A serious influence of the religious factor on the domestic and foreign policy of the state is inherent in both the Islamic and Christian worlds. The problem of interaction and interrelation between the ideas of Evangelical Christians in the United States and the development of American-Israeli relations, which in turn influence the formation of the Middle East strategy of American administrations in general, is in the focus of attention of many American scientists and publicists and requires scientific and theoretical understanding by Russian Orientalists.

Keywords: USA, Israel, evangelicals, foreign policy.

page 111
The foreign policy of the United States, the place and role of this country in the modern world are the research topics of many scientists. It should be noted, however, that the modern system of international relations has not yet developed and that this is unlikely to happen in the near future: trends are constantly changing, new factors are emerging that need to be taken into account when forming a foreign policy strategy. The Ukrainian crisis and Russia's position, new accents in transatlantic relations between the US and the EU in connection with the situation in Ukraine and the problem of gas supplies to Europe, the growing influence of China on the processes taking place in the world, the activities of the Islamic State terrorist organization (IS) and other factors are evidence of the lack of formation of the system.

When analyzing US foreign policy activities at the present stage, it is necessary to take into account traditional domestic political aspects and problems, as well as newly emerging trends. Professor of the University of Missouri M. Rochester, discussing the term "foreign policy", asks the question: if it is understood as a carefully developed system of actions in international relations that must be followed, does it exist in most states, including the United States? And if there is a clear plan of action, can politicians always follow it in practice? [Rochester, 2008, p. 21-34].

Given the conventionality of the term "foreign policy", M. Rochester tries to give his own, more realistic definition. In his opinion, foreign policy can be considered as a set of many necessary topical decisions, which do not always have a unifying beginning. All decisions made can be divided into several categories: subject-matter (issue-area) and situational (situational setting). While the subject category can include issues of economic policy and national security policy, the situational category is more complex and can include solutions at the macro and micro levels [Ibid.].

The rhetorical question of whether the United States needs a foreign policy is posed by H. Kissinger in his monograph of the same name. The main ideas of his work, published in 2001, have a new interpretation in the light of modern events.: "The legacy of the 1990s was a certain paradox in international relations. On the one hand, the United States has enough military power and political influence to insist and defend its position, which often leads to accusations of hegemony. On the other hand, the need to export American ideas reflects a domestic political necessity; the maximization of American ideals is a legacy of the Cold War" [Kissinger, 2001, p. 18-21].

According to H. Kissinger, "the current debate about American foreign policy largely concerns abstract categories: the American value system or the state interest, idealism or realism" [Ibid.].

The positions of H. Kissinger and M. Rochester have a lot in common: they believe that theories and abstract categories do not fully take into account the real state of international affairs, and, therefore, cannot guarantee an adequate solution to existing problems.

The recent escalation of the situation in Iraq in connection with the activities of the "Islamic State", the spread of its ideas to the territory of Syria and in general to events in the Middle East make us think about the real tasks of American Middle East policy. A number of American experts, including A. D. Miller, give a negative assessment of the US mediation role in resolving the Middle East problem, draw attention to the ruinous nature of the US-Israeli bilateral link in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and call on the United States government to radically change the approach to the settlement, making it more balanced, which will avoid negative consequences in the future [Miller, 2014].

page 112
When analyzing the process of making domestic and foreign policy decisions in the United States, it is necessary to pay attention to the characteristic features of the functioning of the American political system, namely, lobbying interests through various branches of government. This process is an integral part of decision-making and is reflected in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. [http://bulk.resource.org], which was revised in 1995 (Lobbying Disclosure Act [www.senate.gov].

J. Miersheimer and S. Walt's book" The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy " details the mechanisms, methods, and levers of influence used by pro-Israel groups in Washington to lobby for their interests. The authors note that it is extremely difficult to derive a definition of the "Israel lobby", since this is only a collective image of all those who are not indifferent to Israel and are ready to take an active part in shaping the American pro-Israel agenda [Mearsheimer, Walt, 2007, p. 234]. In addition to well-known groups that lobby for Israel's interests in the United States, such as the American-Israeli Public Relations Committee (AIPAC), the American Zionist Organization (ZOA), and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), J. Miersheimer mentions evangelical Christians, whom he calls "The Christian Zionists".

The interpretation of the Bible by evangelicals implies the existence of close cultural and religious ties between Evangelism, the State of Israel and Jews, although during the existence of this religious movement in the United States, there has been a noticeable evolution of Christian-evangelical ideas. Moreover, religious ideas of evangelicalism are beginning to be politicized due to their mass distribution (according to various estimates, there are from 50 to 100 million representatives of this religious trend in the United States) [Brog, 2014].

DISPENSATIONALISM AND ITS IMPACT ON THE IDEAS OF AMERICAN EVANGELICALS

The concept of "dispensationalism" (from the English dispensation - distribution, commandments) in this context implies the division of human history into epochs, which correspond to different interpretations of the biblical commandments. Their interpretation by the Irish preacher John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) became very famous.

One of the ideas of dispensationalism is that Israel and the Church are two different entities. The special role assigned to Israel and the Jews did not lose its significance with the advent of Christianity and the Church in the world, and the promises made by God to Abraham and the Jews ("The Book of Genesis") remain relevant today. According to J. R. R. Tolkien: Darby, there are two sacred planes: one for the "mortals" on Earth, which are the Jews, and the other for the "saints", which is the Church. Biblical prophecies are clearly divided and relate to either one or the other group, and God cannot help both at once and chooses only one-depending on time and circumstances, which obviously determines the impossibility of two groups to unite.

In the nineteenth century, dispensationalists constantly reminded believers that God had promised Abraham to restore the Jews to a state in the Holy Land. It is noteworthy that such statements were made only a few decades before the first Zionist Congress of 1897, and some dispensationalists even participated in promoting the ideas of Zionism, calling for the creation of the State of Israel. Perhaps the most active participant in this process was W. E. Blackston (1841-1935; in 1918, at the Zionist conference in Philadelphia, he was called the "father of Zionism"). In 1878, Blaxton wrote the book Jesus is Coming, which was reprinted three times, translated into 42 languages, and eventually became the first bestseller.-

page 113
the leader of dispensationalists in America [Weber, 1998]. However, despite the enthusiasm and great contribution of individual American dispensationalists to the promotion of Zionism, their ideas did not gain much support among Americans in the nineteenth century. The real rise of pro-Israel sentiment among evangelicals occurred in the 1950s and 1960s after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and as a result of the first Arab-Israeli War (1947-1949), the Suez Crisis of 1956, and the Six-Day War of 1967.

Dispensationalists regarded the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 as the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy and as a sign that Israel enjoyed God's special favor. Even today, dispensationalists claim that Jews remain a distinct ethnic group in the eyes of God. Another important postulate of the evangelicals is: The Holy Land is the epicenter of events leading up to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Israel will be the place where the miracle is to be performed again, and the Jews will be the chosen people who will be the first to meet the son of God. Those who are friendly with Israel are also considered the chosen ones.

According to dispensationalists, God gave people a sign by returning the Jews to their state in 1948. Until then, dispensationalists believed that the Jewish people were paying the price for the mistakes of their ancestors, who did not recognize Christ and were deprived of "home" and"land." God forced the Jews to wander the world and bestowed His mercy on the "other group" - the Church, which was to replace the Jewish people indefinitely, becoming the "New Israel". Dispensationalists call this period the" Great Interlude " (The Great Parenthesis).

The events that took place in the Middle East after 1948 were interpreted by evangelical Christians as if the world was preparing for the return of Jesus Christ, because they sincerely believed and believe that the Jews received the State of Israel from God, and not from the UN General Assembly (according to a Pew Research survey, 44% of Americans, in particular Among them, 82% of white evangelicals believe that Israel was given to the Jews by the Lord God) [Miller, 2014, p. 13].

The consequences of the 1967 Six-Day War were even more significant for evangelicals. As you know, during the pre-emptive military operation, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, annexed the Golan Heights, and gained control of Jerusalem. Now the territory of Israel for the evangelists was more like the outline of the"Biblical lands". Israel's military successes were seen by evangelicals in the United States as further confirmation that God is on the side of the Jews and helping them to regain their ancestral Jewish lands.

A new stage in relations between Evangelicals and Israel occurred in the 1970s. The strong pro-Israel sentiment among evangelical Americans predestined the Israeli authorities ' awareness of the importance of this support.

The ideas of dispensationalism have gained many supporters and thanks to the works of X. Lindsey. In 1970, a book by this writer, The Late Great Planet, was published (Lindsey, 1971). Lindsay attempted to explain the world's events through the lens of dispensationalist teaching. The book was translated into 54 languages and recognized as the best literary work of the 1970s [Miller, 2014, p. 13].

