حزب الله فلسفة القوة:ناصر قنديل

قنديل سلّم عون كتابَه الجديد «حزب الله… فلسفة القوّة»

يوليو 20, 2018

استقبل رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال عون في قصر بعبدا، أمس رئيس تحرير جريدة «البناء» النائب السابق ناصر قنديل، وأجرى معه جولة أفق تناولت الأوضاع الراهنة والتطورات السياسية الأخيرة…

وخلال اللقاء قدّم النائب السابق قنديل للرئيس عون نسخة من كتابه الجديد «حزب الله… فلسفة القوة»، وسلّمه دعوة للمشاركة في حفل إطلاق الكتاب الذي سيُقام في قصر الأونسكو في بيروت يوم الإثنين 30 تموز الحالي، الساعة الخامسة بعد الظهر، وسيتحدّث خلاله رئيس المجلس التنفيذي لحزب الله السيد هاشم صفي الدين.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

Truthful Promise… July 2006 War

Local Editor

On July 12, 2006, the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon kidnapped two “Israeli” soldiers to exchange them with Lebanese detainees. On the same day, a brutal “Israeli” war on the country that lasted 33 days broke out, ending up with the victory of the Resistance against the “Israeli” aggression. The entire operation was referred to in Lebanon as the “Truthful Promise”, since it later resulted in the liberation of Lebanese detainees in the occupied territories in a deal that included the kidnapped soldiers.

Source: Al-Ahed

Related videos

The 12-Year Transformation

Darko Lazar

Amid the collective despond that gripped “Israel” and its Western allies in the aftermath of the 2006 war with Hezbollah, both Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush claimed victory because Lebanon had apparently been ‘transformed’.

The two former leaders, who presided over the 2006 offensive, were referring to the terms of the fragile ceasefire agreement which dictated that Hezbollah withdraw north of the Litani River and eventually disarm.

Twelve years on and those two stated objectives have never been a more distant prospect.

Today Hezbollah and the Resistance Axis have all but hijacked “Israel’s” long-term deterrent power while the party’s ‘national achievements’ continue to transform Lebanon’s political landscape.

The home front

Following the conclusion of the 34-day “Israeli” offensive, veteran journalist David Hirst summed up the outcome of the conflict by declaring that Hezbollah “kept at bay one of the world’s most powerful armies for over a month, and inflicted remarkable losses on it.”

Although this statement is accurate, it is also a slight oversimplification of what was undoubtedly one of Tel Aviv’s most severe geostrategic setbacks.

While Resistance fighter did indeed inflict “remarkable losses” on attacking “Israeli” troops, Hezbollah also made history by extending the battle to “Israel’s” so-called ‘home front’.

The thousands of Hezbollah rockets that rained down on Zionist settlers had a devastating psychological effect, leaving many “Israelis” feeling abandoned by their leaders.

More importantly, the attacks exposed serious vulnerabilities in “Israel’s” defenses, further shattering it’s aura of invincibility.

In the years that followed, those vulnerabilities would continue to haunt the “Israeli” military and political establishments.

So much so that “Israeli” critics of Tel Aviv’s performance in 2006 have arrived at the conclusion that maybe the war wasn’t so terrible because the next one could have Hezbollah flags being hoisted across the ‘home front’.

In a speech delivered last year, Hezbollah’s Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah sent shockwaves throughout “Israel”, claiming that any future confrontation would take place “inside the occupied Palestinian territories”.

“There will be no place that is out of reach of the rockets of the resistance or the boots of the resistance fighters,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.

Underscoring Hezbollah’s newly acquired deterrent power, the leader of the resistance group explained that “’Israel” has been threatening for 10 years to open a front against Hezbollah, but it hasn’t done anything.”

“”Israel” is afraid of any confrontation,” he added.

Hezbollah’s triumph in Syria has only solidified what is quickly becoming known as the new regional status quo.

When the “Israelis” launched their offensive in 2006, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert set the bar high, vowing to ‘eradicate’ Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Twelve years later, Tel Aviv has been reduced to limited attacks or its so-called ‘security responses’ – reacting to single events, void of any long term strategy, careful to avoid a wide-scale conflict and driven solely by its obsession to keep the Resistance Axis away from the occupied Golan Heights.

Moreover, the outcome of the Syrian conflict guaranteed that any prolonged “Israeli” attack on Hezbollah would quickly spiral into a regional war, the course of which would be impossible to control.

These new geopolitical realities coupled with Hezbollah’s sophisticated level of tactical experience and weaponry make the prospects of a Third Lebanon War highly unlikely.

National achievements

Joint efforts by the West, Gulf monarchies and “Israel” against Hezbollah date back to the group’s inception in 1982.

Some of the more recent episodes include the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, the 2006 “Israeli” attack, the brief armed confrontation between Lebanon’s rival political camps in May 2008 and of course the beginning of the unrest in Syria in 2011.

Each of these chapters dealt a blow to Tel Aviv and its allies, and each resulted in the emergence of a stronger Hezbollah.

One of the crucial moments in this decades-long conflict came in May of this year when Hezbollah and its political allies won the Lebanese parliamentary elections, gaining 67 out of 128 seats.

Sayyed Nasrallah later said that the results guaranteed the protection of the resistance against “Israel”.

“This is a great political and moral victory for the resistance option that protects the sovereignty of the country,” he stated.

Contrary to the 2006 observations by Olmert and Bush, Lebanon’s ‘transformation’ came in the form of Hezbollah becoming the country’s leading political force.

The outcome of this year’s polls also attested to the importance that the party places on receiving recognition from its citizens. But perhaps more importantly, the electoral victory was made possible by the group’s ability to keep the “Israelis” out of Lebanon twelve years prior.

And as “Israel’s” legitimacy diminishes in the eye of the world, Hezbollah’s is only growing.

Source: Al-Ahed

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

After 2006: “Israel” Is Deterred

Jihad Haidar

Talk about the strategic and historic achievements of the 2006 victory is no longer merely a theoretical assessment of experts and observers. On the contrary, there is a deliberate campaign aimed at containing the effects of this victory within both the Lebanese and Arab arenas. Over the course of 12 years, these achievements have become concrete facts. Their effects shield the resistance, its supporters and even its opponents. The most significant of these (effects) is the unprecedented state of deterrence – the first of its kind in Lebanon’s history. This deterrence provided a strategic umbrella that also enabled it to deal with the Takfiri threat that was threatening Lebanon’s existence. At the same time, it also prevented the enemy from exploiting Hezbollah’s preoccupation with confronting terrorist and tyrannical groups as well as attacking Lebanon and the resistance.

The state of deterrence imposed by Hezbollah on the enemy is the uppermost manifestation of victory. It reflects the effects of the battlefield triumph on the political and security decision-making process. It also reveals what Hezbollah’s resistance and leadership are instilled in the consciousness of the political, intelligence and military institutions in Tel Aviv. Although the deterrence is the result of a battlefield victory, it is most present in people’s lives, as it is characterized by the perpetuation of its effects. It has the most significant implications, even though a battlefield victory may sometimes be achieved but not affect the enemy. As a result, the enemy will take more aggressive steps by continuing to bet on altering the balance of power on the battlefield. When Hezbollah’s letters are presented to the enemy’s leaders and stop them from taking steps of this kind, this means that they have achieved two levels of victory: the first on the military level (similar to what happened during the 2006 war) and the second on the level of awareness and will, which has been a continues trend for over a decade.

After 2006: “Israel” Is Deterred

One of the practical manifestations of this deterrence came in the form of a security umbrella, enabling the Hezbollah leadership to utilize it in the workshop and build-up and develop its military and missile readiness. This readiness is aimed at preparing for the next round that the enemy has been gearing up for following the war in order to regain its prestige and strengthen the “Israeli” deterrent force that was shattered during the war. This is what senior “Israeli” leaders notably Shimon Peres (who served as deputy prime minister during the war) admitted in his testimony before the Winograd Commission saying, “we have lost the strength of our international deterrence. Today we are considered weaker than we were. In the eyes of the Arabs, we have lost our deterrence strength.” He warned that this would be reflected in the de-legitimization of Israel’s existence. He also pointed out that before the war almost all Arabs had recognized Israel’s existence, but it was now starting to erode.

After the end of the war, “Israel” faced the dilemma over its deterrent power diminishing in the eyes of its opponents, those betting on it and its allies. The current Chief of Staff, Gadi Eisenkot, explicitly highlighted this point when he was in command of the northern region.

“We face a difficulty in deterring Hezbollah from maximizing its capabilities. What we face on the northern border is an axis composed of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. We could not put a handle on it,” Eisenkot was quoted as saying in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth (3/1/2008) following the war.

This confession and other similar positions reveal the real battle that took the form of competition between Hezbollah and the enemy’s army in their speedy buildup of readiness. One of the most prominent people who expressed this was Major General Giora Eiland, the Head of the National Security Council (he also headed the Planning Division and the Operations Branch of the Army Staff).

“The improvement in Hezbollah’s capabilities since that war has balanced the improvement in the capabilities of the “Israeli” army,” Eiland told the Haaretz newspaper on in October 2008.

After 2006: “Israel” Is Deterred

In light of this, it is accurate to assert that Hezbollah won the battle of wills and readiness, which it fought against the “Israeli” entity throughout the period following the 2006 war. This explains why the enemy refrained from initiating a large-scale aggression throughout these years despite developments in Syria that were meant to pave the way for an ideal circumstance for such an aggression. The Israelis did not even dare to expand the sporadic attacks on Lebanon. This rhetoric was further solidified following operational messages and firm positions issued by Hezbollah’s Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on more than one occasion, leaving a cumulative deterrent effect on the consciousness and calculations of the enemy’s leaders.

Source: al-Ahed News

Related

Sayyed Nasrallah Is the First Arab Leader Whose Credibility Has an Influence on «Israel» السيد نصر الله أوّل زعيم عربي تؤثر صدقيته في الإسرائيليين

René Naba

On July 12, 2010 and on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the destructive war against Lebanon, the “Israeli” newspaper Haaretz published a detailed university study on the topic, drafted by the “Israeli” military establishment. It was an academic study by a senior “Israeli” intelligence officer. It backed the assertion that Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, is the first Arab leader since the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser who has the ability to influence “Israeli” public opinion with his speeches.

Hezbollah achieved two military victories against “Israel”. It is one of the world’s chief liberation movements, eclipsing the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, the National Liberation Front (Algerian) and the Cuban Revolution. It is striking that the criminalization of Hezbollah by the Persian Gulf and the Arab League came in the name of Arabism, a slogan that the Wahhabi dynasty wanted to destroy.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah ponders his words that are equal in weight to gold. They are immediately analyzed by interpreters, philologists and linguists – whether they be academics, diplomats, strategists, experts in psychological warfare, native Arabic speakers or pseudo Orientalists. The Western political media bubble is about to suffocate from its pent-up anger, as is the case with the Arabs applauding them. They both face the same reality: Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah – a Lebanese Shiite paramilitary group, is a man who does not only talk. His actions correspond to his words and his words with his actions.

What he says in his speeches is not for the sake of boasting or bragging. His credibility does not have the same effects of a propaganda campaign. The facts are documented by senior “Israeli” Arab journalists whose acknowledgments are in this article.

On July 12, 2010 and on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the destructive war against Lebanon, the “Israeli” newspaper Haaretz published a detailed university study on the topic, drafted by the “Israeli” military establishment. It was an academic study by a senior “Israeli” intelligence officer. It backed the assertion that Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, is the first Arab leader since the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser who has the ability to influence “Israeli” public opinion with his speeches.

The article reads “Colonel Ronen discussed this thesis at Haifa University based on an analysis of the contents of Hassan Nasrallah’s speech during the second Lebanon war in 2006.” The “Israeli” officer describes Nasrallah as “the first Arab leader who was able to develop the ability to influence “Israeli” public opinion since Abdel Nasser” in the 1960s. Ronen, who was then an intelligence officer in the “Israeli” army, wrote the following: “Nasrallah used two weapons to confront “Israeli” threats: his speech addressing his audience and using it for defensive battles on the Lebanese front and missiles directed against “Israel”.”

Nasrallah’s speeches were the subject of most “Israeli” newspapers. It aroused strong reactions from “Israeli” political and military leaders. Ronen pointed out that “if “Israel” deciphered Nasrallah’s speeches during the war, it would have had an impact on its decisions.” He stated that during the war Nasrallah used to bolster the claim that “we will win the war if we succeed in the defense.” For him, victory meant “to continue resisting and keep Lebanon united without accepting humiliating conditions.”

The “Israeli” officer pointed out that “the resistance of Hezbollah carried on until the last day and the unity of Lebanon was not undermined.”

“With regard to the humiliating conditions, the answer is not conclusive on whether Nasrallah was forced to accept the deployment of the Lebanese army and elements of the United Nations in southern Lebanon, which he rejected at the beginning of the war,” the author notes.

When the government’s approach was demagoguery, the man appeared to be reasonable and did not brag even in the smallest of the theatrical details. He put on a stunning show on a Sunday afternoon in July 2006, giving a televised political speech to hundreds of thousands of viewers astonished by the destruction of an “Israeli” battleship near the Lebanese coast.

In an area that is eroded by sectarianism, the cleric posed as a lawyer with his eloquent language and rich vocabulary in which religious expressions blend with the worldly as well as the standard (Arabic) with the dialectic. His speech is inspired by the more rigid Arabism. And thus he transformed his country into the regional diplomatic indicator and the role model in the history of the Arab-“Israeli” conflict, especially as he relies to the collective Arab memory that had an important psychological impact equivalent to the impact of Operation Badr (the seizure of the Bar-lev line) and the crossing of the Suez Canal during the October 1973 war.

After eight years, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah did it again, not caring about the rejection of all Arab monarchies. He laid the groundwork for a new way of confronting his fiery enemy, which was the mobile conflict in a closed battlefield. It was a new approach to modern military warfare, supported by a strong missile deterrent force feared by the West and its Arab allies.

Hezbollah fought with its light armament and full control over its weapons, especially the anti-tank ones. The group fought in a decentralized manner similar to that of the Finns in their war against the Soviets in 1940.

But in view of this unique achievement in the history of the contemporary Arab world, the protests of a degenerate political class created by modern feudalism and developed from the stream of opportunism would stir sectarianism in a region considered to be a prey of intolerance and in a country that has suffered so much in the past. It is a country whose people are in despair due to the growing impoverishment. They are the forgotten victims of the old, heinous actions, the prey of intellectual and moral impoverishment of a class of elites, and finally the prey of the Nazism of senior Lebanese politicians unnaturally allied with the old warlords and their financiers.

Hezbollah has become a Lebanese political-military movement, which is marked for elimination by the Americans. It enjoys unprecedented parliamentary representation thanks to the digital majority of the Shiite community, thanks to its contribution to the liberation of its land, thanks to its prestige at the regional level and finally thanks to the people’s support who are not looking to benefit from it.

Former French Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin paid a high price for calling Hezbollah a terrorist. He was the victim of the most recent stone-throwing incident in contemporary history, ending his political life in a pathetic way and politically burning him forever.

Source: Al-Mayadeen, Translated and Edited by website team

السيد نصر الله أوّل زعيم عربي تؤثر صدقيته في الإسرائيليين

2018-07-09

نشرت الصحيفة الإسرائيلية “هأريتز” في 12 تموز/ يوليو 2010 بمناسبة الذكرى الرابعة للحرب المدمرة على لبنان دراسة جامعية مفصلة في هذا الموضوع للمؤسسة العسكرية الإسرائيلية. هي بحث أكاديمي قام به ضابط رفيع في المخابرات الإسرائيلية تدعم مقولة أنّ حسن نصرالله، الأمين العام لحزب الله، هو أول زعيم عربي يتمتع بقدرة على التأثير بخطابه على الرأي العام الإسرائيلي منذ الرئيس المصري الراحل جمال عبد الناصر.

حزب الله هو صانعُ انتصارين عسكريين ضد إسرائيل، وأحد أكبر حركات التحرر في العالم الثالث هيبةً، مضاهياً بذلك جبهة التحرير الوطنية الفيتنامية وجبهة التحرير الوطنية الجزائرية وثورة الملتحين الكوبية. واللافت أن تجريم حزب الله من الخليج والجامعة العربية جاء باسم العروبة وهو الشعار الذي كانت السلالة الوهابية أول من أراد دفنه.  

السيد حسن نصر الله يزن كلماته وأقواله التي تساوي وزنها ذهباً، فتؤوّل في الحال على ألسنة كل المفسرين وفقهاء اللغة وعلماء المعاني واللسانيات؛ سواء كانوا أكاديميين أم دبلوماسيين أم باحثين استراتيجيين أم اختصاصيين في الحرب النفسية؛ سواء كانوا من الناطقين الأصليين بالعربية أم من المستشرقين الزائفين. فالفقاعة الإعلامية السياسية الغربية على وشك الاختناق من الغضب المكتوم، كما هي حال العرب المصفقين لها، أمام إثبات متطابق مع الواقع: السيد حسن نصرالله زعيم حزب الله، الحركة الشيعية اللبنانية الشبه عسكرية، هو رجل لا يكتفي بالكلام. فأفعاله تتطابق مع أقواله وأقواله مع أفعاله.

فما يقوله في خطاباته ليس تبجّحاً وتباهياً. ومصداقيته ليست كأثر حملة دعائية. فالوقائع موثّقة يؤكدها كبار الصحفيين الإسرائيليين العرب الذين حصل هذا المقال على اعترافاتهم بها.

نشرت الصحيفة الإسرائيلية “هأريتز” في 12 تموز/ يوليو 2010 بمناسبة الذكرى الرابعة للحرب المدمرة على لبنان دراسة جامعية مفصلة في هذا الموضوع للمؤسسة العسكرية الإسرائيلية. هي بحث أكاديمي قام به ضابط رفيع في المخابرات الإسرائيلية تدعم مقولة أنّ حسن نصرالله، الأمين العام لحزب الله، هو أول زعيم عربي يتمتع بقدرة على التأثير بخطابه على الرأي العام الإسرائيلي منذ الرئيس المصري الراحل جمال عبد الناصر.

يقول المقال “إن العقيد رونين ناقش هذه الأطروحة في جامعة حيفا مستنداً إلى تحليل لمضمون خطاب حسن نصرالله خلال الحرب الثانية على لبنان في عام 2006”. يصف الضابط الإسرائيلي نصرالله على أنه “أول زعيم عربي استطاع تطوير قدرته على التأثير في الرأي العام الإسرائيلي منذ عبد الناصر” في الستينات. يكتب رونين، الذي كان وقتئذٍ في منصب ضابط المخابرات في الجيش الإسرائيلي، ما يلي “استعمل نصرالله لمواجهة التهديدات الإسرائيلية سلاحين: خطابه الذي توجه به لجمهوره وقاد به المعارك الدفاعية على الجبهة اللبنانية والصواريخ الموجهة ضد إسرائيل”.

كانت خطابات نصرالله موضوع غالب الصحف الإسرائيلية كما أنها أثارت ردود أفعال شديدة لدى القادة السياسيين والعسكريين الإسرائيليين. لقد أشار رونين إلى أنه “لو قامت إسرائيل بتحليل عقلاني لخطابات نصرالله خلال الحرب لكان أثر ذلك على قرارها”. وذكر بأن نصرالله كان يؤكد أثناء الحرب “بأننا سنربح الحرب لو نجحنا في الدفاع”. فالانتصار يعني بالنسبة له “الاستمرار في المقاومة وأن يبقى لبنان موحداً دون القبول بشروط مذلة”.

كما أشار الضابط الإسرائيلي إلى أن “مقاومة حزب الله استمرت حتى اليوم الأخير ووحدة لبنان لم تمسّ”. كما لفت النظر “إلى أنه بالنسبة للشروط المذلة فالجواب ليس قطعياً في أن نصرالله أجبر على القبول بانتشار الجيش اللبناني وعناصر الأمم المتحدة في جنوب لبنان، الشيء الذي كان يرفضه في بداية الحرب”.

في المنطقة التي يكون أسلوب الحكومة فيها هو الغوغائية، يظهر الرجل رزيناً غير متباهٍ حتى في أصغر تفصيل من التفاصيل المسرحية، فيقوم بالعرض المذهل بعد ظهر يوم أحد من شهر تموز/ يوليو 2006 معطياً الأمر في خطاب سياسي من على منبره التلفزيوني وأمام مئات آلاف المشاهدين المذهولين بتدمير بارجة إسرائيلية عائمة قرب السواحل اللبنانية.

في منطقة تتآكل بالطائفية البغضاء، يقف رجل الدين السيّد محامياً بلغته البليغة ومفرداته الغنية التي تتمازج فيها التعابير الدينية مع الدنيوية، والفصحى مع الدارجة، وبنغمة خطابه المستوحاة من روح العروبة الأكثر تشدداً. وهكذا دفع ببلده ليصبح المؤشر الدبلوماسي الإقليمي والمثل الأعلى في تاريخ الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي وخاصة أنه بارتدائه ثوب الذاكرة العربية الجماعية كان له أثر نفسي هام يعادل أثر عملية بدر (الاستيلاء على خط بارليف) وعبور قناة السويس في حرب تشرين الأول/ أكتوبر عام 1973.

أعاد السيد حسن نصرالله الكرّة بعد ثماني سنين غير آبهٍ برفض كل المملكات العربية تقريباً، فوضع الأسس لطريقة جديدة في مواجهة قوة عدوّه النارية، وهي الصراع المتنقل في ميدان مغلق، نهج جديد في القتال العسكري الحديث، مدعوم بقوة ردع صاروخية قويّة أمام ذعر الغرب وحلفائه العرب.

لقد قاتل حزب الله بعداده الخفيف وتحكّمه التام بسلاحه وخاصة ذلك المضاد للدبابات بطريقة لامركزية على طريقة الفنلنديين في حربهم مع السوفييت عام 1940.

لكن بالنظر إلى هذا الإنجاز الفريد في تاريخ العالم العربي المعاصر الذليل فإن احتجاجات طبقة سياسية مهترئة نشأت في لدن الإقطاعية الحديثة ونتجت عن تيار الانتهازية سيحرّك الشعور الطائفي في منطقة تعتبر فريسة للتعصب وفي بلد عانى الكثير في الماضي. هو بلد يقع شعبه فريسة اليأس نتيجة الإفقار المتزايد، فريسة نسيان ضحايا الأعمال الشائنة القديمة، فريسة الفاقة الفكرية والأخلاقية لفئة من النخبة، وأخيراً فريسة نازية كبار الساسة اللبنانيين المتحالفين بطريقة شاذة عن الطبيعة مع أسياد الحرب القدماء ومموّليها.

أصبح حزب الله حركة لبنانية سياسية-عسكرية، مطلوباً القضاء عليها أميركيا. وأصبح يتمتع بتمثيل برلماني لا سابق له بفضل الغالبية الرقمية للطائفة الشيعية، وبفضل إسهامه في تحرير أرضه، وبفضل هيبته على الصعيد الإقليمي وأخيراً بفضل الالتفاف الشعبي حوله دون أن يبحث عن أيّ استفادة من ذلك.

رئيس الوزراء الاشتراكي الفرنسي الأسبق ليونيل جوسبان، دفع من حسابه ثمناً باهظاً لتوصيفه حزب الله بالإرهابي، فكان ضحية أشهر حادثة رجم بالحجارة في التاريخ المعاصر، منهياً حياته السياسية بطريقة مثيرة للشفقة فاحترق سياسياً إلى الأبد.

ترجمة سناء يازجي خلف

Sayyed Nasrallah: Resistance Able to Strike Any Target inside ’Israel’, Berri our Candidate As House Speaker


21-04-2018 | 19:58
Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Sunday a speech in which he addressed a huge electoral rally held in the Southern Lebanese city, Tyre.

Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah


At the beginning of his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the the father of the three martyrs, Hajj Sami Muslimani, who saluted the Resistance Leader, by saying: “You, the martyrs’ families, are the crown of heads.”

Starting from the place of the rally, His Eminence highlighted that “the city of Tyre, remained unobstructed by sedition, as it embraced and opened its homes to Palestinians displaced in 1948.”

“”Israeli aggressions on Lebanon started in 1949, not with the advent of the Palestinian resistance factions,” he said.

He further stated: “The city of Tyre city resisted the occupation in 1982 and on its land the first self-scarifying operations was carried to break the Zionist enemy’s arrogance and prepare for the “Israeli” humiliating defeat.”

In parallel, he underscored that “we meet here on the anniversary of April 1996 “Grapes of Wrath” aggression, which began on April 11, by striking Hezbollah’s military headquarters in Haret Hreik.”

“The “Israeli” air strike at that time failed to hit Hezbollah military Leader martyr Mustafa Badreddine as the missile hit the other room,” Sayyed Nasrallah clarified.

Moreover, he recalled that the

“Israeli” chief of staff in 1996 said that Hezbollah have turned ‘April understanding’ into a boxing bag,” noting that “the sons of Imam al-Sadr from Amal movement and Hezbollah have developed the concept of resistance, that led to victory.”

Furthermore, His Eminence stressed that “the South and its people have waited the state since 1948 until Imam al-Sadr came and adopted the alternative by establishing the resistance.”

He also unveiled that “before 2006, it was the Resistance that asked the state and the Lebanese Army to be present in the South and along the border.”

“The Lebanese state has delayed its move and turned its back to the South,” Sayyed Nasrallah mentioned, noting that “it is not the poor, who bought arms from his own money to defend the land.”

Meanwhile, he added that “our crime is that we took up arms to defend our land and sovereignty.”

“The resistance that was the dream of Sayyed Sharaf al-Din and Imam al-Sadr has now turned to a real force that the enemy greatly fears,” His Eminence emphasized.

In addition, he went on to say that

“Thanks to the resistance capabilities and achievements, South Lebanon is currently safe from the Zionist barbarism.”

To Sayyed Abdl Hussein Sharf Din and Imam Moussa Sadr, Sayyed Nasrallah sent a message of assurance:

“There is no humiliation today that is able to hit the land of Jabal Amel [South Lebanon]

To Imam al-Sadr, His Eminence vowed:

“The resistance that you have founded owes the capability, power, technology and missiles that can strike any target in the “Israeli” enemy’s entity.”

“The resistance came with great sacrifices and we aren’t to abandon it, as it means our dignity and pride,” he added.

Addressing the people of the Resistance, Sayyed Nasrallah told the crowd:

“May 6 is your day of voting. It is a message to the world that we in the South have not left the resistance and won’t give up or turn our back. I hope that on May 6 … you will choose the Hope and Loyalty [electoral lists], the hope for the future.”

Related image

“Here in Zahrani-Tyre, you are not just voting for MPs, you’re voting for the next Lebanese House Speaker. There is no question that House Speaker Brother Nabih Berri should be reelected as House Speaker and he is the party’s strongest representation,” he said.

He further hailed the fact that “since the 1920s, there has been no internal peace in the history of the South as the one it’s enjoying from pride and dignity for the past 12 years.”

On the internal front, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that

“Lebanon has witnessed a kind of understanding: one party will defend the country and protect it while the other side will take care of the economy.”

This comes as His Eminence confirmed that “we can say, ‘these are our successes.’ We protected our country. Stability and security have been available since 2006.”

In this context, he asked the Future Movement:

Related image

“What are your achievements in administering Lebanon’s economics? Those in charge failed. Everyone agrees that we have an economic problem. We’re suffering from a huge debt that reached $ 80 billion.
The agriculture and the productive sectors are at an all-time low.”

Commenting on the National Defense Strategy, Hezbollah Secretary General reiterated that Hezbollah is ready to discuss it after the election ends.

However, he asked the Future Movement, “Who is escaping from forming a national economic strategy?”

On this level, Sayyed Nasrallah cautioned that corruption has extended to all state institutions. “When we talk about a strong country, corruption has no place. There is no discussion, no need for debate, the steps are clear. However, if the country keeps moving like this, it will crumble.”

In addition, he slammed the fact that Lebanon is suffering from sectarianism on all levels. Even Lebanese water and rivers have turned to a sectarian topic.”

“Even our gas and oil blocks are going to be distributed based on sects,” he feared, wondering: “what kind of country operates like that?”

He also said

“This isn’t a US, Arab countries or “Israeli” fault. We have to take responsibility. When you have a minister working for his sect, his town and his kids, can we still call him a minister for Lebanon?”

Source: Al-Ahed news 

 Related Videos

 

Related Articles

Hezbollah: An Outsider’s Inside View

Nour Rida 

27-03-2018 | 11:09

Hezbollah: An Outsider's Inside View

 

So little has been written about Hezbollah in Lebanon, at the time Western media and

 

 politicians try to hammer it constantly. This year, Lebanon’s 

 

book fair witnessed the signing of a unique book that provides the viewpoint of an American woman on Hezbollah. She is Brenda Heard; a writer, a teacher and a human rights activist. 
 

Brenda has travelled repeatedly throughout the US, Canada, Europe, India and the Middle East. Having taught university and business level English for over a decade, in 2006 she founded the Friends of Lebanon organization, based in London, England. 


She has continued to manage this international support for a better and more peaceful Lebanon and has written numerous articles that have been published across the web. Based on eight years of research and hands-on experience, she offered a Western insight into the people behind the name Hezbollah.
 Image result for brenda heard hezbollah

The following is a detailed interview on her book writing experience, the motives behind it, the obstacles she faced, her interaction with the Hezbollah people and a lot more. 


1- How and why did your interest in Lebanon and Hezbollah start? 
It was the July 2006 War that really captured my attention. I was appalled by the news reports of this seething bombardment of Lebanon. At the time, there were huge demonstrations in London calling for an immediate ceasefire. When some friends asked me to join them, I agreed. We could not just sit back and watch “Israel” unleash such a deadly fury that it seemed to be trying to obliterate everything in its path. There had to be a better way toward peaceful co-existence.

After the July War, the Lebanese situation remained precarious. Despite everyone’s saying that they wanted a peaceful, stable Lebanon, few agreed on the role of Hezbollah in achieving that goal. Some people vehemently accused Hezbollah of causing the war. Others praised Hezbollah for defending Lebanon and bringing an end to the war. Growing out of this contradiction, my curiosity led me to research the facts of the history.
2- How much did you know about the region and the Shiite party before you started conducting your research?I’ve always loved to travel and had been to Lebanon briefly as a tourist. Perhaps I was particularly disturbed by the July War because I’d actually seen for myself how beautiful the country and its people were. I was, of course, generally aware that there had been problems in the region, that various groups had been in conflict with Western interests, but my primary interest had always been cultural, not political.

While I had an interest in the arts of the region, though, I knew very little about the religious angle. I’ve always believed any religious conviction to be a private matter, and thus had a mere basic, academic understanding of the many faiths of the world. And so it was with no preconceptions that I began my research.

3- You said it took you around 8 years to conduct research and talk to people to finally publish your book, how was the interaction with the Lebanese Shiites you had interviewed, and was communicating with them easy? Were they only fighters? Politicians? 

To write this book I wanted to form my own opinion of the highly contentious group called Hezbollah. That required meeting the people who are Hezbollah, people who support Hezbollah, and indeed those who oppose Hezbollah. It also required that I confirm my observations with historical research, built on as many primary source materials as possible. So I took my time and dug deeply. As I researched, I formed more questions, which in turn prompted further research. A lengthy process.

During this time period, I conducted numerous interviews-question and answer discussions-with the people of Hezbollah. I also simply spent time visiting with them in more informal, social settings. Both styles of interaction are needed to create an informed understanding. I also got to know other Lebanese, both Shia and non-Shia, who were or were not supportive of Hezbollah. It was important to consider, for instance, why a person with a Shia heritage might prefer a different party, or who might shun policies adopted by Hezbollah. Likewise, it was important to consider why various Christian, Sunni, Druze or non-religious Lebanese either supported or opposed Hezbollah as a party.

As for the people of Hezbollah, communication was easier than might be expected. There are a few points to expand. One, language. My knowledge of Arabic is only basic, so unless they spoke English or French, I used several different interpreters. That added step can be a bit tedious in theory, but I never noticed any impatience on the part of my Hezbollah dialogue partners. Many would apologize for not speaking English, and would try as much English as they knew, despite interpreters always being at hand. It seemed they wanted to — let me know that they wanted to speak with me, to help me understand.

Two, access. My first access to Hezbollah personnel in Lebanon was a man who works in their Foreign Relations Department. He actually continued to work with me on the book project, arranging tours and interviews. I soon got to know his wife and children, as well as his friends and colleagues. Sometimes he would set up and accompany me to a formal interview, such as with fighters or with administrators. Other times we’d stop for tea and his friends would happen to spot him and come over to join us. Over time, my network grew. As you will read in my book, I talked with men working within many types of programs: social, media, medical, construction, and so on. I talked with founding members, with politicians, and with many who were fighters, spanning from the beginning to present. I talked with their families-mothers, fathers, siblings, wives, children. Without exception, they all were eager to share their time with me, meeting after meeting, always making me feel welcome.

Three, comfort. You might expect it to be awkward to ask such pointed questions as “why do you put your life on the line like that?” or “aren’t you angry that your husband [or son] was killed [martyred]?” You might expect resentment or distrust or judgement. But not once did I feel I had imposed in any way. On the contrary, the people of Hezbollah-young and old, male and female-were consistently polite, even friendly. That’s not to say they were ready to tell-all. If I asked a question that overstepped concerns for professional security, for example, they would simply decline to answer. That said, I found that they were eager to answer questions when asked about life in Hezbollah. While they were glad to share their opinions when asked, though, it was never preaching, never any more than conversation.

4- In an earlier interview, you touched on a New York Times article that claimed Lebanon’s Mahdi scouts was turning kids into ‘suicide bombers.’ Tell us about your interaction with these kids 

Children are seldom politically correct. They make faces and blurt out whatever pops into their minds. Even older kids are more transparent than they might like to think. I was thus keenly eager to talk with children who had participated in the Mahdi Scouts program. Whether five or fifteen, they were at once respectful and friendly with me. Nearly all the children I visited with, boys and girls of various ages, had learned English in school. Being usually able to converse quite directly, then, we talked about school, friends, scouts, and wherever they themselves led the conversation. They were exuberant. They smiled and laughed and chatted away. They enjoyed scouts as a chance to play with friends, go camping, and do art projects-to learn and to have fun. When I nudged them onto topics of politics or religion, I found age-appropriate responses from children who were growing up where the ache of past wars and the threat of looming wars is just a fact of life.

5- How was your experience with the Hezbollah officials and people as an American woman? 

If they took notice at all of my being American, it was to quickly reassure me that Hezbollah objected only to the US government’s foreign policy in the region, that they held nothing against the American people. As example of this lack of antipathy, there are not just American fast food restaurants, but also numerous “American Stores,” specializing in American brands and products, in neighborhoods supportive of Hezbollah. While they enjoy their own Lebanese culture, they also embrace the best of the West, including America. One evening, for instance, I was having a long, leisurely dinner with several Hezbollah families. At one point, several of the wives were engaged in an animated conversation about some little booklet they were passing between themselves. I asked what was so interesting. They smiled and showed me their Tupperware catalogue.

As for being a female, I have experienced the utmost respect from the people of Hezbollah. Both men and women invite my opinions and extend a sincere welcome. And despite the Hollywood cliché, no one has ever commented on my choice of clothing. Instead, they listen to what I have to say with professional and even warm attention. I have consistently been made to feel comfortable amongst them.

6- From what you have seen, how much Orientalism is there in what the Western media presents on Hezbollah and the region? 

There has been a vast amount of orientalism. Whether naïve, malicious or egocentric, the Western view of the Middle East has been condescending from as far back as you wish to trace it. This attitude is certainly displayed in Western media coverage of Hezbollah, with its characterization growing more intensely derogatory as time goes by. This failure to acknowledge the people whom the Western powers have put in their crosshairs as just that-as people-has enabled the Western public to shrug off [or even cheer on] the wars waged upon them. Of course, this spirit of Western exceptionalism has crushed many, many other groups of people throughout history. It is certainly not unique to the attempted domination of the Middle East. Indeed, historically we’ve seen non-Western jingoism play out in violent conflict around the globe as well, for instance the Sino-Japanese wars.

Even though orientalism perhaps just reflects an ugly aspect of human nature, though, its culmination is perhaps most vividly demonstrated in the “Israel”-project. Conceived in the 19th century, it grew from the notion that one set of people had a God-given right to seize the homeland of another people, because the conquerors were exceptionally worthy, and the natives were inconsequential obstacles to “progress.” Colonialism. Manifest destiny. Bigotry. It is a long and complex topic, one that I discuss in more detail in the book. The result has been, on the one hand, promoting the aggressor and, on the other hand, demonizing the resistant people.

7- Do you think what you wrote can break the mainstream narrative and scare tactics built by Western Media on the Middle East region and Hezbollah in particular?

I wrote the book to share my experience. My hope is that in doing so I might encourage readers to be more intellectually self-reliant. I’d like readers to be able to re-visit this topic and consider factors they may have been unaware of. I’ve made all online sources readily available on http://www.insidehezbollah.com in order for readers to review these generally primary source materials themselves.

Opinions on this controversial topic may indeed have been manipulated, a tactic the US government has openly acknowledged. Note as examples: the 1955 Eisenhower Directive; the 2003 Joint Publication 3-53: Doctrine for Joint Psychological Operations; the 2012 Smith Mundt Modernization Act; the 2012/1014 Joint Publication 3-13: Information Operations. . . and many more. This is not the stuff of conspiracy theory. The Psyops publication literally states that the US delivers “information for effect, during peacetime and conflict, to inform and influence.” And that the US conveys “selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence the emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.” Likewise, the Information Ops publication brags that “Influence is at the heart of diplomacy and military operations,” using “IRCs [information-related capabilities] to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision making of TAs [target audiences] to create a desired effect to support achievement of an objective.” This last US government publication literally quotes the 1992 film “Sneakers”: “it’s not about whose [sic] got the most bullets; it’s about who controls the information.”

Together with other allied countries, all with massive resources to sell the narrative that protects their own interests, the quest for discerning reality is a challenge. Can one book “break the mainstream narrative”? To quote a participant in a recent march calling for gun control in America, when asked if he thought he had the power to make change: “By myself, I don’t think I have the power. But together with all these people here, I think we can make a change.” It is up to us all to work for peaceful co-existence. 

8- Have you had feedback so far from Western citizens who have read the book? 

Surprisingly, I have received very little negative feedback. I hope that is because readers appreciate the sincerity with which I offer my observations. I have also received quite a bit of positive feedback. One reader recently sent a note that has been echoed by others: “In this world of cut and paste journalism that rarely ventures out to explore the on-scene realities of the world, yours is a far too isolated gem of excellent journalism as it should be done.” Such focus in his comment indicates to me that he, like many other Western readers who have been in touch, actually want to see and think for themselves.

9- Do you have any intention to broaden your research and visit Iran, being the regional state actor that has been portrayed by the West as a country harboring “terror” in the region and supporting resistance movements like Hezbollah? 

I would indeed like to experience first-hand lifestyles in Iran and to research more in depth its role on the international stage. Western governments, particularly the US and the UK, were happy with Iran when they themselves took control of the country and its oil resources. When the Iranian people shook off the Western exploitation, along with the brutality of the CIA-trained police, then the West decided Iran was the bad-guy. The US soon thereafter backed the Iraqi invasion of Iran. Apart from this defensive war, to my knowledge, modern Iran has been a peaceful nation. Yet the Western world has demonized and sanctioned Iran. Because it supports Hezbollah? But Hezbollah, too, has acted defensively. There is clearly a great deal that deserves thorough, first-hand research. 

With John Bolton as US President Donald Trump’s new National Security Advisor, however, I now hesitate to visit Iran. Just as Bolton praised “Israel’s” bombardment of Lebanon in 2006, saying he was “damned proud of what we [the US] did” to prevent an early ceasefire, so too has Bolton been itching to wage war on Iran. His belligerent rhetoric is beyond all reason. Could a book reach such a man? Heaven help us all.

Source: Al-Ahed

%d bloggers like this: