The response by the international community to each massacre committed in Syria has been lacking in terms of dealing with the incident, and the people who have been cut down in cold blood to defend a regime that cannot survive except by the force of murder, which generates further killing. The Houla massacre of 26 May necessitated a decision by western countries to expel Syrian ambassadors from their capitals, in an unprecedented step (because it covered ambassadors and not just embassy employees). However, this was the maximum level of anger that was available, since there is no unified or deterrent stance by the international community. The massacres are being repeated, particularly because of an absence of any deterrent, and because the perpetrators are reassured by the lack of an effective international stance, which instead stops at mere condemnation. Meanwhile, United States President Barack Obama says that it is not in his country's power to put an end to all of the atrocities in the world. This expression of impotence by Washington is what governs its stance, and encourages the Syrian military and militias created by the regime to carry out more terror and bloodshed, while the Russian position places the blame on armed groups and on the incitement by some countries in the direction of foreign intervention, accusing them of being a reason for the massacres. Moscow's stance is a flagrant justification for the unprecedented brutality practiced by its ally. The expulsion of Syrian ambassadors from the capitals of western countries signals a final stance by these countries, one that is decisive, against seeing President Bashar Assad remain in power. The expulsion of an ambassador means the rejection of his papers of accreditation that he carries from his president to the president of his host country. Expulsion means the non-recognition of the president who has delegated his ambassador to a given country. This measure might be the clearest expression that the pillars of the Syrian regime and its allies, especially Russia, China and Iran, must leave behind their wager that western countries might acknowledge Assad's remaining as the head of state in Syria, and that the political transition process – a consensus on which is being called for by western countries and Russia - should be based on acknowledging that Assad must go. However, the pillars of the regime are not likely to "get" the message contained in the expulsion of the ambassadors. This has been proven by the Baathist mentality's response to this with an absurd measure, namely expelling the ambassadors of western countries. In other words, the Syrian regime has withdrawn its recognition of the legitimacy of the leaders of the United States, Turkey, France and the United Kingdom. It is a laughably absurd move, in parallel to the Baathists' sad absurdity, as we see massacres in various places, from Houla to Qubair, and before that Deir al-Zor, Idlib and elsewhere. It was absurd to see the Russian media gambit of rejecting an agreement with the international community on unified political steps vis-à-vis the Syrian regime, under the umbrella of Moscow's declaration that Assad's remaining in power is not a condition for a solution. No less absurd was the justification of the massacres by talking about the existence of armed, terrorist groups, because declining to take part in a multilateral movement against the regime results in a process of seeing the regime and its head remain in power. It amounts to full political cover for the logic of the existing regime surviving. This means the disappearance of others, whom the Syrian president has labeled the "internal enemy," and not accepting a settlement with them, as representatives of a people in revolt, over a political transition that had been available a few months ago, when the Arab League initiative and the Kofi Annan plan surfaced. Moscow does not care about the associations involved by its justifications of the army of the Syrian regime preventing international observers from entering Qubair on Thursday, and other incidents. Instead, it is playing the game of the regime itself, and is using its pretexts and interpretations of events, going so far as to deny the existence of a revolution, and revolutionaries. This denial makes it easy later on for Russia to be convinced, or convince itself, that the annihilation of opposition members is a natural step as a response to the demand that the ruling regime disappear, and that when massacres take place it is merely "collateral damage" in a conflict that Moscow believes is between the regime in Damascus, and terrorist groups. Do Moscow's bid to preserve its interests in the region, its non-justified anxiety about Islamists taking power in Syria (and their winning democratic elections in a number of Arab countries), and its desire to see concessions by the US in Europe, over the missile shield and support for the Republic of Georgia, deserve turning a blind eye to this level of atrocities?
