Digital Research Project

During the past decade for Egypt, they had so far ten presidencies, and they didn’t need to an intervention to promote democracy or for humanitarian interventions by the military except for one case. When the Free Officers Movement came at 1956, they didn’t need a military intervention because of king Farouk peacefully turns the ligament authority, but the exception is when Mohamed Morsi used the violence a military intervention came for the necessary needs. To keep the country not go toward a civil war. All the cases of promoting democracy in Egypt didn’t need the necessary of foreign intervention either military or for promoting democracy. Even though there was a lot of democracy transactions, but none of those cases required intervention in all the cases. The Republic fo Egypt went from an autocritical regime toward democratic regime without the need for any interventions.

According to Fukuyama and McFaul, should democracy be promoted to all nations because of the united stated interests and security? No country in all the continent has benefited from the democracy like the United of States of America, and I think the U.S has the right to ensure their security, but not at the expense of another countries security or sovereignty. In results of their safety, several countries have lost their security, legitimacy, and economy. Nowadays, the U.S. confronting another overall ideological risk as radical Islamism, the U.S. government stresses that political change in autocracy. U.S. partners will deliver religious administrations that which led to a new to U.S. interests. This scenario created a controversy situation in the Middle East regarding Muslim Brotherhood organization to be an image of a radical Islamism. ISIS and Al-Qaida are a bit different than Muslim Brotherhood, because the actions and methods differ but, they have mostly the same goal. Also, Muslim Brotherhood is not considered as a terrorist organization by all the countries in the Middle-East such as Turkey and Qatar which create big a misunderstanding between Islamic states and radical Islamist groups for all nations.

Transfaring from a cosmopolitanism regime to a Political Realism regime took more then a decade and they still promoting democrazation and dint need the help for an internation intervantional relations. Since the Cold War ended, the concern regarding humanitarian interventions by the military has emerged as a contentious issue while at the same time raising heated debates in the area of internation. The debates that prevail between different viewpoints mostly revolves around the legality question in line with the rights that states have regarding the interference of the military in a different country’s affairs, especially in the event of severe human rights violations, which the international law guarantees (UN, 2017). Issues arise whenever humanitarian interventions do not match with the principles that govern non-intervention as well as sovereignty. Whereas various humanitarian interventions have prevailed in history, such as during the Cold War, the demise of the war contributed to the intensive humanitarian interventions. Some of the interventions supported the role of the United Nations (UN) in international affairs while others did not. As for the 1990s, for instance, diverse scholars perceive as a decade of humanitarian intervention due to various military interventions that took place at the time (Ford Institute, 2017). Thus, the paper discusses whether military intervention by foreign troops is justified owing to the prevalence of human rights abuses in different parts of the world.

Concerning challenge of legitimizing interventions by the military, it has been known to bedevil the UN since its establishment. Transparent justification is needed for UN Security Council when a need arises for authorizing an intervention to be the military to sovereign nations. In case the UN fails to offer legitimacy concerning a particular intervention in a certain member territory, nonetheless, it faces the challenge of political hindrances of attaining consensus within veto powers’ constraints imposed by the Security Council’s five permanent members, including Russia, United States, China, France, and the United Kingdom as well as deficiency of a standing force (Guraziu, 2012). During the past, more than 60 years, the principles that have driven the Security Council concerning military intervention have been deployed selectively, whereas justification regarding interventions has transformed to allow it meet the needs of the present environment’s atmosphere.

As the Cold War was taking place, the interventions imposed mostly revolved around the need for ending the civil wars or in imposing cease-fires to facilitate in peacekeeping initiatives. A large number of the interventions that took place then was because of the request that states made, although most of them were banned or opted not to vote (Ford Institute, 2017). The reason for this is that the U.S., as well as the Soviet Union, perceived them in the perspective of supporting their promote democracy in the Third World. The UN’s secretary generals started intermediations in Korea as well as Congo in 1950-1953 and 1960-1964 respectively (Krasniqi, 2016). After the Cold War had ended, considerable emphasis was directed toward two major probable justifications that lead to the interventions, including management of failed states as well as the provision of humanitarian protection.

