THE bloody events unfolding before us in Syria confirm the old adage that far more Muslims are killed by other Muslims than by non-Muslims.

As civilian casualties pass the 7,000 mark in the anti-Assad uprising, we get a sense of the utter callousness of Muslim leaders. But equally, we can see how indifferent the rest of the ummah are towards this slaughter of the innocent: where is the fury and outrage so regularly on display when non-Muslims are responsible for real or perceived crimes against Muslims?True, there have been a few demonstrations against Syrian embassies in some Arab countries.

But there is far greater indignation and rage against, say, Israeli atrocities in the occupied territories than against the daily shelling of Homs. Our TV studios are full of hysterical condemnation of American drone attacks that kill terrorists in the tribal areas, but few chat show hosts and guests vent their anger against Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime.

Had US and Britain vetoed a UN Security Council resolution aimed at halting the bloodletting in Syria, they would have been pilloried across the Muslim world. But when China and Russia block a resolution calling for Assad to step down, they escape serious censure in many Muslim countries.

Why this double standard? For most Pakistanis, China can do no wrong as it is considered our “all-weather friend” that does not impose any conditions on its assistance. Thus, it is willing to deal with tyrants in a way western countries increasingly can’t because of their own laws. Also, China remains a dictatorship despite its economic liberalisation, so it sees nothing wrong with autocrats using brute force to crush their citizens who dare to revolt.

Russia, despite its trappings of democracy, remains a repressive state that frequently jails and even kills political opponents. Its record in Chechnya is before us, so to expect Putin and his gang to have sympathy for the suffering people of Syria is to ask for the moon.

The other state propping up Bashar al-Assad is Iran, and perhaps it has the strongest justification for its defence of the indefensible. Syria is ruled by the Alewites, an offshoot of the Shia sect, and so there is a natural affinity between Tehran and Damascus. But more importantly, Iranian aid to Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas is routed through Syria. A new Sunni-dominated government in Syria might not be as supportive of Iran’s regional ambitions.

To be sure, this strategic calculation also sustains the US and Britain in their anti-Assad rhetoric and policies. In their view, what’s bad for Iran must be good for the West. But they should be careful about what they wish for. Regime change in Damascus could well lead to a more anti-Israel government.

Combined with changes in Egypt, and the distancing of Turkey from Israel, this could shift the strategic balance in the region.

Thus far, Bashar al-Assad has followed his father’s cautious policy of ‘no-war, no-peace’ even though the country’s Golan Heights have been under Israeli occupation since 1967. Even when Israel shot down a number of Syrian fighter aircraft in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Hafiz al-Assad, Bashar’s canny father, did not retaliate.

Another reason for the Chinese and Russian vetoes is the way Nato took advantage of their abstention in the vote on the UN resolution to apply a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya to protect civilians from Qadhafi’s forces. This was used as a fig-leaf for regime change, and months of aerial bombardment and alleged intervention on the ground by Nato special forces. Both Moscow and Beijing suspect the draft resolution would have led to a similar misuse in Syria.

And yet, what’s the solution to this year-long crisis? Unlike Egypt where the armed forces ditched Hosni Mubarak to preserve their own position, the Syrian high command — drawn mostly from Bashar’s Alewite kinsmen — are solidly behind him so far. They fear that a successful uprising would remove the minority Alewites from power.

The impotent Arab League has finally moved the United Nations to act, but in practical terms, it remains a spectator to the bloodshed. Interestingly, this Saudi-backed body has only reacted against the repressive regimes in Libya and Syria, while failing utterly to do other than chide the despots of Yemen and Bahrain. The latter regimes are, of course, Sunni protégés of the House of Saud. The ruler of Bahrain has been actively helped by Saudi security personnel in crushing the dissenters, most of whom belong to the majority Shia community.

Thus, both strategic and sectarian considerations are playing a large part in the calculations of the powers on the periphery of this epic struggle.

Nevertheless, we should not overlook the very real human suffering that is taking place before our eyes. Day after day, Syrian men, women and children are being massacred by their own army. In cities like Homs, food and medical supplies are running out. Torture is widespread, and the continuing desertion of government troops towards the ‘Free Syrian Army’ is raising the risk of a bloody civil war.

Without a UN resolution, nobody wants to intervene militarily. Only Turkey has the muscle and the political will to act to end the butchery; more Syrians fleeing across the border might give it the motive for intervention. But this might go badly if the fighting is protracted.

In more ways than one, the inaction over Syria is a failure of international diplomacy. Just as world opinion is hostage to the US veto over Israeli occupation and repression in Palestine, so too are Russia and China oblivious to the demands of decency and humanity.

But it is clear that the Assad regime’s days are numbered. No government in the world can withstand the kind of resistance Damascus is facing month after month. Even for Bashar’s butchers, there must be a limit to the number of innocent people they gun down. When that point arrives, they should fear the retribution the Syrian people will unleash.

Meanwhile, let us all salute the heroism of the Syrian people.