November 1992, Page 23

What They Said

"It is the Israelis Who Are Now Missing an Opportunity"

(Excerpts from an interview with Dr. Mouwafak Al Allaf, chief Syrian delegate to the Middle East peace talks, by correspondent Barbara G.B. Ferguson. The interview, conducted after the sixth round of Middle East peace talks in Washington, DC, was printed in the Saudi Gazette of Jeddah on Oct. 8, 1992.)

If peace were impossible, we would not be here. We did not come to play. We came to try to establish peace and I think if Israel has the same. . . sincere and serious desire, peace is possible. . .

The problem with our Israeli interlocutors is that they always present the obvious things they have to do because there is nothing else to offer as concessions. They came here after 11 months of the peace process and said they had made a concession because they now have decided that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is the basis of the peace process. But everybody is gathered here, since Madrid, on the basis of 242. So this is not a concession. This is something that should have been recognized and accepted since Oct. 19, 1991.

They presented only past Israeli views, past Israeli preconditions and past Israeli ideas. We presented them a document that says, of course, what things we are interested in and what things are important to us. But we also included things that we think are the legitimate concerns of Israel, such as the questions of security arrangements and security guarantees. . .

They say their acceptance of our document is a concession. . . What is important is to make peace. And, after peace is made, if peace is genuine, if peace is real, then all these things that they are now trying to impose as preconditions would be of no value, because there would be normal relations between countries. What is important is to make peace possible.

A breakthrough is only possible when Israel decides to stop imposing preconditions. We were invited to a peace process, with certain documents-U.N. resolutions 242 and 338-with a principle of land for peace. That was not said by us, that was said by the co-sponsors.

Two important principles are written in 242: Israel's withdrawal from the territories they occupied in 1967; and the end of the state of war, or claims of wars, and the acknowledgment of independence of countries. The Arabs are sitting, ready and willing, to make peace and to do all that they have to do under these resolutions. So the breakthrough will be when Israel decides to do the same. . .

Of course, their style now is better than before, but the substance is absent, as it was absent during the previous [Israeli] government. . . Now Mr. Rabin says he is serious, and that he is not a detriment to peace. But we haven't seen this in the negotiations. Maybe it was because it was the first round. . . Maybe they are waiting for the results of the American elections. . .

We were invited to a peace process with a principle of land for peace.

You can consider the statement of [Syrian Foreign Minister] Farouk Charaa about total peace for total withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories. . . Our policy is not a secret policy but an open policy-because we have nothing to hide. And when we request the return of all of our territory, it is something we consider to be the only possible and obvious thing to do. . . They will have to withdraw from our territory-the sooner the better. Not only for us but for them, because we would like to think that their people also need peace. . .

The first half of the peace equation is that Israel has to withdraw completely from the Arab territories they occupied in 1967. Now this is the universal consensus, this is the formula.

The other half of the equation is that the Arabs now have to end the state of war with Israel and to end their claims. . . resulting from a state of belligerency with Israel and to acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every state in the region. That means Israel as well as the Arab states. There is also the element in 242 that all states have to recognize the right of one another to live within secure and recognized boundaries.

But, since all these things come under the umbrella of the important principles and resolutions of 242, of inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war, that means you have to implement all these things without violating that basic principle. Therefore you cannot use the pretext of security to annex or keep a part of the territory under occupation saying, "this is necessary because I feel more secure by having it," especially in this era.

What you need in order to safeguard security is recognition and legitimacy. Then your neighbors will respect your borders, and vice versa. If there is peace, then all these ramifications of belligerency, of enmity, and of conflict, will be solved by themselves. . . The chain of vengeance and retaliation is an evil circle and we want to break that circle and establish peace in order to live in peace.

The average person supports very strongly the peace process. Of course, there are people in every country, a minority, who are against peace or, if they are not against peace itself, they do not believe this is the right way to achieve peace. They have no trust in the other side.

This is true for Arabs-the Syrians, Palestinians and the Jordanians-who do not believe Israel is sincere. They do not trust this peace process and they believe the Arabs have made a lot of concessions. They also believe that Israel does not deserve those concessions because they feel they take what the Arabs give as concessions and they ask for more without doing anything in return.

The same thing may be true on the other side, but these are, I hope, a minority. . . I am sure that if the peace process ends with success, the Syrian people will support it wholeheartedly. . .

I have thought very deeply about the fact that the Arabs were always accused of missing an opportunity, especially our Palestinian brothers, and also the other Arabs. But when I look at things, it seems to me that. . . it is the Israelis who are now missing an opportunity which may never be repeated. Everything is changing in this Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Arabs used to say, "no, no, no," and the "no's" of the Khartoum conference are well-known: no recognition, no peace, no surrender to Israel. Now the no's are not Arab no's. They have become Israel "no's": no Palestinian state, no PLO, no Jerusalem, no representatives from Jerusalem, no involvement by the U.N. in the peace process, no Palestinian delegation, no right of the Palestinians to select their own representatives.