I mean, you don't even have to go that far back. Look at the Mongolian Empire. — schopenhauer1

Yes, military capabilities surely matter. But those conquered lands that the Mongol Empire briefly held united, didn't start then worshipping Tengri. The follow-up states took up Islam or in the case of China, the melted into the Chinese culture.

hat is to say, they had to be portable enough a society to be on the move. — schopenhauer1

Usually if people move, there is a reason for them to move. Usually if happy, people stay. And even if the people have had military prowess and capability but not much else, then they adapt as a ruling class to the local populace. Just think of the Normans in France.

If Christianity never existed, I could theorize that perhaps the Germanic warlords would have been exposed to Greco-Roman ideas through the natural discourse of cultural diffusion, trade, and intermarriage. — schopenhauer1

Usually the barbarians were not so barbaric as Romans and Greek thought them of being. I think they were already. It's just that we see the Roman Empire as this light surrounded by darkness, but I don't think it was so black and white. I

There's an arguable point here: that "we are part of the universe". And it is were "dualists" and "non-dualists" separate themselves. (The quotation marks on the latter two terms mean that I use them very rarely and loosely, only for description purposes.) — Alkis Piskas

I was thinking of the problem is the most simple way in mathematics. Usually our models are mathematical, so the simple model would be y=f(x) where the function, the algorithm, here is the thing that explains the change, right?

So basically what is said earlier that "all the laws of nature and all the revelant information, then we can extrapolate everything and make a correct model of the future", would be as a mathematical model y=f(x) where the future is y, all the revelant information (of the past) is x and the all the laws of nature are f.

But then here the function also in the "world" and has an effect. Yet as Wittgenstein said in his Tractatus 3.333 "The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, and it cannot contain itself."

Certainly. Tell that to scientists, esp. the neurophysicists and the neurobiologists. — Alkis Piskas

Or even economists! Because even in economics this has reared it's ugly head. The problem is that when the aggregate of economics decisions of all players in the economy make is affected by the model itself that tries to explain there actions, where then is objectivity? You cannot have an economic model that says that people behaved this way because they believed this model itself. Why? Because...

You might argue that somewhat controllable feedback loop would erase this, but it actually doesn't. Only in some situations you can find a solution. But if the feedback loop is self-referrential and negative, there is no answer.

It just like try writing a sentence that you never will write. Are there such sentences? Definetly. Can you write them? Obviously not yourself. That's the power of negative self reference.

And lastly, I think it's obvious that self-reference plays a crucial part in consciousness.

Iran uses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to further it's own Islamic Revolution. Simple as that.

Since Jordan, Egypt and other Arab countries have either made a peace-deal with Israel or have normalized their relations, there is a window of opportunity to get support from the Arab street with this conflict as the general population is disgusted how Palestinians are treated in the occupied territories.

That happened after the West blocked peace talks. — Tzeentch

Wrong.

Putin stated quite consistently of the artificiality of Ukraine and that parts of Ukraine should be/are integral parts of Ukraine for example in July 2021. Yes, NATO-enlargement is one reason, yet to deny that the territorial annexations are also a reason that have nothing to do with NATO-enlargement is simply false. Putin has stated this clearly enough, both with his words and by his actions. Otherwise this is just the hilarious US-bashing were every problem anywhere at all times is the fault of the US and nothing else cannot matter!

Crimea in itself had been an issue between Ukraine and Russia right from the start. And that has NOTHING to do with NATO enlargement. There was both in Crimea and in Russia a strong movement that Crimea should be part of Russia starting from the 1990's. And Putin's annexations didn't stop with Crimea, as we all know.

If your argument that everything has happened because NATO and if NATO hadn't enlarged, Russia wouldn't have done anything is simply false. And it's simply illogical to assume that you would annex territories if the only issue would preventing NATO enlargement and Ukraine being a bufferzone. A show of force would already done that and countries like Germany would have prevented NATO enlargement to Ukraine, not only Hungary (as now).

The Russians aren't interested in taking all of Ukraine. They prefer a negotiated settlement that leaves Ukraine filling its role as neutral bufferzone between east and west. — Tzeentch

How keenly you leave out the annexations, the Russification measures done in the territories under occupation and all that Putin has himself said about Ukraine being an artificial construct.



Oh, It's just a 'neutral bufferzone' between the east and west. Ludicrous :roll:

You seem to be coy to discuss pre-Christian Europe — schopenhauer1

Because pre-Christian Europe is actually quite old. A lot has happened after that!
A lot in what has made Western Culture so significant has happened after Antiquity and the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages the West wasn't so much important.

lustfully expansionist Abrahamic/monotheistic religion (Islam), as if any pagan society is just waiting for an overpowering theological ideology to dominate it and keep it in line. — schopenhauer1

Sorry, but that happened. Paganism is quite rare today in Europe and in the World. Animism etc. isn't so much related with higher cultures. As the documentary of the Mari people showed, this is not a religion that has those zealots that you have in the Abrahamic religions. And I think it's quite clear why this happens: if I have my Gods and you have yours and I'm Ok with that, it's hard for me to be a religious zealot. But if my Bible says in Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", I guess I have a different attitude toward the religions of others.

You were almost getting at it when discussing the Odin worshipers and the Celtic religion, etc. Why can't they function relatively intact but with Greco-Roman philosophy? — schopenhauer1

We venture too far into the "What If's" if there wouldn't have been a Christian religion in Europe (and basically the only functioning international organization in Medieval Europe).

But Ok, let's assume the Roman emperors had been victorious and bloodthirsty in snuffing out Christianity. That could have happened perhaps when they demolished Jerusalem 70 AD had they done a thorough genocide of the Jewish too, which would have killed of a tiny Jewish sect and hence no Abrahamic religions anymore. Only some historians would now point out the killing of the Jews (which people wouldn't know much about) as one of the not so nice things the Romans did. Then likely we would be living in a Pagan Europe with the Iranians being those different from us fire worshippers with their Zoroastrianism. And we would have our old Gods and the Iranians Zoroaster.

Would that had altered the period of the Migrations? Likely not, the Huns and everybody after would likely have come. Would Rome be in a different state to defend itself? Likely not.



And then there's the question how paganism of Antiquity would have evolved. But it is likely that with Roman Gods in Rome, Odin worshippers in Skandinavia, "Ukko"-god worshippers here in Finland, there isn't an Europe as we now know it, because there isn't that Christendom, with Pope in the West and the Byzantine emperor in the East. We simply cannot know how things would have evolved.

And then there's the question of what if some other preacher of monotheism would have been successful later than a Jewish carpenter from the Levant? Let's say this had been a Celtic druid from Gaul that 'had seen the light' in the Middle Ages. Would our heritage that we are so fond of be then "Celtic-(add new religion's name here)" heritage? Yes, if it would have been successful. If then later colonialism happens, then that Celitic-X religion would have spread around the World. And we would have all those kind of small perks of Celtic religion in our monotheistic religion X. And the French would be even more proud about their heritage than now.

Christianity in the end didn't pacify Europeans. Talk about pacification through Christianity is simply nonsense. What finally 'pacified' us Europeans was WW1 and WW2, and still we have wars like in Ukraine just now going on, even if both Ukrainians and Russians are basically Orthodox. And we are just rearming now after the Cold War.

There was enough of that unruliness around that one Pope came out with the idea of the Crusades, which were so popular. But similar unruliness and infighting you had in the Muslim world too, even if it should be the Ummah there.

Hope to give an answer to you...

Which one is more to do with its "essentialness", which one is accidental? I would say the Greco-Roman pagan philosophy was the core, that was carried through and indirectly influenced both feudalism and Christianity (to the extent of a unifying structure for feudalism and rhetoric and the foundation of inquiry for Christian theological philosophizing). However, some might argue that you needed Christianity and feudalism to contribute to pacifying the Germanic roving tribes into a different organization and with the literate influences of the Greco-Romans via Christianity and the sedentary nature of feudalism. — schopenhauer1

That the Greco-Roman 'pagan' philosophy endured time and was accepted comes down to philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, but others too. Just how many have tried to prove God? And how many of our famous scientists have also extensively written about religion?

The real issue is that Western science and religion have actually coexisted quite well, even if Nietzsche was also right.

And yes, though I do largely agree with this assessment of the East, I am still focusing on the West, and so I will ask the questions in the last post again: — schopenhauer1

Very difficult to answers. Just as what if Kleopatra's nose wasn't as it was?

But here's my five cents:

Europe would have been easier pickings for Islam. If it wouldn't have been Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi of the Umayyad Caliphate that would have beaten Charles Martel at Tours in 732 and made France part of Islam like Spain, then it would likely have been the Ottomans that had picked of every Pagan bastion once at a time starting with Vienna. Nope, Christianity as 'Christendom' had it's place, especially back then.

It's even very doubtful that there would have been an Empire of Charlemagne without Christianity. And how tech savvy would have been these pagan kingdoms compared to the Ummah at it's best and strongest?

Paganist Northern Europe would have been far too dispersed: Odin worshippers had not much to do with the Celtic druids and so on. There wouldn't have been that 'Christendom' that put up a defense to the Muslim conquerers. And yes, the Umayyads or the Ottomans would have pushed all the way to the remotest places of Europe had they not been stopped. The Polish wouldn't have come to save the asses of the Austrians in Vienna (as they did now).

So what would have happened to the Greco-Roman heritage? Well, the Ottoman ruler that conquered Constantinople declared himself to be the Roman Emperor and it was the Muslims that kept the knowledge of Antiquity, hence it wouldn't have dissappeared. Only (Judeo)Christian heritage would likely have been there with the Zoroastrians of today.

Interesting example-metaphor, but where are you referring to exactly? :smile: — Alkis Piskas

That we are looking for a certain mechanism in how knowledge works. Just like driving on the surface of a planet can get you anywhere on the surface of the planet, but not to another planet. Earlier it lead people to think in a mechanically deterministic World, the Clockwork Universe and people simply to think that if we know all the laws of nature and all the revelant information, then we can extrapolate everything and make a correct model of the future. Basic idea of the deterministic World where we can like Leibniz said, simply calculate everything!

The problem is of course that we are part of that universe and so is our model, that also has an impact on reality. Thus we cannot make an objective, computable model of that reality.

The problem that we use the models that we have, which obviously aren't so good. After all, if they would be, there wouldn't be any discussion even in this Forum. If there would be a clear answer, someone would just remind the questioner to read 1.0 logic or math or even a book about philosophy!

I think the reason is that our logic that we use assumes clear, yet consciousness (just as learning) is all about subjectivity. The subjective and subjectivity cannot be put into a objective, computational model or algorithm. That's why we end using the metaphor of a 'black box'.

The subsistence agricultural village farmers became subsumed by greater forces confining them into basically collective peasant lifestyles that worked for their lords, whilst keeping a small plot for their own family. — schopenhauer1

Not actually everywhere: for example in Sweden (which Finland was also a part of) the peasants remained quite independent and the aristocracy wasn't at all so powerful. In fact the last time the Swedes revolted against the authorities, it was against a Danish king in the 16th Century and the revolt was lead by Gustav Vasa, the founder of the Swedish monarchy. And no peasant revolts after that! Also Switzerland was quite different too.

