President Bashar Al-Assad: the Man of Peace (2)

The realization of the just and comprehensive peace has ever been the noble objective of H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad. Actually, all the measures and political moves taken by the Syrian leadership aim at the restoration of stability, security and realization of the peace. This strategy of peace has been characterized and reflected by H.E. President Al-Assad through:

So, Israel has to know that as long as it remains the occupier of the territories, it would remain the unquestionable enemy for the owners of those territories; and as long as Israel remains against the peace, it remains the enemy for all peace advocates. We, as the people the indigenous People of this region want peace.

It- peace agreement- has to be comprehensive.  The Syrian-Israeli agreement could be important step, but it’s not the final step because there is big difference between talking about peace treaty and peace.  Peace treaty is like a permanent ceasefire.  It’s not comprehensive.  There’s no maybe you have embassy, but you actually won’t have the trade.  You won’t have normal relations because people will not be sympathetic to this relation as long as they are sympathetic with the Palestinians: half a million who live in Syria and half a million in Lebanon and another few millions in other Arab countries.  So comprehensive peace on the Syrian-Lebanese and Palestinian tribe this is going to be the real peace where you have normal relations.  This is where we can bury the hatchet, not only to have peace treaty.  So that’s how we see it.

So definitely, the one who occupied the land should withdraw because my land is like my property.  And if you have a thief who takes your property, you don’t make compromise.  You tell him first give me back my property, my things.  Then we can discuss any compromise.  You don’t discuss the compromise with the thief before having your things returned.  So that’s how we see it.  So the beginning is to end the occupation.

We don’t have any conditions.  There is only one condition which is international condition, which is the Security Council resolution on which the whole peace process based in 1991.  So we don’t have any condition, but we have rights.  And rights we don’t discuss.  It will go back.

Let’s put it this way: if someone stole something from you, would you want all of it back, or would you be satisfied by regaining only part of it? We can accept many compromises: on matters of security, on the relationship. But on the land, no: there is no compromising over the land.

As for the last part of your question, compromises are always present except when it comes to the rights; that is if somebody robed your properties, you might accept a compromise in a certain direction; but would not accept that he -the robber- would restitute to you part of your properties; he should restitute all the properties in full. Compromise could be made as far as other aspects. Thus, the land should be restituted fully, any other thing like relations, security arrangements and all other details have in them compromise.

The main source of the problem is Israel's occupation of others' land; there is the occupation of the territories, naturally reactions from the citizens would appear. Israel should withdraw from the territories, which it occupied, and sign a peace agreement.

Syria believes in the Just and Comprehensive Peace, because the Peace forms the appropriate background as to combat violence and terrorism phenomena.

The Peace and occupation do not match; the Peace and occupation can never go together within the same State and at the same place. It is impossible to have an occupier country, and working at the same time for the Peace; Israel has to choose whether to be the first- the occupier- or the second- the Peace-. Thus, as to reach to this Peace, we need the Israeli Partner; so that we could find a peace agreement, which accomplishes realistic peace on the ground.

The partner for the peace is only to exist when pressures are to be exerted upon it; so that it would understand that a one colour could never live in the Middle East of diversity, and that the sole price for the peace is but the full return of the rights, and that force, regardless of how much big, is incapable of uprooting the people or faith.

We want the Mediterranean to be the Lake for Peace, cooperation, and to be the Minaret, to which the people of the world aspire against occupation, oppression, injustice and tyranny.

For peace, there is no time for that goal to achieve. It is a goal. It is like talking about Resolution 242; it has been there for forty two years and it is still viable. So, it is the same for a two-state solution; otherwise, if they want to reach a one-state solution can you have a state in which any Arab could be the Prime Minister? Can they move for that? I do not think they are going to do it. So far, everybody in the world supports a Palestinian state; so why not go in that direction? Of course, that is normal. I do not think there is a problem about it. The problem is with the Israelis, not the Palestinians, in accepting a two-state solution.

Any peace is to be built on the basis of present realities. Can you tell me that the war of 2006 is not among the new realities? 2006 has changed the map of the region. Undoubtedly a change in the map does effect whatever peace negotiations in every state. The war of Gaza is too one of the fundamental points; it influenced or to influence any political activity related to the process of peace in the future; this is out of question. We, however, cannot say that Syria has benefited, with an opportunistic meaning, but rather as a natural consequence like others.

The conditions for peace are clear to everyone: The Madrid Conference, the UN resolutions, starting with 242, the 'territories for peace' formula – meaning, returning the Golan Heights to Syria. They must simply want to implement it. We are ready.

The peace of the strong is never to be given to the weak, the peace of the brave is never to given to the coward. The peace which is not to be given is but to be taken; and the right usurped is but to be restored.

The top priority of our political strategy is to find a just and comprehensive solution for the conflict- the Arab Israeli- based on international legitimacy resolution, with all of what that means of an end to wars, imposed upon our people and countries, the restoration of security and stability to these countries and to the region in general. But, all of this should be within the frame of the Israeli preparedness to make peace, and awareness of what the Israelis indeed want through their talk of peace, and the definition of peace concept which they accept or call for.

We are keen on the achievement of the just and comprehensive peace, based on our fixed and inalienable, under no circumstances, rights, on top of which is the undiminished withdrawal to the line of June 4, 1967.


Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim