Over the past few years, terrorists have taken the lives of many Egyptian people, have severely harmed the economy, and have introduced insecurity and fear into the personal lives of many.

The decision to go to war for any country in modern history depends on several factors. Egypt, as one of the oldest nations in the world, has a long history and experience in vital interests, and the decision to go to war for Egypt is always motivated by protecting these interests, its borders and territories. All the wars it fought were defensive to protect Egypt s national interests. Nations go to war when there is imminent threat that can reach their borders, and a rule of thumb is the best defence is a strong offence. Egypt s current declared war on terrorism in the vital region of Sinai and on the western and coastal borders, is on the offensive to prevent this threat — which has swept through and destroyed many regional countries — from reaching its heartland.

North Sinai has been one of the most-searched-for terms over the past few years, according to the Google search engine, particularly since the 25 January Revolution and later when millions of Egyptians revolted against the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in June 2013. Few people, however, thought about North Sinai on a daily basis before 2011. Now the area has become everybody s daily business until further notice. According to a statement by the security forces a few days ago, “the Air Force has targeted weapons and ammunition depots used by terrorist elements to target the security forces and civilian targets in North and Central Sinai.” These depots have been building up over recent years, but there have still been comments even in some parts of the mainstream press that instead of pointing to them for what they are has instead talked about an “insurgency” against “poverty, alienation and injustice” in North Sinai.

In Egypt, almost all my friends are either scholars working for state institutions, including the media, or high-ranking civil servants. We have weekly discussions, and sometimes, like last week, we welcome newcomers to our circle. I also might be invited to join new ones. Most of these circles discuss domestic policy, or foreign policy, though a few prefer to focus on cultural life. While foreign policy is predominant in our discussions, we also spend time on the domestic situation. Sometimes we evoke specific issues, and sometimes we assess the situation as a whole.

Whenever I contemplate the state of the Arabs and the Arab world, I become more and more convinced that the difference between word and deed is what distinguishes developed nations from those still struggling under the plights of underdevelopment. As we sustain continuous slaps and blows from others, we imagine that expressions of denial and condemnation are a sufficient defence or assertion of our position.

Turn a blind eye to the nuclear threat that he embarked on; brush aside his bombing of the Syrian airport, an intentional act to terrorise anyone who goes against him; and disregard his irrational resolution to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Now, focus on his words. President Trump s rhetoric is erratic, bizarre, and with severe ramifications. He flabbergasts the world with ear-splitting, politically incorrect, distasteful arrogance, leaving everyone baffled at the gross indiscretion and unable to fathom the lack in decorum.

Donald Trump wants you to believe he has "great respect" for women, but his words and actions tell a far different story. In fact, Trump may be the most anti-women US president ever. Case in point: On Friday, Trump defended his former aide Rob Porter after news broke of allegations that Porter had been physically abusive to his two ex-wives, Colbie Holderness and Jennifer Willoughby. At that point, America had already seen the photo of Holderness with a black eye caused when Porter allegedly punched her. We had heard Porter s second wife, Willoughby tell us that while married to Porter he had been abusive. He "grabbed me from the shower by my shoulders up close to my neck and pulled me out to continue to yell at me," she said. Porter has denied these allegations.

Ten days ago, US President Donald Trump delivered his first State of the Union (SOTU) address. Last year, he had spoken before the US Congress, in a joint session, a few weeks after being sworn into office as the 45th president of the United States. On 1 February, he tweeted that his first SOTU was delivered “from the heart”, thanking the 45 million Americans who watched him, saying it was a record number.

Arab political thinking seems to always turn to “boycott” as though it were a constructive concept that can resolves things in our favour because it supposedly pulls the rug out from beneath our opponents or those standing in the way of our interests. The “rug”, here, is “legitimacy”. Illegitimate groups think they hold the key to it if they do the rug-pulling in order to turn the tables in their favour. The concept was displayed in its full glory when groups from the Egyptian opposition gathered together to declare a boycott against the Egyptian presidential elections. It is their way of protesting what they claim to be restrictions on the electoral process. They called on the Egyptian people to follow suit and not to turn out on voting day.

One of the least-talked about questions is the coordination and cooperation between Israel and Russia in dealing with regional developments in the Middle East and how far this cooperation has gone in defending Israel s security interests, particularly, against an expansionist Iran. With the Syrian government winning the war against terrorism and the armed groups which rose to overthrow Al-Assad s regime, Israel has warned against a permanent Iranian military presence in Syria. It has also raised alarm bells in relation with continuing Iranian support for Lebanon s Hezbollah. Israeli security officials have been talking lately of Iran helping in the construction of an underground missile factory in Lebanon.

Do you want to make your city the most livable place in the world, or as good as? It can be done but it requires hard work and an understanding of how to prevent disasters and avoid planning mistakes which will only bring misery in the future. If we are to leave no one behind in the race for sustainable development, we need to get ready for an uncertain future as the numbers of people living in urban centres surge towards 6.4 billion by 2050 when climate change is likely to have an even more significant impact on urban life.

Donald Trump, as a presidential candidate, never promised compromise. He instead promised the opposite: reform through sheer force of will. "Nobody knows the system better than me," said Trump when accepting the Republican nomination, "which is why I alone can fix it." The trouble with such a self-centered approach? It is contrary to the Constitution. Indeed, it is our nation s powerful legal framework that explains so much of what President Trump has accomplished, and failed to accomplish, during his first year in office. This framework sustains a system of government that resists unilateral action and rejects singular efforts to consolidate power.

In recent days, the Wafd Party has been under great pressure to change its position at the last minute to push forward a candidate for the presidential elections against President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi after the party already announced its support for him. The Wafd, like the Tagammu Party, has supported the president in a rational way because they issued statements confirming their demands for political reforms, allowing parties arrange events at their headquarters, and open up public discussion about freedoms and human rights. Therefore, it was no longer thinkable or acceptable that the Wafd would change its position and make an announcement to enter a nominal competition against the president. The party should keep its dignity and respect for itself, especially as the announcement to participate in the election was not seen as convincing for anyone at home or abroad. It merely gave the world press a fresh reason to mock and ridicule someone who supports the president, while at the same time running against him in political elections.

On January 20 2018, Turkish forces invaded Syrian territories in a military operation dubbed Olive Branch. The aim has been to clear Afrin from Kurdish “terrorists”—and Ankara vowed to continue its drive inside Syria to the Iraqi-Syrian borders to the east, to drive out all the Kurds from this vast stretch of territory. In so doing, the Turkish government asked the United States to withdraw any American forces that could be stationed along its advance. To this, the Pentagon commented that it understands Turkish concerns and would be ready to discuss with the Turks the establishment of a “safe zone” along the Turkish-Syrian borders. The Turkish government replied that trust should be restored between Washington and Ankara before discussing such a proposal. In the meantime, and while the Turkish forces were advancing through Syrian territory from west to east with insurgents from the so-called Free Syrian Army, no Arab government, nor the League of Arab States have condemned the Turkish military invasion of a sovereign Arab country. So far, not a single Arab country has called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss such a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter.

Strong regional and global integration have been central to countries rapid growth and reduced poverty. Few economic sectors can better illustrate integration s potential benefits—and its significant risks—than the banking sector. The period prior to the 2008 global financial crisis was characterised by a significant increase in financial globalisation, which coincided with dramatic increases in bank sizes. This was manifested both in a rise in cross-border lending and in the growing participation of foreign banks around the world, especially in developing countries. These trends resulted in: additional capital and liquidity; efficiency improvements through technological advancements and competition; and, eventually, greater financial development.

January 25, like all major revolutions in the history, did not immediately achieve all of its goals, but certainly achieved some of them. The French Revolution, considered the greatest revolution in history, achieved its goals after many years, and its ideas were considered so enlightening they spread across the European continent and throughout the world.

In a dramatic turn, the US administration of President Donald Trump, after one year in office, took the world by surprise on 17 and 19 January. On 17 January, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave remarks to the Hoover Institute at Stanford University on the “Way Forward for the United States Regarding Syria.” Two days later, US Secretary of Defence Lieutenant General James Mattis unveiled a new defence strategy for the United States. This article will, however, deal with the Tillerson remarks at the Hoover Institute, which aligns in tone and proposed actions to the essence of the new American defence strategy.

On the sidelines of the “The Story of a Nation” conference, I engaged in a serious discussion with several of my colleagues about the personality of the Egyptian citizen who was the subject of a documentary shown in the opening session, and how s/he bore the burden before the 25 January Revolution. Suffering was made worse during the mayhem and instability following the revolution, followed by harsh economic and security conditions that almost destroyed the country and its people, as we see in other regional countries where the blustery winds of the Arab Spring blew.

Jerusalem has returned to the centre of Arab attention and it seems as though the Palestinian cause has awakened from a deep sleep. Demonstrations swarm the streets, declarations of condemnation resound, and Arab ruling elites and everyone else who has a stance to voice against the US is riding the crest. It is no wonder that Jerusalem occupies such a sacred place in the hearts of Arabs, both Christian and Muslim. The Holy City is where Christ was crucified and where the Church of the Resurrection stands, and it is the place to where the Prophet Mohamed landed during his midnight journey on the night of the Israa and Meiraj. Nevertheless, the very return of the subject begs the question as to the reasons for its absence for so many years. Did it take a decision by the US president to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to realise that the Holy City was occupied? Could it be that the anger is directed not only at Israel and the US, but also at ourselves who seem to have been jolted awake by the sudden realisation that so much has changed both in the Arab region as a whole, which has experienced so many bloodbaths in the past few years, and in the Palestinian situation, which is so sharply divided? During the influential conference it organised on Jerusalem, Al-Azhar announced that it would introduce the subject of Jerusalem into its curriculum to ensure that future generations are acquainted with the Palestinian question and the Holy City at its heart.

Most Egyptians have probably always loved Egypt; that is a given, but they also have taken Egypt for granted; they complained, criticised, and chose to focus on the negative. Not anymore. Demonstrating devotion -- by focusing on what Egypt offers, by defending it unabashedly, and by cherishing its hard workers and great achievers -- is becoming a common denominator among most Egyptians.

We are in a time of no rules and no politics. The whole world is like a cat that fell into a basket full of strings. The more it tries to get out of it, the more complicated it becomes. We have small and medium international interest groups in the Arab region, which increases the tension in the world, especially in the region of the old sick man that is the Arab world.