Nasrallah: Eradicating Hizbullah is but a Fantasy

The full text of the interview with Hizbullah Secretary-General , Translated by Hizbullah Official Website. To be continued shortly.

(Section I)

Amr Nassif: It is not easy for a media person to hold a dialogue with a personality that occupies the hearts and minds of millions of Arabs, Muslims and free people everywhere, a personality considered a hostile character by all forces of arrogance and all those operating within their orbit.

Our guest today is awaited by those who love, despise and oppose him. They all meet at respecting him because he holds true to his promises, when he threatens his enemies imprison their breath, he acts on what he says, he accomplishes what he sets out to do, and the more victories he wins the more humble and modest he grows.

He fought his wars and battles on the basis of: "Men said to them: ‘A great army is gathering against you': And frightened them: But it (only) increased their Faith: They said: ‘For us God sufficeth, and He is the best disposer of affairs'." Holy Quran 3:173.

No triumph, no matter how big, and no victory no matter how great distracted him from his duty of: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies." Holy Quran 8:60

All I can promise in this interview is to do my best in discussing with a man who masters revealing the meaning of characters and words, crossing the T's and dotting the I's, and making language easy to read and accessible to the haters and fans alike, to foes and friends, to the deceptive and the loyal.

Allow me to proudly welcome the Secretary-General of Hizbullah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
To begin with, we must know the accuracy of statements reported by some media outlets, citing the prosecutor's office of the International Tribunal to have summoned some Hizbullah members?

Sayyed Nasrallah: No... Talk that has strongly increased in the past few months had been going on in newspapers and in salons for two years now. Mr. Bellemare can open an investigation to confirm this for himself. What is been said are claimed to be speculations and leaks, yet in truth, they have not been speculations. Lebanese political leaders and security officials, as well as media and journalistic bodies have been stating that the International Commission of Inquiry is heading towards accusing members of Hizbullah.

Hence, these are not predictions. Those sides are claiming to know and they are building on information they have through their sources in the IT and the Prosecutor's Office that matters in the investigation are moving towards the issuing of indictments.

I recall in May during the elections, I was giving a speech when some newspapers and political salons circulated that an indictment was to be issued within three weeks. After the three weeks, they said another extension of three weeks was given, and then the matter took more time...

We did not deal with the previous summons negatively, we did not even raise the subject nor did we even question it, even though there wasn't any coordination with us at the time, yet these persons were summoned. We informed our brothers that there was nothing wrong in that and that there is no problem attending.

Essentially, Hizbullah has had nothing to fear at this level or at any level since the first day of the investigation. But when these summons come out now, at this time, after information from political salons and security sides say April will see investigations that will lead to the laying of charges against Hizbullah members! How can we explain such views?! Especially, when these are political and security sides in Lebanon, who know the timing and course of the investigation and where it leads.

Nassif: I understand from your words that you do not exclude leaks?

Sayyed Nasrallah: There are three hypotheses:
First hypothesis: these officials and those writers who write on the subject are making predictions, and assuming scenarios, and suddenly now, in perfect coincidence the ICI follows that same exact scenario (O Hallelujah), to reach the same conclusion.

This implies a condemnation of the ICI, because it means the existing political and security parties in the world, regionally and in Lebanon are the ones dotting the scenarios and pushing the ICI to follow suit.
If we are to assume that what is happening is not a leak, it would then be quite odd that someone can predict the names, dates and investigation scenarios.

The second hypothesis is based on a leak from the ICI, which says the committee will do such and such, on this or that day, and that on a given day it will summon this person, and the next given day, it will summon that person!!
For this to be leaked to certain political, security and media sides, and then these sides to circulate the leak, in order to achieve certain political purposes, even if the investigation does not reach any result.

The third hypothesis is that these sides know the unseen... This means we have prophets on our hands, and that there are people who claim prophethood! We, on the other hand, believe there are no prophets after Muhammad (Pbuh&hh). But it seems that at this time we have prophets, who know the unseen with certainty, they also know to which direction the committee's investigation is heading, and whom it will indict and when!!

Among these hypotheses, I and the brothers in Hizbullah have made an evaluation and we believe the second one applies in this case.

I saw Mr. Bellemare's statement, which is inaccurate, and I say to Mr. Bellemare that ‘You have in the Prosecutor's Office and the Tribunal, senior and other staff with links to their security agencies from which they basically came. They are also linked to political currents and movements with which they are affiliated, with backgrounds they expressed (they are present in the IT) for years in published articles.

They are also linked to a lot of journalists and political leaders in Lebanon, the Arab world and the world at large. These are leaking information, and therefore I say the responsibility for all that is written and published, primarily rests upon the Prosecutor's Office and the IT.

Nassif: Your Eminence, any media organization, even if it contrives to wage this campaign, must definitely have cornerstones upon which to found its campaign; otherwise it is sure to eventually become a laughing stock to the public.
Do you clearly see these cornerstones?

Sayyed Nasrallah: That is why I am saying that what is happening is a leak. A scenario seems to be placed with the investigation commission, which they are wanted to follow. Until now we have seen nothing of it except what we read in newspapers. But so far they said they want to sit with this and that person as witnesses. If we talk about facts, this is all we know of facts. But all that has been mentioned so far is talk in salons or newspapers and magazines. What is happening confirms our conviction that these are basically leaks, of which there are precedents.

If we want to evaluate the ICI and the IT, we can say what is happening is not new.
Since the first ICI was first formed, we read about all that went on within the Commission in the Lebanese, Arab and international press, we heard it all in television interviews. It was circulated among political leaders also, and there are a lot of people who heard their names implicated through the media and in salons, only to be later called in for questioning.

Hence, the history of the ICI and the Court is full of leaks, because the Court is not a harmonious framework, it consists of people from Canada or America, Britain or Australia, and it also has Lebanese and Arabs of different nationalities. There are disputes and conflicts within the Court, otherwise how to explain the recorded occurrence of rapid resignations in only a few years; an official in charge of the investigation joins the team, and only remains in the post for one year! Another person joins as "the Registrar" and he too does not last more than a short period of time!!

Thus there is a court that is a jumble, everyone is in it (except ‘March 8') even the other team (March 14) has staff in the Court. It is natural for a court of this shape and reality, without control or coherence, to see all these leaks occur.
Here I do not want to say this occurs in good or bad faith, I do not want to discuss intentions.

Nassif: Your Eminence, you say there are political and media circles promoting Hizbullah's accusation, is there anything beyond indictment that may be in the minds of these people?
Where to from here ? Is it to eliminate Hizbullah, for example?

Sayyed Nasrallah: Deleting Hizbullah is but a fantasy. The goal, in the east, is to disfigure the image of Hizbullah which enjoys much respect and credibility in Lebanon and in the Arab and Islamic worlds and much support and advocacy. All the smear campaigns in the past few years have not had any effect. Even the sectarian rhetoric loudly used in Lebanon didn't have an effect in this matter. For now, this seems to be a method of disfiguring our image.

Then there is the harm of the massive symbol who has few equals in the history of jihad and resistance and struggle not only in Lebanon and in the region, but also in the world. I mean by this martyr Hajj Imad Moghniyeh. Harm has been done to this symbolism and this party before the investigative committee has even made any official accusations because they are acting on the basis that we are accused whereas we have not been accused by anyone yet. Why the rush? They also want to make use of time. They haven't sufficed with what they expect and what they know, in both cases, in that accusations will be made against members of Hizbullah one day so they may start their campaign then. Actually what is required is that the campaign start from now so they can make full use of time.

In the least, there is disfigurement and pressure and embarrassment of Hizbullah, or later there could be an attempt at a deal with Hizbullah over the resistanve and its arms. I don't know.
But if anyone is thinking of the assumption that you mentioned on wiping out Hizbullah, [I say] it's but a fantasy.

Nassif: I must stop at the arrests you told me about after 2006 and 2009 and the campaigns and the timing. It seems like these campaigns are attempting to take the form of a punishment of Hizbullah or a response to Hizbullah or a response to a certain failure concerning the situation of Hizbullah. What is behind the timing?

Sayyed Nasrallah: The timing is evident; after the July war, and after the internal incidents and their resolution, after the release of the four generals this route was taken.

Nassif: It seems like some are trying to place a blockade or ghost in front of you....that if you do this, so and so will happen...

Sayyed Nasrallah: This is of no value. I want to say something to you. And what is important is that the whole world knows it. Do you recall ever since 2005 when all these pressures began? There are those who suspect that it would lead to preoccupying Hizbullah away from its priorities which are the resistance and the readiness of the resistance. I would like to reassure them: Nothing can preoccupy Hizbullah, not the internal political situation nor the international tribunal issue or the regional situation or anything else. Praise be to God, we are a large party in Lebanese standards. We have leaders, cadres, massive work forces, and those who are concerned with the political issues and those with the local issues who are not concerned with any other issue. And all of those are not responsible for the issue of the resistance and the readiness of the resistance.

You and I are talking now, but there are those in Hizbullah who are not concerned at all with this debate. He works day and night for the resistance to become stronger and better and on the highest alert level and cultural level and level of faith and highly equipped and with a high number of members. If anyone thinks that this would undermine the resistance and its willpower and determination, he is wrong..........

Nassif: As long as the media accusation enters the orbit of the "Lebanese creation" named political accusation, of what value is this accusation of it is political?

Sayyed Nasrallah: This is a good question. In 2005 a political accusation occurred upon which massive political, social, and security consequences were built. Many pressures were exerted to drive Syria out of Lebanon. I don't believe the demonstrations are what drove the Syrian forces out. It was the international pressure, an American-French pressure by George Bush and Jacque Chirac, and threats to Syria. Syria has a wise calm leadership that knows that this is not the end of the matter, and so, it didn't enter a confrontation, deciding to leave Lebanon.

A massive political change occurred in Lebanon was based on this political accusation even as there was no international investigative committee at the time. Even the 2005 [parliamentary] elections were fought based on that accusation. I recall that in some regions people were told that those who vote for the opposing list vote for the killers of Premier Hariri. A parliament was formed based on that accusation. This accusation was even employed in the 2009 [parliamentary] elections, not only in the 2005 elections. The Lebanese political situation was reorganized based on that accusation. The entire region was headed for turmoil based on this accusation.

This is a political accusation, but look at what it has done! You may argue that a political accusation has no value. To the contrary, it is highly valuable, and it is not possible to be silent on this political accusation.

And I tell you, we will not be silent on any political or media accusation against us. I will be clear on the matter: we are present in the country and in the government and in the parliament. And is there are sides in the government who want to accuse us, we will not accept their accusations, and they should know that, because they do us wrong and damage our image. Even if they attempt to simplify the matter and say, "we aren't accusing Hizbullah. We are accusing individuals in Hizbullah," they also wrong us in it.

Even a political accusation could have massive implications on the political, social, and everyday-life levels ad on the level of Lebanon and the region. This is no joke. Political accusations lead to the killing of a large number of innocent Syrian workers in Lebanon; the atmosphere created by the political and media accusation and instigation is what lead to this result.

The situation might not be this difficult because it will many people won't simply dare ignite political, public, and media moods and embark on an instigating campaign like the one in the past. They would, if done, drive the country to the edge.

Hence, I stress that we won't even accept political and media accusations.

This matter doesn't have its effects only in Lebanon. We have friends in the Arab world and in certain Arab capitals. Some of our friends called us up in the past few weeks, and some of the guests which were scheduled to visit and meet us werw contacted and we told, "Don't meet Hizbullah because Hizbullah or leaders in Hizbullah will be accused of assassinating Premier Hariri."
Hence, disfigurement and targeting are present, even if the investigative committee doesn't utter a word...............

Nassif: Here, I would like to ask your eminence about your evaluation of the investigative committee and its overall performance. Do you believe it is incorrupt? Do you believe it is credible?

Sayyed Nasrallah: On the subject of the investigative committee, every person in this country is entitled to evaluate it as he likes. We don't want to create a dispute.

At a certain point, a legal, constitutional, lawful, and moral debate emerges over the way things are working, as there was insistence to circumvent the committee between Lebanon and the United Nations. In any case, today I read an interview in Assafir [Lebanese] paper with the former minister Bahij Tabbara. The article is venerable, objective, and deep. I don't agree with him on everything, but the content of the article is among the most respectable, precise, and scientific of articles. The article talks about this stage in particular, and the stage of establishing the investigative committee and the international tribunal. However, I don't want to go into details here.

Now there is a fact on the ground named the international tribunal, and there was an investigative committee, and now there is the office of the Attorney General. However, in our opinion, all of those are one, not two institutions.

Now, when we want to evaluate, we begin with the investigative committee. Ever since it was established and till this very day and to what may become of it. We have a number of essential remarks on the subject if the investigative committee:

First: Any investigative committee ought to abide to secrecy; the secrecy of witnesses, the secrecy of investigations...and this is a matter the committee has completely failed to achieve. It didn't in the past, from day one till now. Everything was circulated in the political salons and in papers and the media. This, of course, calls into question the credibility of any investigative committee and confirms the political employment of the investigation.

The Second point: We believe that from day one, the investigative committee failed to work professionally, and we voiced our opinion in the media back then. When an investigative committee wants to work professionally on an unclear assassination, it lays out all theories, even the most remote or fictional ones. This is how officers work in a scientific manner by analyzing all possibilities.

Of course, the most plausible theories should be put at the head of the list and should receive the most effort. Yet the investigative committee placed only one possibility. This means the investigation was politicized: Syria and the 4 Generals. Where is the second possibility? Even Hizbullah was not placed as a possibility. To be scientific and objective. Event Al-Qaeda wasn't put as a possibility, "Israel" wasn't put as a possibility. Not any intelligence institution in the world that has interest in meddling in Lebanon and the region was placed as a possibility

There was one theory called Syria and the four generals, and all efforts were focused on it. When the false witnesses were gathered, it was done so based on this theory. And when they began bringing witnesses and interrogating people, it was based on this theory. And they didn't work on any other theory.

From day one they distanced the possibility of "Israel". Praise be to the Lord! I'm not accusing "Israel" because I don't have proof, but I interpret matter just like others interpret in another direction. My Interpretation is solid and is based on political analysis without facts, despite my firm belief that anyone who distances "Israel" as a possibility insults Martyr Premier Rafik Hariri because in that he is saying that "Israel" wouldn't kill Premier Hariri, and thus insulting the man.
In the investigative committee, ever since the first day they didn't put this theory in mind, but went in another directions which failed.

And even when the theory of Salafi group behind the assassination, i.e., the 13-member-group. Here I am not accusing them because I didn't interrogate them, but the investigative committee didn't deal seriously with this theory. Hence, this file was closed, despite the fact that Lebanese political and security leaders as well as interrogation journals mentioned they testified to everything, starting from the Abou Adas truck to the suicide to everything. But it was said, later, that they retracted their testimonies. Nobody knows how this file was closed or how it ended. Now's it's still closed and is out of the circle of the investigative committee's concern because it doesn't serve the prime political course the committee has been working on, that is, accusing Syria and the generals, and doesn't serve the current course that we are reading these days in the papers, which is accusing Hizbullah.

Even to this moment it seems they are still working on one theory, not on the "Israeli" theory or on any other one.

The generals' theory came to an end. As did the direct-Syrian theory, meaning that the doers are Syrian officers and the Syrian intelligence. The theory they are working on now is that Hizbullah or Hizbullah members with or without Syrian guidance....That is, it isn't clear whether they plan, in the end, to target both Syria and Hizbullah or the three, Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran.
The insistence on one theory doesn't allow us to trust this analysis and this course.

The fourth subject: the false witnesses. The investigative committee has relied over the course of four years on false witnesses. And it was evident that they are liars and lowly ever since the first few weeks because their story wasn't well-knit, nor were their words logically acceptable, neither security wise nor in any other logic. However, the story was built over four years and people were sent to prison for long years only for them [the committee] to say they have nothing to do with the false witnesses and that they are nor responsible for prosecuting them.

There are false witnesses on one hand, and there are, on the other, those who brought them forward and financed their apartments and trips and provided them with passports, and there were those who directed and informed them and told them what to say. There are those who composed their scenarios with the investigative committee, and those who are still protecting them till this very minute.

I'm compelled to wonder: Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq doesn't have wealthy parents. We saw them on TV screens. How is it that he is living well in the Emirates? Is he actually starving to death there? Who is financing and sponsoring and taking care of him?

This is a judicial side that depended on false witnesses for years and years and based its case on them and executed arrests and imprisonments, and supports a political accusation which had implications in the region.

The fifth subject: On what basis were people arrested? And on what basis were they kept in prison?

I'm not talking about those who've stayed in prison for six or seven months. I'm going to talk about specific examples. There were two who stayed in prison for two years and ten months. What were they guilty of? They had sold phone lines and couldn't remember who they sold them to. But that's how things happen in Lebanon in the first place. Is this just judiciary and an incorrupt credible investigation? If they were suspects they could have been imprisoned for two or three months and released after that and could have been prohibited from travelling [abroad], and could have been summoned for investigation when need be.

There were two who were kept for almost four years, for three years and eight months, due to their loyalty to a certain political party, and because one of them made a call to Baabda [presidential] palace. Who kept them in prison? The first and second and third chief investigators and Bellemare all bear responsibility for their imprisonment for that period. Then come the four generals, [four] senior respectable generals who were the pillars of security and stability in the country. And suddenly they are tossed into prison for three years and eight months based on the testimonies of false witnesses. On top of that, they don't interrogate them [the false witnesses], and they don't even put the false witnesses face to face with the generals. This continued even on Bellemare's watch.

Later on, when the political investment and accusation came to an end whilst the generals withstood, and Syria withstood, and those in custody and their families withstood, and as massive efforts were put forth to expose the violations and errors, it became no longer possible to keep these people in custody, despite the fact that there were some Lebanese political sides who kept betting on the generals would be transported and jailed in Lahai despite the fact that the ordeal was already over.

I will stop at this amount of acts to say that there are other aspects in our evaluation of the investigative committee which I plan to talk about later due to the fact that it may be a bit harsh. However, I will stop at this to say that there are all these fact in addition to one more extremely dangerous fact which is that at one instance it could be an investigative committee to uncover the truth, and that at another it could be an investigative committee to execute the goals of a massive plot.

There is a documented incident: A senior officer in the international investigative committee had presented General Jamil Sayyed with a deal, but General Jamil Sayed is not the of the type [that accepts such deals]. But let us suppose that this man [the General] had accepted in a moment of incorrect calculations accepted to accept the deal. What would have happened then to Syria? What would have happened to his fellow generals? What would have become of Lebanon and the region? The investigative committee is closing deals in the service of a certain course and not for the sake of uncovering the truth.

All these facts don't allow you, not for a moment, to say that this tribunal is credible or that it can be considered uncorrupt or trustworthy. This is our assessment.

Nassif: You came to the conclusion that there is no credibility and you mentioned earlier that there is international intervention as well as media and political impact. The logical question that I must ask is left so as to make your eminence or Hizbullah accept any form of cooperation with the instigative committee and not mind the questioning of people here and there from inside Hizbullah...based on what?

Nasrallah: The investigative committee has a chance to mend trust, lest we get accused of closing doors tonight, and for us to be scientific and cooperative. In the end, it is a highly-sensitive case. I advise them, and for the public to join us, to say ‘if one of us wants to go back to trusting the investigative committee and use its investigations and course as a basis, what are the things it must do?'

First, it must prosecute the false witnesses. It can't evade and say it's not concerned or not responsible. Of what importance is prosecuting false witnesses? How are we o ensure that in the course of the new investigation that no false witnesses come up?

I'd like to tell you that there have been very dangerous amendments to the legislature of the tribunal. I'm not an expert, but I was informed by an expert that it is possible at any given moment for it to say ‘I have witnesses and they say so and so' but doesn't have to say who those witnesses are or allow you to confront them and no witness-accused confrontation occurs. This is odd. Hence, prosecuting false witnesses ensures that no one attempts from now on to make a false testimony.

Prosecuting those behind the false witnesses renders the investigation professional and scientific, as it is not acceptable to allow people to stand behind the investigation to direct the investigation and press for it to more in a certain direction.

Prosecute those who make leaks. Bellemare ought to search for those who leaked everything. He must look at the investigation and the officers and the tribunal. There may be people not under his authority, but under the authority of the tribunal. He ought to look at what happened and prosecute those who make leaks, not simply say he prevent leaks a=or that it isn't his responsibility! He is responsible for leaks and if he wants to be trusted by people he must prevent and prosecute every person who has made a leak, because all that has been leaked cripples and disfigures the investigation.

Prosecuting leaks means prosecuting those who made leaks, and implies that from now on that no leaks occur, not even names. We know the names not from the investigative committee but from other places, from Lebanese and non-Lebanese and from papers. Do they have premonitions?

[It must] work on all other theories. As long as the investigative committee works on one theory, then it isn't professional. Let them place another theory and show us that they are pursuing it at the same rate that they do with the theory of the Hizbullah brothers, for example, so we could call it professional. And aside to them and those before and after, it must be just to those accused and oppressed. The international tribunal cannot say it's none of its business just because it let go of the generals and those in custody. The generals and their families have been wronged; others in custody were wronged and so were their families, regardless of the side who were also wronged.

Till this moment, they have not been done justice nor have they redeemed their respect morally, neither from the Lebanese government nor from the international side overseeing the case. There are also other details, meaning that because of [wronging] the four generals, other officers were wronged. Other people were wronged and fired and, till now, have not been done justice.

If what is required is to restore trust in the investigation and that it become credible one day and for hopes to be placed on it to uncover the truth, then I believe these actions should be done.

Nassif: We've listen to your remarks. If these reconstructive remarks are not implemented, does that mean that, at a certain point, you may declare you will stop cooperating with them?

Nasrallah: Despite all what I've said, and despite all our doubts and remarks and fears, and despite the painful experience with the international investigative committee and with those who stand behind and incite and play around with it.

Despite all this, there are considerations that make us cooperate. First, we are as concerned as are all Lebanese with knowing the truth. We condemned the assassination of Premier Rafik Hariri from the first few days and considered it an earthquake. I might have used the phrase "earthquake" first, for it to later be entered into the [political] lexicon [of the assassination]. We consider what happened very dangerous, and those who were most targeted by it were Syria and its allies and the resistance and the regional project. We considered it a dangerous bloody phase in the new-middle-east project. One theory is that the CIA did it. Why not! We are concerned, as are other Lebanese.

Ultimately, Premier Hariri is the son of his family and his party and sect, yet he is also the Premier of Lebanon's [former] government and a main figure in the Political life in Lebanon. In the last few years, we had a strong relationship and we were laying the foundations of a very promising cooperation project, a cooperative project between us with potential. We too want to know the truth. We want to cooperate to confront deception.

In the last time, had Syria and the generals and their friends surrendered and said they didn't want to cooperate and that this was political, and stood aside not moving a finger and not exert any effort, not even investigative, judicial, political, media, and popular efforts.....yet all these things pressed for the investigation to steer back to a reasonable course at one point.
Bring that [false] witness to stand face-to-face with the generals! They didn't accept. And eventually, some judge will come along and ask about this.

We are concerned with preventing misleading the investigation. In loyalty to martyr Premier Rafik Hariri and the truth, we accept cooperating, not on the basis of trust, but on the basis that hopefully this cooperation aid, as previous efforts ad aided, in impeding wrong courses in the investigation. This is a wrong course. Maybe if we come forward and aid in confirming and proving that this course is wrong, then the investigation would be steered in the right direction.

I would like to add one more thing. Till this moment no one has come forward and said we are accused or that our members are accused. All this noise and all this collusion and all this conspiracy and all this slander! If I had stepped forward today to say we don't want to cooperate....despite the fact that the investigative committee says we are not accused but are [summoned as] witnesses, of course there would be a great commotion and they would ask ‘why doesn't Hizbullah want to cooperate? What is it afraid of? Then it's implicated for sure!'

But that's not the truth of the matter. We have nothing to fear, at all. And that's why we have decided to cooperate; we have no objection to the investigative committee sitting with those brothers, be they from Hizbullah or friends or close to Hizbullah. We have no problem with the issue. We will cooperate, but not unconditionally. We will observe the course. If the course, at any given moment, is the same as that in Le Figaro and other papers, we are entitled to take a different position. And if leaks keep emerging to damage and target [us], then we have the right to change our stance. If the false witnesses remain protected and they and those behind them are not prosecuted, it becomes my right, then, to take a different stance. We are giving the investigative committee a chance to be a professional investigative committee. If this course remains the only course being worked on, then it becomes my right to be anxious on a political level.

At the moment, I am saying these words theoretically due to our keenness and care, and we will cooperate in an attempt to prevent deception and to uncover delusion to compel the investigation to take a proper course, and this is the matter I have discussed, and we will decide later on if we will continue cooperating or not.

Nassif: What if the committee decided to summon high-ranking Hizbullah officials?

Nasrallah: Let's not rush matters. There are appointments in the next few weeks, and meetings will convene. The brothers will be interrogated as witnesses, and we'll take it from there. Ultimately, you and I cannot determine everything this evening.

Foreign Intervention:

Sayyed Nasrallah: Here is the security agreement in front of us. If we adopt it or cancel it, what effect would it have on the Special Tribunal or investigation panel?

It would affect either. But usually when you speak rationally and have reason accusations are brought against you.

So is the answer to those who said that the party is targeting the Internal Security Forces (ISF). For instance, even when the party tackled an amendment concerning the gift -which Minister Mohammad Fneish explained- it aimed at safeguarding and enforcing the Security Forces as well as providing these Forces with equipment and capabilities rather than targeting them.

Someone said that the party that is targeting the Internal Security Forces is the party that wants "Israeli" espionage networks active in Lebanon.
If he means Hizbullah by this, then this is ridiculous. We are cooperating to uncover the espionage rings, and we have always praised the efforts of the Security Forces including the ISF in multiple occasions. 

But if there are great accomplishments, does that mean we should set a blind eye to flaws especially if these were serious? Let us abandon the Lebanese way of escaping through accusations.

Concerning the agreement, we have major remarks on its content.
I will not get into the legal and constitutional sides; I will talk about the content. There are many different aspects in the content. But let me first ask all ministers and members of parliament as well as other political powers to have some respect for the minds of the Lebanese. 

To say that this is an unconditional gift and not an agreement is not true. Let us look into the first page following the introduction.

I will read the first three lines (Sayyed reading): "The text of the agreement hereby determines the obligations of the United States and the Lebanese government (As there are demands to both sides).

It also determines the resources that both parties should make available to support this agreement and they will be considered fixed commitments binding both parties."

So this is an agreement with two parties where each party- the American and Lebanese- have commitments. There are obligations and a conditioned agreement, and in case any of the conditions were violated, the Americans have the right to alienate the agreement, which means exempting themselves from paying the money agreed on.
So there should be more respect to the minds of the people. Even those who do not know the law or constitution realize that this is an agreement that has obligations and commitments on both sides.

Moving to the essence of the agreement, there are three issues: Security, terrorism, and national dignity which all government hold fast to.

With regards to security, we see that the Americans provide the ISF with equipment such as handcuffs, police badges, flashlights, helmets, boots, bullet-proof vests, as well as other equipment.

When we see that the American has every right to go to ISF stations to make sure of the proper use of these equipment, this means a full scan of ISF stations.

(Sayyed reads) "...and to determine if the users are the same individuals who received (the equipment) from the US government." What does the US have to do with this? Why does it want to interfere?

Another example is that the American has the right to keep a list of all equipment provided by the US government and file a report about how they (equipment) are distributed and used. The US government is to be allowed to reach the equipment "without restraints."

For instance, if we had a cause of national security, such as an "Israeli" espionage ring held in one of the ISF centers which happens to be a place that has some of this equipment, then they are to enter the center without any restrictions. This means that we are exposing a security institution and opening it for the Americans whenever they want to.

On terrorism: The same article is repeated in more than one place. (Sayyed reading) "The Lebanese government is required to make sure that all the users (of the equipment) do not belong to any organization labeled by the US government as a terrorist organization." When we sign this, we will be accepting the US categorization, which means the Lebanese government becomes committed.

Another text stipulates that the Lebanese government has to make sure the users have no relation whatsoever with the US labeled organization. So the Americans can ban a brother of a Hizbullah member, or a son of a Hizbullah member, from taking part in the training.

What is extremely dangerous is that major countries, the United Nations and even the European Union did not accept this categorization of Hizbullah, but the Lebanese government accepted it.

Since I don't want to go into details, I would like to speak about national dignity. 

First of all, this was done for fifty million dollars. In other words, had the Americans offered the security forces 4 or 5 hundred million or a billion dollars, one may consider it as a possible justification, but 50 million dollars, which is next to nothing, for a security institution of the level of the Internal Security Forces (ISF)?!

A condition also exists here, that says: ‘The Lebanese government provides all required reasonable efforts to ensure the non-use of available funds or any other form of available support under this Agreement, or provide any form of support for drug trafficking acts or to perform any other illegitimate activity.'

Is there a government in this world that would accept such conditions? This means, the Americans are saying to the security forces ‘We'll give you these capabilities, but you have to ensure it is not used in drug trafficking or in illegal acts'!
This is humiliating.

In addition, the collective and individual insult is that everyone who goes to the American training courses has to sign a written declaration.

Here is a excerpt from that declaration: "A declaration provided by the participant concerning drug-related crimes and drug trafficking: I certify that during the past decade, I have not committed crimes or participated in drug related activities, etc.," and more, "I realize that if I am proven to have practiced the conduct described above, during the above mentioned years, the U.S. State Department may terminate the training I receive."

This is insulting, what does any American have to do with such details. The Americans can propose certain specifications but appointments must be left up to the ISF to make, and any declarations to be made, should be to the ISF and not the Americans.

Why was it made up to the Americans to make the selection criteria and to implement these specifications on the individuals themselves?
I do not think anyone keen enough on the dignity of his country, government, security forces and members of the security forces would accept such conditions.

These are our observations, we raise them because we want to protect the country and the security forces, we want to help these forces more in order to detect spy networks, so that the culture they receive in trainings is directed towards the enemy that is "Israel" and not an assumed or fabricated enemy, one the Americans invented for the security forces.

Nassif: Your Eminence Sayyed Hassan, I have a twofold question here as well: Some could claim that this talk will remain in the theoretical realm, since implementation may not actually occur, be taken into account or because other Lebanese sides may differ?
The second part is your objective in discussing this Agreement? Where you do want to take it? Is it to defame those who put it in place or to have it revoked???

  Sayyed Nasrallah: First of all, everyone knows we have not defamed anyone. From the first day we read about the Agreement in "as-Safir" newspaper - incidentally it is commendable for raising this issue - we went to the Media and Communications Committee (MCC).
We did not conduct a media or propaganda campaign.
The MCC Chairman called on the people and held discussions on the subject, meanwhile we were careful to stay within the perimeters of only addressing the situation; hence we did not target any persons, the ISF Director-General, the Interior Minister, and the current or former Prime Minister.

We do not target anyone or any institution.

Our goal is to address these issues, which we see as dangerous.
If treatment requires amendment, then let them amend, if cancellation is the proper course of treatment, then so be it.
I have not come here tonight to resolve the issue between amendment and cancellation, what concerns us as Hizbullah are the dangerous items that must be done away with. We must ensure Lebanon against the risks in this Agreement. This is the limit of our concern.

Of the benefits of raising this matter, first through as-Safir newspaper and later in the MCC, and the ongoing atmosphere in the country, particularly given that this issue has existed for longer than a month or three months, and since participants have already gone to receive training courses based on this Agreement.

In any training, questions must be asked, as to what are the most important things participants receive in training:
- What do participants learn artistically and technically?
- What doctrine must they carry?
- As security staff, part of which security or national indoctrination do they belong?
- Which combat doctrine?
- Who is the enemy?
- Who is the friend?
- Who is the target?
- Who to survey and who to confront?

Due to time constraints, I will settle for reading one excerpt from a training script distributed to the trainees, as it forms the basis of their training. This is taught in lesson No. 3, on trends of international terrorism.
The Agreement goes into the following details:
"The major international terrorist organizations"
I will only read three lines here:
"The major terrorist groups operating in the world are divided into several different categories:
- Those based on religious extremism
- Groups backed by certain countries
- Radical Palestinian groups
- Separatists
- Leftist groups

Among these organizations the following selected groups are considered the most active and dangerous: (of course "Israel" is not mentioned under international terrorism, this head of international terrorism, a state founded, persisted and continues by committing massacres, one that committed carnage and massacres in Lebanon since 1948 until 2006)
- First, Al Qaeda
- Second, Hizbullah (of course they talk about Hizbullah, after ruling against Hizbullah in absentia since 1983 holding Hizbullah responsible for the death of such and such, and this material is taught to Lebanese trainees)
- Third, Hamas
- Fourth, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad
- Fifth, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
- Sixth, the Popular Front- General Command.

Hence, they train our security forces accordingly, telling them that the problem in Lebanon is Hizbullah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front - General Command and Al Qaeda.
They are trained that these are the terrorist sides our security forces to fight against, but no such thing is said about "Israel."

To continue reading...this item goes into describing which states are seen as sponsors of terrorism:
- Cuba
- Iran
- Iraq
- Libya
- North Korea
- Sudan
- Syria
These are considered terrorism sponsoring states, while "Israel" is not, despite all the acts of aggression carried out by "Israel" against Lebanon and through its networks, the U.S. does not consider it a terrorist state or sponsor of terrorism.

I want to mention something the brothers wrote to me yesterday, on the 29/03/2010, and it is not an official document by the way, they said as a result of raising this issue in the MCC, and through speaking with the ISF Director General and the Minister of Interior, an attempt was made to remedy certain aspects.

This was done through a message the ISF Director General sent to the Programs Office Director for Enforcement of International Laws in the U.S. embassy, saying that after becoming acquainted with the training documents prepared by you (U.S.), it became evident that in your indoctrination on the issue of ‘terrorism sponsoring states', you mentioned Iran and Syria, two countries considered friendly by our standards.

You also mention Hizbullah under the issue of terrorism, while we consider Hizbullah a Lebanese party with MPs, minister and resistance, etc.

Of course we thank the ISF Director General Ashraf Rifi, as this is a good thing, however, is this letter binding to the Americans? I think not.

Although this is a good step nonetheless, the Agreement ultimately says the government has accepted the American classification of terrorist organizations.

What we want is treatment of this serious matter. It is one good thing to have the young people of the security establishment trained, but on what doctrine?
This is dangerous; the classifications provided to trainees are dangerous.

To open doors for Americans to enter everything everywhere is a dangerous matter, as there are also obligations pertained to this Agreement I have not mentioned, which include exempting Americans from taxes, giving them diplomatic immunity and the like.

In other words the Americans can, under the training and equipment heading, bring in a large number of people, like the murderers of Mabhouh, who will enjoy our government's immunity, even if the Lebanese security services discovered that a certain American is actually "Israeli" under U.S. cover, they are not able to arrest them.
In which case the most our authorities can do is deport them, because of the immunity provided.

All we want is having this matter addressed, as for how; it is up to the parliamentary committee discussing this subject. I do not know what results come out of it, but in the end something will be submitted to the House Speaker, who has his way and responsibility as a parliament head, especially if it is constitutionally found to require Parliament.

There is also the President of the Republic, who is ultimately the protector of the Constitution and symbol of the country.
In addition, we, as MPs, ministers, citizens and segment of the Lebanese society along with a great many people, say to the President that this is a dangerous thing for the country and its security, dignity and pride, and to please take the initiative and address the issue. The Prime Minister too can take an initiative, nothing to it.

Some Lebanese say that apart from the legal and constitutional circumstances, with a serious matter such as this, PM Saad Hariri can come to an agreement with the President of the Republic to have the issue debated in the Council of Ministers, seeing that most political forces are represented there, hence, either they amend the agreement or forfeit it.

No one wants to weaken the security forces and we all want to have strong security institutions, but with conditions that preserve the dignity, sovereignty and national security.

Nassif: the method presented by Your Eminence to reach your objective requires an internal understanding and dialogue in Lebanon, here rests the heart of the National Dialogue Table, which I want to ask about.

To begin with, was the timing of the formation of the national dialogue committee connected with the tri-partite meeting in Damascus, which included President Bashar Assad, President Ahmadinejad and Your Eminence?

Nassif: Was it linked to U.S. pressures?

Sayyed Nasrallah: This is possible, after all the Americans, the United Nations and Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General has no concerns in this world but the resistance weapons in Lebanon, so he speaks about our weapons every day.

In addition, the U.S., Western countries and the UN always demand the formal authority in Lebanon to say what they are at on the arms subject, and the Lebanese government tells them that this matter is subject of dialogue. Then they ask why the delays in the dialogue table, and we respond that we have started it.

There is no harm in this, in the end if some of the results or goals of the dialogue table is eased foreign or external pressures off the Lebanese authority, then all for the better.

Nassif: Your Eminence let me venture into asking a question echoed by millions. There are parties on the dialogue table whose main concern is to undermine the resistance and its weapons, what impels you to participate in a dialogue whose components include this team?

Sayyed Nasrallah: Lebanon is a country of various components, it is a sensitive country, one should not get tired of dialogue, or despair of it, and to have dialogue as a basis among the Lebanese, even if it does not lead to the desired results rapidly and substantially. The main thing for dialogue is to achieve goals and outcomes, and I want to exaggerate and say that dialogue, in itself as a process, is the best interest.

For example there are parties that say dialogue is futile and that it will lead nowhere; however they still attend the dialogue table. The very existence of this table and the periodic meeting of these people to discuss certain issues, exudes calms and relief throughout the country, keeps communication lines open and people at ease. This is what we need in Lebanon.

In the end, we can not say the dialogue table is futile, even if what is achieved falls only at minimum level on the political, psychological and moral dimensions.
On the other hand, if we are to raise our expectations to half or maximum levels, in isolation from the other party's position, intentions, history, geography and future vision, after all we have a vision, and if there is any room for debate and dialogue, we can then present our vision, logic, evidence, proof and arguments by attending and debating.

Those who avoid and escape dialogue are weak, but those who rely on strong and coherent logic, hold dialogue even with their enemies let alone friends- fierce friends and opponents. I do not want to talk about enemies, as during dialogue sessions God may inspire opponents to listen to reason and accept it, everything is possible.

Nassif: Some parties at the dialogue have a goal of conveying a message to the whole world that no agreement or consensus exists on the resistance choice, and yet, you give them that chance?

Sayyed Nasrallah: This subject goes back to 1948. A period all of us lived through, and since 1982 there has been a division on the issue of resistance in Lebanon, this is not a fault, nor is it a fault of the resistance.
If those who stand and conspire against the resistance possessed flaws, weaknesses, different observations or challenges, would that be the resistance fault?
If division exists around resistance, would the defect be in the resistance itself?
No, this is no fault of the resistance.

If certain people have taken the decision to defend their country, sanctities and the dignity of their people, to make sacrifices, offer their blood and martyrs, and bear the dangers involved, while there is no consensus on them doing so, this is no fault of the resistance.

There is irrational talk about this notion in Lebanon.
No resistance enjoyed consensus in their countries throughout history and contemporary history. Whenever there was occupation, some people collaborated with the occupation and when the occupation left they depart with it, evidence abounds of such cases in this world.
There are those who sit on the side, questioning the resistance's viability. Others sit on the side still, but pray for you to succeed, and there are those who resist.

The whole world is like this, history is filled of such accounts.
Therefore, we do not make it our goal to have national consensus, nor do we believe that defending our country, our homes and land is conditional to national consensus.

Nassif: Some parties at the Dialogue Table also blame Hizbullah for not having submitted your view of the defense strategy?

Sayyed Nasrallah: (...)the second-last dialogue meeting before the war was headed by Speaker Nabih Berri who, at the time, asked for any party that was ready, to begin the debate on the defense strategy.

"No one is ready."
This was an item on the Dialogue Table.

He then turned to me and asked if I would speak and I did in impromptu.
I did not have anything written on paper, but this topic for me is like eating and sleeping, I have it memorized like I do my daily prayers.

Here I talked at length explaining the military vision, followed by the military option. This was recorded in audio and everyone was recording the minutes of the meeting... Everyone was writing...

We presented this vision and applied it after a few weeks during the July war and won. We were able to verify the correctness and genuineness of this vision.
Afterwards the dialogue table was held again, some parties submitted papers while others have not submitted anything until now.

Now it is being said we have not submitted our vision, when we are the first people to have done so. But if you say that it would be a good idea to submit one in writing, I say I agree, we (in the future) may well put one in writing.

In the meanwhile, we await all parties to first submit their versions, since in the end, these papers will be distributed to all, seeing we are one of the participating sides in this dialogue. We will read these papers, and may benefit from their contained ideas and spoken experiences. That will certainly be of benefit to us, and we do benefit from everything we can.

Eventually, we will be able to offer a final defense strategy in light of our first vision, our July war experience, and the papers the other parties submit, which will provide rich material for discussion.

But to say we did not offer anything, is false, we have provided a complete vision. If they want it in writing, God willing we will submit something later that is new and well thought out, that takes into account the experiences and lessons from the July war and the resistance war in Gaza.

  Nassif: There are those who demand many points in the negotiations

Nasrallah: We have no objection to there being other topics on the dialogue table, but we must keep the title. Hence, to be fair, there is a matter execute by the President which is the issue of discussions on the dialogue table. Some sides believe that the title of discussions should be Hizbullah's weapons or the resistance's weapons. This has never been an issue for discussion on any given day. Even on the dialogue table headed by Speaker of the [Lebanese] Parliament, that is before the July war, had the title of discussions been Hizbullah's weapons, I wouldn't have participated. The title of discussions was the National Defense Strategy. And in the new formation [of the dialogue table], the President said that the title of the discussions is the National Defense Strategy. And some people saw nothing but the weapons. The national defense strategy also means a political strategy within which the enemy and the allies and international relations and alliances and treaties are included, as this is a part of the defense strategy.

There is also a security strategy. What is being accomplished on the subject of espionage networks is excellent, but within what strategy framework is it? It's certainly within the security strategy. There is also a cultural media mobilization strategy, and a fiscal economic strategy, and a social strategy comprising hospitals and ambulances and bunkers and places to accommodate refugees, and among these needs is the need for a disaster control center which has been mentioned in the near past.

Therefore, upon discussing a national strategy, when one says that the only topic in the national defense strategy is the military, then that is a mistake. All around the world, how do national defense councils and higher defense councils get formed? Why do the presidents and minister of defense and the army command and security forces command convene in some countries, and in others there are also the ministers of media and foreign affairs and the interior and finance, and in some countries even the ministers of finance and the ministers of economy...why? Because the issue of defense does not have only one dimension, the military; there are military, security, political, media, mobilization, relations, social, financial, and economic dimensions. My opinion is that under these titles, there are many titles that could be discussed in Lebanon.

Nassif: To what extent could the Zionist deferral in its rhetoric of threats be considered the calm before the storm?

Nasrallah: My belief is that which I pronounced in the Martyr Leaders' Anneversary. I do believe that this is the calm before the storm. Ultimately, this is the "Israeli" style; they attack you and threaten and promise, and once you are frightened and back down, they go on, but when they found a strong solid stance in Lebanon and Syria and Palestine and Iran, when they saw the scene in Damascus, when they saw a general national Lebanese position from any future "Israeli" aggression, they become certain of the potentials and capabilities of the resistance which they talked about even yesterday...It is then that the "Israelis" strongly reconsider. I believe what I had said. I believe that "Israel" today is in a strategic stalemate. It can't accomplish so-called peace which is a settlement, nor can it make war whenever it wants, whilst for any "Israeli" future war its main condition would be guaranteeing victory and success and triumph. Both in the present and in the foreseen future it doesn't seem that there are any guarantees for accomplishing an "Israeli" victory in any future confrontation.

Nassif: Mr. Walid Jumblatt finally made a visit to Damascus. Are we to congratulate Mr. Walid Jumblatt or Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah?

Nasrallah: The issue is not that of congratulations. It is ultimately in the interest of the Lebanese and the political status in Lebanon and the Lebanese-Syrian relationships. We must always be among those who look into the future and derive benefit from past experiences, but the prevailing concern on our actions should be the future and the challenges our country faces in every aspect.

We consider today's result pleasant. Of course, it is also an occasion to thank His Excellence President Bashar Assad because I know that this matter wasn't easy to begin with and that there are many debatable issues in Syria and in Lebanon. But I bear witness that on this matter President Assad dealt in complete detachment from all personal considerations and considerations which may be considered by some leaders and presidents in his conduct and in all he said in your interview with him, and according to what was issued in Hizbullah's statement he was a great Arab leader who bears responsibility and has his strategic analysis of the nature of the conflict in the region and of the priorities of the conflict which govern all relationships, current or those which could be formed, or what could be surpassed among the circumstances and events which occurred in the past.

Nassif: President Assad noted Syria's relationship with some Lebanese sides and allowed them make the call. This is something we've never witnessed before in relationships.

Nasrallah: I listened to His Excellency's interview. Let's ask what Syria wants from Lebanon. The matter is clear: Syria now has standards; first and foremost "Israel" is the enemy, and therefore it wants Lebanon to be strong and fortified against any "Israeli" aggression as a part of its nationalistic commitment and as a part its national commitment in its concern as Syria, because what hurts Lebanon hurts Syria, and vice versa. Therefore we find that Syria has always been to the resistance side in the worst circumstances and did not accept, at any time, to conspire against the resistance. I recall, without the need to name sources, that in 2004 when there was talk about a tension in the Syrian-Lebanese relationships and international pressure to drive Syria out of Lebanon, a senior leader came to propose to propose the following to President Bashar Assad: If you promise to end the resistance in Lebanon and disarm the resistance, we can get you an international commitment that Lebanon is yours; Lebanon becomes Syria's and you rule it forever.

President Bashar Assad refused this deal and presented strategic answers.

The issue of the resistance is important to Syria and so are the special Lebanese-Syrian relationships which were stressed in the Ta'if Accord, and that Lebanon not be used to attack Syria or hurt it in any manner. These are fundamental to Syria. Based on these principles and priorities it moves on to build relationships with sides. Therefore, when it is said that someone supports the resistance and accepts the special relationship [with Syria] and refuses that Lebanon be a base for attacks on Syria, then he is befriended. The more so if the side is the resistance in person!

It is natural that this positive, pleasant view and the solid relationship between the resistance and Syria be present. But does this mean that the Syrian-Lebanese relationships are to go through the Hizbullah gates, as some in Lebanon propagandized after the success of the mediation. That's not how it is. President Assad has a direct relationship with President Suleiman and with the Prime Minister and the Speaker. There is a government-to-government relationship. There are heavy political powers and personalities in the country and it has been said that they are "two nations in two countries", but the truth of the matter is that it is one people in on country due to the historical, social, and familial relationships. Many in Lebanon are of Syrian origin and have families in Syria, as many in Syria are of Lebanese origin and have families in Lebanon. And I don't believe that Syria's relationship with Lebanon could be confined to one channel regardless of how special the place this channel has in the heart of the Syrian leadership.

Nassif: Is the ultimate extent is there is calm in the relationships between the two countries or do you see a more bright future?

Nasrallah: I believe that matters in the future should head towards cooperation between the two countries, and it is plausible. It's useful to mention that President Assad said, "We don't want to interfere in private Lebanese matters, and we also ask of the Lebanese not to interfere in our private matters," because in the past, it's certain that Lebanese used to ask Syria to interfere in Lebanon's private matters, and there actually was a Syrian intervention in Lebanese private matters at a certain point. President Bashar Assad did do a review before 2005. I personally heard from him in a meeting after the presidential race ended and the Lebanese government was formed in Lebanon, that there is a government and parliament in Lebanon, let them bear their responsibilities. Why would they enter into many details, some of which are trivial, and some personal?

The idea I spoke to you about in this interview was mentioned by him before 2005. This is the methodology he thinks by. Now, this is how Syria truly acts, and as a very close person [to Syria] and who knows [Syria, I believe] Syria doesn't interfere in the details, but is rather concerned with these fundamentals. Now there are many friends of Syria in the government and many sides who are friends with Syria. Neither in the past government nor in the current government were there friends of Syria whom Syria approached and said to them ‘We want so and so a director general and we want so and so a member of parliament and we want this project to get approved...' like they [some anti-Syrians] used to say about the past phase. All of this is nonexistent. Therefore, when many Lebanese politicians and political parties referred to the brothers in Damascus, they would be told, "Refer to your brothers and Syria's allies in Lebanon to debate and come to terms and agree with them; we don't want to interfere."

Therefore Syria took the course in which it undertook a bold, courageous review. We have our experience in Lebanon where there is a system and a government and a parliament and a national consensus government and national accord. We, the Lebanese, should turn the page, just as the Syrians said they have turned the page. Let's turn the page as Lebanese. If any cooperation occurs between Lebanon and Syria in many economic, developmental, security, and social files, then the primary benefactor is Lebanon, and in my opinion, it is Lebanon that needs Syria more than Syria needs Lebanon.

Nassif: To what extent do the municipal elections in Lebanon reflect the true political balance in Lebanon on the ground?

Sayyed Nasrallah: Municipal elections in Lebanon, like elsewhere, are elections of a developmental, and social nature. Even the lists set are affected by the composition and tendencies of the families more than by political factional affiliation.

Nevertheless, these (municipal elections) are politicized like everything else in Lebanon, just like syndical elections, student association elections in universities, etc..

Eventually, I do not consider that municipal elections reflect political masses. For instance, two lists belonging to the same political party can exist in some of the towns due to differences among the families, and therefore, it does not reflect a political difference. It is rather a reflection to the composition and size of these families and their entities, and it is nothing like parliamentary elections.

Anyways, we will find in the future those who will exploit results of municipal elections to draw the picture of future political dimensions.

Nassif: Do you want to set up the municipal elections on schedule, or would you rather want it postponed for two months, or maybe a year...

Sayyed Nasrallah: We are open to all options. We do not hide behind our finger; we do not tend to say something behind closed doors and something else in public. We read in some newspapers citing some politicians that many of the political factions wish to postpone the elections, but no one is ready to undertake the step.

Tonight, I speak up for myself and for Hizbullah; Hizbullah is not afraid of the municipal elections. And I ask here, if elections take place, does that mean Hizbullah will lose these elections? No. And is Hizbullah worried about its political and popular influence? No.

Clear it is that the political and popular influence and strength (of Hizbullah) is on the rise. Nothing at all can make us worry, especially that we and our brothers in Amal movement are present in most of the towns in which we need to cooperate; we enjoy mutual and complete understanding.

So, there is no reason for us to worry when it comes to conducting municipal elections. But if you ask why do we prefer delaying (the elections), our answer is "a political torment will happen again" in many towns and villages. Our country had calmed down, and now again some are causing political and media fuss...

We are willing to move on to lists, formations, and campaigns, but we say, give the government an opportunity to make an achievement, even if for the people.
We always discuss what this government has achieved for the people so far? Let us give ourselves a chance to make our accomplishment.
For instance, if "Israeli" threats take place - threats that existed and backed off- the Lebanese should come together and confront this issue in solidarity rather than be in conflict in every village and town.
For such reasons, we are not afraid to show our wish to postpone the elections if all agree on postponement. We also have no problem if they say: this (postponement) is upon the request of this certain party! But do we mind conducting the elections on schedule? Not at all!

Nassif: under what law?

Sayyed Nasrallah: the best thing to do is "to be patient" and wait for the approval of a new law and the reforms it holds. We do not mind such a delay, which is best for us- a technical delay as they say. General Aoun had proposed a delay for a short period of time until the law is all set, and we support this stance. But at the end, if there is no other option than conducting the municipal elections on time and according to the old law, then we do not mind.

Nassif: What is your position on relativity?

Sayyed Nasrallah: well, what we talk about in the parliament is the same exact thing we talk about in the parliamentary committees and in media. Of course, there is a problem in the Lebanese political life, where one can say something in the parliament, and say something at odds outside the parliament.

We were very clear in the Council of Ministers as we said that relativity in the major towns is something good, and that we support and endorse it.

Otherwise, in non-major towns made up of 18 members or less, we consider relativity a little bit complicated and can cause confusion when it comes to the issue of families. Therefore, we support relativity in major municipalities only and not elsewhere.

Nassif: Is this a matter of understanding between you (Hizbullah) and Amal Movement, or do we await an alliance between the two parties?

Sayyed Nasrallah: We have agreed already, Amal movement and Hizbullah have settled to a full alliance in all the places, and all the towns. There will be no competing lists; instead there will be unified lists that join Hizbullah and Amal Movement together.

We have almost finished the draft which still needs final touches. We laid the principles to organize this relationship, and committees will be formed in the different regions that aim at applying these principles.

I believe things will go smoothly. Of course, both Hizbullah and Amal Movement wager on the awareness of its people in the different villages and towns that will witness electoral activity. This awareness -which consists of -cooperation and integration is very essential and has proven to be efficient and of excellent results in the previous phase, and it is what we need in the coming phase as well.

Nassif: What is happening today in Palestine evokes the worst -and perhaps the most serious- details of the "Israeli" scheme whether in Al Quds (Jerusalem) or Al Aqsa mosque. What do you say in this regard?

Sayyed Nasrallah: We are used to being honest with people, even if this honesty is painful.
The Muslims and Christians in the Arab and Muslim Worlds should no longer have illusions when it comes to the future of Al Quds.

The "Israelis" can disagree on the Gaza Strip issue, the Golan issue, the West Bank issue when it comes to the borders and the area. But two things are determined for the "Israelis": first is the Jewish State and where it is to arrive, and second is that Al Quds (Jerusalem) is the eternal capital of "Israel" the Jewish State.

Therefore, we heard the words of defiant Netanyahu in the United States of America, in the AIPAC conference, where he said that Al Quds is not a settlement, rather it is the eternal capital of "Israel" and that settlement construction will continue in Al Quds (Jerusalem). 

Hence, if there is anything that is negotiable, open to maneuvering, manipulation and deception, it is the issue of the settlements in the West Bank. There (in the West Bank), settlement construction for the "Israelis" is taking place while Palestinian homes are being demolished and the Palestinians gradually displaced.

Therefore, the "Israeli" aim is to judaize Al Quds at the demographic level, and most dangerous is its aim to judaize the city on the level of religious and historical symbols, by this I mean Al Aqsa mosque and Al Qiyama Church (Church of the Holy Sepulchre).

I believe that the "Israeli" scheme is to demolish Al Aqsa mosque, as "Israel" looks for the appropriate chance, time and opportunity to do so. One way to demolish Al Aqsa mosque takes place as the Labor Ministry officially sends tanks and bulldozers to raze the mosque. Another way is when they (Israelis) say there are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who do not listen to anybody as they carry explosives, enter the mosque and blow it up.

Another means is the one we witness currently which is the excavation of tunnels (beneath the mosque). If these excavations continue in the same pace, a day will soon come when Al Aqsa mosque will collapse and the "Israelis" will claim "it is none of our business". 

This is what we will arrive to, as the world watches the huge excavations in silence, while cries rise in Al Quds, as religious authorities, the Awqaf, popular factions, political factions, and scholars raise their voice and say that Al Aqsa mosque is in danger while no one in the Arab and Islamic world takes serious action.
This is what the "Israelis" want in Al Quds, we should wet it before our sight and think of what we must do. We must know very well that this is how the situation will be if we leave things as they are.

I know that in the wake of the Gaza war, a great conference was held in Egypt's Sharm El-Sheikh where donations were made to reconstruct Gaza. What happened to Gaza? They don't let anything into it, even raw material. Will these donations reconstruct the rifted homes in Al Quds? Where will this money be spent?

I have seen an excellent report on all these actions in details and numbers, done by our brothers in Al Aqsa International Foundation. it is incredible, and I am sure that many people in the Islamic and Arab world are not familiar with the details, and only see the bigger image.

Nassif: The Arab summit said it will dedicate 500 million dollars and called on the US president to stick to his stance on the settlement construction and to intervene to stop what is happening in Al Qud? Why don't we adopt this vision?

Sayyed Nasrallah: I know that in the wake of the Gaza war, a great conference was held in Egypt's Sharm Al Sheikh where donations up to 5 or 6 billion dollars were made to reconstruct Gaza. What happened to Gaza? They don't let anything into it, not even raw material for reconstruction. I call upon a political choice, a political decision to prevent the demolition of the existing houses. Will these donations reconstruct the rifted homes in Al Quds? Or will these figures give Al Quds people the right to stay in their land? This is the big question.

For decades, many have bargained on the US and the settlement process, and this bargaining has taken a long time. Today we hear those who bargained questioning what has 18 years of negotiations brought other than disappointments?

Nassif: But there was no Obama?

Sayyed Nasrallah: First of all this is reality. At the time when the choice of resistance has led to many victories and accomplishments, the choice of negotiations brought nothing but disappointment and gave "Israel" more time to realize its changes.

The choice of the resistance has led to many accomplishments in terms of gaining back the initiative and the balance of deterrence. It has put the entire Zionist plot in jeopardy.

We recall the blessed Intifada (uprising) a few years ago; when the "Israelis" felt they had to fight a battle of the existence of their state and scheme. In fact, this is what the choice of resistance has accomplished at a time when the choice of settlement gives the Zionists the time they need to build more units, starting with 1,600 units now to be followed with 50 thousand housing units in Al Quds.

However, whether we say Obama agrees or he disagrees, the result is the same. Either he wants but he's incapable or he doesn't want to. The Americans have not taken concrete steps to stop settlement building in Al Quds (Jerusalem) and even in the West Bank. The more they bargain on the US the more they will reap failures.

Nassif: some wager that the rift will get bigger between the United States and "Israel" what is your stance on that?

Sayyed Nasrallah: At present, the discord is not between the United States and "Israel", it is rather between Netanyahu and some of Obama's team as the Real USA is composed of the 330 US congress members who had sent an urgent letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to quickly solve the dispute between the US and "Israel".

The real America we are talking about is the American coalition which stands behind the real political decision in America. It is the consortium that brought Obama into office, the consortium of the major oil companies and the major arms firms known as the Christian Zionism.

Nassif: Before we end this interview, what would like to say to the Palestinians as we commemorate Land day?

Sayyed Nasrallah: The Palestinians have proven- and still prove- to be an exceptional people with exceptional power of endurance, patience, and steadfastness. I urge the Palestinians not to let despair get into their hearts, minds, and will no matter how bad the situation gets in the Arab world.

The status-quo in the region and in the world will change. What I am talking about is not only hopes and dreams; it is a real reading of facts.

The options, clarity, the vision, and the level of consciousness and awareness, the reliable choice of the resistance and the weakness of the settlement option are all unfolding.

I say that "Israel" doesn't have a future in our region. Even those buildings they are constructing in Al Quds to Judaize the city, there will come a day when its real owners will reside in them.

Those who want to continue with negotiations and settlement choice let them do so, as for me, I call for adopting the choice of the resistance again. If the Palestinian Intifada ( was meant to continue- which had stopped due to internal, foreign, "Israeli" and Arab causes- it would have put the "Israeli" scheme and all of the "Israeli" entity on the verge of collapse; it was an abandoned Intifada. We should go back to the real choice of the resistance inside Palestine. Supporting this choice, by all resistance factions and resistant states is the only way to save Palestine and Al Quds. Of course Hizbullah back them and we are their partners in the struggle, resistance, sacrifice, and martyrdom.

Nassif: In the end, I can only thank you and salute you. as all words of gratitude cannot explain sentiments. Thank you very much.