Abrahamic dynasty reign in northern Egypt for 500 years
While General Abraham was busy fending off the Sumerian invaders, his wife, Queen Seheratawy Intef (Sarah), the Pharaoh of Egypt, was coming under siege. It seems Abraham had miscalculated: the Hykso rule over all Egypt was not secure yet.
For in 2040 BC, about a year after he left Egypt, Mentuhotep II, the heir to the deposed Mentuhotep I of southern Egypt, overthrew Sarah in an essentially bloodless coup de tat. It was more of a palace coup than a blood-and-gall ousting. What most certainly happened was that Mentuhotep II endeared himself to Sarah, her maternal aunt, and before Sarah knew what was cooking, she had been taken down from the pedestal of power. It was back to square one, whereby indigenous Egyptians were again masters of their own political destiny.
But Sarah had balls, pardon the misplaced metaphor. Instead of fleeing Egypt altogether, she held out in northern Egypt amongst the Hyksos to rally her people for a renewed putsch. Meanwhile, General Abraham was on his way over to try and salvage the situation, with a formidable army in tow. True to his reputation as the greatest military general of his day, he managed to repel Mentuhotep II’s forces from northern Egypt.
Yet as mighty as he was, this time Abraham wasn’t able to unseat Mentuhotep II from the Thebes throne. As such, he had no option but to content himself with the repossession only of northern Egypt, which he ruled jointly with his wife at least for the next 24 years. The Hyksos, later to be known as Israelites, were to rule northern Egypt for the next 500 years or so, and the whole of Egypt indirectly from the time of Pharaoh Ramses IX to part of the time of King David as we shall elucidate in the next instalment.
ISAAC AND JACOB WERE EGYPTIAN PHARAOHS
Although the Bible does not expressly state that the biblical patriarchs from Abraham to David were actually pharaohs of northern Egypt, it does furnish some hints when one reads between the lines. The Bible is not a straightforward informational corpus: it is partly and substantially written in code. It’s a pity that our pulpit men of Christendom are completely clueless as to this fact, as a result of which their interpretation of “scripture” is woefully erroneous. What they say almost completely has no correlation with the underlying and intended message of biblical passages. What a tragicomedy!
Exactly how long Abraham ruled northern Egypt is not certain. But we know that according to Egyptian annals, he was succeeded by Shesi (also known as Salitis), who was in turn succeeded by Pharaoh Yakuber. Shesi was the way the name Isaac (Yishaq in Hebrew) was pronounced in ancient Egypt, though as Pharaoh he was referred to as Pharaoh Mehibre II. The name Isaac had connotations of laughter as per GENESIS 18:15, 21:5-6.
According to Genesis, he was given the name, which literally means “will laugh”, because the notion of his mother Sarah conceiving him at age 90 was indeed a laughing matter. That interpretation, sadly, is a concoction. Isaac was cause for laughter simply because he was not the biological son of Abraham but that of Pharaoh Mentuhotep I. Properly translated, with the aid of its rendering in some Sumerian-like African languages such as Setswana for instance, Isaac (Itshege) means “laugh at yourself”. For what? For his illegitimacy.
Even the Talmud, the Jewish commentaries and interpretive writings that are looked upon as only second in authority to the Old Testament, state categorically that when born, Isaac did not look like Abraham at all. But since he was the legal heir to Abraham being the eldest son of his half-sister-wife, Isaac had the automatic right of accession to Abraham’s throne. That was how he became Pharaoh Shesi.
Abraham was very much aware of Isaac’s illegitimacy but he could not disown him for fear of losing the much-needed popularity with indigenous Egyptians who knew the truth about Isaac and cherished him for being at least part-native Egyptian, what we would today call a coloured, as Mentuhotep I was fully black and Sarah was white. So the only sensible course of action was to legitimize at least Isaac’s offspring. Like all patriarchs of the day, Isaac had several wives. The first was an Egyptian, by whom he had Esau. This is not mentioned in the Bible as that would be revealing too much.
As for Isaac’s second son Jacob, Abraham ensured that not only did he have maternal Sumerian blood but Haran’s blood as Haran was the proper heir to Terah. So Abraham contrived for Isaac to travel to Harran, where Terah’s clan was concentrated, and meet Rebecca. Rebecca was the daughter of Betheul. Betheul in turn was the son of Nahor, Abraham’s younger brother, and Milcah, Haran’s eldest daughter. Thus the ensuing child of Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob, was about 75 percent Sumerian and only 25 percent Egyptian. Moreover, with Haran’s blood coursing in Jacob’s veins, that was a potent enough counter punch to Lot’s bone of contention as the rightful successor to Haran and consequently Terah. That’s how clever General Abraham was.
It was Jacob who succeeded Isaac under the name Pharaoh Yakubher. Yakubher was the Egyptian equivalent of the Hebrew Yaakov. This is Jacob in English. At least four Egyptian scarab seal records attest to the reign of Pharaoh Yakubher in Egypt. In Avaris, the northern Egypt-based Hykso capital, a signet ring was found that read, "Yakov/Yakub". Jacob was later named Israel by Enlil-Jehovah. Once again, the Bible is silent as to the reason why: it simply said he was given the name after “wrestling with God” (GENESIS 32:22-32).
What could have happened was that Israel – I–Sira-El, meaning “God’s Shield – was his given name when he was born. The name was meant to rhyme with I-Sira-El, the ancient Hebrew name of northern Egypt, which was intended to serve as a buffer between Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula, where the all-important spaceport was located.
But as Pharaoh, Israel adopted the name Yakuber, which name totally eclipsed Israel. It is indeed telling that although according to the Bible the name Israel was given to Jacob when he was an adult, it did not stick at all: he is still referred to as Jacob throughout the remainder of his life. Jacob. Clearly, the name Jacob took pride of place because it was a throne name and not an original name.
JACOB JETS OFF TO PLANET NIBIRU
Jacob reigned as Pharaoh Yakuber twice. His first tenure was interrupted by none other than he himself. Jacob had noticed that the lifespans of elite Earthlings – those who were of dynastic stock and therefore had a greater proportion of Anunnaki blood in them – were reducing largely due to intermarriages with ordinary Earthlings. He had also noted that the Anunnaki themselves were basically evergreen: although they did age, they did so rather glacially slowly and basically imperceptibly.
Troubled by such worries, Jacob began to pester his god Enlil for a trip to Nibiru, the Heaven of the Bible. In doing this, he was unremitting: he supplicated, interceded, fasted. Jacob was aware that all Earthlings who had travelled to Nibiru before him, notably Adapa and Enoch, came back rejuvenated: it was like during the time they were away, for between 1800 to 3600 years, time had stood still for them. Jacob wanted to undergo the same rejuvenation process. Jacob’s obsession with traveling to Nibiru was such that he kept dreaming about a spaceship with angels (the Anunnaki) reaching out to him to get him on-board as hinted at in GENESIS 28:10-22.
Initially, Enlil was reluctant. He didn’t even want to grant Jacob an audience. But through the intermediation of the likes of Nannar-Sin and Utu-Shamash, Jacob finally got to meet Enlil to personally present his case. The two met at a place known as Penuel, meaning “Facing God”. It was not a chance meeting as Genesis would have you believe: it was pre-arranged. No one met a god informally or in impromptu circumstances. Jacob referred to his petition to Enlil as a blessing in that a stint on Nibiru would bless him with a longer life. The incident is narrated in GENESIS 32:22-32, with some rather dramatic embellishments.
Enlil was impressed by Jacob’s tenacity and at long last caved in. Jacob had figuratively speaking “wrestled with God” in order to get what he wanted. Thus it was that on an appointed day, Jacob at long last boarded a spaceship at the spaceport at Tilmun in the Sinai Peninsula and was off to Nibiru. From that time onwards, a spaceship became known as Jacob’s Ladder and the planet Nibiru acquired an alternative name – the Star of Jacob. But did Jacob blast off to Nibiru alone or was accompanied by other fellow Earthlings?
