15 June 2011 By Tariq Alhomayed There are desperate attempts by some states and
media outlets to compare Bahrain with Syria, in order
to increase pressure on Bahrain, and divert attention
away from the Assad regime. The clearest example of
this is the handling of the Shia Al Wefaq party's
rally in Bahrain, as it was depicted as a "return to
protests", when in actual fact the gathering was held
with permission from the Bahraini government. Al
Wefaq's rally in itself is considered a response to
those who compare Bahrain to Syria. How, some might
ask? To offer amnesty is a sign of strength, not a
sign of weakness, and when the Bahraini king pardons
his people from a position of strength then there is
value and credibility in this, especially as he lifted
the National Safety Law a month earlier than expected,
repeatedly called for dialogue, and allowed Al Wefaq
to hold its rally. Meanwhile, the Assad regime
declares an "amnesty" whilst continuing its killing
and the arrests. It claims to have lifted emergency
law, whilst its tanks continue to prowl the streets of
Syria! The innocent Syrians insist that their revolution
is not sectarian, and that in fact it is the Syrian
government that reinforces the sectarian image.
Meanwhile the Iranian president comes out to tell us
that he has "a plan" to solve Bahrain's problems; this
is from the man who cannot solve his own problems. If
only he could prevent the Iranians from assisting the
Assad regime. The Iranians are embroiled in Syria,
unlike the Peninsula Shield forces that entered
Bahrain as part of the Gulf Cooperation Council to
protect institutions. The Peninsula Shield forces did
so openly, and were not deployed, nor did they
participate, on the streets. The problem is that we are facing a massive
falsification campaign by Iran, and by some media
outlets. With regards to Bahrain, the Western media is
plagued by Shia "activists," just as the Arab media is
plagued by "analysts" of the Syrian regime. As a
result I invite those concerned with the Bahrain issue
to read a very important book, which ought to be
translated into English, entitled 'Religious Movements
in the Arab Gulf,' (first edition 2007) by Baqer
Salman al Najjar, a secular Shia from Bahrain. In this
book the author reveals the truth behind Shia
associations in Bahrain, and we find that the call for
an Islamic republic is not a new one, nor is it a
reaction, but rather the culmination of a project that
has gone on for years. Al Najjar also alludes to another important point.
He says that Al Wefaq, for example, believes that
change in the Gulf will only take place through
external pressure. This is in the wake of, or rather
out of exploitation of, the September 11th terrorist
attacks in the US, as al Najjar has noticed that
Western pressure is on the rise in only two of the
Gulf countries, namely Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Al
Najjar says, "This explains the tendency of a group of
figures from the Al Wefaq party and its leadership,
and some Shia political forces in Bahrain and the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to use their connections with
British political figures and British civil-society
organisations that want to put pressure on local
authorities to bring about political reforms quickly,
or to use the platforms of these states to open
controversial internal issues, such as constitutional
amendments and the so-called political neutralization
of British and European public opinion." Perhaps this
explains why the Formula One race that was due to be
held in Bahrain was cancelled recently! Whilst we do not see the Syrians seeking help
externally in search of their rights, or acting in a
sectarian manner as their government aims to portray,
and whilst they shout out, "no Iran, no Hezbollah, we
want a leader who fears God", the loudest calls in
Bahrain on the other hand are for an Islamic republic.
So is the difference between the two now clear? Comments 💬 التعليقات |