Latest news with #Sadat
Arab News
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
The earthquake's lessons and the maps in the balance
The latest war in the Middle East, both in terms of the course it took and its outcomes, resembled an earthquake. It was the latest of the earthquakes to hit the region: following the 1967 war, the 1973 war, Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem, the victory of the Iranian revolution and the US invasion of Iraq, to give a few examples. Earthquakes tend to change the trajectory of nations and the configuration of maps. Especially consequential in this regard are the conclusions that decision-makers draw from their assessment of the epicenter and its surroundings. One day, I was going over Dr. Osama Al-Baz's journey with him. President Sadat's trip to Jerusalem and its aftermath was the first issue President Hosni Mubarak's chief of staff and I discussed. He told me the story of Sadat's visit to Damascus before the famous trip. He told me about the visible discomfort he had seen on President Hafez Assad's face after his guest informed him of his decision. He then cited Sadat, saying that a leader must sometimes make difficult and unpopular decisions if he concludes that it is vital to his country's future. Sadat added that he respected Assad's decision to prioritize the stability and popular standing of his regime. However, he also spoke of his apprehension for Syria, as he feared the latter could be compelled to take the path of peace later on, accepting even more unpalatable terms than it could have obtained if Assad had joined Egypt. The same, he said, applied to Yasser Arafat. Al-Baz said that Sadat came up with the idea of visiting Jerusalem, not the Americans. It was the conclusion he drew from his reading of Egypt's economic trajectory and its need for peace, as well as his reading of the balance of power, the strategic relationship between the US and Israel, and the Soviet Union's decline. He added that short-sighted policies only serve to perpetuate suffering: our countries must join the march of progress and development; they must strive to reclaim their rights without artillery, corpses and carnage. Short-sighted politics amounts to leaving the resolution of crises in the hands of a doctor called 'time' Ghassan Charbel Al-Baz's remarks came to mind as I followed the trajectory Syria has taken, deciding to withdraw, at least militarily, from this conflict. Our conversation also came to me as I watched Israeli jets raining death on the Palestinians, who have resorted to banging pots and pans in the hope of bringing an end to the famine and the suffering of their children in Gaza. I was also struck by Al-Baz's remarks toward the end of our second session. He felt that he had gone too far in praising Sadat when he was serving Mubarak. He glanced at the walls of his office and said, 'I'll say more over dinner at the restaurant in Cairo,' seemingly hinting that the walls in our countries have ears. His comments about short-sighted policy stood out to me. Short-sighted politics amounts to leaving the resolution of crises in the hands of a doctor called 'time.' It is to prefer fleeting victories, regardless of their cost, to durable solutions and the gains they bring. Benjamin Netanyahu is a master of such policies and his have left the region bloodied. In his first meeting with Arafat, Netanyahu, with a blunt tone that verged on disrespectful, told the Palestinian leader that he did not support the Oslo Accords. He then did everything he could to push his legitimate Palestinian partner aside, chasing his dream of erasing the Palestinian people and seizing what remains of their land. With regard to Oslo's failure, we should also mention the role played by the suicide bombings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These operations led to the militarization of the Palestinian Intifada. Arafat had himself failed to resist the allure of militarization, which he felt would create a bulwark against the rising popularity of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Israeli society was beginning to gear toward the right at the time. Netanyahu's political program was gaining ground. President Mahmoud Abbas tried to keep Palestinian decisions in the hands of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, but shifting regional balances in the aftermath of the American invasion of Iraq drastically reduced his capacity to do so. Iran was developing its missile and tunnel programs, effectively placing the decision of war with Israel in its hands. As a result, the fate of Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Lebanon became tied to the Iranian-Israeli conflict, and the years of proxy conflict between the two finally came to a head with the recent direct clashes. Will the Trump administration conclude that Israel must be forced to take the path of peace with the Palestinians? Ghassan Charbel In recent years, the maps of several regional countries have seemed to hang in the balance. The side these maps would fall on seemed to hinge on the outcome of the conflict between Iran and Israel, and on the outcome of the deep, long-standing rivalry between the US and Iran. During this time, Tehran repeatedly told visitors, including the late Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, that it was ready to negotiate with the Americans on everything 'from Afghanistan to Lebanon.' But 'the tumor' (Israel) would not be included in any settlement, Iran emphasized, as its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei consistently insisted on the need to eradicate it. We are now watching truly horrifying scenes. The Israeli military machine is at the height of its powers. The chasm has never been bigger. Iran, meanwhile, has just watched its generals and scientists being buried after Israeli warplanes had dominated its airspace for days. The American strike on its nuclear facilities was a brutal and highly symbolic message, regardless of Tehran's insistence that it had won the war. It is clear that the US is the arbiter of the truce between Iran and Israel. It is also the only channel through which an agreement to end the Gaza massacre can pass. It is the only power capable of helping Lebanon if it chooses to rein in Israeli aggression. It alone can keep Iraq from going up in flames and can stabilize Syria's new authorities. The question remains: will the Trump administration conclude that Israel must be forced to take the path of peace with the Palestinians? The fate of the maps also depends on the conclusion Netanyahu draws from his wars on multiple fronts. It also depends on the lesson Khamenei sees in the funeral processions and the American offensive. Some calm is needed to determine whether any reassessment is possible. Could a government capable of making a difficult decision be formed in Israel, putting the country on a path toward a two-state solution? Can Iran show that it is willing to return to a less risky, less confrontational approach? The fate of the region's nations and maps hinges on the conclusions that Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei reach. This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.
The Hindu
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
From The Hindu, June 6, 1975: Sadat reopens Suez, but vows to regain areas lost to Israel
Port Said, June 5: President Anwar Sadat reopened the Suez Canal to-day in 'a contribution to peace' and commercial shipping entered the waterway for the first time in eight years. 'Egypt presents this step as a gift to the world in order to help the lives of all friendly and peace loving peoples,' Mr. Sadat said at the colourful reopening ceremony. But, he warned, there could be no real peace in West Asia until Israel withdrew from occupied Arab land. 'Egypt declares it determination to do its holy duty toward its land in the Sinal, the Golan, Palestine and the unsurped rights of the Palestinians,' he said. Mr. Sadat said, 'While making this initiative as a contribution to peace, Egypt reminds friendly nations that parts of its dear soil are still under foreign occupation and that an entire people are still suffering the consequences of suppression and homelessness.' Thousands of people massed along the streets of this still war-battered city as President Sadat's motorcade swept by.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Coming to Irondequoit: NYC Crepes & Shakes
IRONDEQUOIT, N.Y. (WROC) — A new dessert & more cafe is coming to Irondequoit: NYC Crepes & Shakes. It's at 738 E. Ridge Road, and will be open starting June 1. After that, it will be open every day from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. 'People can come and enjoy (at) this quiet and peaceful environment,' said first-time business owner Omid Sadat. Here, Sadat serves a wide variety of freshly brewed tea, juice, and dessert options: everything from shakes to a loaded crepe with fruit and ice cream, to a flavorful chai, and a Tres Leches cake with your choice of toppings. There will even be some breakfast options. Fresh and organic ingredients are an important part of their food. Even though Sadat is a first-time business owner in the US, you may have seen him out in the community. He worked for the us government in Afghanistan, and was brought back to the us in 2021 through Keeping our Promise. Since then, he has worked with multiple community organizations, including Action for a Better Community, even working as a teacher for refugees in our area. With this place, beyond serving tasty treats, he wanted to open to give back with NYC Crepes & Shakes. 'It's America,' he said. 'So we are going to be serving the best as we can for the people.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
IOL News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
BRICS+ Series: Egypt's Closed Rafah Crossing
Trucks carrying humanitarian aid line up on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip on March 2, 2025, after Israel suspended the entry of supplies into the Palestinian enclave. Israel said on March 2, that it was suspending the entry of supplies into Gaza, with artillery fire and an air strike reported in the territory after it and Hamas hit an impasse over how to proceed with their fragile ceasefire. Historical Context: Egypt's Peace with Israel The 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was met with strong condemnation from the Arab League, resulting in Egypt's expulsion and potentially contributing to the assassination of President Sadat. This Treaty, reached after decades of conflict, was seen as a betrayal by other Arab states due to its violation of the Arab League's 1967 Khartoum Resolution, which explicitly prohibited negotiations with Israel. Israel has escalated its aggression against Palestine since October 2023, resulting in numerous international crimes and tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths- many of them women and children, including the bombing of so-called 'safe zones' for Palestinians. The situation in Gaza, with its large young population, has been described as the world's largest open-air prison. Escalation in Gaza: A Humanitarian Emergency The phrase never again, often used in reference to historical atrocities, appears to be applied selectively. The situation in Palestine echoes the horrors of Nazi Germany; innocent Palestinians are subjected to similar propaganda and dehumanising language. Israeli leaders and soldiers have referred to Palestinians as human animals, threatened to turn Gaza into a "slaughterhouse," and vowed to "erase the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth." These statements have been cited as evidence in South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide. This selective condemnation highlights the hypocrisy surrounding the use of such language; it is only condemned for a select few or when it's too late. Israel's strategy involves misleading Palestinians about safe zones, only to attack those areas later. This forces Palestinians to flee to the Rafah border, their only remaining option. Despite being a shared entry point between Egypt and Gaza, Israel controls the Rafah border, undermining Palestinian sovereignty. In May 2024, Israel's military urged Palestinians to evacuate to Rafah, which they falsely claimed was safe. Consequently, over a million people gathered there. The Rafah Crossing is a humanitarian corridor vital for aid and medical evacuations, was recently retaken by Israeli forces, who raised their flag, symbolising their control. Rafah Crossing Under Siege On 9 April 2025, thousands of Egyptians gathered at the Rafah border in protest, demanding that humanitarian aid be allowed into Gaza. The demonstration—one of the largest in recent memory—reflects growing frustration among Egyptians over their government's stance. Protesters called for immediate access to food, medicine, and essential supplies for Palestinians, while criticising both Israeli aggression and Egypt's prolonged closure of the crossing. The pressure from within Egypt adds urgency to an already volatile crisis and highlights the internal political cost of inaction. Mounting Public Pressure in Egypt While a final ruling is expected to take years, the ICJ has issued several legally binding provisional measures. In January 2024, the court found it plausible that Palestinian rights under the Genocide Convention were being violated and ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent acts of genocide, including preventing incitement and ensuring humanitarian assistance. Subsequent orders reaffirmed these measures and specifically instructed Israel to ensure the unhindered provision of aid and to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah, emphasising the worsening humanitarian crisis. While not mandating a full ceasefire across Gaza, these ICJ rulings represent a significant step in holding Israel accountable under international humanitarian law. The mid-January 2025 ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian factions collapsed by mid-March 2025. Subsequent attempts to reinstate the ceasefire have been unsuccessful, leading to a resurgence of violence in Gaza and an increase in civilian casualties. The main agenda in the Israeli military occupation of the Rafah Crossing is to force Palestinians out, leaving the land open for Israeli occupation to continue. The behaviour of Israeli forces questions the validity of current mediation talks between Israel and Hamas, especially considering that Egypt is a key player in the negotiations. Egypt's Global Shift: From Mediator to BRICS Member Egypt's stance on the Gaza crisis is no longer just regional—it now carries global weight. Since joining BRICS in January 2024, Egypt has stepped into a broader diplomatic role, aligning with countries pushing for a more multipolar world order. As the only BRICS member bordering Gaza, its decisions at the Egypt Rafah crossing are under close watch—not just by neighboring states, but also by fellow BRICS nations advocating for humanitarian access and justice. Egypt's next moves could shape both the regional response and its growing influence on the global stage. Written By: *Dr Iqbal Survé Past chairman of the BRICS Business Council and co-chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and the BRNN *Banthati Sekwala Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group Egyptian & South African Specialist **The Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.
AllAfrica
07-05-2025
- Politics
- AllAfrica
Third World needs to ditch the 'Diplomacy of Non'
The first half of the Cold War period marked the emergence of an alternative diplomatic paradigm, one defined not by explicit ideological allegiance but by strategic detachment from the bipolar power struggle. The principles of non-interference, non-intervention and non-alignment became the hallmarks of what could be termed the 'Diplomacy of Non.' However, this agenda was not a construct in itself but rather a counter-construct against Western hegemony and, more broadly, against any external imposition on newly independent states. The roots of this approach were not solely based on anti-imperialist fears; they also reflected the sheer diversity of post-colonial nations, many of whom found it impossible to reach a consensus on political and economic models. Thereby, it received mutual recognition from democratic India to Communist China and many countries in between. Despite the inherent differences among post-colonial states, this approach secured widespread acceptance. It provided a framework for newly established nations to navigate international affairs without being drawn into the Cold War binary. The Bandung Conference of 1955 was a defining moment, where countries from Asia and Africa consolidated their commitment to non-alignment, reinforcing sovereignty as the bedrock of their international engagement. This consensus allowed weaker states to resist coercion, at least rhetorically, and to assert their right to self-determination in an era of geopolitical turbulence. Yet, the most vocal champions of this vision, India and China, often contradicted their own advocacy. India, while positioning itself as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), engaged in interventions within its neighborhood, such as in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 and Sri Lanka in the 1980s. China, too, pursued interventionist policies, most notably in the Korean War and Vietnam. The contradiction lay in the fact that while both nations rhetorically upheld non-interference, they strategically wielded power in their respective regions. The claims about neutrality could not survive their contradiction with realpolitik. Therefore, New Delhi itself aligned with the Soviet Union, while Beijing shifted towards Washington after a split with Moscow in the early 1970s. By the second half of the Cold War, the general orientation of the post-colonial states that concealed their sympathy for the anti-Western Soviet Union by the rhetoric of non-alignment looked West. Suharto's Indonesia and Sadat's Egypt are clear examples. These divisions undermined the 'third world' consensus, reaching a Western-dominated unipolar moment where most of the world embraced neo-liberal globalization, albeit with muted resentment. On the other side, the victorious West exhausted its liberal rhetoric and took this acceptance as an unlimited mandate. The disillusionment with liberal interventionism grew in the aftermath of military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus, the failure of the Arab uprisings and the strategic exposure faced later by successful democratic movements in Ukraine, Armenia, and lately Sudan revealed the vulnerabilities of any political transition. Adding to that, the war in Gaza and the unshakable support from Biden's administration, along with the morally oriented European Union, eroded the credibility of liberal internationalism. Eventually, the liberal consensus lost its relevance to realpolitik and its inherent contradictions, not to some authoritarian conspiracy, as Biden once claimed. Even within the United States, segments of the political right lament the removal of figures like Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi with a growing appreciation for stability over chaos caused by elusive democratization. Prominent MAGA figures today feel ideologically closer to Putin than the American liberal establishment. With Donald Trump openly dismissing democracy promotion and human rights as core tenets of US foreign policy, the moral justification for interference has faded. His administration's rhetoric frequently ridicules concerns over women's rights in Afghanistan, political prisoners and other liberal values that once served as a cornerstone of Western diplomacy. This shift signals that the US is no longer willing to expend political or military capital on interventions cloaked in democratic ideals. However, this does not imply that the US has adopted full military passivism. The ongoing military escalation in Yemen, along with provocative statements about taking over Canada and Greenland, suggests a turn towards a more overt realpolitik. Rather than interventions framed in liberal discourse, future US military actions are likely to be driven by stark strategic calculations, untethered from normative justifications. The US version of the 'Diplomacy of Non' will refrain from intervening, not generally but only in its global peers' sphere of influence. This can pave the way to better coexistence among great powers in a multipolar world, but it will not result in a 'global order.' As global power dynamics shift, the 'Diplomacy of Non' cannot be sustainable. India has gradually positioned itself as a middle power, engaging in strategic partnerships and military alliances, while China has emerged as a global power with expanding economic and security footprints. The very tenets of non-alignment that once shielded these nations from entanglement now appear less viable as they assume more proactive roles in global governance and regional security. In this evolving environment, the old order has unraveled, dismantling both its fair and unfair rules. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for emerging powers. The passive nature of the 'Diplomacy of Non', while historically useful, is no longer sufficient in an era of uncertainty. A constructive agenda is needed, one that moves beyond mere resistance to Western dominance and towards proactive rule-making. This is now more urgent than ever since the West has lost its ideological consensus, which has been contorted enough that it is unlikely to come back soon. If emerging powers wish to shape the new world order rather than merely react to it, they must lay down new rules that reflect contemporary geopolitical realities and push towards stability and development. Islam Alhalawany is a Beijing-based international affairs researcher and policy consultant. He is a Chevening Scholar with a master's degree in development and international business from Queen Mary University of London. Islam previously served as an assistant professor of practice and assistant dean for international collaborations at Jindal Global University in India. He worked as a senior research analyst at Standard & Poor's (S&P) in London and for the Egyptian government through research posts in Cabinet-affiliated think tanks. His work has been published by renowned think tanks, including the Atlantic Council, The National Interest, the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore and IDSC.
