• niktemadur@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 hours ago

      “An empire will rise”
      “An empire will fall”
      “War will break out in the Middle East”
      “The Boston Red Sox will win a World Series”

      OMG, was this man a wizard or what?!!

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    10 hours ago

    This conflict will never end as long as people keep listening to their imaginary friends over the reality in front of them. And each atrocity on both sides simply guarantees the fighting will last for ages longer.

    • Corn@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      6 hours ago

      That idealist nonsense is not grounded in material reality.

      Religion is a post-hoc justification for imperialism. Britain didnt create Israel because of their religion, but because it was an effective way to get a colony and get rid of jews (lord Balfour was wildly antisemitic). American politicians who give Israel billions in weapons and political support dont get millions in campaign funds from Raytheon and co to get elected because of their religion, but because it benefits the military-industrial complex. The structure determines the super-structure; Ideology, culture, religion, etc are all molded to reinforce the relationship with the means of production.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 hours ago

        m. Britain didnt create Israel because of their religion, but because it was an effective way to get a colony and get rid of jews (lord Balfour was wildly antisemitic).

        they sold it twice. once to the orthodox and once to the Palestinians. a drunken stumble from the ottoman empire we’re still coping with.

        and now our idiotic evangelical nutbags are fueling their vision of the end times.

        imagine if everyone stopped believing there was a higher power pushing them to this bonkers state

    • Grail (capitalised)@aussie.zoneEnglish
      0·
      9 hours ago

      The belief in an objective reality is precisely what motivated the crusades, the nakba, and most other genocides. They believed in reality, and they believed their experience of the divine was objectively true for all others. Thus, that their actions were justified.

      Peace will only happen when we admit that our perceptions aren’t objective. The gods who talk to us in our sleep exist because we believe in them, not because of an external reality. There’s no such thing, and admitting subjectivity is the only way to accept differences and make peace.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        7 hours ago

        They believed in reality, and they believed their experience of the divine was objectively true for all others. Thus, that their actions were justified.

        yeah, I agree they were deranged by deities. fancy way of putting it tho.

        Peace will only happen when we admit that our perceptions aren’t objective. The gods who talk to us in our sleep exist because we believe in them, not because of an external reality. .

        ohhhh… aaahh… uhhhm… NO thanks, you keep your sleepy whisper invisible friends to yourself mate, I’m good

      • Machinist@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        8 hours ago

        Now, that’s a different angle on viewing these things. Or at least I’ve never heard it phrased that way. Interesting. Thanks for the insight!

        • Grail (capitalised)@aussie.zoneEnglish
          0·
          2 hours ago

          You’re welcome. I’m an anarcho-antirealist. You can read our manifesto at https://soulism.net/.

          I firmly believe that reality is the “final boss” of leftism, and that no socialist movement will see long term success while we believe in reality. We live in a subjective world created by capitalist media, and we must seize the means of Creation - the social process of deciding what is true about our world. Whether it be interpreted as propaganda, spirituality, science, or law.

          When we admit that the world is not objective, we take away the ability for leaders to control us with Creation. We weaken hierarchical religious structures, and strengthen collaborative systems like science.

  • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
    0·
    11 hours ago

    Pretty sure it’s the rich and powerful who expect to become more rich and more powerful when there is war in the Middle East that bring about war in the Middle East.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      17 hours ago

      An actual historian can chime in if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the middle east has had some sort of internal or external conflict going on for all of history. So the answer to your question is likely “still war”.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        17 hours ago

        I’m pretty sure the middle east has had some sort of internal or external conflict going on for all of history

        Prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East enjoyed centuries of peace and prosperity. From the 13th to 20th centuries, you were far safer in Damascus or Baghdad or Tehran than Paris or Berlin or Rome. Europe was in a continuous state of civil conflict during this period.

        The Middle Eastern states were a popular refuge for European civilians fleeing the 30-Years-War, the Napoleonic Wars, the various wars of consolidation and independence following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the World Wars. Countries from Morocco to Iran were all common destinations thanks to their unaligned status and divorce from the conflicts in Europe. More common even than the Americas. In fact, a big early appeal of the Palestinian Mandate was that it allowed Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike to escape the pogroms north of the Mediterranean.

        In the early years, at the start of the Cold War, a number of the former European colonies broke away from their now-destitute colonial masters. This lead to brief civil struggles, largely centered around the capitals where all those European WW1/2 refugees had piled in. But by and large, the democratization of the Middle East was far more peaceful than the democraticization of Europe.

        It wasn’t until the 1950s, when spy games between the US and the USSR began to topple unaligned governments, that war in the Middle East became commonplace. But what we’re seeing today is a novelty of the 20th/21st century. You’re ignoring centuries of peaceful coexistence and fixating on a few ancient (Crusades) and a few very recent (Soviet/Post-Soviet) violent flare ups.

        • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          16 hours ago

          So I checked Wikipedia, and the list of conflicts in the middle east in the years between 1300 to 1800 is far from empty. I know it’s easier to blame everything on the US, but you are ignoring dozens of different conflicts that occurred during that span of years.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            15 hours ago

            So I checked Wikipedia

            Show me a conflict within the borders of the Ottoman Empire that killed more people than the Napoleonic Wars.

            I know it’s easier to blame everything on the US

            Trying to explain to the judge that blaming Jeffrey Dahmer for all those bodies in the fridge is the easy answer and the jury needs to approach things more critically.

            I mean, if it makes you feel any better, the blame falls off the US once you spin the clock back before McKinley. The societal collapse during the 17th and 18th centuries are largely a consequence of imperial policies of England, France, and Spain.

            • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
              0·
              15 hours ago

              Show me a conflict within the borders of the Ottoman Empire that killed more people than the Napoleonic Wars.

              Why would I do that? It would have nothing to do with anything I said.