Skip to comments.Evangelical Split Over Israel Batters Bush
Posted on 08/03/2007 7:08:12 PM PDT by Salem
Evangelical Split Over Israel Batters Bush
By Larry Cohler-Esses
The Jewish Week
Evangelical Christians, long seen as a monolith in lockstep support of Israel, publicly fractured last week as two significant evangelical factions lobbied President Bush with criticism of Israel from opposite points of view.
For the first time, Christians United for Israel, a major Christian Zionist group with strong ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, lobbied President Bush against the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a solution advocated by Israel, the Bush administration and the pro-Israel Washington lobby itself.
Meanwhile, some 30 Evangelical leaders, including prominent activists and intellectuals, publicly lauded Bush’s stand in favor of two states: Israel and a seperate state in the West Bank and Gaza for Palestinians. They also urged Bush to get involved more actively to make this happen. But this group pointedly noted that both Israelis and Palestinians “have committed violence and injustice against each other.”
The two groups’ dueling letters to the president, each critical of Israeli policies from respective viewpoints, marked a new, more complex phase in evangelical Christianity’s political stand towards Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, observers and partisans from all sides agreed.
The letter from Christians United for Israel, whose leader, Pastor John Hagee, was a keynote speaker at AIPAC’s Washington policy conference this year, lectured Bush, “Simply stated, land for peace is a failed policy of the past that has produced nothing but more war. Under the current circumstances, we feel a two-state solution would be unwise.”
Rev. Hagee’s letter, signed by himself and 50 other CUFI ministers, marked the well-funded new group’s first official effort against Israeli and U.S. policy. It was a step that Jewish groups that have worked with CUFI had earlier worried about and came just one week after its own national conference in Washington, where key officials sounded a similar theme. Representing a key constituent of Bush’s base, CUFI’s White House lobbying is likely to compel administration attention.
Josh Block, a spokesman for AIPAC, declined to comment on the letter saying he had not had a chance to read it. But Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said CUFI’s stand should not cause Jewish groups to waver in their welcome of the group’s support.
“Do I have a problem with Hagee on his one-state stand?” he said. “Yes.
But he’s entitled . . . . He does not make his support of Israel at this time conditional on Israel accepting a one-state solution.”
In contrast, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest of American Judaism’s religious streams, said that by embracing Hagee, as many Jewish groups have done locally and nationally, “We are thereby embracing a radical position that will ultimately discredit Israel, not strengthen it. We are embracing a faction that says no to concessions; no to a two-state solution.”
In an opinion piece in The Forward last May, Yoffie charged that Jewish groups, particularly Jewish federations, have embraced CUFI under the influence of large contributions to federation fundraising campaigns by groups under Hagee’s control.
The CUFI letter arrived at the White House just one day ahead of the letter from 30 other Evangelical leaders in support of the Israeli and U.S. two-state position. That letter, organized by Ronald Sider, head of Evangelicals for Social Action, stated: “We affirm your clear call for a two-state solution. ... We also write to correct a serious misperception among some people, including U.S. policymakers, that all American evangelicals are opposed to a two-state solution.”
In lobbying Bush against a two-state solution, CUFI, which portrays itself as a staunch defender of Israel, set itself in clear opposition to the Jewish state’s official policy. But the writers of the second letter also upheld the value of criticizing Israeli policies in other respects, noting, “As evangelical Christians we embrace the biblical promise to Abraham: ‘I will bess those who bless you.’ And precisely as evangelical Christians committed to the full teaching of the Scriptures, we know that blessing and loving people (including Jews and the present state of Israel) does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted.”
The letter stated: “Both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine. Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other.”
The letter deplored the “tragic cycle of violence” which, it said, could be ended only through a negotiated agreement that would require concessions by both sides and “robust leadership” from Washington.
In a response quoted by The New York Times, Rev. Hagee appeared to excommunicate the pro-two-state writers from Christianity: “Bible-believing evangelicals will scoff at that message,” he said.
Asked why Jewish groups were embracing Rev. Hagee, who opposed Israel’s two-state policy, while the signers of the second letter enjoyed no such cache, Foxman said, “I’d say they’re new to advocating support for Israel. They’re even-handed in their approach to a two-state solution. But all of a sudden for them to surface on this issue is a little surprising.”
