The one thing you can be certain
of when it comes to interacting with Jews, is that if you give them a finger
they'll go beyond the known saying, and will demand more than just the arm.
They'll want the whole body and
then some. After that, they'll want still more … and then more and more to
infinity unless they are made to visit the proverbial gas chamber before they
get there. And that's an occurrence that happened to them again and again ever
since they appeared on the scene.
So then, what do you expect
they'll do if you allow them to mutilate history? They'll want to do more than
just mutilate; they'll want to grind it, puree, liquify and evaporate it. In
fact, this is what Lee Smith has started doing with the history of the Levant . You can see it in the article he wrote under the
title: “Zone Defense” and the subtitle: “Sykes-Picot at 100,” published on May
19, 2016 in the Weekly Standard.
It becomes apparent at the end of
the article what he intends to accomplish with this project. He wants to show
that the Jews have the right to rob the Palestinians of their Palestine . And he wants to establish that
Jewish America has the right to make decisions for the Levant .
To get there, however, he needs to get past mutilating history. For now, he
gets down to the business of grinding it.
Smith tries that but because he is
fixated on the ultimate goal, he makes early mistakes that end up demolishing
his project. Speaking of the effect that the Sykes-Picot agreement had on the
Levant, he makes a first mistake saying this: “Lebanon
would go to France ;
Mesopotamia would fall under British supervision; and Palestine would be under international
administration.” Bingo. The man just admitted there was a Palestine long before the Jews paid the likes
of Newt Gingrich to deny it ever existed or that the Palestinian people did.
Here is his second mistake: “Now,
according to a diverse body of opinion, from the leader of the Islamic State to
the Israeli defense ministry, Sykes-Picot has finally fallen apart.” Bingo
number two. The man just admitted that beside organizing and training terrorist
groups, Israel
makes common cause with those that spring up on their own and model themselves
after it, the mother of all terrorist entities.
And now the third mistake. In his
attempt to show that it's okay for the Jews to rob the Palestinians of their
Palestine, he says this: “All borders are artificial … The borders within the
area that Sykes-Picot dealt with were agreed upon by Paris and London … the
Ottoman Empire lost; the French and the British divided parts of its holdings
in keeping with how empires have [operated] throughout the ages … The imperial
tradition dates back millennia.” Bingo number three. The man just admitted that
the Zionist project is the revival of a primitive imperialist construct; one
that was dismantled by modernity.
In an effort to show that it is
acceptable to beak-up the Arab countries, Smith attributes Arab cohesion to a
nationalism that proved to be “fanciful by the sectarian and ethnic onslaught
underway in Iraq and Syria .” He then
quickly backpedals to hedge his bet saying this: “If there is a thing as the
Arab nation; it is a nation at war with itself.” Well yes, what's happening in Iraq is called
a civil war. What's happening in Syria ,
however, is more of an interference from abroad (including from Iraq )
than it is a civil war.
The truth is that the Arab
countries of the Levant have lived an exemplary life after the dissolution of
the Ottoman Empire . Theirs was a place where
the sects, ethnicities and tribes lived in harmony for a long time. Later, the
savage destruction of Iraq
by Jewish America created the idea that Iraq was inevitably going to be
split. This inspired the young hotheads on both sides of the divide to fight
each other and lay claim on what's left of the country as much as they can.
In addition, a handful of thugs
with whom Israel
saw fit to make common cause – as shown earlier – turned against the Christians
and the other minorities. Other than that, the rest of the Arab world, warts
and all, does no better and no worse than anyone else on the Planet. And all
those, like Lee Smith, who keep spinning the events and doing wishful thinking
with regard to the future of the Arab World, will be disappointed when the
future will come because nobody can predict how history will unfold.
To drag mainstream America into the mix, and place Jewish-America
at the controls of the foreign policy vehicle that deals with the Middle East,
Lee Smith invents a canard about America , and falsely attributes the
invention to the Arabs. He says this: “according to the Arab nationalist
reading, the United States
was the great colonial power … Actually, that wasn't far from the truth. The
reality is that the Europeans were irrelevant … The peace that the region
enjoyed was thanks to postwar American power.” No, that is not Arab nationalist
reading; it is newly minted Jewish fantasy.
Smith goes on to trivialize the
depth of the Arab-Israeli conflict and takes this discussion off the table. He
replaces it with one about Obama's rapprochement with Iran . He says
that the White House wants out of the region … but this is bad policy, he
warns. It is bad, he explains, because America will not be there to ensure
stability and protection of American interests. And that – with an exception –
is what he was after all along.
The exceptional problem is that he
made three early mistakes which say, in effect, nothing on his mind is meant to
protect American interests. In fact, what he cares about has everything to do
with protecting only Israeli interests. That's why he could not identify a
single American interest in his closing statement. And this is why he ends the
article on a melodramatic note he plucks from thin air. Here it is: “The region
will pay the price, as will the rest of the world, including America .” No,
this prediction does not make a prophet out of him.