His Excellency the Minister is a quiet man. He could even be accused of being stolid. Wandering in the region taught him to be reserved, somewhat cautious, and extremely suspicious of things. If he is invited to a wedding, he hides all feelings of joy. He thinks of what comes after the wedding. And if he is invited to a festival, he is late to give a round of applause, and reluctant in his greetings. He is reluctant, too, to condemn and he frowns on unequivocal condemnations. He finds strong friendliness strange. If he sees two leaders embracing each other, he asks when they shall part their ways. And if he is invited to attend the signing of a treaty, he begins to speculate about when it shall be shredded. His Excellency the Minister says that we now inhabit a different region, and one that looks nothing like the one that existed at the beginning of this year. Look at Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. There you had rulers that stayed for decades in power, and there millions were born and raised during their tenures. They all then vanished in a blink of an eye. The storm blew them away and their dreams to stay until the last breath and hand over the torch to their children. This is no simple matter. Through the revolutions of the Arab Spring, the people have put themselves under a very difficult test. It is not enough to topple the dictator. Instead, the question is about the ability of these young people to achieve their dreams or part of their dreams. The question is also about the ability of the forces that toppled the previous regime, to establish one on the basis of respect for dignity and adherence to a modern constitution of a state built upon the concept of citizenship. Such a state would not rehash tyranny under different names, or repeat the game of exclusion, marginalization and rejection of the other under the pretext of possessing final recipes that only accommodate those who surrender to it. This applies to all three countries whose leaders and figures have been swept by the Arab Spring. Hatred for the tyrant was the thread that connected those protesting in the squares, and who included reformists, liberals and Islamists. Immediately after his ouster, the short lived love stories ended. The ouster of the tyrant does not necessarily mean democracy will emerge. The public endorsements of the civil state by some of the protesters and the consent of others to it may be one kind of those short-lived or fleeting love stories. The labor of rebirth may be protracted, costly and may have an uncertain outcome. The converser points out that there is something even more sinister: A major battle is taking place in the region among major countries, specifically, Turkey and Iran. The unrest in Syria has clearly compromised Turkish policy, and certainly impaired Iranian policy. Continuing to applaud the Arab Spring has a price, and turning one's back on it has a double price. The Syrian role itself has been greatly damaged. His Excellency the Minister says that Tehran, which rejoiced in seeing the Arab Spring eliminate some of its foes, claiming that there is a love story between it and this Spring, had a completely different position when its old and solid alliance with Damascus was on the line. He also said that Ankara, which had a love story with Damascus for years that became an example of the success of love stories between neighbors, quickly sacrificed this love story, based on its interpretation of its interests and long-term goals. The Arab Spring also ended years of warm relations between Doha and Damascus. Qatar was often showered with praise in the media affiliated with the defiant camp, and in turn, Qatar's media was magnanimously friendly with regard to the defiant camp His Excellency the Minister takes a sip from what is left in his cup and asks: Were those love stories then real or were they just to pass the time? Were they a mere expression of hatred towards an absent party, or an attempt to lure it to a love story? Are publicized pictures more important than feelings that lurk beneath the skin? Was each party attempting to exploit the other in its own game or agenda, or was it wagering on seeing the other change? Did these love stories end suddenly in the moment of truth, the moment where policies that cannot be truly changed, and alliances based on common destinies, were all revealed? Is it permissible for the end of these love stories to make way for bitterness and accusations, so that praise, medals, and certificates that attest to one's patriotism, moderation and reform are all withdrawn? Can it be so, with nothing is left behind but the discourse of conflict, as though the old love stories were a disgrace that must be eradicated from the memories of the people of the region?
