Local Editor

Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah held a press conference to explain the circumstances of the swap deal with "Israel".

May Peace be upon You.

In light of the importance and sensitive nature of out topic today, I will discuss the topic without an introduction. The event does have its emotional, jihadi, and political considerations after all. In truth, there are two addresses; A speech that I address with today in the press conference which does not affect the swap operation. The other I will leave till the next phase, the reception day.

There is a list of salutes, thanks and dedications, as well as a description of the swap, its
indications, meanings, and dimensions. There are other sides to the operation, something we will discuss when the young men (hostages) are back in the country and we discuss the matter thoroughly.

Today I will concentrate on the negotiations that occurred in brief and on the content of the agreement and on the upcoming stage of final implementation. I do not wish to talk of the internal political situation.

But a few hours ago we were informed that the British government has issued a motion considering the armed wing of Hizbullah a terrorist organization and placed it on the list of terrorist organizations.

I believe that this decision is completely natural and it is no surprise that it has been issued by a country that established the Zionist entity, a main partner in the displacement of the Palestinian people and the establishment of the tyrannical state of ‘Israel', the state of the Belford promise in the past and the state of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in the present.

A few days ago the worst offenses in modern history were addressed to the prophet of Islam Mohammad (pbuh) hurting the feelings of 1.4 billion Muslims meanwhile Britain and its government didn't move a finger.

Compared to the Prophet, who are the Resistance fighters to be accused of terrorism? It is quite natural that the followers of this generous Prophet be accused of terrorism. I view it as a natural decision that was taken too late by the British. Each and every time the usurpers and occupiers of Palestine and Iraq issue a decision of the sort in the rights of resistance movements, we consider it an honor and a medal of honor to us, a testimony that we are in the right position and that we are with the options and interests of our countries.

Here I will stop at the sketchy timing of the issue. You know that the topic of the swap deal has taken a large scope in the Arab and Islamic worlds and in the entire world. The swap deal reflects a civilized humanitarian image of the resistance in Lebanon and the latter's respect of human values and dignity when it insists on refusing to leave behind any prisoner in captivity, and even more when it insists on revealing the fates of martyrs and their corpses.

At the time when this (modern) image is presented, it is required of the British to bring forth a negative image of the resistance.

Yet, we have put this matter behind us a long time ago. In any case, the days, months, years, and decades to some will prove that all campaigns of false accusations against the resistance and resistance fighters will be gone with the wind, {{their deeds are like a mirage in sandy deserts, which the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing}}(Quraan, 24:39).

As to the negotiations, after the (July 2006) war ended and UNSCR 1701 was issued, an effort was required to resolve the issue of the hostages. Mediation efforts began with the UN Secretary General. There is a mistake in the press. The mediations are international and not German. It is true that the Secretary General authorized a German mediator, but his reference was the secretary general. The German government did intervene to resolve some complexions. But the reference of the mediation was the United Nations and its secretary general.

From the first moment we specified as a condition that the negotiations remain secretive for the soundness of the negotiations. We weren't searching for spotlights. We could have issued a statement weekly and leaked some information and make headlines. But we weren't interested in that. Our true concern is the humanitarian interest: the liberation of the hostages and the return of the pure corpses home. We stayed away from the media. The leaks came from the other party, and we used to reproach it, and it would admit that.

A few weeks ago an initial agreement was reached that required the consent of the enemy's government. The enemy's media has come over the tiniest details meanwhile we have not said a word in an effort to allow the agreement to be successful and complete the exchange operation. One of the valuable lessons we learned form previous swap deals is that the media complicates the operation in that it creates circumstances and preconditions.

I didn't set a ceiling for the hostages. The topic of Samir Kintar was predetermined, but I didn't put a ceiling for the number hostages since that would have complicated the operation. The enemy was waging a war of credibility and non-credibility, a war of breaching decisions and positions, a policy practiced in many parts of the world. I create a high ceiling in the negotiations and not through the media.

Therefore, you may have noticed that this is the first time an official in Hizbullah has spoken out loud on the subject. When the issue was restricted to (Hizbullah's) secretary general, it was for maintaining the secrecy of the issue till the last moment.

The negotiations were difficult and complicated. They were slow and would come to a halt at times for months at a time where nobody had anything new. But we never reached a point where negotiations were over. Even when things froze the two sides would re-launch the negotiations.

Hizbullah's negotiating party exerted huge efforts. The German mediator also went to lengths and lengthy negotiations for hours at a time. This must me mentioned in appreciation of these efforts.

Up till a few months ago, the debate was on the principles after which we went into details. We proposed principles.

First: That the swap include all the Lebanese including Samir Kintar.

Second: That all the corpses of Lebanese, Palestinian, and Arab martyrs that are still being held
in numbered graves be returned.

Third: Determining the fate of the missing, particularly those missing since 1982 and earlier. This was a difficult issue.

The last part: freeing Palestinians and Arabs as a principle. This principle was placed and worked on in the negotiations alongside the four Iranian diplomats that we believe that the Lebanese Forces handed over to the enemy who still has them.

On the other side, the ‘Israelis' had the issue of Ron Arad and the two ‘Israeli' soldiers captured by the resistance. The enemy had forgotten the issue of the remains of over ten soldiers in the aftermath of the July war.

From the start the enemy agreed to free the Lebanese hostages without Kintar. Here I note that the Lebanese hostages and their families bore two years of suffering though they would have been freed from the beginning, but we insisted that Samir Kintar be among the freed hostages. The ‘Israelis' rejected the principle of freeing Palestinian and Arab hostages.

Nogotiations went on for a year and there was no improvement. Both sides held on to their principles. But in the last few months some suggestions were made and certain so-called humanitarian initiatives were launched where the hostage Hassan Akil, a civilian from the July war from the Jibbein village, was freed. The second was the return of the bodies of two resistance fighters in exchange for the body of an ‘Israeli' settler that was washed ashore to us at the time. The latest breakthrough before the final agreement was the issue of the release of Nassim Nisr in return for handing over the remains of ‘Israeli' soldiers.

A short while ago the issue of Samir Kintar was not concluded due to many excuses related by the ‘Istraeli' media. Then came the approval for the swap to include all five Lebanese hostages. When the topic came to Yehya Skaff, the enemy insists that he dies in the Dalal Moghrabi operation. We asked for his body. They refused to hand over his body. The martyrs in the Dalal Moghrabi group are five and will be returned, their DNA tested, and it will determine their identities.

The enemy agreed to the Martyrs of the Truthful Pledge and the handover of all remains before and after 1982, Lebanese, Palestinians, and Arabs. The estimated number is 199, nearly 200. They have started to dig up the graves.

The significance is huge to the families of martyrs who know after years when the remains of one's brother or father what the issue means in humanitarian and emotional terms. To many families that is not less important than regaining them alive.

One of the most important measures for those martyrs is that they have real graves with real names written in letters of light, and not unknown numbers.

There remains the issue of Mohammad Farran, the fisherman who was lost at sea and whose boat was found with bloodstains. We naturally assumed he was with the ‘Israelis' and they are responsible for him. The report on missing persons that will be delivered the day of the exchange will determine the fate of brother Mohammad.

God willing, we will be able to determine the fate of many missing persons, if not all. On the Lebanese side, the whole mission is accomplished...all hostages, remains, and whatever was possible on missing persons.

On the Iranian issue, there is nothing new. The German mediator will receive a final report from the ‘Israelis' on their fate. In the past few days we have given him our report on the missing ‘Israeli' pilot Ron Arad. In the coming days a mediator will come and receive a serious large written report on Ron Arad.

In 2004 we were working in two directions: revealing the fate of Ron Arad, and preparing for a hostage operation. We did field investigations with persons and took statements and worked on the issue from start to finish. We came to a deduction based on inferences. We will deliver this report to the mediator along with whatever has been reached to the international mediator. It remains his right to announce it or pass it around.

As for the end part of the negotiations, after resolving the obstacle of freeing brother Samir Kintar, what remained was the challenging hurdle in the negotiation of releasing Palestinian and Arab prisoners.

I cannot divulge everything now, but I will leave some points to cover on reception day.
The enemy used to say 'anything we (the 'Israelis') give to Hizbullah that is part of the Palestinian issue, will create a problem, at a time when we (the 'Israelis') are holding negotiations concerning Gilad Shalit with Hamas and political negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas.'

We did not link the negotiations between prisoners held by us and the prisoner held by the brothers in Hamas in Gaza.
They are two different paths, and since combining them could complicate matters, we kept them separate from day one.

The enemy saw that it had a problem with "the Arabs". Because it has a peace agreement with Jordan, it was unable to release Jordanian POW's over to us, and the same with Syria, because it has the Golan issue and ongoing negotiations there.

Additionally, the enemy does not want to consolidate Hizbullah as chief negotiator on behalf of all Arabs, for they used to say "if we do that, we will have appointed Hassan Nasrallah as King of the Arab world", when I want to be nothing more than a servant of this cause.

From our perspective, and from that of the Palestinians, the release of Palestinian detainees is symbolic and marks great importance from the angle of our common cause and struggle.

We agreed, then, that I would send a letter to the UN Secretary General discussing the 11 thousand Palestinian prisoners, insisting in particular on the release of imprisoned women in children. Something will be issued in this regard by the UN Secretary General and the Government of the enemy as well.

The United Nations Secretary-General undertook a commitment to invest special efforts regarding the Syrian and Jordanian POW's.
Furthermore, the most important achievement everyone talked about is the subject of Samir Kintar, with all the indications it represents.

We accepted this agreement, which we consider a major achievement in the least; therefore, I hereby officially announce the declared agreement acceptable by us, finalized, and its technicalities agreed on by our team of negotiators in recent weeks with the German mediator. What remains is a timetable that is to be completely specified and announced within the next two days.

There is a prevailing ‎belief that this process will take place before or after July 15. Although we wish it to be complete soon, I do not want to set a day, because should we attempt to set a date, 'Israel' will fight to counter that, but I expect it will happen in a week or two, due to the 'Israeli' legal and judicial considerations to be taken in Samir Kantar's release.

There is no need for concern, since despite all that was raised within the 'Israeli' entity, a final decision has been reached there, and matters are seem to be winding up.

On this occasion, I have three concluding points:

1. First, I congratulate all the Lebanese on this victory... I hope that they consider this achievement and victory theirs. Just as we did in July of 2000 we do again now, refuse to use this victory for internal gain, as this is part of our culture... No one should feel defeated, or feel this is a message to them. I hope the Lebanese appreciate the importance of this achievement, for once accomplished, Lebanon will be the first Arab country in the 'Israeli'-Arab conflict to close its detainee dossier.

No Lebanese prisoners or bodies will remain outside the homeland. It is not a problem if some view this as a way by the enemy to remove pretexts, what concerns me is the result, and the humanitarian reality, which we will witness in the eyes of the martyrs' parents. This is a major achievement after the complete liberation of the lands with the exception of Shibaa Farms and Kafr Shouba hills. This victory is for every resistance movement and every noble and free person in the Arab world.

2. With the convoys of martyrs returning to Lebanon, I say to all the Lebanese, Palestinians and all political parties that during the funerals in different regions, our national and ‎ethical responsibility are to remember and preserve what these martyrs sacrificed their lives for.
This event is to be a national unifying event, an opportunity for the Lebanese to come together ‎again. Remembering this national struggle and resistance history will provide an opportunity to achieve this goal.

On the personal level, I, together with Hizbullah leadership announce absolute openness to any political meeting ‎under any title and in any context, if it helps in uniting Lebanon, preserving civil peace ‎and overcoming the previous phase in Lebanon. I invite all the Lebanese to celebrate this occasion in a real festivity that unites us all.

3. I stress on all participating political forces to consider this a national event, to distance themselves from any provocations, and to benefit from this occasion by bridging the gap among the Lebanese, by observing a civilized reception.

