“Newton”… despite many

Dialogue between me and “Newton” has not stopped – despite being intermittent – since I started writing in Almasry alyoum newspaper at the end of October 2012… and perhaps the most heated parts of the dialogue were the ones concerning the July 23^rd revolution, Gamal Abdel-Nasser, Nasserism, Nasserists, and also Socialism.

Newton used to always confirm that he believes the most important thing Nasser achieved and that lasted after him was what has to do with the social relations and protecting the poor… in such regard, Newton cites the example that before 1952, as he belongs to a socially powerful family, he could order that a certain peasant leaves the village along with his family and cattle – in case he had any – as soon as possible; meaning “tomorrow morning”… but after the revolution and until now, no one can do such thing to any peasant… away from this, Newton’s opinion of the revolution, its leader, and ideas were and still are severely criticizing.

I, in turn, had the opinion that the revolution, its leader, and ideas were not free of mistakes but it is better that we draw lessons and provide alternatives so that we do not fall in the trap of reproducing the same phenomenon.

In the last week of July 2017, Newton wrote three articles and followed them by a fourth one that, in my opinion, does not only has a special importance, but I also consider it as the most important thing written in the last two decades about an important era of Egypt’s history… of course, I will not rewrite what Newton wrote as the articles are available… all of these articles were about Gamal Abdel-Nasser.

However, I would like to stop for a while at some notices… first, the writer proved that the concepts of objectivity and seeking the common good are two possible things if he wanted to adopt them to prove in the same time that he is away from subjectivity and Ad hominem… as many of those who tackle the mission of evaluating the historic events and public figures sometimes lack the ability to reach the truth for two reasons… first, due to absence of documents and lack of the main sources… second, forcing facts and concealing some aspects in order to serve a certain point of view… and so, if documents were available and sources were provided and the second reason was not there in the first place… then one can find a very good writing like what Newton did about Nasser and his practice of self-criticism and thorough re-evaluation of his regime.

The second notice is Newton’s ability to connect the past to the present through drawing lessons, demonstrating the necessity to benefit from them, and asking why we haven’t benefited from those lessons in the subsequent eras that followed… the writer did not hesitate to give examples, some of them could be very sensitive… which is considered a bravery attributed to the writer.

Third notice is, in the time when “Almasry alyoum” newspaper was publishing what Newton wrote about Nasser and his ability of self-criticism, re-evaluation of policies, and his accuracy in detecting his regime mistakes… it was publishing for others who pick from time to time the occasions related to July revolution and Nasser to “commit a certain kind of writing”… such kind of writing has to do with biology and has nothing to do with history or other social sciences any way.

As those who “commit writing” are closer to be very minute microscopic creatures and very poisonous ones in the same time… in biology, when one dies, his body starts to decompose until it is almost vanished and then come those microscopic creatures that nourish, reproduce, and secrete their poisonous secretions over all that is microscopic of the very remains of the dead body.

However, in the world of history and other social sciences, life and human experiences work in cycles or connected graphical lines… and there is no room for sayings or axioms of any kind that state “a community, a society, or a person are dead… and all what they did or achieved throughout their lives is over by their death”…and that is why we knew continuing serious studies about pre-historic eras and later historic ones when man knew about writing in drawings, symbols, and characters.

One wonders of the audacity – and not bravery – of those who commit such kind of writing and who definitely know that while they deliberately issue judgments of death penalty over historic eras and figures that have different opinions over them, they do, in the same time, issue the same judgments over whole nations that still keep what is positive regarding those eras and figures in their conscience and memory.

Back to Newton, again I tell him, this time in written and published words, that you were lucky… to prove one time after another that you do really belong to the Egyptian Nationalism, liberal ideology that respects the other party, and rules of scientific objectivity… and if someone wanted me to prove what I am saying, I have proofs to provide.

What “luck” is but the unknown that we were told to believe in… or one can say it is unexpected and unseen factors that contribute to the reality and continuity of human phenomena.

Translated into English by: Dalia Elnaggar

This article was published in Almasry alyoum newspaper on August 2, 2017.

To see the original article, go to:

http://ahmadelgammal.blogspot.com.eg/2017/08/blog-post.html

#almasry_alyoum #ahmed_elgammal #Egypt #Nasser #July_23_1952_revolution #Newton

The fallacy

The biggest and most dangerous fallacy - if not a lie – regarding the two islands’ issue is that some deliberately intend to divide dispute or quarrel parties into two categories. The first one includes those believing the two islands are Egyptian and that we should stick to our rights in them shouting out loud that land is honor, dignity, and homeland itself. The second, meanwhile, includes those believing the two islands are Saudi and should be returned back. Such differentiation describes the first group as the patriot one we should listen to and worthy to decide the nation’s fate while the second was the one including the traitors who agreed to cede our sovereignty on the two Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia; meaning they agreed to give away our honor and dignity, and hence we should not listen to them or even let them live on our land.

It’s not the first such incident in our contemporary history, especially after July 1952 revolution. Although History does not repeat itself, its incidents sometimes may look alike giving the same moral. Almost the same false arguments and dissemination took place at the time of the Anglo-Egyptian agreement of 1954 regarding evacuation of English troops, and even raged after signing and declaring the agreement to the public. Criticism, attack, and even claims of betrayal were leveled at Gamal Abdel Nasser and his fellow Free Officers[1]. No one of those attackers, who behaved as symbols of patriotism and honor and considered themselves the sage philosophers and genius professors of law and diplomacy of all times, paid attention to the efforts exerted by Nasser and the experts and scientists; members of the negotiating delegation, not even to the objective circumstances governing the negotiation atmosphere along with all the tiny specific details connected to the case. Nasser was then-Prime minister and head of the Egyptian delegation in negotiation. He was accompanied by Abdel Hakim Amer[2], Abdel Latif al-Bughdadi[3], Salah Salem[4], and Mahmoud Fawzi[5]. The agreement included thirteen articles in addition to other annexes and attachments. However article no. 12, which included three clauses, was the one under heavy attack.

The first clause in article no. 12 stipulated that: this agreement shall be effective for a period of seven years as of signing date. The second: the two governments shall negotiate during the last twelve months of the agreement’s effective period to decide all necessary measures that should be taken at the end of the agreement. The third clause: this agreement is rendered ineffective after seven years starting as of the signing date, and government of the United Kingdom shall transfer or take action regarding what is left of its proprieties in the Suez base at that time unless the two governments agree on extending this agreement. The fourth article also received fierce attack of betrayal claims for it has stipulated: “in the event of an armed attack by some outside power on any state member of the common defense pact of the Arab league signed upon in Cairo on April 13, 1950, or on Turkey at the signing of this agreement, Egypt shall provide to the United Kingdom all that is necessary to prepare the base for war and guarantee its effective management. Such facilitating measures include using the Egyptian ports within limits specified by ultimate urgency for the purposes before mentioned”. Severe criticism and claims of betrayal were directed at Nasser and his fellows accusing them of not expelling the English troops at once and that they gave away Egyptian territory when they agreed to the return of the English troops to the Suez base and Egyptian ports... Days passed and Britain was expelled not only from Egypt but also from the history of big nations after the Tripartite Aggression of the Suez Crisis on 1956 took place, in addition, the agreement was declared null and void.

Another example of such incident was when Egypt signed the agreement acknowledging Sudan’s right in self-determination provided that full self-governance in Sudan should start at once. It was on November, 1952. At that time, attackers claimed that July 1952 revolution had given away the Egyptian territory as they considered Sudan part of it, and called Nasser a traitor for he has agreed to give the Sudanese the right to decide their fate. Until our present time, some still refer any problem arising between Egypt and Sudan to that so-called giving away by Nasser and the July revolution.

All those hurling criticism, now and before, forgot what Nasser and the July revolution did when they called for the right of people to decide their fate and that freedom of countries is inseparable of that of people. They forgot that Nasser outshined in the whole world through two consecutive decades because he was one of the pioneers calling for national liberation. They also forgot that Egypt stood for the right of Third World countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to liberate.

Turning back to Tiran and Sanafir issue, I stop by those who made such ugly dissemination and say – ignoring for the first time names and lines written, including someone pretending to be the philosopher of all times – I think we should now focus on two issues. First, we should let our parliament fully take up its role as to debating the accord of outlining the Egyptian-Saudi maritime borders as per all criteria of precision in order to come out with the right decision. The second is to avoid any aftermath that may affect our relation with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and our brother Arabs in states of the Gulf Cooperation Council for I believe the siege imposed on our country from all sides; west, east, north, and south, requires that we should keep good relations with our direct eastern neighbor who did not hesitate to stand by our side at the darkest moments because our neighbor believes that Egypt collapse would eventually lead to his, sooner or later.

In my opinion, it’s not a matter of sticking to land or giving it away, nor a matter of betrayal or patriotism, but rather a matter of wrong or right judgment. The first lacks multi-sided justified causes while the second depends heavily on those justified causes. Nasser signed the Anglo-Egyptian agreement of evacuation on 1954, and before that al-Nahhas Pasha[6] signed the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936, and time was enough for Egypt to overcome what was not in her favor.

Translated into English by: Dalia Elnaggar

This article was published in Al Ahram newspaper on April 21, 2016.

