I would like to draw attention to a specific phase in which the party, alongside its ideological understanding of the Arab-Israeli Zionist conflict, developed a clear strategy to confront this conflict.
This strategy was presented by the party’s Secretary General, Comrade Hafez Al-Assad, during his tenure as Minister of Defense, at the Fourth Qatari Conference in 1968. It sparked a dispute within the party’s leadership at the time. However, this disagreement was resolved on the morning of November 16, 1970. The party’s strategy was established based on the following principles and elements.
The interim objective that requires concentrated efforts is the liberation and restoration of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian Arab people.
To accomplish this objective, the party and the state must provide several key factors:
- Reassessment of the Arab situation and rectification of Syria’s relations with all Arab countries. Our aim is to give a national dimension to our conflict with the Zionist enemy. We have worked towards restoring relations with countries with which our relations were broken, and activating relations with countries where these relations were previously frozen.
- Our primary focus has been directed towards three main areas, with the first being Egypt. We consider Egypt to be our partner in the struggle against the Israeli enemy, and in any present or future conflicts that may arise.
The second aspect that we focused on, starting from 1970, was the involvement of oil-producing countries in our struggle against the Israeli enemy. We believed that oil weapons and capabilities should play a role in one way or another.
Significant efforts were made by Comrade Secretary General, in collaboration with the Egyptian leadership at that time, to ensure the participation and position of these countries in the conflict. We all remember the first and only time oil was used in the conflict, when it was stopped by the United States of America and some European countries that supported Israel.
The third direction we concentrated on was Iraq. Iraq held importance for two main reasons. Firstly, it is a brotherly country whose people share the same national aspirations, hopes, and sentiments as us. We have a long history together and share vital common interests, in addition to national considerations. If we set aside national considerations, there are regional considerations and vital interests for both Syria and Iraq that necessitate their unity on one front.
Moreover, we firmly believe that if we can gain Iraq’s support and have them stand with us in the confrontation against Israel, we would make significant progress in achieving our national goals concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. Therefore, Iraq remains and will continue to be an important focus within our national strategic vision and our tactical approach.
During the Iraq-Iran war, significant changes began to manifest in the international arena. The divide between the East and West started to narrow, events unfolded rapidly, and transformations occurred in Eastern Europe. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact signaled the emergence of a new world. Concurrently, Europe hastened its progress towards unity. When we reflect upon these events and their consequences in the Arab world, what transpired? We firmly believe that the sole beneficiary from these developments worldwide is Israel.
Israel managed to restore its relations with Eastern European countries, open doors in the Soviet Union, and reestablish ties with African nations. In light of this situation, should we, as Arabs, adopt a distinctive stance, conduct a fresh evaluation, formulate a new vision, and seek novel approaches to address these developments? Or should we confront this new world using the same methods and approaches that we employed in response to regional and international circumstances in the past?
This matter became the subject of discussion within the party leadership
Comrade Secretary General initiated several contacts with a number of Arab heads of state to seek a new Arab approach that would enable the Arabs to confront the increasing power of the Israeli enemy, as well as face these international changes. Meanwhile, Syria was contemplating a comprehensive approach to address these situations. What was happening in the Arab arena at the same time? There was a movement among Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt to establish a bloc of the four countries. Additionally, a similar move took place in the Maghreb to establish a bloc of Moroccan countries.
While European nations were uniting and Israel was benefiting from international changes, the Arabs should have sought a new Arab approach that unifies Arab energies and strengthens the capabilities of the Arab nation. They should have conducted a review of the institutions of joint Arab action with a focus on unification. However, at this time, we believe that some Arab brothers resorted to dismantling the institution of joint Arab action, the Arab League, and establishing these blocs instead. They sought a single Arab bloc that would face the same dangers collectively, rather than resorting to the establishment of such individual blocs that catered primarily to their own interests. If we examine the documents of these blocs, we would not find a single word related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. They were primarily concerned with preserving their own interests.
However, when the Quartet was announced, we clearly understood that the Arabs were preparing for a new war. This war would not be against Syria, but rather in the Gulf. Naturally, when the war is in the oil-rich Gulf region, we must unequivocally conclude that foreign powers will play a significant role. Hence, Comrade Al-Amin Al-Alam resumed his contacts with a large number of Arab presidents, issuing warnings about the impending events in the region.
Unfortunately, these individuals had limited foresight and lacked vision. However, we did not lose hope and decided to pursue an approach that would rectify and improve joint Arab action. As we are aware, Syrian-Egyptian relations have been restored and normalized. We began discussing the possibility of organizing an Arab summit and made preparations accordingly.
However, during this time, what was happening? At a crucial moment when Arabs needed to overcome their internal conflicts, recognize the real danger posed by Israel, and understand the risks of international changes, Iraq chose to send significant quantities of weapons and equipment to Lebanon. These were provided to the Lebanese forces and Michel Aoun. Whom were these weapons intended for? Undoubtedly, they were aimed at Israel. However, they were utilized by Michel Aoun in what he referred to as the “liberation battle” against Syria. The Iraqi regime allocated over half a billion dollars in weaponry, funds, and oil to the Lebanese forces and Michel Aoun. Yet, these weapons were not directed against Israel but against the patriots in Lebanon and Syria. Nevertheless, we tolerated this situation.
During this period of fear and uncertainty among Arab citizens regarding the future of the Arab world, the Jordanian Parliament sent two letters: one to the Iraqi President and the other to the Comrade Secretary General. These emotional letters called for the two countries to overcome their differences and unite their efforts, especially following the conclusion of the Iraq-Iran war. They emphasized the need to focus on confronting the Israeli enemy and future risks. What was the response of the Iraqi president to the Jordanian Parliament? A message was released containing a harsh and unjust campaign against Syria […].
A question may arise: Why did we deploy troops to Saudi Arabia? Why didn’t we remain neutral in this war? Comrades, we cannot adopt a neutral stance in this war because we have vested interests in it for two reasons. Firstly, we are part of a nation that is torn apart by this war, and its repercussions will persist for many generations. Secondly, we are targeted in this war as it has bolstered Israel, and we find ourselves confronting Israel. Thirdly, this war has devastated Arab capabilities and resources that should have been on the front lines against Israel rather than being deployed in the Gulf.
Therefore, we have a stake in this conflict, and we absolutely cannot stand idly by as it is not in the interest of Iraq, Syria, or the entire Arab nation. So, why did we deploy troops? My comrades, we faced two compelling and perilous circumstances that necessitated sending troops.
The first is the plight of an Arab country that has been devastated, and other Arab nations are under the imminent threat of destruction. They are appealing for assistance. Should we abandon them while they fall victim to aggression? They have supported us to some extent in our struggle against the Israeli enemy. Additionally, if Arab forces do not participate in the Gulf, foreign powers will have sole responsibility for defending and protecting that region. The average citizen there will have no connection to those safeguarding their well-being. Consequently, we would be disregarding an important area of the Arab world for an extended period.
The second and most crucial reason is that our involvement in the Gulf has prevented Israel’s participation. If Syria had not dispatched troops to Saudi Arabia, Israel would now be aligning itself with the West to confront Iraq. We must recognize the risks associated with such a scenario. In that case, Israel would not need to wage any war to establish a Greater Israel; they would effortlessly dominate the entire region through their partnership with the West, not just in terms of oil but also geographically.
Comrades, we have accomplished a tremendous feat and made a historic move by thwarting Israel’s involvement in the Gulf War. You can now witness the pressure being exerted on Israel to abstain from joining. Why? Because Syria exists. If Syria did not exist, the pressure would have been on Israel to participate in this war.
Furthermore, we are well aware that every war, regardless of its scale, has significant consequences. This war is not trivial; it is substantial and will yield far-reaching repercussions. We have two choices: either we play a role in minimizing the perils stemming from this conflict as much as possible, or we remain absent and allow Syria to become a pawn in the game. Our participation will enable us, to some extent, to mitigate the damages inflicted by this war. This is an obligation we cannot overlook or neglect. We cannot relinquish our responsibility to shape and manage the future and affairs of the entire region.
Some may question the presence of Syrian forces in Saudi Arabia, particularly in the presence of foreign forces that we consider ideologically and politically hostile. First and foremost, our comrades, let me address these concerns based on the considerations I have mentioned. Secondly, when Kuwait was invaded, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states requested Arab assistance to liberate and protect Kuwait. Let us objectively discuss this matter, setting aside our biases and what we must uphold when dealing with foreign entities.
Are there any Arab forces capable of expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait and safeguarding the Gulf states? The Arab countries with significant military capabilities in the region are Iraq, Syria, and Egypt. Let us consider Syria. Syria possesses military capabilities that can contain Iraq, but what would that entail? Should we withdraw our army from confronting the Israeli enemy to engage in a conflict with Iraq? What could happen if we embark on such an adventure? Should we pit our army against Iraq and risk Syria falling to Israel? This is an option we cannot entertain under any circumstances.
Furthermore, regardless of the acts committed by the Iraqi government towards Syria and the damage inflicted upon us, we firmly reject the notion that the Syrian army would fight the Iraqi army along the Syrian-Iraqi border or engage in a war between the two countries. We understand that we must remove all obstacles preventing Iraq from having its people and army on our side. Any war between Syria and Iraq would be more devastating than the historical conflicts between the Umayyads and the Abbasids. The energies of both Syria and Iraq would be decimated, leaving only Israel in control. Therefore, the leadership’s decision was to send a meaningful force that would not compromise our capabilities to confront the Israeli enemy on one hand and would not lead to a Syrian-Iraqi war. This force is intended to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, standing against Iraqi aggression. It is not meant to incite a Syrian-Iraqi war. The calculation was precise, and the procedures were accurate. Thus, we dispatched these troops. As for Egypt, there is no geographical proximity between Egypt and Iraq or between Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Without deploying troops, Saddam Hussein could potentially reach Oman.
Hence, it is objectively clear that Arab capabilities, as mentioned earlier, are insufficient to deter the actions carried out by the Iraqi regime in the Gulf states. If there must be a war to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait, let it be a conflict involving foreign nations and Iraq, rather than one between Arab brethren.
While the foreign forces will eventually depart, we, as integral parts of one nation, will remain in this region. It is crucial that we strive to minimize the inheritance of animosity to our children and future generations, as this will have an impact on the Arab nation and its future.
Therefore, we did not engage in discussions when Saudi Arabia proposed the use of friendly forces to defend itself and the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia assured us that these forces would not stay beyond the resolution of the Kuwait issue and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. You have all heard the statements made by these forces, clearly stating their intention to withdraw as soon as the Kuwait problem is resolved.
If we examine the slogans put forward by the current Iraqi regime, can we perceive them as genuine? Is it true that the Iraqi regime genuinely intends to fight against Israel? Is it true that it seeks to support the Palestinian cause and distribute oil wealth, presenting the problem as one between poor and rich Arabs? Let us revisit the outcomes. Comrades, those who genuinely desire to combat Israel must first reconcile with Syria and unite with it. It is impossible to fight against Israel while harboring hostility towards Syria. How can we believe that a country that has devoted all its human, psychological, social, and political energies and capabilities to Palestine can confront Israel independently, especially when it undermines, weakens, and conspires against Syria? Can we truly believe that? Furthermore, how can we believe that the Iraqi regime intends to confront Israel while providing support to Israel’s proxies in Lebanon, exhausting Syria in Lebanon, and undermining the national forces there? What actually happened? The Iraqi regime launched several rockets towards Palestine. But comrades, does a war against Israel consist of firing a few rockets while the Iraqi army itself is trapped in Kuwait, suffering from destruction and fragmentation? This is not how we confront the Israeli enemy. And what has Israel gained from these rockets and the invasion of Kuwait? Where is the Intifada now? Where is the global sympathy for the Palestinian cause? Do we not see the shift in world public opinion, from condemning Israel due to the Intifada to condemning the Palestinian cause because of this invasion? Have we not witnessed the overwhelming flow of military, economic, and political aid to Israel as a result of these few rockets that caused the injury of 100 Israelis? Some foolish individuals may have applauded these missiles, but what has Israel truly gained from them? It has invested billions of dollars to develop a defense system that would require tens of billions more from the Arabs to counterbalance. All of this has happened in exchange for the injury of 100 Israelis. A mere bus accident could have injured more Israelis than these rockets. Meanwhile, Israel has received billions of dollars to accommodate Jewish immigrants and settle three million Jews in Palestine. What does this signify? Is this the way to confront Israel? The only victor in this war is Israel, and the greatest loser is the Arab nation, particularly the Palestinian people and their cause.