اخبار البحرين – وطن نيوز
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-06-27 17:44:00
Written by: Issa bin Abdul Rahman Al-Hammadi There is nothing more dangerous to history than a man who loves lying, except a man who takes it as a path and doctrine, who makes desire a method, a wish a document, and slander an argument, and then asks people to believe what he wrote. Not because he established proof of it, but because it contained more than just explanation and prolonged slander. Facts are not changed by the noise of printing presses, maps are not drawn with the ink of editorials, sovereignty is not granted by a newspaper if it is willing, it is not taken away by it if it is angry, and it is not erased by a passing article if its author is replaced by illusion and extended claims. It is surprising that some newspapers, if they are driven by whims and prevail over purpose, are that they dispute history if it bears witness, disbelieves the document if it speaks, and accuses nations if they unanimously agree. If it agrees with the text, it will be raised as a banner, and if it contradicts it, it will be cast as a temptation, until then falsehood becomes an established principle, truth is an abandoned statement, illusion is a published policy, and slander is a well-known industry. From this door, the so-called Hossein Shariatmadari came out to us in Sahifa Kayhan, and he has nothing from the Sharia except the drawing of the name, and no orbit except the circling of the pen around the illusion. There is no true law that guided his article, nor a source of proof upon which his argument was based. Rather, he presented words that the document does not need to refute, and the truth is sufficient to refute it. If the article included nations, ink demarcated borders, and passion annihilated covenants, the United Nations would have to close its doors, the Security Council would have to close its book, and the world would have to wait every morning for a new issue of Kayhan. To know who remained a nation and who disappeared, who remained a people and who became a nation. However, history is too tough to be led into the propaganda market, the document is too tough to be broken by a printing press, and the truth is too high to sink from the position of proof to the bottom of slander. What Kayhan intentionally drops, and deliberately turns away from, is that Bahrain was never a loose land, nor a floating identity, nor an absent will, nor a people waiting from Tehran for a name to be dictated, or a drawing given, or a definition. He is begging. The Kingdom of Bahrain has been Arab, Khalifa Muslim, since the establishment of the modern Bahraini state during the era of the founder, Ahmed Al-Fateh, in 1783 AD. A truth that was not created by a mission, nor was it granted by an organization, nor was it created by a newspaper. Its identity precedes the United Nations, precedes Kayhan and Reuters, and is more ancient and established than anyone who tries, or tried, to undermine it. It was established by history, witnessed by the state, and carried by a people who knew their identity before reports were written, and realized their sovereignty before successive decisions were made. Bahrain has refused from the beginning to make its Arabism a subject of question, its sovereignty a matter of debate, or its independence a subject for a referendum. Because what is firmly established in the conscience of peoples is not subject to review, what is established in the conscience of nations is not put up for bargaining, and what was an inherent right is not given the status of possibility. When I address the path of the United Nations fact-finding mission, this is not a digression in history, nor a luxury in narration, but rather out of concern for the national narrative in such situations to be clear and not ambiguous, solid and not confused, documented and not transmitted; Because the response to falsehood is not with a flimsy emotion, nor with fleeting anger, but rather with an earth-shattering argument, a conclusive document, and a solid national narrative that knows where to start, where to stop, and how to bring down the slander from its origins, not from its edges. Hence, the path of the United Nations fact-finding mission was a witness to an existing Bahraini will, not the maker of a borrowed will. It was not the invention of a fact, but rather the presentation of a document. Not creating a choice, but announcing a decision. Not in search of an absent identity, but rather to establish a solid identity. There, Kayhan’s lie was exposed from the beginning. The matter was not funds being managed, nor numbers being made up, nor a spectacle being made in the night of politics, but rather a broad international poll, initiated by the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Vittorio Winspear-Guicciardi. He listened to the various segments of Bahraini society, and then concluded with a conclusion that does not accept any interpretation or interpretation, and leaves no room for propaganda or slander: that Bahrain is an independent Arab state, fully sovereign, free to make its own decisions. It is continuing to determine its relations with other countries. The argument did not stop at the testimony of the UN mission alone; Indeed, the Shah himself, who is the head of the state whose defunct claim Kayhan is trying today from the ashes of history, accepted the international path and was satisfied with its outcome, so the confession of the old opponent became a witness to the fall of the case, and the confession of the person making the claim is more eloquent in rebutting the claim than a thousand refutations and arguments. How can a hired writer, or a pen in trouble, return after that to dispute a fact that was accepted by the one who was more worthy of its claim, and to deny something approved by the one under whose shadow Kayhan was leaning? It is astonishing that the Shah proved what Kayhan denied, and that history acknowledged what the propaganda denies, and that the old opponent was more truthful to the truth than a newspaper that claimed to be the heir to the situation, but then it was the heir to an illusion and nothing else. And that will was not the will of one half against the other, nor the voice of one group against the other; The report proved that the national consensus was not divided between one sect and another, nor was it divided between a city and a village, nor was there a difference between a man and a woman, nor was there a difference between an old man and a young man. Then the international confirmation of the Bahraini truth continued in a clear and unambiguous path. On May 11, 1970, the UN Security Council issued Resolution No. 278, approving the mission’s conclusions, that Bahrain is a free, fully sovereign Arab state. Then, on August 18, 1971, the Security Council voted in favor of accepting the Kingdom of Bahrain’s accession to the United Nations under Resolution No. 296, unanimously recommending that the General Assembly accept Bahrain’s application for membership. Then on September 21, 1971, the United Nations General Assembly opened its register to Bahrain as a full member under Resolution No. 2752, making it the 129th member of the international organization. Was the entire United Nations a chorus of illusion? Or has the world’s confession become ink that can only be seen by those who have extinguished the lamp of truth in their eyes and opened the propaganda shop in their minds? As for Reuters, it is not in this position like Kayhan; They are two false trumpets from the mouthpieces of the Guardianship of the Jurist regime, blowing on the ashes of illusion until they think they are fire, and selling their reader smoke of propaganda until they see it during the day. As for Reuters, their fault is not the fault of the warden if he lies, but rather the fault of the professional if he is disturbed. It raises a banner for neutrality, then leans the narrative with it, declares a charter for integrity, and then narrows its horizons upon implementation. Reuters says in the principles of trust that integrity is preserved, independence is safeguarded, neutrality is established, and news is reliable. How easy are principles if they are formulated in offices, and how difficult are they if they are brought down to situations. Here, the scourge does not lie in a passing error on the part of an editor, but rather in the ideological leftist creep that infiltrates the fortresses of media institutions in the name of progress, dresses up as rights, and speaks with the tongue of neutrality, then gnaws away at their credibility from within like weevils gnawing on wood. Even if you read the news, you will find a position behind it, and if you look into the analysis, you will find partisanship, and if you ask about neutrality, you will find an ideological opinion that disputes policies that it does not like, and compliments regimes that should not be flattered. Not far from this is what is summed up by the political statement attributed to Churchill: Whoever was not a leftist in his youth has no heart, and whoever remains a leftist after forty, and has reached the maturity of his life, is one who has no mind. It is a phrase, although its proportion is disturbed, that reveals a meaning present in many Western universities, where the leftist movement finds on university campuses a fertile ground for its spread, and then soon spreads from the classrooms to the newsrooms, from student slogans to the headlines of some newspapers, and from ideological excitement to the news industry. Here, the media institution becomes in real danger, not because it has an opinion, but because the opinion of its writer colonizes its standard, and because his bias wears the cloak of its neutrality. This is not far from whoever wrote that fake article when it dealt with the issue of Bahrain; The fingerprints of his approach appear to be present in the choice of phrase, directing the context, wrapping opinion in the guise of news, and dragging the reader into a reading that does not serve the truth as much as it serves an ideological position opposed to policies aimed at confronting the actions of the terrorist guardianship of the jurist regime. There is nothing more dangerous to the media than a writer who makes the news platform a platform for his idea, the institution’s standard a cover for his inclinations, and the agency’s name a cover for his bias. If the agency deals with the issue of Bahrain, and suspends its narrative on a weak, ambiguous phrase like: “Analysts say,” then it makes this originally unknown shadow, and this hidden voice, evidence, and this fleeting opinion, an entrance to a reading that reduces a nation to anxiety, a people to a doctrine, and a state to possibility; Here, the news is not news, but rather an opinion disguised as news, and the analysis is not an analysis, but rather an assumption searching for a stamp of agency to become certainty in the eye of the reader. Journalism is not condemned because it asks, but rather when it conceals the source of the answer. She is not blamed for conveying an opinion, but rather when she dresses it in the guise of truth. If Reuters has made neutrality one of its principles, let it be neutrality that is seen in the wording and not in the slogan, and heard in accuracy and not in the claim, and is based on an apparent source and not on an absent name, and on a fixed fact and not on a loose reading. Bahrain is not a narrative that Kayhan weaves from the threads of lies of the Guardianship of the Jurist regime, nor a story recited by false trumpets in the camouflage market, nor a hypothesis passed by an unknown person in a passing line of news. A weak or foolish analysis; Homelands are not summarized in an article, nor are they hijacked by a phrase, and their identity is not pinned on a paid pen, or a hidden source, or a passing reference in an ambiguous piece of news. Let Kayhan write whatever she wants of her fantasies, and let Reuters be kind enough to apply whatever standards it sets; Bahrain is not a footnote to a paid article, nor a footnote in a hidden analysis, nor a country waiting to be defined by a newspaper that has gone astray, or an agency that has gone astray. Bahrain will remain under the leadership of the honorable Al Khalifa family, preserving the covenant, preserving its sovereignty, and steadfast in the loyalty of its people to its leadership, their loyalty to their land, their loyalty to their homeland, and their harmony in their society. Firmly rooted in what its history has witnessed, and continuing with what the world has recognized for it: an Arab state in identity, Bahraini in conscience, Muslim, with independent decision-making, and with full sovereignty. What remains of the truth is a witness that cannot be bought, the homeland has a name that cannot be erased, and Bahrain has a glory that cannot be forgotten.
