would do better to research verifiably Jewish inventions such as word processors, many types of financial services, accounting and business innovations, etc. But it would seem that well researched truth is not the primary concern of such ideologues. It is apparent that their aim is to manufacture a narrative of Jewish supremacy which transcends the more stereotypical niches Jews are known to flourish in. Disregard for truth is in line with the established pattern of Israeli operatives spreading any misinformation that benefits them. In their disregard for truth they know they can accuse any dissenters of antisemitism to discredit them.
We can conclude that there are useful inventions and blessings coming from Jewish people. And it would even be easy to make the case that they are disproportionately more inventive compared to other ethnic groups. But with details in mind it is not as extreme of a blessing as Netanyahu's propaganda campaign would have you believe when he claims everyone holding a cell phone is "holding a piece of Israel". The popular narrative of Jewish inventiveness exhibits factual inaccuracy indicative of an ulterior motive which warrants caution. Anyone who publicly professes the inventiveness of Jews should consider whether they are being factual or mistakenly taking an Israeli propaganda campaign at face value.
From a glance it would appear that the narrative of us being so blessed is exaggerated. This is not to say that blessings are not occuring at all, but that the narrative certainly isn't as zionists need it to be. This void of blessings should not exist according to the narrative, so those Israeli operatives who are paying more attention realize a need to fill that void creatively. It is often filled with unfalsifiable claims of mysterious divine blessings such as protection from natural disasters and other abstract and indirect types of prosperity. Rabbis Yosef Mizrachi, Nir Ben Artzi, and others have infamously delivered sermons claiming the US was being punished by hurricanes for harboring pro-Palestinian sentiment, even threatening more hurricanes should the US not become more pro-Israel. However, by nature of being unfalsifiable such claims cannot be proven or disproven, making them useless when it comes to making informed policy decisions. As well it is challenging to explain how blessings such as protection from natural disasters proceed from Abraham or his nation per the wording of Genesis 12:2-3. Are wild conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the weather actually true? Notably, such claims from rabbis usually refer to areas such as Florida where hurricanes are a regular occurance no matter who is in charge. Perhaps making for convenient and abundant headlines to interpret dishonestly for their benefit.
For our support of Israel neocon politicans such as Ted Cruz in his infamous Tucker Carlson interview are quick to point out the blessing of having a strategic alliance and shared regional intelligence to benefit national security interests in exchange. Ben Shapiro as well touts the "good deal" that our shared intelligence amounts to. However, as we have already discussed in cases such as Iraq our shared regional intelligence is consistently manipulated or unreliable, conveniently at the expense of US interests but always in Israel's interests. It would appear our alliance is just as much a national security liability as it is a benefit. Consider also the case of anti-American terrorism, which may be motivated by the interest of Islamic parties to make a US-Israel relationship more costly to facilitate a rebalance of middle eastern power in Islam's favor. [1] Israel's biggest selling point as an ally to help inform and enact US interests in the middle east is greatly devalued all things considered. If it weren't for the strategic appeal of a military presence near global logistical choke points such as the Suez Canal and Red Sea Israel would likely be entirely irrelevant to the west.
The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a pro-Israel political lobby that was founded in 1954 around the time of the Lavon Affair largely in response to negative press from the Qibya massacre, espionage scandals, and noncompliance with various armistice agreements. Noncompliance with truces being a trend continuing to this day with Israel being the first to break peace agreements with Gaza numerous times [1] The Qibya massacre being the raid of a small village in the West Bank where at least 69 Palestinian civilians were killed. The raid was led by future Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon who noted in his diary "Qibya was to be an example for everyone", desiring "maximal killing and damage to property". [2] Again demonstrating very poor moral character and a complex of supremacism and entitlement being in charge of these things.
With this history in mind, it is easy to conclude that AIPAC was founded to pressure American politicians to support Israel in willful ignorance of their various crimes, sins and betrayals.
Because foreign lobbies are required to disclose their activities per compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act, AIPAC is carefully structured to avoid disclosure, knowing it would bring much negative press and legal scrutiny. Here is how it operates. Matt Gaetz, a former US representative, accounts that during his political career he was pushed by his campaign staff to attend AIPAC events to secure donors for his campaign. "You get there and you wear this name badge and I remember there’s a QR code on it, and what we were supposed to do was go talk to donors, and then if they liked you, they scanned your QR code to make a donation, like on the spot." [3] AIPAC is evidently structured as a sort of middleman, to curate pro-Israel donors and connect them with political candidates via in-person events and also through other less public means. Because donations are actually made by individuals with their own money, it does not make AIPAC a "foreign lobby" on paper because they are not providing funds themselves, therefore avoiding a need for disclosure. Instead of functioning like most lobbies where donors donate to the lobby for it to fund desired candidates, AIPAC accomplishes the same end of buying politicians' loyalty without legal scrutiny or risk of being shut down. Gaetz concluded: "All of these things combined are odd and then the policy outgrowth seems to be an obsession about the Middle East that has not served my generation well."
AIPAC's structure as a middleman allows for some deniability that politicians like Ted Cruz use to assert that AIPAC's influence is overestimated because it does not directly financially support any candidate. Cruz's statements are a bad faith obfuscation of AIPAC's actual operations and Cruz knows this as an attendee and supporter. In any case, AIPAC's corruption should be intolerable at any scale. Again this is following the established pattern of Israeli operatives disregarding truth and spreading misinformation in bad faith to Israel's benefit.
AIPAC manages individual donors and tells them who to support based on the candidate's loyalty to Israel. Using this strategy they single out politicians who are not supportive enough of Israeli interests, who question Israel's merits as an ally, or who mention mistreatment of palestinians. AIPAC then funds the primary opposition of such politicians strategically, sending the message that loyalty to Israel is necessary to be competitive in elections. While it is true that AIPAC is likely not large enough to influence every election directly, politicians in their competitive awareness understand that they do not want to become the target of primary harassment. The cost of supporting Israel from a politician's perspective is very little, it is not their children being sent to war in the middle east after all, and there is very little anti-zionist political pressure to consider outside of the radical left. Such small costs weighed against the potentially very consequential threat of AIPAC harassment makes it clear why politicians succumb to the pressure and why AIPAC has an outsized impact for a relatively small lobby.
Seeing how much Israel has received through foreign aid it becomes very clear why so much propaganda and lobbying exists and why it does not have an incentive to be entirely honest.
The ADL or Anti Defamation League is a notorious and well connected NGO which focuses on pushing a pro-Jewish narrative in education and media. It largely does this by pressuring for censorship against anything which portrays Jews negatively. It was founded in 1913 following the controversial case of Leo Frank being convicted for the murder of 13 year old Mary Phagan at a pencil factory ran by Frank. The ADL later insisted that the case was biased by antisemitism, advocating his innocence despite his conviction. ADL operatives will cite that Leo Frank was post-humously pardoned as evidence for his innocence becoming consensus. However, his pardon was only to apologize for the justice system's failure to protect him from a lynch mob, not to suggest criminal innocence. Pardons are employed to forgive a real guilt, whereas total innocence requires an exoneration or acquittal. In any case the ADL's founding gives us insight into its motives, that being to push a pro-Jewish narrative in media and legal institutions, using various underhanded tactics to overturn anything which depicts Jews negatively, regardless of fact.
Among the various controversies of the ADL are:
* Spying on American citizens and sharing intelligence with foreign governments through the 1950s to 1990s. [1] The gathered intelligence was used to smear and discredit anyone they identified as critical of Israel.
* Censorship of social media websites by lobbying for censorship bills such as the STOP HATE act [2] which intend to restrict first amendment protected speech which is critical of Israel.
* Officially categorizing criticism of the state of Israel or "anti-zionism" as inherently "antisemitic" and warranting civil rights prosecution. [2]
* Organizing an advertising boycott against free speech websites. Done by covertly calling various large advertisers such as Coca-Cola, Jeep, and Wells Fargo, accusing them of participating in antisemitism by hosting ads on X/Twitter and other free speech focused websites. This dropped the revenue of X by 60% with the intent of getting them to censor criticism of Israel and Jews in order to win back advertisers. [3]
* Falsifying statistics depicting widespread antisemitic hatecrimes to make Jews appear the most persecuted group in the US, warranting special protections. [4]
* The ADL maintains a "hate symbol" database intended to be used in the identification of hatecrimes and other misdeeds. It is notorious for its inclusions often being unjustifiable, being considered hate symbols for their association with right-wing or pro-palestinian groups broadly, not so much a specific hateful intent. Humorously unfounded inclusions include pepe the frog, the ok hand symbol, and Turning Point USA. [5]
The pro-Jewish lobby operates according to the established pattern, in this case using underhanded tactics to influence media into censorship for Jewish interests and to grant preferential legal treatment to Jews. Why do Jewish institutions employ such corrupt means? It would suggest that there is little reason for philosemitic attitude otherwise. Their actions suggest a belief that they don't naturally succeed by their own merits and must resort to corruption.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's current prime minister is a propaganda and intelligence expert, focusing on operations to strengthen his and Israel's public image in spite of obvious corruption. Among right wing and Christian media this corruption is seldom mentioned, and his propaganda campaigns are regularly touted not only as fact but even as divine prophecy or insight. This pattern must change in order for Christian interests to be properly represented. The first step in changing this pattern is education on his numerous wrongdoings which undermine any propagandistic narrative of him being a divine leader of a specially chosen country who can do no wrong.
In December 2025 the Bondi Beach terror attack happened to a Jewish gathering in Australia, killing 15 and injuring many. In response Netanyahu aired a statement that the attack happened because Australia had supported Palestinian statehood in a UN assembly earlier that year. Netanyahu weaponizes foreign tragedies in extremely poor taste to push a pro-Israel narrative in his unrelated border conflict. Making an incredible logical leap to think that Muslim extremists in Australia even bother to keep up with the details of UN assemblies in the first place, let alone that they would interpret that as them being empowered to commit domestic terrorism. Netanyahu is not an honest actor, his singular motive is the empowerment of himself and the state of Israel regardless of truth or morals. [1]
Netanyahu is in all likelihood responsible for war crimes in Gaza such as collective punishment, intentional killing by starvation, attacking civilians, among many others. Several international organizations are pursuing cases against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UN-backed International Criminal Court (ICC) has an active arrest warrant for him and his minister of defense, Yoav Gallant, which requires that they be arrested if they enter the territory of any of the 124 ICC member countries. [2] As well he has been on trial since 2020 for a corruption case involving bribery and fraud within Israel. [3] He understands despite contradictory public statements that these cases are not likely to go his way and his popularity with his citizens, his own political coalition, and global politics is weaking. His strategy to avoid prosecution and a descent into political irrelevance is to prolong the war in Gaza, and any other wars he can. This ensures he remains in power and immune to prosecution or replacement thanks to emergency or wartime authorities, as well as securing voters who assume his experience with the war lends him to lead better throughout it. Hence the aforementioned cases of warmongering such as his involvement with Mike Waltz and the Trump administration to push for war in Iran. It does not take much explanation to see that prolonging or starting deadly wars for your personal benefit is horrifically wrong.
Netanyahu is a prolific liar, it would seem that the majority of his public statements are false or otherwise deceptive. Right wing media seems to be biased in his favor, not fact checking things that he says, so this reality remains unknown to most of the Christian right. Despite its many faults the left is at least reliable when it comes to fact checking Netanyahu and Israel. TIME's 2024 interview with him includes a brutal fact-check [4] which includes proof that his administration was supportive of Hamas prior to the Oct 7 attacks for the reason of counterbalancing other palestinian authorities, sowing conflict and chaos to undermine Palestinian objectives. A fact which he denies. As previously mentioned Netanyahu falsely testified before congress in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was intending to develop nuclear weapons to arm regional terrorist networks. UN analysis has found that Netanyahu's claims of low civilian death counts in Gaza are baseless. Israel is treating Palestinian civilians with extreme negligence at best or malice at worst. A report which Netanyahu dismissed as "false and absurd". His speech at the 2025 UN assembly was riddled with more of the same lies, denying his war crimes and claims about the conduct of Hamas and his administration. [5]
Israel's internal security chief Ronen Bar in a sworn statement in the Supreme Court stated that Netanyahu had demanded "personal loyalty" from him and ordered surveillance on anti-government protestors. Indicative of Netanyahu building a cult of personality around himself to enact tyrannical policies and advance his personal interests. [6]
Christian association with the person of Netanyahu is out of line, he does not represent Christian beliefs or American geopolitical interests. Anyone professing his greatness is likely deceived by his cult of personality. He and his administration are never to be trusted. They act as if part of being "chosen" is the promise of being allowed to cause sin and harm in any way they please and then lie about it, which is not biblical reality.
In 2025 notoriously pro-Israel congressman Randy Fine (Who has received $459,168 from pro-Israel lobbies [1]) introduced H.R. 6186, 2025 the "No Antisemitism in Education Act" which among many other things would require the Department of Education (affecting public schools and federally funded universities) to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in Civil Rights Act Title VI cases of discrimination. It is necessary to study that IHRA definition to understand why this bill is a bad faith abuse of the Civil Rights Act to punish criticism of Israeli corruption. [2] Among the things you would expect in such a definition are unusual outliers:
* "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."
It is therefore antisemitic to acknowledge the factual operations and motives of AIPAC and the World Jewish Congress?
* "Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis."
It is antisemitic to point out the role of the Jewish pharisees in the killing of Jesus, a historical fact which modern scholars of Judaism celebrate?
* "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
It is antisemitic to draw accurate parallels between Israeli-Palestinian relations and historic German-Jewish ones? (I.E. Segregation to ghettos, massacres, etc.) But such comparisons can be made between any other groups without issue?
Notably, other races don't have the advantage of such preferential treatment under the civil rights act, betraying its egalitarian purpose.
It should be clear that this IHRA definition is intended to wield the Civil Rights Act to suppress criticism of AIPAC and Israeli corruption despite the disclaimer of being "non-legally binding". Notably the definition avoids saying that such corruption doesn't exist or is untrue, knowing that if such a claim was made it would fall apart under scrutiny and undermine their main goal of censorship. They only care that mention of Israeli corruption is categorized as antisemitic to not qualify for first amendment free speech protections. Such an egregious violation of the first amendment is unprecedented coming from Republican conservatives such as Fine. It would seem that their constitutional principles and patriotism are clearly secondary to their foreign allegiance.
In 2024 Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 187 which adopts the same IHRA definition into Florida state law. Massively lowering the bar for what constitutes a hate crime. Another DeSantis bill escalates those loosely defined antisemitic hate crimes to felonies. In June 2025 he signed SB 1678 into law which expands the definition of "boycotting Israel" and divests state funding from institutions which fit the definition. It is not unreasonable for an organization with moral conviction to be cautious in its relations with highly controversial foreign entities. Yet when this is done specifically in regard to Israel it will result in the loss of your state funding and your future ineligibity for grants and state contracts for up to 10 years. "Non-Compliant entities" in this bill could even be required to repay up to three times the amount of their original grant (why?). Such policies would seem to conflict with first amendment ideals of free association and speech. Enforcement of these laws has been fairly relaxed likely because they understand that any high profile cases or headlines about them would likely result in a first amendment violation lawsuit. However, their presence on the books at all is proof of corruption beyond what should be acceptable. It would seem that DeSantis is primarily captured by foreign lobbies and his loyalty to American business and the spirit of the constitution is secondary. Similar laws wielding the IHRA definition with varying levels of severity can be found in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Tennessee, Illinois, and others, totalling approximately 37. This lowering of the bar for antisemitic "hatecrimes" across most of the country is likely a primary reason behind the supposed "resurging antisemitism". Changing the rules of how statistics are gathered can manufacture any desired narrative.