JACOB WENT TO NIBIRU WITH FAMILY!
Who held fort for Jacob whilst he was visiting the planet of the gods? According to Egyptian records, Pharaoh Yakuber was succeeded by Pharaoh Apepi I. Since a king was always succeeded by his firstborn son with the seniormost wife, and new kings typically used a throne name different from their given name, Pharaoh Apepi I was arguably Reuben, Jacob’s eldest son with his seniormost wife Leah (theoretically speaking, that is, as Rachel, Leah’s younger sister and Jacob’s second wife, would in fact have been Jacob’s first wife had Laban, the two ladies’ father, not tricked him into hitching Leah first).
Exactly when did Jacob become Pharaoh of northern Egypt? When did he leave for Nibiru and for how long was he there? That, sadly, cannot be established for certain. Even the regnal periods that are indicated by the otherwise authoritative online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, are all speculative: there’s no single, incontrovertible source on the subject. In regard to Jacob, Wikipedia itself candidly admits that “it is difficult to date his reign precisely and even the dynasty to which he belonged is uncertain”.
The ancient historian Manetho informs us that the Hyksos ruled Egypt for a period of 511 years. If Abraham first captured northern Egypt in 2047, then the Hykso rule ended sometime in 1530 BC. Abraham was 175 years old when he died. Since he was born in 2123 BC, that makes the year 1948 BC as the year of his death. Isaac was born during Abraham’s first 7 years in Egypt. We can tentatively place his birth in 2045 BC. He is said to have lived for 180 years, meaning he died in 1865 BC. But we don’t know exactly when Abraham handed over to Isaac nor when Isaac handed over to Jacob. It was not always that kings died in office: sometimes they simply abdicated and passed the baton to their heirs for one reason or the other.
On his part, Jacob was born in 1963 BC. If, for argument’s sake, he ascended to the throne at his father’s death, he must have been just under 100 years. It explains why he would have wanted to travel to Nibiru – to arrest the pace of his age so that he could enjoy a much lengthier life in power. At the time the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, Jacob was alive. This was circa 1530 BC, meaning Jacob was over 400 years old. Equally intriguing is the fact that even his older kids – Simeon, Levi, Judah – were all alive and must have been 300 years-plus. These ages simply were not tenable at the time: lifespans had been progressively reducing since the time of Adapa, so that King David lived for only 70 years.
So what can we deduce from these unseemly ages of the Jacobite clan during a phase of time when lifespans were dwindling? Simple: Jacob travelled to Nibiru with members of his family! The only one of his kids who remained was Reuben as his role as Pharaoh was crucial. Indeed, when you read the Bible, you will find that Reuben is not dwelt upon in any appreciable detail: his profile seemed to have been eclipsed by those of his younger brothers, notably Simeon, Levi, Judah, and Joseph. This is because by the time his younger brothers returned from Nibiru and as young men still, Reuben was long dead and even had several generations of grandchildren. That’s why the names of the pharaohs who succeeded him (about 24 in total) sound very unfamiliar.
JACOB’S SONS LIQUIDATE SOUTHERN PHARAOH
Jacob and his kids were not away from Earth for very long: in Earthly terms, they were not gone for more than 200 years probably. From the same Egyptian annals, we can deduce quite conclusively that Jacob re-assumed his throne upon his return. For toward the end of Hykso rule in Egypt, we see the names Pharaoh Anathar; Pharaoh Yakobaam (Yakuber in other spellings); and Pharaoh Apepi II. Pharaoh Anathar was obviously a descendent of Reuben. Pharaoh Yakobaam was the returned Jacob. Pharaoh Apepi II was of course another descendent of Reuben, whom Jacob handed over to after voluntarily stepping down, most likely due to creeping age.
Jacob’s bequest of the throne to Apepi II was a sticking point. Simeon and Levi, who followed immediately after Reuben, were ambitious types. They too wanted to rule. But with the throne of northern Egypt already occupied, their hands were tied. However, there was a tantalising allure down south – the Thebes throne. Thebes was the capital city of southern Egypt, which at the time was ruled by a black Pharaoh known as Seqenenre Tao II.
The two brothers reckoned that if they were to ever have a chance of ruling Egypt, they should hatch a scheme to depose and kill Tao. That way, one of them, Simeon since he was older, would take over as Pharaoh of southern Egypt whilst Apepi would continue to rule northern Egypt. In the final analysis, it wouldn’t make much of a difference as Egypt would still be ruled by the Hyksos and the clan of Jacob though from two fronts.
Simeon and Levi did manage to bring their scheme to fruition. They did get at Tao and assassinate him. Exactly how they did that is a matter of speculation as nobody knows for sure how they pulled it off. There are sorts of theories, but what we do know for certain is that Tao had a very short rein and his body, which is preserved in the Cairo Museum, had two or three deep and vicious head wounds. He obviously must have been killed at close quarters, either by Simeon and Levi directly (disguised as dignitaries from northern Egypt in the manner their great grandfather Abraham did) or their agent.
HYKSO-ISRAELITES EJECTED FROM EGYPT
Sadly, the assassination of Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao II backfired horrendously: the two Jacobite brothers were unable to incite a popular uprising to catapult them to power and so they fled back to northern Egypt after they had done the deed. In fact, the successor to Tao, his son Kamose, was so furious he vowed he would never rest until the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt. Kamose accordingly waged relentless war against Apepi II.
He did die in the process and his mother, Amhotep I, took over to hold fort for his minor younger brother Ahmose. When Ahmose acceded to the throne upon attaining the age of majority, he too pounced on the Hyksos with a vengeance in continuation from where his late brother had left off. It was Ahmose who succeeded in expelling the Hyksos from Egypt and united the country circa 1525 BC.
Manetho writes of the above development thus: “These people, whom we have before named kings, and called Shepherds (Hyksos) also, and their descendants kept possession of Egypt 511 years. After these, the kings of Thebes (Kamose and Ahmose) and the other parts of Egypt made an insurrection against the Shepherds, and that there a terrible and long war was made between them … The Shepherds were subdued, and were indeed driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained ten thousand acres. This place was named Avaris (their capital) …
“… The Shepherds built a wall round all this place, which was a large and a strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a place of strength, but Thummosis (Ahmose) made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, with 480,000 men to lie rotund about them. But that, upon his despair of taking the place by that siege, they came to a composition (compact) with them, that they should leave Egypt, and go, without any harm to be done to them, whithersoever they would.
“After this composition was made, the Shepherds went away with their whole families and effects, not fewer in number than 240,000, and took their journey from Egypt, through the wilderness, for Syria. But that as they were in fear of the Assyrians, who had then the dominion over Asia, they built (actually developed as it was already in existence) a city in that country which is now called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called it Jerusalem.”
The Hykso expulsion from Egypt in 1525 BC marked the first exodus of the Israelites from that country. Note that not all the Israelites left Egypt: about 240,000 remained in Avaris alone. They were known as Israelites not because they were named after Jacob but because their domain, northern Egypt, was known as I-Sira-El.
Intelligence and Security Service Act, which is a law that establishes the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DIS), provides for establishment of a Parliamentary Committee. Recently, the President announced nine names of Members of Parliament he had appointed to the Committee.
This announcement was preceded by a meeting the President held with the Speaker and the Leader of Opposition. Following the announcement of Committee MPs by the President, the opposition, through its leader, made it clear that it will not participate in the Committee unless certain conditions that would ensure effective oversight are met. The opposition acted on the non-participation threat through resignation of its three MPs from the Committee.
The Act at Section 38 provides for the establishment of the Committee to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Directorate. The law provides that the Parliamentary Committee shall have the same powers and privileges set out under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
On composition, the Committee shall consist of nine members who shall not be members of Cabinet and its quorum shall be five members. The MPs in the Committee elect a chairperson from among their number at their first meeting.
