SG Nasrallah: Sunni-Shia Sectarian Instigation Condemned, STL Must Prove it Pursues Justice, Not Politics

The following is a partial translation of the Kuwaiti Ray Channel's interview with the Secretary General of Hizbullah His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah

Local Editor


Bouftein: The Scud missiles are everyone's principle preoccupation these days. Your Eminence, what is the secret behind the explosion of the American-"Israeli" war of words under the simple suspicion of Syria's provision of Hizbullah with this type of missiles which are said to be capable of breaking the balance?
Sayyed Nasrallah: In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. First of all, I welcome you all. In truth, every now and then, and at every stage, a state of intimidation and a war of words, of media, and a psychological war is created which targets the resistance and the resistance's willpower and presence. The issue of weapons is secondary detail in the resistance, because the problem isn't in owning weapons. There are many armies armed to their teeth. The issue of the resistance in the region and the resistance in Lebanon is its willpower, determination, decisions, targets, its aim, experience, expectations. Therefore, the resistance in Lebanon is targeted. A few months ago, if you recall, we in Lebanon continued for three consecutive months to listen to threats of war on Lebanon, until I said what I said in the anniversary of the martyr leaders on February 16th and declared a distinct position. After that, the threats calmed, or let's say they were reduced to their lowest level. A while ago, uproar arose over the topic of the scuds, taking into mind that all those who talked about the scuds failed to present any evidence. I believe that all that was said on the subject, today the scuds and yesterday other types of missiles, apart from truth and facts...( We'll leave this for later), or what might be said in the future, are all aimed at one thing: intimidating Lebanon, intimidating Syria, pressuring Lebanon and Syria and the resistance movements and the Lebanese and Syrian people, and in consequence, preventing us from being strong and being capable of defending our dignity, pride, presence, people, land, and waters [all of] which are constantly in the circle of "Israeli" threats. This, in my opinion, is the target.

Bouftein: Do you believe they achieved this goal? Did they achieve their aspirations today?
Sayyed Nasrallah: No, to the contrary. I'll tell you something. There is the historical experience and, particularly, the so-called psychological warfare and the war of words. In many aspects, we always find the substantiation of ((They plot and plan, and God too plans; but the best of planners is God)). Today, apart from the issue of Syria handing over the missiles to Hizbullah, Syria denied, and Hizbullah didn't comment as usual. But what effect does this clamor have on those in occupied Palestine? That is, on the Zionists, on their people and the average person [there]. What is the psychological, moral, and spiritual impact? It's to our advantage, not to the "Israeli's" advantage. Even in respect to the Lebanese people and to those concerned with the resistance, their piece of mind is bound to have increased when they heard this news, because when I said several weeks ago that we as a resistance will defend our country and if you ["Israelis"] destroy our buildings we will destroy your buildings, that if you bomb martyr Premier Rafik Hariri Airport we'll bomb Ben Gurion Airport, a dock for a dock and an airport for an airport and an electric power plant for an electric power plant, and then the "Israelis" and the Americans come in person to talk about this or other types of missiles, apart from truth and facts, this will make our people trust more in what I say, and they do believe me in any case, but people say that Hizbullah has missiles which could achieve what someone [me] said in his response to the "Israelis". However, they don't expect us to have scuds, and then the Americans and "Israelis" come forward to accuse us of having scuds. This is good.

Bouftein: This is good?
Sayyed Nasrallah: yes, in a framework. If the objective is a psychological war, pressuring, intimidation, frightening, and deterrence, then what is happening is its exact opposite.

Bouftein: Yes, Your Eminence constantly talks about the eye-for-an-eye equation in any upcoming war and, as you said, that in case martyr Premier Rafik Harai airport is bombed that you will bomb Ben Gurion Airport, as if you're trying to hint at having what is more cunning that scuds. Is this only psychological warfare, or do the "Israelis" understand what you mean by this?
Sayyed Nasrallah: To be precise, I did not say cunning or anything else. I don't talk about such details. I say that the resistance is capable of fulfilling these defensive commitments. In the July 2006 war, the resistance proved it has good capabilities on more than one level, and took the "Israeli" enemy by surprise. I say the "Israelis" were not just surprised by some details, such as there being a land-to-water missile or that there were missiles that targeted further than Haifa or so on. They were surprised by the entire scene. That is to say, the "Israelis" weren't expecting during this war to face a resistance in this comprehensiveness, mass, strength, variety, and strategy. Today we've said we will not allow our cities to be bombed. There are red lines in war, and in case war breaks out, they said they will bomb the infrastructure, and we said we will respond by bombing their infrastructure. We are capable of fulfilling these promises and commitments. But what type are the missiles, and what are their details? These are details we don't talk about in the media. Is what we have more or less cunning than the scud missiles militarily? This, in fact, is a detail which I don't want to tackle.

Bouftein: In light of the defense strategy jointly and severally which was said to have resulted from the Damascus tri-summit, will "Israel" be faced by one front in the event it decided to embark on a new endeavor against you?
Sayyed Nasrallah: I believe that the situation in the region is different from that of the past. The message of Damascus is a clear one, and the "Israelis" and Americans perused it. We must suffice with their reading. But I can tell you that any new "Israeli" war against anyone in the region will be a massive uncalculated adventure. I said in the past, and I am bound by these words, that it will lead to a change in the map of the region.

Bouftein: Do you think this war is imminent?
Sayyed Nasrallah: I can't say it is near. My brothers in Hizbullah and I see that much of this intimidation doesn't hide a war up its sleeve. To the contrary, had there been silence, calm, and quiet, then everyone would have had to take caution. But when we see this American and "Israeli" clamor, then that means that they plan to invest this clamor to achieve certain political, psychological, and security gains without resorting to war.

Bouftein: Your Eminence, in case the United States went to the Security Council to issue a resolution deploying international forces on the Lebanon-Syria borders, what would your position be?
Sayyed Nasrallah: We refuse any deployment of international forces as such. This matter was brought up amid much worse circumstances than the ones we live at the time. That is to say, during the days of the July war when the cities and villages were bombed and destroyed and as hundreds of thousands were driven away from their homes, and the entire country was in a difficult situation and we were in a bloody confrontation with the "Israeli" enemy, someone raised this issue; we strongly rejected it. And certainly in any other phase we will strongly reject it. I don't believe that the Lebanese government or that the Syrian government would settle with such a decision.

Bouftein: Your Eminence, the rejection was clear in the past and now. However, would there be a certain measures in the event the United States pressed the Security Council to pass such a resolution?
Sayyed Nasrallah: Let's not bother ourselves. I don't believe the Security Council would pass such a resolution.

Bouftein: You stressed over and over that the response to the assassination of Imad Moghniyeh would be thunderous, whereas Hizbullah's operation have failed, as in Azerbaijan. Are there other unannounced operations, or is the matter on hold awaiting good luck?
Sayyed Nasrallah: First of all, I will not say that there were operations that took place a failed. The Azerbaijani issue is a different one. What was said in the "Israeli" media is untrue.
On the subject of Hajj Imad, I would like to confirm that the Islamic resistance in Lebanon will not give up on the subject, and will not remiss in it. Of course, we don't want to revenge in the sense of revenging; the matter is not familial or tribal. We are in the course of a battle with the "Israeli" enemy. It targeted, in the past, leaders and cadres as well as our people, like it targets the sacreds and the people in occupied Palestine. In the course of this battle, when it kills our leaders, and outside the borders of Lebanon, it becomes our right to respond in the context of the battle. Even the phrase ‘revenge' is forgiving. We are concerned with responding to this massive aggression. Had we wanted to respond or revenge by killing "Israeli" tourists who travel to some countries, it would have been facilitated. But we don't use this method of thinking. We know where we should respond, against whom we should respond. And the "Israelis" need not a clear declaration from us to understand us well and adopt intensive measures at places they expect and understand we think of responding. It's a matter of time. I assure you it isn't a matter of retort. Had it been so, we would have snapped back a long time ago. The issue is that there is an ongoing battle between the resistance and the "Israeli" enemy. It targeted a certain level of leaders, and we are determined to respond likewise. This matter won't be abandoned. It's a matter of time, nothing more.

Bouftein: The response against the assassination of Moghnieh has been delayed. Would this not encourage "Israel" to execute similar assassinations? Have you no such fears?
Sayyed Nasrallah: I believe that regardless of the response taking place or not, the "Israelis" will continue to kill leaders. That is to say, the "Israeli" war stops at no response. If anyone expects that the response to the assassination of martyr leader Imad Moghniyeh will put a stop to the "Israeli" assassination of the resistance's leaders, then that person is wrong. Things are not calculated as such. We are in a war, and in wars they get back at us and we get back at them. The war, in the end, is one of willpower and resolve, a war in which he who wins does so by accumulating points; there may not be a knockout victory. Let's be realistic. I believe that if we do or don't respond to the assassination of Imad Moghniyeh, the "Israelis" will target any Hizbullah leader when they get the chance. The delay in the response is, in fact, terrifying and perplexing to the "Israelis" due to the fact that they are obliged to maintain the security measures they have taken surrounding their current and former generals and leaders. We can all see the state of confusion which befalls "Israeli" leaders in their travels, even official trips, and their generals. Many American and "Israeli" sides had yearned for a Hizbullah response off the bat, a matter I call a "snap back", so they would be reassured that the matter was over. No. Even if the matter takes time, let them remain worried and anxious, and let them know for certain that Imad Moghnieh's blood will haunt them everywhere, any time.

Bouftein: Despite your reassurance to the official and national positions in Lebanon regarding the resistance, the threats made by some concerning their withdrawal from the dialogue table indicates the continuance of the disagreement over approaching the defensive strategy including, of course, the issue of Hizbullah's arms. What horizon does this dialogue have?
Sayyed Nasrallah: The one who mentioned the possibility of withdrawal is one of our allies, not one of our opponents. The head of the Free Patriotic Movement General Michel Aoun mentioned this in protest against the presence of certain sides on the dialogue table who spare no occasion to attack the resistance weapons and accuse the resistance in its backgrounds, intentions, and objectives. This matter is painful and annoying. General Aoun expressed his opinion concerning this rhetoric which also enters the sphere of certain internal arguments. Hizbullah's representative on the dialogue table MP Mohammad Raad asked in all frankness if what they wanted was to discuss the defensive strategy or to argue and make declarations. If the matter is one of arguments and announcements, then we have eloquent speakers and writers as well as logic, proof, evidence, and a vision. If what is required is that we argue in the media, then so be it. And if what is required is that we argue on the dialogue table, then let is discuss on the dialogue table. That is to say, we must choose. This is the context within which it occurred. No one can stop anyone from discussing the resistance arms. But what is happening in Lebanon is that certain political sides with a record on the matter bring up the issue not from the door of dialogue, but thought the use of cursing, accusations, and holding others responsible beforehand. The matter has come to a point where some Lebanese sides who have an old relationship with "Israel", at this time I don't know if they have a relationship or not as we haven't opened the issue, who go to the extent of saying that the mere presence of the resistance weapons is reason enough for "Israel" to wage a war against Lebanon. I don't know how a Lebanese or patriot could take such a position in the first place. For certain, we denounce such manner of contestation and argument; we don't accept it; it is against patriotic morals, values, and interests and opposes the basic principles by a person standing up in Lebanon and justifying the "Israeli" aggression on his country and people. On another hand, there is an old feud which has nothing to do with regional and international developments and with what has occurred in Lebanon in the past few years. Ever since Lebanon was established there has been a feud. Certain political powers have not considered for a day that "Israel" is an enemy. It isn't part of their education, ideology, and opinion, needless to say not a part of its political options. This is a disagreement dating back to a time before I was s born and before most members of Hizbullah were born. This feud is existent in Lebanon, and we admit to the presence of such feud, and we believe that the method to resolve such feud is through dialogue and logic. That is why we responded to the dialogue committee and went to it [dialogue], and were the first to present a vision in the framework, not the others who are present on the dialogue table. Nevertheless, some are required, and they do so in declarations, and here I'm not interpreting or devising, because there are texts issued by leaders of the opposing party saying: we insist on bringing up the issue of the resistance weapons in speeches, in the media, and on various occasions to emphasize that it is a controversial issue of discord. On the other hand, I admit that it's a controversial issue f discord. So why do they go to the trouble? I used to always say that the resistance doesn't require national consensus in the first place, and that throughout history, there never was a resistance which gained consensus. Whenever an occupying army enters a country the country is divided. There are those who cooperate with the occupation, and those who take a corner and withdraw, and there are those who discuss the options and accept the resistance option without resisting, and there are those who hold weapons. This is the truth in history, and Lebanon is no exception. It's quite natural for a controversy and disagreement to occur in Lebanon. The resistance which was established in opposition of the "Israeli" occupation in 1982 did not have national and public consensus. There is a portion of Lebanese who not only were not with the resistance, but were in the enemy's trench, holding weapons with the enemy and fighting to its side. This is what the state of matters looked like. Hence, does the argument and disagreement concerning the resistance in 1982 and in 1985 and in 2000 harm the resistance's legitimacy? I tell you, it doesn't harm its legitimacy. The resistance is legal and lawful, and is substantiative of all heavenly laws, international laws, and patriotic, moral, and national values, and represents the human disposition upon which people were born. And if there exist those who oppose and argue, then it is completely natural, and harms us in no manner.

Bouftein: One might get the impression that you are pessimistic about the future of the dialogue table and its results. Is my inference correct?
Sayyed Nasrallah: Dialogue in itself is a positive matter. The mere gathering of adjourning personalities has its positive influence on the country. And we are content with this range, and, consequently, we don't boycott the dialogue table. But if we weigh matters on the scale of this life's logic, this life's laws, and this life's strategies, then there are people on the dialogue table who have taken a final, decisive decision in advance in regards to the resistance, and therefore, I don't believe we could achieve results. We are attempting to approach matters and achieve results; we mustn't lose hope, but it's difficult.

Bouftein: There are sides who are concerned that the excessive strength of the resistance will lead to a shift in the internal balance Lebanon. Are you content with the Shiaa's share of the Lebanese pie?
Sayyed Nasrallah: In the first matter, the excess of power is not one or two years old. It dates back to 1995 in the least. That is to say, back to the time when the resistance reached a very advanced stage whilst the first indications of an "Israeli" defeat began to appear. Now we're in 2010, meaning that the issue is 15 years old. And year after year, the excess of power has increased. And if the excess of power is not translated 15 years later, then when will it be translated? In fifteen years, the excess of power was never used to alter the political balance, not at any time...I'll go further than that to say that the resistance is the only resistance in history to win and not demand the reign of power is Hizbullah's resistance. Those who arose in Algeria reached power, as was the case in France, similar to what happened in Vietnam. Probably the only resistance in history which won and didn't claim power nor take a single step in that direction was the resistance in Lebanon. We all recall that on May 25th, 2000, when the "Israelis" were defeated in Lebanon and turned tail in fright and humiliation, a celebration was hastily put together in Bint Jubeil [near the borders with occupied Palestine in South Lebanon] in which I spoke and said that our jihad and resistance were our duty, our religious, shariaa, moral, national, and humanitarian duty, and that we fulfilled our duty, and we want no rewards or retribution, no thanks from anyone at all, nor do we want the reins of power or a share in power. We support the government and that its practices its authority over these areas and serve these areas. We didn't ask for amendments in the constitution or the charter or current customs or the Taa'ef accord or the sectarian portions [in power]. And I would like to say that ever since Hizbullah was established, and up to this day, it didn't talk about Lebanon's Shiia nor the Shiaa nor the Shiia interests or their shares. Afterwards, they wanted to make us bear this type of address. Ever since Hizbullah was launched, it's rhetoric was that of Lebanon and its liberation and the regaining of its rights and confronting the Zionist project and standing to the side of the Palestinian people in regaining their land; it's issues were always those of the country and nation...actually the accusation thrown at Hizbullah by some Lebanese leaderships is that it [Hizbullah] adopts an issue on the level of the nation [Ummah]... At times they accuse us of adopting an issue on the level of the nation, and at others they accuse us of working for certain sectarian interests, gains, or shares.
The experience we have passed through provides sufficient proof that Hizbullah's project is not sectarian or partisan, and that it doesn't seek this sect's share or that sect's share; it's a project on a national level. I also admit, confess, and pride myself that it is a project on the level of the nation, because we cannot be isolated or detached from the critically dangerous projects and aggressions which our nation and region undergo. That is why we always used to say that there is nothing to worry about at all. Yes, some may ask about the May 7, 2008 issue, but that is another matter.

Bouftein: Yes, May 7th is our question. True, your weapons do cause "Israel" concern, but they are also cause for concern by some sides who fear its use internally as was the case on May 7th, 2008 and the consequential changes. Don't you wish this concern be confined to "Israel'? And how do you reassure your internal partners?
Sayyed Nasrallah: No one had an example before May 7th, and no one had an example after May 7th. Therefore, the only example anyone may use to cause fright from resistance weapons is the May 7th example. Let's talk about it. There are leaders in the March 14 alliance and leaders who exited the alliance, such as Mr. Walid Jumblatt. Those same leaders say, ‘We committed a strategic mistake when we took at the time in the cabinet the decisions which targeted the resistance weapons, and the most important weapon the resistance had, the communications weapon, the telecommunications [ground-line cable] networks which had a crucial role in the July 2006 War.' The Lebanese government attacked us at the time. It didn't merely attack money or dignity or honor; it attacked what is more dangerous than that: the resistance by which blood, honor, dignities, money, and countries are preserved. What is more than that is that the Lebanese government attempted to create turmoil between the Lebanese army and the Lebanese resistance. This project had always been an American-"Israeli" project. What we did on May 7th was only to annul this decision, not to induce any change in the internal political equation. That's why when what happened happened and the Arab delegation which included Secretary General of the Arab League and a number of foreign Ministers came and met us and asked us, ‘what do you want?', we said we want two things: The first is that the Government withdraw the decisions it took against the resistance, and secondly, that the Lebanese sit at a dialogue table to resolve their issue via dialogue. And they asked me, ‘is that all?', and I said, ‘yes.'. One official spoke to me personally, away from the official meeting which occurred with the Deputy Secretary General [Sheikh Naim Qassem]. He spoke to me over the cable telecommunications network [the internal phone]. In fact, he was the Qatari Premier and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim. I jested with him back then and told him, ‘according to the decisions of Fouad Saniora's Government, you should be arrested for breaking the law because you are speaking to me on the telecommunications network against which a decision was issued by the government and considering against the law and mutiny and rebellion and a theft of public funds, in our description by the decision as outlaws and thieves of public funds and rebel s and mutineers, and that the heart of the matter was that the network was against the enemy.
At the time, Sheikh Hamad asked me what our demands were, so I told him that the government back down on its decisions and go to dialogue. Certainly, there were those in Lebanon who expected us to demand that we select the President and that we wouldn't accept the return of Premier Fouad Saniora as Prime Minister and that this side and that would be prohibited from entering the government. But we didn't propose any such matter. On May 7th, we didn't demand any political demand relating to the regime or shares or gains or interests; all we demanded is that they withdraw their aggression against one of the most critical weapons in the fight against the enemy and the upholding of dialogue. And if weapons are a toll to drag people to dialogue, then those weapons should be thanked, not denounced. Therefore, I declare that Hizbullah never has and never will employ its weapons in altering political equations or imposing political concepts or political options. These weapons are only for defending Lebanon against the Zionist project.

Bouftein: Hizbullah is amid the Municipal election climate. And we've noticed that Hizbullah has decided to go against the Future Movement in many areas after there was an agreement on consensus. Don't you believe that this could ignite the Sunni-Shiia conflict in this regionally steaming phase? And why this confrontation at this exact time when Premier Saad Hariri has become your defense line by drawing similarities between the leaks on the scuds to the leaks on the Mass Destruction Weapons in Iraq in the past?
Sayyed Nasrallah: The entire question is based on inaccurate information. We are not in confrontation with the Future Movement, and we have no municipal confrontation. In all the areas where we are present as voters or as voting powers, meaning as Hizbullah, we resorted to various forms of agreements. Hence, Hizbullah has no electoral battles in any area.
If we take Saida for example, we've strongly encouraged an agreement. There remains the city of Beirut. I'm not saying your words are not precise, because there is the city of Beirut. But even in the city of Beirut, we can't call it an electoral battle. It's too early to say that. There is an offer for deep-rooted agreement, and Hizbullah is required to participate in this agreement, as well as the Free Patriotic Movement, i.e. General Michel Aoun, and the Tashnaq Party.
We told his Excellency Premier Saad Hariri that we have no objection to the deep-rooted agreement, and we won't discuss our portion. Hence, we didn't discuss our portion. We are ready to participate, but there is the issue of General Aoun, and you must agree with him. We will not negotiate on behalf of General Aoun. We'll accept what he accepts. This is his issue; it's his representation. If we want to reach an agreement in Beirut, there is another party. There is a term they have used; we hadn't used before. It's called the Sunni opposition. They are our allies and friends, and they represent a wide sector on the public and political levels. We want them to be represented. We didn't suggest the size of their representation which is larger than their true presence or that it's annoying or so on. All we want is for them to be represented. And we said our participation in the Beirut agreement is bound by the participation of our allies. This rhetoric is observing of unity, coalition, and diversity of representation.
However, in case this agreement didn't occur (but it might because matters haven't come to an end and there are ongoing discussions on the subject), are we headed for an electoral battle in Beirut? This isn't planned to occur. We might opt for a coalition, and we might retreat from the entire matter. However, options are open now, and they are left for the results of the negotiations.

Bouftein: Your Eminence, in the past period, much has been said on a change of cabinet before the end of this year reflecting the new balance of power after the new internal positioning and in harmony with the new regional atmosphere. Do you agree with that?
Sayyed Nasrallah: I haven't heard of this before now, and we have not talked about this matter. I read it in some daily papers, but I haven't heard from the politicians in Lebanon and the political parties concerned with forming the government and parliamentary blocs and major political powers anything in this regard.

Bouftein: In case this issue was put forward, what would your position be?
Sayyed Nasrallah: If there is need ....In the end, whoever suggests such a thing needs to give reasons and say what this amendment is aimed at. Everything is open for discussion. But if you ask me now, does Hizbullah suggest amendments or changes on the level of the cabinet, I'd say there is no need for it, and the government hasn't had enough time to be judged or for it to be said that it needs change or so on.

Bouftein: You've claimed mending what was broken [in the relationship] between the head of the Progressive Socialist Party Walid Jumblatt and Syria, at the time when a new page is being turned between Premier Saad Hariri and Syria. Do you believe that the road has opened in both directions between Hariri and Syria?
Sayyed Nasrallah: yes, the road is open. However, what I have heard is that it needs serious pursuit. There are certain points and obscurities which need to be dealt with, not only be clarified. I believe that there are efforts to deal with them. However, I'll provide you with an example, so we don't remain talking about generalities. It doesn't suffice for a political party to come up and say, ‘we want a good relationship with Syria and we want to have cooperation and solidarity and want to discuss agreements...there is an overlap of interests' at the time when a major portion of this party, including current and former members of parliament and political leaders and media outlets, continues to use the same rhetoric of the past [phase] and continues to attack and be skeptical and vilifies, and saves no opportunity to attack Syria. I don't believe that this is a way to build and strengthen confidence and make the road open in both directions, in addition to its incapability to develop a relationship. This is just one example. Hence, the serious undertaking of such matters will improve the state of matters. I'll give you another example. In the past five years, the other party has said that the Lebanese-Syrian agreements were one-sided agreements and was imposed on Lebanon and that they don't achieve Lebanese interests. We used to say the contrary. We used to say ‘no'. Let me tell you more than that. It's true that Syria was a strong side and Lebanon weak in the agreements, but when Syria made the agreements, it used to take into mind that Lebanon is with it, as is Lebanon is a part of it [Syria]. And in consequence, the agreements achieved were in the major part in Lebanon's interest. When the National Unity Government was formed and we wore told, "Alright you great mean, come forward and give your remarks on the Lebanon-Syria agreements." Where are the remarks? There were some simple trivial remarks. To the contrary, the Syrian brothers are the ones asking for amendments in the agreements. Why? Because in truth, the greater portion f the agreements were in Lebanon's interests more than they were in Syria's interests. So when we take things seriously, it turns out that there is a lot of clamor and noise and very loud voices, but when we things are dealt with seriously, it turns out that matters are different. I don't want to elaborate more on this point. I'd like to say that we also approve and strongly support strong and firm relations with the Lebanese government headed by Premier Saad Hariri and that there be developed relationships with Syria. This is in the interest of both countries. Any obstacles or barriers must be removed, and we are ready to aid in this aspect and support this direction despite our knowledge of the presence of known personalities and political powers in Lebanon which need not be unveiled who don't want this course to succeed.

Bouftein: In context of the course with Syria, this leads us to another subject which is the subject of the international tribunal. Despite the "appeal procedure" which you have presented lately against the International Tribunal, however, your readiness to cooperate has met positive reactions. Have there been new developments that have been translated on the ground?
Sayyed Nasrallah: Yes. Recently, arrangement for listening to the required witnesses have begun. There may have been some delays since the date they provided was April 19th, which is the date they required to meet the brothers who they wanted to interview as witnesses, starting from that date. However, the volcanic ash in Europe prevented the investigating team from coming. And I believe they have arrived. These days, our information says that there are meeting and arrangements for the commencement of listening to the witnesses within the observed laws.

