Latest news with #Sadat
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
From The Hindu, June 6, 1975: Sadat reopens Suez, but vows to regain areas lost to Israel
Port Said, June 5: President Anwar Sadat reopened the Suez Canal to-day in 'a contribution to peace' and commercial shipping entered the waterway for the first time in eight years. 'Egypt presents this step as a gift to the world in order to help the lives of all friendly and peace loving peoples,' Mr. Sadat said at the colourful reopening ceremony. But, he warned, there could be no real peace in West Asia until Israel withdrew from occupied Arab land. 'Egypt declares it determination to do its holy duty toward its land in the Sinal, the Golan, Palestine and the unsurped rights of the Palestinians,' he said. Mr. Sadat said, 'While making this initiative as a contribution to peace, Egypt reminds friendly nations that parts of its dear soil are still under foreign occupation and that an entire people are still suffering the consequences of suppression and homelessness.' Thousands of people massed along the streets of this still war-battered city as President Sadat's motorcade swept by.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Coming to Irondequoit: NYC Crepes & Shakes
IRONDEQUOIT, N.Y. (WROC) — A new dessert & more cafe is coming to Irondequoit: NYC Crepes & Shakes. It's at 738 E. Ridge Road, and will be open starting June 1. After that, it will be open every day from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. 'People can come and enjoy (at) this quiet and peaceful environment,' said first-time business owner Omid Sadat. Here, Sadat serves a wide variety of freshly brewed tea, juice, and dessert options: everything from shakes to a loaded crepe with fruit and ice cream, to a flavorful chai, and a Tres Leches cake with your choice of toppings. There will even be some breakfast options. Fresh and organic ingredients are an important part of their food. Even though Sadat is a first-time business owner in the US, you may have seen him out in the community. He worked for the us government in Afghanistan, and was brought back to the us in 2021 through Keeping our Promise. Since then, he has worked with multiple community organizations, including Action for a Better Community, even working as a teacher for refugees in our area. With this place, beyond serving tasty treats, he wanted to open to give back with NYC Crepes & Shakes. 'It's America,' he said. 'So we are going to be serving the best as we can for the people.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
IOL News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
BRICS+ Series: Egypt's Closed Rafah Crossing
Trucks carrying humanitarian aid line up on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip on March 2, 2025, after Israel suspended the entry of supplies into the Palestinian enclave. Israel said on March 2, that it was suspending the entry of supplies into Gaza, with artillery fire and an air strike reported in the territory after it and Hamas hit an impasse over how to proceed with their fragile ceasefire. Historical Context: Egypt's Peace with Israel The 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was met with strong condemnation from the Arab League, resulting in Egypt's expulsion and potentially contributing to the assassination of President Sadat. This Treaty, reached after decades of conflict, was seen as a betrayal by other Arab states due to its violation of the Arab League's 1967 Khartoum Resolution, which explicitly prohibited negotiations with Israel. Israel has escalated its aggression against Palestine since October 2023, resulting in numerous international crimes and tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths- many of them women and children, including the bombing of so-called 'safe zones' for Palestinians. The situation in Gaza, with its large young population, has been described as the world's largest open-air prison. Escalation in Gaza: A Humanitarian Emergency The phrase never again, often used in reference to historical atrocities, appears to be applied selectively. The situation in Palestine echoes the horrors of Nazi Germany; innocent Palestinians are subjected to similar propaganda and dehumanising language. Israeli leaders and soldiers have referred to Palestinians as human animals, threatened to turn Gaza into a "slaughterhouse," and vowed to "erase the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth." These statements have been cited as evidence in South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide. This selective condemnation highlights the hypocrisy surrounding the use of such language; it is only condemned for a select few or when it's too late. Israel's strategy involves misleading Palestinians about safe zones, only to attack those areas later. This forces Palestinians to flee to the Rafah border, their only remaining option. Despite being a shared entry point between Egypt and Gaza, Israel controls the Rafah border, undermining Palestinian sovereignty. In May 2024, Israel's military urged Palestinians to evacuate to Rafah, which they falsely claimed was safe. Consequently, over a million people gathered there. The Rafah Crossing is a humanitarian corridor vital for aid and medical evacuations, was recently retaken by Israeli forces, who raised their flag, symbolising their control. Rafah Crossing Under Siege On 9 April 2025, thousands of Egyptians gathered at the Rafah border in protest, demanding that humanitarian aid be allowed into Gaza. The demonstration—one of the largest in recent memory—reflects growing frustration among Egyptians over their government's stance. Protesters called for immediate access to food, medicine, and essential supplies for Palestinians, while criticising both Israeli aggression and Egypt's prolonged closure of the crossing. The pressure from within Egypt adds urgency to an already volatile crisis and highlights the internal political cost of inaction. Mounting Public Pressure in Egypt While a final ruling is expected to take years, the ICJ has issued several legally binding provisional measures. In January 2024, the court found it plausible that Palestinian rights under the Genocide Convention were being violated and ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent acts of genocide, including preventing incitement and ensuring humanitarian assistance. Subsequent orders reaffirmed these measures and specifically instructed Israel to ensure the unhindered provision of aid and to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah, emphasising the worsening humanitarian crisis. While not mandating a full ceasefire across Gaza, these ICJ rulings represent a significant step in holding Israel accountable under international humanitarian law. The mid-January 2025 ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian factions collapsed by mid-March 2025. Subsequent attempts to reinstate the ceasefire have been unsuccessful, leading to a resurgence of violence in Gaza and an increase in civilian casualties. The main agenda in the Israeli military occupation of the Rafah Crossing is to force Palestinians out, leaving the land open for Israeli occupation to continue. The behaviour of Israeli forces questions the validity of current mediation talks between Israel and Hamas, especially considering that Egypt is a key player in the negotiations. Egypt's Global Shift: From Mediator to BRICS Member Egypt's stance on the Gaza crisis is no longer just regional—it now carries global weight. Since joining BRICS in January 2024, Egypt has stepped into a broader diplomatic role, aligning with countries pushing for a more multipolar world order. As the only BRICS member bordering Gaza, its decisions at the Egypt Rafah crossing are under close watch—not just by neighboring states, but also by fellow BRICS nations advocating for humanitarian access and justice. Egypt's next moves could shape both the regional response and its growing influence on the global stage. Written By: *Dr Iqbal Survé Past chairman of the BRICS Business Council and co-chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and the BRNN *Banthati Sekwala Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group Egyptian & South African Specialist **The Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.
Asia Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
Third World needs to ditch the 'Diplomacy of Non'
The first half of the Cold War period marked the emergence of an alternative diplomatic paradigm, one defined not by explicit ideological allegiance but by strategic detachment from the bipolar power struggle. The principles of non-interference, non-intervention and non-alignment became the hallmarks of what could be termed the 'Diplomacy of Non.' However, this agenda was not a construct in itself but rather a counter-construct against Western hegemony and, more broadly, against any external imposition on newly independent states. The roots of this approach were not solely based on anti-imperialist fears; they also reflected the sheer diversity of post-colonial nations, many of whom found it impossible to reach a consensus on political and economic models. Thereby, it received mutual recognition from democratic India to Communist China and many countries in between. Despite the inherent differences among post-colonial states, this approach secured widespread acceptance. It provided a framework for newly established nations to navigate international affairs without being drawn into the Cold War binary. The Bandung Conference of 1955 was a defining moment, where countries from Asia and Africa consolidated their commitment to non-alignment, reinforcing sovereignty as the bedrock of their international engagement. This consensus allowed weaker states to resist coercion, at least rhetorically, and to assert their right to self-determination in an era of geopolitical turbulence. Yet, the most vocal champions of this vision, India and China, often contradicted their own advocacy. India, while positioning itself as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), engaged in interventions within its neighborhood, such as in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 and Sri Lanka in the 1980s. China, too, pursued interventionist policies, most notably in the Korean War and Vietnam. The contradiction lay in the fact that while both nations rhetorically upheld non-interference, they strategically wielded power in their respective regions. The claims about neutrality could not survive their contradiction with realpolitik. Therefore, New Delhi itself aligned with the Soviet Union, while Beijing shifted towards Washington after a split with Moscow in the early 1970s. By the second half of the Cold War, the general orientation of the post-colonial states that concealed their sympathy for the anti-Western Soviet Union by the rhetoric of non-alignment looked West. Suharto's Indonesia and Sadat's Egypt are clear examples. These divisions undermined the 'third world' consensus, reaching a Western-dominated unipolar moment where most of the world embraced neo-liberal globalization, albeit with muted resentment. On the other side, the victorious West exhausted its liberal rhetoric and took this acceptance as an unlimited mandate. The disillusionment with liberal interventionism grew in the aftermath of military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus, the failure of the Arab uprisings and the strategic exposure faced later by successful democratic movements in Ukraine, Armenia, and lately Sudan revealed the vulnerabilities of any political transition. Adding to that, the war in Gaza and the unshakable support from Biden's administration, along with the morally oriented European Union, eroded the credibility of liberal internationalism. Eventually, the liberal consensus lost its relevance to realpolitik and its inherent contradictions, not to some authoritarian conspiracy, as Biden once claimed. Even within the United States, segments of the political right lament the removal of figures like Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi with a growing appreciation for stability over chaos caused by elusive democratization. Prominent MAGA figures today feel ideologically closer to Putin than the American liberal establishment. With Donald Trump openly dismissing democracy promotion and human rights as core tenets of US foreign policy, the moral justification for interference has faded. His administration's rhetoric frequently ridicules concerns over women's rights in Afghanistan, political prisoners and other liberal values that once served as a cornerstone of Western diplomacy. This shift signals that the US is no longer willing to expend political or military capital on interventions cloaked in democratic ideals. However, this does not imply that the US has adopted full military passivism. The ongoing military escalation in Yemen, along with provocative statements about taking over Canada and Greenland, suggests a turn towards a more overt realpolitik. Rather than interventions framed in liberal discourse, future US military actions are likely to be driven by stark strategic calculations, untethered from normative justifications. The US version of the 'Diplomacy of Non' will refrain from intervening, not generally but only in its global peers' sphere of influence. This can pave the way to better coexistence among great powers in a multipolar world, but it will not result in a 'global order.' As global power dynamics shift, the 'Diplomacy of Non' cannot be sustainable. India has gradually positioned itself as a middle power, engaging in strategic partnerships and military alliances, while China has emerged as a global power with expanding economic and security footprints. The very tenets of non-alignment that once shielded these nations from entanglement now appear less viable as they assume more proactive roles in global governance and regional security. In this evolving environment, the old order has unraveled, dismantling both its fair and unfair rules. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for emerging powers. The passive nature of the 'Diplomacy of Non', while historically useful, is no longer sufficient in an era of uncertainty. A constructive agenda is needed, one that moves beyond mere resistance to Western dominance and towards proactive rule-making. This is now more urgent than ever since the West has lost its ideological consensus, which has been contorted enough that it is unlikely to come back soon. If emerging powers wish to shape the new world order rather than merely react to it, they must lay down new rules that reflect contemporary geopolitical realities and push towards stability and development. Islam Alhalawany is a Beijing-based international affairs researcher and policy consultant. He is a Chevening Scholar with a master's degree in development and international business from Queen Mary University of London. Islam previously served as an assistant professor of practice and assistant dean for international collaborations at Jindal Global University in India. He worked as a senior research analyst at Standard & Poor's (S&P) in London and for the Egyptian government through research posts in Cabinet-affiliated think tanks. His work has been published by renowned think tanks, including the Atlantic Council, The National Interest, the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore and IDSC.
Arab News
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
1977 - When Sadat went to Israel
CAIRO: On Nov. 8, 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat announced in the Egyptian parliament — in the presence of Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization — that he was prepared to travel to Jerusalem to begin negotiations for a peace process with Israel. The announcement shocked all those present and, as word spread, surprised the whole world, including Israel itself; if Egypt recognized Israel diplomatically, it would be the first Arab state to do so. Things moved fast after that. Just 11 days later, Nov. 19, Sadat arrived in Jerusalem for a three-day visit. On Nov. 20, he addressed the Knesset, Israel's parliament. 'Today, I have come to you with firm steps, to build a new life and to establish peace,' he told the assembled members. 'We all on this Earth, Muslims, Christians and Jews alike, worship God and nobody but Him. God's teachings and commandments are love, sincerity, purity and peace.' Arab News featured Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel on its front page, capturing events leading to the historic peace deal. He had, he said, consulted no one before making his decision, either among his colleagues or fellow Arab heads of state. He spoke of the families of the 'October 1973 war victims … still in the throes of widowhood and bereavement for sons and the death of fathers and brothers.' It was, he said, his duty 'to leave no stone unturned to spare my Egyptian Arab people the harrowing horrors of another destructive war, whose extent only God can know.' Certain facts, Sadat added, had to be faced by Israeli authorities 'with courage and clear vision.' They had to withdraw from Arab territories they had occupied since 1967, he said, including Jerusalem. Furthermore, any peace agreement must secure 'the basic rights of the Palestinian people, and their right to self-determination, including the right to establish their own state.' Sadat becomes the first Arab leader to visit Israel and addresses the Israeli parliament the next day. 'Before us today,' he says, 'lies the … chance for peace … a chance that, if lost or wasted, the plotter against it will bear the curse of humanity and the curse of history.' At the invitation of US President Jimmy Carter, Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin arrive at Camp David for 10 days of talks. The two leaders sign a framework for peace, the Camp David Accords, at the White House in Washington. They are jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Sadat and Begin sign Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in Washington. Sadat assassinated in Cairo by Islamist extremists. Sadat's bold gamble sparked anger at home and abroad. Ismail Fahmy, Egypt's foreign minister, resigned from his position two days before the visit. In his memoirs, he described Sadat's initiative as 'an irrational move in a complicated and long game of peace.' Sadat appointed Mahmoud Riad as the new foreign minister, who resigned as well. Indeed, there was no shortage of critics in Egypt, including prominent politician Fouad Serageddin and the author Youssef Idris, who described Sadat's gesture as 'a submission and humiliation of the victorious Egyptian will in the face of a defeated enemy,' a reference to the October 1973 victory of Egyptian and Syrian forces over Israel in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Many Arab countries in the region put relations with Egypt on hold, and froze joint projects and investments in the country, which was also expelled from the Arab League. This anger was mirrored in streets across the region, with demonstrations taking place in several Arab cities including Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, Aden, Tripoli and Algiers. US President Jimmy Carter (C) congratulates Sadat (L) and Begin (R) at the White House lawn after signing of the historic peace treaty. AFP Sadat's visit to Jerusalem was the first step in a two-year process of negotiations between Egypt and Israel, brokered by the US, which ended with Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin signing a peace treaty in Washington on March 26, 1979, in the presence of President Jimmy Carter, following the Camp David Accords in September 1978. Sadat effectively had signed his own death warrant. Among the individuals and organizations that called for his death were Omar Abdel Rahman, leader of an extremist Islamist group active in Egypt at the time; the Muslim Brotherhood; and Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian revolution. On Oct. 6, 1981, while he attended the annual military parade in Cairo to celebrate Egypt's 1973 victory in the Sinai, Sadat and 10 other people were gunned down by members of Tanzim Al-Jihad, an Egyptian Islamist group.
