King Solomon was a very wise man. In the King James version of the Bible, specifically in the 3rd book of 1 Kings, a story is told where he was supposed to judge between two mothers of children. Both mothers said the child belonged to them. In his wisdom, Solomon suggested cutting the child in half. One woman eagerly accepted this situation, but the other refused. She did not want the child to be hurt. She preferred the child to go to the other woman rather than see it be harmed in any way.
I think this can serve as a metaphor for the battle over land between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Here, too, is a situation where people are fighting over an object they both want to possess. The difference is, they are fighting over land, not a baby. But the underlying issue is the same. There is a lot of collateral damage engendered by the fight. Children in this case, too, are being injured. However, it is not just one child. Israelis are killing Palestinian children, and the Palestinians are killing Jewish children.
If either side proclaimed that they were refusing to cause any more damage to civilians, they would instantly gain immense credibility on an international level. The world would applaud the wisdom of such a choice. Regardless of who technically has a right to the land, both sides should care more for the lives of children than they do ownership rights of an inanimate object.
It is like both women in the King Solomon biblical story agreeing to damage the child for their own selfish purposes. If this had occurred, then most people would say that both women had voluntarily given up their right to look after the child. The analogy I am thinking of is that because of the blood that has been shed on both sides, both the Palestinians and the Israelis have forfeited their right to the land they both desire so fervently.
So who should get the land? Perhaps Jerusalem and the surrounding areas could be international cities. The land is the physical embodiment of three of the world’s major religions; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is too important to be sacrificed to people who would slay it so that they can possess it for themselves. If there were a Solomon today, a monarch who ruled according to the wisdom of God, would the establishment of international cities be his prescription for this part of the world? What do you think?
Regardless of who technically has a right to the land, both sides should care more for the lives of children than they do ownership rights of an inanimate object.
I think another analogy can be made, this time with reference to the recent events that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. The ownership rights that are relevant here are the ones involving guns. Some people in the present are fighting for the right to possess assault weapons because of the possibility of a battle between the American government and its citizens in the future. They hypothesize that there is going to be a time when the government is going to attempt to implement martial law, and that citizens will need to bear arms in order to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government. However, in the meantime, how many children are going to die? Children are being slain at an appalling, ever-increasing rate, because mentally disturbed individuals are misusing assault weapons. The children, once again, are being sacrificed for adults’ desires to possess an inanimate object. This time it is guns. In the case of the Gaza strip, it is land. In the case of King Solomon and the women fighting, it was a baby. In each case, it is the innocent children who suffer and pay the price. Can we stop the madness?
SunCMars
It is said that ‘might’ makes ‘right’.
While technically true, it has no safeguards against what is morally, untrue.
Morally, is it?
Who defines this term and its application.
This, always is the rub-raw question.
Aye.
Yes, land and guns are material things, and yes, it is lives that ‘should’ be held more dear, and protected.
‘Should’, the word of moralists and well-wishers.
All well and good.
Who can rightly argue against such, this?
I say It is this ‘Nature’ that makes up our existence that resists such thoughts and those, our, harmful (to others) action(s).
We are bred, wed and feted on this survival instinct. Survival of the Fittest; human morality, be damned.
I certainly agree that we ‘should’ refrain from this primitive way of interacting with each other.
We ‘should’ abstain from our lower animalistic ways and adopt a ‘live, and let live’ lifestyle.
This can only occur if our collective education system over-rides our selfish tendencies.
Altruism takes root.
It seems that ‘should’ can only be when made ‘shall’ by law and force.
This is a worthy goal if not a foolish one.
We have nearly 7 billion people on Earth, and most are tribal in their thinking.
Being tribal today is a life and death need.
Going your own way will leave you vulnerable to the majority of others who have no liking, , no need, and no love for collectivism.
My friend, you go against the grain that is Man, is life in all its forms.