The Members of the Committee are appointed by the President after consultation with the Speaker of the National Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly. It is the provision of the law that the Committee, relative to its size, reflect the numerical strengths of the political parties represented in the National Assembly.
The Act provides that that a member of the Committee holds office for the duration of the Parliament in which he or she is appointed. The Committee is mandated to make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the President and may at any time report to him or her on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.
The Minister responsible for intelligence and security is obliged to lay before the National Assembly a copy of each annual report made by the Committee together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of the provision of the Act.
If it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Parliamentary Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Directorate, the Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before the National Assembly.
So, what are the specific demands of the Opposition and why are they not participating in the Committee? What should happen as a way forward? The Opposition demanded that there be a forensic audit of the Directorate. The DIS has never been audited since it was set up in 2008, more than a decade ago.
The institution has been a law unto itself for a longtime, feared by all oversight bodies. The Auditor General, who had no security of tenure, could not audit the DIS. The Directorate’s personnel, especially at a high level, have been implicated in corruption. Some of its operatives are in courts of law defending corruption charges preferred against them. Some of the corruption cases which appeared in the media have not made it to the courts.
The DIS has been accused of non-accountability and unethical practices as well as of being a burden on the fiscus. So, the Opposition demanded, from the President, a forensic audit for the purpose of cleaning up the DIS. They demand a start from a clean slate.
The second demand by the Opposition is that the law be reviewed to ensure greater accountability of the DIS to Parliament. What are some of the issues that the opposition think should be reviewed? The contention is that the executive cannot appoint a Committee of Parliament to scrutinize an executive institution.
Already, it is argued, Parliament is less independent and it is dominated by the executive. It is contended that the Committee should be established by the Standing Orders and be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament. There is also an argument that the Committee should report to Parliament and not to the President and that the Minister should not have any role in the Committee.
Democratic and Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence is relatively a new phenomenon across the World. Even developed democracies are still grappling with some of these issues. However, there are acceptable standards or what might be called international best practices which have evolved over the past two or so decades.
In the UK for instance, MPs of the Intelligence and Security Committee are appointed by the Houses of Parliament, having been nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is a good balancing exercise of involvement of both the executive and the legislature. Consultation is taken for granted in Botswana context in the sense that it has been reduced to just informing the Leader of Opposition without much regard to his or her ideas; they are never taken seriously.
Furthermore, the current Committee in the UK has four Members of the ruling party and five MPs from the opposition. It is a fairly balanced Committee in terms of Parliamentary representation. However, as said above, the President of Botswana appointed six ruling party MPs and three from the opposition.
The imbalance is preposterous and more pronounced with clear intentions of getting the executive way through the ruling party representatives in the Committee. The intention to avoid scrutiny is clear from the numbers of the ruling party MPs in the Committee.
There is also an international standard of removing sensitive parts which may harm national security from the report before it is tabled in the legislature. The previous and current reluctance of the executive arms to open up on Defence and Security matters emanate from this very reason of preserving and protecting national security.
But national security should be balanced with public interest and other democratic principles. The decision to expunge certain information which may be prejudicial to national security should not be an arbitrary and exclusive decision of the executive but a collective decision of a well fairly balanced Committee in consultation with the Speaker and the minister responsible.
There is no doubt that the DIS has been a rogue institution. The reluctance by the President to commit to democratic-parliamentary oversight reforms presupposes a lack of commitment to democratization. The President has no interest in seeing a reformed DIS with effective oversight of the agency.
He is insincere. This is because the President loathes the idea losing an iota of power and sharing it with any other democratic institution. He sees the agency as his power lever to sustain his stay in the high office. He thought he could sanitize himself with an ineffective DIS Committee that would dance to his tune.
The non-participation of the opposition MPs renders the Committee dysfunctional; it cannot function as this would be unlawful. Participation of the opposition is a legal requirement. Even if it can meet, it would lack legitimacy; it cannot be taken seriously. The President should therefore act on the oversight demands and reform the DIS if he is to be taken seriously.
For years I have trained people about paradigm shifts – those light-bulb-switch-on moments – where there is a seismic change from the usual way of thinking about something to a newer, better way.
I like to refer to them as ‘aha’ moments because of the sudden understanding of something which was previously incomprehensible. However, the topic of today’s article is the complete antithesis of ‘aha’. Though I’d love to tell you I’d had a ‘eureka ‘, ‘problem solved’ moment, I am faced with the complete opposite – an ‘oh-no’ moment or Lost Leader Syndrome.
No matter how well prepared or capable a leader is. they often find themselves facing perplexing events, confounding information, or puzzling situations. Confused by developments of which they can’t make sense and by challenges that they don’t know how to solve they become confused, sometimes lost and completely clueless about what to do.
I am told by Jentz and Murphy (JM) in ‘What leaders do when they don’t know what to do’ that this is normal, and that rapid change is making confusion a defining feature of management in the 21st century. Now doesn’t that sound like the story of 2020 summed up in a single sentence?
The basic premise of their writing is that “confusion is not a weakness to be ashamed of but a regular and inevitable condition of leadership. By learning to embrace their confusion, managers are able to set in motion a constructive process for addressing baffling issues.
In fact, confusion turns out to be a fruitful environment in which the best managers thrive by using the instability around them to open up better lines of communication, test their old assumptions and values against changing realities, and develop more creative approaches to problem solving.”
The problem with this ideology however is that it doesn’t help my overwhelming feelings of fear and panic which is exacerbated by a tape playing on a loop in my head saying ‘you’re supposed to know what to do, do something’. My angst is compounded by annoying motivational phrases also unhelpfully playing in my head like.
Nothing happens until something moves
The secret of getting ahead is getting started
Act or be acted upon
All these platitudes are urging me to pull something out of the bag, but I know that this is a trap. This need to forge ahead is nothing but a coping mechanism and disguise. Instead of owning the fact that I haven’t got a foggy about what to do, part of me worries that I’ll lose authority if I acknowledge that I can’t provide direction – I’m supposed to know the answers, I’m the MD! This feeling of not being in control is common for managers in ‘oh no’ situations and as a result they often start reflexively and unilaterally attempting to impose quick fixes to restore equilibrium because, lets be honest, sometimes we find it hard to resist hiding our confusion.
To admit that I am lost in an “Oh, No!” moment opens the door not only to the fear of losing authority but also to a plethora of other troubling emotions and thoughts: *Shame and loss of face: “You’ll look like a fool!” * Panic and loss of control: “You’ve let this get out of hand!” * Incompetence and incapacitation: “You don’t know what you’re doing!”
As if by saying “I’m at a loss here” is tantamount to declaring “I am not fit to lead.” Of course the real problem for me and any other leader is if they don’t admit when they are disoriented, it sends a signal to others in the organisation stating it’s not cool to be lost and that, by its very nature encourages them to hide. What’s the saying about ‘a real man never asks for direction. ..so they end up driving around in circles’.
As managers we need to embrace the confusion, show vulnerability (remember that’s not a bad word) and accept that leadership is not about pretending to have all the answers but about having the courage to search with others to discover a solution.
JM point out that “being confused, however, does not mean being incapacitated. Indeed, one of the most liberating truths of leadership is that confusion is not quicksand from which to escape but rather the potter’s clay of leadership – the very stuff with which managers can work.”
2020 has certainly been a year to remember and all indications are that the confusion which has characterised this year will still follow us into the New Year, thereby making confusion a defining characteristic of the new normal and how managers need to manage. Our competence as leaders will then surely be measured not only by ‘what I know’ but increasingly by ‘how I behave when I accept, I don’t know, lose my sense of direction and become confused.
.I guess the message for all organizational cultures going forward is that sticking with the belief that we need all-knowing, omni-competent executives will cost them dearly and send a message to managers that it is better to hide their confusion than to address it openly and constructively.
Take comfort in these wise words ‘Confusion is a word we have invented for an order not yet understood’!