Bahrain Mirror (Exclusive): On October 8, during his speech at the opening of the second session of the House of Representatives and the Shura Council, the Bahraini King made reference to the adoption of a national decision free from external influence, emphasizing the notion of "independent decision." Yet, on October 10, US Ambassador Steven Bondy stepped beyond diplomatic boundaries, issuing a statement that seemingly spoke on behalf of both his nation and Bahrain. In this statement, he condemned the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, expressing condolences for Israeli casualties in his name and on behalf of Bahrain.

What kind of independence in decision-making does the King of Bahrain speak of when the American ambassador appoints himself as a colonial high commissioner speaking for both countries?

Ambassador Steven Bondy, the second Jewish ambassador appointed by the United States in Bahrain after the infamous Adam Ereli, asserts that the United States and the Kingdom of Bahrain jointly stand in solidarity with their friends and allies. In this spirit, they condemn the terrorist attack launched by Hamas on October 7, targeting Israeli civilians, including men, women, the elderly, and children, and the dangerous escalation of the conflict. They extend their deepest condolences and sympathy to the victims' and hostages' families and friends and wish the injured a swift recovery.

In a truly independent and sovereign nation, can an ambassador issue such a statement, seemingly speaking on behalf of the host country? This behavior is met with strong disapproval from the people of Bahrain, but will the King dare to reject it, especially given that his choice to normalize relations with Israel has proven to be flawed, misguided and a losing battle?

Instead of directly addressing the impertinence of the American ambassador, who spoke on behalf of Bahrain in his statement, the King chose to send aid to the Palestinians. However, it raises the question of how this aid will reach them, as Israel, his ally, continues to impose a blockade on Palestine by land, sea, and air. Furthermore, the people of Gaza and their leadership voiced their opinion regarding the stance of Bahrain's authorities through the words of Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas' political bureau, who described the regimes in Bahrain and the UAE as the "Scum of the Arab world" without explicitly naming them.

Nearly 24 hours after opposition statements condemning the US ambassador's intrusion into Bahraini sovereignty were issued, the government, clearly embarrassed by the situation, issued an extremely brief statement through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This statement simply reiterated that the official positions of the Kingdom of Bahrain are those expressed by its official authorities alone and no other party.

The statement is somewhat ambiguous, leaving it unclear whether the ministry is responding to the US ambassador or the statement issued by Bahrain's senior scholars expressing support for the Palestinian people and their resistance.

The question arises, what kind of external influence is the King rejecting in his speech when the Israeli ambassador (Eitan Na'eh) issues threats to Palestinians from the embassy in Bahrain, and the American ambassador condemns, in his name and on behalf of Bahrain, the steadfast Palestinian people?

It is not merely one external influence, but rather five distinct influences that are visibly exerted on Bahrain and its people: American, British, Saudi, Emirati, and Israeli. All of these elements seem to sway the decision-making in Bahrain. So, what independence is the King referring to?

Arabic Version