Sign into an existing account

**Disclaimer. This is not my opinion. I asked Grok AI for opinion.**

**Adolf Hitler (Germany):** Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, by President Paul von Hindenburg, following elections where the Nazi Party gained significant support.

In the November 1932 election, the Nazis secured 33.1% of the vote, becoming the largest party in the Reichstag but without a majority. His appointment resulted from political negotiations and pressure, not a direct election to the chancellorship.

After taking office, Hitler used the Reichstag fire to pass the Enabling Act, which granted him dictatorial powers, effectively ending democratic processes.

**Benito Mussolini (Italy):** Benito Mussolini was not elected in a democratic sense. He came to power in Italy through a combination of political maneuvering, intimidation, and force.

Mussolini, leader of the National Fascist Party, capitalized on Italy’s post-World War I economic and social unrest. In 1922, he organized the March on Rome, a show of strength by thousands of Fascist supporters, which pressured King Victor Emmanuel III to appoint him as Prime Minister.

While Mussolini initially held power legally, his appointment was not the result of a popular election but rather a response to the threat of violence and political instability. Once in power, Mussolini consolidated control by dismantling democratic institutions, banning opposition parties, and rigging elections. The 1924 election, for example, was heavily manipulated through violence and fraud, ensuring a Fascist majority.

**Joseph Stalin (USSR):** Stalin was not elected in any democratic sense. The Soviet Union operated as a one-party state under the Communist Party.

Stalin rose to power through internal party politics, outmaneuvering rivals like Leon Trotsky after Vladimir Lenin’s death in 1924. Soviet elections were not competitive; they were controlled to affirm the Communist Party’s authority, offering voters no real choice. Stalin’s leadership was secured through party dominance and suppression of opposition, not through a democratic mandate.

**Conclusion:**

Neither Hitler, Mussolini, nor Stalin came to power through free and fair democratic elections. Hitler’s appointment followed some electoral success for the Nazi Party, but relied on political deals. Mussolini’s rise was driven by coercion and the threat of violence. Stalin ascended through party control in a system without competitive elections. Each leader used undemocratic means to secure and maintain power.

Resheph was a significant deity in ancient Near Eastern cultures, worshipped from the mid-third millennium BCE to the end of the first century BCE across regions like Ebla, Ugarit, Phoenicia, and Egypt. His roles and attributes varied by culture but generally included:
God of War and Plague: Resheph was often depicted as a war god, represented as a bearded man wielding an axe, holding a shield, and wearing a tall, pointed headdress adorned with a goat’s or gazelle’s head. He was also associated with pestilence and disease, sometimes linked to the Babylonian god Nergal, who shared similar attributes.

Underworld and Healing: In some traditions, Resheph was a gatekeeper of the underworld or a deity of healing, reflecting his dual role as both destructive and protective. In Ugaritic texts, he is called the "doorkeeper of the sun goddess Shapash."

Multiple Hypostases: In Eblaite tradition, Resheph appeared in various forms, such as Resheph of Adanni, Resheph of gunum (possibly a palatial enclosure or garden), and Resheph of Tunip. These hypostases suggest localized worship tied to specific places or functions.

Resheph in the Hebrew Bible
In the Hebrew Bible, Resheph appears seven times, often not as a deity but as a term with meanings like "pestilence," "arrow," "fire," or "spark," connoting destructive forces under divine control:
Deuteronomy 32:24: Resheph is paired with Qeteb, a demon, as a personified force of destruction (e.g., plague or fever).

Psalms 78:48: Refers to "reshafim" as "lightning bolts" or "fiery bolts" during the plagues of Egypt, possibly alluding to Resheph’s association with fire.

Psalms 76:4: Mentions "rishfei kashet" (fiery arrows of the bow), linking Resheph to arrows or sparks, symbolizing divine judgment.

Habakkuk 3:5: Describes Resheph as a subordinate deity or demon alongside pestilence, emphasizing Yahweh’s power over destructive forces.

The Hebrew word resheph (רֶשֶׁף) derives from a root meaning "flame," "burning," or "fever," and is used figuratively for lightning, arrows, or plague. Some scholars debate whether it always refers to the deity or sometimes just the concept of destruction.

**Jewish Factions Hostile to Each Other**

During the Second Temple period (circa 516 BCE–70 CE), several Jewish sects were known to have significant disagreements, sometimes leading to violent conflict:

**Pharisees vs. Sadducees**

Conflict: The Pharisees emphasized strict adherence to the Torah and oral traditions, while the Sadducees, associated with the priestly aristocracy, rejected oral traditions and beliefs like the resurrection of the dead. Their disputes often centered on religious authority and Temple practices.

Nature of Belligerence: Ideological and political rivalry, with the Sadducees dominating Temple leadership and the Pharisees holding sway among the broader population. This led to power struggles within Jewish society.

Outcome: These tensions contributed to disunity, culminating in the destruction of the Second Temple by Rome in 70 CE.

**Essenes vs. Other Sects**

Conflict: The Essenes, an ascetic group often associated with the Qumran community, rejected the Jerusalem priesthood as illegitimate and isolated themselves in the Judean desert. They viewed other Jewish groups, particularly the Sadducees, as corrupt.

