Here below is the full text:

My brothers, honourable Arab leaders, Ladies and gentlemen, It is my pleasure to address you today.

I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to state of Qatar and the brotherly Qatari people for hosting our Arab summit; and to thank my brother, Prince of Qatar, His Highness Prince Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, for the efforts he has exerted in order to create the appropriate atmosphere for convening the summit.

The time which separated the Damascus summit and our summit today was full of important events regionally and internationally. Despite the predominantly dangerous and negative nature of those events, yet there have been limited positive developments which give hope of changes which might lead towards a better future.

Although these events have largely varied, the common feature which characterized them was international failure to address their causes and ramifications which have spun out of control and had an impact on all countries without exception, rich and poor, developing and developed.

What we call international failure is in fact an international monopoly, on the part of a small number of countries, of all decisions in the political, economic, technological and other areas worldwide, and which led to catastrophic consequences which affected the whole world.

We, in the Arab world, are going to pay the price paid by other countries of the world as a result of a deteriorating world economy, in addition to the price we are paying as a result of a chronic political imbalance in the world and in our region.

This international monopoly, which has been a slammed door in the face of participation of other peoples and countries, and which has been eroding in the last few years, has brought the world to a crisis, which despite its severity, could constitute an opportunity and an open door through which we could take part, with others, in the process of looking for the foundations of a new world order which brings justice to all peoples.

This process will not be achieved through academic research for new theories that we need to implement, but through strengthening our position and planning our future, using our own will this time, not the will of others. The comprehensive change taking place now is similar, to a large extent, to the process of reshaping the world which happened towards the middle of last century, when we begged others for rights which were originally ours. We handed them those rights so that they return them to us.

They ignored us then and still ignore us now. Since we try not to make the same mistakes again, we need to realize that the world respects only those who respect themselves, does not concede a position except to those who take their positions with their own efforts, and does not return a right except to those who work hard for returning their rights, hold on to them, defend them and fight for them.

Only when we do that it means that we are at the beginning of the right road towards the future. The rest of the road can be walked by possessing the will and the energy, then reaching an understanding and enhancing the solidarity which was the motto of the Damascus summit, and which we have worked tirelessly to achieve immediately after the summit with a number of Arab leaders and officials who worked silently and quietly until we reached the recent reconciliations and meetings,between the Kuwait economic summit and our present summit.

It is natural that reconciliations are the most important subject at this stage as the foundations for the success or failure of any decision we take in any area. In the absence of solidarity, or when solidarity is weakened, any agreement or decision remains a mere illusion with no possibility of implementation.

We have no doubt that Arab citizens have almost lost hope in Arab differences becoming mere exceptions after solidarity has become the exception in the relations between our countries. This way they lose hope in the possibility of any other real issue materializing on the ground, and the state of frustration which is already prevailing among them will get deeper.

This was abundantly clear a few months ago, specifically during the Israeli aggression on Gaza, which was the natural outcome of the Israeli criminal mind, on the one hand, and our own divisions, on the other.

However, the changes which happened in the weeks that followed the Kuwait economic summit have restored a glimmer of hope to all of us, in the possibility of moving these relations in a better direction.

But the question which lingers in the mind of every Arab citizen is: is this temporary or lasting? And we, as officials, wonder how to make it a permanent? My own answer is: by making our actions systematic, methodological and institutionalized. Up to this moment, our relations have been subject to our personalities and moods as individuals, and consequently are subject to misunderstanding and misjudgment and to hiccups every time we face a particularly sensitive problem.

If we want to continue what we have started, the situation does not tolerate severe and unexpected fluctuations. Any achievement we try to make is based on our having the will to realize it. And I am confident that all of us have the will, but good intentions and a genuine will are not sufficient, for they constitute the base and the foundations, while we are trying today to have a full structure.

The problems is not in having differences per se, for this is natural and is a normal result of the variety of human nature, whether in the same nation, the same country or the same family.

The real problem, however, is in the way we deal with differences and in the way we 'manage our differences'. We cannot manage our differences appropriately unless we start by unifying our vision of the type of solidarity we want. Arab solidarity does not mean that we become copies of each other; it means we complement each other.

It does not mean cloning our positions, it rather means coordinating these positions. Having identical positions requires identical circumstances which produce a single vision; and this does not exist due to objective reasons.

As to difference, instead of viewing it as a negative contradiction, let us see its positive side as a form of versatility which expresses a diversity of views if we succeed in using it for our purposes through the complementarity of its different components.

Our differences are not over interests: in reality, there is no contradiction or conflict in interests between any two Arab countries; it is a difference in views. The starting point for any form of Arab solidarity, in this case, is a dialogue based on accepting differences based on the different circumstances facing every country.

This kind of dialogue insures that there is no justification or possibility for any difference to turn into a serious dispute which in the end damages the common interests which did not in the first place cause the emerging problem.

However, if such a foundation is necessary for improving Arab solidarity, it is by no means sufficient. Institutionally controlled political practices are necessary for its survival and stability.

Allow me to propose a number of practical points derived from our Arab experiences during the last few years, and which, I think, will save us from many pitfalls in our Arab-Arab relations: - First, if any Arab country wants to launch an initiative, it should do that before the Arab summit leaving an agreed upon period of time so no country could ignore it and so that all Arab countries could study it and hold consultations over it.

Our experience has shown that sometimes, there is no agreement or consensus over certain initiatives, and this might lead to schisms in Arab relations which could have been avoided had there been consultations over them beforehand, and consequently a potential failure of the summit could be avoided. - Second, no initiative pertaining to specific issues related to specific countries should be proposed without the consent of the countries concerned based on the principle of supporting rather than replacing each other.

Those who have a cause are the most entitled to and most capable of identifying their needs and knowing their interests. - Third, when initiatives are made concerning differences between two countries or different parties in the same country, we think that the support or adoption of the institution of the Arab League at the summit or foreign ministers level should be based on the acceptance of the initiative by all the parties concerned, and not only some of them.

This helps the Arab League avoid becoming a party to the initiative instead of sponsoring and supporting it. Otherwise, the main problem will be further complicated and the potential for division among us concerning the initiative and the proposed solutions will grow.

In all cases, if differences persist, let us discuss them face to face, which is the main purpose of holding Arab summits and meetings at different levels. But, no matter how acute differences become, they should never be taken outside the Arab framework, and we should not undermine each other in front of others.

Otherwise, how could we ask others to adopt one policy towards our causes, while we use different policies; or how could we ask them for policies which support our interests while we pursue policies which undermine each other's interests. Ladies and gentlemen, We have all witnessed the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and saw with our own eyes the atrocious crimes committed by Israel against innocent Palestinians. Despite our consensus that Palestinian differences paved the way for the aggression, this should not make us forget the real criminal.

And despite our unlimited support, as Arab leaders, for Palestinian reconciliation, which strengthens the Palestinian people and prevents a possible Israeli aggression, we should not ignore Israel's reality as a state built on aggression and killing, and the fact that it sees its future in expelling the Palestinians to an alternative homeland in order to become a purely Jewish state.

Although we welcome the fact that most countries of the world realize the real intentions of the recently elected government in Israel which opposes peace, we stress that this government expresses the views of those who elected it, and this is a clear and not surprising message which declares that peace for the Israelis is only a tactical option which aims at covering their long-term goals based on not returning any of the rights they usurped from us. This does not require that we change our strategy in relation to peace.

But the tactics and mechanisms should change, not with the change of Israeli governments, but keeping in mind the constancy of Israel's real goals and its aggressive policies towards us and towards the peace process.

In this framework, there has been a wide ranging controversy recently over the Arab peace initiative after the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and based on the discussions at the Doha summit and the Kuwait economic summit.

I am talking about this since Syria is one of the three countries which are directly concerned with the peace process, in addition to Lebanon and Palestine; and since the issue itself is linked to our national interests. That is why we should approach it with extreme clarity and accuracy without any pleasantries which could undermine our interests.

The principle in any discussion of peace is that we should not make any connection between our general tendencies towards peace and the changes happening inside Israel. Otherwise, the Israelis will force upon us their constantly changing circumstances instead of us forcing on them our constant position towards our causes and rights.

Change in Israel is merely superficial, while the substance remains the same; that is why some people occupy themselves with changing appearance of the Israelis and ignore their constant substance which is opposed to peace.

This means that we should not make peace hostage to changes in Israel. The election of a right-wing and extremist government does not change anything in reality; for their right is like their left and centre.

All of them are competing over the Arabs' land, life and blood. All of them reflect the fact that Israeli society is not prepared for peace. It has never been prepared before, but it is getting worse and worse. We must expect that, with time, governments which are more opposed to peace will be elected by a society which is becoming more extremist and aggressive.

This makes crystal clear that we, the Arab side, and since we have launched the Arab peace initiative, have no real partner for the peace process which cannot be achieved with only the Arab side.

This initiative is ineffective, even if we activate it, because it does not have the preconditions for such an activation, because Israel will not accept an initiative based on terms of reference which return the rights to their legitimate owners. In other words, Israel was the party which killed the initiative not the Doha summit, an idea which some people tried to market.

This initiative is not a new frame of reference, it is rather a formula which encompasses the terms of reference which the Arabs adhere to in order to achieve peace. This is in addition to the other incentive to Israel in the form of collective Arab preparedness to sign a peace agreement if Israel is committed to peace.

We, the Arab side, have never abandoned, and will never abandon, these terms of reference which guarantee our rights. That is why there was the proposal of suspending the Arab initiative in the Doha summit as a natural reaction to Israel's indifference to peace which culminated in its aggression on Gaza.

The fact that we have not withdrawn the initiative means that we adhere to the terms of reference which it includes and which Israel evades. Suspending it means that the conditions for activating it, primarily the absence of an Israeli side willing to accept it, are not available.

It also means that it is still there, but conditionally. When the conditions become available, it can be activated and its components put into practice. Those who want to work with us within its framework, should convince us that there is an other side seriously interested in peace.

As to the view that we should give the initiative as a card to the countries which want to support the peace process, we respect this view; but we say that the card they have consists of the terms of reference contained in the initiative.

So, they can move based on these terms of reference, for they are the substance and the principle. When they can persuade the Israelis of these terms, the initiative is there and work then could be conducted through it.

All this means that knocking on doors in order to market the initiative or to persuade others of the value of what we are proposing through a delegation representing the summit is useless. We tried this in the past as a way of activating the initiative after every summit held after launching the initiative in the hope of seeing a serious Israeli change, which we think an unlikely prospect in the foreseeable future, or an international change which puts pressure on Israel to make it move towards the peace process, which has not happened so far.

What actually happened is the exact opposite in the 'Union for the Mediterranean Summit' in Paris, when the participating European countries refused to include the initiative at all in its concluding statement. Then they turned and expressed enthusiasm for the initiative. So, what is the secret behind this unjustified contradiction? Therefore, we should not rely on others, nor should we build on their positions.

We should rely on our own strengths; and the key to this strength lies in our solidarity, our unified positions and our faith in the validity of constancy and steadfastness. In this context, peace will not be realized with an enemy which does not believe in peace without peace being imposed on it by the resistance.

Our desire for peace is our incentive for supporting the resistance. Supporting it is a national and moral duty. It is our only option in the absence of other options; so, let us put it above our circumstantial differences as a cause which unites us and a principle in which we believe as long as occupation persisted and rights remained usurped.

