You are still committing the same categorical mistakes.
If you define politics as that which includes 'activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals', or simply 'the capacity of an individual to influence the actions, beliefs, or conduct (behavior) of oneself and others', then politics is categorically necessarily part of, and rooted in and conditioned by, culture and worldview or basic philosophy. For a worldview - which is that from, by and upon which politics emerges, stands and proceeds, and is that by which politics is conditioned, informed or influenced - necessarily includes 'natural philosophy and basic beliefs; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates, rationalizations or justifications, themes, values, ethics, morality,' i.e. all that which informs, influences or conditions the human behavior and decisions of any sort. Politics by nature or definition is thus necessarily a function of culture which is in turn a function of worldview which is 'the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view'.
Any decision, be it defined as political or otherwise, an agreement of sorts or a disagreement, between any one same or two+ individual(s) or parties, is thus necessarily traceable to, and accounted for by, implicitly if not explicitly, the category of culture or worldview.
To return to your statement and rectify it accordingly; civilizations do and don't clash based on cultural similarities and differences which in themselves may or may not enable an (political/...) agreement 'based on monetary interests in common or whatever'.
No, you are confusing the nature of politics with policy. This is part of the problem with claiming objectivity and understanding things through a prescriptive lens. Where did you get your definition from, Ben Shafiro’s Idiot’s Guide to Politics? It’s apparent you didn’t pull your definition from a single credible source. It’s not a definition even the professor of a Philosophy 101 class, the basic level of philosophy you espouse, would provide. Not a single credible definition includes the term worldview or indicates any form of culture in the definition of politics. Nor can it be implied directly unless one is to use mental gymnastics that even Simone Biles would hesitate to undertake. Why waste the energy to research something I don’t know when I could just make it up and fool unsuspecting readers, you may have thought prior to posting? Possibly in a moment of concealed manipulation or intentional obfuscation, you pulled the definition exclusively from your imagination, or other parts that take as much or, for some, as little, effort to reach. Not even the cloak of the audacious feigning of intellectual superiority can cover the display of ignorance represented in the disingenuity of your post.
To rectify your misunderstanding of the basic nature of politics. If we were to take the universally accepted handbook on politics, Machiavelli’s The Prince, we would find the author encouraging leaders to achieve political ends by any means necessary. That is, politics as the encompassing practice of decision-making in power relations is adequate as a definition, with the necessary addendum of “in pursuit of personal (personal as relating to the individual unit, which can be a state or an individual) gain”. The pursuit of power is inherently the pursuit of interest. Interest, material or otherwise, rather than worldview, is the key element here. Therefore, if politics is to be undertaken by individuals, some use of critical faculties and rational thought is required to ensure the maximizing interests and gains. The question then becomes, are decisions made on the basis of one’s “worldview”, supposedly derived from cultural background, or based on a rational assessment of choices that a decision-maker has to consider? Referring back to Machiavelli, and including Hobbes (and all scholars on the matter, except for yourself, apparently), the point remains that when a decision-maker needs to make a decision, they will consider the rational interest of the entity they rule first and foremost. The rational interest is purely psychological, i.e. using critical faculties. It has not yet been proven that this changes across cultures. Indeed, philosophy, scholars, and the actors involved in politics, besides yourself, are all in agreement on this point. Thus, your framework is set up to fail at explaining any political decision-making. Devising policy is a different story than the engagement in power struggle.
Now, the historical difference is that we’ve organized groups of people around political entities known as sovereign states from the mid 17th century (Westphalia) onward. Not nebulous cultural entities acting on the basis of a civilizational model. That is not politics, that has very little to do with power. The problem has become, in the modern era (20th century and beyond) that certain leaderships have sought to shape the world according to a liberal (read: classical and neoclassical liberalism, which includes both Republicans and Democrats in the world’s greatest power) ideology that is not only a complete and utter failure and disaster, but is a wild derivation from state practice throughout history. It is understandable, therefore, that those without the requisite knowledge on the issue become fooled by its affects. Of course, you’ll retort, “well, what about Islam?” The same rules apply, when a state is dominant and possesses the tools/capabilities for hegemony, they will act differently than when not and they will attempt to shape the globe to their liking, requiring the rest of the world’s awareness. As the scholarship has shown, not a single person or entity, except for you, apparently, can perfectly know another person or entity’s intentions, only their capabilities, which makes it impossible, even foolish, puerile, and imprudent to be prescriptive or think that one can prescribe while describing. However, as the case in this thread shows, states with defined borders may come from different cultures but have common interests. Imagine yourself playing a chess game and thinking about the opponent’s “worldview” and culture. Though politics is not as symmetrical, it is a sufficient analogy for sophists and the hard of learning.
Seriously I am happy for the UAE and Israelis.It seems none of this was prepared years ahead. It's all spur of the moment.