What would be the nature of the new relationship between Damascus and Tel Aviv if the peace talks result in an agreement between Syria and Israel?
We are committed to working towards achieving a just and comprehensive peace in the region based on the resolutions 242 and 338 of the Security Council. The contents of these resolutions determine the nature of peace, relations, and other issues. We are committed to all the requirements of the Security Council resolutions, and anything beyond these requirements is a separate matter.
Let us assume that the peace talks do not lead to a solution, and Israel does not implement the resolutions of international legitimacy. What evidence do we have, and what are the options before Syria?
The talks are a part of a comprehensive process to achieve peace, Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories, and the restoration of the national rights of the Palestinian people. If this approach fails, we will work to create the necessary conditions that enable us to regain our rights to the land, whether it is Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese, or Jordanian. We will work, as I mentioned earlier, at the Syrian, Arab, and international levels to create these conditions.
As long as there is any inch of land occupied, and as long as the Palestinian people suffer from injustice and occupation, the conflict cannot be stopped even if it lasts for a century, two centuries, three or four centuries.
The war option still exists?
We are currently discussing peace.
Will Syria continue to boycott multilateral negotiations despite the consensus among the participating countries, particularly regarding economic development and the interdependence between progress in bilateral and multilateral efforts?
We fail to see the rationale behind engaging in multilateral negotiations. How can we discuss regional relations while aggression and occupation persist? How can Syria address regional issues like water and the environment when its own territory remains occupied? Multilateralism seems to be a concession to Israel, designed to weaken the Arab position in the peace process. Naturally, we oppose such a stance. We are not inclined to jump to conclusions before addressing the fundamental premise, which is the necessity of withdrawal. Without withdrawal, no other matter can be considered.
Are we referring to withdrawal from the Golan or withdrawal from every inch of the occupied Arab territories, including the Golan?
Our position stands for the complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights and every inch of the occupied Arab territories.
Let’s continue discussing the relations between Damascus and the PLO. Do you agree with describing the relations between Syria and the PLO leadership as fluctuating? Are there any reasons for the leadership’s concerns about a potential agreement between Syria and Israel at the expense of the Palestinians? What is Syria’s stance on negotiating with the Israelis?
The relations between Syria and the PLO leadership are normal and well-established. It is widely known that we do not interfere in the organization’s internal affairs, neither now nor in the future. The PLO makes its own decisions and takes responsibility for them before the Palestinian people. As for any concerns expressed by certain individuals regarding Syria’s position, I personally believe that any Palestinian closely connected to the Palestinian cause would not doubt Syria’s stance regarding the Palestinian-Israeli track in the Washington peace talks. Several statements have been issued recently to address any perceived gaps in understanding.
No specific statements have been made regarding the Palestinian negotiating track. However, there is an Arab agreement on the importance of coordination and information exchange. The Palestinian delegation is engaged in a significant struggle with the Israeli side, and the situation is far from easy. We have not made any statements criticizing their efforts.
In any case, Syria is deeply committed to the rights of both the Palestinian and Syrian people, as we are part of one nation. Nobody has the authority to dictate to Syria what it should or should not do regarding its national obligations. Syria is fully aware of these obligations and its responsibilities. Anyone seeking to make suggestions should follow the path of righteousness to serve their cause effectively.
Regarding the Palestinian-Israeli track in terms of peace talks in Washington, I believe that several statements have recently been issued. Are there any gaps in this track? Why have these gaps occurred?
No statement has been made… As for the Palestinian negotiating track, there is, of course, an Arab agreement on the nature of coordination and information exchange. The Palestinian delegation is engaged in a major battle with the Israeli side, and the situation is not easy. We have not made any statements or criticisms.
In any case, Syria is committed to the rights of the Palestinian people and is concerned about the rights of the Syrian people, as we and the Palestinian people are parts of one nation. No one can dictate to Syria what it should or should not do in fulfilling its national obligations. Syria is well aware of these obligations and understands its responsibilities. Those who wish to express their opinions should follow the right path to serve their cause.
