International events

[Clueless Northman]

Very sad.

Hopefully, Denmark will be spared the French nonsense of "should be rebuild the roof and spire in concrete and glass modernistic-brutalist fashion, or build it back like it was?".

 

18 hours ago, Werthead said:

I think it's much more about the very, very real fear, distrust and outright hatred of Iran amongst a lot of Arab countries (especially in the Sunni-majority ones, which is just about all of them, bar Iraq and Azerbaijan). That fear and distrust has, in some cases, matched or far exceeded that of their concerns over Israel.

It's quite startling how much that enmity is in play right now, even with Israel bombing Gaza, which the Arab street particularly utterly loathes. But even in the best of times, the Arab countries and Iran have only a very tenuous "enemy of my enemy is my friend," thing going on, and in fact I've seen some commentary that there is concern about Iran winning a war against Israel and being so energised that its ambitions grow from there.

When you say "Arab countries", wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Arab governments", since the Arab street is notoriously not truly represented by their governments, and barely has been - at least since Nasser's demise - and said governments are nearly as afraid of their own peoples as they are of Iran. Of course, the people aren't big fans of Iran, but the Palestinian issue ranks way higher for them than for their corrupt leaders - on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue of Palestine ranked a bit lower for the Iranian people than for the Iranian government.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

Hopefully, Denmark will be spared the French nonsense of "should be rebuild the roof and spire in concrete and glass modernistic-brutalist fashion, or build it back like it was?".

 

Huh?  I thought Notre Dame was being rebuilt as it was.

[Ran]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Huh?  I thought Notre Dame was being rebuilt as it was.

It is, but there were debates about it, and Macron has been a big proponent for adding modern touches. He wanted a modern spire, that was vetoed, then he proposed replacing the (perfectly intact) stained glass from 1859 with modern stained glass, I think that's also been vetoed or at least people aren't keen. I saw a nice proposal of replacing the north tower's plain glass windows with contemporary stained glass as a way to update.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

It is, but there were debates about it, and Macron has been a big proponent for adding modern touches. He wanted a modern spire, that was vetoed, then he proposed replacing the (perfectly intact) stained glass from 1859 with modern stained glass, I think that's also been vetoed or at least people aren't keen. I saw a nice proposal of replacing the north tower's plain glass windows with contemporary stained glass as a way to update.

Yeaaaaaaaahhhh…

No.

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yeaaaaaaaahhhh…

No.

Even to upgrading the north tower windows? Remember, the spire and stained glass are from the mid-19th century. Nothing says that the Cathedral needs to be entirely stuck in the mid-1800s. Something that's a clear upgrade seems reasonable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

Even to upgrading the north tower windows? Remember, the spire and stained glass are from the mid-19th century. Nothing says that the Cathedral needs to be entirely stuck in the mid-1800s. Something that's a clear upgrade seems reasonable.

Meh…

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

Even to upgrading the north tower windows? Remember, the spire and stained glass are from the mid-19th century. Nothing says that the Cathedral needs to be entirely stuck in the mid-1800s. Something that's a clear upgrade seems reasonable.

I'm more in the traditionalist camp there (even if I admittedly have no horse in this race).

Notre Dame is a historical landmark, so it should remain as original as possible.

[Ran]

20 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'm more in the traditionalist camp there (even if I admittedly have no horse in this race).

Notre Dame is a historical landmark, so it should remain as original as possible.

I find that strange. I think the major elements that make it identifiable now, like its spire and stained glass, should stay as they are... but I don't really see any reason why plain glass windows that are unremarkable and that no one remembers (except in that they don't compare to the stained glass elsewhere) can't be replaced. Hell, they probably have been replaced, as glass cracked or broke, and are more Theseus's Ship than anything.

Edited April 16 by Ran

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I'd think replacing those plain windows with something more fancy also runs the risk of changing the character of Notre Dame. As you said, they are not highlight, so adding them as an eyecatcher, I'd argue that changes the character of the building.

[Werthead]

There seems to be a current plan developing amongst Israeli leaders to get other western countries to impose sanctions, or reimpose sanctions in the case of those who dropped them in 2015 with the peace deal, on Iran, effectively killing the nuclear deal stone dead. If those countries do that, Israel would restrict its response to hitting Hezbollah targets in Lebanon rather than Iran directly. It sounds like that's very much an idea rather than the final plan, and Netanyahu may yet give in to the hardliners and order strikes on Iran's military infrastructure and the nuclear programme.

A number of western countries have summoned their Iranian ambassadors but have so far held fire from fresh sanctions, apart from the United States which is promising a comprehensive sanctions package this week.

1 hour ago, Clueless Northman said:

When you say "Arab countries", wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Arab governments", since the Arab street is notoriously not truly represented by their governments, and barely has been - at least since Nasser's demise - and said governments are nearly as afraid of their own peoples as they are of Iran. Of course, the people aren't big fans of Iran, but the Palestinian issue ranks way higher for them than for their corrupt leaders - on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue of Palestine ranked a bit lower for the Iranian people than for the Iranian government.

