Egypt press: Sinai massacre like 1967
Doaa El-Bey lives the grief following the killing of 16 Egyptian soldiers in Rafah
Newspapers followed the repercussions of Sunday evening's attack on Sinai-based Egyptian border guards that left 16 dead and several injured.
Al-Ahram on Tuesday had 'Egypt bids farewell to its martyrs in a popular and military funeral', and Al-Masry Al-Youm wrote 'Egypt in mourning; president and field marshal visit Rafah'.
Mohamed Amin did not describe that day as a sad day in the history of the country or the history of the Egyptian military because he said this goes without saying. However, the sadness is linked to two things: that the attack was against the army for the first time and second because it came at Iftar time. The attack is reminiscent of the 1967 Naksa, or calamity, in which Egypt lost to Israel in war. Sunday's event, Amin wrote, was another Naksa.
"The main issue is that the criminals dared to attack the army. They have the feeling that they are stronger and better equipped. Thus it is very important to deter these groups," Amin wrote in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm.
However, what Amin found confusing is that Tel Aviv issued a warning just a few day before the incident, but Egypt did not take notice.
What is required now, he added, is a strong and decisive response and to find out whether the perpetrators are Israelis, from Gaza or a group that was prompted by the Israeli Mossad.
"We will await the retribution that Mursi called for. We will wait for a decisive stand regarding Sinai to purge it from terrorism and from gangs that aim to establish an Islamic emirate there."
Ahmed Anwar wrote that it was difficult to view the Sinai blast without linking it to Israeli plans against Sinai and that it considers it as a separate part from Egypt. Anwar pointed to few facts that support his argument, namely that there were no causalities on the Israeli side; and the ban that Israel imposed initially on publishing any information and then disclosing pictures, video clips and abundant details about the attack.
However, the most dangerous thing that Anwar pointed out is Israel's acknowledgement that it had had detailed information about the attack beforehand and that helped Tel Aviv in thwarting it. The attack also killed all the people involved thus closing the door before knowing who the perpetrators were. And that according to the writer pointed to the possibility of Israeli involvement.
Anwar called for reconsidering the security annexes of the Camp David accords in a way that give Egypt more power to control its borders and for opening more passages to the world with Gaza. He added Egyptian anger should be interpreted into effective steps to support confrontation with external danger and to engage the Sinai Bedouins in border control as long as they can use weapons and are aware of the topography of the area.
"From now on, the national project of Egypt should be building Sinai through genuine development projects," Anwar concluded in the official daily Al-Ahram.
Mustafa Abu Zeid wondered until when would the security lapse in Sinai last. However, the other more important question that the writer raised was who is responsible for the Sinai blast.
It could be the Jihadi groups which spread widely in Sinai after the 25 January Revolution and managed to reorganise and train its troops on the Egyptian-Israeli borders in the hope of transforming Sinai into an Islamic emirate.
It could also be the Sinai Bedouin, Abu Zeid added, who help the Jihadi groups in their terrorist operations inside Sinai and in retreating from the area after each operation.
The reason for the blast, he elaborated, could also be the shortcomings of the army and police to protect the borders against terrorist attacks "which made us feel that our borders are being breached.
"Our Armed Forces cannot impose full control on Sinai. Thus terrorist cells will grow together and at some point will be able to establish an Islamic emirate in the peninsula," Abu Zeid wrote in the daily Al-Wafd, the mouthpiece of opposition Wafd Party.
He called on the Egyptian state represented by President Mursi, the Armed Forces and the General Intelligence service to put an end to these ferocious attacks, and pursue the terrorist organisations until they purge Sinai from all of them forever. Their presence in Sinai represents clear encroachment on state sovereignty, he added.
Newspapers and writers monitored the performance of Mursi especially after six weeks. Wael Qandil wrote people trusted Mursi who said that a new era of transparency has started. Thus, they trusted his pledges and were confident that he would abide by them.
However, Qandil was surprised to find that people expected that Mursi's first 100 day would start as soon as he assumed power. But his entourage surprised us by the statement -- reminiscent of the Mubarak era -- that the country is in shambles. Lately, the MB leader Essam El-Erian stated that the 100 days start after the formation of the government," Qandil wrote in the independent daily Al-Shorouk.
Qandil claimed that the defensive mechanism would not help the new president as it gives the impression that he cannot do better than that under the present circumstances. Meanwhile, people should be doubtful that Mursi would meet his promises at the end of the 100 days when he selected to run the boat with personalities that took part in producing the corruption and failure of the old regime
People supported Mursi, Qandil summed up, to combat any attempts to thwart the revolution, but there is a determined will to dissolve the revolution in the counter revolution so that the target would be achieving some reform rather than destroying the old system and building a new one.
The Dahshour sectarian strife that forced many Christians to leave their homes and village was a cause for worry on various levels. Gamal El-Ghitani wrote that the sectarian strife that Egypt has been witnessing since the 1970s entered a new phase. Dahshour shed light on the environment that is overwhelming Egypt ever since the ascendancy of the MB and the Salafis to power.
The looting of houses that Dahshour witnessed is the most dangerous phenomenon in the incident because it was directed against Egyptian citizens whose only mistake is that they are Christians.
"The looting and forcible evacuation in Dahshour is the beginning of a sectarian war that will make the civil war in Lebanon look like a toy in comparison," El-Ghitani wrote in the official daily Al-Akhbar.
The only way out of the problem according to the writer, is a quick and strong presentation of revolutionary power -- other than the MB and Salafis -- in Dahshour and other villages to look into the root reasons for sectarian strife.