“1 – I am pleased to convey to Your Majesty and to your esteemed brothers, the Crown Princes, my brother President Hafez Al-Assad’s sincere greetings. He has delegated me to brief you on his recent discussions with the American envoy, Philip Habib, and has entrusted me with a message of appreciation for the steadfast position that Syria values, as well as the statements made by officials in the sisterly Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. These statements have had a positive impact on your people, the Arab people in Syria, and have been effective in supporting the Arab cause.
2 – President Assad is keen to keep you informed about the developments of the events, step by step, so that the sisterly Kingdom can closely follow these events and be fully informed in a timely manner.
From this perspective, you have been informed through my brother Abdulaziz Al-Tuwaijri (who conveyed messages to Assad) about the discussions between President Assad and Philip Habib in the previous meetings. Mr. Habib visited us for the third time on May 19, 1981, and we assured him, in a friendly tone, of our eagerness for his success in his mission. We expressed our wishes for his success and assured him of our full cooperation.
3 – Mr. Habib’s requests during his last visit were as follows:
a) Halting all military escalation.
b) Easing the intensity of verbal statements, as they contribute to psychological tension.
c) However, he returned to insisting on what he calls the necessity of returning to the previous situation (i.e., withdrawing the missiles and the withdrawal of deterrent forces from Sanin and Zahle), and Israel will not attack us in return.
d) Requesting a resumption of efforts to revive national unity in Lebanon, with this unity being concurrent and interrelated with the measures for the withdrawal of our forces from Zahle and Sanin.
e) Requesting a reduction in the activities of the Palestinians across the Lebanese borders.”
“4 – The responses of President Assad to the points raised by Habib are as follows:
a) Regarding the cessation of military escalation, we agree to that, bearing in mind that the measures we took were in response to Israel’s actions. Additionally, our actions were purely defensive and minimal, while Israel’s actions were offensive in nature. It was revealed that Begin had already given orders on April 30th for the Israeli air force to strike Syrian missile sites. The offensive nature of Israel’s actions is evident from the fact that they targeted Syrian helicopters before the introduction of missiles. Israel took internal military actions early, before the missiles entered, and its reconnaissance aircraft continued to violate Lebanese airspace, flying over our forces operating in Lebanon.
b) Despite continuous Israeli threats, our statements have been moderate and can be described as defensive in nature. For example, we did not declare that we would crush the Israelis, while Begin announced that he would crush the Palestinians.
c) As for the issue of returning to the previous situation, we did not discuss it with Mr. Habib as it was not required to revisit this matter, having been thoroughly discussed in the previous two meetings. We clarified in the letter carried by Mr. Abdulaziz Al-Tuwaijri to Your Majesty what transpired in those two meetings with Mr. Habib.
d) Regarding national unity, we agree on the necessity of achieving it and are actively seeking to do so. However, we must realize that Israel’s interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs complicates the situation, adding obstacles and difficulties to achieving this unity. The establishment of a relationship between Israel and a Lebanese party will make other Lebanese parties reject dialogue with the implicated party, fearing that it has become stronger due to Israel’s support, encouraging it to disrupt unity.
e) Concerning the activity of the Palestinians, the summit conference in Tunisia, at Lebanon’s request, made a decision on this matter, and the Palestinians are bound by it. However, the continuous shelling of their camps forces them to react, knowing that Israel does not wait for the Palestinians to carry out a martyrdom operation from Lebanese territory. Instead, Israel bombs their camps in response to any operation carried out inside the occupied land, regardless of the perpetrator.”
“5 – These were the recent requests of Mr. Habib and our responses to them. It is noteworthy that there is a fluctuation in the U.S. position and its evolving manner. This position began with explicit warnings to us, followed by a display of understanding towards our defensive stance and needs. Now, we see a return to something resembling the adoption of Israel’s demands, with a firm confirmation. The final analysis of this development in the U.S. position indicates that the substance remained the same, i.e., emphasizing a return to the previous situation (withdrawal of missiles and withdrawal of deterrent forces from Zahle and Sannin). However, the tone and manner of the request have changed.
6 – We realize that Israel, with these demands, aims to humiliate the Arabs if they accept them. It also aims to create a dangerous precedent that will not stop at Lebanon but extend in the future to the land, skies, and will of the Arabs everywhere. Begin has already begun to escalate his conditions, going beyond the issue of missiles in Lebanon in his statements on the 21st in American television and requesting the withdrawal of missiles even on Syrian soil.