Another popular literary work was the saga of T. Lahaye and J. R. R. Tolkien. Jenkins '"Abandoned" (LaHaye and Jenkins, 1995). 16 parts of the book were published from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. They told about the fate of humanity after the End of the world. The description of events reflected the essence of the ideas of dispensationalists.

By the early 1980s, the popularity of these ideas began to pay political dividends. Conservative evangelicals had a direct impact on the political processes in the United States. Religious and political associations such as The Moral Majority (founded in 1979 by the well-known evangelical leader J. Falwell) and the Religious Round Table were established. -

page 114
table")1. These groups contributed to the victory of Republican candidate Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. Reagan's trusting and friendly relationship with the leader of the" Moral Majority "J. Falwell was also reflected in the nature of the relationship between evangelicals and the right-wing Likud party government in Israel at that time. During the Reagan presidency, the Israeli authorities received $ 3 billion annually in grants and U.S. support during the United Nations discussion of Israel's military operation in Lebanon in 1982. Falwell, who spoke openly about the absolute support of Israel in the Middle East, explaining their position by the presence of common US-Israeli interests and goals in the region.

The emergence of conservative evangelical organizations in the United States, the intensification of informal contacts between Israeli politicians and right-wing evangelicals (sometimes referred to as American Christian Zionists), and, as a result, the direct influence of evangelical ideas on American foreign policy provoked a response from moderate leaders of various Christian denominations in the United States. In 1984, the leaders of 24 liberal religious organizations, including Protestants, Catholics, and other religious groups, attempted to join forces to counterbalance the excessive influence of extreme right-wing evangelical religious and political movements, and created their own organization, Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP)). The purpose of this association was to promote a more balanced and balanced approach to the peace settlement process in the region.

However, an attempt by liberal Protestant denominations to balance the far-right aspirations of American evangelicals with their ideas was unsuccessful at the time. This can be partly explained by the personality and religious beliefs of the American president himself. According to Professor D. Wagner of North Park University (Chicago), " Reagan himself was an ardent supporter of the ideas of Christian Zionists. Support for the State of Israel was explained both by the strategic political calculations of the president and his personal ideas about the ideas of dispensationalism "[Wagner, 1998, p. 1020].

Reagan thought in terms of good and evil when forming his policies. In the realities of the Cold War, this meant the end of "detente" and the beginning of another round of tension in relations with the USSR, the arms race, the SDI program, the euro-missile crisis, the Reagan doctrine. At the same time, the president managed to raise the morale of Americans, instill faith in their own strength and that the United States is the country that is called upon to fight the "world evil" and bring the ideals of democracy and freedom to people.

The late 1980s and early 1990s were a period of global change, changing priorities, and the disappearance of traditional "enemies" of the United States. Reagan's two presidential terms ended with the election of his vice President, George W. Bush. Although the new American president's Middle East policy was characterized by caution and realism, the influence of evangelicals in America and their support for the State of Israel remained. This was partly due to global political changes: the collapse of the bipolar system and the end of the cold war meant that new rules of the game were being developed and a new role for the United States was being defined. Unlike his predecessor, J. R. R. Tolkien, Bush could not afford to be guided by the old categories and

1 Most researchers attribute the growing political activity of evangelicalism to the emergence of the "Moral Majority"in 1979. The organization quickly became a powerful lobbying group for both domestic political initiatives (the issue of abortion, the rights of sexual minorities, religious education, etc.) and foreign policy initiatives (primarily support for Israel).

page 115
it had to provide an adequate response to new challenges, while acting extremely cautiously in the new conditions.

Being a deeply religious man and holding conservative religious views, George Bush, like Reagan, was influenced by the ideas of evangelicals and sympathized with Israel. In Middle East politics, Bush's caution has given rise to the concept of the" immaturity " of the Arab-Israeli conflict.2 The United States continued to provide financial and political support to Israel, but at the same time contributed to the preparation and holding of the Madrid peace Conference (October 1991). The Madrid conference was not perceived by the American leadership as a breakthrough in resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute. It was only a reflection of the new alignment of forces favorable to the United States in the region after the end of Operation Desert Storm (1991).

The tenure of a Democratic representative in the 1990s did not lead to a decline in support for Israel, although it was usually Republicans who were firm supporters of the Jewish state. Moreover, according to a number of experts, including J. Miersheimer and S. Walt, the peacekeeping initiatives initiated by the Clinton administration aimed at the final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were clearly pro-Israeli in nature. Presented as American peace plans, even "U. N. Parameters". Clinton" reflected the views of Israeli politicians rather than the American intermediary [Laquer W., Rubin B., 2001, p. 562].