To see the Arabic article, go to:

http://ahmadelgammal.blogspot.com.eg/2016/04/blog-post_20.html

#alahram #ahmed_elgammal #Egypt #july_23 #1952 #gamal_abdel_nasser #Sudan #Tiran #sanafir

---

[1] The Free Officers: (Arabic: حركة الضباط الأحرار‎) were a group of nationalist officers in the armed forces of Egypt and Sudan that instigated the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. It operated as a clandestine movement of junior officers during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Muhammad Naguib joined the Free Officers in 1949, after the war, and became their official leader during the turmoil leading up the revolution because of the hero status he had earned during the war, and his influence in the army. (Source: Wikipedia)

[2] Mohamed Abdel Hakim Amer: (Arabic: محمد عبد الحكيم عامر‎) (11 December 1919 – 14 September 1967) was an Egyptian general and political leader. (Source: Wikipedia)

[3] Abdel Latif Bughdadi: (20 September 1917 – 9 September 1999) (Arabic: عبد اللطيف البغدادي‎) was an Egyptian politician, senior air force officer, and judge. An original member of the Free Officers Movement which overthrew the monarchy in Egypt in the 1952 Revolution, Bughdadi later served as Gamal Abdel Nasser's vice president. The French author Jean Lacouture called Boghdadi "a robust manager" who only lacked "stature comparable to Nasser's. The two leaders had a fallout over Nasser's increasingly socialist and pro-USSR policies and Bughdadi subsequently withdrew from political life in 1964, although he mended ties with Nasser before the latter's death in 1970. (Source: Wikipedia)

[4] Salah Salem: (Arabic: صلاح سالم‎) (September 25, 1920 – February 18, 1962) was an Egyptian military officer, and politician, and a member of the Free Officers Movement that orchestrated the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. (Source: Wikipedia)

[5] Mahmoud Fawzi: (Arabic: محمود فوزى‎) (19 September 1900 – 12 June 1981) was an Egyptian diplomat and political figure of Circassian origin who was Prime Minister of Egypt from 1970-1972 and Vice President of Egypt from 1972-1974. (Source: Wikipedia)

[6] Mustafa el-Nahhas Pasha or Mustafa Nahhas: (Arabic: مصطفى النحاس باشا‎; June 15, 1879 – August 23, 1965) was an Egyptian political figure. (Source: Wikipedia)

Our immune system… second injury

I’m trying to detect another reason for the collapse of our Egyptian immune system in facing cancer of extremism and religion-proclaimed terrorism. I have already written about the precancerous condition’s spreading and taking command of our society. I also wrote about what I think was the first injury inflicted with our Egyptian immune system; that is duplicity of education system; Azhari[1] and modern, where the latter was established by Muhammed Ali Pasha[2], then ruler of Egypt, after his failure to fulfill Sheikh Hassan Al-attar[3]’s reform vision, that great man who called for developing and reforming education in the old mosque; al-Azhar. Such duplicity in education has led to another parallel duplicity in culture and conscience as I have detailed in last week’s article.

Today, I will write about what I think was the second injury that wreaked our Egyptian national immune system; that is the constant state of change inflicted with Egypt, as a society, in the time period extending from the collapse of Muhammed Ali Pasha’s attempt to modernize Egypt in the 19^th century until now, that change that hasn’t resulted in stability or completion of any other attempt to modernize our country. Thereby, it’s more accurate to be described as a state of discontinuity between each attempt and its normal development, and between attempts one another.

In depicting the movement of our history in a graphical form, we would find ourselves standing before non-continuous adjacent dwarfed lines representing the political, economic, and sociological aspects of our society, while it’s supposed to be a continuous line, with ups and downs, apexes and bottoms, albeit continuous. Without digging deep in our history, it’s ok to mention that the deterioration that wreaked Egypt prior to the Greek invasion had different interpretations. Away from causes lying behind it, we can detect a clear rift between pre-Greek-invasion Egypt and post-Greek-invasion Egypt, followed by the roman, and then by the Islamic Arabic one. Jumping forward to the modern era, we will discover that Muhammed Ali’s attempt to modernize Egypt has come to an end and even collapsed as per the consequences of the Convention of London on 1840, atop of those consequences was scaling down the Egyptian army. Afterwards came Isma’il Pasha[4]’s attempt that too came to a failure due to severe foreign debts and interference that paved the way for the British occupation to take place and make a clear disruption between Muhammed Ali descendants’ ruling eras until this dynasty was ousted of power by the revolution of the 23^rd July, 1952, which in turn failed to achieve its targets after it was hit by the 1967 defeat. Thereby, laying down foundations of liberalism and free market economy in society prior to 1952 was not complete and so was the attempt to adopt socialism in the hope of building a multi-party social democracy that came to an end after 1967.

After 1967 came Sadat, and later followed by his hand-picked successor Mubarak – they adopted the same policies in my opinion – where there was an attempt to go back to political liberalism and free economy. However, it was a botched one as despotism was mingled with corruption making it impossible to go any further, and then the revolution of the 25^th of January, 2011 erupted putting an end to that past era. And here we are still trying to move again from despotism and corruption, followed by a sectarian muslim brotherhood fascism, in the hope of finding our way to fascism-free political liberalism and national capitalism void of despotism and corruption.

That disruption in Egypt political and economic history had direct impact on its social structure as a clear class structure was not given due time to form in order to allow class conflict among society’s three classes; low, medium, and high, to take place on clear basis with each aware of its interests. What is more dangerous is that such political and economic deformations have resulted in an ugly sociological distortion represented in a new class that took benefit of despotism and corruption. That class had put everything at stake and traded in everything flouting all constitutional, legal, and ethical constraints that control the society’s social balance. This distortion has transferred as well to state institutions and could be noticed in the deeply-rooted rife corruption we witnessed and suffered, starting from the presidential palace to the least-ranked employee in a cooperative or a retail complex!

The right question to ask here is has this disruption hit all aspects in the Egyptian life? The immediate answer is “no”, because resistance pockets have been vigilant at the cultural level, in the broad sense of the word culture, especially that this disruption was due to foreign interference or presence, and therefore the national cause was always present and raging against occupying our land or breaking our will. That was when resistance movement had started since the Greek invasion and a new phenomenon of migration and finding refuge in the desert to form resistance teams was witnessed. Monasticism movement was more or less a continuation of this phenomenon. Resistance diversified between acting positive and another negative one by turning the back to all the ruler’s desires or actions. Connected chains representing the Egyptian resistance movement could be detected throughout ages until the disaster took place when the religion-proclaimed cancer took command of the cultural infrastructure of our country and came to power to declare they were going to stay for at least five coming centuries.

Such disruption in the political-economic sides along with its devastating effect on the social side – especially with the absence or delay in forming a clear class structure – was most notably and negatively demonstrated in hitting or dismantling the Egyptian middle-class, considered as the “dynamo” of the historical movement in view of many interested in social history. Some were of the view that a project seeking structure of the middle-class took place in the sixties. However, such project has suffered a severe blow by the unbridled economic Infitah[5]era that followed. That era was associated as well with migration of millions of Egyptians to oil-rich Arab counties. That was when the most devastating damage inflicted with the Egyptians’ culture occurred, but this matter deserves to be discussed in details in the coming article.

Translated into English by: Dalia Elnaggar

This article was published in Al Ahram on February 2^nd, 2016.

 To see the original Arabic version, go to:

http://www.ahram.org.eg/NewsQ/474696.aspx

#alahram#ahmed_elgammal#our_immune_system#Egypt#1952#1967#infitah#egyptian_middle_class#60s

---

[1] Azhari: (Arabic: أزهري) related to al-Azhar.

[2] Muhammad Ali Pasha: (Arabic: محمد علي باشا‎) (4 March 1769 – 2 August 1849) was an Ottoman Albanian commander in the Ottoman army, who rose to the rank of Pasha, and became Wali, and self-declared Khedive of Egypt and Sudan with the Ottomans' temporary approval. Though not a modern nationalist, he is regarded as the founder of modern Egypt because of the dramatic reforms in the military, economic and cultural spheres that he instituted. He also ruled Levantine territories outside Egypt. The dynasty that he established would rule Egypt and Sudan until the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser. (Source: Wikipedia)

[3] Hassan al-Attar: (Arabic: حسن العطار) an ex-chief of al-Azhar (1830-1835) who excelled in literature and modern sciences – which was rare among Azhar clerics at that time – and the first voice calling for reforming al-Azhar and education nationwide. He contributed to establishing high-tech educational institutions in Egypt like the schools of Alsun (languages), medicine, engineering, and others. One of his famous sayings was “we need to change our country and renew its knowledge”. Due to his good relationship with then-ruler of Egypt – Muhammed Ali Pasha– he urged him to dispatch students in scholarships to Europe in order to acquire knowledge.

[4] Isma'il Pasha: (Arabic: إسماعيل باشا), known as Ismail the Magnificent (31 December 1830 – 2 March 1895), was the Khedive of Egypt and Sudan from 1863 to 1879, when he was removed at the behest of the United Kingdom. Sharing the ambitious outlook of his grandfather, Muhammad Ali Pasha, he greatly modernized Egypt and Sudan during his reign, investing heavily in industrial and economic development, urbanisation, and the expansion of the country's boundaries in Africa. His philosophy can be glimpsed at in a statement that he made in 1879: "My country is no longer in Africa; we are now part of Europe. It is therefore natural for us to abandon our former ways and to adopt a new system adapted to our social conditions". (Source: Wikipedia)

[5] Infitah: (Arabic: إنفتاح) the Arabic word for the open door policy adopted by President Sadat in the years following 1973 October war. (Source: Wikipedia)