That and the fact that in condemning the actions of one people – while conveniently skirting around similar atrocities by others – one can also go back to familiar racist and ethnocentric labels (“they are nothing but vile subhumans” who have hatred for “God’s people”)... really, Ms Cline. How then would you describe Israeli treatment of prisoners or the actions of their Intelligence and special forces units, particularly in setting up incidents that could then be used as pretexts for further rounds of military actions? Oh that’s right, self-defence.

Now I won’t argue that radical Islam must be reined in since it is itself hostile towards other beliefs and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts atrocities have been committed by both sides and will continue to do so. However, in the US, there is a rising tide of religious fundamentalism in politics that is tied in to ludicrous “end-times” beliefs. This fundamentalism and pseudo-intellectualism has always been present in US culture since its founding by the Puritans who came with their own intolerant attitudes.

I argue that Islamic extremism is only what Christianity itself has been since the Holy Roman Empire and is in reaction to those who have used (and created) Western Christianity as a vehicle for their own intolerant and expansionist agendas. I would like to think that – our own fascination with religion notwithstanding – Caribbean people are more worldly wise than what was displayed by both sides of this debate, but by Ms Cline more so.

Caribbean people must be more vocal to injustice (even if, as Mr Cadogan correctly pointed out, our leaders are too spineless and dare I say, cowed by the US and the romanticised notions of Israel). We must, however, be careful of doing so based on simplistic binary oppositional interpretations. This conflict in the Palestine region is tied up in a complex web of conflicting politics, economic and racial ideas and romanticised religious beliefs that are themselves just vehicles for secular cultural impulses and expansionist notions. We must never lose sight of that.

And that is something that should be very familiar to us. The very founding of this part of the Americas began with the intolerance of Christian European settlers and soldiers towards Native peoples, not that it was their intention to “understand” native beliefs in any case. The settlers came from countries that by the 16th century had already been mentally shaped by centuries of war, plagues, famine and a religious outlook that defined itself always by creating and identifying a hostile and adversarial Other.

If there is only one important point made by Mr Baldal, it is that the one thing all religions have in common is intolerance of each other. This world has been torn apart by religious wars and conflicts more than any other reason. The interesting thing here is that religion usually only served to mask other desires like control of other people’s resources.

A proper examination of the origins and development of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, starting, in my view, with the patriarchal, militaristic cultures that fed these three faiths, will show that for all the peace they preach, they are equally vicious and bigoted towards diverse beliefs, but their viciousness to each other had more to do with competing for food and resources.

That has certainly been the case with Europe and Euro-American politics. It is also at the root of the Palestinian conflict going back to the actions of the colonising British who, perhaps more than any other country, is responsible for the savage bloodletting now playing itself out on our TV screens. Their divide and rule tactics were used with long-lasting effect in Guyana, India, Africa and in Palestine, often aided by the US and the US-based Jewish lobby. To this end, functioning democracies in the so-called Middle East were undermined and overthrown, ushering in repressive regimes that in turn gave rise to reactionary Islamic extremists who would have otherwise been kept well out of power.

Is this ever acknowledged by the Nida Clines? Of course not. Historical context is one of the first things flung out the window. Of what relevance are such things as discussion of the Balfour Declaration, or the events of 1967 or the fact that even David Ben-Gurion made a roundabout acknowledgement of the Palestinians right to fight against Israel given the circumstances in which their land was taken away?

But Caribbean people need to step up even if our leaders aren’t going to; this conflict can have far-reaching implications that will involve us one way or the other. Europe and Euro-America have little credibility and moral authority left. Serious dialogue and diplomacy is what is needed to resolve this conflict and that should be reinforced by a proper appreciation of all of its history, not a selective use of it.

Corey Gilkes
San Fernando
Trinidad and Tobago