16-02-2009

The "Loyalty to the Martyred Leaders" Festival

The following is the full text of the speech his eminence, the Secretary General of Hizbullah Sayyed Nasrallah gave via a large screen during a ceremony Hizbullah organized in Sayyed al-Shouhadaa complex at the southern suburb of Beirut during the ‘loyalty to the martyred leaders' festival:

"At the outset, I welcome you all to the ceremony in honor of the martyred leaders, for the annual commemoration of Sheikh of the martyrs Sheikh Ragheb Harb, leader of martyrs Sayyed Abbas Moussawi and Commander Imad Moghnieh.
This event is blessed and imbued with kindness this year as it coincides, in both timing and essence with the 40th day commemoration of the martyrdom of Lord of martyrs-grandson of the Prophet-Imam Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein (p).

Through this dear commemoration of that great day we recommit to the true meaning of the 40th Day the journey that followed the martyrdom on the 10th day of Muharram (the day Imam Hussain [p] was martyred), a journey of firmness when the captured remaining women and orphaned children, lead by Zainab (p) along with Zain El Abidin, on a long and painful journey, yet also a long journey of constancy, patience, steadfastness, will and determination, who spoke the truth in front of an unjust Sultan, whatever the risks and threats, regardless of lies in wait.

The trip that began on the 40th-Day is about the voice reverberating with the truth that needs to be spoken after each blood, after each hand that is ready to fight, the trip of consolidation and confirmation of the cause, to clarify and identify injustice, to motivate the nation and reveal falsehood, to topple wrongfulness and spread the beams of light released by the blessed blood of all those who fell in battle.

That is why history has remembered great words from the 40th Day commemoration, great words of thought, belief, culture and passion, fortitude and courage, enthusiasm, determination and insistence on the stand, whatever the difficulties.

From the blessings of this occasion, I want to call to mind two stands, before I enter the subject of our talk today about the martyred leaders, the resistance, Palestine and Lebanon.

I recall two stands, one, when the captives were taken to the ruler of al-Kufah, Ibn Ziyaad, who, typical of all enemies, wanted to gloat in front of martyr's relatives.
He looked at Zainab (p) and said "Have you seen what God made of your brother?" This woman who lost her brothers, her Imam and leader, her sons, nephews and cousins, all in one day, within a few short hours, endured all the pain of captivity and oppression.
What does the world expect to hear such a woman say in such a situation?

Zainab (p) stood and said "I see only beauty."

This is the culture of martyrdom, these martyrs did not die, these martyrs passed through martyrdom to eternal life, to bliss and contentment, glory, peace and security.
"I saw only beauty, these are a people fated by God to be killed, hence they emerged to their destined abodes, as for you, you shall be judged and quarreled with when you are faced with them on the Day of Resurrection.
When these come out to their fates by their own will and choosing to pass through to their eternal rest-predestined by God to reach glory, honor and pride, their blessed blood is a life path to the mission and the nation until Day of Resurrection."

In that consul another person on that day threatened to kill Zain al-Abedin, because of what the Imam uttered in that congregation, when eternal words continue to be repeated as uttered by the Imam, the stand you have all heard repeated last year and I will repeat it again today: "Is it death you threaten us O son of the debased when death to us is tradition and martyrdom is the dignity God bestowed upon us."

I say this today while I stand between the hands of Sayyed Abbas, Haj Imad and Sheikh Ragheb and every martyr; I reiterate it between the hands of our martyred men, women and children.

It is natural for us to offer martyrs because "...death to us is tradition and martyrdom is the dignity God bestowed upon us" thus the martyr leader Sheikh Raghib Harb was there from the initial ignition of the path; he gave his blood at that stage as a major title to signify the complete integration and surging of the people and weapons from household oil, to stones and sticks, sit-ins and steadfastness, through his famous line "the stand is a weapon" alongside other weapons used in battle...

After 1982, it was the martyr leader Sayyed Abbas al-Musawi, his wife and child, who symbolized the title of resistance consolidation, as a course, culture, structure and organization, as well as an organized school and presence in the field, that is capable of evolving...then the Jihad commander, martyr haj Imad Mughniyah who was a title of the evolution of the resistance in quality and quantity, culture and presence, planning and organization, who made developments in every area.

It is with pride and honour that we owe our allegiance, blood, fervor, enthusiasm and culture to the grand martyrs who fell in Karbalaa, thus consolidate the battles of Badr and Khaybar, it is through them that our resistance and procession embarked and gave as it gives martyrs.

Today we meet on the commemoration day of the martyr leaders, first to express our respect, appreciation and pay homage to the sacrifices they have made for Lebanon, all of Lebanon, and for the whole nation.

The blood of these martyrs did not liberate any Lebanese territory or homes from occupation for a particular confession only or for the opposition or the loyalists. The blood of these persons returned the people of Marjayoun to Marjayoun, and the people of Hasbayya to Hasbayya, the people of the Shibaa to Shibaa and those of Bint Jbeil to Bint Jbeil... the people of each and every village in the South and Western Bekaa to their villages, homes and fields dignified, respected and without favor from anyone.

What the martyred leaders whom we commemorate today, gave the nation through the resistance battle with the "Israeli" enemy, the overall outcome of the conflict with the "Israeli" enemy and its implications on the conflict in Palestine and the region, is only a most recent example upon this path; today we owe them the stand of appreciation, respect and of honor.

Second, we owe them the expression of commitment and insistence on their path and choice.

There is a disagreement in Lebanon over the major political options, this disagreement is not new nor is it unusual, and it has existed for a long time. Even after the year 1982, faced with the broad "Israeli" assault, there were still disputes over the major political issues, particularly with regard to the characterization of "Israel", the understanding of the "Israeli" project, and how to deal with this project.

So let us talk about facts rather than philosophy or intellectual luxury, to describe external facts that influence our lives in Lebanon, and the nation.

There was more than one view and one choice in Lebanon, a predicament that also extends outside Lebanon, providing more than one choice, view and more than one proposal for how to deal with the biggest calamity that hit our region over the last 60 years, the disaster of the establishment of the State of "Israel" on Palestinian land.

In the end there are three options: the first of which, is in fact not an option, which is to recognize the enemy, surrender to it, collaborate and integrate with and melt in the enemy.

Perhaps this was an option for some groups, forces or personalities, but in Lebanon, Palestine or anywhere in the Arab world that was not the popular or official option.

But, aren't Arab collaborators in Lebanon, Palestine and the rest of the Arab world?!
Aren't there groups who have acted as collaborator-cells and formations for "Israel"?!
This is not political imaginings but such phenomenon has existed and still does.
So let us rule out this option.

If we are to look at governments and peoples, we can say that practically there are two options:
- One option, they call the ‘settlement' option. And I will be very tactful with my expressions here, because my concern is to clarify the concept rather than hurt anyone's feelings.
So what does ‘the settlement option' mean? It means for us to give the enemy concessions in return for some of what it usurped from us. We give them settlements on territory, al-Quds (Jerusalem), refugees, water resources and security in return for a piece of land and the return of some of the refugees here and there, or something of that sort.
This is the settlement option. In practice, this option during all the past experience with the "Israeli" enemy has failed.
- There is another option that says ‘No', and that ‘that is an usurper enemy, an occupier and aggressor that committed war crimes, established itself on the massacres and killing of women, eviscerated pregnant mothers and slaughtered children, and therefore we have no settlements for such an enemy, nor awards or remunerations, on the contrary it has to return the rights to the original owners, willingly or by force.
This is the second option.

To return to the evaluation of the first option, we find that the Arabs have offered concessions throughout the entire course; in contrast, what were the "Israelis" doing? They were going for more wars, more assassinations, more murder, more settlements and the imposition of additional conditions.
Can anyone say otherwise?
This is the reality.

To quickly list events since 1978, when the final touches to the Camp David Accord were made, in March of that very same year the enemy launched the ‘Litani Operation'.

This was their response to Camp David, an attack on Lebanon, unfortunately many forget. I wish to remind everyone that huge massacres were committed in the Litani Operation of 1978; one of them was the Abbasiyah massacre, when dozens were killed in the town's mosque.

After '78 came ‘82 which was called the ‘Peace Initiative'; during the reign of King Fahd at that time, the Arabs were making preparations for approving the peace initiative, and in fact they did approve it in the Fez Summit in 1982.

During preparations for the Fez summit and the Arab approval, the largest "Israeli" invasion of Lebanon was carried out in 1982, the invasion that was later renamed, after the recent 2006 war, as ‘the first Lebanon war'.

The Arabs went to Madrid in 1991, only a few years later "Israel" assassinated Sayyed Abbas al-Musawi, and in 1993 "Israel" carried out the aggression against Lebanon.

Oslo agreement was signed in ‘93, again "Israel's" response was more assassinations and killings against the Palestinian uprising leadership of the different factions, all the way through to the "Israeli" ‘Operation Grapes of Wrath' in April 1996.

Victory came year 2000.

Yet in 2002 the Arabs from Beirut, the capital of Lebanon and the resistance, the capital that had achieved the first historic Arab victory against "Israel", launched the Arab peace initiative, and within a few days only - not even months or years - "Israel" invaded the West Bank in the ‘Defensive Shield' assault.

President Yasser Arafat was besieged in his headquarters in Ramallah, and the Jenin massacre was committed in the Jenin refugee camp.

Then they launched the July 2006 aggression against Lebanon, after which instead of the Arabs moving to support the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, they raised their voices calling for support for presenting the peace initiative, which for years had remained without an "Israeli" response.

The first response came from Sharon that that initiative was not worth the ink it was written with.

The second response was the invasion of the West Bank.

In spite of this, the Arabs insisted on emphasizing the Arab peace initiative, hence came the 2008 war on Gaza.

Considering this evidence, I am not talking here about history of long ago, but contemporary history with contemporary examples, where so long as the Arabs make concessions the "Israelis" increased their arrogance, insolence, corruption, murder, assassinations and denial of previous agreements, and showed added greed for our land, sacred sites, waters and riches.

Isn't this the fact of the matter?

I tell you, exaggerated Arab insistence has of course been the case up until the Kuwait Arab Summit (the Kuwait Summit gave a good signal that this initiative will not stay on the table for long), and the "Israeli" response to all that insistence had gone in a trend of more extremism and intransigence, as proved by the results of the most recent "Israeli" elections.

So speaking at the nation's level and faced with this reality, what is the Arab answer?
What about at the Lebanese level, what is the Lebanese answer to the "Israeli" elections results?

What is the Arab response to the kind of parties and personalities that were elected into power in "Israel"?

Is the response more concessions, more awards and more appeasement, or should we instead embrace and strengthen the resistance, or even, and to be more pragmatic here, benefit from the resistance strength in any settlement or negotiations, even if we (the resistance) do not believe in the settlements course.

But to them we say, let's view the situation.

You have a force called the resistance in Lebanon, the resistance in Palestine, Why do you squander your own resistance for free?

Why don't you benefit from these elements of power in the course you believe (settlement option), when we believe it to be wrong?

Because, here brothers and sisters, I also say to you this very legitimate question:
If we make all the required concessions and acquiesce to "Israel's" current terms, would this achieve real peace in the region?

Does this mean "Israel" will stop killings, assassinations, corruption and interference in the affairs of others?

Does this mean "Israel" will not come back later to demand for more of our water when the world is on the verge of a water crisis and market opening, when the world is suffering from a stifling financial crisis, etc...?

The day will come after the alleged peace, when millions more of world Jews will gather and "Israel" begins to demand for additional territory because Palestine becomes too small for the current population then.

Who can give guarantees against this?

We facing a vicious and greedy enemy, constantly demanding for more and from here on the Day of the martyr-leaders, I look to all for an answer to this question.

Of course, from our side, we must highlight the serious consequences of the "Israeli" elections, but will not place people under any illusions or fears.

Frankly speaking, contemporary history also supports the conclusion, that there is no difference between these "Israeli" parties, furthermore, the ("Israeli") "Labour" Party is worse than "Kadima" and not the opposite, Kadima is worse than Likud and the "Likud" is worse than "Israel is Our Home" (Yisrael Beiteinu)!
Why?

Because the further you go to the right towards extremism and intransigence, the less you find "Israeli" lies and deception, and less "Israeli" disregard for Arab minds.
History is also a witness to that most of the wars "Israel" launched against the Arabs, were launched by Labor Party Governments.

There is no difference among "Israeli" parties.

They may differ in their internal, socio-economic or cultural agenda, but as far as "Israel" and the Zionist project, the stance on the Palestinian and Arab peoples' rights, the brutal, racial and savage assaults, they are all killers of children and perpetrators of massacres.

On one hand, what difference does it make if Labor, Likud or Kadima or Lieberman party came to power?! On the other hand, yes the positive aspect of the elections results is that "Israel's" position is clearer.

The second matter I must point out here is that there should not fear regarding the newly elected leadership in "Israel", because they've all been tried.

Dear brothers and sisters,
...though some may try to frighten us of them, and I tell you they have all being defeated in Lebanon, from Begin, to Sharon, Rabin, Barak, Netanyahu, Olmert through to Livni, there remains one they have not tried yet, that is Lieberman, and what can he do?!

Since the Lebanese resistance - the resistance in Lebanon with all its various trends and factions, especially the Islamic Resistance - joined the battle field and the conflict, "Israel" faced nothing but defeats in Lebanon, from 1984, ‘85, ‘93, ‘96, 2000 and 2006.

It is why I therefore tell you not to be afraid of these, not because they are not egregious, but because you are strong, because you are able to defeat these murderers and criminals.

Look brothers and sisters,

...after the July assault, the "Israelis" carried out an investigation and formed the Winograd Committee.

Some of that, which the entire "Israeli" generals and political brass came to agree on at the time, is the following:
- ‘That the Air Force alone cannot resolve the battle, and to resolve any battle, a violent, heavy and rapid ground assault is inevitably necessary to achieve an absolute, decisive and clear resolution.' This is according Barak, Ashkenazi, Livni and Olmert.

Here, I wish to show you that "Israel" is not strong as it once was in the past, and that we are not weak as we had once been, if it is true that we were once weak.

So, they arrived at that conclusion.

In actual fact and in the July war, the "Israeli" naval force was forced out of the equation, after the quality resistance operation which target "Sa'ar" navy ship in Beirut's offing, and the naval force remained outside the equation throughout the war.

The "Israelis" at the time said that the Air Force alone is not enough, and that they will depend on ground forces in any future confrontation, and later spoke of plots and plans of destruction.

Do you remember the days when the "Israeli" War Minister spoke of ‘5 Army divisions,' and how ‘they will be brought into South Lebanon to occupy villages, towns and cities, to eliminate Hizbullah and the resistance of all factions,' and that this was ‘a clear doubtless matter, to be carried out in a rapid military operation.'

Some commented on those statements by saying ‘yes, "Israel" benefited from its lessons, trained and equipped itself, carried out maneuvers and armed itself, developed its army, and has been doing for over two years.'

The Gaza experience came and the legendry and heroic stance of steadfastness by the resistance in Gaza, by the Gazan people and their political leadership, as well as all the leaderships, mujahidin and militants in the field.
This experience gave an excellent quality addition to the July war.

What is this addition?

Look at the "Israelis" who went to Gaza and repeated the same errors as those in Lebanon. 7 to 8 days of aerial bombardment, again believing that the air force can resolve the battle! ... And I say to you, the air force cannot resolve any battle, in the presence of a courageous political leadership and a patient people, yet, yes it can against a feeble and defeated political leadership.

Generally speaking, in any part of the world, in the case of an impatient people, the air force can resolve the battle easily, however, with resistance on the varying political, military and popular fronts I say no, the air force is not capable of resolving any battle.

The air force in Gaza continued its bombardment campaign for 7 to 8 days, without yielding results, and then they went to the 2nd phase calling it ‘the Ground Phase'.

The Ground Phase
They went to the open plains, where no one expects the Palestinian resistance to fight in a desert in open plains, where the enemy has the edge, while the resistance was in their fortifications in cities, towns and urban frontiers, yet confrontations occurred in more than one location.

The third phase
The third phase the Zionists had in plan, was to enter the cities and Palestinian town in the Gaza Strip, but they didn't...Why did they not enter them?!

Was it because of time restrictions?
This is weak political analysis, because if the whole operation can be resolved in a week or two, it would not form a problem for the Americans who would then turn a blind eye to the time frame.

Yet no, they did not enter because they were terrified and frightened.
They knew well that what awaits them in Gaza, in its neighbourhoods and camps, in Deir al-Balah and Khan Younis... were fighters ready to fight them to the martyrdom.

Therefore, they knew that such a move will cost them heavily, and so they came to a halt at Gaza's gates.

They stood at the gates, not due to political or public pressures from anywhere in the world-of course supportive political and public pressures help- because had the enemy leadership believed that entering the Palestinian camps, villages, cities and towns was going to be easy as a stroll, they would have done that... keeping in mind that those who were fighting against Gaza were the same elite "Israeli" brigades that were brought into Lebanon in the 2006 aggression.

What does this mean?

This means that the "Israeli" naval force in the July aggression was ousted from the equation, and today I say to you that of the most important strategy lessons of the war in Gaza are that the "Israeli" ground forces are feebler to resolve the battle, even incapable of entering a real battle.

This is the fear they have of a besieged Gaza, a zone still under a siege it has suffered for years, and if this is their fear, how would they fare in their invasion of Lebanon, or southern Lebanon?

Today, on the anniversary of the martyr- leaders, I reiterate what I have said before, they threaten us as we do them...we threaten them with what Imad (Moghniyeh) prepared for them, with Abbas' passion and the determination of Sheikh Ragheb...Yes, should any coming "Israeli" government contemplate, at any given time, sending its divisions, battalions and army to our land and villages, whether invade or occupy, they will be destroyed by students of Imad Moghniyeh, Abbas Mousawi and Ragheb Harb.

Hence we are not afraid and tell you not to be worried.
In the past nothing came out of Netanyahu when he ruled for three years. He eventually started competing against Barak in year 2000 on whom would withdraw from Lebanon first.

This is Lebanon, a completely different arena, which is why the "Israelis'" only remaining superiority is their air force, something we acknowledge... and which is why they are showing concern over that orphaned superiority.

They have come out with news about the resistance having an air defense systems and advanced air-defense-missiles in its possession. Of course I am not here to either deny or confirm such reports; but they say that the resistance's acquiring of such weapons will change the balance of the war.

This is true. No exaggeration in that

.

Why?
Because there is sea, ground and air.
As I mentioned earlier, the naval force was struck out of the equation, if ye return, so shall we. {...if ye revert (to your sins), We shall revert (to Our punishments) :} 17:8 the Koran, that's regarding the naval force.

As for the ground frontier, prepared lions and knights are waiting ... all that remains is the air space and power.

Should the aerial equation be changed, the whole equation of the conflict in this struggle with this enemy will be changed.

Why fear the resistance's possession of air defense weapons?

Because there is a difference. Because the resistance has the will and courage to use such weapon. Therefore "Israel" fears it, openly threatens and sends messages via diplomats saying: ‘you will pay dearly, if you possess such weapon, if you shoot down an "Israeli" fighter jet in Lebanese skies you will also pay the price!'

Imagine the level of "Israeli" insolence, "Israel" entitles itself to scout the Lebanese skies yet no one is allowed to open their mouths, while conversely miraculously but oddly enough, the "Israeli" Air Force flies over the different Lebanese communities and areas without creating any disturbing ripples

?!

But, dear Lebanese people, dear resistance in Lebanon,

Apart from the state, if an "Israeli" aircraft is shot down over Lebanon, the price will be costly and the response great!

Today, we do not want to open a new battle, but I want to say the following:
We do have the right to possess any weapon to defend our homeland and people; this is regardless of whether we possess such weapons or not, which is an entirely different matter.

We did not enter this conflict to show off or to outbid the enemy, but on the basis of surprising this enemy, hence what I want to demonstrate today is that we have the right, and we certainly do have the right, to possess any weapon including air defense systems, we also have every right to use this weapon if we so choose.

The time during which we acted as the vulnerable side has gone. Our nation was never weak, and our Arabic armies were never weak either.

Our Arab and Islamic peoples were never weak, but they were deemed weak. What is weak is the political decision. When the political decision regains its weight, it will find Arab and Islamic peoples and armies to match the magnitude of the decisions made.
This is the truth.

We, in Lebanon, will not tolerate an attack against our country, people and folks.

Some say that the resistance in Lebanon did not protect women and children in the aggressions of April 1996 and July 2006, and that the resistance fighters in Gaza were not able to protect women and children there either

.

Faced with an army of the strength of the "Israeli" army and its air power, can any army in the world protect women and children?

There are casualties in any war; a war is not a demonstration. What is important is that the resistance prevents the enemy from occupying, imposing its conditions and from achieving its goals; this is the victory that is achieved in no other way.

We will not tolerate "Israel" our nation's historic enemy.

Regarding Haj Imad and before I move onto subjects covering internal affairs, I stress that Haj Imad was killed a year ago because the enemy wanted to rid themselves of him, but found themselves filled with more fear and horror of Imad Moghniyah this year than they did over the last twenty-five years. Imad Moghniyah will always hunt them everywhere, day and night, and we still stand by the promise and the oath we took to retaliate for his assassination.

Today, on the issue of Haj Imad, who is also a part of the war with "Israel", I do not find myself concerned, frankly to comment on much of what has been written on the subject, especially during this month, when often several contradictions could be found in any on given article; on one hand they blame Hizbullah for not responding to Haj Imad's assassination, yet stand against Hizbullah responding, explaining that such a response would lead to such and such!

By God you have confused us, do you want us to respond or not?
whether you do want us to respond or not, we are not concerned with having to clarify our position to them, nor are Hizbullah and I accused of anything to have to explain and clarify. We do not stand accused to have to explain wh

at has taken place during the last year and what will occur in the coming phase.

We are not concerned about talking about anything in that regard; we'll neither deny nor confirm anything in that regard.

Leave this arena to its own unfolding and let there happen what may, for what is to take place, will, and it will away from any outbidding scenarios.

Based on this, on the day to commemorate the martyr leaders, I call on the entire nation to embrace the resistance option.

I call on the Arab and Islamic governments - even if some of them are holding negotiations or believe in negotiations - to embrace the resistance because it is a strength element for all. A mistake will be made if anyone tries to bring the resistance in Lebanon or in Palestine to account based on narrow internal considerations. It is a national power, a strength for the nation. You must act on this basis.

In this regard, we renew our support for all forms of inter- Palestinian dialogue and reconciliation, whose signs have just appeared. We express our happiness and elation for any Arab rapprochement and reconciliation, particularly between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Syrian Arab Republic as well as among all the Arab bothers. Certainly this is a strength for all of us

.

I would like to speak a little about the Lebanese issue. I hope I will not keep you longer here. However, let me go back to conclude with the martyr leaders. Two days ago, there was the anniversary, which is dear to all Lebanese.

On 14 February 2005, the Lebanese were unanimous on condemning the horrible assassination of the martyr [former] Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and those who were martyred in that incident.

All the Lebanese cooperated with each other and achieved solidarity, and they were united. It was a real anniversary on the national level at the time.

Today, I reiterate the natural position on this anniversary and this incident. I also reiterate the desire all of us used to have to the effect that this anniversary should be a general national anniversary.

However, regrettably, the political divisions in Lebanon imposed a different reality. We hope that we will all be able to be united in the future by the blood of martyrs, particularly the great martyrs, in order to be on the level of the martyrdom of those great men.

Everyone has the right to honor the martyrs, all martyrs, especially if these martyrs are affiliated with their family, organization, trend, party, or special human community.
This is in addition to the fact that these are the martyrs of the homeland.

We consider this as a natural thing. In fact, I tell you that this is a duty. We must honor the martyrs. This is a good culture, taking into consideration that commemorating the memory of martyrs and respecti

ng the martyrs boost many of the national, pan-Arab, and faith meanings, which our generations need throughout history.

We respect the martyrs of the other party. The best proof of this is that when we start speaking about them the first word we say is that they are martyrs. We speak about them as martyrs, although we disagree with some of them over the political position and rhetoric. However, out of respect to martyrdom, after their martyrdom we disregard all the previous differences, which were legitimate for them and for us.

We also call on them to respect our martyrs.

Although some sides respect our martyrs, others might not respect them. We should all respect their martyrs and they should all respect our martyrs. This, of course, has foundations in our ideological, faith, and moral values.

On another issue, other than commemorating anniversaries, we are for forgetting all the problems, suffering, divisions, and difficulties of the past away from assessments. Every one of us has his own assessment.

You may believe that I made a mistake against you, but you want to forgive me. You are free to do so. I may believe that you have made a mistake against me, but I want to forgive you and I am free to do so.

Every one might have a different assessment of the incidents that took place over the past years. However, there is a central point, at which we should all pause. It is the concern about forgetting the past and the issue of learning from past lessons for the future, but not for the purpose of retaliation or revenge.

This is because we are not talking about an enemy, but about different Lebanese political trends or groups, which have different choices, visions, or positions. We are not talking about "Israel" here to say that we w

ill not forgive or remain silent. Therefore, it is only natural to act with this responsible spirit.

This is why we have always been and we will continue to be advocates of calm. I once again call for calm in the political rhetoric, on the ground, and in the field. I say that the responsibility of the political leaderships in Lebanon is a very big responsibility.

I recall that after every incident, differences occurred over the assessment of the incident, as happened in the Mar Mikhael incident. Some sides said that the one who should be called to account is the one who pushed those youth to the street and not the one who fired at them. Others said that the one who opened fire should be called to account.

We make different assessments even over such issues. However, there is a clear and established fact; namely, that the popular bases listen to the political leaderships. The recent experience indicates this

.

When we agreed on calm and the political atmosphere calmed down, problems were over. There was no problem anywhere. This is although every day there was firing and problems. When the political rhetoric calmed down, the country became calm.

Today, what happened two days ago, in terms of problems and violence is condemned without any doubt. I will come back to this issue after a while.

However, when we tackle problems we should tackle their causes. We had earlier referred to this issue. In the political rhetoric, it is not enough that I in Hizbullah resort to calm rhetoric, yet that of my brothers be a very harsh one. This is not right even if my rhetoric was calm. This is because the people hear me once a while, but my brothers speak every day or every two days.

There is a problem, which we should tackle in order to find a way out of the developments of what happened. We should call for a real calm in our political rhetoric.

It is true that we will have elections, but it is also true that during the elections we can come up with ideas, programs, and concepts and discuss options. I was able now to speak about the option of settlement and the option of resistance without using any single expression that might offend anyone. I have only made an assessment.

T

herefore, we can do this. We all can avoid provocation in any issue. In our reaction to provocation, we should control ourselves. It is not enough to say that the other side resorted to provocation. Should we confront provocation by what is worse or more serious?

Therefore, also from a position of responsibility, regarding the incidents that have taken place, I say that anyone who attacked anyone, particularly when the problem reaches the point of killing by knives, bullets, or the like, and whether this was an action or a reaction, is condemned and unacceptable.

In Lebanon, we should all have the ability to express our opinions and positions and to commemorate our anniversaries freely. Of course, this should be done by respecting others and not by slandering or provoking them.

Here, I would like to address the youth in particular, who often have certain emotions or sentiments, which could be used the wrong way, and tell them ‘fear God and assume your responsibilities'.

No one should react emotionally, angrily, or indignantly in a way to destroy the country and to make the one who reacted this way go to hell. How can one kill just like that or even wound someone even if this wound was minor, let alone a wound that leads to death?

The martyrdom of Lebanese citizen Lutfi Zeineddine is a painful incident to all of us, just like the martyrdom of all those who preceded him in similar incidents.
Any Lebanese killed in such incidents is a loss for all of us.

In the name of the Hizbullah leadership, I address his family, the Zeineddine family, the people of Al- Shebaniyeh, the people of the mountain, and the Progressive Socialist Party, leadership and bases, to extend condolences to them. This is how we should all act toward such a tragic incident.

I should also condemn what happened before and after this incident. This is because any violence or counter violence constitu

te a wrong act and a wrong reaction that are always condemned.

I should also praise all the efforts that have been exerted over 48 hours by a number of political, military, security, and party leaderships in order to calm the atmosphere in the country, especially since we are headed to an important stage. Regarding such kind of incidents, as was the case regarding previous harsh and bitter incidents, we should resort to the Lebanese judiciary and to the state's institutions, and to the security and military agencies.

Allow me to speak a little about another domestic issue. We will speak about this in detail later, but we should touch on it now. It is the parliamentary elections, which will be held within a few months. I call on all people to participate in the parliamentary elections in the broadest way possible. This is because they are important elections. They will also influence the country's political options.

There are descriptions of the coming parliamentary elections, which we might agree or disagree with, but we do not have time to discuss this issue now. However, we are certain that these elections are very important. All the people should prepare the things needed for participation in the elections.

This includes the issues of making sure that they have identity cards, checking whether their names are registered in the vote

rs' lists, cooperating with the election machines, and thinking of and discussing their election options. This is the first point.

Therefore, no one should deal with the coming parliamentary elections as being a transient or marginal issue. No, they are very important and effective.

The second point is that I hope, that we all, as political forces, will be able to present a calm rhetoric during the parliamentary elections. There are dialogues, discussions, opinions, differences, theories, and options. However, we should not push the arena towards provocation or confrontation.

Third, on the threshold of the parliamentary elections, I would like to emphasize an issue in which we believe; namely, that Lebanon is not Switzerland.

Please, pay attention to this point: It is neither Switzerland to present it with a Swiss defense strategy, nor is it Switzerland in terms of administration and government.

When there are political parties in Lebanon, which are purely political, we might say that things are all right. However, whether we like it or not there is a sectarian structure in Lebanon. Some parties are affiliated with sects and some other parties do not advocate a sectarian ideology, but eventually, their human presence is within a certain sect.

In Lebanon, if the opposition, no

t to say the pro-government forces, won the majority at the parliament along with two or three more parliamentary seats, we will be able to say that it should form a government.

Furthermore, if there is a major sect or two major sects, which won the majority within their sects, but did not win the general parliamentary majority, especially since we have a special system and a special electoral law, we cannot then say that because the opposition won the majority it should rule the country, do whatever it wants in the country, and tell others you go and join the opposition.

This could happen in a country where there are political parties, but there are no sects and groups in the complicated way that exists in Lebanon.

I want to remind you that one of the most important reasons behind the failure of the Quadripartite Alliance - providing there are many reasons behind its failure, especially since we were a part of it -is that it has ignored the trends and currents, which represent the real majority, for example, in the Christian community, according to the results of the 2005 elections.

Is this a fact or not?

The same thing could happen tomorrow.

We are in a country governed by partnership and accord.
Never mind. Some sides say that things are delayed or obstructed at the current Cabinet of Ministers, never mind, let them quarrel at the Cabinet of Ministers better than fighting in the street. Let them disagree at the Council of Ministers better than having the people fire at each other.

I am not saying that if we disagree with each other we should fight each other in the streets, no. However, this is the country's structure, and it has been so for a long time.

We were born in this country when it was this way. By God, we have nothing to do with this. We were born when it was this way. This is its structure. Therefore, we insist that this country is governed by partnership and accord, whether the opposition or the pro-government forces win the majority

.

Here, I am not talking from the position that Hizbullah is concerned about being present in the authority; no, not at all.

Even in the current government, had it not been for our concern about being accused that we do not want to help or that we seek to obstruct the government, we would have preferred that the Hizbullah minister in this government be replaced by another minister from the opposition.

We do not have any problem in this issue. I am not speaking from the position of the one who says that if the pro-government forces win the majority, we will lose our share in the government. No, I say that if the opposition wins the majority and tells us to devote efforts to the resistance and it and the other party will run the country's affairs, I will salute them.

Therefore, the issue is not whether Hizbullah wants to participate or does not want to participate in the government or whether we look for a share or not. We are speaking about the country's interests. The interests of the country say so. The age of dualism is over.

In other words, the issue of having two major sects to rule the country at the expense of other sects is over. Furthermore, the age of trilateral rule or of having three major sects rule the country at the expense of the other sects in the country is also over. This is unacceptable.

What is required is partnership and accord.

With accord, we might move slowly, but we will protect our country. With autocracy, monopoly, artful plots, and cancellation, no country will remain to be rule or to have its affairs run. This applies to us and to them. Under all circumstances, let no one think that when we insist on the issue of partnership and accord this means that! We have fears of having the opposition rule the country alone if it won the majority

.

Let me clarify this issue further.

Some sides might think so. I tell you yes, there are difficulties. There are financial and economic difficulties. Any new government will inherit $45 billion or $50 billion in debt; I do not know how much. However, there is an international crisis, and even the countries which we want to help us are in need of someone to help them.

There are many financial, economic, and security difficulties in the region. Any group, which wants to rule Lebanon at the coming stage, will have immense, serious obligations.

No one should scare the Lebanese or scare us and say that if you give majority to the opposition we will not participate in the government.

If this is meant for intimidation, then there will be no need for this. I would like to say that if the opposition wins the coming parliamentary elections, I propose to the opposition to offer the option of a national unity government to the other side along with one third of the cabinet portfolios and a veto power.

It ought to insist on a partnership and accord government. However, should the other side insists on not taking part, the opposition should form a government, shoulder the responsibility, run the country, and present a new model for ruling Lebanon and running its affairs in a manner that fulfills hopes and aspirations.

Where is the problem in this? However, this will not be based on the rule of cancellation or monopoly, but on the rule of accord and partnership. Even if a government was formed without accord or partnership, it should be governed by a national mentality and the mentality of national interests, not by the mentality of revenge, retaliation, artful plots, or provocation of the other side

.

This is what we need.
Although I insist that in the next stage, and due to the economic, financial, political, and security circumstances in the world, the region, and the country, Lebanon is in dire need for a national unity government and a national accord government.

As for us, under all circumstances, I tell you that regardless of difficulties, we should assume the responsibility of confronting the national crises. We should not turn our back to them at all.

I must stress, reiterate, and appeal to the deputies, who will meet at the General Committee of the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies within a few days, to fulfill their promise to the youth generation, those who are 18, 19, and 20 years old, and to give them the right to vote even during the next elections.

Brothers and sisters,
...from the souls of the martyred leaders and the leader martyrs, we derive resolution, firmness, and determination. From their thought, we derive clear vision and sound principles. From their jihad and blood, we learn that we should not spare anything and sacrifice ourselves and our dear and beloved ones.

This is how Karbala was.

In Karbala, there is the example of the leaders' martyrdom near the mujahidin, women, and children

.

Brothers and sisters,
with the blessings of your awareness, responsibility, presence, faith, and sacrifices, particularly the sacrifices of the families of martyrs in general and the families of the leaders, the families of Moghniyeh, Harb, and Al-Moussawi, and with the blessings and sacrifices of the families of martyrs, we will pursue this path. We will achieve hopes and goals.

Finally, I address my leaders, masters, teachers, and beloved ones, the martyrs in general and the martyr leaders in particular, Abbas, Hajj Imad, and Sheikh Ragheb, and tell them, O dear and beloved ones, be reassured, near God, in your aromatic souls, that those who came after you will fulfill their promise, pursue the path, achieve the goals, and wait, but will never change their determination in the least regardless of difficulties and earthquakes.

The road you have opened and reinforced with your blood will continue and will encourage the nation to achieve one victory after another at the time in which the days of defeats are over and which carry the occasions of victory.

May God double your rewards and bless you and your efforts. God's peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you."