Abdel Latif El-Menawy Al Arabiya Sinai's problems have certainly not been resolved. What we can agree on is that problems are mounting in the peninsula. What could have been resolved before has become a thornier issue and extremely difficult to resolve. This is a result of the impulsive manner which has been adopted by the government in dealing with national security issues - a manner that has increased problems and further complicated them. The decline in concern over in what is happening in Sinai is the beginning of the collapse of the state's authority over that region. The reasons for this collapse are not just the security problems that Sinai suffers from, nor are they only a product of leaving Sinai's doors wide open for extremist groups to do whatever they want, or of considering it Gaza's garden instead of considering it an important part of Egyptian land that Egyptians sacrificed their blood to regain. The major reason is the style of governance adopted ever since the current government assumed power. Under the current regime, Sinai has become a hotbed for the world's terrorists and a safe haven for anyone escaping pursuit. The world's terrorists have rushed to Sinai considering it a caliphate state that the Brotherhood has granted them. However, the crisis is not limited to this. Sinai has become a permanent and stable residence for old, as well as new jihadi and Al-Qaeda groups some of which we have never heard of before. The borders on the other side were opened so that their extremist and jihadi relatives could reside in Sinai and do whatever they want, such as attacking, kidnapping and killing Egyptian police and army personnel. It is certain that the current situation, in which soldiers have been kidnapped by “terrorist” groups, raises a lot of questions, and these questions must be answered. It is not acceptable to consider this abduction as an expression of the suffering of the people of Sinai and a reflection of their chronic problems, because this suffering and these problems had already existed but had never resulted in the kidnapping of soldiers. The second issue is that the people of Sinai disagree with the general logic of resorting to abduction for the sake of having the state meet their demands even when it comes to the demands of releasing their family members. Ever since explosions in Dahab, Taba and Sharm Al-Sheikh and the detentions that followed, Sinai residents have called for the release of their family members but have never resorted to abduction. Another point that raises questions is that the current regime has not taken a single positive step that confirms its commitment to reach a solution or address the problems of Sinai. On the contrary, its behavior has always been one that raises a lot of suspicion regarding the extent of the regime's interest in holding on to Sinai or regarding the regime's concern in resolving its problems and in not resolving other problems at the expense of Sinai and its people. This raises further questions that must be answered as well. What is the current regime's political stance regarding the destruction of the Gaza tunnels? Why hasn't there been a single political stance that confirms the commitment and desire to destroy these tunnels especially since there is no justification for them anymore with the permanent opening of the Rafah border? Why hasn't there been one clear stance regarding the mechanism of the operation to hunt down “terrorist” groups in Sinai? Why has pursuing them come to an end? What is the real role of the Islamist movements in the dialogues that they speak of with jihadi groups? Has this style of launching dialogue been agreed on and has it met with political and popular support? However, the most important question is: Why hasn't a single politician affiliated with the regime stood up to tell the Egyptians who killed the soldiers in the month of Ramadan last year and why they were killed? The most important condemnation is linked to accepting to negotiate with the abductors and to the commitment of he who holds the office of president to seriously look into their demands. With whom are these negotiations being held? Who has agreed to pave the way for negotiations with “terrorists”? Who is holding these negotiations and why? My final question is: Will these negotiations prompt anyone who has a problem with the state to kidnap a policeman or a soldier to get what he wants? — Abdel Latif El-Menawy is an author, columnist and multimedia journalist who has covered conflicts around the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALMenawy
