[…]
“But I want to focus on a specific phase, where the party developed a clear strategy to confront the Arab-Israeli Zionist conflict, in addition to its ideological concept. This strategy was presented by the party’s General Secretary, Comrade Hafez al-Assad, when he was the Minister of Defense, during the Fourth Qatari Conference in 1968. It led to a disagreement within the party’s leadership at that time, which was resolved on the morning of the sixteenth of November 1970. The party’s strategy was built upon the following principles and elements.
The immediate objective that all efforts should be concentrated on achieving is the goal of liberation and the restoration of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian Arab people. To attain this goal, a number of factors must be provided by the party and the state, which include:
- Reassessing the Arab situation and correcting Syria’s relations with all Arab countries. These relations were either severed or frozen with most Arab nations. This was done in order to give a national dimension to our conflict with the Zionist enemy. We restored relations with countries that were severed and revitalized relations with countries where they were frozen.
- We primarily focused on three directions: the first direction was towards Egypt, considering it as a partner in our struggle and in any potential confrontation with the Israeli enemy.
“The second direction we focused on, after 1970, was towards the oil-producing countries. This was because we saw the necessity of involving the weapon of oil and the potentials of oil in one way or another in our struggle against the Israeli enemy. Significant efforts were made personally by Comrade General Secretary, in collaboration with the Egyptian leadership at the time, to ensure that these countries played a role and held a position in this conflict. We all remember that oil was used for the first and last time in the conflict when it was halted by the United States and certain European countries that were supporting Israel.
As for the third direction we concentrated on, it was Iraq. We focused on Iraq for two fundamental reasons: firstly, because Iraq is a brotherly state that shares aspirations, hopes, and national sentiments with us. We share a long history and vital mutual interests, in addition to national considerations. Setting aside national considerations, there are regional and vital interests for both Syria and Iraq that compel them to stand together in one position and one front.
On one hand, if we manage to enlist Iraq on our side, and have it with us on the front of confrontation against Israel, we would have made significant progress towards achieving our national objectives related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Therefore, Iraq has remained and will remain an important matter and topic in relation to our national strategic vision and our National tactical vision.”
“During the Iraq-Iran War, numerous changes began to emerge on the international scene, and the gap between the East and the West started to narrow. Events accelerated, leading to significant changes in Eastern Europe, with the fall of the Warsaw Pact. It seemed as if a new world was emerging. Amidst these changes, Europe was also hastening its steps toward unity. If we review these events and their consequences for the Arab world, what happened? We see that the sole beneficiary from these developments in the world was Israel. Its relations were restored with Eastern European countries, doors were opened for it in the Soviet Union, and its connections with African nations were revitalized.
Did this situation require a special stance, a new review, and a new vision from us and the Arab world? Did we need to search for new methods to confront these developments, or should we face this new world with the same approaches and strategies that we used to face regional and international situations in the past? This matter was a subject of discussion within the party’s leadership.”
“The Comrade General Secretary initiated numerous contacts with several Arab leaders in search of a new Arab approach that would enable the Arabs to confront these international changes on one hand and the growing strength of the Israeli enemy on the other. At the same time Syria was contemplating a comprehensive strategy to address these situations, what was happening in the Arab arena? There was a movement involving Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt to establish a coalition of the four states. This was followed by a similar movement in the Arab Maghreb to form a coalition, including Morocco. While nations in Europe were unifying, and Israel was reaping the benefits of international changes, the Arabs needed to search for a new Arab approach that unified Arab potentials and enhanced the capabilities of the Arab nation. There was a necessity to review the institutions of Arab joint action, moving towards unity.
During this time, some Arab brethren resorted to dismantling the institution of Arab joint action, the Arab League, and formed such coalitions. However, what was needed was the pursuit of a single Arab coalition that could collectively face the looming dangers, without resorting to such groupings. By nature, these coalitions had a Qatari character and were geared towards Qatari interests. If we examined the documents of these coalitions, we would find no mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict. They all sought ways to preserve Qatari interests. Yet, when the quadripartite coalition was announced, it was clear to us that the Arabs were on the verge of a new war. This war would not be against Syria, but it would be in the Gulf.
Naturally, when war occurs in the Gulf, an oil-rich region, it becomes evident that foreign powers would be present in the Gulf. Moreover, it is a clear deduction that foreign powers would play a significant role in this war and intervene in the region. Thus, the Comrade General Secretary resumed his contacts with a significant number of Arab leaders, warning and alerting them about the events that would unfold in the region.”