Nature of Belligerence: The Essenes’ withdrawal from mainstream Jewish society and their strict purity laws limited direct conflict, but their writings (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls) show sharp criticism of other Jewish factions.

Outcome: Their isolation meant less direct confrontation, but they were ideologically opposed to the religious establishment.

**Zealots vs. Other Factions**

Conflict: The Zealots advocated armed rebellion against Roman rule and were critical of Jewish groups like the Herodians or Sadducees who cooperated with Rome. They also clashed with more moderate groups like the Pharisees, who sought coexistence.

Nature of Belligerence: The Zealots’ militant stance led to violent clashes, including with other Jews who opposed their revolutionary tactics. Their actions contributed to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

Outcome: Their extremism alienated other factions and led to their eventual defeat by Rome.

**Early Christians vs. Other Jewish Sects**

Conflict: Early Christians, initially a Jewish sect, faced opposition from Pharisees, Sadducees, and others due to their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, which most Jews rejected.

Nature of Belligerence: Theological disputes led to social and sometimes physical conflicts, as seen in accounts of early Christian persecution within Jewish communities.

Outcome: This rift eventually led to Christianity’s separation from Judaism.

**Modern Jewish Factions with Tensions**

In contemporary times, Jewish factions often clash over religious observance, Zionism, or political priorities. Below are examples of groups with notable tensions:

**Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) vs. Secular Jews (Hiloni)**

Conflict: In Israel, Haredi Jews, who prioritize strict religious observance and often live in insular communities, frequently clash with secular Jews over issues like military service exemptions, public Sabbath observance, and state funding for religious institutions. Secular Jews view Haredi exemptions from military service and their influence on public policy as unfair.

Nature of Belligerence: Public protests, political disputes, and social tensions. For example, Haredim have opposed secular policies like public transportation on the Sabbath, while secular Jews criticize Haredi political influence.

Example: Haredi opposition to mandatory military conscription has led to protests and political standoffs in Israel.

**Orthodox (Dati) vs. Reform/Conservative Jews**

Conflict: Orthodox Jews, particularly in Israel, often reject the legitimacy of Reform and Conservative Judaism, viewing their practices as deviations from traditional Halakha (Jewish law). Reform and Conservative Jews advocate for more liberal interpretations, including gender-egalitarian practices and recognition of same-sex relationships, which Orthodox groups oppose.

Nature of Belligerence: Disputes over religious authority, such as control of conversion processes, marriage laws, and access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem. In Israel, the Orthodox Rabbinate’s monopoly on religious matters has led to tensions with non-Orthodox groups.

Example: Conflicts over egalitarian prayer spaces at the Western Wall have led to protests and legal battles.

**Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) vs. Modern Orthodox**

Conflict: Haredi Jews often criticize Modern Orthodox Jews for their integration into secular society and more lenient interpretations of Halakha. Modern Orthodox Jews, in turn, may view Haredi isolationism as extreme.

Nature of Belligerence: Ideological disputes over Zionism, secular education, and engagement with modernity. Haredim are more likely to reject Zionism or see it as secondary to religious observance, while Modern Orthodox Jews often embrace Zionism as part of their religious identity.

Example: Haredi groups like Satmar may criticize Modern Orthodox support for Israel as a secular state.

**Zionist vs. Anti-Zionist Jews**

Conflict: Zionist Jews support the establishment and maintenance of Israel as a Jewish state, while anti-Zionist Jewish groups, such as Neturei Karta and some ultra-Orthodox sects (e.g., Satmar Hasidim), oppose Zionism, believing a Jewish state should not exist until the Messiah arrives. Secular anti-Zionist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) criticize Zionism for ethical or political reasons, clashing with Zionist Jews.

Nature of Belligerence: Public demonstrations, mutual accusations of betraying Jewish values, and ideological battles. For instance, Neturei Karta’s public support for Palestinian causes has led to condemnation from Zionist groups.

Example: Neturei Karta’s participation in anti-Israel protests has sparked outrage among Zionist Jews, who view it as aligning with antisemitic narratives.

**Ashkenazi vs. Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews**

Conflict: Historically, Ashkenazi Jews (from Europe) held more power in early Israeli society, leading to tensions with Sephardi (from Spain/Portugal) and Mizrahi (from Middle Eastern/North African countries) Jews, who faced discrimination. While less overt today, cultural and religious differences, such as variations in prayer liturgy or rabbinic authority, can still cause friction.

Nature of Belligerence: Social and political marginalization, with Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews historically advocating for equal representation. Religious disputes also arise, as Sephardi/Mizrahi rabbis may hold more lenient Halakhic positions than Ashkenazi counterparts.

Example: Debates over the authority of Sephardi versus Ashkenazi rabbis in Israel’s religious councils.

**Jewish Paramilitary Groups (Historical)**

Conflict: During the British Mandate period (1920s–1948), Jewish paramilitary groups like Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi had ideological and tactical disagreements. Haganah favored restraint (Havlagah), while Irgun and Lehi pursued aggressive attacks against British and Arab targets. The “Hunting Season” (1944–1945) saw Haganah actively opposing Irgun and Lehi to prevent British retaliation.

Nature of Belligerence: Direct confrontations, including Haganah turning over Irgun and Lehi members to British authorities.

Outcome: Temporary cooperation in the Jewish Resistance Movement (1945–1946), but tensions persisted until Israel’s establishment.