First we recite Sourat "Al Fatiha" to the souls of our dear and honored martyrs, especially the martyred leaders who we salute today on the anniversary of their dear memory. These martyred leaders are; Master of all resistance martyrs H.E. Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Abbas Moussawi, his martyred wife Um Yasser and their child Hussein, His Eminence Sheikh Ragheb Harb and the dear brother and leader of Jihad and resistance martyr Imad Moghnieh.

I take refuge in God from Satan the outcast, in the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, peace and prayers be upon our Lord and Seal of the Prophets Abu Kassem Mohammad the chosen and upon his infallible household, his chosen good companions and all the prophets and messengers. Dear brothers and sisters, peace and God`s mercy and blessings be upon you.

God Almighty says in his glorious book: "And those who believe in God and His apostles- they are the Sincere (lovers of Truth), and the witnesses (who testify), in the eyes of their Lord: They shall have their Reward and their Light."

At the beginning, as this month (February) coincides with the Hijri month of Safar, and due to the painful incidents of this month, my duty is to present my condolences to the Islamic Ummah (nation) on the death memory of the great prophet, the master and seal of all prophets until the end of time.

I also offer my condolences on the martyrdom of Imam Hassan bin Ali (as) Grandson of the prophet, as well as on the martyrdom of Imam Ali bin Moussa Al Rida (as).
In midst of the sad atmosphere in Lebanon, I also renew my condolences and express my sorrow and sadness to the families of the victims who died in the Ethiopian plane crash. These families bared a lot for the past weeks, and they still suffer pain as they await the bodies of their beloved ones, which are retrieved sometimes with missing parts due to nature's wearing away.

Our condolences also go to the family of martyr Prime Minister Rafic Hariri on the fifth anniversary of his martyrdom, especially to his wife and son Prime Minister Sa'ad Hariri, and to all brothers and sisters of the Future movement and lovers of Hariri.

Dear brothers and sisters,
After this inevitable duty, I move on to talk about our martyred leaders and before their honored families.

Of course we renew our commiseration for the loss of loved ones, indeed great loved ones we lost during the past stages! But at the same time, I again congratulate the families of the martyrs, because these beloved martyrs have won greatly, and have achieved the emblem of martyrdom which only those of great luck can attain. For such reasons, our martyrs, all our martyrs including the leaders are our pride and dignity' as we learned in the school of Jihad and martyrdom.

Dear brothers and sisters, at first I would like to talk about our martyred leaders. From these great leaders I will move on to tackle the main issue and major responsibility in the resistance, embodied in the challenges and threats we are facing in the meantime, as well as in how to act here in Lebanon with such threats and challenges-from our perspective at least.

This is the point I want to focus on, which is in line with the nature of the occasion. Of course there are important internal issues that should be addressed, but due to the short time I have, I will focus on this dimension which is the strongest bond when it comes to this occasion and to the anniversary of the martyred leaders.

When we refer back to those leaders, to Sayyed Abbas, Sheikh Ragheb and Hajj Imad, and look into their personalities, memoirs, and behavior in search for common characteristics, we find that their characteristics are so similar to an extent they almost match. These characteristics include faith, piety, religiousness, devotion, honesty, love of people, modesty, longing to people, and strong passion. Those people enable us to understand how one can be tough yet kind, and how one can stand in face of the enemies of his land, country, and people and destroy them on one hand, and cry like a little baby over the body remains of martyrs in the different massacres such as that of Qana.

I start with an important idea, as it is the point from which I begin my main speech. It is the element of "youth" which brings the three martyred leaders together. These martyred brothers since boyhood and at an early age were aware of the struggle with the "Israeli" enemy mainly on Al Quds and Palestine.

Since boyhood, this awareness grew owing to the missing leader His Eminence Sayyed Moussa Al Sadr - may Allah return him and his companions safely. Since boyhood, they were motivated to join in carrying part of the responsibility, to be part of the work, part of the giving, and part of the sacrifice.

Since boyhood, those were men and not boys. They did not live pastimes, did not know what a life of luxury and fun is like. Nor did they know what life like of those boys in their age.
They were men since they were little, they stayed men throughout their youth and left this world as men when became martyrs.

