This 100-year-old agreement tells you everything you need to know about the ISIL end game

It’s the struggle of all struggles, the ultimate quagmire, an abyss of hate and death. Palestinians and Israelis, will it ever end? The answer can be found in one simple word, a word that that will lead us to the end by taking us back to the beginning. On Thursday’s Glenn Beck Program, he explored the only question that matters: Why?

“I think this hour will change your perspective. It will also help you understand what’s really happening with ISIS and ISIL… What is the real objective,” Glenn said. “Out of all of the peace accords and the cease-fires and the nonviolent pledges, none of them ever get to the root of the problem, and that is the ‘why.’ Until the why is addressed, the cycle of violence and hate is just going to continue.”

So how do get to the root of the why? Glenn started with a timeline that many have probably seen before. It included the 2014 Israeli/Hamas conflict, the 2012 Gaza conflict, the Second Intifada (2000), the Fist Intifada, the 1968 Six Day War, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. While most timelines documented the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would end there, Glenn took it a step further – all the way to the beginning of World War I.

“The world is at war for the first time, and it is divided,” Glenn said. “You have the Allied Powers… and then you have in the purple the Central Powers. The Allies: U.S., Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Serbia. And then the Central Powers, the bad guys, if you will, of World War I: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire.”

Below is a map of detailing the Allied (orange) and Central (purple) Powers:

Unknown

According to Glenn, this map highlights the “root” of the Middle East tensions we have come to know today, and, for the purposes of this show, Glenn was particularly interested in the Ottoman Empire.

“This is the last time the Arab world had a united Islamic state led by a religious leader, the Ottoman Empire, the caliphate,” he explained. “The Allies knew the Ottoman Empire could shut down key shipping routes effectively and then cripple Britain’s economy, France. So they knew the Ottoman Empire was going to be a problem. They had to neutralize it.”

Glenn proceeded to show a map of “Ottoman Syria” – the area that made up the caliphate:

Unknown-1

“Here is a map from 1851 of the Ottoman Syria. It encompassed present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, parts of Iraq and Jordan. This is so critical that you remember this map because this map plays a role today,” Glenn said. “Reestablishing these borderlines, it’s at the center of everything that is happening today.”

Neutralizing the power of the Ottoman Empire was at the center of western strategy at this point in time. Great Britain sent an army officer by the name of T.E. Lawrence to the Middle East to convince Arab leaders to fight against the Ottomans.

“He promised them absolutely everything, the moon and the stars and everything underneath,” Glenn explained, “including one key thing: Rule over a new united Arab kingdom of Greater Syria.”

Lawrence was successful in recruiting forces, but Britain never intended to honor the promises he made. Instead, Britain was busy negotiating with France about how to divide the region. After all, they needed to ensure no united Arab kingdom ever got in way of their economic and societal goals.

Here enters two men who Glenn described as “critical.” Francois Georges-Picot of France and Britain’s Mark Sykes led the negotiations between the two countries that resulted in a whole new set of borders.

On May 16, 1916, Britain, France, and Russia secretly agreed to the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Below is a map illustrating the new borders:

Unknown-2

“The Middle East was now fractured, which, if you keep it fractured, the British and their allies in the region can control it. They wanted it that way,” Glenn said. “So new lines were drawn, and these new lines never existed before. There were no countries like this before, but they existed under Sykes-Picot.”

The Arabs were forced to accept the agreement, and, by 1921, modern problems were starting to manifest themselves. To give the Jews facing persecution in Nazi Germany a place to escape to, Britain drew up a two state Palestine.

Unknown-3

“Two decades before Israel was officially declared a state by the UN, this was happening. Britain and France set the entire structure up for them,” Glenn explained. “It wasn’t about the Jews, and it wasn’t about the Arabs. They were scapegoats.”

The Arab leaders new the only way to consolidate power once again was to unite around a common enemy, and that enemy was the Jews. Through the 1920s and 30s, there were a string of violent acts carried out against Jews in the region. It culminated in the 1936 Arab revolt against British peacekeeping troops.

The true motive of the Arab world becomes clear once you consider what happened in 1947. With the British mandate in Palestine set to expire, the Palestinians were finally offered exactly what they said they wanted: Their own land.

A two state solution was proposed with 56% of the land going to the Jews and 43% to the Arabs. Jerusalem would be international territory. Below is a map of the 1947 UN Partition Plan:

Unknown-4

The Jews accepted the deal. All the Arabs need to do is sign on the dotted line, and the land will be theirs. But, alas, they refuse. Why? Because peace with Israel means the Jewish scapegoat the Arabs were using to cultivate power suddenly goes away.

“If the Palestinian homeland was the goal for the Arab world, not the Palestinians, the Arab world, all they had to do was agree. But remember, the scapegoat goes away,” Glenn said. “If you make peace with Israel, that all goes out the window. So when they were presented with what they said they wanted and always wanted, the nation of their own, they said no. And then all hell broke loose.”

As Glenn explained, there are five key points to keep in mind when considering the history of this conflict:

1. The Sykes-Picot agreement

2. The desire for a united Arab kingdom

3. The quest to regain control of 'Greater Syria'

4. The western desire to maintain economic control of the Middle East

5. The Jewish and Palestinian people are nothing more than pawns in this larger game

After highlighting some of the little known details of the 1948 and 1968 wars, in addition to the dark history of Arab on Arab violence, Glenn drew the all-important parallel between this historical analysis and today’s world.

“I know I read about Sykes-Picot years ago when we were at FOX, and I put up on the chalkboard, and I said, ‘Hey, this is what’s going to happen to the Middle East,’” Glenn recalled. “But it didn’t all fall into place until I learned about ISIS and ISIL and the difference between ISIS and ISIL. Now, it all makes sense to me.”

The ultimate goal of the Arab world is return the Middle East to its pre-Sykes-Picot glory. How do you do that? By destabilizing the region.

“You have to go after the dictators,” Glenn explained. “Our president and all of us have cheered when we got rid of the dictators in Egypt. Yay! A revolution, totally isolated. Libya, yay! A revolution, totally isolated. Iraq, yay! A revolution, totally isolated. Now we’re going after Syria. Yeah, let’s get him! Totally isolated. Who’s next?”

Earlier this week, Glenn explained the important distinction between ISIS and ISIL on his radio program. While ISIS stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. What modern countries make up the Levant? Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and… Israel

“The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, that’s the difference between ISIL and ISIS. The L stands for Levant. It stands for this part all the way down to Egypt,” Glenn said. “They’re doing nothing but remolding the map closer to their heart’s desire and what they were promised 100 years ago. Now is their opportunity to achieve what they’ve always wanted from the very beginning, a return to a unified Arab kingdom—what a surprise, a caliphate, Islamic rule.”

Until this region is returned to Arab control, the fighting will not end. There is no easy or obvious solution, but, now more than ever, it is important that Americans and westerners understand the facts so they can understand the end game.

“Our responsibility is to first tell the truth, because you know what? You know who’s a pawn? It’s the Israelis, the Palestinians,” he said. “And the American people, the Canadian citizen, the British citizen, the French citizen, all the citizens of the world that have shed their blood and their treasure over there for nothing but a mountain of lies. Tell the truth.”

“Please, take this broadcast and spread it,” Glenn concluded. “This is important information. Before we rush into another war, we’d better at least know what this one’s all about.”

You can watch the episode on-demand HERE.

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?