Again, the developments in Mesopotamia with the sudden rise and fall of Shamshi-Adad and the supremacy of Hammurabi over Mesopotamia and parts of Anatolia and the rest of the region from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and the attempts of the Elamites and Canaanites to demonstrate some power in Mesopotamia, shall not be disconnected from the decline of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. With the rise of new powerful actors, traditional superpowers seem to lose their classical position among nations. The supremacy of Babylonia, after eliminating Assyrians and Elamites, over vast lands from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean must have affected Egypt’s economic interests in the Near East. The foreign policy of Egypt, although successful in the south, failed to act properly with the growing potential threats coming from the east. The inactive passive policy of Egypt in the Near East provided new actors with a chance to challenge not only Egypt’s position but also to endanger its very existence. This passive policy enabled new actors, the Amorites, who already ruled over Assyria and Babylonia by peaceful settlement and learned from their advanced technologies, to grow massive power and military capabilities in the land of Canaan and Levant on the borders of Egypt. The Amorites, who are the very Asiatics who were brought as slaves during the campaigns of Amenemhat II, who settled in the city of Kahun in the Nile Valley, and then flooded the country with the waves of peaceful immigration, will soon endanger a long history of the glory of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. One observation here, again, is that the tough and bold uncivilized people of the desert, like the case of the Amorites, with impoverished conditions, are usually more capable of fighting against the well-maintained longstanding civilization that indulged in luxuries, validating the viewpoint of Ibn Khaldun. Another point is that at times of turbulence and regional or global turmoil, the activation of an “advanced national security” strategy would be of great aid to leaders, with the application of the principle of “indivisible security,” which suggests an active advanced engagement in the regional, and to some extent global, affairs to protect the national security, as the principle advocates that the regional security and national security are indivisible. That is why the inactive and passive engagement of Egypt in the Near East has, definitely, endangered Egypt’s own national security and led to the loss of Egypt’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by the invasion of the Hyksos, who are, wholly or partially, of Amorite origins, as we shall see.

The Shift in the Balance of Powers

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Amr Mohieeldin

摘要

Again, the developments in Mesopotamia with the sudden rise and fall of Shamshi-Adad and the supremacy of Hammurabi over Mesopotamia and parts of Anatolia and the rest of the region from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and the attempts of the Elamites and Canaanites to demonstrate some power in Mesopotamia, shall not be disconnected from the decline of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt. With the rise of new powerful actors, traditional superpowers seem to lose their classical position among nations. The supremacy of Babylonia, after eliminating Assyrians and Elamites, over vast lands from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean must have affected Egypt’s economic interests in the Near East. The foreign policy of Egypt, although successful in the south, failed to act properly with the growing potential threats coming from the east. The inactive passive policy of Egypt in the Near East provided new actors with a chance to challenge not only Egypt’s position but also to endanger its very existence. This passive policy enabled new actors, the Amorites, who already ruled over Assyria and Babylonia by peaceful settlement and learned from their advanced technologies, to grow massive power and military capabilities in the land of Canaan and Levant on the borders of Egypt. The Amorites, who are the very Asiatics who were brought as slaves during the campaigns of Amenemhat II, who settled in the city of Kahun in the Nile Valley, and then flooded the country with the waves of peaceful immigration, will soon endanger a long history of the glory of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. One observation here, again, is that the tough and bold uncivilized people of the desert, like the case of the Amorites, with impoverished conditions, are usually more capable of fighting against the well-maintained longstanding civilization that indulged in luxuries, validating the viewpoint of Ibn Khaldun. Another point is that at times of turbulence and regional or global turmoil, the activation of an “advanced national security” strategy would be of great aid to leaders, with the application of the principle of “indivisible security,” which suggests an active advanced engagement in the regional, and to some extent global, affairs to protect the national security, as the principle advocates that the regional security and national security are indivisible. That is why the inactive and passive engagement of Egypt in the Near East has, definitely, endangered Egypt’s own national security and led to the loss of Egypt’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by the invasion of the Hyksos, who are, wholly or partially, of Amorite origins, as we shall see.