Full text of Sayyed Nasrallah`s Manar TV interview on 31-10-2006
Source: Manar TV, 31-10-2006
Hizbullah Secretary General, his Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah announced that if the Consultative Forum does not lead to a National Unity government, and political forces are forced to take to the streets, and they definitely will, then a unity government will no longer be our only objective, but we will call for early parliamentary elections.
He added that should the ruling powers not agree to early elections, we will seek to bring down the government, set up a transitional government and call for parliamentary elections.
Nasrallah stressed in a dialogue yesterday evening on "Al-Manar" station with colleague Batoul Ayub in "Bain Qaosain" (Between Parentheses) program, that the consultative meeting is a golden opportunity not to be missed to save the country. He explained that as far as we are concerned the zero hour to make moves is on the Monday following the Monday the consultation meetings begin on.
Nasrallah assured everyone there is neither civil war nor religious-sectarian sedition in Lebanon, but pointed out that he only fears the gun-silencers that reached the American embassy.
At the beginning, Sayyed Nasrallah said that "when we talk of the American policy's failure in the region, we are not saying that the American regional project has failed and that "they are packing up to leave" as was the case in their end days in Vietnam. But what I want to say is that I am one of those who see the picture clear. In our childhood we saw the American troops leave Vietnam in helicopters carrying officers and soldiers, while some Vietnamese who fought alongside the Americans were trying to board the aircrafts and instead were thrown to the ground and abandoned.
He added, "This is the scene I anticipate in our region not within months but years, when the Americans will pack up and leave the entire region, they will not have a future in our region at all. They would leave the Middle East, the Arab and Islamic worlds just as they did in Vietnam. By the way, I advise all those gambling on the Americans to learn from Vietnam's experience and that of the South Lebanon Army with the `Israelis`.
I advise them to know that when the Americans lose this battle, and they will God willing, they will abandon them for their fates as they did before with all the others who gambled on them in the world.
Nasrallah said: the United States talks of reforms. What reforms has the ‘majority' team introduced? On the contrary, we are witnessing more corruption and scandals in government administration and state departments. All the United States wanted in Lebanon in the past one and a half years is to tighten its grip, and make achievements linked to the US and "Israeli" interests.
This is why it was always required of this team to tighten its grip on Lebanon through taking control of the presidency of the republic, the heads of the security and military institutions, take control of the Lebanese administration and by ending the state of resistance in Lebanon, a real problem for "Israel" and the American project in Lebanon.
Therefore the Americans provide moral and political support, interfere in every detail, and incite the Lebanese against one another.
But here I want to ask what achievements have been made so far in Lebanon from the continued daily American open backing for PM Fouad Saniora's government?
Nasrallah recalled the political project of the Americans and the ruling group in Lebanon before the July aggression, and said: they were eager to tighten their grip on the administration and to appoint a partisan President of the Republic who will carry out American orders, whereby Feltman meets him every two to three weeks and gives him instructions to abide by as he does with this team, thus providing free services to the "Israeli" side and this is the "Israeli" part of Resolution 1559.
He added: these forces now in government know that they are unable to solve this kind of problems. In fact, their real project was and still is, to bring multinational troops to Lebanon under Chapter VII, a matter they posed and called for at the dialogue table, which is included in the documents they handed out to discuss the defense strategy. Yet, they did not want multinational forces under Chapter VII south of the Litani River, but rather non-UN troops under American, French or other command under chapter VII to be deployed in all of Lebanon, including the border with occupied Palestine, and Syria, additional to the Lebanese territorial waters, ports and airports.
The multinational forces were to become the military and security army to assist ‘February 14' to take control of Lebanon.
Today, I do not want to say everything that happened behind closed doors, but we will leave some doors open. Yet I want to say this, that in the first days of the aggression, we were contacted by the ruling group, who literally told us that this war would be long, and devastating, and said it is "intended on eliminating you" and may destroy the country.
Of course, they were trying to intimidate and frighten us. They said "this war cannot stop unless you accept three conditions, and we urge you to accept these three conditions:
1: Accept the arrival of multinational forces under Chapter VII to be deployed in Lebanon, and not only on the international border with occupied Palestine.
2: Surrender weapons of the resistance in Lebanon.
3: Handover the two Israeli prisoners or release them unconditionally."
"If you do not agree to these conditions then the war will continue, and it will be long, and an international resolution is in order.."Our answer was clearly, that first of all these conditions meant a humiliating surrender, and we are ready to fight until the last drop of blood, final breath, and last bullet.
As of the first day of negotiations between us and the government team in Lebanon, they were telling us we were to bear responsibility for the continuation of the war. They said that to us, and not to Olmert, nor Peretz or Halutz who was bombarding the houses, destroying villages, and killing women and children.
They put responsibility on us because we refused the arrival of multinational forces under Chapter VII to occupy Lebanon and transform Lebanon into a new Afghanistan and a new Iraq. When the aggression failed, they could not bring multinational troops, but accepted a bolstered UNIFIL force, however, in the hope to render the bolstered UNIFIL into a multinational force.
In replying to a question about whether this behavior is still current, he added: "Yes, the project is still on. I remember how when security tensions persisted, how the ruling Party worked on bringing in the FBI, and nearly handed over the Lebanese internal security to the American security services, so much so that they submitted a draft to the Cabinet, which we opposed, stipulating the formation of an Information Office run by Lebanese and American security officers."
He said: "On the military side, the alternative to the Lebanese army were to have multinational forces under Chapter VII, and if there is anything to be concerned about it is in the way the ruling group attempts at gradually working on transforming the UNIFIL into functioning under Chapter VII, to transfer and expand the work and functions of these forces."
He confirmed that one of the reasons for their backing away from this venture was Syria's refusal to such deployment on its border.
He continued "then they brought them into the sea by deceiving the Lebanese and giving in to the `Israeli` side to ease the naval blockade.
"So they brought in the German forces, whereas they still say that there is one item in Taef Agreement remains unimplemented i.e. the disarming and disbanding of militias, an issue they come back to once again through the Security Council's presidential statement.
"We reiterated that it had been implemented and finished with, and what remain are resistance and not militia. But their ambition is to use these forces to disarm the resistance."
Concerning the UNIFIL: "I must reassure that participating States contacted us to obtain guarantees, for which we said we have no objections provided their mission is to achieve security and stability, and not to disarm Hizbullah."
"We are of course in contact with the Commander of UNIFIL and there is follow-up to the work of the UNIFIL forces that have provided us with adequate safeguards. Hence, the composition of the forces is not troubling, and currently we are not worried. Our only concern comes from some Lebanese sides attempting to drag these forces into the Lebanese mud."
He added: "this project is not only the ruling powers' but the demand and wish of the Americans and "Israelis" to have multinational forces to disarm the resistance and allow the ruling powers to resolve its disputes with its opposition."
"We have said to them that any forces of this kind will be considered occupation forces. Hence, there are countries in the world not prepared to send troops under this item. The concern is that this team may work, through exerting pressure and creating tension within the security arena where there are many question marks."
Nasrallah said "who told these great statesmen that political forces will use weapons during demonstrations, prompting them to say that they ‘would not respond to bullets with roses'. Then, you hear talk about a security plan to confront riot with firmness."
"This is a panic-stricken and terrified ruling team, because it is not based on real public backing. It has lost its credibility and it is behaviour has become tense. At that point, and with unfolding dangerous security developments, the Lebanese government will transform function of the UNIFIL forces to that of a multinational force under Chapter VII."
In replying to a question, he said: "the natural approach, in our view, to break the deadlock, is through the national unity government.
"Speaking of a national unity government, we are not talking about calling anyone to account, but we are speaking of difficult times ahead for us as Lebanese. Significant challenges lie ahead at all levels, in view of the tensions and troubling developments coming to the region."
"This requires that all political forces join in shoulder to shoulder and hand in hand to be able to protect, build, shield and strengthen the country."
"What we call for now is unity and reconciliation, not calling to account, punishment or revenge, regardless of who is right and who is not in diagnosing these issues. This is the positive spirit with which we are calling for a national unity government."
"The other team today is faced with two options:
1- To sacrifice Lebanon by subjoining it with regional tensions and developments, only to maintain a monopoly on power;
2- To take advantage of the golden opportunity and cooperate as Lebanese to save our country."
"In light of the difficult circumstances Lebanon faces to meet its dues both internally and externally... Which is the better option? To sit together all of us, shoulder to shoulder in a national unity government or as a group currently enjoying marginal parliamentary majority?"
"When you hear the term ‘majority' what comes to mind is a majority lead of 90% or 70% of seats or a figure near that? But the truth of the matter is that this government has a tiny parliamentary marginal majority, which does not at all represent a popular majority."
"If this majority rules in the name of the people, then let us go back to the people and ask: Do you want this meager parliamentary majority to continue to rule the country alone, manage the country's affairs alone or do you want a national unity government?"
"So far, opinion polls show that the majority of the Lebanese, from 60 to 70% are calling for a national unity government."
"A unity government means the participation of the various core political forces of Lebanon, and this does not only mean the Free Patriotic Movement (FTP), there exists other key political forces in the country, and are supposed to participate in a national unity government, and I do not want to go into names at the moment."
"All political forces must be represented, and there is nothing wrong with `February 14` group to be the majority in government, and for the PM to come from that group. We have neither objection nor an issue for PM Saniora to be the PM of the national unity government. We do not seek accountability; we are saying that there is a difficult situation ahead, so let us cooperate."
"This is with a basic requirement that the various political forces participating in the national unity government, have to feel that their participation is important, in what we call the ‘guarantor third' of the Cabinet.. Any amendment that puts two-thirds plus one lead in the hands of the majority culminates to accomplishing nothing... but only changed decoration."
"We are not in the habit of seeking authority. We participated in this government because Lebanon is going through exceptional circumstances, because the region is in exceptional circumstances, and because this government is subject to taking strategic decisions on the fate and the future of Lebanon."
"Today, we are talking about a government that wants to decide the fate and future of Lebanon, We do not accept to be mere ‘decoration', nor do we accept only a retouch on the ‘decoration.'
Hizbullah Secretary General, his Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah announced that if the Consultative Forum does not lead to a National Unity government, and political forces are forced to take to the streets, and they definitely will, then a unity government will no longer be our only objective, but we will call for early parliamentary elections.
He added that should the ruling powers not agree to early elections, we will seek to bring down the government, set up a transitional government and call for parliamentary elections.
Nasrallah stressed in a dialogue yesterday evening on "Al-Manar" station with colleague Batoul Ayub in "Bain Qaosain" (Between Parentheses) program, that the consultative meeting is a golden opportunity not to be missed to save the country. He explained that as far as we are concerned the zero hour to make moves is on the Monday following the Monday the consultation meetings begin on.
Nasrallah assured everyone there is neither civil war nor religious-sectarian sedition in Lebanon, but pointed out that he only fears the gun-silencers that reached the American embassy.
At the beginning, Sayyed Nasrallah said that "when we talk of the American policy's failure in the region, we are not saying that the American regional project has failed and that "they are packing up to leave" as was the case in their end days in Vietnam. But what I want to say is that I am one of those who see the picture clear. In our childhood we saw the American troops leave Vietnam in helicopters carrying officers and soldiers, while some Vietnamese who fought alongside the Americans were trying to board the aircrafts and instead were thrown to the ground and abandoned.
He added, "This is the scene I anticipate in our region not within months but years, when the Americans will pack up and leave the entire region, they will not have a future in our region at all. They would leave the Middle East, the Arab and Islamic worlds just as they did in Vietnam. By the way, I advise all those gambling on the Americans to learn from Vietnam's experience and that of the South Lebanon Army with the `Israelis`.
I advise them to know that when the Americans lose this battle, and they will God willing, they will abandon them for their fates as they did before with all the others who gambled on them in the world.
Nasrallah said: the United States talks of reforms. What reforms has the ‘majority' team introduced? On the contrary, we are witnessing more corruption and scandals in government administration and state departments. All the United States wanted in Lebanon in the past one and a half years is to tighten its grip, and make achievements linked to the US and "Israeli" interests.
This is why it was always required of this team to tighten its grip on Lebanon through taking control of the presidency of the republic, the heads of the security and military institutions, take control of the Lebanese administration and by ending the state of resistance in Lebanon, a real problem for "Israel" and the American project in Lebanon.
Therefore the Americans provide moral and political support, interfere in every detail, and incite the Lebanese against one another.
But here I want to ask what achievements have been made so far in Lebanon from the continued daily American open backing for PM Fouad Saniora's government?
Nasrallah recalled the political project of the Americans and the ruling group in Lebanon before the July aggression, and said: they were eager to tighten their grip on the administration and to appoint a partisan President of the Republic who will carry out American orders, whereby Feltman meets him every two to three weeks and gives him instructions to abide by as he does with this team, thus providing free services to the "Israeli" side and this is the "Israeli" part of Resolution 1559.
He added: these forces now in government know that they are unable to solve this kind of problems. In fact, their real project was and still is, to bring multinational troops to Lebanon under Chapter VII, a matter they posed and called for at the dialogue table, which is included in the documents they handed out to discuss the defense strategy. Yet, they did not want multinational forces under Chapter VII south of the Litani River, but rather non-UN troops under American, French or other command under chapter VII to be deployed in all of Lebanon, including the border with occupied Palestine, and Syria, additional to the Lebanese territorial waters, ports and airports.
The multinational forces were to become the military and security army to assist ‘February 14' to take control of Lebanon.
Today, I do not want to say everything that happened behind closed doors, but we will leave some doors open. Yet I want to say this, that in the first days of the aggression, we were contacted by the ruling group, who literally told us that this war would be long, and devastating, and said it is "intended on eliminating you" and may destroy the country.
Of course, they were trying to intimidate and frighten us. They said "this war cannot stop unless you accept three conditions, and we urge you to accept these three conditions:
1: Accept the arrival of multinational forces under Chapter VII to be deployed in Lebanon, and not only on the international border with occupied Palestine.
2: Surrender weapons of the resistance in Lebanon.
3: Handover the two Israeli prisoners or release them unconditionally."
"If you do not agree to these conditions then the war will continue, and it will be long, and an international resolution is in order.."Our answer was clearly, that first of all these conditions meant a humiliating surrender, and we are ready to fight until the last drop of blood, final breath, and last bullet.
As of the first day of negotiations between us and the government team in Lebanon, they were telling us we were to bear responsibility for the continuation of the war. They said that to us, and not to Olmert, nor Peretz or Halutz who was bombarding the houses, destroying villages, and killing women and children.
They put responsibility on us because we refused the arrival of multinational forces under Chapter VII to occupy Lebanon and transform Lebanon into a new Afghanistan and a new Iraq. When the aggression failed, they could not bring multinational troops, but accepted a bolstered UNIFIL force, however, in the hope to render the bolstered UNIFIL into a multinational force.
In replying to a question about whether this behavior is still current, he added: "Yes, the project is still on. I remember how when security tensions persisted, how the ruling Party worked on bringing in the FBI, and nearly handed over the Lebanese internal security to the American security services, so much so that they submitted a draft to the Cabinet, which we opposed, stipulating the formation of an Information Office run by Lebanese and American security officers."
He said: "On the military side, the alternative to the Lebanese army were to have multinational forces under Chapter VII, and if there is anything to be concerned about it is in the way the ruling group attempts at gradually working on transforming the UNIFIL into functioning under Chapter VII, to transfer and expand the work and functions of these forces."
He confirmed that one of the reasons for their backing away from this venture was Syria's refusal to such deployment on its border.
He continued "then they brought them into the sea by deceiving the Lebanese and giving in to the `Israeli` side to ease the naval blockade.
"So they brought in the German forces, whereas they still say that there is one item in Taef Agreement remains unimplemented i.e. the disarming and disbanding of militias, an issue they come back to once again through the Security Council's presidential statement.
"We reiterated that it had been implemented and finished with, and what remain are resistance and not militia. But their ambition is to use these forces to disarm the resistance."
Concerning the UNIFIL: "I must reassure that participating States contacted us to obtain guarantees, for which we said we have no objections provided their mission is to achieve security and stability, and not to disarm Hizbullah."
"We are of course in contact with the Commander of UNIFIL and there is follow-up to the work of the UNIFIL forces that have provided us with adequate safeguards. Hence, the composition of the forces is not troubling, and currently we are not worried. Our only concern comes from some Lebanese sides attempting to drag these forces into the Lebanese mud."
He added: "this project is not only the ruling powers' but the demand and wish of the Americans and "Israelis" to have multinational forces to disarm the resistance and allow the ruling powers to resolve its disputes with its opposition."
"We have said to them that any forces of this kind will be considered occupation forces. Hence, there are countries in the world not prepared to send troops under this item. The concern is that this team may work, through exerting pressure and creating tension within the security arena where there are many question marks."
Nasrallah said "who told these great statesmen that political forces will use weapons during demonstrations, prompting them to say that they ‘would not respond to bullets with roses'. Then, you hear talk about a security plan to confront riot with firmness."
"This is a panic-stricken and terrified ruling team, because it is not based on real public backing. It has lost its credibility and it is behaviour has become tense. At that point, and with unfolding dangerous security developments, the Lebanese government will transform function of the UNIFIL forces to that of a multinational force under Chapter VII."
In replying to a question, he said: "the natural approach, in our view, to break the deadlock, is through the national unity government.
"Speaking of a national unity government, we are not talking about calling anyone to account, but we are speaking of difficult times ahead for us as Lebanese. Significant challenges lie ahead at all levels, in view of the tensions and troubling developments coming to the region."
"This requires that all political forces join in shoulder to shoulder and hand in hand to be able to protect, build, shield and strengthen the country."
"What we call for now is unity and reconciliation, not calling to account, punishment or revenge, regardless of who is right and who is not in diagnosing these issues. This is the positive spirit with which we are calling for a national unity government."
"The other team today is faced with two options:
1- To sacrifice Lebanon by subjoining it with regional tensions and developments, only to maintain a monopoly on power;
2- To take advantage of the golden opportunity and cooperate as Lebanese to save our country."
"In light of the difficult circumstances Lebanon faces to meet its dues both internally and externally... Which is the better option? To sit together all of us, shoulder to shoulder in a national unity government or as a group currently enjoying marginal parliamentary majority?"
"When you hear the term ‘majority' what comes to mind is a majority lead of 90% or 70% of seats or a figure near that? But the truth of the matter is that this government has a tiny parliamentary marginal majority, which does not at all represent a popular majority."
"If this majority rules in the name of the people, then let us go back to the people and ask: Do you want this meager parliamentary majority to continue to rule the country alone, manage the country's affairs alone or do you want a national unity government?"
"So far, opinion polls show that the majority of the Lebanese, from 60 to 70% are calling for a national unity government."
"A unity government means the participation of the various core political forces of Lebanon, and this does not only mean the Free Patriotic Movement (FTP), there exists other key political forces in the country, and are supposed to participate in a national unity government, and I do not want to go into names at the moment."
"All political forces must be represented, and there is nothing wrong with `February 14` group to be the majority in government, and for the PM to come from that group. We have neither objection nor an issue for PM Saniora to be the PM of the national unity government. We do not seek accountability; we are saying that there is a difficult situation ahead, so let us cooperate."
"This is with a basic requirement that the various political forces participating in the national unity government, have to feel that their participation is important, in what we call the ‘guarantor third' of the Cabinet.. Any amendment that puts two-thirds plus one lead in the hands of the majority culminates to accomplishing nothing... but only changed decoration."
"We are not in the habit of seeking authority. We participated in this government because Lebanon is going through exceptional circumstances, because the region is in exceptional circumstances, and because this government is subject to taking strategic decisions on the fate and the future of Lebanon."
"Today, we are talking about a government that wants to decide the fate and future of Lebanon, We do not accept to be mere ‘decoration', nor do we accept only a retouch on the ‘decoration.'
