In his interview with Al-Manar TV, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad affirmed that he fully supports the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine “without reluctance or shyness” regarding it as the [ultimate] “solution.” He said that when it comes to the resistance, “we cannot be neutral.” Asked why he doesn't stage a war to liberate the occupied Golan Heights (i.e. a resistance movement), he said that “the resistance is not formed upon a decision from the state, but from the people, when there isn't a state that works for liberating the land…After all, you only go for a war when you lose hope in achieving peace.” Then he stressed his tendency to peace and unwillingness to [engage] in a war which is “the worst case scenario” unless he was forced to do so. He pointed out that “Israel only has the option of peace because its power is corroding while the choice of resistance is taking precedence among Arabs. Its military power is no longer a guarantee [for its victory].” During the Arab League Summit that was held in Libya a few days after this interview, Al-Assad underscored “the need to spread the culture of resistance since all other choices have proven their failure.” While referring to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Al-Assad noted that “we have discovered in the region that the price of resistance is less costly than the price of defeat and submission.” It should be said that this new Syrian wisdom and inclination to peace is a positive and desired thing, but it should not be restricted to what concerns Syria only, as it should support the similar peaceful approaches and tendencies in other Arab countries, namely in Lebanon and Palestine, especially since Israel is common in all cases. The same terminologies could not be used in a conflicting way at the same time, whereby the Palestinian Authority's endeavor to restore the rights by negotiations – albeit indirect ones – is seen as a “defeat” and “submission” while the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations under a Turkish sponsorship mirror a desire for peace. Likewise, the endeavor of Lebanese sides to restrict the arms to the state raises doubts and suspicion, while restricting the arms to the Syrian State comes in the framework of management and legitimacy. Moreover, it cannot be said that the state in Lebanon does not obviate the need for the resistance, while the state in Syria does, although the governments that took office in Lebanon throughout the Syrian tutelage era, particularly in its last years, identified completely with the Syrian vision of the resistance and devoted all its capabilities to its service. In addition, the human, economic, and geographical capacities of both countries, in terms of size and significance, and the capability of each country to launch resistance, cannot be compared. If we were to compare Israel's positions on the occupied Lebanese and Syrian territories, we would find a major difference. The vast majority of the Lebanese had never heard of the Shebaa farms before the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, while the Golan Heights have been occupied since 1967 and the occupation decided to annex it to Israel 30 years ago. It also issued a law in this regard that allows it to establish settlements and exploit the land and water at will. Besides, while an extremist Israeli rhetoric on the Golan Heights is adopted, the Hebrew State (without acquitting its intentions) says that the Shebaa Farms are Syrian land and that it is willing to return them to Damascus in the framework of a peace agreement, or to Lebanon, provided that Syria acknowledges that they belong to Lebanon. So, in your opinion, why does the Lebanese people launch a “liberating war”?