Rabbi Yoffie said, “I don’t agree with every word of that letter. I thought it came off as much too evenhanded, though that may not have been their intent. It read like there was equal fault on both sides. There is not. The Palestinians bear the bulk of the blame for the current situation.”
But Rabbi Yoffie lauded the letter’s “fundamental point about a two-state solution. That’s the political reality in America, in the Bush administration and with the government of Israel. There is no disputing that, even if you have issues with the tone of the letter.”
The letter signers include, Leighton Ford, a prominent evangelical minister; Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, one of the county’s leading Evangelical schools; and Robert A. Seiple, who served as Bush’s special ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom earlier in his administration.
One of the signers, Gary M. Burge, is author of “Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians,” a book strongly critical of Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinians.
The two letters come just a few months after Janet Parshall, a prominent fundamentalist radio personality long known for her support of Israel, publicly broke with the Christian pro-Israel movement for other reasons. Last March, Parshall dropped out of a Jerusalem conference sponsored by a Knesset caucus advocating ties with the Christian Zionist movement after the caucus condemned evangelization of Jews in Israel.
“I thought, wait a minute. We can’t just blindly support Israel,” she said then in a public statement. “We have to be able to tell them as a friend, you can’t do that. You can’t silence us.”
Israel, said Parshall, was telling the movement, “We’ll take your aid, your support and your tourist dollars, but we won’t take your Jesus.” She criticized the Christian Zionist movement for what she termed “a kind of blind support that says no matter what Israel does, Israel can do no wrong” and charged that some leaders in the movement fostered a belief that Jews could be saved outside of Jesus. “That’s not true,” she said.
Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said that Parshall’s view was “gaining traction” in the evangelical world. “That’s a common argument nowadays,” he said. “I hear that a lot.”
Like others, Cizik also said the two letters to Bush last week reflected a deepening split within evangelical Christianity with underpinnings more theological than political. CUFI, with its staunch stand against those advocating territorial concessions by Israel, tended to attract believers in an apocalyptic endtimes scenario involving the Jewish state, he said. Those associated with the other letter tended not to see the modern state of Israel as as being implicated in end-time scenarios but subject to standards of justice no different than any other state.
In this end-time scenario, derived from interpretations of parts of the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, the return of Jesus must be preceded by the ingathering of all Jews to Israel, defined by its biblical borders. This is to be followed by an international conflagration centered on the Jewish state that will result in the slaughter of all but a fragment of the Jewish people. This fragment will then convert to Christianity with the second coming of Christ.
Because of these beliefs, said Cizik, “They out-Likud the Likudniks. I think they’re more adamant about the land than Israel itself.”
Indeed, in a short video documentary of CUFI’s conference last week by left-leaning journalist Max Blumenthal, many participants invoked such end-times beliefs when asked why they supported Israel.
But Ret. Army Gen. Jim Hutchens, CUFI’s Mid-Atlantic regional director, disputed the generalization.
“There are dispensationalists in our movement,” he acknowledged, using the theological term referring to those who believe the apocalyptic scenario involving Jews and Israel is being played out today with the modern Jewish state. “But not all who support Christian Zionism are dispensationalists. Christian Zionists don’t support Israel based on a speculative end-time scenario in the future, but based on God’s [biblical] covenant with the people of Israel in the past.”
Hutchens also stressed that CUFI was “non-conversionist.”
“Conversion is not our goal,” he said. “Our goal is to support Israel in matters related to biblical issues.”
Hutchens also charged that the signers of the pro-two-state letter were “supercessionists,” a term referring to those who believe that with Christ’s arrival, God’s biblical covenant with Israel was replaced by His covenant with the Church.
“Most of the people [who signed the opposing letter] regard Israel like they would any other Third World country that should be treated like anyone else who’s rejected Jesus Christ as messiah,” he said. “It [the letter] fails to recognize God has an inviolable covenant with the Jewish people, and it includes the land.”
Sider, who organized the pro-two-state letter, replied, “I have no idea what all the people who signed our letter would think on supercessionism.”
More importantly, he stressed, “We’re not in any way anti-Israel. We want Israel to have a secure base as a secure nation; and also the Palestinians. That will only happen with strong U.S. involvement.”
If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
The Nature Of Bruce ~
"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets...."Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Holocaust Chronicle ~
" ... It's time we recognized the nature of the conflict. It's total war and we are all involved. Nobody on our side is exempted because of age, gender, or handicap. The Islamofacists have stolen childhood from the world."FReeper Retief
"Palestine is the wrong name for their State. It should be called Anarchy."FReeper sgtbono2002
"Then let's wait and see what the Arabs do after they take Gaza. There's nothing like Arab reality to break up a Jewish fantasy."FReeper Noachian
A student told his professor he was going to "Palestine" to "fight for freedom, peace and justice,"Orwellian leftist code words that mean "murder Jews."
What a mess.
When it comes to Israel and how to protect it best from the rabid enemies that surround her I support Rabbi Laurie’s views:
When churches become liberal they walk away from their responsibilities.
Anyone who actually thinks that it is Christian to support Hamas, Al Q, any jihadist who are fronting for a Palestinean state is just absurd and naive. Jihad is jihad and nothing about fairness or tolerance will change that. Since when in history has any Palestinean favored real peace and acceptance of Israel as a free state? Never.
I mean, you can stand at the bottom of a building hollering at the suicide jumper, "please don't jump! Come down safely and we'll talk!"
And then the guy at the top of the building hollers back..."How dare you invite me to church!"
I think US Jews have finally succeeded in hamstringing evangelical support for Israel.
It is the difference between accommodating evil...and fighting it.
What a mess, indeed. But this rift in evangelical support is the least of Israel’s problems at the moment. Israelis today seem tired and defeatist, giving their enemies the impression that they have become too soft to fight. This evangelical friend of Israel senses that the current political leadership has no stomach for fighting, and is curiously lashing out at its loyal friends while cravenly placating its mortal enemies. All the while, the surrounding Muslims breed new warriors like rabbits. Israel needs to wake up.
Think of Gaza as a mini experimental solution for a 2 state solution. What a disaster it has been with Hamas and Fatah infighting....do the Palestinians recognize the right for Israel to exist? Hardly.....a 2 state solution and a homeland for the Palestinians not possible without radical changes to it’s leaders and mentality. Condi Rice needs to turn the lights on.
I laugh when people say Republicans are in lockstep with Bush. From the very first things he did I was shaking my head. I like the man, but I remember the sinking feeling I had when he started talking about a two state solution.
It was just blood in the water. Notice all the peace Israel and Palestine have had since that announcement. You feed the sharks your hand and they want your arm. And they hate you even worse, amazing.
Sometimes I think Bush’s problem is he is just too darn naive.
Anyone or any nation that barters away Israel land to her enemies is cursed according to God’s word. I am afraid that God will have a reckoning for the U.S. God help us.
John Hagee is a POWERFUL speaker.
Anyone interested should check out these videos of his speeches
Here’s the one of the AIPAC conference that was mentioned in the news story
Part 1 of 3:
Here’s a Sermon he gave called “World War III”
Part 1 of 5:
These are very captivating speeches and I highly recommend them.
You love trashing Hagee don’t you?
At this point moozzi is dug in on the northern border,,,
Many bunkers 140ft. + deep (posted on FR)
Too deep for IAF bunker-busters (34 day war)...
Syria : Has cleared “assault-lanes” through their side of the mine-fields up/to the Golan...
Southern Border : Tunnel after Tunnel to bring in who/what ever into Gaza...
This is all a “slow squeeze”...
One Bite At A Time...
Love him or hate him, Hagee is right. His critics are dead wrong.
...by embracing Hagee... We are thereby embracing a radical position that will ultimately discredit Israel, not strengthen it. We are embracing a faction that says no to concessions; no to a two-state solution.
Modern Israel was born out of a two-state solution. Modern Palestine was divided into two portions; a sliver for its jewish inhabitants, renamed Israel, and the remainder for its arab inhabitants, renamed Jordan. That is the orignal two-state solution, and its the one we should remain focused on. What Israel's enemies are after is a three or four-state solution, a jewish state, an arab state, and a couple of Hamas-Fatah-terror bases strategically and firmly attached to Israel's hide like tumors
We need to be clear on two things. First, there will never be an independent West Bank. It is not viable. It has no markets, no source of employment, no economy separate from Israel and separate from Jordan. It is doomed to be what it is, an outlaw state ruled by outlaws and populated by people who are complicit in their own misery.
And, secondly, whatever the details of your theology, if you find yourself in agreement with Hamas and Fatah gunmen, you need to re-think your position. To withdraw support for Israel, because they aren't converting fast enough for you, while they face killers who would just as quickly take your own head off at the shoulders, is to prove to me at least that you never supported them at all. In a war between civilized men who love God, but disagree with me on the particulars, versus barbarians who would kill us both, I'll side with Israel every time.
We have those here too.
POINT/FACT : That pic I posted upthread shows a tunnel that
moozzi can/could use to haul in one/more of the so called “back-pack” nukes/?????????!!!???,,,
JMHO : Round 2 of the 34 Day War is over-due...another bite.
Retain the Gaza strip, which was never part of Eretz Yisrael, for some for some distantly "Gazan" homeland, and in the meantime start killing islamists or eject them forceably from there and the West Bank.
Send them back to their arab brethren, or into the Sinai, which was good enough for the Jews for some forty years.
Enough of this islamist nonsense!
Bush is flying in the face of Almighty God on this one. And this ain’t the phony wannabe moon gawd.
He doesn’t seem to be listening though. If he keeps paying attention to those who want to sell out Israel and divide the land ... well, it’s foretold.
When churches become liberal, they actually walk away from God!
The only benefit of a two-state policy would be that, in the event of a terrorist attack, Israel could wipe the “Palestinian” state off the map.
Hagee is doing great things for Israel. My religious cousins in Israel like what he has to say and they know him from their years in Texas before moving to Israel. They are American born
1. Who in the world ever thought evangelical Christians were some kind of political “monolith?” A liberal?
2. There are not that many evangelical, Bible believing Christians who fall for the “Palestinian” fallacy to the extent of being anti-Israel.
1. Who in the world ever thought evangelical Christians were some kind of political “monolith?” A liberal?
2. There are not that many evangelical, Bible believing Christians who fall for the “Palestinian” fallacy to the extent of being anti-Israel.
Never heard of 'em... but they sound like a bunch of lefties.
This is why all talk of a "two-state solution" comes from the west, never from the arabs. It is a fool's wish and even to treat it as a serious goal, absent a decisive military solution first, is a step toward the end of Israel as it exists today.
This is the unknown Legacy of the Mufti of Jerusalem
This is an excerpt of a very profound interview that Pamula (PG), the blogger AtlasShrugs had with Bat Yeor (BY) , author of Eurabia and The Dhimmi
PG: Now in Eurabia you outlined the Euro-Arab axis, that it wasnt an accident, but there was a deliberate plan, and was the object? What was the objective?
BY: Well, in this book I examined particularly this policy of appeasement that was conducted by Europe, the European community. This time it was the nine countries, and it started in part after the Kippur War in 1973, and it was in fact a French plan. France didnt want to lose their colonies, and they want to have good relations with their Arab colonies you know that France had huge Arab colonies and after the Algerian war of liberation they lost all their colonies. They lost Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, the last one. They wanted to have good relations with these countries, and they went along they have tacted. The plan drawn by the Mufti, the Mufti of Jerusalem.
PG: Right, and he was with the Nazis?
BY: He was with the Nazi. There were many Nazi also in Egypt, and Egypt was part, also, of this plan, and the plan was to build up a strong alliance with France and the Arab countries, and against America and against the protestant people.
PG: Now, why against America? As a counter-power?
BY: Yes, first of all as a counter-power, but because America has saved the world from Nazism. It is thanks to America that the dictatorships like fascism, like Nazism were defeated. So America was the big enemy. It was a democratic and it was the big enemy of dictatorship and of the fascism regimes. Now, there were many Nazi people who has immigrated in Egypt and lived in Egypt under the Nasser regime, and of course they were very friendly with the Mufti, so this plan was built up against America and against Israel. Now de Gaulle, who was part of this sought to bring not only France, but the European community. Then the nine countries. Because this time de Gaulle and Germany were building together the European community; the integration.
PG: Yes, the integration, it would eliminate the European countries, so to speak.
BY: Not only that. It would make out of Europe a huge block, because it would not be only France, it would be nine countries allied with twenty-two Arab countries. It would have make a fantastic block which would be more powerful than America, and this was the object, and for the Arabs, not so much for the French although there were many anti-Semites still in France . France was in ally with the German regime, the German Nazi regime, so it has collaborate in deportation of Jews and extermination of Jews.
PG: But the people in Europe really were not onboard with this, they didnt know that this was happening.
BY: No, they didnt know but still there were people who were very favorable to such a position, because from the beginning of the century there was such an anti-Semitic climate in France and in whole of Europe. If it wouldnt have been, there wouldnt have been also the genocide of the Jews, if the climate was not so anti-Jewish. And it is not because the American and the ally with the allies troop succeeded in crushing down Nazism that all those feelings disappeared from one day to another.
PG: Oh no, it could never happen!
BY: So it has continued under another name, and this was of course the anti-Zionists and the hate of the state of Israel, but it was the same anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. So what happened then? After the Kippur War, the European countries that were reluctant to follow the French plan accepted, because they were faced with the oil boycott.
PG: Yes, in the 70th.
BY: Yes, and not only that but with Palestinian terrorism which started in 1968 in Europe, in several cities of Europe.
PG: And they handled it very badly.
BY: Yes, and they didnt know. It was the first time it happened so they didnt know how to answer on that.
PG: They should have crushed it!
BY: Yes, but how to crush it? They didnt know, so they thought: Okay, well go into that plan, we do this appeasement policy , because this was the European countries who wants to have good relations with the Arab world, and with the sheikdom, and with the countries now producing so much oil, so they needed oil for their economy. So they say: Okay, we go into this alliance with the Arab world, and we shall do business with them, but the Arab league countries put as a condition to open a dialogue with the European countries on two conditions; that Europe will recognize Arafat as the only representative of the Palestinian people and that they will support the PLO, which was a terrorist organization and have a policy contradict to that of America. So they enter into this dialogue.
PG: Yes, the deal with the devil.
BY: Yes, the deal with the devil. And from that moment Europe changed it policy against Israel, but I think its soul changed because
PG: Europes soul changed. Thats important; an important quote.
BY: Yes. Because it has to support the Palestinian war, jihad against Israel.
PG: It has to support barbarism.
BY: Which is support barbarism, which is to support jihad ideology which is, as well, as much anti-Jewish as anti-Christian, and which is legitimized by the evilness of the Jews and Christians or of the infidels also. It is based on that, so when Europe support this and legitimize it intellectually, and also with its heart, its soul and heart support the destruction of the state of Israel, it supported also its own evilness and its own destruction. And since this moment it follows therefore the Palistinization of Europe, of the whole mentality of Europe the whole vision and interpretation of history and of events according to the Palestinian vision , which is the eternal evilness of its enemy Israel, which is linked also to the Christian and the West. So Europe destroyed itself. It destroyed its own, first of all, Christianity, and give in to the Palestinians to attack the Christianity in Lebanon. Because the Palestinian war was not only against Israel. The Palestinian, you have to see them as a tool or as an instrument of the Arab world to destroy Israel, and also as a channel to penetrate into Europe and Islamize Europe. It is exactly what they have done.
PG: I understand, but even the word Palestinian is a marketing term. What was really the Palestinians? The Arabs living in Gaza but were Egyptian Arabs.
PG: So they came with this term in 1967. Its a myth. Its an Arab narrative.
BY: Yes. You phrase it totally. I think the Palestine and the myth of the Palestinian was created by European; by European anti-Semite, like Jacques Berque, for instance, who is a great islamologue and arabist who is teaching on the Institute Francaise. Hes very well known because he was he champion of this anti-Israeli policy of the French government, but there was others also in England and in other countries. But in Europe the leftist movement of course the communist were behind the Palestinians, so all the communists and the leftist movement supported the Palestinians, supported this vision because they were anti-American. So at this moment there was a real polarization of the political life in Europe, with the left, the communists, the socialists supporting the Palestinian and the destruction of Israel and the fight against America.
PG: Yes, but there are people, the people of Europe, they dont like whats going on. I mean, do you think they can actually, at any point wall off their cities? I mean, this is evolving, this is not static, this is fluid
BY: Yes. I mean what happen to people, the European people, it is that all this is a policy that was created by networks and went through was imposed to the European through the universities; through institutes that were created, through media
PG: Its America!
