It's a touchy subject to talk about, but it is something I have thought about given the recent events in the world. I'm thinking about the concept of a divine right to a land. It isn't something new, in fact it is as old as man himself, this idea that one group is guided by one God that controls everything. With that guidance that group is righteous and fully justified in any actions they should take. It's their divine right. Kings used to claim that if you remember your history. The Divine Right of Kings was settled by the Magna Carta in 1215. That document said in essence, the King was not above the law. In short, he wasn't God. It wasn't as easy as all that however as several times the document was signed, civil war broke out again and another document signed. Our own Constitution is a document saying that "government" (think Kings) are not above the law. The law is controlled by the people. In our Constitution we eliminated God altogether as a deciding factor in matters of government. We chose to rely on the morals and ethics of those we elect to represent us. The Congress shall make the law, and only the Congress. That much hasn't changed over the centuries.
In the United States during the 18th century there was the concept of manifest destiny. It was something that was always contested between various factions and political parties. Never a written policy of any kind it was more of an idea or belief than anything else. Today historians view it as a racist concept. There are those that say it was to express the superiority of the white race. The Democratic party used manifest destiny to justify the Mexican-American war and settle the Oregon border dispute.
I don't believe it has its' roots in racism. Those that founded this country came from all regions of the world and it was simply the majority of those folks are what we call white folks today. Nationality was far more important to people back in those days. It wasn't about race or color! Yes, I know blacks were enslaved, so were a number of other groups over time that would be called white people today, just not in the numbers of black Africans. The reason for the black Africans was there was an active market for that. There were those willing to provide the product! Yeah, it wasn't white guys raiding the jungles to capture slaves, that isn't how that happened, they were purchased from the local market. I think the white people living in America simply wanted all the land they could get and didn't care what race they had to fight to get it. It wasn't about the people, it was about the land.
That is what we are seeing right now. As I said, nothing new about that. But any claim made to land by divine right is not a valid claim unless everyone agrees on the divine. It's like when the King ruled the land because everyone agreed on that. When they didn't, the king was overthrown! That's just the way things work in the world. You can only rule by unanimous consent. When the votes are tallied that is the unanimous consent of the people. Well, it's as close as it is going to get anyway. What I'm saying is that you can't claim a deity of some type grants you the right of property, of any type. Not unless everyone agrees on that deity. That is what is so confusing, so contentious about what is happening with Israel and the Palestinians. Two groups that historically just can't seem to get along. The big issue being just what the deity they both believe in has to say about worshipping that deity. It's the same God. Apparently, this God promised the same land to at least two groups, maybe three if you count the Christians. And that is the touchy part in discussing all of this.
The Old Testament promises the Israelites a home. The Promised Land that we all know about. I confess to not really being up on the whole saga and knowing all the details. After being freed by the Pharoah the Israelites roamed the desert for forty years before finding their home. They had many battles over that time period. That's where my history/knowledge of the Biblical story is a bit fuzzy. However, the story goes, in the end the Jewish folks build a grand temple in the city of Jerusalem. That was after King David defeated the Canaanites and seized the city called Jebus. Jebus became Jerusalem. We don't know much about the Canaanites though, but they weren't Palestinians. They lived in the neighborhood of what we know today as Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. That is the area the Old Testament describes as the promised land.
It wasn't until 1948 that Israel officially became a nation. The United Nations did that. The United Nations recognizes both Israel and Palestine. The big issue is just what group owns the rights to what land. They have tried settling that dispute by "divine" right. The Jewish people claiming that right through the Biblical text and the Palestinians claiming they were there first. The Jewish people defeated those Canaanites to claim the city for their own. The Palestinian people claiming the Canaanites were Palestinians. They are saying they were the indigenous people of that area. All of that is hotly debated by scholars today.
That is the problem in a nutshell. I don't believe you will ever settle that debate. It's an all or nothing thing in that region. The United States defeated the indigenous people, the Indians, and took control of the land. That's simple history. Whether it was destined to be so is another topic of discussion altogether. Depends upon which side of that argument you stand. I know one thing for certain, no one is giving the land back! No, not happening. Injustice? Yes, you could call it a grave injustice, but it happened, and you are not going to change that. Jerusalem has been attacked 52 times, captured and recaptured 44 times, besieged 23 times, and destroyed twice. Jerusalem has been around a lot longer than the United States.
Currently Israel occupies 6,020 sq. km. Palestine occupies 22,770 sq. km. All of that area is in what has been called the Holy land. Israel makes a Biblical claim to their land and the Palestinians make their claim based on being there first. Many of the Palestinian people follow Islam whose Ideology calls for the destruction of the Jewish people their ancestral enemies. Today many of those Muslim people will say, that's what it says but that isn't what it means. Still, it is the Muslim Palestinians that are attacking and killing the Jewish folks. The Jewish folks are once again defending Jerusalem.
So, what is the solution. The two-state solution is obviously not going to satisfy the Palestinians. Peaceful co-existence isn't going to happen either. The emotions are too strong, the connection to the past and ancestry is too strong. You would have to get everyone to agree that the other side is correct in the argument. That is never going to happen. That's like getting all the wealthy people in this country to simultaneously agree to redistribute their wealth to ease the suffering of the poor. Yeah, they will all agree that poverty is very bad, that everyone gets an equal share, but they aren't going to give you that share! Are we going to give America back to the Indian population? I don't think so. Two state solution? Isn't that what reservations are all about? Well, sorta like that but with controls. Does it work? What about joint custody or Jerusalem? Could Jerusalem become an independent nation like Rome? Well, then who is going to be the "Pope" in that scenario? You can't have a leader or a government that recognizes everyone's' views and opinions. The purpose of government is to govern. There has to be a mutually accepted standard or rule. I can't see any solution to the problem. Sometimes you just have to fight about it. There are winners and losers. Can't change that. This is a case of my God can beat up your God. Might does not make right, but might establishes peace, if only for a short time.
No comments:
Post a Comment