What remains is one detail of which I want to speak firmly and it is the celebratory gunfire.
I say this is a very dangerous, very painful and disastrous matter. I call on all those who participate in this or in any of the coming celebrations-because as I have promised you the age of defeatism is gone making way for the age of victories- that anyone who fires a gun in celebration is firing that gun at me, at my head and at my heart. They would be firing at the resistance, at its martyrs and its civilized achievement ... So all those who truly love and appreciate the resistance must know this.

Necessary measures will be taken to ensure public cooperation in this matter. I invite every building to form a committee to prevent any shooting, which serves the enemy, since it amounts to shooting at the resistance for which you, all the Lebanese people and us invested tremendous sacrifices to bring about these achievements that lie before our eyes now

Questions and Answers:

Question: It pains us that you appear to us through a screen. God willing, all hostages, martyred or alive, will be freed, but there remains one captive, you...your eminence. My question: Was this issue... or why wasn't this issue brought up in the indirect negotiations based on the fact that your personal safety as an icon is paramount? Second question: Why didn't you allow the Lebanese government to participate in the negotiations?

Answer: I thank your care and concern. I have a clarification and a stance. The clarification is that I am not a captive, and that I am among the freest people in this world. The image that some have in mind of me and are moved by it thinking: how does the Sayyed live? (I call on them to) Do not worry for me; I am fine. I am comfortable and happy. The image in people's minds is tough and the reality is not so. Of course, we have our measures, a natural thing.

As to the stance: It gives me NO honor to take ‘Israeli' guarantees for myself when each and every Palestinian man, woman, and child and every person in Lebanon... are all under threat of being killed and martyred at any moment. We are in a journey that takes its core significance from the fact that its leaders are martyrs... from its secretary general Sayyed Abbas Moussawi to Sheikh Ragheb to our beloved leader martyr hajj Imad Moghnieh alongside a larger number of martyr leaders.

We cannot even venture into the discussion of the request of security guarantees that I don't get targeted. I basically believe myself to be one of the resistance fighters that hold strong to the cause of liberating land and defending every person in this country and Ummah. I consider myself a sacrifice for every Lebanese and Palestinian and every noble person in this ummah...I sacrifice him with my blood and soul.

With respect to the government, during the war I said that we have no objection to allowing the Lebanese government to take over the issue of negotiations other than the main problem that the entire world was pressuring the Lebanese government to hand over the two captives before any official negotiations starts and demands an unconditional release.

We had no objection at all against the government negotiation with the condition that the captives stay with us. That would be safer, to begin with, because it would relieve pressure off the government, and second of all their whereabouts (the captives) remains secret. And you all know that there are no secrets in this country. Had we given the captives at that time to the government, how long would the news (secret) have lasted?
(...)

One of the values (strong points) in the negotiations is that till this moment, the ‘Israelis' have not taken a single signal or indirect reference on the life or death of the two captive soldiers...are they dead or alive?...is one dead and the other living? They do not know anything. Our negotiating team was very careful. Imagine negotiating for two years and talking for ten hours in each meeting...and it must not have a single slip of the tongue signaling the fate of the captives, while they know, in the least, the fate of the soldiers.

In the past, in the days of martyr Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, may God's mercy be upon him, he (Hariri) entered as a mediator with the French due to his friendship with Jacque Chirac and I had no objection, and he was the prime minister. He negotiated and debated, and went to France and Germany and circled the world as we sat here in Beirut. But at that time, Prime Minister Rafik Hariri didn't precondition that we must hand over what we have so that he would negotiate nor did he demand an unrestricted authorization saying: I am the government, the authority, I make the calls, I make the decision of peace, and I decide in the negotiations.

We used to talk and discuss with him, and we were partners. He used to debate and advise and say, "Sayyed, this is right and that is wrong. This is a high ceiling and that is a low ceiling." And when it was possible to accept something he would say, "No. Let's demand more." He was a serious partner in the negotiations and he was the Prime Minister. We have no policy to distance the government. We want to accomplish the objective.

Question: Why did ‘Israel' accept completing the swap with Hizbullah at the time when the swap with Hamas is stumbling whereas the information on the captive soldier with Hamas says he is alive? Has Hizbullah presented any information on the two captive soldiers to ‘Israel'?

Answer: Till this moment Hizbullah has not presented any information or even a signal. All the talk in ‘Israel' about the fate of the two soldiers is analysis and inferences, and it is not based on solid information. I, for example, watched the chief of the Mossad who said that he has a reliable vocal source, meaning he has no solid proof. That reliable vocal source in Lebanon told him that the two soldiers are dead. Now we don't know who the reliable source is, but we will later God willing. We have not given any information or signals in this direction. Of course, the other course (Hamas swap) continues. Definitely, the other course is complicated and has complications such as the ones in our folder.

I mean that the topic of Samir (Kintar) broke the standards. I shall discuss this later. There was a huge main obstacle aside to other obstacles. In the end, Schalit is also an opportunity for the Palestinian brothers to release (hostages), and they will give their outmost effort and will attempt to achieve the best possible outcome, and this takes time, naturally.

Question: Will you dedicate this victory to the Lebanese and put your weapons on the dialogue-table? The second question is on the issue of openness. Some demanded that you apologize to Beirut for what occurred on the 7th of May and you rejected. On the course of openness, will you apologize to Beirut?

Answer: On the first part, you are asking me if I will dedicate this victory to the Lebanese. I have already dedicated it. I have spent an hour saying that I dedicate this victory to the Lebanese asking them to consider it a national ceremony. We have an issue. For example, in the July (2006) war, in the midst of the war, when it was said that we won I dedicated the victory to the Lebanese while I was being bombed. A few days later, some leaders came out to ask who we will dedicate the victory to, to Iran or to Syria. I had dedicated to the Lebanese and was over the issue.

On the issue of the defensive strategy for Lebanon, we accepted this issue a few years ago. Possibly, the first time it was written down was in the memorandum of understanding between Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement. When the dialogue-table before the July (2006) we attended the dialogue and I personally participated. We reached this debate (on defense strategy) and started it as we presented a study. I heard a lot (of talk) these days saying that Hizbullah wants to hinder or disrupt the Doha agreement because it (Hizbullah) doesn't want the wave to reach its arms. Here I am obliged to clarify, and it is an amusing comment.

The Doha Agreement contains three matters. First: A national unity government, something we had and the opposition always demanded. Is it rational that after two years of sacrifices, when we reach a national unity government to disrupt our own demand? The difference is that those whom demanded a national unity government are accused of hindrance while those who considered a national unity government suicide are not!!?? Let us respect people's minds a little bit.

Second: The electoral law. We are the people that most strongly demanded early parliamentary elections, and are the people that have the most interests in parliamentary elections occurring on time, that the elections are not delayed or cancelled. We have information that Ms. Condoleezza Rice is scheming and is working, and has already debated this issue on some international levels concerning delaying the parliamentary elections and finding constitutional loopholes for that. Of course, this occurred before the election of President Suleiman. Now, if she continues with this policy or not is another issue.

With relation to the strategy of defense, we have been and always will be ready, and we are not afraid of this debate at all. He who is afraid of this debate is he who has committed a sin, the weakling who has no logic. But we in the resistance have logic, and day after day, our logic proves stronger than any other logic. We have a vision, a proposal, and a clear comprehensive preventative strategy, as logic thinkers put it. A person that has such vision is not afraid of any debate. He who is afraid is the weak one. We are always ready for such discussion and debate. We have no problem.

As to the third point (the one) that you mentioned, if we are to discuss it in this manner there is something our brothers mentioned earlier, and I will repeat it. If we are to apologize from each other, putting aside my evaluation and yours of what occurred on the 7th of May since our evaluation differs of course, (I say that) the resistances community who is partially from Beirut, and there is a large community in Beirut that is the country's capital which comprises all sects, a community of all sects. The resistance community, the families of martyrs and hostages, and the martyrs and hostages all deserve an apology from everyone that wronged the resistance and accused it during and after the July (2006) war and to this very day. If this apology if presented, we will answer it with the like or even better.

Question: There is a question you may consider is too early, but it has been circulated. In the year 2004 when Hizbullah lead the swap, it comprised of the communist hostage Anwar Yassin who was among the freed hostages. A year later, when Anwar Yassin decided to enter the election battle in an isolated separate list distinct from that of Hizbullah and Amal in the south, it was directly said or circulated at the time that any person who votes for anyone outside Hizbullah's list is not but voting against the resistance project. Today, when brother Samir Kintar is freed in a short while, in case Kintar decides to have different political beliefs, is it possible that he would face the same fate that Anwar Yassin did. To be more specific, are you counting on Kintar to form a certain leverage taking into consideration that he belongs to an area that has strong opponents for the opposition?

Answer: On the first point you mentioned in your introduction, I don't recall the political address at the time. Yes, it was said that voting for this list is voting for the resistance. If this was all that was said, then it doesn't mean that voting for other list or candidates, particularly if they are resistance fighters, that it is a vote against the resistance. Of course, this is a logical and jurisprudence debate called the concept of description. It means that when I vote for a person because he is descent, it doesn't mean that others aren't. I am describing him and I'm not describing others neither positively nor negatively.

I agree with you, if it was said at that time that voting for any other person is voting against the resistance by anyone in Hizbullah, I tell you that it is wrong. And if it is said in the future it is wrong. Of course, we love and respect Anwar Yassin considering that he is also your colleague in New TV taking into consideration all his past and present.

As to brother Samir, of course he is free in his choices. To us, a hostage is a human and a resistance fighter. His political and ideological affiliation is a detail. Therefore, what brings us together is huge and its value in our consideration is of complete value. Samir, of course, is filled with a high moral experience and enclose very great patience, and as the chief of hostages, he has endured what no one else has: 30 years in prison since his youth. I believe his significance, value, experience, and personality qualify him to play a large national role. Yet, the decision is his to make. We didn't release a single hostage under conditions.

All we care is that Samir comes back to his parents' home and family and beloved ones. That's all. I used to say in the past, and you recall after the Liberation in 2000 and after freeing the hostages in 2004, and with this accomplishment I say once again: What we have done is our duty in front of God, in front of our people, in front of our country, and in front of our ummah. We ask no thanks from anyone.

Question: What does Sayyed Nasrallah say to those abroad, for example, do you promise them a reassuring summer after there were fears of a hot one (as previously promised by Welch)? How do you wish to deal with the complex dossier of the Shibaa Farms?

Do you intend to respond favorably to efforts made by the United Nations Secretary-General regarding current proposals of transferring the farms to the sovereignty of the United Nations, or place them under UN mandate as a prelude to a complete solution on the matter?

Answer: On the first point, your question holds the weight of responsibility, of me having to tell people whether they can come to visit Lebanon. On May 26, I made a speech and I said let all of us cooperate towards a calm and tranquil summer, contrary to the "hot summer" David Welch wished for.

On Hizbullah, regardless of the ongoing internal rhetoric and accusations, some went as far accusing us of having military posts atop Sannine Mountain, down the Ibrahim river and far north as Baal Muhsen, what I can say is that "Hizbullah" as a team, insists on surpassing the recent phase to implement the Doha Agreement and heal the wounds.

I believe today I am opening doors despite the difficulties that face me personally in opening them, but I make myself open to this.
I hope this will be achieved in a few days God willing. It is being said that a group of political leaders is exerting "efforts"; besides, the President is also making special efforts.

Today, he had a meeting with a delegation of our brothers additional to other meetings he is holding these few days.
Therefore, I believe that no one in Lebanon wanted to create problems, and if anyone created a problem between one locality and another, one side and another, it most certainly has been the work of outsiders, call them what you will, a third or fifth column if you like.

Of course, when a government is formed, people start meeting and tensions will be significantly reduced; individual incidents no longer escalate into big problems. For example the day before yesterday, people were killed in an incident in Baalbek and Hermel region, where Muslim Shiaas and Sunnis live. However, because the region has the will, and because Hizbullah, Amal movement and the Lebanese state have the political will, all those concerned dealt with the issue as an individual incident that has been absorbed and curbed thus, despite the existing victims.

The issue may have easily blown into sectarian or religious denominational conflict. The local television stations alongside partisan satellite channels could have fuelled the flames, by speaking in a way that serves sectarian sedition.
I believe things are moving to the better, I personally say that things are for the good and all of us strive for that.

I hope a series of meetings take place at various levels, at leadership levels as well, since that helps alleviate or remove tensions from the land.
On the subject of the Shibaa Farms, and contrary to what is being said through some media outlets, that Hizbullah is disturbed by the liberation of the Farms, we say the opposite, that liberation is the goal. On May 26, I spoke of the liberation strategy to stress the need to liberate the Shibaa Farms.

A defense strategy does not free the land, but protects liberated land.
When a defense strategy is put into place, it is 'defensive', indicating 'defense' in the face of an 'attack' by the enemy.

That is why I said then that we wanted a liberation strategy and a defense strategy. When talking about the liberation strategy, it is to assume responsibilities.

Was there ever a day when I, Hizbullah or anyone else said 'no' to prisoners being released through diplomatic efforts exerted by the Lebanese government or the successive governments?
Have we ever objected to them ever spending colossal diplomatic or political efforts, or formed a media committee to travel the world, to meet with governments and parliaments, to sway public opinion globally and internationally to liberate the Shibaa Farms and Kfar Shouba hills?
Let them do that and we will participate.

Land liberation is what concerns us. Experience says that diplomacy does not liberate land, but should diplomacy succeed, we have no objection; as that spares martyrs and sacrifices. These martyrs after all are the sons of our flesh, and not hired mercenaries working for money.
As far as we are concerned, liberating the farms is the goal, it will be a very happy day when the 'Israeli' enemy leaves the farms, and we will celebrate.

Moreover, as of now, I say, if someone-anyone in the world is speaking of Shibaa Farms and Kfar Shouba hills today, it is because of the resistance in Lebanon. If I wanted to be more specific, it is because in Lebanon there exists Hizbullah with its weapon.

Had Hizbullah being unarmed, not one inch of the Lebanese territories would have been returned, let alone the entire Shibaa Farms.
Even if we did not have weapons to fire within the Shibaa Farms area, that the enemy decides to withdraw out of there, is because of the existence of such a weapon in our hands ready for action.

Thus, we are partners, the resistance plus diplomatic efforts led to liberating the Farms, and hence, we celebrate together.
We invited them to celebrate the return of the prisoners. We do not want to monopolize the celebration. We want this matter to be for all the Lebanese to celebrate.

We do not mind the 'Israelis' exiting Shibaa Farms and Kfar Shouba hills to be placed under United Nation's sovereignty. If the enemy wants to leave our land, do we say 'no'!
We do not consider this a full liberation but rather an incomplete one, for a full liberation is when the land is returned to Lebanese sovereignty. Yet, it is odd that those claiming keenness on sovereignty, are the ones to show tolerance on this point!

We must stand firm on the subject of sovereignty, since sovereignty is indivisible whether in the Shibaa Farms or in any other Lebanese part. We will consider the Liberation incomplete, this liberation only becomes complete when this land is placed under Lebanese sovereignty. Yet, this is not a problem now and we would be happy for this step.

Question: I want to ask about the Iranian diplomats, in your opinion, will the report Hizbullah to provide on Ron Arad to the 'Israelis' help reveal their fate.
Are there any positive signs in this regard?
We also began to hear 'Israel' accuse the Lebanese Forces Party of killing them.

Answer: Let us not anticipate things. The German mediator is supposed to receive the report and hand it to us in writing, as he will take ours on Ron Arad. Let us wait and see the report and what 'Israelis' submit about this issue first. Then, we can base our decisions accordingly.

.