A head of gold collapsed. It is the head of the statue which was left behind by Colonel Gaddafi as he was fleeing those whom he described as being “rats,” threatening - as usual - with a battle until the “victory.” August 23 marked the collapse of the lair of the fictive leader, who could not find one among his people in whose face it was worth throwing his resignation paper following the eruption of the revolution. Arab history is on the move once again and the question is who is next, although the Gaddafi “myth” has not yet seen the end of its last dark chapter. The owner of the gold-plated head is leading his battle against the “agents” from the tunnels, and will not surrender to prevent the rebels from achieving the dream of arresting and leading him to court. He will not risk escaping to Malta and is not tempted by Nicaragua. He swore to turn Libya into a volcano and is preparing for additional bloodshed and destruction, although he is besieged in the tunnels. Still, the expected end of the emperor of illusion will not be altered by the “puzzlement” of Russia, which is lost between a regime that has committed suicide and another being born at the hands of those whom it is still dubbing the insurgents. Despite the differences, the Kremlin has not learned from the Iraqi lesson which cost it contracts worth billions after it insisted on defending Saddam Hussein. Russia seems to be provoked by the revolution in Libya and is questioning its legitimacy despite the fact that it earned Arab legitimacy. More importantly, Moscow also fell in the illusion trap, as it is wagering – after the combat, the killing and the hit-and-run maneuvers that went on for half a year – on negotiations between Gaddafi and the “insurgents.” Who is next? Everyone in the “Arab Spring,” that has extended into a heated summer at the level of the Syrian and Yemeni predicaments, is checking the list. Here, internationalization is wanted, while over there, internationalization will not protect the revolutionaries and will not save entities. The danger is the “detonation” of the Middle East. Until now, Syria has crossed one quarter of the path toward internationalization, and ignoring that fact would be similar to applauding the “heroism” of the emperor of illusion who will return to Bab al-Aziziyah as soon as the rebels' contract collapses. But is it a mere twist of fate that the revival of the attempts to Arabize the resolution of the Syrian predicament coincided with the Arabs' announcement of the full legitimacy of the Libyan transitional council, thus granting it the seat of Gaddafi's government at the Arab League? What was said by Qatari Prime Minister Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber al-Thani following the fall of Gaddafi's last stronghold in Tripoli is that the “Arab Spring” in Syria will not be set on the New York, Washington or Paris time, the reason behind this being the importance of “Syria's stability.” But what happened to grant this stability a key priority and distance the completion of the internationalization option from Damascus and the Arabs? At this level, one might pick up Hamad Bin Jassim's signal as being yet another deadline given to the Syrian regime in order for it to commit to a timetable for the introduction of reforms, but also to prompt it to hasten reform. This is due to the fact the responsibility of ending the bloodshed is that of the “state among others,” i.e. the oppositionists whose image and the unity of their ideas and goals – except for their demand to topple the regime - failed to be improved through the Istanbul conferences. It is also not far from reality that the extraordinary meeting of the Arab League on Saturday - which will be dedicated to the Syrian predicament - falls in the context of the race with the Western attempts to increase the pressures on the regime, despite the participation of the Arab side in supporting the mission of a committee which will be dispatched by the United Nations-affiliated Human Rights Council to investigate the “systematic violations” committed against the Syrian oppositionists. In this context, what is proposed by Hamad Bin Jassim in regard to the adaptation of the Arab role so that it would help “defuse the situation,” is like a carrot to a regime which must now learn how to pick it up by stopping the killing and the oppression and immediately implementing the reform steps. This is yet another deadline, justified by the “importance of Syria's stability” that shares a “border with Israel,” as it was said by the Qatari foreign minister. It is also justified by the fact that none of the Arabs wants to see the repetition of the costly Libyan scenario in its Syrian version, in light of Obama's and Sarkozy's eagerness to see President Bashar al-Assad stepping down. Al-Assad disappointed the American and French presidents. And while Washington is publicly recognizing the rejection of the foreign military interference by the Syrian people, the question revolves around the other forms of interference, around the investigation and inspection committees, the arms and oil exportation bans, around coexistence with the regime in a weak and wounded Syria due to the challenges of the uprising and the insistence of the authority on staying behind the walls of “conspiracy” and illusion. What should also be tested is the oppositionists' acceptance of the “Arabs' tolerance” and the new carrot offered to the regime, after the fall of over two thousand martyrs and the attacks of the machines of oppression against all the squares of dialogue.
