El-Sisi and Erdogan: Openness of interests and pragmatism
An-Nahar, Lebanon, September 6
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s visit to Ankara last week was far from an ordinary or fleeting event. It represents a significant moment in the current geopolitical landscape for both Egypt and Turkey. These two nations are pivotal players in the Eastern Mediterranean basin, with Turkey providing the northern maritime border and Egypt the southern one.
Their historical ties stretch back centuries, most notably from the victory of Ottoman Sultan Selim II [sic, Selim I] over the Mamluk Sultan Al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghuri in 1516 to the onset of the French invasion of Egypt in 1798 – nearly 300 years. Ottoman influence, although waning, persisted in Egypt through customs and traditions until 1882, when British occupation began, and vanished entirely with the Ottoman Empire’s collapse post-World War I in 1918.
Two vital points stand out here: First, Egypt and Turkey are the most populous countries in the Eastern Mediterranean basin, with Egypt home to over 110 million people and Turkey about 90 million. A significant majority of their populations are Sunni Muslims. Second, Egypt controls the Suez Canal, a critical maritime route connecting East Asia and Europe, while Turkey governs the Bosporus, a crucial passage linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and essential for Russian naval operations. This geographical and historical symbiosis underscores the crucial roles both nations play on the Mediterranean’s southeastern and northeastern shores.
Looking at the recent history of Egypt-Turkey relations, the last decade has been fraught with deep-seated disagreements. Tensions peaked following the fall of President Mohammed Morsi and the ascendancy to power of El-Sisi, who emerged from Egypt’s military establishment. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey criticized and opposed the new Egyptian government, mainly due to the collapse of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule in Egypt.
However, signs of détente have emerged over the past three years as Ankara revised its regional policies, particularly toward influential Arab nations, undertaking a reconciliation process with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This rapprochement involved sequential steps, culminating in the recent high-profile visits and diplomatic engagements.
El-Sisi’s visit was marked by extraordinary hospitality from Erdogan, who breached presidential protocol twice to emphasize the visit’s significance. The warm reception at the airport sent a clear message: Ankara is ready to move past old hostilities and open a new chapter with Cairo. Erdogan’s visit to Cairo in February and El-Sisi’s current visit signal key shifts in the regional geopolitical landscape during one of the most precarious periods in decades.
Multiple shared interests necessitate cooperation between Egypt and Turkey, including their roles as regional powers and their strategic positions amid escalating regional crises involving nations like Iran and Israel. Additionally, proxy conflicts raging from Iran’s border with Pakistan to North Africa, impacting Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia, further underline the necessity of this rapprochement.
Practically speaking, the region is teetering on the brink of catastrophe, with the October 7 events carried out by Hamas presenting a significant challenge to regional powers. Egypt and Turkey must collaborate to safeguard their interests amid the ongoing deadly conflict in Gaza, the West Bank, and other zones of Iranian influence, from Iraq to Syria, and Lebanon to Yemen. Egypt is profoundly impacted by the Gaza war, exacerbated by Iran’s actions that seek to destabilize the region at a high human cost.
In this volatile landscape, Egypt and Turkey must converge to address their shared challenges. The international stage is increasingly being described as either a new Cold War or a multifront global conflict. Economically strained and geopolitically pressured, Egypt and Turkey face formidable challenges. Egypt, in particular, is encircled by turmoil from Gaza to Libya and Sudan to the Horn of Africa, where the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project threatens its water security.
These pressing issues were central to the discussions between El-Sisi and Erdogan. Strengthening cooperation in military industries and boosting trade from $7 billion to $15 billion annually within a year demonstrates both nations’ desire for deeper, more substantive understandings. Resolving the contentious Muslim Brotherhood issue has paved the way for more significant collaboration, especially as the prolonged and complex Gaza war underscores the urgency for unified action.
Egypt’s strategic position via the Suez Canal and Turkey’s efforts to navigate the Syrian conflict with Russia underscore the necessity for bilateral cooperation. Turkey’s geopolitical maneuvering, including managing its relations with Russia and the United States, reflects the complex interplay of regional dynamics.
El-Sisi’s visit to Ankara signifies the dawn of a new era in Egypt-Turkey relations, marked by pragmatic cooperation and mutual interests across several critical issues. The overarching goal for both Cairo and Ankara is clear: There can be no turning back. – Ali Hamada
Did Hamas violate Sharia Law in its treatment of hostages?
Al-Arab, London, September 4
The killing of six Israeli hostages has struck Israel like a bombshell. Amid a surge of intense anger from Israeli citizens and the tears of the victims’ families, this event has been a searing issue for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Public opinion within Israel has turned against him, leading to conflicts with senior security officials and accusations that he sacrificed the hostages to save his government.
Nonetheless, Netanyahu has vowed to make Hamas “pay the price” and emphasized his commitment to securing the release of the remaining hostages and apprehending those responsible for the killings as soon as possible. While both sides exchange accusations, Hamas has placed the full responsibility on Israel, asserting that the hostages were killed by Zionist bombings of the Gaza Strip.
Assuming Hamas was involved in this incident, several objectives could be at play. These might include pressuring Israel and the international community to meet specific demands, deterring new attacks on Gaza, or using the remaining hostages as leverage for concessions or a ceasefire. Revenge is also a possible motive following Hamas’s recent directives to hostage guards about dealing with hostages if Israeli forces approach them.
This situation bolsters the theory that the hostages were killed. Statements from Abu Obaida, the spokesman for the Al-Qassam Brigades, after the start of the Al-Aqsa Flood campaign, suggest a brutal strategy. He declared that an Israeli hostage would be executed for every Israeli bombing targeting a house in Gaza and accused Israel of only understanding the language of force.
However, such actions are brutal and inhumane, directly opposing Islamic law. Islam prohibits killing to inflame the situation for personal or political gain. Hamas’s ambition to rapidly regain control over Gaza clashes with the Palestinian Authority’s more measured and diplomatic crisis management approach. The Palestinian Authority seeks to avoid stoking tensions or triggering conflicts, such as the Gaza war, which Hamas’s policies have exacerbated, often disregarding the people’s interests for the movement’s agenda.
On the policy front, the Third Geneva Convention outlines the treatment of prisoners of war, a standard Hamas has not met. This international law stipulates that prisoners must always be treated humanely. Article 13 specifies that causing death, endangering health, intimidation, and humiliation are all violations of this principle.
Islamic law’s guidelines for treating prisoners of war date back to 624 CE, when Muslims captured 70 enemy fighters at the Battle of Badr. Without any legislation on the status of prisoners of war, a large group of hostages was managed humanely. They were partly housed in a mosque and the rest among the Prophet Muhammad’s companions, who were instructed to treat them well. Historical records and religious texts document such humane treatment, including sharing the best available food with prisoners.
Despite these principles, Hamas has not adhered to Islamic law or international agreements in its treatment of prisoners. It mimics the brutal occupation policies used by Israel in Gaza, such as killing civilians, demolishing homes, and torturing and expelling Palestinian prisoners. These actions aim to leave Palestine exclusively for Jews. Hamas’s behavior is condemned by Muslims and Arabs alike.
Early in the conflict, videos showed Hamas fighters treating prisoners well, but their subsequent actions revealed a shift or perhaps the group’s true nature, seeking to escalate the war and destabilize the region, ignoring peace initiatives and truce proposals.
On the Israeli side, a legislative effort has been made to authorize the execution of prisoners, spearheaded by the extremist Israeli national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir. This proposed law aims to fulfill electoral promises and seeks to legitimize extrajudicial executions. Should this law pass, it would expose Israel’s fascist and racist tendencies, highlighting its practices as akin to gang behavior. This could benefit the Palestinian cause, provided Hamas’s actions and crimes, which many Palestinians reject, do not overshadow this point.
The coming days might bring surprises regarding Hamas’s future in Gaza following this atrocity. This incident could mark the end of its political influence among Palestinians, having ignited a fire that might consume itself before it can harm the occupying entity. – Abdel Bari Fayyad
Israelis are demonstrating, but not against genocide
Al-Ahram, Egypt, September 5
The ongoing social unrest sweeping Israeli cities, manifested in loud demonstrations and widespread strikes, reveals a glaring omission: There is a conspicuous absence of voices condemning the acts of genocide committed by the Israeli army against unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and the additional atrocities in the West Bank, including the tragic deaths of thousands of Palestinian children.
Furthermore, these demonstrations lack any call to address the root causes of the conflict with the Palestinians by adhering to international resolutions advocating for a two-state solution, which many view as the most viable path to peace. The primary focus of these protests has been the demand for the release of hostages held in Gaza, a movement that began with the families of these hostages following the Hamas attack on October 7.
This movement gained momentum as sympathizers joined in, culminating in a significant development the Histadrut, the Federation of Labor Unions in Israel, recently initiating a comprehensive strike to cripple the Israeli economy in solidarity with the hostages’ families. The Histadrut’s leaders have clearly defined their objective, representing an institution with a long history and a crucial role in the founding of the State of Israel. Their announcement underscores the singular aim behind the strike.
The stark contradiction in these disturbances and strikes – highlighting that they are not aimed at curbing Israeli aggression against Palestinians – became evident through statements from some of the hostages’ families. These individuals made it clear to the Israeli government and public that they are not disconnected from the broader Israeli consensus supporting the war in Gaza and the West Bank. In fact, their demands extend beyond the release of their relatives; they advocate for intensified military action against Gaza, with some even calling for the use of a nuclear bomb to annihilate all Palestinians.
Thus, the ongoing demonstrations and strikes do not conflict with the actions of the extremist government or the continued crimes perpetrated by extremists outside it. These crimes include killing Palestinians after depriving them of food and water, demolishing their homes, schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, electricity stations, water, and sewage networks, and seeking to displace them forcibly from Gaza and the West Bank. Meanwhile, the voices of individual Israelis calling for peace have all but vanished from the public sphere. – Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.