You can see a bad joke at the start of the piece written by
the editors of National Review Online which came under the title: “Time to Help
Syria's Kurds” and published on their website on October 10, 2014. They begin
with this: “the situation in the area demonstrates the inadequacy and
incoherence of President Obama's strategy.”
People who know the history of the region know that no
imported strategy ever worked in there because they were links from the same
chain of Jewish strategies, each unveiled with the promise that it will fix the
failures of the one that preceded it. In reality, the only strategy that worked
in the Middle East was the one devised by the Arabs when one of their own,
Saddam Hussein, violated their charter and invaded Kuwait, an Arab country.
Thus, for the Jews to claim that the latest strategy has
failed, is to do what they have been doing for decades, which is to promise
they have a new strategy that will fix the problems of the Middle East – problems,
they say, were caused not by them but by someone else. The difference this time
is that having run into a push-back from the current American Administration,
they started to blame the problems on the President himself rather than an
enemy in the region they wish to see deposed. Barack Obama is now their number
one enemy, and has been for some time.
But things are changing again. As it happens, even their
most ardent supporters have grown tired of them repeating the same performance
over and over again. They began to laugh at the Jews each time that the latter
came up with a new link to add to the chain of attempts aimed at fixing the
Middle East. Thus, their latest attempt at doing just that would have been
taken as another bad joke and laughed at. But something new came up this time.
The idea is metastasizing in different directions, taking on a different color
each time.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone because the
Middle East has always been a cosmopolitan place, forcing the metastasis to
adapt to every condition, displaying a different color each time to suit the
moment. One such adaptation is shown in the Tom Friedman column that came under
the title: “I.S. = Invasive Species,” published in the New York Times on
October 12, 2014.
Friedman constructs a theory based on what he says is a true
story related to him by an Iraqi official. The trouble is that the story stands
on shaky grounds. Friedman says this: “the Sunni jihadist fighters in ISIS,
many of whom were foreigners, went house to house. On the homes of Christians
they marked 'Nassarah,' an archaic Arabic term for Christians. But on the homes
of Shiites they marked 'Rafidha,' which means 'those who reject' the Sunni line
of authority.” And so he claims that according to the Iraqi official, this
demonstrated the Wahhabi influence of Saudi Arabia on the ISIS jihadists. As
can be seen, Friedman's goal here is to blame the ISIS phenomenon this time on
Saudi Arabia.
That story is unlikely to have happened for two reasons. The
first is that the words Nassarah and Rafidha (more likely Rafdha) were learned
from reading books rather than from someone – such as an Iraqi official –
explaining something to an American Jew. Instead, that someone would have used
“Nusrani” and “Rafedh” for the same reason that we see the words Sunnis instead
of “Sunnah,” and Shiites instead of “Shi-ah.” And this has to do with an Arabic
grammar that differs markedly from the English by the fact that in Arabic, you
do not stick a letter like an “s” at the end of a word to turn it into a
plural. The Arabic grammar is a lot more complicated than that.
The second reason is better explained by two events, one
purported to have happened in ancient times, and one that happened in full view
of the world in 1968. First, the Jewish bible tells the story of the Jews who
decided to do the Jewish thing and hurt their Egyptian benefactors by looting
them, and by inviting the angel of death to come and kill the firstborn in
every family. For the angel to differentiate between an Egyptian home and a
Jewish one, the Jews marked a cross painted in blood on the Egyptian homes.
Second, when Soviet tanks invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 to
quell a rebellion there, the first thing that the Czech dissidents did was to
switch the street signs, thus confused the tank drivers, sending them to the
wrong addresses – an act that gave the resistance time to redeploy. With these
two examples in mind, go ahead and reread what Friedman says. You will realize
how phony it sounds. Here it is: “the Sunni jihadist fighters in ISIS, many of
whom were foreigners, went house to house. On the homes of Christians they
marked 'Nassarah,' but on the homes of Shiites they marked 'Rafidha.'”
Did these foreign fighters know who was who in the city
before coming to it? And why would they go to the houses on a first round,
marking them without doing right there and then what they wanted to do? Why
mark the houses first only to come back later and do their deed?