In line with the war that took place between 1991 and 1995 in Balkans, the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994, and the delayed and limited response by the U.S. created an environment that fostered the emergence of a new kind of humanitarian intervention. The Agenda for Peace that the UN instituted in 1992 aimed at broadening understanding of intervention in line with the situations in which it would incorporate failed states. During the World Summit that the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) enabled in 2005 lay emphasis on the need for safeguarding populations from war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing (Ford Institute, 2017). Various solid legal forms prevail in the event of human rights as well as the UN Charter that lay emphasis in banning genocide in line with ensuring that political leaders are held responsible for such acts.

Nevertheless, the rules that prevail for the time being the focus on enforcing the notion that such criminals should face tribunals or the ICC (International Criminal Court). With the growing experience in the area of humanitarian interventions during the 1990s, the UN realized that efficient and unending humanitarian safeguard needed a way of ensuring that the interventions separated the distinct parties while at the same time punishing the guilty in line with transforming the prevailing situations that contributed to distress (peacemaking) (Krasniqi, 2016). In the event of the lessons learned from the policies, sophisticated missions for peacekeeping in line with increased reluctance among the members of the Security Council in committing interventional resources required complex as well as lengthy operations.

In the recent years, considerable attention has been directed toward failed states, such as targeting collapse of the domestic economy especially in cases whereby no one in the position of authority has the capacity of inviting intervention or assistance (Ford Institute, 2017). In the case of failed states, they usually establish political challenges inside the nation, which lead to states to fall into anarchy as well as civil warlordism, while the neighboring countries also start experiencing problems (Guraziu, 2012). The neighboring states are forced to accept many refugees or embark on repelling troops that might be focusing on establishing safe enclaves beyond the failed state. In the event of such situations, no legal authority prevails that has the capacity of attracting the attention of the UN.

The process of dealing with states perceived as having failed presents various challenging duties, including addressing poverty, redeveloping the economy, disarming militias, provision of education, food, and shelter, as well as facilitating elections (Ford Institute, 2017). Furthermore, interventions implemented result to the establishment of ethical puzzles, which international actors follow. They encounter the problem of determining ways in which they can safeguard rights of people when a state fails while refraining from violating legal veracity affiliated with countrywide sovereignty (UN, 2017). In the perspective of certain scholars, they believe that foreign intervention that focuses on dealing with states that fail in punishing the individuals who lead genocide served as the new phase of imperialism whereas others agree that failed states do not carry any moral or legal authority, while the rights of individuals surpass those of sovereignty.

Furthermore, individual observers show concerns regarding humanitarian intrusions that might contribute to the ineffective application of justifiable interventions. The major accepted practice is embarking on intervention with the goal of saving human lives while it is also deemed essential to conquering a state with the goal of mitigating or preventing famine. However, in the event of offering humanitarian help when a natural disaster strikes, especially when the government does not have funds of addressing the issue, they pose challenges in legalizing interventions mostly because no clear framework prevails for enforcing intervention (Guraziu, 2012).

In conclusion, to promote democracy or the needs of international or humatirian intervention, it should come from internal factors, not external influence, because democracy should be building on the culture roots, not in an “American value” or another country’s standers values. I don’t believe that America has its values, because of the diversity in religious, ethnicity, and culture. Egypt did not face an international intervention so far because during all the coup and the revolutions, Egypt was under control, and there were no reasons for international intervention as long as the local government has the situation under control. It is evident that restricted rights in matters of intervening against extreme issues, such as genocide are the idea. Therefore, in the event of forceful and frequent exercise of the right, particularly by the UNSC, it is crucial to exercise care while refraining from confusing the exemption with the rule. Moreover, it is crucial to note that not all far-reaching abuses of human rights warrant humanitarian interventions by armed military. Also, when disregarding the injustices tolerated beyond the law, politics, and order considerations, it would be vital to realize that the values are crucial and should be accorded significant respect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

http://sites.stedwards.edu/culf3331su17naief/

Ford Institute. (2017). Controversies about humanitarian military intervention. Retrieved from http://www.fordinstitute.pitt.edu/Portals/0/Pub_PDF/SeyboltChapter1.pdf

Guraziu, R. (2012). Is humanitarian military intervention in the affairs of another state ever justified? Retrieved from http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/Is%20humanitarian%20military%20intervention%20ever%20justified.pdf

Haas, Peter M., and John A. Hurd. Controversies in Globalization: Conflicting Approaches in International Relations. Second Edition. A Thousand Oaks, California: SC Press, 2013. Print.

Krasniqi, F. (2016). Are military interventions inevitably doomed to backfire? Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2016/03/23/are-military-interventions-inevitably-doomed-to-backfire/

  1. (2017). Who is responsible for protecting people from gross violations of human rights? Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Blog # 8 Abdel Fattah el-Sisi Background and His Roles as a President

 Background of the president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi:

Abdel-Fattah Said Hussein Khalil Sisi, born on 19 November 1954, is the sixth and current President of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Supreme Commander of the Egyptian Armed Forces. He was elected for four years after his success in the 2014 presidential elections. Since 12 August 2012 until his resignation on 26 March 2014 to run for president.

Military Qualification:
He began his military career in 1970 as a student at the secondary air school.
He graduated from the Egyptian Military Academy in 1977 with a bachelor’s degree.
He earned a master’s degree from the College of Command and Staff in 1987.
He earned a master’s degree from the College of Command and Staff British in 1992 the same specialty.
He received a fellowship from the Higher War College Nasser Higher Military Academy in 2003.
Fellowship of the College received a US Supreme War in 2006.

His career:
Head of Information and Security Branch of the General Secretariat of the Ministry of Defense.
Commander of a mechanized infantry battalion.
Extension defense of Saudi Arabia.
Commander of a mechanized infantry brigade.
Commander of the mechanized infantry brigade (2nd division).
Chief of Staff of the northern military region.
Commander of the Northern Military Region.
Director of military intelligence and reconnaissance.
General Commander of the Armed Forces and Minister of Defense.
President of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

 

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi Road to The Presidency:

During the period of the rule of the Military Council:
The youngest members of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces not by his choice of office. He was the first to confirm that, in March 2011, members of the military police conducted what the media knew as virginity, saying it was justified; it protects girls from rape and protects soldiers from rape charges.

During the period of President Mohamed Morsi
On August 12, 2012, then President Mohamed Morsi issued a decree to upgrade the Sisi from the rank of brigadier general to the rank of the first team and appoint him as Minister of Defense and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, replacing Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, then head of military intelligence and reconnaissance. The Freedom and Justice Party at that time considered him a defense minister with the flavor of revolution.

During the period of President Adli Mansour
On January 27, 2014, he was promoted to the rank of Marshal of the decision of President Adli Mansour, was preceded by a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces announced that it agreed with the “popular mandate” to the Minister of Defense and then Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to run for the presidency. On 26 March 2014 officially announced his resignation from office and run for the presidential elections, after a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces attended by President Adli Mansour, and has during an upgrade team Sidqi Subhi to the first team and his appointment as defense minister Khalifa Cisse in the next day.

Candidacy for the Presidency:
On March 26, 2014, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi announced his resignation as Minister of Defense and was officially nominated in the presidential elections. In April of that year, he submitted his candidacy papers, which included some 188 thousand power of attorney. After the closure of the candidacy Will be between Sisi and Hamdeen Sabahi only in the elections held in May 2014 with the participation of Egyptians inside and outside Egypt. Sisi won 96.9% of the vote.

