Latest news with #OctoberWar
Middle East
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Middle East
OPEN// Army remains capable of confronting any challenges
CAIRO, April 27 (MENA) - The October War reshaped the history of the Egyptian military through the sacrifices and blood of the Armed Forces' heroes, Armed Forces Spokesperson Brigadier Gharib Abdel Hafez said on Sunday, describing Sinai Liberation Day as a lasting source of pride in the history and consciousness of the Egyptian people and their Armed Forces. In a statement marking the 43rd anniversary of the liberation of Sinai, the spokesperson affirmed that the Armed Forces remain capable of confronting any challenges, thanks to the strength and unity of the people and their alignment behind the political leadership. He underlined the General Command's commitment to implementing a comprehensive development strategy, starting with maximizing the value of the individual combatant as the cornerstone of building a strong national army, keeping pace with rapid developments in combat systems and methods, diversifying sources of armament, and acquiring the latest scientific, technological and military advancements to bolster combat capabilities. The spokesperson highlighted the vital role played by law enforcement forces, alongside the Armed Forces, in eliminating terrorism, one of the most significant threats to Egypt's national security in recent years. He also emphasized the Armed Forces' contribution to supporting the state's comprehensive development efforts in the Sinai Peninsula and improving the living and social conditions of its residents. In light of growing military partnerships and cooperation with sisterly and friendly nations, the spokesperson stressed the Armed Forces' focus on combat training and raising readiness of personnel through joint exercises that aim to exchange expertise, enhance the skills of participating forces, and strengthen their ability to execute missions across various theaters of operations according to carefully crafted plans. Believing in the importance of responsible national media, the military spokesperson affirmed that the Armed Forces are committed to maintaining continuous communication with all media outlets, promptly responding to inquiries, debunking rumors, and ensuring that the public is provided with accurate and verified information. (MENA) M S H/R E E
Al Arabiya
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Who stands to gain the most from peace with Israel?
Amid rising tensions and escalating conflict in the Middle East, one pressing question remains: Who has the most to gain from peace with Israel? The answer is far more complicated than it might seem. Each party in the conflict has distinct and sometimes conflicting interests. Moreover, the history of colonization is not as straightforward as often portrayed. If peace were to be achieved, who would hold Israel accountable for its violations – violations driven by a sense of superiority and entitlement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself expressed during an appearance on Fox News, when he compared his country's war crimes to those of European colonial powers, implying they are just as justified. For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app. The region is undergoing profound changes that are shifting the balance of power in Israel's favor. But it's unclear whether Israel genuinely seeks peace. This article explores the different parties who may have a direct or indirect interest in achieving peace with Israel, and analyzes what each of them stands to gain. For many Arabs, peace with Israel is a deeply emotional and complex issue – one often viewed through the lens of resisting occupation. Yet political realities on the ground may force a shift in priorities. Some of the groups that have led resistance efforts have seen their strategies fail, mainly due to a lack of preparation to confront a technologically advanced and militarily superior force. Internally, strategies like Hezbollah's emphasis on domestic empowerment have failed to foster broader national unity, instead focusing on selective internal engagement around the idea of 'positive neutrality.' Today, after years of devastating consequences and shifting alliances, the conversation has largely moved from resistance to the pursuit of political stability, security, and economic development. The goal now is rebuilding and attracting international aid. The rules of engagement have changed – from Beirut's southern suburbs for Tel Aviv to peace in exchange for humanitarian assistance, as demonstrated after Israeli strikes on the town of Metula. This raises a new question: How sustainable is a peace built between a victor and a defeated party? History offers some precedent. In 1973, Egypt achieved a partial military victory in the Sinai during the October War, which restored Arab morale and pushed Israel to the negotiating table. This led to the 1978 Camp David Accords. But what, in hindsight, did Egypt actually gain from that peace deal? Egypt secured several major achievements. Most notably, it forced a political resolution and recovered the Sinai Peninsula. This was initiated by President Anwar Sadat's historic 1977 visit to Jerusalem, where he addressed the Israeli Knesset, paving the way for negotiations. The US, under President Jimmy Carter, sought to reduce Soviet influence in the region. The talks ended with the signing of the peace treaty in Maryland. At the time, Israel viewed peace with Egypt as a necessity – a guarantee against future wars. In turn, Egypt officially recognized Israel, Israel withdrew from Sinai, and diplomatic ties were established, reflecting a mutual belief in diplomacy over military conflict. But today's Arab landscape is vastly different. For one, the US no longer holds the same influence in the region, partly due to the powerful sway of pro-Israel lobbying groups in American politics. Meanwhile, the US and Russia appear to be quietly coordinating over shared interests in both Europe and the Middle East. Unlike in the past, it is no longer Israel seeking war to ensure its security - rather, it's Arab states seeking peace to safeguard their own stability. This is especially evident in recent rapprochements between Iran and Gulf states, spurred by escalating threats related to the US-Iran standoff and recent Houthi attacks, as well as threats by Donald Trump to strike Iran and its nuclear facilities. This also applies to countries like Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine. Another critical point is that resistance groups that positioned themselves as champions of the cause have largely failed. Instead of weakening Israel, they've reinforced the grip of its far-right leadership, which has advanced an agenda of exclusion, collective punishment, and war crimes – all with little regard for international law. These outcomes have been exacerbated by the actions of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis – seen as proxies for Iran – whose tactics have undermined efforts for a political and diplomatic resolution that could benefit Arab states. Such a resolution could foster regional cooperation in areas like security, military, and energy – similar to what's already underway between the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. These ties could serve as tools for strengthening the region's position against Iranian influence. As for the United States and Israel, they stand to benefit the most from peace in the Middle East. Regional stability would attract investments and encourage economic, technological, and military partnerships. It would also bolster joint efforts in security and innovation. In conclusion, while the interests of each party vary when it comes to peace with Israel, several stakeholders could see strategic advantages – whether economic, political, or security-related. The real challenge lies in crafting a comprehensive framework that balances these interests and meets the aspirations of the people involved – especially the Palestinian people.
Al-Ahram Weekly
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Armed Forces ready to confront all challenges facing Egyptian national security: Spox - Defence
Armed Forces Spokesperson Gharib Abdel Hafez asserted that the Armed Forces are ready to confront all challenges facing the Egyptian state. Abdel Hafez said all armed forces members are highly active to ensure readiness to confront and deal with any threats or challenges. He made these remarks in a meeting with the Middle East News Agency (MENA) staff, which included MENA Board Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Kamal and members of the editorial board. Abdel Hafez stressed the importance of supporting the political leadership at this critical juncture as a guarantee of overcoming all challenges facing the Egyptian state. He asserted the importance of the Egyptian people's awareness of the present challenges. Meanwhile, he stressed that the Egyptian leadership's political stance on the Palestinian issue has not changed since 1948 and that Egypt has always emphasized the need to establish a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem (Al Quds) as its capital, to ensure regional security and stability. Furthermore, Abdel Hafez noted that displacing the Palestinian people from their land means liquidating the Palestinian issue while reiterating the complex nature of the challenges the Egyptian state currently faces on all strategic fronts. The political leadership never took these challenges lightly. Abdel Hafez revealed that the Egyptian state had indeed been vigilant and anticipated the possibility of such scenarios occurring in the aftermath of 2011. Therefore, the armed forces developed their capabilities and armament systems significantly throughout the past decade to prepare for any possible confrontations. Moreover, the spokesperson recalled how the Armed Forces had been wrongfully and severely criticized over arms deals and the establishment of military bases, stressing that the current threats have proven the correctness of the Armed Forces vision in light of the schemes that were in the offing, especially in the post-2011 period. The recent developments prove that the current battle is one of existence, he highlighted. Furthermore, Abdel Hafez pointed out that no state can bear the brunt of Egypt's present challenges, attributing the Egyptian state's resilience to the Armed Forces' development over the past decade. In addition, the spokesperson noted that the political leadership is deeply aware of the plots being hatched and has, therefore, prepared carefully developed preemptive plans. He explained that the Armed Forces' strategy is based on developing the combatant individual, armament, and training. He noted that the Egyptian soldier's creed centres around defending the land to death and that that creed won Egypt the October War. Similarly, the spokesperson said Egypt has always emerged stronger after every crisis, but what it faces today is unprecedented. Therefore, the political leadership has diversified the sources of arms so that the armed forces would not depend on a single country for armament, he said. Furthermore, Abdel Hafez noted that the Egyptian air defence system is one of the most complex globally due to the diversity of its armament sources. He also highlighted Egypt's unique experience in fighting terrorism and its success in eliminating terrorism and its causes while avoiding disruptions to development plans and projects. In addition, the spokesperson recalled the challenges Egypt faced following 2011, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the repercussions of the Russian-Ukrainian war, noting that the state overcame these crises by taking the necessary measures. Abdel Hafez also highlighted the media's impact on Egyptian national security by spreading awareness to unify the Egyptian people against dangers and challenges. At the end of the meeting, MENA Board Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Kamal gifted the agency's shield to the military spokesperson in appreciation of his efforts to convey the actual image to the Egyptian, Arab, and international public with utmost transparency. In return, Abdel Hafez praised the vital role of the Middle East News Agency, the oldest news agency in the Arab and Middle East regions, in conveying the truth and foiling schemes by rumour mongers, thus countering malicious propaganda against Egypt. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Asharq Al-Awsat
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
On ‘The Arab Levant,' ‘The World,' and Israel
The relationship between "the Arab Levant" and "the world," in modern times, has not been a friendly one. 'The world," here, refers the West and its states- that is, the Atlantic World, while "the Arab Levant" primarily refers to the Palestinian cause as it was manufactured by military and security juntas, and for many years (since the late 1960s), the Palestine Liberation Organization. True, this binary is reductive of both notions: "The world" is not just the West, while "the Levant" is more than the aforementioned Arab forces and their sole declared cause. Nonetheless, it is also true that "the world," to the Arab world, was the politically influential West, which also had its impact on our economy, education, and technologies- and there is also the region's colonial past or the lifestyles and cultural images its people find desirable. As for the struggle with Israel, it has been the ultimate driver of our stated approach to questions that are not necessarily linked to this struggle. Thus, the theory of "dealing with the world based on its position on the Palestinian cause" prevailed for decades, not just in the Levant but throughout the Arab world. The most significant material translation of this theory was the oil embargo imposed on the countries that supported Israel during the 1973 October War. Indeed, this consensus reading was engendered by a mix of sympathy for the victims of the Palestinian tragedy, lingering pan-Arab nationalist jargon, and acquiescence to various armed factions' blackmail of violence and terrorism. To many Arab states and vast segments of their population (at the very least those who believed nascent states' policies should primarily revolve around their internal), the centrality of the Palestinian cause has always seemed somewhat bizarre. This troubled relationship between 'the world' and 'the Levant' reminded many of how polities' sons had rebelled against the father who had established these polities. After World War I, the former rejected the notion of European mandates over their territory, the Balfour Declaration, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, concluding that the promises of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence had been nothing but a ruse. After World War II, they were outraged by the suffering of the Palestinians and rejected the partition of Palestine that both the Eastern and Western blocs had endorsed. While the Arabs' nationalist uprising had been reprehensible in the eyes of "the world,' it was placed in the same category as similar uprisings in Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of Latin America, which were all absorbed into the framework of the Cold War. After the eventual disintegration of Nasserism and its subsequent degeneration into Assadism, Saddamism, and Qaddafism, figures like Bin Laden and his many brothers became rising stars; this radical rebellion, which was presented as unique to Muslims alone, became incomprehensible. At this stage, the frame of rebellious sons and fathers was no longer fit for purpose, as the new insurgents regressed to the distant past of their forefathers, making a clean break with the world that had been set up by the Western father and challenged by a failed Levantine father. Nonetheless, the "Middle East crisis" remained intractable over both phases of the rebellion, and the Oslo Accords of 1993 failed to turn the page on a dark chapter and open another that had been qualified white. Today, in any case, almost nothing is the same, and this is a moment when successive shifts are redefining the very original and primordial notions of things. The "world" now includes China, though its presence remains piecemeal and limited relative to the West. More importantly, the Atlantic universe, especially with Donald Trump's in power, is splitting in two: a populist, nationalist US and the European struggling to defend their liberalism as strange, and unfamiliar custom ways of doing and seeing things, including international relations, take shape... In turn, the "Arab Levant" is also being torn apart which might not be new but is certainly unfamiliar. The Palestinian cause is not what it once was, and more consequently, the Maghreb, the Gulf, the Levant, Egypt, and Sudan have each taken their own path. These paths may intersect at some points, but they are nonetheless independent and self-contained, with each continuing to reassert its distinction. It seems that the discord between the "world" and the "Levant" has not negated a shared alignment behind the ascendency of the nineteenth century. Since Trump's inaugural address, a lot has been written about his admiration for President William McKinley, who governed the United States from 1897 to 1901, when he was assassinated. McKinley, a tariff enthusiast whom Trump called a "great president," is famous for, among other things, waging the Spanish-American War and pursuing an expansionist policy that led to the annexation of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Hawaii. In the Levant, with the explosion of minority issues that are tied up in regional and international politics, recollections of the "Eastern Question" have flourished. Triggered by the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the race to obtain what it left behind, the Eastern Question rose to the fore following the Greek uprising of 1820, before peaking with the Crimean War (1853–1856) and the Balkan Crisis (1875–1878), and then culminating in the Balkan Wars (1912–1913). If parallels with the past are depressing in general, one painful outcome remains highly likely: Israel will benefit most, reaping equal gains whether from the "world" and the "Arab Levant" grow further apart or more similar.
Middle East
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Middle East
Sisi honors families of martyrs, wounded on Martyrs' Day
CAIRO, March 11 (MENA) - President Abdel Fattah El Sisi honored families of martyrs and wounded in military operations since the glorious October War in 1973 during the 41st cultural symposium held at Al-Manara Center on the occasion of Martyrs' Day. Sisi honored posthumously fallen hero Maj. Ahmed Hassan Ahmed Ibrahim, from the Air Defense Force, who was martyred on October 18, 1973, and Squadron Commander Maj. Ismail Mohamed Hassan Imam, who was martyred on October 17, 1973. The president also honored infantry soldier Sayed Mohamed Murad Al-Ayat who was injured in combat operations. (MORE) A I E/R E E