Bouftein: You tied your cooperation with the international investigation with certain conditions. What if these conditions are not met? Particularly since you spoke of "another position"...
Sayyed Nasrallah: The other position is understood. We might be rushing results, but our position was made clear in my previous speech [interview]. Consequently, we have not tryst; I'm not saying a shortage of trust, but the lack of it, neither in the investigation, nor in the tribunal. We have many examples, much proof, and much evidence against trusting the investigation and against the tribunal. I noted this previously, and there are matters I left for a coming phase. I haven't said all I have or all we have in this respect. But we wanted to give the international investigation committee and the Attorney General's office a chance to fix the issues of thrust that not only I have, or Hizbullah has, but also that a great portion of Lebanese have as a result of the conduct and performance since the beginning of the formation of the international investigative committee till this day. Unfortunately, up to this day, nothing has been fixed, but there is still time, and the time between my words now and my previous speech....there still is time. For example, in the past few days, the king witness Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq surfaced, and I don't know where he surfaced from. He says he's in Holland, Lahai, but is heactually in Holland or is he still in the UAE. Where is he? In a prison? We have no knowledge on this matter, because it is the responsibility of the responsibility of the judiciary and security sides. Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq comes forward and makes a declaration and then another. For the first time, Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq accuses Hizbullah Cadres and that they had a logistical role and so on. Now here is a witness who was shown to the international tribunal and to the Lebanese and to the entire world to be a false witness, but he remains free and speaks to the media and passes out accusations. Meanwhile, the international tribunal which he mislead and the investigative committee which he mislead for four years come forward in the form of one of its media officials, a lady who is a spokesperson for the attorney general of the international tribunal, to say ‘Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq is none of our business'. How is none of your business? He misled your investigation for four years. Based on his testimony, 4 senior generals who are among the most important general in the country were imprisoned. Based on his testimony a regional war was about to break out, and there were lawsuits between Lebanese and Syrians, and tens of Syrian laborers in Lebanon were killed in Lebanon. And the International investigative committee says it's none of its business. We are preparing lawyers, I don't know if it's been finalized yet or not, and we will present a request to the Lebanese judiciary to demand the Lebanese government to arrest Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq under the title of forger, false witness, provoking sedition, that based on his false witnesses he lead to crimes and disasters that befell the Lebanese and Syrians in Lebanon. We will demand the Lebanese judiciary and government to arrest Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq. If he is in the UAE, let them demand him from the Emirates. If he's in Holland, let them bring him from Holland. If he is any other place in the world, let them demand his arrest via the Interpol. For Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq to be arrested and for us to know the truth about those behind Mohammad Zuheir Siddiq... who fabricated the testimonies? Who invented the scenarios? Who adopted him? Who supplied him with places in Lebanon and Paris and the Emirates to hide out? Who continues to spend on him? Who supplied him with the Passports for all this travel? If all this is not uncovered and said truthfully, then I don't believe that there is anyone in Hizbullah or among our friends and admirers who will accept to continue cooperation [with the international tribunal]. I will give you one example from a pool of examples. In the end, continuing cooperation is conditioned by the revelation of the investigation as a technical, reassuring [investigation] which aims at achieving justice. At any given moment, if we fail to feel this reassurance, we might take a decision to stop cooperating.

Bouftein: Your Eminence, we heard from your ....that the office of the Attorney General Bellemare summoned six people in and close to Hizbullah as well as 12 others as witnesses. Do you fear the matter might transform into an accusation and that the country will reach a difficult situation, as you had described?
Sayyed Nasrallah: It's not our fear. Up till now, all that has been written in papers since the beginning of this international investigative committee, that is, since 2005 and afterwards, all what was written in papers was [then] done by the investigative committee. Either the investigative committee works according to the guidance of papers, or the papers are writing leaks from the investigative committee or sides involved with the investigative committee. You may say that things might go in this direction, meaning that if the Le Figaro which wrote its article in July 2006 turns out to be true, that is, a few days after the cannons stopped firing, after which the Kuwaity Assiyassa wrote, and after it Der Speigel to be followed lately by Le Monde... If these papers turn out to say the truth, then there would be no need for all this investigation. That would mean the draft of the accusational ruling against members of Hizbullah is all set at the office of the attorney general, and that all this investigation is a dramatic performance. That is in case these papers turn out to be true. In any case, the course of the investigation is what will allow us to be sure that the investigation undertaken is a technical one in pursuit of justice or if it's a drama or play to stage the decisions made after our victory in the July war in 2006. We will leave this matter to the days to come. You may say that an accusation may surface, and I can tell you that anything is possible since this issue is talked about in papers and is deliberated over in political salons, and the last ones to know are us and the brothers who have been summoned as witnesses.

Bouftein: You talked about the accusational ruling and my question to you is: there are those who talk about equations either of justice or in indulgence in achievement of the accusational ruling which is awaited from the international tribunal. What do you advise the chief justice?
Sayyed Nasrallah: I don't agree to this logic, in all frankness. I heard this logic, and those who said that said so driven by their concern. That is, they are true to their words. But I sent them, and I can tell you that during this interview, that his logic would mean accepting that we are accused, whereas we reject this accusation in part and whole, and we condemn any accusation of any of our brothers. The logic that this is not an accusation of Hizbullah, and that it is an accusation of members of Hizbullah, is a rejected logic according in our view. We don't call on Premier Saad Hariri or on anyone in Lebanon to create a balance between justice and stability. We call them to [adopt] justice, and justice is found in a factual serious technical investigation. This is what achieves justice. The investigation that has been ongoing for four years and till this day leads to instigation, war, and instability as was the case in the past few years. Bring me one "Israeli" who was interrogated. Give me an "Israeli" official, and "Israeli" officer. There is a spy in Lebanon sentenced to death who is called Abu Rafe' who said he used to receive large bags full of explosives and place them in certain places in Mount Lebanon to come back later and take bags to the place which is emptied. This large amount of explosives which the spy used to receive from the "Israelis" and place in those locations whereby others come to take them...Does "Israel" need to strategically stockpile explosives in Lebanon, or were these explosives used in operations in Lebanon? There are leads and indications leading to the "Israelis". However, never for a day was the investigative committee ready to discuss this possibility or option. And I used to repeat that the rejection of the possibility of the "Israeli" involvement in the Assassination of Premier Rafik Hariri is an insult to Premier Rafik Hariri.

Bouftein: An insult?
Sayyed Nasrallah: Meaning why would "Israel" not kill Premier Rafik Hariri? There is an insistence that the "Israeli" is infallible and beyond the circle of accusation, which means that there is no investigation aimed at achieving justice. We reject the logic of balancing between justice and stability. We say that what is required is justice. And the avoidance of justice is what led to the lack of stability in the past, and it will lead to instability in the future, whereas achieving justice protects everyone.

Bouftein: Your eminence, we move on to the Kuwaiti subject, as we have come from Kuwait. I will ask you and I hope you will take the matter with openness. Our issue is the funeral reception ceremony which occurred in Kuwait, after which a series of sectarian incidents occurred which shocked our society which is unaccustomed to such sectarian ire, and it was actually from many sects, not just from one sect or party. I would like a word from Your Eminence to address the Kuwaitis in their various sectors this subject in particular, the issue of the funeral reception for Imad Moghniyeh.
Sayyed Nasrallah: I thank you for this question because it opens the door for a discussion which isn't confined to Kuwait, something we have always talked about. I would like to confirm that today there is no longer, as a result of awareness and education and the revelation of matters and facts to our Arab and Islamic nations. The hegemony and domination projects in the region are in their final stages. The "Israeli" project is nearing its end; it started very high and began to decline. It's over now. The Zionist project is declining, not ascending. The final bullet in the hands of our enemy is the weapon of instigation. The most dangerous instigation was prepared for, and is being prepared for, and has been prepared for over the past years is the Sunni-Shiia instigation. I want to be very frank on this matter. There are among the Shiia and Sunni, so no one says that because I am Shiia I talk about the Sunni or because I am Sunni I talk about the Shiia, ... There are among the Shiia and the Sunni those who are involved in this project, i.e. the instigation project, consciously, knowledgeably, and on intentionally. They know what they are doing, and with whom they are communicating, and which intelligence agencies they have contacted, and how they are being sponsored and how they are being covered and how they are being supported. This is not the time for details; the day will come when we talk in detail. This penetration is present in both the Sunni and Shiia spheres. And of course it takes various forms, and sometimes takes the form of vigilant care for the sect or denomination. Hence, when you find someone who reveals massive vigilance for the sect or denomination and goes far, it is then that we must take care of that excessive vigilance is sometimes frightening. For example, now you can find people whose only business is to dig up all history's issues. It's not wrong to bring up history; no one can avoid history. But there are many matters whose discussions, means, tools, timing, place, and the nature of the people who are going to discuss constitute a different matter. We find that the language of accusation and the surfacing of rhetoric of cursing and swearing, and the attack of sacreds of the two sects. Of course, we have senior scholars who have declared any exposure of sacreds or personalities or issues that are sacred as unlawful. You can discuss any idea with me, and I can discuss any idea with you, but for you to curse my sacreds or for me to curse your sacreds is not a way to discuss, convince, or guide. He who curses the sacreds of others is in fact parting from the truth, not guiding to it. Today we find this type of discussion in the ideological domain and in political issues. For instance, any monetary disagreement quickly spirals into a sectarian and denominational disagreement. And the like is true in other subjects. And in Lebanon, in the past few years, the disagreement between Hizbullah and the Future Movement has been a political one, not a sectarian one, but some attempt to change it into such. And likewise in Palestine, the disagreement is political, not a sectarian which is inexistent in Palestine. And so, there wasn't any mention of s sectarian ridge, but of a political one. What I call on Sunni and Shiia Muslims is to comprehend the dangers of such and to be aware that God does content with sectarian contestations and enmity, and nor do His Prophets or Messengers or the Household of the Prophet (pbut) or the Prophet's companions or their followers in charity or the martyrs or the generations to come. If we are to be in harmony with our morals and religion, value, Qur'an, the Prophet, his Household, and his companions, as well as with the interests of our nation and the generations to come, then we must do everything that brings together and approximates. And when we disagree on any matter, it is one of the greatest sins and of sowing dissention in the lands to political, media, or partisan disagreement into a sectarian one because we would then be employing ideologies and sacreds in absurd, superficial conflict related to personal and momentary interests. This is not restricted to Kuwait; it concerns everyone. Kuwait is a calm front, and there is communication, dialogue, openness, and care between its people, as is the case in many places where there are Sunnis and Shiia. But now there exists someone who wants to separate these connected families, and this is among the biggest issues by which the Sunni and Shiia are attacked. Therefore I would like all to adopt calm words, dialogue, and openness, and to place things in their proper dimensions to surpass this stage.

Bouftein: Kuwait has played a large central role in the Arab late reconciliations. How do you see the reflections of this role in Lebanon and the region?
Sayyed Nasrallah: Certainly, there are many countries which took part in creating these positive atmospheres. Kuwait had its role, especially after the war. There is a permanent Kuwaiti delegate in Lebanon who aids in rebuilding many Lebanese regions and constructing schools. I would like Kuwait as a government and as a public to always play a positive role in Lebanon, and to play a unifying role as well, as there are those in Lebanon who attempted to push Kuwait into the struggle which was ongoing in Lebanon, but it failed to do so. And I believe that the major interests require that Kuwait be, as it was, to the side of the Lebanese people, as Lebanon should be to the side of Kuwait and its people.

Bouftein: After the cell which was discovered in Egypt and the sentences which reached a life penalty, do you believe Hizbullah lost an Arab profoundness embracing it in support and sympathy after the July 2006 war? And how do you expect this crisis with Egypt to end? And are there Arab and Islamic mediations to settle the matter?
Sayyed Nasrallah: Hizbullah has not lost. Ever since the first day of the arrest of the members of the cell I spoke out, and today I confirm that they are noble resistance mujahidin brothers, not what the chief judge who was reading the verdict described as outlaws, criminals, and terrorists. They are among the nobles of this nation; their only true crime is that they were aiding their brothers in the Gaza strip and aiding and supporting the legitimate Palestinian resistance which should be embraced by everyone. They were doing this duty, and the rest of what was said are fabrications to cover up the proceedings in their right. The penalties which were ruled are arbitrary against the noble mujahidin. And I say to them and to their families ‘when you chose the path of supporting the Palestinian people, you knew that at any moment you might be arrested or face more than arrest: death and martyrdom. Hence, what you have faced in prison and in the rulings which were issued today is a legion of honor on the chests and faces of these mujahidiin, these noble men.' It is our pride and honor that all the Arab and Islamic nations know that we are imprisoned and detained for saying ‘God is our Lord' and listening to Allah, glory to Allah the Exalted, who orders us to be to the side of our brothers in Palestine and in Gaza. In this I see no loss of Arab profoundness To the contrary, this emphasizes the integrity of our position and our commitment to Palestine -of course, the possible commitment as we yearn for doing more than this; however, even with this amount we manage to do, we are paying the price. It is in God's hands and in God's service. Matters with Egypt are not closed. We will not leave those brothers in prison, for certain. We will follow up on this case even after the issuing of the judicial rulings just as with the previous phase as we were keen on handling matters through the judicial and legal channels. Now the matter has come out of the hands of the judiciary, and the sole available exit may be through politics. We will pursue political and diplomatic means to settle this matter and establish the rights of those brothers and remove them from prison.

Bouftein: Your Eminence, let's talk about some personal questions. You said in the speech in which you mourned you loved one [your martyred son]: ‘We don't save our children for the future, and we raise our heads up high when they fall martyrs.' Did Sayyed Nasrallah cry his loved one in front of his corpse, or did he refuse to reveal any emotion in front of the media so as not to give "Israel" any image of a tear?
Sayyed Nasrallah: Yes. True. The fact of the matter is that I am the father of a martyr and I have a special emotional connection to him, he who chose this path in his complete willpower. And in truth, he received his aim of martyrdom in the path of God the Exalted, and brought glory on us. Therefore, I said on the very day of his martyrdom is that this is glory for the resistance. And, of course, what I did not say on that day was that it is glory for me and my family. And in the end, I am a father and I have emotions, and it's natural for me to be saddened and affected and to cry. But the difference is, do we fall apart? Do we surrender? Do we weaken faced with the loss of precious loved ones? First of all, we are originally given to tears. When the Prophet (pbuh) lost his young son, he wept, and said ‘the eye is to cry, and the heart is to sadden'. So it is natural for a human to cry, but not to fall apart and give the enemy any chance at feeling victory or triumph over us or that they harmed us. And therefore, we consider that positions, words, tears, laughs, and collectedness are part of the war and battle. But we refuse to hand over to the enemy triumph on any given front. And in consequence, yes, this is what happened. God, the Exalted, gave me collectedness and strength ( and the issue was that on the day of the martyrdom of martyr Hadi - Septemebr 13th- we were celebrating the anniversary of other martyrs) and word of his martyrdom came hours before the ceremony in which I am accustomed to speaking in. So in being absent was a mark of weakness. And in me attending only hours after the martyrdom news drew concern from some brothers. I believe theat the stance and the speech at the time was part of the battle and a compliment to the martyrdom operation to which martyr Hadi went and was martyred in, and that I had to hold his blood to represent it in all strength and boldness. But in private, did cry when his corpse came, because it isn't possible for one not to have emotions for his loved one.

Bouftein: Your Eminence, Don't you miss your inner family? Don't you miss Mohammad Jawad and Zeinab and Mohammad Ali and Mohammad Mahdi with whom circumstances may prevent you from spending with? Don't you miss ordinary life and walking in the streets of Beirut?
Sayyed Nasrallah: Talking about these matters may cause the reserve of the brothers concerned with my security. Bus so as not to exaggerate, I do see my family and friends and loved ones when the time is right. I meet and sit with many people, taking into consideration the necessary security measures which all our guests accept. I'm not cut off from the world. And I meet many whose meeting [with me] get circulated in the media, and many don't get circulated. I do walk around a lot, but there is an impression due to the security measures and the talk the enemy says in the media as if they had imprisoned me in a room. And that's not true. I walk, see, hear, and meet, but of course, not in an uncovered way.

Bouftein: Your Eminence. We've notice in speeches, meetings, and in social gatherings that you have a sense of humor. Are you affected if a political joke is said against you?
Sayyed Nasrallah: To me this issue is normal. We are subjected to what is worse than political jokes. Accusations, slander, and much wrongdoing is committed in and outside the media, but the issue is related to people. The issue is the religious character. And therefore, our followers don't accept jokes. There was confusion about this in the past, and whenever any humor show wants to joke about anyone in Hizbullah it goes in the direction of the head of the loyalty to the resistance bloc MP Mohammad Raad or to any MP or Minister.

Bouftein: Will the day come when we see Your Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah in Kuwait?
Sayyed Nasrallah: I wish. We hope so. But our issue is our battle with "Israel" which stops at no limits. The former Secretary General of Hizbullah was martyred with his wife and child when he was in a public procession, and "Israeli" planes bombed his car in broad daylight. "Israel's" history in killings and abducting planes is a known one. Therefore, any travel to this corner has colossal risks. And even is my late trip to Syria, "Israeli" reconnaissance planes and warplanes were hovering over every part of the Lebanese-Syrian border for 48 hours. And hence, the reason and prohibitory is security. But I personally love to travel and meet and make speeches. This screen has become a barrier between people and myself. Since the beginning of my work, I've been know for loving people, youth, and direct communication and sitting with people and hugging them and saluting them. I'm certain that had this issue been possible, it would have certainly had many positive aspects. And had I been able to go to Kuwait or any other country, it would have had positive reactions on the level of direct dialogue with those responsible, the public, and those in charge. We have a cause, and our cause is not ours alone; it is that of our nation and it concerns us all. We are part of the people who believe in it and hold their blood on their hand for it, and we have our experience, or vision, or proposal, and we were capable of achieveing critically important victories. This communication most certainly serves the issue we believe in, but the barrier until now is security, and I don't know when it will be gone. I ask Allah make the day possible when we can visit you and all our loved ones in Kuwait....


Complete text to be posted as soon as possible.

The following is a report on the speech compiled by Al-Manar TV Channel:

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah stressed the goal of the uproar over the alleged Scud Missiles transfer from Syria to Hezbollah "is to pressure Syria and Hezbollah and to prevent us as a resistance from defending ourselves."
Sayyed Nasrallah was speaking during an interview with the Kuwaiti television Al-Rai on Thursday.
"Their campaign has failed because Syria has denied the claim and Hezbollah traditionally does not comment on such issues," Sayyed Nasrallah said.
His eminence asked about the implications of such campaigns on the Israelis on the moral and psychological levels. He added that "this is in our interest, and all those who support the resistance have become more reassured because we've said that we'll defend ourselves and Lebanon and that we'll strike their infrastructures if they target ours."
Sayyed Nasrallah underlined that the resistance is capable of fulfilling its commitments to defend the country. "In July 2006 the resistance proved it possesses defensive capabilities and the enemy was stunned to see what had taken place because they did not expect to face a resistance of this kind. We will not allow them to target our cities. There are red lines and we'll hit back and we are capable of it, however we do not discuss the nature of the weapons we'll be using."
The Hezbollah chief said the picture taken in Damascus (President Bashar Assad, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sayyed Nasrallah) was enough to send a message that the circumstances in the region have changed. "I assure that any new Israeli war will be an adventure with uncalculated results for the Israeli side and will eventually change the face of this region...My brothers and I believe that this intimidation does not entail a war."

On the assassination of Resistance commander martyr Imad Moghnieh, Sayyed Nasrallah said that vengeance for his death is a matter of time. "I can't say that operations to avenge martyr Moghnieh's death had taken place and failed and the Azabeijan issue is a different issue. I assure that the Islamic Resistance will not be lax in avenging him. We are engaged in a battle with the Israeli enemy and when our leaders get killed anywhere we will have the right to respond in the framework of the ongoing battle. Speaking of vengeance bares some tolerance in its meaning. If we sought after vengeance by killing Israeli tourists we would have been able to so easily but we do not look at the issue from this perspective. We know where to respond and when to respond and who to target. The Israelis know this and it is only a matter of time."

Speaking about National Dialogue in Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah said that "our ally, General Michel Aoun threatened to withdraw from the dialogue to protest the attack on the arms of the resistance and its intentions." He added: "General Aoun expressed resentment from this rhetoric. Hezbollah's representative was very clear when he told the other camp that if they wanted to bring the issue to the media, there was no problem and if they wanted to tackle it around a round table there was no problem either. Some say that the arms of the resistance give Israel the pretext to wage war on Lebanon. We condemn this rhetoric because it contradicts the simplest axioms. We cannot accept giving legitimacy to an Israeli assault on Lebanon and our people. True, there is an historic difference that dates back to the establishment of the resistance. Some political powers never believed that Israel was an enemy, and this difference in ideologies was present even before I was born. The only way to resolve this difference is through a national dialogue. This is why we were the first to present our vision on this matter. Some groups have declared through written statements that they insist on raising the arms issue to establish that it is a controversial matter. The resistance has never had consensus in any country at any time and Lebanon is not a special case. The resistance in 1982 did not enjoy consensus as there were parties who were in the same camp with the Israelis fighting for them. "

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed the resistance in Lebanon was strong especially after the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from most of Lebanon and victory in the 2006 war with Israel. He added that the arms of the resistance were not and will not be used in Lebanon to change an internal political equation or to change the constitution. "The resistance won the war but we did not ask for power and we never sought after it. Everybody remember May 25, 2000 when I spoke in Bint Jbeil. I said that what we achieved was our obligation and we didn't want anything in return. We called on the Lebanese army to have full reign in south Lebanon, we never asked for a constitutional amendment to change the sectarian distribution of powers in Lebanon...Our experience is enough evidence that Hezbollah's ambitions is not based on sectarian interests, in fact it is founded on national interests and I admit that Lebanon cannot stay separated from the Palestinian cause.

Speaking about the May 7, 2008 incidents in Beirut, the Hezbollah chief explained that what happened was to reverse an unjust decision by then PM Fouad Saniora's government that was aimed at the arms of the resistance, namely its communications network which played a major role in defeating Israeli in the 2006 war. "Some ex-March 14 figures admit that those decisions were a strategic mistake. That government attacked us and it sought to ignite sedition between the army and the resistance. We were not represented in the government. When the Arab delegation arrived in Beirut we told them that our only demands were to reverse the decisions and sit around the national dialogue table, nothing else. We did not set conditions on electing a new president or on giving Saniora another term as PM. Our arms were not and will not be use in Lebanon to change equations. Our arms are to defend Lebanon and the resistance, and we do not tolerate attacking our arms because our weapons are legitimate according to all standards."

On the investigations committee probing the assassination of former PM martyr Rafiq Hariri, Sayyed Nasrallah warned that Hezbollah did not trust the panel. "We have evidence that lead us not to trust the panel as well as the tribunal itself. If the committee does not prove it is conducting a technical and serious investigation we will reconsider cooperating with it. Mohammed Zuhair Siddiq has made a couple of statements and for the first time he implicated Hezbollah cadres in the crime. Siddiq is a false witness who deluded the investigation panel and the whole world and his false testimony led to the detention of four generals, the death of dozens of Syrian workers in Lebanon, and could have led to war in the region. He is still at large and the spokeswoman of the tribunal says that the court has nothing to do with Siddiq. How come? We will formally ask the Lebanese government to arrest Siddiq wherever he was, whether in the UAE or in the Netherlands. We have to know who was behind him, who gave him passports, who provided shelter for him, and who has been funding him. We do not believe in making a balance between justice and stability in Lebanon. We have to be convinced that this investigation is being conducted to learn the truth and to establish justice. "

His eminence added that "if Le French Figaro was right and after it the Kuwaiti Assiyasiyya and then the German Der Spiegel and now the French Le Monde, then there is no need for an investigation, because the bill of accusation is ready against Hezbollah. We refuse any accusation Hezbollah, be it the party as a whole or members of it. There is a Israeli Mossad agent who is sentenced to death who confessed of picking up Israeli handbags full of explosives and that he used to deliver them to certain locations. Were those explosives used in some attacks or not? There are threads that lead to Israel, but there is a trend to rule out Israel from the assassination of Hariri and this is an insult to the martyr."

Addressing Kuwaitis, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed all plots to dominate this region and the Israeli project have failed and they are nearing their end. "The last draw is to incite sedition between Shiites and Sunnis. There are some Shiites and some Sunnis who are involved in this sedition plot and they know they are. This is why I call on all Muslims to realize the danger behind this project.

His eminence said that the verdicts in Egypt against the freedom fighters who were offering support to the resistance in the Gaza Strip are politicized and unfair. He added that "when those brothers were arrested in Egypt, we stressed - and I've said this personally - that those are honest resistance fighters, not outlaws, criminals, and terrorists as the judge described them. They are honest people and their only crime is that they were supporting their brothers in Gaza and giving help to the legitimate Palestinian resistance which should be embraced by everybody. Those men were fulfilling their duty and everything beside this are mere fabrications to cover the measures that were taken against them."

Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the detained resistance men and their families: "When you chose the path of backing the Palestinian people, you knew that you could be arrested or maybe killed as martyrs at any time. What you have gone through in Jail and the sentences that have been issued today is a badge of honor on your chests."

The Hezbollah chief added: "For Arab and Muslim peoples to know that we get detained and jailed because we believe that Allah is our God and we only abide by His order to support our brothers in Palestine and Gaza is something to be very proud of. I don't see in this any loss for any Arab depth. On the contrary, this confirms the credibility of our position and commitment to the Palestinian people. Of course, we seek more support to them, but even this much backing is costing us. Yet, this is all under Allah's eyes and for His sake."

He continued: "Of course the doors are not closed in Egypt, and we are surely not going to let those brothers in prison. We will follow up this case even if a sentence was issued, and we'll seek to resolve the matter as we did in the past, through legal and judicial channels...This case is no longer a judicial matter, so perhaps the only available exits are political ones." "We will seek, through political and diplomatic channels to resolve this issue, establish our brothers' rights, and not letting them in prison," he added.

At the end of the interview, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed "this current stage requires communication and dialogue between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. We should focus on common point, not on matters that leave us apart. We have so much in common and our interest is one. We are targets, particularly when we speak about plots and schemes seeking to plunder our riches and separate us."
His eminence warned that "What is taking place in occupied Palestine is extremely dangerous and it threatens our nation," suggesting that all Muslims gather around this common cause.