Now that the blood-spattered protests against the offensive film have relatively subsided, one can pause for a while to examine their meaning and their results, as well as the challenges they pose for the countries of the Arab Spring. One should note that this video, which bears all the characteristics of mediocrity, ignorance and futility, was produced by a person (regardless of their nationality) sued in court on charges of fraud and of delivering bad checks, and that its director's previous work had never exceeded pornography. Indeed, this kind of a mix could only yield this kind of an extremely low-grade product. No one would have even noticed it, had not parts of it been posted on the internet, resulting in the reactions and protests we have seen, which have come at least a year after the film was released. And no reasonable person would believe that during that year the standing of the Arab Prophet had been affected among his devotees and followers, or among the members of other religions. Indeed, his standing remains, as it has been historically, preserved among those held in the highest esteem. Such standing suffered no harm at the peak of campaigns against the Muslim religion over the past years, despite some underhanded campaigns having tried to ascribe to it terrorist practices engaged in by Muslim extremists. Yet the violence that has accompanied the expression of the inflamed emotions of Muslims, in this or that country, certainly falls outside the scope of this issue and presents the countries of the Arab Spring with a political issue regarding how they might preserve fledgling democracies and unprecedented peaceful expression there, when faced with the efforts of radical groups to draw these countries towards their own extremist positions. Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki expressed this problem when he spoke of groups that “seek to impose a law above that of the Republic" – i.e. that of the rule of law, justice and citizenship. The groups that were behind the violence at protests and demonstrations have exploited people's inflamed emotions to impose their own extremist agenda. And they are doing this by exploiting the religious feelings certainly inflamed by the offensive film, as well as by embarrassing the new authorities in the countries of the Arab Spring and outbidding them on a religious issue. Within the framework of the information that has been revealed, the blood-spattered attacks in each of Benghazi, Cairo, Tunis and Sanaa were the work of such groups, whose agendas essentially drive towards a major clash with the West. In this sense, one could say that the attack against the US Embassy in Cairo represents an extension of the attacks that have targeted Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai; that the attempt to set fire to the US Embassy in Tunis represents an extension of other attacks that have been waged against cultural conferences, hotels and individuals in different parts of the country; and that targeting the US Embassy in Sanaa represents an extension of bombings that have targeted foreigners and government forces in several Yemeni cities. Indeed, violent attacks against Western targets were in no need of a bad video produced by a swindler and directed by a pornography expert. Yet this kind of violence lies in wait for any opportunity to make use of to drive towards escalation against the West and against followers of other religions, on the basis of the theory of “Jihadist Salafism" which drives towards conflict with others, especially the West and the values of democracy and pluralism upon which new regimes have been established in the countries of the Arab Spring. And that is the challenge currently facing those regimes, the management of which is at present dominated, after undoubtedly credible elections, by movements of political Islam. Such a challenge poses itself to those movements, whether or not the offensive film had appeared. Indeed, radical groups can exploit, in the name of defending their own understanding of Islam, any event that takes place on the domestic scene or abroad – this in order to obtain further concessions on the notions of democracy, citizenship and pluralism. And it is most likely that targeting Western interests and diplomatic missions means in its depth targeting those fledgling regimes.
