It seems the current administration has an experience and an enlightenment about things. It’s good for the region and for the world.
The current administration is seriously oriented toward pushing the peace process forward. This seriousness has never been felt by us before, so we can make efforts without feeling these efforts will be futile. Now as for America’s love of Israel, no U.S. administration lacks that love. We will not compete with [the Israelis] for that kind of love. That love is not always subject to logic.
The United States has not given any assurances. It only reaffirmed its commitment to U.N. resolutions which it agreed to in the past, in 1967,1973 and in the ’80s. We are not asking for more than this. We only ask the United States, the Soviet Union and the other permanent members of the Security Council to abide by what they voted for.
If you are asking about territories, naturally no peace can be established if one party continues to occupy another party’s land. Naturally, too, the occupied lands should be returned to their owners, be they Syrians, Palestinians, or Lebanese.
For almost 20 years we have been saying we want peace. Perhaps others thought we were not serious. But what really attracts one’s attention is this distinction between the conference and negotiations. If two, three or four warring parties decide to meet and to decide on peace, no one could imagine that these warring parties would go to a conference of their own free will, meet around a table and remain silent or turn their backs on each other. How can we imagine that the conference does not include negotiations?
When the Israelis talk about negotiations as distinct from the conference itself, they aim at a partial, separate and noncomprehensive agreement with one Arab party or another.
The Syrian delegation will discuss the Golan question. Who else can do it? Even on previous occasions when we discussed the peace conference it was evident that it will technically break up into committees, so that the delegations might discuss what concerns them. But the peace process in the end must result in a comprehensive settlement.
Was the international community unjust when it decided that Israel must quit the occupied territories? And will the map of the universe change according to the needs of each party in the world? If in order to guarantee its security Israel requires certain territory from Syria, and Syria sees that its security requires certain territory from Turkey, and Turkey needs for its own security some territory from the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union from China, and the United States from Canada or Mexico, will the world approve, and be a stable world? Our territories do not exist so that Israel can take control of them for Israeli security. To call these territories “occupied” means the occupier should leave them. We have never grown accustomed nor shall we get used to the idea of giving our land to others. Without the return of territory, there is no peace. If the Arabs agreed to relinquish territory, it wouldn’t mean peace but capitulation. We have not capitulated at any time in history. We were beaten, but we never capitulated. We never lost the will to preserve and regain our rights. If Israel is not going to quit the occupied land, why then should we want peace?
I can say Syria is in favor of what the U.N. resolutions stipulate.
This has to be put forward in the conference. All parties will go to the conference and this and other subjects will be tabled for discussion during the peace process. If everything is to be decided here in this interview, what will remain for the peace conference?
We have changed nothing. What is there that should be changed? Now, as in the past, we advocate peace. In the past, we said, and we have the conviction that Israel, as events have proven, works for expansion. We do hope that our suspicions will not prove correct. But this remains for them to prove. If Israel is serious, then it is only Israel that can remove our suspicions.
This a matter for [them] and the United States. The United States is a superpower and assumes a special responsibility to world peace-and gives Israel on a permanent basis political, economic and military aid, and other forms of assistance, in an unprecedented manner. If this superpower, in view of all this, cannot tell Israel to come to the path of peace, it will be a very strange thing for the human mind to accept.
In our view the Iraqi regime committed a grave error by occupying Kuwait. It has lost enormously by committing this sin, causing great harm to the region as a whole. It caused great harm to the Arabs without gaining anything. We believe that the mission was to end the occupation, and what remains is a matter for the Iraqi people.
We don’t see it as useful to strike Iraq again. The harm in that case will not affect only the person of the ruler. It will touch the Iraqi people. This doesn’t mean we support the existence of any nuclear weapons in the region. On the contrary, we want to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction.
We have not recently obtained any weapon [system] which we have not possessed for many years. We’ve had Scud missiles, which were the subject of much recent talk in the Western press, for 15 years. We have not purchased weapons with other people’s money. When we buy, we buy with our own money not like the Israelis. We buy defensive weapons, while Israel buys offensive weapons with American aid. What we spend on defense is less than 20 percent of what Israel spends. Quite recently Israeli Defense Minister [Moshe] Arens, during a visit to some military positions, declared that Israel has produced a new type of weapon which assures supremacy over its enemies, and of course he means the Arabs. Israel is the only state in the region which possesses nuclear weapons.
The important thing is what is meant by terrorism. If it means committing a murder, for example, just for killing, for blackmail, for a fraud, then this is terrorism as we understand it. But if you mean the militants who fight for the liberty and independence of their country and for the liberation of their land, then it is a different thing. Those were not terrorists. They are patriots and militants. Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians are peoples whose land is occupied. Will they give up their identity and land and homes without fighting for them? They do what was done by all people who were colonized.
Acts such as kidnapping or hijacking or shooting down airplanes or murdering individuals in Europe and elsewhere have nothing to do with the struggle for peoples’ rights. Such acts, indeed, serve the aims of the occupiers. We condemn terrorism. The United States accuses Syria of supporting terrorist groups. Once they alleged that we supported a terrorist group which they said was behind the Lockerbie incident. When we asked them for evidence, they had none.
One and the same people live in both Syria and Lebanon. They have not been separated throughout history. Heritage, language, songs and even jokes are the same, and seldom do you find a family in either Syria or Lebanon without a branch in the other country. Therefore we responded to their call in 1976 and offered very big sacrifices which have continued until today. At various times we wanted to withdraw from Lebanon, [but] they insistently asked us to remain. We want Lebanon to be independent, strong, and stable and prosperous. Being one people does not contradict with our being two states.
This is not objective. We don’t have any need to swallow Lebanon.
These changes may have left some kind of trace, some kind of confusion, but that was temporary, and we have been able to overcome it. Now relations between us and the U.S.S.R. are very good.
We have not discussed this but things are progressing and who knows?
The age of prophets has gone-Jesus, Muhammad. We have a desire to have good relations and mutual respect.
There are many positive aspects but we can’t say decisively. It’s now up to the Israelis: sometimes we hear yes, sometimes no. More no. Maybe they are not good at saying yes.
