British hostility to Mehmed Ali came from his military expansion, not his domestic reforms.

Evidence

Like St. John’s book, this study has tried to avoid the trap of writing Egypt’s history in the first half of the nineteenth century as if it were Mehmed Ali’s biography. Ideally it would have been better to avoid referring to him altogether, but that would have given a version of Egypt’s history as incomplete as a history of Germany in the 1930s without mention of Hitler. Instead, this book, by concentrating on his army, the key institution around which all his reforms were centered, challenged the nationalist version of Egyptian history that sees in Mehmed Ali a proto-nationalist leader. It argued that the Pasha did not aim to achieve independence for “Egypt,” but intended to carve out a small empire for himself and for his children after him. It also argued that Great Britain, who is usually taken to have opposed Mehmed Ali ferociously and to have “prevented Egypt from reaping the fruits of her military victories” was not antagonistic to the Pasha’s “reform” policies in Egypt, but was against his empire-building efforts that she saw as challenging and endangering her own possessions in Asia. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1686 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The question of whether the wars that the governor of Egypt waged during the first third of the nineteenth century were dynastic wars of imperialistic expansion or national wars of independence is central to understanding the whole of Mehmed Ali’s career and, indeed, of the history of Egypt during his reign. If, as Toledano argues, Egypt was very much an Ottoman province, ruled by an Ottoman–Egyptian elite, then Marsot’s claim that, unlike contemporary Ottoman notables “who had merely sought quasi-independence for their provinces but were content to remain within the empire, Muhammad Ali sought independence,” has to be qualified. For even if it is granted that Mehmed Ali was seeking to get rid of the “Ottoman yoke” right from the beginning of his career, the question remains as to the nature of this independence. Could it be viewed as similar to the independence sought by the Greeks during their War of Independence when large sections of the population rose against their Ottoman rulers? Or is it more plausible to link Mehmed Ali’s wars, as Shaw does, with a series of internal wars within the Ottoman Empire that were waged by local governors against central government control? If so, Mehmed Ali would appear, like Ali Pasha of Janina, Davud Pasha of Baghdad, or Amir Bashir of Lebanon as a local governor of an Ottoman province who seized the opportunity of the difficulties that the Ottoman Sultan was facing both internally and externally to try and expand his own local dominions. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 199 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Mehmed Ali mistakenly believed his expansion could shield British India from Russia; Britain opposed Ali because his expansion risked Russian interference in its Asian possessions; Britain opposed Mehmed Ali over his Ottoman expansion, not his industries — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1686 (+2 more)

Related

• Britain opposed Mehmed Ali over his Ottoman expansion, not his industries (similarity 0.95)
• Britain opposed Ali because his expansion risked Russian interference in its Asian possessions (similarity 0.92)
• Mehmed Ali mistakenly believed his expansion could shield British India from Russia (similarity 0.91)
• British hostility targeted Mehmed Ali’s expansion, not his industrialization or trade (similarity 0.89)
• Britain opposed Mehmed Ali because his expansion threatened British India and Istanbul influence (similarity 0.89)
• Mehmed Ali’s quest for independence was a dynastic struggle, not nationalist. (similarity 0.87)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars against the Sultan were dynastic, not national (similarity 0.87)
• Mehmed Ali sought a personal empire, not Egyptian independence. (similarity 0.87)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars may be internal Ottoman power struggles rather than nationalist bids (similarity 0.87)
• Mehmed Ali and his officials thought of themselves as Ottomans, not Egyptians. (similarity 0.86)
• Britain defended Ottoman integrity chiefly to block Russian expansion (similarity 0.86)
• Historians portray Mehmed Ali’s reforms as a master-planned modernization with independence aims (similarity 0.86)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars were dynastic struggles within the Ottoman Empire, not nationalist campaigns (similarity 0.85)
• British policy in 1832 was silence rather than hostility toward Mehmed Ali (similarity 0.85)
• Egyptian historians narrate Mehmed Ali’s career as a teleological quest for independence (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• Britain opposed Mehmed Ali over his Ottoman expansion, not his industries #corroborates (0.90) — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1686
• British policy in 1832 was silence rather than hostility toward Mehmed Ali #qualifies (0.65)
• Mehmed Ali’s wars may be internal Ottoman power struggles rather than nationalist bids #corroborates (0.50) — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 199