Posted on 11/26/2007 7:09:52 AM PST by Traianus
Monday, November 26, 2007 - 11:00 AM
DAMASCUS, TV Monitoring
Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem has stressed that Annapolis Conference could be "an opportunity for peace if the Arabs committed to the Arab peace initiative and backing the Palestinian people".
He added that the meeting may constitute a step forward if the Arabs show commitment to a unified stance regarding the Arab peace initiative, Madrid Conference References and the Land-For-Peace principle, saying that "if the conference failed to achieve its goals, it is because Israel has no will for making peace".
In an interview given to al-Jazeera Satellite Channel broadcast Sunday, al-Moallem said " Syria is committed to Madrid Conference and the unity of all tracks as well as the comprehensive peace". Syria will not accept to use the Syrian-Israeli track to put pressure on the Palestinian track because the comprehensive peace can't be achieved except by the Israeli full withdrawal from the occupied Arab lands until the 1967 borders and establishment of the Palestinian independent state with Jerusalem as its capital, the Syrian official underlined.
"Annapolis Conference is not a normalization with Israel … we had participated in Madrid Conference for peace which was followed by a ten-year Syrian-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli negotiations but we didn't admit Israel but on contrary Syria has still in a state of war with Israel", he stated… "Israel to be admitted should withdraw from all the occupied Arab territories until the 1967 borders", al-Moallem continued.
"We are not ready to establish negotiations for the sake of negotiations. We want a clear decision on achieving peace accord, this is not a condition but it is the criteria for seriousness to achieve the peace accord" he underlined.
He stressed that "we can't sacrify thousands of work hours of negotiations and return to zero square because the issue of Golan is very clear and it is not negotiable and the Israeli withdrawal from it to the 4th of June 1967 Line was a commitment of all the Israeli Premiers since Rabin so the starting point of the Syrian-Israeli track is very clear".
He said when the late President Hafez al-Assad met US President Bill Clinton in Geneva on 2000, the American President Clinton showed him an Israeli map goes a little far of 4th of June 1967 Line, President al- Assad said " I do not care", so the issue of land for Syria is inevitable and sacred, al-Moallem emphasized.
Regarding Lebanon, the Foreign Minister described the stability in Lebanon as "very important", pointing out that Syria extended help to the French efforts to reach a reconciliatory President, saying that "Syria will cooperate with France as long as France works for reconciliation, stability and security in Lebanon".
He added that any name that may be chosen by reconciliation and elected according to the Lebanese constitution, Syria will deal with him as a President for Lebanon Republic, expressing hope that the Lebanese parties will unify their stances in order to maintain their security and stability.
He described the Syrian relations with both Turkey and Iran as distinguished, noting that these relations don't contradict with the Syrian distinguished relations with the Arab countries.
H.Zain/ Ghossoun
We take down Syria first (the weakest link), then on to Iran in short order (their nuke plants only, and one missile for wherever ImaNutJob lives).
We should also take all the places where the Mullahs live.
“We should also take all the places where the Mullahs live.”
I was going to add that to my comment, however, I had already pulled the trigger on my post, so it was too late. And I was too lazy to do another post, so thanks for the assist.
Good luck with that!
I hope the Israelis view the issue of the Golan as non-negotiable as well.
I woke up this morning, flicked on the radio and caught the middle of BBC news coverage of the about-to-begin Annapolis thing (meeting? conference?, event?, gathering?).
I groaned as I heard the traditional demands for even more "painful concessions" from Israel which would be required for "progress". The interview was given by some woman who obviously could not hear my groans and clever retorts.
I stomped out of the bedroom ...and when I returned, my wife (who had continued to listen) said "Did you know that that was Olmert's spokesperson?"
The Olmert government is a Zionist nightmare.
Worse yet, so does Olmert. And maybe Israel will release another 500 or so Arab terrorists for good measure.
Olmert’s far worse of an appeaser than Rabin or Peres ever were.
True... and the same Peres is now President. ACK!
How dumb and stupid the world is behaving. History repeating itself, with fools saying, “We have peace in our time.” It boggles the mind the self-delusion people have.
Israel will NEVER give up Jerusalem. This is the crux of the matter.
Hum, sounds like same thing different day. I have to wonder how things will change as the Arab world sees Iraqi’s continue to prosper in Freedom?
The leaders currently in power should be looking at “Vacation” homes in Venezuela.
Something about this “peace” meeting and the gullibility of Israel rings eerily familiar.
He added that the meeting may constitute a step forward if the Arabs show commitment to a unified stance regarding the Arab peace initiative, Madrid Conference References and the Land-For-Peace principle, saying that "if the conference failed to achieve its goals, it is because Israel has no will for making peace".Israel has always had nothing but the will for making peace. The Arabs don't want peace, they want blood and power.
What’s the point of that map, showing only Urartu and the Babylonian, Macedonian and Seleucid empires? It’s not even correct; the Seleucids held the southern half of Turkey as well as Iran & Afghanistan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.