President Sisi and the Verdict of History
President Sisi reaffirms Egypt's solidarity with Saudi Arabia, referencing the legacies of Mubarak and Nasser.
Translated by Qiyas from القبس — Original source
I followed the steps of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, in expressing his full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, embracing complete partnership, and accepting its requirements. The Egyptian President reiterates this with determination, demonstrating Egypt’s awareness and welcome of the obligations involved, fully conscious of the heavy costs of joining as a partner. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi insists on calling on the Egyptian Parliament to make a decision regarding his initiative. Like viewers from Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and other parts of the Arab world, I received this stance with relief, praising the Egyptian president’s decision to partner with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in all matters it deems necessary to counter ill intentions, regardless of their scale or geographic distance.
In fact, my choice of this scene, where Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, in a clear and high-pitched voice, affirmed Egypt’s partnership in all matters affecting the security and sovereignty of the Kingdom, its political and diplomatic trajectory, or any harsh criticism directed at it, was deliberate. His voice was sincere, and his steps conveyed resolve toward Egyptian participation in enhancing the security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, preserving its stability, and continuing its path of Arab and Islamic solidarity, while strengthening ties with all parties in the international community.
I record these observations regarding the convictions of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in his solidarity with Arab and Islamic nations, as well as with all peoples joining the international community. With complete frankness, I recalled the late former Egyptian President, Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, may God have mercy on him, who set Egypt’s Arab and Islamic path, opening positively and without reservations or complications. The key was to engage in dialogue with everyone, without distancing or analyses that might generate ambiguities leading to hesitation or reservation.
Egypt today is free from all criticisms. It has moved beyond the stage of searching for loud vocabulary in its tone and formulation. Egypt has suffered greatly from the content of files that led it away from its moderate heritage, which is appropriate for its moderation, confirms its realism, and is derived from the diversity of its historical paths. The late former Egyptian President, Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, may God have mercy on him, was a pure son of Egypt, free from illusions of internal and regional domination. He closed doors that Egypt does not accept, neither in its territory nor in its historical composition.
The era of individual ijtihad (independent reasoning) was strange to Egyptian society. Egyptian radio stations broadcast torrents of harsh criticism against Arab countries. That was a painful time for everyone, confusing Arab thought and failing to distinguish between illusions and dreams. From that era came the defeat of June 5, 1967, with Israel occupying Palestine, the Egyptian Sinai, and the Syrian Golan. The greatest harm fell upon the Palestinian people, who lost what remained of Palestine.
I attended meetings with heads of state inflated by arrogance and hypocrisy, who tasted power and indulged in slander and exaggeration, only to fall because they approached explosive flashpoints. I was with the late Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad, may God have mercy on him, during his efforts to achieve Arab consensus through an Arab summit held in Kuwait. Issues such as Yemen, Egypt’s presence there, and the Kingdom’s support for the royal system in Sana’a had all created a knot that Kuwait sought to untie through an Arab summit in Kuwait.
Former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser did not want a summit where he would meet King Faisal due to the Yemen war. Sheikh Sabah’s efforts failed because of President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s stance. The situation was tense, and tensions escalated further with President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s steps to withdraw UN forces from Sinai and the growing tension with Israel after blocking their ships’ freedom of navigation through the Strait of Tiran. From this came Israel’s steps to break the blockade and occupy all of Sinai.
The 1967 defeat marked the end of a negative era during which military regimes managed to control Egypt, Syria, and some Arab countries such as Yemen. Arab states, particularly Egypt and Syria, paid a heavy price: without preparations and without adequate capabilities, Egyptian leadership rushed to dismantle the arrangements established by the United Nations to remove the Israeli occupation of Egyptian territories in Gaza and Sinai, despite exposing the weakness of the Arab military infrastructure, especially in frontline states. Israel’s victories stemmed from a vast and profound Arab ignorance regarding Israel’s capabilities and readiness for confrontation. As noted at the beginning of the article, it is clear that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi emphasized the necessity of preparing Egypt to join the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in confronting the threats facing them. These are lessons that Arab states have learned through the experiences they have internalized. There is no doubt that indicators confirm a shift in Arab public opinion toward realism, with a firm insistence on uncovering the truth, opposing rash impulses driven by slogans, exercising caution, and responding to imperatives for deeper realism and distancing from the traps of defeat that Arabs have borne since 1967. Abdullah Bashara
