Hafez Assad: Land Before Peace

By Karsten Prager, John Stacks, Dean Fischer, William Dowell, Lara Marlowe Hafez Assad.

Q. There is a perception abroad that a historic opportunity exists for peace between Israel and the Arabs, and in particular between Syria and Israel. Is that so, and do you agree with Prime Minister Rabin's suggestion for a meeting?

A. We seek peace, and peace requires long and arduous discussions, discussions that cannot be carried out at summits. Peace may bring such meetings, but such meetings cannot bring peace. We are enemies who have been at war for more than 40 years. We have martyrs and devastated property; our lands are occupied, and millions of our people are displaced. A meeting of heads of state to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict might lead to war instead of peace because when there are differences at the ((top)) leadership level, there is nobody to mend things.

Q. Egypt regained the Sinai from Israel in negotiations at Camp David. Could Syria reach agreement with Israel on the Golan Heights before all other issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict are resolved?

A. Peace with Egypt did not put an end to the conflict in the region. Moreover, Egypt, and in particular Anwar Sadat, paid a very high price. Any Arab leader who does what Sadat did would pay no less. Separate deals do not achieve peace; they may in fact lead to the opposite result. I am surprised that some people would like to cut peace into pieces -- one piece now, another later. What is the use of solving a problem in a way that creates a larger problem? When we speak of a comprehensive peace, we do not mean that everybody marches shoulder to shoulder, like soldiers on parade. A little progress may take place on one front, a little delay on another. All the Arab parties understand that there are certain peculiarities regarding each of the issues. As long as they are satisfied that we are proceeding toward a comprehensive solution, progress on one issue can be made more speedily than on others.

Q. Since the Palestinians do not even agree among themselves, how can everybody be satisfied?

A. The total number of Arabs who want peace is greater than that of those who don't. We Arabs share the same origins. Our language, our history, our hopes are one. If the President of Syria makes a mistake, Arab citizens in Algeria or Morocco behave as if they have the same right as Syrian citizens to hold him accountable.

Q. If you don't offer the Israelis anything, how do you expect them to agree to a comprehensive solution?

A. Since 1948 the Israelis have been clamoring for peace. Now we are offering them peace. What more could we possibly give them? But peace must not be at the expense of our land. How can the Arabs be motivated to seek peace if the price is to give Israel our land? We have half a million displaced people from the Golan. How can we convince them that we have to give a part of the Golan to Israel? The United Nations charter prohibits the occupation of the land of other people. There is no moral, legal or political justification for the Arabs to offer their land to Israel simply to obtain Israel's agreement for peace. Otherwise, any state may feel it can swallow its neighbor.

Q. Isn't a compromise on the status of Jerusalem necessary?

A. These matters are the concern of the Palestinian negotiators. But everybody must know that this issue is a very serious one. Jerusalem is a subject of concern to a billion Muslims. Iranians and Pakistanis feel, for religious reasons, that Jerusalem belongs to them in the same way we feel it belongs to us and the Palestinians. Arab Christians feel the same way. I do not mean to say that the issue of Jerusalem is insoluble. Negotiations can create conditions that can lead to solutions.

Q. So you do not exclude compromise while proceeding toward a comprehensive solution?

A. There is no possibility of compromise with regard to the Golan. Nobody in Syria could give up one inch of land in the Golan. Every Syrian believes deep in his heart that whoever yields a part of his land is a traitor -- and the fate of traitors is well known.

Q. Does the Sinai agreement allowing for the deployment of multinational forces offer a model for the Golan?

A. We have agreed that there must be security arrangements acceptable to both sides. The Israelis themselves are convinced that geography in itself does not provide security.

Q. Isn't that a change from Israel's insistence on occupying land for security?

A. What they say in this respect is one thing; what their convictions are is another. Our delegation has heard the Israelis say that their occupation of the Golan has not brought them security. Their real aim is to drive us away from their settlements ((in the Golan)).

Q. Are you encouraged by Rabin's attitude toward negotiations?

A. He talks more about peace thanYitzhak Shamir did. But he talks about a partial withdrawal. If he sticks to this logic, there will not be peace, because we cannot give up our land. If he does not agree to complete withdrawal from the Golan, I believe he will lose the support of the Israeli political parties that demand it. There are even rabbis, including the Chief Rabbi, who have said that the Golan is not Israel's land.

