This week witnessed the trial of Hosni Mubarak and top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Al-Masry Al-Youm on Monday described it as ‘The trial day of those involved in the death of protesters in the two revolutions.' Al-Tahrirpredicted that ‘Jail awaits the Brotherhood' and Al-Watanshed light on ‘The international MB plan to escalate against Egypt'. Al-Akhbaron Sunday wrote ‘today... Hosni Mubarak, Habib Al-Adli and aides in the trial of the century and Mohamed Badei, Khairat Al-Shater and the MB tried for killing protesters'. Writers looked at the possibility of reconciliation with the MB as a means of safeguarding the unity of the country, while others argued against reconciliation with an organisation that has killed innocent people. Emad Gad tried to point out the requirements and limits for reconciliation. While he emphasised that it should not be rejected in principle, it should be conducted according to the interests of the country and aim to reach national detente. “Reconciliation should be with parties that put the country as a priority and which did not resort to violence to achieve their targets. If the MB is involved in violence and terrorism, the law should be applied and the MB should apologise to the people before any reconciliation,” Gad wrote in the independent daily Al-Tahrir. No reconciliation with those who regard the state as an emirate, he added, or those who ask the support of external parties at the expense of national security and sovereignty. Nevine Yassin echoed what many Egyptian feel at present: the Brotherhood is a malignancy that needs to be removed although uprooting the group would have serious repercussions on the unity of the state. Yassin wrote that although she realises that what is taking place now is like an operation to remove a tumour and that it is the only option to save the country, she said she was sad that it would have a big impact on the unity of the Egyptian family. She pointed to sibling fights within some families in which one sister openly threatens her sister on Facebook because the former supports political Islam and the latter backs Defence Minister Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi. “Egypt is in need of a skilled surgeon who can remove the cancer and protect the unity of society at the same time,” Yassin wrote in the daily Al-Wafd, the mouthpiece of the opposition Wafd Party. As for inter-family bickering, Yassin described it as the time bomb that could explode any time. She concluded by calling on all social institutions to exert every effort to protect the unity and harmony of Egyptian society. “We are in need of a quick social and educational roadmap drawn up by civil society organisations to save Egyptian society and tie all Egyptians to their country,” she wrote. In his back page column in Al-AkhbarAbdel-Qader Shuhaib announced the death of the MB. He wrote that people welcome any news related to the arrest of any MB member and shout slogans against any march or protest that rejects the ouster of Mohamed Morsi as president. “The MB is not facing the authority or a state body but the people with the exception of a few thousand members and followers,” Shuhaib wrote. As a result, the writer announced the end of the MB as the strongest organisation in Egypt and its members who can escape from the state as they are being tracked down, but cannot escape the people's pursuit. And that is the reason why Mustafa Hegazi, the president's adviser recently repeated that religious fascism had ended in Egypt. However, Shuhaib warned not to consider the MB as dead “because they might have lost a battle but their war against the country will continue”. “Thus, while religious fascism ended as an authority in Egypt it is looking to treat its wounds and regain its power. The MB still owns the money that would support them in their war against their enemies. And it still has external support. All this will give them the kiss of life as an organisation,” Shuhaib wrote. That does not mean, he concluded, “that we make concessions to the MB in a way that affects our pursuit of democracy or for the sake of reconciliation. It means that we are in a long and continuous struggle against religious fascism to protect our country from its dangers.” Rami Galal Amer shed light on the Mubarak trial. He wrote that the January Revolution was launched for several reasons; none included punishing Mubarak. But when his trial became a public demand, Amer added, “it should have been done according to the law and not to personal preferences”. Besides, Amer elaborated, Mubarak was released according to the law. Thus the problem is in the law. “Mubarak cannot be condemned for rigging elections, neglecting the educational system and health of citizens because by law these are not considered crimes,” he wrote in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm. Amer called for “building our country on the basis of law which should be founded on three factors; an accurate text, an application of the text and supervision of the application”. Emadeddin Adib pinpointed the double standard of the US and Europe in dealing with the Syrian and Egyptian crises. A few days ago, Adib explained, Bashar Al-Assad allegedly used chemical weapons against innocent civilians killing 1,300 citizens, mostly women and children. Nevertheless, Adib added, Washington, Paris and London hesitated in taking a firm and collective stand until definite evidence that Al-Assad used chemical weapons was collected. Stranger still, Adib wrote, the three countries wanted to make sure that it was Al-Assad's army and not the Free Army that used chemical weapons. Meanwhile, he added, “they all rise to condemn the dispersal of the sit-ins in Rabaa and Nahda because of the alleged use of violence against the protesters.” “It is amazing that Washington, Paris and London wanted to check whether Al-Assad used chemical weapons, but had complete confidence that Egyptian officials used violence against protesters ignoring the fact that protesters had weapons in their sit-in,” Adib wrote in his regular column in the independent daily Al-Watan. He pointed to that as the crisis of double standards in the age of conspiracy.
