After American President Barack Obama referred the decision related to the military strike against the Syrian regime to Congress, the issue went from being an essential and fundamental matter to being a minor detail. The key issue is that a political regime, i.e. the Syrian one, used chemical weapons against its people who are rejecting it. As for the minor detail, it is related to the way the decision is made in the United States in regard to the military action. Sinking in this detail was previously seen in Britain, whose House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's plan to participate in the strike, which constituted an unprecedented moral abdication vis-à-vis the essential issue. Indeed, the justifications put forward in favor or against the strike prevailed over the main reason for which the issue was raised in the first place, i.e. the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against the civilians. Now, we are witnessing a similar sinking in that detail in France, where controversy has erupted over the legitimacy of President Francois Hollande's decision, or the necessity for him to earn the consent of the two chambers of parliament, although the French constitution is clear in regard to the president's right to adopt this decision. The question at this level is not about the way the decision is adopted in Western countries with different democratic systems. It is about the way the international community with all its components is dealing with a regime's use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against its people, regardless of the circumstances or justifications. Indeed, the use of chemical weapons, whether against fighters or civilians, remains a crime against humanity and genocide, no matter what the position is towards the Western military strike against the Syrian regime. This is how the massacre in the two Ghoutas of Damascus should be handled, with all that it features in terms of steps at the level of the United Nations and the other bilateral or unilateral international entities, against those who issued the order, participated and perpetrated the massacre, regardless of whichever punitive military strike against the regime as long as the strike does not aim to change it. As for those opposing the strike in our part of the world - saying it is a Western attack against Syria and foreign intervention in its affairs - they are carrying out moral and political abdication towards genocide. This is not due to the fact that the strike alone could act as a response to the crime, but because this position is transforming the entire issue, which is a political, moral and humanitarian crime, into a conflict of power with the West. Had the states around the world, especially those showing verbal enthusiasm in favor of a strike against the Syrian regime - i.e. the United States, Britain and France - enjoyed a deep awareness of the meaning of the issuance of an order to use WMDs, they would have started adopting immediate measures to reveal the totalitarian and racist character of this regime at the level of the United Nations General Assembly, i.e. where the Iranian support and the Russian-Chinese veto are of no help, to render this regime a hated outcast on the political and moral levels. This in no way aims to instigate the West to strike the Syrian regime, because if this strike does not annihilate it, it will strengthen it. In addition, no one wants to get involved in a new and costly war in Syria. What is rather required is not to forget the nature of the crime in the two Ghoutas of Damascus and the nature of the regime which ordered it, while seeking a long-term political response that would eliminate all forms of dictatorships that allow such crimes.
