How Will Israel and the U.S. Manage a Shift in Egypt’s Political Alignment?
Anwar Sadat became president of Egypt after Gamal Abdul Nasser died. In the meantime, there was a coup d’etat on March 12, 1971, after which Turkish Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel was forced to resign. I was in Cairo in April, the month following his resignation, for a series of interviews with new leaders of the Arab world, such as Egypt’s Sadat, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Sudan’s Gaafar Nimeiry.
The outpouring of grief for Abdul Nasser, who died in September of 1970, was still fresh. I met with a group of young people from Cairo University and talked about Abdul Nasser. They were not among the people who were crying and screaming loudly from sorrow during the funeral ceremony. I asked one of them, “Did you like him a lot? Do you think he is irreplaceable?” “He exhausted us,” the student responded without hesitating. “I hated him. He made us fight wars with Israel, which we always lost. He consumed Egypt’s energy in order to be the leader of the Arab world, the African continent and the Third World. Under the guise of socialism, he created widespread poverty. Without him, we will be able to breathe and return to normalcy. He tired us out.”
I was invited to a dinner at one of Sadat’s seven brothers’ houses. I asked, “Your brother is still visiting Abdul Nasser’s grave every Friday and cries. Did he like Abdul Nasser a lot?” He answered, “He is not praying there. He is cursing him for the state of Egypt he brought about. He has left a huge wreck behind, both monetarily and spiritually.”
From Sadat to Mubarak
Until Anwar Sadat was killed by a radical Islamist in October 1981, his 11 years in office brought about a complete shift in policy from Nasser’s reign. He negotiated with Israel and compromised with the U.S., which led to new policies for Egypt. Meanwhile, he fired some of Abdul Nasser’s leftist ideologists (Ali Sabri, Muhammed Faik, etc.).
Afterwards, I visited Egypt twice to interview Hosni Mubarak. His personality was colorless compared to Abdul Nasser and Anwar Sadat. However, the politics he ascribed to were 100 percent consistent with international opinion. He was able to manage Israel, Palestine, the U.S. and the Arab dynasties simultaneously. Domestically, he stimulated tourism and industry and allowed foreign capital to enter Egypt.
Weary of 30 Years
Thirty years of despotic administration is tedious, regardless of whether it is good or not. In countries where problems are beyond fixing, like Egypt, society is like a ticking time bomb. In other words, internal dynamics weigh the same as consistency with external conjuncture.
Neither the anti-Mubarak protesters nor the looters in Cairo are aware of what type of administration awaits them. Most likely, decision makers in America and Israel have had similar restless nights with Mubarak.
In the case of Egypt’s foreign policy, its relation to the rest of the Middle East will change. For Mubarak, the best death for despots is death while still in office. History has proven that overthrown despots’ hidden secrets surface once they are ousted.
The outpouring of grief for Abdul Nasser, who died in September of 1970, was still fresh. I met with a group of young people from Cairo University and talked about Abdul Nasser. They were not among the people who were crying and screaming loudly from sorrow during the funeral ceremony. I asked one of them, “Did you like him a lot? Do you think he is irreplaceable?” “He exhausted us,” the student responded without hesitating. “I hated him. He made us fight wars with Israel, which we always lost. He consumed Egypt’s energy in order to be the leader of the Arab world, the African continent and the Third World. Under the guise of socialism, he created widespread poverty. Without him, we will be able to breathe and return to normalcy. He tired us out.”
I was invited to a dinner at one of Sadat’s seven brothers’ houses. I asked, “Your brother is still visiting Abdul Nasser’s grave every Friday and cries. Did he like Abdul Nasser a lot?” He answered, “He is not praying there. He is cursing him for the state of Egypt he brought about. He has left a huge wreck behind, both monetarily and spiritually.”
From Sadat to Mubarak
Until Anwar Sadat was killed by a radical Islamist in October 1981, his 11 years in office brought about a complete shift in policy from Nasser’s reign. He negotiated with Israel and compromised with the U.S., which led to new policies for Egypt. Meanwhile, he fired some of Abdul Nasser’s leftist ideologists (Ali Sabri, Muhammed Faik, etc.).
Afterwards, I visited Egypt twice to interview Hosni Mubarak. His personality was colorless compared to Abdul Nasser and Anwar Sadat. However, the politics he ascribed to were 100 percent consistent with international opinion. He was able to manage Israel, Palestine, the U.S. and the Arab dynasties simultaneously. Domestically, he stimulated tourism and industry and allowed foreign capital to enter Egypt.
Weary of 30 Years
Thirty years of despotic administration is tedious, regardless of whether it is good or not. In countries where problems are beyond fixing, like Egypt, society is like a ticking time bomb. In other words, internal dynamics weigh the same as consistency with external conjuncture.
Neither the anti-Mubarak protesters nor the looters in Cairo are aware of what type of administration awaits them. Most likely, decision makers in America and Israel have had similar restless nights with Mubarak.
In the case of Egypt’s foreign policy, its relation to the rest of the Middle East will change. For Mubarak, the best death for despots is death while still in office. History has proven that overthrown despots’ hidden secrets surface once they are ousted.