Can one believe the Syrian regime or are its speeches without credibility and its political practices “sinful” toward its community and toward humanity as a whole? Since the eruption of the Syrian revolution eight months ago, the regime in Damascus kept insisting that the demonstrators were mere armed gangs, “infiltrators” and extremist Salafis controlled by states that are spiteful toward the Syrian regime's “resisting” positions against the Israeli occupation and “rejectionist” stand toward the American policy in the region. It thus kept assuring that the country will be cleansed of their presence. Damascus knows it is lying and that the size of the demonstrations will not decrease despite the tragedies, the killings, the bombings, the torture and the threats. Those hoping to earn their rights and deliver their demands are mobilized and the action on the streets of the Syrian cities, provinces and towns is expanding. For its part, the regime is surprised that the people are no longer afraid of death, as long as the hands of the “thugs” have become soiled with blood and the people have rebelled after the regime went too far in severing tongues and limbs. In parallel, the slogans have become stronger and the calls have risen to reach the most distant lands. Bashar al-Assad tried to threaten the region with fire and an “earthquake” if the international community and the international organizations try to stop him from completing the “killing and cleansing” mission. But in light of the “legendary” steadfastness of the people, he was forced to recognize that the demonstrators were Syrians, patriotic and revolutionaries, and that they are an inherent part of the Syrian equation with the right to put forward their opinions and national positions. Consequently, the regime “forcibly” and not “voluntarily” accepted dialogue with what he dubs “the opposition,” based on the conditions of the Arab plan that was approved by the Syrian regime, whose only project involves killing, oppression and the besieging of the villages and towns with tanks and aircrafts. There is no doubt that Gaddafi's “tragic” death forced the Syrian regime to accept the Arab initiative, especially since his Yemeni counterpart accepted the Gulf initiative during that same period, despite his oscillating statements and his maneuvers. He thus managed to gain time – and still is – through stalling, the welcoming of dialogue and by claiming he is insisting on the initiative as the solution to the Yemeni crisis. Nonetheless, both men are afraid to face the same end as Gaddafi or Saddam, and have no other choice but to flee as Bin Ali did or forcibly step down as it was done by Mubarak. The clauses of the Arab plan that was approved by Damascus featured, alongside dialogue, the discontinuation of the violence and the killing, the release of the detainees, the return of the army to the barracks and the ending of all armed appearances in the cities. However, the army's pullout would cause the exit of millions of demonstrators throughout the Syrian cities, while the days of the Eid will witness an opposition action to express the strength of the position and demand the rights, which will generate panic within the regime and among its leaders. If the army is redeployed on the streets, the Arab League should not issue condemnations or describe the situation as being “disastrous” the way it was done by Nabil al-Arabi. It should rather seek “serious” ways to protect the civilians from the regime's hostility, far away from the opening of dialogue sessions that would allow the regime to gain time and crush the demonstrators. This is especially necessary since the League assured during the press conference held in Cairo following the meeting with the Syrian delegation that “if Syria does not commit, the League will meet again and adopt the appropriate decisions.” The regime's commitment to the non-deployment of the army on the streets and the “thugs” in the cities will place it before two options, both of which are bitter. It can either approve the crowds' demands or see the cities fall in the hands of the revolutionaries. At which point the pursuit of the remnants of the regime will be launched, as it happened in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia later on. But the Syrian regime that has become accustomed to stalling, can implement many scenarios through which it could elude the clauses of the Arab plan as many believe. Indeed, the regime can redeploy the army with civilian clothes among the crowds to practice violence against the demonstrators. It would then claim that infighting was taking place between the civilians supporting it and the demonstrators opposing it and that it could not remain idle vis-a-vis the violence on the street, thus redeploying the army and the “thugs” with their security uniforms. The regime could also stall at the level of dialogue under the pretext of defining the opposition, especially since the article related to dialogue did not set up a time and location for it. What is certain is that throughout the last stage, the regime kept exercising killing, torture, arrests and displacement to drown Syria in civil and sectarian war in the hope of escaping the pressures exerted on it locally, regionally and internationally. At this level, Bashar might have finally realized the seriousness of the situation and surprised everyone with the acceptance of the Arab plan to avoid the fates of his counterparts Bin Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi. Hence, he might be choosing the way he will fall on his own following the failure of the security solutions through which he tried to contain the demonstrations secretly, and far from the television lenses. In the meantime, the Arab viewers can only wait for breaking news to appear on the screen regarding Bashar al-Assad's disappearance. One day, he might even be led out of a hole as Saddam Hussein was before him or as Gaddafi was dragged out of a sewage pipe. What is certain is that the Arab Spring revolutions proved that the mistakes of the governments are unforgivable, that the leaders do not draw the lessons from the “free” popular advice and that the slogans of reform which some use as a stepping stone are mere anesthetics revealing their maneuvering, undermining their thrones but enjoying no impact over the wills of the people who are seeking their rights and freedoms. In the Arab Spring, the free people are confirming that in the context of their uprising, they cannot die and are not afraid of the bullet of “death,” even if millions among them were to fall. It is as though they are repeating this verse by Abdul Rahim Mahmoud: “I see my death, but I hasten my pace toward it.”
