Literalism within the bible

 

I encourage you to research the individual propositions within this entry yourself. In your research, please be aware of the bias of your source material (e.g. religious sites versus sceptic's sites versus material meant for pure scientific/philosophical knowledge).

I'm gearing up for a long one. So prep yourself.

THE QUESTION: How literally are we meant to take the bible?

Even the most fundamentalist fringe minorities will agree that the bible is not meant to be taken literally in the strictest sense of the word, so let's get that out of the way immediately. The bible, like any other literary document, employs the use of metaphors, similes and allegories. Frankly, it would be a waste of time for me to get into the various examples of each which is clearly documented in other areas of the Internet:

http://www.theexaminer.org/volume8/number5/language.htm

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Bible_Interpretation/05_Special/05_Special_Notes.htm

So while we can all agree the answer to THE QUESTION is not “absolutely literally”, the problem then becomes which parts do we take literally and which parts do we not. As described in some of the sites above, in some instances, it is rather obvious whether a portion of scripture is meant to be literal or not. All we have to do is to read the portion in question with an understanding of:

1. Basic literary devices (refer to first site above)
2. The context within which it is presented
3. The format (e.g. The Psalms are considered a form of poetry)
4. The purpose/background of the author and his/her primary intended audience (e.g. I and II Cortinithians are letters written by Paul, an early Christian Missionary, to the Church in Corinth)

We can therefore all agree that the key to determining whether a verse is literal or not is to determine what meaning the writer intended to convey. Some people contend that once we determine, using the above-listed means, which of the verses are meant figuratively, everything else should be taken quite literally. Therein lies the problem. A country's constitution, for instance, is written with the intention to minimise as far as possible the room for interpretation and doubt, yet, there can be several and varied interpretations of law. By significant contrast, the bible was written with very “flowery” language and therefore the meaning of various passages can be construed in a plethora of ways, the most popular of which is determined in the court of popular opinion as opposed to by precedent in a court of law.

Consider these verses for instance:

“Tremble before him, all the earth. The world also is established that it can’t be moved.” - I Chronicles 16:30

“The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to its place where it rises.” - Ecclesiastes 1:5

There are constant references like these to the earth being stationary, fixed on “its foundations” and the sun moving across the sky. The only references to the earth moving and the sun standing still were made when God intervened in earthly events – such as when Joshua begged God to make the sun stand still until they had won their battle (Joshua 10:12-13). On the basis of verses like these, the Church and indeed, the vast majority of people, held a geocentric view – i.e. that at least the sun, if not also the stars and the other planets, orbited the earth which was the centre of the universe.

It was not until Copernicus in the 15^th century and Galileo in the 16^th that the vast majority shifted to the heliocentric view – i.e. the sun was the centre of the universe. The church even considered Galileo a heretic because of his propositions. A few hundred years later, it became understood that while the earth orbited the sun, the sun was not the centre of the universe, but only of our solar system, with the “stars” actually being distant stars (in the scientific sense of the word), planets, galaxies, asteroids, nebula and the like. Nowadays, most of us (and sadly, I cannot say all) accept that the most recent revelation is the most irrefutable theory, but where did that leave the verses of the bible?

The constant references to the stationary nature of the world had apparently been misunderstood – they were meant to be metaphorical. The references to the sun moving across the sky? Well those were meant to be observational – as in the same way that in modern day we say that the “sun rises” and the “sun sets” when it does no such thing; it only appears to do so – observationally – because of our point of reference.

Now this is in no way meant to suggest that the bible is or is not geocentric – that is an article unto itself – only that popular interpretation of the meaning of various biblical verses changed based on the advancement of science. Neither does this mean that science trumps the bible (necessarily – that is a whole other article). What it does is call into question our interpretation of all other verses and passages in the bible. And I'm not just talking about the ones that can be proved/disproved by science but also those of a more philosophical nature. Consider for a moment that the bible is almost 2,000 years old and has been used as a moral compass for people of different nations throughout this time. Imagine how much culture has changed over that period, with communities caught throughout the snap-shots of time more or less comfortable that their way of life mirrored the philosophy demanded in the bible. Just as we are comfortable of such. What we are doing is just as what cultures before have done and what cultures elsewhere are doing – interpreting the bible through our own narrow moral and cultural prism. Is this interpretation correct? Is this essentially “personal truth” in any way an absolute truth? How much would it have changed if we had known more?

What if we knew – or at least had a better understanding – of the Hebrew words that were interpreted into English for our edification? What if, for example, we traced the lineage of the word “hell” to 2 of the 4 original Hebrew/Greek words – “sheol” which was a place where the dead go whether they be good or evil and “Gehanna” which may more closely resemble the final, though not necessarily “eternal” destination for the wicked. What if we later understood that “sheol” in particular was translated to mean “grave”, “hell”, and “pit” at different times on a basis that is arguably inconsistent within the same bible as well as (less arguably and quite factually) inconsistent across different versions of the bible? How much would this information transform your understanding and belief in hell?

Now this is simply one word, and I point it out because the concept of hell is significant to most, if not all, Christians. I actually intend to write an entire entry dedicated to “hell” and its (mis)conceptions. But like I say – this is just one word. The bible is a compilation, written in an old language in largely poetic verses by dead authors who never had the chance to explain themselves, and then translated by a wide variety of persons who may or may not have interpreted the bible through their own cultural prisms, into a more updated language for us to now interpret. And we have problems interpreting modern books written in English. Even if you do not doubt the infallibility of the Primary Author (God), the Author's human hand (the persons who physically wrote the scriptures), and the Author's varied interpreters (the various versions of the bible), do you also not doubt the infallibility your own interpretation?

At this point, we can introduce the divergence which has always been somewhat present in study of the bible but has strengthened in more modern times. The divergence in question is a split, of sorts, between a Faction A and Faction B. Faction A considers the bible more of a spiritual guide written in a questionable culture, thus preventing every word of the bible from being taken literally but conserving the general deep spiritual meaning of the text. Faction B continues to contend that the bible is a historical, quasi-scientific document which also (and primarily) gives detailed spiritual guidance. Of course, these are not two distinct groups (as there are varying points in between) nor is the origin of Faction A solely (or perhaps at all) based on the problematic nature of interpreting the bible per above.

Let us consider Faction B for a time, because there are a still a few issues that arise when the bible is considered as a literal document. For example, it gives rise to the question – did the Great Flood really happen? Did Jonah really survive 3 days in the belly of a great fish? Others of course. The Great Flood, I will consider quite separately as I wish to dedicate an entire entry (probably as long as this one) to it. The Jonah story, however, let us touch on that for a bit and determine how that story has been viewed by bible literalists to reconcile it to our current understanding of the digestive system of fish and therefore its overall plausibility.

It's a miracle!

Plain and simple. And as for how the miracle precisely worked – that Jonah actually survived in the belly of the whale or that he died and was later resurrected – that is a matter of how the text is read (though the word “sheol” is used, so it is rather solvable), but either can be classified as miraculous. If that's what you believe, then I will have to tackle that in its own entry which will then cover miracles of the Old Testament, miracles of the New Testament, modern miracles, miracles of other cultures in history and in modern times.

Though very much against the odds, it is possible for a man to survive in the belly of a fish.

An interesting theory – and if you want to go with that one, I encourage you to do the research yourselves because I don't give this theory sufficient validity to research it myself. At least not currently. But what it does bring up for me is a more core issue which I do intend to research and write – does God obey the laws of physics? The answer may be less obvious than you think.

It's a parable – not a historical account.

An interesting proposal from a literalist, no doubt. Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence to support this, other than the event being physically impossible (or at the very most, extremely unlikely). The Good Samaritan is a parable – it was presented as a story by Jesus to deliver a key underlying message (Luke 10:25-37). So was the Prodigal Son, The Ten Virgins, The Rich Man and Lazarus. There are quite a few parables which are presented as such. Jonah is not among them. Saying that this account is not historical simply based on its implausibility cycles back to the previous point – will we consider all literal passages as such until they are proven otherwise?

Just to reiterate – I am spelling out the possibilities of interpretation to show the range out there. I do not contend for a moment that whether the story of Jonah and the big fish is a miracle, possible, or simply allegorical, that this necessarily has any impact on the main intention of the author – to provide some deeper, underlying message. As a matter of fact, I am relatively certain that this is where most of us place emphasis. And this leads into a discussion of the bible as a guide – a book of underlying messages where the stories themselves are not and should not be the focus.

While this is a more comforting opinion, this still poses problems, some of which I intend to write further on:

1. What are the underlying messages of the Old Testament?
2. What are the underlying messages of the New Testament?
3. What does the New Testament say about the validity of messages of the Old?

Now quite a few people have condensed the underlying messages of the bible as a whole into a few basic tenets which can be simplified into “do unto others as you would have them do unto you; do what you understand to be right”. Some have advanced even further to say that persons living their lives as such can avoid “hell” - i.e. persons of other religions, etc. While this may sound perfectly reasonable, I think that this is a concept developed to reconcile the idea of a loving God with a God who is proposed to eternally condemn our friends, family, and others who are “not entirely correct” in their spirituality but are basically “good” people who “don't know any better”. While I think this is a very humanistic view, I also think it is fundamentally flawed as it appears to contend that all personal truths are equally “true” and therefore justifiable. This is an extremely dangerous concept which I will like to discuss in another entry.

But returning to THE QUESTION, to what extent should we take the bible literally?

Proposition 1: To the extreme – absolutely not.

Proposition 2: Literally/historically with allowances for where the intention of the author was clearly figurative/metaphoric/allegorical – problematic in several ways, some discussed above, some tabled to be discussed in later entries.

Proposition 3: Not at all – underlying messages to be considered only, but all such messages are equally valid – problematic and (to be) treated similarly as proposition 2.

Proposition 4: Not at all – core underlying messages to be considered only – problematic; see 2 and 3.

I propose, actually, to treat the bible in the same way as we would treat any other literary work:

1. Consider the writing in the frame of the cultures in which it was written as well as compiled
2. Acknowledge where it advances admirable values and where those values are outmoded, questionable, counterproductive or downright barbaric

The bible is not inherently special (any more than is the Bhagavad Gita, the Qu'ran, the Homeric Hymns, the Book of Mormon, the Talmud, the Book of Shadows, To Kill A Mockingbird, etc) and to treat it as such, I think, can be dangerous. The most dangerous thing about it – as it is with the texts and tenets of most religions – is that there is a supreme deity who wants us to behave in a particular way. As seemingly benign as the doctrine of reciprocity appears to be, even when coupled with “doing what we think is right”, if we are doing this because this is what “God would want of us”, we are making some dangerous assumptions about the mind of a being whose existence is in doubt and whose mind no one can ever claim to know. Anything that starts with “God wants us to...” is the beginning of a slippery slope because it can end (and has ended) literally anywhere the social compass of the society is willing to direct it.

“Religious people are always talking about doing the will of God. It never seems to occur to them that they have very little knowledge of what that will is. They merely assume that they know the will of God, and that it agrees with what they think is right. Of this they have no evidence whatever.” - John Collier, “Religion of an Artist”.

A Christian Focus

 

As previously indicated, this blog will focus primarily on the Christian concept of God. A few years ago, I maintained another blog. Although its focus was personal matters, there were quite a few entries dedicated to religion and politics. The few followers I did have complemented the analysis but criticised my lack of consideration for any religion other than Christianity. I always easily dismmissed these criticisms just as easily as most people with a particular religious faith dismiss all other religions. I believe Richard Dawkins said it best:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

I, an agnostic, easily ignore the tenets and warnings of all religions except Christianity for some of the same reasons that Christians ignore them. Most Christians believe that their religion is the "one true" religion, therefore by default all other religions range from "entirely wrong", to "some element of truth", to "true but badly interpreted" and therefore falling short of the "absolute truth". Many theists contend that atheists or agnostics do not believe in God because they "don't understand" the "deep concept" of God and the related faith. I can only wonder how many Christians tried to understand the deep concepts surrounding the Muslim/Jewish/Sikh/Buddhist/Jainist/Hindu faiths before rejecting those. I dare say that some people – even if they only admit it to their peers or to themselves – even consider these religions, whose religious tenets they so deeply understand, as being somewhat silly. But as I always contend, all religions sound somewhat silly unless you were raised being taught it wasn't. All you have to do to make your religion sound silly is to replace certain key words with other words with the same general meaning but without the political correctness (e.g. exchange "sacred/holy/blessed" with "magical"). We can so easily do this for other religions.

The cow in Hindu society is traditionally identified as a caretaker and a maternal figure, and Hindu society honours the cow as a symbol of unselfish giving.

"I made chicken; I hope that isn't one of the animals that you people think is magic." - Mary Cooper to Rajesh Koothrappali, the Big Bang Theory

For the Mormons, a faction which is under the Christian banner yet still considered on the fringe, temple undergarments are "viewed as a symbolic reminder of the covenants made in temple ceremonies and are viewed as a symbolic or literal source of protection from the evils of the world"... TRANSLATION: "magical underpants".

People think of Jews as clannish people with funny beards and no foreskins, although the bases of these came from the bible:

"You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard" – Leviticus 19:27

"Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her monthly period she shall be unclean. In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.'" – Leviticus 12:2-3

Of course that can feed into a debate of the Old vs the New testament.

We cannot fathom why a Muslim woman is bound by faith to keep her head covered, although this too, is supported by the bible:

"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." – Corinithinans 11:5-6

That's right – that came from the NEW testament, although it does appear to suggest the covering of the head only while praying or preaching. And it also does not appear to agree with bald headed women whatsoever (cancer aside perhaps?). So all Christian women heading into church with their heads uncovered or bald, need pay heed. It is something I should probably research though – why Christianity does not currently require women to enter church only if their head is covered. I will surely add that to my list in "The Framework."

Being agnostic, and therefore going one version of God further, I similarly regard with some level of mockery, traditional/cultural Christian tenets. Like when I bought my car, people kept insisting that I have it blessed. I am not certain that they understand that I view that as having some guy say "magic words" over my car to protect it. And no, I have never gotten into a serious accident with my car. Yes, it gives me trouble – but that may have to do with my NOT TAKING PROPER CARE of a CHEAP CAR that is MADE IN SOUTH KOREA.

I will accept however that all of the examples I have given thus far is more or less baseless mockery and not the primary reasons these other religions are rejected by Christians (other than their not being the "true" religion). What I am trying to demonstrate is that after dismissing someone else's religion without understanding it, we respect this other person's religious beliefs but only to the extent that we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. While we may agree that his wife is more beautiful than the average woman and that his children are well spoken for their age, as outsiders, we are less likely overlook his wife's crossed-eyes or his children's tendency to dyslexia. What I am seeking to do here is point out the crossed-eyes and dyslexia within the Christian faith and give these seeming flaws the level of analysis that most Christians don't bother to give to other religions.

In covering the Christian faith, I will by extension be touching on the Jewish and Muslim faiths as both of these also consider the Old Testament to be (one of its) sacred (texts). Popular religions considered even less directly may include Buddhism, Sikhs and Hindus as my knowledge of these are very limited. Despite knowing very little of it, I still always wonder how many Hindus take Hinduism seriously. Quite a high number of Hindus reside in Trinidad, hence Divali being a national holiday. I was quite tempted to put up, as my BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) status on this day "everyone knows that hinduism is stupid" but was restrained by what little tact I am alleged to have – there were Hindus on my BBM list after all. But frankly I must attribute this general sentiment to how monotheists view "polytheistic idol-worshippers". Yes – some people do feel this way of Hinduism although it is a variant of monotheism ("variant" because it is not precisely like Christianity and its views on the "plurality" of God such as the Holy Trinity or lesser holy beings such as angels) and "worships" idols in the same way that Catholicism is alleged to do.

The extent of my consideration of non-Abrahamic religions will be my general consideration of the concept of God. The Hindu Supreme Being, like Christianity, has elements of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism, and so will be inevitably affected by conclusions there. Some comparisons have been made to Buddhist/Sikh concepts and Spinoza's God, which I also intend to write about. Invariably, however, the focus will always be Christian, because for all of the years of my life, people have been trying to convince me of the beauty and intelligence of the Christian God so this is where I most struggle to find the hideously daft cracks that lie between.

The Framework

 

It may seem odd that after the first two entries – which dove headlong into a complicated topic – that I have reached my 5^th without really tackling another issue per se. While I am anxious to get started, I have been pondering which topic I should start with. Initially, I was considering going in the same chronological order that these topics arose in my mind since I established my agnosticism and approach to research. But then I rejected it because I realised that some of the topics I first tackled brought up other thorny areas that needed to be analysed before I could come to a conclusion on the first set. Also, I think that some explanation is due for why I seem to be focused on the Christian concept of God, while deftly ignoring the other religions that share the same basic deity (Islam and Judaism) as well as those that have a different deity or deities all together (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc).

So, here are the list of topics I believe I need to discuss – in no particular order. I will revisit this page every now and then to remind myself of which things need to be discussed and to determine which order I should discuss them:

1. Coming to terms with my focus on the Christian religion and complete dismissiveness over all others.
2. The bible – is it meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, or somewhere in between? If it is meant to be somewhere in between, how can you identify which portions are literal and which ones are metaphorical?
3. The bible. How did it originate? Is it perfect? Can it be trusted at all? How do we know which version is the most representative of the "true faith"?
4. The New Testament vs The Old Testament. How much do they differ/complement each other and how does that impact our understanding of both texts?
5. Slavery in the bible. What variation of slavery does the bible allow? Why was it considered acceptable?
6. Women's place according to biblical scripture and whether/how much it changed from the Old Testament to the New.
7. Free will. How is it defined? How is it viewed by most people? Can it exist as defined? Can it exist at all?
8. Cherry-picking the bible. Why people who consider themselves religious will blatantly ignore some tenets of the bible while championing others.
9. The concept of God – omnipotence, omiscience and omnipresence, their logical plausibility, their impact on free will and their consistency with other alleged aspects of God.
10. The concept of God – how his alleged perfection reconciles with his seeming tendency for anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism.
11. The euthyphro dilemma – a description of the dilemma, the most sensible Christian response, and finally, mine.
12. The concept of hell. What does the bible really say about it? Who will be going to it? What does the existence of hell say about the entity that created it?
13. The Great Flood. What was the approximate date of its occurrence? Is there any evidence of it?
14. Out-dated concepts mentioned in the bible.
15. How our interpretation of the bible continuously evolves to match our cultural leanings and scientific discoveries.
16. The power of the mind and "miracles".
17. Why religion is not our primary source of morality.
18. Pagan beliefs held within Christianity as it is currently practiced, our everyday lives, and the extent to which there may be pagan influences within the bible itself.
19. God's violent side – the prevalence of God condoning/sanctioning/ordering violence/destruction/murder of persons or groups of people primarily in the old testament, and in a few cases, also in the new, and whether they are justifiable.
20. The concept of emergence and how it relates to theories supported by non-theists (though not necessarily myself).

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Also, some of these topics may span several entries. And finally, I have not yet fully researched all of the topics above. Quite frankly, I'm a little excited and looking forward to my next post.

Update – 8-Nov-11

Further topics to consider:

1. Homosexuality – its reception throughout history and in the current doctrine of the Christian faith
2. The big bang theory and the concept of an impersonal god (Spinoza's God)

Update – 9-Nov-11

1. The veil and other various forms of head covering in Islamic society and in both the Old and New Testament
2. Dinosaurs in the bible
3. Does God comply with the laws of physics?
4. The concept of purgatory and its origins

Reciprocity and the Logical Path

 

In my last entry, I indicated that one of the purposes of this blog was to have something I could point to – a particular article here and there – whenever I wished my friends to better understand my stance on a particular topic. Shortly after posting that entry, the idea that I may be asked to reciprocate entered my mind. And I shuddered.

I understand that there is some level of hypocrisy here. Here I am, wishing my friends to better understand some issue from a non-theistic point of view, while at the same time, I am at least a tad bit unwilling to go read an entry of theirs which explains why "God loves you". Now I think it is more or less understood that, generally speaking, people try to stay in circles where everyone else more or less subscribes to their views. If they were to ever venture outside of that circle, they will do so with varying levels of a closed mind – from the locked, to the shut, to the only slightly ajar. Very few enter with the doors to their minds straining open, the windows unlatched and curtains billowing. I would have to position myself in the "ajar" category, and I will explain why it is not completely open as this entry goes on.

When most people – be they theists or otherwise – are about to enter a discussion which appears to go completely contrary to their views, I believe they shut down some levels of their mind – close them (see door analogy in paragraph above). They do not expect to hear anything that will shake their views and therefore adopt a dimissive attitude, making it far more likely that they will gloss over something that might call into question one aspect of their belief or another. If they were to hear something that contradicts their position, they may:

1. Dismiss it as being nonsensical
2. Believe that the person was misrepresenting some aspect of it
3. Consider that it "must reconcile with their views" but there was something that they themselves did not understand, and eventually will (because they intended to further research or discuss it) or won't (because they accept that they won't understand everything but what they believe is right)

But should only the other side wish to better understand YOUR take of the world (spiritual or otherwise), you will be only too happy to oblige, hoping they would truly consider your every word. What I am saying is that all of us – ALL OF US – are generally unwilling to fully reciprocate.

So, it is with this mindset that I expect my friends to read my blog and it is likely with this mindset that I approach contrary views. But exactly what variant of this mindset either I or my friends have (the level of openness and the situations that arise which make the door shut tight) is, I think, dependent upon where we are on the "Logical Path" and whether we're still moving along it.

Consider the Logical Path as a long and winding road, and at the end of it, is the logical conclusion of whether or not God exists, and if he does, what the belief structure surrounding him should be and where our place is with him. Now, this is the LOGICAL CONCLUSION – i.e. you get to this conclusion based ENTIRELY on logic and available evidence. Some people may say this is a far-fetched notion, but I dare say, it cannot be any more far-fetched than the existence of an omnipotent being asking his creations (humans) to sacrifice other types of his creations (animals) as an offering to him/her/it. However, while I can assert that the Logical Path DOES end in the Logical Conclusion, I will admit that I am uncertain whether any human being, can, in their lifetime, ever travel the full length of the Logical Path – either because there is insufficient time to or because we do not have the cognitive capacity to attempt such. There are so many aspects, theories and nuances relating to a framework where a supreme deity may exist, do we have the time or ability to consider all of them? I dare say no – at least not currently. And although I do not personally know the person who is farthest along the Logical Path, I would still venture to say that he agrees with me.

I am certain that all of us have travelled along the Logical Path whatever our philosophical leanings, but I think that the relationship we have with the Logical Path differs depending on whether we are believers, atheists or angostics.

Believers, I think, traverse the path a while, and then make a "leap of faith" where they essentially jump from the path of logic into, quite frankly, unknown territory. The gap between the path and wherever they end up is, at least to the rest of us, filled with unanswered questions – unanswered either because the leaper did not have the knowledge to answer them, the evidence was generally unavailable, or because the leaper never even considered the questions to start with. For the non-theists, this Gap of Unanswered Questions is untenable – it essentially means that there are questions that, had they been answered, may have resulted in your changing the trajectory of your leap of faith or even make you refuse to leap at all.

I would have to say though, that believers often do not even realise when they are making these leaps or that they are making these leaps at all. This is because people of faith often consider that the existence of God is "obvious" because of one thing or another. For example, I have heard a fervid believer in the Christian God talking to someone about an autopsy he had seen – probably on television – and saying that when the person was opened up, he was amazed at the complexities of the human body. "How can you not see God in that?" And I think – how can you? Isn't that like a child waking up on Christmas morning, seeing presents under the Christmas tree and considering this irrefutable proof of the existence of Santa? There was a leap of faith there – between the seeming existence of intelligent "design" and the conclusion that an intelligent creator must be the source. There are many considerations on the Logical Path between the two that did not appear to enter into the equation – and therein lies the problem (for non-theists such as myself) and the leap (for the believers). Of course, this is all not to say that believers cannot return to the path during various points in their lives to walk along it a bit more, before making the leap once again (shorter leap, but still very much into the unknown).

Atheists, I think, just step off the path at some point. Being on the path means that you are considering the possibility that God may or may not exist. Atheists believe like theists believe that God does not exist. There is no leap of faith into a complex construct of how a deity works, but there is a conclusion based on the same incomplete evidence. And once again, they may return to the path every now and then to walk along it, make some considerations, then step off it once again.

Agnostics – at least one such as myself – always remain on the path. Sure, sometimes we aren't moving along it, but we stay there. We do not believe in God – hence no leap of faith – but we do not entirely dismiss the possibility that God exists – hence we try not to step off of the path. So this is where I am – always on the Logical Path – and I try to make a couple of steps forward every once in a while. Because I am on the Logical Path – which involves... wait for it... "logic"... I expect that people should be able to relate to what I have to say. I am not asking them to make assumptions about the unknown spiritual realm of some construct or the other – I am simply asking them to consider one aspect or another from a purely rational point of view with only the evidence that is available. Come – walk with me along this path.

The problem I have with most people – theist and non-theist alike – is that they are all crowded around the first few stretches of this path, constantly making their leaps or stepping off the path to go take a drink by the bar.

The believer who is still idling near the starting line is usually so because either:

1. Their knowledge of bible is incomplete and in a surprising number of cases, wholly inaccurate, with limited attempts to understand the merits of the various interpretations of scripture and how much/which interpretations are consistent with/contradict the others. They do not have a full understanding of their own beliefs and have never seriously reconcile these beliefs to their fuzzy understanding of the bible.
2. They have a good understanding of the bible and which interpretation they accept and have a strong construct of their beliefs, however... they have never reconciled the constructs of their belief with logic and have never considered how much what can be proven reconciles with what they believe.

The second is the far more dangerous of the two, I would have to say. Arguing with the first person is frustrating – because how can you argue with someone who does not fully understand their own view point? Arguing with the second person however, is downright futile – how can you argue with someone who refuses or limits the consideration of logic? It would be like arguing in a vacuum – where any argument you make has merit whether it makes sense or not.

The first person, however, can easily fall into the realm of theism or non-theism. There are a surprisingly high number of atheists/agnostics who are actually the first person. The difference – whether they become a believer or a non-believer – has no foundations in logic whatsoever, but in indoctrination or some "significant event" in their lives. Some people grew up in environments which did not shove religion down their throats – either their parents had little or no faith or were actually non-theistic themselves. I would suppose these children may become the same as adults, automatically considering all religion absurd without actually analysing them. (Oh and yes – all religion is absurd. The only reason you don't think yours sounds silly is because you're so accustomed to hearing it.)

It is actually these atheists/agnostics who annoy me quite a bit. If they were to attack the bible, let's say, they will pull out a stream of verses that appear to contradict each other, or do not appear to fall in line with our current cultural morality. While the bible does have some contradictions as well as morally questionable standards, a lot of the verses that may be identified as such can be explained once put into the contexts of the passages from which they arose. Not all. But some. Yet the fact that some atheists/agnostics have not bothered to go to the second level after identifying these verses – seeking their explanations by Christian Apologists, and then third level – formulating a logical response to them or concluding that, in particular cases, the verses are justifiable – is unbearable for me.

But returning to my place on the Logical Path and my willingness to reciprocate – yes, you may make your case for God, and there may be a moment when my mind will shut down on you. It is not necessarily because I am stubborn. It may well be because I encountered your argument a few years ago when I was not as far along on the Logical Path – I dealt with it and I have since moved on. Unless you're going to present a new aspect of it, I'd rather not listen. And if you're not going to pay attention to anything I have to say, we'd better end this conversation right now. Because shouting over the long logical distance that divides us is far too cumbersome anyway.

I understand that I may sound a bit condescending here, and wish to temper this by admitting that there are several things that I might have considered along the Logical Path that I have since forgotten or did not fully understand at the time I was considering them. And there are far more considerations I have not fully explored. This therefore feeds into the other purposes of this blog – to clarify my own views and document them lest they become fuzzy once again. Because there is nothing worse than traversing along the path for quite some time only to realise that the winds of time have blown you farther back than you are willing to admit, even to yourself.

My Blogspot Identity

 

So I create a blog, and christen it by immediately launching into a somewhat detailed analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict – a complicated topic if there ever was one – instead of an introduction to the author herself. I daresay I didn't even properly introduce or consider the background of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict even with 2 posts of together more than 4,000 words. For example, there were a lot of concepts and conditions I alluded to without properly analysis – the ideological differences between Hamas and the PLO, for one, and their respective reception by the Palestinian people. The fact that such a discussion may require posts unto themselves aside, I avoided analysis of it for the same reason that the title of this entry – My Blogspot Identity – may be considered somewhat misleading. And it is this:

This blog is meant to be internal – not external.

An "external" blog I would suggest seeks to be seen or followed. I have no wish for followers and believe I likely will have few if any at all. I do not expect anyone to stumble across this blog and say:

"Hey! Awesome blog. This really analyses various concepts in a way that I can understand and will continue to follow for the purposes of entertainment and knowledge."

Besides, I am convinced that the population of people on this earth who may ever say such a thing is dwindling to extinction.

This blog is very much intended to be internal – a place for me to articulate my opinions that would otherwise remain fuzzy and ill-formed inside of my mind. I have always liked to research issues and ideas. I would spend anywhere from a few days to a few weeks at a time completely taken with one issue or another. The end result of this will be to discuss these issues at varying lengths with the same friend I mentioned in my first entry, before moving onto the next topic. While discussing with someone who shares your views in large part is very comforting, there is some merit in also writing these views down.

Firstly, I have been finding that I am forgetting some aspects of issues I would have researched in the past. For instance, slavery in the bible. I can pretty much accept that the bible does condone some forms of slavery. Some time ago, I researched the Christian Apologists' views on slavery in the bible. Most of them I recall eventually dismissing as absurd, but I cannot specifically remember what those explanations were. So if I were to get into a discussion now about slavery in the bible, I will be able to point out what the bible says about slaves (mostly), but if, in the off-chance, the theist has already thought about it and can give me the reasons this is acceptable, I will be forced to rely on memory and "thinking on my feet" to respond. It might be as easily said as it is done, but I would much prefer to have these excuses at the ready so I can quickly offer the explanations as to why those reasons are unfounded, unacceptable, or quite simply absurd. Short of me having to go back to research slavery in the bible (which I invariably will have to do), I can simply revisit a post here. Even further, I can update the post with things I have learnt since I wrote it.

Secondly, I have found that writing ideas down add to their clarity in my own mind. My first 2 posts, for instance – I started writing them AFTER I had already scoured (for a couple hours) various internet pages about the history of the conflict and therefore had formulated somewhat of an opinion. The process of writing them down, however, forced me to the realisation that there were some aspects of my reasoning that either was inconsistent with other parts, chronologically confusing, or the like. I found myself having to revisit many of the same sites that I had first gone to, as well as looking up a couple others, in order to formulate 2 entries that made sense – for the msot part. For me, it is far easier to sense the logical fallacy within the written word than within the spoken. Of course, you may be able to reach the same conclusions through discussion – you say your piece, your colleague says theirs, and in so doing you are introduced to angles not previously considered. Either one can work fine – except that you can say "okay, I will look into that" and never do subsequent to the discussion, but if you want to finish a cogent entry into your blog, you gotta finish the research before you make the post.

Thirdly, having these discussions with my friend is tantamount to preaching to the choir. Like I said, having discussions among people with similar view points of the world is very self-validating. But then what of it? You discuss, you agree, you perhaps shift your opinion slightly to the left or the right, but it still remains in the same box. And nobody else cares about your box – they are already trying to defend their own. To combat this, I have started introducing some of the concepts I occasionally research to my other friends – almost all of whom are theists – with varying degrees of limited success. During these times, I have occassionally thought to myself – I wish I could just do up an email explaining to them the unlikely existence of this concept of "the free will" or the contradictions within their current concept of "God". Well I suppose this blog may address that, but let's be clear, I have no intentions of having them follow this blog; my intentions are only to direct them to an entry here and there when something salient arises.

Because of these 3 factors, the only people likely to read this blog are those who already know me. So there is absolutely no need for me to generate a post describing myself – physical attributes, likes or dislikes, my horoscope sign and whether I like long walks on the beach. If you are using this blog to understand such things about me, well... you're in for time-consuming treat. You can probably establish such a profile by reading all of my past and future entries – because nothing gives insight to a person's outlook on life than detailed analyses of their views on specific issues. And within these articles, you may find more mundane aspects of my personality – like in the previous 2, you will come to understand that I am okay with dropping the f-bomb once in a while.

So this is my Blogspot identity. Deal with it. Or return to watching Lady Gaga videos on youtube.

Palestine/Israeli Conflict - Part 2

Prep yourselves, folks. This is going to be a long one.

After some research (I was actually considering use the expression "much research" but I figure to comfortably use such, I would have to read a few books on the issues as opposed to a few articles on Wikipedia), I have come to some level of conclusion on a very convoluted topic. My opinion can be revealed by asking and answering a few basic questions.

Q: Which side is to blame for how this all STARTED?

A: I dare say the blame is almost 50/50 on each side, but I will give it a 65/35 with the 65 going to the Israelis.

Q: Which side is the PRIMARY CURRENT obstacle to a peace agreement?

A: The Palestinians – but it is somewhat understandable.

Q: Is the American response in the situation thus far justified?

A: To an extent – but it is somewhat hypocritical.

And now having given my two minute soundbite as a pundit, let me give you the analysis this was based on. And it is based on the history of it all.

Trinidad is a former colony of a European country (Britain, to be precise – hence my writing using the Queen's English). The same was true for most of the middle east. In 1917, Britain successfully fought the Ottoman empire for control over Palestine. When the British Mandate over Palestine was enacted in 1922, the population of Palestine was predominantly Muslim and Arab, with only 11% being Jewish.

So let's pause a moment for us all to be clear here. In 1922, there was no state of Israel, and Palestine was a predominantly Arab/Muslim nation. Jews were floating all over the world at that point, and were constantly being persecuted. For these very earthly and also for non-earthly (i.e. Biblical) reasons, Jews always longed for their own state, and what better place to call home than the land which holds Jerusalem – their most holy of cities. Even prior to 1922, Jews often migrated to the Palestine region, mainly for religious reasons, though usually in smaller groups. But then there became a growing political/secular movement of people wishing to migrate to Palestine in the hopes of establishing, at the very least, a Jewish community. This migration became stronger and stronger with the growth of Naziism, culminating in WWII which chased even more Jews, many of whom chose the state of Palestine to escape persecution. By the end the war, the Jewish population had risen to 33% of the population – essentially it had tripled in less than a generation.

Of course the Muslims/Arabs did not see this massive influx and simply kept their mouths shut. Over the course of 3 years – 1936 to 1939, there were at least two distinct revolts against the British colonial rule as well as the mass influx of Jewish migrants. Because of these revolts, the Brits tried to come to a solution – proposing the "two state" solution for the first time (refer to the Peel Commission). They suggested that Palestine be split between a Jewish state and an Arab state, with the Arabs getting more of the land (although a portion of it was an economically undeveloped and infertile desert). The establishment of these states would also possibly result in the "compulsory" transfer of population that would unsettle about 250,000 Arabs and about 1,250 Jews. The Arabs were completely against it while the Jews, though divided, were a bit more in favour of the plan.

Let's pause for a moment again here and understand this situation. Try to put yourself in an Arab's sandals. Too hard? Come on. Give it a shot. You're an Arab, living in Palestine under Ottoman control. Life isn't too difficult – you get to practice your religion and what not. In comes Britain, they overthrow the Ottoman Empire and take control of Palestine. Life still does not change too much, except that you start noticing that your Jewish neighbours – once a small minority – is starting to grow. And grow. And grow. And grow still. There is a massive influx of people to your country – and they are mainly Jews. And they are coming here to stay. Now most countries nowadays have serious restrictions on massive influxes of any portion of a populace into its borders – short of refugees in which case TEMPORARY refugee camps are set up.

But no. You do not rule your country – the Brits do – and you are therefore powerless to stymy the suddenly shifting demographic of your country. PERMANENT shifting. So you revolt – you tell the government:

Arabs: "What the hell, Brits?! You're a foreign country occupying my homeland and you're letting HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of these foreigners set up shop in my country? It doesn't even feel like MY country anymore."

And then to validate your last claim – that this isn't your country anymore – the Brits respond by saying...

Brits: "Okay cool. We hear your concerns due to your rioting. We will attempt to resolve by giving these foreigners setting up shop in Your Homeland part of Your Homeland to call Their Homeland and giving you your Part of Your Homeland. Oh yeah, and I noticed your neighbourhhood – which a decade ago was primarily Arab – is now predominantly Jewish, so this will form part of the Their Homeland... Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out."

And the Jews will say:

Jews: "Man. I've been persecuted all over the world. I've fled here just hoping to be accepted for what I am and not be persecuted" (all entirely understandable). "But after having nowhere to call my own, Brits are gonna give me almost half of this Arab territory they conquered? Fucking awesome!"

So of course the Arabs will say no. They are essentially going from their homeland which had a history of being unified under foreign control to getting half of their homeland under their control. And of course the Jews will say yes. They are finally getting land to call their own – albeit wrung from the hands of Palestinian Arabs while all other Arab nations who were at the time gaining FULL independence of THEIR ENTIRE TERRITORIES from Europe. All because a few hundred thousand Jews migrated to Palestine in the 25 or so years it was under English control.

To be fair, the alternatives would have been to either:

1. Oust most of the Jewish residents to return Palestine to some semblance of its ethnic/religious mix of 1922 – something that is extremely unrealistic
2. Propose a one state solution – which might have been a viable option, but with the Arab population already attacking many Jewish settlements within Palestine, there would have been a long civil war before things calmed down

The best thing would have been to prevent this situation from ever happening – i.e. there should have been restrictions on such a massive inflow of people into Palestine – be they Jews or otherwise. Any country which is subject to such a massive change in demographic in such a short period of time is just a seed of social turmoil waiting to grow into a massive, bloody, disgustingly- difficult-to-axe tree. But that didn't happen. So we move on.

Where are we? Right. The demographic of Palestine has shifted. Britain is seeking a two-state solution and failing miserably. Enter now Britain announcing that they are going to relinquish control of the Palestine mandate in the coming future. Now a peace deal HAS to be brokered – lest a Vacuum Of Soverignity (VOS) be created in that region where there is territory (Palestine) which is occupied by several peoples but controlled by no one.

By this time, there were several independent Arab nations, all of whom (together the Arab league), had a vested and legitimate interest in Palestine. Why? Because it was Arab? Yes – but it is a bit deeper than that. See that war in 1917 that allowed the Brits to gain control over Palestine? Well, they were successful in this war, as well as all of their engagements throughout the middle east which were under Ottoman control due to the assistance of the Arabs. This assistance was won through promises to establish a single unified Arab State across the Middle East, and which included Palestine.

Well that changes the dynamic doesn't it? So here you are, an Arab. Promised your own state after British invasion, only to get half of it after a whole bunch of foreigners (Jews) "show up".

There were several attempts at a two-state solution, all of which were rejected by the Arab League while being accepted, at least mostly, by the Jewish settlers. And per above, we can understand why that will be. So in this case, there are two opposing sides – the Arab Leage and the Jewish settlers. There is the mediator – the Brits and eventually, when the Brits gave up, the United Nations. They cannot reach a deal over a Jewish/Palestinian state. The date that the British Mandate is set to end looms near. The most recent plan was rejected by the Arab League but accepted by the Jewish settlers. In frustration, Arab bands begin to attack Jewish targets. The Jews defend themselves, then they get on the offensive and the first in a wave of skirmishes between Jews and Arabs begin, resulting in the collapse of the Arab Palestinian economy and the fleeing/expulsion of a quarter of a million Arabs from Palestine. And the date looms nearer still, no agreement in sight. What happens just the day before the Mandate is set to end?

The Jewish settlements declare themselves an independent state called "Israel" in line, more or less, with the borders of the most recently offered (but not accepted by both parties) agreement. Immediately, they are attacked by members of the Arab league who deny this "Israel" the right to exist. The Arab countries are soon defeated, but before this happens, during the war and therafter,there is a massive migration (approximately 700,000) of Palestinian Arabs. As is usually the case, the middle class and up escape to other countries and re-establish themselves. The poor on the otherhand, flee to the portions of Palestine not under this new territory of Israel – the West Bank and Gaza strip in particular where they live in refugee camps. And this is where now they, and their descendants – estimated at just shy of 5 million people, reside. Once they had homes in a homeland, now they have shanty towns in a city born of refugee camps. Mere months after their declaration of statehood, Israel is accepted as an independent state by the United Nations. Meanwhile, the rest of Palestine (now a mixture of homes and refugee camps for the displaced) is sucked into the expected Vacuum of Soverignity (VOS) as there is no SINGLE party OFFICIALLY in control of its constantly shifting boundaries.

Whoa whoa whoa. Let's pause a moment here so I can start cycling things back to the questions I originally asked and answered of myself.

Q: Which side is to blame for how this all STARTED?

1. The Jews, in small part (say 5%), because they moved, in droves, into a country that was not theirs, shifting demographics significantly to the dismay of the existing populace. Of course this is not their fault; they were fleeing persecution, and of course, as individuals, they will move to the country that they consider a religious "Zion" to them, as well as a country where most of the other people such as themselves were going. They could not have been expected to anticipate the response or the hardships they were placing on other peoples.
2. The Arabs, in some part (say 35%), because they were resisting every reasonable attempt at a solution. Granted, they were upset that the Brits seemed to be going against an agreement of a unified Arab State and also that a massive inflow of Jews had not been stymied by the ruling Brits. But short of expelling Jews to goodness knows where and avoiding all-out civil war, what were the options? They needed to accept that this was the situation on the ground, and this was one of the better solutions for it.
3. The Jews, in large part (the remaining 60%), for establishing a nation before reaching an agreement with its neighbours, thereby implying that it could not be trusted, and causing the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homelands into slums.

Q: Which side is side is the PRIMARY CURRENT obstacle to a peace agreement?

Right now, neither side trusts the other. The Palestinians and their sympathisers believe that the Jews don't want a two nation state. They think the Jews want ongoing "negotiations" while they continually build settlements on disputed lands, hoping to draw out the "negotiations" as long as possible so that any final agreement will be in their favour (as much land staying with Israel) as far as possible. I actually believed that too. Now, not so much. The Israelis don't trust the Palestinians, who they insist will use their sovereignity to seek help to wipe Israel off the map because they do not believe it has the "right to exist".

I think each side has some truth to their claims, but having considered the story, I think that the Jews's version is a bit more credible. Why? Simple. The Palestinians and Arabs hate the Jews far more than the Jews hate the Palestinians and Arabs. And it all has to do with this "right to exist". I always thought the term related to people who thought that Israel should be "wiped off of the face of the earth" Ahmadinejad style. Now I understand that this is not it – at least mostly not it. People who deny Israel's right to exist do not necessarily (although they probably do a little) want to drop a bomb on Israel and reclaim the land. What they are saying is that Israel's declaration of independence was not valid as there was no mutual agreement by its neighbours – the Arab League. To recognise Israel, to them, was tantamount to accepting that Israel's unilateral declaration was valid and therefore the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs and their ensuing ongoing misery was justifiable. And that is something that a lot of Palestinians and Arabs are just plain unwilling to do.

As a result, even though at least half of Palestine (through the PLO) acknowledge Israel and wish to have a two-state solution, one has to wonder how much they really consider Israel as a legitimate state. This is a Palestine that has suffered because foreigners (Jews) took up residence in their land and called it their own, displacing those who always lived there and forcing them into shanty-town type atmospheres controlled by organisations that are not internationally recognised (i.e. no UN membership). And that's not counting the half controlled by Hamas.

The Palestinians hate the Jews. And with the cycle of poverty feeding that hate and feeding the poverty (rinse, wash, repeat), it is unlikely that the Palestinians will form a cohesive, reasonable and practical response to their situation. All understable – they got the shitty end of the stick, but they are so pissed off that they are unwilling to come to terms with the fact that a shitty stick is better than no stick at all.

Q: Is the American response in the situation thus far justified?

With their significant Jewish interest, I would expect that they will support the Jews in fighting against a Palestinian state. And given that the Jews' grounds for such is relatively valid, America's support is valid by extension. On the other hand, denying funding to a body as important to SEVERAL nations as UNESCO for the sake of one nation who has been seen to defend itself very well, I think is more than a little appalling. Then again, it is written into their legislation to do such to any organisation which recognises Palestine as an independent state.

As for the hypocrisy – America keeps saying that declaring an independent state prior to the establishment of a peace deal compromises the negotiations to achieve such a deal. I completely agree. Now why the fuck didn't America or any of the other nations at the UN make the same argument when Israel declared itself a nation before reaching a deal with the Arab League over any such territory in Palestine? What Palestine is doing to gain statehood is a weak mirror of what Israel did – ignore the fact that there was no deal and declare itself independent.

You might argue that subsequent to Israel declaring itself independent, the only skirmishes in which it partook arose from it defending its borders while slowly expanding outwards. On the otherhand, an independent Palestine may involve an out-right attacks of Israel. "Possible", but any such attacks will be born out of an understandable hate for a nation that it considers having stolen and illegally occupied its lands. While Israel's declaration of independence definitely strengthened its standing in the Middle East (with the UN support and all), it also steeled the anger of a population – the Palestines – against it. That kind of hatred lasts through generations, as each generation grows up under a new cycle of poverty and restriction, it looks to the area held by the rich Israelis who move about as they please – an area that the older folks constantly point to in hatred and disgust – and they find something to blame. Something to fight against.

Q: What are my final thoughts?

A: I thought that the PLO's bid for statehood may mean that within a few years, even with America blockading, I might see a legitimate Palestinian state. Now, I'm not so sure. It will happen eventually, but with that kind of tension still lingering among a populace, it will take a far more united and seemingly "moderate" Palestine who are willing to "knuckle under" and admit their weakness to the strong and unrelenting Israel, to broker a peace deal and roadmap to a Palestinian state almost entirely on Israeli terms.

And that's my 2 cents. What with inflation, it's probably worth a cent and a half. But hey – like the Palestinians wouldn't say – better a piece than nothing at all.

Palestine/Israeli Conflict - Part 1

Even from young and while living thousands of miles away (in physical, cultural and ideological distance) from Israel and Palestine, the conflict between these two factions has always been a staple in my view of international turmoil. I will always remember a young me, perhaps no more than 10, watching The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, before it remained on air only in syndication, and seeing a girl of about my age, jokingly bid her family farewell by saying "peace in the middle east" - an extenuation on the "Black" way of saying goodbye - a simple "Peace".

Not only did I understand the joke enough to laugh, but also at some vague level of my young mind, I considered such a possibility implausible and perhaps a little silly. Seeing the image, on the few-minutes-long international portion of the Trinidadian news, of poor Palestinian boys throwing rocks at Isareli tanks was the norm. It was Just The Way Things Were.

As I got older, my understanding of this conflict only grew as much as the attention it was given by the international news and as much as my angst-ridden mind would allow – so not much. Even less so now, with the increasing popularity of info-tainment being passed off as news by the large news organisations I once considered credible (CNN now with at least one solid foot on this list, though luckily the BBC with barely a finger). It is all too easy now to base your entire opinion of a complex issue on the rhetoric-filled sound-bite that cable news feeds you.


With international politics and the like, there is always a lot going on – a lot to attempt to formulate a cogent opinion about, but the Palestinian people's recent bid for statehood has brought the Israel/Palestine conflict to the front of my mind in a big way for the first time. Why? For one thing, it challenged the seemingly permanent fact that a stateless Palestine and unmoving Israel perhaps may not be Just The Way Things Were. But mainly, it was the varying response from the international community and the USA in particular that made me want to look a bit further. It was always somewhat understood that despite the USA attempting to broker deals between the two sides, that it favoured the Israelis (my guess is because of the substantial power held by people of Jewish faith in the upper echelons of US politics and business). But it seems that their bias was far more than I anticipated,when Palestine successfully gained membership into UNESCO (therefore the international community supported them) and the USA responded by cutting all funding to that international body. It quite literally made me go – What The Fuck?


Up to this point, my opinion on the situation was somewhat vague as it was based on only whatever the pundits were saying during their allotted two minutes on the news whenever the Palestine/Israeli conflict was more sensational than any other international topic at that point in time. And my opinion was this:


Give the Palestinians their nation – that was the only reason they were launching rockets or sending suicide bombers into Israel. Give them their nation and stop building settlements in disputed territories, Israel – if there is still a dispute over who owns these territories, building settlements there is tantamount to spitting on the paper of any possible peace agreement because it is obvious that Israel has the power and the resources to do such while Palestine not only does not have the same power, but is also powerless to stop Israel. Israel has the upper hand – it always did. Whenever fighting between the two factions broke out, the casualties were always far heavier on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side. Primarily because Palestine did not have full control over its resources as a sovereign nation would, it remained in poverty and social upheaval, thereby facilitating a vicious circle of poverty breeding hate and violence, restricting economic and intellectual growth, thereby breeding more poverty to breed more hate and violence.


But the Israelies did not want to give Palestine its state – why? And my mind simply went to – they wanted more of their Messiah-promised land to continue building their settlements. If they gave Palestine their state, they would have to demolish these settlements as well as relinquish some claim to their holy cities, and they certainly wanted to keep the entire of Jerusalem – a city that the Arabs wanted to claim at least in part. So of course, I thought the Israelis completely unjustified – they were building the settlements on disputed land so tough shit if they lost them under an agreement. And the city of Jerusalem was a holy site for three major religions, so the Israelis should compromise and give up at least a part of it in the name of peace – in the middle east.


That was what I thought – in vague terms – before I started researching the history of this situation. Written out all on paper, it does sound a bit silly in premise, doesn't it? Even when such ruminations were vague, I thought that they were incomplete. There had to be more to this situation than just this. Why can't the Israelis and Palestinians agree? It seemed so simple. I thought the main reason had to be the ideological differences – both sides considered the land rightfully theirs under whatever version of the same God they served. But who was really to blame for it all? I needed to understand it better so that I could better formulate an opinion that I can feel confident in defending.


I first turned to a friend – a fellow Trinidadian and one of the few (friends as well as Trinis) who took interest in international situations such as this and understood/knew enough about them to have an opinion I took seriously. Imagine my surprise when he seemed to slightly favour the Israelis in the situation, citing that Israel is willing to have a two-state solution – a Palestine state existing alongside Israel – but that they were concerned that those in power in Palestine denied that Israel had a right to exist and cited security concerns with having such a nation existing right alongside it. Of course Israel will not agree to a Palestine state under these conditions – and the Arabs had their chance to agree to a Palestine/Israel state division several times back in the 40's, 50's and 60's and rejected it. But, I said – doesn't the PLO agree that Israel has a right to exist and wishes to broker a deal? Yes, he said, but the PLO only controls half of Palestine, with Hamas controlling the other half and denying Israel's right to exist. Hamas' power is growing – what if they took over the whole of Palestine? You will now have a sovereign nation with control over its own borders who can oust any occupying Israeli force and invite fellow Arab nations to establish military bases and the like in preparation for an attack against Israel, a country that is not well favoured by other countries in the middle east.


This got me to thinking – quite a bit of thinking, actually. I still held onto my view that the Israelis should not be blockading the establishment of a Palestine state because of the “possibility” of an invasion by the newly established state. (Basing military policy on the “possibility” of war just brought back too many nasty thoughts of the alleged reasons America invaded Iraq.) But first, I needed to understand – how did this all start? Who was to blame? And is America's position justified?