 

 

 

Reflection:

The controversy to him is when he Won the Egyptian presidential elections held at the end of May 2014 by 96.1% according to data issued by the Electoral Commission and questioned by many parties, both in terms of the size of participation or the percentage of winning.It was interesting that the government media, as well as the opposition, reported a very low turnout in the first two days, prompting the committee to extend the vote to a third day, eventually producing a much larger result than appeared in the media.During the first year of his rule, he faced major economic and political crises. While his supporters, especially those working on private channels, defended his ruling, experts believe that the Egyptian economy collapsed during the Sisi era and became dependent on the aid of Gulf states. And services in an attempt to bridge the deficit.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Blog #7 The Temporarily President of the Arab Republic: Adli Mahmood Mansour

How Adli Mahmood Mansour became a President:

Adly Mahmoud Mansour, President of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, was temporarily President of the Arab Republic of Egypt for a period of transition, as a result of large demonstrations; led to the Egyptian armed forces led by General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and then the dismissal of President-elect Mohamed Morsi one year after assuming the post of President of the Republic ; In response to the demonstrations in various streets of Egypt, and therefore announced the armed forces to disrupt the work of the Constitution of 2012 and then installed Adly Mansour as interim President of the Constitutional Court, after agreeing with some national forces opposed to the rule of Mohamed Morsi on a new road map of the country in cooperation with Sheikh AL -Azohr and Papa Coptic Orthodox Church. The presence of a representative of the Nour Party and the approval of the road map.
The political forces in support of Mohamed Morsi and its supporters who organized demonstrations and sit-ins in the fourth and the most important fields of the provinces considered that the measures are known as the road map constitute a military coup against the legitimacy of Morsi as an elected party. These forces expressed their opposition to organizing demonstrations abroad despite the justification of the forces. Armed that this was down to the will of the people and not a coup.
Adli Mansour was appointed as a member of the Supreme Constitutional Court under former President Hosni Mubarak in 1992, then assumed the presidency of the Supreme Constitutional Court on 30 June 2013 and was sworn in as President of the Court on July 4 before being sworn in as President of the Republic.

 

Adli Mahmood Mansour as a President:

Opposition demonstrations called for the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi, which was met by other demonstrations of supporters of the President calling for not departing from constitutional legitimacy. The Egyptian armed forces, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Minister of Defense and Military Production, announced that the Egyptian army was fully biased towards the people and gave 48 hours to the presidential institution and all political forces to resolve the crisis. As a result, President Mohamed Morsi issued a speech on Egyptian television calling for adherence to constitutional legitimacy as a president elected by the people. On the basis of this speech, opposition forces and parties announced their dissatisfaction with Morsi’s recent speech. He called for more complications than the solution. Claiming to leave.
Adli Mansour was sworn in as President of the Court on 4 July, although he was appointed on June 30, 2013, just minutes after he was sworn in, the right of the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the Supreme Constitutional Court. Constitutional and “legislative power” after the dissolution of the Shura Council and the “executive branch” as president. And issued a public decision to form a committee of experts of 10 legal to amend the Constitution. During his presidency, he issued a republican decree changing the right of obedience by members of the armed forces, removing the phrase “to be loyal to the President of the Republic”. And issued in November 2013 a law to allow the Minister of the Interior to prevent the demonstration if they constitute a “threat to security.” On February 26, 2014, he issued a public decree requiring the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to approve the appointment of the Minister of Defense, and that this appointment is for two full terms.

 

 

Reflection:

In my point of view, Adli Mahmood Mansour was a part of the ” Game of Throne” in Egypt at the time for Al-Sisi to became a president. My reasons came from the hold of power by one man in the republic to adjust the constitution, which I disagree with such methods like holding the legislative power and the executive branch by one party.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Blog # 6 Mohammed Morsi as President of the Republic of Egypt

