Neturei Karta: The Anti-Zionist Jews Who Oppose Zionism and Await Redemption

Introduction

Among the most controversial religious movements within global Jewry is Neturei Karta, a small but vocal group of ultra-Orthodox Jews staunchly opposed to Zionism and the modern State of Israel. While the mainstream Jewish world—both religious and secular—has largely embraced or accepted the legitimacy of Israel, Neturei Karta holds a radically different theological stance. To them, the modern State of Israel is not the fulfillment of biblical prophecy but a rebellion against it. They believe it is not only illegitimate but may play a role in what they see as the coming of a false messianic era—what some might label the reign of the Antichrist.

This article explores Neturei Karta’s origins, beliefs, and eschatological worldview, particularly their opposition to the State of Israel and what they believe it represents in a broader spiritual and prophetic context.

---

Origins and History of Neturei Karta

Neturei Karta, meaning "Guardians of the City" in Aramaic, was founded in Jerusalem in 1938 as a splinter group from the broader Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community. They emerged in opposition to the growing Zionist movement, which sought to establish a secular Jewish homeland in Palestine. Zionism was (and still is) primarily a political movement, often led by secular Jews who believed in Jewish self-determination and national revival. Neturei Karta and other like-minded religious groups viewed this as a dangerous and heretical distortion of Judaism.

Their theological stance is rooted in classical Jewish teachings that argue Jews were exiled from the Land of Israel by divine decree and may not return to establish sovereignty until the coming of the true Messiah—a future descendant of King David who will rebuild the Temple, gather the Jewish people, and usher in a period of universal peace and divine rule.

To Neturei Karta, any human-led attempt to preempt this process—especially by secular Jews—is a grave sin. They cite the Talmud (Ketubot 111a), which describes three oaths imposed upon the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple: not to ascend en masse to the Land of Israel, not to rebel against the nations, and not to force the end of exile.

---

Theological Basis for Opposition

Neturei Karta’s central theological claim is simple yet profound: Zionism is a rebellion against God. According to their interpretation, Jews are in exile because of their sins, and redemption will only come through repentance, not politics or military power.

They believe that:

• The current State of Israel is a violation of divine will.

• It delays the arrival of the true Messiah.

• Zionism is a form of heresy that has replaced authentic Torah Judaism with nationalism.

Some members and sympathizers of Neturei Karta go further and claim that the founding of Israel has desecrated the sanctity of the Land of Israel, turning a holy mission into a secular state governed by modernist, often anti-religious values.

---

Eschatological Views: The False Messiah and the Antichrist

Although the term "Antichrist" is not part of traditional Jewish theology, Neturei Karta’s language and rhetoric often align with apocalyptic warnings found in Christian and Jewish eschatology. They believe that before the true messianic redemption, there may come a false messiah or deceiver who misleads the people.

In this context, some within the group and in broader anti-Zionist circles interpret the modern State of Israel as a "pseudo-messianic" entity—a kingdom founded on the illusion of redemption but actually leading Jews away from God. To these thinkers, Israel represents the "Erev Rav"—a term from Jewish mystical literature used to describe a group of impure elements within the Jewish people who will seek to mislead them in the final era before redemption.

While mainstream Judaism overwhelmingly rejects such interpretations, Neturei Karta sees themselves as guardians of true faith, standing in opposition not only to secular Zionism but also to religious Zionism, which they see as even more dangerous for conflating divine destiny with political reality.

Some fringe voices within or adjacent to Neturei Karta may even interpret the secular or globalist ambitions of Israel as part of a broader "Antichrist system"—not unlike certain fundamentalist Christian interpretations. However, these views are not universally held within the group and tend to exist more on the edges of the anti-Zionist theological spectrum.

---

Controversies and Public Actions

Neturei Karta’s most notorious actions involve public displays of solidarity with enemies of Israel, including their participation in conferences and events hosted by countries and leaders openly hostile to the Jewish state. For instance:

• In 2006, members attended the Holocaust revisionist conference in Iran, hosted by then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

• They have met with leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, and even praised statements that deny the legitimacy of Israel’s existence.

These actions have been widely condemned across the Jewish world, including by other Haredi groups who may share theological anti-Zionism but not Neturei Karta’s extreme tactics.

Even within the ultra-Orthodox community, Neturei Karta is often seen as fringe and provocative. Their numbers are small—estimated in the low thousands globally—but their impact on public discourse is significant because of their visual symbolism (e.g., ultra-Orthodox garb at anti-Israel protests) and the contrast they present to the widely assumed unity between Judaism and Zionism.

---

A Future Without Zionism?

Neturei Karta envisions a future where Zionism is dismantled, the Jewish people return to complete religious observance, and the true Messiah comes to redeem them. They await a divine intervention rather than a political or military solution.

In their vision, the true Land of Israel will be revealed after a spiritual transformation, not through human institutions or armies. They oppose any state that claims to be a Jewish kingdom before the Messiah comes—believing it to be a usurpation, if not a deception.

---

Conclusion

Neturei Karta remains one of the most provocative and misunderstood groups within the Jewish world. Their opposition to Zionism is not rooted in political disagreement, but in a deep theological conviction that redemption must come from God alone. While their tactics often draw fierce criticism—even from those who share their theological premises—their existence challenges assumptions about Jewish consensus on Zionism, Israel, and the nature of redemption.

Whether seen as principled defenders of ancient faith or misguided radicals, Neturei Karta stands as a stark reminder that the intersection of religion and politics—especially in the Holy Land—remains deeply complex and far from settled.

Mahdi of the Shiite Muslims (The Biblical Antichrist?) will launch his Global Revolution from Isfahan, Iran with 70,000 Jews of Isfahan

In the complex world of religious eschatology, where prophecies, messianic expectations, and apocalyptic scenarios intersect, few figures spark as much fascination—and controversy—as the Mahdi of Shiite Islam. Often compared or contrasted with the Christian Antichrist, the Mahdi is central to the beliefs of Twelver Shiism, the dominant branch of Islam in Iran. A provocative claim sometimes advanced in certain Christian evangelical circles is that the Mahdi, seen by Shiites as a savior, might correspond to the Antichrist in biblical prophecy—and that he will launch his global revolution from Isfahan, Iran, accompanied by 70,000 Jews.

This article explores the origins of this claim, the theological background of the Mahdi, and the broader implications of such comparisons.

---

The Mahdi in Shiite Islam

In Twelver Shiite doctrine, the Mahdi (Arabic: المهدي, “the guided one”) is the twelfth and final Imam, known as Imam al-Mahdi or Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Askari. He is believed to have been born in 869 CE and to have gone into "occultation" (ghaybah) as a child in 874 CE to escape persecution. According to Shiite belief, the Mahdi remains alive in a hidden state and will reappear at the end of time to bring justice, defeat tyranny, and establish a global Islamic order based on divine justice.

The Mahdi is not a fringe belief but a cornerstone of Shiite eschatology. His return is anticipated with great fervor, and he is expected to be accompanied by Jesus (Isa), who will assist him in defeating the Dajjal—the Islamic equivalent of the Antichrist.

---

Isfahan and the 70,000 Jews: The Source of the Claim

One of the more controversial and less widely understood aspects of Mahdist prophecy is the claim that he will rise from Isfahan, a historic city in central Iran, and be supported by 70,000 Jews wearing black turbans. This belief is not standard in mainstream Islamic sources, Shiite or Sunni. Rather, it emerges from interpretations of Hadiths (Islamic prophetic traditions) that are often cited out of context or are of dubious authenticity.

Some Sunni Hadiths, for instance, reference the Dajjal (Antichrist figure in Islam) being followed by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan. This tradition is not universally accepted and is rarely emphasized in Shiite discourse. Critics argue that this reference is misappropriated in polemical Christian and conspiratorial literature, which conflates the Mahdi with the Islamic Dajjal or the Christian Antichrist.

In Shiite thought, the Mahdi is the polar opposite of the Dajjal. While the Dajjal represents falsehood and tyranny, the Mahdi represents truth and justice. To claim they are the same figure is theologically incoherent within Islamic doctrine. Nonetheless, some evangelical authors and theorists have attempted to draw parallels between the two figures, leading to widespread speculation, particularly in geopolitical circles.

---

Christian Eschatology and the Antichrist

In Christian theology, especially among evangelical Protestants, the Antichrist is a future global leader who will deceive humanity, oppose Christ, and rule a one-world government before being defeated at the Second Coming of Jesus. The Book of Revelation, the epistles of John, and 2 Thessalonians are key sources for the Antichrist narrative.

Some Christian commentators have pointed to similarities between descriptions of the Islamic Mahdi and the Christian Antichrist, arguing that both are expected to:

• Appear during times of global crisis

• Claim divine authority or perform miracles

• Establish a global order

• Be opposed by Jesus at his second coming

However, such comparisons often ignore or oversimplify the profound theological differences between Islamic and Christian eschatology. In Islam, Jesus returns not to fight the Mahdi but to support him. In Christianity, Jesus returns to destroy the Antichrist. Equating the Mahdi with the Antichrist is therefore a theological stretch that requires significant reinterpretation of both traditions.

---

Why Isfahan?

Isfahan is a significant city in Iranian history and home to a long-standing Jewish community, dating back over 2,500 years. At its height, Isfahan had one of the largest Jewish populations in the Middle East. Today, the Jewish population is small but officially recognized and protected by the Iranian government.

The claim about the Mahdi emerging from Isfahan with 70,000 Jews is speculative and likely rooted in a misreading of Sunni Hadiths about the Dajjal, not the Mahdi. It may also reflect political and sectarian anxieties, as Isfahan is home to significant military-industrial infrastructure, including Iranian missile bases and nuclear facilities. This has made it a focal point in Western media and intelligence circles.

From a symbolic perspective, Isfahan represents a cultural and strategic center of Iran, which may explain its appearance in eschatological narratives. However, mainstream Shiite sources do not emphasize Isfahan as the location of the Mahdi’s emergence. According to most Shiite traditions, the Mahdi will reappear from Mecca, near the Kaaba, during the Hajj season.

---

Geopolitical Interpretations and Modern Tensions

The Mahdi narrative has taken on increased political relevance in recent decades, especially within Iran's revolutionary ideology. Leaders such as Ayatollah Khomeini and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have made references to the Mahdi as a source of legitimacy and future hope, fueling speculation in the West that Iran sees itself as preparing the ground for his arrival.

Western analysts, particularly in the U.S. and Israel, sometimes interpret Iran’s foreign policy—especially its support for Shiite militias and anti-Israel rhetoric—through a Mahdist lens. Evangelical Christian writers have further stoked this perception by suggesting that the Mahdi could be the Antichrist, leading a final war from Iran with Jewish allies from Isfahan—an interpretation rejected by mainstream scholars of Islam and dismissed by Jewish and Muslim communities alike.

---

Conclusion: Apocalyptic Narratives and Responsible Scholarship

While eschatological figures like the Mahdi and the Antichrist carry powerful symbolic weight, it is essential to treat such topics with academic rigor and cultural sensitivity. The claim that the Mahdi will rise from Isfahan with 70,000 Jews is not grounded in mainstream Shiite theology but is instead a fusion of obscure Hadith, apocalyptic speculation, and modern political fears.

Rather than fueling fear or conspiracy, understanding these narratives in their proper theological context allows for better interfaith dialogue and geopolitical insight. In an age of rising tensions and misinformation, clarity and careful scholarship are more crucial than ever.

According to the Prophet Muhammad, the Antichrist Will First Appear in Isfahan, Iran

In Islamic eschatology, the figure of the Antichrist, known as Al-Masih ad-Dajjal (literally “the false messiah” or “the deceiving messiah”), holds a central place in the narrative of the end times. According to numerous hadiths (sayings and teachings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), Dajjal will be a powerful, deceptive figure who appears near the end of the world to lead people astray, claiming to be divine. Among the specific and startling details offered in these traditions is the claim that the Dajjal will first emerge from Isfahan, a city in modern-day Iran.

Who Is the Dajjal?

In Islamic tradition, the Dajjal is not mentioned explicitly in the Qur’an, but he is vividly described in the Hadith corpus, particularly in Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, and other authenticated compilations. The Dajjal is portrayed as a false messiah who will perform apparent miracles to deceive people into following him. He will claim divinity, and his rule will be marked by turmoil, widespread deception, and tests of faith for believers.

Some key characteristics of Dajjal mentioned in hadiths include:

• He will be blind in one eye.

• The word “kafir” (disbeliever) will be written between his eyes, visible only to true believers.

• He will travel rapidly across the earth, spreading his false message.

• He will have control over worldly resources, such as food and water, using them as tools to manipulate people.

The Prophetic Warning: Dajjal’s Emergence from Isfahan

One of the more geographically specific hadiths concerning the Dajjal's emergence places his initial appearance in Isfahan, a city historically and culturally significant in Persia (modern Iran). According to a narration found in Sahih Muslim, the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said:

“The Dajjal will emerge from a land in the East called Khurasan. He will be followed by people with faces like hammered shields.”
— (Sahih al-Tirmidhi)

In a more specific narration, the Prophet is reported to have said:

“The Dajjal will emerge from the Jewish district of Isfahan, followed by seventy thousand Jews wearing robes.”
— (Sahih Muslim)

This hadith, while open to interpretation, clearly links the appearance of the Dajjal with Isfahan, and more specifically, to its Jewish quarter, known in some narrations as Yahudiya.

Significance of Isfahan in Islamic Eschatology

Isfahan, historically an important center of Persian culture, learning, and governance, is a city located in central Iran. In the medieval period, it had a notable Jewish population, which lends historical context to the hadith. The mention of Isfahan’s Jewish quarter has led to various interpretations, both literal and symbolic.

The city’s prominence may not be incidental. In classical Islamic literature, the Dajjal's association with Isfahan is sometimes interpreted as a symbolic link to a region known for its complex religious and political history. Some scholars suggest that the hadith indicates a concentration of support for the Dajjal in that area, rather than a literal birthplace.

Others argue that the Prophet’s mention of Isfahan points to a future reality that will unfold during the end times, where the city becomes a geopolitical or ideological hub that supports falsehood and opposes the true message of monotheism.

Scholarly Interpretations

Muslim scholars have differed in their interpretation of the hadith regarding Dajjal's origin. The literalist approach takes the hadith at face value — that the Dajjal will literally emerge from Isfahan, particularly its Jewish population. This view is often emphasized in more traditional and conservative readings.

On the other hand, some contemporary scholars urge a symbolic understanding. According to this view, the mention of Isfahan may not necessarily refer to the modern Iranian city in a geopolitical sense, but rather to an ideological or religious stronghold that will align itself with deception and opposition to God’s truth.

Notably, there is no indication in Islamic tradition that Jewish people as a whole are to be blamed or vilified. The hadith specifies a group — “seventy thousand” followers — which is interpreted by many scholars as a subset who will follow the Dajjal, not an indictment of the entire Jewish community. Context is crucial here, as Islam also contains many teachings promoting respectful coexistence with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians).

The Dajjal’s Reign and the Role of Jesus (Isa)

Islamic eschatology teaches that the Dajjal will reign for a short but intense period — typically said to be forty days, though the first day will last like a year, the second like a month, the third like a week, and the rest like normal days.

During this period, the Dajjal will wreak havoc on the earth, leading many astray. However, his reign will ultimately be brought to an end by Jesus (Isa), who is believed in Islam to be the true Messiah. Jesus will descend from the heavens, land near a white minaret in Damascus, and join forces with the Mahdi (a guided leader also expected to appear in the end times). Together, they will confront the Dajjal.

According to Islamic belief, Jesus will kill the Dajjal near Lod (Lydda), in present-day Israel, signaling the beginning of a new era of peace and monotheism.

Theological Implications for Muslims

The story of the Dajjal, including the detail of his emergence from Isfahan, serves several purposes in Islamic theology:

1. A test of faith – Believers are warned to be vigilant and informed so as not to be deceived.

2. A call to preparedness – Muslims are encouraged to seek knowledge, recite certain chapters of the Qur’an (such as Surah Al-Kahf), and stay strong in their belief.

3. A reaffirmation of divine truth – The eventual defeat of the Dajjal reaffirms the ultimate triumph of God’s guidance over falsehood.

Conclusion

The prophecy concerning the Dajjal’s appearance from Isfahan remains one of the more striking and specific geographical references in Islamic end-times literature. Whether taken literally or symbolically, the narration underscores the Islamic emphasis on vigilance against deception, the importance of faith, and the eventual victory of truth. For Muslims, the warnings of the Prophet Muhammad regarding the Dajjal are not simply matters of curiosity — they are reminders to remain spiritually prepared, intellectually alert, and firmly grounded in their belief.

Being an Anti-Zionist Does Not Mean Being an Anti-Semite

In today's political climate, the line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is often blurred, both in public discourse and policy. While antisemitism — prejudice or discrimination against Jewish people — is a centuries-old form of bigotry that must be unequivocally condemned, anti-Zionism — opposition to Zionism as a political ideology — is a distinct political stance that should not be automatically conflated with hatred of Jews.

Understanding the difference between the two is not just a matter of semantics; it has profound implications for free speech, global politics, and the safety of both Jews and Palestinians. To critically analyze Zionism or the state of Israel does not, by definition, mean one harbors ill will toward Jews. Failing to draw this distinction does a disservice to both Jewish communities and those advocating for Palestinian rights.

What Is Zionism?

Zionism emerged in the late 19th century as a nationalist movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, primarily in response to widespread antisemitism in Europe and Russia. Its goals were ultimately realized with the founding of the state of Israel in 1948. Zionism, like any political movement, is not monolithic. It encompasses a range of ideologies — from secular nationalism to religious messianism.

However, it’s essential to note that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. There have always been Jewish voices who opposed Zionism on theological, political, or ethical grounds. For example, ultra-Orthodox groups such as Neturei Karta reject Zionism because they believe the Jewish people must wait for the Messiah to establish a Jewish homeland. Meanwhile, some secular Jewish thinkers have criticized Zionism for its colonial implications and for what they perceive as its role in the displacement of Palestinians.

The Problem With Conflating Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism

Conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism can be deeply problematic. It silences legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and actions, particularly concerning the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem (an Israeli group) have documented systemic inequalities and abuses that they argue constitute apartheid. Critiquing these realities, or advocating for Palestinian rights, does not make one an antisemite.

Moreover, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism puts Jews who are critical of Israel in an impossible position. Many Jewish individuals and organizations, such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, oppose Zionism or at least aspects of Israeli policy. To brand these critics as antisemitic is to deny the diversity of thought within the Jewish community itself.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism has been widely adopted but remains controversial, especially its examples conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Critics argue that this framing stifles free speech and criminalizes political activism, particularly in academic and cultural spaces where discussion and dissent are vital.

Anti-Zionism as Political Dissent

At its core, anti-Zionism is a political position. It can be motivated by a commitment to anti-colonialism, human rights, or secularism. Many anti-Zionists argue that Israel, as a state built on the displacement of Palestinians, functions as a settler-colonial project. Others contend that any state based on ethnoreligious identity — whether Jewish, Islamic, or Christian — is inherently exclusionary and unjust.

Criticism of Zionism can also be tied to global solidarity movements. Activists who support Indigenous rights, anti-apartheid struggles, or anti-racist causes may view the Palestinian struggle as interconnected with these issues. Labeling such criticism as antisemitic not only shuts down important conversations but also undermines the very real fight against actual antisemitism.

Historical and Contemporary Jewish Anti-Zionism

Historically, many Jewish communities, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, did not support Zionism. Some feared that advocating for a Jewish state would question their loyalty to their countries of residence. Others rejected the idea on theological grounds. In the early 20th century, organizations such as the Jewish Labour Bund in Eastern Europe envisioned a future where Jews lived freely and equally in diasporic communities, not in a separate state.

Today, Jewish anti-Zionists continue this legacy. Jewish intellectuals, rabbis, and activists argue that their opposition to Zionism stems not from self-hatred, but from a deep commitment to justice, ethical responsibility, and even to Jewish values themselves. To call these voices antisemitic is not only inaccurate but also silences valuable perspectives within Jewish thought.

Antisemitism Is Real — And It Should Not Be Politicized

None of this is to deny that antisemitism exists. It is on the rise in many parts of the world, often fueled by conspiracy theories, white nationalism, and extremist ideologies. Real antisemitism includes synagogue shootings, Holocaust denial, hate speech, and discriminatory laws. It is a grave and ongoing threat.

But diluting the term by applying it to all criticism of Israel weakens efforts to fight genuine antisemitism. It becomes harder to identify and address real threats when the term is overused or misapplied. Moreover, it risks creating a “boy who cried wolf” situation, where legitimate concerns about Jewish safety are dismissed because the term has been politicized.

The Importance of Nuance and Open Dialogue

In a polarized world, nuance is often the first casualty. But if we are serious about justice, equality, and free expression, we must distinguish between legitimate political criticism and hate. Anti-Zionism is not a monolithic ideology; it can be principled, well-reasoned, and grounded in universal human rights. At the same time, antisemitism is a specific form of hatred that must be identified and confronted wherever it appears.

The task for activists, scholars, and policymakers is to make these distinctions clear — to protect the right to criticize governments and ideologies without impugning entire ethnic or religious groups. This includes holding Israel accountable for its actions, just as we would any other state, without resorting to racist or antisemitic tropes.

Conclusion

Being anti-Zionist is not inherently antisemitic. It can reflect a legitimate, even deeply moral, stance against nationalism, colonialism, or ethnocracy. A healthy democracy must be able to accommodate this range of thought. At the same time, society must remain vigilant against genuine antisemitism in all its forms — and not allow political interests to obscure the difference between hate and dissent.

If we are to move toward a more just and peaceful future — for Jews, Palestinians, and everyone else — we must be able to talk honestly about power, ideology, and history. That requires clarity, courage, and above all, a refusal to let bad-faith accusations derail necessary conversations.

A Lobby for Israel: American-Israeli Relations by Edward Tivnan

Edward Tivnan’s The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy (1987) offers a critical examination of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, particularly focusing on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Tivnan, a former journalist for Time, delves into the historical development, strategies, and political influence of this lobby, presenting a perspective that has sparked significant debate. commentary.org+6publishersweekly.com+6wrmea.org+6

---

Origins and Evolution of the Israel Lobby

Tivnan traces the roots of the American-Israeli lobby back to the early 20th century, highlighting the efforts of Zionist leaders to garner support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. He notes that organizations like the American Zionist Council of Public Affairs, established in the 1950s, laid the groundwork for what would become AIPAC. By the 1960s, these efforts culminated in the formation of AIPAC, which Tivnan describes as a powerful entity capable of influencing U.S. foreign policy to align with Israeli interests. thefreelibrary.com

---

AIPAC’s Political Influence

Central to Tivnan’s thesis is the assertion that AIPAC has become a formidable force in American politics, leveraging financial contributions, grassroots mobilization, and strategic lobbying to shape policy decisions. He provides examples such as the 1981 battle over the sale of AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia, where AIPAC successfully rallied opposition, influencing congressional votes . Tivnan argues that such actions demonstrate AIPAC’s capacity to sway legislative outcomes, often prioritizing Israeli interests over broader American strategic considerations. washingtonpost.comnybooks.com+4wrmea.org+4publishersweekly.com+4

---

Ethical and Strategic Concerns

Tivnan raises concerns about the ethical implications of AIPAC’s influence, suggesting that the lobby's unwavering support for Israeli policies may sometimes conflict with American values and interests. He criticizes instances where AIPAC has defended controversial Israeli actions, such as military operations in Lebanon and settlement expansions in the West Bank, without sufficient scrutiny or acknowledgment of the broader geopolitical consequences. nybooks.com+1wrmea.org+1

---

Internal Dissent and Criticism

The book also highlights internal dissent within the Jewish-American community regarding AIPAC's approach. Tivnan quotes individuals like Arthur Hertzberg, who criticized AIPAC for its narrow focus and lack of engagement with diverse Jewish perspectives. This internal critique underscores the complexity of the relationship between American Jews and Israeli policies, challenging the monolithic portrayal often associated with the pro-Israel lobby. newyorker.comwrmea.org

---

Reception and Critique

Upon its release, The Lobby garnered attention for its bold assertions and in-depth analysis. However, it also faced criticism for perceived bias and selective presentation of facts. Some reviewers contended that Tivnan's portrayal lacked nuance and failed to adequately consider the broader context of Middle Eastern geopolitics. Additionally, the book's focus on AIPAC's influence raised questions about the role of lobbying in American democracy and the ethical boundaries of political advocacy. publishersweekly.com+4washingtonpost.com+4wrmea.org+4

---

Conclusion

Edward Tivnan’s The Lobby remains a provocative contribution to discussions on American foreign policy and the influence of interest groups. While it offers a critical perspective on the pro-Israel lobby, it also invites readers to reflect on the complexities of political influence, ethical considerations, and the interplay between domestic politics and international relations. The book serves as a starting point for further exploration into the dynamics of lobbying and its impact on shaping national policy.

Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel by Alison Weir

Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel by Alison Weir is a meticulously researched examination of the political maneuvering and lobbying efforts that led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The book challenges the conventional narrative by highlighting how American political Zionists influenced U.S. foreign policy, often against the advice of seasoned diplomats and military experts.

---

The Genesis of Zionist Influence in the U.S.

The roots of Zionist influence in the United States trace back to the late 19th century. By 1897, Theodor Herzl had convened the First Zionist World Congress, marking the formalization of political Zionism. In the U.S., figures like Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and his associate Felix Frankfurter played pivotal roles. Brandeis, in particular, was instrumental in recruiting young lawyers to champion Zionist causes, often through clandestine organizations such as the Parushim, a secret society dedicated to Zionist objectives.

---

The Balfour Declaration and Its Aftermath

During World War I, Zionist leaders negotiated with the British government, leading to the 1917 Balfour Declaration. This document expressed British support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. In exchange, Zionist leaders promised to mobilize American Jewish support for the Allied cause, thereby securing U.S. involvement in the war.

---

The U.S. Decision to Support the Creation of Israel

Despite warnings from U.S. officials like Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who cautioned that creating Israel on land already inhabited by Palestinians would "imperil" American and Western interests, President Truman supported the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine . Weir argues that this decision was heavily influenced by a powerful Zionist lobby that utilized its influence to shape American foreign policy, often sidelining the best interests of the United States.

---

The Displacement of Palestinians

The establishment of Israel led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who were forced to flee their homes and become refugees. This has created a long-standing humanitarian crisis and a source of ongoing regional conflict.

---

The Rise of the Israel Lobby

Weir delves into the evolution of the Israel lobby in the United States, highlighting how Zionist groups organized campaigns, established committees, and launched political and public relations offensives to garner support for their cause. These efforts were aimed at key sectors of American society, including Congress, the media, and academic institutions, to shape public opinion and influence policy decisions.

---

Suppression of Dissenting Voices

The book also examines how dissenting voices within the U.S. government and media were marginalized or silenced. Officials who opposed the creation of Israel on strategic grounds faced career repercussions, and journalists who reported on the Palestinian perspective were often discredited or ostracized. Weir provides examples of how the Zionist lobby effectively suppressed criticism and maintained a narrative favorable to their objectives.

---

The Legacy of U.S. Support for Israel

Weir argues that the U.S. decision to support the creation of Israel has had far-reaching consequences, including undermining America's credibility as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has contributed to anti-American sentiment in the region and has made it difficult for the United States to play a neutral role in peace negotiations.

---

Reception and Impact

Since its publication in 2014, Against Our Better Judgment has sold over 50,000 copies and has been praised by various experts and former U.S. officials. Ambassador Andrew Killgore described the book as "prodigiously documented" and commended Weir for shedding light on the relationship between the United States and Israel . Senator James Abourezk called it "a must for all Americans," emphasizing its importance in understanding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

---

Conclusion

Alison Weir's Against Our Better Judgment offers a critical perspective on the historical events that led to the creation of Israel and the role of U.S. foreign policy in that process. By highlighting the influence of the Zionist lobby and the suppression of dissenting voices, Weir provides a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The book serves as a valuable resource for those seeking to comprehend the historical context of one of the most contentious issues in international relations.

Big Israel: How Israel's Lobby Moves America by Grant F. Smith

In Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby Moves America, Grant F. Smith offers a compelling examination of the extensive influence wielded by the Israel lobby within the United States. Drawing from his extensive research as the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), Smith delves into the intricate web of organizations, financial networks, and political strategies that have shaped U.S. policy toward Israel over the decades.

---

The Anatomy of the Israel Lobby

Smith contends that the Israel lobby is not a monolithic entity but a complex network comprising hundreds of organizations, collectively referred to as "Israel affinity organizations." These groups, ranging from well-known entities like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to lesser-known state and local organizations, work in concert to influence U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israeli interests .

AIPAC, often cited as the most influential pro-Israel lobby group, plays a pivotal role in shaping legislation and securing financial aid for Israel. However, Smith argues that focusing solely on AIPAC overlooks the broader network of organizations that contribute to the lobby's power. These groups engage in various activities, including lobbying Congress, influencing media narratives, and shaping public opinion, all aimed at promoting policies favorable to Israel.

