Those who introduced the film Innocence of Muslims to the world during these past few days, did not expect it to hit so many targets with one simultaneous broadcast on all the Middle East channels, and may have never hoped to see all these repercussions. Indeed, scenes are rushing in, but are not presented by the producers, the actors and promoters, prompting questions about the innocence of the latter. Firstly, there is the timing. In the states of the Arab spring, there are rising Islamic powers making their way to power, amid complications and difficult political, economic and security conditions handed down by dictatorial regimes which eliminated politics for decades and settled for the use of violence as a governance tool, but also by international facts and relationships which contributed to the oppression, suppression and disregarding of the people. The film thus pushed these forces to sideline conflicts that only aim at undermining these revolutions and those who staged out, but also at ruining their image and that of an Islam which is carrying a project and vision to lead their states and societies. What is also dubious at the level of this film is its timing. One scene featured the Pope's arrival to Lebanon and his reception by crowds from all sects and religions, representing that same plurality throughout the region. The religious and political symbols who participated in this reception summarized all the elements of the conflict in this troubled part of the world. I listened to the message of peace he carried and the call for coexistence in a unique diversity. In another scene, there were extremist crowds racing to attack the headquarters of American and Western diplomatic missions, wanting severance between civilizations, populations and cultures, even open war between two worlds. It was a painful paradox for the Pope's visit to the East to be faced with such a wave of anger towards the “Christian West"! The ongoing events toppled all the meanings of the visit, and all the reassurances it carried for the Christian and non-Christian minorities in the Arab world, from Egypt's Copts to Syria's, Lebanon's and Iraq's Christians. Also at the level of the timing: In the United States, there is an open conflict affecting the presidential battle, while the position towards the Middle East, its Palestinian cause and Arab spring, and towards the Iranian nuclear file is among the headlines of this conflict between the Republicans and the Democrats. And what caused the escalation of the battle was Benjamin Netanyahu's involvement in the American internal debate in a blatant and unprecedented way. The goal is to get Barack Obama's head, as the latter did not conceal his support for the Arab spring and those who launched it and did not conceal his opposition vis-à-vis war on Iran at a time when he is preparing to exit Afghanistan following the pullout from Iraq. But among the most dangerous goals of this offensive film – in addition to the aforementioned – is probably the provocation of the hardliners in the East and the West who do not see any chances of coexistence between the Muslims in general and the West. It is as though there is an insistence on pushing for the re-eruption of the conflict of cultures which was triggered by the September 11, 2001 attacks and was fueled by the “war on terrorism," on Afghanistan and Iraq and by various confrontations from Yemen to Pakistan. The film thus emerged to revive the repercussions of these events, whether in America and the West in general, or in the Arab and Islamic world. So, do the people responsible for this offensive act need an acquittal? But far away from this facet which is related to the timing and the hideous goals, the film's repercussions on the Arab arenas constitute a challenge to the rising elite of political Islam in the states of the Arab spring. It might be too soon to expect the detonation of the conflict between them and the Salafi forces with various belongings, inclinations and even agendas. But the confrontations are definitely coming, whenever the aforementioned elite is forced to meet the demands of the people to decent living, employment, healthcare and education, but also respect the requirements and conditions of international relations to help meet these popular demands. What the Salafis probably want to prove through their occupation of the political arena in the countries of the Arab spring is that they are the force mobilizing the street. While still under the rule of the deposed regimes, they benefitted from the security bodies' dismantlement of the movements of political Islam, at the head of which comes the Muslim Brotherhood group, and are currently exploiting the margin of freedom provided by the revolutions. They are thus raising the challenge in the face of forces still trying to find their way to power, and presenting themselves as a mature and organized alternative with an Islamic governance program in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya among other locations. The latter forces are consequently being blackmailed, as they can either humor these extremists or reach an inevitable clash. The same happened with Hamas in Gaza when it found itself in power, considering that it had to adopt different methods to handle foreign relations and interests, and deal with the domestic arena and its economic and social problems. As a result, it ended up in the same position as the Palestinian authority against which