Proclaiming Justice with Laurie Cardoza Moore

Laurie Cardoza Moore: I'm intrigued by this book that you've written because, of course, I love history and the Bible, of course, connecting to Britain, the Bible, and Balfour. That's great. But tell me about your interest in connecting Britain with the Bible and how that connects to Balfour.

Jonathan Immanuel: I think the origin of the book was in a thought that I had. How come when we talk about Christian Zionism, it's always in English? Why is it not in French? It is not in German. It is not in Italian. It is in English. So the origin of Christian Zionism, it seemed to me, must have been in England.

So I checked that out. Well, we knew about the Puritans, and so we knew something about their tendency to value the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible. But I wondered, how did the Puritans come into being? Because they were rather different from Protestants in other countries, like Germany. So I moved further back until I think the buck stopped at Henry VIII.

Why Henry VIII? Well, because before Henry VIII, there was no consideration of this question of the Jews at all. There were no Jews living in England even in the time of Henry VIII. Britain, England, was very little different from other European countries when it came to talking about the Jews. In fact, they were worse because they expelled the Jews in 1290.

At that time, there were still Jews living happily in Spain for the next two centuries. They were only there for 200 years before they were thrown out. During the time that they were there, England managed two theological theories. One was the blood libel, which accused Jews of killing Christian children and using their blood to make Passover matzah.

The other was coin clipping, which was not so much of a theological issue, but certainly treading on the host and that sort of thing because England was then a Catholic country. Basically, the Jews had a very miserable time there. So that was 1290. Now in 1500, things had not changed much. Even in Tudor times, there was quite a lot of antisemitism. I don't think you can say that Shylock is not a character that inspires antisemitism, and that was by Shakespeare, and Shakespeare was a very great writer, so he also was part of the atmosphere of the time.

Then in 1500, Henry VII was king of England. Now, Henry VII came to power by killing the previous king. This is what England was like. It was a somewhat savage country, and there had been a civil war, dynastic wars for nearly 100 years. It was called the Hundred Years' War.

In 1500, Henry VII managed to betroth his son, his heir Arthur, to the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. Now, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain were the gracious monarchs in Christendom at the time. It would be like some commoner marrying into the royal family, even more so.

Ferdinand and Isabella, you might ask, what did they see in this English king? Well, they saw one thing in particular because it was written into the marriage contract that the king was committed not to permit Jews to enter England. That was a condition. That was a condition they made in every marriage contract. They made it with Portugal too, but in that case, they had to throw out the Jews. In England, there were no Jews, so there was nobody to throw out. So Henry VII consented, and his son was betrothed to Catherine of Spain.

However, Catherine of Spain's beloved Arthur died very shortly afterwards at the age of 15. This created a problem because it ruptured the marital alliance with Spain, and both countries wanted it, especially England. So fortunately, Henry VII had another son whose name was Henry, and he was betrothed to Catherine.

However, when it came time to get married, because he was only 10 years old, there was a problem. The problem was a theological problem, consanguinity. You could not marry your brother's wife because you are of the same blood as your brother.

And there is a verse, in fact, I read King Henry VIII's Bible in the British Library, and he has a finger drawn pointing to a verse in Leviticus which says you shall not uncover your brother's nakedness or your brother's wife's nakedness. That is uncovering your brother's nakedness, forbidden. Now, that's in Leviticus, not in the New Testament. But the New Testament or canon law, Christian canon law, barred marriage of a brother to his brother's wife, presumably after the brother died.

So they needed a special dispensation from the Pope. The Pope could overrule anything he wanted if he wanted. So Ferdinand and Isabella had power over the Pope, and they said, dispensation. So they got the dispensation, and Henry was able to marry his brother's widow.

And they were married for 20 years or so, but after 20 years, Henry was a little upset. He wanted to annul his marriage because his wife had no sons. He needed an heir. Now, this is not a joke. There are many novels written about King Henry VIII and his six wives, and many of them talk about his lust for this woman or that woman. But this was not a question of lust. He was able to fulfill whatever lust he wanted to fulfill. He needed a legitimate heir. That means he needed a queen to bear his son. That means he had to annul his marriage to Catherine because there was no such thing as divorce and remarry.

However, to do that, he needed a dispensation from the Pope. And the Pope would not give it. Now, the Pope would not give it because Spain would not allow it. So Henry deduced Spain and Rome are in league to ruin England. And I'm not sure that he was wrong in this. Spain was absolutely interested in ruining England or diminishing England's authority, and Rome went along with it. And there is no doubt that Spain had power over the Pope.

So Henry decided, well, what am I to do? Shall I just decide unilaterally that I will annul the marriage to my wife? And he said, that's not a good idea because then my heir will be illegitimate. I will be excommunicated. My subjects might revolt against me. There's no point in that. It has to be done theologically.

But how am I going to do that theologically if the Pope himself says it's not theological? Actually, the New Testament really forbade it. Jesus was very strict on this matter of marital relationships. You couldn't divorce a faithful wife, and Catherine was faithful. I mean, there was no doubt about it. So the Pope could have given the dispensation, but he was within his right not to give it. So Henry looked for a way out.

And he turned to the Hebrew Bible. He turned to Moses. As I said, he pointed to the rule in Leviticus. He said, if it's true that in canon law you cannot marry your brother's wife because of consanguinity, well, that's actually written here in the Hebrew Bible. You don't need to go to the New Testament. You don't need to go to Christianity to know that. That means that the law in canon law must be based on Moses. Moses' law is the basis of Christian canon law. So obviously, Moses is an authority that I can go with.

So he felt he had a theological basis in the Old Testament. Then, of course, there is much more in the Old Testament, in the Hebrew Bible, on this matter. I mean, there is the fact that nevertheless, if your brother dies without an heir, you should bear a son on his behalf. Now, also, you will remain childless if you sleep with your brother's wife. Now, childless, what does that mean? A boy or a girl? Well, since there's another verse in Deuteronomy that says you will be heirless, you won't have a son, it seems quite easy to interpret the childless as meaning sonless, without an heir.

So he said, well, I don't have an heir. I don't have a son. So obviously, I have violated the law. I have violated the law of Moses. Anyway, so this goes on, and the Pope is not moved by this, and he sends an envoy to England. And Henry says to the envoy, you tell the Pope that the law of Moses is more important than the Pope.

Now, what's interesting here is this is already after the Reformation. Luther also chimed in, and he said, he was against the divorce, and he said the law of Moses is fit only for the Jews. We no longer are compelled to observe the law of Moses because our law comes from Jesus.

So you see there is a direction in which England, the royal family, is moving. It's a moving away from the Catholic faith. However, Henry did not see himself as not a Catholic. He was very anti-Luther. He burned Lutherans, in fact. And he forbade the reading of the Bible because the Catholic Church forbade the reading of the Bible.

But there was a problem here, and he knew that he was going to be excommunicated now if he unilaterally annulled the marriage with his wife. So he made every male in the country sign a document approving his annulment and approving his marriage to Anne Boleyn, whom you probably have heard of. And this perhaps was the first time that the entire population, male population of the country, had been involved in voicing their opinions. Of course, their opinions had to be what Henry demanded in this case.

Because people who would not sign, like Thomas More and John Fisher, who actually complained to Henry that by taking the Hebrew Bible and actually consulting with Jews, he had emissaries consulting with Jews in Italy to find out how they observed their laws now, you were basically replacing the Catholic Bible with the Hebrew Bible, and you can't do that. Well, that's what he was doing.

So here he was forcing every male in the country to approve what he had done. And these people were Catholics. They said, why are we being forced to abrogate the Pope? They didn't quite understand. It took them a while to understand. But the point was, as a result, they wanted to know what did Moses say? At least give us the right to see what the Bible says about it, and not just expect us to sign on the dotted line.

So Henry understood that it would be in his interest to open the Bible to the people. He didn't want the people to own the Bible, but he put a large Bible, not a pocket Bible, a very large Bible, which he chained to every parish church. And it was open to certain pages under the supervision of his clergy, he now being basically the Pope in England, the head of the Church of England.

So people were able to read the verses that were so important to Henry. And they said, well, maybe there's something in that. And anyway, we don't really want to complain too much because our lives are at stake here. So slowly, this was accepted.

Well, Henry VIII died after bearing a son. Unfortunately, the son, by his third wife, died at the age of 15. And unfortunately, he did not have a brother who could replace him. So who replaced him? Well, we said he had a daughter. He had a daughter. I didn't mention, of course, that his wife actually bore three sons who all died in their first year of life.

Now, that was very serious if you read the Bible. You know about the 10th plague, the death of the firstborn son is the most serious punishment you can receive. And he had three sons who died. David committed a terrible sin, King David committed a terrible sin with Bathsheba's husband, murdered him, committed adultery, and he lost a son that he bore from that wife, Bathsheba.

But only one son. He went on to have another son who happened to be King Solomon. So David was basically forgiven. But Henry felt that he had not been forgiven, and it was too late to have a son. So one must take seriously the way he must have thought.

Anyway, so after he died, his son also died, so his daughter Mary, who was a Catholic, a convinced Catholic, very resentful towards her father, was considered the legitimate heir. Now, you might say, well, why did the English accept her as the legitimate heir? Well, she was the daughter of Henry VIII. And so if anybody else was to become king or queen, he would somehow be a usurper.

Also, Mary had signed a document promising to adhere to her father's Act of Supremacy. So it looked all right. And anyway, Henry himself had been kind of quasi-Catholic. He was still Catholic. So if she was quasi-Catholic and accepted the Church of England, that was fine. Even today, people don't know quite what the Church of England is. Is it more Catholic or more Protestant?

So she became queen, and what did she do? Well, she married the crown prince of Spain. The crown prince of Spain was the son of the Holy Roman Emperor, who had enforced the Pope not to annul his marriage. In other words, he was fully on the side of Mary.

And he then, very cleverly, abdicated the Spanish throne. He had the Spanish throne, and he was also Holy Roman Emperor. He abdicated, so what happened when he abdicated? His son, the crown prince, became the king of Spain. The king of Spain was married to the queen of England. This is exactly the nightmare that Henry VIII was afraid of if a woman became queen.

That had never happened in England, or well, it did happen very briefly once, and there was a civil war as a result because the husband tried to take over. Well, that's a bad scene. And of course, what happened? She burned at the stake most of Henry VIII's advisors, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had annulled her mother's marriage.

And many of what you would call the gentry fled the country. Who were these gentry? These were minor landowners who had received land when Henry VIII decided to confiscate Catholic Church lands and sold them. He sold them to the nobility. Nobility sold them on to more regular people. So the lands were divided among many people.

And these many people were not interested in seeing a return to Rome because a return to Rome might mean that their newly bought lands might be confiscated from them. So of course, they were anti-Rome. But that was their natural tendencies, being urban people often.

And so they fled. They fled the country. Where did they flee to? Well, to Protestant lands. The most prominent Protestant land at that time was Geneva, Calvin's Geneva. So they lived in Calvin's Geneva for a few years. It was about five years until Mary, fortunately for England in that case, died without an heir. That would have been a catastrophe.

And they saw what was going on in Calvin's Geneva. Calvin, in fact, burned at the stake a Spaniard who was a scientist, who denied the Trinity. He burned him at the stake for denying the Trinity. His name was Miguel Servetus. They say that he discovered the circulation of the blood before William Harvey in England did, but he didn't live to talk about it. So he was burned at the stake.

But these Protestants who were anti-Catholic, mainly because they wanted to keep their property, were a bit stunned by this act of cruelty. And many of them were already at that time anti-Trinitarian, and they were becoming more anti-Trinitarian. And here was a fellow anti-Trinitarian burned at the stake.

So they decided they couldn't stay too long in Calvin's Geneva either. Fortunately, they had the possibility of leaving. But while they were there, they produced their own Bible, the Geneva Bible. And they brought this back to England when Elizabeth, the half-sister of Mary, became queen.

Now, Elizabeth was a totally different story from Mary. She was very tolerant even to Catholics. And the Puritans were happy even to admire her, even though they did not accept the Church of England. Because she took a hard stand against Spain and Rome. Not because she wanted to, but because Spain and Rome were taking a hard stand against her.

We had Mary there. That was all very good. Philip II might have become king of England. Elizabeth was excommunicated. There were many assassination attempts against her. And then, of course, Spain invaded England with its Armada. This is what I call the first Battle of Britain, because had they succeeded, they might have occupied Britain and restored Catholicism.

So it was a very serious time. And Elizabeth played the role of Churchill, more or less, and inspired the people to acts of great patriotism. Religion now was less important than English nationalism. And this is where the Puritans came in because Elizabeth died. She was replaced by a nephew because she didn't get married. She didn't have any children. And this nephew was brought up as Presbyterian, but his mother had been a Catholic, and he wanted to make peace, which is kind of reasonable. He wanted to make peace with Spain after the terrible and traumatic period of English relations with Spain under Elizabeth.

This was resented very much by the Puritans, who had come back to England. And we've got to remember that they were growing in number all the time, and their numbers in the Parliament were growing all the time. So they're about three-fourths of Parliament members in 1610, which was a year before the King James Bible, which we all admire, was published.

It was published basically to invalidate the Geneva Bible, which was in common use at the time, but was more anti-monarchical than, of course, the King James version. So in 1610, King James entered the Parliament to make a speech. And during that speech, he said, you've got to understand that the kings are like God. He believed in divine right. This is what he believed. And this was understood to be the case in the centuries past.

And these members of Parliament stood up and said, excuse me, but according to the law of Moses, that is not correct. And he said, I tell you that the law of Moses was fit for one people, one country, and one time. And he stormed out. But he understood that he had a certain kind of potential enemy here.

He survived, but his son Charles carried on the tradition of James, also believed in divine right. He produced a Book of Common Prayer. The Book of Common Prayer was read by Puritans, and they said, this is much too Catholic, much too Catholic. We can't accept this. And he tried to impose it first of all on the Scots. Charles I and James I were also kings of Scotland. He tried to impose it on the Scots. The Scots were even more upset because they were more generally Puritan. They were Calvinists. Calvinism had been imposed upon them by John Knox.

And this started a war between the Scots and King Charles I. King Charles I came to the English Parliament and said, I need money for this war. And the English Parliament said, actually, we don't support your war. We're more inclined to support the Scots. So they refused to give him money.

Slowly, this led to the Civil War. In the time of Charles I, more than 50 percent of the Parliament members were what you would call Puritans or Presbyterians. And so the Civil War began. This is when the Puritans came into their own because they won the war.

Now, the soldiers are famous for having sung psalms as they marched into battle. But they also carried a little pocket Bible, which was full of verses from the Geneva Bible. And that Geneva Bible contained about 100 verses, 97 of those verses were from the Hebrew Bible, from the Old Testament. And in fact, I could say that the two or three that were from the New Testament were kind of pillared by quotes from the Old Testament that qualified them.

So it was very Old Testament oriented, and they had the tendency, of course, of calling themselves Israel and the enemy Babylon. And they won the war. So what happened when they won the war? Well, obviously, they proclaimed a republic because a republic was what they understood Moses to have offered the Jews.

Even when he talked about, well, you may choose a king, he followed that up by saying, I don't advise it. And in the book of Samuel, which they love to quote, the Israelites come to Samuel and say, we want a king like everybody else, like everybody else. No such thing as a republic. We want a king. And Samuel says, if you have a king, he'll take away your lands. He'll take away your lands.

And that's very important because land distribution was very equitable under Moses. Along comes James Harrington, who is a big influence on Thomas Jefferson, and he says, I've read the Bible, and the agrarian law that Moses introduced was the most fantastic, genius of all the law that could have been contrived because it meant that nobody could forever lose their property. Every 50 years, the property had to be distributed, redistributed back to the families that originally had them. And of course, in the beginning under Moses, the lands were distributed equally among the tribes.

So this was a way of maintaining equity. And Harrington came to the conclusion that the reason Charles I had lost the war was not so much because of his own sins, but because of the re-division of land. He said a king can only really reign without opposition if he's in control of most of the land, like 70 percent of the land. And of course, under Henry VII and even under Henry VIII in the early part of his reign, he controlled probably 70 percent of the land, and the church controlled 30 percent. But then he distributed the church lands, so land was redistributed. That was a big mistake from the point of view of kingship.

So basically, he said once the land is distributed in the way that it was distributed, a republic is almost inevitable because the people become much more involved, land is power. So he said it was obvious that Moses wanted a republic because he wanted to maintain this wide distribution of land. And he warned, as did Samuel, that if you don't, the king will start taking this land from you and he will become a tyrant.

And so quite reasonably, James Harrington came to the conclusion that the Bible, that God had written or God had written through Moses, ordained a republic as the divine commonwealth. So of course, in England under the Puritans who had won the war, a republic was declared.

The Presbyterians were not so happy about this because there was an idea that, well, the king has now been replaced. But they were still in favor of keeping the king as a constitutional monarch, partly because he had promised the Scots that if they sided with him, he would introduce Presbyterianism as the authoritative state church in England. Now, when you think about it, that's a huge breach of faith because he was supposed to be upholding the Church of England. Suddenly, when he's lost the war, he says, well, okay, I'll change it, right, to whatever you like.

And so the Puritans were very, very upset. I mean, breach of faith. This was a fundamental breach of faith. I mean, they were obviously closer to Presbyterianism than they were to the Church of England, but it was such a breach of faith to go behind their backs to the Scots and say we'll impose your faith if you side with me against these rascals who have tried to defeat me.

So that was why he was brought to trial, and the Presbyterians objected. They were thrown out of Parliament. So the idea of the restoration of the Jews emerged during this period. It emerged during this period partly because the Puritan faith basically wanted to undermine the Catholic faith.

They didn't believe in eternal punishment, for instance. They didn't believe in Catholic supremacy. And they thought that they themselves could replace the Catholic Church. And in Parliament, basically Hebrew scholars, there were several Hebrew scholars who extracted the laws of Moses in order to impose them on English law.

People began to think, well, if the Mosaic law is so good, shouldn't the Jews be living under their own Mosaic law in their own country? Wouldn't that show us something? James Harrington, for instance, said don't let the Jews into England because they'll never assimilate. That's not good.

But I have a better idea. Give them Ireland. Ireland was, of course, full of Catholics. Move the Catholics to the West. They weren't achieving very much; all they were doing was growing a few potatoes and they were starving most of the time. Bring the Jews in, they'll create a prosperous island, and they'll do it under Mosaic law because Mosaic law would basically inculcate the methods that would produce a prosperous country, as he believed Canaan or Judea had been.

So this was important. Well, once you start saying, well, let the Jews take over Ireland, not take over, but govern Ireland forever, he said, let them have it forever because Canaan was not available, it was under the Turks, people began thinking, well, why not think about them returning to their own land? Which is what happened.

And in fact, a petition was launched even before King Charles I was executed saying England must help the Jews return to their land. They thought Holland could also help in the matter. And as I say, the Puritans were receptive to this because, well, if the Jews return to their land, that would mean that God has forgiven them. That was the way they thought. And if God has forgiven them, then they're still in covenant with Him. And if they're still in covenant with God, then the Catholic claim to have replaced the covenant of the Jews with God is invalid.

Well, that's wonderful. That means that we are in covenant or could be in covenant with God too. Luther actually changed very little. All he did was say the Catholic Church is not in covenant with God, we are, the church of true believers. So he just replaced the Catholic Church with himself. That was why Lutheranism was never very strong in England. Calvinism was stronger. It was kind of slightly more receptive to the idea that everybody is a sinner, not just non-believers.

So that idea emerged in the 17th century. Now, many people kind of say, yes, we know about that. I mean, I can quote many Puritans who will talk about the necessity and the inevitability of the return of the Jews to their land. And there were attempts to encourage it even in the 17th century.

Now, you say we only have 15 minutes, so I can't go into great detail, but there was a situation, there was a matter of a man called Sabbatai Zevi who lived in Turkey, and he, in fact, tried to encourage the Jews to go back to Israel. Now, what's the connection between England and Sabbatai Zevi? Well, believe it or not, there is a connection because Sabbatai Zevi's audience lived in ports on the Mediterranean Sea. And by the time of his mission, England had a navy which controlled the Mediterranean Sea. It went from port to port trading, and the endpoint was a place called Smyrna, where Sabbatai Zevi lived, and his father was a shipping agent who entertained English sailors, English merchants, and he heard all about England's interests in the return of the Jews.

Now, we can't be sure how much this influenced him, but it must have had some influence on his son. And certainly, only in England was there much receptivity to the whole idea of Sabbatai Zevi. Everybody else thought it was a kind of joke. Many Jews thought it was a joke, and in the end, it fell flat because the Turkish Sultan wouldn't allow it. I mean, what this guy who thought he was just going to be able to return without an army, with nothing? Okay.

So I just mentioned that. We're at the end of the 17th century. This continued into the 18th century, although people think the 18th century was a worldly-wise century, it was a secular century, people didn't think too much about religion, but I can just quote Isaac Newton. He lived in the beginning of the 18th century, and Joseph Priestley, another scientist, lived at the end of the 18th century. Both of them were avid supporters of the idea of the Jewish restoration to their land.

So this continued through the 18th century, less stringently than in the 17th century because the Puritans had less authority, but it was still there. Which is why in the 19th century it could re-emerge. If it hadn't been there in the 18th century, it wouldn't have been able to re-emerge in some ways more powerfully than in the 17th century because now it actually influenced members of the Church of England. The Puritans were nonconformists. They were barred from Parliament all through the 18th century as dissenters. But it was taking hold of certain aspects of the Church of England. What we call the Low Church, the Low Church kind of veered towards nonconformism and the High Church veered towards Catholicism.

So there were many several bishops in the early 19th century and late 18th century who accepted the idea, looked forward to it. They didn't know how it was going to happen, but it was more general than it had been. So there you go. So we come to Balfour. And Balfour basically, well, he was brought up as a Presbyterian, and Lloyd George, perhaps even more importantly, I would say, was brought up as a nonconformist.

His father was, not his father, his uncle, by whom he was brought up, was a member of an American nonconformist sect. So he was a nonconformist among nonconformists, the most nonconformist that he could be. He was a member of a sect that was established in Kentucky in 1830.

Now, I'll tell you something about this sect. I can't tell you too much. It's called the Disciples of Christ or Campbellites. Lloyd George was the only non-American I could find who was a member, who was a politician, as a politician was a member of this sect. Ronald Reagan was a member of this sect for a while. Lyndon Johnson was a member of this sect.

And interestingly, somebody who wrote a book on the origins of Christian Zionism called Donald Lewis, he mentioned in his book, he said, interestingly, Lyndon Johnson gave a talk to Jews, a Jewish audience after the Six-Day War, which was very, very similar to a talk that David Lloyd George gave to a Jewish audience after World War I. And lo and behold, they were both members of the same church, same sect. He didn't point that out; perhaps he didn't know that. But I know that.

So Lloyd George was a member of this sect, and it so happened that members of this sect were the first Americans to bring a group to the Holy Land. They set up a settlement in Jaffa. It lasted for two or three years because the agriculture was not too successful. But the leader of that group, a man called George Adams, hoped that this would attract Jews to come and join them. And the American colony, as we call it, exists in Jaffa today. There are still buildings that they had established there.

So I would say that Lloyd George was the prime mover, not Balfour. Lloyd George actually met with Chaim Weizmann more frequently than Balfour did. They were both Zionists, and I should point out that Balfour was in the wartime cabinet because of Lloyd George. He became the foreign minister in Lloyd George's cabinet, which was interesting because he was a Conservative; Lloyd George was a Liberal. So Lloyd George made that decision.

And the Balfour Declaration, the Balfour Declaration was initiated not just by Balfour but by the cabinet, by Lloyd George in particular. Now, the question we might ask is, why did they need to issue a Balfour Declaration, a public declaration? Declarations, agreements were made under the table, secret agreements that would be revealed after the war. But this one was to be revealed during the war.

Now, who needed it? Did the Jews need it? Well, no. And they said they did not need it because central Zionists, the central Zionist organization, which was mainly German and Russian, felt that this would compromise the Zionist movement if it looked like it was too openly supporting Britain. And of course, the Jews who were in Palestine were under Turkish rule. The Turks were the enemy. What would the Turks react to, a Balfour Declaration promising Palestine to the Jews after a British conquest? Not well.

And in fact, they didn't behave well. They banished the Jews from the existing Tel Aviv, and one should bear in mind that a lot of growth took place under Turkish rule, not just under British rule. So I'm not sure that the Jews were the main focus of the Balfour Declaration. Interestingly, it was thought that they would appreciate it. All Lloyd George had to do was whisper in the ear of Chaim Weizmann, who would whisper in the ears of everybody else and say, when Britain wins the war, we'll have a stake, something like that. It would be very simple.

Who needed to hear it? Oh, I would say the people who really needed to hear it were Protestants in America. Because America was not in the war when the Balfour Declaration was first conceived. And even when it was in the war, a reluctant Woodrow Wilson, who never wanted to go to war and won re-election by claiming that we will not enter this war, was not enthusiastic.

Lloyd George complained a lot even after the declaration of war on Germany. He complained that he's not really in it. He's not moving. And declaration of war could mean, well, we will mine the Atlantic so that the Germans can't approach America, or we will prevent food from getting there, but we won't actually put American soldiers in France to fight the Germans. So it wasn't clear what the declaration of war would actually lead to.

And well, Lloyd George seemed to understand America, partly because he was a member of an American religious sect. I recall that in 1915, a well-known Presbyterian preacher gave a talk at a stadium in New Jersey, Paterson, New Jersey, I believe it was. And he said that we should not enter into the war because, frankly, the French are just licentious bastards. The Germans with their higher criticism are not really Christian.

And who knows? Maybe the British Navy is challenging the Turks at Gallipoli in order to restore the Jews to their land. Interesting thing to say. Of course, the British had to retreat from Gallipoli, but the thought was there; the thought was remembered.

And I was surprised to find that this same preacher, whose name is Billy Sunday, actually began a communication with Lloyd George. Other people did not know who Billy Sunday was, but Lloyd George knew very well who Billy Sunday was. So he had an influence, and of course, he must have expanded his knowledge of how Americans thought on this matter.

Until the declaration of war, and even after the declaration of war, most Americans thought, what is Europe? Europe is just a few empires fighting among each other for trade. That's what it's all about. Who cares about them? And they're not Christian either. So that was a reason for not joining the war.

But when Lloyd George decided we are going to invade Palestine, and not just invade Palestine, we are going to take Jerusalem, it was a different story for many Americans. You might be able to tell me more on that than I even know. The fact is that what happened in the Middle East seemed to attract Americans much more than anything that was happening in Europe.

Woodrow Wilson sent a documentary maker called Lowell Thomas to Europe to make a documentary showing why America should be in the war. Lowell Thomas said, after being there for a few weeks, there is nothing here that will encourage Americans to be in the war. And then he discovered that General Edmund Allenby was on his way to Jerusalem. He said, that looks more interesting. And that's where he ended up, and that's what he made documentaries about.

He was distracted also by Lawrence of Arabia. And the documentaries he made, which were originally called With Allenby in Jerusalem and Lawrence in Arabia, became With Lawrence in Arabia and Allenby in Jerusalem. But they were both there, and this is what excited people. But that was only shown after the war.

This is very interesting. I want to thank you for taking the time to speak with me about this. How can people get a copy of this book? Because I still believe to this day, to make your point, that Americans are the country that is most interested in helping Israel. It's why we have this relationship, and it's because of the Bible.

This was an English idea, but it was transferred to America, firstly through Puritans. You don't see in England, you don't see the push that you still see in America to protect and defend because we pride ourselves in America as being the loyal friend to Israel. And look at the other nations; no other nation has the relationship that America and Israel share. Which is to me has always been, this is intriguing because this book is for me.

I have a few more copies, but certainly I can do it. I can even inscribe it for you. And then you can show it around too. I'll be very happy if people want to buy the book. But just in answer to your question, why does it no longer attract England as much as America? Since it started in England. It started in England and it declined in England.

And it declined in England partly because the English had an empire to maintain, and they discovered that this idea, once it was implemented, impeded their imperial interests. Because, well, there were so many more Muslims than there were Jews to begin with, and every Muslim was against this idea.

And of course, then Nazi Germany came into the picture, and Nazi Germany simply made common cause with the Arabs against the Jews. You can understand why the British said, listen, let's cool it. Let's cool it, especially the religious aspect.

Laurie Cardoza Moore: It's why our mission is to educate Christians around the globe to stand with Israel and the Jewish people against the rise of this global antisemitism. We have a unique relationship that is unlike any other country with Israel. No other two countries share the relationship that America and Israel share.

And it makes us angry when we see what our leadership, the administration, is doing to Israel in waffling, not being committed. One day it's this, the next day Biden changes his mind. This is enough to get people to go to the voting booth in November and remove this man and the administration for what they're doing.

Jonathan Immanuel: Do you think Trump will be much better?

Laurie Cardoza Moore: Trump has been amazing when it comes to Israel. Trump, in fact, his two aunts were minsters. They were women who just, all they did was pray. He comes from an amazing background out of Scotland, so he's got a history that, this is why I'm interested in reading.

Jonathan Immanuel: Biden's a Catholic, I assume.

Laurie Cardoza Moore: He's a traitor. Is he a Catholic?

Jonathan Immanuel: He is, he is a Catholic. He's a traitor. You see, in Elizabethan times, they would have said that he's a traitor. He's thrown Israel under the bus. Americans don't do this to our friends.

I'm only American; I can't take sides. However, yes, it's true, the Zionism declined in Britain, but it was always a minority issue in Britain. But the point is, that minority is what populated America, Anglo-America. So in Anglo-America, that minority was more or less the majority, and it had much more influence.

And perhaps America come to think of it as a frontier state, a new state, it was, as you point out, it was based on establishing a new Zion. That was what motivated Puritans to leave England because they saw that James I, in fact, was turning against them. Yes, so the idea was much more prominent in America even though it was established in England. And had it not been established in England, I'm not sure it would have been established in America.

Laurie Cardoza Moore: Thank you again for joining me on this edition of Proclaiming Justice. Please share this podcast with your family and friends. For more information about how you can get involved, please visit our website at pjtn.org. As a PJTN Watchman, you can help us keep up the fight to preserve our freedom for our children and their children for such a time as this.