Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on March 6th, 2023
Translated by Al-Ahed News
Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during a ceremony honoring the wounded and the freed prisoners | 3-6-2023
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.
I welcome the brothers and sisters, the honorable attendees, and those gathered in the cities of Hermel, Baalbek, Nabatiyeh, and Bint Jbeil as well as in the town of Deir Qanoun al-Nahr, and here in the Shahed Hall in the southern [suburbs of Beirut].
First, I congratulate all of you on these beautiful occasions taking place in the holy and blessed month of Sha’ban, the month of the Messenger of God (PBUH).
There are many occasions, including one in which we gather to celebrate and honor our wounded and liberated prisoners. We have many occasions to talk about. There are also many files and topics that naturally cannot be discussed in one speech.
Since I have many speeches to deliver this week, I will cover the topics today and throughout the coming days, God willing.
This celebration should have taken place ten or nine days ago, but it was postponed for special reasons. Praise be to God, today, we have been able to meet and we are at your service.
Next Thursday will be the 30th anniversary of the founding of Al-Mahdi Schools, the Islamic Education Foundation. So, I will talk about this great imam to that occasion.
Today I will only mention the importance of the eve of the 15th of Sha’ban – the religious, moral, spiritual, and devotional importance as well as in terms of faith.
It carries a great deal of significance, and I ask my brothers and sisters to take advantage of the hours of this eve, i.e. the 15th of Sha’ban, and spend them in worshiping, supplicating, turning to God Almighty, and performing all the desirable acts of worship because it is a great opportunity to get closer to Him, the Almighty.
For the past 30 years, I have been committed to talking about all our brothers and sisters whom God Almighty has taken, including our officials, cadres, fighters, and other individuals. They’re our brothers, loved ones, and dear ones.
Of course, I cannot attend and deliver speeches during their one week memorial service. Praise be to God, this is a big march, and there are many people.
I have long since set a standard and committed myself to it. I agreed with the brothers that when we lose one of our central leaders, who have key responsibilities, I speak during their memorial service, whether they were killed or they passed away.
In the past few days, we lost a dear, faithful, and loyal leader – brother Hajj Saleh. His one-week memorial service will be held on Friday. I will also speak on Friday. So, I am speaking today, on Thursday, and Friday, God willing.
Therefore, I will be dividing the topics. Today, I will not talk about all the topics. Some brothers and sisters may say that Sayyed did not talk about this point or that. Days are coming. We have political challenges. There is the educational file, the file on the living situation, and the situation in the country.
Today, I will talk about the occasion and the wounded and freed prisoners, about the resistance, and about the familiarity of the March 1972 invasion.
I will talk about two other topics: the land and maritime borders and the presidency file, in more detail, because we are at a delicate and important juncture.
Today, we are at the service of two large and generous segments, namely the wounded brothers and sisters and the freed brothers and sisters.
As it is known, we adopted the birthday of Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas (PBUH) as the Day of the Wounded. Aba Al-Fadl Al-Abbas Ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib (PBUT) was a faithful leader, brave, obedient, insightful, made sacrifices, a fighter on the front line, a great altruist, loved his master Abi Abdullah Al-Hussein (PBUH), ever present in the battlefield.
He was not deceived by a promise of safety or an open door to the world. Even though his right hand was severed, he continued fighting. His left hand was cut off, but he continued fighting. He did not settle until his eyes were extinguished and his body collapsed to the ground. He is the role model of our wounded.
As it is also known, we adopted the birthday of Imam Zayn al-Abidin Ali ibn al-Hussein (PBUT) as the Day of the Captive.
That young imam was prevented by severe illness from fighting on the day of Ashura in the square of Karbala. He was taken prisoner, but he remained steadfast and kept his position and stance.
Despite his severe illness, the magnitude of the calamities that he witnessed with his own eyes in Karbala, including the loss of his father, brothers, loved ones, and dear ones, the pain over the captivity of the daughters of the Messenger of God (PBUH), and the threat of death at every moment from Karbala to Kufa to the Levant, Zayn al-Abidin (PBUH) remained bold and courageous in the face of the tyrants in Kufa, in Damascus, and in Medina.
History conveyed to us some of his immortal words in Ibn Ziyad’s assembly and in the presence of Yazid. These words became part of Karbala’s inspiring narrative for all the revolutionaries, mujahideen, resistance fighters, and those who reject grievances.
Therefore, we adopted the day of his birth as a title and a symbol for our captives. Both symbols, i.e. al-Abbas and Zayn al-Abidin (PBUT), belong to Karbala, with all the values, sermons, and lessons that Karbala can teach us.
We will say a few words about the wounded, a few words about the [freed] prisoners, then we move to talk about the border.
1- The wounded:
Our wounded, from the beginning, carried their blood on their hands. They were on the front lines like al-Abbas. They bore the burdens of fighting. They faced all dangers like the martyrs who left and the fighters who are still alive.
They were always at the sites of fighting and jihad, looking forward to one of the two best things, victory or martyrdom.
God Almighty, He in whose hand is death and life, willed for them to see victory with their own eyes. He kept them alive as living martyrs so that they face a test of another kind, which requires patience, faith, certainty, steadfastness, and patience, and they were worthy of that.
My wounded brothers and sisters, every hour in your life while you suffer the pain of the wounds – there are many wounded who are in constant pain – is an hour of jihad for the sake of God Almighty and will be considered jihad in the way of God Almighty.
You must look at the life that God gave you after you were injured as an opportunity and a great blessing from God Almighty for you to be able to do more jihad in terms of patience, faith, steadfastness, certainty. You will be rewarded more and bestowed high ranks.
It is, at the same time, a severe and painful test. We all know the suffering of the wounded, even those who were not wounded. I just want to point out a tangible example. I know from myself and from others what the psychological pressures are when one gets sick and is bedridden for days or weeks.
The wounded go this suffering for many years until God Almighty grants them recovery. This suffering is, as I said, a jihad in the way of God, and being patient with this suffering is a continuation of this act of resistance that you have undertaken.
Here, I must say to the Lebanese people that the wounds of those wounded, who continue to suffer from these wounds, must be a clear message. They are a divine argument for all of us.
These wounds also confirm that the achievements accomplished through sacrifices will not end. In other words, these achievements did not end when victory was achieved in the liberation of 2000 or in 2006.
The wounded are still suffering from the wounds. Hence, there is payment and giving after the achievement; there is endurance after the achievement.
The wounded are still suffering; the prisoners got infected with diseases from prison; the families of the martyrs are still suffering because they lost their loved ones.
No one considers that the resistance has accomplished and that its sacrifices have stopped. Achievement is making sacrifices prior to victory, and it is making sacrifices following victory.
Here, usually when I address the wounded, I am also reminded of their honorable families, including the mothers and fathers, who endured with their wounded son or daughter the difficulties caused by the wounds.
Likewise, we must single out the wives who were patient and steadfast, especially the dear sisters, who are married to a wounded [fighter].
There are sisters who got married, and later the brother was wounded. Yet, she stayed with him and was patient. This has a high human and moral value.
However, there are sisters who married wounded persons out of their own free will. They knew the difficulties that these wounded suffer from and the repercussions on their married life.
Both types of wives are true fighters along the front lines. They are generous, precious, and dear, and they have a position with God Almighty. They must exercise patience in this so that they have a great status with God Almighty.
Nowadays, we know from our social life how some women, some wives rush to ask for divorce and leave the house to evade responsibility just because the family began to face some difficulties in life, some difficulties as a result of the living situation, unemployment, or the existing difficult circumstances.
Here, the wives of the wounded have always proven that they are highly responsible at the humane, moral, jihadi, faith, and religious levels.
2- The prisoners:
With regard to our [free] prisoners, they are those who were captured on the battlefields while storming posts or were arrested and imprisoned because of their affiliation with the resistance or their relationship with the resistance during the occupation, in the border strip, etc.
Thousands went to prison, and we all remember. The upcoming generations must know the [“Israeli”] detention centers, including the Ansar, Khiyam, and Atleet detention centers. We cannot got to Atleet now, maybe later.
There are prisons inside the Zionist entity and prisons of the collaborators in the south and in the western Bekaa. Thousands went to these prisons, and thousands spent many years in them. Some prisoners belonged to Hezbollah, others to the Amal movement and the rest of the Islamic and national forces and every partner in this resistance. Others were accused of belonging to the choice of resistance.
On the Day of the Prisoners, we must remember the suffering of these prisoners because these were not normal and ordinary detention centers.
A person was not only imprisoned and his freedom confiscated. No! We must remember the forms, types, and colors of the brutal torture to which the [freed] male and female prisoners were subjected in these prisons and detention centers at the hands of the Zionists and their Lahd collaborators.
We must remember the martyrs who died under torture and whips. We must also remember the patience of those [freed] prisoners who did not waver, did not slip, did not betray, and did not back down.
When they were released, they returned to the arenas of resistance. They did not regret what they had done and suffered. Their faith in their choice and path only strengthened more.
Many of the captive brothers returned to the arenas of jihad, and many of them were martyred after they returned to the arenas of jihad.
I asked the brothers for a list, and I found that the list was long. I wanted to read some of the names. The list of those who suffered in prisons and in captivity, and when released, they returned to the battlefields and were martyred was long.
I will only mention the names of two leaders who were martyred: martyr commander Samir Kuntar and martyr commander Fawzi Ayoub. May God be pleased with them and all the martyrs.
Likewise, the wounded. Some of the wounded when they’d recover a little would return to the battle fronts. Many of them died as martyrs.
In some of the battles that I was close to, I witnessed wounded people whom I know by name and in person, enter the operating room after being wounded and directly head to the battlefield as soon as the operation was done.
These are our wounded and our [freed] prisoners. Neither the wounded nor the prisoners abandoned the battlefield. Of course, everyone was present depending on their physical capabilities and age, as is the case with all of us.
Here, we must also evoke the suffering of the families of the [freed] prisoners, including the mothers, fathers, wives, sons, and daughters, who were waiting for the return of their loved ones and who suffered for many years, sometimes without any information and news.
This is one of the grievances that befell [freed] prisoners in prisons, especially in the Khiam detention center. Years passed, and we did not know anything about these detainees. Are they dead or alive? This is a form of injustice.
Also, on the Day of the Prisoners whom God bestowed freedom upon them, we evoke the resistance’s sincerity, as it used to say, ‘We are a people who do not leave our prisoners behind bars.’ We will not leave our prisoners behind bars.
Yes, we have a number of individuals that can be accurately called missing persons – whether in southern Lebanon with the “Israeli” enemy or in Syria in the face of terrorist groups.
We have a number of brothers who are missing – their bodies or their person. Their fate has not yet been decided, and we have not abandoned them and will not abandon them at all.
The topic of the wounded is intertwined with that of the [freed] prisoners. This also takes us to another comprehensive title about those making sacrifices – the resistance that created achievements and victories.
While we are still talking about the prisoners, allow me to address our dear Palestinian people, especially to the prisoners and the families of the prisoners and tell them:
We, the Lebanese, are among many people who are fully aware of your suffering and pain – whether the prisoners in prisons or the families of the prisoners who live in a state of anxiety, anticipation, and a constant longing for their loved ones. This is a consequence of the resistance.
Of course, all the people of our region and nation are called upon to stand by the Palestinian people in their resistance and their uprising, and on the side of the issue of the [freed] prisoners who face many grievances, especially at this stage, with the presence of this savage, extremist group or the most extreme and brutal in the enemy’s government.
This enemy is foolish, as we always say. Heading towards approving the law of executing prisoners is a foolish approach. I consider everything that is happening as an indication of the “Israeli” entity nearing its end. These are indicators of the end of this entity.
This ignorant man [“Israeli” National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir] thinks that threatening those carrying out jihad operations in occupied Palestine with execution should they be captured will deter them from going ahead with the operations and resistance is mistaken. He will only be giving them more impetus.
Perhaps some Mujahideen sometimes hesitate to undertake some operations for fear of being captured, but they do not fear death. I know from our experience in Lebanon. There are Mujahideen who fear being captured. However, if he was certain about being martyred, he has no problem; he will head towards death boldly and courageously.
This law, you foolish Zionists, will strengthen the faith, courage, and impetus of the Palestinian Mujahideen to carry out jihadist operations. It won't deter them at all because what are you actually threatening them with?
Hajj Qassem Soleimani, who was a student at the school of jihad and martyrdom, used to say when he was told that they want to kill you, ‘Where are they? I want to search for them; I am searching, day and night, for my killer.
This has to do with the spiritual aspect, with connection to God, with longing to meet God Almighty.
This is a foolish measure. There is no doubt it is inhumane because here we are talking about resistance fighters who have a righteous cause – the cause of Palestine and the Palestinian people.
We must all express our solidarity with and stand by them during all occasions. We must also look for our responsibility when it comes to the issue of the Palestinian prisoners.
Before I talk about the 1978 invasion, I would like to tell the Palestinian people that we’ve lived through this suffering. We understand the suffering you are undergoing in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Huwara and other towns, Nablus, Jenine, and East Al-Quds and its steadfast neighborhoods, as we have lived through years of occupation, resistance, and confrontation.
Of course, we do not need new evidence regarding the brutality of the Zionists, when we talk about the siege, assaults, killings, and burning of homes and cars in Huwara and the suffering of the Palestinian people, especially these days in the West Bank.
But to the people who are still looking for evidence, the truth, an image, or a scene, we tell them: This is the truth about the settlers and the Zionists. The importance of these people is that they present the picture clearly without hypocrisy, and this is a very important point as well.
As a result of these sacrifices – the sacrifices of the wounded, the prisoners, the martyrs, and their honorable families as well as the sacrifices of the Mujahideen and the people who stood firm, were patient, embraced, and supported – we are where we are today; we possess a deterrent force.
3- The borders:
Here, I delve into the maritime borders. I will mention the Litani Operation and what is happening today on the land border.
A few weeks ago, there have been “Israeli” attempts to expand one, two, and ten meters. If you leave them, they will expand 50 and 100 meters. The meters here are not only meters, but they have value in terms of location because the nature of the land they are trying to expand to is outside the Blue Line.
We saw scenes on television. First, young men and people stood in the face of “Israeli” soldiers and tanks. The soldiers were heavily armed, wearing helmets and shields, while the people were unarmed, with only their fists.
They were standing fearless, without any hesitation, and with boldness and courage, raising their voices and sometimes their fists, until the Lebanese army forces arrived.
The officers and soldiers of the Lebanese army stood at a very short distance and point their weapons in the face of the enemy’s soldiers. The Lebanese army soldiers had their equipment and weapons with them. Tanks stood behind the “Israeli” soldiers, but the Lebanese army did not hesitate.
The Lebanese Army's officers and soldiers performed their responsibilities with all due courage. After the arrival of UNIFIL and several calls, the “Israelis” were forced to return from whence they came. They were not allowed to expand [their control] and occupy these new areas of Lebanese territory.
Let us read this a little. Let the Lebanese people see and read this scene which is repeated almost daily. Could this have happened had it not been for the existence of a real deterrence equation in Lebanon?
From 1948 to 1978 – I will touch upon this shortly – to 1982 and 2000, the “Israelis” made us accustomed to killing, wounding, kidnapping, capturing, bombing, and doing whatever they wanted without fear or deterrence.
However, today and at a short distance of one or two meters, they are faced by civilians and Lebanese army shoulders, shouting at them strongly and vehemently, threatening them, and pointing weapons at them. The “Israelis” were forced to withdraw and did not dare to fire a shot. Why?
Because there is a deterrent equation. Where did this deterrent equation come from? You see it today on the borders. [It is made by] civilians standing on the Blue Line, with the army supporting them and assuming its responsibilities, while the resistance stands behind them. The enemy knows very well that the resistance is surely ever watchful and at a high level of readiness.
This equation that created the state of deterrence is today protecting our borders, land, and waters, and it will later protect our oil and gas rigs, God willing.
Who created this equation? These wounded, prisoners, martyrs, and resistance fighters. Who supported them? Certainly not the United States of America, which cares about “Israel”, supports it, and absolutely stands by it.
We’ve seen the US Secretary of State in the temporary entity in the past few days. Before that, the National Security Adviser, the US Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense were there.
To those who forgot or who are ignoring the facts, what does “Israel” mean to America? We must know what interests America in the region when we formulate equations.
Hence, this deterrent force was created by our people, our men, our women, our children, our wounded, our families, our martyrs, and our Mujahideen. It only received external support from the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria, and this is something that should not be forgotten at all.
We must always remember that this deterrent force that exists today in Lebanon was not really and effectively supported by anyone in this world except Iran and Syria. That is why these two countries are hostile to America, “Israel”, and all of America and “Israel’s” allies.
Let us look at another scene. In 1978, some said 25,000 soldiers and others said 30,000 officers and soldiers invaded the south of the Litani and reached the outskirts of the city of Tyre. The last thing I remember is that they arrived at Al-Bazouriya and Al-Abbasiya and made a decision to take control of south of the Litani.
Within seven days, they seized control of south of the Litani. Seven days in 1978. How many? 25,000 officers and soldiers. Others said 30,000 officers and soldiers. This is an example.
Meanwhile, in the 33-day July war, we were fighting some 10,000-20,000 soldiers on the battlefield. Some 80,000-100,000 officers and soldiers were prepared to follow. This is what they were preparing.
If the incursion succeeded, some 80,000-100,000 officers and soldiers would’ve entered into southern Lebanon in the July 2006 war.
However, despite 33 days of bombing, destruction, and displacement that were supposed to affect the will and determination of the people, they were not able to enter Bint Jbeil, Ayta al-Shaab, and many of our border villages. This was a tremendous development in the ability of the resistance. This explains what is happening today on the land borders.
Regarding our maritime borders, in the last speech I spoke about Karish and extracting oil and gas in a way to remind you of the equation. The reason I spoke was because the “Israelis” on that day actually started extracting oil and gas.
I wanted it to be a reminder because we should always not trust the enemy. Sometimes, we might have information about American and “Israeli” efforts to delay Lebanon, so I wanted to remind them about the equation, not to create a new equation in Karish.
When the [demarcation] agreement was announced, I said that we will not allow the enemy to extract oil and gas if we found out that Lebanon was banned from extracting oil and gas or if the extraction therein was delayed.
The equation will remain. I emphasized on this during the memorial of the martyred leaders. After that, I watched interviews and read articles saying that Sayyed’s speech is an expression of regret, disappointment, or a sense of being deceived. This is not at all true.
All of these analyzes are incorrect. These analyzes are based on what others think, and I will refer to them. we consider the issue of the maritime borders, oil, and gas as follows.
There is a demarcation of the maritime borders, and the Lebanese have the right to extract oil and gas. The Lebanese state has obtained what it wants regarding the maritime border. This is it.
Therefore, I repeat and say: There is no normalization, security guarantees, or security commitments [for “Israel”] in this agreement. The “Israelis” themselves declared this. If there was normalization, security guarantees, security commitments, or recognition of the enemy, the enemy’s then prime minister [Yair] Lapid would have told this to all media outlets in the world.
The ”Israelis” denied this, but there are people in Lebanon who insist on a different story. Some people assumed that when Hezbollah supported the position of the Lebanese state in accepting this agreement, it was seeking American approval or recognition for a political role in Lebanon or, for example, for some kind of American positivity towards the situation in Lebanon.
We weren't and aren’t looking for that. There is nothing in our culture, conscience, insight, or political awareness called seeking American contentment.
I tell you frankly: In any position or action we make, when we feel that there is American approval in it, we question ourselves and our resistance and the validity of our position.
Therefore, all those who analyzed that it was an expression of regret, deceit, and disappointment are mistaken. If there is another party in Lebanon that knows something other than what we all know about the maritime border agreement and the issue of oil and gas, it is their business.
As far as we are concerned, we do not feel deceived and are not disappointed or regret anything. I repeat what we said earlier. [The deal struck regarding the demarcation of the maritime borders] is an important historic achievement, but we said it needs to be followed up on.
I know that the caretaker government is keeping pace with this file, and the Ministry of Energy is also keeping pace with this file because the steps that are being taken so far are serious.
I do not doubt the steps or have any information that cause doubt. However, we must always be reminded of this equation because it is this equation that will maintain this seriousness and that will lead to results.
Brothers and sisters, before moving to the final file, I conclude with the following. Today, whether with regard to the maritime border file or the land border file, Lebanon and the resistance will not be lenient over any inch of land.
Of course, here we are talking about internationally recognized borders before the establishment of the “Israeli” entity. We are talking about borders that were drawn in the twenties and approved by the Lebanese state.
We will not give up one inch or meter or a grain of sand of our lands, including the Shebaa Farms and the Kfarchouba Hills. We must exert efforts to liberate by all means and methods.
As I said, we will not give up a grain of sand from our land or a drop of water from our sea. This is a decisive and firm commitment. What do we pin our hope on? On the equation, the equation of power.
That is why, all those who care about “Israel”, its security, and its privileges and superiority, led by the Americans, want to seize the equation of power from the Lebanese people. In that way, we will have nothing left to defend our waters, land, and soil, as well as Lebanon’s oil, gas, security, and sovereignty.
They have sought over the past 40 years to do so. They’ve always sought to thwart the resistance to the occupation. They’ve always killed men, women, and children and committed massacres in our villages and towns.
The massacre in Maarakah village took place during similar days. People were martyred, including the two dear martyred commanders, Muhammad Saad and Khalil Jaradi.
Our land is full of massacres, blood, sacrifices, martyrs, pain, and destroyed homes. Today, they want to rob us of this power and this ability through assassinations, killing, siege, smearing campaign, manipulating public opinion, starvation, creating living crises, and chaos.
We have never given up, and certainly today, we will not give up. We have options that I talked about in the last speech. It is true that I spoke enthusiastically and passionately, but with a calm heart. I was aware of what I was saying.
My brothers and I know the equation we are drawing. I would like to emphasize on this equation. This is our natural right.
We will not allow anyone to take Lebanon to chaos, ruin, and destruction. We will not allow them to do so. That is why our people have always clung to the resistance and made sacrifices.
The July war was no small feat; it was something big and massive, and the people never abandoned this resistance. In light of the ongoing economic crisis, the people will not give up on the resistance.
I’m telling them simply. Your aspirations will fall flat, and your bets are a failure. The peoples of the region are strong, insightful, and aware enough to know their elements of strength that will preserve their pride, sovereignty, and dignity. Hence, they will not give up the elements of power.
4- The presidency:
Let us talk a little about the presidential file. I'll talk point by point and summarize. I will not list the points in chronological order since there are many points.
Let me start from the beginning. We categorically and certainly want the election of a president. Usually, discussions about people’s intentions take place – there are people who want a presidential vacuum and are happy with a presidential vacuum. They target the top Christian post and the top Maronite post. Extensive analyses are built on this notion.
We seriously want the election of a president, and we are not seeking vacuum. This is our earnest will and the definite national interest because when we elect a president, we will then have a full-fledged government.
There will no longer be a need for constitutional and legal discussions, and the Parliament will work without any hiccups. Things will be sorted out.
The entry point and the key to reconfiguring authority is the election of a president. We are committed to the two-thirds quorum for the election of a president. Why am I saying this?
In Lebanon, when people realize that they are able to collect 65 votes, 70 votes, or more for the candidate they support, they begin to say that the quorum for the second round is 65 votes.
The quorum for the first round is two-thirds, and the quorum for the second round of the presidential vote is two-thirds. However, the difference is that in the first round we have to vote with a two-thirds majority, while in the second round it is sufficient to have 65 votes.
Once in a while, someone says that some people are putting pressure on the speaker of the council and the presidency of the council and saying that the constitution and the law allow the quorum to be 65 votes and not two-thirds in the second round.
We, on the other hand, are committed to the two-thirds quorum in the first and second rounds for the election of the president. Even if the candidate we support gets 65, 70, or 80 votes, we will remain committed to the two-thirds quorum.
We will not say, for example, that the way out of the impasse in the country is to amend the law and make it, through elections, half plus one. The constitution is the constitution, and it cannot have a different form each day.
The next point is that we do not accept that foreign forces impose a president on Lebanon, on Hezbollah, and on the Lebanese people.
It is strange that forces that call themselves sovereign are asking foreign forces to impose a president on the Lebanese people and impose sanctions on people who do not agree to the imposed president. These forces call themselves sovereign.
We do not accept foreign vetoes on any candidate in Lebanon, whether those we support or those nominated by others. This also contradicts with sovereignty.
Some countries that are said to have vetoes on a certain candidate in Lebanon – of course, we did not hear this directly from them, but it is conveyed to us by the forces that call themselves sovereign and rely on the veto of these countries – say that a certain candidate does not stand a chance.
We do not accept that foreign forces impose a president on the Lebanese people. We do not accept foreign vetoes on any candidate, whether we support that candidate or reject him.
We accept [foreign] assistance to reconcile viewpoints. There is no problem. The Lebanese differ when it comes to classifying countries that are our friends. If someone wants to help, let them help; there is no problem with that. But they must not impose. Rather, they should help and bring points of view closer.
As for our friends in the region, they are few – Iran and Syria. I tell you frankly. They did not interfere, and they never will, when it comes to the presidential issue.
They did not interfere in the nomination when we, the allies, sat down to talk and consult with each other to choose a candidate. They did not place a veto on anyone.
During the election process, everyone who spoke with Tehran or Damascus was told to talk to our allies in Lebanon. That is a Lebanese affair. Ask this question to our allies in Lebanon.
We consider this matter done and over. It remains for the rest of the political forces. Will they remain waiting for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, America, and France?
Our political team is not waiting for anyone in the region or in the world. No one interfered with us, and no one asked us for anything, and no one placed a veto on anyone.
Our decision is fully in our own hands; we choose and nominate whoever we want. We are not awaiting foreign forces, and we have always called on the Lebanese not to wait for foreign forces. We are not betting on the regional status quo.
Some are waiting for regional changes and events, as well as regional and international developments and settlements that may take place. We are not waiting for anything.
We work day and night so that the election are held tomorrow, if possible, and we are not betting or waiting on any developments or settlements.
I say to the Lebanese, do not wait for settlements because we are still reading that some are waiting for an Iranian-American settlement.
In the past two days, I’ve read a lot about this issue, and that the Iranian nuclear file contains positive aspects and opens horizons for the visit of the head of the International Energy Agency to Tehran. They linked this issue to the presidency in Lebanon. What does this have to do with that?
For the hundred thousandth time, the Iranian nuclear file has nothing to do with anything else in the region or the presidential elections file in Lebanon.
Whoever is waiting for an Iranian-American settlement, will be waiting 100 years, and whoever is waiting for an Iranian-Saudi settlement will also wait a long time.
The problem here is not a problem of bilateral relations. When they met in Baghdad, they resolve bilateral relations in the first two sessions.
The issue between Saudi Arabia and Iran is related to the regional status quo, especially in Yemen, and the solution is in the hands of the Yemeni leadership in Sanaa. It is not in the hands of Iran, Lebanon, or Hezbollah.
The solution is in the hands of the Yemeni leadership that confronted and bears full historical responsibility, in the face of the aggression and the new occupation.
The American bases that are intended to be established in southern Yemen are similar to those American bases that they established in the east of the Euphrates in Syria.
The issue is in Yemen. It is not in Iran or in Lebanon. Therefore, you are going to wait a long time. We, on the other hand, are not betting on or waiting for any regional developments or settlements. We say: Let us fully give this challenge an internal and national dimension.
On the issue of disrupting the quorum, in the previous elections, we were accused of disrupting the quorum. Let us call things what they are. In the previous election, we were without a president for two and a half years until General Michel Aoun was elected. We, the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, the Free Patriotic Movement bloc, other friends and allies – by the way, Minister Suleiman Franjieh and his deputies were also with us – were disrupting the quorum.
And we used to say: This is our natural right. We were accused of obstruction; they insulted us and debated our constitutionality, etc.
Recently, it is the same thing. Today, we hear clearly and frankly leaders of political parties and parliamentary blocs saying that if we get 65 votes or more during the session, they will choose the candidate supported by our political team. They publicly said that they will disrupt the quorum.
They even used different expressions. Some called the candidate as the candidate of the Axis of Defiance. Some people imagined that if they used the word “defiance” that this will hurt us. On the contrary, this is a word gives us honor.
We are defiant; we are defiant to humiliation; we are defiant to weakness; we are defiant to surrender; we are defiant to giving up our land, water, oil, gas, Islamic and Christian sanctities. Yes, we are defiant and resistant. This is a great honor.
If the candidate was from the Axis of Defiance, we will disrupt the quorum. Other expressions used by people were a Hezbollah candidate, a friend of Hezbollah, close to Hezbollah, a candidate from the March 8 alliance, a candidate of the Shiite duo.
Different expressions were used, but all had the same meaning. They will disrupt the quorum if they consider the candidate close to this large political bloc.
Allow me to comment on this topic. I tell them, first, that it is their natural right to block quorum. Is there more than that? This is a legal and a constitutional right.
We have been saying for a long time that deputies have the right to be present, to be absent, to boycott, and to be elected. Therefore, we have no problem with this issue.
Second, I wonder if what was forbidden in the past has become permissible and even a duty in the present. In other words, it’s a transition from being forbidden to being a duty – an incomprehensible change. Still, there is no problem.
What was forbidden to us, and we were condemned, accused of, and attacked for has become a natural procedure. They are proud that they want to take a step of this kind. There is no problem.
In this case, the Lebanese will have two options. They will continue going to Parliament even if none of them has 65 votes for his candidate and others disrupt the quorum.
It is not shameful to disrupt the quorum. We can do it, and you can disrupt the quorum as well. This means that there will be no quorum. Hence, a president will not be elected. This situation can last for a month, two, three, a year, two years, three, and four years. I am stating this to be transparent and clear with each other.
The second option is for parties to announce their true candidates so no one can hide or maneuvers. The candidates are announced, and we go to Parliament. If the quorum is secured, we vote. If the quorum is not secured, we renew the call for dialogue so we do not fall into the first option.
However, the dialogue is not absolute. It has become understandable. Different political parties support different candidates. So, we appoint delegates to these political forces, and they sit and talk.
There is no other choice but to sit and talk with each other. We may reach a settlement and a solution. This is the only solution; there is no other solution.
We do not have anything called Hezbollah's candidate. To be precise, we do not have such a thing as a Hezbollah’s candidate. Of course, there are some people who insist on saying that so-and-so is Hezbollah's candidate for goals related to the battle. After all, we have enemies and adversaries in the region and internationally. Hence, they say this is Hezbollah's candidate to eliminate him and to make him have more enemies.
What we have is a candidate supported by Hezbollah, and there is a difference between the two terms.
Sometimes you say this is Hezbollah’s candidate, and other times, you say this is a candidate supported by Hezbollah. These are two types of candidates.
There is a natural candidate. In Lebanon, we have something called a natural candidate. There may be several natural candidates, and we may or may not support one.
If a person officially announced his candidacy, whether he is a natural candidate or not, you may support him. We support a candidate, but we do not have one.
Anyway, this same battle was used in the last elections against General Michel Aoun, knowing that he was a candidate of his movement, his parliamentary bloc, and his people.
After a while and due to the pressure of the Free Patriotic Movement cadres at the time, we announced our support for the candidacy of General Aoun.
Since then, they accused the man of being Hezbollah's candidate. So, they fought him in Saudi Arabia, America, the West, and other Gulf countries because he is Hezbollah's candidate.
He was not Hezbollah's candidate, but rather a natural candidate. Among the options presented, Hezbollah chose to support this natural candidate.
Today, it is the same thing. I will say it shortly, we will finish for today.
From the beginning, we wanted to engage in internal dialogue and discussions with our friends and allies. This is normal when we want to support a particular candidate.
We started a dialogue with our allies and the allies of our allies. We reached an internal conclusion. I had a meeting with the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP and friend Gebran Bassil. We sat for a long time until 2:00 am. I will say something because as I have said today, we must move to a new stage.
I informed Minister Bassil of that the characteristics that Hezbollah wants in a president – we talk about them in the media. We are interested in having a president who does not stab the back of the resistance.
We do not want a president who will defend the resistance and protect it. We also do not want to burden him. We just want a president we can trust; a president that is brave and steadfast and does not stab the back of the resistance or sell it. There are examples of such models including, General Aoun, General Lahoud, etc.
Of course, the rest of the characteristics are required, including being able to talk with everyone, being open to everyone, being able to manage a certain level of administration.
After all, he is required to have a vision and a plan to save the country and get it out of what it is in. Well, the entire executive authority is supposed to rescue the country, not only the president. Let us not give the president more responsibilities that do not fall within his powers. Here, we must point out this error.
Look, one of the mistakes that some of our friends and brothers in the Free Patriotic Movement made in the past six years was that they made promises and charged His Excellency the President with them. But it was constitutionally impossible for him to carry them out. This was unfair for President Michel Aoun.
I told him, ‘of all the people we know, there is you and Minister Suleiman Frangieh. Since you are saying you don’t want to run for president and there is no opportunity, naturally our choice is Minister Franjieh. We are talking about facts and not emotions.
It was a very calm and respectful discussion where I mentioned facts, and our discussions were always like this. Of course, Minister Bassil commented and said his opinion. We had a back and forth discussion.
He asked me if we had a plan “B”. I told him that we learned from His Excellency President Michel Aoun not to draw up a plan “B”. This is normal.
If you are negotiating on a candidate and you say you have a plan “B”, this means you’ve abandoned our candidate. Nobody works this way. Even those holding on to their candidate usually remain ready to discuss other options.
In any case, we agreed that it was two in the morning and we must stop. We will continue the discussion later. You think, and we will think. You talk to your brothers, and we will talk to ours. We’ll see and continue the discussion.
In fact, we engaged in discussions. Later, the issue was reported in the media that Hezbollah had a conversation with Minister Suleiman Franjieh. A can of worms was opened. In any case, we will talk about this later.
But we are the ones who called for dialogue and discussions. We had started the discussion and we wanted to continue, and we said that the research is relevant.
In the latest meeting between a delegation from Hezbollah and the leadership of the FPM, we reiterated that we had no problem and we can discuss the names and make a list, including Minister Suleiman Franjieh.
This is normal in any discussion. In any discussion, each person puts the names he wants. However, if I wanted to engage in a discussion and I said that these candidates are non-negotiable, this means that the discussion has become subject to conditions, and this disrupts the dialogue.
Unconditional dialogue is needed. What’s the problem? We put the names we want and all the parliamentary blocs put the names they want. We sit down and discuss, even if a name is absolutely rejected by you or me, but this does not prevent us from putting it on the list that is the subject of discussion.
We would’ve liked to take part in many of the internal discussions, and this is one of the reasons that we put a blank paper in the ballot. We were giving time for internal discussions and dialogue and the possibility of internal consensus.
Another reason is out of respect for the candidate we support. When we’re done with the blank paper, we do not write a name to experiment with, eliminate, maneuver, or barter.
You and the whole of Lebanon have tied us over two and a half years in the last presidential elections. For two and a half years, it was said that we have disrupted the country, the Parliament, etc.
When we made the decision and named a presidential candidate, it was a serious commitment: we did not budge or maneuvered. This is why we chose to put a blank paper. It was not out of fear, shame, or hesitation.
After all the discussions that took place, the positions that were made, and the options that were proposed, some people’s choices have become clear. Meanwhile, others were still unclear as they have not announced a candidate or did not announce support for a candidate.
There are people who are still holding internal discussions like the Free Patriotic Movement. Others are still waiting for external approval, external vetoes. All these affect the course of their vote. There are people who have made up their minds and announced their candidates.
Since we’ve reached this point, it is useful for me to say that it’s become clear. Therefore, we join our vote with that of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.
The candidate we support is not Hezbollah's candidate – just to be precise, so don’t fight him. The natural candidate whom Hezbollah backs in the presidential election and who meets our qualifications is Minister Suleiman Franjieh. Based on this, we can discuss, engage in dialogue, and see what will happen.
A final word, though I intended not to take long, but let us talk for a few minutes because that last part is also useful.
In this final part, I will address our brothers and friends in the Free Patriotic Movement because this is a sensitive moment. When it was officially announced that Hezbollah supports candidacy of Minister Suleiman Franjieh, I would like to say the following briefly:
Since signing the memorandum of understanding [MoU] on February 6, 2006, Hezbollah has been very keen to uphold this accord. I personally was one of the keenest, and I am still. It is true that it is in a critical situation, but this does not mean that we are not keen on it.
We must correct something in our understanding. This includes the cadres and bases of Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement as well as the Lebanese public. This MoU did not turn us into a single party. We remained two parties. It did not make one subservient to the other.
Basically, outside the understanding document, if we disagreed on something, where is the problem?
We are not affiliated with the FPM, nor is the FPM affiliated with us. I will come back later to the terms of the understanding. There are no clauses in the MoU obliging either party to agree with the other on the presidential candidate.
Take a look at the MoU document. There are no clauses obliging us to agree on a president, the speaker of parliament, or the prime minister.
We disagreed on the speaker of parliament. We voted for the speaker of parliament and they abstained. We did not accuse them of betrayal and deceit. This is their natural right because our alliance and understanding does not obligate them to elect the parliament speaker that we want. The MoU does not obligate us to elect a president they want. It does not obligate neither of us to name the same prime minister as well. This has nothing to do with the MoU. Let us not put everything on the MoU.
In the last presidential elections, we did not support the candidacy of General Michel Aoun because a clause in the MoU or the understanding itself said so. I would like to tell the Lebanese that General Michel Aoun did not ask us to support him in the presidential elections.
He did not ask when we met. We took the initiative and told General Michel Aoun that Hezbollah has made the decision to support your candidacy in the upcoming elections.
We did not sign an agreement or a deal, nor did we ask him for anything. We did not put conditions on him, and he did not put conditions on us. The witnesses from both sides are still alive. General Aoun and I were not sitting alone, there were people, dear and honorable brothers from both sides with us.
Hence, our support for General Michel Aoun in the past elections was not due to a clause in the MoU. Rather, it was a different political issue. It had nothing to do with the MoU. The terms of the understanding are clear.
Therefore, today, when we support the candidacy of Minister Suleiman Franjieh, it does not mean that we have left the understanding. There is nothing in the MoU that says we are obligated to choose a president from the FPM or whoever the FPM accepts.
There is no such thing in the understanding. You are free to choose the president you want and support whomever you want. We are free to support whomever we want. You are not stabbing us in the back and I am not stabbing you. You are not betraying me and I am not betraying you. Clear and simple.
In the past, we sometimes had differences in opinion on some issues. Our friends, our brothers in the FPM, some figures attacked Hezbollah in the media, on television, in newspapers, on social media, but we always remained silent.
We also had observations on the FPM’s performance, but we used to say hem in internal meetings, and we still do. When a problem or disagreement arises, such as the last dispute, which is strictly a dispute over the presidential nominations, our friends in the FPM bring up two points and highlight them as a problem for Hezbollah. What are these two points?
1- Building the state: They say Hezbollah signed an understanding with us on the issue of building the state and did not help us.
2- Fighting corruption: Every once in a while, the file is opened. I even discussed this internally and in multiple sessions with Minister Gebran Bassil. Our deputies discussed it with a number of our fellow FPM deputies.
Of course, I will not discuss it now. But no one should think that just because we are not responding to the accusations against us regarding the issues of building the state and fighting corruption, that we accept them.
On the contrary, we have many things to say and remarks on our performance and theirs. But we will discuss them in internal sessions. I am not ready to speak now or later. I don’t know if the day will come.
We are keen on the relationship. When these issues are discussed in the media, it opens the door for debates and for all those who want this relationship to end.
Therefore, no, my brothers, I do not agree at all, and I am known in Hezbollah. If you search in Hezbollah – of course, we are a large party and we have diverse opinions, but we all adhere to one decision – you will find that the person most keen on this relationship and understanding is myself.
I do not agree with any assessment that says that Hezbollah made an alliance and an understanding, the betrayed it or did not implement the terms of the understanding.
We are ready, if the day came and we are forced to speak in the media, to say what we have done in building the state, what you have done, and what we have done together. Same goes to fighting corruption.
However, you cannot keep bringing up these two points in every disagreement over a topic that has nothing to do with the understanding.
I would like to say that we are keen on the understanding. If we disagree on some political stances, even if they are main ones, such as the presidency, we must remain keen on the understanding, friendship, and relationship.
Lebanon is in dire need of expanding friendships and positive relations. It does not need – what some are dragging it into – more enmities and grudges that do not leave a stone unturned. For example, we’d be in a political dispute, then expressions that offend the religion and the sect are used.
No, this country needs pacification, dialogue, and communication, or else we would have to coexist with a presidential vacuum. We do not have any other solution.
As usual, I’ve taken up a lot of your time despite postponing many topics for upcoming meetings.
Along with our wounded and [freed] prisoners as well as our brothers and sisters, and all those who have made sacrifices in our march will remain keen on our country, its security, its dignity, its sovereignty, and its strength. We will also remain keen on taking it to a position of prosperity and getting it out of the state of chaos and collapse and the abyss they want to push it into.
God willing, with our presence, willingness to sacrifice, willingness to face dangers, threats, and conspiracies, and with cooperation, we can achieve all this as long as there are sincere and loyal people among us who are prepared to make sacrifices.
Many Happy Returns to the wounded and the prisoners, and may the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.