Q. Are you concerned about the attitude of President-elect Clinton toward the Middle East peace process?

A. No. I believe that any American President, once he is objectively acquainted with the situation in the Middle East and aware of American interests, will work for peace. The degree of enthusiasm varies, but we expect that Clinton will be supportive. We cherish the efforts of President Bush and Secretary of State Baker, even though the American election intervened and prevented their fruition. If President-elect Clinton is as enthusiastic as they were, he will receive the appreciation of the people of this region. If he is not so enthusiastic, which we think is highly improbable, then everything will come to a standstill.

Q. You have recently bought Scud missiles from North Korea, and more reportedly are on the way. What is the purpose of acquiring these strategic weapons?

A. What is so strange about this? We have had missiles for the past 20 years. Since we are in a state of war, why shouldn't we have them? Israel has chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as missiles. Why don't you ask Israel a similar question?

Q. We will. But is Syria attempting to develop its potential in these areas?

A. We are not trying to do anything new. Everything we are doing now we have been doing for 20 years. How could we live without the sword?

Q. So the answer is yes?

A. I have said that we are not doing anything now which we have not been doing for 20 years. We call for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in Israel and Syria. If they destroy what they have, and we destroy what we have, both of us will feel secure. Otherwise, neither of us will feel secure.

Q. Since Israel has many weapons of mass destruction, how can the acquisition of missiles from North Korea and China make you feel more secure?

A. Do you mean to say that we will be secure if we are disarmed? Should we be naked, without weapons, just waiting for Israeli missiles to strike us?

, Q. Hizballah, the pro-Iranian Shi'ite Muslims in Lebanon, have been firing rockets into Israel. Since you have disarmed other militias in Lebanon, why haven't you disarmed Hizballah?

A. This question should be directed to Hizballah. I am not a member -- yet.

Q. Iran is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. How do you view this development?

A. It is up to Iran to decide what it should have. An understanding between the Arabs and Iran is in the interest of regional security. We saw the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war: big losses to Iran, Iraq and the gulf states. The Arabs and the Iranians can make effective security arrangements that would weaken or remove the prospects of war. That will bring about a balance of power, and in that event, no harm will be done to the people in the region, or to the interests of the U.S.

Q. Is Iraq part of this power equation?

A. Certainly. We are sorry for what is happening in Iraq. Our problem is not with Iraq, but with its ruler. This is a matter to be dealt with by the people of Iraq. Saddam Hussein is not going to live forever.

Q. Do you believe the Gulf War coalition should have deposed Saddam?

A. No. I do not approve of any country entering another to appoint a ruler; that reminds us of colonialism. If a foreign power had appointed an Iraqi leader, it would have destroyed the will of the Iraqi people. It is true that Saddam Hussein has imposed himself on Iraqis, but he is an Iraqi. The Iraqi people have been struggling against him for a long time; I don't think any other country in the world has seen so many of its citizens leave as a result of a regime's cruelty.

Q. Jordan's King Hussein and Egyptian President Mubarak have expressed fear about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Do you share their concern?

A. I am worried, but I understand the background. I can imagine that if I were younger and saw what has happened to the Arab homeland, I might find myself part of this movement. With the enthusiasm of youth, I would judge things hastily. I would see that the Arabs are downtrodden, that their land is occupied, that the Israelis appear victorious. Therefore young people have come to the conclusion that Islam is their salvation. The majority ((of Arab leaders)) are aware of this reality, but they don't talk about it. Sadat visited me before he went to Jerusalem. I advised him that his visit would complicate things. I told him peace was coming, and collective action was the best way to achieve it. But he had other illusions. That was the reason for the eruption of fundamentalism in Egypt. Sadat paid for it with his life. Yet it has continued. Every state must arrest killers, but that is not the solution. Only a collective stand that leads to peace will make Arab citizens feel honorable and dignified. Otherwise, fundamentalism will continue to grow.

Q. Do you expect to see a comprehensive peace in your lifetime?

A. I am inclined to be optimistic. The prospects are better because of the international climate and because of the increased number of Israelis who want peace. If Israel gives up its desire for expansion, I am sure we will succeed.