Most means of supporting Israel involve an amount of corruption either by violating the spirit of the US constitution, suspiciously skirting around legal requirements for disclosure of foreign lobbying etc, enabling of war crimes, harmful espionage and intelligence operations, among many other things. If there is a non-corrupt reason to support Israel, why do zionists insist on support through corrupt avenues? Such support is misguided. Reiterating a need to reassess what support should look like.
Of note is the tendency for pro-Israel lobbyists to lobby for adjacent issues such as open borders immigration policies, "diversity, equity, and inclusion" policies in institutions, among other things which are not agreeable to right wing interests. This tendency occurs because Jews and Israeli operatives carry an identity of being historically persecuted. They believe it is in their interests to pursue liberal "open society" virtues of inclusion, egalitarianism, and multiculturalism to counter victimizing forces. Ignoring the fact that much of what they perceive as persecution is a just reaction to aforementioned corruption. Due to their complex of supremacy and entitlement they don't tend to perceive their corruption as wrong so reactions against it are viewed through the lens of victimhood, becoming unjust or "antisemitic".
The Israeli lobby is an afront to the spirit of American politics, a hub for corruption, a hazard to American interests, and one of the more effective anti-Christian forces in our society. Far from being the blessing touted by neocons, it is very certainly a curse.
The information in prior chapters has informed a much more cautious approach to relations with Israel among cutting edge right wing politicians and thinkers. The Trump administration has sought peacemaking and business deals directly with several Arab countries instead of working through Israeli diplomats that tend to steer things towards territorial expansion and war. President Trump and VP Vance have pointed out the danger of getting dragged into petty wars against US interests if we are not careful about reining in Israeli warmongering. Also notably making these observations about the war in Ukraine. Charlie Kirk before his assassination famously criticized neocon foreign policy and the resulting betrayals we have tolerated at the hands of Israel, a notable change from his early career where he took the stance of full unconditional support. All of this indicates a change in pattern from typical conservative foreign policy. The new right demonstrates ruthlessness in the pursuit of its own interests and moral convictions, having no interest or loyalty in Palestine that would bias its judgement. Despite deeply ironic accusations by zionists of some having dual-loyalty with Palestine.
The post-neocon right is more nationalistic, focused on the pursuit of national prosperity more than trying to bully the whole globe into some liberal-democratic imperialist project. There was a time when Israel would have been a useful ally for imperialist projects in the middle east. As of late Israel has been coasting on residual relevance from that more imperialistic time. However, liberal imperialism is now seen as a failed experiment in light of the occupation of Afganistan, regime change in Iraq and Syria, among others. The idea of a "Globalist American Empire" has lost favor and it has come time to reevaluate Israel's usefulness in that regard. It would seem that Israel's preferred interest is American imperialism because they believe that violently destabilizing and weakening their neighbors increases their own security and they can't afford to do it alone. It may be that by their nature they are simply unfit for a less imperialistic future.
The cutting edge right is principled about defending the interests of its internal population and is less worried about representing the interests of foreign agents. While it has yet to do this well enough to satisfy nationalist purism or a 2016 Trump campaign attitude, the change in trajectory is noteworthy. Where the left sees Israel as a site of human rights abuses, this nationalist right is more concerned with ruthless cost-benefit analysis in the principled interests of the domestic population. In its unchanging commitment to its historic interests Israel has struggled to find a place within that paradigm.
It is the realm of the Christian to filter every side of this issue through Christian morals. Like the left, the Christian can see that Israel is the site of human rights abuses and betrayal of human dignity. Like the cutting edge right, the Christian can perceive the danger to Christian interests inherent to Israel being a geopolitical hazard and warmonger. Finally, Christians can see the religious danger Israel poses as a purveyor of false religion, sins, and deception. In conclusion this is not to suggest a need to rewrite the Abrahamic covenant or revelation prophecy. Only that we should be cautious in this time of divorce to not mistake Israel as our religious senior, leader, or ally. We should never be convinced to compromise Christian principles for their sake.
You are now informed enough to piece together some of the complicated case of Israel.
