Egypt Becomes Battleground For Arab world

The Saudi monarchy has declared war on the Muslim Brotherhood, an immensely popular Sunni Islamic movement with branches and businesses throughout the world. Not only has the monarchy labeled the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, but a photo chart of the major terrorist groups offered by the Saudi press gives the Brotherhood top billing. Not even al-Qaeda outshines the Brotherhood in the eyes of the Saudi regime. 

Perhaps the Saudi monarchy had little choice in the matter. The Muslim Brotherhood swept to power in Egypt and Tunisia following the 2011 Arab Spring revolutions, and the Saudi monarchy openly worried that its kingdom would be next. Such is the price of being rich, weak, and unwilling to test the support of the masses in elections or a free press. 

The Saudi monarchy's chosen battlefield for its war on the Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt. It is difficult to argue with its choice. The Brotherhood was founded in Egypt, its Supreme Guides have all been Egyptian, and Egypt is the center of the Brotherhood's global operations. Branches of the Brotherhood are guided by General Secretaries from their respective regions, but key policy decisions flow from Egypt. 

The Saudis knew that attempts to destroy Brotherhood branches in the region would be futile as long as the Brotherhood leadership ruled from Egypt. Attacking Brotherhood branches would threaten the stability of Jordan, Kuwait and other Saudi allies with deeply entrenched Brotherhood movements. To crush the Brotherhood in Egypt, by contrast, would be to sever its head and soul. The battle would also transpire far from the Gulf and leave the Saudi monarchy, the self-proclaimed protector of Islam without blood on its hands. In fact, they could avoid fighting altogether by outsourcing the job to the Egyptian generals. 

It wasn't merely the popularity of the Brotherhood that alarmed the Saudi monarchy, but also the policies that the Brotherhood pursued upon being elected into office. The Brotherhood, or so it seemed to the monarchy, was intent on using the Egyptian government as a pulpit for spreading its seductive vision of pragmatic progressive Islam throughout the Arab world. 

This posed a direct threat to both the Saudi monarchy and to the extremist Wahhabi vision of Islamic purity upon which its claim to religious legitimacy rests. The security of the monarchy demanded Wahhabi dominance of the Sunni Islamic world. The more the seductive moderation and pragmatism of the Brotherhood spread, the weaker the Saudis would become. 

Particularly dangerous to Saudi control of the Sunni Islamic world were the Brotherhood's efforts to convert Al-Azhar, the oldest Islamic university in the world, to the Brotherhood's pragmatic and progressive vision of Islam. 

The Saudis controlled Mecca and Medina, the two holiest shrines in Islam, but the Brotherhood was on the verge of controlling Al-Azhar, the reigning authority on Sunni Islamic theology in the Muslim world. 

Qatar, to Saudi anguish, was joined by the government of Turkey in an effort to make Egypt the centerpiece of a Sunni Arab world ruled by a moderate and pragmatic vision of Islam capable of coexisting with the west to the benefit of both parties. Both Qatar and Turkey also viewed this new Islamic world as the foundation for reconciling the centuries old conflict between the Sunni and Shia. 

This was a dire threat to a Saudi monarchy locked in a bitter cold war with Shia Iran. It was equally a threat to Saudi Wahhabi doctrine that views the Shia as apostates. Egypt's Saudi financed opposition press responded on cue with frantic warnings that the Brotherhood was going to convert Egypt to Shi'ite Islam. 

Perhaps responding to Turkish influence, the Brotherhood pursued a remarkably democratic strategy in Egypt during its lone year in office. The press was free if irresponsible, demonstrations un-fettered, and all political groups, including the jihadists and extreme leftists, were allowed to establish political parties. Far worse, the Brotherhood threw down the gauntlet to the Saudis by calling for freedom and democracy throughout the region. 

Clearly, democracy had become the weapon of the Brotherhood for conquering the Arab world, and there was no weapon that the Saudis feared more. One fair election, if Egypt and Tunisia were any guide, and the Saudi monarchy would become a footnote in history. Brotherhood branches in Kuwait and Jordan picked up the call, throwing the two faux democracies into a state of confusion. 

... the Brotherhood's pragmatism offered the West an alternative to a Saudi Wahhabi doctrine condemned by Washington for breeding extremism and terror. 

The US and EU were also realizing that Islam was so deeply embedded in the Arab psyche that there could not be a stable government in the Arab world without Islamic representation, a topic treated at length in my book The Arab Psyche and American Frustrations. 

Like it or not, Brotherhood doctrine inclining toward the moderation of Turkish Lite was their best option. Not only had the Brotherhood placed the Saudi monarchy's Islamic legitimacy at risk, but it was also on the verge of weakening the monarchy's ties with the United States, its major patron. 

A counter-revolution supported by Saudi Arabia toppled the Brotherhood regime in Egypt, but did little to calm the monarchy's fears. To the contrary, the Brotherhood's resistance to the military coup in Egypt displayed a passion and organizational capacity that has thrown the country into chaos and casts severe doubts on the ability of Egypt's revived Mubarak regime to stay the course. This is all the more the case because various jihadist groups hostile to the Brotherhood have joined the fray by assassinating officers and establishing mini-caliphates in the Sinai and elsewhere. 

It is unlikely that the Saudi regime could survive in the face of a parallel uprising by domestic supporters of the Brotherhood and Wahhabi jihadists returning from Syria and elsewhere. The Saudis claim that there are some 600 returnees from Syria. The Kuwaitis place the figure at 20,000. Whatever the number of Brotherhood supporters and jihadists in the kingdom, the king's warnings of sedition and terrorism have become commonplace as the monarchy's fears mount. 

Putting their money where their fear is, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have pumped billions of dollars into Egypt with the hope that Egypt's latest military dictator will be able to crush the Brotherhood in its home base. Billions more are promised. 

If the Egyptian military can crush the Brotherhood, everything in the Saudi plan should fall in place. Egypt will be firmly established as the centerpiece of a Saudi-Israeli-Egyptian alliance designed to return the Arab world to the era of tyrants that reigned before the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011. 

Along the way, Egyptian authorities will promote stability in the region by severing the Brotherhood's lifelines to Hamas and stamping out jihadist and Brotherhood sanctuaries in Yemen, Libya and other areas within reach of Egypt's Saudi financed army. Democratic aspirations in the region will fade without inspiration from Egypt, and Saudi Wahhabi doctrine will find its way into Al-Azhar. 

With the Muslim Brotherhood gone, the US and the EU will return to their traditional role of supporting tyrants and the Saudi monarchy will have returned the Middle East to the era of peaceful oppression. 

The question is can Saudi money convert a poverty-stricken dictatorship teetering between chaos and civil war into the foundation of its war against the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies should be able to buy the entire region. 

Thus far, all the Saudi monarchy has bought is civil war and chaos in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Pakistan. Egypt is following suit. Even Field Marshal Sisi, Egypt's latest pharaoh, yet uncrowned, warns that things will get worse before they get better, much worse. 

Monte Palmer is Professor Emeritus at Florida State University, a former Director of the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies at the American University of Beirut, and a senior fellow at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. His recent books include The Arab Psyche and American Frustrations, The Politics of the Middle East, Islamic Extremism(with Princess Palmer), Political Development: Dilemmas and Challenges, and Egypt and the Game of Terror (a novel). 

(Copyright 2014 Monte Palmer) 

Egypt: More Than 500 Sentenced To Death In ‘Grotesque’ Ruling

Today’s mass death sentences handed down by an Egyptian court are a grotesque example of the shortcomings and the selective nature of Egypt's justice system, Amnesty International said.  

According to state media reports, in a single hearing this morning, the Minya Criminal Court sentenced 529 supporters of former President Mohamed Morsi to be executed for their alleged role in violence following his ousting in July last year.  

“This is injustice writ large and these death sentences must be quashed. Imposing death sentences of this magnitude in a single case makes Egypt surpass most other countries’ use of capital punishment in a year,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Middle East and North Africa Programme Director at Amnesty International. 

"This is the largest single batch of simultaneous death sentences we’ve seen in recent years, not just in Egypt but anywhere in the world.  

“Egypt's courts are quick to punish Mohamed Morsi's supporters but ignore gross human rights violations by the security forces. While thousands of Morsi's supporters languish in jail, there has not been an adequate investigation into the deaths of hundreds of protesters. Just one police officer is facing a prison sentence, for the deaths of 37 detainees. 

“Without an independent and impartial process that can deliver truth and justice for all, many will question whether Egypt's criminal justice system has indeed anything to do with justice. In any event, recourse to the death penalty is inherently unjust, and the Egyptian authorities should impose a moratorium on executions, with a view to abolishing it.”  

Egypt’s authorities do not release figures on death sentences and executions, despite repeated requests over the years by Amnesty International. The organization knows that Egyptian courts handed down at least 109 death sentences in 2013, after at least 91 death sentences in 2012, and at least 123 in 2011. The last known execution was carried out in October 2011, when one man was hanged for the killing of six Coptic Christians and a Muslim police guard in a drive-by shooting in January 2010.

© 2014 Amnesty International

Egypt's Regime: Nasty, Brutal and Barbaric

This past week the confrontation between Egypt’s ruling regime and the country’s Muslim Brotherhood intensified. In an act that should make anyone familiar with this ongoing struggle sit up and shake their head, the “military-backed government” in Cairo declared Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood a “terrorist organization.” In case anyone is inclined to get the sides mixed up, it is the Muslim Brotherhood that is defending democracy in this confrontation, and the media’s use of the euphemism “military-backed government” is to be understood as whitewash for military dictatorship.   

The truth is that the Muslim Brothers have behaved in a civil fashion. Indeed, they have shown great restraint in the face of the violent, sometimes terrorist-style provocations of the Egyptian military and police. Always advocating nonviolent demonstrations against the military coup that brought down Egypt’s first honestly elected government in modern times, the Brothers and their supporters have been met with murderous official violence that has killed, wounded and jailed thousands. Thus, when the generals brand the Muslim Brothers “terrorists,” they are using an Orwellian propaganda ploy. As is so often the case, it is the dictatorship that practices terrorism and many of those who are resisting are destined to be its victims. 

On the other hand,  rarely have the actions of what now passes for a government in Egypt been labeled “extremist” in the media, although the generals have repeatedly killed and maimed nonviolent protesters. In truth it is the dictatorship itself which has set down the options for those who resist it: either give up entirely or pick up the gun. This stands as a lesson in ends and means – the means employed by dictatorial regimes usually don’t allow for peaceful protest and thereby steer the end that is resistance in the direction of violence. 

Abandoning The Democratic Road 

There will be many who rationalize Egypt’s military dictatorship by pointing to the flaws of the deposed Morsi government. Some will point out that, even though freely and fairly elected, the Morsi government was soon rejected by growing numbers of Egyptians. Thus, before the coup there were large demonstrations against the elected government. This is true, though the assertion that the protests represented a majority of the population is a politically motivated exaggeration. The problem with this rationale is that, unlike conditions under a dictatorship, there were democratic options open to the those who disliked the elected government. 

They likewise could have kept up the demand for broader input into government policy until the government compromised. Just before the coup, there were signs that this point was being reached. They could have waited until the next election cycle to attempt to turn the Morsi government out. There is no evidence that Morsi would have prevented future free and fair elections. It is to be noted that one thing the elected government did not do is shoot down protesters in the streets. 

It might be that, except for a relatively small youth movement, most of the anti-Morsi coalition were never seriously interested in democracy. From the start of the demonstrations against the elected government, there was little or no hesitation by this coalition to abandon democratic practices. The regulations and procedures put in place by the prior Mubarak dictatorship were repeatedly used to stymie Morsi’s administration. Prominent in the use of this tactic were the courts and judges appointed by Mubarak. It soon became apparent that the anti-Morsi coalition did not have the patience to follow a democratic/electoral route to settling the question of Egypt’s ultimate character. Theirs was an all-or-nothing attitude which quickly led them to call on the military to “save the nation.”

What was salvation to look like? One thing that is certain is that the Egyptian military lacks the skill to save, and indeed any interest in saving, Egyptian democracy. 

What did this strategy get the anti-Morsi coalition? Did it get them a secular government that respects civil and human rights? Did it get them a government that can be trusted to hold free and fair elections? Certainly not, for the means they employed could not lead to such ends. It got them relief from the maybe of Sharia law in exchange for the certainty of a military coup and the violence through which all military dictators rule.   

What do the military dictators of Egypt think their arbitrary and violent use of power will accomplish? Do they think that the country will return to the situation under Nasser-Sadat-Mubarak when authoritarian intimidation kept religious organizations under control and civil society quiet? Do they think that anyone will really be fooled by the rigged elections they are planning for 2014? If so, they have failed to consider the possibility that the democratic election of Mohammad Morsi may well have changed the historical equation. In terms of history, what they should be referencing is not their own dictatorial past but the events of Algeria in the 1990s. In that place and time, another military regime shut down the pro-Islamic results of a democratic election and triggered a decade of savage civil war. This is an end that is quite consistent with the means used by the Egyptian generals in 2013. 

The Evolving U.S. Response 

The United States government had been a consistent backer of Egyptian dictatorships ever since Anwar Sadat made his historic peace with Israel in March of 1979. From that time on the U.S. treasury has been paying out at least $1.55 billion dollars (the publicly used low figure) in mostly military aid to Egypt. That aid has helped sustain a corrupt Egyptian officer corps that now controls a good part of the Egyptian economy and has no one to fight except its own people.  

In February 2011 a genuinely popular and mostly nonviolent revolt forced the collapse of the Mubarak dictatorship. This led to Egypt’s first internationally monitored, free and fair election. For a while it looked like the Egyptian military would be forced out of politics, and U.S. President Barack Obama seemed to accept this turn of events. Even when the Egyptian generals returned to form and pulled off their coup in July 2013, the Obama administration reacted with displeasure and cut off some of the annual aid payments. The only ones in the Middle East who found this objectionable were other U.S.-supported dictatorships such as those in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. 

However, now the U.S. government might be considering to  once more support an Egyptian dictatorship. Suggestions that this might be the case came recently from Secretary of State John Kerry in a speech delivered on 20 November 2013 to the State Department’s Overseas Security Advisory Council. Here Kerry showed an embarrassing lack of knowledge about the events that brought down the Mubarak dictatorship and a remarkably naive notion of what it takes to make and sustain a revolution.  Thus:  

“Those kids in Tahrir Square, they were not motivated by any religion or ideology. They were motivated by what they saw through this interconnected world, and they wanted a piece of the opportunity and a chance to get an education and have a job and have a future, and not have a corrupt government that deprived them of all of that and more. And they tweeted their ways and Facetimed [sic] their ways and talked to each other and that’s what drove that revolution. And then it got stolen by the one single most organized entity in the state, which was the Brotherhood.”    

The fact that Kerry could make such a diagnosis to a group of allegedly knowledgeable security advisers is chilling.  Kerry is way off the mark and here is why: 

- The very brave youths of Cairo and Alexandria who began the 2910-2011 protests against the Mubarak dictatorship laid the basis for the conditions that eventually brought down that regime. But they alone could not and did not achieve that goal. 

- These youth were not devoid of either religion or ideology. Most were Muslims of varying degree of practice and almost all of them believed in a democratic ideology.    

- Despite their use of social networking and other technologies, the youth groups were too small to make a revolution.  

- The revolution became possible only when much greater numbers were introduced into the streets to transform the demonstrations from large to massive. The decision to bring out those numbers was taken by the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that is religious but was also willing to follow a democratic path. 

- The Brotherhood could manage to bring out the large numbers not just because it was “the most organized entity in the state” but because for decades it has also been the most effective and popular social service organization in Egypt.  

The truth then is that the Brotherhood did not “steal” the revolution, it made it possible.   

Conclusion 

Today’s Egypt is a mess. It is an economic mess thanks to decades of military dictatorship, corruption and greed. It is a political mess for the same reason. Whatever faults might be laid at the feet of the elected Morsi government, none of them warranted a return to thuggish military rule – an action which, for all practical purposes, brought the ideals of the Arab Spring to a tragic end. 

One can only hope that the U.S. government, rising above the historical ignorance of John Kerry and his speech writers, will hold to principle and have as little as possible to do with the regime in Cairo. It is a nasty regime, brutal to its own people, barbaric in its policy toward the imprisoned population of Gaza and, not surprisingly, in bed with the Zionists and autocratic Gulf monarchs. 

As for Egypt’s democratic revolution that almost was, one can hope that it survives as a precedent for the future.

Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic research focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East history, the history of science and modern European intellectual history.

Egypt's Military Regime Builds Memorial To Its Own Massacres

Builders work on a memorial under construction in the center of Cairo's landmark Tahrir Square Photo: AFP/Getty Images

Egypt's military-backed regime is... setting up memorial sculptures at sites of protests where its army and police gunned down demonstrators.

Residents and passers-by in Cairo's Tahrir Square, made famous the world over by the 2011 revolution, have watched... puzzled in recent days as a circular stone creation has begun to take shape in the grass-covered central roundabout.

On Sunday, the authorities announced it would be unveiled on the eve of Tuesday's anniversary of the so-called Mohammed Mahmoud massacre, several days of protests in 2011 when scores of demonstrators against the then interim Supreme Council of the Armed Forces were shot dead on the street of that name that leads away from the Square.

In addition, several more lost eyes to a military police marksman who was later convicted of deliberately targeting them with birdshot.

The memorial is the second in a sequence. Earlier this month, another sculpture consisting of two angular arms, representing the police and army, protecting a silver orb, representing the people, was completed in the square in front of Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque, where the army killed more than 600 Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators in August.

This sudden outburst of public art has angered those revolutionary youth movements:

"The killer is building a memorial to his victims," said Sally Touma, one youth activist. 

"They kill the people and then celebrate them."

Morsy Is The Arab World's Mandela

Why We Must Stand and Support The Muslim Brotherhood's Fight For Democracy.

BY TAWAKKOL KARMAN

We shouldn't be ashamed of standing by people who dream of democracy, justice, and a life with dignity -- this is our duty. Egypt's current regime has ousted the first elected president in the country's history, suspended a constitution that won 60 percent support in a referendum, and completely excluded the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party from political life. There are limited options for those of us who care about Egypt's future: We can either side with civil values and democracy, or with military rule, tyranny, and coercion.

Morsy was not only Egypt's democratically elected president, he is now emerging as the Arab world's Nelson Mandela. The South African leader brought peace and democracy to his country; during Morsy's one-year reign, Egypt enjoyed freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate peacefully, and not a single one of his political opponents were jailed. Even when he was ousted by force, he killed no one, jailed no one, and never resorted to violent resistance. This is unparalleled in the region.

By maintaining this peaceful approach, Morsy and his followers will have a role not less than that of Mandela's African National Congress. Despite being subjected to killing, arrest, and oppression, Morsy's supporters have held fast to the democratic process and prevented Egypt from descending into civil war. The free world must recognize their positive role by supporting them and rejecting the crimes committed against Morsy, his party, and pro-democracy figures.

I am not blind to the shortcomings of the previous government: Before the coup, I supported the June 30 rallies against Morsy. But I had had my eyes set on one objective -- ending the rift within Egyptian society, and building a country led by partnership rather than narrow majority rule. The military takeover aims to uproot the Muslim Brotherhood and its partners, replacing them through brute force with the losers of a democratic ballot.

Democracy can't thrive under military rule -- history is quite clear on this point. In Egypt, this is evident through the terrible violations against rights and freedoms since the coup. The police state is back, and it is even worse than Hosni Mubarak's.

What is happening in Egypt today is very scary: The coup could lead society to lose its faith in democracy, which will give terrorist groups a chance to breathe again. 

As al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri said in his latest audio message, the Brotherhood won the elections -- and still Morsy was deposed. He concluded that democracy was a dead end, an exclusive right in the West, but one that is not accessible to Islamists.  

By blocking peaceful change and weakening the Islamist groups that participate in the political process, the coup leaders support this stance and do the terrorists a favor.

What happens in Egypt will not stay in Egypt -- the implications of this coup will reverberate over 1,000 miles away, in my home country of Yemen. It is wrong to look at the Arab Spring as an unrelated set of events: The people of the Middle East all rose up against tyranny and justice, and have the same dream of freedom, dignity, and democracy.

All the ousted regimes, as well as the oppressive regimes that have hung on during the Arab Spring, have now blessed Egypt's coup. But it's not too late to reverse this trend: Just as policies of oppression can start in Egypt and then spread to other Arab countries, a blossoming democracy in Cairo can easily spread throughout the Arab world. 

This may be why so many regional and international powers are arrayed against a democratic Egypt. Those who support freedom and democracy in the Middle East, however, should resist the new tyranny in Cairo with all their might.

The Initiative and The Coup المبادرة والانقلاب

This is a side-by-side comparison of an initiative (from different political parties, with the knowledge of the armed forces) that was offered to President Morsi, which the President accepted, then Gen. Al-Sisi asserts that the President rejected this initiative. 

Therefore, the coup was unnecessary, as were all the massacres that were perpetrated by the armed forces and the police against the people they swore to protect.

But, Al-Sisi and his minions didn't want a political solution to this crisis.

Some comments that were posted to this video:

لا تسأل الطغاه لماذا طغوا ..... ولكن اسأل العبيد لماذا ركعوا " تحيه للصامد محمد مرسي من سلطنه عمان"

 حقا ان يوم 30 يونيو انقلاب الراقصات والسفله الديوثون والأعلاميون المنافقون والمنحطين خلقيا 
 نقف كلنا فيها تحيه للصامد محمد مرسي تحيه للزعيم محمد مرسى تحيه لزعيم الامه الاسلاميه تحيه لملك قلوب الاحرار  تحيه ارسلها من سلطنه عمان 

صدقت قعلا كل المعارضين للحكم الاسلامي لا يقبلون النقاش او الحوار بل يقومون بالهجوم علي من خالفهم الرأي اما بالسباب او بمحاصرتك بالكلام حتى لاتستطيع النطق ولكن هيهات وكل كلامهم اننا مسلمين بس متدخلش الدين في الدوله وانا مش فاهم ازاي مسلمين وازاي الدين ميدخلش في الدولة اذا كان ديننا قائم على التطبيق في الدولة مش عشان يتركن على الرف

حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل اللهم انصر الاسلام واعز المسلمين ياااااااااااااااارب

بأذن الله هذا الشعب العضيم لن يهزم وهذا الشعب العضيم لن يكسر وهذا الشعب العضيم لن يستعبد ،، فبعد أنقلاب السيسي رجع زمن الأعتقالات والقتل وقفل القنوات الأسلامية ، والإسرائيليون يعتبرون الانقلاب على مرسي "أكثر أهمية من الانتصار الإسرائيلي على مصر في حرب 67

ثـــــــــــوار أحرار حنكمل المــــشـــوار
ثـــــــــــوار أحرار حنكمل المــــشـــوار
ثـــــــــــوار أحرار  حنكمل المــــشـــوار

أعرف عدوك: حركة تمرد

حركة تمرد: الرسول والإسلام فاشيون ومشكلتنا مع الإسلام

الفاشية الدينية الإسلامية هي قديمة جدا

لم تبدأ مع صعود السلفيين أو الإخوان

بداية الفاشية الدينية الإسلامية مع فتح مكة

Rise Egypt قومي يا مصر

Amr Moussa's Hypocrisy نفاق عمرو موسى

في الماضي

"حماس بالنسبة لنا [مصر] ليست منظمة إرهابية. بالنسبة لنا هي جزء منتخب وعضوا في حكومة وحدة وطنية

المشكلة ليست حماس. المشكلة ليست إيران. المشكلة تكمن في الاحتلال العسكري للأراضي المحتلة "

عمرو موسي بعد أن كان يهاجم أمريكا لاتهامها حماس بالإرهاب أيام مبارك، أصبح اليوم، تحت حكم السيسي، يتهم الإخوان بالإرهاب لاتصالهم بحماس

التفسير الإسرائيلي لحماس يغلب علي إعلامنا ورجال النقلاب في بلادنا.

سبحان من يغير ولا يتغير

الوحش الذي استيقظ فينا

By فهمي هويدي

أحذر من الوحش الذى استيقظ فينا، لأننا إذا لم نسارع إلى كبح جماحه فلن يسلم أحد من شروره، وستصبح مصر كلها ضحية له.

(1)

أتحدث عن خطاب الكراهية ودعوات الانتقام التي تستهدف ترويع الآخرين وتصفيتهم ليس لإقصائهم فحسب، ولكن أيضا لاقتلاعهم وحرمانهم من حقهم في الكرامة فضلا عن الحياة والوجود،

 إلى غير ذلك من عناوين ومفردات حملة الجنون التي باتت تملأ الفضاء المصري، وصارت تستخلص من الناس أسوأ وأتعس ما فيهم.
أتحدث عن التهليل لاستخدام القوة وعدم الاكتراث بالمجازر التي وقعت

والاستخفاف بأرواح ودماء القتلى

والشماتة في الضحايا،

واستسهال التخوين

 والتوزيع المجاني لتهم الإرهاب والتحريض على القتل وقلب نظام الحكم والتخابر مع الأعداء.

وأستغرب أن يتم ذلك كله من خلال منابر عامة، سواء كانت صحفا سيارة أو قنوات وبرامج تلفزيونية،

كما يمارس من خلال سيل من البلاغات المقدمة إلى النيابة، من جانب المليشيات الجديدة التي خرجت من المخابئ والجحور وصارت تستهدف كل ما هو سوي ومحترم في بر مصر، ولا تسأل عما هو نبيل وشريف.

في ظل هذه الأجواء المسمومة تحولت دعوات الوفاق الوطني والمصالحة والسلام الأهلي والالتزام بالتعددية واحترام الرأي الآخر والحل السلمي للخلافات السياسية،

تحولت كلها إلى مثالب يرمى بها من تجرأ وتطرق إليها،

 وأصبحت مبررات لشن حملات التجريح والتشويه.

بل إن الدعوة إلى المصالحة الوطنية التي هي من أنبل وأنجح أساليب العمل السياسي صارت تحظى بدرجة عالية من المقاومة والاستنكار،

وسيل الكتابات والحوارات التلفزيونية التي تبنت هذا الموقف يفوق الحصر.

بل إنني قرأت سبابا لأصحاب تلك الدعوة نشرته إحدى الصحف تحت عنوان

 "أبوكم لأبو المصالحة"!

والمقصود في الدارجة المصرية هو ملعون أبوكم وأبو المصالحة التي تتحدثون عنها.

أي أن الداعي إليها ليس مجرحا ومستهدفا بالهجاء فحسب، ولكنه ملعون الأبوين أيضا.

(2)

نقلت جريدة الأهرام يوم الأحد الماضي 25/8 عن المستشار الإعلامي لرئيس الجمهورية أحمد المسلماني قوله إن الكراهية في مجتمعنا خطر على الأمن القومي.

وهو تعبير دقيق ومهم رغم أن الجريدة لم تشر إلى السياق الذي وردت فيه، إلا أن صاحبنا لم يبين لنا

لماذا أطلقت حملة الكراهية في الوقت الراهن؟

 ومن يقف وراءها؟

ومن يتولى بثها والترويج لها؟ 
صحيح أن المنابر التي تتبنى تلك الحملة ليست فوق الشبهة

والوجوه التي تسوقها لها رصيدها المعتبر من عدم الاحترام وسوء السمعة،

 إلا أنه من المهم للغاية أن تسلط الأضواء على خلفية المشهد لكي نعرف بالضبط من صاحب المصلحة في بث تلك السموم وزرع الفتنة في المجتمع بما يؤدي إلى تمزيق أواصره وشل قدرته على النهوض فضلا عن التقدم،

 وذلك هو الهدف النهائي لأي خطر يهدد الأمن القومي لأي بلد.
إن الوحش في هذه الحالة لا يصيب الآخر فقط، ولكنه يسمم الأجواء ويلوث الإدراك العام، بحيث يحول المواطنين العاديين إلى وحوش صغار وقنابل موقوتة، مشحونة بالكراهية،

 الأمر الذي يقسم المجتمع إلى مليشيات متخاصمة ومستنفرة

ويحول الوطن الواحد إلى معسكرات متحاربة يتأهب كل منها للانقضاض على الآخر وإفنائه.

وما لا يقل خطورة عن ذلك أن استمرار ذلك الوضع يعد إعلانا عن فشل السلطة القائمة في الحفاظ على وحدة الجماعة الوطنية وعجزها عن حماية التنوع والتعدد فيها.

ثمة حلقة غامضة في خلفية إطلاق الوحش، ذلك أننا إذا فهمنا دور المنابر المستخدمة

وعرفنا شيئا عن المصالح المستهدفة،

وأدركنا حقيقة العناصر التي تغذي السموم وتروج للحقد والكراهية،

 فإن علاقة هؤلاء بالأجهزة الأمنية التي عادت إلى انتعاشها مؤخرا تظل محل تساؤل تردد كثيرا على شبكات التواصل الاجتماعي.

وقد أثار تلك الشكوك وقواها أن العناصر التي ترعى الوحش وتغذيه لها صلاتها التاريخية الثابتة بتلك الأجهزة.

وأهمية استجلاء هذه النقطة أنها تبين لنا ما إذا كانت عملية إطلاق الوحش جزءا من سياسة الدولة

أم أنها تتم لحساب جهات لها مصالحها الخاصة،

 أم أنها نقطة التقت عندها مصالح الطرفين.

(3)

ليس سرا أن الهدف النهائي لهذه الحملة هو

 القضاء على الإخوان والخلاص منهم بصورة نهائية عند الحد الأدنى،

 والخلاص من التيار الإسلامي في مجمله عند الحد الأقصى.

وهذا الهدف الكامن أعلنت عنه أصوات بلا حصر خلال الأسابيع الأخيرة،

 بعضها تسرع وذكر أن "الجماعة" انتهت بالفعل،

 وبعضها أكد أنها تلقت ضربة قاضية أخرجتها من التاريخ بغير رجعة،

وبعضها ذهب إلى أن المجتمع لفظها إلى الأبد،

 إلى غير ذلك من التعبيرات التي تحدث بها البعض عما يتمنونه وليس عما هو حاصل بالفعل.

صحيح أن الإخوان وقعوا في أخطاء عدة، وأن شعبية الحركة تراجعت إلى حد كبير فى مصر،

وصحيح أيضا أن أداء بعض الحركات الإسلامية في الفترة الماضية كان منفرا وليس جاذبا،

 لكن من الصحيح أيضا أنه على مدار التاريخ لم يحدث أن حركة عقائدية لها شعبية إسلامية أو غير إسلامية انتهت بقرار أو بإجراءات إدارية أو حملات أمنية من أي نوع.

وحين تكون الحركة إسلامية في بلد متدين بطبيعته مثل مصر فإن القضاء عليها واقتلاعها بالكامل يعد من رابع المستحيلات.

وهذا ليس رأيا خاصا، ولكنه رأي أي باحث منصف له علم بالسياسة أو بالاجتماع أو بالتاريخ.

وهو معنى عبرت عنه كتابات عدة في العديد من الصحف الغربية وفي بعض الصحف العربية والمصرية.

نعم قد تضعف الحركة وتندثر ومن ثم تختفي من الوجود، وهو ما يؤكده تاريخ الفرق عند المسلمين،

ولكن ذلك يتم من خلال تآكل الأفكار التدريجي أو تعارضها مع ثوابت الشرع أو فطرة الناس،

ولم يحدث مرة واحدة أن تم ذلك بقرار سلطاني أو بحملات قمعية وأمنية.

إن الجهد الهائل الذي نشهده هذه الأيام لشيطنة الإخوان لتبرير القضاء عليهم بما في ذلك الادعاء بأن الاشتباك معهم بمثابة حرب جديدة على الإرهاب،

 لو بذل عُشره لاحتوائهم وتشجيعهم على مراجعة أخطائهم وتصحيح علاقتهم مع المجتمع بمؤسساته المختلفة، لكان ذلك أجدى وأنجح وأقرب إلى تحقيق المصلحة العليا للبلد.

ناهيك عن سوء التقدير والتعبير في استخدام مصطلح الحرب على الإرهاب الذي أريد به دغدغة مشاع الغربيين.

ذلك أن الحرب الوهمية التي استخدمت نفس المصطلح في التجربة الأميركية كانت ولا تزال أفشل حروبها، ولم تحقق الهدف منها رغم مضي نحو عشر سنوات على انطلاقها، فضلا عن أن كثيرين يعتبرون أنها عممت الإرهاب في العالم ولم تقض عليه.

أدرى أن ثمة قائمة طويلة من الاتهامات للإخوان سواء في عهد الدكتور محمد مرسي أو بعد انقلاب 3 يوليو ينبغي أن تخضع وقائعها لتحقيق نزيه لكى يحاسب المسؤولون عنها.

ولا أعرف إن كان ذلك بات ممكنا الآن أم لا،

ثم إننا لم نسمع صوتهم فيما نسب إليهم من ادعاءات،

علما بأن كل ما تلقيناه حتى الآن ظل محصورا في التقارير الأمنية، التي على أساسها أجريت المحاكمات عبر وسائل الإعلام وعلقت المشانق في فضاءاتها.

(4)

على عكس ما يتصور كثيرون أو يتمنون، فالمشكلة بدأت ولم تنته، أو عند الحد الأدنى فإنها بصدد الدخول في منعطف جديد أشد خطرا.
ذلك أن ما جرى طوال شهر يوليو من الصعب نسيانه أو طي صفحته بسهولة.

ليس لدي ما أقوله عن حوادث التخريب التي وقعت، خصوصا حرق الكنائس واقتحام أقسام الشرطة، أو عمليات القتل والتعذيب التي تحدثت عنها وسائل الإعلام،

وقل ذلك عن أحداث الاتحادية وغيرها من النوازل التي حلت في عهد الدكتور مرسى،

 لأن تلك الوقائع لم يحقق ولم نعرف من الفاعل فيها،

وكل ما بين أيدينا الآن هو ادعاءات أمنية وأصداء إعلامية، تخدم سياسة الإقصاء والاجتثاث أكثر مما تخدم الحقيقة.

الوحش الذي استيقظ فينا كان أداؤه دمويا خلال شهر يوليو ، وتمثل في سلسلة من المجازر التي كانت حصيلتها ثلاثة آلاف قتيل وعشرة آلاف مصاب منهم سبعة آلاف إصابتهم خطرة وبعضهم على وشك الموت.

وهذه هي الأرقام التي سجلتها نقابة الأطباء، وعدّتها حدودا دنيا مرشحة للزيادة، لأن هناك قتلى ومصابين لم يتم التعرف على هوياتهم ولم تسجل بطاقاتهم.

وحسبما فهمت فهناك ضغوط أمنية على وزارة الصحة والمستشفيات لحجب المعلومات الخاصة بالقتلى والمصابين.

هذا الملف الدموي يخضع الآن لعملية توثيق قيل لي إنه حافل بالمعلومات الخطيرة والمفاجآت الصادمة، التي تحتاج بدورها إلى تحقيق نزيه يعرف الرأي العام بالمدى الذي وصل إليه الجنون وعبر عنه الوحش في تلك الفترة.

لا أتحدث عن محاسبة المسؤولين عن تلك المذابح، خصوصا أن ذلك ملف ملغوم يتعذر فتحه في الوقت الراهن، وإنما سيترك أمره للتاريخ عله يكون أكثر حيادا وإنصافا.

لكني أتحدث عن شلال الدماء التي تدفقت غزيرة خلال تلك الفترة.

بطبيعة الحال فإن أحدا لا يتمنى أن تطلق تلك الدماء جولة جديدة من العنف تدخلنا في جحيم الحالة الجزائرية وعشرية الموت السوداء التي خيمت هناك في تسعينيات القرن الماضي،

 لكن أحدا لا يستطيع أن يضمن أن ذلك لن يحدث وأن وحش القتل لن يولد لنا وحش الثأر، الذي أرجح أن يكون جنينا في الوقت الراهن.

المثير للدهشة أن ثمة تجاهلا لذلك الملف وإنكارا له، حيث لا أرى جهدا من أي نوع يبذل للتعاطي معه وتجنب تداعياته المخيفة التي تهدد السلم الأهلي، وتهدد الأمن القومي في نفس الوقت،

 الأمر الذي يسلمنا إلى مجهول يحفل بمختلف الشرور التي تخطر أو لا تخطر على البال.

لقد أعلن رسميا أن رئاسة الجمهورية سوف تشكل لجنة لتقصي حقائق ما جرى في مذبحة الحرس الجمهوري، ولكن اللجنة لم تر النور.

وفى خريطة الطريق التي أعلنها الفريق عبد الفتاح السيسي في 3/7 أعلن عن تشكيل لجنة عليا للمصالحة الوطنية من شخصيات بمصداقية وقبول لدى جميع النخب الوطنية وممثلة لمختلف التوجهات،

 ورغم مضي أكثر من خمسين يوما على ذلك الإعلان، فان اللجنة بدورها لم تر النور.

ليس عندي تفسير لتجاهل هذه المسألة،

وأرجو ألا يكون ذلك التجاهل راجعا إلى تنامي نفوذ تيار الاستئصال في دوائر السلطة الذي يعول على الحل الأمني وينحاز إلى الاقتلاع والإبادة.
وإلى أن تنجلى الحقيقة في هذا الشأن فإن الوحش سيظل يكبر ويزداد توحشا.

ولن تستغرب إذا استحضر وحوشا أخرى تملأ الغابة التي صرنا من سكانها.