In February 1982, about two years after Sadat signed the peace treaty with Israel, Jewish magazine Kivonim (Hebrew for "trends") published a study in Hebrew entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," authored by prominent former Israeli diplomat Odid Yinon. The Association of Arab-American University Graduates in the US gave the study special attention, commissioning Professor Israel Shahak--an Israeli activist and professor of biochemistry--to translate it into English. The Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, headed by Shahak, later published the document under the title "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East." The document was used by Egyptian lawyer Ismat Seif el-Dawla as evidence that Israel, despite having signed a peace treaty, was still hostile to Egypt and saw it as a strategic enemy. I have referred to this document more than once. I even wrote a five-part article two years ago, also entitled "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East," which was published in several places. In it, I gave a detailed analysis of the study. But it is now necessary to revisit the subject, since it appears that the "neo-liberals" in Egypt are insisting on misleading our young generation by fabricating alternative adversaries--such as Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah--to promote the idea of Israel as an "ally" of the Arab "moderate states" in the face of a common enemy. It is therefore essential to take another look at this document in order to remind our young people that Israel has been--and will continue to be--the primary foe. I will therefore highlight parts of the document and leave the reader to arrive at his or her own conclusions about the tide of religious sectarianism now sweeping the Arab World--to the extent that three young men felt the need to open fire on a Christian congregation in Upper Egypt, long seen as a haven of coexistence. The study begins with a general overview of the Arab world, describing it as "a house of cards set up by foreigners--especially the French and British--in the 1920s, which gives scant attention to the aspirations of its citizens." According to the study, the region is divided into several states formed out of a mixture of minorities and sects, hostile enough to each other as to contain the seeds of civil war. According to Yinon, prevalent economic and social conditions resulted in the emergence of a small, rich elite alongside a vast poor majority. This situation, Yinon notes, both constitutes a challenge to Israel and a "golden opportunity." Here he calls upon Israel to make use of the circumstances to foster disunity and sectarianism among the Arabs as a means of achieving its primary goals. "The Israeli distinction between 1948 borders and 1967 borders is meaningless," Yinon argues, noting that "the only solution for the problem of Israeli Arabs is that they recognize Israel as a state with borders stretching to the Jordan River and beyond." He also maintains that the redistribution of population must remain an Israeli "strategic priority." He goes on to say that Israel must maintain a Jewish majority in the country's mountainous highlands. He highlights the dire need for Israel to restore strategic "balance," both economically and in terms of population. Yinon then says that the control of water resources in Hebron and Beer Sheva represented a vital national objective. The writer goes on to note that Israel would have no hope of survival--no matter how many peace treaties it signs--if it fails to ethnically disunite the Arab and Islamic worlds. Yinon then points to Egypt's Christian minority and Muslim majority--not to mention the poverty suffered by millions of citizens of both faiths. He also notes that Egypt was bankrupted, only to have been rescued by the US financial assistance received as a reward for signing a peace treaty with Israel. He warns that the Egyptians would not stick to the agreement by which they regained the Sinai Peninsula and would do their best to reintegrate into the Arab world. "And since we will have to restore conditions to their pre-1967 status, we will have to work on seizing Sinai again in order to benefit from its natural resources," he writes. Yinon then argues that Egypt can be dragged back to its post-1967 military status. He believes that the myth of Egypt as a "powerful state" was distorted, both in 1956 and 1967. Yinon goes on to say that Egypt was turning into a "dead body," due to both its domestic politics and its internal social composition, with discrimination being adopted against the Coptic minority in favor of Muslims. This, he says, makes fragmenting Egypt into geographically separate provinces an "Israeli strategy for the 1980s". He argues that an Egypt divided into separate sovereign entities could never pose a threat to Israel, but would rather ensure Israeli security. "This goal is in our hands," he writes. Yinon also says that other Arab countries--such as Libya and Sudan--would also suffer from Egypt's collapse. "If Egypt falls, the rest of the countries will too," Yinon writes. "The idea of establishing a Coptic state in Upper Egypt--along with other sovereign-but-fragile mini-states--is our only way of inducing that historic shift." He goes on to note that "fragmenting Lebanon into five ethnic mini-states should be our launch-pad." It is notable that the document was published only days before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and subsequent siege of Beirut. Not long afterwards, Bashir el-Gameyel was elected president and forced to sign a peace treaty with Israel. This should have represented phase one of the fragmentation process, Yinon opines, suggesting that the success of the Lebanese resistance in thwarting the plan should not mean that Israel give it up its long-term goals. Yinon goes on to say that Israel successfully managed to drag the US onto its side by convincing Washington that the promotion of ethnic disunity in the region would realize the latter's dreams of manipulating Arab oil. No doubt, it's enough to consider what has happened in Iraq--and the whole region--since the 9/11 attacks of 2001 in order to see the logic behind this idea. Some will say I've written this article in an attempt to blame Israel for all the region's woes. This isn't true. I'm the first to hold the Arab regimes of the region responsible for the dilemma, too. After all, it was the ignorance and inattention of these regimes--along with, perhaps, their outright compliance with Israel and the West--that has led the Arab world into its current quagmire. The only salvation for the region, therefore, is the establishment of truly democratic regimes, since democracy represents the sole means of defending our values, nationalist or otherwise. Translated from the Arabic Edition.
