Had the opponents of the former Iraqi regime and the rebels of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt depended on the Arab League, Saddam Hussein, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Muammar Gaddafi, and Hosni Mubarak would still be in power today. This is the lesson that the regime of Bashar al-Assad learned late. Thus, it hurried – after a delay – to open its doors to the Arab observers. This implies a disregard of the “Syrian sovereignty,” at a time when the regime claimed that it is keen on protecting this sovereignty. This lesson must also be learned by the Syrian opposition, which claims to have the objective of toppling the regime in Damascus. In reality, neither the regime nor the opposition in Syria had a better exit than that of the observers: The regime considered, and still does, that the observers represent a less bitter solution than that of the internationalization. The opposition saw that the observers could provide an acceptable means to embarrass the Syrian security apparatuses, thus halting the increasing number of killings and opening prison cells for the release of prisoners. Hence, millions of Syrians will take part in peaceful demonstrations and will call for the step down of the regime under the eyes of the observers following the collapse of the wall of fear from its security apparatus. However, the Syrian opposition discovered that the Arab observers do not topple a regime and that this is not their job. Their presence in the Syrian streets - a result of a signed agreement between the Arab League that sent them and the Syrian government that is hosting them – has provided legitimacy to the Syrian regime since the very beginning and has placed the regime in the position of the strongest team compared to the opposition. This becomes even more plausible when we learn that the opposition sides have no idea about the identity of the observers and their political directions, while the Syrian government has the right to veto whomever it wants or does not want. Thus, it was not a strange thing to witness the debate that became public concerning the role of the observers following the meeting of the Arab ministerial committee on the day before yesterday and following the committee's discussion of the first report presented by the head of the delegation, General Mohammad al-Dabi. Al-Dabi had stressed on several instances, through statements he made during his mission in Syria, that the role of the observers does not consist of toppling the regime but rather of making sure that the Arab plan is being implemented. This plan included no clauses concerning the future of the regime, a matter that is left to the Syrians according to Hamad Ben Jassem himself, who reiterated this statement on several instances. The report of the Arab observers came out “neutral”, similarly to the image of the League. And despite the clarity of the Arab plan – namely with respect to halting all acts of violence, releasing the prisoners, pulling weapons from the cities, and making room for the media to learn the reality of the situation – the report purposefully ignored the perpetrator when alluding to the shootings against the protests and the military apparatuses on the cities' outskirts, and the ongoing pressure against the media outlets that oppose the regime. And even when alluding to the dead victims who are falling on a daily basis, the team of observers was unable to tell whether these victims were supporters or opponents of the regime. The team also failed to answer the eternal question: why do dead victims only fall during the anti-regime protests? Thus, the report of the observers failed to note that the Syrian regime did not implement the clauses of the Arab plan knowing that the observers went to Syria in order to monitor the implementation of those clauses. Instead, the report was a descriptive one, and one that is trying to stand in the middle between the two sides similarly to the Arab League itself, which comprises within its rooms and meetings the disputes of the Arabs and their different directions. In conclusion, one can say that the Syrian opposition is now left to deal with its matters by itself. If, as per the statement of the Qatari prime minister, time does not go back, then time may also slow down if the clock's work is obstructed and there will be delays. This will alas apply to the revolution of the Syrian people.
