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.