"(T)he vast majority of American Jews won't support an Apartheid Israel. But the Israelis have a different American ally who might: Christian Zionists. Christian Zionists, in the United States, are fully democratic actors, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise domestically. When it comes to Israel, though, their favored approach is for Israel to keep the entire West Bank, for eschatological reasons. They are much, much less concerned about the political character of Israel, and even less concerned with the fate of (non-Christian) Palestinians."
My argument is that Israel will not survive for very long without the active support of American Jewry. Ackerman is arguing that millions of evangelical Christians -- who are concerned about Israel for theological, rather than ethnic, familial, or ideological reasons -- would be able to maintain American support for Israel in Washington even without broad Jewish support. I'm not disputing the notion that this movement (post-Jewish Zionism, in Matthew Yglesias's phrase) worries less about Israel's democratic character than it does about Israel's Jewish character, and about the Christian messianic promise embedded in the return of Jews to their historic homeland, but I take issue with the idea that it has as much power as Ackerman ascribes to it here:
"...(C)onspiratorial talk about the Israel Lobby seriously misses the point. The U.S. relationship with Israel is not determined by a narrow band of colluding Washington, New York and Hollywood Jews. It's not even determined by Jews, full stop. It thrives because one of the most powerful constituencies in American politics, conservative Christians, identifies with Israel -- and not with politicians who question it. You can see that, barometrically, in the GOP presidential debates, in which the candidates line up to outdo each other in vowing support for Israel and bashing Obama for his insufficient affection for Israel.
It's not that Post-Jewish Zionists like apartheid. They just like Israel fulfilling what they understand to be a divine mandate; they additionally identify with Israeli rhetoric about being tough to survive in a hostile region; and they consider politicians who are comfortable with pressure on Israel to be opponents of their broader conservative agenda. (Probably a correct calculation.) As long as American politicians make the -- frankly correct -- democratic political calculation that there are more votes in Post-Jewish Zionism than there are in liberal Zionism, Israel won't face American pressure. And as Goldberg and everyone else correctly observes, there is very little time left on Israel's demographic clock before Zionism faces a full-blown crisis.
I don't disagree with Ackerman about the priorities of conservative Christian "Zionists" (I'm not sure I would label what they believe "Zionism,' because their beliefs don't have much to do with the reasons actual political Zionism came into existence, but you should pardon the digression). What I don't fully accept is the notion that evangelical Christians are a) truly devoted in a permanent way to the cause of Israel, and b) that their current commitment is deep and abiding, and c) they possess the political infrastructure to protect, over time, Israel in the American foreign policy debate.