Mohammed Morsi and his relationship with Gaza and Hamas

The relations between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas have been close for a long time. In talks with Hamas leaders in Cairo only weeks after he was sworn in, Morsi promised to “take measures that would ease the burden on the lives of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”
Hamas has held unprecedented celebrations in the Gaza Strip, which controls it immediately after the announcement of Morsi victory in the Egyptian presidential elections. This victory allowed the movement to strengthen its relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and held several meetings between Morsi and the head of the political bureau of the movement Khaled Meshaal and the Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and received official cooperation on the economic and security level.
“We will not leave Gaza alone. Today Egypt is completely different from yesterday’s Egypt. We tell the aggressor that this blood will be a curse on you and will be an engine for all the peoples of the region against you. Stop this farce immediately,” Morsi said. We will never be able to stand before her, the anger of a people and leadership. ”
And took a practical position to show Egyptian solidarity with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip when the former Prime Minister Hisham Qandil sent an official Egyptian delegation to provide all possible assistance to the people of the sector, which prompted many countries, Arab and Islamic, to follow the example of Egypt, Official and popular to Gaza to show support and support.
President Mursi ordered the opening of permanent crossings between Egypt and Gaza to receive Palestinian patients for treatment in Egyptian hospitals and treat them as Egyptians.
Egypt did not only do so, but led a diplomatic and political movement that succeeded in ending the aggression on Gaza, days after it broke out under an Egyptian-sponsored truce treaty, which confirmed Egypt’s restoration of its pivotal role in the region.
The Egyptian government has forgiven many of the tunnels through which food, medicine, and weapons are also being transferred and opened crossings with Gaza at times.

 

 

The timeout of the armed forces and Tamarod movement

At the end of April 2013, a rebellion movement called Tamarod for a withdrawal of confidence from Morsi. We called for an early presidential election. The movement called for the June 30, 2013, demonstrations, based on signatures it said it collected from 22 million Egyptians

On July 1, 2013, the armed forces set a deadline of 48 hours to meet the demands of the people in the June 30 demonstrations. Otherwise, it would intervene and announce a “future map and procedures to oversee its implementation.”
The statement, which was broadcast on state television, said that the Egyptian scene witnessed demonstrations and the exodus of the people of Greater Egypt to express their opinion and will in an unprecedented peaceful and civilized manner. “Everyone saw the movement of the Egyptian people and heard its voice with utmost respect and attention,” he said, stressing that ” To receive the people in response to his movement, and his appeal from each party bears some responsibility in these dangerous circumstances surrounding the homeland”.
The armed forces said in their statement that “they will not be part of the circle of politics or government, and do not want to depart from their role in the original democratic thought emanating from the will of the people,” noting at the same time that “the national security of the State is at great risk to developments that The country is witnessing, and we are given the responsibilities of each according to his position, to deal with what is appropriate in order to prevent these risks”.
She added that “the early armed forces felt the seriousness of the current situation, and the demands of the great Egyptian people, so have already set a week to all the political forces in the country to agree and get out of the crisis, but this week passed without the emergence of any gesture or action, which led To the exit of the people with determination and determination, and in full freedom in such a remarkable manner, which raised admiration and appreciation and attention at the internal, regional and international levels”.

 

Reflection:

Mohammed Morsi was influenced from inside by Muslim Brotherhood and from outside by the United Staes. In result,  Morsi’s came from the Muslim Brotherhood organization, which considered as a terrorist organization was support by U.S. And they have a huge influence on him because they believed they were going to serve the U.S. interests in that region. Instead, Morsi got deposed regard what I consider as popular demands and a military coup at the same time.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Blog #5 Hosni Mubarak and the controversy of 40 years of rule

Mohammad Hosni El Sayed Mubarak regime results.

He was re-elected president of the Republic during a referendum on the presidency in 1987, 1993, 1999 and 2005 for five consecutive terms. Many called for amending the constitution to allow multiple candidates for the presidency and to be elected directly instead of the referendum. Thus, his reign is one of the longest periods of rule in the Arab region. In February 2005, Hosni Mubarak was invited to amend Article 76 of the Egyptian Constitution and how to choose the President of the Republic. The People’s Assembly voted in favor of this constitutional amendment, which made the presidency directly elected for the first time in Egypt by citizens and not by referendum.  Securely and economically, so far, it is challenging to be able to achieve it and waste it for public money. It was found in favor of investors and capital only. During his time there was an increase in labor strikes, the spread of torture in police stations and criminal investigations, and the intensification of violence against women.