Allah the Almighty chose a path and route for each one of them so that each would play his role. And so was Sheikh Ragheb the title and symbol of popular uprising, he was the title of civil challenge and steadfastness, the title of the uprising of women and children, and the title of a resistance that rejects to shake hands with the enemy or smile in his face, and rejects his presence in first place. His blood was the blood which found a victory for the resistance at that time.

Sayyed Abbas had his position in the founding of the resistance. He also had his position in organization, Jihad, and leadership of the General Secretariat. He was the leader of the resistance movement, a leader of the resistance operations. He reinforced the course the martyrs paved with their blood.

As for Hajj Imad, he was the leader on ground, and leader on field. He was a promise keeper and faithful to the blood of the martyrs. He was the interpreter to the gunshot, bomb, tactic, rocket, fighting means and fighting plans.

These leaders had before their eyes, the wishes, hopes, dreams, pains of the tyrannized and oppressed due to the occupation and aggression against this country. Each one of those brothers spent his youth in the resistance, in its different positions whether intellectual, mobilization, popular, civil, Jihadi, and each of them ended up as a martyr at a young age.

Sometimes and just like you all, when I see the photos [of the martyred leaders] I go back in time and see them as old. But Sheikh Ragheb Harb was martyred at the age of 32, a man at a very young age, Sayyed Abbas the Secretary General was martyred at the age of 40 only, and Hajj Imad Moghnieh was martyred at the age of 46 only- one of the great people in this Ummah said "Hajj Imad lived a life full of blessings." In fact, I say -like this great person- Hajj Imad's survival for 46 years is indeed an accomplishment.
And so these brothers were martyred young.

We stand before an example of the martyrs who lived all their lives having a sense of awareness since a very young age. They carried responsibilities and filled the days of their lives in hard work for the sake of Allah, in the service of their people and cause. Since boyhood and since youth, they presented their own blood for the sake of their Ummah and people. They presented all this so that people would live with dignity, freedom, and safety.

The martyred leaders were also capable of finding generations of young men who took responsibility of the resistance, fought, were martyred, resisted, tolerated, and achieved accomplishments and victories.

They presented to us -and are still presenting- through their intellect, culture, blood, and memory generations of young men who constitute one of the most important elements of strength in Lebanon.

These aware, responsible, serious young men who are ready to sacrifice, and carry the woes of their country, people, Ummah, sanctities, and dignity constitute the main element of strength we own, it is the element that those martyred leaders left us, which with it we face our present and our future.

On every occasion and in memory of the martyr leaders, we bear responsibility for their accomplishments. They [the martyr leaders] and all other martyrs from all forces and parties and the army and people throughout long years of sacrifice and jihad, have accomplished liberation of land and captives. They commanded respect of Lebanon and its global position. They established the school and choice that truly and rightfully protects Lebanon. The will of the martyr leaders was to preserve their accomplishment which was the fruit of their lives, their pains, their vigilance, and their hardship. And in the end, the fruitage of their pure blood and the accomplishment they left us is the resistance, its soul, its culture, its thinking, its path, its option, its presence, its strength, and its capability to hold responsibilities.

This brings us to the present to face, once again, the questions and options. I move on to the present situation. Faced with the hail of threats in the past few months, questions are asked once more. In Lebanon, regrettably, we quickly go back to square one. As Lebanese, we don't gain from our experiences in Lebanon or from the experiences of the world's nations, or from the experiences of history. We always go back to square one with the same questions. Today, as in year '82 and before and after '82, options and methods are put in place. I don't want to go back to this discussion, but I would like to remind of the questions and ask denunciative questions, not interrogative or informative questions.

Can American promises protect Lebanon? Meaning, if Barack and Biden (We're finished now from Bush and Cheney) beat their chests and promised Lebanon, and [said] ‘Don't fret or worry, we will protect Lebanon'. Would they truly do so, or could they do so?

Here there is something related to the Obama administration's credibility that has something to do with the settlement process: he couldn't stop settlement [building]. Would international decisions protect Lebanon? Over 60 years, have they [ever] protected Lebanon? Does the international community practically protect Lebanon? And has it ever protected it in 60 years? This international community cares only for its interests and respects only the strong.

Would Lebanon be protected by neutrality? By that I mean, if Lebanon becomes neutral, would we be capable of persuading "Israel" not to have greed and ambitions in our land and waters? Would we be able to persuade it to return the Shibaa Farms and Kfarshouba heights, and return the Palestinian refugees? Could neutrality persuade "Israel" to do so?

We've read in todays newspapers that Lieberman says that anyone who dreams that settlement could return an inch of soil is mistaken. This is not addressed to the Palestinians and Syrians alone. It's also for the Lebanese. His deputy ccomes forward and says that there's a red line called the return of any Palestinian refugee to occupied Palestine. Of course he said "the state of "Israel"", and used legal and moral arguments for preventing their return.

Can Lebanon be strong? Yes. And we have proven so in fact throughout decades that Lebanon was capable of being strong, and today is stronger than ever before. Lebanon is strong as we have a genuine formula. Many tell us these days that there is nothing like it in the world. There actually was something of the sort before, but we will leave this [issue] for the discussion table. We are talking about an innovative formula. Don't they say that Lebanon is special and that it has innovations? Fine then.

This is one of its innovations. Don't they say that Lebanon awes the world? Well the, this is one of Lebanon's innovations that awes the world: the formula of strength with which we confront all challenges is the army, the people, and the resistance, [a formula] passed by the ministerial statement. Today this formula proved its success and validity, and has become our choice in confrontation. We are open to other formulas, and God willing, on the dialogue table when someone presents a persuasive logical scientific formula approved by military specialists, as the topic is specialized, then we would let them show us what formula we could use to confront all challenges and threats.

Today we are faced with a hail of "Israeli" threats. How are we to deal with it? I have two topics, one concerning Lebanon internally, and the other about "Israel".

Now concerning Lebanon internally: To begin with, I must laud the official stance of His Excellency the President, the Chairman of Parliament, the Premier, the army command, as well as the position of greater majority of the political forces and movements in Lebanon, as such positions express the rejection of threats, not submitting to them, and also expresses national solidarity in the face of any "Israeli" actions. This, of course, deserved to be lauded in addition to the efforts exerted namely by the President and Premier in their foreign trips in which they highlighted the "Israeli" threats and the dangers those threats pose on Lebanon and on the region. All the Lebanese should respect and laud such responsible and serious statements. This is in relation to the internal situation.

Second on the internal level, there is the topic of the pretext issue, meaning that we reject "Israeli" threats, but demand that it not be given pretexts. I'd like to tackle this subject because it is untrue. This subject encloses many negatives, and this is no way to confront "Israeli" threats for a dozen reasons. First, when "Israel" wants to assault a certain country, it doesn't need pretexts.

From 1948 till 1967 and in all its wars on Lebanon, even in the July war the hostages weren't a reason or pretext, these wars were premeditated. The "Israelis" admitted to this later on. "Israel" is in no need for pretexts from anyone, and in case it needed one, it is pretty capable of manufacturing it. It could organize a foiled assassination attempt anywhere in the world and hold Hizbullah responsible and attack Lebanon, or hold the Palestinian brothers responsible and attack Gaza, or could hold Syria responsible and attack Syria. Only God knows.

Therefore, let's be straight with people on this subject. Here I must laud the officials who mentioned "Israel's" history of wars in recent television interviews to ask ‘Since when did "Israel" need pretexts?'

What's dangerous in this logic is that it inclusively lays responsibility on the resistance i.e. it holds the resistance responsible beforehand for and "Israeli" aggression. There is an attempt to justify any attack for "Israel". Therefore we are present to debate this topic one-on-one with whomever it is to persuade them that this logic is wrong, and the methodology is wrong, and that it does not serve the confrontation with "Israel".

But allow me here to say that the most dangerous part of this is what we started to hear a month ago. There is a new rhetoric emanating from a specific narrow place in Lebanon. This rhetoric implies the following conclusion: (a lot has been written with various implied meanings and expressions...many articles have been written on the subject, and many speeches and seminars have talked about the subject)' the very presence of the resistance in Lebanon, even if it doesn't do anything on or away from the borders, provides sufficient excuse for the "Israeli" enemy to wage a war on Lebanon. And so as not to give the enemy any excuses to wage a war on Lebanon, we must delete the resistance and rid of its arms'.

This is very, very dangerous talk on a national level. It completely justifies, in the least, any "Israeli" aggression even if the resistance didn't provide any pretexts, as they say. The very existence of the resistance, according to them, is a completely sufficient pretext.

Alas! The "Israelis" themselves don't say so. That is, what some Lebanese say isn't even iterated by some "Israelis". There are some extremists in "Israel" that said something along those lines. But there are many in "Israel" that rejected this, saying this is not sufficient to wage a war against Lebanon.

Yet we find these people in Lebanon saying it suffices! I hereby state that this rhetoric is very dangerous because it completely justifies the "Israeli" aggression and holds the resistance completely responsible for any "Israeli" aggression which may occur. Maybe such people are upset because nothing has happened on the borders since the July war, that is to say, in a vision I will speak of at a later time. Therefore, they don't see, in their pretext-policy vision, Hizbullah giving pretexts in the South, and considered that the mere existence of Hizbullah gives "Israel" justification to wage war.

Therefore we must ask a more crucial and important question, and here I simply want to ask and not accuse, which is: ‘Is this a call for war?' Sometimes we may say this is a pretext for war, and we may say they are mistaken and uncertain. But the issue may lead to the following question: ‘Is this a call for an "Israeli" war on Lebanon? Are we faced with renewed 1982 conditions? Do some find that their recently-disintegrated dreams, ambitions, and projects cannot see light without an "Israeli" war on Lebanon?' This is the question.

If Lebanon is to adopt neutrality, would it be capable of returning its land and preserving its land and water in the future and aid Palestinians return home? Experience, of course, says otherwise.
It's odd that here in Lebanon we even discuss the obvious truths. In this universe there are universal laws and rules. In History and in societies there are laws and historical and social rules. All human experiences say that survival is for the strong. In confronting tyrants, oppressors, occupiers and invaders, history tells us ‘only your dignity and strength protect your land and people', and that the weak have no place in the equation. Those who beg for protection have no place. Only the strong can impose their respect on the world and reach their aims, and if they fall, they fall dignified martyrs. 

In conclusion, I say we are before an excellent official stance and an excellent popular stance. A narrow and specific section only expresses its own different stance, but there is an overall scene of a high and progressive level of national solidarity and this is a point of strength.

The "Israeli" issue is the most important aspect of my speech today as it is the talk of the country due to "Israeli" threats. There are many interpretations and possibilities, which have been highly the concern of the country. In brief, we can say on the strategic state of "Israel", that it has been living a dilemma of inability in imposing peace or launching war since its failure in the July aggression on Lebanon, and its failure in its war on Gaza. "Israel" is incapable of imposing peace under its own conditions, conditions such as that of keeping the Golan Heights and not giving it back to Syria.

Consequently, the "Israelis" started a complication lately, where voting in the Knesset as well as a popular survey became required. This also applies to the Shebaa Farms and Kafar Shuba Hills in addition to the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

After all the developments that took place in the past two decades, are the "Israelis" capable today of imposing peace on the Arab governments and people without returning the land?
Can they impose peace without returning Al Quds back? and what about the refugees?

With our respect to the Arab Peace initiative, this phase is over. "Israel" is incapable of imposing its own peace conditions. Today, "Israel" is living a dilemma of the absence of an ally or partner in the conflict, whether here in the region or in the West.

Today, "Israel" is also incapable of waging a war. All the maneuvers and training we witness today after the July war and Gaza war is normal, as it is the result of the "Israeli" army's rapid failure. The "Israelis" acknowledged their failure in the Lebanon second war; they had determined their goal of destructing the resistance but failed. They also admitted that the resistance has grown stronger. 

In addition and according to what Ehud Olmert wrote, he admitted that he even failed in the Gaza war, because "Israel's" aim was to destroy Hamas and its authority but did not.
Today when the "Israelis" wants to go to war, it does so under one main condition which is the ultimate, clear, certain, and decisive victory, where victory is not just a possibility. This means "Israel" will not wage a war on Gaza unless it is certain and sure of victory, and it will not launch a war against Lebanon unless it is certain it will achieve victory. So is the case with Syria and Iran.

To "Israel", it is not enough to have a large possibility of achieving victory because otherwise it will be taking a risk. The "Israeli" army and all "Israel" cannot stand a new turn down as it will be the beginning of its end. In fact, I believe that the beginning of its end started already since the July war and Gaza war. Any new relapse means that "Israel" for sure will come to an end, and the "Israelis" understand this very well.

I am one of those - and the "Israelis" do acknowledge that- who closely follow "Israeli" media, statements, analysis, and conferences held by the different universities and academic institutions in "Israel", in which major "Israeli" military and security officials give speeches, and they all agree that "Israel" can never go to war unless the results are definite.

"Israel" after the July war and the Gaza aggression and its failure, defeat, and weakness has changed. And here I am not underestimating "Israel's" strength or capability, but I also say that we in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iran, and the region are strong to an extent that "Israel" cannot wage a war against us whenever it wants to. 

Accordingly, "Israel's" strategic situation implies - and makes us understand- that "Israel" today has a problem launching war, and therefore it tries to increase its capabilities through bringing more arms, new equipment, and through holding maneuvers and training. "Israel" has a problem in recruiting soldiers and problems related to self-confidence and other problems as well, and so "Israel" needs time and is not ready.
I also tell you and tell the people in "Israel" who are exploited by their officials and leaders that the Iron Dome issue you see on television is more like a science fiction movie rather than reality. 

Some high-ranked "Israeli" military officials still question its feasibility and say it is very expensive as well. "Israel" still needs time to address its tactics, equipment, arms, army, and capabilities. 

To achieve this goal "Israel" follows three measures:

The first means is threatening with war; if you bring this kind of weapons we will do so and so...rest assure, we'll bring them, that is if we haven't brought them already.
"Israel" threatens Syria accusing it of providing Hizbullah with rockets and missiles, it threatens Iran of war, threatens the Lebanese government of war as well. This threatening of waging war is to prevent ultimate readiness and capabilities.

Second come the security measures embodied in the assassination of key leaders such as Hajj Imad Moghnieh and (Mahmoud) Al Mabhouh. Why assassinate this specific martyr? Well because he plays a logistic role. "Israel" targets the capabilities of increase and finalization of readiness.
The third measure is sedition. The major obstacle that has been hampering the inter-Palestinian reconciliation is "Israel", and any Arab who hinders this reconciliation -is a collaborator and is doing "Israel" a favor."

Sedition is recruited in Lebanon, otherwise why would Lieberman reiterate the "Israeli" course which began since long accusing Hizbullah of assassinating Rafic Hariri.
This "Israeli" crystal clear course started with Der Spiegel and is still ongoing with Le Monde which Lieberman frankly expressed.
Lieberman's "good" characteristic is that he spits out everything and that is an important aspect, as it allows us to understand what the "Israelis" think, say and want.

Therefore, we more likely see that these threats are part of the psychological war which is used to threaten the Lebanese people and the Lebanese government, and is used to threaten the resistance and prevent it from becoming stronger on one hand. On the other hand, it is used to motivate the morale of the people inside the "Israeli" entity as well as the army in an attempt to convince people that "Israel" is strong and capable, it threatens and rumbles and froth.

They are in need of this moral booster and motivation. And if we look further we see that the "Israeli" statements also are meant as a means of deterrence - if not 100% then 95% of these speeches are conditional. 

"If the resistance does this we will do so and so, if the resistance will do that certain thing, we will bombard and attack." Of course they do not need a pretext, but this gives an impression that - if they were serious about their say- they are afraid. This is a political, moral, and psychological advantage. Through out the years, "Israel" we were the ones to threaten "Israel" and say if you do we do so and so, but today, "Israel" which never feared the Arabs and threatened, frightened "Israel" says "if you do we do so and so".

Second in this context, whether we see these threats as part of the psychological war or aim at deterring us or pour into the goal of preparation for a serious war- even though the latter is an option we believe is far for now at least- we state that we have a resistance pattern which confronts with steadfastness, strength, bravery, and threatening in return, as this is what works with "Israel".
Nevertheless, if they see that the people are afraid then they will not stop at threatening and will launch a war. 

Confronting threats with counter-threats delays the war at least if not stops it, or even makes the enemy hesitant about this step. Such a threat is taken seriously especially that the "Israelis" do have facts on that and is not just media talk.

We do have a previous experience which proves that. A couple days ago, Ehud Barak delivered a speech - yet his phrases were not decisive and straightforward- when he threatened Syria. And it seems that the Syrian reaction is not only related to Ehud Barak's statements but also to "Israeli" messages that were delivered through foreign delegations that contain threats.

I believe the response was not only in reaction to the media stance; rather it was in reaction to messages delivered to the Syria. When receiving threats, one either is threatened and expresses fear, retreats and reconsiders principles or replies with a threat that is even stronger.

The one who answered the threats was the Syrian foreign minister Mr. Walid Moallem, that is, not [Syrian] air force command or the president, and usually the ministry of foreign affairs is the most diplomatic side and is concerned with working things out and talking in an organized manner....that is to say it is the softest face of any country. The ministry of foreign affairs replied to the "Israeli" threats, and I believe it was intentional and not merely a coincidence.

They told the "Israelis" ‘If you attack us, all your cities will be demolished and destroyed'. I'm certain the "Israelis" were taken by surprise by the Syrian response and the Arab governments were taken by surprise by the Syrian response; it was an absolutely undiplomatic unambiguous transparent response. But to what effect? Two hours later everyone in "Israel" stepped up and spoke, Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack and the rest, and repudiated what Lieberman stated. Ehud Barack started to ‘fix' his story. And the climate in "Israel" was transformed into ‘No, our strategic objective is making peace with Syria'. All what happened is that the [Syrian] foreign minister answered. This is not a 60-year-old story which we should verify. It's a storywe all saw on television a few days ago.

Now, concerning Lebanon. To begin with, this is how we usually function. Do you remember how Barack steeped forward and threatened Lebanon with war and spoke of a clear, quick, decisive victory? That means the goal of the next war, for the "Israelis", is deleting the resistance and anything to do with the resistance. This is the same goal of the July war; it hasn't changed. But what he says is ‘the next war will be a war that produces victory'. It translates: not a defeat or failure or setback. That victory should be decisive, meaning conclusive and clear and beyond question. That is to say, no one in Lebanon or "Israel" or the world could question if "Israel" triumphed or not. Barack also said at the time ‘the air force is not sufficient to settle the battle, so we will conduct a wide ground offensive'. And he threatened to deploy 5 or 7 battalions.

At the time, we replied and told him: if you come to our country, villages, hilltops, valleys, and mountains, the resistance vows to destroy these battalions in our land, God willing. After that, the "Israelis" started to back down in their speech. In the recent summits we noticed that "Israel" no longer speaks of a decisive, quick, clear, unquestionable victory. Quite the opposite; several days ago the commander of the northern front said ‘In any new war let's put humble objectives so we could say we achieved the aims of the war'. That is, the tone has dropped to the level of humble objectives. A month or two ago, Barack personally used an expression I had used on the day or week of burying Hajj Imad. He specifically said, "If you look at the Lebanese borders, you will find calm. But if you raise your heads a little, you will find tens of thousands of fully-equipped Hizbullah fighters lying in wait for us."

When I say we are ready to fight in every village, valley, and hilltop, I cannot deceive the "Israelis" because the "Israelis" have a large information-gathering capacity. We should admit to this, in truth. There are huge spy networks everywhere in Lebanon: specific, general, and so on. This subject becomes more obvious day after day. If I threaten "Israel" with something and I don't have its factual information, it ["Israel"] won't take my words seriously. But it does take notice because it has its information; maybe its info is not complete but it does have something.