When I put on the Syrian channel to watch its commentary on the Arab League's decision to suspend Damascus' participation in its meetings and its threats to sanction it, I first thought I was watching the Libyan Al-Jamahiriya channel which, under the rule of Muammar al-Gaddafi, featured sanctification and compliance in veneration of the leader's person throughout four decades. I wanted to watch the Syrian channel to see what its guests had to say and how its programs will tackle the League's decision that came in support of the “oppressed” Syrians. I wanted to check the regime's ability to take in the decision after it was already too late and after more than four thousand civilians had died and thousands of others had been imprisoned and tortured. The Syrian official channels that are affiliated with the regime were thus the stage of “slander” campaigns against Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and offered their microphones to local Syrian mouthpieces benefiting from the regime and a “hired” fifth column from Lebanon. In reality, I was not surprised by what the Syrian channel's guests had to declare. I knew in advance that this channel only hosted “mouthpieces” taught what to say by the regime, among those who do not care about what is happening in the Syrian towns and cities in terms of bloodshed, torture and terrorization targeting women and children, and who do not care about the number of innocent victims who have fallen throughout the past eight months with the bullets of the army and the “thugs.” Will Syria witness a scenario similar to the Libyan one after the Arab League's decision provided a cover for an intervention by the United Nations and human rights organizations to help the Syrians against the regime's oppression? The Arab consensual decision to suspend Syria's participation, the call for the withdrawal of the army and the sanctions threats against Damascus constituted a “surprising” development at the level of the Arab stand, which was not expected by the most optimistic. It can thus be dubbed a “state of awakening” accompanying the Arab Spring. On the other hand, Yemen's and Lebanon's objections and Iraq's abstinence from voting did not shock some analysts. Why? Because Ali Abdullah Saleh has nothing left to do except object and maneuver out of fear from the “shears” growing closer to his head, especially since he failed several times before he was detonated and came to Riyadh to receive treatment, and after he returned from it with his face and hands “beautified.” Consequently, he is awaited by the barber who will cut off his head with no questions asked, in order to distance him from the presidential chair on which he has been sitting for over three decades without ever enhancing development, tending to people's progress or fighting poverty and unemployment. Instead, he focused on nepotism, the settlement of scores and the strengthening of regionalism and tribalism. The Lebanese opposition of the League's decision was also not surprising in light of a government run by Hezbollah – i.e. Syria's ally – and headed by Najib Mikati who is going in line with the party's agendas. Moreover, as it is described by Hadi, the son of Sayyed Ali al-Amin, on his Twitter page, the Lebanese government is not a government. It is a Lebanese “governed” body working in accordance with Hezbollah's agendas. He considered that the Lebanese government was a partner in the atrocities committed against the Syrian citizens, calling at the same time for the launching of a Lebanese campaign to oust the Syrian ambassador from Beirut. As for Baghdad, it is no longer that Arab capital that used to have a say, after Nouri al-Maliki, along with Iran's allies, gained control over its decision. On the other hand, the attack staged against the Saudi and Qatari embassies in Damascus, the tampering with their content and the destruction of their windows and doors, was expected by the “thugs” of the Syrian regime. Consequently, Riyadh and Doha, in addition to the other Gulf capitals, should immediately oust Damascus' ambassadors, considering that the majority of the Gulf countries had previously pulled out theirs. In the meantime, the slander, cursing and insults campaign launched by Syria's representative at the Arab League, confirms that some Syrian diplomats and politicians are mere “thugs” that know how to tie the “neck” and suffocate the facts. Yet, some Gulf leaders are blamed for their engagement in this slander campaigns and their use of some obscene and “inappropriate” words in a moment of anger. This was done by a Kuwaiti deputy on his Twitter page, knowing he is an Islamic deputy in the National Assembly and is expected to be a role model followed by others. Hence, he should have followed in the footsteps of Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem who rose above this issue and abstained from responding to the heresies of the Syrian representative. There is no doubt that throughout the past decades, the Arab populations were afflicted with leaders who mainly focused on their interests, the arrangement of their familial priorities and the placement of their relatives in high positions at the expense of the rights and ambitions of the people who wanted to participate and construct. But what is certain is that if the Arab League had not adopted this decision in support of the popular will in Syria and the other Arab countries at this critical stage of the “Arab Spring,” its status would have collapsed forever and it would have remained as the League of the leaders that disregards the demands of the people. Through that decision, it prompted optimism and the fact that “there is still hope in it!” I believe that through its decision to suspend Syria's membership in light of Al-Assad's regime's “monstrous” practices, it moved from the state of silence and the square of “inaction” to that of “action.” It should thus proceed down that positive path that goes in line with the aspirations of the Arab people, as well as their rightful demands to freedom and democracy.
