Foreign Policy In Focus

Cross-posted from Mondoweiss.

The opposition party Kadima, which has the largest number of Knesset seats of any single Israeli political party, will join in a national unity government with second-seated Likud and its main partner, third-seated Yisrael Beiteinu. This creates a majority since among themselves these 3 main parties will control 70 out of 120 seats in the Knesset, and including smaller Likud coalition partners, this bloc could be up to 94 votes strong -- meaning they could easy institute new Basic Laws if they chose to do so. 

Earlier Likud-driven plans to move up Israel's 2013 elections to September 4, 2012 that had been opposed by Kadima have now been "frozen," according to Haaretz, which had actually reported yesterday that a parliamentary committee voted 12-1 in favoring of dissolving this Knesset to hold elections in September. The decision to suspend the elections apparently came overnight during inter-party talks between Kadima and Likud after that particular bill was set to go on to a further vote.

It was Likud that called for the elections, and Likud is now apparently taking the initiative to undo them, though some members of Likud deny this and lay the initiative at Mofaz's feet -- such members, it seems, hoped to trounce Kadima this fall. Is it simple politicking (the settler parties, religious and non-religious, the latter including Foreign Minister Lieberman's own Yisrael Beiteinu, that find themselves at odds with Bibi are now suddenly less important), a move to revoke special exemptions for Haredim, settlement expansion, insurance against Obama 2012, or a means of putting Israel further on a war footing with Iran? 

All of the above all possible -- and as such, Bibi wins in 2012.

With Likud, the immediate effort is all about taking advantage of a beaten opposition; now only Labor and the smaller parties -- Palestinian citizens of Israel, far-left and ultra-religious -- remain, a most fractious and heavily outnumbered coalition. Bibi may just be the most politically insulated Prime Minister in Israeli history at this moment: "king of Israeli politics," Haaretz just called him, grudgingly that he is, after all, "Israel's number one politician, no doubt -- by a mile."

And for Kadima, it is about surviving to the next election. The move represents a significant departure in Kadima's rhetoric, to say the least. At the end of March, following Tzipi Livni's loss to Shaul Mofaz, the new head of the party told Haaretz he'd never join a government with Likud (h/t Max Blumenthal):

Yossi Veter: Would you consider joining a government should that situation arise?

Shaul Mofaz: No, Kadima under my leadership will remain in the opposition. The current government represents all that is wrong with Israel, I believe. Why should we join it? We will be a responsible opposition. Anything Netanyahu does for the benefit of Israel’s future will find our support. I want to restore an ethic of nonpartisan patriotism to Israel. I want to represent something new, like we had in the past.

But Kadima, born out of a schism within Likud in 2005, has few options otherwise if it wants to hold onto the seats it won in 2009. Elizabeth Tsurkov, from +972, and Barak Ravid of Haaretz:

In any current poll, Kadima's power is projected to diminish by almost 2/3. Kadima wants to keep this unrepresentative Knesset in power.
— Elizabeth Tsurkov (@Elizrael) May 8, 2012

Reason for agreement: Mofaz was panicked by the elections, Ehud Barak also panicked and Bibi wanted to kill Labor and Yair Lapid
— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) May 8, 2012

And Gregg Carlstrom at Al Jazeera:

Yet another Israel poll: Likud gets 31 seats in early elex, Labor 17, Yisrael Beiteinu 13, Atid 12, Kadima down to 10. bit.ly/JrS7r2
— Gregg Carlstrom (@glcarlstrom) May 3, 2012

Likud has found a way to have its cake -- humbling Kadima -- and eat it too with this deal because now, that cake is Kadima. One wonders what resurrected legislation from 2010 and 2011 on loyalty oaths, BDS, administrative detention, NGO funding, settlement subsidies or judicial appointments to the High Court will make a comeback. What foreign observers are most concerned about, of course, is not Kadima's electoral woes, or how this all means the national service exemption "Tal Law" will be amended or annulled (a measure both Kadima and Yisrael Beiteinu back), but what this unity government portends for a possible conflict with Iran. Barbara Slavin of Al-Monitor asks:

mofaz opposes #israel war on #iran; what did bibi promise him?
— Barbara Slavin (@barbaraslavin1) May 8, 2012

At the moment, we know Mofaz has been promised two explicit, and one implicit, bargains. Mofaz will become a deputy prime minister in the new government, but will be a "minister without portfolio" "in charge of the process with the Palestinians." These offices are his explicit rewards. His implicit reward, as noted above, is getting to avoid a general election for at least one more year that his party was likely to suffer in. 