“But unfortunately, their insight and understanding did not extend beyond their noses. Nonetheless, we did not despair, and we decided to follow the path that leads to the correction and rectification of Arab joint action. As we know, Syrian-Egyptian relations were rectified. We began discussing the possibility of convening an Arab summit and preparing for it. However, at the same time, what was happening? While the Arabs should have transcended their peripheral conflicts and recognized the real danger of Israel and the risks of international changes, Iraq resorted to sending large quantities of weapons and supplies to Lebanon, to the Lebanese Forces and to Michel Aoun. Who was this weaponry directed against? Was this weaponry directed against Israel? Not at all. This weaponry was directed against nationalists in Lebanon and was used by Michel Aoun in what he called the ‘Liberation Battle’ against Syria. The Iraqi regime spent over half a billion dollars on the Lebanese Forces and Michel Aoun, through weapons, money, and oil. This weaponry was not directed against Israel; rather, it was against nationalists in Lebanon and against Syria. Nevertheless, we endured the situation. During that period, when fear gripped every Arab citizen and anxiety about the uncertain future of the Arab homeland prevailed, the Jordanian parliament sent two messages—one to the Iraqi President and the other to the Comrade General Secretary. In these messages, there was an emotional call for the two countries to transcend their differences and unite their efforts, especially after the Iraq-Iran War had ceased, and to direct their efforts towards confronting the Israeli enemy and upcoming dangers. What was the Iraqi President’s response to the Jordanian parliament? A message was disseminated, containing a harsh and unjust campaign against Syria.”
A question may arise: Why did we send troops to Saudi Arabia? And why didn’t we remain neutral in this war? Comrades, we cannot remain neutral in this war for two reasons: Firstly, we are affected by it due to two reasons. Firstly, we are part of a nation torn apart by this war, and its effects will linger for many generations. Secondly, we are targeted in this war because it has empowered Israel, and we are confronting Israel. Thirdly, this war has destroyed Arab capabilities and potentials that should have been directed towards confronting Israel, not in the Gulf confrontation. Hence, we are concerned, and we cannot simply stand by as spectators, because this is not in the interest of Iraq, Syria, or the entire Arab nation. Why did we send troops?
Comrades, we faced two crucial and dangerous factors that compelled us to send troops. The first factor: one Arab country was destroyed, and other Arab countries were under threat of destruction, seeking relief. Should we stand by them as victims of aggression or not? They have stood by us in various ways in our struggle against the Israeli enemy. Additionally, if Arab forces did not participate in the Gulf, foreign powers would have been left to defend and protect the region alone. The ordinary citizen there would have relied on those protecting them, and then we would have lost a significant portion of the Arab homeland from our consideration, and this situation could last for a long time.
The second and most important reason is that our participation in the Gulf blocked Israel’s participation. If Syria had not sent troops to Saudi Arabia, Israel would now be the partner of the West in confronting Iraq. We must deduce the risks associated with this participation. At that point, Israel would become a partner with the West not just in oil but also in geography. Then, Israel would not need to engage in any war to establish Greater Israel, as the entire region would fall into Israeli hands.
Comrades, we accomplished a significant and historic feat by preventing Israel’s participation in the Gulf War. You can now see the pressures being exerted on the Israelis to avoid involvement. Why? Because Syria exists. If Syria did not exist, the pressure would have been on Israel to join this war.
Furthermore, we are well aware that every war, no matter how small, has significant consequences. And this war is not small. This is a major war, and it will have significant outcomes. Either we play a role in minimizing as much danger as possible from the region, or we step back and Syria becomes a pawn in the game. Our participation will allow us, in various ways, to contribute to minimizing the damages caused by this war. This is something we cannot neglect or ignore, and we cannot relinquish our responsibility in shaping and managing the future and affairs of the entire region.
Some might ask: How can Syrian forces be present in Saudi Arabia, especially when there are foreign forces that we consider ideological and political adversaries? Comrades, let me address these questions objectively, setting aside our emotions and what we should maintain towards foreign elements. Our presence is first due to the considerations I mentioned earlier. Secondly, when Kuwait was invaded, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states requested Arab assistance to liberate Kuwait and protect themselves. Let’s discuss this matter rationally, away from what we carry and what we should continue to carry towards foreigners. Are there any Arab forces capable of expelling the Iraqi forces from Kuwait and protecting the Gulf states? The Arab countries with significant military capabilities in the Arab world are Iraq, Syria, and Egypt. Let’s take Syria, for example. Syria has military capabilities to counter Iraq, but what does that imply? Should we withdraw our army from facing the Israeli enemy to fight Iraq? What could happen? Should we venture into such an ordeal? Should we place our army against Iraq and then Syria falls into Israeli hands? This is something we cannot fathom in any way.
The second aspect is that, regardless of what actions the Iraqi government may have taken against Syria, no matter the material and psychological damage it caused, it has never crossed our minds that the Syrian army would fight the Iraqi army on the Syrian-Iraqi borders, or that there would be war between the two countries. We understand that we need to remove all obstacles that prevent Iraq, both its people and army, from aligning with us. Any war between Syria and Iraq would be worse than the Umayyad-Abbasid conflict, it would destroy the potentials of both Syria and Iraq, leaving only Israel intact, and then Israel would dominate the scene.
Therefore, the leadership’s decision was to send a meaningful force that wouldn’t impact our capabilities to confront the Israeli enemy on one hand, and wouldn’t lead to a Syrian-Iraqi war on the other hand. This force defends Saudi Arabia, defends Kuwait, and stands against the Iraqi aggression; it’s not a force meant to instigate a Syrian-Iraqi war. The calculation was precise, and the measures were accurate. Hence, we sent these forces. As for Egypt, there’s no geographical proximity between it and Iraq, nor between it and Saudi Arabia; even if forces were transported, Saddam Hussein could reach Oman.
So, objectively, Arab capabilities are not able, for the reasons I mentioned, to deter the actions carried out by the Iraqi regime in the Gulf states. If war is necessary to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait, then let it be between foreigners and the Iraqis, not between Arabs and Arabs. The foreigner departs, but we, as parts of one nation, remain in this homeland. We must strive to avoid passing on to our children and future generations grudges that will reflect on the Arab nation and its future.
Therefore, we did not object when Saudi Arabia proposed in the summit conference to seek the assistance of friendly forces to defend itself and the Gulf states, with the assurance that these forces would not remain even an hour after the Kuwait crisis is resolved and the Iraqi forces are withdrawn from Kuwait. You all hear the statements made by these forces that they will withdraw as soon as the Kuwait crisis ends.
If we return to what the Iraqi regime is currently presenting in terms of slogans, do we find these slogans serious? Is it true that the Iraqi regime wants to fight Israel? Is it true that they want to support the Palestinian cause? Is it true that they want to distribute oil wealth and that the problem lies between the Arab poor and their wealthy? Is that really true? Let’s go back to the results.
For those who want to fight Israel, my comrades, they must first be in alliance with Syria and unify with it. Because those who want to fight Israel cannot do so while opposing Syria. How can this be possible? How can we believe that this country, which has employed all its human, psychological, social, and political capacities for the sake of Palestine, can face Israel separately from Syria? How can we believe that while it disrupts and weakens Syria and conspires against it? How can we believe that the Iraqi regime wants to fight Israel while it provides aid to Israel’s agents in Lebanon, using all means to undermine Syria in Lebanon and strike the national forces in Lebanon? How can we believe that, and then what happened? Several missiles were fired towards Palestine, what happened?
Comrades, does a war with Israel consist of firing a few missiles at the same time that the Iraqi army is trapped in Kuwait under the barrage of destruction, fragmentation, and disintegration? Is this how we confront the Israeli enemy? How can we believe that? And what did Israel gain as a result of these missiles and this invasion of Kuwait? Where is the uprising now? Where is the global sympathy with the uprising now?
Where is the Palestinian issue now? Do we see the uprising continuing and ongoing? Don’t we see this shift in global public opinion from besieging Israel due to the uprising to besieging the Palestinian cause due to this invasion? Then comes this torrent of military, economic, and political assistance to Israel because of a few missiles and the injury of 100 Israelis. Some fools applauded these missiles, but what did Israel gain from that? It gained a defensive system that will cost the Arab states tens of billions of dollars to balance with this system. And all of this happened because of the injury of 100 Israelis. An accident involving a bus could have injured more Israelis than these missiles did.
Israel received billions of dollars to accommodate Jewish immigrants, to settle three million Jews in Palestine. What does that mean? What does it mean to settle three million Jews? Is this how we confront Israel? The only beneficiary of this war is Israel, and the biggest loser in this war is the Arab nation, especially the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause.
