Constituent myth and its trauma

The story of David defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in a duel is famous. And how important David's figure is for the mythical genealogy of Israel, this I do not need to point out. The short youngster, the eighth son of Saul's servant Jesse, who came out bearing only his sling and five stones and faced this giant جالوت (Jalut, and Julyat in the Arabic religious texts) has been a great hit in storytelling. Generations of children have been introduced to the myth, which may also carry along moral conclusions, such as "one may be small, but one may be a lion", "it is the character that grants victory", or rather "God decides on power, according to faith and strong belief".

Caravaggio's David and beheaded Goliath

I do not believe that I will ever forget those multicoloured pictures with David showing the severed head of his gigantic opponent to the crowds and the Philistines fleeing away. I am happily tempted to agree with the views of several scholars such as Azzan Yadin and Martin Litchfield West that the description of the scene and of Goliath's armour in particular, brings strong the perfume of Greek imagery, from the various Homeric duels which took place under the walls of Troy. And that the metallic armour fits better the description of a Greek armour of the 6th cent. B.C. than a Philistine one of the 10th cent B.C. Let it be this way or the other, texts travel and create harmonious or clashing commonwealths of their own, stronger and more long-lasting compared to the ones marked on the political atlas.
I remember that during the start of the 1st intifada (1987) I was impressed by the reversal of the biblical scene. The Philistine shabab were throwing philistine stones, many times using their slings, or bare hands, against the invading tanks (armors) of the Israeli army. It seemed that Goliath had shifted sides meanwhile. Did you take a look at the hundreds armors which surround the Gaza Strip, promising nothing good at all? Now David is جالوت and he plays safe.

In texts I meet...

Genuine thoughts; people who generously share aspects of their lives with you and perhaps, without them knowing, become figures of an inner dialogue/a monologue possibly but with the ethos of discussing with people you can appreciate. Here in Jordan, or far away, in geography, in experience. Today, after a long time, I found again Imaan's blog or, better, I found thanks to her kind response her old/new blog. Once, many months ago, she had commented on one of my entries concerning what is spoken and what is kept in shadow in a blog. A Swede, who chose Islam, married a Palestinian man and devoted her days to her family, work and raising up their beautiful children; she tries to keep some time in order to share ideas about how she experiences, as a western muslim woman the many boundaries she has been crossing and the other she discovers. A personal voice, an honest one. Gaza, Stockholm, relatives from the one and from the other side, her frustration for the aggression of many anonymous comments. And through her blog I can hear various other voices. People that our generalizations leave aside.
On the other hand, a friend always shining with sparkling ideas, took the flag of questioning religion, in a general sense, and commenting on the case of Islam and Jordan in particular. Well, I disagree with the selective arguments of Pheras in most of his analysis this time: I believe his greed for change and improvement makes him oversee several open issues nowadays for many western societies concerning equality, respect and cultural openness. He is frustrated from his immediate surroundings, but this does not make the West of 2007 less confused, conservative and retreating to "Restoration" behaviours.
Nevertheless, despite their almost thorough split in worldviews, I find in these texts the quality of a real discussion. What are the features of a real discussion then? May I suggest? Personal courage, willingness to share, a target that exceeds the person alone and aims at a general improvement within a narrow or the broader community. Ideas that sound strange, or even provocative, but they are uttered with honesty: A rare combination of values, to cut the long description short. Instances like those mentioned above encourage me to keep on blogging, or reading blogs, which is the same. Only that in a discussion all parts would be better contributing their bit, even if they consider it marginal or unimportant.