As J. Miersheimer writes in his book, according to one of the participants in the US peace talks, " Israeli proposals were often presented to the Palestinian delegation as American ideas. There is nothing surprising in the statements of the members of the Palestinian delegation that they are negotiating with two Israeli teams: one under the Israeli flag, the other under the American flag " [Mearsheimer and Walt, 2007, p. 365].

Clinton's "Middle East team" was largely pro-Israel: M. Indyk (head of the Middle East Department at the National Security Council), his closest friend and associate D. Ross (US Special Representative for the Middle East and the main participant in the negotiation process in the Clinton team), S. Lewis (head of the political planning department at the State Department Former US Ambassador to Israel), A.D. Miller (Adviser to the US Secretary of State) and others did not hide their sympathies for Israel. Many of the statesmen were Jewish Americans with close ties to the Jewish community in the United States and the pro-Israel lobby.

The period of the Clinton presidency showed that pro-Israeli sentiments in the US ruling circles do not always directly depend on party affiliation: under favorable circumstances for the Middle East peace process, and such were the circumstances during the Clinton presidency, any American leader could count on public support if the peace plans reflected the interests of Israel. However, unlike his predecessors, Clinton was more liberal in politics, and his sympathies for Israel and contributions to the Middle East settlement process were a reflection of the president's personal worldview, which was partly influenced by religious ideas and dogmas. 3
2 Richard Haass, who headed the Middle East Department at the National Security Council, made a significant contribution to shaping the Middle East policy of the Bush administration. It was Haass who started using the expressions "maturity" and "immaturity" in relation to conflict. This thesis was largely based on an understanding of the fact that the active actions of previous US administrations in order to achieve peace in the Middle East were counterproductive.

3 W. Clinton is an adherent of the Baptist Church. The ideas of premillianism were also very popular among American Baptists, which explains the Baptist Church's defense of the State of Israel.

page 116
The 2000 presidential election was won by the Republican Party and George W. Bush, whose activities were largely influenced by the events of September 11, 2001. Without going into the details of the neoconservative domestic and foreign policy agenda, it should be noted that evangelicals who tend to share conservative values have welcomed the changes that have affected the style and nature of American politics. However, the practical application of neoconservative ideas predetermined the beginning of military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reconfiguration of the Middle East conflict, and the emergence of the idea of democratizing the Greater Middle East.

The global nature of George W. Bush's foreign policy activities, with an emphasis on humanitarian and geopolitical aspects, caused a blurring of the essence of the cultural and religious component of bilateral US-Israeli relations. In the new context of the fight against global terrorism, Israel was seen as a state of geostrategic importance, the only democratic ally of the United States in the region. The continued construction of Jewish settlements, the construction of the" security wall", the occupation of the West Bank, and the refusal of the Israeli authorities to end the occupation regime - all this only made it more difficult to solve the global challenges facing the United States, and negatively affected US-Israeli relations. Bush's policy was criticized by the Israeli lobby, including American evangelicals, who saw the president's actions as a threat to Israel's interests.

B. OBAMA'S POLICY AND ITS IMPACT ON EVANGELICALS IN THE UNITED STATES

The 2008 presidential election brought victory to the Democratic candidate Barack Obama. He won because of promises to raise the standard of living of Americans and achieve greater efficiency in public administration. According to a Gallup poll, 53% of Catholics, 47% of Protestants and 78% of Jews voted for Obama. A survey conducted by this foundation after 100 days of his presidency showed that the head of state was supported by 67% of Catholics, 58% of Protestants and 79% of Jews [Comparison..However, a year later, leading religious organizations based on their own surveys revealed a significant decline in support for Obama among the main religious denominations. According to the Barna Group, in February 2010, 42% of Americans surveyed were not satisfied with the activities of the American president. Among evangelical Christians, only 18% were satisfied with Barack Obama's policy, of which 25% said that the American president was more liberal than they expected. The president was supported by 23% of Protestants. Only 46% of respondents were satisfied with the president's policies in the Middle East, while the same indicator among evangelicals was only 30% [Christian support...].

According to the latest data from the Gallup Institute, for the period from July 20 to October 19, 2014 (the so-called 23rd quarter of the presidential term), support for Obama is rapidly falling and approaching the indicators of the lowest rating in the history of George W. Bush: 41.5% of support for Obama and 39.1% for Bush for the same period.