I think this might be too much a "just so" theory if we are relying solely on the Protestant Work Ethic as a reason for the Western society we have now. I think indeed, it contributed to a particular form of capitalism perhaps, but not the whole thing. — schopenhauer1

Naturally not the whole thing and definately a "sole reason", quite if not even more important is the technological and scientific advances, all that Renaissance thinking to the Age of Enlightenment. But just to note that we are talking about a difference between Protestant and Catholic countries.

In a way perhaps we shouldn't focus on the awesomeness of the West, but the failures of the East. Religion's tight grasp hindered the Muslim countries whereas China suddenly chose itself to close itself after making it's dash for Exploration. Hence in the end you have these huge WTF moments for some civilizations like Japan when an Western armoured battleship enters their harbor and they have nothing to defend from it. As previously you simple were so ignorant about the technological and military capabilities of other cultures (as many times people weren't aware of them).

Suddenly, the US Navy:


Well, the Japanese fixed the defense issue and just in 52 years they could defeat a Western Great Power at the sea and on land, which was then a WTF-moment especially for those Europeans who believed in their racial superiority over Asians.

Admiral Togo had been four years old, when Commodore Perry had lead four US Navy ships into Tokyo Bay (picture above), which just tells how rapid the transformation, the Meiji Restoration, had been:


That many countries then couldn't do their own 'Meiji Restauration' is also telling. The few non-Western countries that basically weren't colonized are few in between: Japan, Thailand, Oman, the Ottoman Empire/Turkey (even if parts of the sick man were under Western control), Ethiopia. If I remember them all (perhaps then some Bhutan).

You defined well from where consciousness comes from here: .

I think we have a problem just with defining how knowledge works... which in my view comes to the OP's point of no matter how much drive around the moon, you won't get to Earth.

I think we have still a lot to understand in the basics as our understanding of things like causality is still quite mechanistic. This comes in a lot of examples where our models end up with a 'black box' where the issue consciousness happens.

Indeed.

I think Putin is quite confident that he will win this war, likely thinking that in the end Americans will be feeble and will leave some Poland and Baltics to support Ukraine on their own as Americans see everything just as "forever wars" and doesn't believe in victory, then he will prevail. And that his friend Trump will get him the lands that he is now occupying.

Ukraine will hold itself, but Putin has the ability to control his nation too and keep it in the fight.

When studying Germanic tribes during the late Roman Empire and early Middle Ages, the characterization is mainly of pastoral and village-based agriculture. — schopenhauer1

Well, that kind of agriculture basically remained in Europe until the 19th Century. For example in Finland, basically subsistence farming finally died out in the 1950's and 1960's.

The Roman Empire and Rome had something that didn't exist later in the Middle Ages: globalization.

Rome having one million inhabitants in Antiquity is only possible due to globalized network of agricultural products being transferred from North Africa. All roads went to Rome. With Constantinople it was similar, then the grain came from Egypt. Once Rome lost Northern Africa to the Vandals and East-Rome to the Muslims, that was game over. For a very long time.

(My favorite graph explaining Antiquity. Although it should be 'Constantinople', not Istanbul)


Similarly you can see this well in the case of the Byzantinian Roman Army. It simply had to adapt to the changing environment and basically feudalism was the answer here. The East-Roman example is telling, as this was the famous Roman Army, it did even gain foothold back in Italy (under the general Belisaurius) and it did fall then to be a small tiny city in the 15th Century where you would have even fields inside the famous city walls where once a bustling megacity had once been. Yes, it lost some huge battles, but the it's downfall came with the downfall of the whole empire: slowly in many Centuries.



And since Byzantium was quite Christian, we perhaps give too much role for the religion for the transformation from antiquity to the Middle Ages. The way I see it, the transformation is simply the collapse of the globalized World. Once that globalized logistics falls apart, then you don't get any more urban highly paid advanced jobs like architechs, artists and so on. You have people simply leaving the cities and going back to subsistence farming. When there's no money or a money-based economy around, land itself comes to be the 'currency'. Hence feudalism is simply a logical answer. And once that feudalism takes hold, suddenly your armies become quite tiny compared what you had in Antiquity. Not because there wouldn't be people, but because there weren't anymore the political-economy systems around to support large standing armies.

As one successful general remarked: "an army marches with its stomach":


Hence when Renaissance comes around, you also have the growth again in international trade, more stronger nations. And when Islamic 'Renaissance' fails, even if one Caliph is all for science and similar issues, the religious sector wins and dominates Islam until...today, I guess. This perhaps happened because Islam is far more tightly knit to the government in Muslim states, let's not forget that the first leader of the Muslim state was Muhammad himself.

Imagine if there was no Christianity, but there was still a strong philosophical tradition, with flourishing Greek-style academies (likened to the Lyceum or Academy). Even so, it is sad that the Old Ways were lost and are simply trivialized as "Christmas trees" and Easter bunnies (Easter was a goddess of fertility in Anglo-Saxon paganism). With modern scholarship of course, we can also see the very roots of Christianity in Near Eastern paganism was also abundant. The dying-resurrecting Son of God that dies for humanity and is a sacrifice, and where one partakes in a sacrament of the god, etc. is all Mystery-Cult style tradition, appropriated by Paul of Tarsus for his new synthetic religion. So, Christianity was syncretic from the start. First it was pretty deliberately done and then just the course of how Christianity learned to adapt to the Germanic, Slavic, Celtic traditions. — schopenhauer1

Yet the success of the monotheistic religions in the World is quite notable. So there's something with one God, one book and one set of guides on how to behave. It does create larger communities, be it Christendom or the Ummah. Yes, if we would be pagans, there would be many things that would be similar.

