Written by Nasser Kandil,
The execution of the leader of the opposition Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr by the Saudi authorities will not pass as a local Saudi legal event as its committers wanted, because the legal arguments and the aimed statements to promote this aspect on this event are fragile and unmarketable as long as the concerned person is a well known man of his positions as an advocate, a leader of a group and an owner of a word, his words were based on the adherence to the peaceful mobility and the refusal of violence, the insistence on refusing the external repercussions which considered it a local event that faded within the first few hours. The leaders of the religious, spiritual, national, and ethnic groups are treated by the presidents of the countries in a special treatment even if they were opponents of their governments, and even if their honoring provokes the anger of those governments, as was the American dealing with Dalai Lama the leader of Tibet China. Thus they have a privacy that has its immunity as long as they are leaders who cling to the peaceful mobility and refuse resorting to violence.
The incident has become definitely international with the failure of the insistence on the local and legal aspect, especially because Riyadh has hosted a few weeks ago a conference for the Syrian opposition, it included figures that are accused of belonging to terrorism. For many years it has insisted on the departure of the Syrian President under the plea that it has the right to interfere in the matters of others, it has launched a war against Yemen for the same plea, it blamed Russia for the murder of Zahran Aloush who is accused of terrorist acts, although he was neither Saudi nor was murdered in Saudi Arabia, and as long as the enlisting of the case of the Sheikh Nimr within the files of the terrorists that were executed has escalated the reactions instead of calming them down, because it includes the insistence on integrating the murder with insulting and depreciating the status.
The incident has become international, because it is the first time for a long time ago a government dares to execute a leader of an opposition that adhered to the peaceful mobility, this was avoided by the regime of the racial discrimination in the South of Africa regarding the late leader Nelson Mandela, and was avoided also by Britain concerning the late Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi. Therefore, the execution of this opponent leader is based on different aspects in a region that the major powers try to put it on the rail of settlements. The forest of the Middle East is full of igniting things, the stiff firewood, the leaves of autumn which are flammable, moreover, the attempts of launching the settlements which their platforms have been settled up, from Syria to Yemen are based on the flexibility of the Saudi-Iranian relationships on one hand, where the hopes were rested on them with the return of the ambassadors between Riyadh and Tehran, and the calming down of the open touch lines between two groups of high tension in the region the Shiites and the Sunnis, this Saudi Iranian relationship has been affected harshly by the incident more than the incident of killing the Iranian pilgrims in Mina, even the sectarian relationships have been affected with a tension that cannot be ignored, through the event which its repercussions on the relationship between the Shiites and the Sunnis is similar to the execution of the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by the Americans under a local Iraqi coverage.
The forest of the Middle East is burning with anger that may turn into a real fire with first friction, because fire starts like this, it is not clear yet whether the Saudis were inspired by others to do what they have done in order to involve them and implicating the region with fire through them, or they have done that to implicate their allies and putting them in front of fait accompli for a big fire.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,