on an iraqi tv channel from his safe apartment in kuwait – i say safe because he won’t find this safety even in his own homeland -- in terms of security, freedom, and respect, the iraqi mp faiq al-sheik ali said, “do you know that the provinces of a l - q a s s i m , buraidah and unaizah in the kingdom of saudi arabia belong to the governorate of basra and that kuwait also belongs to the basra, in addition to riyadh and najd of saudi arabia belong also to basra, and add to this al-hasa and qatif which are also part of basra.”
he went on to say, “all these provinces belong to iraq, even qatar belongs to iraq, and this is not from the babylonian time, but 140 years ago (from 1875 to 1914) when the british entered iraq?”
this is pure trash, but the sad part is these words are uttered by a member of the iraqi parliament by someone, we would describe a person of understanding, liberalism, openness, and preponderant reason, but he turned out to be a fanatic just like many other delusional iraqis who weave webs weaker than that of a spider.
the response was more than necessary which followed his weak justifications, to the message of a friend and colleague sami al-nisf although sheikh ali insisted on his false allegations or rather beliefs.
he insists that the entire region was affiliated to the basra governorate while preferring to remain mum about the dates he has mentioned, and for hundreds of years before that, basra and iraq as a region was completely subordinate to the ottoman empire, and its affairs were managed from the sublime porte in astana.
a state or a province subordinate to a colonial state at a certain point in time does not mean anything fundamentally. it falls outside the narration of history if the subordination is basically correct.
the words of faiq sheikh ali are meaningless and can only tickle the sentiments of the demagogues.
the british ruled dozens of countries of the world, east and west, including india and the united states, and even large parts of china with an iron fist or by international decisions. no sane person gave britain the right to praise its previous colonial history and claim that these regions or states are subordinate to it, and the matter applies to every colonial state that preceded it from the persian empire of cyrus 2,500 years ago, and other dozens of colonial states throughout the unjust history of the world. it is impossible for the ruling power to be just to the ruled, so what is brother faiq proud of?
even if we assume the authenticity of his statements, which are full of contradictions, we ask him was the colonization or occupation of iraq of all the countries and cities mentioned in his words something that deserves to be praised, despite that such statements are contrary to the reality on the one hand and something that is not honorable on the other?
the bonds of friendship and loyalty required of him, who is a well-versed jurist and an expert parliamentarian, not to be drawn into such delusions on the pretext that he wanted to show how was iraq one day in the light of his boasting about the influence of the iranians in his homeland, and therefore we expect him to apologize for what he did against a homeland which still hosts him.
this is in addition to the fact that boasting the glories of the past is nothing but a harmful drug, because if he has the right to boast of the colonial history of iraq, so the people of cyrus, the tatars, the british, and the ottoman sultans have the right to boast about their colonial history in iraq.