Wednesday, 2 October 2019

Taking sides with enemies against Egypt… a history lesson





It looks like being ignorant of history and ignoring reading and comprehending its lessons is one of the factors leading to what is called “Becoming” which has linguistic and philosophical meanings that may help move from one state to another, including phenomena ending for others to be born.

I believe we have a case telling of such ignorance of history and ignoring its lessons represented in two sides; the first are some businessmen in Egypt and the second is the muslim brotherhood and all who accepted to be their supporting allies in achieving what they want.

I will not talk about the first case in this article and will go straight to the second case that became totally immersed in the swamp of taking sides with foreign regional and international parties targeting besieging and undermining the Egyptian experiment related to June 30th revolution, as the goals of muslim brotherhood and their allies met with the goals of those foreign parties, with each party willing to embroil the other one more and more without realizing – muslim brotherhood and their allies – that the history lesson, relatively far and also recent in the same time, confirms that taking sides with the foreign enemy and believing it may change the situation in Egypt is nothing but a lost bet.

What is really strange is this lesson is that whether taking sides with the foreign party was for achieving a noble patriotic cause or even the contrary, it always fails. All or some of us remember how in the time when the national resistance against the British occupation and working hard to have their forces evacuated and get independence was at its peak, we remember how the patriotic and always memorable leader Muhammed Farid wanted to strengthen the relation with foreign parties to help Al-Watani Party or the National Party in that sacred mission. We remember how Muhammed Farid Pasha sold most of the land he inherited from his father; estimated to be 500 feddans for the sake of financing the national cause. It even happened that he became broke and died in a bad way abroad and could not find someone to help, until one of the merchants in Gharbiya governorate donated to pay for the expenses of returning his body back to Egypt!

Then we come to the post-July 1952 revolution when goals of the revolution conflicted with those of muslim brotherhood and some of the non-muslim-brotherhood figures. Of those non-muslim-brotherhood figures were Mahmoud Abul-Fath and his brother Ahmed Abul-Fath where the first represents a model for the opposition figure believing that disagreeing with the ruling regime and its leaders allows all that is forbidden just like the rule “Necessity knows no law” says.

Of these forbidden deeds is taking sides with foreign parties to help or actually bring down the ruling regime, or at least besieging it and practicing pressure over it to accept what that opposition figure wants, without realizing that Egypt is the one bearing all the damage and it is the victim in this case, for his “political and abstract” bullet that he aims at his opponent, whether it is the ruling regime or the president in this case, actually goes through the nation’s body, which is by all means an unjustifiable and imprescriptible crime.

Amid his extreme dispute with Nasser and entangling trivial own interests with big political goals, Mahmoud Abul-Fath collaborated with Nouri as-Sai’eed; then-Iraqi PM who opposed the Egyptian regime at that time and cooperated with the West to establish Baghdad Pact. As-Sai’eed also cooperated with Britain and the United States of America.

Mahmoud Abul-Fath wanted to import a deal of “buses” for Egypt, but the tender, then supervised by Mr. Abdelatif Al-Bughdadi, went to “Abu Regela”. Mahmoud Abul-Fath also wanted to supply military rifles for the army, but his offer was rejected, and his brother, Ahmed Abul-Fath talked to president Nasser during a meeting in an attempt to clear things between Mahmoud and the Egyptian leadership regarding the issue of providing buses and rifles and considering rejecting the two offers as an action of antagonism against his brother Mahmoud. Nasser then looked very annoyed and wondered: what do I have to do with buses and rifles that Mahmoud wants to sell?!

Then Mahmoud Abul-Fath – who is the maternal uncle of one of the journalists who does not cease for a moment to attack Nasser and the July revolution thinking that people do not know his motive behind that – sent a letter to the English foreign minister, then another for the British PM offering to cooperate with all means with the British government against the ruling regime in Egypt. In his correspondence, he claimed to the British that he has an existing alliance in Egypt containing some like Mustafa An-Nahas Pasha and Muhammed Naguib, and that he has officers doing activities, and also he has a political organization and military one in the army. Moreover, he sent a message to the American president Eisenhower asking him to take a stance against what he called “the corrupt military group existing in Egypt”.

The worst thing was when Mahmoud Abul-Fath – along with some others – established radio broadcasting stations working against Egypt. What is really ironic was that the British foreign ministry doubted their ability to do anything, but the entity which adopted and paid more attention to them was the British military intelligence as Britain was preparing for the invasion and onslaught on Egypt.

There are a lot of details to tell in the case of Mahmoud Abul-Fath. For whoever wants to know, they can find them in a complete episode given by Mr. Heikal in TV and no one replied to him regarding it. Such details are now available in the British documents that are now open for everyone to check!

The lesson is, not Mahmoud and Ahmed Abul-Fath, nor the foreign parties which they sought their help, could change the situation in Egypt. The same thing happened with muslim brotherhood who resorted to Saudi Arabia, some Gulf countries and Europe and kept on working against Egypt and Nasser but to no avail, until they made a reconciliation with Sadat through a Saudi intervention.

We go with time until we come to the opposition against Sadat which spread abroad; in London, Paris, Tripoli, Baghdad, Beirut… but we shall talk later about this.

Translated by: Dalia Elnaggar


This article was published in Almasry alyoum newspaper on October 2, 2019.

To see the original Arabic article, go to:

No comments:

Post a Comment