The more history I read, the more I notice the same pattern returning. Rulers often learn to speak the language of the people they govern, not because they mean it, but because it helps them stay in power.
I think about the Mongols. When they conquered parts of the Middle East, their later adoption of Islam was not just about faith. It was also political. It helped stabilize their rule and gave them legitimacy in the eyes of the people they controlled. History is full of moments like that. Force alone is rarely enough. Sooner or later, power looks for beliefs or ideas to support it.
That is why I keep coming back to the relationship between power and faith. When they mix, the consequences go far beyond politics. They touch institutions, nations, and sometimes entire civilizations.
Military force is never the whole story
Military strength may open the door, but it does not determine what lasts. The Mongols had horsemen. The Romans had legions. The Dutch had ships. The United States had the bomb. Today, Israel’s strength lies not only in military force, but in intelligence, technology, and the resilience of a highly educated society.
Still, no army holds power forever. Force can conquer, but it cannot, by itself, explain how people live, what they believe, or why they remain loyal. That work is done by stories, values, and the ideas people carry long after the battle is over.
That is where history gets interesting for me.
The ideas that outlast empires
Ideas often outlive empires. Hellenism did. Buddhism did. Judaism and Islam certainly did. So did communism, socialism, and secular ideologies that aimed to replace religion altogether. These are not just ideas. They help people decide how to live. They tell people who they are, what matters, and what kind of world they want to build.
When I look at current events, I see that same struggle everywhere. We are constantly told that politics is about policy, but very often it is about belief. It is about identity. It is about different ways of seeing the world.
What is missing from the conversation
That was on display recently in Canadian media. On CBC’s The Current, Mustafa Barghouti was presented before analyst Shira Efron, and it was not only what was said, but how the discussion was framed. Too often, Israeli debate is treated in Western media as a sign of weakness or division, when it can also be a sign of a country arguing openly under pressure.¹
A few days later, another CBC program, Just Asking, featured Ian Lustick, Omar Dajani, and Rachel Fink. They spoke with confidence about Gaza, yet one major part of the story was missing: Hamas’s tunnel system beneath civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. For me, those omissions matter. They affect how people understand the conflict. They are a reminder that public conversation is not driven by facts alone, but also by the stories people choose to tell.²
That may be one of the hardest things to accept. People do not always respond to facts. They respond to the version of events that feels right to them emotionally, morally, or politically.
Francisco Gil-White makes a similar point in his analysis of the word “genocide” and the way it is used in discussions of Israel’s war against Hamas.³
Power also depends on economics
I also find myself thinking more and more about the economic side of power, because ideology is never the whole story. Winning land is one thing. Keeping it is another. That usually depends on taxes, administration, and control.
That was true in the early Islamic empires. Conquered communities were often allowed to keep some of their customs as long as they paid tribute and accepted a lower status. That system lasted not only because of force, but because it was set up in a way that worked.
Even today, power does not move only through weapons. It also moves through institutions, incentives, and demographics. That is why debates about immigration, identity, and national values feel so intense. They are not just about numbers. They are also about whether a society still believes in its own values enough to defend them.
Gad Saad has argued that modern conquest may no longer come mainly through armies, but through immigration, demographics, and by taking advantage of societies that value freedom.⁴ Whether one agrees with all of his language or not, I think the point is worth facing.
When the West forgets what it stands for
I think this question matters even more when I look at how unsure the West has become about its own values. In The Builder’s Stone, Melanie Phillips argues that Western civilization has been moving away from its biblical roots and has become less sure of itself as a result. Whether one agrees with all of her argument or not, I think she is pointing to something real: when a society no longer knows what it stands for, it becomes easier for bad ideas, easy accusations, and public outrage to take hold.⁵
Her phrase “Israel Derangement Syndrome” is blunt, but I understand what she means. In parts of academia, media, and politics, hostility toward Israel often seems to be the default reaction. It often leaves out context, history, and any fair sense of scale. I do not think that comes from nowhere. I think it reflects a broader uncertainty about what the West still believes in.
Phillips writes, “Antisemitism is deeply rooted in Islamic theology. The Islamists aim to destroy the Jews as a way to destroy the West.”⁵
Old patterns, new names
And that brings me to where we are now.
As the anniversary of October 7 approaches, I keep thinking not only about the massacre itself, but about how quickly public language shifts. Hamas fighters re-emerge under new labels. They may call it something else, but the ideology is the same. The name may change, but the goal stays the same.
As Yoseph Haddad recently noted, “It is the same terror group in disguise. Their goal is to fool the world while keeping control, weapons, and soon billions of dollars meant for Gaza’s reconstruction.”
That is why I keep returning to history. Not because history repeats itself in some simple way, but because people do not change all that much. Power still tries to make itself look right. People still use ideas to justify what they want. And societies still tell themselves stories so they do not have to face hard truths.
In the end, survival is not only about strength. It is also about memory, knowing what you stand for, and the willingness to resist false stories, even when they are popular.
That, at least, is what history keeps teaching me.
References
[1] CBC – The Current (Oct. 14, 2025). Interview with Mustafa Barghouti and Shira Efron discussing Trump’s Middle East peace deal. Listen here
[2] CBC – Just Asking (Oct. 12, 2025). Panel with Ian Lustick, Omar Dajani, and Rachel Fink on the Gaza ceasefire and its implications. Listen here
[3] Francisco Gil-White, “The ‘Genocide’ Accusation (Against Israel),” Management of Reality Substack, June 12, 2025. Read article
[4] Gad Saad, interview on cultural strategy and demographics, YouTube (timestamp 5:41). Watch here
[5] Melanie Phillips, The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West – And Why Only They Can Save It, reviewed by Oxford House Research Ltd, June 27, 2025. Read review