Showing posts with label Tiran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tiran. Show all posts

Thursday, 21 April 2016

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:

#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)

Thursday, 14 April 2016

I wonder!!





I write these lines on Tuesday evening before any information on president Sisi’s meeting with intellectuals and others is to be revealed. I start by wondering about the stance adopted by some whom I know well are Arab nationalists either Nasserists or not, especially those who believe in the ideology and ideas of the late dear Dr. Essmat Saif ed-Dawla[1], the prominent Arab nationalist thinker. Wonder arises when I see those sanctifying the concept of Arab nationalism and considering it a priority above all believing that all borders should disappear and all Arab states’ sovereignty should end in order for the whole Arab nations to become one Arab country, we now see them wailing about transferring the sovereignty of those two arid little islands from one Arab state to another. That wailing that goes higher and higher turning into the greatest and most eloquent regional fanaticism as if Egypt has disclaimed one of its sacred treasures to a definite enemy.

What I understand is that true unionist and Arab nationalist is the one who opposes independence attempts meant to separate his Arab nation and opposes establishment of any new regional entities under any claim like the case in as-Saqieya al-Hamra[2] and Wadi az-Zahab[3] for example. In the same time, what he should care about most is that Arab land should stay Arab no matter which Arab state has the sovereignty over it. It’s the same case when we don’t mind to include our great country Egypt in the United Arab Republic[4] where the words Egypt and Syria together disappeared from the term. That’s why I wonder when I see all this wailing that I consider nothing but questioning our patriotism and a tactic adopted by those attacking president Sisi and the current regime; no matter who they are; terrorist muslim brotherhood members, or avenged nationalist or Marxist; those who cannot wait until matter is fully disputed and facts and documents deciding the two islands’ history are revealed.

I here move to what I think goes in the heart of the two islands’ issue and others; I start to agree with the point of view saying that the government failed in choosing the right timing and in serving – if I can use the term serve – the facts it owns starting with the documents and not ending by committees and negotiations that led to such decision. Why haven’t they prepared the nation for such thing by declaring discussions, committees’ formed, discipline adopted, and scenarios of the results that may come out? Why haven’t they negotiated about people reactions’ scenarios and means taken by Sisi and regime opponents; those who make use of any incident to turn facts into lies and falsity to question our stance and score points against the regime hoping that may lead to ousting it no matter the disastrous consequences are?

A lot of talking circulated about the timing including the one that the U.S.A have decided to pull out its troops from Tiran and that it, along with other parties, want to turn the strait into an international one, the matter that cannot be achieved – as some say – unless this strait is shared by two countries and not only one. Some also talked about the Egyptian-Israeli treaties that forbid Egypt from taking any measure or action that may change the two islands’ geography like establishing a bridge over them for example and that’s why transferring sovereignty or returning the two islands to its owner or signing them away to a new one does not submit to any treaty struck with the Hebrew state making such thing; I mean establishing the bridge, possible.

No matter what was said, we can say that having Professor Mufid Shihab[5] in the current crisis of the two islands or any other international case makes us feel comfortable that not a single sand grain will be signed away. I wish the man could have expressed his opinion and told the Egyptian people about the truth regarding the two islands.

For instance, let us assume that the two islands are Egyptian and that they submit to the conditions stipulated in the treaty with the Zionist enemy, and that Egypt wanted to make a diplomatic and political maneuver in order to make the most use of its mutual relations with its sister Arab country; Saudi Arabia, and to contribute to the development of Sinai and revive tourism in places hit by terrorism like Sharm esh-Sheikh and other cities, and that this maneuver was to transfer the two islands’ sovereignty to the Saudi Kingdom to evade the before mentioned treaties and achieve our main goal, and later see how to solve the matter with Saudi Arabia. Based on this assumption, why not have this maneuver as long as the land stays Arab, whether Egyptian Arab, Saudi Arab, or even Jordanian Arab… I direct my words to those calling for Arab nationalism and union?!

I have no doubt in Dr. Mufid Shehab patriotism and professionalism; the Professor of International law and brave negotiator, the one we all knew as a member of the great patriotic negotiators in Taba disputed case with the Israeli enemy, including Dr. Waheed Ra’afat[6], Youssef Abul-Haggag[7], Younan Labib Rizq[8], and others. Also, I can never question the nationalism and patriotism of a man like Dr. Assem ed-Dessouqi, professor of modern and contemporary history and true believer of the Unionist Arab nationalism ideology, who did not hesitate to affirm, citing scientific evidence, that the two islands are Saudi.

Another incident happened three days ago when I received a call from London where my friend Amin al-Ghaffari, well known for his beliefs in Nasserism and Arab nationalism and who paid the price for this out of his freedom when he was imprisoned two times, lives. Amin confirmed that he, along with all who were with him in the political guidance in Youth organization and Socialist institutes in the sixties, used to hear and repeat a piece of information saying that Tiran and Sanafir are Saudis but the Saudi Kingdom asked the two islands are to be put under the Egyptian sovereignty for issues that had to do with the Arab-Zionist conflict.

Anyways, and based on our solid ground of the unionist and Arab nationalist belief, we welcome the anticipated development in our dear Sinai… we welcome our brothers in Saudi Arabia and all those who live in it to our Egypt through the future bridge… we welcome thousands of job opportunities, shops, and busy hotel rooms… we welcome prosperity no matter the future bridge foundations are to be laid down on Egyptian, Saudi, or even Yemeni islands, since all are Arabs.

Translated into English by: Dalia Elnaggar



This article was published in Al Ahram newspaper on April 14, 2016.

To see the Arabic article, go to:

#alahram#ahmed_elgammal#tiran_w_sanafir#Tiran#sanafir#Egypt#saudi_arabia




[1] Essmat Saif ed-Dawla: (Arabic: عصمت سيف الدولة) (August 20, 1923 – March 30, 1996) was an Egyptian Arab nationalist thinker and activist known for his abundant wealth of books. (Source: Wikipedia)
[2] As-Saqieya el-Hamra: (SpanishSaguia el HamraArabicالساقية الحمراء, literally in Arabic, "Red Canal") is, with Wadi ez-Zahab or Río de Oro, one of the two territories that formed the Spanish province of Spanish Sahara after 1969. Its name comes from a waterway that goes through the capital. It’s a contested area between Morocco and The Polisario Front ("Popular Front for the Liberation of as-Saqieya el-Hamra and Río de OroArabicالجبهة الشعبية لتحرير ساقية الحمراء و وادي الذهب); a Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement aiming to end Moroccan presence in the Western Sahara. The Polisario Front is outlawed in the parts of Western Sahara under Moroccan control, and it is illegal to raise its party flag (often called the Sahrawi flag) there. (Source: Wikipedia)
[3] Wadi az-Zahab or Río de Oro(Spanish for "Gold River", Arabic: وادي الذهب) is, with as-Saqieya el-Hamra, one of the two territories that formed the Spanish province of Spanish Sahara after 1969 and is currently a contested area between Morocco and Polisario Front. (Source: Wikipedia)
[4] The United Arab Republic: (Arabic: الجمهورية العربية المتحدةwas a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria. The union began in 1958 and existed until 1961, when Syria seceded from the union after the 1961 Syrian coup d'état. Egypt continued to be known officially as the "United Arab Republic" until 1971. The president was Gamal Abdel Nasser. It was a member of the United Arab States, a loose confederation with North Yemen which in 1961 dissolved along with the Republic. (Source: Wikipedia)
[5] Mufid Shehab: (Arabic: مفيد شهاب) ex-chief of Cairo University and ex-minister in Mubarak’s regime. Dr. Shehab was a member of the team defending Egypt’s right in Taba. (Source: Wikipedia)
[6] Waheed Fikry Ra’afat: (Arabic: وحيد فكري رأفت) (March 18, 1906 – May 12, 1987) was an Egyptian International Law Professor. (Source: www.Marefa.org)
[7] Youssef Abul-Haggag: (Arabic: يوسف أبو الحجاج) a geographer, engineer, and geologist who was a member of the team defending Egypt’s right in Taba.
[8] Younan Labib Rizk: (Arabic: يونان لبيب رزق(27 October 1933 – 14 January 2008) was a prominent Egyptian historian and literary figure. He was a professor of history at Ain Shams University in Cairo; and was also appointed a member of the History Committee of the Supreme Council for Culture. He was formerly Director of Historical Studies at the Institute of Research and Arab Studies. Rizk was a prolific writer with a weekly column appearing in Al-Ahram newspaper where he founded and headed the History Studies Centre. He was the author of several esteemed publications which rendered him an authority on Modern History, which was the subject of his MA and PhD degrees in 1963 and 1967 respectively. Rizk received numerous awards and medals, including State Incentive Award in Social Sciences in 1995. On the national level, he played a significant role in the dispute over Taba with Israel in 1986–88. The issue was subject to international arbitration and was ruled in Egypt's favor. (Source: Wikipedia)