An Arab minister wondered whether the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis or other Islamic groups were playing a role in the confrontations in Britain. This fell in the context of the denial of the statements of some Arab regimes that are justifying their violence in dealing with the revolutions and the uprising by using the pretext of foreign conspiracies, whose fingers are in the hands and the pockets of the Islamists and the extremists. The minister thus mocked these regimes' claims, placing the Arab Spring in the context of a crisis that is rocking the world and whose sparks were behind the British fires. Poverty, unemployment and the crushing of the middle class is seen in the East and the West, in Europe and America. But the most shocking aspect of this crisis, even to the believers in the “justice” of Western and European democracies is the scope of the violence and the hatred that is transforming into fires, sabotage, destruction and pillaging to retaliate against those who disregarded the humanity of the youth and the poor. However, hatred has another face in the Arab world, perceived by the minister – when asked about the size of the violence and the ease with which bloodshed is being committed in Syria – in this “doctrine” on which most of the Arab armies and security apparatuses are raised, i.e. that every oppositionist is an enemy and that the solution resides in the annihilation of the enemy! The Arab official then expressed his conviction that Syria needs comprehensive change because the crisis “has surpassed the point of reforms.” But what exit is there from the bloodbaths? “Until all the Syrians agree on it, reform has become obsolete and the talk about transparency is general talk that requires frameworks. The problem resides in the government's ability to realize the change.” Until when will the predicament of blood, killing and the promises that have become obsolete go on? “This lies in the hands of the Syrians solely. It can be a long and bitter predicament or one that is limited in time.” What about the possibilities and course of internationalization? The Arab minister shared the Egyptian and Gulf opinion which rejects foreign interference because “the Libyan model is still vivid in our minds.” But does the exclusion of the internationalization scenarios not reassure the regime in Syria about the fact that the consequences of its insistence on the so-called “security solution” will not be militarily or economically painful? The answer might reside in the patience shown for a few days, i.e. some sort of a last chance (of two weeks) given by Ankara to the Syrian command to stop the bloodshed and abstain from “turning the canons toward the Syrian people.” This was said by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan a few hours after his Foreign Minister Davutoglu returned from Damascus. And although some sources close to the Turkish decision-making circles are expressing reservations over the truthfulness of the promises made by the command in Damascus to waste time, these last chance talks conducted by Davutoglu with President Bashar al-Assad coincided with an Arab cover embodied by the statement of King Abdullah Bin Abdul-Aziz to convince Damascus that enough is enough. In the meantime, the daily killings whose outcome is unknown is no longer so to the Arabs and the Turks, as they will generate sectarian wars and liquidations that will not only harm the Syrian state, but will also eliminate the country's unity and trigger major fires throughout the Arab region. Syria, with its position, pluralistic structure and the sacrifices of its people is firstly a domestic Arab affair before being a domestic affair for Turkey. And while the major priorities are unified between a Saudi priority to stop the bloodshed, a Turkish priority to stop “the confrontation between the army and the people” and a third Russian priority to “see an end to the violence and the launch of reforms,” the diplomatic campaign that was started by Washington (the tour of Chief adviser on Syria at the American Department of State Fred Hof) aims at hastening a different course of sanctions. However, this course will not be similar to the one adopted at the level of the sanctions on Iran, but will bring Syria closer to the scenario of the blockade which was imposed on Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait, and which gradually evolved over the years and ended in disaster. Davutoglu reiterated before Al-Assad that the regime will be the first to be eaten up by the fire, if it insists on ignoring the advice and the pressures. Washington is convinced that Al-Assad “is not listening,” while Ankara is convinced there are sides that want a Syrian-Turkish or Sunni-Shiite confrontation. Still, it is preparing an action plan in case Damascus were to waste the last opportunity, and this plan will feature “painful” measures. In the meantime, the Syrian people are certain that their withdrawal from the street before the withdrawal of the army to the barracks will waste the last opportunity for change, while the authority is not changing the priority of “stability = the pursuit of the terrorists.” This will only mean additional bloodshed and hatred, since the “terrorists” are in every Syrian city, village and family. Between the Turkish chance, the street's chance and the stubbornness of power, the only thing left is the course of the bitter blockade and the funerary convoys.
