Political Childhood

They chose exile… and thus fell from the national memory. They chose an impossible return, a prolonged exile, and chose—whether consciously or deluded—to isolate themselves from Kuwait.

Kuwaiti citizens, who have been condemned in security cases, did not merely distance themselves geographically; they positioned themselves on the opposite shore of the homeland, at a moment when the true meaning of belonging is being tested, amid the Iranian aggression against Kuwait and the Gulf states.

The problem was not with the opposition itself, for opposition—when it is patriotic—is part of the political balance. The issue lies in the slide into discordant rhetoric, lacking wisdom and relying on sensationalism rather than responsibility.

Instead of de-escalation and rationality, strained voices rose, believing they could influence decision-making, while in reality reflecting a state of political immaturity that toys with language, exploits chaos, and seeks a role in a moment that tolerates no frivolity.

For over a month since the beginning of the Iranian aggression against Kuwait and the Gulf states, we have not heard a unifying national discourse from those voices. Instead, there has been political howling, mixing personal turmoil with miscalculations and desperate attempts to embarrass the state politically at a critical national juncture.

In contrast to the cohesion of the domestic front, isolated voices emerged, lacking foresight, seeing in the crisis only an opportunity to settle their own scores, even at Kuwait’s expense.

This rhetoric, emanating from beyond the borders, does not come from nowhere, but from a void in stance and a failure of vision. When masks fall away, only one truth remains: that one who opposes his homeland in times of danger is, above all, opposing himself.

Many prudent individuals and opinion leaders in Kuwait have reached a clear conviction: that return—even if permitted by politics—will not restore public acceptance. Trust, once broken in times of crisis, cannot be repaired by decree, nor bought with a belated stance.

Circumstances may change, but the national memory does not forget those who chose to align themselves outside it.

This is a moment of reckoning, tolerating no gray areas. In the face of Iranian aggression, fronts unite, consciences are tested, and masks fall.

Those who choose to be an echo of hostility against their homeland must bear the cost of that choice—politically, morally, and socially.

The final judgment belongs not only to the law, but to the national memory… which does not forgive easily.

Ultimately, patriotism is not measured by slogans, nor is loyalty tested in times of prosperity, but in moments of danger when positions are stripped of pretense.

There are those who disagree with the state, and that is their right. But the gap is vast between internal disagreement under the umbrella of the law and aligning oneself outside it at a moment of threat to the homeland.

Loyalty is not a claim raised when convenient, but a stance demonstrated when options narrow and crises intensify.

As for those who choose to make their voice a tool of disruption and their presence a burden on their homeland, they have voluntarily placed themselves in a category that words cannot restore and justifications cannot erase. The homeland, in the end, is greater than anyone… but it does not forget those who stood with it, nor those who chose to stand against it.