Among Protestants in the first six months of 2014 (from January to June) The level of support for Obama fell by 6% - from 43 to 37%, among Jews-by 7% - from 62 to 55%. And even among American Muslims, who were initially the strongest supporters of Obama, the level of support is decreasing: from 77% on average in 2009-2014 to 72% in the period from January to June 2014 [Comparison...]. These data are not only important for understanding the general trends in American society, but also show that Find out how closely religion and politics are interlinked in the United States.

page 117
American society, on the one hand, is deeply religious, on the other hand, it is quite tolerant due to the wide variety of religious denominations and trends. The religious component plays an important role not only in periods of high political activity, such as presidential elections, but also the successes and failures of domestic and foreign policy are clearly recorded by religious groups and mark the attitude of American society to power.

Since 2010, the teachings of evangelical Christians, which were formed under the influence of dispensationalist ideas, have developed new provisions that allowed experts to declare the declining support for Israel by American evangelicals and the emergence of a new religious trend called "neo-Evangelism", or progressive dispensationalism. The essence of the new ideas is that evangelical Christians should be more critical of the basic tenets of dispensationalism, which call for support for Israel in conditions when not all actions of the Israeli authorities towards the Palestinians are correct. The policy of Israel, which enjoys the support of Washington and evangelicals, is considered ineffective, often provocative, infringing on the rights of Palestinians and not aimed at a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

One of the most well-known evangelical organizations, Telos Group, actively promotes new ideas, declaring itself as " pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-American and pro-peace." Despite its relatively small size, compared to, for example, the largest evangelical organization in the United States, Christians United For Israel (CUFI), Talos Group has an influence on the younger generation, which causes discontent among conservative leaders of evangelical organizations.

One of the leaders of CUFI D. Brog wrote in 2014 that the long-standing and unconditional support of American evangelicals for Israel is rapidly declining. He cites figures from a public opinion survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life among participants of the Third World Congress of Evangelicals, held in Cape Town (South Africa). It found that 30% of American evangelicals in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict support Israel, 13% sympathize with the Palestinians, and 49% support both sides equally. According to Brog, these data reflect a deep split among American evangelicals, especially since just a few years ago the very question of sympathy for the Palestinians was inappropriate. The main reason for the crisis, according to Brog, lies in the fact that anti-Israeli sentiments that have spread among adherents of other Christian movements and Palestinian Christians living in the United States have begun to exert a noticeable influence on the views of young evangelicals, forcing them to be critical of the ideas of dispensationalism [Brog, 2014]. The emergence of such trends was largely promoted by the media. In 2010 In the United States, two films were released that changed the worldview of many young evangelicals: "Little Town of Bethlehem "and" Christ at the Checkpoint". The authors of the films tried to answer the questions: is Israel really a country that needs the support of evangelicals? What would have been the fate of Jesus Christ if he had been a Palestinian?

The reaction of conservative evangelical organizations to the emerging split was more active propaganda of the Israeli government's activities. At the CUFI Annual Congress in Washington, D.C., on July 21-22, 2014, evangelical leaders called for continued support for Israel. One of them, Charles Krauthammer, noted that "I do not know of any other organization that would be as important to Israel as CUFI" [Richman, www.commentarymagazine.com/topics/cufi/ 08.10.2014].

Increased pro-Israel rhetoric, seen as one way to overcome the existing divide, indicates a threat to conservative evangelicals.-

page 118
list values. In turn, other experts believe that the processes taking place in American evangelicalism are nothing more than an evolution of the ideas of dispensationalism [Miller, 2014]. Moreover, these processes affect not so much the religious essence of evangelicalism, but its political component and concern only young Christians who must decide for themselves whether to support Israel or take a neutral position in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The processes observed in American society today, including the crisis of confidence of American voters in the government as a whole and in the current American president, reflect the problems that many current states have faced.

V. V. Naumkin, a well-known Russian scientist, author of numerous studies on history, political science and Oriental studies, analyzes the problems of identity that have become more acute in the modern world using various examples in his work "The problem of civilizational identification and the crisis of nation-states". In particular, he refers to the classification of concepts of sovereignty, proposed by the American F. R. Tolkien. Bobbitt, who refers the United States to the third type of concepts - the so-called transparent sovereignty, the essence of which is that sovereignty is based on the "contract" of the state with the people. Such an understanding of sovereignty gives the state additional legitimate powers in the sphere of foreign policy. In other words, sovereignty does not belong to the American state, but to the American people and implies the consent of the people to the policy pursued by the state through the existing agreement between citizens and the state [Naumkin, 2014, p.17]. From this statement, we can conclude that a violation of the terms of the "contract" by one of the parties is fraught with a crisis of the entire state system.

