Connect with us

MIDDLE EAST

The formula of Türkiye-Egypt relation: “The past should remain in the past”

Published

on

The foreign policy priorities of Turkey, after the presidential elections, can be divided into two categories: to find a position in new Asian initiatives while lowering tensions with the West. The primary factors promoting Turkey’s normalization with its neighbors and Middle Eastern nations are the economic challenges that require this foreign policy direction.

In the normalization train of the Arab states, who assessed the damage after the Arab Spring, Turkey believes there is a wagon set out for it. Following the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, a final settlement in Syria will take up a sizable portion of Ankara’s post-election foreign policy agenda.

On the other side, relations with Egypt have a greater impact, the contacts between Ankara and Cairo are extensive, encompassing Turkey’s contacts with the West in the context of the Eastern Mediterranean and Libya. In this context, we interviewed Dalia Ziada, Director of the Center for Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean Studies  regarding how Egyptians considered about the Turkish election process.

  • Egyptian President congratulated President Erdogan. What can that say about a new era which has begun between the two countries?

The Egyptian and Turkish presidents’ phone call in the wake of the elections is an important indication of the sincere intentions of the top policymakers in both countries to start a new page in their relationship. Honestly speaking, there are some giant differences between the perception of each of the two presidents on crucial regional and domestic policies. That includes for example the situation in Libya, the complex maritime conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Islamists’ right for political participation. However, we are seeing an unprecedented determination by both sides to get over these differences and focus on the common ground of economic and geopolitical cooperation.

Ironically, many observers had expressed their pessimism about the potential of the rapprochement process between Turkey and Egypt to succeed as long as the two heads of state, El-Sisi and Erdogan, remained in power. Yet, in December 2022, the two heads of state met in Doha, warmly saluted each other, and then spent 45 minutes talking about the next steps they should take to overcome the obstacles that kept their countries separated for too long. The friendly encounter between the Turkish and the Egyptian presidents cannot be seen as a standard act of courtesy that happened out of sheer coincidence. It was the climax of a year of backstage arrangements by dedicated diplomatic missions and concerned civil society organizations in both countries.

Since then, the Turkish and Egyptian foreign ministers have been exchanging visits and making public promises about implementing the reconciliation process as soon as the general elections in Turkey are completed. As the election in Turkey has been completed successfully, this week, the two countries need to continue working on completing the reconciliation process for their mutual benefit and the entire region’s benefit.

Mending broken ties between Turkey and Egypt is not only beneficial for the political well-being of the two states. It is equally important for the personal image enhancement of each of the two presidents before their peoples and also before observers from the international community. Egypt is having a presidential election in less than a year. Improving his relationship with President Erdogan will dramatically increase President El-Sisi’s support among the huge Islamist-biased voter base.

  • How the Turkish elections resonated in Egypt. What are the prominent evaluations in the Egyptian press?

In general, the Egyptian people are so impressed and inspired by the democratic process in Turkey and the political maturity of the Turkish people who massively participated in the voting at the parliamentary elections and the two rounds of the presidential elections. We wish – we dream – to see a similar democratic process in the coming presidential election which is expected to happen in mid-2024. In other words, the successful democratic practice in Turkey has set the bar high for election processes in Middle East countries, in general, in countries where people are yearning for democratization, such as Egypt and most North Africa countries, in particular.

On another level, the street reaction to President Erdogan’s victory varies greatly from one citizen group to the other. The majority of the Egyptian grassroots citizens, who are mainly characterized by their religious piety, are so excited. They are celebrating President Erdogan’s victory, as they perceive it as a victory of a Muslim idol over the opposition party leaders who exhibited hatred towards Muslims and Arabs.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian intellectual elite, who are mostly secular, are expectedly not so happy with President Erdogan’s victory. Some of them warned that he will encourage the political Islamist groups – such as the Muslim Brotherhood – to seek political competition in Egypt once again and renew the state of political instability in the country. But, in my opinion, that is a little too exaggerated, especially in light of improved ties between the Egyptian and Turkish presidents in the past few months.

On the political stage, most members of the government, political parties, and media agree that it is time for Egypt to reconcile with Turkey and with its elected president. “The past should remain in the past;” they say. That is a healthy attitude, I think, because it will pave the way for a lot of mutual benefits for Egypt and Turkey in the future, and will also be beneficial to the regions of the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean.

  • How do you consider the normalization process between the two countries to proceed after the election? Which steps could be taken initially?

In their first phone call after the successful completion of the Turkish presidential elections, presidents Erdogan and El-Sisi agreed to immediately proceed with their reconciliation process by elevating their diplomatic ties to the ambassadorial level. That is a very significant first step for two reasons:

First, it fixes the rift that had been broken between the two states in 2013 and had kept the two countries estranged for ten years. The ambassadors were the first scapegoats to be slaughtered during the dramatic breakup between Egypt and Turkey, then. Each of the two countries immediately declared their mutual ambassadors as persona non grata. Therefore, the return of the ambassadors today is like an official declaration of the end of the decade-long conflict and the beginning of the negotiations phase.

Second, upgrading the diplomatic missions to ambassadorial levels is so crucial to accelerate and facilitate the discussions on critical bilateral and regional issues that represent a conflict of interest between the two states. Right now, the mutual diplomatic missions in both countries are limited in size and scope to the level of chargés d’affaires. Therefore, most negotiations between the two countries had to happen through security channels and intelligence bureaus more often than they happened between diplomatic missions. This caused the reconciliation process to go very slowly in 2021.

The rapprochement process only started to leap when the Turkish ambassador, Salih Mutlu Şen, got hired as charges d’affaires in Cairo, in the second half of 2022. He exerted a tremendous effort to wake the embassy from the dead by directly engaging with ordinary citizens in the Egyptian streets and reaching out to media personnel, civil society organizations, and political groups. That paved the way for a successful meeting between the two presidents, El-Sisi and Erdogan, in November 2022 in Doha. After the presidential meeting, the reconciliation process took a whole new turn.

Therefore, I believe that raising the diplomatic representation to the ambassadorial level will allow diplomatic channels to take the lead in the negotiation process, thus accelerating the rapprochement process and improving the quality of the outcomes of future negotiations.

However, that is not enough. There must be direct and personal talks between presidents Erdogan and El-Sisi, at the nearest time possible. It is not a secret that the two leaders adopt divergent – if not contradicting – political ideologies. For example, El-Sisi’s political image is mostly built upon his role in removing the Muslim Brotherhood from power in 2013. In contrast, Erdogan’s legacy is entirely based on his image as a successful Muslim leader, coming from a political Islamist party, in a secular democratic system of governance. How the two presidents are going to compromise their ideological differences is so important for the success of the reconciliation process between Egypt and Turkey and for ensuring its sustainability in the long term. Such a compromise can only happen through direct face-to-face and heart-to-heart conversations between the two presidents over the coming weeks or months.

In parallel to that, the senior policymakers and government officials from Egypt and Turkey should engage in lengthy discussions about enhancing their areas of cooperation and limiting their areas of conflict. For example, Egypt and Turkey already have a successful record of economic cooperation that can be further improved. In the meantime, there are a lot of areas of potential cooperation between our two militaries, building upon the history of cooperation in the defense industry sector between the two countries. They will also need to discuss their conflicting foreign policies in the Levant region, and the Eastern Mediterranean region, keeping into consideration the concerns and the interests of other key players in these regions, such as Libya, Syria, Greece, and Israel.

MIDDLE EAST

Gallant’s plan for Gaza

Published

on

The details of Gallant’s plan on who will govern Gaza after the war, which led to a public debate between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in Israel, have emerged. Netanyahu said he would discuss the issue with Gallant face to face.

The Hayom newspaper wrote about the plan of Defence Minister Gallant, who disagreed with Prime Minister Netanyahu on the administration of Gaza. Gallant’s plan is to arm local Palestinian Authority figures in Gaza under international supervision. It was noted that these weapons would be electronically monitored by Israel to prevent them from “falling into the hands of Hamas”.

Meanwhile, speaking to the press near the Gaza border in southern Israel, Netanyahu gave an assessment of his disagreement with Gallant. Asked whether he still trusted the defence minister and whether he could work with him, Netanyahu replied: “If you are talking about what the defence minister said yesterday, I will tell him what I will tell him face to face, not here.

Netanyahu said that the meeting with Gallant on the administration of Gaza, on which he had a disagreement, would take place soon, and reiterated his opposition to the transfer of the administration of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority following the Israeli attacks.

The details of the plan drawn up by Gallant on who will govern Gaza after the war, which led to a public debate between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in Israel, have emerged. Netanyahu said he would discuss the issue with Gallant face to face.

The Hayom newspaper wrote about the plan of Defence Minister Gallant, who disagreed with Prime Minister Netanyahu on the administration of Gaza. Gallant’s plan is to arm local Palestinian Authority figures in Gaza under international supervision. It was noted that these weapons would be electronically monitored by Israel to prevent them from “falling into the hands of Hamas”.

Meanwhile, speaking to the press near the Gaza border in southern Israel, Netanyahu gave an assessment of his disagreement with Gallant. Asked whether he still trusted the defence minister and whether he could work with him, Netanyahu replied: “If you are talking about what the defence minister said yesterday, I will tell him what I will tell him face to face, not here.

Netanyahu said that the meeting with Gallant on the administration of Gaza, where he and Gallant disagreed, would take place soon, and reiterated his opposition to the transfer of Gaza’s administration to the Palestinian Authority following Israel’s attacks.

Debate on Gaza administration

Speaking at a press conference in Tel Aviv, Gallant said they had been saying for a long time that it was necessary to work towards finding an alternative to Hamas in Gaza, but had received no response. “The army’s plan has not been put up for debate, and worse, no alternative has been put forward. A military-civilian regime in Gaza is a bad and dangerous alternative for Israel”.

Stating that he would not accept the establishment of a military administration in Gaza, Gallant called on Netanyahu to make a decision on the issue and declare that Israel will not have a civilian-military regime in Gaza and to promote an alternative administration to Hamas.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, responded to Gallant’s criticism in the video he shared by saying, “As long as Hamas exists, no other actor will be able to govern Gaza, certainly not the Palestinian Authority”. Netanyahu argued that until Hamas is defeated, the “next day” discussions are “meaningless” and claimed that “no actor will be willing to accept the civilian administration of Gaza alone, for fear of their own security, until it is clear that Hamas is not running Gaza militarily.

Continue Reading

MIDDLE EAST

Israeli casualties rise as it expands attacks

Published

on

Expanding its military attacks in the Jibaliya camp, Israel announced that 5 soldiers were killed by “friendly fire” and 7 were wounded. Hamas’ military wing, the Izzeddin al-Qassam Brigades, said it had killed 12 Israeli soldiers in the operation it organised in the camp.

According to the Times of Israel, 5 Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire and 7 were wounded, 3 of them seriously, in the Jibaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza, where the Israeli army said it had “expanded its ground offensive”.

The Israeli army’s preliminary report said that an Israeli tank, acting in conjunction with paratroopers, targeted a building housing the soldiers twice last night. It was stated that the tank unit arrived in the area before the paratroopers and deployed in the building in question after the paratroopers reached the area.

In the evening, it was stated that another paratrooper unit arrived in the area and informed 2 Israeli tanks that they had entered the same building.

It was stated that the tank unit opened fire twice on the building after detecting a gun barrel in one of the windows of the building in question.

In a written statement, the Israeli army identified the soldiers killed as Captain Roy Beit Yaakov (22), Sergeant Gilad Arye Boim (22), Sergeant Daniel Chemu (20), Sergeant Ilan Cohen (20) and Sergeant Betzlel David Shashuah (21) of the Paratroopers Brigade.

The Israeli army announced yesterday that it had expanded its military offensive in the Jibaliya camp, and eyewitnesses said Israeli soldiers had forcibly evicted “hundreds of displaced Palestinians from their shelters west of Gaza City”.

Palestinian factions also engaged in fierce clashes with the Israeli army, which stepped up its attacks.

Hamas announced that it had hit 12 Israeli army vehicles, including 7 tanks, 4 bulldozers and 1 unidentified military vehicle.

The Kassam Brigades’ statement said that the Israeli army’s D9 military bulldozer was targeted with a “Yassin-105” rocket, and that the Israeli forces hiding in a house were targeted with two anti-personnel rockets and clashed.Meanwhile, a Merkava tank was targeted with an explosive device as the rescue force was moving towards the scene, and at least 12 Israeli soldiers were killed in the operation.

More troops to Rafah

Meanwhile, it has emerged that the Israeli army has sent additional troops to the southern Gaza town of Rafah, where it is threatening to expand its ground offensive.

The Times of Israel reported that the Israeli army sent a commando unit overnight to join the 162nd Division stationed east of Rafah.

The article noted that an additional military unit had been sent to Rafah at a time when Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government had approved the “expansion of Israel’s ground offensive” in Rafah.

In its statement on 6 May, the Israeli army demanded the evacuation of some neighbourhoods in the east of Rafah where displaced Palestinians had taken refuge, and on the morning of 7 May it announced that it had launched a ground offensive in the Rafah area of Gaza, capturing the Gaza side of the border crossing with Egypt.

Continue Reading

MIDDLE EAST

ICJ to hold hearings over Israel’s Rafah attacks

Published

on

On Thursday and Friday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will consider new urgent measures requested by South Africa in response to the Israeli offensive in Rafah.

On 10 May, the Republic of South Africa asked the ICJ to grant new measures on the grounds that the Israeli offensive in Rafah has caused irreparable harm to the rights of the people of Gaza.

The ICJ announced that hearings on 16 and 17 May will consider South Africa’s request to the Court for further urgent measures against Israel for its attacks on Rafah, as part of the ongoing case accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians.

South Africa’s application stated that new measures should be ordered against Israel on the grounds that the ICJ’s orders of 26 January and 28 March did not reflect the deteriorating conditions and new facts in Gaza and Rafah. The application said Israel had persistently failed to comply with the Court’s orders and continued its “egregious violations” in Gaza.

“Israel’s military operations in Rafah and elsewhere in Gaza are themselves genocidal,” the application said, stressing that the Court should do more than order Israel to comply with the injunctions and its obligations under the Genocide Convention. The application asked the Court to order Israel to cease its military operations.

In January, the Court did not order Israel to stop its attacks as a precautionary measure.

The request stated that Israel had seized the Kerem Abu Salim (Shalom) crossing, the last place of refuge for civilians in Gaza, and had taken de facto control of entry and exit to and from Gaza, and that Israel had prevented humanitarian aid from reaching 1.5 million Gazans.

The new measures demanded were as follows:

1- Israel will cease its military attacks at Rafah and withdraw immediately.

2 – Israel will immediately take all effective measures to ensure and facilitate unhindered access to Gaza for non-governmental organisations, including United Nations agencies, researchers and journalists, to assess the situation in Gaza and to ensure the preservation and collection of evidence, and to ensure that its army does not act in a manner that prevents access.

3- Within one week of the announcement of the new measures, Israel shall provide the Court with an accessible report describing the measures it has taken to implement both the previous measures and the new measures requested.

Israel has previously dismissed South Africa’s genocide case as unfounded, claiming that it is acting in accordance with international law in Gaza, with Tel Aviv accusing Pretoria of acting as the “legal arm of Hamas”.

Will Egypt intervene?

Egypt announced its intention to intervene in the case after Israel seized the Rafah border crossing.

In a statement posted on the Facebook page of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was stated that the decision to intervene came as a result of the escalation in the severity and scope of Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, the continuation of systematic practices, including direct attacks against the Palestinian people, the destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of Palestinians from their lands, and the unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has made the Gaza Strip uninhabitable.

Egypt urged Israel to fulfil its obligations as an occupying power, to implement the interim measures issued by the ICJ, and to refrain from any violations against the Palestinian people, a protected people under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the statement said.

The statement also called on the United Nations Security Council and international parties to take immediate action to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, halt military operations at Rafah and provide the necessary protection to Palestinian civilians.

It was previously announced that Nicaragua, Colombia and Libya had requested intervention under Articles 62 and 63 of the Court’s Charter.

Under Article 83 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court had invited South Africa and Israel to submit written observations on Colombia’s application for intervention.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey