Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Blog

At the Borderline of Armageddon

 

By James E. Goodby

The sixth anniversary of 9/11 coincides with a renewed debate about Iraq. The coincidence should remind us that diplomacy has proved more effective than the use of force in containing the nuclear threat.

In my book, At the Borderline of Armageddon (Rowman and Littlefield, 2006) I described how the current administration campaigned for war against Iraq. It claimed that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program which could only be stopped by force. Even when Secretary of State Colin Powell’s own intelligence analysts expressed skepticism, no real effort was made to get to the bottom of the matter. The war decision had been made. 

My book also shows how determined the administration was to dismantle the legal structure for U.S.-Russian cooperation in controlling nuclear weapons. Fundamental changes in the U.S.-Russian relationship justified a different approach to controlling nuclear weapons, but rejecting the whole idea of joint controls was not called for.

The Bush administration came into office saying that arms control agreements were outmoded. But it has become evident in recent years that a U.S.-Russian effort to reduce their own holdings of nuclear weapons to as close to zero as is possible is necessary to block the spread of nuclear weapons to many other nations. That can only be done through verified treaties, which the Bush administration has rejected.

This administration seems unable either to anticipate events or to recall the past. It is oblivious to history. Anyone listing the most bitterly contested issues in today’s public policy debates would certainly include these: Should the United States have invaded Iraq to block its non-existent nuclear weapons program? Should the United States launch a preventive war against Iran to destroy that nation’s nuclear programs? Should U.S. diplomats negotiate with an authoritarian North Korean leader whose people are suffering under his rule? These questions rank among the handful of life-or-death decisions the Bush administration has faced, but U.S. presidents have faced very similar questions before. Their answers were very different from the ones given us by President Bush.

Eisenhower was asked to consider preventive war to block the Soviet Union’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He refused. Kennedy and Johnson were asked to consider the same action against China’s nascent nuclear weapons program. They understood the folly of that. Reagan said and he believed that the Soviet government was an “Evil Empire,” yet he negotiated with that government because he saw that the nuclear weapon was humanity’s common enemy. Ultimately, Reagan succeeded in eliminating a whole class of nuclear-armed missiles. We are even beginning to see some progress with North Korea, now that diplomacy has been unleashed. The lessons of history are clear. The judgments of these American presidents saved the world from what surely would have been devastation on a grand scale. More diplomacy and less war will improve the world’s chances of escaping nuclear catastrophe.

 

James E. Goodby is a research affiliate with MIT's Program on Science, Technology, and Society, where he dedicates his research to issues involving nuclear weapons. Goodby has served in a variety of diplomatic and policy positions in both Europe and Washington, placing strong emphasis on international security affairs. He is the recipient of the Presidential Distinguished Service Award, the State Department's Superior and Distinguished Honor Award, and the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit from the German government. In 1995, Goodby received the inaugural Heinz Award in Public Policy.

 

Evangelical-Jewish Relations

By Alan Mittleman

A group of 34 evangelical leaders recently sent President Bush a letter indicating their support for a Palestinian state. Both sides, they claim, “have legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine,” according to an article in the International Herald Tribune (July 29, 2007). Such a declaration would, of course, be unremarkable had it come from a liberal, mainline Protestant body. Coming from the evangelical world, however, makes it noteworthy. The evangelical community has been stalwart in its support for Israel, as well as in its suspicion toward the Palestinians. The signers of this letter, however, claim that the public face of evangelicalism, as a staunchly pro-Israel community, does not do justice to the inner diversity of the community. According to one evangelical leader, Rev. Joel Hunter, most of the community should not be considered Christian Zionists but is “really open” and seeks “justice for both parties.”

The pastors and leaders behind this initiative—who are identified with the growing progressive wing of the evangelical world—intend their message to be heard by Muslims, as well. The letter is being translated into Arabic and sent to Muslims abroad to offset the image of American evangelicals as lock-step followers of maximalist Zionism. 

This display of internal diversity within evangelicalism suggests the healthy dissent of a community come of age. Just as some evangelicals have taken a “liberal” line on the environment, the war in Iraq, or the use of torture, so too here, complicating the public image of the community is not a bad thing. Anyone who supports pluralism and the free exchange of ideas might welcome this intramural dialogue. Although I very much reject their argument—do Palestinian Arabs really have claims reaching back millennia? Millennia? lands of Israel/Palestine?—I recognize their need to make it based on their understanding of the biblical imperative of justice.

Let us be clear, however, this group does not represent a majority. It represents, at best, a vocal minority. Drawing on several surveys of evangelical opinion from 1994-2005, the political scientist John Green finds that in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians 56% of evangelicals sympathized more with Israel as opposed to 6%, who sympathized more with the Palestinians. (38% had no opinion.) Forty one percent of the general public, by comparison, sympathized with Israel; 13% with the Palestinians; 46% had no opinion. Majority evangelical backing for Israel both internally and comparatively is striking. When asked why they sympathized with Israel, 84% said it was because “God gave Israel to the Jews.” It would be hard to read the Bible without coming to this conclusion, especially if one hews to a non-suspicious approach to the text.

These leaders do not speak for the majority. At best, they speak for the 38% who have no opinion and the 6% whose sympathies lie with the Palestinians. Perhaps more probing into the evangelical majority would reveal nuances, hesitations, or gradations of support for Israel. For my part, I am thankful that the majority stands behind Israel. I do not want evangelicals to support Israel naively or credulously; I want them to support Israel —warts and all—intelligently and with full recognition of the fundamental justice of its cause. 

Alan Mittleman is Director of the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies and Professor of Jewish Philosophy at The Jewish Theological Seminary.  His latest book Uneasy Allies? Evangelical and Jewish Relations , co-edited with Byron R. Johnson and Nancy Isserman, will be published by Lexington Books this month.