Adawiya afterthoughts of a young Muslim Brother

Habiba's last photo (posted on Facebook by Mohamed Osama)

By Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia’s authoritative political analyst and author, writing today for pan-Arab al-Hayat

In front of me is a picture of Habiba Ahmed Abd Elaziz, an ambitious young woman primed for a bright future.

She was known as a serious journalist from an early age and was well versed in Arabic and English.

All this came to an abrupt end in Cairo last Wednesday, when Habiba was felled by a deadly bullet at one of the entrances to the Rabaa al-Adawiya protest camp.

Search the social media for her last poignant picture showing a militant believer sitting resolutely while being surrounded by debris and destruction and engulfed in tear gas.

All men had gone their way while she stayed put doing what she was asked to do.

In her right hand is a small tin bowl she was using to bank a metal drum. Her ration is a bottle of water.

A hijab covering her head is wrapped around her shoulders.

The gas mask she held to cover her nose and mouth did not fend off the bullet that took her away in the springtime of life.

Who fired the bullet is immaterial.

It was most probably an Egyptian policeman or a sniper hiding on a nearby rooftop and rejoicing at killing “the other Egyptians” he hates and perceives as enemies.

I wouldn’t go into blaming the army, state security and the police.

Like their Arab counterparts, that’s what they have been training to do for decades – namely, to protect the regime and the state. Their mantra is to secure the state at any cost.

“The regime, the state, the leader” is what Egyptian media outlets are now trumpeting – much as they were doing on June 6, 1967. No freedom or dignity to freedom’s enemies, not even to a co-citizen, a cousin or schoolmate.

But I do blame, and call for holding to account, the Muslim Brotherhood leaders for promoting the illusion of steadfastness at the sit-ins in Nahda Square and Rabaa al-Adawiya as a means of political pressure.

They managed the sit-ins lightly and with total disregard for the blood of believers in the cause.

Martyrdom is a duty in defense of justice, but not to improve bargaining positions or score political gains.

Habiba and thousands of other victims were promised total victory the next day. They say victory is an hour’s patience away. That’s what they were promised.

They gave them the instructions: You build a berm; you bring some water and vinegar to treat tear-gas sufferers; you, Habiba, forewarn your brethren by banging this metal drum.

Even a 10-year-old would have expected the crackdown on the protest camps and that casualties would be in the hundreds. Watching the talkshows on Egypt’s official and “private” TV news channels for one hour would have sufficed to realize the buzzword was “terror and terrorist.”

And everyone, the 10-year-old included, knew the terrorist would be killed.

So what happened in the early hours of Black Wednesday was not surprising. No Brotherhood leader ought to come forward and accuse the army or police of treachery. He was told of their intent to take decisive action.

How many times did Brotherhood leaders say, “We should not be drawn into the (army and police’s) violence arena”? But Brotherhood leaders were nevertheless drawn into the arena, where they lost their trump card, namely: demands, competitiveness and politics.

The Brotherhood will henceforward be capitalizing on its victims.

It will use thousands of casualty images showing men and women in the springtime of life, elders with piety manifest on their faces and veiled women to appear as the scapegoat and win the battle for public opinion.

But it will be a losing battle. The gory images will only elicit verbal condemnations and suppressed anger from those who lost loves ones.

The January 25 revolution is over. Its most important values – freedom, dignity and the right to life – have fallen by the wayside. The majority cannot bear freedom abuses so long as their own freedom is not stake. The majority is unmoved by the sight of martyrs when they belong to the other side.

There is one advantage though in reviewing images of the dead, which is accountability.

This has more to do with self-accountability than with holding the army and police accountable.

A courageous young man from Rabaa al-Adawiya has to come forward and declare openly, “We don’t need salutes to the martyrs or acclaim for a couple ascending to paradise. Ours was an absurd battle that we could have avoided.”

Let someone come forward and enumerate the Brotherhood’s losses since holding the reins in Egypt 18 months ago.

It lost sitting at the helm after winning what it described as a divine mandate to move forward society and the nation.

It lost a massive segment of Egyptian society.

It lost its nationalist orientation and replaced its moderate jurisprudence by a narrow-minded one, which it cajoled for electioneering purposes.

It lost martyrs. It lost its revolution allies. And it lost its regional relationships.

Told by his leaders that the Brotherhood was brought down by innumerable conspiracies, I can imagine the angry young man retorting, “This does not absolve you of responsibility. Where was your wisdom and savoir faire?”

I can also imagine the young man returning home last Wednesday night. He is exhausted and bloodied. He weeps for his dead brethren. He searches the social media for reassurances his other friends are safe.

A knock at the door frightens him. He is a wanted man now. He does not wish to become a fugitive. He forswears violence and is aware the leadership has lost control, or almost.

He catches a glimpse on the TV screen of a church going up in flames.  On hearing a leader trying to justify the arson, he fumes.

And when the leader speaks of the Mubarak regime making a comeback, the young man says out loud, “Don’t you recall state security refusing to protect Mubarak at al-Ittihadiya Palace?”

Before going to bed after Thursday’s dawn prayers, the young man murmurs to himself: “The revolution is not over yet. Recourse to the people is still mandatory. There will be new and transparent elections. Political Islam and revolutionary forces have to reconnect. A new generation has to take the lead and look to the future, not the past.

“But accountability should come first. Those responsible for the failure and successive losses of the battles of governance and sit-ins have to be brought to account.

“Accountability is the sine qua non of victory. Losers have no place in leadership.”

Is it “too late” for Egypt?

By Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of pan-Arab al-Hayat

Wednesday was a long and gory day. All Egypt-lovers wished it would be sidestepped.

But all Egypt-watchers saw the day coming. Slamming the door shut tempts people to break it open.

It was difficult for two authorities to cohabitate in Egypt -- one headquartered in the palace and the other in Adawiya.

It was tough for the interim administration to tolerate a scene suggesting a face-off between two “legitimacies.”

The sit-ins were eroding the mandate sought and won by the interim administration.

At the same time, it was far from easy for the Muslim Brotherhood to consider Mohamed Morsi’s tenure a closed chapter. The defeat was more spectacular than the Brotherhood could bear. Its response was a mixture of bitterness and anger.

It reacted as if a tank storming the palace brought down Morsi. It did not try to understand that Morsi fell under the weight of a quasi-revolution and a quasi-coup.

It refused to notice the millions who gathered to give someone else authority to act. On that day, it only noted the portrait of Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

The Brotherhood did not perceive the decision to clear out the sit-ins as part of the authorization decision. It chose to break the will of both the mandated and mandating sides – namely, the millions of its detractors and the Military Establishment.

The Muslim Brotherhood dealt with internal and external mediations by setting the greatest possible demand. It never accepted anything short of Morsi’s reinstatement, meaning a full defeat of its opponents.

The Brotherhood behaved as an injured person so overcome by his wound as to refuse anything liable to alleviate his pain or cut his risks.

The Brotherhood could have embarrassed its opponents if it had capitalized on the mediations to propose a solution that would have made it hard for the interim administration to clear out the sit-ins.

It speculated that the price of disbanding the sit-ins would be so prohibitive as to deter the interim administration from implementing it.

The Brotherhood gambled when it insisted on recouping the presidential palace.

It left the interim administration no choice other than to crack down on the protest camps.

It let pass the fact it had clashed with most Egyptians before clashing with the police and the army.

It closed the eyes to the fact Sisi would not have asked directly for the peoples’ authorization if he, and the Military Establishment, did not feel the majority of Egyptians were intimidated by the Brothers’ rule. So much so that most Egyptians were willing to accept any measure to end their governance, even at the expense of dispersing an elected president’s administration.

The Brotherhood shut its ears to voices that spent months warning against exclusion, empowerment, Brotherhood-ization, reshaping the Egyptian citizens’ characteristics and manipulating Egypt’s spirit.