BY: Exactly, and with false justification, a mythological justification.
PG: Yes, its an Arab narrative.
BY: Yes, with a political agenda, supporting the Palestinians, and whoever would say the contrary, would oppose, would lost his work, would be boycotted, he wouldnt be able to be published and so on. So this was a censorship also, under reality and on the opposition. Now, what the European people thought of that were many intellectual people saw very well, and many religious also; priests and reverence in the reform churches. They were totally opposed to that, and they fought very strongly against it. They saw it. They saw that the ancient anti-Semitism, which they had so strongly vote against, in the preceding years and the Nazism because not everyone that was the anti-Semitical [newhop? UNKNOWN time=24:24]. There were many people who opposed that movement, but they were taken into it and they were prisoners of that. You know, when you see a blockage of everything; you can not write in the newspaper, you can not speak on the television. Your voice is not, has not
PG: Is silent.
BY: Is silent! They silence you through censorship all the time. But Nevertheless these people fought with whatever possibility there was. So the resistance against anti-Semitism, against anti-Americanism, against this policy was there, but was not listened to; do not appear.
I am Jewish and take my religion seriously. I would never seek to impose it on anybody else. Parshalls was off base. I want Jews to be better Jews and Christians to be better Christians.
Liberal US Jews (and their UCC fellow-travellers) play up the eye-rolling eschatology (end of the world stuff) to try to blunt, stymie, discredit or otherwise hamstring Israel's only repeat only ally--conservative American Christians.
They're more offended, shocked and "frightened" by a Baptist than Hezbollah.
And, from where I'm sitting, they've succeeded. Evangelicals are starting to rethink their support for Israel not because of theology, but because US Jews are so opposed to and insulted by the help.
And there are a lot of evangelicals who only nominally have supported Israel, but just don't need the hassle of defending themselves from "antisemite kooks who just want to convert us" coming from erstwhile US Jews.
"Please don't jump..."
Galatians 3:16: The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
Galatians 3:7: Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.
Galatians 3:29: If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Romans 9:8: In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.
Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Your welcome to your opinion...but you don’t enhance your position and the view of fellow Christian FReepers with your vanity posts.
YOu don’t have to be nasty with me! I am a supporter of evangelicals! Take your ignation elsewhere.
I am not sure as to what your point is.
Evangelicals are better supporters of Israel than liberal Jews.
FReepMail to be added or removed from this pro-Israel/Judaic/Russian Jewry ping list.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
The continual screamings about "conversionism" are silly, and this comes from someone who rejects chr*stianity and is opposed to Jews embracing it (and who would much rather see chr*stian Zionists become observant Noachides). What is this bug-bear based on? Evangelicals did not exist in Medieval Europe and no Evangelical, no matter how "missionary," is going to force anyone to convert. You may have trouble getting them to accept "no" as an answer (considering what they sincerely believe the consequences of that answer are), but they aren't going to force anyone to do anything. Meanwhile, the liberal/ecumenical Jewish embrace of the Catholic/Orthodox churches merely rubs salt in the wounds of their hostility to American (white) Protestant Fundamentalism.
Complaints about "conversionism" are even more groundless when made by people who insist on making a never-ending list of demands of internal changes in other people's religions. Do they honestly think this is better than out-and-out proselytization??? To the contrary, it's a zillion times less honorable!
The positions of such people as Hagee is not so much based on either conversionism or an "end-times scenario," but on simple Biblical sentimentalism. Why is this so hard to understand? Oh, I know. Because no one except for them actually associates the Jews with the Bible.
As for Yoffie and his ilk, Jews who want a "secular state" unconnected with Theocratic Biblical Judaism should not live in the Holy Land. From what I hear, Antarctica is pretty empty.
And as for Oslo/Gay Rights Abie suddenly defending chr*stian support of Israel, considering the things he's said about them in the past I hope he has apologized profusely and repented of his anti-Torah positions. Otherwise he can go jump in the lake. I know of no more negative stereotype of the Jewish People than Foxman (except maybe Dershowitz). Where are all those Yemenite shepherds when you need them???