7 – Faced with all this, we remain steadfast in our position. We do not want war and are not working for it, but we categorically reject accepting anything that would humiliate the Arabs. Hence, the importance of joint Arab action, which Your Majesty has long advocated, especially in such critical and dangerous circumstances.
Your support and the support of the Kingdom in these circumstances are decisive factors in developing the stance in favor of the sacred rights of the Arab nation. Your efforts to exert pressure on the United States are crucial to prevent the diminution of these rights. It is widely acknowledged that Israel strikes only with American weapons, logically meaning that it only strikes with American consent.”
“8 – In line with the President’s commitment to Arab joint action, he directed Foreign Minister Abdel Halim Khaddam to propose at the current meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Tunisia the revival of the Quartet Committee to assist in achieving national reconciliation in Lebanon and extricating this brotherly Arab country from its crisis. This proposal is a crystallization of the collective Arab interest in the fate of this dear country.
9 – I reiterate to Your Majesty the greetings of your brother, President Hafez al-Assad, and his great appreciation for your support and the positions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He welcomes in advance any opinions and ideas you may wish to convey to the President.
Within the framework of this activity, we convened an emergency session of the Arab League Council at the level of foreign ministers in Tunisia, in an extraordinary session on May 22, 1981. In this meeting, I presented the situation, its developments, the discussions with Habib, and various communications we had undertaken. Everyone spoke in support of the Syrian position. At the end of the discussions, the Council adopted the following resolution that we proposed. Here is the text of the resolution:
‘The Council of the Arab League at the level of foreign ministers held an emergency session on May 22, 1981, at the headquarters of the Arab League in Tunis, at the request of the Algerian government, to discuss the dangerous situation in the region.
The Council, with a high sense of national responsibility, discussed the explosive situation in the region following Israel’s escalation of aggression against the Arab nation, its interference in the internal affairs of its brother Lebanon, the brutal shelling of Lebanese cities, villages, and Palestinian camps, its genocidal war against the Lebanese people, its attacks on Arab deterrent forces, its threats to Syria, and its declaration of the Israeli security theory aimed at dominating Lebanon, tearing apart its national unity, and then imposing its dominance on the Arab nation. The Council concluded as follows:”
“1 – The Israeli security theory, in which Israel claims the right to attack the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, strike Palestinian gatherings, and aggress against Arab deterrent forces, is an expression of the aggressive nature of the Israeli enemy and its expansionist goals towards Lebanon and the Arab nation. It constitutes a dangerous precedent in the international arena that threatens peace and global security.
2 – The brutal shelling of Lebanese cities, villages, and Palestinian camps aims to create a state of surrender among the Arab nation and eliminate Palestinian resistance as a prelude to settling the Palestinian issue.
3 – The attack on deterrent forces under the pretext of protecting a Lebanese faction reveals Israel’s objectives and plans to strike the unity of Lebanon and tear it apart into sectarian entities, hindering the course of national reconciliation.
4 – The aggression against deterrent forces, provocation of Syria, and issuing warnings, all with the intention of igniting the military situation with Syria and the Arab nation, attempt to impose dominance and control over the Arab region.
5 – The Israeli enemy’s persistence in this policy confirms the inevitability of military escalation because any retreat in the face of this policy implies defeat and surrender, which the Arab nation rejects with all its capabilities.
6 – Unconditional American support for Israel, politically, militarily, and financially, encourages it to continue its aggressive policies against the Arab nation.
In light of the above, the Council has decided as follows:”
“1 – Resistance to the Israeli security theory using all available means and supporting Syria in confronting Israel’s implementation of this theory with all capabilities. The Council affirms its standing by Syria in facing Israeli aggression and provocations.
2 – In light of the current facts and Israeli actions and preparations, Arab countries will provide the necessary support to Syria to repel aggression, utilizing all their resources, including the participation of their military forces, in accordance with the Charter of the League of Arab States and the Joint Arab Defense Treaty.
3 – The Council decides to support the unity, independence, and sovereignty of Lebanon on its territories, supporting the legitimate central government. It affirms the readiness of Arab governments to provide all forms of support requested by the Lebanese government to face Israeli aggression on Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to counter Israeli intervention in Lebanon’s internal affairs.
4 – The Council calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Lebanon and urges Lebanese parties to achieve national reconciliation.
The Council expresses its support for the efforts of President Elias Sarkis and the Lebanese government, in collaboration with the Syrian government, to achieve national reconciliation according to the principles announced by the President of the Republic and approved by the Lebanese government. It warns any Lebanese party against obstructing national reconciliation and using the Israeli card to hinder the course of unity.
The Council emphasizes the determination of Arab states, collectively and individually, to defend the unity of Lebanon and resist all attempts to fragment and divide Lebanon with the aim of establishing sectarian entities.
5 – The Council emphasizes the necessity of implementing the decisions of the Riyadh and Cairo summits and activating the monitoring committee stipulated in these decisions, meeting at the level of foreign ministers whenever necessary.
6 – The Council decides to support the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) by all means to enable it to continue its responsibilities and face the genocidal war waged by the Israeli enemy against it and the Palestinian people. The Council affirms its support for the PLO in the face of Israeli attacks.
7 – The Council supports the call of the PLO to open the door for Arab brothers to volunteer to participate in the liberation of the occupied Palestinian territories, especially Jerusalem.
8 – The Council affirms the immediate implementation of the decision of the Tunis Summit regarding providing financial support to Lebanon and the Palestinian people in southern Lebanon, to confront the results of the Zionist military escalation and the resulting destruction and losses in lives and properties.
9 – The Council calls on the United States to stop all types of support and backing for Israel because this support constitutes an aggression against the Arab nation, its dignity, its future, and the security and peace in the region. Consequently, the continuation of support will lead to a serious confrontation between the Arab nation and the United States.
10 – The Council calls on the global public opinion to condemn Israel’s aggressive and provocative policy and to support the Arabs in their resistance to aggression. It affirms the continued commitment of Arab states to resist the Camp David Accords and the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty.
11 – The Council commends the struggle of the Palestinian people in the occupied homeland and their rallying around the PLO, its legitimate and sole representative.
12 – The Council emphasizes the importance of enhancing and developing Arab solidarity, overcoming side disputes, in the face of Zionist invasion of our land and its threat to the entire Arab destiny.
13 – The Secretary-General of the League of Arab States is tasked with monitoring the developments of the situation and informing Arab governments of any appropriate measures taken.”
Certainly, these resolutions contain strong political texts. They include statements that the Arabs must undertake to confront the enemy (…) We have carefully crafted such a political stance for reasons related to mobilizing Arab public opinion, keeping the main issue present in their minds, and considering external factors related to global public opinion. We always strive to adhere to the Arab position and present it to gain broader international support for our cause and our stance.
In addition to all that, making such a decision keeps it as a valid and good ground that can be stood upon at some point when the general conditions of the Arab situation and various aspects of this situation improve.
Finally, this is how the missile crisis started, putting the region on the brink of war between us and Israel, and this is how the developments of this crisis unfolded, reaching its peak, then fading away and disappearing for a period that may be short or distant, with no certainty.
But in this crisis, we have clearly demonstrated, leaving no room for doubt or debate, the danger of peace with Israel. In peace, it will not accept anything other than being the mistress and possessing the means and determination. We have realized the danger of Israel and the nature of this entity that has distinguished itself among all the nations of the earth, driven by delusions and Torah myths. They are delusions and myths for us, but a living creed for them, practiced in all areas and directions.
Israel appeared to us as a state with no borders and with a desire for control, dominance, and expansion. At the same time, we discovered what we had not discovered in any past stage: we discovered our ability to withstand and engage in a battle that was harsher than a military confrontation.
A battle in which all forms of psychological warfare, pressures, and threats were employed against us, and we rejected all of that, overcoming these pressures. We emerged from this battle stronger, more capable, and more proud. The concern that worried us for a number of days, and was a legitimate and intense concern, was because the error in handling it was not related to us as individuals leading the country, but it was related to the homeland, its future, and the abundant blood that would have flowed (…). The missile crisis was an important stage from which we extracted great lessons. Through it, we formed visions based on practical experience, and we reached conclusions that played a significant role in following our political line.
In this crisis, we used Arab relations to their best advantage. After attempts were made to use them as a pressure tool, we turned them into a tool to exert pressure on the United States. We used the “Soviet card” effectively and put the United States in a difficult position by employing this card.
