Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
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?
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?
Why?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?
Why?
Why?
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.
I agree, but politicians aren't allways driven by rational thinking...
Muslim Broderhood would try to come on power by terrorist attacks and demonstrations.
No, but they usually are, so why assume that they wouldn't be under these circumstances?
OK, then explain to me why Hamas still fights against Israel from Gaza, and we all know that they have apsolutly no chance whatsoever to defeat Israel?
This TL is in 1995.
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.Because Army is only political power left in Egipt after death of Mubarak.
Nonsense again. Let me spell it out:Because they have no other option, military won't let them to win in elections.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy has already said it best.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...
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.
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 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'!"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'!"
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.
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...