Voices are being raised these days, loudly calling for "Reconciliation" with the terrorist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Some newspapers have spread the tidings, publishing information about meetings here-and-there, accompanied by mediation efforts. We have repeatedly told the truth of this matter, yet the same rumors are still being spread, just like people trying to plough the sea, (an Egyptian proverb). Egyptians have made a decisive choice and have put this organization in its well-deserved status as a designated terrorist group. There is no place for the MB on the political scene in Egypt. We still feel that we need to clarify what has already been said, as a reminder. Since the downfall of their regime, this terrorist organization has founded its plan for salvation on one sole option: reconciliation and the sharing of power. To this end, they have exerted pressures by terrorizing the nation. Terror attacks against the nation, society and communities were launched for this specific purpose, forcing the country to accept reconciliation, or so they thought. Internal and external reconciliation attempts were carried out in support of this plan. Internally, Tarek Al Bishry, Selim Al Awa and Fahmy Howeidy, as well as a large number of Qatar's and Turkey's followers, have tried hard in favor of this reconciliation. Externally, several countries made proposals to the Egyptian government and pressures were exerted on Egypt and Arab nations in the same direction. The last attempt was made during American President Barak Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia January 24, where he extended his condolences for late King Abdallah Ben Abdel Aziz's death. Obama's visit wasn't paid simply to offer condolences; it was meant to deliver a clear message to the new Saudi leadership: a message about Washington's view on the events in Egypt. Obama spoke, in no uncertain terms, about the democratic presidential elections in 2012 that put the MB's Morsi as head of the Egyptian nation. He then digressed on various "non-democratic" dealings in the aftermath of the elections, which he said excluded certain political forces, referring here to the Brotherhood in particular. Strangely enough, Obama deliberately ignored the Egyptian popular revolution of June 30, 2013 as well as all the events that took place in Egypt during a whole year following the Brotherhood's rule. He only expressed some reservation and disapproval for the constitutional declaration of July 3, 2013 which ended the Brotherhood's rule and laid down the foundation for a road map vastly accepted by the Egyptian people, as a logical outcome to a glorious revolution. Washington's Democracy Obama told the new Saudi leadership that the results of democratic processes should be respected, whatever the outcome, again alluding to the 2012 elections. He added that Egyptians should have taken the democratic course in opposing the Muslim Brotherhood to steer them on the right path without having to exclude them. He also said that what happened in Egypt encouraged a large number of Egyptians and other nationalities to support and harbor extreme terrorism. Obama reached his logical conclusion according to the American view, which in short was, that there must be an Egyptian-Egyptian dialogue to end the deadlock. What is even stranger is that Obama's claims were followed by many more from people that the American administration had secretly met earlier in Cairo and various Arab capitals. These people talked about the same purported reconciliation, using the same language as Obama and his administration and deliberately ignoring the bloodshed that had occurred and was still occurring in Egypt, committed by the MB terrorist organization and its allies. Obama blatantly requested Saudi Arabia to back the American efforts in that respect. He also warned other Gulf nations from getting implicated, according to him, in offering support to one side while confronting the other. He asked the new Saudi leadership, represented in the person of King Salman bin Abdel Aziz, to coordinate and support a national dialogue in Egypt, leading to a resolution accepted by all parties. Obama stressed on the fact that reconciliation was the only way to peacefully confront the terror of extreme political Islam. Officials present at the meeting with the Saudi King did not comment on what Obama had to say, misleading the American party into believing that they had agreed with the American President's point of view. It is important to note here that the Americans adopted this interpretation based on previous talks with the Saudi Minister of Interior at the time and present Crown Prince Mohamed Ben Naif on December 12 2014, during his visit to Washington. The Prince had then rejected any Saudi involvement in countries facing unrest, namely Syria, Iraq, Yemen or Egypt. In the three-hour, one-on-one meeting with Obama, then Saudi Minister of Interior had based his refusal on security concerns and on the fact his country had more than its fair share of terrorist organization. Its war against terrorism had to be confined to domestic matters. There was no need to give those organizations more justification to retaliate against the kingdom on the international scene. The American position concerning Egypt was very clear. America was asking the Saudis to stop supporting the Egyptian regime and, instead, to adopt Washington's position aiming at a domestic Egyptian settlement which would lead to the Brotherhood's return on the country's political scene. This was the main purpose of Obama's visit to Riyadh: to block the road for any victory of the Egyptian will against the American and Western scheme to subdivide the region. A scheme that the new Saudi regime and all the Arab Gulf states knew about even before Egypt did. American sources had leaked to Qatar that there was a shift in the Saudi position regarding the situation in Egypt. Analyses were multiplying, indicating that the Saudi policy had changed towards Egypt, and that it had started to withdraw its support to Al Sisi's regime. The bait had been swallowed; renowned Egyptian and Arab journalists began publishing on the subject without examining sources. Political leaders in Egypt were concerned about the leaked information. After Obama's departure from the region, head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Khalid Fawzy, an envoy of FM Sameh Shoukry, arrived in Riyadh for a quick visit and a debrief of Obama's visit and its consequences. Saudis told the Egyptians that there had been no change at all in their position towards the Egyptian regime "our position is clear and candid. We support and back all Egyptian choices. We will never take a position that would be disapproved by the Egyptian leadership", they said. The Egyptian delegation returned home pleased with the Saudi response, however it was still concerned over two factors: The Americans would continue to try and persuade Saudis regarding a national dialogue between the Egyptian government and the Brotherhood. The Americans would still bet on the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization to play an important role in the region. Egyptian diplomacy mobilized on all levels in the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain, after the return of the Egyptian envoy. Clarifying Egypt's position was important: there would never be reconciliation with murderers and terrorists. America responded by brazenly receiving a Brotherhood envoy in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a meeting January 29, in a clear message that the Brotherhood remained its main option in the region. Their presence on the Egyptian political scene was an unwavering choice for Washington, notwithstanding the Egyptian government and public rejection. I can understand the American position on this subject. They steadfastly persist on their plan for the Middle East, which was greatly disrupted by the June 30 Egyptian revolution. It is, however, very difficult to understand some writers and thinkers who keep on writing about this so-called reconciliation, blindly repeating information as if they had no other choice. Test Balloon What's being published is nothing but a test balloon intended to assess the Egyptian public's reaction to the proposed reconciliation. My message goes out to Egyptian men and women who are determined and patriotic. How will anyone be able to shake hands with this terrorist organization without seeing the blood it has shed? How will anyone ever trust its words again? Whoever is advocating reconciliation is disregarding the scores of policemen, soldiers, officers and civilians murdered in cold blood by this terrorist organization. Treachery has prevailed in Kerdassa, Farafra, Sinai, Fayoum, Al Minya, Assuit, Luxor and Libya. Acts of terror have left our police and soldiers dead. Who has the right to bargain for their blood? I am not seeking the impossible, I am just asking for justice. If you should ever decide to converse with these vampires, you should first consider bringing back fathers to those who have been orphaned, husbands to widowed wives and children to their fathers and mothers still mourning their lost ones. Some may ask if Muslim Brotherhood members were killed too. The answer is yes, but they have spilt the blood of our sons and we say there will be no reconciliation. I know that the only ones in Egypt calling for reconciliation are the undetermined pseudo men associated with the terrorist group and those who chose to follow Washington and its orbiting allies, namely Turkey and Qatar. These individuals are exerting extreme efforts to buy their way into the next parliament, at any price. They use all manner of tricks in their attempt to win a seemingly lost battle. They will either push for reconciliation, democratically applying pressures for the release of detained spies and traitors or they will try to bargain for their own country. Nothing will break us, I am sure, but caution is a virtue and alertness a duty. Exposing the defeatists who gnaw away at our country is the biggest challenge. It is war, I know. It may lie heavy on the heart, but it is also inevitable. Sons are killed, slaughtered or kidnapped and all we're doing is reiterating the West's and Washington's views on reconciliation with terrorists. The only solution is to declare war on terrorism. Waging war means preparing, mobilizing, declaring a state of emergency and allowing officers and soldiers to use weapons as adequately as they can under the circumstances. Experience has shown that trembling hands do not build nations. Terrorism reacts inversely to the way it's being dealt with. Treat it with severity and strength and it will wither, confront it with weakness and it will thrive. This is a very simple equation that has passed the test of time: from King Farouk's era up until the times of former presidents Moubarak, Abdel Nasser and Sadat. The war against terrorism is not a conventional one. The use of traditional war strategies and weaponry will not win it. Our battle against terrorism is based on our faith in the justice of our leadership, and on the fact that we will not bargain with the blood of our victims. We are pursuing the destiny of our choice, and will not stop short of that purpose. This war is not about guns or fire, it is about the belief we have in the fairness of our cause and our ability to unite as people, police, army and leadership against this invasive danger. A Poetic End: I will not be reconciled Even for gold With plucked out eyes What can you see? With rubies in sockets placed Will you see? Nothing is sold Without having a fee.
