A long time ago, while discussing with a friend, I said that a person can, at best, be described as an agnostic, because we cannot know whether there is a supreme being or not. He, quite rightly, replied that that question is, apriori, a nonsense and only later did I understand fully what he meant; accepting the feuerbachian thesis, which contends that man invented god and not the other way around and thus logically accepting Marx's contention that our being in society determines our consciousness, my conclusion would also have to be that the question as to whether there is a god or not is, in fact, absurd. We cannot know if there is a big apple pie up high in the sky and that is where we all go when we die, however, we don't walk around asking ourselves if that big apple pie exists or not. Therefore, it would be silly to listen to those who argue that that apple pie does in fact exist.
The point is, there are not always two sides to an argument; or at least not two sides worth listening to. Therefore, when I hear "the extremists on both sides", "the land for peace", "the constant barrage of bombs from Gaza" people, I can only cringe. In 1948 Palestine was ethnically cleansed, in 1967 the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were illegally occupied. International law maintains that those who were forced from their homes in 1948 have the right of return, international law requires that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories and international law most definitely demands that Israel cease expanding their illegal settlements on someone else's land.
Now, I am sure there are a few "apple pie up high in the sky" space cadets among you out there, drugged on the Jesus Christ superstar gobblydegook, and there are a lot of you out there who still believe the drivel, regarding Palestine, that is spouted out by the mainstream media time and time again. Nevertheless, there are not always two sides to an argument or at least not two sides worth listening to.
No comments:
Post a Comment