Was Kurdistan the Answer or a Zionist Plot?

The leader of Kurds speaks in Foreign Policy (the magazine of The Council on Foreign Relations, the Council that pretends to rule the world, and actually does direct the world of endless and pointless US warfare).

If We Have to Choose Between Compromise and Genocide, We Will Choose Our People

If We Have to Choose Between Compromise and Genocide, We Will Choose Our... Mazloum Abdi The Kurds’ commander in chief explains why his forces are finally ready to partner with Assad and Putin.

For the Kurds to have what they wanted, Kurdistan, or Rojava, some countries would have to lose a lot of land.

Foreign sponsored separatist warfare is not the kind of process that international law considers legitimate, and probably shouldn't be until it can't be denied.

We should not have been promising them anything.  Trump denied they were promised anything.  However, according to the Kurd leader's story, they may have been promised security from Turkey, which of course was not delivered, in the end, after they had deconstructed their defenses against Turkey--a betrayal.  However, that promise of security from Turkey may have been made by Obama.

Kurdistan may be part of a Zionist plan to divide Arab countries so as to be less threatening to Israel.  I've seen a map where Kurdistan cuts across Iraq and Syria, reducing both to less than half their current size, and forming a buffer around Israel.  Kurds have been welcome in Israel but they had a big protest there this week.  They were expecting to influence US through Israel, as one of their two protectors (US and Israel).  It seems Israel didn't want the Kurds to be betrayed, Kurdistan has always been their plan, but they didn't sabotage Trumps withdrawal either.  So, in effect, the Kurds were betrayed by both US and Israel.  Israel has been strangely silent, perhaps because of all the other things Trump has done for them, or perhaps because of some future plan.

I've seen suggestion that Kurdistan is a very old Zionist plan, and it fits their view of things too: ethnic states.

Quite possibly, the best plan for all would have been United Arabia, especially just after WWII when it could have been a secular state.  THAT would have been the least desireable to Israel, and foreign powers.  Since then, US, UK, Israel and many others have backed the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism of various stripes everywhere, making a secular United Arabia impossible.

Greater Powers tend to prefer and promote separatism.  US and UK have a long history of this.  Smaller countries are weaker, less capable of self-defense, and easier to roll and exploit.

Meanwhile, this week US centrist Democrats are resurrecting Bolton, George W Bush, and Flynn because they all oppose Trump's limited withdrawal.

Curiously, many currently denouncing Trump are the same as who backed Turkish involvement in the Syrian war themselves earlier.

Case in point being Flynn.  He's long been a lobbyist for Turkey.  That seems to have been forgotten this week.

But centrist Democrats don't care.  Any enemy of Trump, especially if that enemy supports endless war, is a friend of centrist Democrats.  And even if they were a friend of Trump yesterday.