Christian Zionism: A Theological Contradiction and Historical Paradox

The notion of 'Christian Zionism' appears to be a strange theological paradox. Christian theology, as established by Paul in the first century AD, was based on transitioning Christianity from a Jewish reform movement to a universal religion, by opening it to non-Jews (Gentiles), focusing on Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection as the path to salvation—which the Noble Quran later denied—and on concepts of grace, faith, and the New Covenant. This transformation constituted a radical break and decisive transcendence of Judaism.

In contrast, the rabbinic Jewish current, which crystallized after Jesus' death, remained steadfast in rejecting the messianic nature of the latter, rejecting the idea of the 'New Covenant,' affirming the supremacy of Torah law over faith, and opposing the reconciliation attempt made by Paul and others between law and faith.

From this perspective, Christianity in its essence represents a negation, transcendence, and interpretive and theological break with Talmudic Judaism and with any subsequent utilization of Hebrew texts in modern ideological projects, chief among them Zionism. Therefore, any talk of 'Christian Zionism' entails not only a deep philosophical and theological contradiction but also reveals a glaring historical paradox.

But what is this 'Christian Zionism' that many believe in, especially in America? It is, in essence, a theological belief based on faith in the second coming of Christ on the land of Israel. Among the fundamental principles of Christian Zionism is the assertion that the establishment of the modern state of Israel and the return of Jews to what is called the 'Promised Land' constitute a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecies, and that this reality will prepare the theological stage for the second return of the Lord Christ.

Based on that, supporting Israel becomes a religious duty viewed as a divine commitment. However, the essence of this support is not linked to Israel in itself, as much as it is linked to its symbolic role as a prerequisite for Christ's return in an eschatological vision. Therefore, this support remains steadfast and unconditional, regardless of the genocidal crimes or systematic discriminatory policies committed by Israel against Palestinians.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches reject 'Christian Zionism' from a theological perspective, albeit to varying degrees. The Catholic Church does not officially classify it as heresy, but it explicitly rejects it because it is based on a theology of 'two covenants' instead of the single covenant fulfilled in Christ, peace be upon him, and because it links biblical prophecies to modern political entities. The Catholic Church affirms, based on its fundamental doctrinal documents, especially the decrees of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), that there are no sacred political entities, but rather Christ is the perfection and fullness of the covenant, and the Church is the community of the New Covenant, not a substitute state or a sacred geographical entity.

As for the Orthodox churches, they view Christian Zionism largely as a grave theological error, which may sometimes rise to the level of heresy, because (Orthodoxy) rejects the literal reading of prophecies and rejects any return to the concept of 'election' that is ethnic or geographical after Christ, that is, after the fulfillment of his message with its universal and comprehensive dimension, as understood by traditional Christian theology.

Christian Zionism in the United States is considered a widespread religious-political current, especially within evangelical Protestant circles. This current is based on the belief that the establishment of the state of Israel falls within a 'divine plan' that requires strengthening Israel's power in preparation for Christ's return. According to this eschatological perspective, ethical and political considerations are marginalized; for settlement, nor the apartheid system in the West Bank, nor the ongoing genocide in Gaza, are considered issues of significant moral weight, because Palestinian suffering is reduced to secondary details in the face of the 'greater plan,' that is, ensuring Israel's strength and security as a prerequisite for Christ's return.

Of course, many in Israel are aware of these theological backgrounds that essentially transcend mere 'Israel's security.' According to this conception, Israel itself becomes a transitional entity that loses its importance after the realization of Christ's return. Nevertheless, a pragmatic alliance exists between the two sides, as the settler right supports this current and exploits it politically because it serves its expansionist and racist goals on the ground.

In conclusion, 'Christian Zionism' is not considered an expression of Christian faith as much as it reveals a dangerous eschatological deviation, in which the spiritual message is reduced to a political function, and the sacred is reproduced as a tool to justify power, violence, and killing. When the logic of salvation is replaced by the logic of geography, and the ethical universality is replaced by awaiting a temporal end conditioned by oppression and displacement, theology transforms from a horizon of liberation to a device for human annihilation.

The most dangerous aspect of this current is not only its theological contradiction, but its ability to disable the moral conscience in the name of prophecy, and to legitimize genocide in the name of salvation. At this point, silence is no longer a neutral position, but becomes complicity; and debate is no longer merely a doctrinal disagreement, but a moral test for humanity itself: either a faith that saves humanity, or a theology that justifies killing and extermination.