Finally, for Likud there is a big immediate benefit regarding the settlements, suggests Noam Shezaif (though he notes this might only be a temporary victory for Bibi):

The final push for the new agreement was probably yesterday’s High Court ruling on the evacuation of the Ulpana neighborhood in the settlement of Beit El, built on private Palestinian land. With elections around the corner, this would have become for Netanyahu a public showdown with either the settlers or with the court – and possibly both. By postponing the elections, the prime minister has bought himself some time to deal with the crisis.

As for the foreign front, I think that Bibi has decided to hedge his bets for now on Iran by offering the bruised Kadima a way forward to survive another year in a way that insulates him from American pressure and possible domestic confrontations over his focus on Iran. Yousef Munayyer put it succinctly:

@blakehounshell its more about obama than Iran, even when its about Iran, its about Obama
— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) May 8, 2012

Now Netanyahu won't have to tone down his rhetoric on Iran, which he has used to successfully dodge the question on settlements as well as (reducing) sanctions and criticizing P5+1 diplomacy. Or, perhaps far, far more importantly for his fellow Likudniks' purposes, concern himself with any further weak Western protests over West Bank settlement expansion. At the risk of beating a dead horse -- this coalition formation shows we can also say goodbye to any foreseeable future negotiations with Ramallah. 

On the Obama angle, Maariv's Ben Caspit reported earlier this week, when elections were still on, that Netanyahu had based his call for early election off of an AIPAC consensus that Obama would win reelection in 2012 (and thus, feel capable of standing up to the Prime Minister). He hardly needed AIPAC to tell him the President's ahead in the polls, but Caspit's effort to portrait Bibi's mindset is illuminating:

The surprising announcement of early primaries in Likud by the party leadership fell out of the blue, [and] came three days after a quiet meeting held with AIPAC officials, who after conducting a review of U.S. polling data, advised Netanyahu that Obama would be the next president. Bibi knows he cannot campaign for reelection himself with Obama in office for a second term. This is a dangerous gamble. [But] there is great mistrust between the American President and the Israeli Prime Minister, and Netanyahu may try to do to Obama what he did during Clinton's first term, and Obama [may try to do] to Yitzhak Shamir what George H. W. Bush did in 1992.

When referring to Clinton, the author means Netanyahu's efforts to handicap the Oslo Accords. With Shamir, he means to say that Bibi seeks to avoid any chance of there being repeat of the "one lonely little guy" speech Bush gave when he refused to cave in to Shamir on delinking loan guarantees from a halt to settlement expansion. Netanyahu would rather not fight that fight and give his opponents at home openings against him, even though he's almost certain to win such a fight both at home and abroad. As such, it may be that these comparisons (severely) overestimates Obama's will to criticize the Israeli government and (slightly) overdoes Bibi's sense of insecurity since Congress will simply not allow such scenarios to come into being. 

This said, the Prime Minister would rather not have to fight such a fight when the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship" gives him so much room to maneuver in the region, no matter how much he dislikes Obama. So he is playing it safe; no elections to risk losing a seat in the Knesset or having to face an irate White House. If he's concluded Obama will win, he intends to set the tone for the President's final term by building his coalition ahead of the actual Romney-Obama faceoff. He puts himself above the fray, and greater unity at home will translate into greater assertiveness abroad. It keeps the rhetoric red hot. 

So, then, here is the $64,000, deal-or-no deal question: where does this leave newcomer Mofaz in Bibi's kitchen cabinet? Are the scales tipped in favor of war with Mofaz's addition to the coalition? 

Not for now, at least. Mofaz opposes an attack on Iran as of this writing. And it is not clear what Mofaz's complicity, if it were to come, would achieve for the most gung-ho boosters of an attack. The most outspoken opponents have, in any case, mainly been former national security officials, and in a way, Bibi has even preempted them with this unity government (not that some kind of reaching across the aisle seemed to be in the cards; most who've worn the uniform have kept quiet) -- though what this means in practice has yet to be tested with respect to Iran. Again, the kitchen cabinet -- this "Octet" -- is reportedly still divided over an attack. It's tempting to see a possible reorganization of the "Octet" as a prelude to a 2012 war with Iran because it ensures Barak stays on as Defense Minister and, as Larry Derfner notes, Bibi has "cleared his calendar," and Barak earlier said this month the government had to separate Iran from "the elections" and it has done just that. At the same time, further settlement building, the revival of undemocratic legislation, even Cast Lead II seem just as, if not more, likely worst-case outcomes for 2012-3 (unless, you know, I'm dead wrong, and Mofaz, the man who would beat Bibi and never, ever, ever join a coalition does an about-face on Iran and it's bombs away).

But even if he does not defect over Iran to the hawk, one does wonder what Mofaz is going to look forward in 2013 when elections will take place -- although since they're apparently going to get to do some election law rewriting, that question may be answered by Kadima itself! But what was promised, indeed, for the man who swore upon his election this spring that he would "replace" Netanyahu? And was a compromise on Iran policy staked out in these arrangements? 

What Bibi intends to do with the time and the Knesset majority he has bought himself through 2013 remains to be seen. West Bank settlement expansion, "court packing," sanctions on the PA, bombing Iran, perhaps even further punitive measures in Gaza? All are on firmer ground as of this week, "the putsch against war" notwithstanding.

Indeed, thanks to Kadima's actions, "the putsch against war" may constitute the only serious challenge to Bibi's politics right now, and that is cause for concern over the Iranian question (hopefully, the generals will not be swayed by Bibi's efforts to influence the services with political appointees). The initiative on Iran, the settlements, the "peace process," the national service debate and even the chance to pass new Basic Laws will stay with him for at least a year.

It's good to be the king.

From its birth more than 60 years ago, Israel has always presented itself as “an oasis of democracy in a sea of despotism,” an outpost of pluralism surrounded by tyranny. While that equality never fully applied to the country’s Arab citizens, Israel was, for the most part an open society. But today political rights are under siege by right-wing legislators, militant settlers, and a growing religious divide in the Israeli army, all of which threaten to silence internal opposition to the policies of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Since that may include a war with Iran—and the probable involvement of the U.S. in such a conflict—the move to stifle dissent should be a major concern for Americans.

The U.S. media has reported on growing tensions between Israeli women and the ultra-orthodox Haredim over the latter’s demand for sexual segregation of schools, public transport, and public life. But while orthodox Jews spitting on eight-year old girls for being “immodestly dressed” has garnered the headlines, the most serious threats to democratic rights have gone largely unreported, including a host of proposed or enacted laws. Some of these include:

*A law that allows Jewish communities to bar Arab families from living among them. Arabs make up about 20 percent of the population.

*A law that makes it illegal to advocate an academic, cultural or economic boycott of Israel, including settler communities.

*A law that would limit the power of the Supreme Court.

*A law that bars any state institutions—including schools and theaters—from commemorating the “Nakba,” or “catastrophe,” the term Palestinians use to describe the loss of their lands in the 1948 war that established Israel.

*A law that prohibits Palestinians from living with their Israeli spouses within Israel proper and denies them citizenship.

*A law that drops Arabic as an official language.

*A law that requires anyone obtaining a driver’s license to swear loyalty to the state.

*A law that would limit the number of petitions non-governmental organizations, including peace and human rights groups, could file before the Supreme Court.

*A law that forces human rights and peace groups to limit the money they can receive from abroad, and forces them to go through burdensome registration requirements.

Tzipi Livni, former foreign secretary and head of the Kadima Party, told the Knesset that Arab states were “trying to become a democracy, while we—with these bills—are headed toward dictatorship.”

Most of these laws are being pushed by Israel’s rightwing Likud and Yisreal Beiteinu parties, but the proposal to drop Arabic comes from the Kadima Party. Ram-rodding many of these laws are Likid’s so-called “fantastic four”: Danny Danon, Yariv Levin, Tzipi Hotovely, and Ofir Akunis.

“We are in the process of reducing freedom of speech and the freedom of association, and we are infringing on the right to equality, especially vis-à-vis the Israeli Arab,” Mordechai Kremnitizer, a professor of law and vice-president of the Israel Democracy Institute told the Financial Times.  “We are also weakening all the elements in society that have the function of criticizing the governments, including the courts. ”

Israeli society is filled with sharp divisions on everything from war with Iran to growing economic inequality. Israel has the highest poverty rate out of the 32-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and ranks twenty-fifth in health care investment. The poverty rate for Israeli Arabs is between 50 and 55 percent.

