The
present turmoil in the Muslim world which affects the world peace is of special
concern to Pakistan being a deeply affected country. Pakistan has lost over sixty
thousand people in the terrorist attacks while economic cost is estimated to be
over $ 100 Billions. While some
terrorists are killed in the US drone attacks in FATA [Federal Administered
Tribal Area] along Afghanistan border, majority of victims are civilians, women
and children. Pakistan Army has broken the back of Taliban terrorists firstly by
evicting them from Swat and almost wiped them out in North Waziristan single handily,
while coalition of many nations lead by USA is
fighting them in Afghanistan and Middle East. The US invasion of Iraq
and Afghanistan has destabilised the region. Iraq, Syria have been ripped
apart, while Islamic State [IS] has emerged as a power player, its neither “Islamic”
nor “state” unrecognised by any country of the world. Sudden emergence of IS
has shocked the world. Many questions need to be answered, i.e., who is funding
IS? Who is supplying weapons? Who is the ultimate beneficiary of Balkanization
of Middle East? Who is to benefit form destabilization of Middle East,
Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Read: اسلامی دنیا کی تباہی کا منصوبہ - برنارڈ لوئس پلان
Read: اسلامی دنیا کی تباہی کا منصوبہ - برنارڈ لوئس پلان
Many
political scientists, analysts, thinkers and intellectuals have come up with
many possible answers. However to explore the issue deeply from another angle,
let’s go back in time, 22 years ago a paper titled; “New Bernard Lewis plan
will carve up the Mideast” was published. Amazingly the roots of present
turmoil in Muslim world can easily be traced back. The events proposed 22 years
ago by Bernard Lewis seems to be implemented systematically with some
variations. An imperialist design to dominate the world through intrigue,
covert and overt operations and wars.
BernardLewis, is a specialist in oriental studies, the history of Islam and the
interaction between Islam and the West. He is especially famous in for his
works on the history of the Ottoman Empire. Lewis is a 98 years old British-American
historian who is also known as a public intellectual and political commentator.
He is the Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Lewis
served in the British Army in the Royal Armoured Corps and Intelligence Corps
during the Second World War before being seconded to the Foreign Office. After
the war, he returned to the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at
the University of London and was appointed to the new chair in Near and Middle
Eastern History. Lewis is a widely read expert on the Middle East, and is
regarded as one of the West’s leading scholars of that region. His advice has
been frequently sought by policymakers, including the Bush administration. In
his over a 60-year career, Lewis has emerged as the most influential post war
historian of Islam and the Middle East. He is notable for his public debates
with the late Edward Said, concerning the latter's book Orientalism (1978),
which criticized Lewis and other European Orientalists. Selected contents from
his work from are reproduced here; it will help the reader to understand the
hidden facet of turmoil in the Muslim world.
In 1980, it was warned that
the strategy behind then U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s
“Arc of Crisis” was a British plan to destroy the nation-state. The outline is here:-
1.
Algeria: Anglo-French run civil war, pitting the Islamic movement against the
government, threatens to spread into Tunisia and Morocco.
2.
Egypt: IMF conditionalities fuel potential for Muslim-Coptic Christian civil
strife and war with Sudan.
3.
Egypt-Sudan: Plans to create an artificial Coptic Christian "Namibia,"
carved out of the border area, are designed to provoke war between Egypt and
Sudan.
4.
Southern Sudan: The British-backed SPLA is attempting to make the region into a
separate state.
5.
Ethiopia: With a new Constitution approving any desired secessions, Ethiopia is
set to be divided up along tribal and ethnic lines, as has already been
accomplished with the creation of Eritrea.
6.
Somalia: Fragmentation into numerous warring clan, regions, with clan wars
spreading into the Somali-majority ethnic regions of eastern Ethiopia and
northern Kenya.
7.
Kenya: British efforts to topple President Daniel and destroy his non tribal
ruling coalition, are meant to trigger tribal wars between the Luo and Kikuyu.
8.
Rwanda-Burundi: Ugandan-backed Tutsi massacres of Hutus in both states are
designed to make both states into satellites of greater Uganda.
9.
Israel-Palestine: British and World Bank sabotage of the economy is meant to
provoke a Hamas-PLO civil war that would destroy the Israel-PLO agreement, and
to create the conditions for a new Arab-Israeli war.
10.
Saudi Arabia and Emirates: The politically discredited British-run royal
families and sheiks are about to be dumped, replaced by the networks run by
Crown Prince Abdullah.
11.
Yemen: Continuing efforts to renew civil war and spill it over into Saudi
Arabia.
12.
Greater Syria,; incorporating Lebanon, has been largely consolidated; an
Israeli-Syrian war remains on the agenda.
13:
Kurdish regional, straddling Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, has been blown up by the
British, fuelling a possible Turkish-Iranian war.
14.
Turkey: Ethnic, sectarian, and political strife is meant to create a new
"Algeria;' destroying the last modem economy in the region.
15.
Balkans: Serbian invasion of Bosnia and designs on Kosova may lead to conflict
with Albania and Turkey; Greece would ally with Serbia.
16.
Azerbaijan's demands for reunification with Iranian Azerbaijan, from which it
had been separated in the early 1800s, could spark a Turkish-Iranian war.
17.
Armenia-Azerbaijan: Continuing war over Nagorno-Karabakh creates conditions for
Caucasus wide conflict, drawing in Russia and Turkey.
18.
Chechnya: The Russian invasion and destruction of the ethnic region has set
into motion a guerrilla war of indefinite duration.
19.
Iraq is being subjected to continued efforts to divide it into a northern
Kurdish area, a southern Shiite area, and a central Baghdad area.
20.
Western Iran: Plans are under way to unify the Turkmen ethnic region of
northwest Iran with neighboring Turkmenistan.
21.
Afghanistan: The civil war will split the country into three parts: a Tajik
entity in the north, an Uzbek central entity, and a Pushtun entity in the
south, to incorporate part of Pakistan.
22.
Tajikistan: Russian manipulated civil war may aid separate British efforts to
organize territorial conflict between the Iranic Tajiks and Turki Uzbeks.
23.
China: Turkish supported Turkic-ethnic separatism in Xinjiang province is meant
to aid British efforts to split off neighbouring Tibet (ethnically
non-Chinese), and fragment China generally.
24.
Pakistan: Karachi riots are meant to split off the Sind; Pakistan is to be
divided in to a southern Balochi state that would also include part of
neighbouring Iran, a Punjabi state, and the reunification of the Pushtun region
into a new Pushtunistan carved out of Afghanistan.
25.
Kashmir: Long-standing Indo-Pakistani conflicting claims on Kashmir are being
aggravated by a British supported Kashmir independence movement, and feed plans
to foster an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war .
26.
Sri Lanka: The Tamil Tigers, supplied through international drug connections
with Stinger-type missiles, have renewed war for the secession of northern Sri
Lanka. [Resolved]
Bernard Lewis plan:
The “Bernard Lewis plan,” as
it came to be known, was a design to fracture all the countries in the region,
from the Middle East to India, along ethnic, sectarian, and linguistic lines.
This, was the strategic game plan behind the U. S overthrow of the Shah of Iran
in 1979 and his replacement by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Oct. 31, I984
assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
In 1974, Lewis was seconded
to Princeton University, where he became an adviser to the U. S. foreign policy
establishment. Lewis sold his plan to the Carter administration with the
argument that ringing the Soviet Union
with Muslim fundamentalist states would break up the Soviet Union's southern
tier. From this location, he also has published an update on his thesis,
which appears in the Fall 1992 issue of Foreign Affairs, the quarterly of the New
York Council on Foreign Relations, the sister agency to Britain’s Royal
Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).
Lewis’s plan is modelled on the imperial
methods of the Roman Empire: Grant local autonomy to a myriad of squabbling and
politically impotent ethnic enclaves over which Rome can wield its military
strength without difficulty. The subjected enclaves have a long leash, as long
as the tribute is paid to Rome.
A
geopolitical aim of the Bernard Lewis plan was the breakup of the edges of the
Soviet empire. With this now accomplished. Lewis predicted
that the entire Middle East would undergo a process of
"Lebanonization" a reference to the civil war unleashed in Lebanon in
1975 by then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The war pitted Lebanon’s
Catholic, Palestinian, Shiite Muslim, Sunni Muslim, Druze, and Greek Orthodox
populations against each other. With a steady supply of arms to all sides,
the war resulted in the de facto partitioning of Lebanon by Israel and Syria.
Today, the nation-state of Lebanon, once considered the jewel of the Mideast,
no longer exists. "Most of the
states of the Middle East," he wrote, "are of recent and artificial
construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is
sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity
together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to
the nation-state. The state then disintegrates-as happened in Lebanon-into a
chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and
parties."
The End of
Arab Nationalism:
The
process of disintegration of the Mideast, projected by Lewis, is facilitated
not only by the collapse of the Soviet Union, but what Lewis calls the “demise
of pan-Arabism.” The coup de grace for Arab nationalism, Lewis states, was the
United States-led war against Iraq. Lewis asserts that the war was primarily a
war among Arab states, in which the United States only became involved
“reluctantly.” The line up of the Arab nations against Iraq “marked the formal
abandonment of the long-cherished dream of pan-Arabism, of a united Arab state
or even a coherent Arab political bloc. As a matter of current politics and for
the foreseeable future,[Arab nationalism] no longer counts as a political
force. It is not a factor in international or inter-Arab or even domestic Arab
politics.”
Further
marking the political impotence of the Arab world, Lewis states, is the “end-at
least for the time being of the effectiveness of oil as a weapon in the hands
of the producer countries. This weapon, so powerful as an instrument of policy
in past crises, was in this particular crisis totally ineffectual.”
These
two phase-changes in Mideast politics represent a significant achievement for
Lewis, who is regarded as the dean of Mideast area specialists within the
Anglo-American elite. For him, the collapse of Arab nationalism removes the threat
of industrial development and national independence in the Mideast. The
unstated assumption of all of Lewis’s ruminations is the maintenance of the
economic status quo; the Mideast will be developed, if at all, only under
circumstances controlled by powers outside the region.
Lewis
does not mince words when it comes to the military strength of such outside
powers. The “most important lesson of the war,” Lewis proclaims, is that “the
swift and overwhelming defeat of the Iraqi armed forces reminded the world of
something that it had begun to forget: the technological and military edge that
the modern West had achieved over the rest of the world, and which in the past
had enabled even small European countries like Holland and Portugal to conquer
and govern vast empires in Asia and Africa.”
This
outside military strength will only be used to thwart threats to itself, Lewis
implies, but the western powers will not
directly rule the region. “Because of some resemblances of language and
institutions, there is a widespread belief in the Middle East that the United
States is the British Empire back in business with new management, a new
trading name and a new address. This is not so. . . . The United States will
no doubt seek to remain the predominant outside power in the Middle East, but
the operative word is ‘outside.’
Instead, Lewis states, U. S.
policy is the “balance of power” method that is associated with Kissinger. American policy, he says, “is to prevent the
emergence of a regional hegemony-of a single regional power that could dominate
the area and thus establish monopolistic control of Middle Eastern oil.” This
overriding concern explains American flip-flops on Iran and Iraq.
The
apparent exceptions to such tactical arrangements are US reliance on the “steadfastness
of the northern tier" i.e., Turkey; and “the presence of a powerful, self-reliant
and stable democratic power in the region”-Israel. Lewis is known in the
intelligence community for his affection for Turkey. He published a book for
the RNA, The Emergence of Modern Turkey. in which he focused on the potential
use of religious, class, and ethnic differences to bring an end to the
industrialization policies of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk.
In
the case of Israel, Lewis states, Americans recognize the United States as
having “stronger links, stronger mutual loyalties, and commitments and a more
enduring relationship." Otherwise, the U. S. has no
loyalties to any state in the region: “The United States has obviously felt
free to abandon such allies, if the alliance becomes too troublesome or ceases to
be cost-effective-as, for example, in South Vietnam, Kurdistan, and
Lebanon."
The
Lewis-Kissinger balance of power strategy outlaws the concept of a “community
of principle”-alliances of sovereign nation-states based on a commitment to
mutual economic development. Lacking such a community of principle and given
the worldwide economic breakdown imposed by such agencies as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the countries of the underdeveloped sector
are expected to explode into civil strife and wars. As long as the
extraction of oil and loot is assured, Lewis makes clear, no one should expect
the “outside” powers to become involved in such chaos. Lewis states explicitly:
“The West would no longer be concerned but would remain indifferent to
whatever happened, to wars, disasters, and upheavals, as long as the oil
continues to flow”.
The
western capacity for turning a blind eye, already manifested in other respects,
should not be underrated. In the past, outside powers have sometimes intervened
to prevent, to limit or to halt Arab-Israel wars. Arabs and Israelis alike
would be unwise to count on such interventions in the future.”
In
this regard, Lewis looks with favour on a particular variant of the diverse and
often competing movements misleadingly termed “Islamic fundamentalist.” That
British run variant which he favours is opposed to modern science and technology
and, in opposition to the tenets of Islam banning usury, is loyally committed
to paying IMF debt. As such, Lewis sees such a variety of fundamentalism as
a battering ram against the nation-state.
“The
eclipse of pan-Arabism” he writes, “has left Islamic fundamentalism as the
most attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be
something better, truer and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their
rulers and the bankrupt ideologies foisted on them from outside.” He notes that
British subversive movements acting under such a cover enjoy a practical
advantage in societies like the Middle East. “Dictators can forbid parties,
they can forbid meetings they cannot forbid public worship, and they can to
only a limited extent control sermons." As such they represent a “network
outside the control of the state the more oppressive the regime, the greater the
help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositions."
Elaborating
on the subversive capacities of that variety of fundamentalism run out of
Britain, he adds: “In a program of aggression and expansion these movements
would enjoy, like their Jacobin and Bolshevik predecessors, the advantage of
fifth columns in every country and community with which they share a common
universe of discourse. There is also the possibility that they might have
nuclear weapons, either for terrorist or regular military use."
Such
developments will lead to the process which he dubs “Lebanonization.”
“Most
of the states of the Middle East . . . are of recent and artificial
construction and are' vulnerable to such a process," he analyzes. “If the
central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold
the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding
allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates as happened in
Lebanon-into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions
and parties."
A new phase
of wars
A look at the area of the world Lewis
designates as the Middle East shows that Lewis‘s pronouncements are active Anglo-American
policy. Take the case of Iraq. The Anglo-American/French imposition
of a “no-fly” zone over southern Iraq accelerated
the dismemberment of that state into three pans, a Kurdish north, a central
Baghdad region , and a Shiite south. Because of a common denomination, Shiaism,
as well as diverse geographic and historical factors, a Shiite statelet carved
out of southern Iraq would tend to fall under the control of neighbouring Iran.
This fact, in addition to Iranian ambitions toward other Arab Gulf
sheikdoms, will tend to foster the condition for a new Iranian-Arab war.
A
Kurdish statelet carved out of northern Iraq will tend to fall under the
control of the increasingly ambitious Turkey. Control over
oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan was one of the promises made to the Turkish
establishment to induce them to enter the war against Iraq. But the creation of
an even nominally independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq would also inflame the
adjacent Kurdish regions in Iran, and in Turkey itself, where a near war
between the Turkish army and Kurds is ongoing. For such reasons, the
division of northern Iraq will tend to provoke an Iranian-Turkish war. Such
a war is made more likely because the Turkish-allied former Soviet republic of
Azerbaijan is laying claim to Iranian Azerbaijan.
In
the Balkans, the war in former Yugoslavia is rapidly drawing in neighbouring
powers [this is almost over, paper written years ago]. If Serbia invades Kosovo
as projected, Albania and then Turkey will join the war against Serbia, while
Greece will side with Serbia.
In Central Asia,
Anglo-American planners are attempting to pit Tajikistan, an Iranian-ethnic
republic, against Uzbekistan, which is Turkic. The war could spread into neighbouring
Afghanistan, already in a civil war, and even into neighbouring Chinese
Turkestan, whose population is ethnically the same as the new Central Asian
republics.
While
provoking wars, the Anglo-Americans are hard at work in assembling regional
alliances to administer the region on their behalf, most notably a
Saudi-Israeli and Turkish-Israeli axis. As part of this effort, the
Anglo-Americans are fostering a Camp David-style separate peace deal between
Syria and Israel. Under earlier arrangements, Syria and Israel gobbled up
Lebanon. Now, it appears, Jordan is set to be “Lebanonized.” As far back as
1990, Pentagon planners began reconsideration of an old plan to overthrow the
Hashemite dynasty of Jordan and put in its place a “Palestinian state,"
jointly administered by Israel and Syria. The arrest of Jordanian
parliamentarian Laith Shubeilat on US orders has destabilized the country,
especially given the fact that Shubeilat has been associated with a pro-Iraq
policy. As Lyndon LaRouche has warned, an Israeli move to blow up the
Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem can be expected. Such attempts have been
made by Jewish zealots before, under the professed aim of clearing the way for
constructing the Third Temple of Solomon. The ensuing riots would set the stage
for broader religious warfare in the region.
Conclusion:
It is common to brush aside
the conspiracy theories. However if one critically examines the plans conceived
decades back by scholar or groups with close association with the policy makers
in USA and UK and the events on ground bear close semblance, its difficult to
reject it out rightly. The governments of Muslim countries should consider
these aspects seriously and instead of investing in construction of high rise building
and other symbols of luxury, should invest in education, and establish think tanks,
with genuine intellectuals, analysts and thinkers. They should constantly
review the international plans and conspiracies, suggesting concrete counter measures
for the national survival and advancement of peace and stability.
Also read:
Also read:
- http://aftabkhan-net.page.tl/Middle-East-Division_Bernard-Lewis-Plan-and-Oded-Yinon-Plans.htm
- How to counter Zionist Plans? http://aftabkhan-net.page.tl/Counter-Zionist-Plans.htm
اسلامی دنیا کی تباہی کا منصوبہ - برنارڈ لوئس پلان
ومن الشائع أن فرشاة جانبا نظريات المؤامرة. ولكن إذا كان واحد يدرس خطيرة خطط تصور عقود إلى الوراء عالم أو مجموعات مع ارتباط وثيق مع صانعي السياسة في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية والمملكة المتحدة والأحداث على الأرض تحمل مظاهر الوثيق، يبدو من الصعب أن يرفض بها بحق. يجب على حكومات الدول الإسلامية أن تنظر في هذه الجوانب على محمل الجد وبدلا من الاستثمار في بناء مبنى عال وغيرها من رموز الترف، ينبغي أن تستثمر في التعليم، وإنشاء مؤسسات الفكر والرأي، مع المثقفين حقيقي والمحللين والمفكرين. عليهم مراجعة باستمرار الخطط والمؤامرات الدولية، واقتراح تدابير مضادة ملموسة لبقاء الوطني
والنهوض بالسلام والاستقرار.
یہ سازشی نظریات ایک طرف برش کرنے کے لئے عام ہے. ایک شدید امریکہ اور برطانیہ میں پالیسی سازوں اور زمین پر واقعات قریبی جھلک برداشت کے ساتھ قریبی ایسوسی ایشن کے ساتھ واپس عالم یا گروہوں کی طرف سے دہائیوں سمجھے منصوبوں کا معائنہ تاہم، اگر، اس مشکل کو بجا طور پر اس سے باہر کو مسترد کرنے. مسلم ممالک کی حکومتوں کو سنجیدگی سے ان پہلوؤں پر غور کرنا چاہئے اور اس کی بجائے اعلی اضافہ کی عمارت اور عیش و آرام کی دیگر علامات کی تعمیر میں سرمایہ کاری کی، حقیقی دانشور، تجزیہ کاروں اور دانشوروں کے ساتھ، تعلیم میں سرمایہ کاری، اور تھنک ٹینک قائم کرنا چاہئے. وہ مسلسل امن اور استحکام کی قومی بقا اور ترقی کے لئے ٹھوس اقدامات تجویز انسداد، بین الاقوامی منصوبوں اور سازشوں کا جائزہ لینے چاہئے.
Videos of Bernard Lewis:
Bernard Lewis' middle east
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC1XFJIyH30
Mar 4, 2011 - Uploaded by QLQKSA
نحاول أن نوضح أن ما يدور الأن في الوطن العربي من ثورات مزعومة وأنها ثورات ديموقراطيه إنما هي تخدم هذا المشروع لإعادة رسم حدود الشرق الأوسط بعد سايس ...Choices for The Middle East - Prof. Bernard Lewis - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZXGFEykj3g
Aug 17, 2011 - Uploaded by TAUVOD
A lectutre by Prof. Am. Bernard Lewis of Princton University. 21.1.08.Dan Diker interviews Prof. Bernard Lewis on the Arab ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW12J7MPHuA
Jun 10, 2012 - Uploaded by WorldJewish Congress
Dan Diker interviews Prof. Bernard Lewis on the Arab uprising in the Middle East, 30 March 2011.Bernard Lewis on GPS with Fareed Zakaria - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iXZSods76U
Sep 2, 2012 - Uploaded by Huck Finn
As for the Time issue, it makes zero mention of Bernard Lewis one way or the other. .... Obviously you've never ...ABOUT BERNARD LEWIS - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECJMo4lt1Jk
Mar 12, 2013 - Uploaded by ABN English
Egyptian Cleric: U.S. Trying to Divide Islamic World, in Keeping with a Bernard Lewis Plan by MEMRITVVideos ...NATO's Plan to Divide the Middle East, Oded Yonin ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9QLNHjIQe8
Apr 26, 2012 - Uploaded by nuts flippedThe master plan for the Middle East in a nutshell. Oded Yinon an Israeli ... NATO's Plan to Divide the Middle ...
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n43-19921030/eirv19n43-19921030_026-new_bernard_lewis_plan_will_carv.pdf
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n43-19921030/index.html
The Zionist Plan for the
Middle East: http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/kivunim.htm
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n43-19921030/eirv19n43-19921030_026-new_bernard_lewis_plan_will_carv.pdf
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n43-19921030/index.html
The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Zionist History Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, Research & News About Zionism We Reveal Zionist Banksters, News Falsifiers, PR Liars, Neocons, Subversives, Terrorists & Spies The Jew Watch Project's 1.5 Billion Pages Served Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism
An Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation: 