If you ever had the feeling that the Jews have one crowning
goal in life, and only one way to pursue it, but never had confirmation to
vindicate your feeling, you now have a solid confirmation. It comes to you from
the horse's mouth, none other than Bret Stephens, a prominent self-appointed
leader of the Jews.
He wrote: “The Only Syrian Solution,” a column that also
came under the subtitle: “A partition plan won't solve everything. But the
Balkan example shows it can work.” It was published on September 5, 2016 in the
Wall Street Journal. The title and subtitle may indicate that Stephens is
suggesting the partition of Syria
would have been his ultimate solution, but the text says otherwise.
Stephens begins the presentation with a news item, and
debates it up to the conclusion he can live with. This is the news item:
“Obama's efforts to reach a Syrian cease-fire deal with Vladimir Putin went
nowhere again.” The author then observes: “To date, there have been 17 major
peace initiatives for Syria .”
He adds that none has worked, and concludes that the failures were due to
President Obama giving up “on a policy of military leverage”.
As can be seen, he just made it clear that the ultimate goal
of the Jews was the partition of Syria , and the way to get there
would have been to use military means. What tells you that your feeling has
been vindicated is that the partitioning of Syria symbolizes the larger goal of
destroying the nation-states that reject the Jewish efforts to control the
world. This, in fact, is the crowning goal of the Jews; that which they wish to
pursue through wars.
To make his point as clear as he can, Bret Stephens cites
the example of the Balkan: “The world was confronted by a similar spiral of horrors.
The U.S.
intervened with military force. What was Yugoslavia is today seven separate
countries.” In a similar fashion, he wants to see Syria broken up into three
countries. One that will be a home for the Alawites, one for the Kurds, and one
for the Sunnis. He neglected to say where the other minorities – which include
the Christians – will go.
Will this work? If you look carefully, you'll find that Bret
Stephens himself does not give it much of a chance that it will. Here is what
he peppered throughout the column: “The point of partition isn't to solve all
of Syria 's
problems. A Kurdish zone would be viewed as a threat by the Turks. It's true
that for each of these points there are reservations and doubts. Can the Turks
accept an extended Kurdish state? Would the Assad regime's patrons accept a
rump Alawite state? Will the rest of Syria be easy to pacify? No.” These
are many points of doubt.
Somewhere in the article, he poses this question: “Why does
Mr. Obama think that a new cease-fire deal will succeed where all previous ones
have failed? My guess is he doesn't.” But we do not need to ask Stephens that
same question with regard to the solution he proposes. It is that he already
answered this hypothetical question with the series of doubts he expressed.
What we can do however, is dispute the response he gave to the question he
posed with regard to Mr. Obama's view.
To that end, we look at the model of Northern Ireland (Ulster ) rather than that of the
Balkans. It was a civil war that had gone on for almost a century. Dozens of
attempts were made to achieve a cease-fire with no avail. Eventually George
Mitchell was appointed mediator. His motto was: if you fail, you try again and
again. And if you still fail, you start all over, and try again and again. He
eventually achieved the desired result, and peace came to Northern Ireland .
There is every reason to believe that the same result can be achieved in Syria .
For this to happen, however, we need to expose as Satanism
the kind of logic that brought Syria
to this point in the first place. Imagine the kind of gall it takes someone
like Bret Stephens to say this: “It was foolish of the Obama administration to
predict that the Assad regime, champion of four-million-strong Alawite
minority, was going to crumble the way the Gadhafi regime did in Libya.” This
is mutilating history like only a Jew can do it.
The fact is that the administration was not the one to make
that prediction; it was the likes of Bret Stephens. The mistake the
administration made was to listen to the charlatans who live by predictions
that never materialize. The result of their advice was that America gave money to some factions, and
followed that with weapons and the false hope that there will be regime change
in Syria .
This helped prolong and intensify the war.