Starting in the 1980s, Israel began dismantling its social safety net, a trend that Netanyahu sharply accelerated when he served as finance minister in 2003. While slashing money for housing, education, and transport, he cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

Most of all, however, Israeli governments poured the nation’s wealth into colonizing the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, where, according to Shir Hever of the Alternative Information Center based in Jerusalem, Israel has spent about $100 billion. A vast network of bypass roads, security zones, and walled settlements siphoned off money that could have gone for housing, education and transportation in Israel. Special tax rebates and rent subsidies for settlers added to that bill. Some 15 percent of the Israeli housing budget is used to support four percent of its population in the Occupied Territories. Add to that the 20 percent the military budget sucks up, and it seems increasingly clear that the settlement endeavor is no longer sustainable.

Wealth disparity—a handful of families control 30 percent of Israel’s GDP—was partly behind last summer’s social explosion that at one point put some 450,000 people into the streets of Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem demanding reductions in rent and food prices. But so far, organizers of those massive demonstrations have avoided making the link between growing income inequality and Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories. Many of these new laws are aimed at organizations that have been trying to do precisely that.

There are other divisions as well. Israelis are split down the middle over whether to attack Iran—43 percent yes, 41 percent no—but 64 percent support the creation of a Middle East nuclear free zone, and 65 percent feel that neither Israel nor Iran should have nuclear weapons. Those are not exactly the home front sentiments that a government wants when it is contemplating going to war.

Besides the avalanche of right-wing legislation coming out of the Knesset, Israel is increasingly at war with itself over the role of religion in daily life, a conflict that is playing out in one of Israel’s core institutions, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

Two years ago, soldiers of the Kfir Brigade, a unit deployed in the West Bank, unveiled banners declaring they would refuse orders to remove settlers. By international law, all settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal, but Israel claims that only unregistered “outposts” are against the law and subject to removal. The soldiers held signs that read, “We will not expel Jews.” Six of them were arrested and spent 30 days in the stockade.

The soldiers were graduates of army-sponsored “hesder yeshivas” that allow orthodox soldiers to divide their time between active service and Torah study. Settler rabbis rallied around the six and even provided money for some of the soldiers’ families.

Writing in the progressive Jewish weekly, the Forward, Columnist J.J. Goldberg says that a “secret report” in 2008 warned that such “yeshiva graduates comprise 30 percent of the junior officer corps and rising. In a decade they will be the military’s senior commanders. If a peace agreement is not reached in 15 years or so, Israel may no long have an army willing to carry out its side.”

A majority of Israelis support some kind of compromise to achieve a settlement with the Palestinians, but in the most recent set of talks, the Netanyahu government made it clear that Israel will not surrender any settlements, any part of Jerusalem, or the Jordan Valley. In essence, Palestinians would be forced to live in isolated enclaves surrounded by networks of restricted roads and over 120 settlements. The Netanyahu proposal not only violates numerous United Nations resolutions and international law, no Palestinian government that accepted such an offer would survive for long.

But Israelis who protest an offer that is widely seen as little more than a way to kill the possibility of serious negotiations may find themselves treated in much the same way as Israel has dealt with its Arab citizens.

Those who agitate against the current government may find themselves hit with the new libel law that no longer requires plaintiffs to prove they were damaged and increases awards six-fold. Bloggers, who lack institutional support, are particularly fearful of the new law. Organizations critical of the government that try to raise money from sources outside the country could face huge fines.

According to Hagai El-Ad, director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, there is growing resistance within Israel to the attempt to silence critics, as well as pressure from abroad, including the American Jewish community. Even a pro-Netanyahu hawk like the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman warns “the very democratic character of the state is being eroded.” That resistance has delayed some of the more odious proposals, but the “fantastic four” and their allies are pushing hard to get them on the books.

Why should Americans care? Because if Netanyahu silences his domestic opponents, he will have carte blanche to do as he pleases. And if Tel Aviv attacks Iran, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to keep clear of it. For starters, the IDF will be firing U.S.-made cruise missiles, flying American-made F-15s, and dropping “made in the USA” bunker busters. With the exception of the monarchs from the Gulf states, no one in the Middle East—or most of the world—is going to give Washington a pass on this one.

Does America need another war? If it doesn’t protest the assault on democracy in Israel, it may get one, whether it likes it or not.

For more of Conn Hallinan's essays visit Dispatches From the Edge. Meanwhile, his novels about the ancient Romans can be found at The Middle Empire Series.

Cross-posted from Mondoweiss.

There are good NGOs and bad NGOs in Tel Aviv's eyes. The new Likud-Yisrael Beitenu NGO funding legislation is aimed at the bad ones. Bad ones criticize the Occupation. Good ones help it along. 

This bill will limit and tax foreign governments' funding for Israeli NGOs, yet it is not a sweeping measure that will affect Israeli nonprofits' funding from other sources (or from the Israeli government itself). It is targeted at left-wing organizations, particularly those that provided information for the Goldstone Commission -- its supporters openly admit this. Israeli officials also do not want to create a wide-ranging law that could impact right-wing charitable organizations. Tel Aviv increasingly depends on these groups, and their U.S. donors, to help subsidize and, most importantly, legitimize the Occupation.

The primary players on the ground in the West Bank are those operating on foot and from their cars hurling rocks, tear gas, bullets and threats at one another every day. So U.S. money that subsidizes the settlements -- including new immigrants -- is a little less money that Tel Aviv has to expend (and it expends a lot). Although this money does not come from U.S. politicians, it does come from their constituents -- many of whom are not shy about making their largess (and peace process preferences) known. These ties also aid pro-settlement Israeli politicians when they are stumping across America to drum up support for Tel Aviv's decisions. 

Americans for Peace Now argues, "private American money plays a relatively small role in the patterns of settlement construction; the real question is political." This is absolutely true. But the mere fact that "private American money" is there is significant because it shows Tel Aviv and Jerusalem planners that they can count on the U.S. failing to do much about their construction projects due to domestic debate.

Settlements and pro-settlement charities rake in large sums from foreign donors though, especially in the U.S. According to the New York Times, "at least 40 American groups" have given "$200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade." The Guardian reports that the California-based Moskowitz Foundation has provided funding to the East Jerusalem-focused Ir David and Ateret Cohanim. Ir David ("City of David") is ostensibly an archaeological organization, but told the Guardian "the goal of our organisation is to increase the presence of Jews in the neighbourhood as much as possible." Ateret Cohanim has similar goals. Both groups have raised millions of dollars in the U.S. on their own through "Friends of Ir David Foundation" and "American Friends of Ateret Cohanim." Critics of the Moskowitz Foundation claim it has disbursed over US$150 million to the settlements, particularly in East Jerusalem, since the 1980s. 

Other pro-settlement organizations with U.S. ties include:

1. Hebron Fund: Registered in New York. It has given around US$1.5 million annually since 2004 to promote "social and educational well-being" in Hebron settlements. Its executive director, told donors at a 2009 gala: "There are real facts on the ground that are created by people helping the Hebron Fund and coming to our dinners."

2. Central Fund of Israel: Registered in New York. It raised approximately US$12 million in 2007 alone. Mondoweiss has reported how some of this money funds settler militias through the groups Amitz and Magen Yehuda. The Central Fund for Israel has been criticized for this aid, as well as its association with an extremist Yitzhar yeshiva tied to the far-right group Women in Green. 

3. Shuva Israel: Registered in Texas. It supports Jewish settlement in "the Hills of Samaria," aka the part of the West Bank encompassed by the Shomron Regional Council. Yitzhar, Rechalim, Nofei Nechemia and Revava are among the settlements it has provided welfare services for. Its website also notes "Christian support has provided the assistance that has enabled Shuva Israel to provide for the daily needs of some 2,600 new immigrants to the Biblical Hills of Samaria."

4. Christian Friends of Israeli Communities: Registered in Colorado, but also has offices in Israel and the EU. Founded in 1995 in protest against the Oslo Accords (which it claims run counter to "God's plan for the Jewish nation"), it has provided financial assistance to Israeli settlers in the West Bank. The group has received money from Pastor John Hagee's operations (see 7.)

