The Islamic rulers in Tunis and Cairo are now discovering what a state means and what it is like to have responsibilities for shielding the security of the country and the rights of all people, regardless of what they think of the ruling regime and of whether they support or oppose it. This “discovery," which is supposed to be self-evident in any other state, is one that must be applauded in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as well as that of the Tunisian Ennahda. These two organizations accessed power amidst an array of slogans that were, in many cases, quite similar to the Salafist slogans. Now however, these same organizations are living through a state of quasi-confrontation with the Salafists. Ali Al-Arid, the Tunisian prime minister and prominent member of Ennahda, did not hesitate to dub the Ansar al-Sharia supporters in his country as terrorists. In Egypt, President Mohammad Morsi reportedly described the members of the Jihadist Salafism who kidnapped the seven soldiers in Sinai as “criminals." This approach differs from the appeasement approach that the Brotherhood and Ennahda had opted for in the past two years in dealing with the Salafist movements, which work on imposing their ultra-conservative religious views on all the people regardless of their political affiliations or religious convictions. In the framework of the past appeasement phase with the Salafists, Mohammad Morsi reportedly stood in the face of the army to prevent it from blocking the expansion of the Jihadist Salafism. Morsi wanted to be amicable with the Salafists despite their repeated offenses against the Egyptian security forces and their kidnappings and killings as well those of regular citizens, especially in the Sinai territory where insecurity now reigns as a result of the restrictions imposed on the work of the Egyptian security forces there. Morsi also reportedly ordered the security commanders to abstain from killing the kidnappers during the raids despite these commanders' warnings that this policy will actually endanger the lives of the troops. Rashid al-Ghannushi, the head of the Tunisian Ennahda, also followed an appeasement approach with the Salafists in his country in spite of the repeated warnings he received from the security services regarding the connection of the Salafists to the Al-Qaeda organization and the Jihadist movements of the Islamic Maghreb. Al-Ghannushi believed that the radical movements in Tunisia could be contained through dialogue without the need to employ violence. Now however, Mohammad Morsi, Rashid al-Ghannushi, and every regular observer of the state of affairs in their two countries have realized that the state's stature cannot accept any appeasement approaches when it is coming under attack, especially when the security forces are paying the price. These forces are in charge of protecting the Islamic rule and shielding the state's stature and they are now coming under the attacks of the Salafists. Indeed, the Salafists are saying that the security services are the “tyrant's tools." They are using the same language and accusations that the Islamic movements had once used against the regimes of Hosni Mubarak and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The Islamic movements are currently divided when it comes to dealing with the Salafist groups, the political and religious speech of which is not very different from the present ruling regimes in Tunisia and Cairo. However, the ruling regimes' responsibility towards their citizens and their commitment to protect the state must force them to show a great deal of inflexibility when dealing with the security breaches regardless of the perpetrators' identity.
