From Antalya – following Istanbul – Turkey is broadcasting the details of the discussions of the activists and oppositionists of the Syrian regime, although it was the patron of the West's openness to this regime's doors, windows and lungs. Times have changed and the Turkey of the Justice and Development Party with which Damascus forgot the difficult and even bitter stages of relationships of dubiousness, has now become the patron of a “roadmap” drawn up by the Syrian opposition, albeit some Turks do not deem it possible to see reform from inside the regime. The presidential general pardon was issued in Damascus a few hours before the oppositionists' meeting that was hosted by the Turkish godfather which has not yet relinquished the wager on the possible changing of the “security” winds, and upon the insistence of the side which considers itself as being the “big brother” due to the advantage of enjoying the longest border with Syria. Some among those who sat around the Antalya table – with underlying sponsorship from this godfather – gave enough signals pointing to the fact that times have change and could no longer be tuned based on the clock of the governmental “national dialogue” in Damascus. Moreover, some who were unaffected by the “suspicions” over the motives of Turkey's hosting of the oppositionists of the Syrian regime and its security solution, have not yet relinquished the unaltered major question: Is the regime capable of changing its skin – even if under Ankara's sponsorship? Obviously, the tragic situation in Syria does not conceal the fact that the West, which assigned Europe to act as the spearhead in the internationalization of the Arabs' human rights, has not yet reached the point of completely giving up on the legitimacy of the regime in Damascus, seeing how it is still adopting the possibility that President Bashar al-Assad might be able to lead the change toward democracy. But will the regime change its skin and control the time difference between the era of the one-party and the disregarding of the citizens right, and the era of transformation toward the recognition of the humanity and freedom of its people? Did the security solution settle for the victims and martyrs who have fallen to launch a dialogue tarnished with the blood of Hamza al-Khatib among other civilians and military elements? Would it not have been more effective and less costly to enhance the transformation process with an early dialogue, so that it does not appear to be an act of charity by the apparatuses of the ruling party, following the “disciplining” of all those who took to the streets, even among children and women? Times have changed but all around the Arab region, the populations and countries of change are still caught between two scenarios, i.e. regimes that change course, save everyone and offer concessions in recognition of the fact that the impossible which stood fast and buried Arab history for long decades has become impossible, and regimes of “legends” whose only victories lie in the destruction of their countries and the slaughtering of their populations in the face of the “imperialists” and the “sabotaging terrorists.” So far, the first scenario is still rare, modest and confused, fearful of what will happen following the concessions. As for the regimes of “legends,” their story with the “supernatural” is similar to that of the Colonel whose patriotism is preventing him from leaving the Jamahiriya, even if there is only one Libyan child left in it. He is the hero and the leader of corpses, which is why NATO is preparing for a long summer. As for the Yemeni Colonel, he wagered on the time factor in the hope that “reason” will prevail over the oppositionists who are all envious “gangs.” And when time ran out, his supporters' artillery sent a message to those concerned, talking about the only red line which is the Colonel's “legitimacy,” thus turning the residents of Change Square in Taiz into martyrs, but for the “gangs” of instigators! The “courage” of the Yemeni regime resides in the fact that it does not shy away from the duel based on the saying “either I or my enemies.” True, the discrepancies are major between Bab al-Aziziyah's defiance of the NATO planes and the defiance by the Revolutionary Guard in Sana'a of the house of the Hashed tribe leader Sadek Abdullah Ahmar or the tents of the youth and children who were martyred in the Taiz massacre. However, what is also true is that the regime that has become addicted to “paternity” is leading the opposition, the army and the tribe toward the tunnel of infighting which will not spare the country, the elderly or the children. In the times of Arab uprisings and revolutions, Jasmine does not burgeon alone and history can testify for that. And while the opinion of the rulers in regard to the opposition is blemished by the fever of power and instinctive retaliation, the false witnesses – just like the blind – are the only ones who do not see that the martyrs among the Arab children have become the heroes on all the squares of change and hope. Will an Arab regime change its skin? Do our consciences merely deserve lashing following the martyrdom of Hamza al-Khatib, or do they deserve much worse than what they did upon the martyrdom of Muhammad al-Durrah?
