By Daniel Greenfield
As the Middle East violence continues, we move on to Bahrain for a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi forces are battling Shiite protesters in the streets. Naturally the media is misreporting this as government atrocities against democracy protesters. When actually it's another Sunni-Shiite civil war in another Sunni country with a Shiite majority.
If this reminds you of Iraq, you're pretty close. Except that Bahrain is more like Dubai with its own royal family, a business culture built on its proximity to Iran, and much of the country is actually foreign workers brought in by oil revenues. Talk of a democracy movement is senseless, when most of the work in Bahrain is actually done by foreign workers with few legal rights. And no one is talking about giving them voting rights. The royal family has tried to buy peace, and it has worked for the most part, until Iran and Soros came calling.
Bahrain has been dealing with Shiite problems for a long time. That made it ripe for a takeover bid. It also meant that Bahrain couldn't exactly function as a democracy. But in human rights, Bahrain isn't the worst offender in the region by far. But then neither were Tunisia or Egypt. The countries being successfully overthrown are not the worst of the worst. And that's the farce of it all.
This isn't about democracy. It's the old Sunni-Shiite war, with Saudi Arabia and Iran facing off in the middle of Bahrain. Saudi Arabia has put serious forces on the ground, tanks and troops, American equipment. If Israel were doing something like this, there would be UN resolutions flying faster than bullets. But Saudi Arabia gets a pass on running a massacre of Muslim protesters. If the State Department has had anything to say about what the Saudis are doing, I haven't heard it.
But then the US gave Kuwait a blank check to massacre and ethnically cleanse their own Palestinian Arabs after the Gulf War.
Back to Bahrain, the situation won't match up to Egypt or Tunisia, because the royal family doesn't rely on natives to serve as the police/army. Shiite protesters are taking on Bahrain's Pakistani forces and Saudi tanks. The Pakistani imports don't like the natives very much. And unlike Egypt, they're not quite the same religion either. Which means they have a lot less problems shooting at them.
Without a common language or a common religion, and no personal stake in the politics, just getting paid-- they're not going to back down. Egypt and Tunisia have served as a lesson for what happens when governments don't go all the way. And even if the Pakistan mercs back down, the Saudis aren't likely to. The Saudi royal family has been badly panicked by the Iran backed assault on Sunni governments. They intend to make their stand in Bahrain.
Bahrain has one more thing going for it. It's an oil producer. Its oil is running down, but its ruling family knows that it is much less likely to be subject to sanctions no matter what it does. Especially with Saudi Arabia in its corner. When the violence dies down, it can blame the 'foreigners' for doing the killing.
The possibility that Bahrain will fall can't be entirely ruled out. The behind the scenes work on these protests has been carefully orchestrated by Soros affiliated elements within the US government, and international branches of the Soros organization, and it's locally backed by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Bahrain is a test of wills between them and the Saudi royal family. Like a snake fighting a giant rat, it will be interesting to see who emerges on top.
As a preview, from Front Page Magazine, Nichole Hungerford shows us what we can look forward to from "democracy" in Bahrain
Pressure for governmental reform in Bahrain had been mounting since the 1990s. After succeeding his father in 1999, King Hamad instituted a number of democratic reforms, including restoring the parliament which had been disbanded for 27 years. He released Shiite political prisoners, and instituted constitutional reforms. The result? A powerful Islamist Shia party, al-Wefaq, became the single largest political party in Bahrain; many of its leaders were released from prison or brought back from exile from Hamad’s reforms. By 2006, the Islamists had secured nearly half (18) of the 40 seats in the Bahraini parliament.
Since coming to power, al-Wefaq has called for racial segregation of South Asian residents of Bahrain, who were being harassed by Bahraini nationals. This was viewed as the best way to “deal with” the racial tension between the two ethnic groups. Steven Cook, a fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, has called the group’s position on women “outrageous.” “In fact,” he continued, “one of the leaders of Al Wefaq wanted to pass a law such that windows in Bahraini apartment buildings— [so] you could not see out” (emphasis added).
Outrageous is putting it kindly. Al Wefaq believes that all legal changes regarding the role of women and the family should be made by clerics, because they are religious matters. It has organized large campaigns against secular women’s rights movements. As recently as 2009, the party rejected a law that would set the minimum age of marriage for women at 15, claiming that it was “against the principles of Islam.” The outrages go on and on.
Back in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is predictably on the way up. Qaradawi gave his big speech to 200,000 in Tahrir Square. Naturally the call was to dismantle the security services and open up the border with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas controlled Gaza. Like Khomeini before him, Qaradawi made a point of cloaking the whole thing in democratic language. The "revolution must continue" message however means, exactly what it meant the USSR and France, that the revolution will become a purification process of which only the most extreme will survive.
Qaradawi's condemnation of "hypocrites" echoes Khomeini's inveighing against the hypocrites who are Muslims but do not want an Islamic state. Qaradawi is not being specific yet, but he doesn't need to be. As the chaos continues and the infighting among his liberal allies covers them all in mud, the Muslim Brotherhood will look like the incorruptible solution.
I have seen reassurances that the Muslim Brotherhood can only take 20 percent. But 20 percent against a landscape of divided parties would still put the MB in the driver's seat. The Egyptian Twitterati are already scrambling for power and fighting among themselves. Wael Ghonim has already gone from martyr to accused hypocrite. And so one by one, the Egyptian left will break down, and the Brotherhood will inherit what remains in a temporary coalition.
The Muslim Brotherhood is united while its rivals are divided. And that is why unless the military intervenes, it will win.
In Tunisia, "democracy" has meant violent attacks on Jews and Christians.
TUNIS (Reuters) - A Polish priest was murdered in the Tunisian capital Friday, state media cited the Interior Ministry as saying, the latest sign of rising religious tension since last month's revolution.
Mark Marios Rebaski was found dead at the School of Our Lady in Manouba where he worked, Tunisia Africa Press reported. His throat had been cut.
"The Ministry of the Interior condemns this act and regrets the death. Based on results of the preliminary investigation, including the method of assassination, it believes a group of terrorist fascists with extremist tendencies was behind this crime," it said.
Of course he won't be the last. Once "democracy" really takes off.
Then there's this "Never Again" scene in front of a Tunisian synagogue.
So much for Never Again. In the Muslim world, "Never Again" read as, "Try Harder Next Time". The same liberal media which makes a fetish of Holocaust commemorations (so long as they're being used to teach us all universal tolerance) has nothing to say about. And what is there to say.
This is Muslim democracy. Get used to it. That's the message for the Jews and Christians of the Middle East, any female Western reporters who broadcast without heavy security and really the rest of the world.
Back to Barack Hussein Obama-- reports say that the more reasonable tone on Egypt was due to Hillary, and that Barry Hussein wanted an immediate endorsement of the Leftist-Islamist assault on Mubarak. Which shouldn't surprise anyone.
The paper reported that Obama was "seething" over State Department officials's statement suggesting that the administration did not want a quick transition of power in Egypt, with President Hosni Mubarak stepping down from his office immediately.
Obama felt that the State Department "made it look as if the administration were protecting a dictator and ignoring the pleas of the youths of Cairo."Oddly though the Twelfth Imam did not seem anywhere as forceful when it came to Iran. Now Obama released a statement condemning violence against protesters. See if you can spot which country he left out.
"I am deeply concerned by reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen," Obama said in the statement.
Iran goes unmentioned despite the clashes there. And that's not a coincidence.
Obama jumped on Mubarak, but gave Ahmadinejad a free pass. And he's kept on doing it over and over again. Because the overthrow of a pro-American government serves his purposes. The overthrow of an anti-American regime does not.
Richard Perle wonders why Obama isn't backing Iran's democracy movement. Because it actually is a Democracy movement. Obama is not a fan of Democracy, he is a fan of Islam and enthusiastic about anyone who hates America.
Spain and the UK are protesting the detention of a Spanish diplomat in Iran. Obama has again made no mention of it. He did make the following hypocritical statement
"My hope and expectation is that we're going to continue to see the people of Iran have the courage to be able to express their yearning for greater freedoms and a more representative government, understanding that America cannot ultimately dictate what happens inside of Iran any more than it could inside of Egypt."
Except of course Obama did his best to dictate what happens inside of Egypt. He's made no such attempt in Iran.
Sultan Knish