Yes, the interaction between the Arab street and the Arab governments is always interesting, although also not as far apart as is always assumed.

The average Iranian on the street, from what can be told, does not necessarily love Israel, but they're not as vehemently opposed to it as their government is, and they often take a similar view to Pakistan and Muslim countries further away from the conflict zone, they really hate the idea of fellow Muslims being killed, but they're not as invested in the situation as the people living right next door.

Edited April 16 by Werthead

[Zorral]

Well, Iran isn't / doesn't consider itself Arab, but Persian, which one of the reason for the conflict.

Even as the Persian Mizarhi Jews are considered nearly beyond the pale, barely Jewish at all -- like all the Mizrahi groups, including the Sephardi from Spain, who are also classified as Mizrahi --  by the Ashkenazi Jews -- starting with the Zionist activists to settle Jews in the region of the British Protectorate.

I first learned this from Partner's billionaire patron, Jewish in heritage though not in practice, (though I don't think he's a billionaire now  -- the Houston flood, bad business decisions (he's much more talented as an arts patron than a CEO/CFO), whose banking and mercantilist family emigrated from Iran when the European powers partitioned ye olde Ottoman territories, to the UK, and now the US, and got into the Oil biz.  He says his grandfather always maintained their family was in Iran since at least, if not before, the Babylonian Captivity.

Edited April 17 by Zorral

[HexMachina]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Meh…

Great rebuttal, your lawyer-ly skills are on full display here  

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Well, Iran isn't / doesn't consider itself Arab, but Persian, which one of the reason for the conflict.

Yes, that's one of the reasons Iran is regarded with suspicion in many Arab countries: it's not Arab but it's all up in Arab business in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. "Arab" can be a fairly broad term with very many numerous sub-groups but there is a strong distinction between Arab and Persian.

[Zorral]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

there is a strong distinction between Arab and Persian.

Including Farsi is the nation's official and administrative language, not Arabic.  Though other languages as well are commonly spoken, as to expected in a place that spawned empire after empire and was invaded over and over by empire after empire.

 

[Clueless Northman]

It should also be noted that there's also, among some of the Iranian population, resentment towards what they pretty much consider as upstart camel-herders from Arabian desert, who conquered their great and wealthy Persian empire and ruled over the whole Persian land for many centuries.

Yet there's also the Shia/Sunni schism, which complicates matter because the divide isn't exactly an ethnic/linguistic one and the Shiite world overlaps a bit into the Arab peoples bordering Iran, and actually all along the Fertile Crescent. Ironically, this was a purely internal Arab affair at the beginning, but eventually Persians/Iranians chose the minority side in part to set them apart from the Arab world.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

It should also be noted that there's also, among some of the Iranian population, resentment towards what they pretty much consider as upstart camel-herders from Arabian desert, who conquered their great and wealthy Persian empire and ruled over the whole Persian land for many centuries.

Yet there's also the Shia/Sunni schism, which complicates matter because the divide isn't exactly an ethnic/linguistic one and the Shiite world overlaps a bit into the Arab peoples bordering Iran, and actually all along the Fertile Crescent. Ironically, this was a purely internal Arab affair at the beginning, but eventually Persians/Iranians chose the minority side in part to set them apart from the Arab world.

I think some Iranians view the Arab conquest as a national humiliation.

[House Balstroko]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think some Iranians view the Arab conquest as a national humiliation.

It’s hard to gauge how widespread that sentiment actually is when looking at the entire population, though from personal experience, I will say I’ve heard from many Iranians in the diaspora, that they feel that way. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 hours ago, HexMachina said:

Great rebuttal, your lawyer-ly skills are on full display here  

It has been a really long month…

[Loge]

18 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'm more in the traditionalist camp there (even if I admittedly have no horse in this race).

Notre Dame is a historical landmark, so it should remain as original as possible.

Ain't no such thing as the original with a building that old and construction work that took centuries to complete. They started remodeling before the building was even finished. As Ran mentioned, the pre-fire state was the result of extensive remodeling in the 19th century. The church had no spire before 1859, so a modern design would have been just as (un)original as the old one. 

 

[Bironic]

4 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

It’s hard to gauge how widespread that sentiment actually is when looking at the entire population, though from personal experience, I will say I’ve heard from many Iranians in the diaspora, that they feel that way. 

Yes this is my experience with Iranians abroad as well… the period between 7th and 9th centuries (the Arab conquest) is see as akin to the fall of the Roman Empire and the „dark ages“ that followed. There is also the fact that there seems to be some sort of „revival“ of pre-Arabic-Islamic culture/religion as well as non „orthodox/statal“ Islam amongst Iranians and more generally Iranian peoples(such as the Kurds) abroad as well, with less participation in mosques and more interest in things such as Nawruz, Parsism/ Zoroastrianism, Yezidism, Baha’i, Mutazila etc…