New York Times analyzes the Arab League: it is all about the love for democracy

MacFarquhar provides hilarious analysis of the Arab League:  "Arab governments, seeking to reflect popular demand for democratic change, are trying to address the issue without prompting the violent downfall of the Syrian government or international military action, analysts said."  So basically it was the love for democracy and human rights that prompted the action by the Arab League.  But MacFarquhar fails to inform us as to why the League did not "reflect popular demand for democratic change" in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, and Iraq?  Also, he says this:  "Previously, when the Arab League was more of a dictators’ club".  What, Mr. Farquhar?  Did Morocco, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Kuwait, and Jordan ended their dictatorial rule and no one bothered to let us know?  Mr. Farquhar then adds:  "the action on Saturday was surely a blow to Syria’s self-image as “the beating heart of Arabism.”"  Oh, yes, Mr. Farquhar: the Arab people seriously consider the Arab League not as the repository first of British colonial will and then of American colonial will, but as the embodiment of Arabism.  Sure.  If that makes you feel better, sure.