Damascus did not delay in responding to the statement by Sheikh Moaz al-Khatib, the head of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, who wrote on his Facebook page that he was ready to “sit down directly with representatives of the regime." This stance was completely ignored by Syrian officials, and the response came indirectly, through the pro-regime newspaper al-Watan, which called al-Khatib's statements a sign of the "disintegration and fragmentation of the Syrian opposition abroad and its inability to take a unified decision on the Syrian crisis and ways to solve it." The newspaper also issued a direct insult to the National Coalition headed by al-Khatib, saying that it expected "the emergence of a new gathering whose goal would not be to make Arab and western money, but work to see Syria exit its crisis." This was the regime's response to the initiative that al-Khatib said he was launching as a sign of "good intentions" on his part, because he saw that there was a stalemate blocking a solution. The states that have promised to help the opposition have not done anything, and some are planning to see Syria disappear from the world's map as a result of a crushing war that will continue for years. Al-Khatib wanted to establish a dialogue that he said was "killing children and committing massacres against innocent people." Was the head of the National Coalition unaware that the regime would mock the call for dialogue and respond the way it did, and see the NC chief's stance as merely evidence of the fragmentation of the opposition? The regime would thus be allowed to exploit this situation to continue committing massacres and acts of killing, which are claiming the lives of about 5,000 Syrians a week. Al-Khatib personally suffered from the repression of the Syrian regime when he was the imam at the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus. He is aware of the nature of what the ruling authority in his country does, and the source of the orders, which are obeyed without question, as the "Vice President" Farouq al-Sharaa noted in an interview several weeks ago. After this interview, al-Sharaa disappeared from the scene. Although al-Khatib holds a religious post, the regime did not hesitate to arrest and insult him, after he participated in the early protests in the Syrian capital. How should we interpret the recent statements, which do not indicate at all the necessity of ruling out any role for Bashar al-Assad in a settlement of the crisis? (based on the idea that he is considered most responsible for the violations and crimes against Syrians). How can one sit down with representatives of al-Assad under such conditions? What solution can be arrived at with them? Then, does al-Khatib believe that a Syrian official would dare negotiate over a political solution that ends with excluding al-Assad from his current position, as the ultimate ruler of Syria? It is good that "good intentions' were behind the attempt to save Syria, by any means possible. However, a person occupying a political post, such as al-Khatib, cannot depend on "good intentions" alone. Likewise, he cannot consider such stances a mere "personal opinion" for which he alone is responsible, as he said in defense of his statements. He is the head of the National Coalition, and this body has a political program, upon whose basis it was established. If any member of the coalition has a contrary opinion, the best place to express it should be inside meetings, with everyone – especially the president – adhering to decisions that are taken afterward. The head of the coalition certainly has the right to complain that the world is not acting seriously to stop the tragedy in his country. However, it is naïve to ignore those truly responsible for the regional and international paralysis vis-à-vis Syria: the parties that support the Syrian regime in the region, and that provide it with the means to kill, and the two states that have prevented the Security Council from reaching a clear decision that allows intervention to halt the massacres. Any other stance dilutes this responsibility, not to speak of its being in the interest of the regime. In conclusion, the Syrian opposition has been unlucky to be cursed with this regime, while the Syrian regime has been lucky to have such an opposition.
