Palestine: There is a solid geopolitical reason for Palestine’s centrality in world politics and wars. This is the result of Britain’s conflicting agreements with various persons of interest in WWI, and using the territory it won from the Ottomans to pay off those agreements.
The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) divided the Middle East into British and French spheres of influence as spoils of war. This is, after all, standard practice to reimburse the costs of waging war, as well as a major impetus for waging war, and gave the winners total control of captured territory and its inhabitants. Whether or not they were labeled with the old-fashioned term “slave,” they nonetheless existed to serve the purposes of the conquerors.
The 1916-1918 Husayn-McMahon Correspondence with the King of Hijaz in the Arabian Peninsula agreed to grant independence to him / his kingdom after the war in payment as mercenaries for launching the Arab Revolt as allies against the Turks.
Acting on behalf of the British Government, Sir Henry McMahon promised Sherif Husayn (Hussein) of Mecca, Arab control over the whole of areas to be liberated from Turkey, except an area to the West of Syria defined as follows:
The 1917 Balfour Declaration in which the British government promised the politically active world Zionists who were primarily in Russia and America, a “national home” in Palestine in exchange for activism in engaging their nations as England’s allies in WWI. Recall that at this time Russia was embroiled in a massive civil war and America was isolationist.
As part of the negotiations to end The Great Arab Revolt of 1916, which opposed British permission of a massive influx of Jews into their land, the British decreed that Custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic and Christian Holy Sites, passed on to the Hashemite family under H.M. Sharif Hussein bin Ali, the leader of the revolt, would remain. It remains until this day [2020).
Note, a mandate is authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative, so the mandates in themselves constituted a betrayal of promises for independence. Worse yet, the Palestinian mandate included not just the current inhabitants but “international society” as well, non-inhabitants.
Under the terms of the mandate Britain openly facilitated political, administrative and economic conditions of an invasion and occupation of foreign overlords into mandate territories. This not only paid off the Zionists for support in WWI but also transferred the burden of reparations, for two thousand years of European persecution culminating in the Holocaust, from Europeans to Palestinians.
American Christians need to rethink the automatic assumption that political alliance with the Jews is blessed by God. On the contrary. The biblical record is that every secular political alliance with the nation of Israel invariably leads to betrayal and the downfall of both Israel and the betraying nation.
Think about it rationally. How would Americans respond to Russia facilitating an overwhelming transfer of Chinese into the greater part of America?
We have on record the response of Americans to the influx of Hispanics. The Great Wall of Texas.
The Balfour Declaration (“Balfour’s promise” in Arabic) was a public pledge by Britain in 1917 declaring its aim to establish “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine…included in the terms of the British Mandate for Palestine after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
The question of why the Balfour Declaration was issued has been a subject of debate for decades…
In mainstream academia, however, there are a set of reasons over which there is a general consensus:
- Control over Palestine was a strategic imperial interest to keep Egypt and the Suez Canal within Britain’s sphere of influence
- Britain had to side with the Zionists to rally support among Jews in the United States and Russia, hoping they could encourage their governments to stay in the war until victory…
While Britain is generally held responsible for the Balfour Declaration, it is important to note that the statement would not have been made without prior approval…[from] President Wilson…Arthur Balfour confirming that Wilson was “extremely favourable to the movement”.
But this moral justification has always had one gaping weakness: The Palestinians and the injustice, displacement and death they have had to suffer so that European Jews would feel safe. Early liberal Zionism sought to erase the existence of Palestinians and their suffering, propagating the myth that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land”.
But as Palestinians resisted erasure, colonisation and occupation and their identity, culture and activism grew stronger and more visible to the rest of the world, the liberal Zionists had to seek another solution…the idea of a Palestinian state and…the “peace process”…
But the only thing the Oslo Accords did was create an illusion, a fake optimism that Palestinian rights will be heeded and that a Palestinian state is possible…Oslo became a sedative for the conscience of the pro-Palestinian movement and a convenient cover for the colonial face of Israel.
This cover has now been finally lifted, as the Trump administration has said and done publicly what successive US administrations had said and done only behind the scenes. The Israeli political elite never intended for a Palestinian state to be created; the goal has always been full control and colonisation of historic Palestine. And that cannot be ever achieved without the gruesome massacre, subjugation and expulsion of Palestinians.
With Israel attacking Gaza for a second week, United States President Joe Biden and his administration are sticking to a long-established script in Washington, expressing unequivocal support for Israel and its “legitimate right to defend itself” from Hamas rocket attacks…
Former US President Harry Truman was the first world leader to recognise Israel when it was created in 1948… right after World War II, when the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union was taking shape.
The Middle East, with its oil reserves and strategic waterways (think the Suez Canal) was a key battleground for superpower hegemonic influence. The US was taking over from severely weakened European powers as the primary western power broker in the Middle East…
It is a tragic betrayal of faith that Christians have wholeheartedly supported secular Israel’s dependence on America rather than supported Messianic Judaism.
But the one thing we can all depend on America to do is to bail, or fail, in the near future.
Jordan: Remember Hussein of Mecca? His son Abdullah was instrumental in the secret negotiations with the British that resulted in the Arab Revolt of 1916 and in the Allies’ recognition of his father Hussein as king of the Hejaz. Abdullah fully expected to succeed his father as king of the united Arab kingdom promised as reward for their support of the British against the Ottomans in WWI. However, as detailed above, the British abandoned Hussein to his rival Abdulaziz for the sake of oil. To placate Abdullah, he was offered as a consolation prize the majority of the territory of Palestine. This he accepted, as he was after all in no position to fight Abdullah for the Arabian Peninsula. It was at least the northern half of his requested Arabian kingdom.
In the copy of the Mandate used to substantiate Britain’s right to transfer authority over the region, all references to the Jewish National Home in Palestine were expressly deleted. Not only was this a major deception against the new Moslem rulers who were losing the holy city Jerusalem but also a big chunk – and the best chunk with the entire maritime border with the Mediterranean Ocean – of their expected territory, this saddled them with two utterly unexpected and undesirable problems – confronting Jewish irreconcilable enemies on their property and supporting a massive exodus of Palestinian refugees surging east against the tsunami of Jewish immigrants. The solution to the “Palestinian problem” made sense to the British on a map if all you looked at was square miles and not people. It was not a permanent solution to the Palestinians, the Arabs, or the Jews.
Imposing a foreign autocrat over the indigenous inhabitants with a history and culture as different as Laban in Syria, Pharaoh in Egypt, and Ishmael in Arabia was guaranteed to cause conflict. How would the residents of the American Southwest feel about Washington granting their states to Mexico and overnight becoming subject to their laws and regulations? Perhaps Spanish only in their children’s schools, Catholicism as the State Religion? Do you have some idea of how Texans would react? Of course war broke out, and the British helped the foreign Hashemite monarchy quell the locals’ rebellions.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states…The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition… The goal of the Arabs was initially to block the Partition Resolution and to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state…
After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, [the day before the mandate ended] fighting intensified with…armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt…Saudi Arabia…fighting continued into 1949…Under separate agreements between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria, these bordering nations agreed to formal armistice lines. Israel gained some territory formerly granted to Palestinian Arabs under the United Nations resolution in 1947. Egypt and Jordan retained control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank respectively. These armistice lines held until 1967.
The population of Palestinians in the Palestinian territories of Israel amount to roughly 4 million persons divided roughly in half between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Their interests are primarily represented by Ḥamās which alternates between electoral participation or violence depending upon political circumstances.
In 1946 the British granted freedom to the The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with a boundary at the east bank of the Jordan River, again, juggling conflicting promises. In 1948 at the Jericho Conference, after winning the first round of the Arab-Israeli war, Jordan paid itself back for war expenses by formally annexing the West Bank territory of the Jordan River. This further diminished the opportunity for Palestinian self determination.
the US accepted the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and…viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine. The United States subsequently extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, 31 January 1949…The major problems of concern to the United States were the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations between Israel and Jordan and the successful absorption into the polity and economy of Jordan of Arab Palestine, its inhabitants, and the bulk of the refugees now located there.
Palestinian problem solved.
The Arab League, formed in…1945 initially with…Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1949), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria condemned the Jericho Conference, and the Syrian press considered its resolution a violation of self-determination. Iraqi prime minister Nuri as-Said called upon King Abdullah to hold his moves towards annexation…
Notables from Ramallah and Jerusalem [on the West Bank] in particular were…unwilling to give up their claim to the whole of Palestine, and refused to endorse his policy of consolidating the partition.
The Transjordanian government gradually assumed the civil functions of the West Bank…In 1949 the Jordanian Nationality Law was amended to grant every Palestinian Jordanian citizenship.
Citizenship on paper. What meaning does this citizenship have in actual life?
The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967…Israel Defense Forces launched preemptive air strikes that crippled the air forces of Egypt and its allies. Israel then staged a successful ground offensive and seized [all Arab-assigned territories within its reach]- the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The brief war…significantly altered the map of the Mideast and gave rise to lingering geopolitical friction.
Since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Palestinians have experienced several waves of exile and have spread into different host countries around the world…more than 700,000 Palestinian refugees of 1948, hundreds of thousands…displaced in the 1967 Six-Day War…In the decade following the 1967 war…an average of 21,000 Palestinians per year were forced out of Israeli-controlled areas. The pattern of Palestinian flight continued during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s…
The countries with the highest census of Palestinian exiles with no citizenship rights are:
- Jordan 3,240,000
- Israel 1,650,000
- Syria 630,000
- Chile 500,000 (largest Palestinian community outside the Middle East).
- Lebanon 402,582
- Saudi Arabia 280,245
- Egypt 270,245
- United States 255,000
- Honduras 250,000
The War of Attrition raged across the Suez Canal from 1968-70…Egypt sought to bleed Israel, thereby reducing Jerusalem’s territorial conquests and military superiority from the 1967 Six-Day War.
In 1970, some two-thirds of the Jordanian population was Palestinian. Palestinian militants took part in the War of Attrition against Israel…the PLO launched raids from Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon as well…King Hussein had…to balance his interests in preserving a peace with Israel against a restless and increasingly radicalized Palestinian population…
Jordanian army and Palestinian militias led by the PLO fought several bloody battles in the summer of 1970…On July 10, King Hussein signed an agreement with the PLO’s Yasser Arafat pledging support to the Palestinian cause and noninterference in Palestinian commando raids on Israel in exchange for a Palestinian pledge to support Jordanian sovereignty and remove most Palestinian militias from Amman, the Jordanian capital. The agreement proved hollow.
When King Hussein supported…Egypt’s…cease-fire in the war of attrition…PFLP leader George Habash promised that “we will turn the Middle East into a hell,” while [PLO’s] Arafat…vowed, before a cheering crowd of 25,000 in Amman on July 31, 1970, that “We will liberate our land…”
Between Sept. 6 and Sept. 9, Habash’s militants hijacked five planes… Rather than receiving the support of King Hussein, the Palestinian hijackers were surrounded by units of the Jordanian military…Arafat worked for the release of the hostages [but] also turned his PLO militants loose on the Jordanian monarchy. A bloodbath ensued.
Up to 15,000 Palestinian militants and civilians were killed; swaths of Palestinian towns and refugee camps, where the PLO had amassed weapons, were leveled. The PLO leadership was decimated, and between 50,000-100,000 people were left homeless. Arab regimes criticized Hussein for what they called “overkill.”
Before the war, Palestinians had run a state-within-a-state in Jordan, headquartered in Amman…
King Hussein ended the Palestinians’ reign.
On Sept. 25, 1970, Hussein and the PLO signed a ceasefire mediated by Arab nations…Arafat and the PLO were expelled from Jordan by early 1971. They went to Lebanon, where they proceeded to create a similar state-within-a-state, weaponizing a dozen Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut and in South Lebanon, and destabilizing the Lebanese government as they had the Jordanian government, as well as playing a leading role in two wars: the 1973 war between the Lebanese army and the PLO, and the 1975-1990 civil war, in which the PLO fought alongside leftist Muslim militias against Christian militias.
The PLO was expelled from Lebanon following Israel’s 1982 invasion…
The Palestinian Black September movement, a commando faction that broke away from the PLO, directed several terrorist plots to avenge Palestinians’ losses in Jordan, including hijackings, the assassination of Jordanian Prime Minister Wasif al-Tel in Cairo on Nov. 28, 1971, and, most notoriously, the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
Israel, in turn, unleashed its own operation against Black September as Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir ordered the creation of a hit squad that fanned out in Europe and the Middle East and assassinated numerous Palestinian and Arab operatives.
Put this in a time frame. Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch in Munich occurred fifty years previously.
Neo-Nazi activists aided the Palestinian terrorists who perpetrated the massacre of Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics in 1972,the German weekly Der Spiegel reported on Sunday.
The report is based on a 2,000-page file compiled by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which was made public at the request of Der Spiegel.
Big surprise. So why didn’t Israeli hit squads go after Neo-Nazis? There are no good guys and bad guys. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. So why do American Christians ignore the fact that there are only allies with shifting alliances as purposes are served?
The Arabs are not the only aggressors in the Middle East. Israel is primed and ready to fight, not just to defend current borders, but to expand those borders to the full extent possible.
We have to immediately deny all the…disinformation about UN Partition resolution 181, The only legal and enforceable document is the Arab-Jewish Treaty on Jewish Homeland in Palestine and all its ratifications. All the countries (including former sovereign of this territory Turkey) ratified that document in various forms: from the Treaty of Versailles to the Anglo-American Convention.
Lebanon: Hezbollah is both a political party and militant group that first emerged as a militia in 1982 after the Israeli invasion of that country during Lebanon’s civil war. It coordinated its efforts closely with Iran, from which it acquired substantial logistical support. The civil war ended in 1990…enforced by Syrian forces, but political, economic and social chaos continues to reign supreme.
Egypt: Egypt was one of the first Middle Eastern states to gain independence, in 1922. This was arranged with puppet rulers who allowed British influence in the country to remain very strong, especially continued control of the the Suez Canal. This rapid transit system to the Far East for economic reasons during peace and military superiority during war is a key feature of Egypt’s importance to the Western powers.
In 1952 the militant Muslim Brotherhood…backed Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser coup against England’s puppet monarchy and took economic and political control of the canal. When Britain and France invaded Egypt to take back control the USA succeeded in using political pressure to force them to pull out. This signaled the end of Britain’s imperial power and the rise of America’s in Egypt. At its height President Carter pressured President Anwar el-Sādāt into the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, for which President Sadat was assassinated in 1981.
Iran: The 1978 Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini provided a blueprint for political action against other governments that had betrayed authentic Islam and grown corrupt and authoritarian. The anti-West Islamic republic of Iran competed with pro-West Saudi Arabia at the international level for influence in the Middle East as the “solution” to the two failed secular ideologies, capitalism and communism, that had relegated religion to the periphery of government throughout the Islamic world.
Mainstream opposition Islamic parties and organizations have demonstrated their power to mobilize voters and supporters through their welcome contrast to corrupt Westernized Christian influences in Islamic society through
- social and charitable activism,
- programs of good governance,
- fight against government corruption,
- struggle to moralize public life in entertainment and public behaviour ,
- insisting on accountability for political authorities.
Modern Iraq was created on paper in 1916 during a treaty between England and Imperial Russia, defining their respective sphere of influence and control in West Asia after the expected downfall of the Ottoman Empire. in 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name “State of Iraq”. Merging three Ottoman provinces into one country, Britain defined the territorial limits of Iraq based solely on land grabs with France under the Sykes-Picot Agreement. There was no accounting for the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Assyrians to the north.
During the British occupation, the Shi’ites, Kurds and urban-based nationalists fought for independence, resulting in the fateful policy of close cooperation with Iraq’s Sunni minority. Influenced by the heroic T. E. Lawrence whose close collaboration with the Hashemites’ war effort against the Turks is legendary, a Hashemite cousin to the King of Transjordan, a foreigner to all ethnic groups in Iraq, was proclaimed King as early as 1921, under British control, of course.
T.E. Lawrence remains one of the most iconic figures of the early 20th century…His wartime memoir, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, translated into more than a dozen languages, remains in print nearly a full century after its first publication. As Gen. Edmund Allenby, chief British commander in the Middle East during World War I, noted… “There is no other man I know,” he asserted, “who could have achieved what Lawrence did.”
Part of the enduring fascination has to do with the sheer improbability of…an unassuming young Briton who found himself the champion of a downtrodden people, thrust into events that changed the course of history. [Take heart, followers of Jesus Christ! See what one individual can do who perseveres and endures?] Added to this is the poignancy of his journey, so masterfully rendered in David Lean’s 1962 film, Lawrence of Arabia, of a man trapped by divided loyalties, torn between serving the empire whose uniform he wore and being true to those fighting and dying alongside him. It is this struggle that raises the Lawrence saga to the level of Shakespearean tragedy, as it ultimately ended badly for all concerned: for Lawrence, for the Arabs, for Britain, in the slow uncoiling of history, for the Western world at large. Loosely cloaked about the figure of T.E. Lawrence there lingers the wistful specter of what might have been if only he had been listened to. [Apply this idea to the true Savior Jesus Christ.]
The British resorted to military force when their interests were threatened. You guessed it. Oil
In 1927, huge oil fields were discovered…Exploration rights were granted to a front company named Iraqi Petroleum Company which was in reality a British oil company.
In 1932 Iraq achieved independence from British overrule.
When Ghazi succeeded to the throne in December 1933, he countered the British claim to Iraqi oil by claiming Iraqi sovereignty over neighboring Kuwait, which was still a British protectorate at that time and remained so until America took over in 1961. Kuwait’s value lies not only in oil but geographical location for trade and war strategy.
The king was killed in 1939 in a tragic auto accident caused by reckless driving when he collided with a tree.
Haven’t we heard that before, too? No, wait. That death wasn’t from hitting a tree. That one was from hitting a pillar. Silly me thinking there’s a pattern here. Especially when the media reports that conspiracy theories have all been debunked by government investigations.
The British failure to take national considerations into account when cutting up the Middle East into huge pieces of pie for themselves burst into flames when the Kurds demanded self-determination.
The Kurds are as big a problem in the Middle East as Israel and the Palestinians. There are just too many of them and they inhabit too much territory, making them a threatening presence to the countries across which their homeland stretches. They are the equivalent of the indigenous American Indians who the European immigrants (invaders?) chose to exterminate rather than allow to remain in their homeland. They represent a rebel force against the governments of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
The leader of the Kurd-inhabited territory of Iraq, leader Mustafa Barzani, led a rebellion against the central government in Baghdad. When his bid for autonomy failed, he, naturally, fled to a close-by enemy of Iraq for refuge. Unfortunately for his reputation with America, this was the Soviet Union just to the north.
Part of the reason the the Kurd’s bid for their own nation failed was that Egyptian President Nasser’s Pan-Arabism movement was sweeping the Arab World at this time. Pan-Arabism sought empowerment, like the “United” States of America did in 1776, through rejecting self-determination / states rights and using the standard core identity of religion, “one nation under God”, to bind together the largest mass of humans and natural resources possible. Rejecting America’s capitalist financial structure which was siphoning off much of the Arab world’s wealth in the form of oil, Pan Arabism instead modeled itself after the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics formed by in the aftermath of World War II’s devastated lands. Just like America did when it recruited fellow Europeans to bolster its population and economic strength in the aftermath of the 19th century wars.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
But America did not feel kinship with Nasser’s adoption of the USSR’s socialist ideology, especially during the Cold War, and lent its support to opposing parties.
Challenging Nasser’s assertion of Arab leadership, Iraq signed the Baghdad Pact in 1956. This pact outdid Egypt in allying Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan…and the United Kingdom, which by now was America’s puppet.
the United Arab Republic (UAR) in 1958 was the first case of the actual merger of two previously-independent Arab countries. Hastily formed under President Nasser’s leadership but on the initiative of Syrian leaders who feared a takeover by communists or “reactionaries…” It lasted until 1961, when Syrian army officers carried out a coup d’état and withdrew from the union.
Also in 1958, a Hashemite-led rival, the Arab Federation, was founded between Jordan and Iraq.
In response, Nasser launched a smear campaign calling the Hashemite monarchies of Iraq and Jordan illegitimate children.
King Hussein of Jordan sneered back with a proposed expansion of the federation into a union of his Hāshimite monarchy with that of Iraq. He had long dreamed of incorporating Syria into his domain, as had been initially promised by the British to his grandfather. But Nasser had snatched it out from under him. His second choice was also next door – the small but extremely rich Kuwait, which due to its oil fields, was still under British rule. An invite to Kuwait to discuss changing sides brought the government of Iraq into direct conflict with the Western allies’ (read America’s) economic and military interests.
On July 14, 1958 military officers led by Qasim overthrew the Hashemite monarchy, rejected the Baghdad Pact, and proclaimed Iraq to be a republic.
We’ve heard that before.
At the same time Qasim invited Mustafa Barzani to return to Iraq in return for his political support. When the politician reneged on his promise to grant freedom to his nation (haven’t we heard that before?), Barzani began what became known as the “First” Kurdish Iraqi War lasting from 1961 until 1970.
Throughout the 1960s, the uprising escalated into a long war during which 80% of the Iraqi army was engaged in combat with the Kurds.
Any potential trouble-making against the West was certainly prevented by this standard military strategy.
Two later attempts of Pan-Arabism are represented by Muammar Gaddafi’s attempts to merge Libya, Egypt and Syria in the Federation of Arab Republics, which lasted from 1972 – 1977.
The Ba’ath Party continues to espouses pan-Arabism and is organized in several countries.
The Ba’athists are not a religious group. It is, like the American Religious Right, a political movement powered by stirring religious fervor in its supporters and promising to restore religious values to society… As you read the following, overlay “Baathism” with the words “Religious Right”
Baathism, / Religious Right meaning “renaissance” or “resurrection”, is a secular ideology advocating the renaissance of Arab / America’s founders’ culture, values and society. It is based the principles of Arab / European Christian nationalism, pan-Arabism / Christian solidarity and Arab socialism / American capitalism. Baathists / Religious Right contend that socialism / capitalism is the only way to develop an Arab / any society which is free and united and promotes the creation and development of a unified Arab / allied with American state through the leadership of a revolutionary government / CIA backed regime changes.
In 1963 Iraqi leader Qasim was overthrown by a Ba’athist coup. The secretary general of the Iraqi Ba’ath Party, Ali Salih al-Sa’di, controlled the National Guard militia and organized a massacre of hundreds—if not thousands—of suspected communists and other dissidents following the coup. As occurred in Viet Nam by the American military at that same time, the Ba’athist Iraqi government carpet-bombed Kurdish villages with American-supplied munitions including 1,000 napalm bombs and 4,000 other bombs. Entire Kurdish villages and livestock were incinerated by napalm. American President Kennedy backed the decision.
The war resulted in between 75,000 to 105,000 casualties when it ended in 1970. Subsequently the Ba’athist authorities took the opportunity to perform large-scale displacement and colonization projects in North Iraq, aiming to shift demographics and thus destabilize Kurdish power bases.
In 1980-1988 during the Iran–Iraq War Kurdish parties collaborated against Saddam Hussein who responded with the Kurdish genocide, with an estimated 50,000–200,000 casualties.
Only after the 2003 Iraq War, which ousted Ba’ath rule, was Iraqi Kurdistan was recognized as an independent state.
It is so embarrassing to contrast Christians’ attitude towards endurance in tribulation with the Kurds. Christians are the only group I know who think they should get a kingdom handed to them on a silver platter without lifting a finger themselves to make it happen.
The two Baathist / C35 CIA backed states which have existed (Iraq and Syria) prevented criticism of their ideology through authoritarian means of governance / murder and torture to coups and genocide. Baathist leaders include the former leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein / supported by the CIA, and the current President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.