In this regard, it is necessary to pay attention to the second trend concerning the role of evangelical organizations in American politics. Against the background of the general discontent of Americans with the policy of B. Obama, a number of religious denominations, including evangelicals, accuse the president of oppressing Christians in the United States and undermining the foundations of the Christian faith.

In August 2014, one of the American religious portals published a list of actions committed by Barack Obama during the years of his presidency, which make it possible to consider him hostile to Christians. In addition to minor offenses, such as the release of Christmas cards with images of pets in 2009 at the initiative of the president, there were also more serious ones, such as violations of religious freedom in the army. So, in February 2012, during a solemn ceremony held at the West Point Military Academy, Distinguished General of the US Army W. Boykin was not allowed to make a speech, accusing him of ultra-Christian views. In April 2013, another scandal broke out in the US army due to the fact that officers during the briefing of subordinates attributed Catholicism and Christian Evangelicalism to the manifestations of religious extremism.

The list also includes cases that allegedly indicate that Obama prefers Islam more than the Christian religion. In May 2009, the President did not host the traditional reception at the White House on the occasion of the National Day of Prayer, but instead organized a celebration to mark the end of Ramadan. In addition, the American president has repeatedly stated the need to build a mosque on the site of the destroyed September 11, 2001. However, he did not comment on the refusal of the city authorities to build a Christian church on this site [Barton, 2014].

Criticism of the "anti-Christian" policy of Barack Obama, and in his person the entire Democratic Party, reflects the general mood of representatives of all Christian movements and denominations in the United States, covering not only a significant part of the population, but also the absolute majority of American voters.

page 119
* * *

Despite the fact that American evangelical organizations, especially those that adhere to the ideas of dispensationalism and call for unconditional support for the State of Israel, are now being criticized by the American administration, there is some ferment in their own ranks. However, the degree of participation of these associations in the political life of the United States remains high. At the same time, it is unlikely that the religious values of evangelicalism can become the force that will help the Republican Party in the 2016 elections, since the pro-Israel component of the political views of evangelical Christians not only does not find support among other religious groups and trends, but also is potentially conflicting in the current crisis of American political ideas and values, which is This is partly reflected in the ineffectiveness of American policy in the Middle East.

list of literature

Naumkin V. V. Problema tsivilizatsionnoi identifikatsii i krizis natsii-gosudarstv [The problem of civilizational identification and the crisis of nation-states]. 2014, Jfe 4.

Bailey S.P. American Evangelicals' Support for Israel is WaningWaning // Religion News Service. 04.09.2014.

Barton D. Americas Most Biblically-Hostile US President // www.wallbuilders.com/libiissuesarticles.asp?id=106938.

Bobbil P. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. N.Y.: Anchor Books, 2009.

Brog D. The End of Evangelical Support for Israel? // Middle East Quaterly.Spring 2014.

Burge G.M. Arc Evangelicals Abandoning Israel? // https://www.cbsco.com/.

Christian Support for Obama Declines? // www.barna.org/barna-update/leadership February 19, 2010.

Clinton B. My Life. N.Y. 2004.

Comparison of President Obama s January-June 2014 Job Approval to His Presidency's Average, by Religion //www.gallup.com/poll/172442.

Fukuyama F. America in Decay; the Sources of Political Dysfunction // Foreign Affairs. September-October 2014.

Kissinger H. Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century. N.Y., 2001.

La Haye T., Jenkins J. Left Behind. Whcaton, 1995.

Lindsey H. The Late Great planet Earth. Grand Rapids, 1971.

Laquer W., Rubin B. The Israel-Arab Reader: a Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict. N.Y., 2001.

Mcarsheimcr J.T., Walt S.M. Israel Lobby and the US Foreign Policy. N.Y., 2007.

Miller A.D. The Much too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace. N.Y., 2008.

Miller P. D. Evangelicals, Israel and US Foreign Policy // Survival. Vol. 56. N 1. February-March 2014.

Richman R. Israel's Friend in Need // www.commentarymagazine.com/topics/cufi/08.10.2014.

Rochester J.M. US Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Gulliver's Travails // Westview Press, 2008.

Wagner D. Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a Political Alliance // Christian Century. 11.04.98. Vol. 115. Issue 3.

Weber T. How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend // Christianity Today. October 5, 1998.

http://bulk.resource.org.

www.senate.gov.

page 120

Permanent link to this publication: