Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech Marking 17 Years Since the Start of the July War
Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations
Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah marking the 17 years since the start of the July war | 12-7-2023
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.
Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you all.
Allah Almighty says in His glorious book: {In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. And We have already sent messengers before you to their peoples, and they came to them with clear evidences; then We took retribution from those who committed crimes, and incumbent upon Us was support of the believers. Allah, the Most High, the Great, has spoken the truth.}
Before I start my address, it is my duty, even if it is late, to greet you on the great and glorious holidays, including the blessed Eid al-Adha and the blessed Eid al-Ghadeer, and the safe and victorious return of the pilgrims of the Sacred House of Allah. We ask God Almighty to accept their pilgrimage and pursuit.
In my speech tonight, I will talk about the occasion and then Jenin. I will say a few words about the situation at the southern border with occupied Palestine and a few words about the internal political situation.
1- But before I start with these sections, I would like to talk a little about the burning the Quran in Sweden because it is a dangerous, painful, very bad, and deplorable incident.
It must be denounced and condemned by every free and honorable person in this world, and condemnation must be expressed in all legitimate forms, as is already happening. I want to briefly point out two issues.
When someone burns the Holy Quran or insults the Messenger of Islam, Muhammad, whether through movies or some caricatures in newspapers, one feels that there is some kind of a conspiracy.
I mean, it is not a personal matter for these people or a matter related to freedom of expression.
Details about the recent incident confirm that the person who burned the Quran in Sweden, who is an Iraqi Christian – we stress on Christian and I will return to this – has ties with the “Israeli” Mossad. This increases the level of suspicion.
Choosing a Christian person to burn a book belonging to the Muslims – the Holy Quran – is not a personal matter, a personal grudge, or a personal initiative. Someone is behind this.
When we discover this criminal's relationship with the Mossad, we understand that there is a satanic Zionist mind plotting to cause conflict between Muslims and Christians.
They know that Muslims will not remain silent about the harm to a great sanctum such as the Holy Quran. When a Christian person assaults the Quran, then some Muslims will react by taking action against the Christians or against Christian sanctities and symbols. This Zionist satanic mind is seeking to sow discord between Muslims and Christians in more than one place in the world. We must all be aware of this.
Here, I want to talk about two matters.
i- The first issue is paying attention to sedition. Of course, the Pope, on behalf of the Vatican, and major Christian churches in the world, in the West and East and in the Arab and Islamic countries [condemned the act].
Of course, the number of statements issued by the Christian churches in Iraq was remarkable because this person is Iraqi. He is an Iraqi Christian. It was feared, for example, that some suspicious people or some enthusiasts would attack Christian sanctities in Iraq. Thank God, it did not happen.
The denunciation of this this crime by churches and senior Christian clergy was very important and contributed greatly to preventing sedition. We must pay attention to this.
If this incident happens again, we must condemn it in a legitimate way. However, we must not be drawn into sedition. Muslims and Christians must cooperate in preventing harm to the sanctities, and they must also cooperate in not being drawn into sedition.
When someone attacks the Holy Quran, we should not hold Christians or Christian sanctities and symbols responsible. Our opponent is the one who committed the crime and those supporting him and allowing him to do so.
ii- The second issue: Unlike in previous incidents, following the most recent burning of the Qur’an, we witnessed a relatively advanced position in the Arab and Islamic worlds, both at the level of the state and the people.
It is usual to see demonstrations in more than one Arab country, including Yemen and Iraq, and in more than one Islamic country, including Iran, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
But what was remarkable was that there was an advanced position, be it from Arab countries or Islamic countries, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
This relatively advanced position, even though it did not live up to the aspirations of our Arab and Islamic people, made the West pay attention.
This prompted the European Union and the US State Department to issue statements. This did not happen before. The Swedish government and its Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement and retracted their position. This did not happen before. Last time they insisted on their position, because such an incident had happened before.
The solution is actually here. The people should pressure governments in the Arab and Islamic world to take a tougher stance. These Western countries do not care about sanctities, symbols, honors, or values. Day after day, this issue is being proven. Most of these Western governments worship money.
Hence, the Islamic and Arab countries threatening to sever relations with Sweden and similar countries is what makes these people tremble, fear, and withdraw because something they consider essential was threatened.
Of course, we should not be satisfied with what has happened so far. On the contrary, we must call on states and governments in the Arab and Islamic world to continue working with international institutions, the European Union, and other countries to block all these forms of violations of dignity, religious values, and religious sanctities.
There is no doubt that President Putin's stance regarding this issue was remarkable. Russia's stance was remarkable, and I think that this also contributed to embarrassing the West and forced them to adopt their position.
2- Let us return to our occasion, the anniversary of the July 2006 war. This Zionist aggression was a war in the full sense of the word and not only an aggression or a large-scale military operation. The “Israelis” later classified it and called it the second war, the Second Lebanon War.
This is a very important, very dangerous, and a very big incident in the history of Lebanon and the region. It’s also a fateful incident because it determined the fate of Lebanon and the region in recent years and will continue to do so in the future.
It is enough to recall the great and dangerous American project. One of the main means to achieve it was through this war. This project was the New Middle East project.
Let us remember the New Middle East, so that the generations that came after the war know what would have happened if this project succeeded. The Americans were in the region, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and along the borders of Syria, threatening everyone.
Had it succeeded, all countries in the region would’ve recognized “Israel” as an entity and a state, Palestine and the rights of the Palestinian people would’ve been lost, the Golan Heights and what remains of Lebanon under occupation would’ve been lost, and “Israel” would’ve been consecrated as as a superpower in the region under absolute American hegemony. All this would have happened if the war – i.e., the July war – succeeded.
All the political and military leaders of the enemy admitted that it failed. No one in the enemy’s entity, since 2006, has said that they won the July war. The Americans as well admitted its failure – we’ll come back to this later.
The “Israelis” admitted the failure of that war, at the level of their objectives, at the level of managing the battle politically, militarily, on the ground, and on the home front, and at the level of military and field performance.
The Winograd Commission was also formed [to make inquiries about the war]. It issued harsh sentences against “Israeli” political and military leaders. The Americans also admitted its failure. However, there are some people in Lebanon who still do not admit that “Israel” was defeated. This is not a problem. We are not concerned about this.
What is important is what the enemy says. The “Israelis” are unanimous that what happened in July 2006 is a failure and a defeat for “Israel”. The Americans, too, admitted to its failure. I am talking about the Americans who were in the administration at that time.
You can go back to the archives and see statements from many American officials who were in the administration at that time.
They were planning this project in the area, especially the neo-conservatives at the time. They acknowledged the failure of the “Israeli” army in defeating Hezbollah in 2006.
This failure prevented the United States from achieving the political goals of the war in Lebanon and the region, because this issue was not only related to Lebanon.
On the other hand, the war was meant to crush the resistance in Lebanon. This was a declared objective. The issue was not just killing some leaders, entering some villages and cities, or disarming [the resistance], etc. It was more than that. It was crushing the resistance in Lebanon and subjugating Lebanon to conform to “Israeli” and American conditions regarding the expected composition of the region. However, the resistance triumphed and was not crushed. Lebanon stood firm and did not submit to either “Israeli” or American conditions. Rather, this victory established a strong and great balance of deterrence to protect Lebanon and is still in place for 17 years.
Today, the most important thing that we have achieved other than the anniversary of the July war is this achievement – the balance of deterrence, the deterrence force, and the existing deterrence equation.
It is increasing in effectiveness and strength, while the enemy's deterrent power is eroding as “Israeli” officials, politicians, and military men, whether they are in the government or in the opposition, agree on.
There is a consensus today among the enemy entity and senior officials – from the president of the state to the prime minister to the ministers as well as the current and former military leaders – and the media admitting that their deterrence is eroding not only towards Lebanon, but towards Gaza, the West Bank, and Jenin.
Eid was a few days ago. Of course, there was nothing in the field, but the media, some people with bad intentions, and others with good intentions [knowingly or not] help amplify an atmosphere giving the impression that the south or [villages in] the southern border are preparing for a confrontation, a fight, or a war.
You know that during Eid, the country comes to a standstill. There was Arafa, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. People only went back to their jobs on Monday. Yet, despite that atmosphere, people went to their villages.
But what concerns me in the south is that even the villages in the border area, which were said to be tense, were full of people, villagers, visitors, and tourists. There was calm. People performed Eid prayers. Restaurants and children's amusement parks were packed.
There was a sense of security, tranquility, peace, reassurance, and safety. What made this possible? The people’s confidence in the deterrence force made this possible. Otherwise, people would not have gone to the south to stay in their border villages and celebrate Eid with their families.
This expresses confidence. Despite this atmosphere and the tension that is being spread, the people had confidence in the effectiveness of the existing deterrence. On the other hand, for example, there was a state of terror in the other side. The “Israelis” help intimidate and terrify their people.
We have a saying: thank God, He made our enemies foolish. They are basically helping spread terror. Much of the terror and fear affecting the residents in the settlements in the north of occupied Palestine and at the borders is caused by the “Israeli” media.
The “Israelis” exaggerate things. They say they are waging psychological warfare against us and our people, but in fact, they are doing it to their people.
A couple of days ago, I think there was a wedding in a border village. Residents there set off firecrackers, which led to a state of alert in the North [of occupied Palestine]. Some settlers took refuge in shelters or safe rooms. Meanwhile, on our side there was no such thing. This is the result of confidence.
What is also important is that this great strategic historical achievement was preserved for 17 years. Most importantly, it was developed, strengthened, and magnified through the development of the capabilities of the resistance. After the July war, the “Israeli” enemy was always seeking by all means – security and economic means, financial blockade, pressure, resorting to the OFAC – in cooperation with the Americans to prevent the resistance in Lebanon from strengthening.
However, its strength has grown despite all the “Israeli” and American conspiracies in the region, despite the preoccupation of the resistance with the crisis in Syria and confronting the Takfiri wave, and despite the political distress in Lebanon. The resistance developed, advanced, and grew. It strengthened its deterrence force with the “Israeli” enemy that it has become a given now.
The most important thing is that the enemy recognizes it and acts based on it. Our people believe in this equation and base their celebrations and movements on it.
Achieving something is important, but maintaining the achievement and developing it is a more difficult task. On the 17th anniversary of the start of the “Israeli” aggression against Lebanon, we say: This achievement has been preserved, praise be to God, despite all the difficulties and threats. Rather, it was developed and strengthened in order to establish the formula for protecting Lebanon, which is achieved through the strength of the resistance and through the tripartite equation of the army, the people, and the resistance.
3- On the other hand, the “Israeli” enemy admits to the erosion of deterrence, as I said, with Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. The “Israelis” always seek to restore this image and change this equation. They tried a while ago in the last aggression on Gaza and in the last battle on Jenin and failed.
Imagine, for example, in Jenin, the aggression was against the city and the camp, but it mainly focused on the camp. It was a small camp, and “Israel” sent thousands of soldiers and officers from the elite forces, tanks, drones, helicopters, the Shin Bet, and the army. For what?
The great goal was to restore deterrence, to restore the image of strength and victory. However, they did not achieve this in the battle of Jenin. The complete opposite happened.
Many of the supposed detailed objectives of this operation were not achieved. This is thanks to what? It is thanks to the steadfastness of the people of the camp and the city as well as the steadfastness, valor, courage, and faith of the fighters, the Mujahideen, and the heroes who did not submit and surrender. They preferred death over submission and surrender. So, God Almighty defended and protected them. This is the truth.
The evidence of the failure of the aggression on Jenin, which sits in the heart of the entity and is besieged from all sides, is the continuation of the Palestinian resistance operations simultaneously with the aggression on Jenin. After Jenin, there were daily operations in the West Bank.
The goal of the aggression on Jenin was to deter the Palestinians and make them understand that continuing to resist is very costly. However, the resistance carried on, implying that that the goal has failed.
There were confrontations in Nablus and Tulkarem as well as operations in al-Quds [Jerusalem], on this occasion, one must express reverence, respect, and great appreciation for the mothers and fathers of the martyrs, the incubating environment, and the Mujahideen and resistance fighters for their patience and steadfastness. We saw this in all the cities of the West Bank, and we have always seen it in Gaza in the face of all the wars waged against Gaza.
In spite of what is happening to the Palestinians in the West Bank, in Gaza, at home and abroad, a few days ago an opinion poll was published showing that two-thirds of the Palestinians in the West Bank believe that not only the West Bank will be liberated, but that this entity will disappear in the short term. This is of great value. This gives very high hopes and prospects for continuing the resistance.
This goes without saying that there will be sacrifices. Houses will be demolished, martyrs will fall, people will be wounded. There will be pain. This is normal because this is a battle, a fight with a usurper, an occupier, and a criminal and brutal enemy. It is natural that there will be sacrifices.
The lesson is not to submit and surrender before this enemy, and the accumulation of efforts is what will lead to victory and thus to liberation, God willing.
I would like to conclude with the part of the speech that is related to the occasion by saying: Thanks to these sacrifices in the July war, great achievements were made, the foremost and most important of which was thwarting America’s New Middle East project in the region. This, of course, put the “Israeli” enemy and entity on the path of descent and decline.
In failure and defeat, people blame each other. The people losing confidence in the political and the military leaderships, in the soldiers, commanders, and officers, and in the army, all lead to weakness, flabbiness, discord, and internal dispute.
As I used to say: The 2000 victory ended the project of Greater “Israel”, and the liberation of Gaza confirmed this matter, and the 2006 [victory] ended the project of Greater “Israel”, which remains behind the borders but is a frightening and terrifying force in the region. This too has fallen.
The other achievement, as we mentioned, is the strengthening and stabilizing of the balance of deterrence protecting Lebanon.
Today, after 17 years of aggression, arrogance, and tyranny practiced by the “Israeli” enemy, with an American decision, support, and protection in 2006, where is this entity and its army? What is the future of this entity? They say it's in the wind.
This is all I’ll say about that and leave the rest of the talk about the resistance fighters, martyrs, political steadfastness, sacrifices, and the rest of the achievements for August 14, God willing.
I would like to point out a moral issue, and I would like to stress this moral issue for the supporters of the resistance. In 2000, we said that victory is for all the Lebanese people, the Lebanese state with all its institutions, and all factions of the resistance.
We thanked everyone and the people that embraced and supported the resistance. We are not claiming any achievement for ourselves, our party, our group, or our sect, given the sectarian affiliation and sectarian composition in Lebanon. We have never done that.
We always used to say: We do not want gratitude, reward, praise, poems, or anything from anyone. We are thankful to those who are showing gratitude, praise, or appreciation. However, we did not ask for that, and it does not bother us if no one did so.
On the other hand, we do not ask anyone for their gratitude or the Lebanese for gratitude because we protected you, defended you, and liberated you.
I always used to say: We did our duty, and we are still doing our religious, humanitarian, moral, and patriotic duty towards our people and our country.
Why am saying this and repeating it? Because when people quarrel with each other on social media or in some television interviews, people resort to this discourse. Some supporters of the resistance resort to this language as well – we did this, we defended you, we liberated you, etc.
I think this is inappropriate and is inconsistent with our moral commitment, and I must emphasize this moral commitment. Everything we have done in the past decades is for the sake of God and to be close to Him. This is our duty towards our country, our people, our nation, and our sanctities.
As a matter of fact, who owes us gratitude? Those who were our partners? Basically, the people were a big part of the endurance, the sacrifice, the embrace, the support, the insistence on continuing this path until this achievement was fulfilled.
4- We move on to the second topic: the situation at the southern border with occupied Palestine, the town of Ghajar, the tents, the Shebaa Farms, and the borders. What is the truth? What is the reality? Where are we going? It is clear that these topics have been preoccupying the country for the past few weeks.
I would like to mention that after 2006, the incident that took place today is under investigation. I am waiting for the brothers to send me what exactly happened on the border? Because it seems that there has been more than one incident.
I would like to mention that since 2006, the Lebanese army has been deployed in the border area and at the borders, and UNIFIL forces have also been reinforced. They were 5,000, now they’re 15,000. It was said that it is the responsibility of the army, in cooperation with UNIFIL, to confront the “Israeli” violations in Lebanon.
It is assumed that the “Israeli” enemy, according to Resolution 1701, must not violate or attack Lebanon’s land, sea, or airspace. Of course, the Lebanese army has been carrying out its responsibility since 2006. The political leadership did not ask it to engage in combat. Sometimes, it was on alert or fired shots, but often the matter is confronted by bringing in UNIFIL and the United Nations to mediate. Sometimes, the breach would end and sometimes it wouldn’t.
However, the “Israeli” enemy continued with these violations. Our role was only to monitor. If people were required to help with something, they would help. If we were required to help, we would help. But this matter was and still is the responsibility of the state and the army, along with UNIFIL.
The people help, and the resistance monitors and offering assistance if necessary. This has been happening since 2006 and since Resolution 1701 has been issued.
Of course, the “Israelis” have been breaching the sea on a daily basis. They’ve committed many airspace violations for years until after the drones incident that were sent to Beirut’s southern suburb [Dahiyeh]. We decided to activate the air defense system. The drones were almost completely gone; I do not want to say that there are definitively no more drone attacks in the south and the Beqaa. There is only Beirut left due to the sensitivity of aviation and the airport.
The “Israelis” admit that they have become restricted in Lebanon’s skies, yet they still violate the Lebanese airspace and sometimes bomb and attack Syria from the Lebanese airspace.
There are also almost daily attacks on land. They breach the Blue Line and the borders, cut down trees, expanding several meters towards the barbed wire, etc.
Thousands of violations have been going on since 2006. Everything is documented by the army, the state, UNIFIL, and the UN. Of course, no one lifted a finger.
Recently, starting from last year, the “Israelis” began building a fence in the northern part of the town of Ghajar before the two tents were erected. Of course, the northern part of the town of Ghajar is internationally recognized as Lebanese territory. It is not like the Shebaa Farms, where the Lebanese state claims it is Lebanese land and the United Nations is confused whether it is Syrian or Lebanese. Some Lebanese are still discussing this issue.
The United Nations recognizes that the northern part of the town of Ghajar is Lebanese, and it extended the line. It is clear. The “Israelis” recognized this issue after 2000 and after 2006. But on the ground, they act differently.
Since last year, the “Israelis” began extending barbed wires, little by little. The army sought to stop the issue, but it could not. The United Nations did nothing. The “Israelis” recently completed the fence, built the wall, and removed the barriers between the Lebanese part and the occupied Syrian part [we do not recognize this an “Israeli” part].
On the contrary, they turned it into a tourist area. Last year, 200,000 to 250,000 tourists came, according to what I read in the “Israeli” media. They came to visit Ghajar amid United Nations and international silence. This is occupied Lebanese land, and this was before the tents were erected.
That is why some people say: You set up tents, that’s why the “Israelis” annexed Ghajar. These people do not follow up. We can say that they are ignorant. This matter does not concern them at all.
No, the tents were erected when the “Israelis” were done, but it became clear in recent days that they annexed it and finished with all the procedures.
What is the value of the tents? The tents shed the spotlight on the whole situation on the border. Why? Because now there is something harming the “Israeli” interest. When “Israel’s” interests are being harmed, of course, the United Nations will move. The Americans, the Western countries, and the international community will raise the issue. Some Lebanese will also raise the issue, in one way or another, through their media outlets and political stances. What do we want?
There is a problem that needs to be solved. There is a 17-years-old problem that has not been solved yet. It should be addressed the same way the maritime border demarcation issue was. How long has Lebanon been working to demarcate the maritime borders? They did not listen to Lebanon. One year, two, three years. How many negotiations did it hold with the Americans, the UN, etc.?
But when it was time for the “Israelis” to extract oil and gas from Karish, and the resistance threatened to strike the ship that docked there [all the while, the resistance enjoyed official and popular support for its position], the whole world intervened. The Americans and [Amos] Hochstein came, and things became what they are today.
Today, there is a tent. The truth is, there are not two tents. There is a tent on Lebanese territory that is not subject to discussion. The second tent is behind the withdrawal line in the Shebaa Farms area, which Lebanon considers Lebanese. The state regards it as Lebanese, and we set up our tent. Basically, the dispute is over one tent, not two.
We set up our tent on Lebanese territory. What is the problem? The “Israelis” consider the Shebaa Farms to be “Israeli” territory. They consider that they have annexed this land, mountains, and hills in the Shebaa Farms and the Kfarushba Hills. They consider them theirs. They unilaterally set a withdrawal line and consider that any transgression against the withdrawal line is an assault on “Israeli” sovereignty.
This is the “Israeli” discourse. When we set up a tent in the Shebaa Farms, we are putting up a tent on Lebanese territory. Regardless of what we set up – a tent or a tower – or build – a villa or an airport, it does not concern them. This is Lebanese territory. We did nothing of this except set up a tent.
The “Israelis” objected and started issuing threats. Mediations began. Here comes the value of the deterrence balance that I am talking about. If the “Israelis” were the same old “Israelis” – the invincible army – and if Lebanon was the same Lebanon that could be occupied with a marching band and whose gendarmes in the border villages could be arrested by the “Israelis”, the “Israelis” could’ve easily and simply hit the tent with two missiles or send a drone or hit it with air strikes.
The tent would not have been set up in the first place if it was the same old “Israel” and the same Lebanon. But the situation has changed.
That is why the “Israelis” did not dare to make a field step towards the tent. Why? Because they simply know that this will not be tolerated, and I am telling you that this will not be tolerated, for sure it will not be tolerated.
The men know and were given instructions. They know what to do should the tent be targeted.
Because they [the “Israelis”] understand, they resorted to mediations by the UN, the Americans, the Europeans. [Sometimes one must admit that his enemy comprehends, while sometimes they are foolish.] There is talk that they are talking with the Lebanese state. Hence, this topic has now become a hot topic. In light of this reality, I will mention several points briefly.
The first point: With regards to the communications currently happening, some politicians and media personnel and people on social media confuse things. They say that this will open the door for border demarcation.
First of all, there is no such thing as the delineation of land borders. The land border between Lebanon and occupied Palestine has been drawn, defined, and identified since the 1920s, before the establishment of this usurping entity in 1948.
These borders were demarcated in the 1920s – 1923. This is different from the maritime border demarcation. The maritime borders were not delineated, but now they are. But on land, the borders are drawn and clear, and Lebanon knows its borders. There are three points related to the land border.
1- There are a number of points starting from B1 in Naqoura reaching to the Ghajar area. There are points where the “Israelis” are still present and have not withdrawn from, but they must. This is Lebanese territory. Of course, we did not carry out operations to get them out of it because we considered this the responsibility of the state. It must make all efforts to get the “Israelis” out of these points. We see that they do not want to leave. It’s been 23 years (from 2000), and they have not left yet. There 12 or 13 points they say they’ve agreed to end their occupation of, but the “Israelis” did not implement yet.
2- The town of Ghajar has now been completely occupied again by the “Israelis” even though the borders are drawn. This land is Lebanese, and Lebanon has documents. This issue is different from the Shebaa Farms. This reality needs to be addressed. This is a point.
Therefore, what is happening now is not a demarcation of the land borders for us to engage in discussion of jurisdiction and rights. On the contrary, you heard the Parliament Speaker, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They all said that there are points that belong to Lebanon, and we call on the international community to pressure the enemy to withdraw from them and return them to Lebanon. There is basically no negotiations on the border. Rest assured regarding this point.
The town of Ghajar is Lebanese territory. The “Israelis” occupied it once again, fenced it, built a wall, and implemented their laws on it. This means that if the residents on the Lebanese part of the town want to construct a building, they must obtain a permit from the “Israelis”. The provisions and laws of the entity are applicable to the Lebanese part of the town of Ghajar. Sovereignty is indivisible.
Here, we issued a statement that it is the responsibility of the state, the Lebanese people, the political forces, as well as the resistance. Some political forces that are not our allies [we may oppose them in politics] have expressed a clear position. Yet, many of the forces that call themselves sovereign have not uttered a word.
We are disputing the Shebaa Farms whether they are Syrian or Lebanese. But when it comes to Ghajar, the international community, the United Nations, and UNIFIL are telling you it is Lebanese territory. Yet, we only hear deafening silence.
In any case, I do not like to delve into this discussion, but this adds to all the behavior and political performance of some of those who call themselves sovereign forces.
We must not tolerate what is happening with town of Ghajar under any circumstances. In the past, the Lebanese state may have been a little soft or complacent, taking into consideration the humanitarian situation of the residents of the town. However, the Lebanese stance on Ghajar must be decisive. These are Lebanese homes on Lebanese territory. It must be returned to Lebanon unconditionally, and work must be done to liberate it. It is the responsibility of the state, the people, and the resistance.
The efforts of the state and the resistance will be integrated. Each person must do his job and not cancel the other. You saw what we achieved when we cooperated, agreed, and integrated with regard to oil and gas and the delineation of maritime borders. Some brothers have a remark on the word “integration”. I agree with it.
Also today, with integration and cooperation between the state and the resistance, and with the support of the Lebanese people and the political forces in Lebanon, we can regain our occupied land in the town of Ghajar.
Of course, each person performs his role and responsibility in the appropriate and harmonious manner. This matter will be achieved sooner or later, God willing.
I tell you today on this anniversary, this land will not be abandoned. Ghajar will not be left to the “Israelis”, just as the Shebaa Farms and the Kfar Shuba Hills will certainly not be abandoned. However, there is an additional incentive here which is there is no debate whether this land is Lebanese or not.
In any case, I want to conclude talking about field developments to start with the political developments. It is true that the “Israelis” have an erosion in deterrence, but they do not have an erosion in insolence. This enemy is very insolent. For example, communication with the international community is being made claiming that Lebanon is breaching Resolution 1701. Meanwhile, it [“Israel”] is not ashamed of the thousands of clear and documented violations it has committed.
Let us assume Lebanon committed a couple of violations. I call on UNIFIL to tell the Lebanese people and the world about the “Israeli” violations on land, air, and sea from 2006 until today and the alleged Lebanese violations that do not exist. If they do exist, they are a small number.
The “Israelis” have the right to do whatever they want. As I said a while ago, they consider the air defense of the resistance, which prevents the drones from roaming the south and the Beqaa mainly, a provocation.
Basically, they have the right to attack our country and infiltrate our airspace and our sovereignty, but if we defend ourselves and prevent them from attacking us, it is a provocation. They did the same thing with the Syrian air defense missile that entered the airspace of occupied Palestine and reached the Negev.
They issued a statement calling it a Syrian provocation and aggression at a time when they are attacking the Syrians, and the Syrian Air Defense is defending its country, its land, and its sovereignty, and offering its officers and soldiers as martyrs. This is insolence.
It turns out that everything they have done since 2006, including the aggression, is nothing. They killed and injured people. They confiscated lands like Ghajar. But then, they make a big deal when the resistance or Hezbollah set up a tent on the Shebaa Farms.
Now, you know the value of the tent. To start this discussion. We have a goal. We will pursue whatever serves this goal, God willing.
3- The domestic political affair: There are several points here.
1- A few weeks before the last session to elect the president started, a topic was discussed a lot in articles, in television interviews, and on social media. This indicates that somewhere there is someone giving instructions. This is not a coincidence. What is the topic?
The topic is accusing the Shiite duo, the national duo – call it what you want – of using its candidate as a bargaining chip. It is being accused of pushing towards vacuum and the collapse of state institutions because it wants to reconsider the system, the composition of the state, and the sectarian quotas, to make a constitutional amendment, and to cancel the parity in favor of the tripartite, etc.
They write about what we allegedly discuss and think. All of which do not exist. We read these articles for fun and to benefit. They give us new ideas we have not thought of.
In the past few week, Amal and Hezbollah officials, including Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri himself, explained, clarified, and denied this matter.
Yet, they carried on. We told them this is not true. This is a lie and baseless. Yet, they kept accusing us of wanting a tripartite power-sharing, of changing the constitution, of changing the composition of the country and the system, and to abolish the Taif Accord.
First of all, this is not true. Let me say that this is an intentional lie. Secondly, this is misleading. This is meant to mislead the Lebanese public opinion. Thirdly, this is an intentional lie and deception because it is aimed at creating a sectarian atmosphere in Lebanon.
Let us speak transparently. The sect in Lebanon that benefited the most from the Taif Accords and achieved a great gains is the honorable Sunni sect. The Taif Accord also allowed the Christians to preserve parity.
Hence, when they tell the Sunnis and the Christians that the Shiites want to amend the Taif Accord, change the composition of the system, and cancel the parity, it is all lies, slander, and incitement.
What is the purpose of this? To cause a tense atmosphere, to create a sectarian atmosphere in the country. Who will benefit from this sectarian atmosphere? Is this looking after the Lebanese interest? Is this how you address the crisis in Lebanon while the problem and the presidential elections are carrying on?
I wanted to add my voice to yours and say that this is basically baseless. Give me someone who said we want a ripartite power-sharing or we want to change the composition of the state. You can check the internet or the television who is threatening to change the composition of the country.
Those who call themselves sovereign powers are the ones talking about change and federalism. They are the ones talking about division, not us. We did not mention this topic.
At the beginning of the Arab Spring, peoples rose and held constituent assemblies. I spoke and called for a constituent assembly based on the Taif Accord. I suggested that we implement what was not implemented, fill in the gaps, and develop the shortcomings. People objected. Correct or not?
Hence, I withdrew tactically. Few do that. I said that you misunderstood us, forgive us, and ignore the idea. Until now, they still say that called for a constituent assembly. We stopped and withdrew. We asked for forgiveness too. What more do you want?
We’ve said enough regarding this point. I would like to tell the Lebanese people of all sects that we do not want to amend the Taif Accord. They are accusing the Shiite duo, sometimes Hezbollah, of wanting to use its surplus power, its weapons, and its resistance to impose a political structure and political choices on the Lebanese people. We have never done that.
We’ve never done that in the past 40 years. Now, I’m telling you. We do not do that and will not do that. The resistance and its weapons are there to defend and protect Lebanon, the sanctities, and the Lebanese people. They are not used to impose political choices on the Lebanese.
Let me be clear and frank. This happened a while back. We cannot allow anyone to attack these weapons because it is used to protect Lebanon. Attacking the weapons of the resistance is doing “Israel” a great favor. Basically, this is an “Israeli” demand that they’ve been working on day and night and fabricated wars, aggression, sieges, and conspiracies to achieve it.
We do not want to amend the system, the constitution, or the Taif Accord. Whether you want to implement the Taif Accord or develop it, we are with you. What do you want, we are ready. We do not have a demand that we are fighting for or want to impose on others.
2- They also accused Hezbollah of wanting something in return. They keep assuming that in return for not supporting the candidacy of Minister Suleiman Franjieh, Hezbollah wants a price.
They started wrong; what did they say? They said Hezbollah wants to obtain legislation legalizing its weapons.
Firstly, we did not ask for this. Secondly, it did not occur to us. Thirdly, we did not ask for anything like this. Fourthly, this is not in Lebanon’s interest, nor is it a national interest.
Some people who wrote articles compared us to Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces. The PMF is an official military and security institution. Therefore, the Iraqi government bears responsibility of everything this institution does before neighboring countries and the world.
Is this in Lebanon's interest? Based on 40 years of experience, it is in the interest of Lebanon for the resistance to have this margin – for the state and the government not to bear responsibility for this resistance and the presence of its weapon.
Therefore, this is not something we are demanding, and if it is offered to us, we will not accept it.
3- Hezbollah is being accused of wanting constitutional guarantees and written guarantees. In fact, I am talking and feeling bored. For that I did not speak all that time. What will I talk about? Dialogue, dialogue, and dialogue.
I will answer this point precisely. It is true that constitutional guarantees are important and written guarantees are important, but we did not ask for anything of this, and I do not know what they are talking about. What does constitutional guarantees and written guarantees mean?
We respect this, but the real guarantee that we look forward to and demand is the president as a person. We want someone whose mindset, will, courage, commitment, and metal we are familiar with. That person represents the guarantee. Clearly.
We are an eastern country. This is how we do things in the East. The state, system, constitutions, and institutions are all important, but the person is the basis. For us, the person is the basis.
We are prepared to engage in discussions with you. We are not asking for anything else. We, the duo, demand nothing else. This is what we are looking for when electing a president.
We were not the ones who offered a settlement between the president and the prime minister. We discussed with each other. It was offered to us, but we are not the ones who presented it. Our concern is the election of a president. Why am I saying this is a guarantee?
In short, I go back to the July War. In the July War, there was a political division in the country. I do not want to open old files, but as a reminder, there was a sharp political division. There was the March 8 and March 14.
We all know what the nature of the situation was like and what the majority of the government was like. Our ministers were in the government. We, the Amal Movement, and some friends were fighting within the government. The Parliament Speaker also fought from his position. However, there was a very important guarantee in the government called the President of the Republic.
At the head of the table was Lebanese President General Emile Lahoud. This should not be forgotten. I always mention this when talking about the July War. At the head of the table was a President who was fighting. You even saw him on TV how he was arguing with some ministers who wanted us to surrender. I do not want to open old files, I cannot bear to open these old files and I cannot bear this painful memory during those days and what was happening within the Lebanese government. All this is documented. President Lahoud was the guarantee.
Later, in the issue of electing President Michel Aoun, I mentioned that we do not want gratitude from anyone. Basically, General Michel Aoun did not ask us to elect him. As a result of our relationship and understanding and the position of the General and the FPM in the July war, we took the initiative and told General Aoun that you are a natural candidate and we will elect you.
We didn't make a deal. An understanding is general talk and clauses, and each one of us interprets it as he wants. We did not tell General Aoun that we will elect you as president, but we must agree from now on who will be the army commander, the governor of the central bank, the government, the prime minister, the ministries, the public policies. Never.
The man is still alive, may God prolong his life, and the brothers who were present. We never asked for anything, not in foreign policy, nor in economic and financial policies. There are people in Lebanon who consider this simplicity on the part of Hezbollah. It’s fine, we are simple people, and we do not set conditions.
Why did we take this position? Because we had confidence in him personally. I called him a mountain, and I still think he is a mountain as a result of our confidence in him. We knew that this man will not betray us, will not stab us in the back, will not abandon the resistance, and that we are safe.
Everything else is subject to state institutions and constitutional mechanisms, including the election of a prime minister, the electoral law, the formation of a government, quotas among ministries. All these have clear mechanisms. We trusted this man as a person. He’s brave, solid, does not betray, does not stab you in the back. That’s it.
Therefore, over the past six years, we felt that the back of the resistance was secure and would not be stabbed. I am not complementing anyone. I am stating the facts. The resistance’s back is safe because there is a president in Baabda who would not stab its back if the Americans, the Europeans, and the “Israelis” issued threats.
For six years, His Excellency President Michel Aoun did not stab the back of the resistance. Even though we disagreed on internal issue, with regard to the state, the assessment of political forces, that’s another research. I am talking about the issue of the resistance.
When we supported a natural candidate, Minister Suleiman Franjieh was one of four top Maronite leaders. When there was dispute and the country remained disrupted for two and a half years, these four were always urged to sit down and agree. One of them was Minister Suleiman Franjieh.
Hence, Suleiman Franjieh is not an emergency or a strange figure. He is one of the top Maronite leaders in the country. He is a natural candidate. That is our view.
Although we started dialogue with our friend Gebran Bassil, but we are not the ones who stopped it. We told them that we need to research it more, but the brothers in the FPM had a sharp and harsh stance. Basically, we did not support Suleiman Franjieh before communicating with the FPM and the rest. We were not the ones to make it public.
We were still communicating, talking, and debating. It is true that he was our choice, but we did not nominate him for people to say that we are imposing a president on the Christians in Lebanon. This is not true.
We engaged in several discussions, and we’d put a white paper as Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said to open doors of dialogue with each other to reach a solution.
In any case, this is when it comes to Minister Suleiman Franjieh. None of the duo sat with Minister Franjieh and told him that if he becomes president, we want so-and-so to be army commander or governor, we want those ministries and these laws. This never happened.
What concerns us regarding the presidential file is that the duo and many others believe that Minister Suleiman Franjieh is an honest, courageous, faithful, and strong man who will not betray or sell the resistance. He also possesses other qualities that qualifies him to be a President.
I am not saying that these qualities alone are sufficient. But they are what we are looking for. You can bring someone with good managerial skills, smart, an economist, a strategist, a politician, a philosopher, and a genius, but he may not be strong.
I repeat and say that we are a large segment of the Lebanese people. Don’t we have the right to add conditions to the qualities of the president? It is a natural right. You have the right to put the qualities that you want, and we have the right to set the qualities and adhere to them.
So, to answer to this point, we are not looking for constitutional guarantees or written guarantees. When we supported this nomination, we were completely in harmony with ourselves.
We were also in harmony when we elected General Michel Aoun and General Emile Lahoud and when we extended General Emile Lahoud’s term. I tell you frankly, at some point, we were not accurate. The country was on the brink of civil war. A president, who described the army-people-resistance equation as a wooden equation, was elected following Lahoud and before Aoun. But we are completely in tune with ourselves now. This is how we view the matter.
4- Dialogue: We repeat our call for dialog. Of course, there are people who do not want to engage in dialogue from the beginning. There are people who want a dialog with conditions. This is no longer a dialogue.
We repeat the call for dialog. 12 sessions have so far been held in parliament and we have not reached a result and will not reach a result. We are calling for dialog so we can reach a solution. Yet, some people see the repeated call for dialog as a trap, a coup, a game. Say that you don't want dialogue.
When you agree to a dialogue but according to conditions, this is not dialogue anymore. Dialogue happens without conditions. It is true that we – the duo and our allies – will come to the dialogue table with a single name, Suleiman Franjieh, but we will engage in discussions. We will see the names you have. If they are similar to the names we’ve seen so far, we’ll talk about them and about guarantees. We will discuss. You might convince us, or we may convince you.
However, discussions without Suleiman Franjieh, discussions with preconditions, or us abandoning our candidate is not dialogue. This is one side wanting to impose their opinions on the other.
The duo has talked a lot already. Our brothers are obligated to attend weekly meetings and appearances. They do not give television interviews. They keep talking about politics. However, when they reach the dialogue file, I asked my brothers to ease up on it because they’ve exhausted the topic and the people are tired of hearing about it. We’ve made our position clear about dialogue. People who want to engage in dialogue, this is the way. There is no other solution except to sit and agree.
There is no other solution. No one forces the other. Have we tried to sit and end engage in dialogue and failed? Some will say that we will fail. Let us try.
In any case, I'm not saying that we don't want dialogue, but the situation is well known. When there is a readiness for dialogue in the country, consider us ready to take part in it without restriction and conditions at any time and in any place. We have no problem with this issue.
Of course, there has been a development that the head of the Free Patriotic Movement Mr. Gebran Bassil announced yesterday. I also confirm that we are back and talking; we are for dialogue, bilateral dialogue, tripartite dialogue, collective dialogue, because there is no other solution than this.
In the end, we and the FPM will sit down, discuss, understand, and take our time. It is not necessary for someone to oblige the other to get an answer from him or to reach a conclusion quickly.
In any case, the whole country is in a state of waiting, and this is the only natural and logical movement that can be taken domestically. At the international level, let us see what Mr. Le Drian will bring with him to Lebanon. Then, we will talk.
Here, I want to conclude with something. I would like to tell the Lebanese the following:
To the Muslims and Christians, we must benefit from everything that happens in the region around us and learn lessons from. We must take lessons from what happened to us in Lebanon during the civil war, before it, and after it. Neither federalism nor partition is the solution.
I heard people on television speaking correctly that partition is a project for civil wars. Later, in every province in this partition, who will guarantee that there will be democracy, freedom, respect for human rights and the other’s opinion?
Anyways, this country’s future, destiny, and condition for its existence and survival is its unity, the state, state institutions, dialogue between the Lebanese, the Lebanese recognizing each other, the Lebanese respecting each other, and the Lebanese sitting down and reassuring each other.
For our part, we do not want to weaken anyone, diminish anyone, take from anyone’s share, and attack anyone. On the contrary, you have witnessed during all these years how we remained patient despite being attacked just for the sake of the country. Whoever wants to take the country into a civil war is committing a grave crime, and the political results will be much worse.
Today, it is true that there are many problems, many shortcomings, and many flaws, but the only solution to address these shortcomings and flaws is for people to talk to each other, come to terms with each other, concede to each other, and reach a result.
We are open when it comes to domestic matters. Some people follow us because of the resistance’s weapon. If this is the condition, the there is a problem. When it comes to resistance, it is true, we’ve agreed to discuss defensive strategies. But these calls against the resistances weapon and that it is, in fact, a priority for the Lebanese people…
Many of these politicians and media outlets are speaking wrong. These are guided article writers and websites. There are opinion polls conducted before the elections by centers that have nothing to do with us. We were able to obtain the results that were not published in the media. They went to all Lebanese district and asked the Lebanese of all sects and regions about their priorities.
Their priority was the living, economic, and financial situation. Then, corruption, and so on. Then you find 1% whose priority is the resistance’s weapon because they had to ask about the resistance and its weapon. But to reach the resistance’s weapon, there ten or eight more things on the priority list!
Those politicians are talking about their concerns and projects that the Americans and others want. I will not say more than this. Put the issue of the resistance aside. Do not be confused. We won’t use the force of the Resistance or its weapon to impose any political choice inside the country.
Let me tell you something. One of the things that caused the FPM to be upset with us was following the May 7, [2008 clashes]. When the Arab delegation came, we told it to tell the government to back down from its decision regarding the resistance telecommunication system. The airport was a secondary thing. Some FPM cadres reproached us and attacked us and wanted us to impose General Michel Aoun as president.
Today, I want to reveal a secret. This happened when all the delegations were in Doha. General Michel Aoun was in Doha. Our brother Hajj Abu Hassan Raad and the delegation with him were in Doha. I sent a written letter to General Michel Aoun through the brothers, and General Michel Aoun was the one who told the FPM to stop asking us about this matter.
Simply, this issue has nothing to do with political choices. We do not want a political gains. We do not want to impose a president on anyone. We were serious about electing General Aoun, and we stayed with him for two and a half years, obstructing the elections. This is true, but we did not accept to include the election of General Michel Aoun as president at the Doha Conference because it is a different matter. We took up arms to protect the resistance, not to impose a president.
I repeat, we do not want to impose a president, change the composition of the system, the constitution, or the Taif Accord, or force any political option on anyone in Lebanon, regardless of the force we have or may have in the future. We choose to participate. And understanding and cooperation, because Lebanon can only exist in this way.
Our option is to take part, understand, and cooperate because Lebanon can only exist in this way.
May God protect Lebanon and all of you. God willing, in the coming days, the days of Muharram, we will talk. We will talk more on August 14, the day of the divine, historical, and strategic victory, God willing.
May the peace, blessings, and mercy of God be upon you.
Comments