5. One Israel Fund: Registered in New York. It provides "essential security, emergency medical, social service and other forms of humanitarian aid to the over 320,000 men, women and children." It is thought to raise and distribute around US$1 million annually to send over to settlements. Its website allows donors to gift money to other pro-settlement organizations, including the far-right group Im Tirutz. 

6. SOS Israel: Reportedly receives an unspecified amount of funding from a U.S. group called Machanaim, also registered in New York. SOS Israel gained notoriety (and was investigated by the Israeli government) for offering cash rewards to soldiers who disobey settlement eviction orders. SOS Israel is opposed to "giving up any part of Eretz Yisroel."

7. John Hagee Ministries (& Christians United for Israel): Registered in Texas. Evangelical Pastor John Hagee has been praised by both U.S. and Israeli officials for his unstinting support of Israel. The Christian Evangelical news network GOD TV reports that Hagee has raised US$58 million for charities in Israel. Im Tirtzu, the Gush Etzion Regional Council and the settlement of Ariel have all reportedly received funding from his network, among other venues. Hagee's operations are perhaps the most high-profile ones on this shortlist, partly because as an Evangelical leader he possess political clout that has brought presidential hopefuls to break bread with him. 

Legislation that would restrict private foreign donations would certainly gladden critics of the New Israel Fund (NIF), which has given money to Adalah and Physicians for Human Rights, and the Ford Foundation, which has given money to B'Tselem and Palestine Monitor. Both are well-financed, U.S.-based foundations -- and both have been accused of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism by Israeli critics. But broad legislation that would apply to private overseas donations would significantly impact pro-Israel organizations such as World Zionist Organization, the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, PEF Israel Endowment Funds (one of the largest U.S. philanthropic organizations that disburses grants to Israeli nonprofits, including some in the Occupied Territories), the Jewish National Fund (which also runs projects in the Occupied Territories) and perhaps even the American Israel Education Foundation that sends U.S. Congressional delegations to Israel. 

Such legislation would almost certainly not survive a "freedom of speech" lawsuit brought before either country's judiciary (that is, unless some judicial bills go the Israeli right's way). Different methods would be required to limit the activities of the NIF and company. One such avenue of attack would be to classify these groups as material supporters of a foreign terrorist organization, a designation that some Members of Congress are trying to have applied to the Center for Constitutional Rights and Free Gaza Movement. The success of the NGO funding bill in Israel may embolden critics of privately-funded leftist organizations in both countries. After all, one of Prime Minister Netanyahu's closest Likud colleagues said that Senator Joe McCarthy was proven "right" in his defense of the NGO funding bill. 

The Zionist narrative has significantly changed since the 1970s, and money is flowing to the facts on the grounds that resulted from these changes. It is not just a coincidence that the socially conservative religious revivals seen in Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) have all taken place from the 1970s on. Religion and politics mix a lot easier now. That narrative umbrella serves them well, since it brings together disparate groups in Israel, as well as the U.S., that reject compromise with the Palestinians. As the Economist notes, even though the Israeli right is far from united on everything, their bloc now makes up a "fast-growing" Knesset constituency and ~40% of the IDF officer corps. And no Democrat can, after the manufactured crisis in Obama-Israel relations, hope to pull a George W. Bush and withhold U.S. loan guarantees over the matter (I wonder, though, whose fault this might be in 2012).

Some may simply accept this as the price of supporting Israel: witness how the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has embraced the ultraconservative Michele Bachmann and John Hagee because of their unwavering support for Israel. Bachmann even told ZOA she would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital if elected.

I'll let Ed Koch have the last word on this uncivil union:

Hagee's followers have supported the State of Israel in many tangible ways. Evangelicals continue to visit Israel as tourists even during the most dangerous times, which is more than can be said for some Diaspora Jews. 

It has become fashionable among liberals, including Jews, to ridicule and denounce Hagee and other fundamentalists. I do not. I appreciate their support of the State of Israel and thank them for their enormous contributions to the Jewish state.

This is not to say that I agree with Rev. Hagee's view of Hitler or his other views. For example, I strongly disagree with Rev. Hagee's statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for homosexual sin in New Orleans. I also deplore his reference to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore," for which he has since apologized.

In this dangerous world, Christians and Jews must come together to fight our common enemies. I've been working for years to strengthen the Christian-Jewish alliance, and I intend to continue to do so.

Paul Mutter is a graduate student at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at NYU and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.