However, notice just how crucial these issues are for Western culture.

Max Weber is one of my champions, a truly smart person. His findings are very important. Just notice how crucial that 'Protestant ethic' is to capitalism: where greed is one of the seven deadly sins, once you make it that working hard makes you a good Christian and hence wealth simply shows that you have worked hard, then you get easily to the American mentality towards money and wealth. Also asking interest on debt was not tolerated at first in Christianity and isn't tolerated in Islam (although it now can be circumvented as "fees"). Hence the curious role of the Jews being the moneylenders.



In the end, it's "the economy, stupid". It makes one culture to seem to be dominant from others. And things that make an economy great, the institutions, the trade, the education and the military abilities etc. all make it seem so.

Sorry, been a bit busy now.

how was the process of Christianization in regions that were not under the Roman Empire? It seemed to be about the 500-600s that the Germanic peoples were fully Christianized. This process was mainly about kings converting and thus over time, their populations. But habits die hard, and the Church didn't mind much if you smuggled in former practices if you declared your allegiance. — schopenhauer1

It surely took a lot of time.

The 'Westernization' of European, or the continent to become 'European' as we now know, surely is the interesting process here. Hence even if there is the Greco-Roman heritage and the Judeo-Christian heritage, a lot more happened that molded what is now called Western. Lithuania indeed might be the last kingdom to become Christian, but it's interesting that history doesn't paint pagans and their Christian neighbors being actually so much different.

Again, I say that is generally an import from the West and nationalism. However, you can find various conflicts in Asia, especially China, as to favoring Buddhist versus Confucius, versus Taoist versus Legalism, etc. over the course of their long history. — schopenhauer1

Let's not make the error of thinking that 'nationalism' was only invented in the 19th Century! And did exist as long as there were nations and kingdoms even outside Europe.

Trump is the wrecking ball. By delegitimising democratic institutions, causing chaos and shifting what is acceptable he's paving the way for an actual dictator.

He does play with the idea. Apparently he just recently clarified that he wouldn't be a dictator - well maybe for the first day. This is just Trump being Trump, but it's also a normalisation. He won't be called out on it by his base, and that means the next time someone says this, it'll be a little less outrageous.

While I do not think Trump was planned, I do think there are forces, which we might call disaster capitalists, which seek to exploit him, perhaps to the point of an actual "managed democracy" which would perpetuate laissez-faire policies while redirecting popular anger to outsiders. — Echarmion

Never underestimate the lack of leadership qualities that Trump has. Remember: this man is simply not fit to be a President. We've already seen this, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. He want's to be a dictator, yet he lacks a lot what is needed to be one. Also Trump is uncontrollable, hence nobody can control him. Yes, it's chaotic, but that simply makes the Presidency ineffective. That's the end result: more Trumpian chaos, more political polarization.

What will likely happen is that: a) The US as the sole Superpower loses even more of it's leadership position, b) US politics will continue to be as toxic as ever.

It's the Argentification of the US politics. You have more chaos, more leaders that are outrageous because so many are disappointed about, well, everything. And everything will become just slightly worse in the end.

Argentinian way to cut government spending: foul language and waving a chain saw.

Did Trump incite a riot?
Yes.

Did Trump attemp an self-coup?
No.

The Secret Service just drove him off (against his will) to the White House where the hapless idiot watched from the TV at his followers invading the Capitol mesmerized at what his supporters could do. A President that doesn't control even his Secret Service isn't capable of a self-coup. And likely he never thought of it that way: he blindly thought that the vice-President could make it happen. Or he could get the votes from somewhere.

Would there have been a possibility for a successful self-coup?
Absolutely! But then Trump would had to have the balls to go through with it. He would have needed guys like general Michael Flynn, who would have had the ability (thanks to his background in special forces and being the director of the DIA) to pull it off. The crowds would have been there to support Trump, which would have been important. The institutions of the US would simply have been paralyzed. People wouldn't have understood just what would have happened or that it could happen in the US. And Flynn and the like would have pushed through it understanding that either they prevail or it's very long prison sentences for them, perhaps even capitol punishment otherwise. That's a huge incentive once you are going to do a coup. The self-coup would have been likely bloodless.

Is there a danger of Trump pulling something like that in the future (as President)?
No!

Trump is a great populist orator, but lacks leadership qualities. And seems to think that the politics even at the highest level is still something you can fight in the courts. Because...he has fought in the courts all his life. He simply cannot pull that kind of thing off, just make everything chaotic, which his supporters absolutely love.

When Israel has an HRW report it's not relevant because the other side are animals because there are HRW reports saying so. — Benkei

I am in the belief that in a democracy an individual can be totally consistent and to argue for a rule based international order, then those rules are universal for everyone. Too many times there's a difference if it's "the others" doing something or "our side" same thing. Hence for example South Africa is quite right to say that the West is hypocritical when condemning Russian actions in Ukraine, but not condemning the actions of Israel in the occupied territories. This is the obvious case where in Europe it's basically Ireland (with it's history of British occupation) that is most vocal in the support of the Palestinians.

If you argue for human rights, for thing that are on the UN charter, you will be guaranteed to criticize nearly everyone and that simply won't fit the typical left/right lines. I don't find any problem in supporting Ukraine in their fight against and criticizing the way Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza. But for some reason this would be by the 'culture wars' something inconsistent.

Or, we can't trust what Hamas says so their charter is irrelevant. Here is a Hamas leader saying they want to destroy Israel and we must trust what he says. — Benkei

The problem is simply picking up facts that suit you and leaving out other points that don't fit your agenda.

Don't forget that nasty human rights record that Egypt has too!

Yet that doesn't change the fact that actually both Turkey and Egypt, and Saudi-Arabia (the home of the majority of the 9/11 terrorists) are allies to the US. Which just shows how messy the Middle East is.

Defense secretary James Austin nailing it:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YOU3S52V3y4

Of course the biggest threat, even if it's a remote possibility, is that even the 'nice' neighbors get upset with Israel. Turkey's Erdogan meeting with GCC members. NATO member Turkey (or is it Türkiye?) isn't a member of the GCC, but it is telling that the Muslim states in the region are now meeting on the issue.

Erdogan speaks about Gaza (and later Syria): "Netanyahu is gambling with the future of the whole region". Erdogan also says that "Israel must to be penalized for war crimes" 4:32-8:39:



And quite telling is this reaction in the Egyptian Parliament:

Retaliatory strikes is the norm in Israeli strategy with the Palestinians and Hezbollah. It's a kind of tit-for-tat game with sometimes the 'mowing of the lawn'. I think they have gotten used to the game too.

And the cynic would say the retaliatory bombing of Gaza is done for to keep Hezbollah not to engage. Or at least, that's how the hawks see it. Of course, this strategy doesn't help to solve the conflict, because the end state is perpetual war state, just safe enough that Israeli voters are fine and don't want peace/two state solution. And since I'm accused of not thinking this from the Palestinians as the culprits here too, well, an islamic movement that see all the killed Palestinians as martyrs is perfect for this perpetual war. They will happily look at the timeline being similar as to pushing out the Crusader states.

Hence the right-wing government and an islamic resistance movement just embrace each other. Bibi supported Hamas and I'm sure that if Israel would have a government wanting to find a two-state solution, Hamas wouldn't like it either as the compromise would de facto be not so glorious to Palestinians.

But coming back to the thread's topic, to 'support Israel' being conservative makes itself then the assumption that supporting the other side, the Palestinians, as being leftist is the way how to simplify and basically dumb down the whole problem. Such divisions don't help to actually at all in reaching some kind of solution to problem in the Middle East when both the interests of Israel and the Palestinians (and the regional nations) should be taken into account.

In a similar way you can dumb down the discussion not only in foreign policy, but for example energy policy and thus environmental policy. It's seems like making everything about the 'culture war' doesn't help at all, just shuts down discussion.

Indeed, what would you say was the biggest factor for populations to convert to Christianity (Christian or Orthodox versions)? In other words:

1) What was the process (kings/leaders first then their populous or one-by-one?)?
2) What was the reason for it? (the ability to trade with Christians? they really "believed" in what the missionaries were selling? It created ties with other powerful kingdoms? — schopenhauer1

Missionary work and people turning into Christianity (or any religion) voluntarily happens in only few occasions. Many times it has been a political decision by the elite and the political leader. Christianity finally took over once a Roman Emperor converted to the religion. Then of course there is the way they did it Spain (convert or leave or die).

It is precisely because those religions in Lebanon are monotheistic (and by this I mean mainly Christian and Islamic) that they have those problems. — schopenhauer1

In Lebanon's example, yes. However I think that religious intolerance is quite universal and doesn't only apply to the Abrahamic religions. You have for example Hindu nationalism:

Today, Hindutva (meaning "Hinduness") is a dominant form of Hindu nationalist politics in Bharat (India). As a political ideology, the term Hindutva was articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923. The Hindutva movement has been described as a variant of "right-wing extremism" and as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony. Some analysts dispute the "fascist" label, and suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism".

The view of Antiquity about religion has really disappeared: Even the Pantheon is a Catholic Church today (and hence still intact).

But it wasn't until Christianity that you had the use of religion as ideology and "right belief" as part of the power structure. — schopenhauer1

Don't forget the oldest religion of the Abrahamic ones, Judaism. Ancient Israel didn't control great areas, but I guess if they had, they wouldn't have been as tolerant as the Romans in religious matters.


.

Well, you had witch burnings in the American colonies, hence we always have to look at a historical era as an unique time in history and not try to compare it with today.

How cool would have it been if Finland retained its Finno-Ugric religion.? — schopenhauer1

Very uncool, I'd say. A disaster for the people in my view.

We would have been attacked by crusaders well into the Renaissance, I guess. And afterwards we would have been second rate people. Good luck then trying to make those crucial trade links to Europe when you aren't a Christian, not even Orthodox. There are some Finno-Ugric people that still have still few pagans in Russia, like the Mari. Well, just like other Finno-Ugric people in Russia, they don't have much else than barely retaining their old language and customs and the 'Russification' of these people is obvious and in plain sight.



Christians aren't the nicest people towards especially those who they see as pagans.

Yes, Lithuanians held out for the longest, and had to fight the crusaders in the form of the Teutonic Knights. In the end this left in the Baltic States a German elite which was detached from the local populace. And this hindered social cohesion in the Baltic states even in the start of the 20th Century.

And if Christianity wasn't so good at converting tribal kings to the religion (thus converting their populations), there could have been a much more interesting mosaic of European and Western pagan traditions. — schopenhauer1

Much more reasons for having religious wars also! The first example that comes to my mind is how an 'interesting mosaic' Lebanon is with it's various religions and people. Beautiful country with not-so beautiful history.

Yet indeed an 'interesting mosaic'.

I think the interesting question is just how Western actually Jewish culture is. Because the foundations of that culture are in the Orient, yet the diaspora having been so long in Europe, it's quite Western. And the Jewish have contributed a huge deal to what is now called Western culture. And also the real question is, just how universal was Roman culture in the Roman Empire? For example North Africa is quite different from Sub-Saharan Africa and there too the Roman empire has had it's influence.

Yes, did you notice that he was arguing about many people?

If there's a debate, there's two sides. And when we have to remind of the Enlightenment thinking, means simply that it's then questioned or forgotten by others.

But Western culture is founded on Greek and Roman culture. It's difficult to argue anything else. Especially after the Renaissance, this heritage was found universally even in parts of Europe that never were part of the Roman Empire. And Christianity blended in perfectly to the Roman Empire, both in the West and also in the East, actually. The last remnant of the Roman Empire might well be the Pope, even if the ecumenical patriach of Constantinople is also still around.

Seems that in this thread Western Culture is made to have it's birthplace in the Holy Land.

I think Western Culture dates back further into history to Greek and Roman civilization. Hence it's not wonder philosophers view Greco-Roman heritage important. Christianity evolved to an already existing Western culture and adapted to it. Hence the Greco-Roman heritage is quite important, even if it's extremely popular to emphasize the 'Judeo-Christian' heritage... especially when talking about a certain nation in the Middle East.

Do you believe Israel has a right to retaliate from the attack? — BitconnectCarlos

Does someone who commits assault have a right to retaliate when the victim strikes him, even when it's in his balls or a knife in his neck? It's the Palestinians retaliating not the other way around. Israel is not a victim but an aggressor. — Benkei

I think the problem is to think here that retaliation and retaliatory strikes is the answer. Going after the perpetrators to prevent further attacks isn't retaliation. But it is hard not to see the retaliatory nature of the mission with the talk of human animals, the evil city, Biblical references and other dehumanization of the Palestinians. And then, even with the ground troops inside the city, using still a lot of air power. Using bombing to level the city is so different from how for example the US fought against insurgents in Iraq. It comes to mind that the unannounced objective could to make Gaza unlivable and then try to push the 2,2 million or so to Sinai. Perhaps for a 'temporary time', so it wouldn't be an act of genocide / ethnic cleansing.

Comparing how the US dealt with insurgents in Iraqi cities is here valid. The US went to great lengths to avoid using air power and the ground troops understood it well. The ironic thing is that the US armed forces actually won the Sunni insurgency only to then withdraw, have the Shia lead government take over and mess up all the work the Americans had done and the end result was ISIS taking over.

Showing restraint isn't a sign of weakness, it's usually a sign of intelligence. But if one wants just to retaliate and thus give those who call for retaliation what they want, that's something else.

The true reason why Israel could never be a true democracy is because say in 1948 it establishes itself, then the population already living there would have ruled through democratic majority. — Vaskane

Indeed. Even if the inflow from Russia and Eastern Europe after the Cold War ended helped the Jewish demographics. That's why drawing the borders in an ethnic/religious style gerrymandering would be so important. If someone would really think the two-state solution is possible now or in the future.

Usually when countries annex territories with people of different ethnicity, they use the age old strategy of cultural assimilation (if genocide is out of the question), first to get rid of the previous language and previous culture. Cultural assimilation has happened quite a lot a smaller people or ethnic groups do have de facto disappeared. Even if people trace their ancestry back to these people, they will talk the language and have the customs

And that above just tells how this isn't at all an answer here: Palestinians are of different religion (being Muslim and Christian) and the Jewish don't do much missionary work. And when the whole idea of the state of Israel is a 'homeland for the Jews', then all that multicultural fluff goes out of the window anyway. And as for the Palestinians the option of being 'Israeli' is doubtful as they already live under separate laws from the Jewish people living in the West Bank, then all they have is the Nakba-centered identity of Palestine. "Moving on" would mean the death of being Palestinian. You can then be part of these people that are spread out around the world and basically won't have an own nation. Be then like the Circassians or the Rohingya.

Again, the UN lost the thread of the narrative after the Arab nations (how many was it?) attacked and lost to destroying the notion of an independent "Zionist" (Jewish) state. So I'm sorry, but anything else after that is just token gestures as the game played on without them. — schopenhauer1

Well, forget then the UN. But a lot of countries do not simply kick out that 'rules based order', so forgive me if I, just as in the case of Ukraine,hold up this kind of "nonsense" of a rules based order. But for consistency, then one should never then refer to international laws or anything like that. Just picking up them when it's suits your position is inconsistent... or basically just propaganda. (Like, uh, some countries do...)

Oh god, sorry, the nations involved in the Abraham Accords. Don't use an inconsequential error (mentioned wrong normalized Arab country) for an error in the argument. C'mon man.. — schopenhauer1

Just to correct a small mistake in order that the discussion gets things right. It's actually crucial to get the real picture. Even if Qatar is a tiny nation, it has a lot bigger role in the Middle East.

Qatar is a key financial backer and ally of the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. Qatar has transferred more than $1.8 billion to Hamas. In 2012, Qatar hosted the Hamas party leadership when Hamas head Khaled Meshal relocated from Syria to Qatar. The current head of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, has resided in Doha since 2016. Qatar has been called Hamas' most important financial backer and foreign ally.

Hence Qatar isn't some 'whatever state' in the Gulf to this conflict. But notice as Qatar has a key US base, Al Udeid Air base, which also the Royal Air Force uses, this aid to Hamas hasn't been on the (natural?) target list of the US and made Qatar part of the 'axis-of-evil' or whatever.



That Qatari has an independent foreign policy that basically burns the candle at both ends seems to spreading. Perfect example was Pakistan. It acted as it was an ally in the War on Terror, yet then held Osama Bin Laden at a military city, then assisted the Taleban and lastly assisted the Taleban to take over Afghanistan. And there are no sanctions against Pakistan and it's not depicted as an "rogue nation". Great victory for Pakistan!



Same thing happening with Saudi-Arabia. The gradual loss of US leadership in the Middle East is happening as nobody fears China as they did fear the Soviet Union and Soviet influence.

Why don't you have UN Resolution 181 listed, the start of it all? — schopenhauer1

Because afterwards there was a ceasefire line, which actually now even the Palestinians have in the negotiations accepted to be the starting point (not including Hamas, of course). And do note that the resolutions start with the borders prior to the Six Day War.

You have actors like Qatar, Bahrain, etc. who have normalized relations with Israel. — schopenhauer1

Qatar hasn't normalized relations with Israel, it actually cut diplomatic and financial relations with Israel in 2009 (thanks to another war in Gaza). That's why Qatar is active in the negotiations.

And you haven't answered why it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation and occupied territories.

But it's not true that healthcare can't respond to emergencies. Every American hospital has a disaster coordinator and everybody knows what they're supposed to do if there's an industrial or weather disaster, or the ubiquitous mass shooting. — frank

And those mass shootings are unfortunately quite frequent on the national level. And earthquakes and hurricanes can be anticipated to hit certain places. Yet as you said, usually there's that one disaster coordinator, and likely he or she has some other admin work too.

But you did mention quite a lot of issues that make our society far more prepared to any other era. Information travels quickly and new practices can be adapted very quickly.

The US having so close ties to Israel and giving so much support is the biggest cause here. Typically it's the conservatives in the World who have been OK with the US while the left has been more critical about the Superpower's actions.

And as you said, what is conservative is that the religious conservatives do have in their heart a special place for Israel. This isn't something limited to American religious right, but something quite universal. Perhaps it's similar as present day Germany supporting Israel while having earlier being the culprits of the Holocaust. Yet one cannot deny that one of the most influential books for anti-semitism is the New Testament with Matthew 27:24–25 and the blood curse. Especially when the other Gospels talk nothing about this (at least I'm not aware of), it should be evident the salesmanship here for the new Religion doing for the Romans.

Just like the Crusades aren't embraced and honored by modern Christianity, same thing with age-old accusations of the Jews being the 'Christkillers'. And then of course you have the Evangelists who think next time Jesus comes around, many of the Jews who accept him will become Christians! :smile:

No, but it will tried to be made so, to be part of the "culture war".

What better way to draw simple lines without thinking things with reason and objectivity.

Not sure what you mean here. — schopenhauer1

Meaning that the loss of territory isn't such a traumatic experience when you don't loose the people also. And you don't have families separated etc.

Ah right, always goes back to Israel failing. I’ve already understood and addressed the shape of and pattern of your arguments. — schopenhauer1

Well, I haven't understood why for you it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation. You haven't made that clear for me and answered that question.

Besides, just as it's easy for Israel to go with the de-facto situation, it's also easy for the Palestinian not to accept compromises. After all, there's a) Iran and b) Saudi-Arabia and other states, that basically still tow the line of the Arab league's 1967 decision from the Khartoum summit of the three no's (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel).

And one shouldn't forget c) there are a whole variety of UN Resolutions like:

UN Resolution 194

refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242)

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

UN Resolution 2253 (E-V)

Deeply concerned at the situation prevailing in Jerusalem as a result of the measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City,

1. Considers that these measures are invalid;

2. Calls upon Israel to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking action which would alter the status of Jerusalem;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly and the Security Council on the situation and on the implementation of the present resolution not later than one week from its adoption.

UN Resolution 3414

Recognizing that peace is indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the question of the Middle East must be based on a comprehensive solution under the auspices of the United Nations, which takes into consideration all aspects of the Middle East conflict, including, in particular, the enjoyment by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights, as well as the total withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967,

1. Reaffirms that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and therefore all territories thus occupied must be returned;

2. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories in violation of the Charter of the United nations, the principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions;

3. Requests all States to desist from supplying Israel with any military or economic aid as long as it continues to occupy Arab territories and deny the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people

...and there's more, but you get the drift.

Hence, when you have those above, Arafat or Abbas can also drag their feet. Above all, they have to consider what the response of their people will be. Actually both Sadat and Rabin assassinations (or the killing of Folke Bernadotte) show that peacemaking in the Middle East is far more lethal than being a hawk.

If Finland had a deal which gave it nearly all it wanted and they said no thanks, we rather be in perpetual war than take that, then yeah. — schopenhauer1

But notice that Finland still has sovereign territory, even if the border is now just a few kilometers from my countryplace (which it wasn't for my grandparents before 1944). And all those Finns that lived in the annexed territories were relocated to other places in Finland. The conflict would totally different if there would have been a huge number of Finns that would have become Soviet citizens.

