Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on April 11th, 2022
Translated by Al-Ahed News
Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on the latest political developments on 11-4-2022
I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. In the name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our Master and Prophet, the Seal of Prophets, Abi al-Qassem Muhammad Bin Abdullah and his good and pure household and his good and chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers.
May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you all.
First, I ask God Almighty on these blessed nights to accept from everyone their deeds, to accept the fast of those who are fasting, the prayers of the worshipers, the recitation of those reciting [the Quran], the good deeds of righteousness, worship, and turning to God Almighty.
Of course, tonight’s speech is related to political developments. God willing, in the next few days, we will meet for occasions and talk about Ramadan, religious, cultural, and educational matters with the help of the Almighty.
Regarding the political developments, we will discuss the region, in particular how it affects the situation we have in Lebanon and the electoral challenges.
First, we must start with Palestine and say that we must stand with honor, appreciation, and pride before the heroism of the youth of Palestine, the men of Palestine, the women of Palestine, before the heroism of its children and elders, before their firm faith in God and the cause, and before the great courage and great valor. They face death in order to make an honest life for their people and their country and in the hope of liberating their sanctities and the sanctities of the nation.
We must also stand in reverence and glorification before the families of the martyrs, fathers and mothers, and family members and their clear, decisive, strong, and conscious stances as well as the steadfastness of this mujahid and patient people despite the long history of massacres, including the Deir Yassin massacre in April 1948, wars – the last of which was the Al-Quds Sword [Battle], displacement, oppression, exile, betrayal, and backstabbing, even from countries, regimes, and groups that were expected to stand by the people of Palestine.
What happened and is happening these days has extensive implications on the conflict with the enemy, the future of Palestine, and the future of the temporary and usurping “Israeli” entity.
Of course, one of the most important indications and outcomes, in my opinion, one of the most important strategic outcomes of what happened in the past few days is what we have been talking about for years.
But in the past few days, I have read statements by “Israeli” commentators, analysts, and writers acknowledging a fact that we have been talking about over the past years, namely, that if you are betting on the despair of the Palestinian people, on the collapse of the will of the Palestinian people, on the frustration of the Palestinian people, on the Palestinian people’s abandonment of Palestine and its sacred cause and the sanctities, you are delusional and in doubt.
Since 1948 and even before 1948, and for generations, the young men and women whose names we heard and pictures we saw on TV screens – they belong to the new generation – inherited resistance, steadfastness, the cause, jihad, love of martyrdom, and the will to fight from one generation after another.
If you think that normalization with some Arab countries and the visits of some of Arab officials that normalized ties with the temporary Zionist entity and if you think that this official Arab betrayal can lead to the Palestinian people abandoning their cause and accepting crumbs, the same way you bet on in the deal of the century, then you are delusional.
Today, praise be to God, many of the Zionist writers and pundits have started saying this truth – after all that has happened, we seem to be facing a people who cannot be subdued and brought to their knees, and solutions cannot be imposed on them. We must heed to their demands, at the very least in terms of their rights, because we have no choice but to do so. Otherwise, there will be more confrontation, from which the enemy will only reap more humiliation and defeat. It will only be faced with more courage, toughness, faith, determination, and willingness to remain on the path until the end.
In any case, covering developments in Palestine, inside and around it, requires a lengthy speech that we don’t have time for now. We have an opportunity to express our solidarity, that of the peoples of the world, and the nation’s solidarity with Palestine on the last Friday of the month of Ramadan every year, which was declared by His Eminence Imam Khomeini as an international day for Al-Quds, known as International Quds Day.
On this occasion, I invite everyone in our Islamic world, especially in Lebanon, to participate broadly and intensively in all events in Lebanon and outside Lebanon, and in Lebanon especially. God willing, we will hold a great popular festival on Friday in the Sayyed Al-Shuhada Complex in Dahiyeh [the southern suburbs of Beirut].
I hope from all my brothers and sisters and all supporters of this sacred cause that we seize this opportunity to express on Quds Day our solidarity, support, steadfastness, and absolute support for the people of Palestine, for their resistance, their men, women, children, elders, sacrifices, and patience.
Let us express that we are partners in this battle, this destiny, and this victory that will come, God willing, with His help. On that occasion, God willing, we will focus on this issue, which is the basis of the conflict, the transformations, and shaping the future in our region.
I will delve into the topics concerning Lebanon.
1- In the days of April, we recall the Zionist aggression against Lebanon in April 1996, the aggression that the enemy called the Grapes of Wrath Operation.
We recall during these days the steadfastness, sacrifices, and heroism of the resistance, all the resistance fighters from Hezbollah, the Amal movement, and the national forces who fought and are still present in the fields of confrontation.
We also remember the steadfastness of our people who remained in the towns and those who were displaced but did not change their position regarding the resistance.
We recall the massacres committed by the enemy, including the ambulance of Al-Mansoori and massacres in the towns of the south and the western Bekaa, which culminated in the town of Qana – the first Qana massacre that is known as the Grapes of Wrath.
On this anniversary, I will tackle two points briefly:
The first point is that the resistance at that time in 1996, during the April war – we call it the April war – was able to impose on the enemy and the so-called international community the equation of protecting civilians in Lebanon through resistance and military operations in the occupied border strip in what was known as the April Understanding.
It allowed the resistance to fight on the occupied Lebanese territories and target the occupation soldiers and the occupation agents in the border strip and on the line of contact and prevented the enemy from bombing our villages and towns, which was the means that it always resorted to respond to the resistance operations.
This understanding took place under international auspices, and America and Europe were forced to accept it. A committee was formed and they had delegates in it.
Within the diplomatic dimension, we must include along with the popular steadfastness and the steadfastness of the resistance, the official position of the state at that time.
We must note in particular the distinguished effort made by the late President Hafez al-Assad as well as Martyr Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, which led to what was called at the time the April Understanding and the formation of the April Understanding Committee. This understanding paved the way for the victory of the resistance in 2000 and the defeat of the enemy because it freed the hand of the resistance, shielded civilians, and restrained the enemy.
They say that the April Understanding turned them into a punching bag in southern Lebanon, forcing them to withdraw in 2000. This is one of the achievements of the resistance, the weapon of the resistance, and the resistance’s jihad.
In the midst of the battle, it was able to force the brutal enemy and the perpetrator of massacres not to touch civilians, or else it will pay the price. This equation still exists today thanks to the resistance.
The other thing that I must mention and point out to is that when the Qana massacre was perpetrated, America stood and prevented the issuance of a UN Security Council resolution condemning the “Israeli” enemy for committing this massacre.
This has also been the position of the United States and the so-called the international community so far from the Deir Yassin massacre in Palestine in 1948, in the face of all the wars that were waged against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, in the face of all the wars that were launched against Lebanon and the massacres that were committed in Palestine and Lebanon, and the wars against the rest of the Arab countries, including Syria in the Golan and Egypt in Sinai.
We always find that the United States of America defends the aggressive enemy, the perpetrator of massacres, the one that wages wars, and the one that occupies the lands of others. It even prevents it from being condemned as well as making decisions to sanction it.
Look at how America and the so-called international community deal with "Israel" and its aggression against the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the peoples of the region and how it addresses the Russian-Ukrainian war and the massive sanctions it imposes, which have no precedent in history. This is also a reminder to America's friends in Lebanon and the region.
2- I move on to the elections. We have now entered an important stage in this political process – officially registering the lists and announcing the lists. All of this means that we, the Lebanese, getting closer to the entitlement because we have a few weeks left to vote, count the votes, and announce the results.
From the beginning, that is, months ago, when we began to approach the elections, we have always heard voices from the other political party.
They always accused and sowed doubt about holding the elections. Of course, they accused those who consider themselves today as having the parliamentary majority in the current parliament, that is the political party to which we belong.
They also say that this majority or some of the parties in this majority, do not want the elections to take place and want to extend the term of the current parliament. They always made up something about this.
Of course, things moved normally – the required legal improvements, the procedures, and setting dates. What was required of the parliament was accomplished despite the differences that existed. The government was required to achieve. People registered, nominated, formed lists, and started announcing the lists.
But now we are starting to hear a new tone in the same context. What is the new tone? This is what I want to use as a basis for some observations and some of the demands I ask of the people.
There is an atmosphere that is being reported from embassies, especially the US embassy, as well as political parties, which have begun writing weeks ago, at least in the past two weeks, in newspapers and social media, in addition to reports by some study centers and bodies that conduct surveys that, for many reasons, it seems that Hezbollah and its allies or the current majority – that’s how they put it – will maintain the parliamentary majority in the upcoming elections. We say that we are part of this political team.
I will comment on this. One of the former leaders even went on to say that there is a danger that this political team will obtain two-thirds. The other party must fight the battle to obtain, at least, the guarantor third. Why? He says this team may get two-thirds and he continues saying because this has the ability to bring about constitutional changes, and they want to change the system and change the face of the country, the identity of the country, etc.
I will mention a couple of things regarding this point.
First, obtaining two-thirds is not the goal of our political team.
Second, this goal is illogical and unrealistic. All the debate in the country over who gets the majority of half plus one, or half plus five, or half plus ten … No one is thinking about this. I do not think that any of the political forces or political coalitions that exist in the country consider that the goal of obtaining two-thirds of the members of the future parliament is a logical and realistic goal in the first place.
Third, regardless of whether this is a realistic goal or not, possible or not, our culture, position, and vision that any fundamental change related to the system, the constitution, the components of the country, and the identity of the country must be achieved by national understanding, national consensus, and national dialogue, not through bullying, a majority, a majority of half plus one, a majority of two-thirds, a majority with weapons, or a majority with supporters.
This is our conviction and our culture. In any case, this is said only to encourage the people who are reluctant to participate in the elections to come and vote or those refusing to vote for them to vote for them.
I return to the topic. An atmosphere arises that this is how things are going to be. They cite reasons related to the withdrawal of the Future Movement and its impact on the honorable Sunni community and its position on the elections and the dispersal of the NGOS and the so-called civil society associations.
There are disagreements among political forces. You see the formations of many lists. In our political team, we were able to be in one list, in most districts, even by forming electoral alliances. But they were scattered – instead of a single list, there are four, five, seven, and sometimes nine lists.
In any case, they are talking about objective and realistic reasons that occurred during the past few weeks, which mean that the expected result, according to polls and studies, is that our political team will obtain a parliamentary majority.
Accordingly, in some embassies and some circles began to talk again about postponing the parliamentary elections, even at least for a few months, so that the conditions of the other party could be improved.
For example, the Future Movement would be contacted to take part in the elections or they should find someone to intervene and unify the lists.
Anyway, this is for them to find or create technical reasons today. We have the right in the face of any incident that occurs in the country, including roadblocks here or there, sit-ins, or strikes – which I will point out to – to be suspicious.
Today, we are the ones who have the right to accuse the US embassy and political forces on the other side of obstructing the holding of the elections and postponing the elections.
For example, there are matters today that require contemplation, such as the strike of a large number of judges. We do not want to participate. This leads to the disruption of the electoral process. The same goes to the teachers’ strike because it is intended for the schoolteachers to manage the executive elections. There is also talk about a strike of diplomatic missions’ employees, which disrupts the elections abroad and opens the door to challenge the election results.
All this now calls upon us to meditate. I have a call. First, I say that their demands are right. They want to take advantage of the state's need for them to hold elections to press for their demands to be met.
I call on the government to heed to their demands in accordance with its capacities, but I also call on them [these people], please do not make your natural and rightful rights a reason to disrupt a major political, institutional, and legal challenge in Lebanon which is the parliamentary elections.
When we get to the serious point, we ask you not to strike and not to obstruct, to be part of the election administration, to achieve this challenge, and to search for other means to pressure the government. These means are available to you in all cases.
In a word, I also ask judges, teachers, and employees of diplomatic missions not to make the upcoming parliamentary elections hostage to your just demands – the validity of which I do not debate.
Among the effects is the talk in the country now, which I would like to address by turning to the people, especially to the public who support the resistance as well as the friends and allies of the resistance and this political line to which we all belong to.
One of the goals of this talk, whether the assessment is correct or not, may be to calm people down and let them cool down. Therefore, they’d consider that the battle is over and the results are settled, especially in many constituencies. Hence, there is no need for us to work for the elections and communicate with the people and vote on the day of the elections. This could be the real objective.
In any case, we must first of all not be complacent and accept this reading. We believe that there are real elections that will take place on May 15. There is a real democratic, popular, and political electoral battle being fought by all parties, and we must participate in it with all enthusiasm, vitality, and strength. Whatever the opinion polls and estimates are, it should not affect our enthusiasm, our presence in all circles, or our effectiveness.
Here, I want to remind you of the experience in 2009. In the 2009 elections, the atmosphere was the same. Some people dealt with the battle as if it was settled and that a political team would obtain a majority in Parliament in 2009. The opinion polls confirmed this, and the popular mood said the same thing. Suddenly, in the final weeks the money factor tremendously came into play, and we saw how the results were reversed in some circles, at the very least.
In any case, the other party obtained the parliamentary majority by adding a few deputies. One district was able to overturn the expected majority for the other party. The money that was spent was huge. I heard this from a Saudi official. We were still sitting together at that time.
I will not tell you the exact number now. He told me the exact number, the huge sum of money that came during the 2009 elections and was transferred in suitcases and not through the banks. But I can tell you, hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent in the 2009 elections, especially in last few weeks in some districts at the very least.
I remember that even the one who voted for us and was not ready to vote for them was told to give us your card, meaning that the vote would be withheld, for $500 per card. In some circles, the price of vote in the morning was $1,000, around noon $2,000, and in the afternoon $5,000.
Of course, this money was spent enormously. When we sometimes hear large sums and in return, we do not find services and development projects, we know these hundreds of millions were spent on televisions and the media – 50 million, 100 million, and 70 million spent on media campaigns, on media machines, and buying votes.
In fact, most of it was not spent on elections, but was put into the politicians' balances that had ballooned over the past few years. Therefore, Saudi Arabia, for example, has the right to stand up and say that this money was Saudi money, by the way, and to say that from 2005 to 2017, we spent 20 billion dollars in Lebanon. This was part of the spending.
In any case, we do not clearly know the arena. In the next few weeks, large electoral money may come in – it has begun to enter, but it’s still in the beginning. Under the pretext that people are in need and have difficult living conditions, many may resort to selling their votes. Hence, if we want to say, like the 2009 elections, that these are legitimate elections by legal standards, they are the elections of hundreds of millions that were spent on buying votes.
Concluding this point, I want to say to all my brothers and sisters, to all the supporters, to all the lovers, to all those who are keen on the future of this country, do not count on opinion polls, study centers, or expectations about decisive results. You must take part in this electoral process and this political battle with full gear, with full enthusiasm, with full efficiency, and with full effort until the moment the boxes are closed.
3- The next point is also related to the elections. I said in internal meetings, and later, the media broadcast part of what I said inaccurate or fragmented, that our goal was the success of our candidates, the candidates of Hezbollah and our friends and allies.
Of course, some media outlets cut off the first part which is our goal is the success of our candidates and focused on the success of the candidates of our friends and allies. The goal was to challenge our friends and allies.
No, I said, and now in a public speech, I say that our goal in these elections is definitely the success of our candidates. No one should behave, as I said a while ago, that the [electoral] battle is settled even in the districts in which we have candidates.
We are also after the success of the candidates of our friends and allies, and this is normal. This is not related to whether our friends are strong or not – and they are strong. Even opinion polls say that they are strong, are ahead in many districts, and do not need our help in many districts.
However, in all districts where we have votes, it is natural to be present in the political process. It is natural to support our friends and our allies. This is the meaning of friendship and being in an alliance.
We are not like some parties. This is the reason for a lack of unity in the lists of the other parties because each party is looking out for itself, trying to figure out how to grow its parliamentary bloc, even at the expense of their allies and friends, and that is why they could not reach an agreement on forming unified lists.
As for us, we are not like that. We want to succeed. We do not want to form a large and great bloc, even at the expense of our friends and allies. We also want our allies and friends to succeed in these elections because we can all cooperate and assume the expected national responsibilities.
Here, I will add something to the previous point, especially for the supporters of Hezbollah and the resistance and for those who respect our word, voice, and opinion in all the constituencies in which Hezbollah has no candidates.
Our brothers and sisters should be vigorously present and vote for our friends and allies whose lists are clear and well known. This is a point of pride and not weakness. It should not be taken advantage of to challenge. Unfortunately, in this country, honesty is challenged. Lying, betrayal, and backstabbing is what they call in Lebanon cleverness and intelligence. This is the reality of our situation.
4- The next point is how we will vote. I will talk about Hezbollah in particular. We have no such thing as above the table and under the table, that is in public we are allied here and behind the curtain or under the table, we agree with other parties and give them votes. We do not do this because we consider this a lie, treachery, and betrayal. We do everything above the table and clearly in broad daylight.
If we want to support lists in some constituencies and we find it beneficial to support a friend’s and ally’s list in the same constituency and give them some votes, this will be on the table and with the knowledge of the allies in the first list.
We do not promise anyone that we will give them all our votes. Then, on election day, we give some of our votes to another list, even within the same list.
You are familiar with the proportional [representation] law and the preferential vote. Therefore, those who will succeed in the list, in general, are those most likely to get the highest number of preferential votes.
When forming the lists, we refused to give a prior commitment to any of our friends on the list that we would give them our excess preferential votes because it would be at the expense of the rest of our allies and friends on the same list.
We would have liked for some figures to be on these lists, but they asked for a prior commitment. We respect them and appreciate that their presence in the Parliament will give the Parliament a high value.
However, our prior commitment with them will harm the rest of our friends and allies and disturb the agreement with them. We did not give them [the preferential votes] and they got upset. It is their right to be dismayed, and we understand their anger.
I say them being angry over our honesty is better than them being angry after accusing us of betrayal. That is, you being upset with me because I am honest, clear, and transparent with you is better than you thinking that I promised you something, did not fulfill my promise, betrayed you, and stabbed you in the back.
Hence, whether we vote for the lists or not give anyone additional preferential votes – we may give in some constituencies – will be studied in the next few days. But we did nothing without understanding and full clarity with our friends and allies from the same list. Our vote will be clear and public.
You know that part of the electoral war is when some resort to lies, accusations, misrepresentations, and distortions, as they do with some political blocs. From now, they are accusing them of wanting to vote contrary to their commitments to the lists. You should not believe anything written about Hezbollah, at the very least.
I always say that the most important thing we have is credibility, which was created by the blood of the martyrs, the sweat of the Mujahideen, patience, and sacrifices.
We will not compromise on this honesty and credibility over a political or electoral dispute. If there are people who feel shy around an ally or a friend, we are not. We speak with them frankly; we promise them with all honesty and we fulfill our promises to them honestly.
5- The next point is also related to the elections. Some have been for a while – it is understood who I mean – basically saying that the goal of the axis of resistance in Lebanon – they include Iran and Syria in the axis – is to abolish others or abolish leaders, homes, or political forces.
I also want to be clear and transparent here. We are keen that everyone is in their natural sizes. We do not want to cancel anyone at all.
A friend, an opponent, an ally, a person we disagree with, an enemy, call them whatever you want. But we don't want to eliminate anyone at all.
The proportional [representation] law that we fought for for a long time to become the electoral law in Lebanon does not give anyone the opportunity to abolish others. It does not give an opportunity of this kind.
Based on the proportional law, every party is represented in parliament according to its natural and realistic size. The majority law that was adopted in all the previous elections was the reason that eliminated others, closed political houses, abolished parties and political forces, and eliminated historical leaderships.
As for the proportional law, it allows any party that has a real presence, any figure, and any leadership to be represented in parliament.
I want to emphasize that this is not our intention, part of our culture, or our policy.
Yes, allow me here not only to defend but to attack. Let me tell those who are talking about abolition in Lebanon who the abolitionists are. In short, we were not abolitionists.
Even when we were in the quartet alliance, the March 14 team was the one that abolished the Free Patriotic Movement, meaning it prevented it from participating in the government. It also canceled the rest of the political forces and only accepted Amal and Hezbollah because, in the end, they wanted Shiite representation in the government.
Since 2005, we have been calling for a national unity government. In 2018, when the parliamentary majority became ours, i.e., our political team, we insisted on a national unity government. Hence, a national unity government was formed headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and everyone participated in it, even those who are talking about cancellation.
After the October 2019 events, we insisted that there be a government of national unity in which everyone would be represented. When Prime Minister Hassan Diab was appointed, we were also calling for a national unity government. This is not our culture at all.
As for the abolitionists, they are those who were betting in the July 2006 war on crushing the resistance and the environment of resistance. The abolitionists are the ones who demanded from the American officials not to stop the war in July and to continue the battle until an “Israeli” victory and the elimination of the resistance. This was documented by WikiLeaks.
The abolitionists are the ones who sat with the Americans and gave them suggestions to present to the “Israelis” on how to achieve victory. I mean, they’d show them the weaknesses so that they can focus on them.
The abolitionists were the ones who had a government in 2006 and we – ministers of Amal and Hezbollah – resigned from the government because of the objection to the way the International Tribunal agreement was approved. We resigned.
At that time, former Minister Yaqoub Al-Sarraf, our friend and beloved minister, sympathized with us. An entire sect resigned [from parliament], and they did not care about an absent sect, a covenant, or anything. They continued. They continued from 11-11-2006 to 11-7-2008, meaning until after May 7 and the Doha Agreement, 20 months, for approximately 20 months.
The entire March 14 team was there, even those who are talking about cancellation today. They continued canceling and made hundreds of decisions as if there were no one else in the country who have the right to be participants and are partners and part of the existing charter in the country. These are the abolitionists.
The abolitionists are the political forces that were part of the government of former Prime Minister Siniora who did not pay any attention to this absence and remained with him at that time.
The abolitionists are always ready to offer themselves to the outside and wage a civil war with the objective to abolish and crush others.
The abolitionists are the ones who consider one-third of the Lebanese people an Iranian community in an article or in an emotional or non-emotional speech. This is cancellation. We are not like that. We have always been careful.
6- The abolitionists are the ones who announce today – this is the next point which I will discuss – and tell you that there is no need for an electoral program, an electoral speech, or anything. They have one point, which is disarming the resistance and canceling the resistance.
These are the abolitionists. As for us, we are not. Let everyone rest assured, we are keen on partnership and understanding and on everyone’s cooperation.
We do not want to rule the country. We are sick and tired of these words, but we will continue to say it; we do not want to control the country. We believe that managing the country by any party, sect, or group is irrational, illogical, and impractical. This country, due to its diversity and composition, needs everyone’s cooperation.
7- After the lists are created and announced, we are supposed to hear about electoral programs, especially since the country today is suffering from very stifling and unprecedented crises at the economic, monetary, financial, livelihood, health, educational, and environmental levels, some internal security levels, and social security.
Unfortunately, in most cases, I do not deny and say everyone, but in most cases the lists that have been announced so far, we did not see programs tackling real problems of the Lebanese people at the current stage. Instead, it went to other addresses to which I will return.
Yes, some presented something. But the overwhelming discourse of political and electoral promotion does not approach these issues, but rather went elsewhere.
For example, we see a group of headlines, some of which aim to draw numbers. Other addresses are false, meaning they are not based on facts.
For example, an entire list’s goal is to lift Hezbollah's hegemony over the decision of the Lebanese state. Basically, there is no such thing as negativity in the absence of the issue. There is no such thing as Hezbollah's hegemony over the decision of the Lebanese state. You are fighting an illusion; you are fighting the air; you are fighting an imagination, a void. However, they set this as a goal.
Well, what else do you have? When we lift Hezbollah's hegemony over the decision of the Lebanese state, everything will be resolved in the country. Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds. If it is so, then great. Lifting the control of weapons over political life!
How were the weapons controlling political life when you won the majority in 2005? In alliance with this weapon, you took the majority in 2009 and Parliament remained until 2018. You were part of governments where the majority was always yours or premiership of governments were for you.
Disarming the resistance. Someone tells you we want to disarm the resistance. Someone else talks about a broader topic – confronting Hezbollah. What is your program, you, the list of so-and-so? They tell you to confront Hezbollah. Basically, there is no need for us to talk about programs or anything else.
The Iranian occupation, the liberation of Lebanon from the Iranian occupation. The goal – some lists say – is preserving and defending the Arab identity of Lebanon. I believe that this is a very big development. We should not feel sad about everything we hear . On the contrary, there are things that we rejoice in.
Some of these people when you discuss with them the Arab identity of Lebanon before Taif, they’d tell you, ‘What does Lebanon have to do with being Arab? It has nothing to do with being Arab. Lebanon is Phoenician.’
In the end, they tell you Lebanon has an Arab face. The last concession before Taif is that Lebanon has an Arab face.
Now, some of them are talking about the Arab identity and emphasizing the Arab identity and want to fight us – given that we are Iranians – politically and in the elections in order to confirm the Arab identity. Excellent, great, God willing, you will remain on this commitment.
In any case, among the issues that need to be resolved in order to agree on who is preserving the Arab identity of Lebanon and who is sacrificing it, we must know what the Arab identity means, what its culture is, what its political line is, what its constants are, and what its pillars are. This needs to be discussed, but now is not the time.
Some misleadingly try to tell the Lebanese that the weapon of the resistance is the cause of all these calamities. O brother, give the weapon of the resistance a break.
30 years of economic policies, policies that turned out to be wrong, these have nothing to do with [the calamities]? Administrative and financial corruption in the country, this has nothing to do with them? Smuggling deposits and money from Lebanon? What does the resistance’s weapon have to do with this? This has nothing to do with it.
All these have nothing to do with [the calamities], but only the weapon of the resistance has! If you disband the weapons of the resistance, will everything be resolved in the country? Also, God willing, at the electoral festivals, I will discuss this point more.
I wanted to mention this reference to talk about a conclusion. It is a feeling. I do not want to accuse anyone, but a person feels that these lists and these political forces are focusing on these addresses for a reason. Why?
These points are attractive abroad, not internally. Internally, they want to convince the people of these lies – the hegemony of Hezbollah, the Iranian occupation, the domination of arms, and the resistance being the cause of the economic disaster.
They want to convince the Lebanese. I saw opinion polls, studies conducted by neutral parties show that this media effort, the media, electronic armies, paid articles, etc., in fact, have not been able to concine the Lebanese people. Basically, they failed.
The aim is to appease the outside, America, the West, Saudi Arabia, and some Arab countries that have a problem with the resistance, specifically Hezbollah – we are standing against Hezbollah.
This is the truth. All these slogans and headlines are made to tell America, Western societies, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that we are standing in the face of Hezbollah; we are confronting Hezbollah; we are demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah, we raise our voice against Hezbollah. For what?
To attract political support, moral support, and most importantly, financial support, i.e., fresh dollars. That is unless someone really wants to sit down at the table and discuss and be a little objective. The Lebanese did not fall for these lies and were not convinced by the reasons they put forward.
In any case, of course, if someone says I have a problem with weapons outside the state and we are supposed to develop a defensive strategy and see how we can benefit from the elements of power available to the Lebanese people and the Lebanese state, we cannot accuse him. This person is talking with vision and logic. This is negotiable.
However, a person discussing the disarmament of the resistance and disarming Hezbollah and confronting it in a manner not related to the defense strategy and when asked about his alternative to protect the country, he’s got nothing. What do you call this person?
This person is not speaking logically and is not presenting a project or program for the benefit of the country. He is appeasing external parties in order to obtain political and financial support, frankly, and he is providing and offering services.
We hope to hear programs in the next few weeks. We presented programs. In 1992, we presented a realistic program for the parliamentary elections. In 1996 and 2000, we developed our program based on our experience. In 2005, the country was in chaos following the martyrdom of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the sharp division in the country. In 2009, we presented an electoral program. In 2018, we presented an electoral program. A few days ago, the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc held a press conference and read out our electoral program for the 2022 elections.
In our electoral program, the first few lines mention things related to the resistance, and the rest is all related to the Lebanese situation – the internal situation, state institutions, state building, advancement, the judiciary, and the economic, living, monetary, financial, health, and educational situation.
He read four full pages. Of course, we did not hear the other side discussing the programs or the ideas, the previous or the current. But we insist that this is our program.
We did not only talk about the issue of the resistance and that people should vote because the resistance is being targeted. This is definitely one of the headlines. But it is not the only issue, as some of our opponents claim.
No, there are many detailed and boring issues. Our brothers said that the program is big. We set a lot of items; we should have reduced them. However, we put in more items because this is a four-year program.
A few weeks ago, our deputies, for example, presented laws, what they did, the services they provided. For example, in the anti-corruption file, they talked about what we did.
A press conference was held, and reports were presented on this subject. Also, the other parties concerned with Hezbollah presented what they did, what Hezbollah did for four years.
Some are now saying that this is an electoral goal. Naturally, the people elected us four years ago based on promises and a program. It is a must and not shameful – unfortunately, for some Lebanese, everything that is considered a duty or most of the duties become a subject of shame – it is our obligation and that of the political forces to tell the Lebanese people what their representatives, ministers, party, and institutions have done in the past four years.
People know. Of course, now I will not talk about the details because others spoke. God willing, we will talk. This rundown, on the contrary, is obligatory and comes in its natural time.
Our allies and friends are now talking, but the question is to the political forces that are hostile to us. Have you told the people what have you done for the past four years and eight years?
Most of you have been in power for 30 years. Some of you have been for at least 15 years, and some have been in power for 40 years, like the Kataeb Party. Tell the people what you’ve done, what you’ve offered, and what you’ve accomplished.
But we do not find this. We always hear insults, accusations, attacks, and accusing us of treason, occupation, and domination.
We are not like that. On the contrary, we try to be normal and tell people what we’ve accomplished in Parliament during the past four years, what we did with laws, law proposals, bills, the ministries we were responsible – we did one, two, three, four – what our deputies accomplished with their files, fighting corruption, and what our party did in terms of health and education, socially, culturally, and politically. We try to explain to people so that they are aware.
The sad thing in Lebanon is that there are people who were in power – not us, we came later – and were influential; for 15 years, they had a majority in the government, they were in power, and they made decisions. Now, they are the opposition and they want to hold the current majority accountable for the past 30 or 40 years and all the past years. This is really unfair.
8- I do not want to wait for the electoral festivals after the Eid. After the Eid, God willing, we will hold three electoral festivals in which we will speak directly. But there is a point that cannot be postponed.
I heard some political forces and some media outlets trying to distort our slogan and say that when Hezbollah says we protect and build and ask people to vote for these lists, it is asking the Lebanese state to protect the resistance at a time when the resistance is supposed to be the one that claims to be protecting the Lebanese state. Look at the misinformation and fallacy. This is a fallacy.
There has never been a day in Hezbollah’s 40 years of existence that a statement, a speech, or a senior or a minor Hezbollah official in Lebanon said, ‘We demand the Lebanese state protect the resistance.’ Never, ever.
The resistance is the one that protects the country and protects the state. Without the resistance, there would be no state. It would have been an occupied country by the “Israelis”. The tanks reached Baabda; the “Israeli” soldiers that entered the office of the President of the Republic.
The resistance today is the one that is part of the golden equation that protects the country and establishes a balance of deterrence with the “Israeli” enemy.
It never asks for the protection of the state. Here lies the misinformation; we call on the people to elect us so we have a presence in the state to prevent anyone from the political forces or from outside to use the state to strike the resistance. We do not want the state to protect the resistance; we only want the state not to stab the resistance in the back.
One might ask if this is possible. Of course, it is. I don't want to open old files. Time is running out. But in 1993, this almost happened had it not been for the intervention of President Hafez al-Assad.
It almost happened in 1993. It almost happened in the July war. It had its beginnings, when some army checkpoints were ordered to confiscate trucks belonging to the resistance – trucks transporting arms and ammunition to the south – and other matters that I do not want to talk about.
Yes, it happened on May 5, 2008, with government decisions regarding the communications network incident. Hence, we are not saying that our goal is for the state to protect the resistance. No. It’s just to prevent someone from using the state to stab the resistance in the back. This is a declared American project.
We are absolving the Lebanese army and the Lebanese security services from this task or mission. However, listen to what the US State Department, the US Defense Department, as well as US senators and representatives are saying.
We support Lebanon, the state in Lebanon, and the Lebanese army because they are our means to end the issue of Hezbollah, the resistance, and Hezbollah's weapons.
America is clearly declaring that this is its project. What do we say? We do not want sedition, we do not want civil war, and we do not want a clash between the Lebanese.
To prevent that, we must be present in the state. Had we not been absent from the May 5, 2008 government, i.e., the one that made the decisions regarding the communications network, May 7 would not have happened. There would have been no martyrs and fighting would have not occurred. Hence, we hope that people pay attention to this misconception.
9- What they are focusing a lot on out of their concern for the Arab identity, the Arab title, and Arab relations is that Hezbollah is sabotaging the Lebanese-Arab relations or sabotaging the Arab-Arab relations.
Also, quickly, if we go back a little, to be fair, even before the war in Yemen, we and Saudi Arabia had a political disagreement, but we used to meet, and the Saudis used to come and go to Lebanon.
Regarding the war in Yemen, my question is, who is sabotaging the Arab-Arab relations? There is an Arab country called Saudi Arabia that established an alliance with the UAE and other Arab countries and launched a war and a comprehensive, wide, and destructive military aggression against Yemen and a large segment of the Yemeni people. One, two, three and four days have passed, and massacres were committed. There was destruction. It’s been going on for seven years.
The one sabotaging Arab relations is the one waging war on an Arab country, waging a war against an Arab people, waging a seven-year-long Arab-Arab war, in which thousands, tens of thousands have died.
Historical human tragedies occurred. Is the one taking a stand with the oppressed who are being attacked and demanding the cessation of the war and aggression sabotaging Arab relations? Who is sabotaging Arab-Arab relations? Who is being lawful, Arab, fair, and humane?
Praise be to God for the armistice in Yemen, the two-month armistice that came after the steadfastness of the oppressed Yemenis in a seven-year, fierce war, in which billions of dollars were spent, many armies in the world were prepared for it, and mercenaries from all over the world were brought to it.
These oppressed Yemenis worked miracles, created legends, persevered, were steadfast, changed the equations, and imposed themselves on the world.
Today, the UN envoy is compelled to sit with them, the American envoy is compelled to sit with them, the Europeans are compelled to sit with them, and the whole world wants to hear them and talk to them.
They made this political result with their steadfastness, resoluteness, faith, persistence, sacrifices, the blood of their martyrs, their hunger, their thirst, and their illness. No one granted this to them. Only God Almighty granted them this, but they made it.
Of course, we are happy with the armistice because all our political stance and discourse is centered on stopping the war and the aggression. We hope, God willing, that the armistice will open a door for political dialogue and reach a political solution.
We hope that the truce will be an entry point to stop the war, lift the siege, and go to a political solution. This has been our position since the first day this aggression was launched against Yemen. We had no other position.
No one was demanding or is demanding to overthrow the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, change the regime, crush the Saudi army, or anything else. All our discourse was to stop the war, stop the aggression, stop the killing, stop the injustice, stop the destruction. Is there anything else?
Watch and see, all of our speech and position for the past seven years is known in the media – we and all our regional and local friends.
In this point, I would like to give the rulers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a piece of advice: Do not bet that it is possible for you to negotiate with their friends. There is a party involved in negotiations, namely the Salvation Government in Sana’a, the Supreme Political Council in Yemen, the Ansarullah movement, and their symbol, leader, and great leader, Sayyed Abd al-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, may God help him and protect him.
These are the negotiating parties, talk to them. Do not expect that speaking with other countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran or other friends of these oppressed Yemenis will pressure them to give up their rights. Never! The Islamic Republic does not do that, and the friends of these oppressed people anywhere in the world could not do that at all.
So, the only way to a political solution is to negotiate and talk directly with these people and to listen to their logic, their rights, their language, their position. You should not expect any of their friends to pressure them to give up their dignity, which they sacrificed blood for, or their rights, which they made all these sacrifices for. This is one example.
Let me give you another example in sabotaging Arab-Arab relations. Take Syria.
Kuwait’s Al-Qabas interviewed the former Prime Minister of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani on Syria. It’s an audio and video recording.
I usually check things I read on social media or even in some media outlets, written things. This is because it is possible for someone to lie about someone. Even with audio and video recordings, you must be sure because these days there is a possibility of fabricating images and sounds.
But I heard the recording once, twice, and three times to make sure that I understood it correctly.
He says that when the crisis in Syria began, a committee consisting of five countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, and the US, was formed. The committee's goal was to enter Syria, overthrow the regime, and control the country.
After a while, he says, Prince Bandar bin Sultan was appointed and he became the head of the Saudi intelligence services. He was in charge of managing the situation. This means that the Qataris were pushed into the background. The Saudis took the lead.
He says that Bandar bin Sultan asked for a budget of $2000 billion to achieve victory in Syria. He says that a huge budget was allocated, but he does not say how much it was. He did not say that $2000 billion was decided, but he said a huge budget.
When the crisis in Syria began, the Syrian leadership and President Bashar al-Assad were more than willing to discuss a political solution. They expressed this position from the beginning.
These Arabs, if they were seriously concerned about Syria, the people of Syria, the old and young people of Syria, and the Arab country – they should’ve intervened in Syria, reached a political solution, and engaged in reconciliation.
They were very close friends to President Assad. Take Qatar, for example. Its emir and Qatari officials spent all their time in Damascus until the eve of the crisis in Syria.
The current Turkish president was at that time a prime minister, I think. He went and came to Syria. The Syrian leadership opened Syria to Turkey – the markets, trade, and relations. There was a very excellent relationship between Turkey and the Syrian leadership, as well as between Qatar and the Syrian leadership. Those who are keen on Arab relations, let them intervene in Syria and establish a political solution and reconciliation.
If there are problems and a need for financial support, they have money. However, they are ready to put hundreds of billions of dollars and bring hundreds of thousands of fighters from all over the world to Syria, but they are not ready to establish goodness, righteousness, and reform in Syria. Who is sabotaging Arab relations – those who opened the door and waged a global war on Syria, or those who stood by Syria in the face of this global war?
Today, in any case, they are required to correct the situation. They are required to lift the siege on Syria. They are required to deal with the consequences and the bloody effects that they left on Syria’s infrastructure, people, and state.
So, before you accuse us of sabotaging Arab relations, do us a favor and see, study, and evaluate things.
Does the one who is concerned about Arab relations use his armies to wage a war on another Arab country and harness his money, media, and international relations to fight it, or is he the one who stands by the Arabs when the people or the state are oppressed or attacked?
We’ve taken up too much of your time already. However, I should say a couple of words, out of loyalty, on the martyrdom anniversary of the great Imam, martyr Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and his virtuous sister, scholar, and mujahida Bint Al-Huda.
Of course, this is the crime of the age, a historical crime committed by the former Iraqi regime, which led to a loss for the human mind, a human loss, a loss for the Islamic nation, and a loss for Islam – Islam as a religion, civilization, and an ideology – because martyr Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr was not only a thinker or a philosopher, but he was also one of the brilliant minds of this era and history.
Today, we recall his memory. His intellectual, cultural, and scientific heritage and effects are still present. They strongly support the entire movement of Islam and the nation in this era. His calls, commandments, and leadership hold us all responsible. Here, the responsibility does not only fall on the Iraqis because martyr Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr was at the level of the world and humanity. He was at the level of the nation and the weak throughout the world.
He was thinking on behalf of all countries, all peoples, and all the oppressed and the weak in the world.
It is our responsibility to preserve his name and to raise his name and the name of his great martyr sister, to preserve his heritage and to continue his path, as he was our greatest and most important mentor. May God have mercy on him, God willing, and mercy on all the martyrs.
God willing, we will meet later if God Almighty permits us and extends our lives, in the month of Ramadan. Also, after Ramadan in the electoral festivals, we will talk more about the elections.
Peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.