---

Financial Influence and Political Contributions

One of the central themes of Smith's analysis is the significant financial resources at the disposal of the Israel lobby. He highlights the substantial campaign contributions made by pro-Israel donors to U.S. politicians, which often translate into legislative support for policies beneficial to Israel. This financial influence raises questions about the extent to which foreign interests can shape domestic policy through monetary means .

Smith also discusses the tax-exempt status of many Israel affinity organizations, noting that some of these groups engage in lobbying activities that may not align with their stated charitable purposes. This situation, according to Smith, results in a form of "regulatory capture," where organizations exert influence over federal agencies without the transparency typically associated with lobbying efforts .

---

Media Influence and Public Opinion

Beyond financial and political channels, Smith examines the Israel lobby's impact on American media and public opinion. He suggests that pro-Israel groups actively work to shape media narratives, suppress dissenting viewpoints, and promote a favorable image of Israel. This influence extends to educational institutions and civil rights organizations, where dissenting voices are often marginalized or silenced .

Smith's analysis underscores the lobby's ability to control discourse, making it challenging for alternative perspectives on U.S.-Israel relations to gain traction in mainstream media and public forums.

---

Legal and Institutional Challenges

A significant aspect of Smith's critique involves the legal framework governing foreign influence in U.S. politics. He points out that many Israel affinity organizations have historically avoided compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which mandates transparency for foreign lobbyists. Smith argues that enforcement of this law has been inconsistent, allowing these organizations to operate with a level of secrecy that undermines democratic accountability .

This lack of transparency, according to Smith, contributes to a situation where the American public remains largely unaware of the extent to which foreign interests influence domestic policy decisions.

---

The Broader Implications

Smith's work raises important questions about the intersection of foreign influence and domestic policy. He challenges readers to consider the implications of allowing foreign-affiliated organizations to exert such significant control over U.S. political processes. The book invites a critical examination of the mechanisms through which policy decisions are made and the extent to which they reflect the interests of the American populace versus those of foreign entities.

---

Conclusion

Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby Moves America provides an in-depth look at the multifaceted influence of the Israel lobby in the United States. Through meticulous research and analysis, Grant F. Smith sheds light on the complex interplay between financial power, political influence, media control, and legal frameworks that sustain the lobby's impact on American foreign policy. While the book presents a critical perspective, it serves as a valuable resource for those seeking to understand the dynamics of foreign influence in U.S. politics and the broader implications for democratic governance.

Zionism has Destroyed the Image of Judaism as a Religion of Peace and Tolerance

For centuries, Judaism was widely regarded as a religion rooted in ethics, learning, and a profound commitment to justice, peace, and community. Jewish teachings such as Tikkun Olam (“repairing the world”) and the emphasis on hospitality, compassion for the stranger, and moral responsibility gave the religion a powerful image as a force for peace and human dignity. However, the rise of political Zionism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — and the subsequent creation of the modern State of Israel — has profoundly altered that perception in global discourse. For many, Judaism is no longer primarily associated with a spiritual or ethical tradition but with a nationalist political movement whose policies and actions are often at odds with the religion’s core values.

This shift has had major implications not only for how Judaism is perceived by non-Jews, but also for how many Jews around the world understand their own religious identity in relation to the modern nation-state.

Zionism: A Nationalist Movement, Not a Religious One

Zionism emerged in the late 1800s as a secular nationalist movement in response to European antisemitism. Theodor Herzl, widely regarded as the father of political Zionism, envisioned a Jewish state that would provide physical safety and national self-determination for Jews. However, Herzl and many of his contemporaries were not particularly religious. In fact, much of early Zionist leadership was either secular or openly critical of traditional Judaism, which they viewed as passive and exile-bound.

Religious Judaism, by contrast, had long viewed exile as a divinely ordained condition to be ended not through human political action but through a messianic process led by God. Traditional rabbis warned that attempting to establish a Jewish state by force would not only be theologically misguided, but dangerous — potentially inviting catastrophe and further persecution.

Nonetheless, Zionism gained momentum, especially after the horrors of the Holocaust, and culminated in the establishment of Israel in 1948. For some Jews, this represented redemption. For others, it represented a political victory at the cost of religious principle and moral clarity.

The Conflation of Zionism with Judaism

One of the most damaging legacies of Zionism has been the increasing conflation of Judaism — a religion — with the modern State of Israel — a political entity. This confusion has been aggressively promoted by Zionist institutions, which have worked to position Israel as the “homeland of the Jewish people” and the representative of Jewish interests globally.

This has caused significant problems. When Israel engages in controversial actions — from settlement expansion in the West Bank to military operations in Gaza — criticism is often deflected as antisemitism. Meanwhile, Jews who are critical of Israel’s policies are sometimes labeled as “self-hating” or traitors, effectively silencing internal dissent and flattening the diversity of Jewish thought.

Moreover, to much of the non-Jewish world, the distinction between Judaism and Zionism is lost. Images of Israeli soldiers, military checkpoints, home demolitions, and civilian casualties are increasingly associated with “the Jews” rather than “the Israeli state.” This not only fuels antisemitism but fundamentally alters the way Judaism is seen — no longer primarily as a religion of prophets and peace, but as one seemingly entangled in violence and oppression.

The Palestinian Question and the Moral Crisis

Perhaps the most significant challenge to Judaism’s moral image comes from the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For decades, Palestinians have lived under military occupation, faced systemic discrimination, and endured repeated wars and displacement. While these realities are the result of specific political decisions made by successive Israeli governments, they are often framed — especially in Muslim-majority and developing countries — as expressions of Jewish will.

The dispossession of Palestinians and the lack of a viable two-state solution have become a moral crisis for many Jews. Increasing numbers of Jewish intellectuals, especially in the diaspora, argue that Zionism in its current form contradicts the ethical teachings of Judaism. Writers like Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, and Rabbi Brant Rosen have called for a re-evaluation of the Jewish relationship to Israel, advocating for justice, equality, and a decolonized approach to the region.

In recent years, movements like “Jewish Voice for Peace” have emerged to challenge the idea that Zionism is inseparable from Jewish identity. These groups assert that one can be proudly Jewish — committed to the values of peace, justice, and humility — while rejecting the nationalism and militarism that Zionism has come to represent.

Judaism Before and Beyond Zionism

Judaism’s historical legacy is rich with ethical guidance, resistance to tyranny, and emphasis on coexistence. From the prophetic tradition that spoke truth to power, to the rabbinic teachings that championed human dignity, Judaism has often been a religion of questioning, not conquest.

Before Zionism, Jewish communities thrived in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world. While antisemitism certainly existed, there were long periods of relative harmony and cultural exchange — much of which has been forgotten in the dominant Zionist narrative. Jewish thought leaders like Martin Buber and Judah Magnes envisioned a binational state where Jews and Arabs could live as equals — visions that were sidelined by more dominant, nationalist interpretations.

Today, many Jews are reclaiming that legacy. Movements toward post-Zionist thought, decolonial theology, and interfaith solidarity point to a future where Judaism can again be associated with peace, tolerance, and universal ethics — rather than nationalism and exclusion.

Conclusion

The rise of Zionism and the policies of the modern State of Israel have undeniably reshaped the global perception of Judaism. Where once Judaism was seen as a religion of law, ethics, and spirituality, it is now often perceived through the lens of political conflict, territorial claims, and military force. While Zionism was born from real and painful threats to Jewish survival, its dominance in Jewish identity politics has obscured the broader, more compassionate tradition of Judaism.

It is time for a serious reckoning within Jewish communities and beyond. Restoring Judaism’s image as a religion of peace and tolerance requires a return to its foundational values — and a willingness to critique the nationalism that has come to define it in the eyes of the world.

Only then can Judaism truly reclaim its ethical voice, not as a vehicle for state power, but as a spiritual force for justice, humility, and peace.

The Biblical Antichrist and the Question of Zionism: A Theological and Political Analysis

Introduction

The figure of the Antichrist has captured the imagination of theologians, scholars, and believers for centuries. Portrayed in scripture as a deceiver, a false messiah, and a political figure who will lead a final rebellion against God, the Antichrist occupies a central place in Christian eschatology. In recent decades, a controversial narrative has emerged in some circles: that the Antichrist will present himself as a savior to Israel, even a "King of Zionism." This article explores the biblical origins of the Antichrist, the evolution of Zionism, and the theological interpretations that have led some to conflate the two.

---

The Biblical Profile of the Antichrist

In the New Testament, the term "Antichrist" appears primarily in the letters of John:

• "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that Antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared." (1 John 2:18)

Elsewhere, the Apostle Paul describes a "man of lawlessness" (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4) who opposes God and exalts himself in the temple. The Book of Revelation speaks of a beast empowered by Satan who deceives the world through signs and political domination (Revelation 13).

From these passages, traditional Christian eschatology develops several traits of the Antichrist:

• A charismatic political leader

• Deceptive and counterfeit messianic identity

• Central role in a final world order

• Temporary peace followed by great tribulation

---

What Is Zionism? A Brief Historical Context

Zionism is a political and national movement that began in the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in their ancestral land—modern-day Israel. The movement, spearheaded by figures like Theodor Herzl, gained momentum following the horrors of the Holocaust and culminated in the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.

Zionism is not inherently religious; it spans secular, religious, and political variations. Yet because it centers on the land of Israel—a place deeply rooted in biblical prophecy—some Christian theologians have attempted to link modern Zionism with eschatological events.

---

Christian Zionism and Its Opponents

Within evangelical Christianity, particularly in the U.S., Christian Zionism supports the idea that the modern State of Israel fulfills biblical prophecy and plays a key role in end-time events. This belief draws from passages like:

• “I will bring you back to the land of Israel.” (Ezekiel 37:21)

• “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24)

Christian Zionists often believe that the return of Jews to Israel is a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ.

However, other Christian thinkers, including Orthodox, Catholic, and mainline Protestant theologians, caution against aligning modern political movements with divine prophecy. They argue that such interpretations risk distorting scripture and legitimizing oppressive political actions under the guise of divine mandate.

---

The Antichrist as a False Messiah: A Zionist King?

Some interpretations, particularly among dispensationalist and apocalyptic Christian movements, envision the Antichrist as someone who will initially be accepted by Israel as the Messiah. This view is built on passages such as:

• “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.” (John 5:43)

According to this line of thinking, the Antichrist will:

• Broker a peace deal involving Israel (Daniel 9:27)

• Possibly rebuild the Jewish Temple

• Be hailed as a savior or "King" by many

• Later turn against Israel, desecrate the temple, and trigger global tribulation (the “abomination of desolation”)

This interpretation has led to the idea in some circles that Zionism could be a vehicle for the Antichrist's rise—not because of the Jewish people themselves, but because of how political and religious expectations may be manipulated by a future deceiver.

It is crucial to clarify that these views are theological speculations based on specific hermeneutical frameworks. They are not universally accepted among Christians, and they are often rejected by Jewish scholars and mainstream religious thinkers.

---

Dangers of Misapplication and Conflation

While theological critique is legitimate within religious discourse, the claim that “the Antichrist is the King of Zionism” easily slips into dangerous territory, especially when used to promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. History provides sobering lessons: apocalyptic language has often been used to justify violence, from the Crusades to Nazi propaganda.

Responsible theology must distinguish between:

• Biblical prophecy, which uses symbolic language and ancient context

• Political Zionism, which is a modern nationalist movement

• Eschatological interpretation, which varies widely among denominations

Linking modern Jewish nationalism with the ultimate figure of evil risks moral and theological error unless done with extreme caution and scholarly rigor.

---

A Prophetic Warning or Speculative Theology?

For those who hold to a literalist or futurist view of Revelation and Daniel, the idea that the Antichrist will co-opt Zionism to establish global dominance may seem plausible. But for others, such interpretations are too speculative, relying on uncertain timelines and modern geopolitical events being read into ancient scripture.

Many Christian theologians argue that the Antichrist is not necessarily a singular person, but a spiritual archetype representing rebellion against God. From this perspective, any ideology—secular or religious, Zionist or otherwise—that exalts human authority above divine truth could bear “Antichrist” characteristics.

---

Conclusion: Holding Tensions in Balance

The idea that the Antichrist could emerge as a messianic figure tied to Zionism is one interpretation among many in Christian eschatology. While it draws from biblical themes of deception, false messiahs, and end-time tribulation, it also risks conflating modern political movements with spiritual archetypes in ways that can be misleading or harmful.

Christians should approach such claims with discernment, humility, and a commitment to truth over sensationalism. The Bible warns of deception in the last days—not just from political leaders, but also from false prophets and misguided interpretations. In an age of global conflict, media manipulation, and ideological fervor, that warning remains more relevant than ever.

Zionists Do Not Represent World Jewry

In political discourse, particularly when it comes to discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the terms "Jew," "Israeli," and "Zionist" are often used interchangeably. This conflation is both historically inaccurate and deeply problematic. While Zionism is a political ideology that supports the establishment and continuation of a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel, Judaism is a diverse religious, cultural, and ethnic identity that spans centuries and continents. The assertion that Zionists represent all Jews—or that Jews, by virtue of their identity, support Zionism—is not only false but has dangerous consequences.

Historical Roots of Zionism and Jewish Diversity

To understand the difference, it's essential to examine the origins of modern Zionism. The movement emerged in the late 19th century in Europe, largely in response to rising anti-Semitism and nationalist currents. Theodor Herzl, often seen as the father of political Zionism, envisioned a sovereign Jewish state as a refuge for persecuted Jews. His vision, however, was not universally accepted among Jews of his time.

In fact, many religious and secular Jewish communities opposed Zionism on both theological and political grounds. Religious Jews, particularly within Orthodox traditions, believed that the return to the Land of Israel should be a divine event associated with the coming of the Messiah, not a human-initiated political project. For centuries, Jewish life thrived in diasporic communities—across the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Asia—without the need for a nation-state.

On the secular side, many Jews identified strongly with the countries in which they lived. Jewish thinkers and activists played key roles in socialist, communist, and liberal movements across Europe and America. They rejected Zionism as a retreat from broader struggles for justice, and feared that it would isolate Jews from their fellow citizens.

Jewish Voices Against Zionism

It is a historical fact that opposition to Zionism has existed within Jewish communities since the movement’s inception. Groups such as the Neturei Karta, a Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish sect, remain outspoken opponents of the Israeli state, arguing that its existence is a theological violation. On the other end of the spectrum, progressive Jewish organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow actively critique Israeli policies and challenge the notion that the Israeli government speaks for all Jews.

These groups emphasize that being Jewish does not equate to endorsing the policies of the Israeli state, particularly those involving occupation, settlement expansion, and military aggression. They argue that moral responsibility and a commitment to justice are essential parts of Jewish identity, and that opposing oppression—no matter who perpetrates it—is a Jewish value.

Moreover, the idea that criticism of Israel equals anti-Semitism is itself a form of silencing that undermines legitimate debate. Many Jewish critics of Israel are often labeled “self-hating” or traitorous. This weaponization of identity discourages critical reflection and reinforces the false narrative that Zionism is synonymous with Judaism.

Global Jewish Demographics and Political Diversity

The Jewish population today is about 15 million globally, with over 6 million in Israel and a similarly large number in the United States. The Jewish diaspora is highly diverse, encompassing Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, and other communities. These groups have varied histories, languages, cultures, and political perspectives.

In the United States, polls consistently show that younger Jews are increasingly critical of Israeli government policies. According to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, while older American Jews may have strong emotional ties to Israel, younger generations are more likely to support Palestinian rights and to question the alignment between Jewish values and Israeli state actions.

This generational shift reflects broader changes in political attitudes and a growing discomfort with the binary narratives that have dominated Middle Eastern discourse for decades. More and more Jews are choosing to align their religious and ethical commitments with broader struggles for justice and human rights.

The Dangers of Conflating Zionism and Judaism

The conflation of Zionism with Judaism is not just inaccurate—it is dangerous. Anti-Semitic actors often point to the actions of the Israeli government to justify hostility toward all Jews. This guilt-by-association fuels anti-Semitism globally and puts Jewish communities, especially those in the diaspora, at risk.

By insisting that all Jews support Israel or that criticism of Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic, defenders of the Israeli state inadvertently reinforce anti-Semitic tropes of dual loyalty and collective guilt. Ironically, they echo the very logic used by anti-Semites: that Jews are a monolithic group with a single political allegiance.

The reality is that Jews, like any people, hold a range of political opinions. Some are Zionists, others are anti-Zionists, and many are somewhere in between. Some support the existence of Israel but oppose its current government. Others advocate for a binational or democratic state that respects the rights of all its inhabitants, Jewish and Palestinian alike.

Reclaiming Jewish Identity from State Power

Jewish identity should not be defined by the actions of any state. For most of Jewish history, Jews have lived outside of a sovereign Jewish polity, and have contributed immensely to the societies in which they lived. Judaism is a religion, a culture, a peoplehood—not a political ideology.

The ethical teachings of Judaism emphasize justice, compassion, and the dignity of all human beings. The Hebrew Bible’s most repeated commandment is to care for the stranger, “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” This moral imperative is incompatible with the oppression of others, including the Palestinian people.

In asserting that Zionists do not represent all Jews, we affirm the diversity of Jewish experience and uphold the integrity of Jewish values. It is not anti-Semitic to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism; it is an act of intellectual and moral clarity.

Conclusion

Zionism is a political movement, not a religious mandate or a universal Jewish identity. To equate Zionism with Judaism is to erase the voices of countless Jews who dissent from this ideology, and to expose Jewish communities to harm by reinforcing stereotypes. Recognizing the diversity within world Jewry is essential to fostering a more honest, inclusive, and just discourse.

Jews do not speak with one voice, nor should they be expected to. The future of Jewish life depends on our ability to distinguish identity from ideology—and to uphold the values of justice and peace that have guided generations of Jews through exile and renewal.