Increasingly, mainstream Democrats have sought to carve out a space for “acceptable” Zionism by saying that they support Israel but oppose Bibi Netanyahu. But the horrors of Gaza are a result of processes far more vast than one right-wing leader.
That’d imply that secular countries in the region are better, which is clearly not the case. Baathist Iraq and Syria were explicitly secular, and as is Egypt which also happens to be a police state under a military dictatorship. Israel also managed to keep religious fanatics outside of government for most of its history, yet the horrors of Zionism progressed unimpeded (see: the Nakba). “Religion bad” as a framework for understanding the current state of the Middle East, aside from falling apart when you think about it for five seconds, is deeply colonial thinking. It seeks to push the blame for the terrible events that have plagued the region on religion or culture or a non-existent history of instability rather than active choices by global hegemons seeking to further their imperialist agendas.
I agree it’s far from the only factor, but it is one that prevents a path to peace and the one that many people avoid confronting because of the taboo against criticising religion.
Religion does not need to be in control of the government for it to be used to control people.
Look how republicans co-opted Christianity to get leaders like Bush and Trump in power.
Look how Judaism is used to force people to tolerate the dominance and oppression of the region.
Look how Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights and how it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions.
Religion is the tool used by oppressors to get normal people to tolerate and do terrible things.
To clarify my earlier point, you need to break Religion’s power over society, in order to make the society resistant to following those types of leaders.
Look how Judaism is used to force people to tolerate the dominance and oppression of the region.
Being Jewish is also an ethnicity so this is a moot point.
Look how Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights and how it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions.
Where? In most of the Middle East religion is tightly controlled or outright suppressed by authorities, with Islamists overwhelmingly being political opposition rather than pro-regime. The Islam people are almost invariably not happy with how their countries are run, which is why any anti-authoritarian resistance in the region invariably has significant Islamist presence.
Note that when I say Islam, I am referring to the religion, not using it as a replacement of the distinct cultural groupings of muslim and Islamist. Much like Orthodox and Catholic are distinct cultural grouping, but both are still part of the Christian religion.
Similarly when I refer to Judaism, I am referring to the religion, not the culture referred to as the Jews.
In terms of human right oppression, i am referring to the religion’s effect. That is present in most of the Islamic countries.
It’s not just islam. Look of christian evangelism has been leveraged by the republican party in the US. Look how Catholicism is used by the right wing in Poland.
Everywhere you see human rights retreating, your see prominent religion alligned with those forces.
You are correct that there are Islamic extremists as well that are not satisfied, often because they think the government is not being extreme enough. Just like the far right evangelical Christians supporting the Jewish occupation of Gaza, becuase they want to end of the world to happen.
Countries that have managed to defang their religions have much better economic and social outcomes. Countires who have had them creep back in, like in the USA are getting much worse.
not using it as a replacement of the distinct cultural groupings of muslim and Islamist.
That’s… not what those words mean. Muslim = someone who follows in Islam, Islamist = someone who believes in political Islam. Islamist is a subcategory of Muslim, not a group distinct of it.
In terms of human right oppression, i am referring to the religion’s effect. That is present in most of the Islamic countries.
Again, where is this happening? Give me examples with sources of this supposed region-wide phenomenon.
Everywhere you see human rights retreating, your see prominent religion alligned with those forces.
This is completely untrue. See: Egypt, where the government is intensifying its crackdown on civil and political rights at the same time it’s cracking down on expressions of Islam.
You are correct that there are Islamic extremists as well that are not satisfied, often because they think the government is not being extreme enough.
Again, not true. Many major Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have explicitly pro-democracy lines.
Countries that have managed to defang their religions have much better economic and social outcomes.
That’s not really true (see Malaysia for example), but it also has absolutely nothing to do with your initial claim.
I take you point on Language being important. A lot of things get misunderstood due to different definitions in different circles. I don’t disagree with the definition as you explained it
In terms of human rights, you only need to look at the correlation between level of religion in a country vs the personal freedoms. There is also a distinction between what the laws in a country prosecutes and what society prosecutes. Child marriage and arranged child marriage is one example. most countries make it illegal, but its still very common is highly religious societies.
Another example is Woman’s rights:
I don’t have enough specific knowledge about what is happening in Egypt right now. What I would expect to see is a similar pattern of other countries in the world after regime changes. One religious group uses their influence in the government to crack down on other religious groups. or the Government uses one group to go after another group to keep people divided and focused on each-other, rather than against the government. Something like what we saw happen in Iraq under and after Saddam, Northern Ireland, Balkans.
In terms of examples of countries economic outcomes, the economic picture is less clear cut because of a lot of factors, so you need to isolate as best you can for those. You could equally compare look at Europe, point a Greece and say its an example of Europe weak economy. Best to look at the region overall. So using the Malaysia example, you also need to look at the region including Thailand, Indonesia, to compare those examples. The de-fanging example I had in mind, was the fall of religious monarchies in Europe resulting in the renaissance. Individual rights and economic prosperity for the average person only really started in Europe when the people became less religious and their Monarchies lost power. You could say the same thing for places like Japan and its Emperors.
They aren’t saying “religion bad”, that’s a strawman. The sentiment is that theocracies are bad, which seems pretty obvious. In much the same way police states are bad; there has never been a theocratic regime that hasn’t used their power to oppress other religions.
Theocracies oppress religious minorities in much the way ethnostates oppress ethnic minorities, and patriarchies oppress women and gender minorities. We don’t need to structure the state around religion like that, it’s a recipe for disaster.
But then they claim that “The whole region is so engrained with violence, oppression and exploitation. All of it stems from religious control.” If the sentiment is that theocracies are bad, then that would imply that the whole region is governed by either de jure or de facto theocracies. That’s factually untrue, so we’re back where we started.
I would clarify my point. It’s not that religion needs to be in control, it’s that religion’s power over society is used by whomever is in power to control people.
Lol what are you talking about? Many things can have a stem, such as a plant, which is not the same as the stem itself. According to all major dictionaries, stem can mean the main trunk of a plant, but it can also mean other certain plant part providing support. So your claim doesn’t hold.
That… doesn’t address my claim at all. A plant can have a million stems, if you wish. We’re taking about a single stem, which comes from somewhere. If all of it comes from one place, it cannot also come from another.
No, we are taking about violence in a region, which can have many causes and origins. Violence in the region has stemmed from a combination of religion and foreign interference (and presumably many other things). If this isn’t what your claim addresses, then your claim is irrelevant to this conversation.
Some definitions include the word “main”… and many definitions don’t. So actually I don’t see anything necessarily indicating that there can only be one stem.
And before them, it was the Ottomans, and before them it was the Arab islamic conquests and so on and so forth. Colonialism is far from only a western problem.
Palastine has been faught over and handed between major powers for millenia. They have never been allowed to form their own regional state for long enough.
What? You’re not making any sense. Palestine was ruled by these powers, as was the rest of the Middle East, but it was never a center of conflict. Places tend to be ruled by people, that’s how that works.
Palastine has been faught over and handed between major powers for millenia.
Like… every other part of the world? I’m not sure what part of this is unique to Palestine.
They have never been allowed to form their own regional state for long enough.
That’s like saying Berlin was never allowed to form its own regional state for long enough. The desire for a Palestinian state is a very recent phenomenon. Hell, Palestinian identity is a very recent phenomenon created through Zionist oppression; had Britain not reared its ugly head Palestine and Lebanon would’ve been parts of Syria.
You forgot about the Crusades. When the islamists invaded the region and the catholic church counter invaded.
It has very much been one of the conflict hotbeds in the world. Like the Balkans, Armenia, Somalia.
The little secret that the Zionists and Islamists would like to forget, is that there are almost no generic differences between Modern Israelis and Palestinians. They come from the same people, from before the Islamic, Catholic and Zionist conquests.
So when I demonstrate knowledge that does not support your views, your response is to dismiss it?
Are you simply unwilling to engage and provide the necessary information to be convincing, or are you simply falling back on projecting your own ignorance on me?
You have not, in fact, demonstrated any such knowledge, only tells you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. For starters, that’s not what the word “Islamist” means (Islamism refers to the modern political movement), and second there were a full four centuries between the Muslim conquest of Palestine and the first crusade. Four centuries between major conflicts isn’t what I’d call “a conflict hotbed.” Like, seriously just go hit Wikipedia, type “history of Palestine” and see the massive gaps between the conflicts you’re talking about. You also keep bringing up Islamism in completely irrelevant contexts.
Not taking sides here, but here is a great animated history map of the region (although whether the"Kingdom of Israel" existed as a united entity as down on this map is debated).
Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century? As far as I’m aware, the current conflict has it’s roots in the British takeover after WW1.
Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century?
Nope.
As far as I’m aware, the current conflict has it’s roots in the British takeover after WW1.
Zionists had been making moves since the start of the 20th century, mostly buying land from absentee landlords and expelling the inhabitants, but yeah their program only really got going after the British takeover.
Depends on the conflict (most relevantly the Arab-Jew beef is a 20th century thing), but also: Conflict doesn’t have to lead to tyranny or violence; it can be and in many places is resolved peacefully or mostly peacefully. There was no need or inevitability for people like Saddam or Assad to take power for example; that was America’s doing.
Both the Syrian and Iraqi dictatorships took power in American-backed coups. Before that they were democracies with varying degrees of political upheaval.
The whole region is so engrained with violence, oppression and exploitation. All of it stems from religious control.
The only way to rehabilitate the region is to remove religious control and establish secular institutions.
All of it stems from colonialism and Western meddling you mean. Who do you think gave Palestine to the Zionists?
It can be both
That’d imply that secular countries in the region are better, which is clearly not the case. Baathist Iraq and Syria were explicitly secular, and as is Egypt which also happens to be a police state under a military dictatorship. Israel also managed to keep religious fanatics outside of government for most of its history, yet the horrors of Zionism progressed unimpeded (see: the Nakba). “Religion bad” as a framework for understanding the current state of the Middle East, aside from falling apart when you think about it for five seconds, is deeply colonial thinking. It seeks to push the blame for the terrible events that have plagued the region on religion or culture or a non-existent history of instability rather than active choices by global hegemons seeking to further their imperialist agendas.
deleted by creator
Religion is still used by those powers to control people, even if the government is not overtly religious.
Religion’s power over society is easily co-opted by those with power.
I agree it’s far from the only factor, but it is one that prevents a path to peace and the one that many people avoid confronting because of the taboo against criticising religion.
Religion does not need to be in control of the government for it to be used to control people.
Look how republicans co-opted Christianity to get leaders like Bush and Trump in power.
Look how Judaism is used to force people to tolerate the dominance and oppression of the region.
Look how Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights and how it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions.
Religion is the tool used by oppressors to get normal people to tolerate and do terrible things.
To clarify my earlier point, you need to break Religion’s power over society, in order to make the society resistant to following those types of leaders.
Being Jewish is also an ethnicity so this is a moot point.
Where? In most of the Middle East religion is tightly controlled or outright suppressed by authorities, with Islamists overwhelmingly being political opposition rather than pro-regime. The Islam people are almost invariably not happy with how their countries are run, which is why any anti-authoritarian resistance in the region invariably has significant Islamist presence.
Note that when I say Islam, I am referring to the religion, not using it as a replacement of the distinct cultural groupings of muslim and Islamist. Much like Orthodox and Catholic are distinct cultural grouping, but both are still part of the Christian religion.
Similarly when I refer to Judaism, I am referring to the religion, not the culture referred to as the Jews.
In terms of human right oppression, i am referring to the religion’s effect. That is present in most of the Islamic countries.
It’s not just islam. Look of christian evangelism has been leveraged by the republican party in the US. Look how Catholicism is used by the right wing in Poland.
Everywhere you see human rights retreating, your see prominent religion alligned with those forces.
You are correct that there are Islamic extremists as well that are not satisfied, often because they think the government is not being extreme enough. Just like the far right evangelical Christians supporting the Jewish occupation of Gaza, becuase they want to end of the world to happen.
Countries that have managed to defang their religions have much better economic and social outcomes. Countires who have had them creep back in, like in the USA are getting much worse.
That’s… not what those words mean. Muslim = someone who follows in Islam, Islamist = someone who believes in political Islam. Islamist is a subcategory of Muslim, not a group distinct of it.
Again, where is this happening? Give me examples with sources of this supposed region-wide phenomenon.
This is completely untrue. See: Egypt, where the government is intensifying its crackdown on civil and political rights at the same time it’s cracking down on expressions of Islam.
Again, not true. Many major Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have explicitly pro-democracy lines.
That’s not really true (see Malaysia for example), but it also has absolutely nothing to do with your initial claim.
I take you point on Language being important. A lot of things get misunderstood due to different definitions in different circles. I don’t disagree with the definition as you explained it
In terms of human rights, you only need to look at the correlation between level of religion in a country vs the personal freedoms. There is also a distinction between what the laws in a country prosecutes and what society prosecutes. Child marriage and arranged child marriage is one example. most countries make it illegal, but its still very common is highly religious societies.
Another example is Woman’s rights:
I don’t have enough specific knowledge about what is happening in Egypt right now. What I would expect to see is a similar pattern of other countries in the world after regime changes. One religious group uses their influence in the government to crack down on other religious groups. or the Government uses one group to go after another group to keep people divided and focused on each-other, rather than against the government. Something like what we saw happen in Iraq under and after Saddam, Northern Ireland, Balkans.
In terms of examples of countries economic outcomes, the economic picture is less clear cut because of a lot of factors, so you need to isolate as best you can for those. You could equally compare look at Europe, point a Greece and say its an example of Europe weak economy. Best to look at the region overall. So using the Malaysia example, you also need to look at the region including Thailand, Indonesia, to compare those examples. The de-fanging example I had in mind, was the fall of religious monarchies in Europe resulting in the renaissance. Individual rights and economic prosperity for the average person only really started in Europe when the people became less religious and their Monarchies lost power. You could say the same thing for places like Japan and its Emperors.
They aren’t saying “religion bad”, that’s a strawman. The sentiment is that theocracies are bad, which seems pretty obvious. In much the same way police states are bad; there has never been a theocratic regime that hasn’t used their power to oppress other religions.
Theocracies oppress religious minorities in much the way ethnostates oppress ethnic minorities, and patriarchies oppress women and gender minorities. We don’t need to structure the state around religion like that, it’s a recipe for disaster.
But then they claim that “The whole region is so engrained with violence, oppression and exploitation. All of it stems from religious control.” If the sentiment is that theocracies are bad, then that would imply that the whole region is governed by either de jure or de facto theocracies. That’s factually untrue, so we’re back where we started.
I would clarify my point. It’s not that religion needs to be in control, it’s that religion’s power over society is used by whomever is in power to control people.
If “all of it” stems from one thing, it can’t “all of it” stem from another thing. I’m not arguing for either, I’m just uppity about logic.
Of course it can—why do you think something can’t have multiple stems? No one said that it stems exclusively from one thing.
The “stem” is the thing itself, not the thing it stems from. A stem can’t come from two places.
Lol what are you talking about? Many things can have a stem, such as a plant, which is not the same as the stem itself. According to all major dictionaries, stem can mean the main trunk of a plant, but it can also mean other certain plant part providing support. So your claim doesn’t hold.
That… doesn’t address my claim at all. A plant can have a million stems, if you wish. We’re taking about a single stem, which comes from somewhere. If all of it comes from one place, it cannot also come from another.
No, we are taking about violence in a region, which can have many causes and origins. Violence in the region has stemmed from a combination of religion and foreign interference (and presumably many other things). If this isn’t what your claim addresses, then your claim is irrelevant to this conversation.
That’s kind of what the word “stem” means, both literally and figuratively.
Some definitions include the word “main”… and many definitions don’t. So actually I don’t see anything necessarily indicating that there can only be one stem.
And before them, it was the Ottomans, and before them it was the Arab islamic conquests and so on and so forth. Colonialism is far from only a western problem.
Palastine has been faught over and handed between major powers for millenia. They have never been allowed to form their own regional state for long enough.
What? You’re not making any sense. Palestine was ruled by these powers, as was the rest of the Middle East, but it was never a center of conflict. Places tend to be ruled by people, that’s how that works.
Like… every other part of the world? I’m not sure what part of this is unique to Palestine.
That’s like saying Berlin was never allowed to form its own regional state for long enough. The desire for a Palestinian state is a very recent phenomenon. Hell, Palestinian identity is a very recent phenomenon created through Zionist oppression; had Britain not reared its ugly head Palestine and Lebanon would’ve been parts of Syria.
You forgot about the Crusades. When the islamists invaded the region and the catholic church counter invaded.
It has very much been one of the conflict hotbeds in the world. Like the Balkans, Armenia, Somalia.
The little secret that the Zionists and Islamists would like to forget, is that there are almost no generic differences between Modern Israelis and Palestinians. They come from the same people, from before the Islamic, Catholic and Zionist conquests.
Okay I’ll be frank: You lack too much information about Middle Eastern history, politics and culture to be having this conversation.
So when I demonstrate knowledge that does not support your views, your response is to dismiss it?
Are you simply unwilling to engage and provide the necessary information to be convincing, or are you simply falling back on projecting your own ignorance on me?
You have not, in fact, demonstrated any such knowledge, only tells you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. For starters, that’s not what the word “Islamist” means (Islamism refers to the modern political movement), and second there were a full four centuries between the Muslim conquest of Palestine and the first crusade. Four centuries between major conflicts isn’t what I’d call “a conflict hotbed.” Like, seriously just go hit Wikipedia, type “history of Palestine” and see the massive gaps between the conflicts you’re talking about. You also keep bringing up Islamism in completely irrelevant contexts.
Not taking sides here, but here is a great animated history map of the region (although whether the"Kingdom of Israel" existed as a united entity as down on this map is debated).
Thanks for contributing information.
The conflicts are much older than that, but yes, it is definitely not helping.
Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century? As far as I’m aware, the current conflict has it’s roots in the British takeover after WW1.
Nope.
Zionists had been making moves since the start of the 20th century, mostly buying land from absentee landlords and expelling the inhabitants, but yeah their program only really got going after the British takeover.
Depends on the conflict (most relevantly the Arab-Jew beef is a 20th century thing), but also: Conflict doesn’t have to lead to tyranny or violence; it can be and in many places is resolved peacefully or mostly peacefully. There was no need or inevitability for people like Saddam or Assad to take power for example; that was America’s doing.
You must mean the British and French who took control from the Ottomans. America had very little to do with it until much later.
Both the Syrian and Iraqi dictatorships took power in American-backed coups. Before that they were democracies with varying degrees of political upheaval.