 

Mohammed Hosni resign on January 25 revolution 

On January 25, 2011 began a wave of demonstrations reached its peak on Friday, January 28, where the number of participants by eight million people across Egypt, and faced the Egyptian regime of these demonstrations violently led to the deaths of hundreds, especially in the city of Suez, the demonstrations evolved until the withdrawal of troops Police and the Central Security of the Egyptian streets, on the fourth day (Friday, January 28) the army was brought down into the cities and the army leadership announced that it would not be exposed to the demonstrators, Mubarak made two speeches during the events, announced in the first of a set of decisions described as reforms, In the second he will not run for a presidential term c After the demonstrations, he began shouting slogans pro-Mubarak and clashed with the protesters demanding the overthrow of Mubarak’s rule in several areas, most notably Tahrir Square in central Cairo in the absence of the intervention of the army.

On February 10, 2011, his deputy, Omar Suleiman, was delegated in a statement to the people, but the statement did not receive any approval. As a result, the demonstrations intensified and millions took to the streets demanding his departure. After a delay of 18 days, the president stepped down under the pressure of the January 25 revolution on February 11, Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces. Millions poured into the streets of Cairo and other Arab cities to celebrate his departure, especially in Tahrir Square.

 

 

Reflection:

During Mubarak’s era, Egyptian people suffered oppression and the corruption within the government system. Economically Egypt was so poor comparing to the resources the Egypt has. For example, Suez can benefit the egyptian economy in so many ways for a long run. Also, Egypt had relied on external investors and that basically removed the middle class in the Egyptian population. However, the corruptions that existed during Mubarak’s era had the people come out to the streets and protest for a new president. On Feb 25th, Millions of Egyptians started demonstrating in Tahrir Square, where Egypt exposed to a new era of liberty.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Blog #4 Mohammed Anwar Sadat & israel-plastain conflict

Peace treaty between Egypt and Israel ( Camp David )

President Sadat signed the Camp David agreement with Israel, On November 19, 1977, President Sadat took his decision, which caused a stir in the Arab world by visiting Jerusalem, in order to push the wheel of peace between the Israelites. In 1978, he traveled to the United States to negotiate land recovery and peace as a legitimate requirement for each country. During this trip, the Camp David Peace Agreement was signed under the auspices of President Jimmy Carter. The Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was signed by US President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The agreement is a framework for negotiation consisting of two agreements: the first framework for a unilateral peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, and the second on principles for comprehensive Arab peace in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights.
The first agreement ended with the signing of the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, in which Israel worked to return the occupied Egyptian territories to Egypt.
He has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin for their tireless efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East.

 

 

Mohammed Anwar Sadat assassination

By 1981, the government had carried out a wide-scale campaign of arrests, including Islamic organizations, Coptic church officials, writers, journalists, leftist and liberal thinkers. The number of detainees in Egyptian prisons reached 1,536, following signs of popular unrest and discontent with Israel and the country’s economic policies.

On October 6, 1981, he was assassinated at a military parade on the anniversary of the October War. He was assassinated by the Islamic Jihad( Muslim Brotherhood), which was strongly opposed to the peace agreement with Israel. They shot Sadat, wounding him with a bullet in the neck and a bullet in the head. Chest and a bullet in his heart which led to his death.

 

 

Reflection: 

The Arab countries did not respond favorably to his visit to Israel, and the Arab countries worked to boycott Egypt and suspend its membership in the Arab League. It decided to transfer the permanent headquarters of the Arab League from Cairo to Tunis. This was at the Arab summit held in Baghdad at the invitation of Iraqi President Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, which resulted in the appeal of the Egyptian president to reverse his decision of a unilateral peace with Israel, which would harm Arab solidarity and lead to the strengthening and domination of Israel and its penetration into Arab life and its monopoly on the Palestinian people. dedpite the Arab countries negative relationship position with Al Sadat, he got assassinated by Islamic Jihadist regard his relations with Israel.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Blog Post #3 Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Arab nationalism

the Arab nationalism

Before 1957, Arab nationalism was the dominant ideology in the Arab world, and the Arab citizen Nasser was considered his leader without question. The historian Adir Louis ha credited the “Karisma” of Abdel Nasser, which was reinforced by his victory in the Suez crisis, and the Cairo-based Sawt Al-Arab radio station, which published Nasser’s ideas throughout the Arabic-speaking world

In January 1957, the United States adopted the Eisenhower Doctrine and pledged to prevent the spread of communism in the Middle East. Although Nasser was opposed to communism in the region, his leadership of the Arabs was seen as a threat by pro-Western countries in the area. Eisenhower tried to isolate Nasser and reduce his regional influence by trying to turn King Saud into his balance. Also in January, Jordan’s elected prime minister, pro-Nasser, Suleiman Al-Nabulsi joined Jordan to a military treaty with Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

 

 

Six Days War and Gamal Resignation and beyond

On the morning of June 5, 1967, the Israeli Air Force struck Egyptian air bases and destroyed a large part of the Egyptian air force. Before the first day of the war, Israeli armored units had penetrated the Egyptian defense lines and captured the city of El Arish. The next day, Amer ordered an immediate withdrawal of Egyptian troops from Sinai, causing the majority of Egyptian casualties during the war.
Israel would easily take over the Sinai and the Gaza Strip from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria. Nevertheless, the Arabs were rightful to the claims of the Arab Radio station that the Arab victory was imminent. On June 9, Nasser announced on television to citizens of Egypt defeat their country. He announced his resignation on television later that day and relinquished presidential powers to his deputy.

 

 

Reflection:

The features of Nasser’s presence are numerous, although the most prominent of these are the verbal and intellectual battles that continue after all these years about what he has achieved and what he has failed about, the pros and cons of his experience. But the most salient feature of his actual presence in the minds and minds of the Arab people is the images of the leader High with every demonstration against the American and Zionist occupation of Iraq and Palestine, or against the inability of the Arab rulers and their dictatorship. Abdel Nasser is still a safe haven for people who sided with them and believed in him and his ideas.

Although Nasser has gone many years before the spread of technological innovation and information technology is amazing, the Internet, but it is also not lost in the area. Once the name of Abdel Nasser on any of the famous search engines on the network brings you thousands of results from articles and studies About Abdel Nasser and his covenant and experience and hundreds of sites that talk about him or follow his national and national plan and consider him a symbol.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Blog #2: Struggle for Power under the First President

Mohamed Naguib

Mohamed Naguib Askari, Egyptian politician and first president of the Republic of Egypt. He remained in power only a short time after the proclamation of the Republic. He was removed by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Revolutionary Command Council and placed under house arrest for 30 years. His name was removed from history books and textbooks.

Important dates during Naguib era:

  • The first president of the Republic of Egypt after the termination of the property and the declaration of the Republic.
  • He participated in the 1948 war, and despite his great rank (brigadier-general)
  • After the 1948 war, Naguib returned to Cairo as commander of the officers’ school
  • Revolutionary Command Council decides to remove from the post of Naguib the presidency of the Republic

 

Reflection:

I was very surprised, because there are a variety of  achievements during Naguib era. Despite the prominent political and historical role of Muhammad Naguib, after his overthrow from the presidency, his name was removed from the documents, all records and books, and his appearance or appearance was completely banned for thirty years until many Egyptians thought he had died.
Also it bothered me a little bit that It was mentioned in the documents and books that Abdel Nasser is “the first president of Egypt,” and this continued until the late eighties when he returned to appear after his death and restored decorations for his family, and called his name on some installations and streets. For example, a lot of people hates Mr. president Donald Trump, but you cant erasing his achievements.

 

 

Members of the Revolutionary Command Council

The Revolutionary Command Council was formed following the success of the July 23 Revolution and the departure of King Farouk I of Egypt and Sudan to the land of Egypt on the Egyptian Navy’s Yacht Al Mahrousa. The Revolution Command Council expelled King Farouk, citing the administrative corruption that spread in the country in its later days Ministries to the extent of selling ministries to those who pay more. The Council was formed to manage the affairs of the country alongside the Trusteeship Council on the throne of King Ahmed Fouad II, but soon the Council was isolated by virtue of Egypt after the abolition of property and the declaration of the Republic.

  • Decisions were issued focusing on the need to convene an assembly to discuss and approve the new constitution.
  •  Abolition of martial law, censorship of newspapers and the release of all political detainees.
  • Muhammad Naguib was defeated in the Battle of March 1954.

 

 

 

Reflection:

its interesting to that Muhammad Naguib took the blame for the defeats in the battle of March 1954 and Nasser strongly opposed Naguib’s resignation, fearing that demonstrations would erupt. Some see that the March crisis was not just a public struggle for power between Muhammad Naguib and the members of the Revolutionary Command Council. The crisis was even more profound. It was a struggle between two different directions that demanded democracy and a healthy parliamentary life in accordance with the sixth principle of the revolution. while others see that the crisis was just a power struggle between Mohammed Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser. I think after all Nasser was looking further by being a precedent.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Blog #1: King Farouk and the Free Officers Revolution

The King of Egypt Farouk The First and British 

The British protectorate of Egypt was proclaimed after the declaration of February 28, 1922, and Egypt became a kingdom. The first constitution of the country was established in 1923 following independence. Despite the termination of protection, Britain retained four features:

  • England’s right to secure the transportation of its empire in Egypt
  • England’s right to defend Egypt against foreign aggression or interference
  • Protection of foreign interests and minorities
  • England’s right to act in Sudan

Reflection:

I just know that King Farouk sought to modify Britain’s system of inheritance of government in Egypt to be confined to his offspring rather than the largest children of the family, was what he wanted and notified the British consent and be the heir to the throne of the Pharaohs and descendants after him, King Farouk issued a royal order on April 13, 1922 The succession of the throne, and the official title of Farouk is “His Royal Highness Prince Farouk,” also called the “Prince of Upper Egypt.”

What surprised me the most is the He was forced by the revolution of 23 July 1952 to abdicate his son Ahmed Fuad, then six months old which I think created chaos and mess in the kingdom of Egypt.

 

 

Movement of Free Officers (Egypt) 1952 

After the defeat of the Arab armies in Palestine in the 1948 war and the proclamation of the State of Israel carry many Egyptian military officers the responsibility of the corruption situation army and military defeat on the shoulders of King Farouk I and the government, desired to reform the military situation arose, Gamal Abdel Nasser was carrying a high rank of the Egyptian Armed Forces was one participant in the Palestine war officers has led the performance of non-traditional during operations, he founded the organization Free officers have included organizing a group of officers from the junior ranks (at the time) with the blessing of Major General Mohamed Naguib, who was not a member of it and was at that time had been elected president of the clubOfficers did not have the love of King Farouk.

Following the revolution, important legislation was issued clarifying the main objectives:

  • Cancellation of civil ranks August 2, 1952.
  • Disinfection of government administration August 4, 1952
  • Agrarian Reform Law 9 September – September 1952
  • Comprehensive amnesty for political crimes 16 October – October 1952
  • Declaration of the abolition of the Constitution 1923 December – December 1952
  • Abolition of political parties (January 18 – January 1953).

 

 

Reflection:

King Farouk was the last king of kings in Egypt, and The Free Officers Movement is a peaceful change movement that took the form of a military coup send him to exile. King Farouk rules continued for sixteen years until he was overthrown by the Free Officers’ Organization in the July 23 Revolution and forced him to abdicate his son Ahmed Fuad when he was six months old. This movement shaped into a military coup, and after then the presidency system began in Egypt. I just know that two members  of Movement of Free Officer out of out of the six leaders of Movement of Free Officer which are Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat. This movement changes the history of Egypt by transformation it to modern democracy.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorised

Hello world!

Welcome to your brand new blog at St. Edwards University Sites.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site, check out our Edublogs User Guide guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorised