Israel isn't sovereign either they answer to Satan
Still sovereign from the wishes of other men.
@Marchesa of the Vast
>It was a state run by Christians
Pretty sure that makes it a "Christian state" buddy. If we're going to say we are only talking about "modern states" then you're saying the Kingdom of Judea wasn't a "Jewish state" because it predated Westphalian Nation States. This is silly.
However the kingdom of Judea wasn't a cliant state for most of its history. YES by the end it basically became one of Rome but I am talking about the overall.
The Kingdom of Jerusalem was a Crusader State which meant its soverignty was very questionable. However, I really don't like comparing states in the medical era to modern ones because of how different they were from what we consider a state today. The only thing I will say is that there are times when Judea was DEFINITELY a sovereign state independent of other powers.
But I will say, grabbing a cross and declaring yourself "a Christian state" and ruling as an actual state under Christian law (cannon law?) are two different things.
By what metric? By demographics? What does "eastern Roman empire part" have to do with anything? Having a patriarch? The Kingdom of Jerusalem came with a Latin Patriarch that's still there, not to mention the Greek and Armenian Patriarchs who were there. So by what metric?
If you were a follower of the Eastern Church, you would say that Constantinople was your symbolic center would you not? A catholic wouldn't say that Jerusalim is, they would say Rome/whereever the holy see is right?
What orders? The papacy didn't have more control over the crusader states than than any of the European kingdoms, largely less so. This is like saying the Kingdom of France wasn't sovereign because they had to consider the stance of the Pope. Is America not sovereign because it has to consider the stance of Israel when acting in the Middle East? Is this really a line of argument you want to take?
This is why I wanted to not compare pre westphalia states to post westphalia states. But you have people at that time arguing that they were establishing a state in the name of Catholisim (following whatever pope or anti-pope they desired). What I meant was that no one established a state from the start to be a state for the Christians, they established a state which had Christian rulers. I know I am splitting hairs but these states weren't exactly built on the idea of protecting, spreading, and growing Christianity. They used those ideas as excuses to achieve their political aims, however whenever they came into conflict with the Holy See they wouldn't acquiesce to its demands. For example, look at the Anglican church, it started because the king directly disagreed with the ruling of the pope (yes there were political reasons absolutely but I am talking ideologically here), and early anglicanism was basically no different from Catholicism. Also your example with Israel doesn't really work because Israel doesn't exist because of the USA's blessing, even when the USA did not support Israel militarily or how it does now, the state would still exist (or make an attempt to) Israel isn't suddenly "invalidated" because Israel doesn't do what the USA says. If the pope "invalidated" a king, then they had no "right to rule".
Not like they didn't try, both
politically and with
armed conflict with the Federal government. Perhaps you are just not well equipped for this discussion.
I know they did. But I mean AFTER they lost. They could pretend to be a Mormon state but if the USA didn't like what they were doing that shit ended FAST.
Again I am talking about political theory which is basically reading vapors.
This is such a hilarious "don't throw stones from glass houses" misfire that should never be taken by a supporter of Israel. Holy shit dude, how subsidized by the European states were the Crusader states compared to Israel's relationship with the United States?
Last time I checked the USA president didn't raise a (global) army to free Israel from invasion. The crusades was all that.
In practical terms, the only solution would be an ambivalent outside imperial force holding the whole of the levant and not giving the locals full autonomy. None of the local groups are responsible enough to handle it on their own without retarded internecine wars flaring up.
ok so you have the ottoman empire, and European imperialism. That did nothing to prevent flair ups. My point is that Christians in the middle east are being killed for being Christain, it should be the Christians who are responsible for their own safety and security. I do not trust them living under Muslim rulers and living under Israeli rulers might have them be safe politically, socially and culturally but they will never be the majority so, to avoid conflict which will happen (even if it is local not violent disagreements with the state) it would be best for them to have their own.
.
