Constant in every phase of the Syrian crisis is the fact that protesters are continuing to be killed, with the recent addition of armed confrontations waged by soldiers who have defected against government forces of all sorts – this, in spite of everything, starting from official announcements of reform, through foreign mediations, and up to political efforts exerted by every segment of the opposition. Ever since the Arab League initiative has been put forward, and despite the Syrian regime agreeing to it, the reality of the killing has continued without being affected by the approval of one party to the opposition here or the rejection of another one there. This confirms that the difference in the interpretation and the vision of the current phase between two points of view within the opposition has not yet reached the stage of influencing the events. And this means that those two points of view, as represented by the National Coordination Committee (NCC) and the Syrian National Council (SNC), on the issues of dialogue and foreign intervention are still far behind any effective position able to have an impact. As long as real dialogue is still not on the table in a serious manner, and as long as there is talk of foreign intervention, especially at the material level, many circumstances are still needed which are not yet available. And while the Syrian regime has exploited this disagreement politically, especially after the reckless confrontation of the NCC delegation in Cairo, both sides should ponder the meaning of the two headlines of their disagreement – namely dialogue with the regime and international protection. There is currently an increased necessity for such pondering in order to put a definitive end to the possibility of returning to the situation that prevailed before the eruption of protests. And this is something all members of the opposition unanimously agree on. One could think that such a disagreement is the result of the desire by the NCC to exhaust political methods, and thus of a political tactic, on the one hand. On the other, it could be the result of the profound conviction of the SNC that the regime will not willingly concede any of its current practices, and that what should be done is to just move directly to overthrowing it, which indicates a tendency to skip steps. There is yet another issue, one connected to the personalization of the Syrian regime, in that what rejecting dialogue means is, among other things, rejecting dialogue with the current president. This is at a time when this position has taken on a symbolic significance of the utmost importance, being connected to Sectarian identity. And every time the language grows tense in rejecting dialogue, it is understood as the exclusion of a segment of the Syrian population from the process of dialogue. Or at least, the regime has an interest in displaying the matter as if it was so, in order to exploit it in its media, political and field campaign. And while what is required is restructuring government with all segments of the Syrian people, sensitivity towards this issue is not of the same extent between the NCC and the SNC, in view of the difference in field experience between the constituents of the two sides. There is no question on the right to hold different views and favor different directions, as long as there is unanimous agreement over the impossibility of going backwards, and over changing the regime and establishing a state of law and a democratic and pluralistic civilian government. Yet, personalizing the disagreement to the extent of exchanging accusations of treason and disloyalty means that the current regime will be staying for a long time – or at least that the process of killing will not end soon. We have heard statements from here and there, and slogans being raised at protests, which not only make the disagreements between opposition leaders more acute, but in fact ignore the entire history of the Syrian opposition movement. Indeed, neither are the leaders of the NCC, who have been in Syrian prisons, have been deprived of their freedom of speech and movement, and have been exposed to threats against their persons and against their families, agents of Syrian intelligence and traitors to the cause; nor are the leaders of the SNC, who have been deprived of their country and of their right to reside in it, after some of them were imprisoned before being exiled, and who have made intellectual and political contributions to the deconstruction of the mechanisms and practices of tyranny, foreign agents and traitors to their nation's cause. And if such an evident fact is missing from relations between the NCC and SNC, then this means twofold injustice and suffering for the protest movement.
