But from these demonstrations, one may be tempted to ask who are those behind the revolution? Beyond a mere social media orchestrated demonstrations, and what would its implications be to the stability of the Middle East, considering the volatile nature of the region, with so many people falling to the orientation and indoctrinations of fundamentalist, under the pretence of pursuing a course of common good particularly when their position is canvassed with religious (Islamic) flavours.
Of all the Arab states that were involved in this social media revolution, Tunisia had long settled and things have returned to normal, probably due to the genuineness and the non interference of clandestine groups with an hidden agenda. For several weeks and months the revolutionary dust is yet to settle in countries like, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and Libya, which have claimed many lives as the individual government of these countries have been using excessive force to quell the demonstrations, yet the people have resolved for a political change in their country irrespective of the personal cost.
While the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt unsuspecting of the generality of the people was achieved by the people’s power over unpopular government, which they have fought on a common front regardless of Coptic Christians, Sunni and shia diversity. But the same cannot be said of Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, which has been caught up in an Islamic denominational difference of the people. Here the minority Sunnis have been responsible for the leadership of these countries in the face of majority Shia Muslims. The determination of the Shia majority to change the status quo in these countries have been highly resisted.
Thus, strategically the golf states ironically led by Saudi Arabia sent armed troops into the streets of Barah to protect the government and promote stability from the ever increasing demonstration of the people against their government. This tactical move as orchestrated by the desire of the leadership of the GCC member state is to indirectly protect or insulate themselves and their country from possible protest/demonstration by their citizens. And as a result the Saudi Arabian government had promised an increase in income and social benefit for her citizens at the very onset of her Shia-led protest.
In defiance the leadership in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria have refused to step down as demanded by the demonstrators for change, which is driven by some religious fundamentalist like the Al Qaeda and Taliban whioh will not guaranty the stability of the region and western interest. Consequently, the United States and her Allies are yet to show any serious commitments to the opposition struggles in these countries except for Syria whose leadership have been anti-US and Israeli interest in the Middle East, suspected of supporting the Hezbollah group in Lebanon agaist the state of Isreal and the assasination of the Isa Karire the Lebanese Priminister in 2006.
The post revolution Egypt and the incessant attacks and killings of Coptic Christians is an indication that Egypt may not be ready for a true democracy that will recognise the right of the minority Coptic Christians. Thus justifying the leadership of former President Hussein Mubarak, whose regime will not tolerate such sectarian violence, indicating the desire of some Islamic fundamentalist in Egypt to perpetuate this act of shame upon the great Egyptian state where the Coptic christians have leave with the Muslims side by side for centuries.
Therefore, this brings to mind that Egypt without a Hussein Mubarak would not guaranty the safety of her 10million Coptic Christians. And whether the other Arab states will be free from such sectarian violence after their revolutions will be left to posterity to judge due to the high sense of theological difference along their Sunni and Shia divide; which may be more difficult to manage if the elements of fundamentalism as pepetrated the oppositions and their activities are not tamed.
However, with regards to the stability of the Middle East, the move and speed with which the new Egyptian government to want to re-evaluate the energy deal between Egypt and Israel after Mubarak shows that there is a likelihood of weaken relationship with the two countries, coupled with the Palestinian Gaza border issues, which the former government had carefully and diplomatically handled to the disenchantment of many Egyptians for their sympathy towards Palestinian and their sovereign state according to their 1967 borderlines between Israel and Palestine, which the Jewish state of Israel is yet to accept, irrespective of the several demonstrations and border clashes that have left several persons dead.
That the position of the Egyptians governments has always been on grounds of national interest as against expected sentiments and emotions of her citizens in solidarity of Palestine. Therefore, if the fundamentalist elements in Egypt takes control of the government, the sour relationship would not be inevitable and the threat to Middle East, considering the position of Egypt in the Arab world vis-a-vis the 1967 and ’78 conflicts between the two states.
While the Palestine have a right to their homeland and state, but to use the Arab revolution as an inspiration against the state of Israel may be counter-productive as it may not record the same successes achieved by the opposition groups in those Arab state, simply because the background of the struggle behind the uprising are completely different.
This likely conflicts should be handled with care not to snowball into a larger arm struggle in the region to the detriment of world peace. While the US and Britain should increase their efforts to guaranty the Palestinians their land in a more equitable and justifiable manner, with either side committed to concessions for peace and stability of the region without much interferences by external groups to the detriments of a possible solution, which is achievable.
Even at this, it is unfortunate that a lot of Palestinians leaving in other Middle East countries lives with refugees status in those countroes after several decades to the helplessness of the international community to guaranty them their homeland. But suffice to say that of the non assimilation of Palestinians by some of their host countries is reflection of the hardship the Palestinians are facing in those countries, making it difficult for an economic integration of the people.
Rather the sympathy of the other Arab states to the Palestinian course is best demonstrated in their resentment for the Jewish state of Israel, and not the overall welbeing of the Palestinians. Hence the Palestinians and the Israeli two-state solutions to the problem have been politicized by many of the Arab states without corresponding assistance toward the quality of lives of the Palestinians, and the failure to economically integrate them.
The none recognition of the state of Israel make the resolution of the Israeli/Palestine issues more difficult to resolve, that in the face of an intricate and complex nature of the problem; it is not a matter that is beyond the resolution of the international community, only if the parties and their allies would enter the negotiating table with necessary flexibility and concession required; particular as the security of the state of Israel is of grave concern in an Arab dominated Middle East region.
Therefore, it is imperative to know that the hatred for the west by so many Arabs and Islamist is not the way forward in solving the complex problem. Then there must be the need to change the approach towards resolving the Palestinian/Israeli issues, afterall, force and war after decades have not yielded the desired results. All the militant organizations in the Middle East must realise in the interest of peace and the innocent people who often are victims of such arms struggles from their indoctrination.
While it is more imperative than ever that Israel gives up the Palestinian lands and stop building sentiments. The political union between Hamas and Fatah group in Palestine may be a step in the right direction, they must harmonise their positions with a non-violence policy in this regard, and at the same time radical groups and other interest should be moderated.
However, the Arab revolution would probably not guaranty much peace and stability because of the increase in sectarian violence/demonstrations in other Arab states. There is a likelihood of more radicalizations in the region with Coptic Christians and Israel as targets as seen in the recent developments as the Egyptian government is helplessly without any concrete decision and actions to protect the minority Coptic Christians. Therefore it is imperative that the US reviews her policy on the Middle East, and begin to shop for new allies in the event of losing old ones to new radical and fundamental Islamic groups in the government of these countries.
This may probably account for why the US and her allies are yet to take a definite stand against the government in Bahrain and Yemen, which are prone to falling into the hands of some Fundamentalist radicals and extremist which may be welcomed by the authorities in Iran against US and other western countries to the detriments of the stability in the Middle East and world peace. That to equate the revolution in some of the Arab countries to protest against the Jewish state of Israel will again likely gravitate into another war in the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment