The Red Heifer of Armaggedon

[Guest guest]

Beware The Red Heifer...

How religious nutballs could start World War III

By Justin Raimondo

AntiWar.com

4-15-2

"...it turns out that, although no religious Jew is allowed on the

Temple Mount, there's a loophole - it's okay if he or she is first

purified in the ashes of a pure red heifer. These creatures are

exceedingly rare. One was born a couple of years ago, in Israel, but

it soon began sprouting white hairs on its tail and was deemed

insufficiently pure by the rabbinical authorities. Ah, but science

found a way around the fickleness of God's creation, and through the

modern miracle of genetic engineering - and funding provided

by "Christian Zionists" in America - a red heifer has been bred, and

pronounced pure."

 

While the American secretary of state shuttles back and forth between

Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon, trying desperately to cobble together

a) a ceasefire, and b) some basis for a settlement of the world's

most tiresome perpetual crisis, it behooves us to examine the issue

of the red heifer.

 

Say what?

 

You heard me, I said the red heifer.

 

IMPOSSIBLE - YET IT HAPPENED!

 

When I was a lad, my favorite feature of the Sunday comics was

something called "Impossible! - Yet It Happened!" Stories of haunted

ghost ships, three-headed babies, and frogs mysteriously raining down

from the heavens, odd occurrences chronicled in the classic style of

Charles Fort and breathlessly described in lurid prose under the

tantalizing headline: Impossible? Yet It Happened! It seemed to me to

be a trope for the irrationality of the world I was beginning to

enter, a sign that the society of adults wasn't all it was cracked up

to be: after if, if it's impossible, then it couldn't have happened -

right?

 

Wrong! To confirm this fact, we need only look at the most

significant recent development in the Middle East, and, no, I don't

mean the intifada, or Colin Powell's visit, or the suicide bombings,

or any of that other stuff: I'm talking about the recent birth of a

red heifer on a farm in Israel. Why is this so important? The answer

is to be found in a fascinating piece by Rod Dreher in National

Review Online, "Red Heifer Days," which recounts the theological

significance of this event - and it's ominous implications for the

future of the region:

 

"Could this little calf born last month in Israel bring about

Armageddon? The concept would have struck many people as absurd the

last time such a calf was born, in 1997, and probably makes most

readers laugh today. Big mistake: Never underestimate the power of

religious faith to shape events, especially in the Holy Land.

Especially right now."

 

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL FACTOR

 

It all has to do with eschatology, a religious conception of the

Final Days of mankind, a scenario mapped out by three of the world's

major religions in very similar (and specific) detail. The focus is

on the Temple Mount - the site of Ariel Sharon's provocative visit

that set off the current intifada, and also site of the First Temple

of the Hebrews. Destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar,, and then again by

the Romans, according to Jewish traditionalists the Third Temple will

be built by the Messiah, who will be not only king of Israel but also

high priest of the rebuilt Temple. To the Muslim Palestinians, and

their co-religionists worldwide, this is the site of the Dome of the

Rock, a Muslim shrine, the sacred al-Aqsa mosque, and the place where

Mohammed mounted a fine Arabian horse and galloped straight up to

heaven. A large number of Christian fundamentalists have also imbued

this spot with millennialist import: according to

this "dispensationalist" view, Jesus Christ will return to earth to

do battle on the plain of Armageddon and triumph over the Antichrist

only after the building of the Third Temple. Dreher cites Gershom

Gorenberg, whose book, End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle

for the Temple Mount, describes the apocalyptic intersection of

religion and politics both in Israel and the US:

 

"What happens at that one spot, more than anywhere else, quickens

expectations of the End in three religions. And at that spot, the

danger of provoking catastrophe is greatest."

 

I hate to tell you this, but the danger just got much greater. Now,

as for that red heifer.

 

OUR NUTBALLS, AND THEIRS

 

The key thing to remember, in all this mythological murk, is that no

religious Jew is allowed to set foot on the Temple Mount, for fear of

desecrating the sacred ground. In any case, the Temple can only be

reconstructed when the Messiah returns to save his people, and, so

far, no Messiah, and no Third Temple. But not all Israelis are

willing to assume such a passive stance, tradition or no tradition.

Ever since Israel came into possession of old Jerusalem, in 1967, a

fanatical group of Israeli nationalists have tried to kick-start the

eschatological machinery, plotting the destruction of the Muslim

shrines and busily constructing the various ritual objects for use in

the rebuilt Temple. These Israeli nutballs have forged a natural

alliance with our Christian nutballs, who have their own theological

rationale for hurrying Apocalypse along. They are dispensationalists,

who believe - among other things - that the colonization of the Holy

Land by the children of Israel signals the second coming of Christ:

the efforts of these "Christian Zionists" account for the uncritical

support for Israel among many "born again" Christian conservatives.

 

PROVOKING ARMAGEDDON

 

Okay, so now we get to the part about the red heifer: it turns out

that, although no religious Jew is allowed on the Temple Mount,

there's a loophole - it's okay if he or she is first purified in the

ashes of a pure red heifer. These creatures are exceedingly rare. One

was born a couple of years ago, in Israel, but it soon began

sprouting white hairs on its tail and was deemed insufficiently pure

by the rabbinical authorities. Ah, but science found a way around the

fickleness of God's creation, and through the modern miracle of

genetic engineering - and funding provided by "Christian Zionists" in

America - a red heifer has been bred, and pronounced pure. As Dreher

points out, the world media covered this as a joke, but in reality

the red heifer is the theological and political equivalent of a

suitcase nuke waiting to go off. Dreher cites Richard Landes, a

professor of history at Boston University and director of the Center

for Millennial Studies:

 

"These kinds of circumstances are exactly what people are waiting

for. We could be starting a war. If this is a real red heifer, and

strict Orthodox rabbis have declared her worthy of sacrifice, then a

lot of Jews in Israel will take that as a sign that a new phase of

history is about to begin. The Muslims are ready for jihad anyway, so

if you have Jews up there doing sacrifices, talk about a red flag in

front of a charging bull."

 

Rod Dreher, by the way, is the only writer I know of to catch the

significance of this red heifer business, because the media tends to

not take religion seriously, and yet I can't help thinking that he

perhaps unintentionally underscores another overlooked reality: that

the problem of fundamentalism is not limited to the Arab world. The

Islamic brand brought down the World Trade Center, but the Judeo-

Christian varieties may succeed in starting World War III.

 

We have heard much about the evils of "moral equivalence" in the

Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The former, we are told, are

superstitious terrorists, whose fanatical mindset makes the perfect

receptacle for the hatching of murderous plots, while the Israelis

are Westernized democrats, ensconced, just like us in, in a

secularized consumer culture. But Dreher points to the existence and

growing influence of Jewish fundamentalists, fanatics on the order of

Al Qaeda, who could well spark an all-out Arab-Israeli war. Citing

Professor Landes, he writes:

 

"'It's entirely conceivable that this [red heifer] could trigger a

new round of attempts to blow up the Dome of the Rock.' This is

something the Israeli security forces have long been vigilant

against. But with their attentions drawn elsewhere by the war with

the Palestinians, it's possible that a radical group could slip the

net. And it's possible that religious extremists elements within the

Israeli army could help them."

 

EVEN IF

 

As Colin Powell shuttles back and forth between Sharon and Arafat, I

can't help but think of that red heifer, growing fat and glossy under

the ministrations of its deluded creators. Even if the US somehow

succeeded in forging a "peace plan," even if President Bush actually

had the guts to stand up to Sharon and say: "Enough - or else!" Even

if, somehow, the nutball tendencies among the Palestinians could be

minimized or at least contained - even then, it seems, the cause of

peace in the Holy Land is utterly doomed. For what happens at the end

of three years, when the red heifer grows old enough to sacrifice,

and its ashes can be used for purposes of ritual purification? At

that point, the locus of religious conflict in the world could well

see yet another Israeli invasion, this time prompted by an upsurge of

religious fanaticism married to a virulent ultra-nationalism -

precisely the forces that want to propel the Satanic Benjamin

Netanyahu and his nutball followers into power.

 

HISTORY AND IRONY

 

Sharon knows full well that if he accedes to the demands of the

Americans, Netanyahu, the ultra-hardliner, is bound to succeed him.

The irony of US intervention, in brokering a "peace plan," is the

unintended consequence of a burgeoning religious supremacism in

Israeli politics, one with the power to undo all the good work of

American diplomacy.

 

A DANGEROUS HERESY

 

What, then, is the solution? The widespread idea that it is the task

of American diplomacy to come up with a solution to all or even some

of the world's most intractable problems is precisely where US

foreign policy has gone wrong since the days of the Founders. It is a

dangerous heresy promulgated by cold warriors trained in the European

tradition of realpolitik that the earth is our chessboard, and we

must always be making or planning a move: this troublesome activism

has been the cause of much misery in the world, and much social and

economic dislocation in this country. It is responsible for the

policy of perpetual war pursued in modern times by our rulers in

Washington, and eventually it will be our undoing. For what can Colin

Powell do against the red heifer? Against this improbable creature,

the whole architecture of US policy in the Middle East could be laid

low, and that is a humbling thought - or at least it ought to be.

 

INGRATITUDE, THY NAME IS 'ISRAEL'

 

You'll recall that the big reason for US involvement has been to

clear the decks for an all-out attack on Iraq. Hey, but wait a

minute - with all this talk of Saddam's alleged "weapons of mass

destruction," the image one gets is of the Iraqi ruler raining

missiles down on, say, Brooklyn. But he hasn't got anything even

close to that kind of range: now that the Iraqis and the Saudis have

kissed and made up, his only possible target is Israel. We are

begging Sharon toplease lay off the Palestinians so we can do Israel

the favor of taking out a deadly threat to its continued existence.

And still, Sharon says no.

 

GO, COLIN, GO!

 

Since US tax dollars have funded the colonization and humiliation of

a people, the Palestinians, the American secretary of state has a

moral responsibility to see that they get a break, and a fair deal.

Powell seems admirably committed to that, and he is more than living

up to the role implicitly ascribed to him in this space as the

conscience of the Bush administration. As such, he faces a powerful

and vocal interventionist claque, reflexively pro-Sharon (actually,

pro-Netanyahu), and highly influential in the Republican party. It's

one man against the War Party, a truly heroic struggle on Powell's

part, and, so far, he's proving himself to be at least the equal of

his adversaries. More power to him - as long as he sees that the only

rational long-term strategy for the US in the Middle East is an exit

strategy.

 

A FUTURE SCENARIO, CIRCA 3002

 

Our Israel-centric foreign policy, which has alienated the entire

Arab world, Muslim and Christian alike, must go. The urgency of this

reorientation is underscored by the Israeli government's

intransigence. We need to extricate ourselves from this volatile

region, which seems cursed by some special blight, and a likely

target of divine anger or some kind of retribution that can't be long

in coming. For all the good intentions, the diplomatic phrases, the

talk of "peace" and "justice," are as nothing when they come up

against the awful power of the red heifer.

 

In this context, imagine the following scenario. It is the year 3002,

and some kid is reading the Sunday funnies - yes, they still have

Sunday comics, because some traditions are indeed sacred - and he

comes across a little item that starts like this:

 

"How could a red heifer have started World War III? Impossible? Yet

it happened."