By Abdelrahim Ali
Eleven years have passed since the events of January 25 took place in Egypt.
These events are still the most mysterious and foggy in the history of our country.
Even when we try to read that huge amount of articles, books, studies, reports and research published about these events by different, separate and conflicting parties, we will not understand what actually happened.
However, in my capacity as a researcher, I can say – with utmost peace of mind – that Egyptians were subjected to the greatest deception in their history and this is especially clear when it comes to the reality of what happened in those days.
Before we start our analysis of these events, I would like to clarify my view about the scientific evaluation of what happened in this way.
My view is that the events of January 2011 were not a revolution in the scientific and real sense of the word.
They were not a full-fledged conspiracy in the scientific and real sense of the word either.
The reality is that these events constituted a popular uprising against corruption, nepotism and injustice. Nonetheless, they did not subscribe to a real revolution.
For a revolution to occur, two factors must be present:
First, objective circumstances
These circumstances mean the existence of a state of popular dissatisfaction with the regime’s policies and this dissatisfaction has to reach a dead end. These conditions did not materialize in the case of the 2011 events.
Second, subjective circumstances
These circumstances mean the presence of political and social forces capable of leading a popular uprising for the achievement of the higher interests of the nation and the masses. This was not the case in 2011 either.
The absence of these circumstances means a change of the course and the concept of the events automatically to something entirely different.
The absence of the objective circumstances encourages us to equate the events with what can be called ‘political adolescence’ from unconscious political forces that jump in the air.
By the same token, the absence of the subjective circumstances gives us the chance to assume that the 2011 events did not subscribe to a revolution.
This opened the door for the kidnap of the uprising or the events by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies.
I followed the event closely, and interacted with its developments.
I knew from the first moment that the then-ruling regime would not withstand for long in the face of such gusts of anger from Egyptians.
This anger was coupled with careful planning by parties seeking to spread chaos in the most turbulent region in the world to correct the errors of the partition plans that resulted from World War II, in what came to be known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
Nonetheless, this time, they wanted to do this on the grounds of peace and common interests.
This was a careful plan whose implementation started a long time before January 2011.
Over the past years, we waged a fierce on the pages of al Bawaba newspaper at two levels:
First, a political one that derives from complete rejection of the betrayal of our homeland under all pretexts.
In this context, the newspaper and its journalists stood firmly against those who wanted to transform the enormous energy of anger shown by Egyptians in the fields, into a sabotage process, seeking to break up Egypt’s national institutions in preparation for turning the country into putty that is easily formed according to the conspiracies of those who pay more.
We have not refrained from using all possible means to defend our country.
We faced multiple accusations, defamation, judicial complaints, and intimidation, things that morphed into moral and material onslaughts on us.
We did not, however, go back, but rather grew more determined to confront these attempts. We also developed our campaign into an international one in all European capitals, from Paris to London, Munich, Geneva, Brussels and Strasbourg.
Second, a scientific study of what came to be known as the ‘Arab Spring’ and the exploitation by internal and external forces hostile to the natural development of our societies.
We were aware that part of that battle took place on the ground. We also believed that the greatest part of this battle bet on the kidnap of the minds of the public. Some groups planned to confiscate and control those minds.
We also had to look for what happened before, after, and during those events, outside and inside Egypt.
The events of January 25 were not at all separate from what was going on around the world regarding Egypt.
We were sure that some parties would not be happy with the conclusions we reached. I also know that these conclusions will be surprising to some other parties.
At the end, however, these were the conclusions we reached and we are happy with them.
We cannot talk about January 25 without mentioning the Western agenda towards the Middle East.
The talk here is not a secondary one that can be ignored or dealt with in isolation from what happened in the region years before 2011, especially those transformations and events that drew the maps of what was later known as the ‘Arab Spring’.
The United States and Western countries were explicitly declaring their desire for the further fragmentation of the region in the light of two considerations:
First, it stems from their awareness of the capabilities of Arab armies, especially the Egyptian army, and the extent of danger surrounding Israel, since the October 1973 war, and the unified Arab position during that time. This unified position disturbed all the plans of the enemy.
Second, Arab countries used the oil weapon at the time to pressure the US and the West against the background of their support to Israel. This represented an important motive for Washington and Western capitals to plan to control this wealth.
Bernard Lewis and his project
During the first Gulf War, also known as the Iraq-Iran War, in 1980, then-US National security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said the US would face a problem instigating a second Gulf War.
The US, he said, could instigate this war by changing the borders of Sykes-Picot.
British orientalist, Bernard Lewis, began in 1981 to develop his famous project for dismantling the constitutional unity of Arab and Islamic countries separately.
This move included Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Sudan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, and North African countries, others.
The goal was to break up each of these states into a group of cantons and ethno-religious, sectarian mini-states.
Lewis attached to his detailed project a set of maps drawn under his supervision. They included all the Arab and Islamic countries that were on the list for fragmentation.
He divided the Arab and Islamic world into 19 countries. These countries were clarified in the Kivunim documents that were published in February 1982 in Hebrew, under the title ‘Israel’s Strategy during the Eighties’.
The documents were written by the Israeli writer Yoram Beck. They contained the plan, namely of the complete dismantling and division of the Arab world into small states, bearing the details of the Zionist-American project to break up the region.
