What Egypt needs now – Part II. An Existential Threat must be Thwarted

By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

In an earlier article titled 'What Egypt needs now – Part I, Sinai', I suggested a series of measures that the Egyptian government must take immediately to make sure that civil order and concord will prevail in the area and nationwide. These measures are expected to thwart an existential threat against Egypt's national integrity. The existing threat is very real and the dangers tremendous. In the present article, I will reveal covert insinuations made by a key Israeli minister, proceeding through textual analysis. These hints do not augur well for Egypt's territorial integrity and must therefore be taken very seriously.

When Supreme Forces are pushing to Change Borders…. 

The first reactions of the Egyptian government seem good, but very limited, short-termed, and rather atrophic. Egypt must be out of the process of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations; this is true and correct for all intents and purposes. One can even say that there was no need for such carnage so that finally an Egyptian government understands that the country's position is in Africa and not in Asia, and that any sort of involvement in Palestinian, Levantine or Asiatic troubles does not bode well for Egypt's interests, perspectives and future. 

Establishing a buffer zone is certainly a good measure, but it will bring only minimal results; the last bomb explosion was a false flag attack, and the criminal Zionist state is the only to be held responsible for this. Any sound mind can assess this reality immediately. As irrevocable conclusion, it is even corroborated by the texts and the articles of the Zionist press – if they are attentively read and scrupulously interpreted.

For the Egyptian government, accusing Hamas for the tragic incident has only one useful dimension, namely to deceive the Israelis by pretending that the Egyptian government does not believe that the responsible was ultimately the Zionist state. This dimension would certainly make sense.

However, for any Egyptian authority to truly believe that it was carried out by a Hamas unit in cooperation with local elements is tantamount to suicide. The reason for this is the fact that it was not Hamas, but Israel, and this will be proved correct, because the measures taken, if they are not accompanied by must greater and more systematic measures (like those suggested in my previous article) will fail to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Worse, if the measures I suggested in my earlier article (https://megalommatis.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/what-egypt-needs-now-part-i-sinai/) are not taken as soon as possible, Israel will take the destabilizing game deep inside Egypt, and similar tragic incidents will be reproduced in the greater Cairo area and in Upper Egypt. The reason for this is very simple; Israel has already established a highly sophisticated network of agents across the country (without most of them even knowing that they are working for the Zionist state) and, in addition, has stored in many locations across the Sinai Peninsula material that is necessary for the false flag attacks that the Mossad intends to carry out across Egypt.

It takes only a deep understanding of the Language of Falsehood (which is as real as English, Arabic, Russian and any other linguistic entity) in order to interpret correctly the Zionist ministers', generals', academics' and journalists' speeches and thus understand that Egypt is directed targeted now.

A brilliant example is offered by the filthy pig Moshe Ya'alon – who should be mercilessly lynched and literarily dismembered alive for scores of Crimes against the Mankind. The Israeli minister of Military Affairs said in a recent interview with the US-based National Public Radio (NPR) that the current borders of many Middle Eastern countries are bound to change in the future as a result of recent developments in the region.

He then went on offering his paranoid logic about the development and specifying the following: “Libya was a new creation, a Western creation as a result of World War I. Syria, Iraq, the same — artificial nation-states — and what we see now is a collapse of this Western idea,” he stated. Feeling the need to best cover his intentions, he also added the following: “We have to distinguish between countries like Egypt, with their history. Egypt will stay Egypt”.

For someone so well prepared to be the top gangster of the criminal Zionist entity (the Fake State of Israel), i.e. the minister of Military Affairs, Modern Political History is a perfectly well studied subject, and to him all the events are known in foremost accuracy.

On this occasion, a shrewd commentator expressed a great part of irony as regards Moshe Ya'alon's interview, epitomizing the truth as per below:

"The minister did not say whether the borders of Israel, also drawn by Western powers after World War I, would change or not " (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/24/middle-east-borders-bound-to-change-israel-minister/).

Moshe Ya'alon (born Smilansky – of Ukrainian father) fought as a reservist in the Yom Kippur war (1973) and "on October 15, 1973, his unit became the first IDF unit to cross the Suez Canal into Egypt. He continued fighting as part of the Israeli drive into the Egyptian mainland, and participated in the encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Ya%27alon).

And this is Neo-Nazi gangster Ya'alon's latest racist measure and policy:

http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/segregated-bussing-plan-for-palestinians-and-jews/

What did the Smilansky Ashkenazi Khazarian pig really say in his interview?

First, what are the 'recent developments' due to which borders will change across the region as per Ya'alon words? One might suggest that he refers to what happens currently in Iraq and Syria with the emergence of the Fake Caliphate. But no, this is wrong. The inner structure of his thought makes it clear that he includes Libya into this subject ('the recent developments'); so we can safely claim that to him 'recent developments' is a code term for what is rather called across the global mass media as 'Arab Spring'. So, we conclude that, when he says that 'the recent developments' will bring about 'changes of borders', Moshe Ya'alon includes Egypt, since the country was deeply affected by the Arab Spring covert operations.

But the gangster minister said much more in his interview, fully demonstrating that he views the country of the Nile as a candidate for the forthcoming border changes; in any case, 'many' countries are subject to this perspective, according to Ya'alon's words.

Allusions are highly revered literary schemes in the Language of Falsehood that Zionists and Freemasons speak without the rest being able to decipher their covert messages and hints. Do you have a doubt that Moshe Ya'alon, except from being a Zionist, is also a Freemason? The picture published in the aforementioned entry of the Wikipedia (which certainly has his approval and definitely incorporates his recommendations) shows him with his Canadian and English counterparts, Rob Nicholson and Chuck Hagel, in a typically Freemasonic gesture of shaking hands (picture retrieved as of today). 

What is the allusion embedded in Ya'alon aforementioned interview?

He said: "Libya was a new creation, a Western creation as a result of World War I". This is of course wrong! Totally wrong! Libya was detached from the Ottoman Empire by Italy during their 1911 war, which occurred 3 years before WW I started.

Now, if you believe that Moshe Ya'alon simply made a mistake or did not know what he was talking about, you are an idiot, and you should immediately stop reading the present text, because it will be worthless to you.

So, Libya was not 'a Western creation as a result of World War I'.

This means that when Ya'alon continued saying 'Syria, Iraq, the same — artificial nation-states — and …', he already knew very well that Syria and Iraq were not detached from the Ottoman Empire in the 'same' way as Libya. Why did he make then this mistake?

A first approach may be for any interpreter and analyst to think that the Israeli minister wanted to insinuate that Libya's borders will change pretty much like those of Syria and Iraq, which have already de facto changed due to the emergence of the Fake Caliphate.

But if this were his intention, Ya'alon would stop there. As he did not, and went on involving other countries as well, we can be sure that Libya was not the point he wanted to make.

So, in fact, establishing a wrong parallel between Libya and Syria-Iraq was not a proper mistake for Ya'alon, but it served him as an allusion.

- To what did Libya serve him as an allusion?

- Evidently to what Ya'alon would never say explicitly.

- How can we identify the object of his allusion?

- By searching for further elements in his interview namely countries that are possible candidates for border change; in this regard, Syria and Iraq are automatically excluded, because the change has already occurred in their cases.

- What further element is left in Ya'alon's interview?

- Egypt.

However, in his interview, Ya'alon makes about Egypt an interesting juxtaposition; he says: 'we have to distinguish between countries like Egypt, with their history. Egypt will stay Egypt'.

This appears to be in contrast with what was previously said about Syria, Iraq and Libya, namely that

1. they are 'artificial nation-states', and

2. in their case we see now 'a collapse of this Western idea'.

The top rule of the Falsehood Language is 'never to say the truth in public'; the second rule is the same said reversely, namely 'to always say a lie in public'.

The fact that what Ya'alon says about Egypt in his interview is a lie we can understand through close examination of his words that reveal plenty of inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

What are "countries like Egypt, with their history"?

If this was said comparatively to Libya only, it would perhaps draw some importance. Libya was never the heartland of huge empires, important kingdoms or expanding caliphates. However, when countries like Syria and Iraq are involved in the discourse, the statement becomes meaningless and worthless, futile, erroneous, and therefore suspicious. Syria and Iraq have a greater historical past than Egypt.

A brief historical comparison involves the following:

1- the earlier beginning of civilization and writing in Mesopotamia - Sumer (around 300 years before Egypt),

2- the greater political – military expansion and cultural radiation of Mesopotamia - Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia (covering more than two millennia),

3- the equal importance of both lands at the times of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires (Alexander's Epigones),

4- the equal importance of the two respective theological schools (Antioch in Roman Syrian and Alexandria in Roman Egypt) within Christianity, and last,

5- the far greater role for Syria and Iraq within the context of Islamic History (Damascus and Baghdad were far more influential than Cairo in any aspect).

Finally, both territories (Syria – Iraq & Egypt) became part of the Ottoman Empire at the same time (early 16th c.) and were detached in the same manner (colonial, Anglo-French detachment).

We can therefore conclude that this is totally false, and when said by a top Israeli military, it consists only in a useful lie.

The same concerns for the term used for Syria, Iraq and Libya, namely 'a new creation' and 'artificial nation-states'. In fact, Libya and Egypt were fabricated in exactly the same manner: colonial interference and detachment from the Islamic Caliphate – Ottoman Empire whereto both lands belonged.

In fact, if there is a contrast among the four countries mentioned by the Israeli minister, i.e. Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq, we have on one side Egypt and Libya (detached during direct foreign, colonial interference / pretty much like Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti, Morocco, Aden, Oman, Emirates) and on the other side Syria and Iraq (invaded and occupied during WW I as consequence of the fact that the Ottoman Empire and England were members of opposite alliances / pretty much like Lebanon, Palestine, 'Jordan', Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait and Qatar).

If Libya is 'a new creation' (1911), so is Egypt (1798) too.

If Libya, Syria, and Iraq are 'artificial nation-states', so is Egypt too.

One may eventually hypothesize that the Israeli minister referred to the different ethnic-religious groups attested in the case of Syria and Iraq (Sunni, Shia, 'Kurds', Turkmen, Aramaeans, Yazidis and others). However, this is not attested in Libya whereby homogeneity is greater (there are only Berber-speaking and Arabic-speaking Libyans), and yet the Israeli minister categorized Libya with Syria and Iraq.

One understands how intriguing the Israeli minister can become, if one takes into consideration that ethnic-religious groups exist in Egypt as well, namely Berbers in the West, Bedouins in the Sinai (systemically called 'Arabs' by the Zionist state – and this is both false and fallacious), Nubians and Beja in the South, and in addition, Christians (erroneously called Copts – in fact, all Egyptians are Copts), Sunni and Shia Muslims.

So, if so many elements of Minister Ya'alon's interview are false, what did he want to say?

The answer is simple.

It is all about an allusion that he wanted to make.

First, he made it clear that the Zionist state and the forces that support it want a definite change of borders in the Middle East. This does not concern Syria and Iraq anymore, because there border change has already occurred. In addition, Minister Ya'alon did not limit his discourse to only that area where he could eventually specify details (about 'Kurdistan', etc.) without however referring to other countries.

Second, he used Libya as an allusion to many aspects that characterize Egypt in the way the Zionist state views the country of the Nile (: new creation, Western creation, artificial nation-state, collapse of the underlying Western idea).

Third, he denied the truth that is hidden in the backside of his mind, by excluding Egypt from the picture. In fact, no one asked Minister Ya'alon to exclude Egypt from the picture. He could have just avoided any mention. He could have mentioned Yemen, Arabia or other countries instead, but in this case he would have not conveyed the message he wanted to convey to his Freemasonic and Zionist audiences across the Earth.

This automatically suggests that, if we want to understand him clearly, we have to conclude that he basically referred to Egypt as the next target for border change.

However, it would be a mistake to imagine that the rogue gangster who impersonates Israel's Minister of Military Affairs is the only person to use this terminology and these figures of speech in order to convey similar messages. The Israeli is press and mass media in general are full of examples of similar insinuations and hints - on daily basis.

For their criminal interests and genocidal plans, it is only normal that they do their best to confuse the picture and mislead the Egyptian authorities. The Sinai Peninsula has become an urgent affair for the Zionist state. This is at least what the recent articles of professional liars and forgers like Elhanan Miller and Avi Issacharoff reconfirm (http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-suspends-hamas-israel-talks-following-sinai-attack/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=6b82096a7c-2014_10_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-6b82096a7c-54783545 and http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-woes-of-an-egyptian-churchill/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=6b82096a7c-2014_10_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-6b82096a7c-54783545).

It is therefore high time for the Egyptian administration to take all measures needed in order to totally block the Zionist infiltrators and agents out of the Sinai, and thus preserve the country's territorial integrity.