What they fail — and will always fail — to grasp is that the Egyptian society has learned the lesson. It has successfully unravelled and exposed the ideological and organizational foundations of the Muslim Brotherhood, rendering the group incapable of deceiving Egyptians again, regardless of the manipulative tools it employs.
The recent statements by Khalil Al-Hayya, the head of Hamas’ political bureau, and the demonstration orchestrated by the so-called “Islamic Movement” within Israel outside the Egyptian embassy in Tel Aviv have had no tangible impact.
Instead, they have deepened and reinforced Egyptians’ long-standing convictions about the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Foremost among these convictions is the group’s deeply flawed ideological conception of the nation. They have historically embraced divisive concepts that fragment society not only along religious lines but also based on arbitrary measures of piety, according to their own warped standards.
This mindset cultivates a worldview in which a self-defined community of “true believers” confronts a broader society of “infidels,” “corrupt believers,” or those living in a state of “pre-Islam ignorance.”
In this respect, they align ideologically with other extremist and jihadist groups, differing only in degree. Groups like Takfir wal-Hijra and violent Salafist jihadist factions define themselves as righteous minorities in opposition to a “heretical” state and a society that has allegedly apostatized from Islam. While the former advocated for withdrawal from society, the latter promoted violent jihad against both the state and society.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s own trajectory in Egypt, particularly during its rule from June 2012 to June 2013, reaffirmed the centrality of its “community” doctrine over allegiance to the state.
The group proved unwilling to relinquish its sectarian vision in favour of building a civic political party — one capable of operating within a pluralistic system under the rule of law and the constitution.
Despite forming a political party after 2011 and ascending from opposition to power, the group remained anchored in its exclusivist ethos. The result was a transformation of the Brotherhood from a defensive, self-preserving entity into a force that sought to subsume the state and society.
This exposed their fundamental inability to comprehend or accept the concept of a modern nation-state. In its self-perception, the group viewed itself as a supra-national entity, superior to the homeland.
A second enduring truth about the Muslim Brotherhood is its instrumentalist, Machiavellian character. The group has repeatedly demonstrated its readiness to cooperate with any external power — regardless of political, religious, or ideological alignment — so long as such partnerships advance its short- or long-term objectives.
Since its founding in 1928, the Brotherhood has pursued alliances with various international and regional actors. The period following the events of January 2011 stands as stark evidence of this predisposition.
That tendency has only intensified since the popular uprising of June 2013, which effectively delegitimized the group in the eyes of both the Egyptian public and the world.
Motivated by a vengeful desire to retaliate against the state, the Brotherhood now appears willing to compromise national security, even aligning with adversarial actors.
The group’s recent recourse to protest outside the Egyptian embassy in Tel Aviv — with the tacit approval of the Israeli government — is historically ironic and strategically revealing. This act, under the protection of the occupying power, underscores the Brotherhood’s desperation and readiness to collaborate with any force, even the very entity that occupies Palestinian lands.
The aim was not to resist Israeli aggression or to support Gaza, but to provoke instability within Egypt itself.
A third miscalculation lies in the Muslim Brotherhood’s delusion that it can replicate the 2011 scenario and engineer another wave of unrest to facilitate its return to political relevance or power.
However, what the group fails to realize is that the Egyptian people have internalized the lessons of the past. Today, there is a clear national consensus that prioritizes security and development as twin pillars of progress.
More than ever, Egyptians believe that comprehensive, gradual, and homegrown reform is the only viable path to modernization.
Under a leadership committed to national sovereignty, civil democracy, and inclusive development, there is no longer space for sowing division between state and society, even under the guise of humanitarian concern for Gaza.
In fact, the recent comments by Khalil Al-Hayya and the actions of the so-called “Islamic Movement” in Israel merely reinforce these enduring truths. They remind Egyptians of the irredeemable nature of the Brotherhood’s ideology and tactics.
They also reaffirm the impossibility of entrusting such movements with the goals of national development, state-building, or even legitimate resistance.
Any honest historical evaluation of the Brotherhood’s contributions to national interests or the Palestinian cause would yield a damning verdict.
Egypt, for its part, has maintained a principled distinction between its opposition to extremist organizations and its unwavering support for the Palestinian people and their just cause.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Machiavellian pragmatism explains its willingness to ally with any foreign power, regardless of alignment, as long as such partnerships serve its strategic ambitions.
Short link: