Once again, it is about Morsi and Sadat

When we wrote about Morsi following Sadat’s steps, we didn’t mean that they both belong to the same political school. What we meant at the time was that they both have reached the top of the political pyramid in their country by chance and luck, that they both were the weakest in the chain of power and that legitimacy granted both a cutting sword that enabled the first to overthrow all the centres of power and impose an individual ruling type of the country and the post presidential elections developments granted Morsi a decisive position in the Egyptian decision making institution. At the time, some comments of the readers refused to put both men in the same crib, even from this narrow angle. Someone said: “Shame on you, this is an unfair comparison” whilst another said: “Seek refuge with Allah from the accursed comparison Satan.” That went on until we saw what happened in the 39th celebration of the October 6 war where Morsi granted late President Anwar Sadat the Order of the Nile (Kiladat El Nile), Egypt's highest state honour for his role in taking the war decision. Mosri reversed all what the group to which he belongs (Muslim Brotherhood) have said about Sadat’s role, in particular in diminishing the goals of the war, first by limiting the movement of the Egyptian army then using them to sign a peace treaty with Israel. The “Presidential human touch” about the late president’s widow and daughters was a continuity of the “message” contained in the “Order of the Nile” - the significance of which Lady Jihan Sadat recognised when she thanked the Brotherhood belonging President saying “what’s right, is right.” The right here is admitting the political heritage of Sadat, with what it includes of deals and agreements and to stop showing him as a devil and promising to “eliminate him.” Morsi started his speech attacking the 60s and what happened at the time, which upset the Egyptian people so that Morsi was embarrassed and adjusted his stance in the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). He praised the leader of July 23 Revolution, his role in founding the movement and supporting some of its countries, reflecting the Egyptian will. Someone would say Morsi is being a “statesman” who rules according to the principle of “Continuity of Government (COG)” and not according to the theory “whenever you enter a nation, execrate the other.” But monitoring the main stances and what they show emphasises the fact that between Nasser and Sadat, Morsi prefers the “President who believes.” The stance of the Brotherhood from Sadat and Camp David Accords consumed its goals to weaken the former regime, take away its legitimacy and then reach power which is the final destination. The stances of the Brotherhood of the Arab –Israeli struggle is not new, as the same happened in Palestine... The Brotherhood joined the resistance very late (22 years to be precise) and left it very early too - after 20 years. The “resistance” was an effective tool in weakening the power of the late President Yasser Arafat and as soon as the Brotherhood took the power through elections the resistance was replaced by “calmness” and “intermission.” The “Islamic movement” led the Jordanian people’s strife against the “Wadi Araba Peace Treaty” in Jordan and was the centre of the “resistance front against normalisation with the Zionist enemy.” They accused the “Oslo authority” and “Abbas authority” with every possible accusation. We are eager to know what the Brotherhood would say about this treaty and the normalisation if it ever forms its “parliamentary government,” even after ages. In conclusion, the Islamic movement’s speech, including that of the Brotherhood, has a national and patriotic component which is not genuine or rooted but only arose to deal with this speech. It blamed those who supported it accusing them of infidelity and atheism before it started making new alliances with the leftists and nationalists ten years ago or a bit more This makes these movements a constant subject to retrogressions like those witnessed by the “parent brotherhood in Egypt.” Islam was always presented as a guarantee of the “fundamental stance” of the "Zionism" Israel and the international pride in the historic and current debate with the Islamists of our countries. The truth is, this argument didn’t resist much because of the several readings of the religion of which some favour “Peshawar” and “Kandahar” over “Jerusalem” and “Khalil al-Rahman” and some accuse the opponents to the rulers of being disbelievers and others who use the religion for purposes of life on earth, all with the same strictness. And the talk is still to be continued. -- The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.