SINCE the toppling of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) regime, some foreign and Arab media have tried to depict the issue as a conflict between two parties: the MB supported by the other Islamist powers and the civil and revolutionary powers supported by the armed forces and the security agency. Herein, some Western, Arab and African capitals started sending envoys and delegations to mediate between the two parties to reach settlement of the conflict to prevent dragging the country into civil war as they claim. The problem, in fact, is between the MB and the entire Egyptian people, who revolted against the MB regime after one year of taking rule, when they became confident that President Mohamed Morsi was being governed by the MB Guidance Office in the group's interests rather than the people's. The whole world followed the Tamarod (Rebel) campaign that managed to collect some 22 million signature on a petition withdrawing confidence in Morsi and urging early elections to choose a new president for the country to help restore the Egyptian revolution to its right track. The successful campaign culminated in having more than 30 million Egyptians go on the country's streets on June 30 with the single demand of ending Morsi's rule. Continuation of the huge demonstrations in different governorates forced the army to assume its responsibility of protecting national security and submitting to the public will. Herein, the Army's General Commander took the decision to unseat the president and draw a roadmap for the transitional period after consulting the main political powers and the two religious institutions of Al-Azhar and the Coptic Orthodox Church. It is true that the world came to acknowledge the move as a revolution after first describing it as coup, yet there are still attempts to abort this great rebellion that recorded the largest number of protesting human masses in history. The Western powers, mainly the US and Europe, have expressed respect for the Egyptian public will and choice of changing their rulers. Nevertheless, they continue to maintain the MB power and influence in the political process against the will of the Egyptians, under the pretext of preventing eruption of civil war in Egypt. For this goal the West seems ready to give up its democratic principles and respect for the rule of law by requesting the release of the MB leaders, including the toppled president despite being jailed and accused of crimes whose punishment could reach the death sentence in some countries. These Western envoys offer one initiative after the other to achieve this goal in return for ending the violent acts being perpetrated by the MB supporters in Cairo, Sinai and the other governorates. The more the West sends delegates to present initiatives and meet with MB leaders and state officials, the more the MB escalate their violent acts against the society to apply pressure on the officials to offer concessions, the least of which is giving a safe exit to the MB leaders. Restoring the country's stability and peace is needed today before tomorrow to enable the new government to push forward the production wheel, upgrade economic conditions, restore tourism to the country and continue with the roadmap steps of writing the constitution, forming the new parliament and choosing an elected president. However the price would be much higher than mere safe exits for the MB leaders proved to have been involved in crimes of treason, corruption or murder. By allowing this to happen we would be demolishing the main pillar of democracy, by preventing putting officials to account if they committed a crime while in office. On this same base, we might find some urging the release of Mubarak, his sons and members of his corrupted regime. The biggest concession the people would pay for restoring the state stability, however, is to accept having the MB involved in the political process now. It might appear undemocratic to attempt ousting the MB from the political process now, considering the fact that they form one of the factions of the society. However, one should not forget that the MB had the chance to rule, whether by obtaining the majority in parliament or by winning the presidential seat, but they proved a failure in running the affairs of the country to serve Egypt's national interests. Instead, they showed readiness to sacrifice the country's interests to enforce their project of creating Islamic rule in Egypt as the nucleus for rebuilding the Islamic caliphate. That is why the Egyptians rebelled against the elected president just after one year of his taking office. While discussing the different initiatives being presented by some Western and Arab powers to get Egypt out of this crisis, one should not forget that the Egyptians rose up against the MB regime in June 30 with the aim of ousting them from the political process so as to prevent a catastrophic destruction of the state identity and lands. So how could one ask the Egyptians accept having the MB back to the political process to abort their dream of building their country on modern civil democratic bases? Like any political party ousted in a revolution for their failure in ruling the country, the Muslim Brotherhood should suffer political isolation for no less than 10 years to enable the other political powers take the helm of the national ship to sail into safe shores. One should not consider this as a mass punishment for the MB. Instead it is a chance for them, especially the young members to reconstruct their movement on a sound basis after revising the erroneous ideas and theories that governed their movement for long decades. However, this does not mean forcing social isolation on the MB and other Islamist powers. Instead, the different state institutions and civil society should work on merging them in the society to preserve state unity and prevent re-formation of fanatic groups working against stability of the state.
