Mubarak assassinated

On June 25, 1995, Hosni Mubarak survived an assassination attempt engineered by Egyptian Islamic Jihad with Sudanese complicity while on his way to an OAU summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. WI he had not?
 

abc123

Banned
On June 25, 1995, Hosni Mubarak survived an assassination attempt engineered by Egyptian Islamic Jihad with Sudanese complicity while on his way to an OAU summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. WI he had not?

Events from OTL Algeria would happen in Egypt too.
Egiptian Military will take control over country. Muslim Broderhood would try to come on power by terrorist attacks and demonstrations.
Israel-Palestinian Peace Proces will fail.
 
No Vice-President at the time... in that case, the Egyptian laws of presidential succession say that the Prime Minister becomes the new President. So Mubarak would be succeeded by Atef Sedki.

I don't know enough about Egyptian history & politics to make an actual prediction (the facts in the above paragraph were stuff I'd just read on the Armenian Genocide). Anyone else know more? This is interesting.

Egiptian Military will take control over country.
Why?
Muslim Broderhood would try to come on power by terrorist attacks and demonstrations.
Why?
Israel-Palestinian Peace Proces will fail.
Why?

(I'm particularly interested in your reasons for the middle one, considering that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't do terrorist attacks. But then again, maybe the Muslim "Broderhood" does, I dunno.)
 

abc123

Banned

Because Army is only political power left in Egipt after death of Mubarak.


Because they have no other option, military won't let them to win in elections.
This is too close to rebellion of islamists in Algerea against military government, both the military and MB will see situation, first in Algerea, then in Egypt as a pattern that will go in whole arabic world...


Because Fatah and Arafat will no longer be so inclined for talks with Israel if they now see a chance to get Egypt again on their side against Israel...
 
Because Fatah and Arafat will no longer be so inclined for talks with Israel if they now see a chance to get Egypt again on their side against Israel...

Except they'd be pissing off the people who actually would be in power in Egypt, not to mention many other Arab and Western governments, all for the sake of people who have more in common with Hamas than Fatah. And even if the Islamists do take power in Egypt and do decide to side with Fatah, it would mean a return to the age of Arab-Israeli wars, which brought nothing but failure to the Palestinians, at a time when their only successes had come through diplomacy.
 

abc123

Banned
Except they'd be pissing off the people who actually would be in power in Egypt, not to mention many other Arab and Western governments, all for the sake of people who have more in common with Hamas than Fatah. And even if the Islamists do take power in Egypt and do decide to side with Fatah, it would mean a return to the age of Arab-Israeli wars, which brought nothing but failure to the Palestinians, at a time when their only successes had come through diplomacy.

I agree, but politicians aren't allways driven by rational thinking...
 
Because Army is only political power left in Egipt after death of Mubarak.
Nonsense. Mubarak might have been gone but the institution of government would still be there. Mubarak is not Sauron and the Egyptian government is not Barad-dur: the latter does not spontaneously collapse when the former dies.

Mubarak's recent ousting is a totally different situation to a sudden assassination in 1995. What happened in OTL was a revolution -- the general population of Egypt rose up and demanded him gone and demanded political reform. That's why the army is in charge now: because the people have rejected the institution of Egypt's former authoritarian government, not just the man himself. If Mubarak was to suddenly die in 1995, that institution would still be there -- and succession laws would be in place to automatically make someone the next president (in this case, Prime Minister Atef Sedki). I don't know if Sedki would be more autocratic or less, or how he would respond to his predecessor's assassination -- those are questions worth exploring.

Because they have no other option, military won't let them to win in elections.
Nonsense again. Let me spell it out:
The. Muslim. Brotherhood. Don't. Do. Terrorist. Attacks.
They. Are. Not. A. Terrorist. Group.

And Mubarak's regime -- and Sadat's before him -- never let them win in elections either, and had them declared an illegal organisation. Even if the military somehow ended up in charge after Mubarak's assassination, why would the Muslim Brotherhood suddenly undergo an ideological shift and start blowing shit up?

Because Fatah and Arafat will no longer be so inclined for talks with Israel if they now see a chance to get Egypt again on their side against Israel...
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy has already said it best.
 

abc123

Banned
Nonsense. Mubarak might have been gone but the institution of government would still be there. Mubarak is not Sauron and the Egyptian government is not Barad-dur: the latter does not spontaneously collapse when the former dies.

Mubarak's recent ousting is a totally different situation to a sudden assassination in 1995. What happened in OTL was a revolution -- the general population of Egypt rose up and demanded him gone and demanded political reform. That's why the army is in charge now: because the people have rejected the institution of Egypt's former authoritarian government, not just the man himself. If Mubarak was to suddenly die in 1995, that institution would still be there -- and succession laws would be in place to automatically make someone the next president (in this case, Prime Minister Atef Sedki). I don't know if Sedki would be more autocratic or less, or how he would respond to his predecessor's assassination -- those are questions worth exploring.

Nonsense again. Let me spell it out:
The. Muslim. Brotherhood. Don't. Do. Terrorist. Attacks.
They. Are. Not. A. Terrorist. Group.

And Mubarak's regime -- and Sadat's before him -- never let them win in elections either, and had them declared an illegal organisation. Even if the military somehow ended up in charge after Mubarak's assassination, why would the Muslim Brotherhood suddenly undergo an ideological shift and start blowing shit up?


Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy has already said it best.

About MB.
True. They did renounced violence in 70s.
But Gama al Islamya didnt. And you have to ask yourself- what sort of country doees MB plans of Egypt to become?
And does G-al-I has any great objections on such Egypt?
Same thing with Sinn Fein and IRA.

And about Fatah and Hamas, the pretty only thing that make difference between them before Oslo I was leadership.
And oslo I was still very new and fragile thing.

And about the institutions- there are no institutions in Egypt and other arab countries. That's the basic problem with them.
Only strong institutions are islamic leaders and military.
 
And about Fatah and Hamas, the pretty only thing that make difference between them before Oslo I was leadership.
And oslo I was still very new and fragile thing.

And why in the world would Fatah reject Oslo when it was the only victory they ever had and it had yet to break down?

And about the institutions- there are no institutions in Egypt and other arab countries. That's the basic problem with them.
Only strong institutions are islamic leaders and military.

Am I missing something? The military didn't take over when Sadat was assassinated.
 
"No institutions other than Islamic leaders and the military"? What the hell are you talking about? Who do you think Egypt was protesting against these past three weeks?

Hosni Mubarak wasn't the entire Egyptian government. He was the leader of the Egyptian government -- and they had presidential succession laws to deal with who would replace him in the event of his death (given that there was no Vice-President of Egypt in 1995, the Prime Minister would become the new president). The protesters focused on Mubarak in particular as leader of the authoritarian regime, but they were protesting the whole damn institution: the Cabinet, the corrupt houses of Parliament, the police, all of that. That's why the OTL Egyptian revolution is different to the WI: all of that will be gone, not just Mubarak himself.

Am I missing something? The military didn't take over when Sadat was assassinated.
And is there any reason to think they wouldn't support Sedki's succession? Bear in mind that this is an assassination by a fringe Islamic-fundamentalist group. Would the military really go "Wa-hey, score! Now we can take over and go totally junta on Egypt's ass!" Or would they go "Holy shit, an Islamic fundamentalist just shot the president! Stability is paramount right now, so we'd better support the new president -- say what you will about Mubarak's autocratic rule, but right now there's actually a legitimate reason for the 'state of emergency'!"
 
Last edited:

abc123

Banned
And is there any reason to think they wouldn't support Sedki's succession? Bear in mind that this is an assassination by a fringe Islamic-fundamentalist group. Would the military really go "Wa-hey, score! Now we can take over and go totally junta on Egypt's ass!" Or would they go "Holy shit, an Islamic fundamentalist just shot the president! Stability is paramount right now, so we'd better support the new president -- say what you will about Mubarak's autocratic rule, but right now there's actually a legitimate reason for the 'state of emergency'!"

Look, I'm not a prophet, I can't really say what will happen there. But history has shown that in that part of the world, institutions mean little. Egypt can be exception, maybe their military would indeed think as your'e saying, but in fact, booth Naser, Sadat and Mubarak were soldiers. So their rule is better camouflaged military junta indeed...
 

abc123

Banned
And why in the world would Fatah reject Oslo when it was the only victory they ever had and it had yet to break down?



Am I missing something? The military didn't take over when Sadat was assassinated.

Well, they had a long history of not-negotiating with Israel.
Maybe they wouldn't negotiate this time too, that 2 things didn't happen:
1) Mubarak continues Sadat's policy of peace and recognition of Israel, same with Jordan
2) defeat of Saddam, and loss of major support within of Arab world.

So, I'm not saying that they will FOR SURE do that, but that's a possibility...
 
Egypt can be exception, maybe their military would indeed think as your'e saying, but in fact, booth Naser, Sadat and Mubarak were soldiers. So their rule is better camouflaged military junta indeed...

So why would the military take over if they're already in power?
 
Top