Any observer of developments in Egypt since the last days of Hosni Mubarak’s administration is aware that risk-taking by the Brothers started before Morsi.

The first gamble was when the decision was made to field a Brotherhood candidate in the presidential race and discounting chances the move would overburden Egypt and exceed its tolerance capacity.

This is due to the clout of revolution-breeders and makers, the Military Establishment’s deep roots and Egypt’s commitments resulting from its geographic position and economic conditions.

The degree of risk-taking deepened when the Muslim Brotherhood chose to singlehandedly share with the government of Hesham Qandil the burden of an extremely thorny transition.

Morsi found no effective partners and the Brotherhood didn’t help him unearth them.

He looked like dancing solo and dealing unattended with such files as the constitution, the judiciary and the rapport with the Military Establishment.

This risk-taking also led to loss of the compass, poor performance, a lack of perception and a dearth of cadres.

In politics, the Brotherhood or an individual has no right to push people to commit suicide and self-destruct the country. In politics, it is imperative to manage losses in the absence of profit.

Pictures of victims might serve a purpose. Numbers of martyrs and funerals might delay questions being asked and temporarily put off accountability for gambles made and responsibilities assumed.

But fact is the Brotherhood crossed swords with millions of Egyptians before coming under police fire.

Going forward, the greatest danger for Egypt is the Brothers’ acting with the “too late” mentality; that they have no choice other than confrontation, unrest, fires and other civil war practices; and that they can count on American and Western condemnations of the crackdown on protest camps.

Despite the inflamed feelings, the current leadership should avoid a victor’s arrogance, the “too late” approach and the politics of force.

The mandate that allowed the interim administration to clear out the sit-ins also demanded a constitution embracing all Egyptians, a revisit to the ballot box and free and transparent elections.

A return to the “too late” dictum is impermissible.

The priority now is to prevent a civil war and shut out Algerian scenes.

Egypt: More questions than answers for now

The crackdown

Egypt’s security forces, acting on the instructions of the military-backed interim administration, yesterday stormed and disbanded the two sit-ins in Cairo’s Nahda Square and near Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque.

Muslim Brotherhood supporters set up the two protests camps six weeks ago to demand the reinstatement of ousted President Mohamed Morsi.

Scores of civilians and security forces were killed or wounded in the crackdown on the two camps.

A month-long state of emergency was declared and curfews imposed in Egyptian cities.

Looking ahead, leading Egyptian media figure Emad Adeeb, writing for the Cairo daily el-Watan, wonders:

1. Does clearing the protest camps put an end to the crisis?

2. Does disbanding protesters in Nahda and Rabaa foreclose new Brotherhood sit-ins elsewhere in Cairo or in the provinces?

3. More importantly, in my opinion, what effect will clearing the two camps have on prospects of a negotiated political settlement between the old and new regimes?

Usually, whenever a crisis reaches violence level and political deadlock, chances are:

(a) The two sides realize there can be no winner or loser in the circumstances, so better to negotiate. This would see the authorities ditching the security option and the Brothers forsaking terrorist behavior.

(b) The situation remains unchanged, meaning the two sides continue playing the cat-and-mouse game of sit-ins and clear-outs.

(c) The more dangerous and costlier option is greater bloodletting resulting from violent tit-for-tat by the government and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This raises the question: How will the Muslim Brotherhood leadership be reading what took place in Rabaa al-Adawiya and Nahda?

Foresight, a responsible attitude and the fear of God are attributes liable to put pressure on the Brotherhood leadership to try and pick up the pieces of the flare-up and urge their supporters to remain calm and give time and space for political dialogue and rationalization to prevail so that the country can be spared the risks of civil war.

Though most Brotherhood leaders have been summoned to appear before the public prosecutor for questioning, it would be nonsensical if they thought in terms of, “Why fear getting wet when drowning?”

The crisis of the sit-ins is over. But is Egypt’s?

What is Egypt’s Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after?

Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

The formidable challenge facing the “two Egypts” today is to rescue politics from the street as the first step towards national reconciliation.

The man central for finding the way to achieve this is Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, long regarded as the sole political arbiter in Egypt.

Following days of mass protests against President Mohamed Morsi at June’s end, the military warned it was prepared to step in “to stop Egypt from plunging into a dark tunnel of conflict and infighting.”

The army issued an ultimatum to Morsi on June 30, instructing him to respond to people's demands or step down within 48 hours. When he failed to do so, it removed him from office on July 3, appointed an interim civilian administration and issued a roadmap leading to fresh elections.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters have been protesting since. They insist that protests will continue until the military-backed administration steps down and the democratically elected one is returned to power.

Egged on by anti-Morsi protesters as the savior of democracy, the Sisi-led military shows no signs of backing down.

In this catch 22 setting, Egypt’s brilliant columnist and talk show host Imad Adeeb wrote this profile of Sisi in Arabic for the country's al-Watan daily:

One question incessantly and markedly posed by all foreign intelligence agencies in Cairo since last June 30 is this: What is Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after?

Is he power-hungry? Is he leading a military coup? Does he want to ride to the presidency on the back of a Military Establishment tank?

The question puzzling everyone is: What does this man want exactly?

Some in Egypt portray him as a revolutionary inspired by Nasserite thought who rallied the military.

Others who support the Islamic current depict Sisi as a putschist who rode the revolution’s second wave on June 30.

So is he a putschist who rode the revolution wave or a revolutionary who exploited the Military Establishment?

In truth, or at least in my personal humble opinion, the man is simpler than this and that.

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is an Egyptian who comes from an above-average class, loves Egypt and is extremely loyal to the Military Establishment.

Sisi is a prototype of the professional Egyptian army general who strives to uphold the clout, repute and role of the Egyptian Military Establishment, which has entrenched traditions dating back to 1805 and the launch of Muhammad Ali Pasha’s era.

Sisi personifies a set of national and nationalist thoughts shared by the overwhelming majority of the soldiers and officers in the Egyptian Army.

Sisi attended the U.S. Army War College, but he is neither America’s lackey nor her traditional enemy.

Sisi is an Egyptian nationalist committed to Egypt’s full sovereignty over every handspan of its national territory.

Sisi is an Arab nationalist who believes in Egypt’s pan-Arab role but is not prepared to apportion Egypt’s security and independence to any Arab sisterly country, whichever it may be.

Sisi’s moderation is epicentral in its political grasp of the nation’s territorial integrity and independence – this, without extremism or exaggeration and in the accompanying absence of laxity or dereliction.

The second wave of the January 2011 revolution is what won the hearts of Sisi’s generation, which is the first generation to be in command of Egypt’s Military Establishment after replacing leaders of the 1973 October War.

This is an exceptional and rare fusion in Egypt’s political life.

So what does Sisi want specifically?

You may not believe me if I told you that – other than seeing Egypt safe, secure and stable in a modern civil state where the army plays its constitutional role in safeguarding security and stability – the general wants to retire early.

Sisi is not after power, money or fame.

He is folksy in his love of Egypt and a Sufi in the matter of  power.

All this makes his profiles in foreign embassy reports totally inaccurate because it is difficult for a pragmatic and utilitarian mind to imagine a general who reached the helm on the strength of the street and the backing of a tank continue to yearn for nothing.

Egypt: My gloomy crystal ball reading

Egypt’s brilliant columnist and high-profile talk show host Imad Adeeb wrote this think piece in Arabic for the country's al-Watan news-paper:

Will we be “spiraling down” or “reaching a compromise” in Egypt?

What’s in the cards – more frenzy, demonstrations, violence and bloodshed, or the boon of commonsense, wisdom, moderation and serious negotiations?

It seems – and God knows best – that tension, escalation and bloodshed will prevail in the near and medium terms.

I sense further internecine bloodletting on public squares and streets and in Egyptian cities and provinces.

I see hundreds if not thousands killed and injured in the few coming weeks.

I see attacks on police stations, government buildings, party headquarters, public facilities, security directorates and military barracks.

I see the emergence of unconventional weapons in the upcoming battles, including the “Grenov” (RPG-18), rocket launchers and anti-aircraft missiles.

I see the beginnings of sectarian strife in the provinces and the appearance of weapons stockpiled for months in mosque and church basements.

I see all sides’ political elites keeping up their hysterics and inflammatory speeches calling for violence, killings and the total exclusion -- if not its erasure from history and geography -- of the opposite side.

Regrettably, I see no prospect of an imminent compromise.

I don’t see words of wisdom reaching open minds. Nor do I see an atmosphere conducive to dialogue between the parties to the crisis.

The tragic irony is the crisis we were controlling lately has now transformed into a crisis controlling us.

The problem that was running deep is now running out of anyone’s control.

The big tragedy is that nothing can lead to a solution or a compromise. Muslim Brotherhood rule won’t lead to stability. And shutting out the Brothers won’t restore calm.

Since January 2011, we tried a president with a military background, military council rule and a president from the Muslim Brotherhood. We are now trying an honorable man’s rule as interim president.

Despite these variations and experiences, we still haven’t found the desired solution.

We went through a revolution in January 2011 and another in June 2013 and saw the army intercede and millions take to the streets on both occasions.

No event, regime, revolution or coup d’état pacified people or restored their aplomb and satisfaction.

How can Egyptian society recoup its serenity, calm and stability?

It’s a great question worth pondering and answering.

Obama, president of Lebanon?

"No winner and no loser" image from www.aljazeera.net

The White House readout of U.S. President Barack Obama’s call with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia:

President Obama spoke by phone today (July 12) with King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia.

The President relayed his warm wishes to the King on the occasion of Ramadan.

The leaders reaffirmed the strong and enduring partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia and discussed regional issues of mutual interest.

The President and the King shared their perspectives on the situation in Syria and expressed their strong concerns about the impact of the conflict on the region.

The President emphasized the United States’ continued commitment to provide support to the Syrian Opposition Coalition and the Supreme Military Council to strengthen the opposition.

The President and King also exchanged views on recent developments in Egypt.

They agreed that the United States and Saudi Arabia have a shared interest in supporting Egypt’s stability.

The President expressed his serious concern about the violence in Egypt and underscored the urgent need for an inclusive political process that will enable an early return to a democratically elected civilian government in Egypt. 

The leaders pledged to continue close consultations between their two governments.

Separately, Tariq Alhomayed, the former editor-in-chief of Saudi Arabia’s leading daily Asharq Alawsat, writes today of Obama seeming like a president of Lebanon:

A watcher of the U.S. president’s approach to our regional files does not perceive Barack Obama as leader of the world’s most powerful nation, but as the president of Lebanon, where the mantra is “no winner and no loser.”

In Egypt, the Obama Administration is still at a loss whether to describe the June 30 “corrective movement” as a military coup or a response to popular demands, despite saying Mohamed Morsi’s government “wasn’t a democratic rule.”

While confirming plans to send four shiny F-16 fighter jets to Egypt’s military, the Obama Administration formally puts U.S. aid to Cairo under review. It urges the Muslim Brotherhood to renounce violence and at the same time warns the interim leadership against Brotherhood arrests.

Worse still, the Obama Administration calls for Morsi’s release just as the White House says, “We’re not taking sides in Egypt.”

Can you imagine a worse muddle?

As concerns Syria, the fumbles are greater, more serious and profound.

Obama had asked all sides to wait for his reelection campaign to end, but nothing changed thereafter.

He did zilch despite Bashar al-Assad forces killing more than 100,000 Syrians and disregarding his “game-changer” threat that moving or using chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus.”

When Iran and Hezbollah intervened in Syria to defend Assad, Obama remained passive.

And after he undertook to arm Syrian rebels, he failed to deliver.

His administration cites broad-based concerns the weapons could fall into wrong hands of hardline Islamists. Strangely, the administration has no such concerns about Egypt’s hardline Islamists, despite the Egyptian Army being targeted in Sinai by terrorists loyal to the Brotherhood.

The Obama Administration’s fumbling and dithering is countless.

The president’s rash exit from Iraq turned it into an Iranian springboard to attack Syrians and defend Assad through the Baghdad government and armed Shiite groups.

Also we’re now into the fallouts from the planned U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, not to mention American heedlessness to Libya.

President Obama doesn’t want to do anything anywhere, despite all the security threats, risks to U.S. political interests and the violations of laws and principles such as in Syria.

The Obama Administration has also disconcerted other regions. European countries are demanding that Washington immediately stop its eavesdropping on European Union officials and diplomats.

There too, Obama is trying to circumvent the issue à la Libanaise – “no winner and no loser.”

Obama has the earmarks of a president of Lebanon, instead of the president of the most powerful nation on earth.

Can Egypt harmonize the head and heart?

Banners in Tahrir Square decrying President Obama and U.S. Ambassador Patterson

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood today rejected a timetable for new elections laid out by Interim President Adly Mansour, saying it is illegitimate.

The timeline suggests:

• setting up a panel within 15 days to review the constitution
• finalizing constitutional amendments and putting them to referendum in four months
• holding parliamentary elections by early 2014
• calling presidential elections once the new parliament convenes.

Wondering whether the “two Egypts” were heading to political compromise or a bloody conflict, Egypt’s famed commentator and talk show host Emad Adeeb writes for ElWatanNews:

We’re into the new nonsensical phase of “daily bloody struggle” in which the two sides trade charges of wrongdoing and the naked truth is lost as to who’s the killer, who was killed, what happened, in whose interest, at what cost and what aftereffects.

Each party to this conflict is trying to portray the other party’s behavior and deeds as diabolic.

Each side is now trying to convince public opinion at home and abroad that it is the aggrieved party and the other side is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Such policies will lead nowhere. They won’t settle the conflict or spare blood. They won’t be conducive to serious and durable political compromise.

With lack of rationalism in the political discourse, each side is trying to defeat the other and tarnish its public image.

Much to the consternation of public opinion, the sides have given conflicting accounts of the violence opposite a Cairo barracks of the Republican Guard. That leaves Egypt stranded in a dark tunnel of absurdity and nihilism that can only lead to chaos and instability.

We are now on the verge of emulating the Syria bloodletting scenario.

Talk under a sitting interim president of a referendum on former President Mohamed Morsi’s year in office is passé.

Egypt lost her political mind when she regained her revolutionary heart.

The quintessence of our crisis is this paradox of having regained the heart and lost the mind.

Are we for dialogue and political compromise or have we decided to fight it out on the streets and public squares?

That’s the question we need to answer truthfully before God, the people and history.

Our security and policies are in a state of flux and changing by the hour with each side trying to muster direct regional and international support for its policies and entitlement to rule and manage state affairs.

Clearly, video scenes aired on satellite TV channels are key stimulants to the positions of outsiders.

Between the statements of Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama, Rashid al-Ghannoushi and the Saudi Royal Court, and between Catherine Ashton and Ban Ki-moon, Egypt’s crisis, chaos and premeditated disorder are intensifying.

Speaking of Obama and Egypt, Rajeh el-Khoury, in his column today for Lebanon’s independent newspaper an-Nahar, gives thumbs up to Martin Indyk for differing with Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, and urging Washington to work with Egypt’s armed forces.

The former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs during the Clinton Administration wrote in part in his think piece for Foreign Policy (which you can read in full here):

…President Barack Obama's last minute turn on Mubarak was the right call in the circumstances. But it could do little to convince the Egyptian street that we were now really on their side…

…Deciding to engage with the legitimately elected Muslim Brotherhood government that eventually took Mubarak's place was again the right call. But our failure to stand against Morsi when he began trampling on minority rights convinced the secular opposition that we were now in his corner. We appeared to be merely shifting our support from one authoritarian Pharaoh to the next. The banners in Tahrir Square this week that decried President Obama and the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, were a vivid signal of how badly we had managed to position the United States during this phase of the transition. We spoke out when we should've been working quietly to remove Mubarak; we stayed silent when we should've been calling out Morsi on his anti-democratic behavior…

Egypt in the grip of “madness and bloodshed”

Scenes from Cairo's bloody Monday

Egypt's interim administration has formed a judicial committee to investigate a deadly clash in Cairo at dawn between the army and Muslim Brotherhood supporters in which dozens were killed.

A statement by the transitional administration said the deaths were the result of an attempt by protesters to storm the Republican Guard headquarters where President Mohammed Morsi was being held after his dismissal last week.

At least 50 people were killed in the clashes, which Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators blamed on the military.

There are two opposing versions of the incident.

The military claims there was an attempt to storm the compound by "armed terrorists" at dawn, forcing the guards to return fire to repel the attack. The Muslim Brotherhood says a detachment of soldiers advanced from behind on hundreds of people performing dawn prayers outside the compound.

Liberal politician Mohamed ElBaradei said Egypt was in "dire need" of reconciliation and condemned all violence.

Former presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabahi, leader of the Popular Current party, told Reuters the transitional administration created when the army toppled Morsi in response to mass protests against him and the Muslim Brotherhood could not afford to wait.

The appointment of a prime minister has been held up for two days because the ultra-conservative Islamist Noor Party rejected both secular candidates for the post nominated by army-backed interim head of state Adly Mansour.

Sabahi said it was important to have Islamist participation in the transition but he believed that Noor might revise its position and either join the government or join in the rewriting of the constitution once a new administration was formed.

Asked about Monday's clash outside Republican Guard barracks, Sabahi said the only beneficiaries of such bloodshed were the Muslim Brotherhood and others who sought to polarize the situation and drive Egypt to civil war.

In anticipation of this early morning’s clashes, leading Egyptian media figure Emad Adeeb wrote for ElWatanNews this piece on “the logic of madness and blood” now gripping Egypt:

Each of the two Egypts is accepting no less than everything.

Muslim Brotherhood supporters feel their legitimacy was robbed. They won’t leave the streets and public squares before Dr. Mohamed Morsi is reinstated.

Masses opposed to the Brotherhood regime believe Dr. Morsi flouted the principles of his popular democratic mandate and reneged on his campaign promises. As a result, he lost his legitimacy and had to be removed.

Neither side can tolerate the other and it is difficult to imagine them sharing governance of the country.

I am certain normalcy won’t be restored and bloodshed won’t stop in beloved Egypt except when each of the two sides gets totally convinced it cannot manage the country’s affairs alone.

During Morsi’s rule, the Brotherhood did not believe the opposition existed and the opposition refused to cooperate with his administration.

Since June 30 and the emergency of a new regime, the Muslim Brotherhood refuses to play the role of a political opposition, while the liberal forces remain distrustful of what they perceive as the Brothers’ “malicious deeds and intentions.”

The central figures of (Mubarak’s) National Democratic Party were booted out after the January 25, 2011 revolution. The central figures of the National Salvation Front were sidelined by the Morsi administration. We’re now at the stage of sidelining the Muslim Brothers.

That’s a vicious circle that can lead us nowhere except to madness, death and ruin.

What makes the situation catastrophic is the decision by the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters to resort to violence and street fighting as a counter weapon against the revolution, the army and the new regime.

A party to the current conflict that believes it can politically or physically finish off its opponent is misguided.

This sick mentality leaves no chance for a transition from utter disconnection to national cohesion.

Remember the army’s public and secret ultimatum to Dr. Morsi was meant as a goad to a political partnership between his administration and the opposition. But exclusivism pervaded the Brotherhood’s approach and the former president’s conduct.

The Muslim Brotherhood, heartened by the Americans, committed the memorable blunder of believing that taking to the streets to recoup the former regime is the only way to win this power struggle.

No one will be able to shut out the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Brotherhood has no chance of putting back the clock.

We will continue to destroy each other and the state of political folly and lawlessness will refuse to go away.