North African countries
Bernard Lewis’ plan was to break up North African states Libya, Algeria and Morocco with the aim of establishing several states on their ruins as follows:
- The Berber State would be built along the Nubian State in Egypt and Sudan
- The Polisario State and the remaining parts of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya
- Egypt’s division into four states, namely a Nubia State in the south, a Christian State in the west, an Islamic State in the middle, and a state under Zionist influence in Sinai. This state would extend to the Nile River. There are calls for establishing this state now under a new blueprint for solving the Palestinian issue.
The Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf
Bernard Lewis’ plan was to break up the Arabian Peninsula region by completely erasing the Gulf states and abolishing their constitutional existence, so that the region can include only three states, namely the Shiite state of al-Ahsa which includes Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, parts of Saudi Arabia and the Sunni state of Najd. This last one includes parts of present-day Saudi Arabia and parts of Yemen.
The Sunni state of Hejaz includes parts of Saudi Arabia and parts of Yemen.
Lewis’ plan calls for the fragmentation of Iraq along ethnic, religious and sectarian lines. This will include a Shiite state in the southern part of the country around Basra, a Sunni state around Baghdad, and a Kurdish statelet in the north and northeastern part of Iraq around Mosul in Iraqi Kurdistan (based on parts of the Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Turkish and former Soviet lands).
A plan was drawn up to divide this region into distinct ethnic, religious and sectarian regions (a Shiite Alawite state along the coast, a Sunni statelet in the Aleppo area, a Sunni statelet around Damascus, and a Druze statelet in the Golan and Lebanon (the southern Syrian lands, Transjordan and the Lebanese lands).
These plans are being implemented, including by destroying the Syrian army and exhausting it in a long war under the auspices of extremist groups and movements, such as ISIS and al-Nusra Front, with clear Western, American and Turkish support.
This country was planned to be divided into eight distinct states along ethnic, sectarian and religious lines (a Sunni state in the north with Tripoli as its capital, a Maronite state in the north with Jounieh as its capital, a state in the Alawite Beqaa Valley with Baalbek as its capital subject to Syrian influence in eastern Lebanon, a statelet in Beirut under international trusteeship, and a Palestinian canton around Sidon to the Litani River, a Phalange canton in the south that includes Christians and Shiites, a Druze state in parts of the Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian lands, and a Christian canton under Israeli influence).
This country will be liquidated, its constitutional entity abolished, and its authority transferred to the Palestinians.
Any project for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state will be demolition, while Palestinians will be got rid of in preparation for the establishment of Greater Israel.
Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan
These three states will be divided into ten weak ethnic entities, namely Kurdistan, Azerbaijan and Turkestan, Arabs of Stan, Iran Stan and what was left of Iran after the partition of Balunistan, Khunistan, what was left of Afghanistan of it after the partition, what remained of Pakistan after its partition, and Kashmir.
Hidden causes of division
The question that arises now is why are the world powers so persistently trying to divide Egypt? Why does a united Egypt harm them? Why are the same powers at pains seeing other Arab countries united and strong?
The answer to these questions put our fingers on the full picture. The same answers can take us back to the year 1973, when the Egyptian armed forces defeated Israel, in a war that remains the most honorable in modern Egyptian history.
On the day of the war, the American administration realized that Israel can be wiped out at any moment. The victory achieved by the Egyptian army could be repeated, and in case of unity among Arab armies, Israel could become just a memory. The Americans will not, of course, allow this to happen. This was why they started implementing a plan for the disintegration of Arab countries from the inside. This will leave no large Arab state united. Therefore, there will never be an Arab army that can defeat Israel.
The US had reached the climax of its Arab Spring dream by putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Washington reached an agreement with the Brotherhood for the partition plan to be implemented.
This was revealed by the American Global Research Center in a research paper that was released on June 28, 2013.
In this paper, the center indicates that the Barack Obama administration pursued a policy of covert support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other rebel movements in the Middle East since 2010.
It reveals an important document, titled ‘Middle East Partnership Initiative: An Overview’.
This is the document that defined an evolving structure of State Department programs aimed at building civil society organizations to change the internal politics of target countries.
The document also indicates that the Obama administration launched a proactive campaign to change regimes throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
The document reveals that the campaign works primarily with the civil society, through influential non-governmental organizations based in the US, and in the region. It confirms that the priority in early 2010 was given to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain. Within a year of launching the campaign, Libya and Syria were added to the list of countries with the highest priority for civil society intervention.
The US continues to make attempts in this regard. It stopped trying for a while, after the June 30 revolution. This revolution ended the partition project. It also returned the Islamist genie to its bottle.
Nonetheless, the American administration is rearranging its cards, and resuming the implementation of the scheme.
We face a major movement, in which many parties are participating. The US sponsors this movement for the sake of Israel which contributes to it diligently because it secures its future, not only the political one, but also the existential one.
The European Union also seeks to support its many interests in the region, which means that we are facing a confrontation with British, French and German intelligence, as well as with the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood which dreams of founding its own state.
There is also Turkey that wants to pay the price of its aspired accession into the European Union, and Qatar that dreams of playing an influential role in the region at the expense of major countries, such as Egypt.