H.E. Nasrallah to NBN TV: No Opposition Veto, No Presidential Election - Best Way to Prevent War is to Be Ready For it
Source: Hizbollah.org, 2-1-2008
Sayyed Nasrallah: The American factor is the main disruptive element to any inter-Lebanese agreement
Extensive meetings by the opposition are taking place to determine their options
The Secretary General of Hizbullah, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah stressed that "the solution to the Lebanese crisis lies in the partnership realized through a constitutional guarantee, namely the guaranteeing one-third of ministers within a national unity government." His Eminence stressed that "the American factor is the basic disruptive element to any consensus in Lebanon," pointing out that "any President without a guaranteeing one-third within a national unity government can not face challenges."
In an interview with TV presenter Said Ghrayeb on his program "Mukhtasar Mufid" on "NBN" channel of the national broadcasting network, broadcasted live via Al-Manar channel and Radio Nour, His Eminence suggested for "a custom that requires a government be formed after parliamentary elections, on the proportional basis with existing parliamentary blocs representing the different segments within the Lebanese society."
Regarding future steps of the opposition his Eminence said: "Should mediation fail and the current government insists on staying in its position, intensive consultative meetings will be held by the opposition within ten days, to decide on future steps."
He added, "legitimate steps are everything that comes to mind", explaining that "the calm of the opposition, is a clear indication of its care and good conduct... this conduct was also recently evident when we refused any large scale escalations, while simultaneously maintaining open mediation doors."
Sayyed Nasrallah saw that General Suleiman and even General Aoun could not do anything without the guaranteeing one-third stressing that "the situation is bad but it would be worse under a Government run by the group in power which wants to take the country in an unknown direction."
His Eminence considered that the "July war was one hundred percent an American decision," pointing out that "the very existence of the resistance in Lebanon now is proof of the American project's failure to target the resistance whether through resolution 1559, or through the attempt to isolate it."
On the Syrian and French subject Sayyed Nasrallah said: "I repeat and admit that Syria has advanced the interests of the opposition to its own National interests, proving once more that its relationship with the opposition is one of mutual respect rather than a relationship of subordination."
He explained: "they ask Syria to pressure the opposition into abandoning its logical demand for both a unity government and an election law, both of which are guarantees for the reconstruction of governing authority."
His Eminence stressed that "the Syria is not negotiating on behalf of the opposition," and said: "I do not know if the French are negotiating on behalf of the government loyalists, but they are attempting to invest efforts into the possibility of reaching a particular settlement."
On the prisoner exchange negotiations with the enemy entity, Sayyed Nasrallah said that "negotiations are ongoing, all possibilities remain open", pointing out "it will be clearer whether the process takes a positive or negative within the next two or three weeks."
But his Eminence hinted "that at certain point we felt the 'Israelis' were serious, unlike today, when they no longer show interest to know details on soldiers and non-soldiers; after which we were surprised by the 'Israelis' stalling of the new negotiations, and retreating from positive points that had been reached."
He said: "this indicates a party that must have joined the negotiations after the last part of the exchange, a party that wondered why 'Israel' is negotiating with Hizbullah and why give this party positivism."
The following are the most prominent stances that came in the television interview:
- We Seek to maintain a state of calm, but I cannot give guarantees
- On the subject of internal confrontation, no one can ultimately control or predetermine its direction
- I ask the loyalists that in the case of internal confrontations erupting, God forbid, what can George Bush do for Lebanon then?
- When I hear Bush threatening, I hear him say something that demonstrates his weakness, warning allies not to abandon him in Afghanistan due to his incorrect administration
- Today we are facing an historic opportunity, why not benefit from it
- If we do not use this historic opportunity and instead continue to rely on outside support, the country's problem cannot be solved. There are lessons to be had on that from Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
- We all agree on Gen. Suleiman, hence let us reach an understanding on the basics of governance
- We can debate and deal with the loyalists' fears, if they are actually talking about real fears
- Negotiations are ongoing, all possibilities remain open, indications should become apparent within two or three weeks presumably to show whether they are taking a positive or negative turn
- Parts and body parts left in the battlefield, from "Israel's" failed "Insariyah" commando operation, were used in the past in a large prisoner exchange that took place because they were greatly interested
- At a certain moment we felt that the "Israelis" were serious about an exchange, unlike today when they no longer are interested to know details of the two soldiers and non-soldiers
- We were surprised by the "Israelis" stalling the new negotiations and "Israel's" back tracking on positive points that had been reached
- It seems that a side must have joined the negotiations, after the last part of the exchange, wondering why negotiate with Hizbullah and why give this party positivism.
- The crisis is political remedial, in light of which all matters can be resolved
- In Lebanon, no one is cut off from anyone else, there are mutual friends for correspondence to go through
- So long as there is an American decision not to give the opposition a guaranteeing third of cabinet, no presidential elections will take place
- The benchmark now is, are there political mediations or not?
- The provocation has occurred, we are not waiting for a new provocation
- We are still a thousand times better off, if compared with the situation in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other place the Americans have a hand in. The opposition has been able to manage the crisis in a way that distances danger at the least cost possible on national level
- It is true that the situation is difficult, but that does not mean we surrender and acquiesce the country to what is more dangerous
- I assure the people that our friends are not in the process of pressuring us. Syria and Iran stand with us on what the opposition deems in the interest of Lebanon
- We will not face more difficult times than we faced in July 2006 war
- The opposition is strong, coherent and confident of its right and popular base. It is not afraid of anything except God Almighty and its demand is a just cause
- The entire world cannot impose something on the opposition it is not convinced by
- I wish the Arab foreign ministers to look towards helping the Lebanese unite and not divide them
- UNIFIL are not here to defend Lebanon, they do not consider defending Lebanon their task. Lebanon's defense needs all of us, the army, security forces and Popular Resistance, which includes our resistance.
- We do not want war, but we prepare for it, should they want a war we will defend the country
- If we said we will go to war, there will be some who will criticize us, and they will criticize us when we say the contrary; our concern is to defend our country
- We prepared and are preparing every day, but our preparations are to prevent war, but should one occur we will be ready
- Our concern is to remain vigilant and work on war prevention and preparedness is the way to prevent its occurrence
- The "Israeli" talks about war. When you hear Ashkenazi ("Israeli" Army Commander) say: "there will be a clear Victory in the next war in Lebanon"...his recent maneuvers in "Israel's" northern region, additional to efforts to restore the army are all facts indicating that within the "Israeli" cerebrum there exists a thought of making another attempt.
- Our concern for civilians is what made us say this is a 'red line'
- One of the hypotheses on the subject of General Al-Hajj is that it is a revenge operation
- It was possible to deal with the matter at a lower cost, consequences of which continue until now
- The Army resolved the battle in 'Nahr-el-Bared' with heavy losses for the army and the Palestinians
- The project of settling the Palestinians in Lebanon is very, very serious matter, to which there are indication and I have evidence
- There is an effort to put an end to the Palestinian issue
- The subject of the Palestinian camps is a source of concern for me, meaning that the overall theme of the Palestinian issue is on the table.
- He can criticize us but he has no right to insult us
- The clear defeat "Israel" was dealt, was witnessed by the entire Arab world. When we take a decision related to any issue, it will be subject to the Lebanon's interests and we are convinced by what we did running from the interest, vision and thought .... and the other party is free to think what they will and have the right to differ with us
- We had a different vision to "Al Qaeda's"...the criticism we received serves to provide for two visions, and two schools of thought, they have their own path and concerns, while we have ours
- We always said that Hizbullah differs from "Al-Qaeda" and what he said served us in this context.. I do not like to debate what Bin Laden said, since a discussion of a certain kind of topics can sometimes lead to arguments we can do without, as I am aware they are unhelpful
- It is in the interest of "Israel" and the United States that conflict intensifies between the army and some Islamic forces of Salafist orientation... The assassination of Francois Hajj is also in "Israel's" interest
- There may be more than one side that carried out the assassination but in my opinion "Israel" stands behind the execution
- There is more than one sensory indication to "Israel's" responsibility
- Is "Israel" making a strategic storage of explosives in Lebanon, or are these tactical explosions a preparation for going to work?
- Why was the issue of "Rafea's network" dropped?
- If the FBI reached a conclusion that holds "Israel" responsible, it would not announce it to the Lebanese
- The third objective is to prove Lebanon unable to uphold its own security
- What weakens Syria in Lebanon is the killing of these personalities, then accusing Syria
- There is no logic in accusing Hizbullah, "Israel's" goal is to isolate Lebanon from Syria completely, and create an absolute state of animosity
- Such is a major and serious accusation that must be dealt with judicially, since it has not been dealt with through political reason
- It is our serious interest to deal judicially with anyone who accuses us without proof of assassination, of covering or facilitating assassinations, because it is not enough to say that the accusation is unfair
- Responding to Jumblatt: Some of his statements do not require comment .. since Jumblatt is the one who broke the bond between us
- The Resistance is a reaction, not an instigation. When the instigation ends, the reaction automatically ends
- We want a national unity government and together we can build the State
- They Have licensed security firms and thousands of people are being trained, is that not a state within a state?
- I am not saying I insist on holding onto my weapon to perpetuity, we are prepared to deal with it within the framework of a National Unity Government
- We reject the story of being a State within the State
- No team can build a state at the expense of the larger Lebanese team, which is the opposition
- Unlike the government, Lebanon has not and will not become part of the American camp
- If they seize power, a kind of bartering will take place to pass off the resettlement of the Palestinians
- The July 2006 war was a one hundred percent American decision
- The resistance presence in Lebanon now, is itself proof of the American failure, whether through targeting its existence through resolution 1559, or in the attempt to isolate it.
- I say to the people of the opposition, we were able to surpass a large proportion of a serious thing that was being prepared for Lebanon
- What is important is to build the country and move it out of its impasse
- It is premature to talk about a Prime Minister, we may not need to nominate one once an agreement is reached on a mechanism
- If a government of national unity is formed, within which they will naturally make up a majority, no decision may then be passed in the country without their approval
- Iran believes the opposition's is a just demand, which is why no contacts are being made with it...They have given up on Iran putting pressure on the opposition
- Arab or French efforts towards Iran aim only to pressure the opposition rather than find a solution in Lebanon
- What Iran wants is for Lebanon to be strong, secure and stable and for its resistance to be preserved within any modus operandi agreed upon by the Lebanese
- The American factor is now the main disruptive element to any consensus among the Lebanese
- Syria has material and moral means available to apply as pressure such as closing the border and others, but it has dealt with the issues ethically and stated that its function is not place pressure on the opposition... Syria accepts what the opposition agrees to. Sarkozy's last statements are not words of a Head of State.
- I repeat and admit that Syria has advanced the interests of the opposition to its own national interests, proving once more that its relationship with the opposition is one of mutual respect and not a relationship of subordination... Whenever we got somewhere, the French brought back a reply that the other team refused.
- As a member of the Lebanese opposition, I hereby certify in front of history that Syria, which has a vested interest in resuming Syrian- European relations among other things, has, during talks, asked the opposition what they accepted
- Sarkozy's last statements on the International Court may also be said of Syria's leniency on the subject... We heard talk in the media about tempting Syria that should it facilitate the process, Sarkozy will visit Damascus and relations will improve with the French Republic.
- They ask Syria to pressure the opposition into abandoning their logical demands for a national unity government or an election law, both of which are guarantees for reconstruction of power... This in itself is a failure of the American policy, which wanted to deal only with an isolated Lebanon... There was considerable pressure on Syria to avoid interfering, yet after that they demand Syria to intervene
- When other options exist for amending the Constitution without going through government, why then this provocation?
- We do not recognize anything the government decrees
- The opposition is composed of political forces and parties; on the basics level the opposition is a coalition not a party
- Can it be said, that the opposition combined agreed to the decrees issued for both by-elections as being legitimate?
- The Government took steps we consider provocative
- Even if the opposition resorted to taking steps and remained determined to do so, such an option would still be less bad than handing the country over for their team to run or rule alone
- Within the scope of legitimate steps we may take, everything comes to mind
- They were making remarks that a Muslim is negotiating on the presidential elections, when we entrusted General Aoun (the concerned Christian), they started saying he was a tool used by the opposition
- Speaker Berri made a great effort in the internal dialogue, but who stopped negotiation when we authorized General Auon to continue dialogue? General Aoun or them?
- The opposition made considerable concessions such as letting go of the demand for a Government of national unity before the elections
- The opposition's calmness is a clear indication of its care and good conduct... during the entire recent phase this conduct was behind its refusal to making large scale escalations, additional to simultaneously maintaining open mediation doors... the opposition is keeping its calm now to allow for the success of mediation efforts ... intensive consultative meetings will be held by the opposition within ten days, to decide on options to take.
- There is still a short period of time for mediations, should that fail, it would mean something else.
- Our decision was that we would put up with the situation as it is, if the 'half + 1' was not used in electing a President and the Siniora Government remained without taking any provocative actions
- When we give authority over, this means that this authority is constitutional and legitimate, which is not the current case
- In the opposition we were unanimous on the option of confronting a 'half + 1' election, had it taken place, steps were to begin the very moment the election began, without the need to wait for opposition leaders to meet
- To build Lebanon, we must all be present in the government
- Security services will be re-structured in a very different way, which will lead to risks should the opposition be absent from participation in governing
- the current Status quo is bad, but remains less worse from a Government under their rule alone
- They will work on establishing the economic plan, which contains many risks including increase in taxes and fees, and the presence of the opposition through the guaranteeing-third limits some of the risks involved in this plan
- The pro-government loyalists want to set up an election law that ensures their return to parliament as a majority
- It is the Government who sets up the election law... what guarantees that it will not decree one that renews the crisis for another four years?
- Regardless of who the President is, it would be a threat to the country politically, legally, economically and even in the security area if they govern alone and without power sharing
- There is a tremendous reproach of the opposition by its support base, because of the level of tolerance and leniency it has shown and I understand this blame
- Matters did not reach such a complicated level in the past, but we got to a place where no longer is there a Government and an opposition but a team that wants to take the country into a dangerous direction
- Any President of the Republic "no matter who is", cannot do anything if the opposition does not have the guaranteeing-third
- We are ready for all possibilities, whether democratic, numerical, consensual or a government within which parliamentary blocs are represented
- This government was based on an alliance, whose validity was revoked, a matter requiring rectification otherwise the problem remains unsolved
- Let us forge a tradition for the country's benefit, whereby governments in Lebanon are formed on the basis of representation proportional to parliamentary blocs in the parliament, since ultimately these blocks represent its communities in one way or another regardless of the election law
- If Lebanon was a special case, it means that within it a Government must be formed with representation of all the components of the Lebanese people
- A Parliamentary majority, which comes from sectarian electoral law, does not necessarily reflect the popular majority
- We have to set the basis for government in Lebanon, should it be a democracy by numerical majority? If so, we have no objection, we were accused of that from the start
- If they were convinced that their interests lie in the formation of a national unity government they cannot give us a guaranteeing-third, if the Americans say 'No'
- We were on the verge of an internal settlement, when to our surprise everything suddenly ended and went back to zero point, as a result of American intervention
- The Americans stopped the guaranteeing-third subject matter
- The entire country's atmosphere was one of nearing settlement until Welsh's visits
- All we are demand is the principle of partnership, they refuse our partnership
- Some forces in the opposition prefer wider scale constituencies, but because this subject makes the Christians feel disadvantaged, we agreed to governorate scale constituencies, but it is them (government loyalists) who are refusing
- A governorate constituency is primarily a Christian demand, we remember when the Patriarch was about to start an Intifada in 2005 calling for governorate constituency electoral law, and today we say that we agree with the governorate constituency so that Christians do not feel disadvantaged
- Things have not reached an impasse
- They said they supported the governorate for an election law, when we call for a fair and equitable law based on governorates as size of constituencies, or even one with governorates between parentheses they refused, noting it was not to Hizbullah or "Amal" partisan interests
- Several drafts were formulated most of which had text construction alterations, but substantially stating that government loyalists are not ready to give the guaranteeing-third to the opposition
- Syria is not negotiating on behalf of the opposition, and I do not know if the French are negotiating on behalf of the government loyalists, but they are attempting to invest efforts into the possibility of reaching a certain settlement
- Speaker Berri is the one who suggested General Aoun negotiate on behalf of the opposition, because talk of names had begun, and after meeting the French minister and MP Hariri he had the impression that debate reached its conclusion, a national unity government had been agreed on before they retreated from it on the following day
- There is a new Arab initiative, we will wait to see whether it is negative or positive, we do not believe things reached a dead end so long as there a door open to dialogue and resolution
- My information is that the French mediation is still on to this moment despite Sarkozy's high tone
- We are still allowing space for dialogue and mediation; as long as there is a door to a solution we welcome all mediation efforts
- Jumblatt's latest stand is odd in particularly its acuteness, keeping in mind that on more than one occasion they (pro-government forces) agreed to relinquish more than a guaranteeing-third; Jumblatt recently even said that he had no problem giving what he called "the deactivating-third"
- They used to say after the International Tribunal (IT) you can take the guaranteeing-third, they took the IT and we did not receive the guaranteeing-third, because they said it would bring the government down; Nabih Berri said we give you a commitment not to resign, even more than that he asked for guarantees that the pro-government forces will not topple the government if we take the guaranteeing-third!
- Let us debate their fears, in the past they said they are concerned for the IT, but that issue is finished today
- Does the representation of the popular opposition not deserve a guaranteeing-third? I believe it deserves more than that
- Major General Suleiman will be sitting in the Baabda Palace, like Lahoud was before him
- Again Major General Suleiman will be tomorrow called 'remnants of the Syrian regime', the campaign is ready and everyone remembers what the pro-government forces said of Syria not years ago, but only 3-4 months ago
- In case the President of the Republic did not agree to a Government without the guaranteeing-third, a campaign would being against him accusing him of impeding the formation of a government
- Should we elect Major General Suleiman, MPs will then go to nominate a Prime Minister, the majority will nominate 'X', from its own camp, without the opposition's concurrence, and the president cannot say no
- We reached consensus on a President but this alone does not solve the country's problem, a President without a national unity government and guaranteeing one-third is unable to face the risks and policies that can be followed by a single team alone
- I talked previously about the person of the President as part of a package deal that includes a national unity government
- The opposition represents more than half of the Lebanese people, however it is not demanding for half representation in government, but only for the guaranteeing-third
- The Constitutional guarantee is guaranteeing-third for the opposition, and we are talking about an opposition that represents a huge segment of the Lebanese people
- We cannot make the same mistake twice, the solution lies in a partnership achieved through a constitutional guarantee
- Should we had a conviction that staying within the framework of resistance will be more worthy, we would done. The serious thing is that the agreement on the basis of which we entered the government was revoked
- Our presence in the government was used only as a front to say that all religious denominations were represented, which is why we opted for exiting
- The straw that broke the camel's back in the Government was the way debate was being conducted, but before that it was the economic subject and administrative reforms; I did said before, that we had even disagreed on the security issue, because how could we structure Lebanese security services in the presence of international officers whose mission is to oversee the Lebanese security services, something that did not happen when the Syrians were here
- When the policies developed for the agricultural sector have nothing to do with the Minister of Agriculture, where is partnership in that?
- Many say that we differed on the subject of the IT, and this is not true. We had previously participated with other forces in a demonstration on economic issues particularly as we knew the draft economic plan from the Lebanese newspapers and not from the Government, which is supposed to discuss it
- After we became inside the government, even issues related to the ministers in the government were not discussed, such as the energy topic. This is the case of the Energy Minister when discovered that Siniora formed a team to prepare plans and programmes pertaining to energy without his knowledge
- Our alliance in the elections was based on a political agreement
- In the agreement were words on the need to agree among ourselves, and we reach agreement on, to be sent to institutions
- "Amal" and Hizbullah joined this alliance based on a political agreement that began before the elections, an agreement the other side broke later
- When we joined government, there was no discussion whatsoever about a guaranteeing third; we did not interfere in at all in quotas
- If there was opposition and a guaranteeing-third, this will mean that there would be an effort to study the problematic files with the Syria, the resistance would be dealt with within a national defense strategy framework and that the economic policy would not be subjected to IMF conditions
- The real problem lies in the partnership principle whereas the guaranteeing-third means that the opposition has become a partner in the formation and management of the country
- With these decisions, even if the government was theirs alone, they ought to discuss them with the opposition
- Articles that require 'two-thirds' Cabinet majority are defined in the Constitution. However, many decisions only require 'half + 1' quorum, but there are key decisions pertaining to the fate and future of the country which require 'two-thirds'.
- It is so strange for some to say that giving the opposition the guaranteeing-third is political suicide ... In all countries of the world there is a government of national unity when coming out of a war. As for Lebanon, it is considered suicide or impossible or "on my dead body"
- There is a Christian atmosphere for making amendments to strengthen the powers of the President
- I do not consider the real problem is within the "Taef" Accord for us to amend it, but there is a group that wants complete hold of authority and rejects partnership with the other
- If pro-government supporters said they now accepted the principle of partnership, all problems would be resolved without the need for mechanisms
- Is the current crisis due to mechanisms? In my view is not
- The power to interpret the constitution must be returned to the Constitutional Council and an effective constitutional council be formed
- The power to interpret the constitution cannot be given to the Parliament, where it will be primarily subject to political considerations rather than legal and technical considerations
- They have committed a very serious thing, for in the entire democratic world it is the duty of the Constitutional Council to interpret the Constitution
- The whole spat that took place on the 'half + 1' election concept, which still occurs from time to time, is further evidence that some articles in the Constitution need further interpretation
- There is disagreement over the interpretation of the preface in the Accord, which says that any government that contradicts co-existence is therefore illegal; this is reflected today in the split up over the Government between opposition and pro-government forces
- I agree with Gen. Aoun that we need to explain items in the "Taef"
- The French approached the Iranians on amending the "Taef", I do not know what is the basis behind that.
- We need a proper implementation of the "Taef", it can be done if the will is there
- If our constitution was amendable by a 'numerical majority', nothing would remain of our Constitution in Lebanon now
- Most Lebanese have remarks on this settlement and not just the Christians
- We had remarks on the agreement, even according to influential leaders it was said that day, that this is an agreement of 'necessity and settlement', and that in making a settlement no party is entirely satisfied and each side must make concessions
- Any constitutional amendment needs the backing of a consensus agreement
- There is a general Christian mood for making amendments to strengthen the powers of the President, and that is not limited to Gen. Aoun, as there is no difference between an 'amendment to' and a 'development of' the Accord as expressed by Gemayel
- I accused the "other group" of talking about tripartite division
- We do not object to the remainder of the political forces to reconsider some of the clauses in the Taef Accord, should they agree to it, but we do not call for its amendment
- What I know is that the French have asked the Iranians if they believed that the time was ripe to amend the "Taef", Iran's response was that that is an internal Lebanese affair
- Talk of tripartite governing as well as other things came from the other group and not from "Amal", Hizbullah, the "Supreme Shiite Council" or any Shiite scholars
- We do not consider the problem lies in the "Taef" Accord; we have not and do not at the current stage call for amending the "Taef"
- America is ready for peace according to the conditions it has set since the beginning
- It is not enough for them to be in the sea, they must be present on the ground for they need Lebanon to get hold of everything in it
- The Americans need bases everywhere and the priority of their project, especially after the Soviet Union's collapse, is to have direct presence in the region
- We went to the national dialogue table attempting to resolve the existing crisis, but a group there was adamant on achieving what it wants in isolation from its partners
- We were pleased with all that could fortify the building of a State and form an authority despite the risks involved
- Our participation in government was based on a political agreement set to construct the government, the State and overcome the existing vacuum
- Siniora Government was the first to receive such a high number of supporting votes, since we supported it and joined it not on the basis of a guaranteeing-third, but based on political agreement
- Polls confirm increased support for the opposition at popular level
- We went into government; it was the first time "Hizbullah" directly participated in government
- When the Syrians went out of Lebanon; the quadripartite elections agreement was to prove we were in earnest about accepting to speedily fill the vacuum
- Were the elections held according to a sound law, the ensuing results would have been sound, and what comes out of a sound Parliament is sound government
- In 2005, at parliamentary elections time, we agreed to go along despite our lack of conviction in its timing and legality
- The conflict in Lebanon today is a political conflict so let us talk politics
- Opinion polls confirm a gain by the opposition at popular level, which means we are taking from the other group's ground and this is not the result of a brief surge
- I assure that our support bases listen to their leaders to learn their logic but do their supporters hear our logic?
- There are vilification statements already being prepared in response to this interview even before I begin
- The resistance in its Jihad dimension and the opposition with it political dimension do not grapple with this movement or that party, but in reality with George Bush himself who 'lost his patience', and with his American administration and its project which it intends to impose on the Lebanese
- Sayyed Nasrallah reiterates the argument that Israel is behind most of the assassinations that have taken place
- We believe the right of return issue is being liquidated as a prelude to liquidating the Palestinian cause
- In Lebanon and in a word, the American project wants an authority loyal to America, no resistance or national forces that reject the a resettlement of the Palestinians
- It is not the interest of Lebanon to turn into an enemy of Syria
- No one in Lebanon wants Syria to govern Lebanon, the Lebanese must manage Lebanon
- The fourth heading, the use of Lebanon to put pressure on Syria and push it to surrender
- The third heading, the resettlement of Palestinians, not to solve the humanitarian dimension but to liquidate the right of return and the Palestinian cause
- According to the American project, Lebanon must be free of resistance. The existence of resistance thinking is forbidden against the Zionist project and the Israeli ambitions
- Political forces, not necessarily Hizbullah, who advance national interests to American interests, would have no place in this Authority
- They want this Authority to facilitate their bases in Lebanon, but an opposing Authority would be seen as hampering them
- The American administration wants a loyal Authority in Lebanon to carry out orders to achieve its objectives in the region
- The American project in Lebanon is a part of the regional American project and can not be separated from it.
- As for the American project, we always need to remind not only the 'March (Feb.) 14' supporters, but all the Lebanese people and peoples of the region, to know the truth of what is happening in Lebanon
- Syria advanced the interest of the opposition to its own interests
- Hizbullah leadership makes its own decisions that stems from its cadre's confidence and that of its audience
- Hizbullah's opinion and therefore the opposition receive great respect within Syria
- Our relationship with our friends has more impact on others rather than being affected
- Of course, no one dictates their decisions on Hizbullah
- Lebanon's interests are what govern the party, primarily as a homeland and a people, as well as the cause it believes in, which is a distinctly nationalistic cause
- Sayyed Nasrallah confirms that the party's independence is absolute
- The goal is to have at the image and leadership of the party, and this is of no effect, but the repetition of lies and becoming professional at them is bound to leave an effect
- The attempt is one of distortion, to impugn this model and to give this entity the image of one grappling for power
- Even in the July war, most of the leadership in "Hizbullah" wished to be present on the frontlines, where their children were
- These clarifications are not only pertaining to this news item, but to a sustained campaign especially when it is related to the image of the resistance, Hizbullah and its leadership being advanced after the July war. It is an attempt to impugn our image and portray us as tools for an outside project, and not a subjective national movement.
- They tried to say that this Party is an Iranian institution as if Iran intervenes to strengthen certain powers, and this is not true, for the party holds a general conference which elects the Secretary-General and makes its own decisions regarding powers
- Hizbullah is a harmonious Party; when they stir up talk about Syria and Iran... we really laugh when we read these articles ... comical material
- They want to portray Hizbullah as if in an internal conflict and this is not true... it is one of the more harmonious and unified parties and movements among its leadership... such a rare and unique trend that we are accused of being "a totalitarian party", and there is no totalitarianism here
- There is a media kitchen or an operations room that has been manufacturing and fabricating topics for a while, and we see a number of Lebanese, Arab and Israeli newspapers targeting Hizbullah simultaneously.
- I wish everyone a blessed new year, may God bring this occasion upon us and the whole region again in a better situation than we live now as peoples of the region
Sayyed Nasrallah: The American factor is the main disruptive element to any inter-Lebanese agreement
Extensive meetings by the opposition are taking place to determine their options
The Secretary General of Hizbullah, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah stressed that "the solution to the Lebanese crisis lies in the partnership realized through a constitutional guarantee, namely the guaranteeing one-third of ministers within a national unity government." His Eminence stressed that "the American factor is the basic disruptive element to any consensus in Lebanon," pointing out that "any President without a guaranteeing one-third within a national unity government can not face challenges."
In an interview with TV presenter Said Ghrayeb on his program "Mukhtasar Mufid" on "NBN" channel of the national broadcasting network, broadcasted live via Al-Manar channel and Radio Nour, His Eminence suggested for "a custom that requires a government be formed after parliamentary elections, on the proportional basis with existing parliamentary blocs representing the different segments within the Lebanese society."
Regarding future steps of the opposition his Eminence said: "Should mediation fail and the current government insists on staying in its position, intensive consultative meetings will be held by the opposition within ten days, to decide on future steps."
He added, "legitimate steps are everything that comes to mind", explaining that "the calm of the opposition, is a clear indication of its care and good conduct... this conduct was also recently evident when we refused any large scale escalations, while simultaneously maintaining open mediation doors."
Sayyed Nasrallah saw that General Suleiman and even General Aoun could not do anything without the guaranteeing one-third stressing that "the situation is bad but it would be worse under a Government run by the group in power which wants to take the country in an unknown direction."
His Eminence considered that the "July war was one hundred percent an American decision," pointing out that "the very existence of the resistance in Lebanon now is proof of the American project's failure to target the resistance whether through resolution 1559, or through the attempt to isolate it."
On the Syrian and French subject Sayyed Nasrallah said: "I repeat and admit that Syria has advanced the interests of the opposition to its own National interests, proving once more that its relationship with the opposition is one of mutual respect rather than a relationship of subordination."
He explained: "they ask Syria to pressure the opposition into abandoning its logical demand for both a unity government and an election law, both of which are guarantees for the reconstruction of governing authority."
His Eminence stressed that "the Syria is not negotiating on behalf of the opposition," and said: "I do not know if the French are negotiating on behalf of the government loyalists, but they are attempting to invest efforts into the possibility of reaching a particular settlement."
On the prisoner exchange negotiations with the enemy entity, Sayyed Nasrallah said that "negotiations are ongoing, all possibilities remain open", pointing out "it will be clearer whether the process takes a positive or negative within the next two or three weeks."
But his Eminence hinted "that at certain point we felt the 'Israelis' were serious, unlike today, when they no longer show interest to know details on soldiers and non-soldiers; after which we were surprised by the 'Israelis' stalling of the new negotiations, and retreating from positive points that had been reached."
He said: "this indicates a party that must have joined the negotiations after the last part of the exchange, a party that wondered why 'Israel' is negotiating with Hizbullah and why give this party positivism."
The following are the most prominent stances that came in the television interview:
- We Seek to maintain a state of calm, but I cannot give guarantees
- On the subject of internal confrontation, no one can ultimately control or predetermine its direction
- I ask the loyalists that in the case of internal confrontations erupting, God forbid, what can George Bush do for Lebanon then?
- When I hear Bush threatening, I hear him say something that demonstrates his weakness, warning allies not to abandon him in Afghanistan due to his incorrect administration
- Today we are facing an historic opportunity, why not benefit from it
- If we do not use this historic opportunity and instead continue to rely on outside support, the country's problem cannot be solved. There are lessons to be had on that from Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
- We all agree on Gen. Suleiman, hence let us reach an understanding on the basics of governance
- We can debate and deal with the loyalists' fears, if they are actually talking about real fears
- Negotiations are ongoing, all possibilities remain open, indications should become apparent within two or three weeks presumably to show whether they are taking a positive or negative turn
- Parts and body parts left in the battlefield, from "Israel's" failed "Insariyah" commando operation, were used in the past in a large prisoner exchange that took place because they were greatly interested
- At a certain moment we felt that the "Israelis" were serious about an exchange, unlike today when they no longer are interested to know details of the two soldiers and non-soldiers
- We were surprised by the "Israelis" stalling the new negotiations and "Israel's" back tracking on positive points that had been reached
- It seems that a side must have joined the negotiations, after the last part of the exchange, wondering why negotiate with Hizbullah and why give this party positivism.
- The crisis is political remedial, in light of which all matters can be resolved
- In Lebanon, no one is cut off from anyone else, there are mutual friends for correspondence to go through
- So long as there is an American decision not to give the opposition a guaranteeing third of cabinet, no presidential elections will take place
- The benchmark now is, are there political mediations or not?
- The provocation has occurred, we are not waiting for a new provocation
- We are still a thousand times better off, if compared with the situation in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other place the Americans have a hand in. The opposition has been able to manage the crisis in a way that distances danger at the least cost possible on national level
- It is true that the situation is difficult, but that does not mean we surrender and acquiesce the country to what is more dangerous
- I assure the people that our friends are not in the process of pressuring us. Syria and Iran stand with us on what the opposition deems in the interest of Lebanon
- We will not face more difficult times than we faced in July 2006 war
- The opposition is strong, coherent and confident of its right and popular base. It is not afraid of anything except God Almighty and its demand is a just cause
- The entire world cannot impose something on the opposition it is not convinced by
- I wish the Arab foreign ministers to look towards helping the Lebanese unite and not divide them
- UNIFIL are not here to defend Lebanon, they do not consider defending Lebanon their task. Lebanon's defense needs all of us, the army, security forces and Popular Resistance, which includes our resistance.
- We do not want war, but we prepare for it, should they want a war we will defend the country
- If we said we will go to war, there will be some who will criticize us, and they will criticize us when we say the contrary; our concern is to defend our country
- We prepared and are preparing every day, but our preparations are to prevent war, but should one occur we will be ready
- Our concern is to remain vigilant and work on war prevention and preparedness is the way to prevent its occurrence
- The "Israeli" talks about war. When you hear Ashkenazi ("Israeli" Army Commander) say: "there will be a clear Victory in the next war in Lebanon"...his recent maneuvers in "Israel's" northern region, additional to efforts to restore the army are all facts indicating that within the "Israeli" cerebrum there exists a thought of making another attempt.
- Our concern for civilians is what made us say this is a 'red line'
- One of the hypotheses on the subject of General Al-Hajj is that it is a revenge operation
- It was possible to deal with the matter at a lower cost, consequences of which continue until now
- The Army resolved the battle in 'Nahr-el-Bared' with heavy losses for the army and the Palestinians
- The project of settling the Palestinians in Lebanon is very, very serious matter, to which there are indication and I have evidence
- There is an effort to put an end to the Palestinian issue
- The subject of the Palestinian camps is a source of concern for me, meaning that the overall theme of the Palestinian issue is on the table.
- He can criticize us but he has no right to insult us
- The clear defeat "Israel" was dealt, was witnessed by the entire Arab world. When we take a decision related to any issue, it will be subject to the Lebanon's interests and we are convinced by what we did running from the interest, vision and thought .... and the other party is free to think what they will and have the right to differ with us
- We had a different vision to "Al Qaeda's"...the criticism we received serves to provide for two visions, and two schools of thought, they have their own path and concerns, while we have ours
- We always said that Hizbullah differs from "Al-Qaeda" and what he said served us in this context.. I do not like to debate what Bin Laden said, since a discussion of a certain kind of topics can sometimes lead to arguments we can do without, as I am aware they are unhelpful
- It is in the interest of "Israel" and the United States that conflict intensifies between the army and some Islamic forces of Salafist orientation... The assassination of Francois Hajj is also in "Israel's" interest
- There may be more than one side that carried out the assassination but in my opinion "Israel" stands behind the execution
- There is more than one sensory indication to "Israel's" responsibility
- Is "Israel" making a strategic storage of explosives in Lebanon, or are these tactical explosions a preparation for going to work?
- Why was the issue of "Rafea's network" dropped?
- If the FBI reached a conclusion that holds "Israel" responsible, it would not announce it to the Lebanese
- The third objective is to prove Lebanon unable to uphold its own security
- What weakens Syria in Lebanon is the killing of these personalities, then accusing Syria
- There is no logic in accusing Hizbullah, "Israel's" goal is to isolate Lebanon from Syria completely, and create an absolute state of animosity
- Such is a major and serious accusation that must be dealt with judicially, since it has not been dealt with through political reason
- It is our serious interest to deal judicially with anyone who accuses us without proof of assassination, of covering or facilitating assassinations, because it is not enough to say that the accusation is unfair
- Responding to Jumblatt: Some of his statements do not require comment .. since Jumblatt is the one who broke the bond between us
- The Resistance is a reaction, not an instigation. When the instigation ends, the reaction automatically ends
- We want a national unity government and together we can build the State
- They Have licensed security firms and thousands of people are being trained, is that not a state within a state?
- I am not saying I insist on holding onto my weapon to perpetuity, we are prepared to deal with it within the framework of a National Unity Government
- We reject the story of being a State within the State
- No team can build a state at the expense of the larger Lebanese team, which is the opposition
- Unlike the government, Lebanon has not and will not become part of the American camp
- If they seize power, a kind of bartering will take place to pass off the resettlement of the Palestinians
- The July 2006 war was a one hundred percent American decision
- The resistance presence in Lebanon now, is itself proof of the American failure, whether through targeting its existence through resolution 1559, or in the attempt to isolate it.
- I say to the people of the opposition, we were able to surpass a large proportion of a serious thing that was being prepared for Lebanon
- What is important is to build the country and move it out of its impasse
- It is premature to talk about a Prime Minister, we may not need to nominate one once an agreement is reached on a mechanism
- If a government of national unity is formed, within which they will naturally make up a majority, no decision may then be passed in the country without their approval
- Iran believes the opposition's is a just demand, which is why no contacts are being made with it...They have given up on Iran putting pressure on the opposition
- Arab or French efforts towards Iran aim only to pressure the opposition rather than find a solution in Lebanon
- What Iran wants is for Lebanon to be strong, secure and stable and for its resistance to be preserved within any modus operandi agreed upon by the Lebanese
- The American factor is now the main disruptive element to any consensus among the Lebanese
- Syria has material and moral means available to apply as pressure such as closing the border and others, but it has dealt with the issues ethically and stated that its function is not place pressure on the opposition... Syria accepts what the opposition agrees to. Sarkozy's last statements are not words of a Head of State.
- I repeat and admit that Syria has advanced the interests of the opposition to its own national interests, proving once more that its relationship with the opposition is one of mutual respect and not a relationship of subordination... Whenever we got somewhere, the French brought back a reply that the other team refused.
- As a member of the Lebanese opposition, I hereby certify in front of history that Syria, which has a vested interest in resuming Syrian- European relations among other things, has, during talks, asked the opposition what they accepted
- Sarkozy's last statements on the International Court may also be said of Syria's leniency on the subject... We heard talk in the media about tempting Syria that should it facilitate the process, Sarkozy will visit Damascus and relations will improve with the French Republic.
- They ask Syria to pressure the opposition into abandoning their logical demands for a national unity government or an election law, both of which are guarantees for reconstruction of power... This in itself is a failure of the American policy, which wanted to deal only with an isolated Lebanon... There was considerable pressure on Syria to avoid interfering, yet after that they demand Syria to intervene
- When other options exist for amending the Constitution without going through government, why then this provocation?
- We do not recognize anything the government decrees
- The opposition is composed of political forces and parties; on the basics level the opposition is a coalition not a party
- Can it be said, that the opposition combined agreed to the decrees issued for both by-elections as being legitimate?
- The Government took steps we consider provocative
- Even if the opposition resorted to taking steps and remained determined to do so, such an option would still be less bad than handing the country over for their team to run or rule alone
- Within the scope of legitimate steps we may take, everything comes to mind
- They were making remarks that a Muslim is negotiating on the presidential elections, when we entrusted General Aoun (the concerned Christian), they started saying he was a tool used by the opposition
- Speaker Berri made a great effort in the internal dialogue, but who stopped negotiation when we authorized General Auon to continue dialogue? General Aoun or them?
- The opposition made considerable concessions such as letting go of the demand for a Government of national unity before the elections
- The opposition's calmness is a clear indication of its care and good conduct... during the entire recent phase this conduct was behind its refusal to making large scale escalations, additional to simultaneously maintaining open mediation doors... the opposition is keeping its calm now to allow for the success of mediation efforts ... intensive consultative meetings will be held by the opposition within ten days, to decide on options to take.
- There is still a short period of time for mediations, should that fail, it would mean something else.
- Our decision was that we would put up with the situation as it is, if the 'half + 1' was not used in electing a President and the Siniora Government remained without taking any provocative actions
- When we give authority over, this means that this authority is constitutional and legitimate, which is not the current case
- In the opposition we were unanimous on the option of confronting a 'half + 1' election, had it taken place, steps were to begin the very moment the election began, without the need to wait for opposition leaders to meet
- To build Lebanon, we must all be present in the government
- Security services will be re-structured in a very different way, which will lead to risks should the opposition be absent from participation in governing
- the current Status quo is bad, but remains less worse from a Government under their rule alone
- They will work on establishing the economic plan, which contains many risks including increase in taxes and fees, and the presence of the opposition through the guaranteeing-third limits some of the risks involved in this plan
- The pro-government loyalists want to set up an election law that ensures their return to parliament as a majority
- It is the Government who sets up the election law... what guarantees that it will not decree one that renews the crisis for another four years?
- Regardless of who the President is, it would be a threat to the country politically, legally, economically and even in the security area if they govern alone and without power sharing
- There is a tremendous reproach of the opposition by its support base, because of the level of tolerance and leniency it has shown and I understand this blame
- Matters did not reach such a complicated level in the past, but we got to a place where no longer is there a Government and an opposition but a team that wants to take the country into a dangerous direction
- Any President of the Republic "no matter who is", cannot do anything if the opposition does not have the guaranteeing-third
- We are ready for all possibilities, whether democratic, numerical, consensual or a government within which parliamentary blocs are represented
- This government was based on an alliance, whose validity was revoked, a matter requiring rectification otherwise the problem remains unsolved
- Let us forge a tradition for the country's benefit, whereby governments in Lebanon are formed on the basis of representation proportional to parliamentary blocs in the parliament, since ultimately these blocks represent its communities in one way or another regardless of the election law
- If Lebanon was a special case, it means that within it a Government must be formed with representation of all the components of the Lebanese people
- A Parliamentary majority, which comes from sectarian electoral law, does not necessarily reflect the popular majority
- We have to set the basis for government in Lebanon, should it be a democracy by numerical majority? If so, we have no objection, we were accused of that from the start
- If they were convinced that their interests lie in the formation of a national unity government they cannot give us a guaranteeing-third, if the Americans say 'No'
- We were on the verge of an internal settlement, when to our surprise everything suddenly ended and went back to zero point, as a result of American intervention
- The Americans stopped the guaranteeing-third subject matter
- The entire country's atmosphere was one of nearing settlement until Welsh's visits
- All we are demand is the principle of partnership, they refuse our partnership
- Some forces in the opposition prefer wider scale constituencies, but because this subject makes the Christians feel disadvantaged, we agreed to governorate scale constituencies, but it is them (government loyalists) who are refusing
- A governorate constituency is primarily a Christian demand, we remember when the Patriarch was about to start an Intifada in 2005 calling for governorate constituency electoral law, and today we say that we agree with the governorate constituency so that Christians do not feel disadvantaged
- Things have not reached an impasse
- They said they supported the governorate for an election law, when we call for a fair and equitable law based on governorates as size of constituencies, or even one with governorates between parentheses they refused, noting it was not to Hizbullah or "Amal" partisan interests
- Several drafts were formulated most of which had text construction alterations, but substantially stating that government loyalists are not ready to give the guaranteeing-third to the opposition
- Syria is not negotiating on behalf of the opposition, and I do not know if the French are negotiating on behalf of the government loyalists, but they are attempting to invest efforts into the possibility of reaching a certain settlement
- Speaker Berri is the one who suggested General Aoun negotiate on behalf of the opposition, because talk of names had begun, and after meeting the French minister and MP Hariri he had the impression that debate reached its conclusion, a national unity government had been agreed on before they retreated from it on the following day
- There is a new Arab initiative, we will wait to see whether it is negative or positive, we do not believe things reached a dead end so long as there a door open to dialogue and resolution
- My information is that the French mediation is still on to this moment despite Sarkozy's high tone
- We are still allowing space for dialogue and mediation; as long as there is a door to a solution we welcome all mediation efforts
- Jumblatt's latest stand is odd in particularly its acuteness, keeping in mind that on more than one occasion they (pro-government forces) agreed to relinquish more than a guaranteeing-third; Jumblatt recently even said that he had no problem giving what he called "the deactivating-third"
- They used to say after the International Tribunal (IT) you can take the guaranteeing-third, they took the IT and we did not receive the guaranteeing-third, because they said it would bring the government down; Nabih Berri said we give you a commitment not to resign, even more than that he asked for guarantees that the pro-government forces will not topple the government if we take the guaranteeing-third!
- Let us debate their fears, in the past they said they are concerned for the IT, but that issue is finished today
- Does the representation of the popular opposition not deserve a guaranteeing-third? I believe it deserves more than that
- Major General Suleiman will be sitting in the Baabda Palace, like Lahoud was before him
- Again Major General Suleiman will be tomorrow called 'remnants of the Syrian regime', the campaign is ready and everyone remembers what the pro-government forces said of Syria not years ago, but only 3-4 months ago
- In case the President of the Republic did not agree to a Government without the guaranteeing-third, a campaign would being against him accusing him of impeding the formation of a government
- Should we elect Major General Suleiman, MPs will then go to nominate a Prime Minister, the majority will nominate 'X', from its own camp, without the opposition's concurrence, and the president cannot say no
- We reached consensus on a President but this alone does not solve the country's problem, a President without a national unity government and guaranteeing one-third is unable to face the risks and policies that can be followed by a single team alone
- I talked previously about the person of the President as part of a package deal that includes a national unity government
- The opposition represents more than half of the Lebanese people, however it is not demanding for half representation in government, but only for the guaranteeing-third
- The Constitutional guarantee is guaranteeing-third for the opposition, and we are talking about an opposition that represents a huge segment of the Lebanese people
- We cannot make the same mistake twice, the solution lies in a partnership achieved through a constitutional guarantee
- Should we had a conviction that staying within the framework of resistance will be more worthy, we would done. The serious thing is that the agreement on the basis of which we entered the government was revoked
- Our presence in the government was used only as a front to say that all religious denominations were represented, which is why we opted for exiting
- The straw that broke the camel's back in the Government was the way debate was being conducted, but before that it was the economic subject and administrative reforms; I did said before, that we had even disagreed on the security issue, because how could we structure Lebanese security services in the presence of international officers whose mission is to oversee the Lebanese security services, something that did not happen when the Syrians were here
- When the policies developed for the agricultural sector have nothing to do with the Minister of Agriculture, where is partnership in that?
- Many say that we differed on the subject of the IT, and this is not true. We had previously participated with other forces in a demonstration on economic issues particularly as we knew the draft economic plan from the Lebanese newspapers and not from the Government, which is supposed to discuss it
- After we became inside the government, even issues related to the ministers in the government were not discussed, such as the energy topic. This is the case of the Energy Minister when discovered that Siniora formed a team to prepare plans and programmes pertaining to energy without his knowledge
- Our alliance in the elections was based on a political agreement
- In the agreement were words on the need to agree among ourselves, and we reach agreement on, to be sent to institutions
- "Amal" and Hizbullah joined this alliance based on a political agreement that began before the elections, an agreement the other side broke later
- When we joined government, there was no discussion whatsoever about a guaranteeing third; we did not interfere in at all in quotas
- If there was opposition and a guaranteeing-third, this will mean that there would be an effort to study the problematic files with the Syria, the resistance would be dealt with within a national defense strategy framework and that the economic policy would not be subjected to IMF conditions
- The real problem lies in the partnership principle whereas the guaranteeing-third means that the opposition has become a partner in the formation and management of the country
- With these decisions, even if the government was theirs alone, they ought to discuss them with the opposition
- Articles that require 'two-thirds' Cabinet majority are defined in the Constitution. However, many decisions only require 'half + 1' quorum, but there are key decisions pertaining to the fate and future of the country which require 'two-thirds'.
- It is so strange for some to say that giving the opposition the guaranteeing-third is political suicide ... In all countries of the world there is a government of national unity when coming out of a war. As for Lebanon, it is considered suicide or impossible or "on my dead body"
- There is a Christian atmosphere for making amendments to strengthen the powers of the President
- I do not consider the real problem is within the "Taef" Accord for us to amend it, but there is a group that wants complete hold of authority and rejects partnership with the other
- If pro-government supporters said they now accepted the principle of partnership, all problems would be resolved without the need for mechanisms
- Is the current crisis due to mechanisms? In my view is not
- The power to interpret the constitution must be returned to the Constitutional Council and an effective constitutional council be formed
- The power to interpret the constitution cannot be given to the Parliament, where it will be primarily subject to political considerations rather than legal and technical considerations
- They have committed a very serious thing, for in the entire democratic world it is the duty of the Constitutional Council to interpret the Constitution
- The whole spat that took place on the 'half + 1' election concept, which still occurs from time to time, is further evidence that some articles in the Constitution need further interpretation
- There is disagreement over the interpretation of the preface in the Accord, which says that any government that contradicts co-existence is therefore illegal; this is reflected today in the split up over the Government between opposition and pro-government forces
- I agree with Gen. Aoun that we need to explain items in the "Taef"
- The French approached the Iranians on amending the "Taef", I do not know what is the basis behind that.
- We need a proper implementation of the "Taef", it can be done if the will is there
- If our constitution was amendable by a 'numerical majority', nothing would remain of our Constitution in Lebanon now
- Most Lebanese have remarks on this settlement and not just the Christians
- We had remarks on the agreement, even according to influential leaders it was said that day, that this is an agreement of 'necessity and settlement', and that in making a settlement no party is entirely satisfied and each side must make concessions
- Any constitutional amendment needs the backing of a consensus agreement
- There is a general Christian mood for making amendments to strengthen the powers of the President, and that is not limited to Gen. Aoun, as there is no difference between an 'amendment to' and a 'development of' the Accord as expressed by Gemayel
- I accused the "other group" of talking about tripartite division
- We do not object to the remainder of the political forces to reconsider some of the clauses in the Taef Accord, should they agree to it, but we do not call for its amendment
- What I know is that the French have asked the Iranians if they believed that the time was ripe to amend the "Taef", Iran's response was that that is an internal Lebanese affair
- Talk of tripartite governing as well as other things came from the other group and not from "Amal", Hizbullah, the "Supreme Shiite Council" or any Shiite scholars
- We do not consider the problem lies in the "Taef" Accord; we have not and do not at the current stage call for amending the "Taef"
- America is ready for peace according to the conditions it has set since the beginning
- It is not enough for them to be in the sea, they must be present on the ground for they need Lebanon to get hold of everything in it
- The Americans need bases everywhere and the priority of their project, especially after the Soviet Union's collapse, is to have direct presence in the region
- We went to the national dialogue table attempting to resolve the existing crisis, but a group there was adamant on achieving what it wants in isolation from its partners
- We were pleased with all that could fortify the building of a State and form an authority despite the risks involved
- Our participation in government was based on a political agreement set to construct the government, the State and overcome the existing vacuum
- Siniora Government was the first to receive such a high number of supporting votes, since we supported it and joined it not on the basis of a guaranteeing-third, but based on political agreement
- Polls confirm increased support for the opposition at popular level
- We went into government; it was the first time "Hizbullah" directly participated in government
- When the Syrians went out of Lebanon; the quadripartite elections agreement was to prove we were in earnest about accepting to speedily fill the vacuum
- Were the elections held according to a sound law, the ensuing results would have been sound, and what comes out of a sound Parliament is sound government
- In 2005, at parliamentary elections time, we agreed to go along despite our lack of conviction in its timing and legality
- The conflict in Lebanon today is a political conflict so let us talk politics
- Opinion polls confirm a gain by the opposition at popular level, which means we are taking from the other group's ground and this is not the result of a brief surge
- I assure that our support bases listen to their leaders to learn their logic but do their supporters hear our logic?
- There are vilification statements already being prepared in response to this interview even before I begin
- The resistance in its Jihad dimension and the opposition with it political dimension do not grapple with this movement or that party, but in reality with George Bush himself who 'lost his patience', and with his American administration and its project which it intends to impose on the Lebanese
- Sayyed Nasrallah reiterates the argument that Israel is behind most of the assassinations that have taken place
- We believe the right of return issue is being liquidated as a prelude to liquidating the Palestinian cause
- In Lebanon and in a word, the American project wants an authority loyal to America, no resistance or national forces that reject the a resettlement of the Palestinians
- It is not the interest of Lebanon to turn into an enemy of Syria
- No one in Lebanon wants Syria to govern Lebanon, the Lebanese must manage Lebanon
- The fourth heading, the use of Lebanon to put pressure on Syria and push it to surrender
- The third heading, the resettlement of Palestinians, not to solve the humanitarian dimension but to liquidate the right of return and the Palestinian cause
- According to the American project, Lebanon must be free of resistance. The existence of resistance thinking is forbidden against the Zionist project and the Israeli ambitions
- Political forces, not necessarily Hizbullah, who advance national interests to American interests, would have no place in this Authority
- They want this Authority to facilitate their bases in Lebanon, but an opposing Authority would be seen as hampering them
- The American administration wants a loyal Authority in Lebanon to carry out orders to achieve its objectives in the region
- The American project in Lebanon is a part of the regional American project and can not be separated from it.
- As for the American project, we always need to remind not only the 'March (Feb.) 14' supporters, but all the Lebanese people and peoples of the region, to know the truth of what is happening in Lebanon
- Syria advanced the interest of the opposition to its own interests
- Hizbullah leadership makes its own decisions that stems from its cadre's confidence and that of its audience
- Hizbullah's opinion and therefore the opposition receive great respect within Syria
- Our relationship with our friends has more impact on others rather than being affected
- Of course, no one dictates their decisions on Hizbullah
- Lebanon's interests are what govern the party, primarily as a homeland and a people, as well as the cause it believes in, which is a distinctly nationalistic cause
- Sayyed Nasrallah confirms that the party's independence is absolute
- The goal is to have at the image and leadership of the party, and this is of no effect, but the repetition of lies and becoming professional at them is bound to leave an effect
- The attempt is one of distortion, to impugn this model and to give this entity the image of one grappling for power
- Even in the July war, most of the leadership in "Hizbullah" wished to be present on the frontlines, where their children were
- These clarifications are not only pertaining to this news item, but to a sustained campaign especially when it is related to the image of the resistance, Hizbullah and its leadership being advanced after the July war. It is an attempt to impugn our image and portray us as tools for an outside project, and not a subjective national movement.
- They tried to say that this Party is an Iranian institution as if Iran intervenes to strengthen certain powers, and this is not true, for the party holds a general conference which elects the Secretary-General and makes its own decisions regarding powers
- Hizbullah is a harmonious Party; when they stir up talk about Syria and Iran... we really laugh when we read these articles ... comical material
- They want to portray Hizbullah as if in an internal conflict and this is not true... it is one of the more harmonious and unified parties and movements among its leadership... such a rare and unique trend that we are accused of being "a totalitarian party", and there is no totalitarianism here
- There is a media kitchen or an operations room that has been manufacturing and fabricating topics for a while, and we see a number of Lebanese, Arab and Israeli newspapers targeting Hizbullah simultaneously.
- I wish everyone a blessed new year, may God bring this occasion upon us and the whole region again in a better situation than we live now as peoples of the region
![Gen. Soleimani: Sayyed Nasrallah’s Entire Existence Is Sincerity… I Love Him [Documentary]](https://english.alahednews.com.lb/uploaded2/images/20220908122823.jpg)
