Summary:
There is nary an American who is not concerned about a nuclear
Iran. We all recall the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut by Iranian
ally Hizbollah, not to mention the continuing Iranian-supported militancy of
Hizbollah. There is more than a suspicion that Iran was behind the bombing of
the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires in 1994. But there is in the world today
an odd confluence of neoconservative hawks and Evangelical Christians in the US
and their Israeli counterparts, all of whom seem eager for confrontation and war.
I worry about Iran, but these folks scare me even more!
There is nary an American who is not concerned about a nuclear
Iran. We all recall the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut by Iranian
ally Hizbollah, not to mention the continuing Iranian supported militancy of
Hizbollah. There is more than a suspicion that Iran was behind the bombing of
the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires in 1994. Why just today, March 5, 2015, Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif assured Ann Curry of NBC News that Iran doesn’t
want to annihilate Jews, it just wants to annihilate the Netanyahu regime. What
a relief!
It’s no wonder, therefore, that there are no shortage of
ominous jeremiads joining Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in warning
of the dire consequences of a potential deal with Iran over its nuclear
program. A nuclear Iran, these voices claim, would be an unacceptable threat to
western security interests. Leaving Iran with even a one-year break out
opportunity would simply not be adequate to prevent the inevitable and
indefatigable Iranian drive for world dominance attained through the threat of
a nuclear arsenal. An Iran entirely stripped of its nuclear program is the only
acceptable solution.
But the nature of the voices making these pronouncements
makes for some strange and even more frightening bedfellows. There is a somewhat
odd confluence between neoconservative hawks and Evangelical Christians in the
US, and their counterparts in Israel, particularly the Likud Party and its West
Bank settler movement allies. As we witness these forces marching us inexorably
into military confrontation with Iran, it may be worthwhile to take a look at
what animates and motivates them.
The partnership between neoconservatives and Evangelicals in
the US came to fruition in the Reagan administration. What both of these groups
share is a kind of mythic view of international affairs which sees the
international arena dominated by enemy forces of evil that must be confronted
by what they call “American exceptionalism,” which invariably translates to
military intervention. Our adversaries are not our adversaries. They are wholly other, "sons of
darkness," godless communists, evil incarnate, the evil empire, the axis
of evil, and their threats are ubiquitous. It’s actually no joke that the enemy
agency in the 1960s sitcom “Get Smart” was named CHAOS. Our enemies represent
just that—primordial chaos, the ultimate force of disorder in the world. There
can be no compromise, no negotiating with them. They must be eliminated.
In the 1970s and 80s, the political mythology of neoconservatism
well served the emerging Evangelical Christian movement represented by the
likes of Jerry Falwell. Godless communism was not only a political threat, but
a cosmic threat—an affront to God. Together with what the movement considered
the moral decline of America, the advance of communism seemed an obvious symbol
of a truly cosmic, catastrophic crisis.
While this ideology was getting under way, another
remarkable event occurred. The tiny nation of Israel, beset and besieged by
nations all around, managed to thwart Arab aggression and achieve a
resounding—even miraculous—victory in the 1967 Six Day War. Suddenly,
everything seemed to fit for Evangelicals. All of this represented a sign of
the apocalyptic “End Times,” when, according to the biblical Book of
Revelation, God would purify the world through a cataclysmic, cosmic battle at
a biblical site known as Armageddon. This battle would result in the defeat of
evil and bring about the Kingdom of Heaven for the faithful. The return of the
Jews to Israel and the capture of old Jerusalem and the Western Wall had all
been predicted by the prophets of old as precursors of this cosmic finale.
This way of viewing world affairs was not limited to
Evangelical leaders. At the height of the 1984 presidential election, The New York Times reported on a walk
back by President Ronald Reagan, who, according to a documentary titled “'Ronald
Reagan and the Prophecy of Armageddon,” had frequently indicated his adherence
to this imminent apocalyptic vision. The Times
reported that “White House spokesmen have said the President's beliefs on
Armageddon would not alter his firm conviction for peace and intent to seek
arms control” (The New York Times,
October 21, 1984; online at http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/21/us/religious-leaders-tell-of-worry-on-armageddon-view-ascribed-to-reagan.html).
In those early days of the confluence of neoconservatism and
Evangelical Christianity, the Soviet Union, China and the Arabs served as handy
actors in this religio-political drama, and Evangelical leaders like Jerry
Falwell and Hal Lindsay saw these actors and the events unfolding in the 70s
and 80s as the prelude to cosmic battle that would climax in an attack on
Israel. In the end, however, God would intervene, Christ would return, defeat
the evil forces and create a new heaven and a new earth.
While Hal Lindsay and his followers may be heartened by
recent acts of Russian aggression as signs that their predictions are not
wholly discredited, there is hardly a Russian-Arab axis, and it would be even
more far fetched to imagine a Russo-Sino-Arab alliance arrayed against Israel.
So it appears that we need to find a new apocalyptic primordial beast to be
defeated in a cosmic battle that will herald the return of Christ and the new
age. Who might that be?
Ahhhhh… Iran. Thank goodness Iran has arrived to play the
role now that we’ve lost the Soviets. And to put icing on the cake, we have
Al-Qa’eda and ISIS to complete a vision of the evil Muslim enemies of Christ
and the American way of life. This new aggregated enemy once again cements the
alliance between hawks and Evangelicals. The stage is set for the final battle.
In light of all of this, I react with equal doses of shock
and dismay when I listen to Jewish Zionists extol the virtues of Evangelical
Christians like Pastor John Hagee, founder and executive director of Christians
United for Israel (CUFI). He has become the darling of many, to the extent that
he delivered the keynote address at the 2011 Annual Policy Conference of the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
But I have to wonder if these admirers have ever read
Hagee's books or examined his speeches. The truth is, Hagee holds a dangerous
and delusional apocalyptic understanding of contemporary international
affairs. Cherry picking biblical verses
from Jeremiah to Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel and Luke et al., and culminating in
the apocalyptic visions of the Book of Revelation, Hagee has staked his
reputation on the imminent outbreak of a nuclear war involving, among others,
Israel and Iran.
But Hagee and his followers have nothing to fear from this
nuclear holocaust. Following a passage in the Apostle Paul's first letter to
the Thessalonians, the faithful--those who accept Jesus as the Messiah--will
experience "the rapture." That is, they will be transported to heaven
while the cataclysmic nuclear battle purges the earth of unbelievers. The
faithful will then be restored to the new earth and the New Jerusalem ruled by
a triumphant Christ as envisioned in Revelation.
But what about Israel and the Jews, whom Hagee and his
followers purport to love? Again, Hagee relies on the Apostle Paul, who
proclaims in his letter to the Romans that, in the end, "all Israel will
be saved." Now, going back to Revelation, Hagee envisions 144,000 Jews who
will accept Jesus as the Messiah, and thus, all Israel will be saved. From a
Jewish perspective, that means that in Hagee's vision of the future, there will
be no Jewish state and no Jews. Talk about Iranian threats of genocide?
Enter Benjamin Netanyahu. It would appear that Netanyahu has
the best of both worlds, straddling the "never saw a threat I didn't
like" perpetual war mindset of the neoconservative hawks and the
apocalyptic visions of the Evangelicals. In Netanyahu's case, however, the
apocalyptic vision may be somewhat tempered by Jewish Messianism, which does
not universally envision a cosmic end-days battle as per the New Testament Book
of Revelation.
Nonetheless, the Six Day War certainly gave encouragement to
a tendency within the Jewish Zionist movement to understand the existence of
the State of Israel in Messianic terms. In fact, the "Prayer for the State
of Israel," recited in most synagogues regularly, characterizes the State
of Israel as "the first fruit of our redemption," a rather clear
messianic reference. This, indeed, forms the ideological and theological
backbone of the Israeli West Bank settler movement, a crucial contingent within
Netanyahu's governing coalition.
In this regard, the neoconservative mindset becomes a
perfect backdrop facilitating the maintenance of Netanyahu's coalition, which
has made clear that it rejects a two-state resolution of Israel's conflict with
the Palestinians. This puts Netanyahu in a predicament. His coalition rejects
the two-state solution, while his western allies, including the US, demand it. As
the Prime Minister of Israel, he must console his western allies by paying lip
service to the two-state solution while managing to maintain his coalition of
rejectionists.
With regard to the Palestinians, the Israeli rejectionists
manage to contrive language that allows them to continue to settle the West
Bank while denying the rights of citizenship to the indigenous residents. The
West Bank, in this way of arguing, is not legally “Israel,” so there is no
legal obligation to extend citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs who live there.
But neither is it “occupied territory,” which would render the settlements
illegal. No, this territory is “disputed territory,” allowing for the
continuation of the status quo. Of course, in order to have disputed territory,
you need to have a dispute. A resolution of the dispute undermines the
political strategy.
Iran is a sort of icing on this strategic cake. It ties into
another important theme that supports Netanyahu’s neoconservative worldview.
How can Israel possibly make any concessions in its relationship with the Arabs
when there are threats everywhere, particularly a nuclear threat from Iran? And
let’s not forget the surge of anti-Semitism in Europe. The Holocaust allusions
are rampant, and the expression, “Never Again” drops effusively from
Netanyahu’s lips.
Yes, we all worry about Iran, but what scares me more are
these bellicose voices that seem downright eager to push the world into a major
conflagration. That, it seems to me, is even more dangerous than Iran.
No comments:
Post a Comment