Our faith in peace and our adherence to it is as strong as our faith in the resistance and our adherence to it. If the responsibility for failing to achieve stability in our region could be blamed on the international situation, we too are directly responsible for that when we do not resist attempts to confiscate our decisions, control our destiny and interfere in our internal affairs.

What is happening to the Sudan now is yet another chapter in the process of intimidating the Arabs and not respecting the sovereignty of their states. The warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against an Arab president, under false pretexts, is the first step towards dividing Sudan in order to weaken it and then control its resources and divide them among a group of countries which seek to repeat the experience of the 'mandate' by using international institutions in a prelude to reintroducing colonialism in a more modernized form.

While respecting international resolutions and the institutions which take them and are created by them, we have never thought that they could replace us or determine our destiny for us as states and peoples. We respect them because we are committed to the Charter signed by our countries; and consequently, we must reject any decision taken in violation of this Charter without hesitation.

More clearly, what is called the international legitimacy today has never been, and should never be above the national legitimacy of any country which respects itself and protects its independence at any cost. What is happening to the Sudan today is the same thing that happened to Palestine at the beginning of the last century and whose price we are still paying up till now.

We are called upon today not to criticize the warrant, not to characterize it – and we are all agreed that it is politicized – but to reject it categorically and to express absolute support for the Sudan at this stage of the confrontation in order to save it, and save our countries from the consequences which will inevitably follow and lead to its fragmentation.

We will discuss their fabricated accusations against Sudan when those who committed atrocities and massacres in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq are arrested and brought before the court facing the same charges, which are not fabricated but proven and documented. If we fail in shouldering our present responsibilities, with the destructive consequences for all of us, we will have a historical responsibility for not doing our duty towards a cause which is as clear as the sun in its beginnings, justifications, tools and goals.

The views we keep hearing about political steps that we and the Sudan should take, or the calls for postponing the decision for a year, or sending letters anywhere, will not achieve anything. They will only encourage those standing implicitly behind the decision to carry out more similar acts of interference, which will not be limited to Sudan but will target other Arab and non-Arab countries.

That is why I repeat my call for taking a clear and brave position which rejects the warrant instead of characterizing it, and which is decisive instead of relegating decision taking to the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, As I said in the beginning, the issues and events of last year are numerous; and they are reviewed in the report attached to the letter I sent to the Arab leaders. That is why I thought I should touch on the issues which I think need a more urgent discussion.

Regardless of the details of the issues raised before us today, their prospects are related to the position which we decide to take: whether we want to be followers attached to the tail or partners at the forefront. If we chose the second position, it should be based on having confidence in ourselves, our nation, our history and our people. It should be based on us shouldering our responsibilities towards our causes instead of waiting for gifts to be handed down to us by others.

These are things which are not theirs to start with. We must call things with their right names: the war on terrorism is a war against us in support of terrorism, and spreading democracy by others is spreading chaos. Not giving excuses for Israel's acts means not demanding rights it usurped and being defeated by it. Inventing imaginary enemies in our region to replace Israel, as the only enemy, means helping Israel.

Resistance is an honour not an accusation to be levied against us. We should be proud of it. We should not allow others to characterize our causes in order not to be unfair to our people, in order not to lose the support of the countries which have sympathized with us, and in order not to allow others to replace us or interfere in our affairs.

In other words, we should seek help instead of being completely dependent. Only then we can take a position worthy of our aspirations, forge our own vision and export instead of import the terminology which expresses our reality, our vision and interests.

Only then, every step we take will have an impact and every summit we hold will have its weight. I look forward, with you, to achieving the goals which we have set, which I do not find to be beyond our capability. It is in our hands, it depends on our will, and with this will we shall win the bet for the future.

Thank you, sisters and brothers, and it gives me great pleasure to hand the presidency of the summit over to my brother, His Highness Prince Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Prince of Qatar who, I am sure you agree, is the best guardian for this trust.

Thank you