Egyptian military looking for 'reasonable' way out of crisis

[DJKeefy]

A highly informed official source has told Ahram Online that "all state bodies, not excluding the military" are willing to find a "reasonable" way out of the current political crisis of "the last few months."

Following mass nationwide demonstrations on 30 June, president Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was ousted by the military on 3 July, and a new transitional roadmap put in place.

Speaking on strict conditions of anonymity, the source said that "pressure has been accumulating and things have to come to an end." He explained that pressure includes what he qualified as "instigated terror attacks" on military and civilian targets at Sinai.

"The state is confident of Muslim Brotherhood involvement in instigating the terror in Sinai. Things have to be checked there; you cannot just sit and watch," he added.

The same source said that "pressure" also includes what he qualified as "solid intelligence information of Muslim Brotherhood appeal to foreign bodies to intervene one way or the other to free the arrested Muslim Brotherhood leadership, including Morsi himself who is under house arrest, and to get them to leave the country with their families and their money."

He also suggested that there is "compelling evidence" that the Muslim Brotherhood are seeking the help of Islamist groups outside Egypt to "facilitate operations in Egypt; this especially includes Sinai."

Sources have been telling Ahram Online over the past weeks that several attempts to start a negotiation process between the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood – many of whom have been arrested on charges of inciting violence – have failed to make a breakthrough due to the "tough positions taken by both sides: state leadership, including the army, and the Muslim Brotherhood leadership."

According to one source who is close to mediators, following a speech by military head General Abdel Fattah El-Sisi on Wednesday afternoon where he demanded that Egyptians protest "terrorism" on Friday to provide the military with "a public mandate to face up to terror," the Muslim Brotherhood leadership seemed "less intransigent." "I think they realised that the army has big enough public support to start mass arrests of Muslim Brotherhood members and other Islamists involved in the incitement and execution of violence."

The highly informed official source for his part said that "Minister El-Sisi would not have made such an appeal had he not been fully confident that he would receive exactly the kind of enormous support he expects; he has solid information about unprecedented public anger with the Muslim Brotherhood."

In the words of a military source, the expectation is that "the demonstrations on Friday will be as big almost as those of 30 June." The same source denied speculation suggesting that following the Friday demonstrations the army and police would act to force an end to the Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins at Cairo’s Rabaa Al-Adawiya Mosque and in Al-Nahda Square in Giza. "This is not the point of the statement of the minister," he said.

Since the ouster of Morsi on 3 July, Muslim Brotherhood members have been holding sit-ins and demonstrations to demand the reinstatement of Morsi who they argue is the legitimate president.

Speaking to Ahram Online on Wednesday afternoon, a leading member of the Brotherhood said: "We know that Morsi is not coming back as president but we want guarantees that we will not all be thrown back into prison."

The Islamist organisation has faced periods of state persecution at several points in its almost-ninety year history, and some of its leaders spent many years in prison on political charges.

"If we have to choose between fighting and dying on the street and going to prison, why should anybody think we would want to go to prison?" The Muslim Brotherhood leader said.

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/77294.aspx

[LovelyLadyLux]

How it plays out will only be known once the situation as it stands in Egypt plays out but it is heartening to hear the word reasonable being used.

I'm not sure words and philosophies such as reasonable, compromise or mediate a solution are within the vernacular of the Brotherhood. Seems to me most of their positions are quite intransigent and it is this failure to move even a millimeter that always leaves me questioning the 'why' behind the total unwillingness to move from a position or to compromise.

Is anything in life so absolute that it cannot be modified, adapted or moved even slightly to a compromised position that is more suitable to the group?

The philosophies of the MB - our way or the highway or if we don't get it our way we'll start suicide bombers etc seem pretty much carved in concrete to me.

[Hafiz]

Linking the brotherhood to internal 'terrorism' (wasn't that called 'Sinai banditry' until recently and wasn't that the same problem under the brotherhood) and external 'dark forces' is part of the new script/talking points and Sisi's recent speech, along the same lines, designed to further exploit public feelings.

A few bombings linked to the brotherhood by the same 'highly informed source' might not be out of the question and welcomed by some.

Has no one researched that the brotherhood has never, in its 60 years of suppression, ever used violence? They might use it now but if they did it would be totally inconsistent with their actions to date. However I realize that more extreme elements have a bad track record in this area.

I've never been able to understand how the Egyptian army has not been able to deal with the Sinai problem. Its a huge army deploying on their own territory with state of the art western hardware. Whilst I'm not a military strategist, I also don't understand why the massively equipped Egyptian air force has never been mentioned as taking part in action. Maybe the armed forces are as useless as some western commentators have publicly said and that they waste their time in politics and military enterprises.

[Who2]

Using Violence and Inciting Violence are one and the same to my mind...
The Council on Foreign Relations.
One reason the Brotherhood’s commitment to nonviolence is unclear: The original Egyptian organization has spawned branches in 70 countries. These organizations bear the Brotherhood name, but their connections to the founding group vary and some of them may provide financial, logistical, or other support to terrorist organizations. Some terrorist groups—including Hamas, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and al-Qaeda—have historic and ideological affiliations with the Egyptian Brotherhood. In addition, some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists were once Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, including Osama bin Laden’s top deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. The organization is like “stepping stone,” says Evan Kohlmann, an international terrorism consultant. “[For] someone who is interested in dedicating their lives to a radical Islamist cause, it can be a pathway up…to a more serious dealing with Islam.”

[Hafiz]

Who2. Thanks. My point should have been that there is no evidence of the Egyptian Brotherhood ever sponsoring terrorism within Egypt.

Its true, but I dont't understand why, that almost all Muslim terrorism is thought to be Sunni (Indonesia is Shia) and that because the brotherhood is Sunni the two are publically connected. It might be true but there is a hell of a lot of evidence against it.

The 9/11 case , which you don't mention, is interesting because it shows that most of the effort, money and labor came from brotherhood hating but Sunni Saudi. Afghanistan is a Shia, anti brotherhood but terrorist country which recruited Sunni foot sholdiers.

An example of terror and its export is the late and unlamented Qaddafi (a secularist in a majority Sunni country where the brotherhood was suppressed). The secular Arafat falls into the same category (exporting terror) as does the secular/Alawite Assad who suppressed the brotherhood in a famous destruction of Homs 20 years ago killing c50,000 and has exported tenor ever since through a deal with al Quad a (sanctuary in return for not bombing Syria). Saddam in Iraq was a secularist who suppressed the brotherhood, as did all other secular leaders, and exported terror and used it on his own people. The Shia (and brotherhood hating) Iranians have exported and funded terror for decades. Turkey, a brotherhood government, doesn't export violence (but suffers from Kurdish terrorism) whilst Sunni Khartoum will get into bed with any terrorist (bin Laden was given sanctuary there in the late 90's). Sunni brotherhood Tunisia seems very moderate. The Taliban in Afghanistan was Shia and therefore not brotherhood. If there is a pattern here its hard to find a link between the brotherhood and terrorism. If there is a link it is that secular leaders have been the worst and that the worst terrorists have grown up in non-brotherhood governed countries. There are individual examples of Egyptians in extremist cells but I think that the general picture seems clear - the great exporters of terror in the region have been seculars or Shia with no connection to the brotherhood.

The one big exception, which sort of makes Who2's case, is Algeria. An elected brotherhood government in the early 90's followed by a military coup, followed by a civil war costing about 250,000 dead followed by an army victory. Sounds familiar. Everyone says it wont happen in Egypt but who would bet on it. A major difference is that there had been a culture of extreme violence and skilled terrorism In Algeria leading up to 1962 and maybe people were less inhibited in using violence than they might be in Egypt. Who knows but to assume that the brotherhood is a standardized movement across the whole Sunni world might be like saying that all right wing parties in the West are the same.

Your point about sponsoring or inciting violence is a good one but can come back to bite you when you think of western countries sponsoring violence everywhere else but on their home turf.

There is some evidence that the brothers have helped in avoiding violence and terrorism. Remember 8 or 9 months ago Egypt brokered a deal with its brotherhood ally, Hamas, which was firing rockets into Israel because of an Israeli trade blockade against it. Egypt negotiated, the rockets stopped and there was a partial lifting of the blockade. Doesn't seem like the actions of a one-eyed supporter of fellow brothers - seems more like a responsible citizen and a bit of enlightened self interest and not blind ideology.

Morsi's position on Syria (virtually) encouraging Egyptians to fight with the Syrian rebels (composed of Sunni's and brotherhood types) was moderate compared with the region and there is no published evidence that I have seen that Egypt supplied either arms or money to the Syrian rebels. The Egyptian government's diplomatic position on Syria was aggressive but it surprisingly refrained from actual participation. On the other hand peace loving peoples (who do not live in the region) France, the UK and the USA have or will supply arms or money. Local identities such as (Suni) Saudi, (brotherhood) Turkey, (Sunni) Qatar and (brotherhood and Sunni) Libya who have already supplied both for some time whilst Egypt has done nothing. On the other side (Shia and anti brotherhood) Iran has supplied money and arms together with 3,000 troops with Lebanese (Shia and anti brotherhood) Hezbollah providing the full suite of murder services. Peace loving and anti-Shia Russia (Chechnya Muslims remember) are happy to export arms. Sunni brotherhood Egypt was about the only player in the region to not support the brotherhood dominated rebels. This restraint should give pause for thought to those who believe that there is some transnational bond with all brotherhood groups supporting all other brotherhood groups.

My point here is that Egypt's approach on Hamas was to prevent friend from fighting Israel and, in the case of Syria, Egypt's position is almost peace loving compared with everyone else in the region and beyond. Doesn't seem to be the behavior of a government with current violent intentions.

One other aspect of its foreign policy which suggests a fence mending rather than a violence exporting approach was for Morsi to travel to and receive a state visit from its old Shia enemy, Iran. Everyone in Egypt knew that Iran was supporting the destruction of the brotherhood in Syria but the Egyptian government was able to run a diplomatic line which was far from dogmatic about the fate of those brothers in Syria whilst pragmatic about the benefits to Egypt of closer ties with Iran. Doesn't seem the actions of dogmatists wedded to the brothers everywhere.

Finding a writer who knows much about the secretive brotherhood is hard but all agree on its hierarchical and tight, democratic organizational structure, unlike some others, and this may mean that violent hot heads are less likely to emerge. If true this must be a good thing.

[LovelyLadyLux]

@ Hafiz - No.