By Paul Antonopoulos – CSS Project Director; MENA and Latin America Research Fellow
The Christian Evangelical Assault on Palestine Based in a Claimed Literal Interpretation of the Bible, Absent Genuine Religious Content
resident of the United States, Donald Trump formerly allowed the relocation of the U.S Embassy in occupied Palestine to be relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, sparking unrest across the entire Muslim world, despite the warnings given to him by his own national security team. The opening prayer at the new Embassy was delivered by Evangelical Reverend Robert Jeffress with the closing prayer given by Evangelical Reverend John C. Hagee on May 14, 2018, the 70th anniversary of the creation of the Zionist entity commonly known as Israel. It was unsurprising to see Evangelical pastors playing such a key role at this event as 81% of Evangelical Christians voted for Trump.
Who are the Evangelicals? Evangelicalism is a puritanical sect of Christianity that take a literal interpretation of the Christian scriptures, comparable to the Wahhabis of Sunni Islam, and devoid of any spirituality. In addition to their domestic efforts to roll back liberal ideals and defend neo-liberalism in the USA, they also take a radical foreign policy that always attempts to justify US interventionism, including in Palestine. This puritanical interpretation of Christianity has seen it galvanize and create a strong network of megachurches, schools and universities, and create a behemoth media presence on radio, television and new mass media such as apps and social media.
Analysts were left confused why Trump would cause such a great provocation by recognizing Jerusalem as “Israel’s eternal capital.” The answer is quite a straightforward one.
he war by proxy waged by the United States (US) against Syria cannot be understood in isolation and must be analysed in the greater geostrategic context of US imperialism’s quest for dominating the Middle East, for resource control and dollar security. Since the end of the Cold War, after the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, US imperialism has resorted to military force through its ‘humanitarian intervention’ in the destruction of Yugoslavia and Somalia, the military occupation of Haiti, its bombing of the Sudan and Afghanistan, and the bombing attacks on Iraq. The downing of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 saw the US launch its ‘War on Terror’ as a justification for further military operations in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.
From 2002, the doctrine of ‘preventive warfare’ has been argued to justify US attacks on countries seen as supposed threats to US national security. This was emphasised when an ‘Axis of Evil’, comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, was announced during a State of Union Address on January 29, 2002 by the then President George W. Bush (Bush 2002). The denunciation of these states by President Bush was further expanded into ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil’ when, on 6 May 2002, the then-Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton added Cuba, Libya and Syria to this supposed ‘Axis of Evil’ (Bolton 2002). In fact this ‘Axis of Evil’ consists of independent states which are not subservient to Washington.
That doctrine effectively meant that the scope of US operations became both regional and global. New US-driven wars began and old conflicts never ended. Most recently, the US invoked a threat to the human rights of Libyan citizens as a justification to destroy Libya, the same pretext used to organise a proxy war against Syria. Such claims have become a consistent theme of US intervention across the Middle East.
This article will explore the repercussions the war against Syria will have on that country and the wider region. These repercussions go beyond the interests of removing an anti-Washington government from power in Syria, of isolating Iran or of consolidating Israel’s security; they incorporate a drive to dominate the resources of Central Asia. But how consistent or successful has been Washington’s strategy on Syria?Continue reading →
Analysis of US and Israel Foreign Policy in IR Theory Perspective
The ”Yinon” Plan for Greater Israel
he general public is thought to be often exposed to various printed opinion pieces and editorials weighing the pros and cons of the present international system, and the role of the US within it.
Many editors and publishers believe that this general public needs to be exposed to the conclusions of either various experts or popular agitators and polemicists, but that the audience either would not understand or appreciate an article based in the fundamentals and the framework, on the theoretical or academic level, which frames these debates.
A different view, the one taken by the author, is that the general public in fact does not read on this subject at all. The core readership for writings on this subject are a different category of citizen-activists, whose interest goes beyond passing, and whose capacity to understand and appreciate the subject stands heads and shoulders above the general public.
The aim of this article is first to explain why the US’s Middle-east policy is a chauvinist/exceptionalist variation of irrational idealism in the language of International Relations, and how this policy can best be understood as originating from Israel, is it fits the needs of this state quite well and to the exclusion of others including the US itself..In order to explain to the readership why this is so, we will necessarily explain the relevance of IR theory to the subject at hand. Continue reading →
Russia and Turkey’s Gas Deal can Save Europe and the World
he status of South Stream and the newly announced Russia-Turkey gas deal is much more than it seems. It is primarily about putting the brakes on what has slowly been developing into the next world war.
This new deal may also represent a serious culmination of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian efforts to realign the entire bandwidth between the Adriatic Sea and India. This has ramifications not only for the EU, Bulgaria, and Turkey, but also Syria, Egypt, Israel, Iran, China and most of Latin America. Its effects reach far beyond the scope of this report, and includes currency wars, and military alliances.Continue reading →