(3 of 5)
Q. Perhaps you overestimate the power of what you call the Zionist lobby? There is also genuine sympathy for Israel among the general public.
A. I totally disagree. It is not a question of sympathy. The question is one of an organized Jewish force within the Zionist movement that dictates its views through the main centers of the media and through financial institutions. It is not a question of sentiment,,but one of material effectiveness. I find it strange that American citizens might sympathize with a state that bombards Beirut indiscriminately, using American aircraft, and yet might not sympathize with millions of displaced persons living in camps. If I am to accept this theory of sympathy, then I will have to change my view of American citizens, which I do not want to do.
Q. Now that the U.S. and Israel have failed in Lebanon, Syria carries a heavy responsibility in that country. Is there a chance for a new start to solve existing problems, particularly between Syria and Israel, the two key countries in the area?
A. We have always sought to achieve peace in the area. We agreed in 1973 to United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 [which asks that negotiations begin in order to establish a "just and durable" peace in the region] and to arrangements adopted by the U.N. that called for an International Peace Conference. However, we found that all this was in conflict with Israel's ambitions.
In the light of our experience, Israel has not sought peace based on justice and the aspirations of those who have been wronged in the area. Israel is greedy for the lands of others. Israel wants to act as a big power in an area under its hegemony. The tremendous help given by the U.S. to Israel enhances this spirit and greed.
Without this help, Israel would not have been able to expand in Arab territories. Without it, the experience of these long years would have motivated the Israelis themselves to put an end to their illegitimate ambitions.
We want a peace that will restore our rights and put an end to Israeli expansionism. In this context we have supported appeals and proposals calling for an international conference under the auspices of the U.N. We are sorry to say that American attempts made from time to time under the title of "Search for Peace" have not, in most cases, been those of a superpower with special responsibilities in our world. They have, rather, been attempts that in fact were Israeli proposals. We pointed this out frankly to the American officials who conveyed these proposals to us.
Q. Let us suppose that such a conference were convened. How would you envision the Middle East after such a meeting, including the role of Israel?
A. It is difficult to draw a detailed picture. However, we envision the Middle East as a region in which peace prevails, rights are restored to each party in the light of
U.N. resolutions and where no feeling of injustice remains with anybody. This is how we envision it.
Q. Can recognition of Israel be a subject of discussion in such a conference?
A. When we talk of a peace conference convened in accordance with U.N. resolutions, then each party puts forward what it thinks is included in these resolutions. You know that the Israelis have always said there should be no preconditions. Your question represents a precondition.