rainbeau
20th January 2010, 07:31 PM
I went to school with a Palestinian girl. At least once or twice, we discussed the ongoing Israel / Palestine conflicts. I'd heard about Isaac and Ishmael as a kid, but never looked too deeply into the stories until after I talked to her. After talking to her, and reading back through the story a few times, I reached a not-so-suprising conclusion.
According to the bible, god gave Canaan / Palestine / Israel to the descendents of Abraham. He did not specify "I will give this land to your decendents by your favorite son, Isaac." He promised it to all of Abraham's descendents. That means both his firstborn, Ishmael, and Isaac, had claim to the land.
Actually, the elder son got the lion's share of the estate. That means poor Isaac would have to take whatever was left after his big brother was done. Some say that he has no claim because he wasn't born of Abraham's wife, Sara. He was born of Sara's maid, who became Abraham's concubine for the purpose of giving him a son. But the laws allowed men to produce heirs in this way. And these children had the same inheritance rights as children by legal wives.
Of course, after Isaac was born, Sara had Abraham banish Hagar and Ishmael so that Isaac wouldn't have any competition. Banished or not, Ishmael was born first. Thus his descendents (arabs) would've gotten the 'bigger half' so to speak. Banishment might have reversed their roles. But there's still god's promise that all of Abraham's descendents would inherit the land. So Ishmael still had a claim to the land.
This means that neither side can say that the other has no right to the land. It also means that this debate goes back farther than the official formation of "ISRAEL." Of course, the real question is ... Who started it? I'll give you a hint. He started all of it. As in everything. That's right. Score another EPIC FAIL for our invisible friend in the sky.
Apparently, our invisible friend was not all-knowing enough to know that a few thousand of years in the future, the children of Abraham would be members of opposing religions... and the land he promised to them would end up in a kind of global tug-o-war... made worse by advocates of a relatively new religion (started by our invisible friend's son) who poke their noses into the battle... and acting on what an only be described as a god-complex, decide that they know best how to handle the situation... by giving the land to the favorite son, thus fueling the flames in this age-old case of sibbling rivalry... flames that already make the lake of fire seem like the cold side of the moon in comparison.
You'd think an omiscient god would know these things. Or at least, know that there might be some disagreement between Abraham's kids. Kids fight. It happens. That's why parents (and invisible friends) have to be clear about things like who gets the top bunk (or the promised land).
And if there is no god, then I guess it's a matter of who was there first. Or at least, whose army is bigger and stronger and can keep the land under their control. Or the land could just be equally split into two countries. (Insert comments about King Solomon sawing a baby in half.) Then again, why do things in a somewhat reasonable fashion when we can use opposing beliefs about our invisible friends as justification for war?
According to the bible, god gave Canaan / Palestine / Israel to the descendents of Abraham. He did not specify "I will give this land to your decendents by your favorite son, Isaac." He promised it to all of Abraham's descendents. That means both his firstborn, Ishmael, and Isaac, had claim to the land.
Actually, the elder son got the lion's share of the estate. That means poor Isaac would have to take whatever was left after his big brother was done. Some say that he has no claim because he wasn't born of Abraham's wife, Sara. He was born of Sara's maid, who became Abraham's concubine for the purpose of giving him a son. But the laws allowed men to produce heirs in this way. And these children had the same inheritance rights as children by legal wives.
Of course, after Isaac was born, Sara had Abraham banish Hagar and Ishmael so that Isaac wouldn't have any competition. Banished or not, Ishmael was born first. Thus his descendents (arabs) would've gotten the 'bigger half' so to speak. Banishment might have reversed their roles. But there's still god's promise that all of Abraham's descendents would inherit the land. So Ishmael still had a claim to the land.
This means that neither side can say that the other has no right to the land. It also means that this debate goes back farther than the official formation of "ISRAEL." Of course, the real question is ... Who started it? I'll give you a hint. He started all of it. As in everything. That's right. Score another EPIC FAIL for our invisible friend in the sky.
Apparently, our invisible friend was not all-knowing enough to know that a few thousand of years in the future, the children of Abraham would be members of opposing religions... and the land he promised to them would end up in a kind of global tug-o-war... made worse by advocates of a relatively new religion (started by our invisible friend's son) who poke their noses into the battle... and acting on what an only be described as a god-complex, decide that they know best how to handle the situation... by giving the land to the favorite son, thus fueling the flames in this age-old case of sibbling rivalry... flames that already make the lake of fire seem like the cold side of the moon in comparison.
You'd think an omiscient god would know these things. Or at least, know that there might be some disagreement between Abraham's kids. Kids fight. It happens. That's why parents (and invisible friends) have to be clear about things like who gets the top bunk (or the promised land).
And if there is no god, then I guess it's a matter of who was there first. Or at least, whose army is bigger and stronger and can keep the land under their control. Or the land could just be equally split into two countries. (Insert comments about King Solomon sawing a baby in half.) Then again, why do things in a somewhat reasonable fashion when we can use opposing beliefs about our invisible friends as justification for war?