Actually Arafat didn't say 'no thanks' as rejecting it, but simply not taking the offer and made further demands. Actually let's look at the deal here:

The Parameters offered the Palestinians substantially more than the proposals made at Camp David, seemingly providing everything most observers thought would satisfy the Palestinians:[1]

- Creation of an independent Palestinian state with contiguity on 94-96% of the West Bank with additional compensation from a land swap with Israel of 1-3%, resulting in close to an equivalent 100% of the West Bank, and 100% of Gaza. The plan also called for a dedicated link between the West Bank and Gaza.
- Jerusalem divided under the principle that existing Arab areas would be Palestinian and Jewish ones Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well, which would thus be divided.
-Regarding the Temple Mount/Haram, the Parameters acknowledged that there were a number of formulations already discussed and Clinton suggested two more. The Parameters envisioned some form of control or sovereignty of the Temple Mount by the Palestinians, the Western Wall by Israel, and a shared arrangement under the Mount. The Parameters acknowledged that some of the formulations were more about the wording and less about day-to-day control.
-Palestine would be a non-militarized state, with certain security guarantees for Israel.
-On the issue of refugees and “Right of Return” the Palestinian refugees would not be able to “return” to locations inside Israel without Israeli approval, instead, they could return to the new State of Palestine. This formulation would be “consistent with the two-state approach…the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian People and the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.” Clinton referred to refugees returning to “historic Palestine,” but only to the portion comprising the new Palestinian state, to satisfy that the “Right of Return” had been met.
-End of conflict agreement that would end to all claims and satisfy all relevant U.N. resolutions.

Clinton asked each side for a yes or no response by December 27th. It was made clear that a “yes” meant agreement within the Parameters and that a non-response, a maybe, or acceptance outside the Parameters would all be considered rejections. Clinton presented the Parameters as take-it-or-leave it, and if not accepted, they would all be off the table once Clinton left office on January 20, 2001.

But notice one thing again, @schopenhauer1, this isn't either on the table with Bibi as the negotiations were held by Ehud Barak and the Labor party, which now isn't in power and is a very small party in the Knesset. Also after Clinton, there hasn't been this kind of intense activity by the US either. Then happened 9/11.

Hence that time has passed. And that window of opportunity passed. And it could have simply fallen later apart simply by the building of new settlements no matter what piece of paper was signed in America.

And now nearly a quarter of a century later, there are far more settlements in the West Bank.

You know, another strategy would have been for them to actually work with the Israelis. — schopenhauer1

That is the strategy possible for every people that have ever been occupied and their territory annexed by another country. Be this invader either a colonizer or simply the country neighboring you. Yet it's very common for people to resent the foreigners and not surrender.

You haven't answered just why is it ridiculous to talk about Gaza and the West Bank being occupied territories and of occupiers and the occupied.

I think this is the crux here is that somehow, for you unlike all other conflicts, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is something totally different than everything else. As if for some reason, Israel just has these "unruly neighbors" that present a threat to them! Be it the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the Azeri-Armenian conflict, the Russo-Georgian conflict, the Moroccan West Saharan conflict or any of the multitude of wars where one country has seized territory in war and then annexed this territory. And especially when their isn't a solution given to occupied people of autonomy, economic freedom or cultural assimilation (that takes hundreds of years), then you will have a conflict.

That there didn't exist a state of Palestine doesn't make this different. When the Spanish pulled out of Western Sahara or when the Portuguese pulled out of East-Timor, both Morocco and Indonesia annexed the 'empty' territory and faced an insurgency and basically both used very rough measures. The conflict in East-Timor finally ended when Indonesia withdrew and Timor-Leste gained it's independence, but the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara hasn't.

(The Moroccan military wall in Western Sahara. It even looks a bit similar to the Gaza border from the air.)

Gaza had its chance. — schopenhauer1

What chance did the open air prison have?

Oh right, they could be in the same situation as the Palestinians in the West Bank, I guess.

Well, Bibi supported Hamas to show that peace cannot be made with the Palestinians, so he was very successful with that.

No, leaving peaceably with the neighbor in that annexed territory is the issue. — schopenhauer1

Well, I guess if your country annexed and occupied Finland, I bet we would be as bothersome as the Palestinians and would all the time crying about that Finland is for Finns. Especially if you wouldn't do anything to integrate the Finns into their new country they belong to.

As I've said, I see no peaceful resolution to this.

But this whole "occupied/occupier" is ridiculous. — schopenhauer1

Why?

What is ridiculous about it?

Annexation of territory is the whole issue.

Of course Israel at this point would not want a fully weaponized and armed Palestine UNLESS it was a peaceful neighbor! — schopenhauer1

Egypt is fully weaponized and fully armed. And so actually is Jordan, even if it has a far smaller armed forces.

But are somehow for you the Palestinians totally incapable or unfit of doing what Jordanians and Egyptians have been able to do?

Either it's a two state solution or a one state solution. And if/when it's a one state solution, you think the Palestinians will be OK being under a separate law than the Jewish and being second rate citizens in a state that is primary a home for the Jews?

No! I won't see it!

Let me be in my echo-chamber where American politicians seem actually to be quite rational, intelligent and well aware of realities in the World. :wink:

Ok. have to watch that...

It’s so imbalanced in this forum these aspects of Palestinian responsibility have to be discussed and not seen only on one dimension of “occupied/occupier”. — schopenhauer1

You simply cannot deny that the occupied/occupier issue does matter here. It is imbalanced, because one being the occupier and the other side being the occupied with very limited resources is imbalanced!

It would be totally different if we would talk about Iran-Israeli relations. WTF has Israel done to Iran? That the Shah had good relations with Israel, that is it? Where this hypocrite grandstanding comes from? Trying to push your own Islamic revolution in muslim countries and that's why pick a fight with Israel? This is the classic case where a revolution had to go to desperate lengths to get that enemy they can then show they are so good to everybody else. In reality many young Iranians are totally OK with America, so pretty urgent to make your own "axis-of-evil" with US-Israel.