On his impressions of
Pres. Obama, his hopes from Obama’s
[at that moment underway] Cairo speech, and Sen. George Mitchell’s peace
mission:
We think Pres. Barack Obama seems very sincere. But can he deliver? There is
always Congress and the pro-Israeli lobby to take into account.
With the speech, we hope Obama can
deliver everybody’s dreams! Including his own dream, and that of the
Palestinians—to see the occupied territories freed from occupation and
all Israelis to be able to live in peace.
… I don’t know
Sen. Mitchell, but I have worked closely in the past with Fred Hof, who is one
of his assistants. What we’ve heard about Mitchell’s work in Northern Ireland
and on the Mitchell Commission on the Palestinian issue is encouraging to
us. We are very ready to work with
him.
We approve of Barack Obama a lot. The man put a comprehensive peace back on the
agenda. He also intends to pull out of Iraq completely. We are ready to help
with that, but we need our conditions in the matter addressed, too.
On the May 31st
phone call he had with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
I think Hillary Clinton is a good and effective Secretary of
State. We agreed on a Road Map to normalize US-Syrian relations in all
fields—political, security, and cultural. We agreed we have a mutual, shared vision that centers around these three points: to stabilize Iraq; to work for a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East; and to cooperate on combating
terrorism.
We realize none of these depend on Syria and the US alone;
but they also involve other players.
On the way the Obama administration has been implementing sanctions
against Syria:
I am very eager to see a real improvement in our relations
with Washington. But nothing has happened yet. Even on the question of the
parts for our civilian air fleet [whose shipment has been blocked under the
US’s sanctions legislation], we have seen no movement. They haven’t informed
the Europeans yet that it’s okay to ship those parts. I think your Commerce
Secretary could authorize this whenever he wants, as it’s a matter of aviation
safety.
… It seems anachronistic to us that Obama
recently renewed the Syrian Accountability and Restoration of Lebanese
Sovereignty Act. The issue has been resolved! We withdrew our troops from
Lebanon, and have exchanged ambassadors with Beirut.
On Syria’s continued
presence on the State Department’s list of “state sponsors of terrorism”:
We know that our position on the list is not even really in
regard to Syria and the United States as such, but more related to Hizbullah and Hamas and their fight against Israel. But
it’s very strange that you condemn me as a “terrorist” at the same time as you
call on me to help you combat terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere. It doesn’t make
sense!
On Sen. Kerry, who
visited Damascus recently and held a number of meetings with Pres. Bashar al-Asad:
Sen. Kerry’s role is essential. He enjoys the trust of my
president. They have had good meetings and several good telephone calls. There
is chemistry between the two men, you could say.
On prospects for
dealing with Israel’s Likud government:
The most important thing is that there should be a political
decision for peace. It is not important to us whether the government is Likud
or Labour.
On the Arab Peace
Initiative:
Yes, there is Arab consensus on the Arab Peace Initiative,
which was reaffirmed at the Arab summit in Doha [in late March]. This mandates
the implementation of all the Security Council’s resolutions about the
Arab-Israeli issue and lays out commitments for what will happen after that.
On the proximity talks
that the Turkish government hosted throughout several months of 2008 between
Syria and Israel:
We were very happy with the Turkish role. The Turks were
completely professional, trustworthy, and helpful as mediators. We think that
was a good approach: to start with the indirect talks in that way. And then, if
we had gotten over the preliminaries with the Turks the plan was to hand the
task of completing the peace agreement over to the Americans.
The best way would be to try to repeat this approach now. If
this should succeed, the success would belong to Barack
Obama—and if we fail, the failure would be ours
alone!
Why do we need the US in this? Firstly, because of the
unique nature of the relationship they have with Israel, and secondly because
of their command of certain technical capabilities—for monitoring and
verification of a peace agreement—that only the United States has.
On Syria’s previous
peace efforts with Israel—in nearly all of which he was a direct
participant:
We got closest to bridging our differences under Rabin. He
was the only Israeli leader we have dealt with who had a real strategic vision
for this region. We were able to engage on every single issue with him. We
differed only on some details regarding the timetable for implementation.
The effort that [US-Israeli businessman] Ron Lauder
launched, trying to mediate between us and Netanyahu’s first
government in the 1990s also seemed very serious. But it ended
prematurely. Lauder told us that Ariel Sharon had interfered, leaking news of
the initiative to Daniel Pipes and thereby aborting it.
We were ready to sign an agreement with Israel even if the
Palestinians didn’t conclude their agreement. But this has to be a genuine
peace agreement for us.
On Iran, US-Iranian
and Syrian-Iranian relations:
We are ready to help. We want to help inform both sides
about their real importance—about the United States’ true importance in
the world, and Iran’s true importance in the region.
Can the relationship we have with Iran help us to resolve
the Arab-Israeli conflict—or, will solving the Arab-Israeli conflict
actually help to reduce the importance of Iran in regional affairs? These are
important questions to discuss.
Why would the US want to persist in trying to mobilize an
Arab-Israeli coalition against Iran? We are talking about peace in the
whole region!
What would happen if we managed to achieve that? Iran would
then have to choose to go with the peace, or against it.
If a close ally of Iran like Syria went to Iran and said
‘This peace is in our interest’, what do you think would they do? I can tell
you they have never opposed any of our peace moves since 1991. Even with
the Turkish mediation last year, they told us they supported it.
On whether Syria could
mediate between Fateh and Hamas:
This mediation effort needs an Egyptian direct role, as at
present; and that role should be supported by the Arabs.
But the mediator should be neutral between Fateh
and Hamas. Ultimately, the two Palestinian parties must come together to reach
common ground between them without pressure.
They need to see that they are both losing from the present
stalemate—both of them!
Gaza is in a terrible humanitarian situation, and has to be
a priority.
Now we have a new U.S. president with a different approach,
so we hope there can be speedy progress.
He should realize, though, that Hamas has already taken two
important steps: Khaled Meshaal
announced his support for a Palestinian state with its border at the pre-1967
line—he did this at a press conference two years ago, and has restated
that position many times since. He
has also said that Hamas will accept a political solution to the conflict if
the majority of Palestinians accept it. That means he accepts the political
solution.
The Palestinians will have to have an election in January,
anyway. But meanwhile, their split need not be, and indeed is not, an obstacle
to progress in peacemaking.
On whether and how he
sees the issue of the Three Preconditions the US and its Quartet allies defined
for any Hamas participation in peacemaking getting resolved:
First of all, this is a matter for the Palestinian parties
to resolve, not Syria.
Secondly, this idea of “recognizing Israel” as a
pre-condition to the Quartet even talking with Hamas has no basis in the
international terms of reference for the diplomacy. Look at us: We have
negotiated with Israel since 1991, sometimes very productively indeed, and we
have never given, or been required to give, formal recognition to Israel.
Recognition is something that will be part of the outcome of a successful peace
negotiation, and should not be considered a precondition!
Thirdly, these preconditions have become an obstacle in
intra-Palestinian reconciliation, so everyone needs to find a way to remove that
obstacle.
His hopes regarding
the Lebanese elections of June 7th:
I hope they happen peacefully, and that the Lebanese people
choose people who will represent their interests well. And I wish the Lebanese people well!
On the potential role
in the peacemaking of Quartet member Russia:
The diplomatic initiative the Russians are now undertaking
is serious. We told [Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov
when he was here that the peacemaking effort needs to be prepared well; it
needs to have a clear aim; it needs to be conducted on the basis of clear
understandings; and it needs to build on what’s been achieved already. We
believe Russia can help in all these parts of the effort.
congradulations Helena, I wish you much success.
Hafid
Moualem pointed out that Hamas has already responded positively to Western demands. It is unfortunate that Carter, in his recent call for Washington to talk with Hamas did not (judging from the Haaretz summary of his remarks) recognize the concessions that Hamas has made.
I wonder if any U.S. current or former high official has yet had the honesty to recognize how much Hamas has moved toward formally accepting compromise?
If Washington refuses to admit that its antagonists are offering to compromise, then it is hard to see how we can make progress.