The UN, overrun with Muslim dictatorships, couldn't (or wouldn't) intervene and put a stop to the terrible bloodshed. The other local Arab states wouldn't step in because they want a fellow dirtbag dictator to remain in power. Even Egypt wouldn't do anything since Morsi sees a new Sharia state in the offing- no matter how many people must die. I guess the West really has to take the Muslims at their word: "We love death as much as you love life." But what if that warped mantra isn't universally accepted by the Muslims? What if the world is standing by when totally innocent men, women, and children are being slaughtered by Assad and his goons? What does that make us? The UN must go in, arrest Assad for crimes against humanity, instruct the army to stand down, and provide for elections within six months while administering the country. It's high time the UN wash the blood off its hands and do something constructive. Ban Ki-moon must resign and someone with clear vision and the ability to conduct change must be made secretary.

'The Observatory... counts non-military combatants who have taken up arms against the regime as civilians.' Is this why the UN & HR groups have not been so condemning as one would expect by the number of dead

I guess Arab-on-Arab violence is simply not all that interesting. It's only fun when the onlookers can blame Israel. Such is not the case here, so no one really cares how many people have died in Syria, are dying now, or are likely to die in the future. Doesn't that seem a tadbit hypocritical?

The UN Security Council makes the decisions not Ban Ki Moon and just like the US Russia has a veto in the Security Council so even if other members wanted to do one thing Russia can and has used its veto. Unlike Bush Obama doesn't believe the US has a right to go it alone so unless either the Security Council votes for military action or Assad uses WMDS Obama won't do anything.

45,000 people killed, next to our border . . . Unbelievably shocking.

Israel should be in contact not with the rebels but with the leading Christian and Alawi (and Druze) families and generals of Syria. They will be massacred if the Sunni take power. An Alawi-Christian state, on the coast in the Northwest, minus the Assads, allied to Israel and the west, not to Iran, is in the interest of the West and Israel. Only the West and Israel can protect the Alawi and Christians. The Alawi and Christians are the natural enemies of the Sunni Arabs - Syria under the Sunni is a threat to Israel and them - that is what alliances are made of. There is no reason for Iran to be there -- except for the Assads and the negligence of the West- the Alawi are not shiites by any stretch. This constant prattling about democracy and rebels and dictatorships is nonsense. There will be a Sunni dictator to follow the Alawi dictator. The only question should be: how can Israel best protect itself from this new dictator.

Unfortunately the world doesn't think it's as shocking as Jews building homes on their own land. In the end it doesn't really matter what the world thinks.

TO A CERTAIN LEVEL I AGREE WITH BOTH OF YOU. HOWEVER WHAT IS THE POWER AND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE UN TO ACT IN SUCH CASES IN THIS MOMENT? MOST UN-MEMBERS ARE DICTATORSHIPS AND MOST OF THESE DICTATORSHIPS ARE ARAB/ISLAMIC DICTATORSHIPS, WHICH ARE VERY ANTI-ISRAEL, UNFORTUNATELY WITH A UN-MEMBERSHIP. THE UNSC IS THE MOST POWERFUL BODY OF THE UN, WITH 5 PERMANENT MEMBERS WITH THE RIGHT OF VETO WHICH IS ALSO NOT VERY DEMOCRATIC AND DICTATORIAL. TO BE ABLE TO ACT EVEN IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF (MEMBER-)STATES IF NEEDED, WHEN HUMAN RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ARE COMMITTED THE PRE-AMBULE AND THE CHARTER OF THE UN SHOULD BE CHANGED IN A JUST, HUMAN AND DEMOCRATIC WAY, BUT WHEN WILL THAT EVER HAPPEN? I TRY TO BE REALISTIC IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND SITUATION IN WHICH THE UN ARE STILL IN SINCE 1945. UNTIL THEN AND WITHOUT THE GOOD WILL, THE UN CAN DO NOTHING OR VERY LITTLE TO CHANGE THE SITUATION FOR THE SYRIAN PEOPLE FOR THE BETTER. UNFORTUNATELY UNTIL THEN THE UN CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE UNITED NOTHING WITH ALL CONSEQUENCES OF IT AND IT IS ALMOST LIKE IT'S PREDECESOR: THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, WHICH EXISTED UNTIL 1946.