Al-Asi River and its dams are accused of conspiring against the Syrians who have taken refuge in Turkey, ones who are accused by the regime in Damascus of raising the first suspicions in regard to the oppression. And instead of oppression, there was talk about floods to drown them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton read Syria's history very well and is instigating its traders and the army – from the Security Council - to form a new alliance against the regime. Moreover, during her enumeration of the minorities whom she wants to be equal in a state that cannot be dismantled, she did not forget the Alawites. Sergei Lavrov, on the other hand, opted for Moscow's extreme cold instead of the heat of the conflict at the Security Council, at a time when the conflict over Syria and its role enticed the other major players to flock to New York. And with the beginning of the first scene of internationalization, the curtain was lifted off larger funerary convoys for Syrians who were bid farewell with additional killing, bullets and wailing. But who is listening? The blood dialogue is growing louder, while in New York, the Russians are accused of wagering on time, which turned the negotiations in regard to the Arab-Western draft resolution into a dialogue of the deaf. Clinton for her part wants dialogue between Syria's traders and army, without having anyone listen to the regime. Qatari Prime Minister Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr al-Thani left no room for doubts at the level of the divorce with a “government that is killing its people.” But will Al-Arabi, i.e. the secretary general of the Arab League, not seek dialogue between this government and its oppositionists? Everyone is convinced that Syria will not be Libya, but this dialogue of the deaf is prone to extend indefinitely, in parallel to the fall of more civilians and military men, whether among the loyalists or the oppositionists. Clinton is counting on the traders and Lavrov is running a dialogue of the deaf from Moscow. This time around, Kremlin will not fall for the Libyan “dupery” and the standoff does not give the impression we will witness the imminent birth of the Security Council resolution on Syria. The Arab-Western draft excludes the military option, the sanctions and the arms ban, despite Hamad Bin Jassem's call for the increase of the economic pressures on the regime in Damascus. But Moscow's only reservation seems to surround the clause related to the transfer of the president's prerogatives to his deputy, despite the fact that it does not call on the president to step down. However, the Russians' concerns vis-à-vis Western deceit eliminates the possibility of seeing them accepting that clause. So what middle ground solution can there be between the plan cloning the Yemeni archetype at the level of the delegation of powers, and the Russian formula, which is using the hammer of dialogue with the Syrian opposition? Will the secretary general not contribute to the renewal of the opposition's disobedience toward the Arab League when he warns it against falling in the trap of the “Security Council magic wand” illusion, and when he talks about the inevitability of the roadmap leading toward “political and national reconciliation” which can only be with the regime, even in its reformatory version? If the opposition continues to insist on rejecting the dialogue paper which Damascus wants to be unofficial in Moscow, it will be planting another mine among the regime's detractors. At that point, what will stop the violence if those whom the regime is dubbing “terrorist gangs” are managing to lead it toward reactions based on panic? The security solution is reproducing the blood rounds, while what is certain is that the dialogue of the deaf will not witness an imminent end. As for the possibility of seeing any deal with the Russians to satisfy them and dissipate their steadfastness in the face of the “dupery,” it is still ambiguous, considering that neither the West is accepting to trade Syria for Iran, nor do the American missile shields seem to be a good enough price for Kremlin. The third and decisive negation is definitely related to the fact that no resolution adopted by the security council to condemn the violence and acquit the West from its impotence in the face of what it is referring to as being the “monstrous killing” of the civilians, constitutes that “magic wand” to save Syria and the Syrians, or even please the opposition and stop everyone from sliding toward destruction and total devastation. A forth negation might also be likely if the Arab-Western wager on alleviating the Russians' obstinacy were to fail, and if the Arabs resort to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to secure a cover for some sort of Turkish role, as it was revealed by diplomatic sources. Indeed, there is no guarantee against the organization's drowning in the Syrian swamp, while Turkey cannot disregard the Iranian response and its consequences in case it were to proceed with the implementation of the buffer zone project. The dialogue of the deaf is loud and the dialogue of blood is black.
