We gather here today to thank you, Lord, for the privilege of witnessing this historic and magnificent day. We thank you for the State of Israel, the sole beacon of freedom in the Middle East, flourishing due to Your eternal love for the Jewish people. You gathered the exiles and brought them home. You made the nation’s very existence possible. You bestowed a miraculous victory in 1967, opening Jerusalem once again to worshippers of all faiths. Jerusalem is God’s city; it is the beating heart of Israel; it is the place where Abraham bound his son on the altar at Mount Moriah, becoming the father of many nations. Jerusalem is where Jeremiah and Isaiah wrote the principles of justice that would lay the foundations for Western moral culture; it is where the Messiah will return to establish His eternal kingdom.

A reader might initially assume that these words were spoken by a rabbi or a politician from Israel’s Religious Zionist movement. Upon closer reading, the enthusiastic, direct, and uncynical tone might raise doubts. Indeed, the speaker here is Pastor John Hagee, a prominent figure in the Evangelical movement. He delivered these words during a widely covered ceremony inaugurating the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018, Israel’s 70th Independence Day. Hagee, a figure almost unknown in Israel, founded “Christians United for Israel” (CUFI), the largest pro-Israel Christian organization in the United States, encompassing millions of Evangelicals.

The ceremony took place just months after then-U.S. President Donald Trump announced the embassy’s move to Jerusalem, 23 years after the U.S. Congress passed the “Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.” Every U.S. president from 1995 onward—Clinton, Bush, and Obama—delayed the embassy’s relocation on grounds of “national security,” despite repeated campaign promises on the issue. Trump was the first to follow through. He later acknowledged that his decision was primarily intended to honor the Evangelicals, a movement estimated to number around 80 million in the U.S. alone.

The public appearance of senior clergy at the embassy’s inauguration, and their significant influence on the decision to move it, rekindled interest in the Evangelical movement within Israel. Unfortunately, even when this important movement makes headlines, it is often portrayed superficially and negatively, evoking anything from cynical disdain to alarm. “Come See Armageddon Up Close,” “Evangelism and Jewish Messianism: Money Now, Blood Later,” “For Evangelicals, the War in Gaza Hastens the Great Goal: The Second Coming of the Messiah” are just a few of the headlines seen in Israeli media in recent years.

In the past four years, my doctoral work has allowed me to study the contemporary Evangelical movement closely. My research focuses on its relations with the State of Israel and its international influence, with an emphasis on Evangelical communities outside the U.S., particularly in Africa and Latin America. I have interviewed dozens of Evangelicals—clergy and activists—and reviewed the historical literature on the movement’s ties with Israel as well as the latest studies and opinion polls on the movement in the U.S. and globally. The shallow media coverage cited above is far from reality, based on fragments of truth, prejudices, and limited research.

Given the movement’s importance to Israel, especially in these turbulent times, I wish first to outline the history, motives, and goals of this movement. I will then discuss its recent support for Israel and its immense significance, explaining why Israeli concerns about it are largely unfounded and stem mainly from narrow political motives. Lastly, I will address trends among the movement’s younger members regarding support for Israel, arguing that Israel should actively strengthen its relations with the movement’s hundreds of millions of members.

Getting to Know the Evangelicals

Evangelicalism is a cross-denominational Protestant movement. It is not confined to any single church and is defined not by affiliation with a particular denomination but by core beliefs. Consequently, Evangelicals can be found in various churches, including Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, and others. Two significant streams in the movement, representing somewhat opposing extremes, are the Fundamentalists and the Pentecostals. The former are strict and serious, emphasizing study, modesty, and moral rectitude. The latter focus on spiritual experience and the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, often gathering under the guidance of a charismatic pastor in large congregations. Their ceremonies include among other things music, singing, and dancing. These two contrasting currents shed some light on the breadth and diversity of the Evangelicalism as an umbrella movement.

So, what does define the movement? What makes a person an Evangelical? This question has been the subject of much debate among Evangelicals and those who study the movement. The answers impact the estimated scope of the entire movement. Any attempt to settle on a single, absolute definition carries theological and political implications; nonetheless, there are some widely accepted definitions in the literature.

British historian David Bebbington identified four core beliefs shared among Evangelicals, which align with or add to the specific doctrines of each Evangelical’s church:

1. Conversionism: the necessity of being “born again” as a Christian. This process involves an individual accepting Jesus, typically through the Holy Spirit, and becoming a Christian. Many Evangelicals can pinpoint the exact moment this event occurred in their lives.
2. Biblicism: a strong emphasis on the Bible, including the Old Testament and not just the New Testament, as the supreme authority. Many Evangelicals view the Bible as an “inerrant” text that provides clear answers on matters of faith and life. They do not see it as merely allegorical or metaphorical but believe in a literal reading of the text.
3. Crucicentrism: a focus on Jesus’ suffering and death for humanity, with the belief that salvation can only be attained through faith in Him.
4. Activism: the desire to spread the Gospel and improve the world.

The last principle, activism, is especially significant. Unlike other religious movements that prefer to isolate themselves, emphasizing personal or communal self-improvement while disconnecting from the world outside, Evangelicals throughout their history have actively sought to promote their vision of the good in society at large. They have been prominent in the fight against slavery, were pioneers in sending humanitarian aid missions to Third World countries, and today are politically engaged in issues like the legality of abortion.

To understand how the movement developed and the social and religious needs it sought to address, we should briefly recount the main historical developments in the Anglo-Christian world that formed its background. The Anglican Church arose in the 16th century during the turbulent period of the Reformation. In 1534, King Henry VIII declared independence from the Catholic Church and established himself as the head of the English Church, primarily because the Pope refused to annul his marriage. This split was initially more political than theological, as Henry sought to consolidate his power in England and ensure a male heir. However, under his successors, particularly Edward VI and Elizabeth I, the Anglican Church began adopting deep Protestant reforms. These reforms included a final rejection of papal authority and the adoption of the “Thirty-Nine Articles,” which defined the church’s doctrines, positioning it as a middle path between Catholicism and Protestantism, maintaining elements of Catholic liturgy alongside Protestant doctrines.

The Evangelical movement began to develop in the early 18th century in Britain during what came to be known as the “Great Awakening.” During this time, Anglican clergy like George Whitefield and John and Charles Wesley articulated ideas that would later shape the movement.

John Wesley, the father of Methodism, emphasized the importance of personal religious experience. He believed that salvation was not external to the individual but a process achieved through communion with God (the Holy Spirit). He also held that everyone had the potential to be saved, in contrast to the Calvinist Christians of his time, who believed that only a predetermined minority chosen by God could be saved and that this was beyond individual control. Being “born again” or “reconverted” through communion with the Holy Spirit grants the believer certainty in the “perfection” of their behavior and Christian nature (“Christian perfectionism”). Wesley further believed that Christianity could redeem not only the individual but also society, so the Christian is required to work for justice and compassion in the world. Indeed, Wesley and many of his followers were active in various social issues, such as eradicating slavery and promoting women’s rights. Lastly, Wesley placed great emphasis on a life of holiness and religious discipline, including prayer, reading both the Old and New Testaments, and even fasting. Many of these principles remain central to contemporary Evangelical thought.

These ideas developed at a time when the religious establishment in Britain seemed engulfed in apathy. Church ceremonies were perceived as detached from the daily lives of believers. England was undergoing rapid industrialization and urbanization, widening the gaps between the rich and poor, harsh working conditions, and economic insecurity for many commoners. The doctrines proposed by Wesley and his associates resonated with the needs of the time. The emphasis on personal experience, the potential for universal salvation, and the desire for social change appealed to a wide audience and offered an attractive alternative to what the traditional Anglican Church had to offer.

The Methodists greatly influenced today’s Evangelical movement, but they are not its only foundation. Other significant influences on Evangelicalism include the Puritans (the most prominent figure from this stream being Jonathan Edwards, who was active in 18th-century New England) and Lutheran Pietism, which originated in continental Europe.

In the years that followed, the movement expanded in Britain, and British preachers began spreading its ideas in the United States, where it grew and eventually became the dominant stream within American Protestantism. In the 19th century, and increasingly in the 20th century, Evangelical missionaries began spreading their beliefs to other continents: Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Today, Evangelical communities exist in almost every country in Latin America; in African countries such as Angola, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, Mozambique, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa; in Asia—in China, South Korea, the Philippines, India, and Indonesia. Some estimates place the global number of Evangelicals at over 660 million. Approximately 24 percent, or about 80 million people, reside in the United States. Beyond this, it is one of the fastest-growing religious movements in the world, with a growth rate three times faster than the global population growth rate and twice that of Islam.

Of the Evangelicals’ characteristics, one particularly relevant to our discussion is their high level of political engagement. A 2018 study in the U.S. found that 87 percent of Evangelicals considered politics at least somewhat important to them, with 30 percent describing it as very important. Among non-Evangelical Americans, these figures were 78 percent and 18 percent, respectively. The political consequences of this tendency can be seen in the “religious right” coalition in the U.S., a voting bloc primarily composed of Evangelical Christians but also including conservative Catholics. They promote religious and social conservatism and advocate for positions on issues like church-state relations, religious education, abortion, drug use, pornography, and same-sex marriage. This group votes at higher rates than other demographic groups and is highly active in supporting favored candidates’ campaigns.

Extensive research has sought to define Evangelicals’ foreign policy preferences, revealing a tendency toward more hawkish positions. Evangelicals broadly support the “war on terror” framework, have backed the Iraq War, and perceive Islam as a significant threat. Overall, they are seen as more conservative and interventionist than the average American. Among conservatives, most Evangelicals favor active American involvement in global affairs over isolationist approaches. While the reasons behind these stances are notable in their own right, our primary interest here lies in their strong support for Israel. Numerous studies indicate that Evangelicals, aside from Jews, form the religious group most supportive of Israel.

Why Do Evangelicals Support Israel?

Evangelical support for Israel arises from several distinct motivations, which often reinforce each other. The most prominent is a theological rationale based on how Evangelicals interpret the Bible. Additional cultural, historical, and even geopolitical motives also contribute to their support.

Theological Justification

Evangelicals interpret the Bible literally. In the Old Testament, particularly in Genesis (12:3), they find a key scriptural basis for their support of Israel. In this verse, God promises Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” For Evangelicals, this verse carries a profound commandment, offering the promise of divine blessing for those who support the Jewish people and a warning against failing to do so.

For many Evangelicals, this verse encapsulates the spirit of Christian Zionism. They take this command especially seriously. In his book, John Hagee recounts the history of every major power that has tried to harm the Jewish people, saying, “Where are the Babylonians? Where are the Romans? Where are the Greeks? Where are the Persians? Where is the Ottoman Empire? Where is that madman Hitler and his Nazi army? All of them are footnotes in the cemetery of history.” Jerry Falwell, a leading American pastor of the 20th century, similarly asserted, “God has blessed America because America has blessed the people of Israel. If this nation wants its fields to remain bountiful, its scientific progress preserved, and its freedoms protected, it must continue to stand by Israel.” This theological justification resonates with Evangelicals worldwide. In 2018, after Guatemala decided to move its embassy to Jerusalem, Guatemala’s ambassador to Israel, Sarah Angelina Solís, declared, “I feel this is a gift from God. I know that many blessings will follow this decision. It is a biblical promise, in Genesis.”

This literal reading of the Bible also emphasizes the unique relationship between the people of Israel and God. For centuries, the primary doctrine shaping Christian attitudes toward Jews was “supersessionism” or “replacement theology.” According to this doctrine, when the Jewish people rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God abandoned them and transferred His covenant to the “new Israel,” the Christian Church. Christians thus became the new chosen people, and all promises God made to Israel were inherited by the Church. Even today, most Catholics and some Protestants uphold versions of this doctrine. Evangelicals, however, categorically reject it. In their reading of the Bible, they see that at no point did God forsake the Jewish people or transfer His promises to the Church. The covenant between God and Abraham, they argue, is eternal and unchangeable.

This stance marks a dramatic shift both theologically and historically. Supersessionism was a primary factor in institutional Christian antisemitism, forming the basis of theories that viewed Jews as inferior, dispossessed, and rejected by God. Interpretations of replacement theology often posited that the historical suffering and “degradation” of the Jewish people served as evidence of Christianity’s divine favor and the abandonment of the Jews by God. Accordingly, Christians argued, Jews should remain in their lowly state as a reminder of their rejection by God. This reasoning justified the persecution and discrimination that Jews endured for centuries. In Vatican II which  culminated in 1965 and was the Catholic Church’s first council after the Holocaust, the Church officially renounced supersessionism, recognizing its role in fostering antisemitism, which ultimately led to the horrors of the Holocaust. Yet, as noted, many Catholics still adhere to versions of this doctrine.

A clear illustration of the Evangelical view on the Jewish people’s relationship with God is found in a speech by Brazilian parliamentarian Antônio de Paula during Israel’s 2021 “Guardian of the Walls” operation. Draped in an Israeli flag, he read a letter on behalf of the Evangelical Front: “I feel a deep sadness and an enduring pain for the Jewish people. They are my brothers; they are my family. I want to help them because they are the people of Israel, God’s chosen children.”

Many Evangelicals base their support for Israel on Christianity’s theological-historical link to Judaism. They recognize that Christianity emerged from Judaism and feel gratitude for what Judaism contributed to their faith: monotheism, sacred scriptures, the patriarchs, kings, and prophets. Even Jesus and his twelve disciples were Jewish. The theological foundation for this respect is found in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (11:17-18), in which he urges Christians to remember the spiritual root from which Christianity draws: “If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.” In one of my interviews with Pastor Twumasi Yeboah, founder of a large church in Ghana, he offered an almost literal interpretation of this passage. In his view, the Jewish people represent the biological seed of Abraham, from which the spiritual seed—Christianity—sprang. He asks, if the biological seed is not protected, what ensures the survival of the spiritual seed? In other words, what guarantees that Christians around the world will be safe? “If you suffer, we suffer, because you are part of God’s kingdom. Anything that happens to you, if we stay silent and do not act, will eventually come to us. Your safety is our safety,” he concluded. In his book In Defense of Israel, John Hagee similarly asserts, “Christianity could not exist without the Jewish people. The Jews contributed the very foundations of our faith.”

Finally, there is a particular eschatological (end-times) doctrine called premillennialism that is common among Evangelicals. According to this perspective, several events must precede the second coming of Jesus. These include the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and the reconstruction of the Temple. An Antichrist will then arise, take control of the Temple, and impose a reign of terror. This will initiate a phase known as the “Great Tribulation,” during which a major war will be waged against Israel on multiple fronts. At that point, Jesus will return from the heavens with his followers, vanquish the Antichrist, and establish a thousand-year reign of peace. Different interpretations vary on what will happen to the Jewish people in this final scenario. Some believe they will accept Jesus and be saved, while others believe some Jews will refuse and perish. This doctrine is one reason for suspicion and concern in certain circles in Israel and the United States. Later, I will address these criticisms and the underlying anxieties they reveal.

The Cultural and Historical Justification

Evangelicals often express deep regret for the historical persecution of Jews by the Christian Church, arguing that centuries of Christian antisemitism ultimately culminated in the Holocaust. In a speech to the Israeli Knesset in 2007, Pastor Pete Evans from Virginia made an emotional plea to the Jewish people: “On behalf of the millions of Christians who love Israel and pray for it, we want to express our repentance for the crimes committed in the name of Christianity throughout history against the people of Israel. We have sinned against you, Lord.”

Additionally, Evangelicals and Jews share what is often called the “Judeo-Christian tradition,” a system of shared values, principles, and cultural norms. This framework encompasses religious beliefs, legal codes, customs, and ethics. Many scholars believe that at the heart of the connection between the Jewish people and Christian Zionism lies this concept of “brotherhood,” which helps explain the deep Evangelical support for Israel.

The Practical Justification

Many Evangelicals frame their support for Israel in strategic and geopolitical terms. This rationale is not unique to Evangelicals; it is shared by many Americans. Still, it is a central point raised when they are asked to explain their pro-Israel stance.

According to this view, Israel is the United States’ most important ally in the Middle East. As Secretary of State Alexander Haig put it in 1982, “Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier, one that cannot be sunk, that doesn’t carry a single American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.” During the Cold War, both nations shared the threat of the Soviet Union and its Arab allies. In the 21st century, many Evangelicals perceive a shared threat in radical Islam. Additionally, “promoting democracy worldwide” remains a key goal of U.S. foreign policy. From this perspective, Israel garners strategic support because it is seen as the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East.

Forms of Support for Israel

The Evangelical movement is characterized by active political engagement and a commitment to enacting positive change—principles central to their faith. Supporting the Jewish people and the State of Israel is only one of many causes they champion. Their methods of support for Israel can be divided into three main categories: influencing their country’s foreign policy, participating in international organizations, and engaging in local and private initiatives.

Influencing National Foreign Policy

Like any ideological group seeking to shape government policy, Evangelicals participate in local and national politics, aiming to align their government’s policies with their worldview—in this case, encouraging a pro-Israel stance. They achieve this through several means.

First, they vote for and support candidates who are pro-Israel. In the United States, Evangelicals wield significant electoral power due to their numbers and strong political engagement. Their influence is particularly pronounced within the Republican Party. In many parts of the U.S., Congressional and Senate candidates cannot win without broad Evangelical support. Gaining this support often requires a clear stance on Israel, as U.S. policy toward Israel is central to Evangelicals’ voting decisions. In a 2015 survey by the Brookings Institution, 55 percent of Evangelicals said that a candidate’s stance on Israel was “very important” in determining their vote for Congress or president, compared to just 24 percent of non-Evangelicals.

These significant numbers lead many political candidates to recognize that winning Evangelical support often hinges on their position on Israel. Prominent political figures regularly attend CUFI’s (Christians United for Israel) annual conference. For example, in 2019, key figures in attendance included then-Vice President Mike Pence, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and numerous representatives from the House and Senate.

In addition to mobilizing votes, Evangelicals have an active lobbying apparatus to encourage current lawmakers to support Israel and advance policies beneficial to it. During the George W. Bush administration, and to some extent during Donald Trump’s presidency, Evangelical leaders had direct access to decision-makers, and Evangelical figures held key positions within the administration and the White House. These included Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence, and advisors such as Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, Paula White-Cain, and Mike Evans.

A notable example of successful Evangelical lobbying is the campaign to relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. The campaign was instrumental in Trump’s decision to move the embassy. Months before his announcement, approximately 135,000 CUFI members emailed the White House, urging the president to act. Mike Evans, a staunch Evangelical and one of Trump’s advisors, claimed that leading Evangelical figures pressed Trump daily to fulfill his campaign promise on this issue. According to Evans, the White House’s decision on Jerusalem was “100 percent because of the Evangelicals. There is no question.” Trump himself later confirmed this, telling a rally in Wisconsin in August 2020 that the embassy move was for the Evangelicals.

While the American case is particularly prominent, Evangelical lobbying for Israel takes place in numerous other countries. The second country to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem, immediately after the United States, was Guatemala, where more than 40 percent of the population identifies as Evangelical. Evangelicals in Guatemala vigorously lobbied the president to announce the embassy move, even before Trump’s decision. They were even somewhat “disappointed” when Trump made his announcement first, as they had hoped Guatemala would be the first country to move its embassy. Another example is the “Evangelical Parliamentary Front” in Brazil, a political bloc that includes dozens of members of parliament and government officials. These groups were established or consolidated to exert religious influence on politics and introduce moral and religious arguments into policymaking.

Evangelicals also influence public opinion as a means of supporting Israel. Evangelical groups work to improve Israel’s image among the broader public by organizing large events, such as marches, conferences, rallies, and festivals open to the public. These events draw considerable attention and attract both Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals. In Uganda, for example, Evangelicals organized a massive pro-Israel march that included thousands of participants, blocking numerous roads in Kampala, the capital. In Colombia’s Casanare province, an annual event called “Casanare Welcomes Israel” takes place, drawing 15,000 to 20,000 people. Evangelical clergy preach about love for Israel, and the event includes Israeli-style dance and song performances. Similar events occur in many other countries across South America, Africa, and East Asia. To an Israeli observer, images from these events may appear unusual, but within the Evangelical world, such gatherings are commonplace.

Evangelicals with media influence also promote Israel through radio, television, and even social media. During Israel’s 2014 Operation Protective Edge, an Evangelical organization in South Africa purchased a full-page ad in one of the nation’s largest newspapers to “defend Israel, which is losing the battle for public opinion.” Following the outbreak of Israel’s 2023 Operation Swords of Iron, many Evangelical leaders voiced public support for Israel, and sixty prominent Evangelicals in the U.S. signed a statement urging the United States to stand by Israel in the conflict.

International Organizations

Many Evangelicals worldwide support Israel through involvement in international Evangelical organizations. The most prominent of these is the “International Christian Embassy Jerusalem” (ICEJ), which was founded in 1980 to advocate for Israel and improve its global standing. ICEJ has branches in more than 90 countries. Its activities include donating funds to welfare projects in Israel, assisting Jews who wish to immigrate to Israel, providing mobile bomb shelters, supporting Holocaust survivors, and promoting Christian tourism to Israel. Each year, tens of thousands of Evangelicals attend events that ICEJ organizes in Israel; the largest is the annual march during the holiday of Sukkot. ICEJ chapters also work within their respective countries to promote pro-Israel policies. One notable campaign led by ICEJ was its 2014 initiative against the BDS movement, in which it encouraged buying Israeli products and distributed a large catalog of Israeli-made goods to facilitate purchases.

Other organizations focus on specific causes, such as promoting Jewish immigration to Israel, helping impoverished Jews worldwide, advocating for Israel, promoting tourism to Israel, and fostering bilateral relations between Israel and other countries. Notable organizations working in these areas include “Bridges for Peace,” “Christians for Israel International,” the “Latino Coalition for Israel,” the “African-Israeli Initiative,” “Christian Friends of Israel,” and “HaYovel.” This list is far from exhaustive, but it highlights the range of organizations engaged in supporting Israel.

Community and Individual Initiatives

Some Evangelicals, who see supporting Israel as a religious obligation, choose to act independently or on a church or community level. On a personal level, Evangelicals may donate money to Israel, visit Israel, volunteer in various projects, share information about Israel with friends, family, and colleagues, or participate in local events in support of Israel. For example, through the organization “HaYovel,” hundreds of Evangelical volunteers travel to Israel each year, covering their own expenses to work in Israeli agriculture, especially in the wine industry. These volunteers plant grapevines, participate in the harvest, and assist in the production process. During their free time, they explore biblical sites and interact with Israelis. This phenomenon was on full display in the early weeks of Israel’s 2023 Operation Swords of Iron, when American cowboys arrived in Israel to help southern farmers. Since the beginning of the war, ICEJ has hosted around ten volunteer delegations to assist Israel’s war effort or support the home front, helping with logistics in the southern communities, preparing food and supplies for soldiers, and more.

At the church level, it is common to find pastors who incorporate messages about the importance of supporting Israel into their sermons and Bible studies, hold prayers for Israel and the Jewish people, collect donations collectively, organize delegations to Israel, and more.

To conclude this survey, it bears repeating: this is not solely an American phenomenon but a global one. The recent rise in Christian Zionists has occurred primarily in Latin America and Africa, where the Pentecostal stream of Evangelicalism is rapidly expanding, often bringing with it a strong pro-Israel stance.

A Blessing or a Curse?

So why, then, do so many in the media, academia, and the religious world warn against the growing connection between Evangelicals and Israel, going so far as to stoke public fears about the Evangelicals’ “hidden agendas”? In a world where support for Israel is waning in many regions and antisemitism is on the rise, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to embrace our Evangelical friends, thank them for their steadfast support, and do everything possible to strengthen our ties with them? The objections of Evangelical critics fall into two categories: those from the religious establishment, especially Orthodox rabbis, and those from the media and academic circles.

The rabbinic opposition to expanded relations with Evangelicals primarily stems from concerns over missionary activity. Rabbis warn that Evangelical support for Israel is merely a cover for covert missions aimed at converting Jews in Israel to Christianity. Rabbi Moshe Likhovsky from the organization “Lev Ahim,” for instance, cautions Jews to be wary of Evangelical Christians, claiming he knows of many instances where Jews “fell victim” to Evangelical proselytizing.

These critics do not stop at issuing warnings and sometimes engage in open confrontation with visiting Evangelicals. About a year ago, during a visit by an Evangelical group to the southern wall of the Temple Mount, dozens of yeshiva students, led by Rabbi Zvi Tau, Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl (rabbi of the Old City of Jerusalem), and Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Aryeh King, protested the visit with shouts of “Missionaries, go home!” Despite the fact that Evangelicals consistently state that they do not engage in missionary activity among Jews and that the data on “Evangelical proselytism” and conversions related to it are unclear and difficult to substantiate, Evangelicals have been unable to convince the hardline rabbinic opponents of their sincerity. However, this opposition is mainly limited to ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalist religious circles and rarely extends beyond them.

Naturally, the arguments of academics and media figures receive much more public attention. Their primary claim is that Evangelical support for Israel does not stem from genuine affection for the Jewish people but is a strategy designed solely to hasten Jesus’ return. When that day comes, they argue, Jews will be forced to convert to Christianity or face death. However, the end goal is not the only aspect that worries these critics. They contend that Evangelicals aim to instigate the war of Gog and Magog, which they believe is a necessary stage in their eschatological beliefs. According to this view, Evangelical involvement in the Middle East is meant to trigger a major regional war. In Haaretz, it was even claimed outright that Israel’s recent Operation Swords of Iron “advances the Evangelicals’ grand objective.”

When examining the facts on the ground and the research available on this topic, a different picture emerges. Among the many reasons cited for supporting Israel, apocalyptic considerations have not been found to be the primary motivation driving American Evangelicals’ support for Israel. In an extensive survey on the subject, only 12 percent of Evangelical respondents cited eschatology as the main reason for their support of Israel. The most commonly cited reason was, “God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people,” followed by, “every nation has the right to self-determination.” The third most popular reason was, “The Bible instructs Christians to support Israel.” Eschatology came in fourth.

Further research that examined the correlation between different reasons for supporting Israel and the intensity of support provides even more interesting insights. This study found no statistically significant correlation between supporting Israel and believing in the eschatological notion that the Jews will rebuild the Temple as part of the lead-up to Jesus’ return. In other words, Evangelicals who identify apocalyptic motivations for supporting Israel are not among Israel’s strongest supporters and are certainly not the main driving force behind Christian Zionism. Simply put, as the researchers pointed out, the widely repeated claim that Evangelical support for Israel is primarily driven by apocalyptic motivations is not supported by the data. Moreover, when examining the reasons younger Evangelicals cite for supporting Israel, the eschatological reason drops to around 6 percent. No comprehensive studies on this subject have been conducted in Africa and Latin America, but in interviews with religious leaders from these regions, I found that this topic is even less relevant.

If apocalyptic concerns are not the primary driver, why are media and academic circles still so troubled by Evangelical support for Israel? In my opinion, the answer lies not in eschatological fears but in the critics’ underlying views on the U.S.-Israel relationship. Most Israelis see the alliance between the two countries as a strategic partnership or a shared-values alliance, believing that each state should avoid interfering in the other’s domestic politics or dictating its course. In contrast, a substantial segment of Israel’s media and academic elite believes that the U.S. has an additional role: pressuring Israel to comply with various international demands, particularly territorial concessions. Chief among these demands is the relinquishment of the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian state. As long as the Israeli government resists establishing a Palestinian state, they expect the U.S. to exert pressure on Israel to act in its own “true interest.”

From this perspective, the Evangelicals pose a real problem. Unlike other American groups, Evangelicals are strongly opposed to pressuring Israel to cede territory or reach an agreement that would lead to a Palestinian state. Although, according to surveys, most Evangelicals would not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, they would oppose any pressure from the White House on Israel to create one. This stance is intolerable to Evangelicals’ critics, who believe that without significant American pressure, Israel will never agree to establish a Palestinian state. In other words, at the heart of their opposition to Evangelicals is a political fear of their unwavering support for Israel—a level of support most Israelis would, of course, welcome.

Trends in Evangelical Support for Israel

Evangelical support for Israel has significant implications, especially within the context of U.S.-Israel relations. With upcoming U.S. presidential elections, it’s worth examining the long- and short-term trends in Evangelical support for Israel and their potential influence on American politics.

In the short term, it appears that most Evangelicals will again back the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, much as they did in 2020. An April survey by the Pew Research Center found that 81 percent of Evangelicals planned to vote for Trump, while only 17 percent intended to vote for then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden. These numbers mirrored the breakdown of Evangelical voting patterns in 2020, marking the highest percentage of Evangelicals voting for a Republican candidate in 16 years and the lowest for a Democrat. This alignment suggests that the bond between Evangelicals and the Republican Party is deepening, with the expectation that Evangelicals will continue to push the party and its representatives toward a consistently pro-Israel stance.

This trend is particularly significant because it serves as a counterbalance to two other movements within the American political right. The first is the rise of isolationism. Isolationists advocate for the U.S. to disengage financially and militarily from foreign conflicts. This approach, while not new, dates back to figures like George Washington and has periodically resurfaced in American history. Strategically, isolationists argue that American involvement in distant wars entangles the U.S. in unnecessary disputes, posing risks to American soil, citizens, diplomats, and troops. Economically, they argue that the government has no mandate to use taxpayer dollars to fund foreign militaries or wars unrelated to U.S. homeland security. In this context, U.S. support for Israel could be seen as a financial and diplomatic burden on America.

The second movement is the small but growing anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic fringe within the American right. Although this group has little presence in national politics, and few of its supporters hold positions in Congress, it has gained attention through online platforms and the statements of social media personalities such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who have recently drawn considerable attention for their remarks against Israel. The anti-Israel rhetoric in this group spans from legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions regarding the Palestinians to outright misinformation and the amplification of the Palestinian narrative—including anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Standing firmly against these two trends, Evangelicals form a robust base ensuring that the Republican Party’s overwhelmingly pro-Israel stance remains intact. In this political reality, it’s clear that Evangelicals have little influence over the Democratic Party. The Evangelicals who do vote Democrat generally identify as more liberal, and their support for Israel is significantly lower than that of their Republican counterparts. Therefore, even if Evangelicals shifted toward the Democratic Party, this would not likely increase Democratic support for Israel.

A more concerning trend emerges when examining the long-term patterns among Evangelicals. A recent study by Professors Motti Inbari and Kirill Bumin, two established researchers who have tracked Evangelical support for Israel over the past decade, focused on young Evangelicals aged 18–30, exploring their attitudes toward politics, religion, and Israel. Their survey of approximately 700 young Evangelicals yielded results that surprised even those who anticipated a drift away from the conservatism of their parents—and, as a result, a distancing from Israel.

Before discussing the findings, a few caveats are necessary. As the researchers themselves note, drawing conclusions from this data is challenging, as no comparable surveys of this age group exist to observe trends over time. Additionally, the survey did not examine other age groups, limiting comparisons between young and older Evangelicals at this point. Nevertheless, the researchers compared the results of their current survey with a broader 2018 survey to assess differences between young Evangelicals and other age groups. Here are the primary findings:

Ideologically, while about 60 percent of Evangelicals across other age groups identify as conservative and only 14 percent as liberal, young Evangelicals are evenly split, with 31 percent identifying as conservative and 31 percent as liberal. Politically, 48.5 percent of young Evangelicals identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared to just 39.5 percent who identify as or lean Republican. In the 2020 election, 45.8 percent of this age group voted for Joe Biden, while only 25.7 percent supported Donald Trump.

In terms of religiosity, young Evangelicals attend church and read the Bible less frequently than the average across other age groups. This factor is significant, as research has shown that the more religiously observant an Evangelical is, the more likely they are to support Israel. A less devout Evangelical is less likely to believe in the permanence of the covenant between God and Abraham—a belief central to the Evangelical theological support for Israel.

Indeed, while 76.5 percent of Evangelicals over thirty expressed support for Israel, only 33.5 percent of young Evangelicals did so in 2021. Among young Evangelicals, 24.3 percent supported the Palestinians—compared to less than 3 percent in other age groups. Interestingly, on the issue of Jerusalem’s status, young Evangelicals were relatively decisive, with about 72 percent believing that the city should remain united under exclusive Israeli control. However, their responses to other questions on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the establishment of a Palestinian state suggest that most young Evangelicals lack a strong opinion—or even much interest—on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When asked about their knowledge of the conflict, only 30 percent of young Evangelicals claimed to have moderate or extensive knowledge, and just 22 percent could correctly answer a factual question about it.

How can we explain this generational divide within the Evangelical community on Israel? Inbari and Bumin offer several interrelated explanations. The overall drift of young Evangelicals away from religious observance lessens their interest in Israel, making them more susceptible to the prevalent media portrayal of Israel as the dominant power in the region, often cast as the aggressor rather than the defender. Furthermore, young and older Evangelicals consume different sources of information: older generations have traditionally relied on Evangelical media outlets, journals, church communication, and community sources, while young Evangelicals primarily obtain information online and via social media. Lastly, many young Evangelicals, as well as some younger pastors, are influenced by academic institutions, especially elite universities, where hostility toward Israel (and, increasingly, the United States) has surfaced openly and seems to be shaping their worldview.

Future research and time will reveal whether this shift represents merely youthful rebellion against parental and institutional values, likely to fade with age, or whether it signifies a deeper change that will endure into adulthood. Other studies in the U.S. have shown that young people often lean leftward, embracing revolutionary, socialist ideals, only to grow more conservative with age. However, it would be unwise to rely on this assumption entirely, as if we later find that this is not a passing phase, it may be too late: Israel could find itself in a position where its strongest support base in America has faded. What, then, should Israel do?

Where Do We Go From Here?

In a May 2021 interview with Israeli journalist Amit Segal, Ron Dermer, who served as Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. until early that year, emphasized that Evangelicals (rather than American Jews) form the “backbone” of support for Israel in the United States. “This is true both in terms of numbers and in terms of enthusiasm and unequivocal support for Israel,” he stated. He suggested that Israel should invest far more resources in cultivating its relations with the Evangelical community.

Dermer’s comments drew criticism from both the left and the right. There was no need to compare Evangelicals with American Jews to underscore the importance of Evangelical support, and as a public figure, Dermer might have chosen more measured language. Israel should continue investing in and fostering its relationship with American Jewry—not only as a means of influencing American policy but, perhaps more importantly, due to its status as the largest Jewish diaspora community outside of Israel. This connection is fundamental to Israel’s identity and its role as the Jewish state, as Dermer himself later clarified.

At the same time, however, Israel must significantly increase its investment in relations with Evangelicals, as there is no contradiction between the two. Dermer, who understands the critical importance of Evangelical support for Israel, was fundamentally correct in his message: Israel truly does need to prioritize its relationship with the global Evangelical community, both in the United States and beyond. To solidify and strengthen this alliance for the years to come, Israel must act on two levels: one symbolic and one practical.

On the symbolic level, Israel’s official representatives should speak openly and warmly about Evangelicals. Many Evangelicals who are active in Israel’s cause expect nothing more than recognition, a kind word, or sincere thanks for their extensive efforts. It would be fitting for Israeli representatives to acknowledge the importance of Evangelicals for Israel’s future, show up at Evangelical events held in support of Israel, meet with key religious leaders, and welcome Evangelical delegations visiting the Knesset.

Symbolic gestures—such as attending ceremonies, sending letters, or recording video messages—carry great significance. Evangelicals need to feel that their commitment to Israel is recognized. The choices they make to donate their own (sometimes limited) funds, advocate for Israel in Congress, or volunteer in Israel should not be taken for granted. This is even more important for Evangelical communities outside the United States, where Christian Zionism is only beginning to take root. Each expression of gratitude, each partnership, each visit to Israel, and even a single photo with a visiting church leader helps strengthen these communities and allows them to continue growing their support base.

On the practical level, Israel needs to allocate substantial financial and human resources to cultivate its relationships with young Evangelicals in the United States. While certain partnerships exist today, they are far too limited in scope. Greater investment should be directed toward these efforts, in close dialogue with Evangelical leaders, with a deep understanding of their real needs and the challenges they face. There are numerous possibilities: hosting lectures and workshops by Israeli speakers at Evangelical institutions; developing joint educational programs; creating content specifically for Evangelicals, such as books, videos, and online courses; organizing student exchange programs or internships that allow young Evangelicals to live in Israel for several months; establishing new research and study centers, and more.

The Foreign Ministry of Israel should lead these initiatives, ideally by establishing a dedicated agency similar to Mashav, Israel’s international development agency. Various educational projects could be undertaken in cooperation with the Ministry of Education, the Jewish Agency, and Zionist organizations in target countries. After the state provides initial momentum, civil society organizations—both Evangelical and Jewish, as well as groups combining representatives from both religions—could take the lead in different fields.

Evangelical communities outside the U.S. also need support. These communities often lack the same financial and political clout as their American counterparts, and they frequently need reliable information about Israel to counter the narratives provided by outlets like CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera. Many Evangelical leaders have told me that they would gladly welcome any initiative bringing Israeli teachers to teach about Israel or even to teach Hebrew to their children. More generally, they often express a desire to see more proactive efforts from Israel, rather than mere responses to existing support. Close cooperation with leaders of these diverse communities would allow for a more in-depth understanding of their specific needs and challenges—whether theological, economic, or related to dealing with hostile Muslim minorities, unfriendly governments (as in South Africa), or anti-Israel media coverage.

There is already a growing awareness within Israel’s Foreign Ministry of the Evangelical movement’s strength and its importance to Israel. Many initiatives to strengthen these relationships are not driven by directives from the Ministry but by the individual ambassadors themselves, who work to establish and maintain ties with local Evangelical communities. Consequently, the ambassador’s identity and decisions have a significant impact on the development of these relations.

Henry Kissinger once quipped that Israel doesn’t have a foreign policy, only a domestic policy. These words remain relevant today. Israel’s approach to foreign policy has traditionally been short-term, limited in scope and ambition, and highly sensitive to shifts in domestic politics. While such an approach may have been necessary in Israel’s early years, it is no longer appropriate for a country aiming to establish itself as a regional power, one that maintains strategic long-term alliances, deters its adversaries, and attracts new partners through its strength and stability.

It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into the need for a coherent, long-term foreign policy strategy. However, it is clear that such a policy must prioritize relations with the world’s largest, most powerful, and most deeply supportive group of Israel. A thorough strategic plan involving research to map Evangelical communities around the world, identifying key leaders in each country and region, and formulating a long-term, cross-ministerial plan to build relationships, initiate collaborations, and expand outreach could be a cornerstone of Israel’s future foreign policy.

Evangelicals can provide Israel with a gateway into new regions where it has limited influence and presence, such as Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. In countries where Israel already has a foothold, Evangelicals could help deepen relationships, expanding them beyond economic and security ties to include cultural and religious exchanges. The global Evangelical community presents Israel with a historic opportunity to build a broad base of support among hundreds of millions of people—an opportunity that, if missed, may never return.

***

This essay was originally published in Hebrew in the 39th edition of Hashiloach. To view the original version, click here.

Main photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons: The Geographer.