Most of the current day border conflicts are related to the past century's British policy, both due to the extent of the British Empire and its little interest in preventing trouble in their way out. You see similar issues with French ex-colonies, but since they weren't as many they don't appear as much in the news. Border conflicts in old Spanish colonies mostly took place during the 19th century, and they've been independent for long enough for their current issues not to have as much to do with Spain anymore. In contrast, there are British people alive today who were kicking around when the victors of WWII decided to split Palestine in half without asking Palestinians for their opinion, and afterwards chose to ignore the ethnic cleansings of Palestinians.

In any case, you shouldn't take of this personally, unless you actually hold any position of relative power.

Three things: Scale, recency and contrition or perceived lack thereof.

The British Empire is the largest empire there has ever been. At its greatest extent, in 1920, it covered about 1/4 of the entire world, long after having lost many holdings like the US. The second largest, the Mongol Empire, reached almost the same size, but hundreds of years earlier.

In the same time period as the British, the Russian empire covered <20% in 1895, but its proportion of colonial lands to their own was much smaller than for the British Empire and the proportion of the current world population living in those areas is also much smaller. The French colonial empire covered less than 1/10th of the world at its peak in 1920, and was by far the other largest recent holding of colonies geographically and culturally outside of the immediate sphere of the holding country.

Spain is rarely brought up, I think, in large part because the Spanish empire reached its peak in the early 1800's and so is "history". Belgium doesn't get discussed at much because 98% of their colonial holdings was Leopold II's personal ownership of the Congo Free State. And then we get to the last bit: Contritition.

Nobody goes around saying the massive scale of gross abuse that happened under Leopold II's rule of the Congo Free State was a good thing. Few people I've met ever defend France's atrocities in Vietnam. Even the defence of their ownership of Algeria, which was special enough to trigger an attempted coup against Charles de Gaulle when he wanted to let it have independence because many saw it as part of France itself, is relatively muted.

But there's still mainstream support for the British Empire in the UK. There are still people who insist the British Empire was awesome for the colonies that were exploited because they got English and rails and British legal systems and that somehow outweighs the mass murder and brutal exploitation and erasure of local cultures.

E.g. this survey from 2019, where 32% were proud of the British Empire, 37% were neutral, and only 19% considered it "more something to be ashamed of". 32% were proud of their country's history of colonialism and oppression. Critically this was significantly higher than for other colonial powers other than the Dutch. At the same time 33% thought it left the colonies better off vs. only 17% who thought they were worse off.

I'm not British, but I've lived in the UK for 23 years, and I've experienced this attitude firsthand from even relatively young British people (ok, so all of them have been Tories) - a refusal to accept that the fact that a substantial number of these former colonies had to take up arms to get rid of British rule might perhaps be a little bit of a hint that the colonial rule was resented and wrong.

No other modern empire has left behind such a substantial proportion of the world population living in countries that have either a historical identity tied up to rebelling against British rule, and/or have relatively recently rebelled against British rule, and/or still have substantial reminders, such as Commonwealth membership or the British monarch as their monarch. When a proportion of the British population then keeps insisting this was great, actually, there you have a big part of it.

We aren't giving the others a pass, but this shitshow has a certain Etonian stench. It's like the British Empire looked at Zionist and saw a shared colonial heart...

I think the general focus comes from the particular reach of the British empire controlling ~ a quarter of the world, but I agree every major power has done it

That said, in this particular conflict, it's more about how right after WWII , around the time when the United nations was founded. The world powers knew they basically owned the world at this point with nuclear tech, but justified it by arguing they should use this power to preserve countries borders.

Around the same time when the world powers are saying this, land that Britain colonized in Palestine was given to create Israel. Which is hypocritical.

I can understand machiavellianism in the context of pre 1950 geopolitics, but there will never be peace because of the decision making of Western powers doing something they have acknowledged is unethical

He or she just wanted to look smart, nevermind

I don't think that is new. It's true that it helps. But religions have always been involved in war. Up until 200 years ago the Pope was the most powerful person on the planet for at least 1000 years.

Agreed, it's mostly community as far as personal benefits. We had a friend group through it that fell apart recently and my wife wants to go back to church only for the community.

Outreach is mostly a guise in my opinion, a show that's put on to make the congregation think their money is being used wisely. I have a lot of disdain for organized religion though, having grown up in it and painfully "deconstructing" a couple years ago. I can't step foot in a church ever again (minus a wedding).

It's not religion, but it is strict adherence to an ideology and refusing to acknowledge facts that contradict the ideology or make it inconvenient