The Curious Case of a Giant named Goliath

The story of David and Goliath (‘Dawud ‘and ‘Jalut ‘in Arabic) has forever been a literary cliché in self-help scenarios and as a precursor to ‘anything is possible’ speeches. It is one of those stories specifically highlighted in the Quran, Bible and Talmud making it significant for Muslim, Christians and Jews.

That said, the biggest problem that I have with historic stories such as these is that there are aspects in it which are quite far-fetched.  Take for example the fact that David who is known to be a shepherd boy of average size was able to ‘out maneuver ‘ and take on a very ‘powerful’ and ‘tactful’ giant Goliath which seems to suggest that there was a real competition playing out on that field that day. Not that it is impossible; however I felt gaps in understanding on how it actually played out. The ‘physics’ of it all somehow seemed to be out of place. Then last evening I got a plausible explanation: A recent book and a TED video by Malcolm Gladwell explains that the competition may not have been the spectacle that it was made out to be. 

For readers, who are not familiar with this story, it occurs in the 11^th century B.C (around the year 1040-50 BC) during a time when the Kingdom of Israel was at loggerheads with the Philistines, a sea faring tribe most likely originating from modern day Greece and Turkey. The two armies had gathered at Elah, a valley in the plains of Israel which was so conspicuous that any army advancing into the valley first would clearly be exposing themselves to failure. For this reason, the two parties decided to wait it out, till finally it was apparent that the only way there could be a winner was if either parties sent their finest warrior for a face to face combat. The winner of the duel would decide who had won the war. The Phiistines banking on scaring the opponent with size decides to send Goliath, a 9 foot giant from the hills of modern day Armenia while the Israelites still undecided on who to send turn to their leader and King Saul. A shepherd boy named David persists to be sent till King Saul finally agrees and lets him proceed. At this point, I must draw attention to the mystery of David’s confidence in facing this giant and convincing King Saul. Given his upbringing as a shepherd and little or no military experience per se, my view is that either this boy was unbelievably brave or there was a divine intervention (similar to Muhammad’s -PBUH victory at the battle of Badr) which guaranteed him of victory. In either case, David proceeds with a stick and his satchel containing stones for his slingshot. He takes a shot at Goliath between the eyes, and Goliath tumbles to the floor after which David used Goliath’s sword to sever the beast. 

Gladwell argues that Goliath might NOT have been the finest fighter that the Philistines had; instead he would have in most probability been their tallest, and heftiest which would serve well in scaring off the enemy. Given that Goliath’s height was close to 9 feet, it is most likely he suffered from Acromegaly, a condition related to Gigantism that in turn causes pituitary adenoma. Pituitary adenoma is a tumor like growth that affects eyesight and mobility. Gladwell supports this theory with the following observations:

•  On seeing David approaching, Goliath says “Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks”. Why “sticks” when David was carrying only a single stick? Could it be that the giant’s vision was so poor that he was seeing double or even triple?
• Goliath was assisted down the hill by a helper. Why would their “finest” fighter need assistance? Also when David used his slingshot to hit Goliath, why was he so slow in reacting if he was indeed their ‘”finest” fighter? Both indicate a problem in mobility functions i.e. not being able to react and move quickly.

 According to me and it follows from Gladwell’s observations that David was probably made aware of these facts beforehand through divine sources. His faith coupled with this revelation probably catapulted this young man from being a mere shepherd boy to one of the greatest kings of the kingdom of Israel. Thus the story may not be about the victory of the underdog but instead of the fact that with immense unconditional faith, a solution to your problems always appears!

Middle Eastern Mess

Early in 2010, I ran a research assignment via internet sources to figure out the most prominent countries featured in news headlines over the past 10 years (2000-2010). Given that the decade was most remembered for Sept 11 and its aftermath, and the steady economic growth of China, it was of no surprise that the results yielded U.S and China in the top 2 spots.

Among the top 5 however, were also Israel/Palestine and of course Iraq and Afghanistan among others (Full results here). At the time, there seemed to be a sense that something big was around the corner for the Middle East and the people in that region hoped for something positive.

Cut to 2013, the Middle East is still in the news with changes expected thanks to the Arab Spring. Yet in spite of expecting things to be better, sectarian violence continues in Iraq and Syria, Administrative issues continues to plague Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and a gloom of uncertainty hangs over Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia among other countries. It begs the question- What went wrong?

The reasons in my opinion are many and solutions unfortunately too few. That said let me try to tackle a few. Gaddafi, Saddam, Ben Ali and Mubarak are no longer in power yet the regimes that took over from these nepotistic leaders seem to be no better. Leaders like Assad and his Bahraini counterpart Khalifa are walking on a tightrope held together by the delicate thread of sectarian peace. Assad and his forces are already in the midst of war and will soon reach the breaking point. I predict Bahrain will be the next in line.

If you analyze the structure of countries in the Middle East, there are two main factors that make up stability – Good (or fair) leadership and Sectarian tolerance.  Take away one or more of these, and you end up with an explosive situation. Good leadership translates to happy citizens and sectarian tolerance translates to enlightened citizens.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Oman, Iran, Israel and Morocco have minimal sectarian divisions and thus good leadership is the only Achilles heel that they should be concentrating on. To some extent Yemen falls in this category too. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia have a new threat in the horizon i.e. the Salafi movement which is steadily taking control and is feeding into the politics of these countries thus fuelling a leadership war. As long as the competition is healthy and with their old leaders gone, at least there is HOPE of a more organized and efficient government.

My assessment is that the worst countries in Middle East currently would be the ones that have both the leadership issue and the sectarian issue namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Bahrain. Among these, Bahrain is so far relatively calm but my gut feeling is that the largely Shia dominated population governed by a corrupt Sunni leadership is a catastrophe waiting to take place.

Most unique among the countries in the Middle East is the tiny nation of Lebanon. After years of sectarian conflict, for a very brief period till the Syrian crisis began, they seemed to have found a ‘eureka ‘moment where-in sectarian violence was at an all-time low and the government seemed to be stable and efficient. It’s not a perfect solution, but it was a solution where for the first time in so many years, a troubled Middle Eastern country was in the news for right reasons. Tourism was at an all-time high, trade was booming and the people where ecstatic.  Other Arab countries especially the ones with the dual problem of leadership and sectarianism should take a leaf out of Lebanon’s note book to analyze how they did it. Who knows it could lead through to a breakthrough in peace for the Middle East.