Later on, many will come forward and claim they were behind the youth revolution witnessed in Egypt on January 25. Was there a mastermind in what happened – just like the Muslim Brotherhood stated it was behind the revolution? How can one describe what happened on Tahrir Square in the Center of Cairo? Was it a “successful” youth adventure or a “smart” conspiracy that drained the “mother of the world” [Egypt] and placed it at the heart of the crisis and in the eye of the storm, after having undermined its security and closed its streets and institutions? Do some think that Egypt has a short fence which can be stepped over to exploit the revolution of its youth through statements, instigation, deviation and slogans? Why did the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Washington and European countries try to settle scores under different pretexts and attempt to push toward rapid change? Why did we see this “organized” attack against Egypt, the interference in its affairs and the violation of its sovereignty in an effort to use the legitimate demands of the Facebook youth to serve regional and international agendas? What does it mean for America's position vis-à-vis President Hosni Mubarak to swiftly change, as it required him to step over immediately and bluntly interfered in Egypt's internal affairs as though it were a state without sovereignty? What does it mean for European countries such as Britain, France and Germany to ask Mubarak to leave the rule instantly and without extending any solutions, as though there was a wish to see anarchy and turmoil prevail over Egypt and necessitate - in the future - the dispatch of international peacekeeping troops as it was seen in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Lebanon? What does it mean for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a Mufti for the state of Qatar, to send a message to the Egyptian army via the Friday sermon delivered in Doha last week, calling on it to control the situation, instigating a coup against the existing regime and rejecting Omar Suleiman as an alternative for President Mubarak? What does it mean for the Guide of the Iranian Republic, Ali Khamenei, to deliver the Friday sermon in Tehran in Arabic instead of Persian, calling for the establishment of an Islamic regime in Egypt, fiercely attacking President Mubarak by describing him as a “dictator and the agent of the Zionists” and defending the regime in Syria, at a time when he was the one who stood in the face of the revolutions of the Iranian reformists and considered them to be acts of strife coming from across the border? What does it mean for the entire spectrum of Arab and foreign media outlets to prey on a major Arab country, to instigate the people and disseminate information - some of which is false - while intentionally hosting the opposite opinion instead of the “opinion and the opposite one?” What does it mean for them to appoint themselves as the official partners of the Egyptian youth's revolution and the sponsors of their demands, reaching in certain cases the point of placing demands in their mouths, although these same channels ignored the youth's “green wristbands” revolution in Iran against Ahmadinejad and the falsification of the presidential elections by the “revolutionary guard?” What does it mean for Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa to take to the streets, join the demonstrators, ask the Egyptian regime to step down, announce his willingness to run for the presidency and say he is there to serve the will of the people, as though he was not part of the regime and as though the person who placed him in his current position is not Mubarak? Moreover, is he entitled to demonstrate while he is still in his post, or should he have resigned before standing among the crowds and raising slogans, in an attempt to exploit the crisis? I am not one of those who suffer from a conspiracy theory complex, and I believe that the action of the Egyptian youth is purely patriotic and carries legitimate demands. It should thus proceed and become a permanent – not a temporary – political action. However, all the latter questions require calm answers, far from any tensions and with the participation of the government and the loyalist and opposition parties. These questions also revolve around the reason why the thugs were introduced and the police was pulled out, but also around the reason why the prisoners were released and the horses, camels and mules participated in the protests. There is no doubt that change is a popular demand and a universal need, that Mubarak's stay in power for three decades under a popular rule was a major mistake, and that he should leave upon the end of his term. The crises of the Arab governments started at the beginning of 2011 with the change in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Algeria, and secession in Sudan. But what about Syria? Are poverty, unemployment, marginalization and oppression not greater there than in Tunisia and Egypt? What is certain is that the upcoming changes at the hands of the “digital” Arab youth will not be late, and that the pride of the “stiff” governments that are rejecting reform and popular participation will be shattered. Therefore, these governments must see the reality of the situation and adopt and implement immediate reforms that directly interest the people and convey the aspirations of the youth. The repercussions which will be generated by what happened in Tunisia and then in Egypt will affect all the others, without any exception, albeit in different ways and minus the element of surprise.
