One must remember when the National Democratic Party initially came to power back in 1952, with Mohammed Naguib as the figurehead president. It was the military that rose to power, capitalizing on the unpopular sentiments that came out of the defeat at the hands of the nascent Israeli Army, which showed much greater organization than the one put out by the Egyptians to crush them. It was time for King Farouk to go, and go he did, into exile in Rome, leaving a vast stash of porn and a ridiculous wardrobe. He would die after eating a gigantic meal in his new home.
Nasr and the Young Officers would take over and bring a surge in nationalism. Naguib, of course, would be deemed an enemy of the Revolution and put under house arrest as Nasr took power. Nasr has differed from his two successors greatly. First off, his response to violence directed at him showed a perseverance that engendered popularity in Egypt, as he took a bullet in the shoulder from a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but continued this impassioned speech. He emphasized relations with the third world, buddying up with the Non-Aligned Movement with Josef Tito of Yugoslavia and Jawaharlal Nehru of India to help it build steam in its beginnings. He took assistance from the Soviets more to oppose American assistance to Israel than to be their ally. His greatest victory, getting the French, British, and Israeli forces to withdraw following the Suez Crisis, was by no means a military victory, but it made him popular in the post-colonial world, where he fought off an attempt by the West to take back Egypt. The United Arab Republic failed, but it still engendered great popularity among all Arabs, and drew the ire of the puppetry that continues today in Saudi Arabia. It was Nasr who was willing to admit defeat at the hands of the Israelis in 1967,
only to be begged by the Egyptian people to come back to lead them. While one can question any Arab leaders' commitment to the Palestinian movement at the time, it was Nasr who was willing to broker a peace between Jordan and the PLO following the bloodshed of Black September.
Sadat had the practicality to see the benefits of being friendly with the United States. The intifah opened up Egypt to private investment and on the eve of the October War, the Israelis missed the cue for war when he kicked out all Eastern European advisors. The limited scope of the October War helped him to achieve his goals. He no longer needed war with Israel to gain popularity following the Camp David Accords, but he needed to show some sort of economic improvement, which was hard for him to come by. He had isolated Egypt from its neighbors, as peace with Israel had led to the country's forced exit from the Arab League (as well as the relocation of its headquarters from Cairo). This led to his assassination at the ceremony celebrating the 3rd anniversary of the peace he had made, at the hands of an officer in the Army of which he rose from to be a leader of the Young Officers. Khalid Islambouli, the lieutenant who shot him, declared, "I have killed pharaoh."
Mubarak took over from his position of vice president, having risen up as a member of the Air Force. He kept the status quo in Egypt's international relations that he inherited from Sadat, with peace from Israel and foreign aid from the United States. He has shown his strength against the opposition and made it legally impossible for them to take him out of power. Banning the Muslim Brotherhood killed his strongest opponent, but they are gaining strength with the protests this week.
So will the Egyptian army save the people once again as they did through Nasr and from Sadat? Their guarantees and their camaraderie with protesters during this past week may be an encouraging sign. Mubarak may have overstayed his welcome, and the first to inform him of this would be the military. Hopefully it will not be in a bloody display as with Sadat. It could be peaceful, seeing as millions are on the streets in Cairo right now asking him to step down. But this conflict is now in the hands of the military. It is up to them to decide Egypt's next step, and if they choose to follow the people's will, don't expect any Pharaonic ruler to come to power anytime soon.
-----------------------
But what of Jordan? Protests in Jordan are a scary development for Israel. The demographics belie the official name of Jordan. While it is a Hashemite Kingdom, Hashemites make up a minority and the Palestinian majority is actually over two thirds of the population. It's great that Queen Rania is Palestinian, but it will not appeal to the population. Black September already put a damper on relations between leadership and the Palestinians that continues today, and kicking out the cabinet will probably not be enough. It may be time for Abdullah to give up some of his power and let the Palestinian population have a real say.
What does this do for Israel? In the case that the Palestinians do gain power in Jordan, it will not be as large of an issue as it was when Saddam was in power and many right wingers feared a Palestinian Jordan connected to Saddam's money on one side and the West Bank on the other. Could it become an enlarged Palestinian state? While many Palestinians want to return to the way things were, demanding the right of return, this could open up more land and, possibly combined with the West Bank, make for a much more viable state. May this hypothetical state be a security issue for Israel? It should absolutely be looked at through a realist lens. But first these protests must continue to some point of completion.
No comments:
Post a Comment