Via TOB, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, the general manager of Al -Arabiya television, writing from Dubai in the Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat:

Shiites, who represent the majority, should be keen to protect democracy as numerically speaking they are stronger whereas Sunnis and other minorities, despite their expected losses in the elections, would have no other choice but to participate in the political electoral process. Accordingly, it is in the interest of all parties to follow democracy on their path towards achieving peace, as the interests of all parties are included in democracy. Why would anyone reject this simple assumption? I say that some believe that Iraq should be settled politically based on sectarianism or geography. Over the past one hundred years, we have learnt the hard way that in politics there is no better solution than civil peace protected by peaceful political institutions. This peaceful political frame would guarantee common interests in such a diverse society and major country, furthermore indicating a prosperous future if only stability was to be provided. Violating the rules of democracy is hazardous for all parties. There are numerous examples that we could cite including that of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia had seceded into two states and then again into various divisions; Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. These were further divided into two main states; Serbia and Montenegro. These states had split on the pretext of combating communism, and later used religion as another reason for war. It divided again and went to war again.
The Shiites and Sunnis of Iraq could either collectively build a great country, or they could tear it into pieces. If exploited by opportunists for their personal interests and ambitions, those very differences that are common between sects and religions could result in one great disaster.

How is it that we’re finding more rational perspectives in the Arab press than in ours?