Huffington Post generates debate.
 |
| The Arab Spring |
Yesterday, I posted a story under the heading of In Bahrain the protests continue.
The entry was also posted in the "Huffington Post" comments section, and drew some replies. This is one which particularly caught my attention:
" posted by“katertaif”16 Mar 2013 at 11:35:22.
Unfortunately I believe there is a flaw in your analysis. Up until now,
those who have come out on top in the countries that have experienced
the "Arab Spring" tend to be radical Islamist, who are not friendly
towards the West in any way.We have particularly seen how grateful Libya
is to us, in spite of all the help and money they received.
While words are inadequate to describe what is happening in Syria, we
have to remember that the forces opposed to Assad, are themselves
committing atrocities, and using children both as cannon fodder and as
human shields.Also already persecuting Christian minorities which Assad
did not.
These are all Muslim dominated countries, and democracy has no part to
play in Islam.They simply do not recognise it, it is as alien to them as
cannibalism would be to us. So who do you side with? if anyone at all.
Whoever emerges victorious they will again be Islamist and anti West."
Whoever emerges victorious they will again be Islamist and anti West."
This post I believe, demonstrates an attitude all too common in the west, and prompted me to respond with the following.
Having spent some considerable time in
the Middle east, including Syria, it seems to me that there is a
significant body of opinion in the west which is based not on
experience or personal observation, but on the comments, reporting
and often biased news coverage from the media, and from some western
politicians with their own covert agendas. Generally, the collective
"Arab" mistrust of the west is based firmly in the history
of the region and the way in which peoples have been betrayed by the
west for hundreds of years. First the Ottoman's then the Europeans
have imposed rulers in these artificially created lands (have you
ever wondered why there are so many straight line borders between the
countries of the Middle east?) which have been installed not because
they are wanted by their peoples, but because they are friendly and
cooperative towards western governments. They also purchase vast
quantities of "defence equipment" to maintain their
positions and provide "bases" for the western nations to
retain a foothold in the region.
When these artificial regimes are
overthrown and replaced by administrations which may well be
Islamist, but are sometimes secular, they are immediately condemned
and isolated by the west for no better reason than that western
influence and values have been rejected. Just because an
administration is Islamist, it does not automatically follow that it
is wrong or unpopular within its own borders. The west does not have
the right to assume that if countries do not follow the "western
model" they are automatically hostile. The hostility of many of
the emergent administration is brought about by the duplicity of the
west with previous administrations and their role in the "uprisings".
Perhaps my contribution may encourage “katertaif” to look a little deeper into what is a very complex situation.
Comments
Post a Comment