General-Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Remarks at dinner honoring Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad, Moscow, 24 April 1987

The edifice of peace, especially in the nuclear epoch, cannot be durable if at least a part of it remains outside the security system. That is why the USSR strongly favors the settlement of conflict situations, the so-called regional conflicts. A special place among them is occupied by the Middle East problem -- one of the most chronic and involved.  For two decades now -- and if we measure that time from the very outset, even twice as long -- it has been crippling the life and destinies of the peoples of the Middle East.

     It is impossible to put up with billions spent on military needs, bloody clashes following one another, human casualties almost every day, political and psychological tensions, and an atmosphere of fear and the lack of confidence any longer. This situation affects the economy, hampers development, leads to a drop in living standards, and causes an accumulation of social problems; zones of real calamity for the people are formed.

     The dependence on military power in settling the conflict has come to be completely discredited. It would seem that there is more than enough proof of this. The principal source of the persisting conflict is the expansionist policy of the Washington-backed ruling circles of Israel. The U.S. regards the Middle East as a test range for modeling its imperial policy. The U.S., as we have observed, is using regional conflicts in general for manipulating the level of tension and confrontation.

     We express solidarity with the Arabs who refuse to recognize the occupation of their lands. We categorically condemn the discrimination against the Palestinian people denied the right to self-determination and the right of a homeland. In the future, like in the past, we will oppose any separate deals, as they are only holding back and thwarting the search for a genuine settlement.

     Israeli leaders are stubbornly clinging to a policy which has no prospects. They are trying to build the security of their country by intimidating their neighbors and are using all means, even state terror, for that purpose. This is a faulty and short-sighted policy, the more so since it is directed against almost 200 million Arabs.

     There is another, correct and reliable, way for ensuring a secure future for the state of Israel. It is a just peace and, in the final analysis, good neighborly relations with the Arabs.

     Much has been said lately about relations between the Soviet Union and Israel, and a lot of lies have been spread, too. Let me put it straight: The absence of such relations cannot be considered normal. But they were severed by Israel in the first place. It happened as a result of the [1967] aggression against the Arab countries.

     We recognize without any reservations -- to the same extent as with all other states -- the right of Israel to a peaceful and secure existence. All the same, the Soviet Union, as it has been in the past, is categorically opposed to Tel Aviv's policy of strength and annexations. It should be plain -- changes in relations with Israel are conceivable only in the mainstream of the process of settlement in the Middle East. This issue cannot be taken out of such a context. This interrelationship has been created in the course of events, by Israel's policy.

     We are confident that preparations for an international conference on the Middle East involving all the sides concerned should be a focal point for collective efforts to bring about a settlement.

     This idea, as you know, has had a stormy history -- it was not accepted at once. But the past years have demonstrated that it is the only road out of the impasse. Today it would not be an exaggeration to say that a substantial part of the international community of nations favors such a conference. Even the United States and Israel cannot maintain an openly negative stand.

     The time has come to start careful and painstaking preparatory work. The permanent members of the Security Council could take the initiative in that matter. The Soviet Union, let me affirm, is prepared for honest and constructive efforts on a collective bilateral basis.

     During our conversations we discussed these issues in sufficient detail. I cannot but express satisfaction at the fact that Syrian leadership is unswervingly following the course toward a political settlement.

     It is absolutely obvious that much will depend in this respect on the political activity and persistence of the Arab states, on coordination between them. We are saddened by disunity, frictions and conflicts in the Arab world which are vigorously exploited by imperialists and their henchmen. Naturally we saw a good sign in the current efforts to restore the unity of the PLO.

     Making sacrifices and suffering deprivations, the Syrian Arab Republic has for many years now been courageously resisting aggression, the policy of diktat and neocolonialist plans. Its vanguard positions in the anti-imperialist struggle are indisputable. Its role is indispensable in consolidating the Arab world along the lines of the Middle East settlement, the most important aim of which is the return of the territories seized by Israel and the exercise of legitimate Palestinian rights.

     Now that preparatory work for an international conference on the Middle East appears to be the order of the day, a common Arab stand on that matter is especially important. And here, in our opinion, the activity and authority of the Syrian friends can become a decisive factor.

     In conclusion, let me express confidence that cooperation and interaction between the Soviet Union and Syria sealed by the 1980 treaty will continue to successfully develop in the interests of our peoples, for the benefit of peace and progress in the Middle East and the world over.

     I wish good health to you, Comrade al-Asad, and to all Syrian guests, and peace and prosperity to the friendly Syrian people.

SOURCES: Appendix H in William B. Quandt, The Middle East: Ten Years After Camp David, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1988, 477-79; The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Documentary Record, 1967-1990, ed. Yehuda Lukacs, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 29-30.