it rebelled, and found itself with only one option: pursue all the Salafi and extremist forces, regardless of their names. The repercussions generated by the film raise similar challenges in the United States, which ought to push it to redraft its visions and policies towards the Middle East in particular. Indeed, President Barack Obama's administration was trying to go along with the changes in the region in order to adapt to them. It has been and still is moving very cautiously in providing support to the rising elite in a number of countries that have witnessed the Arab spring. Now, Vladimir Putin and President Bashar al-Assad must be laughing, considering that this film ignited the Islamic rug which they believe was American-made and is currently burning its fingers. At this level, Netanyahu might also be sneakily laughing, as he put all his weight behind Mitt Romney in the American electoral battle and is nowadays watching how the “attack on America" is adding new burdens for President Obama's team. Obama proceeded down a path which is completely opposed to that of his predecessor President George Bush Jr. He thus adopted a different political approach on the international level, took into account the sensitivities caused by the previous administration which led the world far away from concord or understanding with the other powers, and dealt positively with the old and rising powers from Europe, to Russia and China. Moreover, he pushed to the forefront of the events major regional actors to play role which were usually undertook by Washington, pulled the American troops out of Iraq, is preparing to leave Afghanistan and is knocking every day on the Taliban doors to reach an understanding over the post-withdrawal phase. In the meantime he addressed the Islamic world with a language of openness from Turkey and Egypt, sent Iran more than one direct message and did not rush to summon force despite the insistence of the Israeli right wing and some conservative sides in the United States. At the level of the primary Middle Eastern cause, he tried hard to push the peace process forward, but to no avail, while the Israeli right wing besieged him and prevented him from achieving what he had promised the Arabs and Palestinians. The image presented by Obama of his administration during the Arab spring is much similar to the image retained by Europe of the American soldiers who crossed the Atlantic to contribute to the liberation of France and Italy, even the entire continent from Nazi invasion. But the painful paradox for the Americans is that they are now watching some of the forces whose action they supported yesterday in order to attain freedom and power, using this freedom to attack their missions and interests, just as they have watched and are still watching some Iraqi forces which entered Baghdad in their military vehicles, casting the worst accusations against America, raising their rifles in its face and adopting Iran's position towards it! A little over two years ago, a poll conducted by Zogby International and carried by the Arab-American Institute in Washington, concluded that “when I see the depth of the partisan divide on attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims, I become frightened." Indeed, the Democrats' positions towards the Arabs were positive by 57% and towards Muslims by 54%. As to the positions of the Republicans towards the Arabs, they were negative by 66% and towards Muslims by 85%! Moreover, 62% of Democrats agreed that Islam was a religion of peace, while this concept was opposed by 79% of the Republicans! What will these figures be like now, in light of the attack on American interests? Today, the Americans will wonder about the policy to be adopted vis-à-vis the Arab world. While Bush's policy revived hatred and retaliation that had been dormant for decades, Obama's opposite policy has apparently not changed much at the level of the positions of those in regard to whom the Americans wondered following September 11: “Why do they hate us?" Maybe America should have stopped the campaign it launched to change the face of the Middle East. But can it do so? Can it simply relinquish its interests in this East? The United States became angry mid last century and was extremely fearful about Britain's evacuation of the region due to several factors, at the head of which are the economic problems, thus rushing to occupy the British and French positions in the region. Today, following the collapse of most of the results of the campaign launched by the former administration on the region – and there is no need to explain what American influence is facing in terms of the defiance carried out by Russia, China and Iran – will Washington withdraw after having offered all these sacrifices, and be replaced by Moscow, Beijing, Tehran or even Ankara? Or will it continue supporting the Arab spring? If what is required from the rising Islamic powers in the region is to besiege the forces of extremism, America should also besiege its own extremists, so that some Muslims do not also wonder “why do they hate us?" Whoever is pursuing Julian Assange, the owner of Wikileaks, for having exposed American security to risks, should also pursue those behind the film for jeopardizing America's interests and missions. And whoever drafted laws and adopted measures limiting freedom following the September 11 attacks, would find no trouble besieging the extremists without affecting public liberties.
