Nasrallah: We celebrate Trump’s defeat without illusions about Biden, and we stay ready for war


Date: 23 November 2020

Author: lecridespeuples

Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on November 11, 2020, celebrating Hezbollah’s “Martyrs Day”, which honors all martyrs of the Resistance.

On November 11, 1982, the largest resistance action in the history of the Israeli-Arab struggle took place, when the martyrdom of 19-year-old fighter Ahmad Qassir killed more than 100 occupying Israeli officers and soldiers by detonating their headquarters in the Lebanese city of Tyre. We transcribe below two sections of the speech devoted to the recent Israeli military maneuvers and US elections.

Source: https://video.moqawama.org/details.php?cid=1&linkid=2183

Translation: resistancenews.org

Transcript:

Israeli military maneuvers

[…] The second issue (I want to mention) is the Israeli military maneuvers which took place a few days ago, and lasted from Sunday (1st) to Thursday (November 5). Obviously I will not get into the details of these maneuvers, its stages, its objectives, etc. It would take too long. But I will confine myself to the following points.

Of course, these were massive maneuvers, one of the biggest and most important Israeli maneuvers (in history). They are similar to those that took place in 2017 simultaneously in northern occupied Palestine and in the Golan Heights, which they consider to be a single front: these maneuvers were as large or perhaps a little larger (than those in November 2020). It was pretty much the same (exercise) in both maneuvers (i.e. simulating a Hezbollah attack). Of course, during the maneuvers, there were analyzes, threats and clues (according to which) Israel could take advantage of this (maximum) state of readiness and this enormous concentration of forces in northern occupied Palestine and in the Golan Heights to launch an operation against Lebanon or against Syria, to say the least [there was also talk of a possible attack on Iran]. There were analyzes, assumptions of this kind, and of course, these maneuvers were followed with the greatest attention in Israel, although the Lebanese cared little about them, except for Hezbollah who followed it all closely. The enemy Prime Minister came to visit (the forces engaged in these maneuvers), as did the Minister of Defense, and the Chief of Staff and other officials were there throughout the week, and they made countless statements.

With regard to these maneuvers, I want to make a couple of brief comments.

Israel has moved from permanent aggression to a defensive posture

First, when you consider these maneuvers, what was one of their main purposes? They announced it themselves, I’m not talking about secret information. One of the main objectives is that they simulated an invasion by the forces of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon (Hezbollah) against the Israeli positions and settlements in Galilee, and the purpose of these maneuvers was for the Israeli army to recover these positions and these settlements, meaning to expel the Resistance forces from them, and launch another response in the border region. It is not about invading (Lebanon) and reaching I do not know where, but simply about organizing a (limited) response in the border area, less far than the Israeli security zone of yesteryear [from 1985 to 2000, Israel occupied all of South Lebanon, in a continuous enclave 10 to 20 kilometers wide]. This is what these maneuvers consisted of, and they involved the air force, infantry, artillery, etc.

What I want to emphasize about this, coming back to what the (Hezbollah) martyrs accomplished (by their struggle and their sacrifice), one of the great achievements of the martyrs is (the following): in 2017, Israel organized military maneuvers where, from the first days, it was all about launching defensive measures, setting up a defensive plan to protect its positions and its settlements in Galilee, in the north of occupied Palestine, (against a Hezbollah attack). And again in 2020, Israel is carrying out similar maneuvers, despite the economic situation, the coronavirus, the difficulties, etc. What does all this prove? This proves that the Lebanese Resistance, for the first time (in the history of the Arab-Israeli struggle), has shifted the Israeli army from an offensive to a defensive position. This demonstrates the power of the Resistance. In the old days, if anyone (among the Arab-Muslim rulers) claimed to invade or attack Israel, upset the equations (in force), enter occupied Palestine (as a retaliation in case) Israel invaded our territory, Israel would laugh (at these empty claims) and mock them. You remember that in previous wars Israel behaved as if Lebanon was negligible, and (considered) that a single musical band was enough to defeat it. This Resistance in Lebanon, the martyrs of this Resistance, the mujaheedeen of this Resistance of which “some have reached their end [martyrdom], and others are still waiting [and they have not changed at all (in their commitment)” (Quran, 33, 23)], have brought Lebanon to a stage where the enemy regards us in a very different way. The enemy is obsessed with the idea of ​​an attack from Lebanon, and when he thinks of attacking Lebanon himself, his mind immediately goes to destruction with planes, artillery, missiles, and he does not think of any invasion or occupation of vast territories, because his ambitions on the ground are very limited. And more so, he switched to a defensive way of thinking. This is why he has designed defensive plans to protect his positions, his settlements, the region of Galilee. He keeps rethinking these plans, he has been making maneuvers in this direction since 2017, and in their light, he is making amendments, and he insists on carrying out new maneuvers in 2020. This is a very important point to know the weight of Lebanon, of the Lebanese Resistance and our strength in the calculations of the enemy. It’s something he would never have thought of in the past. And of course, this must lead us to make exact calculations when thinking about the equations of force in Lebanon, whether it is about negotiations over maritime borders or points of contention over the land border, the equation of deterrence, the protection equation, etc.

An admission of failure and unpreparedness

The second point is the enemy’s insistence on carrying out these 2020 maneuvers, and the fact that the enemy army’s Chief of staff has declared that even if 1,000 soldiers must be infected with the Covid- 19, he was determined to hold the maneuvers. This confirms another truth long evoked by Israeli generals after the 2006 war against Lebanon and after the 2014 Gaza war: they themselves say that the Israeli army, the Israeli infantry is suffering from a real and deep crisis. There is a crisis of preparation, a crisis of officers, soldiers and combatants at the personal, psychological, moral level, a crisis of the (fighting) spirit, a crisis of confidence in officers and leaders, problems of discipline, (a lack of willingness to) advance (in the battlefield), to sacrifice oneself, to go to the front line, etc. This is why in all their maneuvers, the Israelis provide soldiers and officers with every guarantee of security, assuring them that nothing will happen to them, and that their advance will be secure [as if there was such a thing as a safe war]. This is the result of the enormous flaws and weaknesses in the spirit and morale of the troops of the IDF ground forces. This is why Israel needs these maneuvers to remedy this situation, to give its soldiers confidence in themselves, to restore their morale, to give them motivation, guarantees, assure them that they are capable (of facing Hezbollah) with their plan and maneuvers. This is a real crisis affecting the Israeli infantry today.

Regarding the navy, we know that its field of action is (very) limited. In 2006, a single missile took the entire Israeli navy out of the war equation, when we hit the Sa’ar 5 (corvette). And in case of war in the future, the Israeli navy will be unable to achieve the slightest real accomplishment. And as for the Air Force, we do not underestimate nor demean it, and we recognize that it is one of the most powerful air forces in the region. And the United States gives Israel (everything) without limit, so that all developments in air capacity are open to the enemy. But this does not constitute a guarantee, it does not protect the Zionist project in the region, it does not even protect (the survival of) the usurping entity. All the recent wars and battles have confirmed that the Air force alone is incapable of shaping victory, from the 2006 war to the wars in Gaza, all the wars that have taken place in our region, as well as the war that is entering its 6th year in Yemen. All of these wars demonstrate that air power alone is incapable of shaping victory or winning a battle. It is the ground forces that are essential and decisive, whether in defense, attack or victory. Today the IDF is going through real crises in this regard, and we must build (and consolidate our strength) on it.

Hezbollah was on high alert during these maneuvers

Last point concerning these maneuvers, and that I wish the Lebanese and the people to know clearly: because of the assumptions, the analyzes and the possibilities (of Israeli attack against Lebanon or Syroa), I want to say, without creating a state of terror in Lebanon, but I must reveal this fact: the Islamic Resistance was, from Saturday (October 31st), that is before the start of the maneuvers, until the days of the maneuvers, and until after the end of the maneuvers, or after Thursday (November 5), until Friday and Saturday, we were on high alert. Some Resistance units in Lebanon were on full alert, 100%, and others were 75% ready. And at the level of organization, management and control, all the commanders were at their posts. Of course, Israel knew this, and we wanted them to know it, because what mattered to us was to clearly send the following message: we are watchful, we are ready, we are on alert, our finger is on the trigger, and if you are thinking of engaging in any stupid act, any aggression, our response will be ready, quick and immediate. In Syria too… And in Lebanon, of course, we did all this for 7 to 8 days without the Lebanese and the Lebanese people, the villages and the towns feeling the slightest thing that could disturb them, worry them or arouse fear. This is one of the strengths of the Popular Resistance, which is precise, level-headed, measured, far from all excesses and bluster, serious, dedicated and sincere.

Likewise, in Syria, according to my information, the readiness measures of the Syrian leadership and the armed forces were maximum, as well as for their allies on the ground. The message to the enemy was clear: in front of you there are people ready and willing to fight, people neither weakened nor ready to surrender, and unaffected by all the events happening in our region. So much for this point.

US elections

My third point is the US elections. I speak quickly to have time to discuss all the issues. The whole world followed… Of course, I will not do an (exhaustive) analysis on the US elections, but I will talk about what concerns us and concerns our people, our region and our Axis (of Resistance). The whole world has been following what happened and what is happening now in the US presidential elections. And that’s something normal, because the outcome of the elections will influence the whole world. I would like to make several comments on this subject.

A paper Empire and a junk Democracy

First, the unfolding of the US elections, the speeches of the candidates and the contradictory and invective election campaigns, the media hype, etc., I consider that more than ever, all of this has shown the (real and eloquent) image of a number of truths and realities in the United States, whether at the level of the political system, of the forces and parties, and of the people. The peoples of the world, the peoples of our region and all of us need to pay attention (and think thouroughly about these realities). Because in the end, these United States are a global calamity. In our eyes, the US are a problem for all the peoples of the world, both for their friends & allies and for their enemies, both at the same time.

My first point is a simple call to look closely at the numbers and data that were provided during the election campaign, to think about them and learn the lessons, in order to know what these United States really are, because there are people who present them to us as the greatest example that our Arab and Muslim countries and Third World countries (in general) should follow. So let’s see what is the truth of this (alleged) most prominent model. (Let us seek) its truth in its values, in its actions, in its habits, in the results of its behavior and practices, (let us seek) the truth of its democracy, the truth of its political system, the truth of the behavior of its authorities with its people, in its different (ethnico-social) components. All these questions require thought on our part, as (staggering) numbers have been given, incredible things have been seen, and (striking) scenes are visible on TV channels and social media, be it everything that has to do with the economic and financial situation, the scale of the debts weighing on the American treasury –we talk a lot about the debts of Lebanon, but look at those of the United States–, the social situation and the standard of living of tens of millions of inhabitants of the United States… We see images on television of very modern cities, with very modern streets, in which we see people living in makeshift camps, left and right, washing themselves in the streets, and having no home, no social security, etc. Either way, these are staggering numbers, whether talking about the number of people infected with the coronavirus [over 11 million], the number of people affected by terminal illnesses –Biden spoke of huge numbers a few days ago–, mental and nervous illnesses, drug addicts, the scale of the various forms of criminality in American society –murders, injuries, incidents, shootings, thefts, rapes, etc. –, the number of prisoners in jails, the extent of corruption in state administration and political officials, etc. This is (the reality of) the United States that some present to us as (a model of) freedom, democracy, justice, development, prosperity, etc., etc., etc. (Not to mention the) fundamental racism that has been brought to light by the events of recent months. All this deserves –I don’t have time to give the figures and talk about them in detail, others will be able to do it, and everyone can find out by consulting the data, the archives, the images, the evidence, etc.; these are not empty statements from an enemy of the United States who would come and make false accusations, they are their own statements, their own figures and their own statistics as to their situation, their worries, their real domestic ills and problems; and this is the priority which may be imposed on the new administration. This is the first thing that appeared during these elections.

Allegations of electoral fraud are a gross heist attempt

The second point is the humiliation of the (so-called) US democracy that Washington calls on the whole world to take as an example, asserting the primacy of people’s decision, of elections, etc. If the US administration itself, which today is President Trump’s and also his entire administration –because we cannot say that he has an (unprecedented) state of mind, that he is mad, resolved to keep his throne, etc.: the entire Republican Party (supports him). If two (Republicans) Senators congratulated Biden, (it should be noted that) it is the whole Republican Party, officially, all its leaders and executives, all its echelons who support the electoral battle that Trump is pursuing, and who do not recognize the results. What is this (pseudo-)democracy? I remind you of one thing: as (was stated by) all the people who followed (these elections), the special media envoys, even those from the channels close to Trump, during these elections, some citizens voted by mail, some voted early –as did Trump himself– and finally some voted (in person) on election day. When (the vote-counting agents) begin their tally, they count first the votes cast on election day, then the early votes, and finally the mail votes. It is common knowledge that the majority of mail votes are in favor of the Democrats. For early votes, it’s mixed. For direct votes on election day, the majority is in favor of the Republicans. As soon as the vote count of election day ballots ended, Trump rose up and exclaimed, “Stop the vote count! Stop the vote count!” Why? Because he considered himself the winner, hands down, which is natural when only the votes cast on election day are counted. But when you count the 70 million –if not more– early votes, and the mail votes, that will certainly change the outcome. He therefore wants to throw the voices of tens of millions of citizens into oblivion in order to be able to declare “I am the winner, period”. And he has declared himself the winner, and does not acknowledge the results, considering that all that is happening is just a (large) fraud. And the (whole) Republican Party stands behind all this. It would be wrong to say that it is only the action of one person, of a fool, feverish, nervous man, etc., no! And now we don’t know where the Trump administration and the Republican Party want to take all of the United States if they maintain this line. (Let’s keep all this farce in mind) so that no one comes (berating us) with (the alleged virtues of) Western democracy or American democracy, nor present the US as a Master in matters of elections and respect for the vote of the people and the will of the people, neither inside the United States, nor outside.

Israel will always be the main concern of any US administration

Third, what matters to us today about the new administration –I will speak later about the two remaining months of this Trump administration, along with (our) psychological and emotional reaction (to Trump’s defeat)–, (about) the larger question of the new administration (which will take power in January 2021), (it must be emphasized that) in our region in particular –because what can be predicted for other peoples of the world, other states and governments, it is their own assessment to make–, but as far as we are concerned, our greatest calamity is that in our region, for a long time, and for decades, US policies in our region are an Israeli policy. The basis (of thought and action) is Israel, (and all that matters is how to ensure) the strength of Israel, the empowerment of Israel, the security of Israel, the superiority of Israel. It is one of the constants of US policy, whether it is Democrats or Republicans, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Biden: whoever (the US President) is, they all rush and compete to see who supports Israel the most, who covers Israel the most, who defends Israel the most, who protects Israel the most, who strengthens Israel the most, who supports Israel the most.

Therefore, as far as we are concerned, things are not going to change. Maybe their policy towards Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or whatever will change. But here, in our region, for everything that has to do with the usurping entity of occupied Palestine, and for the whole area that includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, Yemen, North Africa, this whole Arab-Islamic region, as far as the United States are concerned, the only fundamental constant, or at least the main one if it is not the only one, is Israel and the domination of Israel. Therefore, building promising hopes in fundamental and strategic changes (in the policies of a Biden administration is futile): let no one be deluded or lie to himself, nor anything like that.

It is true that on certain details (we can expect some minor changes)… For example, I absolutely do not consider as likely the hypothesis that the Biden administration backtracks on the recognition (of all) of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as an integral part of the Zionist entity and the eternal capital of Israel, or moves the US embassy in Al-Quds back to Tel Aviv, or no longer recognizes the Golan as Israeli territory… (All of these Trump steps won’t be reversed). But it is possible that concerning the settlements, the West Bank, the question of the two states and their borders, these are details (on which a margin of maneuver is possible). But even in these details, the core principle and top priority will remain how to make Israel as strong as possible, as dominant as possible, superior to all, etc. So let’s not waste time counting on the new (Biden) administration, imagining various prospects (of a new US foreign policy in the Middle East), and luring ourselves into dreams and illusions.

Axis of Resistance welcomes Trump’s humiliating defeat

Of course, emotionally, there’s no doubt –and I’m talking about my personal feelings here– that when you look at the Trump administration, the Trump government, it turns out to be the worst government (in US history), or, if not the worst, it is one of the worst US governments in history. This government was the most heinous, the vilest, the most despotic, the most arrogant, the most contemptuous of its friends and allies –for example, there was a difference in the way Trump behaved with Saudi Arabia [repeated humiliations], and his way of addressing Iran: when he addressed Iran, he was more balanced, more measured, more cautious; and he will step down from power with bitterness over not having been able to find a single Iranian official to answer him on the phone. It was the most tyrannical, the most despotic, the most arrogant, the most criminal, the most terrorist government… Such was the Trump administration.

Let’s remember what he did for 4 years. For 4 years, he put the whole world on the brink of war, whether he (deliberately) played on the level of psychological warfare, (on the permanent threat) of the brink of the abyss, or whether he was serious (and willing to go to war). Against North Korea, he brought things to the brink of war. Likewise with China, with Iran, with Venezuela, with Cuba, with Syria, with many places in the world. He brought the whole world to the brink of war! As far as states and peoples are concerned, he has intensified blockades, acts of manifest aggression and the most explicit interference in internal affairs… Of course, we recognize in Trump a very important quality, which is that he showed the true face of the United States. This is their true face. Arrogance, tyranny, (permanent) aggression, despotism, imperialism, terrorism, bestiality, crime, (mass) murder, corruption… This is what Trump showed. His predecessors wore make-up and measured their words, but his quality is that he showed the US as they were to the peoples of the world, (without wearing a mask or using false rhetoric).

Therefore, when one sees the long list of his crimes, such as, in Palestine, the attribution of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) to Israel as its eternal capital, the relocation of the US embassy (from Tel Aviv to Al -Quds), the granting of the (Syrian occupied) Golan (to Israel), as well as the Shebaa farms (occupied Lebanese territory granted to Israel by Trump), the strangulation he exerted against the Palestinians, whether the Palestinian Authority, the PLO, the Palestinian people… But despite that, Trump was defeated, and I will come back to it. In Iran, he imposed the most severe sanctions against a country of 80 or 85 million people, the year of the coronavirus, not to mention the (constant) threats of war, and (a permanent flirtation) with the edge of the abyss! Likewise in Syria, constant threats of war, and Caesar sanctions and more blockades. Open support for the Saudi-Emirati war against Yemen and the oppressed people of Yemen. He has revived sedition in Iraq, and is attempting to revive sedition in Lebanon. He tried to overthrow the state of Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. (He has spread blood and chaos) everywhere, to the point that it is (almost impossible) to count his crimes!

Trump’s foreign policy is a monumental failure

But of course, if we are to give a title to all of these actions, it is failure. He failed in all these attempts! He failed to break the will of the Palestinian people, and that is why today no one talks about the Deal of the Century anymore. Where did it go? In the past, when the Deal of the Century was taking shape, I said it was based on 3 pillars: 1. Trump, 2. Netanyahu and 3. (Saudi Crown Prince) Bin Salman. Today, with the grace of God, Trump will go. Either he will leave or he will take the United States in his downfall if he does not recognize the results. The 2nd pillar, Netanyahu, is now in a worse situation than ever. Even with Trump’s presence, he was at the lowest point in his entire political history, and he’s doing even worse now. The same goes for Bin Salman, who is perhaps the most worried of all among the leaders of the region. Who knows if Biden will live up to his election promises to punish Bin Salman and indict him for Khashoggi’s murder and (gruesome) dismemberment with a saw, end US support for the Saudi war in Yemen and stop selling him weapons… If Biden keeps his election promises, Mohammad Bin Salman has every reason to be very worried. So there is a defeated pillar, which will leave the scene (Trump), and two shaken pillars, ready to collapse (Netanyahu and Bin Salman). The likelihood of fall is greatest for Netanyahu, because the political system of the usurping entity (racialist democracy) is different from that of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (absolute monarchy). And this Deal of the Century will disappear with its pillars. The will of the Palestinian people has not been broken despite all the difficulties, the state of siege, the punishments, the suffering. Iran’s will has not been broken, despite the harshest sanctions (in history) and the harsh conditions caused by the coronavirus. Syria’s will has not been broken. The Iraqis are struggling to defeat the daily sedition that is manufactured at home [via US attempts to revive ISIS, etc.]. In Lebanon, we have defeated sedition. I will speak (in more detail) about Lebanon in the last part (of my speech). In Venezuela, (Trump) failed, he failed in Cuba, he failed in North Korea, he failed to subdue China, and he failed, failed and failed (everywhere). Overall, the headline (of Trump’s foreign policy) is (universal) failure.

In the Middle East, no one will regret the assassin of Qassem Soleimani

That’s why I’ll draw two conclusions from this (short) presentation. The first conclusion is that yes, on a personal level, I am happy with the departure, the fall, the humiliating fall of Trump. We don’t care about the new administration, they are all the same, (US foreign policy) will not change. But we have every reason to be happy (about Trump’s defeat), especially given the crime that I left last in the (long list) of his crimes, the (biggest) crime of our time that Trump committed by assassinating the Grand General Hajj Qassem Soleimani, and the Grand General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, his (multiple) assaults against Iraq and Iran, and the fact that he publicly bragged about this crime. Even during his election campaign I was following (his speeches), on several occasions he pointed out (with pride) to this heinous crime he committed. Therefore, on an emotional level, we have every reason –no one can stop anyone (from rejoicing)– to rejoice in this humiliating defeat of Trump, inflicted by his own people. We don’t pretend we brought him down. It was his (own) people who brought him down. This (American) people whom Trump also demeaned and humiliated, as he strove to humiliate his allies and friends, and continued his aggression against peoples around the world. So much for the emotional level.

Trump demonstrated the weakness of the United States

But at a practical level, we need to know, through our assessment of these four years (of Trump’s rule), that under such an aggressive (US) government, having such a high level of tyranny and willingness to enter into war… Because it is obvious that the possibility of the Trump administration going to war was higher and will remain higher than that of the next administration. This administration was very inclined to go to war. They had no caution, no limits. Despite this, our peoples and the Axis of Resistance have persisted in their determination (to resist), and have succeeded in thwarting (Trump’s plans), and in preventing this project from materializing and achieving (its goals). It means that our will is stronger than their tyranny, stronger than their blockade, stronger than their arrogance. This means that (despite everything) Trump or his government can say, or (even) the government to come, the USA are not a manifest destiny, and the peoples of the world, the governments of the world and the oppressed of the world can stand up and say “No!” (to Washington’s diktats), (and successfully resist) whatever the consequences. And in the end, it is (the peoples of the world) who are victorious. And as for him (Trump) who fought them, assaulted them, and lashed out at them, it is he who will be defeated, humiliated and broken. This must also be one of the lessons of these elections.

Anything can happen in the last two months of the Trump administration

The last thing I want to say about the election concerns what’s left of the last two months (of the Trump administration). Because it has been said in the media that top Pentagon officials have expressed their fears (of a war before Trump’s term ends), as has the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Nancy Pelosi), and other US officials in the region. Many said that by sacking his Secretary of State for Defense (Mark Esper), replacing him with another (Christopher C. Miller), who became Acting Secretary of State for Defense, he was preparing to do something for the past two months. But what? This is a big question that torments the whole world. I don’t know what he can do in those two months, but anything is possible. With someone like Trump, you have to expect anything. It may be that this sacking was just an impulsive act due to his injured ego, because he figured that Secretary of State Esper was not always docile, that he was opposed to certain things that Trump wanted to do and had prepared his resignation letter, and therefore Trump ate Esper at lunch before Esper ate Trump at dinner. It is entirely possible, it would not be surprising (on the part of a narcisstic buffoon like Trump).

But it is also possible that this move has to do with major and dangerous decisions Trump is about to make. Among these major and dangerous decisions, the whole world immediately thought of the possibility of action outside the United States. Because there are two hypotheses. Either he sacked Esper because last time, when there were (massive) demonstrations (in the United States), and Trump wanted to send the army to suppress the demonstrators, this Secretary of State threatened to resign as far as I can remember, or at least he was opposed to the intervention of the army, I am sure he was against it. I heard he threatened to quit. And maybe Trump saw that one of the reasons for his defeat was that he couldn’t put an end to (these protests) once and for all in recent months, due to (the expectation of dangerous) internal repercussions (if the army had intervened). And it is well known that the main reasons for Trump’s downfall are domestic reasons. Maybe Trump blames Esper for his defeat, and takes revenge on him by punishing him like that. But on the other hand, Esper’s sacking may have been due to Trump’s willingness to use US armed forces inside the US (to stay in power), it’s a possible hypothesis. And the other assumption is (that Trump is going to make a major and dangerous decision) outside the United States: the Republican Party, the far right and their ally Israel (may be thinking) that they should do now something important in the Middle East that they haven’t been able to do in these 4 years, and that they want to catch up in the last two months. This is also a possibility. I have no preference (to favor either of these hypotheses), it takes analysis and these are new things that have just come out, but there may be nothing (serious behind it all), it may be a domestic matter and it may be that something (big) is brewing outside (and the main assumption would be an attack against Iran). Everything is possible.

See the New York Times on November 16th: Trump Sought Options for Attacking Iran

Resistance Axis remains on high alert, ready for any US-Israeli war

Within the Resistance Axis, states, governments, rulers, Presidents, Resistance factions, and Resistance Axis peoples, to say the least, because we are part of it, I call them all to vigilance, to be wakeful, to be careful. In everything we say, in everything we do, in everything we follow (closely), we must be attentive and watchful, take our precautions (and prepare for anything), because that is what wisdom and reason require from us. We must imagine the worst, even if nothing should happen, and be prepared to face it. We must be on high alert during these two months, hoping that with the grace of God they will end well. We must also stand at a high level of preparedness, ready to face any danger, any aggression, any harm, and pay back blow for blow and even more if the imbecility of the United States or Israel goes as far as something like that (a military attack). […]

Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.

“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” 

Hezbollah Command Delegation Offers Condolences on Demise of Syria’s Al-Moallem: Sayyed Nasrallah Describes Him as FM of Resistance

 November 19, 2020

manar-02996650016057346554

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah dispatched a command delegation to offer condolences on the demise of Syria’s late foreign minister, Walid Al-Moallem, to his family.

The delegation consisted of Hezbollah Secretary General’s Political Aide, Hajj Hussein Khalil, the assistant of Hezbollah Secretary General’s Political Aide, Dr. Hasan Hammoud, and MP Hussein Hajj Hasan.

Hezbollah delegation offered condolences on the demise of FM Al-Moallem in presence of the deputy foreign minister Faisal Al-Miqdad, conveying Sayyed Nasrallah’s message which hailed the virtues of the deceased top diplomat.

“He was the foreign minister of the resistance and its fighters,” Sayyed Nasrallah’s message read.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Nasrallah and looking forward to a new qualitative phase نصرالله واستشراف مرحلة جديدة نوعيّة

Nasrallah and looking forward to a new qualitative phase

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-474.png


Nasser Qandil

The atmosphere that surrounded the speech of The Secretary-General of Hizbullah, Mr. Hassan Nasrallah, was one in all the sections of the talk despite the diversity of its topics to the extent of the difference between talk about the maneuvers conducted by the occupation army, to the negotiations delimitation, to the u.S. elections, and to the sanctions that affected MP Gibran Bassil, and the climate is confidence that a new qualitative phase is about to begin, and that the worst is behind us, and that the targeting projects witnessed in the region in the form of wars, chaos, pressures, and sanctions This was evident in the words of Mr. Nasrallah about what the confrontation sought from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Palestine and ending with Lebanon, and it is true that the resistance has not achieved a qualitative victory in these recent years, but it’s steadfastness is a gateway to its next victory, because the maximum pressures have crossed and there is no longer any such thing called the worst, and all that will come will be in its balance.


The American elections and the Israeli maneuvers are two separate contexts on the face of it, but in essence they are two expressions that that complete each other from one truth, which is the fact of the historical failure of the American and Israeli projects. The occupation entity has failed to achieve the intended goal of invading Lebanon, which is to attach Lebanon to Israel time, thanks to the resistance since the bombing of the governor’s center. Al-Askari in Tire, 11-11-1982, this accumulated failure, thanks to the accumulation of sources of confrontation and resistance to the Anglo Zionist hegemony, generated a different international environment in which the Anglo Zionist could no longer progress, but the origin of the injury to the American project at the core was the steadfastness of the axis of resistance, especially the Triangle of Iran, Syria and the resistance forces in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Yemen. This failure, which was the phenomenon of savagery represented by U.S. President Donald Trump the last american products to overcome it, deepened with it and ended with the failure of Trumpism and with the failure of America as a model and possibly as a state and entity, and became success out of the crisis of the state and entity conditioned by the recognition of the failure of the project, and instead of introducing the axis of resistance in American time moved the American to the complex axis of resistance, which was the basis of the external failure and subsequently the establishment of internal failure.


In this climate, it becomes natural for Sayyed Nasrallah not to pay attention to the analyses that talk about the relevance of the border demarcation negotiations to normalization. What fails and is dying is the Israeli project, what advances and wins, is the resistance, and without the resistance advance the occupation would not have had to conduct indirect negotiations as a way to invest its wealth that has no prospect of achieving it without Lebanon obtaining its rights, as the resistance has the power of prevention and deterrence, the U.S. sanctions on Mp Basil become an opportunity to show a new stage of patriotism. Hezbollah-FPM alliance became free from sanctions and US-blackmail and has become more independent and able to move forward,, especially after the emergence of the functional use equations for corruption charges, and most importantly that a Lebanese path to internal coup against the resistance ended with sanctions after testing all other tracks of sedition, and more specifically since October last year, and with the American international failure and the Israeli regional failure, and internal failure culminated in sanctions.

ناصر قنديل

المناخ الذي أحاط بكلمة الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله، كان واحداً في كل مقاطع الحديث رغم تنوّع مواضيعه إلى درجة التباعد بين حديث عن المناورات التي أجراها جيش الاحتلال، إلى مفاوضات ترسيم الحدود، وصولاً إلى الانتخابات الأميركية، وانتهاء بالعقوبات التي طالت النائب جبران باسيل، والمناخ هو الثقة بأن مرحلة نوعيّة جديدة تشارف على البدء، وأن الأسوأ قد صار وراءنا، وأن مشاريع الاستهداف التي شهدتها المنطقة بصيغة حروب وفوضى وضغوط، وعقوبات وحصار واغتيالات، قد بلغت مداها وفشلت في تحقيق أهدافها، بفضل الصمود والثبات والتضحيات، وهذا كان واضحاً في كلام السيد نصرالله عما شهدته ساحات المواجهة من لبنان الى سورية والعراق وإيران واليمن وفلسطين وانتهاء بلبنان، صحيح أن المقاومة لم تحقّق نصراً نوعياً في هذه السنوات الأخيرة، لكن صمودها هو بوابة لنصرها الآتي، لأن الضغوط القصوى قد عبرت ولم يعد هناك شيء اسمه الأسوأ، وكل ما هو آتٍ سيكون في رصيدها.

الانتخابات الأميركية والمناورات الإسرائيلية سياقان منفصلان في الظاهر، لكنهما في الجوهر تعبيران يتمم أحدهما الآخر عن حقيقة واحدة، هي حقيقة الفشل التاريخي للمشروعين الأميركي والإسرائيلي، فقد فشل كيان الاحتلال بتحقيق الهدف المرسوم لاجتياح لبنان وهو إلحاق لبنان بالزمن الإسرائيلي، بفضل المقاومة منذ عملية تفجير مركز الحاكم العسكري في صور، في 11-11-1982، تحوّل هذا الفشل المتراكم بفضل حضور المقاومة وتنامي قوتها الى إقرار بدخول الكيان في زمن المقاومة، وهو ما تقوله المناورات العسكرية التي منحها السيد حيزاً مهماً من كلامه، وموضوعها هو الاستعداد لمواجهة خطر هجوم للمقاومة في شمال فلسطين، وبالمثل فشل المشروع الأميركي الذي تأسس على ما بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي في فرض الهيمنة على العالم، وبفضل تراكم مصادر المواجهة والممانعة لهذه الهيمنة، ولدت بيئة دولية مختلفة لم يعد ممكناً لهذا المشروع أن يتقدّم فيها، لكن الأصل في إصابة المشروع الأميركي في الصميم كان صمود محور المقاومة، خصوصاً مثلث إيران وسورية وقوى المقاومة في لبنان وفلسطين والعراق واليمن. وهذا الفشل الذي كانت ظاهرة التوحش التي مثلها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب آخر المنتجات الأميركية لتجاوزه، تعمق معها وانتهى بفشل الترامبية ومعها فشل أميركا كنموذج وربما كدولة وكيان، وصار النجاح بالخروج من أزمة الدولة والكيان مشروطاً بالتسليم بفشل المشروع، وبدلاً من إدخال محور المقاومة في الزمن الأميركي انتقل الأميركي الى عقدة زمن محور المقاومة الذي كان الأساس في الفشل الخارجي وتالياً التأسيس للفشل الداخلي.

في هذا المناخ يصبح طبيعياً أن لا يعير السيد نصرالله اهتماماً للتحليلات التي تتحدث عن صلة مفاوضات ترسيم الحدود بالتطبيع، فالذي يفشل ويحتضر هو المشروع الإسرائيلي والذي يتقدم وينتصر هو المقاومة، والتي لولاها ما اضطر الإحتلال لسلوك التفاوض طريقاً لمصلحة استثمار ثروات لا أفق لبلوغها من دون نيل لبنان حقوقه، حيث تملك المقاومة قدرة المنع والردع، وتصير العقوبات الأميركيّة على النائب باسيل فرصة لتظهير مرحلة جديدة وطنياً ركيزتها تطوير التحالف مع التيار الوطني الحر الذي تحرّر من الابتزاز وصار أكثر استقلالية وقدرة على المضي قدماً، وصار التحالف متحرراً من حسابات تفادي العقوبات، خصوصاً بعدما ظهرت معادلات الاستعمال الوظيفي لتهم الفساد، والأهم أن مساراً لبنانياً للانقلاب الداخلي على المقاومة قد انتهى مع العقوبات بعدما اختبرت كل المسارات الأخرى للفتنة، وبصورة أخص منذ تشرين العام الماضي، ومع الفشل الدولي الأميركي والفشل الإسرائيلي الإقليمي، فشل داخلي توّجته العقوبات.

فيديوات مرتبطة

مقالات مرتبطة

Sayyed Nasrallah: Response Fast to Any “Israeli” Aggression, Axis of Resistance must Be Ready for Any US Stupidity

Zeinab Essa

Beirut-Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Wednesday a speech on Hezbollah Martyrs Day.

Sayyed Nasrallah: Response Fast to Any “Israeli” Aggression, Axis of Resistance must Be Ready for Any US Stupidity

As His Eminence offered condolences to “the Syrian brothers and sisters for the martyrdom of His Eminence Sheikh Muhammad Al-Afyouni”, he also condoled “the Yemeni people over the martyrdom of the Minister Hassan Zaid.”

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah congratulated the Palestinian detainee Maher Al-Akhras, who emerged victorious over the “Israeli” jailer.

Regarding the occasion, he recalled that “The operation of the Emir of the martyrs, Ahmed Qassir, remains the largest against the “Israeli” enemy.”

“We chose this day to commemorate all our martyrs, by remembering the great self-sacrifice martyr operation when the Emir of the martyrs stormed the “Israeli” military ruler’s headquarters in Tyre,” he added, hailing the sacrifices of the martyrs’ pure and great souls.

According to His Eminence, “After learning the grace given by Allah the almighty, we should learn the value and greatness of these martyrs, as well as the security, power and presence they offered us in the regional equations.”

Commenting on the maritime border negotiations with the “Israeli” entity, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “Since the 2000 liberation, we announced that we have nothing to do with demarcating borders because this task is the responsibility of the state that decides where the Lebanese land and sea borders are.”

“The resistance is committed to what the state determines regarding the demarcation issue, and thus it helps the Lebanese army in liberating any occupied land,” he viewed, noting that “The Lebanese state is the one that announces the borders, and it is the one that announced that Shebaa Farms, Kfarshouba hills and part of Ghajar are Lebanese.”

In parallel, His Eminence highlighted that “The talk about oil in the Lebanese water dynamically initiated the move towards demarcating the maritime borders with occupied Palestine,” noting that Lebanese “House Speaker [Nabih] Berri was the one who was heading the negotiations, and we as a resistance had agreed to allow demarcation so that oil drilling starts.”

“The negotiations are only limited with demarcating borders away from any other file,” he said, recalling that “We stressed previously that the border demarcation should be only limited to the technical level.”

Explaining that “Recently, a special American interest has emerged over demarcating the borders with the “Israeli” side,” Sayyed Nasrallah underlined that “Speaker Berri was negotiating for 10 years until the American appeared interested in the file.”

Moreover, he confirmed that “Speaker Berri prepared what was called the framework for negotiations, and the responsibility was transferred to President Aoun, and the practical negotiations began. Some have tried to link the issue of border demarcation with normalization with “Israel”. This useless talk aims at covering up some Arab countries’ normalization with the “Israeli” entity.

Sayyed Nasrallah further lamented the fact “Since Berri announced the framework of the negotiations in September, many political parties and the media, especially those of the Gulf, started to link the talks with the normalization agreements of other Arab countries in the region with Israel the talks coincided with.”

“The talk about Hezbollah’s move towards normalization with “Israel” is mere lies and forgery. It does not deserve to be denied by us,” His Eminence said, noting that “Claims that the border talks will lead to a peace agreement or normalization with “Israel” are baseless and out of the question for Hezbollah and Amal.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that “Leading the negotiation file is in the hands of [Lebanese] President [Michel] Aoun, and we have full confidence in His Excellency, especially that we know his toughness and his keenness on national safety and Lebanon’s rights.”

On this level, His Eminence explained that Hezbollah “disagreed with President Aoun regarding the issue that the Lebanese delegation must be military, as well as the “Israeli” delegation, in order there won’t be any suspicion.”

“The Lebanese delegation must know that it attains elements of strength and is not in a position of weakness,” he stressed, noting that “Whoever wants to prevent us from benefiting from our oil, we can prevent it in return.”

Reiterating Hezbollah’s confidence with the president, Hezbollah Secretary General assured that “The Lebanese delegation is committed to the limits. President Aoun directs it in his own way, and we care that Lebanon gets its rights.”

On another aspect, Sayyed Nasrallah tackled the last “Israeli” military drill as “talks emerged of “Israel’s” readiness to do something in Lebanon or the Golan.”

“For the first time, the Lebanese resistance made “Israel” move from the offensive side to the defensive one. Some of the resistance’s units had been on alert over the past days during the “Israeli” military drill and we meant to let “Israel” know this,” he unveiled.

His Eminence also affirmed that ““Israel” is wary of attacking Lebanon, as its ambition in the field is limited, and it has moved to the ‘defensive’ thinking,” noting that “The enemy’s insistence on drills confirms what the “Israeli” generals have always talked about- the “Israeli” ground forces are suffering from a real and deep crisis, when it comes to readiness as well as the psychological and spiritual level.”

“If the “Israelis” think of waging any aggression, our response will be very fast,” The Resistance Leader asserted, explaining some of “Israel’s” point of military weaknesses: “In any coming war, the “Israeli” navy will be powerless than before. The “Israeli” Air Force alone is not able to win. Rather, the ground forces are essential and decisive, and the “Israeli” army has fundamental problems in this matter.”

On the same level, Sayyed Nasrallah unveiled that “The Syrian leadership took maximum precautions during the “Israeli” military drills,” noting that “The resistance was on alert without making the Lebanese people in the villages and towns feel anything, and this is what specializes this resistance.”

Commenting on the US elections, His Eminence called for learning “lessons from the American elections in order to really study what is being promoted as a US ideal sample. What happened in the American elections is an exposition of democracy, and the matter does not concern Trump only, but the Republican Party.”

Denouncing US President Donald Trump’s administration as among the worst US administrations, he underlined that “It was the most brutal, criminal and bleak one.”

However, he expected no change when things come to the apartheid “Israeli” entity. “[Joe] Biden’s election will not alter the US support for “Israel”.”

“With Trump’s exit, one of the Deal of the Century’s triangle sides has been broken. There remains [Benjamin] Netanyahu and [Mohammad Bin Salman] MBS,” His Eminence reiterated, expressing rejoice over Trump’s loss due to his crimes all over the world. “On the personal level, I rejoice for Trump’s humiliating fall, and we have the right to rejoice, especially after the crime of the era that Trump had committed by assassinating the great leader Hajj Qassem Soleimani and the Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis.”

In addition, the Resistance’s Leader praised “the region’s people and the axis of resistance who have stood firm in face of the American attack. Under an aggressive American administration, the axis of resistance has withstood and managed to fail and prevent schemes.”

On the replacement of US War secretary ark Esper, Sayyed Nasrallah warned that “Trump might do anything during his remaining two months.”

“The axis of resistance must be highly prepared to respond to any American or “Israeli” stupidity,” he confirmed, pointing out that “The “Israeli” enemy is anxious and Lebanon is secured by the golden equation, the army, people and resistance.”

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “America is not a destiny.”

Moving to the internal Lebanese front, Hezbollah Secretary General hailed the fact that “All schemes targeting the resistance from 2005 until today have failed,” noting that “Over the past 15 years, the Americans have explored ways to get rid of Hezbollah.”

“After their sedition attempts have failed, the Americans began their schemes 3 years ago to incite the environment of resistance against it,” he uncovered as he went on to state: “All events proved that the US embassy was the one that managed and financed the NGOs.”

According to His Eminence, “Faced with the failure of all their tracks, there is nothing left for the Americans but the path of sanctions against Hezbollah’s friends and allies.”

In his first comments on the US sanctions against the head of the Free Patriotic Movement [FPM] former minister Gibran Bassil, Sayyed Nasrallah said “I told Minister Bassil that we did not wish him any harm and asked him to take the stance he sees appropriate.”

In addition, he viewed that “The response to the US sanctions should be improving the relation between Hezbollah and the FPM. I advised him to take any position to avoid getting harmed as we offered to help him in any way we can.”

Narrating some of his discussions with Bassil, His Eminence underscored that “Bassil came to inform me and told me the US gave him two choices and that he wouldn’t comply with the demand [to break ties with Hezbollah], because it would compromise Lebanon’s independence and freedom.”

Praising Bassil’s position as “courageous and patriotic”, Sayyed Nasrallah urged Lebanese sides to stand in unity and solidarity in face of US tyranny. “With what legal and moral right does the US classify who is corrupt or not? A country that is the leader in terrorism and corruption. We won’t be happy if our opponents were sanctioned or listed as terrorists, as this forms a violation to Lebanon’s sovereignty.”

To the allies, His Eminence sent a message of assurance: “In the event you find yourselves under US pressure, you’re are fee to act as you wish. Think of your interests and Lebanon’s interest and act accordingly, and we in Hezbollah will understand.”

To the Americans, he raised the question: “If you are saying that Bassil is corrupt, if he breaks ties with Hezbollah will he stop being corrupt? You are contradicting yourself.”

Regarding the delay in the formation of the Lebanese government, or the delay in the cabinet formation process, Sayyed Nasrallah viewed that “the discussions need further consultations between President Aoun and PM-designate Saad Hariri, hoping that “the talks will be expedited.”

Related Videos

Nasrallah: Macron is waging a losing war against Islam and Muslims


Date: 5 November 2020

Author: lecridespeuples

Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on October 30, 2020, on the occasion of Islamic Unity Week, commemorating the birth of the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad b. Abdallah (born on the 12th day of the month of Rabi ’al-Awal according to the Sunnis, and the 17th according to the Shiites).

See also Ramzan Kadyrov’s full reply to Macron below

Source: https://video.moqawama.org/details.php?cid=1&linkid=2182

Translation: resistancenews.orghttps://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7x991xhttps://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7x993o

Transcript:

The status of the Prophet in the eyes of Muslims

[…] This great Prophet is regarded by the unanimity of Muslims throughout history, until this day and until Judgment Day —it will always be like this—, as worthy of all their love, passion, respect, consideration and sanctification, more than anything they can feel for any other human being in terms of love, respect and sanctification. No other Prophet, Messenger, Close Friend of God, Imam, Righteous or Chosen one throughout history (has such a lofty status). All Muslims have an exceptional esteem, a special faith, a very unique love for this person, this man, this personality.

Muslims can differ on many things, and this has happened (many times) throughout history: they have differed on all kinds of issues, whether disputes of thought and intellect, of dogma, of jurisprudence, about what is lawful and what is forbidden, about the evaluation of events in the history of the Muslim world and the status of some personalities, etc. Today, in our time, important and major political questions can separate and oppose Muslims, even struggles and (inter-Muslim) wars, etc. But there are points and questions on which there is unanimity, on which Muslims have never been divided throughout history, and which will remain unchanged until Judgment Day. One of the most important points of convergence, which unanimously unites Muslims, is their faith in Muhammad son of Abdallah, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family, their faith in his quality as Messenger and Prophet, in his unique character, in his (supreme) status and in his (unparalleled) rank. Muslims consider him as the Seal of the Prophets —there will be no Prophet after him—, the Master of Messengers, the best of creatures, the most perfect creation, the most perfect and noblest man (of all), the creature closest to God the Most High and the Exalted, the one whom God loves and cherishes the most. This is how Muslims regard this Messenger and this Prophet.

This faith is so great, the love of Muslims for the Prophet is such that they are ready to sacrifice their blood, their flesh, their whole being to him, they are ready to sacrifice their life, their soul, their mind, their heart for him. This is not a theoretical, philosophical, cultural or intellectual faith, no. There is an emotional and sentimental relationship, an (exceptional) attachment of soul and spirit (of every Muslim) with the Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family, (which manifests itself) when required, and it will always be required. (All Muslims) have the greatest respect for him here on earth, and know his status and his preeminent rank in the Hereafter (alongside God). All of this should be kept in mind in the points I will now address. Because the consequence of all this is that it is impossible for Muslims to tolerate the slightest insult, the smallest offense against this greatest Prophet. Because (all) Muslims consider that defending the dignity of their Prophet is the highest priority, which takes precedence over all other calculations, over all other interests –whether political, economic, concerning means of subsistence, etc. Absolutely no concern can come before this issue. This is the highest priority for Muslims, (under all circumstances). Muslims can not (ever) tolerate or forgive attacks on the dignity of their Prophet, nor never be silent in the face of such attacks, and that is why they react (with great virulence) to any action or behavior that involves an insult, outrage or offense against the greatest of God’s Messengers, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family.

The situation in France: condemnation of the Nice attack

I now come to the first point of my speech this evening, namely the current problem… This is not a problem limited to one country, or to Muslims in a specific country, but it concerns all Muslims throughout the world. I am talking about the current problem that the highest French authorities have with Islam and with Muslims. And I will express myself in a calm, precise and rational manner, in order to dissect this problem and seek ways of resolving it. My goal is to find a solution, not to reinforce enmities or hostilities, nor to seek new enemies.

I will start by (evoking) the last event, so that the false does not mix with the truth, nor the truth with the false, which would annihilate all truth and justice. I begin with the event in the city of Nice, in France, where a Muslim man killed three people and injured others. This attack —I start from the end to go back to the beginning—, we condemn it (very) strongly, and the Muslims (clearly) condemned it, each from his position: whether they are scholars, religious dignitaries or politicians, the entire Muslim world and the Muslim authorities in France and in Europe and everywhere else (have clearly condemned it). This attack is rejected and condemned by Islam itself, and no one should attribute it to Islam. Islam and the Muslim religion reject it, because Islam (formally) prohibits killing the innocent, attacking them or inflicting any harm on them, whatever their beliefs or convictions. And any similar attack that has taken place in the past, or that will happen in the future, will always be in our eyes, Muslims, and primarily from the point of view of Islam, (strongly) rejected and condemned, wherever it occurs, whatever the target, whether in France or anywhere else in the world. This point must be clearly established, as a principle and as a basis, so that our position is quite clear thereafter.

Terrorism and Islam: the unacceptable confusion of the French authorities

My second point concerning this question is that the French authorities, and all the other authorities, do not have the right to pin the responsibility for a crime perpetrated by a single person on his religion, nor on the followers of the religion to which he belongs. To put it more clearly, if a crime is perpetrated by a Muslim, no one has the right to blame Islam for that crime, and no one has the right to blame it on Muslims in France or around the world. Because it is an incorrect, unfair, illegitimate, illegal and immoral attitude. When a person commits a crime, it is he who must be held responsible for that crime, whatever his motivations, even if that person considers himself driven by religious considerations. If, for example, and these are things that are happening in France and in Europe, and elsewhere in the world —I am going to speak only of Muslims and Christians, I will not speak of Jews—, if a Christian man commits such a crime, which has already happened in France —and in France, most crimes are not committed by Muslims, even if the media insist on Muslim crimes and hide others, but those who follow this closely and check the statistics know it—, would it be right for anyone to pin the responsibility of this crime on our Master (Jesus Christ) the Messiah, peace be upon him, God forbid? Would it be right to blame it on the Christian religion, or on Christians around the world? Or on the Christians in the country in which the crime was committed? No one would accept such a confusion. But unfortunately, this is how the French authorities behave (towards Muslims). When President Macron and other French officials speak of “Islamist terrorism”, which someone translated as “Islamic terrorism”, which is the same thing, when they speak of “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism”… There is no such thing! “Islamist terrorism”, no more than “Islamist fascism”, do not exist. If someone commits a terrorist act, he is the terrorist. If anyone commits a crime, he is the criminal. But to speak of “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism” (is misleading & unacceptable).

Today, the United States are carrying out massacres all over the world. Since 2000 alone, since September 11, 2001, the wars they have waged in Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire Middle East, not to mention the world wars, Hiroshima, etc. Let’s only talk about what the current generations have gone through. Millions of people have been killed in these wars, and Americans admit killing hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes claiming it was by mistake, like the bombing of wedding ceremonies in Afghanistan, or as a deliberate act. Does anyone claim, because the American President and his administration are of the Christian religion [and claim waging a “crusade” against “evil” in the name of God], as are the majority of American soldiers [at least culturally], is anyone claiming that American terrorism is Christian terrorism [or Christianist terrorism]? Does anyone claim that the responsible for these massacres is our Master the Messiah, God forbid, or the Christian religion, whose values ​​and teachings (clearly) oppose these terrorist acts? Not to mention what the European armies, including the French army, did when they invaded Algeria and perpetrated atrocious crimes there, and what others have done in Libya and elsewhere in our region. No Muslim has denounced “Christian terrorism” or blamed the Christian religion [or so-called Republican, Democratic & Civilizational ideals] for these crimes, never. And if anyone made such a claim, he would be sorely mistaken. But there is no such tendency (to accuse Christianity) in the Muslim world.

Hanoi 3 Beheading decapitation 1908 Tonkin Vietnam Indochina Indochine  execution | eBay
colons | Nicolas Bourgoin
La France restitue 136 ans plus tard la tête du chef Kanak, Ataï, décapité  par l'armée coloniale française | Tsimok'i Gasikara - Réveillons-nous!

Head-choppers: who is the Master, and who is the pupil? See Joseph Massad’s Assimilating French Muslims

Therefore, it is unacceptable, when a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or a follower of any religion or thought, commits a crime, to attach the responsibility for it on his religion, or on the Prophet of his religion, or on the community that believes in this religion. To impute responsibility & liability to a whole group or religion is a (serious) mistake. And it must stop. But unfortunately, France and its officials make this confusion every day. After that, they claim that they respect the Muslim religion, but if this is really the case, they must renounce the expression “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism”, and stop following Trump, who has made his specialty of this type of expression.https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x6e7jhb

ISIS and Charlie Hebdo are both despicable

Third, in the last few days, we have heard a lot of criticism that instead of being concerned about some people who insult the Prophet and Islam, Muslims had better deal first with the Muslims who smear Islam and the Prophet (by their behavior). I would like to say on this subject that it is obvious that some Muslims smear Islam, that some Muslims smear the Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of God be upon him and his family, and that some commit very, very, very, very, very dangerous (and serious) offenses (against Islam). What we have seen in recent years in terms of terrorist acts, crimes, destruction of mosques, churches, historical remains, murders, beheadings, butchered chests, assassinations of innocent people from various peoples and various beliefs, slaughtered like sheep, so many atrocious images that the western media have also spread to the world, this is undoubtedly a very great insult that was done (by ISIS) to our religion and to our Prophet. We strongly opposed this, and clearly condemned it (in addition to having fought and defeated ISIS in Syria, Iraq, etc.).

See Nasrallah: ISIS is the biggest distortion of Islam in HistoryThe main victims of the Islamic State are the Sunni MuslimsSo-called ‘Islamic State’ is Wahhabi, every Muslim must fight it,

But even in the hypothesis —and this is not a mere hypothesis, it is a reality— where some Muslims smear our Prophet, that is no reason for you to smear our Prophet too. If some of you blaspheme what you consider holy, does that give us the right to do the same? It is completely absurd. Prophets, Messengers, religions, religious symbols and all that is holy must be respected, even if some followers of these religions sully and desecrate them.

charlie-hebdo-publisher-charb

Terrorists are the West’s creatures, not Islam’s

Fourth, and I continue to address French officials and the public opinion, instead of blaming Islam and Muslims for these terrorist acts that occur in France, Europe and elsewhere, let us rather seek together your responsibility, your own responsibility for these acts and the (existence of) these (terrorist) groups. Let’s go back (in time) a bit. Again, no need to go back 50 years, just go back ten years, to 2011. There is a takfiri and terrorist thought that supports the murder of anyone who has a difference of opinion, of thought, of dogma, of religious school, of politics or on the smallest other detail. And the followers of this thought perpetrate monstrous crimes. You are the ones who protected this thought, you Americans, the American administration, the French government, the European governments. You protected them. You gave them all the help in the world. For those who are followers of other thoughts, it is very difficult to obtain visas to come and work in your countries. But as for the followers of takfiri thought, all the doors were opened to them, and they were protected. These groups which have been formed and which are followers of this takfiri thought, it is you who facilitated their access to Syria and Iraq. You have contributed to their support, their funding and their armament, to the point that they have acquired experience, expertise, a fighting spirit, etc. And I ask you the question: after all this, are you surprised that there are slaughterings, beheadings? But where did it start? It started in our region, in our countries. Who committed these acts? The very terrorist groups that you have supported politically, financially, in the media, in terms of communication… You have granted them international protection, you have organized international conferences to support them. You opened up all the borders to them, you provided them with passports, and you made it easier for them to come to the region. So start by looking for your own responsibility. Ask yourself how responsible you are for all of this.

I invite you to consult the archives for the years 2011-2012, whether in my statements or those of other people. We have urged you many times, especially the Europeans, not to participate in this world war against Syria, against Iraq and against our region —they failed to extend it to Lebanon (thanks to Hezbollah). We have told you many times not to embrace these terrorist groups, not to support them, not to facilitate their coming (from all over the world) and their strengthening. Because you will lose this battle, and these terrorists will turn against you. This (takfiri) thought will turn against you. These groups and these fighters will return to your countries and sow terror and chaos there. And whatever they’ve done in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere, they’re going to come back to you.

Islamic State | Latuff Cartoons

And that day, we told you clearly that the United States was very far, and that Europe was the area closest to our region (and would therefore be the preferred destination of these terrorists), and that the greatest threat therefore hung over Europe. We have warned you and urged you to be cautious. But you got carried away by your arrogance and your malice, and did not accept our exhortations. You thought you were going to win this war, and we know the outcome you were hoping for.

U.S. Trains 60 Moderate Rebels in Syria - That's all They Could Find

Today, you also need to question your own responsibility, and stop blaming those who have no responsibility. What is the relation between the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad b. Abdillah, peace and blessings be upon him, and these crimes? What is the relation between his religion, his Islam and his Quran with these crimes? What is the relation between the Muslim Community of 2 billion Muslims and these crimes? Those who are responsible for these crimes are people you embraced, protected, raised, to whom you have granted all the help in the world, whom you have brought (to Syria & Irak from everywhere). And it is this policy that must be reconsidered, because until now, you persist in this direction, you still carry out the same policies.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius praises Al-Nosra’s “good job” in Syria (authentic), while Al-Baghdadi praises their good job in France

Otherwise… I repeat with the same words I used then (in 2012), when we chose our side: I said we would never be on the side of the head-cutters, the chest-rippers, the (human) liver-eaters, the cut-throats. These people were your allies, the groups that you supported, that you protected. Therefore, it is you, the French, the Europeans, the Americans and their allies in the region who must reconsider your actions and behavior, and renounce the use of these terrorist groups as instruments in the service of (your) political projects and (your) war projects. And you never learn (from your mistakes). In Afghanistan, that is what you did (against the USSR), and you paid the price on September 11 (2001). You made those mistakes, and you make them again, always the same mistakes, the same mistakes, the same mistakes. The use of these kinds of (terrorist) groups as instruments must stop, otherwise you will also pay the price for these mistakes.

122108033_1269088633452579_2394864578863305449_n

When the West was praising Ben Laden

Sidebar: See also Putin’s comments on the issue“Instead of settling conflicts, [the Western interventions] lead to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable States we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals. Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over. They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists. 

In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force? We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.”

France embarks on an insane crusade against Islam

Fifth, the French authorities have launched a battle against Islam and Muslims for illusory, and sometimes incomprehensible reasons. They dragged France as a whole in this battle, and they are trying to drag all of Europe behind them. I speak with caution, and I’m not here to score points. What is the cause of the recent problem, the recent developments that we have seen in the last few weeks? So much so that it became clear that France, its President, its government, its ministers, Parliament, the media, the street, etc., are very clearly engaged in an open war (against Islam and Muslims). What’s the cause? Who started this problem? Who assaulted the other? Who insulted the other?

The problem started when this hypocritical and infamous French newspaper (Charlie Hebdo) started piblishing cartoons insulting the Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family. And now Muslims are denouncing it in many parts of the world. Then it developed into several events, up to the History Professor who was killed and beheaded. Instead of trying to solve this problem, get it under control and take a fair and measured stance, consisting in preventing the confusion of the true and the false and to mix everything, as they say in Lebanon, (by spreading confusion between Islam and terrorism, free speech and hate speech…), because there is an essential cause which led to all these developments…

photo-5

In 2015, a French teenager who merely reposted the cartoon on the right was indiceted for apology of terror

Instead of acting on the causes (I will come back to this at the end of my speech), the French authorities have acted on the consequences. Unfortunately, what happened is that the French authorities, instead of solving this problem, declared war on Islam and Muslims, and stubbornly and obstinately stuck (to their error), claiming that it was all about freedom of speech, and that France would persist in exercising this freedom of speech, in protecting & publishing those outrageous cartoons, which is absolutely insane (it is a capital mistake). France wants to persist in protecting & publishing those outrageous cartoons. So what is your message to 2 billion Muslims around the world? Because we are not talking about politics, money, economy, security struggle, etc., no! We are talking about the Prophet, the Messenger, the Master of Muslims, and I explained very well at the beginning of my speech what he represents for them. So what is the thing that would deserve these sacrifices on your part (state of maximum alert, loss of human life, etc.), O French authorities? What is it that justifies you endorsing it all, justifying it and defending it, protecting it by starting such a battle, embracing it? You claim that it is in the name of your values, including freedom of speech, and that you do not want to give up those values. All right, let’s debate that then. I said from the start that I wanted to speak in a calm and rational manner.

See Norman Finkelstein: Charlie Hebdo is Sadism, Not Satire

Freedom of speech has no limits only when speaking about Muslims

The first debate is about the way (this principle) is exercised, and the confrontation of your statements (in favor of freedom of speech) with reality. If things were really as you say, if things were really that way in France or in Europe (that is to say if freedom of speech was total there), perhaps we could say that indeed, the problem should be solved differently (than by banning these cartoons). But this is not the case. You must first convince Muslims that your claims are true and sincere, which is by no means a given, because Muslims do not accept your claims as a reality. Your claim is neither true nor sincere. We have a large amount of evidence and examples in France and in Europe where official actions have prevented freedom of speech, and even suppressed freedom of speech, for things that are much less sensitive than an issue that touches a Prophet in whom 2 billion people in the world believe.

See Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West’s outrage

In order not to waste too much time, I will be satisfied with a single example, well known, and which does not need much explanation, namely the French philosopher Roger Garaudy. One can easily find (the details of this case) in archives, televisions, official documents, videos, statements, etc. It all exists. All this man did was write a book, a study, on the founding myths of the Israeli genocide, namely the Holocaust. He proposed a rational debate, putting forward figures and discussing them, proposing a scientific and academic reflection on this subject, and speaking of the political instrumentalisation of this event. And let us recall that to this day, Europe and in particular Germany are still victims of a racketeering of international Zionism because of this issue. This man (Garaudy) neither insulted, offended, denigrated nor caricatured anyone, nor did he mention the Jewish religion. He only discussed an important event that happened in Europe.

See Norman Finkelstein: WHY WE SHOULD REJOICE AT HOLOCAUST DENIERS, NOT SUPPRESS THEM

What did the French authorities do in the face of this French philosopher? Judicial proceedings were launched against him, he was tried, and sentenced to prison. It was perhaps his advanced age that prevented him from serving his prison sentence. This man was (severely) repressed. Is this freedom of expression? Is this the value that you (claim) to defend? Because in reality, what we can say (to accurately describe the reality) is that when a certain community is affected (the Jews), when it comes to Israel or the Zionists, there are clear limits imposed to the freedom of speech. But when it comes to another community, an entire Ummah, 2 billion people, when it comes to their holiest things, then there is total freedom of speech.

photo-13

The example of Roger Garaudy, and many other examples that may be compiled on another occasion, confirms that freedom of speech in France and in Europe is not absolute, but hampered by legal, political, security limits, etc. [let us remind that in France, anything that can disturb public order, even without being illegal, can be prohibited]. This claim that freedom of speech is total (in France), and that anyone can say and do whatever they want, that any newspaper can disparagingly caricature the Prophet of Islam, or that someone could make a movie in which they make fun of the Prophet of Islam, this would not pose any problem, because freedom (of speech) is absolute, this claim is false. And if you want, some another time, we can present you with countless examples (of repression of freedom of speech in France). That is why this argument is inadmissible, and the whole battle you are waging today (against Islam) is based on non-existent and unreal foundations. The situation in France is not one of unlimited freedom of speech. We can make a whole list of your censorship of TV channels, newspapers, magazines, etc., on the pretext that they support a particular thought, or have broadcast particular programs and series (see for example the ban on the Al-Manar channel on the pretext of anti-Semitism). All of this can easily be found in the archives. So much for the first point.https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7x99lo

On September 18, 2012, following the broadcast of excerpts from a blasphemous film about the Prophet produced in the United States, entitled Innocence of Muslims, Hezbollah called its supporters to a huge demonstration to denounce this attack on Islam and Muslims. Over a hundred thousand people took to the streets of Beirut to proclaim their attachment to the Prophet and their rejection of any attack on his dignity. To everyone’s surprise, Nasrallah participated in person (remember that the Israeli, Western and Gulf secret services have made his elimination a priority), and delivered the above speech, one of the most vocal to date. Without the ravages of the coronavirus, it is likely that Hezbollah & Iran would have expressed outrage against Charlie Hebdo and Macron in a similar fashion.

The Rational and Moral Limits of Freedom of Speech

The second aspect (of this argument), which is equally important, is that even if this value of free speech was (really) fundamental and absolute to you, can it be considered as such when it is exercised in this form? Coming back to fundamental humanitarian and ethical values, can we claim that there should be absolute freedom of speech? Should it not refrain from crossing certain limits? Why must freedom of speech stop in the face of anti-Semitism? Does freedom of speech make it possible to insult others, to humiliate them, to undermine their dignity, to defame them, to slander them, to falsely blame them for crimes for example [cf. the Charlie Hebdo cartoons representing the Prophet, and therefore all Muslims, as a terrorist, and his religion as sh***]? And would it be fair to tolerate it? [Let us remember that Charlie Hebdo has been condemned 9 times by French Courts for libel].

If a person, in the name of freedom of speech, disseminates State secrets and facts that undermine national security, how will you react? How do the United States and the West behave in these situations [cf. the martyrdom of Julian Assange, a real case of freedom of expression completely censored by the media; France rejected both Assange’s and Snowden’s application for political asylum]? If anyone is doing, declaring or announcing things, or writing about matters which can create internal strife, a civil war, a danger to national security, how will you behave in the face of it? The freedom of speech does not stop then in front of the honor of anybody [in 1970, Charlie Hebdo’s ancestor, Hara-Kiri, was forbidden by the Interior Minister after a cartoon offensive to Charles de Gaulle who had just died]? (If this is really the case), we hope and call for you to reconsider things because it is not a human value, it is against human values. It is not an ethical value, it is contrary to all ethics and to all moral values. Therefore, we have to reconsider.

A call to reason

In conclusion, I would like to address the French authorities and tell them this: you see, today, in the Muslim world, nobody is looking for new enemies, nor new battles. I do not think that the state of mind of 2 billion Muslims is belligerent, on the contrary: Muslims are working to reduce hostilities in this world, and to remove from them the specter of wars and confrontations for which they always (are the first to) pay the price. You have to think about how to correct the mistake, the huge mistake you made. I heard the French leaders say: “We will not give in to terrorism”. No one is asking you to give in to terrorism. What you are being asked to do is correct your mistake. Righting one’s faults does not mean submitting to terrorism. On the contrary, persisting in your mistakes and engaging in confrontations that are not in the interest of anyone, this is submitting to terrorism, this is playing into the hands of terrorism and terrorists who want to blow up the whole world. You have to go back to the basic principles, and fix this fault, which is not like submitting to terrorism. This idea (of free speech), first of all, you exercise it in a wrong way, so exercise it in a right way. Apply it to Muslims as you apply it to non-Muslims (and Jews in particular). Be fair, be honest. Insulting our dignity, the dignity of our Prophets, of our Prophet, this cannot be tolerated by any Muslim in the world.

Calls for boycott of French products - Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

And I want to tell you in all clarity: even the political regimes of the Arab-Muslim world, which can buy and sell (anything), and find pretexts in front of their people to engage in plots, concessions and betrayals (of Palestine, etc.), they cannot, in front of their people, be silent or cover up the attack on the Prophet of these people, whom they respect, sanctify and love passionately. This is why this battle (against Islam and Muslims) that you insist on waging and in which you persist is a losing battle for you. Where are the interests of France and the French people? (What will happen) to your political and economic interests, to your relations with the Muslim peoples, with the Muslim world, if the French authorities wish to persist in this direction? This issue needs to be resolved, and you are able to find a (reasonable) solution to it.

See FRANCE’S WAHABI SECULARISTS

Towards international legislation banning blasphemy

I conclude by telling you that instead of trying to resolve the consequences, to put more and more soldiers and security services on alert to prevent such terrorist acts, forget the empty pretexts and solve the root of the problem. Do not allow this denigration, this humiliation to persist, this aggression, this attack (against Islam and Muslims). Only then will the whole world be with you. Anyway, terrorist acts are (clearly) condemned, as I said at the start of my remarks. But your responsibility and everyone’s responsibility is to get to the root of the problem and solve it (once and for all). In this regard, it is possible to rely on the proposal of His Eminence the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, and his call for international legislation banning such attacks against Muslims and the Muslim community. It is possible to rely on a similar formulation, for example an international law criminalizing the attack against the Prophets and Messengers, or attack against heavenly religions, or attack against what the Communities consider sacred, for example. Anything like this would do. Of course, if such international legislation is enacted, it will constitute a legal framework for freedom of speech, and a way out (which will allow the) French government (to break the stalemate while saving face) and for all other governments who claim to protect freedom of speech and claim that it is part of their values ​​and laws.

A way out must be found to this problem. It is not tolerable (to let it go on), the world having enough problems, confrontations and wars already. It is not tolerable, on the pretext of vain, ridiculous and doubtful claims as to their humanity, their morals and their legality, to push the world and the peoples of the world, and especially our Muslim community, as well as the countries of Europe which have this position and this status, to confrontations and wars of this type. The responsibility for solving this problem now lies with the French authorities in the first place. Everyone must cooperate to resolve this issue and put an end to this source of sedition. […]

Nasrallah concluded his speech by giving the example of Yemen, where despite the war and the catastrophic humanitarian situation, millions of people participated in the demonstrations commemorating the birth of the Prophet, denouncing France and affirming their readiness to defend the dignity of the Prophet. and the holy places of Islam, especially Palestine. He invited the Lebanese to scrupulously respect the health rules (masks, hand sanitizer, social distancing) against the coronavirus.

***

Here is how Kadyrov, President of Chechnia, replied to Macron (machine translated):

The French authorities support the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. This was stated by President Emmanuel Macron. He calls the actions that are offensive to almost two billion Muslims of the world “freedom of speech.” Moreover, Macron decided that he would change their religion and create “enlightened Islam” in France.

I do not know what state Macron was in when he made this statement, but the consequences of such a reaction can be very tragic. The French President himself is now becoming like a terrorist. Supporting provocations, he covertly calls on Muslims to commit crimes.

Macron cannot fail to know that the cartoons of the Prophet are painfully perceived by believers. And by his actions, on the contrary, he fans the fire, and does not extinguish it, as any adequate leader should have done. Never in history has such a policy ended well. But the President of France needs such upheavals related specifically to the Muslim world.

Hiding behind a desire to restore order, he is developing some new laws, talking about the need to control mosques and religious organizations. But in fact, the whole problem lies in himself. Until he and the leaders of other European countries begin to respect concepts such as “RELIGION”, “CULTURE”, “MORALITY”, there will be no worthy future and order in their States. Mockery of religion, mockery of it, they consider all this to be an observance of freedom of speech, but at the same time they themselves encroach on the values ​​of other people.

Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is an example for all Muslims in the world. We are all, almost two billion people, followers of his sunnah. And this, among other things, unites us. The most important thing in a Muslim’s life is religion. No one has the right to treat it in a mocking manner. Muslims will not forgive this.

Stop it, Macron, before it’s too late, stop provocations and attacks on faith. Otherwise, you will go down in history as a President who made extravagant decisions. Your absurd position on the publication of cartoons today is condemned not only by Muslims around the world, but also by any sober-minded representatives of other faiths.

You don’t even have the courage to admit that the mockery of faith and parodies of it became the reason for the tragic fate of the teacher in the suburbs of Paris. He tirelessly went to this result, defiantly provoking pupils, regardless of their indignation and requests to stop displaying offensive drawings. As a result, you elevate him to the rank of a hero of France, and the person he provoked is made a terrorist.

Well, Macron, if you call him a terrorist, then in that case, you are a hundred times worse, because you force people to terrorism, push people towards it, leave no choice, create all the conditions for nurturing extremist ideas in the minds of young people. You can safely call yourself the leader and inspirer of terrorism in your country.

Hiding behind all this time with false words about the highest human values, you by your behavior and actions are forcing people to commit crimes. And if you do not want to understand simple truths, then be prepared for the fact that Muslims around the world will not allow the name of the great Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to be insulted. You can not even doubt it!

Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.

“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” 

نصرالله عصر التنوير وماكرون محاكم التفتيش

ناصر قنديل

العلمانية التي ظهرت كنظام سياسي وعقد اجتماعي للدولة الأوروبية المعاصرة، هي منتج سياسي وقانوني لثقافة أعمق نهضت على أكتاف الثورة الصناعيّة وتجسّدت في القرنين الثامن عشر والتاسع عشر بثورة العقل والمنطق. وما عُرف بعصر التنوير الذي قاده عمالقة بحجم فولتير وروسو ومونتسكيو، وتبلورت شعاراتها السياسية بالحرية والأخاء والمساواة في الثورة الفرنسية، بينما تبلورت فلسفته العميقة بالاحتكام للعقل، وكانت قطيعة مع تاريخ معاكس مثلته محاكم التفتيش الكاثوليكية التي دفع فيلسوف كبير مثل برونو وعلماء كبار مثل كوبرنيكوس وجاليلو ثمناً باهظاً لها بتهمة الهرطقة على قاعدة تحريم الاحتكام للعقل والعلم، بينما سياسياً واجتماعياً طورد الإصلاحيون باسم التبرؤ من البدع كما حدث مع الفيلسوف ميشال سيرفيه الذي أحرق حياً في جنيف بتهمة رفض عقيدة التثليث، فيما شكلت جرائمها بحق المسلمين في الأندلس أبرز ما حمله سجلها التاريخي تحت عنوان فحص الولاء لله، وشكلت فكرياً وثقافياً وجهاً من وجوه استمرار الحملات الصليبية.

في ما يشبه استعادة مناخات الحروب الصليبية يتبادل الرئيسان الفرنسي والتركي عبثاً بالعقائد والعواطف والانفعالات المنبثقة عنها، حيث يصب كل منهما من طرفه وفي البيئة التي يخاطبها زيتاً على نار حرب عبثية، لا يتورّع فيها الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون عن التحدث عن أزمة في الإسلام، وإرهاب إسلامي، وفاشية إسلامية، أملاً بأن يتزعم جبهة تضم العلمانيين بداعي الدفاع عن حرية التعبير في شقها المتصل بالتغطية على ما يطال المقدسات الإسلامية، وتضم المتطرفين المسيحيين، الذين لا يخفون ضيقهم من تنامي حضور وتعداد المسلمين في فرنسا خصوصاً وأوروبا عموماً، وإلى الفريقين تضم اليمين الوطني الرافض لتكاثر المهاجرين من البلاد الإسلامية، أملاً بأن يشكل هذا الثلاثي مصدر زعامة تشبه زعامات بناها قادة الحروب الصليبية، بينما يسعى الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان، وفي ظل نزاع مصلحي بين الدولتين الفرنسية والتركية، لقيادة جبهة تضم الجاليات الإسلامية المقهورة تحت ظلم سياسات عنصرية في أوروبا، وتضم التنظيمات الإرهابية التكفيرية التي تشغّلها تركيا، وكانت فرنسا شريكها في التشغيل طوال سنوات الحرب على سورية، وتضم ثالثاً الشعوب العربية من المسلمين التي تسمع بصعوبة كلاماً منخفض الصوت لحكوماتها الواقعة تحت تبعية ذليلة لحكومات الغرب، فتعجز عن التجرؤ لمخاطبة الحكومات الغربية، والرئيس الفرنسي في المقدمة بلغة شجاعة تنتقد وتصحح وتعترض. وهذه الحكومات التابعة هي شريك لحكومات فرنسا وأوروبا في رعاية الجماعات الإرهابية وتشجيع الفكر التكفيري، لكن بغرض استعمال نتاج هذه الرعاية في ليبيا وسورية وليس في أوروبا.

في هذا القحط الفكري، والانفلات القاتل للعصبيّات، يخرج رجل دين معمّم من أتباع الرسول وعشاقه ليقود الدعوة للتعقل وتحمّل المسؤولية، ووضع النقاط على الحروف، مستعيداً المعاني العميقة لشعارات الثورة الفرنسية ودعوات روسو وفولتير، حيث الحرية هي الاحترام العميق لحرية المعتقد. وهو في الأولوية معتقد الأقلية والضعفاء والمقهورين، والأخاء هو الترفّع عن منطق التمييز العنصري على اساس الدين والعرق واللون والجنس، والمساواة هي نزاهة تطبيق معيار المحاكمة العقلية للمفاهيم قبل أن تكون المساواة أمام القانون، حيث لا يستوي نص تحريم الحرية والعقل تحت شعار معاداة السامية، ولو التزما كل التحفظ العلمي والضوابط الأخلاقية، وتطلق حرية بث الكراهيّة، ولو تمت بصورة عبثية تستخف بالضوابط الأخلاقية والقيمية للأخوة الإنسانية، تحت شعار حرية التعبير، فجادل رجل الدين المعمم، بلغة عصر التنوير كوريث لمنجزات الحضارة الإنسانية، من يفترض أنه الوصي على تنفيذ منتجاتها من الموقع الدستوري والسياسي، بعدما ارتضى أن يتحول إلى قائد جيش في الحرب الصليبية أو رئيس غرفة من غرف محاكم تفتيش.

كلام السيد حسن نصرلله في ما تشهده علاقة المسلمين والجاليات الإسلامية بالقضايا المثارة على مساحة أوروبا من وحي قضية الرسوم المسيئة للرسول والجرائم الإرهابية المتذرّعة بها، مرافعة فلسفية عقلانية تستعيد روح عصر التنوير والاحتكام للعقل، والحل الذي تبنّاه ختاماً لمرافعته، مستعيداً مقترح الأزهر بتشريع عالمي لتحريم النيل من المقدسات، حجر متعدد الأهداف في يوم الوحدة الإسلامية، بينما يتساءل بعض رجال القانون في فرنسا، لماذا لا تتم محاكمة أصحاب الرسوم المسيئة للرسول تحت بند العداء للسامية، أليس الرسول من أحفاد سام بن نوح، وقد روى الترمذي أن الرسول هو القائل بأن “سام أبو العرب ويافث أبو الروم وحام أبو الحبش”؟

Sayyed Nasrallah Cites Double Standards of Freedom of Expression in France: Western States Protected Takfiri Groups

 October 31, 2020

Capture
Video Here

Mohammad Salami

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on Friday condemned the Nice attack, stressing that Islam forbids killing the innocent people and categorically rejects such crimes.

In a televised speech on the occasion of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Birthday, Sayyed Nasrallah called on the French authorities and public opinion to avoid blaming Islam and all Muslims for the attack which targeted Nice City or any other area in the world, confirming that such acts are illegitimate and immoral and that only the culprits must be persecuted.

Sayyed Nasrallah rejected the French President Emmanuel Macron’s use of the “Islamic Terror” term, underscoring the obligation of respecting Islam and wondering whether religions can be blamed for crimes committed by individuals.

In this context, his eminence said that no one blamed Christianity for the crimes committed by the French military in Algeria or the atrocities of the US army all over the world.

Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that the takfiri and terrorist groups in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq, have been protected by the US administration and the European governments, adding that employing those terrorists to carry out certain political and military scheme must be stopped.

“You will pay the price of supporting the terrorist groups,” Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the Western States.

Sayyed Nasrallah maintained that if some Muslims have distorted their own religion, this does not give the others any right to abuse Islam, stressing that the Islamic teachings have nothing to do with the crimes committed by the terrorist groups.

Hezbollah leader pointed out that the recent tensions in France started with publishing that cartoons which abuse Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), continued in the form of Muslim protests against the insults and developed into the murder of the French history teacher.

“Instead of addressing the root causes of the problem, the French authorities waged a war of this sort, claiming that it is a matter of freedom of speech.”

“What is the message which the French authorities want to send to the Muslims by insisting on allowing the cartoons which insult Islam?”

Sayyed Nasrallah called on France and the other Western States to convince the Muslims that it is a matter of freedom of speech, adding that facts prove other abuses, especially those related to ‘Israel’ are banned.

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the freedom of speech in France is restricted, citing the example of the philosopher Roger Geraudy who was persecuted for denying the Holocaust.

Hezbollah Secretary General stressed that the aim is not instigating hostilities and conflicts, calling on the French authorities to address their sin and confirming that the Muslims can never accept any humiliation and insult against their Prophet (PBUH).

“Undoing the mistake is not succumbing to terrorism. Be fair as the insults against the Prophet can never be tolerated by all the Muslims. Even the political regimes cannot cover up such abuses. So, you have to withdraw the excuses and stop this violation,” Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the French authorities.

Sayyed Nasrallah called for adopting the proposal of Egypt’s Al-Azhar based legislating international laws that criminalize abusing the religions and sanctities, underscoring that freedom of speech must not be away from restrictions so that the world countries avoid paying heavy prices for these violations.

Yemen

Hezbollah Secretary General highlighted the million-man celebration of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) across the Yemeni provinces despite the Saudi-led aggression and blockade in addition to the poverty crisis and the pandemic outbreak, stressing that this reflects the depth of their Islamic faith, love to the Prophet and readiness to defend Him.

“Millions of Yemenis march for hours before listening to the speech of the dear Sayyed Abdul Malik Al-Houthi, voice commitment to the Palestinian cause and reiterate readiness to defend the Palestinians, while those, who enjoy a luxurious life and have never engaged in any war with ‘Israel’, rush to abandon Palestine and normalize ties with the enemy.”

This should be a divine indication that the Yemenis must be supported and that the Saudi-led war on Yemen must be immediately stopped, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.

“All those who back the Saudi-Emirati-Sudanese aggression on Yemen must reconsider their calculations immediately.”

Lebanon

Domestically, Sayyed Nasrallah expressed hopes of a speedy cabinet formation, stressing that Hezbollah will cooperate with all the parties in this regard.

“It’s time to form the new government, not to engage in disputes.”

Regarding the sharp rise in the number of coronavirus cases, Sayyed Nasrallah urged all the residents to commit the anti-pandemic measures and highlighted the religious aspect of this commitment.

Prophet Muhammad’s Birthday

Sayyed Nasrallah felicitated all the Muslims around the world on the Birthday of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and His Grandson Imam Jaafar Al-Sadek (P).

Sayyed Nasrllah stressed that the Prophet’s Birth was the prelude of announcing the unaltered and the final revelation of the Holy God, adding that Prophet Muhammad showed a number of miracles as all the other Prophets.

The eternal miracle of Prophet Muhammad is the Holy Coran which has been preserved for 1400 years and will remain till the Resurrection Day in accordance with the divine promise and can never be matched by any human book, Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out.

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that Muslims love, appreciate, respect and sanctify Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) more than any other human being, though they love all the other Prophets.

Muslims disagree on many jurisdictional, political and other issues; however, one of the issues that have remained consensual among them through history is their love to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and belief in His Greatness as a perfect human and closest creature to Holy Allah, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.

“This love is not only cognitive and philosophical but also spiritual. Muslims glorify their Prophet (PBUH) and consider his distinguished position, so they may never tolerate any humiliation or insult against Him.”

Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that Muslims consider defending Prophet Muhammad (PBUH as a top priority above any other issue and find it obligatory to respond to any abuse which targets the Messenger.

Sayyed Nasrallah postponed tackling a number of other topics, including the normalization deal with the Zionist enemy, the military drills of the Israeli occupation army and the situation on Lebanon’s southern border, due to the time consideration for the upcoming speech scheduled to be on November 11 on the occasion of Hezbollah Martyr’s Day.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related Videos

Related Articles

Sayyed Nasrallah: Insulting the Prophet [PBUH] Unacceptable; US, The West to Pay the Price of Nurturing Takfirism

Sayyed Nasrallah: Insulting the Prophet [PBUH] Unacceptable; US, The West to Pay the Price of Nurturing Takfirism
Click for Video

By Zeinab Abdallah

Beirut – Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered a televised speech marking the birth anniversary of the Prophet of Mercy, the Messenger of Islam Muhammad bin Abdullah [PBUH] and his grandson the sixth Shia Imam Jaafar bin Muhammad al-Sadiq [AS].

After congratulating the entire Muslim world on the blessed occasions, Sayyed Nasrallah lectured France on the morale and rank of the holy prophet among his Muslim nation, and called the French authorities to reassess their measures and their standards upon which they tackle the freedom of expression.

His Eminence further elaborated on Prophet Muhammad’s [PBUH] existing miracle that will remain until the day of resurrection, which is witnessed in all times, in reference to the holy book that Allah has sent his last prophet, the Holy Quran.

“The survival of this holy book in this accurate manner is a miracle in itself despite all reasons to distort it,” His Eminence stated, adding that “The most notable achievement of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] is the humanitarian achievement he made in the deep and huge transformation of the Arabian Peninsula community.”

All Muslims respect, sanctify, and appreciate this great prophet unlike any other human, though they love and appreciate all other prophets, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored.

“Among the most important social points for Muslims is that they believe in the greatness of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH], and they view him as the most complete human and the closest creature to Allah the almighty,” His Eminence added.

Making clear that Muslims could never tolerate any insult or humiliation directed at the great prophet, Sayyed Nasrallah added that they consider defending the dignity of their prophet among the top priorities that is above all other interests and calculations.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Hezbollah Secretary General stated that the Nice incident is strongly condemned and rejected by Islam; the religion that forbids killing or attacking civilians. “All similar attacks are rejected in the first place from Islam’s viewpoint.”

However, he emphasized that neither the French authorities nor others are permitted to blame the religion or the community of the religion to which the perpetrator belongs.

Making the example closer to their minds, Sayyed Nasrallah asked: If a Christian man commits such a crime, which happened indeed in France, is it right to say that all world’s Christians are responsible for this crime?

“The US today commits crimes all over the world, and they admit the killing of thousands in such wars. Did any Muslim accuse Christians of those crimes just because the US President is Christian?” he then questioned.

Highlighting the importance of respecting Islam as a religion, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the matter requires to stop using the terms of “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic fascism.”

“If some Muslims offended Islam it doesn’t give the right to any other side to offend it too. The Takfiri terrorist ideology, which adopted killing just for ideological differences in our region, was protected by the West.”

Blaming the West for nurturing the Takfiri and terrorist ideology, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “The West has, in the first place, to look for its responsibility for Takfiri groups, and the US administration and the European governments supported and funded Takfiri groups in Syria and Iraq.”

His Eminence then ruled out Islam’s involvement in such terrorist acts, adding that “Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] and the Muslim nation have nothing to do with the crimes committed by the Takfiri groups.”

Sayyed Nasrallah also noted that the Americans and the Europeans should reassess their behavior of using terrorists as tools in their political schemes and wars. “Using such kind of tools must stop, otherwise you [the US and the West] will pay the prices for those mistakes.”

Referring to the origin of the Muslims’ problem with the French authorities, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled that the crisis began when the notorious French magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons insulting Prophet Muhammad [PBUH], and the French authorities, instead of dealing with the issue, started a war of this kind and insisted to continue publishing such sarcastic cartoons.

Instead of dealing with the repercussions, Sayyed Nasrallah advised the French authorities to deal with the reasons. “We have many evidences that they suppressed the freedom of expression in less sensitive issues that insulting the Prophet. We have many evidences that they suppressed the freedom of expression in less sensitive issues that insulting the Prophet.”

Commenting on the double standards when it comes to the freedom of expression in France and Europe, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that is not an absolute matter, but rather restricted with security and political considerations. “When it comes to ‘Israel’, this freedom stops in France, and the examples are many. Why does it stop when it comes to anti-Semitism?”

His Eminence called for reassessing the concept of the freedom of expression, especially when it harms dignities, recommending the French authorities to deal with this grave mistake.

“Do not allow the progress of this aggression, violation and sarcasm. Offending the dignities of our Prophets is not accepted by any Muslim in the world,” Sayyed Nasrallah said as he addressed the French authorities.

He also assured them that they will lose this battle that they insist to continue. “Where are France’s interests in its relations with the Muslim world if it wants to continue in this situation?”

The responsibility for dealing with what happened in France is related to the French authorities’ performance, His Eminence added.

Blasting the Arab regimes that normalize with ‘Israel’, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that they are not allowed to remain silent and cover such offense against the sacred prophet for their people.

The resistance leader hailed the strong significances of the Yemenis’ presence in defending the Prophet [PBUH] despite all difficulties: “Despite the siege and war in Yemen, we find the Yemeni people assemble to celebrate the Prophet’s birth anniversary.”

He then urged Muslims and the entire world to read yesterday’s scene in Yemen with fidelity and religious background. “A major movement must be formed in the Arab world to press for ending this brutal war against Yemen. It is the least of our duties,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized.

He then called on Muslims to support the Yemeni people as the most notable thing they would present today to Prophet Muhammad [PBUH].

On the Lebanese level, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the country cannot continue with a caretaker government. He then assured that Hezbollah’s information say that the cabinet formation circumstances are good and acceptable, adding that: “We will cooperate and facilitate the formation. Time now is not for internal problems.”

As for the surging COVID-19 cases across Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah repeated and recalled that leniency in the battle with the Coronavirus is unethical, inhumane and illegitimate. “The responsibility for fighting the Coronavirus belongs to everybody; the government and people, not the Health Ministry alone,” His Eminence concluded.

Before ending his sermon, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that he will deliver a speech on November 11, the day that marks Hezbollah Martyr’s Day.

Related Videos

Related News

حزب الله والتيّار الوطني الحر

ناصر قنديل

تسود مناخات عامة سياسيّة وإعلاميّة تتساءل حول مستقبل العلاقة بين حزب الله والتيار الوطني الحر وتتحدّث عن تموضع جديد في مواقع وعلاقات الفريقين ما يجعل التحالف الذي قام بينهما قبل خمسة عشر عاماً عرضة للتفكك، ويشترك كثيرون من الأنصار والمؤيدين للفريقين خصوصاً في الترويج لسقوط التفاهم الذي ولد في مار مخايل بين الرئيس ميشال عون والسيد حسن نصرالله، والذي شكل العلامة الفارقة في الأحداث اللبنانية وما حولها منذ توقيعه. ومصدر هذا المناخ وما ينبثق منه مجموعة من المواقف التي أظهرت أن حجم الافتراق في المواقف بين الفريقين الكبيرين، يطال ملفات كانت تعتبر من ثوابت العلاقة بينهما، وفي طليعتها ما رافق ملف التفاوض حول ترسيم الحدود، وصلته بموقع ومكانة المقاومة وخياراتها في حسابات التيار الوطني الحر ومواقفه، ومن بعدها ما يتصل بتبلور أغلبية نيابية يشكل الفريقان عمودها الفقري تبدو وكأنها في طريق التفكك كلما تظهر المسارات المتصلة بالملف الحكومي، وما سبق وتلا هذين المفترقين الكبيرين من علامات تمايز تتسع هوامشه لدى التيار في توجيه الانتقادات العلنية لحزب الله، سواء تجاه الحديث عن الافتراق في مقاربة ملف الفساد، أو تجاه الدور الإقليمي لحزب الله، او محاكاة بعض الأصوات التي تحدثت عن الحياد وفي جوهر خطابها تحميل حزب الله مسؤولية توريط لبنان بسياسات أدت لعزلته وحصاره وصولاً لنضوب موارد العيش فيه، وفي الطريق ما يُحكى ويُقال عن دور التلويح الأميركي بالعقوبات في إنتاج هذا التموضع للتيار، أو صلته بعدم اطمئنان التيار لموقف الحزب من ترشيح رئيسه لرئاسة الجمهورية، أسوة بما فعل مع ترشيح مؤسسه وضمان وصوله للرئاسة.

يمثل كل من الفريقين تعبيراً عن نسيج اجتماعي ثقافي مختلف عن الآخر، وعن تاريخ وموقع مختلفين في السياسة اللبنانية، كما يمثل كل منهما حساسيّة خاصة مختلفة تجاه قضايا عديدة، بما فيها قضية الموقف من عناوين تتصل بالمواجهة مع كيان الاحتلال، كقضيّة الفارّين إلى الكيان من بقايا مرحلة العميل انطوان لحد، كمثال سابق كثيراً على القضايا الراهنة، وفي مرحلة كان التفاهم في ذروة الصعود ولم تمض عليه شهور قليلة بعد. فالتيار يأتي بجمهوره من ثقافة تصادم مع سلاح خارج مؤسسات الدولة، وثقافة تصادم مع سورية، وثقافة تصادم مع اعتبار لبنان خط اشتباك مع المشروع الأميركي ومع المشروع الإسرائيلي فيما يتجاوز الحقوق السيادية اللبنانية، ويتشكل التيار من مناخات تسهم قيادته في ملاقاتها وضبط حركتها، وهي مناخات تصنعها عموماً جهات ومرجعيات ووسائل إعلام ومواقف تتشابك مع بيئة التيار ثقافياً، وقيادة التيار لا تملك قدرة إنتاج للسياسات تخططها وترسمها وتضبط الالتزام بها. وبالمقابل يأتي حزب الله من مناخ عقائدي منظم متجذّر في تاريخه المقاوم كعنوان محوري لنظرته لدوره، بعيداً عن مفهوم أولويات تتصل باللعبة السياسية الداخلية خارج سياق موقعها من قضية المقاومة، وينطلق من شبكة تحالفات جرى بناؤها خلال زمن تراكمي حول المقاومة، داخلياً وإقليمياً، تحيط بالحزب على خلفية التقاطع معه حول مكانته في المعادلة التي تشكل المقاومة عنوانها الأبرز. وهي تحالفات سابقة للحلف مع التيار وفي غالبها غير متآلفة معه، ولذلك يخطئ مَن يتجاهل حجم الجهد المبذول من قيادة الفريقين لصيانة تحالفهما وتسويقه بين جمهورهما، وتحويل هذا التحالف الى ركيزة محورية في صياغة المشهد السياسي اللبناني.

ليس جديداً أن التيار عاش فرضيّة الاعتقاد بأن حزب الله مطالب بتجنيد قدراته وعلاقاته وفرض مواقف على تحالفاته على قاعدة تلبية الحسابات السياسيّة للتيار، بينما عاش حزب الله فرضية الاعتقاد بأنه أدى اللازم وأكثر تجاه حلفه مع التيار. وليس جديداً أن التيار عاش فرضية تثبيت التحالف مع الرئيس سعد الحريري وتخطي مسؤولية تياره المتقدمة على جميع مكوّنات مرحلة ما بعد الطائف عن السياسات التي أدّت إلى دفع البلد نحو المأزق الاقتصادي وتفشي الفساد، مقابل خوض المواجهة مع الرئيس نبيه بري تحت شعار توصيفه كعنوان أول للحرب على الفساد، وحق الحكم على حجم دعم حزب الله للتيار بقبول هذه الفرضية، بينما عاش حزب الله فرضية اقتناع التيار بأن الحزب الذي يمنح الحفاظ على الاستقرار وقطع الطريق على الفتن تفهم العلاقة المميزة بين التيار والحريري، متوقعاً تفهم التيار لعلاقة الحزب بحلفائه وفي مقدمتهم حركة أمل وتيار المردة، مع فوارق مسؤولية المستقبل وأمل والمردة عن السياسات المالية والاقتصادية خلال عقود ماضية. وبالتوازي عاش التيار اعتقاداً قوامه أنه يستطيع تمييز مسيحيته عن لبنانيته من دون إضعاف وطنيته وصولاً لتفاهم معراب مع القوات اللبنانية، بينما له الحق أن يدين حرص حزب الله على الساحة الشيعية كبيئة مباشرة، ويعتبر ذلك تنازلاً عن السعي للإصلاح وتعريضاً للمشروع الوطني الذي يجمعهما، كل هذا ولم يناقش التيار والحزب معاً طوال فترة التحالف فرص السعي لبلورة مشروع سياسي اقتصادي مشترك يعرض على القوى السياسية لتشكيل ائتلاف برنامجي عريض يصير هو المعيار للتحالفات، بحيث صارت الاجتهادات التكتيكية مواقف وشعارات وقواعد ناظمة للسياسة.

شكلت التحوّلات الدراماتيكية التي رافقت الانفجار الاقتصادي الاجتماعي من جهة، والضغوط الأميركية العالية الوتيرة بوجه المقاومة في محاولة لتحميلها مسؤولية المأزق المالي، والاستهداف الذي توجّه نحو البيئات الحليفة للمقاومة وفي طليعتها التيار الوطني الحر، كما صرّح بذلك أكثر من مسؤول أميركي علناً، وما رافق توظيف الانتفاضة الشعبية لتوجيه اتهامات قاسية للعهد والتيار، مصدراً لوقوع التيار تحت ضغوط معنوية ومادية فوق طاقته على امتصاصها واحتوائها، وكلها ضغوط تلاقي مزاج بيئة التيار التقليدية، بما فيها دعوات الحياد، ووهم التخفّف من القيود والحصار بالابتعاد مسافة عن حزب الله، بينما كانت لهذه الضغوط نتيجة معاكسة في بيئة حزب الله، لجهة التشدد في الصمود والثبات والتمسك بالخيارات. ومثلما سادت توقعات في بيئة التيار بأن يقوم حزب الله بالإقدام على خطوات تريح العهد والتيار ولو من حساب خياره كمقاومة ودورها الإقليمي المتعاظم، سادت توقعات معاكسة بيئة حزب الله محورها مزيد من التمسك من قبل التيار بالتحالف والتماسك مع الحزب بوجه الضغوط والتهديدات.

التباينات التي أظهرتها الأيام الأخيرة تقول إن ما بين التيار وحزب الله وجودي ومصيري لكليهما، فليس الأمر بغطاء مسيحي للمقاومة، لا تحتاجه، ولا الأمر بدعم استراتيجي للعهد لم يضمن له نجاحاً، بل بنسيج لبناني اجتماعي وطائفي أظهر قدرته على إنتاج علاقة تحالفية نموذجية واستثنائية، قادت الى تشكيل علامة فارقة في الحياة السياسية سيعود بدونها التيار الوطني لاعباً مسيحياً محدود القدرات التنافسية في شارع تزدحم في الإمكانات وتتفوق عليه فيه الشعارات والسلوكيات الطائفية. وسيجد حزب الله نفسه في ملعب تقليدي لا يشبه تطلعاته نحو فتح الطريق نحو مشروع دولة مختلفة باتت بيئته تضع السعي نحوها بأهمية حماية المقاومة ذاتها، ولذلك فإن قدر الفريقين هو التمسك بالتحالف، والتفرغ لمناقشة هادئة ومسؤولة ومصارحة عميقة للإشكاليات وتفهم متبادل للخصوصيات، لصيانة التحالف وإدارة الخلافات، والتمهيد لمشروع سياسي وطني يجمعهما ويجمع معهما الحلفاء الذين يمكن معهم إعادة إنتاج الغالبية النيابية، التي يشكل استهدافها أبرز أهداف خصوم الفريقين لإضعافهما معاً وكل منهما على حدة.

التطورات التي رافقت ملف التفاوض على الترسيم، في جوهرها تسليم أميركي بفشل الرهان على تحييد المقاومة ومقدراتها عن ساحة الصراع على ثروات النفط والغاز وأمن كيان الاحتلال، وتسليم بأن الطريق الوحيد نحو هذين الملفين الاستراتيجيين بالنسبة لواشنطن يمر من بوابة التسليم بمكانة المقاومة وسلاحها، وهذا نصر لخيار التيار الوطني الحر مع المقاومة بقدر ما هو نصر للمقاومة نفسها، وبالتوازي تشكل العودة الأميركية لتعويم خيار حكومة تقود مرحلة الانفراج بعد شهور من الحجر والاسترهان لهذه الحكومة. هو تسليم بالعجز عن تطويع العهد والتيار واجتذابه إلى ضفة العداء للمقاومة بالترهيب والترغيب، وبالتالي إذا كان مفهوماً تصاعد التباينات في أيام العسر فإن أيام اليسر مقبلة، والحفاظ على التحالف الذي لعب دوراً حاسماً في صناعة شروط هذا اليسر هو أضعف الإيمان، ولا يفسد في الود خلاف على الوفد التفاوضي جاء تظهيره مكسباً لتعزيز الموقع والثوابت وقطعاً للطريق على الضغوط وأوهام الإيحاءات.

Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on September 29, 2020

Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on September 29, 2020
VIDEO HERE

Translated by Staff

Speech of Hezbollah’s Secretary General, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, tackling the latest developments – Tuesday 9/29/2020

I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious the 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 and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you all.

I haven’t addressed you for a month, since the tenth of Muharram. Important developments and events have taken place during the past few days and weeks, putting me at your service, God willing, to tackle these developments and topics.

The first point:

Let me start with the first point and perform a moral duty towards Kuwait and the people of Kuwait. I start with the first point, which is to offer condolences over the departure of His Highness the Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah to Kuwait, its people, the crown prince, the Emir’s family, the government, the National Assembly, and the people of Kuwait on this occasion.

Of course, we in Lebanon remember the late Emir’s personal and great role in ending the Lebanese civil war in the late 1980s. Likewise, the Lebanese people, us included, will never forget the distinguished position of the Emir, the government, the people, and the National Assembly of Kuwait during the July war and in the face of the “Israeli” aggression on Lebanon. The political position was clear and decisive. We will never forget their generous contribution to the reconstruction of what the Zionist aggression on Lebanon destroyed in 2006.

From our position as nationalists and a resistance movement in the face of the “Israeli” aggression and the Zionist project, we commend Kuwait’s coherent position, under the leadership of its late Emir, in the face of all the pressures imposed on Arab countries, especially the Gulf ones, to join the convoy of normalization.

Kuwait still maintains this honorable and coherent position that is consistent with its national, Arab, and Islamic commitments towards al-Quds and Palestine.

On this occasion, I ask Allah Almighty to grant the late Emir His mercy and forgiveness. I ask God Almighty to preserve Kuwait and its people and enable it to calmly transition to the new stage.

The second point:

We start with the local developments. This is also related to security. The second point concerns the events in the north. It begins with the security side. I call on the Lebanese to take note of what happened during the past few weeks in the town of Kaftoun where three of its youths and men were martyred. This in addition to the confrontations that took place between the Lebanese army and armed groups in the north, resulting in the martyrdom of Lebanese army officers and soldiers, as well as the great confrontation that took place in the Wadi Khaled area, fought by the Internal Security Forces, especially the Information Branch, with the support of the Lebanese army, achieving great accomplishments.

At this point, we, as Lebanese, must appreciate these efforts and these sacrifices, and we must also extend our condolences to the Lebanese Army leadership and the families of the martyrs of the Lebanese Army for the loss of their loved ones.

We must also commend these families for their patience, steadfastness, and enormous sacrifices in defending Lebanon, its safety and security. We must also praise the position of the people and their rallying around the army and security forces in the north, in the northern villages and towns where these confrontations took place.

By exposing these diverse groups, it has been revealed so far – from those killed, arrested, and identified – that there are groups made up of Lebanese, Syrians, and Palestinians who are armed with various weapons. According to the available information, quantities of explosive materials, weapons, and explosive belts were found with these groups. But the most dangerous were the mortar rounds and LAW missiles. This means that these groups were not only preparing for suicide attacks or small and limited operations here and there. But they were preparing themselves for a major military action.

In the coming days and weeks, investigations conducted by the security services might reveal to the Lebanese people the magnitude of the great achievement of the army, the internal security forces, and the Information Branch in the recent confrontations, as well as any calamity that was thwarted by the grace of God Almighty and the efforts of all these people in the north. In any case, we have to wait.

Regarding this point, if you remember correctly, I issued a warning a month ago and called on you to pay attention. I said that there was a revival of Daesh in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Unfortunately, some people responded with sometimes sharp, negative, and violent comments. In any case, hatred, blindness, and ignorance sometimes prevent some people from seeing the facts. This is primarily because they are unable to read what is happening in the region.

In our region, specifically after the “assassination of the era” by the United States of America that saw the targeting of martyr Commander Hajj Qassem Soleimani and martyr Commander Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, the Iraqi people’s demand for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, and the decision of the Iraqi parliament in this regard, the US started reviving Daesh. If you notice since that time, Daesh has returned to Iraq, launching operations and taking control of some territories, mountains, and valleys, storming and setting up ambushes.

They are in Syria as well, in Syria’s Jazira region. Daesh was resurrected in many areas and started its operations. It is natural that it starts preparations in Lebanon to justify the continuing presence of US forces in the region under the rubric of the international coalition to confront ISIS. It is also that the battle is not between one country against another. Here lies the problem of reading the situation in Lebanon. Some people in Lebanon always view Lebanon as an island isolated from everything that is happening in the region.

Lebanon is part of the region – in terms of events and its fate, its past, present, and future as well. Therefore, when Daesh is revived, it is revived in the entire region, and this is what is happening. These large groups have been raided and arrested. They are still searching for other groups, while others have not emerged yet. All these belong to Daesh. The investigations proved that these groups pledged allegiance to Daesh and follow it. They received instructions to recruit, organize, start formations, and prepare, awaiting zero hour. We do not even know what exactly what was being prepared for our country.

In this context, I once again call for caution and to be aware of what is being prepared for the region. When the Americans reach a dead end while confronting the people of the region and when they sense failure, they resort to these methods that we are all familiar with. This matter needs attention, caution, and awareness. It also requires everyone to stand behind the military and security institutions to confront this imminent and approaching danger.

The third point:

The third point tonight concerns the southern border. Along the border with occupied Palestine, the enemy’s army is still in the highest state of alert, hiding, exercising extreme caution, and attention. This is a good thing. Perhaps this is the longest period of time that the enemy’s army experienced such suffering on our southern borders with occupied Palestine since the establishment of the “Israeli” entity that usurped Palestine in 1948. Its soldiers do not dare to move. Sometimes at night, we might notice a tank moving here or there. It is not clear whether there are soldiers in the tank because they use automatic vehicles and tanks. In any case, we are following up. Our decision is still standing. We are following up, watching, and waiting patiently because as I said on the tenth of Muharram the important thing is to achieve the goal. We will see what will come in the coming days and weeks.

The fourth point:

Another point related to the “Israeli” issue. A little while ago, the prime minister of the enemy’s government was speaking at a live broadcast before the United Nations. Before I entered this place to talk to you, the brothers told me what he said. Some of what he said was to incite the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. As usual, he took out his maps, locations, etc. He talked about a location here between Beirut and the southern suburbs of Beirut. He claimed that this place is where Hezbollah stores rockets and that it was near a gas station. He then warned the Lebanese that if an explosion happens, it will be similar to the port blast.

Because there is no time now, I will rely on the brothers to call. Hezbollah’s media relations department are supposed to start making calls. I am talking to you now, and they may have started or they will start contacting the various media outlets to meet at a close point at 10 p.m. Since I am still giving my speech and I do not want to disrupt it… In any case, anyone who would like to go to that area from now, there is no problem. We will allow the media to enter this facility and see what’s in it. Let the whole world discover Netanyahu’s lie live on air. Of course, he finished his speech a little while ago. If there are missiles there, and now I am talking to you, and its 8:43 p.m. according to my time.

I think that if Hezbollah has placed dozens of missiles or even one missile there, it will not be able to transfer it within half an hour from my announcement. Of course, this will not be a permanent policy; this does not bind us, Hezbollah and the resistance, to the principle that whenever Netanyahu talks about a place, we call the media to check it out. This means that Netanyahu will have something for you to do every day.

However, we accepted to resort to this method because we understand the sensitivities surrounding the explosion that took place at the port on August 4 and the lies, deception, and injustice that befell us after the explosion. Any local and foreign media outlet that wants to go can coordinate with the media relations department from now. And at 10 p.m., the media relations department in coordination with the brothers will determine the rendezvous point and head to the facility from there.

And whoever wants to go now to make sure that we are not removing the rockets, that is not a problem. In any case, he specified the exact location. This is only for the Lebanese to be aware in the battle of awareness and incitement – we do not produce rockets neither in the Beirut port nor near a gas station. We know exactly where to store our missiles.

I move to the political aspect. In the internal political aspect, we have the issue of the government – meaning the formation of the new government – the French initiative, and the recent conference by the French President Mr. Macron. I would like to talk about this topic.

First:

Let me explain to the Lebanese public what is happening. There are some details that I will, of course, not delve into.  There are also some facts that I will postpone talking about it to keep the doors open. But I would like to paint a clear picture – I think it will be sufficient – of what is happening. I will also talk about our remarks on the French President’s conference and where we are heading.

Regarding the government, after the port explosion, August 4, the resignation of Prime Minister Hassan Diab’s government, the visit of the French President to Lebanon, and the launch of the French initiative. Two meetings took place in the Pine Residence with the presence of the French President and eight parties, forces, bodies, or parliamentary blocs. In the second meeting, there were nine parties. An initiative was proposed. The text [of the initiative] is distributed and published in the media and on social media. People can read it, and there is nothing hidden regarding this topic. We all said we support and back the French initiative.

The first step is to form a new government. I will delve into the details shortly. The first step in the first stage is to designate a prime minister to form a government. I will say things as they are and mention names because the Lebanese people have the right to have clarity. Everything is clear because there are no secrets in Lebanon, nor am I revealing any. I am stating facts. Who are we going to designate?

We agreed. There is no problem with parliamentary blocs consulting each other. If Prime Minister Saad Hariri wants to be prime minister, it’s welcomed. We did not have a problem. If he liked to name someone, we see who he will name, and we discuss it among each other. We either accept it or not. This was the beginning of the discussions. Of course, during that period a club was formed. We call it the Prime Ministers Club.

رؤساء الحكومات السابقين يجتمعون الإثنين للبَت بموضوع تلبية دعوة لقاء بعبدا  (الجمهورية) - Lebanon News

We will talk about the club of the four former prime ministers more than once. Prime Minister [Salim] Al-Hoss (may God prolong his life) is still alive, and he is one of the former heads of government. Hence, this club is made up of the prime ministers of the previous four governments. Prime Minister Hassan Diab also became a former prime minister. So, they are two. However, this club started meeting.

They said that they met and sat with each other. We do not have a problem. On the contrary, we are calling for the broadest possible understanding between the political forces, parties, and blocs in Lebanon. They have representative blocs and they represent political forces, so they presented three names with the preference of Mr. Mustapha Adib, or that was our understanding. Of course, all indications suggested Mr. Mustapha Adib.

Of course, that night as people were all in a hurry and during the 15-day deadline, we asked about the man. The information we got was reasonable, good, and positives.

In order to facilitate matters, we did not set conditions or demanded to sit with him. We did not engage in a prior understanding. Now some people might say this was a mistake, while others might agree. This is another discussion. But we did so to make matters easy. We wanted to facilitate matters, and who is most important in the government? the prime minister. The most important thing in the government is the prime minister.

We relied on Allah Almighty and on the rule that – yes, we want a government to be formed with the widest representation and support so that it can do something at this difficult stage. We relied on God, and this step was accomplished. Excellent! Everyone was relaxed. The French President came on a second visit and met with some people after appointing Mr. Mustapha Adib. He said: “Please go ahead and begin. We want to complete this reform paper, etc.”

Lebanon faces hurdles to deliver cabinet on time | Arab News

Following the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib, protocol meetings with the parliamentary blocs took place, and the matter was concluded. The prime minister-designate was asked to do so. Of course, he is a respectable man with high morals, and I do not have any remarks on him.

He was told to wait for the parliamentary blocs to negotiate with since they are the one who will give their vote of confidence to the government. It is not enough just to give a name. there might be blocs that might not give a name, but they can give a vote of confidence.

However, they did not talk to anyone. According to my information, no discussions, meetings, or extrapolation of opinions took place. The President of the Republic later had to send for some heads of blocs or representatives of blocs to discuss them. It was considered that there was no reason – I will say why – to even consult with the President of the Republic, who is in fact here not a political force, but according to the constitution, a partner in forming the government.

This means that from the start the prime minister-designate should go to him and discuss with him, not bring him some files. He should discuss with him the distribution of portfolios, the names of the ministers, the nature of the government, the perception of the government. This never happened, not even once. It is as if the government should be formed and the President would be told that this is the government, these are the names, this is the distribution of the portfolios. Then, President Aoun would either sign on the government or not. There is no third option. If he signs, it means that this is a de facto government. Neither the distribution of portfolios nor the names were discussed with him. what does mean? What is the most important authority the president has following the Taif Agreement? It is taking part in the formation of the government. It means that it is over.

And here the French must pay attention to where they are making mistakes. This means that they are covering a political process that would have led to the elimination of the most important remaining powers of the President of the Republic in Lebanon.

And if President Aoun did not sign, there will be an upheaval in the country. The media and the opponents are ready, and there is French pressure. If President Aoun does not sign, he will be accused of disrupting [the formation] to support Gebran Basil. So, nothing happened. I don’t know if there were negotiations with the Progressive Socialist Party or the [Lebanese Forces]. But I know that there were negotiations with the blocs that are our friends and allies and are the parliamentary majority. There were negotiations with us – for this reason or that – because they cannot overpass this component and duo – Hezbollah and the Amal Movement.

We went to the discussions. Of course, the one who was negotiating with us was not the prime minister-designate. We had no problem negotiating with anyone that is acting on behalf of the prime minister-designate or the four former prime ministers. But former Prime Minister Saad Hariri was negotiating with us. Of course, the discussion was calm, objective, scientific, and careful. We understood several points related to the government since the beginning of the discussions. There were some differences in opinion. The first point is that the government will be composed of 14 ministers.

The second point is rotating the portfolios. So basically, it means give us the Finance Ministry. The third point is that the prime minister-designate, i.e. us, that is the club of the four former prime ministers will be the one naming the ministers of all the sects – not just Sunni or Shiite ministers. No, Sunni, Shiite, Druze, and Christian ministers. The club will name them all. The fourth point is that they will specify how the portfolios will be distributed. Brothers, how are you going to distribute the portfolios? What will the Muslims take? What will the Christians take? The Shiites, the Sunnis, the Druze, the Maronites, the Catholics, the Armenians? There is no answer. This is up to them. This means that us and the rest of the people in the country just take not that the government will be made of 14 ministers.

This was the result. The discussion unfolded in a respectful manner, but the result was that we take note that there will be 14 ministers, of the rotation, of the distribution of portfolios, and of the names of the ministers that will be representing the sects.

We engaged in the discussions, and we agreed on the number of the ministers. It was concluded that a government made up of 30 ministers is tiring, even 24 ministers is too much. But 14, this means you are handing one person two ministries, at a time when a minister is given one ministry and is barely succeeding in running it.

This is one of the problems in the country. The competent ministers who are able to run their ministries, why do you want to give a minister two ministries. Let there be 18 or 20 ministers. The discussions regarding the number remained open, but the other party insisted on 14 ministers, knowing that most of the parliamentary blocs who were later consulted by the President, were against having 14 ministers and wanted the broadest possible representation. 

We come to the second point: the rotation. We also disagreed on it. The discussion over the Finance Ministry has become known in the country. The third point, naming the ministers. Here, it is not intended only as naming the finance minister. Let us assume that certain portfolios are the responsibility of Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, or Druze ministers. They want to name those ministers, not the parliamentary blocs that represent these ministers’ sects or the parties that represent their sects. These ministers were elected by the Lebanese people and the people from their sects as well. But neither the sect nor the parties will name their ministers, they just have to take note.

Of course, we rejected this issue and was out of the question. It was not only the Shiite ministers. We consider this manner when someone wants to name all the ministers for all the sects in Lebanon a threat to the country.

Let’s go back a little bit. Let us talk about what the Taif Agreement, the constitutional powers, and customs tell you regarding the formation of the government. Talking about the formation of the government before the Taif Agreement is useless because we already have the Taif Agreement. Also talking about the formation of the government since the Taif Agreement until 2005 is useless; even though they might tell us that this is how it used to be during the Syrian tutelage or the Syrian administration.

From 2005 until today, most of the time you were a parliamentary majority and the main political forces in the country applying the Taif Agreement. The first government that was formed after the withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon was the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati. So far, people would agree on a prime minister. The prime minister then negotiates with the people. He negotiates with them, and no one negotiates on their behalf. They agree on the number, the distribution of the portfolios. The parliamentary blocs or the parties taking part name then ministers. The prime minister never discussed the names.

There was an amendment to this behavior or this custom that took place in 2005 with the government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab. We accepted it when discussions began that Mr. Muhammad Safadi or other figures might be nominated. We accepted this. There is no problem when the blocs or parties name someone to be head a certain ministry, for example.

The prime minister-designate can say that this person is not suitable for this position and can ask for another name. We were open to this process before the government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab. We applied this with the government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab. And we are ready to apply it again.

This is a positive progress, and this strengthens the powers of the prime minister. This does not weaken the prime minister. This was the prevailing custom regarding the prime minister from 2005 until today. He would agree with the parliamentary blocs and the main political forces that want to take part in the government. they would agree on the portfolios and the distribution. They name their ministers, and he did not discuss the names.

Of course, this is good. Now, we can argue with the names and refuse some, and whoever you refuse we put aside and suggest other names. In fact, this is a strengthening of the premiership position, unlike any stage from the beginning of the Taif Agreement until today.

Whoever wants to use sectarian language and say this is weakening the premiership position, not at all. This happened for the first or the second time. We accept it and consider it logical and natural, and there is no problem.

This remained a point of contention – the issue of distributing the portfolios. It was the same thing. Even with regard to the names, a couple were proposed that we had no problem with. We also told them. We told them in the end, this is subject to discussion. We can solve it together.

For example, some wanted non-partisans. There is no problem. This can be discussed. They said we want people who have not taken part on previous governments, new people. There is no problem. By God, if the prime minister-designate does not agree with the names, we told them there is no problem. All this is to simplify and not complicate the matter.

In any case, the answer came after all the discussions and on the last day of the 15-day deadline, the government will contain 14 ministers, knowing that all this did were not discussed with His Excellency the President as far as I know. They did not agree with him on whether there would be 14 or 20 ministers or how the portfolios would be distributed. Nothing of this sort.

We were back to the beginning again – a government made up of 14 ministers, rotation, they name the ministers, and distribute portfolios.

For us, this was not acceptable at all. And this is where things got stuck. Of course, you can discuss this method with relation to the customs from 2005 until today. To those who are talking about customs, these were never the customs in forming a government. you can even discuss this in relation to the constitution which includes an article that the government should include representatives of all the sects. This method is not in the Taif Agreement. The government, thus, became the authority and the decision maker. They said all the sects are represented in the government through representatives representing these sects.

I do not wish to infer from this text contained perhaps in Article 95, but rather I would like to say that at least debate this constitutionally. In any case, I do not want to delve into a constitutional debate, but these were not the norms that prevailed from 2005 until now.

Why do you now want to establish new norms that exclude parliamentary blocs, the parliamentary majority, the Lebanese president, and the political forces and confiscate the formation of the government in the interest of one group that represents part of the current parliamentary minority, even if we respect it and respect its representation and position? These are, however, new norms that go the constitution and democracy that Mr. Macron is demanding of us.

During the last few days of the 15-day deadline, the French intervened, calling everyone and pressuring them. They spoke to leaders and heads of political parties. Of course, the channel of communication with us was different. President Macron made good effort. But in which direction is that effort heading toward?

Regardless of the discussion that took place with others, I am talking about the discussion that took place with us. ‘Why are you obstructing? We want you to help and facilitate – of course, all this in a language of diplomacy that included pressure – otherwise, the consequences will be dire.’ This sort of talk.

We asked them: Our dear ones, our friends, does the French initiative say that the government has to have 14 ministers? They said: No. Does the French initiative say that the club of the four former prime ministers should name the ministers of all the sects in the government? They said: No. Does the French initiative say anything about this club distributing the portfolios among the sects? They said: No. Does the French initiative say anything about rotating the portfolios and take the Finance Ministry from this sect and give it to that sect? They said: No.

We have wished for a narrow government. 14, 12, 10, 18. The numbers are with you and how you call this matter is up to you.

So how are we blocking the French initiative? This is the discussion that took place between us. Since they spoke about this in the media, I am speaking about this on the media. They said, it is true. This, however, was never mentioned, and the text is there to prove it.

O Lebanese people, the text is on social networking sites. The French reform paper, which is the main article of the French initiative, does not include a government of 14 ministers, does not include rotation, does not indicate who appoints ministers, and it does not include who distributes the portfolios. These do not exist.

Allow me to continue laying down the details, and then I will mention our remarks. We reached a point where the French said: ‘We understand what you are saying. It is logical that the finance minister is a Shiite. There is no problem.’

I will not delve into discussion of why Amal and Hezbollah insist on this point. This point alone needs an explanation. But it will become clearer in my future addresses.

But allow the prime minister-designate to be the one to name. This means the club of the four former prime ministers. We told them that we are looking for a Shiite minister born of Shiite parents. We are insisting on a Shiite minister because it is a matter related to the decision-making process. Who does this minister follow when it comes to making decisions?

The club of the former heads of government can bring any Shiite employee who is 100% affiliated and loyal to them. But this is not what we are looking for. We are suggesting that the sect itself will name the minister responsible for a certain portfolio. For example, if a certain portfolio belongs to the Shiites, then the duo will be the one naming their minister. The prime minister-designate can reject this minister for as much as he wants until we agree on a suitable minister for this responsibility.

Of course, the idea was totally rejected by the club of the former prime ministers.

Later, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri came out and said that he accepts for one time that the finance minister be a Shiite, but the prime minister-designate will be the one to name him. We were already over this five days ago and that he drank the poison. There is no need for you, former prime minister, to drink the poison. God bless your heart, and may He keep you healthy. We can always go back and reach an understanding. There is no problem. But this is not the solution. 

Then, the three former prime ministers say that they do not agree with what former Prime Minister Saad Hariri said. The whole matter is incomprehensible, “What do we want with it”.

We reached a point where there is a problem; we do not agree on the form of the government. We do not agree on the names of the ministers, on the rotation, or the distribution of the portfolios. The prime minister-designate, of course, apologized. I would like to point out that there was an idea of a fait accompli. I’m saying this so that I don’t accuses someone in precise. Let us form the government and ignore the rest. Let us name the ministers and then head to the President to sign. If he does not sign, he will face an upheaval. He will sign, though, because the Christians are in a difficult situation. The Free Patriotic movement is in a difficult situation, and the President wants his term to succeed. There are French pressure for the President to sign.

In any case, during the discussions between us and the side of the prime minister-designate, the man was clear. He said, ‘I came to be supported and positive and my government be supported by a large coalition so that I can help. I do not want to confront anyone, and if there is no agreement regarding the government, I will not form a confrontational government. The man was honest in his position and commitment, and he apologized.

Of course, we hoped that he would give more opportunities. Whether he could not handle it anymore or was asked to do so are details that I have no knowledge about.

I am still stating the facts and I will soon make our remarks.

Of course, the wave is already known since before the apology. The mass media machines and the writers, those groups that the American spoke about, had already begun to hold people responsible.

Whoever has a problem with the duo, Amal and Hezbollah, blamed the Shiite duo. There were those that focused on Hezbollah and those who attack President Aoun. The attack here focused on President Aoun and the duo, Amal and Hezbollah, because there were political orders issued.

The French were upset and announced that President Macron would like to hold a press conference. The Lebanese waited to see who the French would hold responsible. We all heard, we all heard President Macron’s press conference and the questions the Lebanese journalists bombarded him with.

I am done with listing the facts, and I would like to comment. In this context, the following points should be made clear to all:

First: The offer during last month, because the 15-day deadline has expired and another 15 days were added to it, so this makes a month. What was on the table? The formation of a salvation government and not to form a club of former prime ministers whereby all parliamentary blocs and parties in the country as well as the Parliament Speaker and the President hand over the country to this club unconditionally, without any discussions and questions. 

What kind of government? what kind of distribution? What is its policy? There is no discussion. Just go and accept the government that they will form; otherwise, sanctions and French pressure will follow. You will be held responsible before the Lebanese people and before the international community, and you will appear as the ones obstructing. This is what was on offer last month, and of course it was based on a wrong reading.

The most important thing about this offer was whether the Amal-Hezbollah duo would accept or not. I will talk about things frankly. Basically, they did not speak with any other party. They did not discuss or negotiate, and they considered that if the Amal-Hezbollah duo agreed, no one will be able to stand in the way of this project. In the end, if President Aoun wants to talk about constitutional powers, he will be left alone, confronted and pressured. I am stating this just for you to know what position we were in.

So, the offer on the table during the past month was not a salvation government, but rather a government named by the club of former prime ministers, with 14 ministers and a board of directors of specialists and employees whose political decision absolutely stems from one party that is part of the parliamentary minority in Lebanon and represents one political team that is considered the largest group of Lebanon’s Sunni community. However, it is not correct to say that it represents the whole Sunni sect. There are many Sunni representatives who were elected by Sunni votes and have representation in the Sunni community.

This was what was on offer, and everyone was required to accept it. Of course, there was a misreading here – the people get scared, the country was in a difficult situation, people are on the streets, and pressure and sanctions were coming. The two ministers, Ali Khalil and Youssef Fenianos, were slapped with sanctions. There were also threats to sanction 94 people, the French pressure, etc.

Thus, we are a party that they take into account. So, they are telling you that if you obstruct, there will be grave consequences regarding this matter. This is how the discussions with us went. We don’t know how it went with the rest – what they threatened or pressured them with. This is first.

A. Regarding this point, I would like to say this method will not succeed in Lebanon, whoever its supporters and sponsors are, be it America, France, Europe, the international community, the Arab League, the whole world, the universe. This method does not work in Lebanon. You are wasting time.

B. President Macron accused us of intimidating the people. Those who are accusing us of intimidation are the ones who, during the past month, have practiced a policy of intimidation against the leaders, the blocs, the political parties and forces, in order to force a government of this kind. They resorted to threats, punishments, and heading towards the worse. You saw the language they used, and this was shown in the media. This does not work.

Second: We rejected this formula not because we want to be in the government or not. The main question that was before us was, is it in the interest of Lebanon and its people and saving Lebanon? Now we have two stages. One stage moves from bad to good and one from bad to worse. Where are we heading towards? Who are we handing the rescue ship over to? Who is the captain? The four prime ministers were prime ministers since 2005 up until a few months ago. Is this wrong or right? They have been prime ministers for 15 years. They are not the only ones to bear the responsibility. We all bear the responsibility. But they bear the bulk of the responsibility because they were heads of government and had ministers to represent them in the government.

On the contrary, I hold them responsible and also ask them to take responsibility, not to run away from bearing the responsibility, to cooperate, to understand, and join hands with us. Can saving the country be achieved with you handing over the country to the party that bears the bulk of the responsibility for the reason we are here now and for the situation over the past 15 years? What logic is this? Whose logic is this?

Third: To us, here I will talk about Hezbollah specifically. Regarding our brothers in the Amal movement, they have always taken part in governments even before we participated. In 2005, you know that we were not in an atmosphere to take part in governments. After 2005, why?

During the 2018 electoral campaign, I spoke a lot about this issue, and I said that we should take part in the governments, not greed for a position, a ministry, salary, or money. Thank God, Allah has given us from his grace. We do not need salaries from the state, budgets, or this state’s money. However, I spoke the reason clearly. Now, I will add a second reason.

The reason we were talking about is to protect the resistance. We have explained this, and there is no need to repeat it. Now, some of our loving friends might say that Hezbollah does not need to take part in the government to protect the resistance. This is a respectable point of view, but we disagree with this opinion. More than one friend has said this. But we disagree with them. Why?

We have to take part in the government to protect the resistance and prevent another May 5, 2008 government from emerging. Who were in the May 5, 2008 government? The people who want to form the new government, a government similar to the May 5, 2008 government.

A dangerous decision was taken by the May 5, 2008 government that would have led to a confrontation between the Lebanese Army and the resistance. It was an American-“Israeli”-Saudi project. This matter was overcome. Frankly, we are not afraid the leadership of the army, the army establishment, its officers, or its soldiers. This is a national institution. Yes, we have the right to be cautious of the political authority and the political decision, and we decided to take part in the government to protect the resistance. This is first.

The second reason that I will add now is, during all the previous discussions, Hezbollah was admonished for choosing to resist and fight in Syria, Iraq, Palestine, etc. We were admonished for neglecting the economic situation, the financial situation, and the living situation. Accusations and equations were formulated – the arms in exchange for corruption, and the economy in exchange for the resistance. this sort of talk.

I do not want to discuss this remark, but I want to use it to say that we cannot be absent from this government today, frankly, out of fear for what is left of Lebanon, economically, financially and on every level. We fear for Lebanon and the Lebanese people. I mentioned that I do not fear for Hezbollah. We are afraid for the country, for the people, and the future of this country. How?

What if a government we are not sure whether it believes in blankly signing on the terms of the International Monetary Fund was formed? I am not accusing anyone, but this is a possibility. I know people’s convictions. Should this be allowed? Should we as a parliamentary bloc in the country give our vote of confidence to a government I already know would blankly sign with the IMF without any negotiations and the people should agree and sign? Do we not have the right to be afraid of a government that, under the pretext of the financial situation, could sell state property?

This is suggested in some plans – selling state property and privatization under the pretext that we want to bring money to pay off the debt and the deficit, etc. Don’t we have the right to be afraid of such a government? I tell you, in the previous governments where we were the half or the majority and not the third that disrupted, we used to always have disagreements. We are not alone on the issue of increasing the Value Added Tax.

If a government was formed in the way it was going to be formed a few days ago, the first decision would have been to increase VAT on everything. The tax policy would have been imposed on the people. And we promised the Lebanese people that we will not allow or accept it. Will the people be able to handle a new VAT?

A few cents were added to the WhatsApp application, and the people took to the streets on October 17th. Don’t we have the right to be afraid of a government when we do not know what will become of the depositors’ money?

No, my dears, we fear for our country, our people, state property, and the depositors’ money. We have concerns regarding the conditions of the IMF, and we are afraid of going from bad to worse. I am not claiming to have magical solutions. We have proposed alternatives related to oil derivatives from Iran, which will save the Lebanese treasury billions of dollars, and are related to going eastward without leaving the West – if possible, with Russia, china, Iraq, Iran, etc. They were concerned about these proposals, especially the Americans.  There are alternative propositions. But we are not saying that we are the alternative. We are calling on everyone to cooperate.

But, frankly, we can no longer, due to the resistance or anything else, turn our backs, close our eyes, and accept anyone to form a government and run the country and manage the financial and economic situations. This is no longer permissible at all. Therefore, to us, the issue is not a matter of power or being the authority. This is in the past, and these are also principles for what is to come, when we talk about any government that will be formed in the future.

Regarding President Macron’s conference, I will discuss the content and the form. I will quickly read them.

1- In terms of content, the French president held the Lebanese political forces responsible for disrupting the initiative. I repeat and ask him what we asked his delegates. Did the French initiative say that the four former heads of government alone should form the government and impose it on the political blocs and the Lebanese President, determine portfolios and distribute them, and name ministers from all the sects? Yes or no? The answer given to us was “no.” This was not in the French initiative. Then I look for the one responsible for causing the first stage to fail – those who benefited from the French initiative and pressure to impose such a government, to impose new customs, and to score political gains that they weren’t able to achieve in the past 15 years with your [French] cover and pressure.

If you knew and understood what was happening, then this is a catastrophe and no longer an initiative. There is a project for a group to take control of the whole country and eliminate all political forces. And if you were not aware of this, it is fine. Now you are aware, so deal with the issue in the second stage of the French initiative. Hence, there is no need to blame everyone for being responsible for the failure. You have to specify exactly who bears the responsibility!

2- When you blamed the failure on all the political forces, I do not want to defend Hezbollah, on the contrary, I wish that President Macron says that Hezbollah is the one that caused the failure and pardon the rest of the political forces. O brother, there are political forces in Lebanon that were not even consulted or negotiated with. They do not know what is happening. We, who were negotiating did not know the names and the portfolios, how will they know when they are clueless? How can they be held responsible? Later when it comes to the form, you’ll be accused. You accused all the heads of institutions. Fine, the Parliament Speaker is part of the duo. But where did the President make a mistake? Where did he fall short for them to hold him accountable? He [Macron] held everyone responsible. He said heads of institutions and political forces. This includes the Lebanese President. Where did the man go wrong? What were his shortcomings to be held responsible? He was not even informed about the government, the distribution of the portfolios, and the names of the ministers!

3- We are being held responsible and taking the country to the worse situation. No, on the contrary. What we did was prevent the country from going from bad to worse. We are still in a bad situation, and we hope that the initiative rethinks its way of thinking and the Lebanese people cooperate with each other so that we can move from bad to good.

Al-Quds News Agency – News: Hezbollah to Macron: “Hold your limits!”

4- What are the promises that we made and did not fulfill? A paper was presented on the table. Our brother, Hajj Muhammad Raad, may God protect him, the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, and the rightly representative of Hezbollah, of course read them. Frankly, he said: We agree with 90% of what is in the paper. Macron asked him if he was sure that we agree on 90 %. He said, yes. Of course, they did not specify the 10% that we disapproved. But let us assume that we said we agree 100%, this paper does not include this means and the formation of the government. Then, Mr. Macron, what did we promise and commit to and not keep it for us to be not respectable people who do not respect their promises? This is the harshest thing to be said. At the beginning, you said a national unity government. Then, you back tracked. We understood that. Some said it was a mistake in translation. Others said it was American and Saudi pressure. Fine. The best thing you said is that it should be a government made up of independent people with important competencies. But who will name these independent individuals? The initiative did not mention who will name them. No one has agreed with anyone on the process of naming these ministers.

You do not want the parties to name them. But former Prime Minister Saad Hariri is head of a party, former Prime Minister Najib Mikati is the leader of a party, President Fouad Siniora is a member of a party. Why is one party allowed to name ministers while the rest are not allowed?

Your Excellency the President and all the Lebanese at the table, we have not committed ourselves to pursuing a government whatever it is. We have not committed ourselves to accepting to hand over the country to some government. No one agreed with anyone how the government will be formed and who will name ministers. This was not mentioned in the plan or in the initiative. This initiative was used to impose this thought on the political blocs and the Lebanese parties.

Our friends and foes, Your Excellency, the French President, know that we fulfill our promises, our commitments, and our credibility to both the enemy and the friend. The manner in which we conduct our dealings is known. When we promise, we are known to fulfill our promises and sacrifice in order to fulfill our promises. We might upset our friends and allies to fulfill our promises. I do not want to give examples, but this is a well-known topic.

One of the points that I want to comment on is that no one should use promises of financial aid to write off the main political forces in the country and sidestep the election results. President Macron says: The Amal Movement and Hezbollah, Hezbollah and Speaker Berri, the Shiites must choose Democracy or worst [situation].

We chose democracy. What you ask of us is inconsistent with democracy. If elections are not democracy, then what is democracy? Democracy in 2018 produced a parliamentary majority. You, Mr. President, are asking the parliamentary majority to bow and hand over the country to the minority, to a part of the parliamentary minority. We chose the parliamentary and municipal elections and chose the parliament. We chose partnership. We did not choose the worst or war. We did not attack anyone. The Zionists are the ones who launched a war on our country, occupied our land, and confiscated our goods, and they are the ones who are threatening our country.

We did not go to Syria to fight civilians. We went to Syria with the approval of the Syrian government to fight the groups that you say are terrorist and takfiri, and which France is part of the international coalition that is fighting them. You are in Syria illegally and without the approval of the Syrian government. We did not go to fight civilians in Syria. We are fighting there to defend our country, to defend Lebanon, Syria, and the region against the most dangerous project in the history of the region after the Zionist project, which is the project of takfirist terrorism. We are not part of the corrupt class. We did not take money from the state’s funds. The source of our money is known. It is no secret. We do not have funds, financial revenues, or partisan projects that we want to protect. Everyone else is free to say whatever they want about themselves.

But we do not accept anyone to speak with us in this language or thinking of us in this way. When we talk about obstruction and facilitation, we accepted the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib without prior understandings and conditions. We only built on goodwill. But this means that we are heading towards compromise and facilitations. As for surrender, it is a different story. Blindly handing over the country is another matter.

We are not terrorizing or intimidating anyone in Lebanon. Unfortunately, President Macron stated this, even if it came in the context of being skeptical about the election results. You can ask your embassy and your intelligence services in Lebanon. They will tell you how small Lebanon is and how many politicians, media outlets, social networking sites, and newspapers insult us and falsely accuse us day and night. They are living and are not afraid of anyone. If they were afraid, they would not dare open their mouths against Arab countries under your protection and are your friends and allies. No one dares write a tweet to express an opposing stance against normalization, or support, or criticize a government, king, or prince. No, we are not intimidating anyone. If anyone is afraid, it is their business. But we are not intimidating anyone. You can come see for yourself and ask the people in the country.

5- The last point in the matter. I hope that the French administration will not listen to some of the Lebanese, and if it has this point of view to deal with it. Not everything is – Iran asked to block the French initiative, Iran requested strictness in naming ministers, Iran asked the duo to insist on the Ministry of Finance. This is nonsense and baseless. Iran is not like this. Iran is not like you. Iran does not interfere in the Lebanese affairs. We are the decision-makers when it comes to Lebanese affairs. We decide what we want to do in regarding matters in Lebanon. We, in Hezbollah, and the duo, Hezbollah and Amal, and we with our allies decide.

Iran does not interfere or dictate. At the very least, in the past 20 years and more than 20 years. I am talking about a long time ago, ever since I took the post of secretary general because the direct contact is with me. From 1992, anyone who spoke to Iran, Iran told them to speak with the brothers in Lebanon – talk to them, discuss with them, the decision is theirs. Every once in a while, they point to an Iranian-American agreement. Hezbollah is disrupting and waiting [an Iranian-American agreement]. There is neither an American-Iranian agreement nor American-Iranian negotiations. At the very least, in the elections, this is settled. The Iranians announced this. Iran does not want to pressure France for a certain interest in the Security Council. What is this nonsense! If this ignorance will continue and this wrong way of thinking remains, this means we will never reach any results in Lebanon because wrong introductions will always lead to wrong results.

Mr. Macron, if you want to search outside Lebanon for the one who caused the failure of your initiative, then look for the Americans who imposed sanctions and are threatening to impose sanctions. Look for King Salman and his speech at the United Nations.

Regarding the form, on what basis did you say that all political forces, the heads of constitutional institutions committed treason and betrayal – regardless of the translation? How? Who said they committed treason?

1- First, we don’t allow anyone to accuse us and say that we committed treason. We categorically reject and condemn this condescending behavior against us and all the political forces in Lebanon. We do not accept neither this language nor this approach. We do not accept anyone doubting whether we are respectable people and a respectable party or whether we respect our promises and respect others. We do not accept anyone to accuse us of corruption. If the French friends have files on ministers from Hezbollah, deputies from Hezbollah, and officials from Hezbollah that we took money from the state, I accept, go ahead, and present them to the Lebanese judiciary. We will hand over anyone who has a corruption file of this sort. And this is a real challenge, and I have spoken about this a hundred times, and I will repeat and say it again.

But the rhetoric of the corrupt class, the corrupt political class, and the corrupt political forces is not acceptable. We welcomed President Macron when he visited Lebanon and welcomed the French initiative, but not for him to be a public prosecutor, an investigator, a judge, and a ruler of Lebanon. No, we welcomed President Macron and the French initiative as friends who love Lebanon, want to help it emerge from its crises, and want to bring different points of view closer. This means friendship, care, mediation, brotherhood, and love. But there is never a mandate for anyone, not for the French President or for anyone to be a guardian, a ruler, or a judge of Lebanon. It is not to my knowledge that the Lebanese have taken a decision of this kind. That is why we hope that this method, form, and content be reviewed.

In this part, I conclude and say that we welcomed the French initiative. And today, His Excellency the President extended. It is also welcomed. We still welcome the French initiative, and we are ready for dialogue, cooperation, openness, and to hold discussions with the French, with all the friends of Lebanon, and with all the political forces in Lebanon. But the bullying that was practiced during the past month, surpassed the facts that took place during the past month. This cannot continue; otherwise, we will not reach a conclusion. We are ready, and we hope for this initiative to be successful, and we support its continuation. We are betting on it as everyone else. But I call for the reconsideration of the method, the way of action, the understanding, the analysis, the conclusion, and even the management and the language of communication. The most important thing is respect and people’s dignities.

In the past two days, the national dignity was violated. There are people who are angry at parties and at a political class. They have the right to be angry, but there was something else. When anyone generalizes an idea to include everyone, institutions, parties and political forces, this in fact violates national dignity. This is unacceptable. We know that the French are moralists and diplomatic and speak in a beautiful language. Even if the content is a little harsh, yet they try to beautify it. I do not know what happened on Sunday night.

In any case, we are open to anything that benefits our country. Now in the new phase, it is natural after what happened that the parliamentary blocs will return and talk to each other, consult and communicate. The French say that they will continue with the initiative. That’s good. But what are the ideas? What are the new foundations? I will not present neither ideas nor solutions, nor will I set limits for us as Hezbollah because this issue needs to be discussed with our allies and our friends. But we must all not despair. We must work together and understand one another. We still insist on everyone’s cooperation and everyone’s understanding, as well as positivity among everyone so that we can cross over from a bad stage to a good one and not from bad to worse.

The fifth point:

I will say a few words in this last section. We must say something about this. In the past weeks, a new development took place in the region – the Kingdom of Bahrain, the State of Bahrain joined the caravan of normalization with the United Arab Emirates. We must praise the position of the people of Bahrain. The youth took to the streets despite the repression and dangers. The religious scholars in Bahrain openly published a list of their names and clearly and strongly condemned this normalization. We must speak highly of Bahraini religious scholars and leaders inside of Bahrain and abroad, headed by His Eminence Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim (may God protect him), the parties and forces, the political associations, various figures, and some representatives in the House of Representatives.

Of course, this is an honorable position. This is Bahrain, and these are the people of Bahrain. The government, the king, the administration, or the authority that took this decision, we all know that this authority does make its own decision in the first place. It is dealt with as one of the Saudi provinces. Our bet is on the Bahraini people and pave the way for our bet on others. Of course, salutations to the patient, courageous, dear, and loyal people of Bahrain.

Despite their wounds and the presence of large numbers of their youth, religious scholars, leaders, and symbols being in prisons, they did not remain silent. They were not afraid. They expressed their position courageously, braved the bullets, and were prepared to be arrested. They said the word of truth that resonated in a time of silence, betrayal, and submission. We repeat and say that our bet is on the people.

There are honorable positions being expressed in the Arab world: the official and popular Tunisian position, the official and popular Algerian position, and other positions in more than one country and place.

Of course, today we want to appeal to the Sudanese people, whose history we know, the history of their sacrifices, their jihad, their struggle against the colonialists, and their tragedies. Do not allow them to subjugate you in the name of the terror list or the economic situation. The people of Sudan, its parties, and the elites must issue a statement because it seems that the country most eligible now to be on the line [of normalization] is Sudan.

In any case, even if governments normalized, they see it as a great achievement. There is no doubt that this is a bad thing. But this is not the basis of the equation. Our bet lies on the people. This is the basis. Camp David is more than forty years old. But are the Egyptian people normalizing? What about the Jordanian people and normalization? There is no normalization. Neither the Egyptians nor the Jordanians normalized.

The ruler of the Emirates says, “We are tired of wars and sacrifices.”

O my dear, you neither fought nor made sacrifices. The Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Lebanese, and the Jordanians are the ones who made sacrifices. These are the people that made sacrifices and did not normalize.

And as long as this is the people’s choice and as long as the Palestinian people hold on to their rights, we are not concerned about everything that is happening in the region. Those who normalized and those who are now standing in line have decidedly lost their Akhira [afterlife]. Their worldly calculations will fail, and they will discover that even their worldly accounts are wrong. These accounts will not last.

There is no time left to explain this point. Until here is enough. However, this meaning will be confirmed in the near future.

May Allah grant you wellness. Peace and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you.

Will the Israel-US “New Wars” Succeed in Weakening Hezbollah?

Source

October 9, 2020

When conventional military war failed to defeat the Lebanese Hezbollah, Israel and the US adopted different tactics in the art of war whilst avoiding overt conflict in the public eye. The new tactics, whilst not excluding traditional warfare, include a group of wars or actions based on irregular formations, terrorist acts, chaos, sanctions, electronic platform warfare, media wars, propaganda, fake news, the division of society, starvation policy and engaging the enemy from within, to weaken Hezbollah before attacking and finishing it off. This is “fifth generation war”; it is the hybrid war against Hezbollah.

The United Nations delivered a message to Hezbollah from Israel stating that killing any Israeli soldier or officer would push Israel to hit ten Hezbollah targets and centres in different regions of Lebanon. Israel has provided the maps, offices and locations it intends to target, according to a leading source familiar with the matter. 

Hezbollah replied to this message, that the bombing of ten targets in Lebanon will trigger an immediate response against ten Israeli military targets, command and control centres and other offices affiliated to the Israeli government. Precision missiles will be launched against Israel – said the message – without prior warning.

The Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, had announced that he would kill an Israeli soldier in return for Israel killing a Hezbollah member in Syria while targeting a centre of the joint forces in the vicinity of Damascus. Since that day, that is, since July 2020, Israeli jets have not struck any Iranian command target in Syria. Furthermore, the Israeli army has been asked to conceal itself in its barracks to avoid triggering Hezbollah’s announced process of retaliation.

The commander of the IDF’s Northern Command, Major General Amir Baram, stated, “Israel is keen not to be dragged into a large-scale war with Hezbollah. It is fundamentally a war that both sides wish to avoid.”

Israel’s leaders no longer brandish the threat to take Lebanon back to the Stone Age by bombing and destroying the entire infrastructure and whole villages and cities as it did in the 2006 war. This is because Hezbollah has achieved a balance of deterrence: Israel has acknowledged that Hezbollah has missiles that can strike any target anywhere in Israel with enormous destructive power and precision.

Consequently, the theory – introduced by Hezbollah’s opponents in Lebanon to say the international community can protect Lebanon and not a heavily armed domestic group – that ”Lebanon is strong due to its weakness and incapacity to defend itself” has fallen. Indeed, the balance of deterrence has forced Israel and its ally the US to back down from the use of military force, without necessarily abandoning the project to weaken or defeat Hezbollah. This is what has pushed this strategic alliance (US and Israel) to shift towards “soft and hybrid warfare”. This new approach creates windows of opportunity to direct a military strike on Hezbollah to defeat it when the right time comes. That is possible only when Hezbollah becomes weak and without allies, supporters or a society protecting it, and indeed if Hezbollah fails to confront this hybrid war.

In 2006 during the second Israeli war on Lebanon, Israel did not achieve its goals because its intelligence failed to predict Hezbollah’s missile capabilities and readiness to hold its ground. The first surprise came at Wadi Al-Hujair with the Kornet anti-tank missiles and later with surface-to-surface missiles (when the class corvette Saar-5 was hit). Also, Hezbollah possessed the electronic capabilities to break through to the Israeli drones and other capabilities, which enabled it to know a large number of pre-prepared operations and targets in Israel’s bank of objectives. Israel has since modified its electronic protection with more advanced technology. However, electronic warfare continues: it is an ongoing battle with measures and countermeasures on both sides.

That is why it was necessary to introduce « hybrid warfare ». It needed another more effective approach to attack Hezbollah, more comprehensive. Let us take, for example, what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented in 2018 and a few days ago to the United Nations General Assembly about the presence of Hezbollah missiles near Beirut airport and others in the Jnah area in the Lebanese capital. In the first attempt of Netanyahu, Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil reacted by inviting Country Ambassadors to visit the site. In the second most recent case, Hezbollah invited the local and international press to visit the site and to confirm the falsity of Netanyahu’s claim. However, did Netanyahu lose the two rounds against Hezbollah or did he reach his desired objective?

I asked a Lebanese leader within the “Axis of the Resistance”: How many out of the 194 representatives at the United Nations saw Nasrallah’s response to Netanyahu’s lie? The immediate answer did not wait: “”Maybe one, two – very few. “”

Consequently, the Israeli prime minister won the disinformation war, and the powerful Zionist lobby helped him in the international media to publish his colourful pictures and folkloric output and to overlook Hezbollah’s point of view. It is likely that Netanyahu aimed in his media war to amplify the already existing negative international and domestic public opinion against Hezbollah: though in Europe, most of the leaders of the old continent have refused to consider Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, resisting the tremendous US pressure to join the US-Israeli objective. 

In Lebanon, there is a well-known saying: “There are people who, if we anoint them with filtered honey, only hate us more. Others, if we wound them and cut them to pieces, love us the more.” Lebanese society is divided between those who support Hezbollah and those who hate and voice their hatred of Hezbollah. 

Whoever ideologically or by conviction supports Hezbollah will maintain the same position and never budge. As for those who support Hezbollah only circumstantially, some will turn against it or voice their criticism, particularly on social media. Many within the Lebanese Christian camp, particularly those who support the Tayyar al-Watani al-Hurr (the Free National Movement- FNM), no longer take into consideration that Hezbollah prevented the election of a President for two and a half years to impose – successfully – the FNM leader, General Michel Aoun, as President, notwithstanding domestic and international opposition. Instead, due to the US brainwashing campaign claiming that Hezbollah supports corruption or is responsible for corruption or is the ally of the Speaker Nabih Berri accused of corruption, a growing number of the FNM supporters fail to recognize the US-Israel hybrid campaign and give no more extended consideration to the alliance of two minorities (Shia and Christian) in the Levant. The expensive US economic sanctions and the decades of US-allies Lebanese-corrupted politicians overwhelm any reasoning. Daily life necessities become the priority, and alliances become marginal. The hybrid war against Hezbollah forced the society that supports the group to be entrenched and on the defensive.


By Elijah J Magnier
Source: Elijah J. Magnier

Behind the Scenes of Meeting with Hezbollah: France Expected Harsher Stance by S. Nasrallah

 October 6, 2020

Mousawi Foucher

Paris expected that the stance of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on French President Emmaneul Macron’s accusations of ‘betrayal’ would have been harsher, sources told Al-Manar.

Last week, French ambassador to Lebanon Bruno Foucher met Hezbollah’s international and Arab relations chief Ammar Al-Mousawi.

The meeting with the outgoing French envoy took place a day after Sayyed Nasrallah’s speech in which the Resistance Leader said that Macron was welcome as a friend by nit as a guardian and ruler of Lebanon. Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed Hezbollah’s commitment to Macron’s initiative aimed at ending the political crisis in Lebanon caused by forming the new government.

Well-informed sources of the meeting told Al-Manar that Paris expected harsher stance by Sayyed Nasrallah, noting that Hezbollah Secretary General’s speech was closely monitored by the Elysee Palace.

“This indicates that Paris knows very well accusations that Hezbollah has been hindering the formation of the new government were baseless,” one of the sources told Al-Manar.

During the meeting with Al-Mousawi, Foucher agreed on most of the points raised in Sayyed Nasrallah’s speech, describing some of them as ‘totally right’, according to the source.

The French envoy, however, said that Macron was expecting Hezbollah to show more facilitation in the issue of government formation, but Al-Mousawi’s response was clear: “Are we expected to cancel ourselves?”

The sources also added that Foucher agreed stances announced by Saudi’s King Salman against Hezbollah and fresh sanctions by the US administrations against former Lebanese ministers negatively affected Macron’s initiative.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

لماذا استعجلت أميركا و«إسرائيل» ترسيم الحدود مع لبنان؟

 د. عصام نعمان

أعلن رئيس مجلس النواب نبيه بري منتصفَ الأسبوع الماضي عن إتفاق إطار لبدء مفاوضات بين لبنان و«إسرائيل» بشأن ترسيم الحدود البرية والبحرية بينهما تحت رعاية الأمم المتحدة وبوساطة الولايات المتحدة، مؤكداً انه ليس اتفاقاً نهائياً، وانّ الجيش اللبناني سيتولى المفاوضات برعاية رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال عون وأي حكومة عتيدة.

ملف المفاوضات بين لبنان ودولة العدو فُتح سنة 2010، وتواصلت بشأنه اتصالات متقطعة نحو عشر سنوات الى أن وافق الطرفان، بفعل وساطة أميركية، على اتفاق إطار في 9/7/2020 يُحدّد الأسس التي تبدأ بموجبها المفاوضات في 14 الشهر الحالي تحت علم الأمم المتحدة في مقرّ قوات الطوارئ الدولية «يونيفيل» في بلدة الناقورة الحدودية اللبنانية.

أسئلة كثيرة طُرحت حول الدوافع والمرامي التي حملت أميركا، ومن ورائها «إسرائيل»، على تعجيل البدء بالمفاوضات قبل نحو شهر من موعد الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية، وفي غمرة جائحةٍ كورونية عاتية ضربت كِلا الدولتين وتسبّبت باضطرابات سياسية وأمنية وبخسائر اقتصادية.

لعلّ أبرز الدوافع والمرامي ثمانية:

أولاً، فشلُ الضغوط التي مارستها أميركا لحمل لبنان على اعتماد خطةٍ طرحها مبعوثها فريدريك هوف سنة 2012 لقسمة المنطقة البحرية المتنازع عليها ومساحتها 860 كيلومتراً مربعاً على أساس أن تكون حصة لبنان منها 500 كيلومتر و«إسرائيل» 360 كيلومتر، لكن لبنان رفض الخطة لكون كامل المساحة المذكورة واقعة برمّتها ضمن مياهه الإقليمية.

ثانياً، فشلُ الاعتداءات العسكرية الإسرائيلية طوال السنوات العشر الماضية، لا سيما حرب 2006، في حمل لبنان على تغيير موقفه الرافض لمطامع «إسرائيل» وضغوطها.

ثالثاً، مباشرةُ «إسرائيل» في التنقيب عن النفط والغاز في المياه الإقليمية الفلسطينية المحاذية لحدود لبنان الجنوبية، وإقامة منشآت لاستثمار الإنتاج، والتلويح بتمديد عمليات التنقيب الى المنطقة الاقتصادية الخالصة اللبنانية ما أدّى إلى إعلان السيد حسن نصرالله موقفاً صارماً بعزم المقاومة على الردّ بقوة ساحقة على العدوان الإسرائيلي ما يعني تدمير المنشآت البحرية التي أقامها العدو.

رابعاً، إقدامُ العدو، بعد إنجازه إقامة منشآته النفطية البحرية، على عقد اتفاق مع قبرص واليونان ومصر لإنشاء أنبوب بحري لنقل الغاز الى اليونان ومن ثم الى إيطاليا لتموين دول أوروبا بهذه المادة الاستراتيجية الأمر الذي يستدعي توفير حماية كاملة لمنشآنه البحرية وذلك بحلّ الخلاف على ترسيم الحدود مع لبنان تفادياً لتدمير منشآته من قِبل حزب الله.

خامساً، تأكّد العدو الصهيوني من تعاظم قدرات حزب الله إذ أصبح في مقدور صواريخه الدقيقة ضرب العمق الإسرائيلي بما يحتويه من مرافق حيوية كالموانئ والمطارات والمصانع والقواعد العسكرية. وكان لافتاً في هذا السياق تصريح لوزير الأمن بني غانتس محذراً من فعالية قدرات حزب الله العسكرية وضرورة عدم الاستخفاف بها.

سادساً، لاحظ العدو أنّ لبنان يعاني منذ مطالع العام الحالي انهياراً اقتصادياً واضطرابات سياسية ما ينعكس سلباً على مركزه التفاوضي ويتيح لـِ «إسرائيل» فرصة نادرة لاستغلالها في سياق محاولاتها المتواصلة للاستيلاء على مساحة واسعة من المياه الإقليمية اللبنانية حيث كميات هائلة من الغاز والنفط.

سابعاً، تُدرك «إسرائيل» أنّ دونالد ترامب هو أقوى وأفضل رئيس أميركي ساندها وموّلها وسلّحها بسخاء منقطع النظير، لكن بقاءه في البيت الأبيض غير مضمون إذ قد يخسر أمام منافسه الديمقراطي جو بايدن. لذا فالأفضل لها انتهاز وجوده في البيت الأبيض واستغلال شبقه للبقاء فيه بإغرائه بتحقيق «انتصارات» خارجية لتوظيفها في الانتخابات الرئاسية، وبأنّ لبنان هو أحد المواقع المتاحة – في ظنّهاــ لتحقيق «انتصار مضمون». من هنا يمكن تفسير تدخل إدارة ترامب مع المسؤولين اللبنانيين لإقناعهم بالقبول بإطارٍ للمفاوضات يبدو مراعياً مصالح بلادهم.

ثامناً، يصعب على المنظومة الحاكمة في لبنان، وسط الانهيار الاقتصادي والمالي الذي تعانيه البلاد، ان ترفض عرضاً للبدء بمفاوضات أولية مع «إسرائيل» وفق إطار يراعي شروط لبنان وقد يؤدّي إلى تمكينه من مباشرة التنقيب عن الغاز والنفط في منطقة غنية بهما، مع العلم أنّ المفاوضات قد تطول وميزان القوى المائل حالياً لمصلحة خصوم أميركا في المنطقة قد يميل أكثر لمصلحة أطراف محور المقاومة ما يؤدّي إلى تعزيز مركز لبنان التفاوضي حيال «إسرائيل».

غير أنّ إعلان الرئيس بري، حليف حزب الله، للاتفاق –الإطار حمل خصوم الحزب على انتقاد بري من جهة والتحذير من تداعيات الاتفاق على حقوق لبنان في أرضه المحتلة من جهة أخرى وذلك على النحو الآتي:

ــ جرى انتقاد بري لاستعماله مصطلح «إسرائيل» بدلاً من العدو او الكيان الصهيوني ما يوحي – في ظنّ الناقدين – أنّ رئيس مجلس النواب بات متهاوناً حيال عدوانيتها. والحال أنّ بري كشف أسس الاتفاق – الإطار الذي يضمّ أطرافاً عدةً، بينها «إسرائيل»، فلا يُعقل تضمينه مصطلحات عدائية ضدّ أحدها.

ــ أشار منتقدون إلى تصريحٍ لوزير الطاقة الإسرائيلي يوفال شتاينتش حول التوصل الى إجراء «مفاوضات مباشرة» مع لبنان الأمر الذي يتعارض مع واقع أنّ لبنان ما زال في حال حرب مع «إسرائيل» وانه يعتبرها عدواً مغتصباً لفلسطين. والحال انّ الاتفاق – الإطار الذي أعلنه بري يشير الى مفاوضات غير مباشرة وليس إلى مفاوضات مباشرة.

ــ أشار منتقدون آخرون الى انّ الاتفاق – الإطار يشير الى التفاوض حول خلافات على حدود بحرية في حين انّ الخلافات تتعلق بالحدود البرية أيضاً. والحال انّ بري شدّد على التلازم في المفاوضات بين الحدود البرية والبحرية. هذا مع العلم انّ الاتفاق المعلن تضمّن إشارة إلى تفاهم نيسان/ ابريل وإلى قرار مجلس الامن 1701 سنة 2006 اللذين يتعلّقان اصلاً وفصلاً بالحدود البرية وبالنقاط التي تحفّظ بشأنها لبنان كونها أراض لبنانية ما زالت «إسرائيل» تحتلها وما زال لبنان يصرّ على إنهاء احتلالها.

ــ غير أنّ أبرز الملاحظات والتساؤلات انصبّت على مسألة تعهّد حزب الله بالردّ على الاعتداءين الإسرائيليين الأخيرين اللذين أدّيا إلى ارتقاء شهداء من المقاومة. فهل سينفذ حزب الله وعده ووعيده بعد بدء المفاوضات غير المباشرة ما يؤدي الى تعطيلها؟ أم أنه سيستنكف عن ذلك ما يشي بوجود «صفقة» مع أميركا لإنجاح المفاوضات؟

قياديون في حزب الله أكدوا أنه ليس طرفاً في المفاوضات وانّ المقاومة ما زالت في حال حرب مع العدو، وانّ تعهّد السيد نصرالله بالردّ على الاعتداءات الإسرائيلية ما زال قائماً ومُلزماً وسينفذ في الوقت الذي تراه القيادة مناسباً.

باختصار، الاتفاق – الإطار هو مجرد تحديد للأسس التي ستجري المفاوضات بموجبها. فلا شيء تحقق حتى الآن على صعيد المضمون، ولا حدود جرى التفاهم على ترسيمها في البرّ أو البحر. الإعداد للمفاوضات استغرق أكثر من عشر سنوات، ولا ينتظر المتابعون والمراقبون ان تنتهي الى نتائج إيجابية في المستقبل المنظور، ولا بالتأكيد قبل مغادرة ترامب البيت الأبيض.

وزير ونائب سابق

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

How Nasrallah’s sharp answer to Macron was softened by French media

October 04, 2020

Having failed to take advantage of the crisis to hand over Lebanon to the Hariri-Miqati-Siniora clique, main responsible for the decay of Lebanon since 15 years, as well as to the diktats of the IMF, Macron crossed all the red lines, unable to understand that France no longer runs the show in the Middle East. Hezbollah, for its part, has firmly denounced his conduct while respecting the rules of diplomacy, as a mature actor who knows its political and military power and has nothing to prove. As for French mainstream newspapers like Le Monde, as the sycophant journalists they are, they engage in gross falsifications to support the official narrative, taking advantage of their virtual monopoly on information.

By Resistance News

Read Nasrallah’s response in full below the article.

On September 26, Lebanese Prime Minister Mustapha Adib announced his resignation, having been unable to form a new government by the deadline. He was appointed on August 31, in the wake of the French initiative aimed at forming a government within 15 days. The previous government led by Hassan Diab resigned days after the Beirut port explosion on August 4, which killed some 200 people and left thousands homeless.

The Western media have blamed the Hezbollah-Amal tandem for this failure, accusing them of having demanded that the Ministry of Finance be devolved to a Shiite, allegedly violating the requirement of independence and neutrality, or even, according to France’s main newspaper Le Monde,  trampling upon customs and the Lebanese Constitution:

But [Nasrallah] did not explain the Shiite duo’s stubbornness in [wanting] to control the financial portfolio, contrary to the Constitution and customary rules.

In a press conference on Sunday, September 27 that lasted nearly an hour, held in linkup between Paris and Beirut, Macron strongly criticized the Lebanese political class in general and Hezbollah in particular, using reproaches and epithets light-years away from traditional diplomatic language (is this why the Élysée does not provide transcripts of presidential speeches?). Macron notably denounced

[…] a political class subjected to the deadly game of corruption and terror. […] The leaders of the Lebanese institutions did not wish, clearly, resolutely, explicitly, did not wish to respect the commitment made to France and to the international community. […] The Lebanese authorities and political forces have chosen to privilege their partisan and individual interests to the detriment of the general interest of the country. […] They made the choice to hand over Lebanon to the game of foreign powers, to condemn it to chaos instead of allowing it to benefit from the international aid which the Lebanese people need. […]

Lebanese politicians have made it impossible, by their dark maneuvers, to form a mission government capable of carrying out the reforms. Some first preferred to consolidate the unity of their camp rather than that of the Lebanese as a whole by negotiating among themselves to better trap others, by reintroducing a sectarian criterion that was not agreed by all for the appointment of ministers, as if competence was related to faith. The others believed they could impose the choices of their party and of Hezbollah in the formation of the government, in total contradiction with the needs of Lebanon and with the commitments explicitly taken withme on September 1. They did not want to make any concessions, until the end. Hezbollah cannot simultaneously be an army at war with Israel, a militia unleashed against civilians in Syria and a respectable party in Lebanon. He must not think he is stronger than he is and it is up to him to show that he respects the Lebanese as a whole. In recent days he has clearly shown the opposite. […]

No one has lived up to the commitments made on September 1. All of the (Lebanese ruling class) bet on the worst with the sole aim of saving themselves, of saving the interests of their family, of their clan. They won’t. To all of them I say today that none of them can win against the others. I therefore decide to take good note of this collective betrayal and of the refusal of Lebanese officials to commit in good faith to the contract that France offered them on September 1. They bear full responsibility. It will be heavy. They will have to answer for it before the Lebanese people. […]

I assert very clearly this evening my condemnation of all political leaders. […]

[The Lebanese leaders] are afraid of Hezbollah, they are afraid of war. […]

The question really is in the hands of President [of the Parliament Nabih] Berri and Hezbollah: do you want the politics of the worst today, or do you want to re-engage the Shiite camp in the camp of democracy and Lebanon’s interest? You cannot claim to be a political force in a democratic country by terrorizing with arms and you cannot be around the table durably if you do not keep your commitments around the table. […]

I am ashamed. I am ashamed for your leaders. […]

You have a system of terror that has taken hold and that Hezbollah has imposed. […]

Macron therefore accused the entire Lebanese political class, all officials and all institutions, without exception, in extremely serious terms (traitors, perjurers, corrupt, terrorists, profiteers, clans, despising the people, untrustworthy, etc.), while absolving France of all responsibility, of any breach: “Where are the responsibilities? They are not those of France.” And clearly, according to him, the greatest part of the responsibility for this failure would fall on Hezbollah, characterized as “militia, terrorist group and political force”, and threatened with sanctions or even of war if it does not come to a better frame of mind:

Sanctions don’t seem like the right instrument at this stage, [but] I haven’t ruled them out at some point. […] There are two lines, there are not three: there is a line which, I believe, is still the one followed by the international community, which is to get behind our initiative and the (French) roadmap. There is another line which may seem attractive and which has been taken by some, which is what I would call the worst-case policy, which is to say basically, we must now declare war on Hezbollah, and therefore Lebanon must collapse with Hezbollah.

So many bellicose declarations which did not prevent the virtuoso of 49-3 [clause of the French Constitution allowing the government to compel the majority if reluctant to adopt a text without a vote, and end any obstruction from the opposition] and torturer of the Yellow Vests from concluding by emphasizing his humble and prudent attitude (“I have a lot of humility”) and his respect for the sovereignty of the peoples (“The line which is mine everywhere [is] that of respecting the sovereignty of peoples”). One can only imagine what the gist of his speech would have been without these valuable qualities.

In a speech of September 29 that lasted nearly an hour and a half, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, responded at length to what can only be characterized as a blatant attack by the French President, trampling on the proprieties and on the sovereignty of Lebanon, to the point that even the pro-NATO Le Monde characterized Macron’s intervention as an “incendiary speech”, a “cannon blast” by a “professor scolding a class of dunces, who cannot open their mouth in front of him”. But we should not rely on the mainstream media to know the content of the speech of the Secretary General of Hezbollah. Here is a list of the approximations, omissions and falsifications of Le Monde in its account of Nasrallah’s intervention, reviewed and corrected by the statements of the chief interested party.

An agreement on the content, but the style is to be reviewed, according to the head of the Lebanese Hezbollah”. Thus begins the brief, free-access article in Le Monde devoted to this speech. Yet Nasrallah made it clear that he denounced both the style and content of the French attitude, and especially developed his criticism of the substance, which occupied almost all of his speech. If he remarked that “We know the French as well educated people, diplomats, who use a (tempered) language even if the content may be vehement, trying to wrap it with conciliatory words. I don’t understand what happened to them on Sunday night.”, he stated unequivocally that he was not only denouncing “the style”, but that “the procedures, the format and the content” of Paris’ approach must be “thoroughly reviewed”: “I call on (France) to (fully) reconsider things at the level of its conduct, actions, understanding, analysis, conclusions, and even management and language used.

In essence, what did the French initiative plan? According to Le Monde,

Lebanese political parties, including Hezbollah, had pledged to Mr. Macron, who came to Beirut in early September, to form a cabinet of “competent” and “independent” ministers from the political swamp within two weeks, condition for the release of international aid essential to the recovery of the country in crisis.

Nasrallah confirms this point, adding a crucial question:

All you talked about was forming a mission government with competent, independent ministers. Very well. But these independent ministers, who should name them? Who was to name them? It was not mentioned in the (French) initiative. No one agreed on how to appoint these ministers.

The very appointment of the Prime Minister responsible for forming the government was not negotiated. In fact, Mustapha Adib was appointed by a Club made up arbitrarily of four political opponents of Hezbollah, the former Prime Ministers Fouad Siniora, Najib Miqati, Tammam Salam and Saad Hariri, leaders, members or affiliated to the pro-Western 14-March alliance. Nasrallah reports it in detail:

At this time, a Club was formed, the Club of 4 (former) Prime Ministers. It is not fair to speak absolutely of a “Former Prime Ministers’ Club”, because the former Prime Minister (Salim) el-Hoss is still alive, and was not a member. Prime Minister Hassan Diab is also a former Prime Minister today (and was not present in this Club), so that makes two former Prime Ministers (who were excluded from this committee). This Club started to meet, as they declared, on several occasions, [and] they came up with three names, (clearly) favoring Professor Mustapha Adib. All the clues showed that they had appointed Professor Mustapha Adib as Prime Minister.

That night, as everyone was in a hurry and we had a 15-day deadline (to form the government), we inquired about the identity of this man, his liabilities and the data concerning him (which was) reasonable and positive, and in order to make things easier, we have not placed any conditions (on his appointment as Prime Minister), we have not asked for an encounter with him, we have not made any prior agreement with him. Some people are now saying that it was a mistake from our side, but whether (this decision) was right or wrong is not the point. Either way, our endorsement clearly expresses our desire to make things easier. We wanted to facilitate (the success of this French initiative). Because in any government, the most important figure is that of the head of government! But we accepted this suggestion (of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) on the assumption that this government would be formed on the basis of the broadest representation, and the broadest support (of all political forces), so that it would be able to move forward and get things done in such difficult circumstances.

If Nasrallah stressed the notable absence of Hassan Diab and Salim el-Hoss, two former Prime Ministers of Lebanon still alive, in the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” who chose the new Head of government, it is because their presence would have allowed for a better representation of the balance of political forces in Lebanon. Indeed, these 2 independent figures did not belong to the March 14 alliance, and were closer to Hezbollah and its allies of the March 8 alliance, which is the country’s leading political force, holding the majority in the Parliament since the 2018 elections. In fact, it is the parliamentary minority of March 14, notoriously hostile to Hezbollah, that chose the Prime Minister, who must be Sunni according to the Constitution but can belong to any political party. But from a conciliatory perspective, and with the understanding that the government must be formed in a concerted and representative manner, Hezbollah did not object:

If we have to talk about who obstructed and who facilitated (the French initiative), I would remind you that we accepted the appointment of Mustapha Adib without prior agreement, without conditions or discussions. We have presumed good intentions (from everyone). But it was in the perspective of moving towards an agreement and facilitating (the joint formation of the government).

However, contrary to expectations, there was no consultation for the formation of the government thereafter, neither with the President of the Republic, nor with the political forces represented in Parliament, as Nasrallah points out:

After the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib, […] there was no discussion, no interview, no debate, no solicitation of each other’s opinions (in order to form the government). To the point that subsequently, the President of the Republic was forced to summon heads or representatives of parliamentary groups to discuss it with them. Because (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) considered that (any consultation) was useless. And I’ll explain why. Even with the President of the Republic, who in reality does not represent a (particular) political force, but is, according to the Constitution, a partner in the formation of the government, his role not being limited only to accepting or rejecting (such or such government). He had the right, from the start, to discuss with the Head of Government the distribution of portfolios, the names of ministers, the nature of the government, etc. But it hasn’t happened once. Not even once. It’s like it was just a matter of forming a government and submitting it to President Aoun for approval or rejection, with no (possible discussion or) alternative route.

If he signs (his approval for such a government), it will mean a de facto government which will not have been discussed with him at all, neither at the level of its nature, nor at the level of the distribution of portfolios, nor at the level of the names of ministers, which amounts to remove the main remaining prerogative devolved to the President of the Republic after the Taif agreement, namely his participation in the formation of the government. And France must be aware of its (serious) mistake —I am now starting my denunciation. France was covering a political operation which would have led to the removal of the main remaining prerogative of the President of the Lebanese Republic. And if President Aoun refused to sign, the country would be turned upside down, the media & political opponents were ready (to go wild), as was French pressure, accusing President Aoun of obstruction (and sabotage). Of course, I don’t know if there were any negotiations with the Progressive Party or the Lebanese Forces (which are part of the March 14 minority alliance), but I know that there have been no negotiations with the political components who are our friends & allies, and with whom we hold the majority in Parliament.

Has Hezbollah gone against “the Constitution and customary rules” by demanding a say in the formation of government and the appointment of Shiite ministers, as Le Monde claims? Or was it his opponents who decided to ignore both the Constitution and customary rules and use the alleged advantage conferred on them by the initiative of their French godfather? The Lebanese Constitution, mentioned without further details by Le Monde, stipulates that

The President of the Republic shall designate the Prime Minister in consultation with the President of the Chamber of Deputies based on binding parliamentary consultations, the content of which he shall formally disclose to the latter. [Art. 53]

The Prime Minister is the Head of Government […]. He shall conduct the parliamentary consultations for forming the government. He shall sign, with the President of the Republic, the Decree of its formation. [Art. 64]

The sectarian groups shall be represented in a just and equitable manner in the formation of the Cabinet. [Art. 95]

The constitutional requirement to involve both the President of the Republic and the Parliament in the appointment of the Prime Minister and the formation of the government, flouted by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, is manifest; and in a country where the President is elected by Parliament, it is eminently more democratic to let the Parliament, elected by direct universal suffrage (albeit on a confessional basis), form the government, than to leave it entirely to the prerogative of an individual appointed by 4 personalities belonging to the same faith and to the same political force, in addition to being a minority, even if it enjoys the favors of France. Moreover, in a restricted-access articleLe Monde half-heartedly acknowledges the preponderant influence of the pro-Western alliance of March 14 in the formation of the Adib government:

“We were being asked to hand over the country to the Club of former Prime Ministers,”Nasrallah added, referring to the alliance Saad Hariri forged with three of his predecessors to closely direct Mustapha Adib. But he did not explain the stubbornness of the Shiite duo in controlling the financial portfolio, contrary to the Constitution and customary rules.

Without specifying the fact that a single political group, the March 14 alliance, had appointed the Prime Minister, Le Monde presents the requirement of Hezbollah’s participation as contrary to customs and to the Constitution, while it is quite the opposite : it was a democratic and constitutional requirement, by virtue of which the Parliament, which directly represents the people, unlike the Prime Minister and the President who represent them indirectly, must participate in the formation of the government. Hezbollah is not claiming, as Macron absurdly claims, that “competence [is] linked to confession”, nor is he rejecting, as Le Monde maintains, “the idea of ​​a collective of experts chosen on the basis of their skills”. Given the sectarian nature of the voting system in Lebanon, it is obvious that the democratic requirement must involve the representatives of each political force elected to Parliament in the choice of the holder of the ministerial portfolios which will be attributed to them, on both a political and religious basis. Far from a derogation to the “customary rule”, this is how ALL previous governments have been formed, without exception, since 2005: after an agreement of the political forces on the name of the Prime Minister, the nature of the government and the distribution of portfolios were negotiated between them, and each parliamentary group appointed its ministers, accepted without discussion by the Head of government. The only innovation in this scheme was that of Hassan Diab in 2019, when he allowed himself to negotiate the names of the proposed ministers until a personality accepted by both parties was proposed.

If Hezbollah is indeed the only party to have opposed the plan put forward by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, it is quite simply because it is the only party which has been consulted by Saad Hariri, acting as the representative of both Prime Minister Mustapha Adib and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But the law, use and common sense made it necessary for Hariri & Adib to meet with all the forces represented in Parliament, though  they declined to. Contrary to what Le Monde claims, it was not simply a question of the Minister of Finance and Hezbollah, and far from remaining silent on this subject, Nasrallah justified at length the requirement to see each politico-confessional force appoint its own minister:

Certainly there were negotiations with us, that is true. Because naturally, for one reason or another, the force represented by Hezbollah and Amal could not be ignored [the Shiites are the main community in Lebanon, and the first political force, all their deputies being part of the Amal- Hezbollah alliance].

The first point of negotiation was that [Hariri demanded that] the government be formed of 14 ministers. The second point was the rotation of ministerial portfolios, implying that we abandon the Ministry of Finance. The third point is that all the ministers had to be appointed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” (who are Sunnis) for all faiths: Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Druze, they wanted to appoint all the ministers. Fourth, they alone were to decide on the distribution of ministerial portfolios among the various faiths. When we asked them how they were going to proceed, they did not answer, everything was left to their whim. In short, they were deciding everything, and we and the other forces in the country just had to take good note (of their unilateral decision). […]

Why do you want to impose new uses, suppress (the role of) parliamentary groups and the parliamentary majority, suppress the President of the Republic and suppress political forces, and monopolize the formation of the government in the interest of a single party, which represents only a part of the current parliamentary minority, although we respect it and respect its position? But this is a whole new way of doing things, which contradicts the traditions, the Constitution and the democracy that Mr. Macron demands of us! […]

If it had been agreed that political parties do not participate in their appointment, Saad Hariri is the leader of a party (and therefore should not have participated). Just as Najib Miqati heads a party, and Fouad Siniora is a member of a party. Why should one political color have the right to appoint all ministers, while all other forces do not have this right? […]

In this project, the most important thing was to see whether the Hezbollah-Amal duo accepted the plan or not. I am saying it frankly. That’s why they didn’t negotiate, discuss and argue with anyone else. They thought that if Hezbollah and Amal walked along, no one would be able to stop this project, because even if President Aoun wanted to exercise his constitutional prerogatives, he would find himself isolated, confronted and put under pressure.

The French initiative, which presented itself as a desire to overcome political and confessional divisions, therefore quickly turned out as a juggernaut aiming to erase all the components of Lebanese political life, except one, that of the pro-Western and pro-French March 14 led by Saad Hariri, who wanted to monopolize the process of forming the government and therefore monopolize the political decision. This was obviously unacceptable to the March 8 parliamentary majority, as Nasrallah explained:

What has been proposed during the last month  is not a government to save Lebanon. What was proposed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” is that in the end, all the parliamentary groups of the country, all the Lebanese political forces, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Republic hand over the country to them, unconditionally, without discussion, without debate, and without asking any questions. What will be the nature of the government, who will be in it, how will the ministries be distributed, etc., none of these points was to be debated, and it was necessary to rely blindly on the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”and accept the government that they were preparing to form (unilaterally), otherwise the sanctions would fall, as would the French pressures which would make us bear the responsibility in the eyes of the Lebanese people and the international community, presenting us as saboteurs. This is the project that has been put forward for one month. […]

If we have rejected this form of government, it is not because we would or would not want to be in the government. The fundamental question we are asking ourselves is that of the interests of Lebanon, of the Lebanese people, the recovery of the country… Because we can go from bad to better, and from bad to worse. The question is, in which direction are we going? To whom were we about to hand over the ark of our salvation? Who would have been at the helm of the saving ship? These 4 Prime Ministers were Prime Ministers from 2005 until just a few months ago. Isn’t it true? They have been Heads of government for 15 years. They are not the only ones responsible for the current situation, of course. We all bear some responsibility. But it is they who bear the greatest burden of responsibility. For they were the Heads of government, and had ministers & officials in (all) (successive) governments. I pin responsibility on them, and I ask them to take responsibility and not to run away from (it). We must help each other, cooperate, work hand in hand. But to believe that we can save Lebanon by handing over the country to the political force that bears the greatest responsibility for the situation we have arrived at for 15 years is completely illogical and even absurd.

The French initiative was indeed planning to put old wine in new wineskins, closely “directed” by the old wineskins which would simply remain behind the scenes but continue to pull the strings: it is the complete opposite of the revival touted by the marketing of the French roadmap, and of Macron’s promises that “no one will give money as long as those who led this villainous system for decades are there and as long as the system will be held by the same people with the same rules”. It is precisely the status quo and the impunity of the “profiteers” that Paris wanted to maintain.

Faced with the irreconcilability of the two parties, Hariri refusing to negotiate, and Hezbollah understandably refusing to give in to this attempted hold-up which tried to instrumentalize the emotion aroused by the national disaster of the explosion of the port of Beirut, France then intervened, asking Hezbollah why it was obstructing government formation and putting pressure on it. Here is Hezbollah’s response, as reported by Nasrallah:

We replied: “O our dear ones, o our friends, did the French initiative provide for a government of 14 ministers?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for a Club made up of 4 former Prime Ministers to appoint all the ministers of the government for all faiths?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide that they would distribute the portfolios between faiths on their own?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for the rotation of portfolios, and that the Ministry of Finance would be removed from this faith in favor of another?” They said no, and said they just wanted a smaller government —14, 12, 10, 18 or 20 ministers, and it was up to us to come to an agreement on their appointment. Great. So how are we obstructing the French initiative? Because the debate is now between us and France. They have spoken publicly, to the media, so I do the same. What I am saying is true. The roadmap of the French initiative is accessible to the public, O Lebanese people, and does not mention any of this. […]

In the end, France accepted our view that the Ministry of Finance should remain with the Shiites —I will make clear later the reason for the insistence on this issue and the importance of this point—, but asked that he be appointed by the Head of Government, that is to say by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But we replied that we are not simply looking for the minister to be Shiite and from Shiite parents. We are committed to this minister being Shia because of the decisions he will have to make, and on which we must have a say (it is an issue of political allegiance, and not merely of faith). The Head of Government is capable of finding a Shiite official who is 100% loyal and sincere to him. This is not what we are looking for. We want each denomination to appoint its ministers, even if the Head of Government can refuse names 10, 20 or 30 times, until one can be found that works for all. But this idea was categorically rejected by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”.

The negotiations were therefore only a vain masquerade, and Saad Hariri wanted, as in 2005 when he capitalized on the emotion aroused by the assassination of his father Rafik Hariri, to fully seize the power, by appointing so-called technocrats selected not so much for their competence, which must be determined collegially and not by co-option, but for their political allegiance. Scarlett Haddad sums it up in L’Orient le Jour, a French-speaking and pro-Western Lebanese daily:

Under the pretext of having chosen Mustapha Adib, the former Prime Ministers have arrogated themselves the right to dictate his attitude, when they should, like the others, have stayed aside. Moreover, in his three meetings with the two Shiite emissaries Ali Hassan Khalil and Hussein Khalil, Mustapha Adib repeated on several occasions that he was obliged to conform to the will of the four former Prime Ministers, since they had named him. In this regard, Amal and Hezbollah recall that they accepted his appointment (the former Prime Ministers had sent a list of three names, two of which were unacceptable for Amal and Hezbollah), but that does not mean that they accept to be totally marginalized in the formation of government. Ultimately, they could have agreed to be, if that was the case for all political parties. But they found out that they were excluded, even from the choice of the Shiite ministers, not to mention the Finance portfolio, while the former Prime Ministers themselves intervene in all the decisions of Mustapha Adib, and that set off their alarm bells. Moreover, this issue was raised during the meeting between Hezbollah’s head of external relations, Ammar Moussaoui, and the French ambassador, Bruno Foucher. But despite this metting, Adib had not changed his style. He did hold two meetings with the Shiite emissaries, but without clearly answering any of their questions. Amal and Hezbollah thought that a trap was set for them. They had the feeling of reliving the situation of 2005: under the shock of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the Future Movement and the PSP then hastened to conclude with them the famous quadripartite agreement to wrest the parliamentary majority and then turn against them by excluding them from power. Thus, the two parties had the feeling that their opponents were once again seeking to take advantage of an immense tragedy to initially exclude them from executive power, before turning against them. […] And now? The circles close to the Shiite formations believe that it is still quite possible to save the French initiative. But this requires respect for political and community balances.

None of these essential facts is reflected in Le Monde’s report, which suggests that all political parties agreed to pull back in the best interests of Lebanon, while Hezbollah would have rejected any compromise and got tough, caring about nothing but the conservation of its weapons:

Tuesday evening, Hassan Nasrallah raised the one once again, stressing the need for his party to be part of the government, through partisans or not, in order to “protect the back of the resistance”.

This falsification is perhaps the most blatant of all of Le Monde’s lies, and aims to describe Hezbollah as a party from abroad which has nothing to do with the well-being of the Lebanese and only wishes to preserve its military arsenal, supposedly guarantor of its political strength. In fact, Nasrallah precisely said the opposite. In 2005, he explained, Hezbollah had indeed decided to join the government “to protect the back of the Resistance”. But today, he continued, the situation is very different, Hezbollah having nothing to fear for itself, and it is only for Lebanon that it is worried:

I want to explain why, quite frankly, it is impossible for us to be absent from the government. Quite frankly, we fear for what’s left of Lebanon, economically, financially, and in every way. We are afraid for Lebanon and for the Lebanese people. I have already said that we are not afraid for Hezbollah (which would survive and maintain its power even if Lebanon collapsed, because Iran will always be there), but for the country, for the people, for the future of this country. If a government had been formed (without us), how would we know that it wasn’t going to sign a blank check to the IMF and give in to all its demands without discussion? I’m not accusing anyone but it’s a possibility. I know each other’s beliefs (and the March 14 submission to the West). As a parliamentary group, are we going to give our confidence to a government knowing, or very strongly presuming, that it will blindly sign the IMF’s roadmap, without discussion? Whatever the conditions of the IMF, Lebanon would comply. Should we not be afraid that a government, using the pretext of our financial situation or any other pretext, sells national assets? It is already proposed in some projects to sell State property (massive privatization). Should liquidation of Lebanon’s assets be carried out on the pretext of the need to obtain money to pay off the debt, remedy the paralysis, etc., etc., etc.? Shouldn’t we be afraid of such a government, when, and I solemnly assert this to you, during previous governments, two-thirds or more of the ministers bitterly defended an increase in VAT? If the intended government had been formed by Mustapha Adib, the first decision he would have made was to increase VAT on everything. The tax policy would have hit the people, while we promised the Lebanese people that we would not allow it and would not accept it. Can our people endure an increase in VAT? Because of a proposed tax of a few cents on Whatsapp calls, people took to the streets on October 17 (2019). Shouldn’t we fear a government with which we do not know what will happen to the savings of the people in the banks? No our dear ones, we fear for our country, for our people, for national assets, for the savings of the inhabitants. We fear the IMF conditions and we fear to go from a bad situation to a much worse situation.

Though Western media often obscure this reality, Hezbollah is not merely a formidable anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist and sovereignist armed force close to Iran (while its Lebanese adversaries are mere tools of the Washington-Paris-Riyadh Axis) and a Shiite Islamist party representing the largest demographic community in Lebanon; it is also a progressive social force in the service of the most deprived, opposed to the ultraliberal doxa defended by the West and its godchildren of March 14. It is not to protect its weapons that Hezbollah wants to participate in the government, it is above all to protect the sovereignty of Lebanon and the purchasing power of the most humble Lebanese, who would be abused by the March 14 oligarchy ruled by billionaires like Hariri and Miqati.

In conclusion, Nasrallah denounced Macron’s attempt to put Lebanon under trusteeship, and the real attack against Lebanon’s national dignity that his speech constituted, calling on him to renounce interference, pressure and threats:

We welcomed President Macron as a friend of Lebanon, who loves and wants to help Lebanon, get it out of its crises, bring together divergent points of view: this is the way (genuine) friendship, benevolence, mediation, fraternity and love (are expressed). But in no case can there be for anyone, be it the French President or anyone else, the power to impose himself as guardian, governor, ruler, judge & executioner of Lebanon. To my knowledge, the Lebanese have never taken such a decision. […]

I would have liked President Macron to say that it was (only) Hezbollah that thwarted the initiative, no problem, and I wish he had spared the rest of the political forces. […] There is nothing more important than respect. There is nothing more important than the dignity of people. What was violated two days ago (during Macron’s intervention) was national dignity. […] Whoever stands up and accuses everyone without distinction —institutions, parties, political forces, etc.—, in truth this undermines the national dignity and it is unacceptable.

This (paternalist) conduct and this way of doing things will never succeed in Lebanon, whatever the identity of those who exercise them and of those who support them. Whether it is the United States, France, Europe, the international community, the Arab League, the planet or even the whole universe, the language of threats will never work with us. This will never work in Lebanon, and whoever you are, you are wasting your time (trying to intimidate us).

President Macron accused us of terrorizing people, but those who accuse us of intimidating are those who have exercised a policy of intimidation during the past month, against the Presidents (of the Republic, of the Council of Ministers and of the Parliament), parliamentary groups, and political parties & forces in order to impose such a government. The threats, the sanctions, the dangers (mentioned), the idea that we’d be heading for the worst (namely war against Hezbollah), etc. You saw the language (used by Macron). All of this is now public. But it won’t work.

Le Monde‘s approximations and falsifications aim both to denigrate Hezbollah, presented as an instrument of Iran indifferent to the fate of Lebanon and the Lebanese, while it is its best defender, and to perpetuate the myth of French influence in the Middle East by validating Macron’s approach, allegedly accepted even by his fiercest opponents despite some criticism about the style. These illusions may flatter Macron’s oversized ego, but encourage him to keep his doomed paternalistic and neo-colonialist posture. By perpetuating this ignorance, France is only moving further away from Lebanon and the Middle East in general, where its once dominant role is now largely eroded and will be nothing but a bad memory tomorrow.

***

Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on September 29, 2020.

We translate in full the central part of the speech devoted to the failure of the French initiative and to Macron’s press conference, key passages of which we have quoted above (emboldened in the transcript).

In introduction and conclusion, Nasrallah briefly touched on the role of the United States in the resurgence of ISIS in Lebanon and elsewhere, the situation in southern Lebanon and the unprecedented disappearance of occupying forces along the entire length of the border since several months, driven awat by fear of an inevitable Hezbollah response, Netanyahu’s recent lies about stockpiles of missiles stored in urban areas of Beirut and the Bahrain-Israel deal, doomed to fail as all the Arab-Israeli peace treaties because the peoples won’t ever accept them.

Source: https://video.moqawama.org/details.php?cid=1&linkid=2168

Translation: resistancenews.org

Transcript:

[…] Regarding the internal political situation, I will address the issue of the government, the formation of the new government, the French initiative, and the recent press conference of French President Macron. I want to bring this up first to explain to Lebanese public opinion what happened —of course, there are details that I will only cover briefly, and some truths that I will keep hidden for now, in order to leave the doors open, but I want to present a sufficient picture, I consider that it will be sufficient to understand what happened. And I also want to express our comments on President Macron’s press conference, and about where we are headed.

Regarding the government, after the explosion of the (Beirut) port on August 4, 2020, and the resignation of the government of Hassan Diab, as well as the visit of the French President to Lebanon, and the launch of the French initiative, there were two meetings at the Résidence des Pins (residence of the French Ambassador to Lebanon), in the presence of the French President and 8 parties, political forces or parliamentary groups, which became 9 during the second meeting. An initiative has been presented, the text of which is present and circulated in the media and on social networks, and anyone can refer to it, nothing being hidden about it. We have all said that we support the French initiative. The first step was the formation of a new government. I will get to that in detail in a moment. The first step in the first phase was to appoint the Prime Minister who would form a government. I will tell it as it happened, citing the names, because the Lebanese people have the right to know things clearly. Nothing is secret, and there are no secrets in Lebanon, but I will talk about the facts.

Who were we going to name as Prime Minister? We have agreed that the parliamentary groups will consult on this matter, no problem. We said we would have no problem with the Prime Minister being Saad Hariri, if he wanted to. If he wanted to nominate someone, we had to see who he was going to suggest, and discuss it among ourselves, and accept or not. These were the initial discussions. At this time, a Club was formed, which I will call the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, because I will often talk about it, the Club of 4 (former) Prime Ministers (Fouad Siniora, Najib Miqati, Tammam Salam and Saad Hariri). It is not fair to speak absolutely of a “Former Prime Ministers’ Club”, because the former Prime Minister (Salim) el-Hoss is still alive, and was not a member. This Club was therefore made up of the last 4 Prime Ministers. Prime Minister Hassan Diab is also a former Prime Minister today (and was not present in this Club), so that makes two former Prime Ministers (who were excluded from this committee). This Club started to meet, as they declared, on several occasions, which is not a problem for us, on the contrary, because we want the greatest understanding between the different forces, movements and political parties of Lebanon, and these people have parliamentary groups and represent political forces. So they came up with three names, (clearly) favoring Professor Mustapha Adib, at least that’s what we understood. All the clues showed that they had appointed Professor Mustapha Adib as Prime Minister.

That night, as everyone was in a hurry and we had a 15-day deadline (to form the government), we inquired about the identity of this man, his liabilities and the data concerning him (which was) reasonable and positive, and in order to make things easier, we have not placed any conditions (on his appointment as Prime Minister), we have not asked for an encounter with him, we have not made any prior agreement with him. Some people are now saying that it was a mistake from our side, but whether (this decision) was right or wrong is not the point. Either way, our endorsement clearly expresses our desire to make things easier. We wanted to facilitate (the success of this French initiative). Because in any government, the most important figure is that of the head of government! In any government, the most important figure is the Prime Minister! But we accepted this suggestion (of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) on the assumption that this government would be formed on the basis of the broadest representation, and the broadest support (of all political forces), so that it would be able to move forward and get things done in such difficult circumstances. We therefore accepted this suggestion, very well, everyone was reassured, and the French President came for his second visit, and met everyone after the appointment of Prime Minister Mustapha Adib, inviting us to continue to carry out the French roadmap, reforms, etc.

After the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib, the protocol meetings with parliamentary groups (making the appointment official) were held, and it all ended. The Prime Minister has been asked to do so. He’s a respectable and respectful person, I don’t mean anything bad about him, but (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) told him to wait, and that someone was going to negotiate. Naturally, the negotiations had to take place with the parliamentary groups, because they are the ones who issue the vote of confidence, and it is not enough that they have (accepted the) appointment of the Prime Minister. There are parliamentary groups that did not vote for the appointment, but could vote confidence (in the government). But they haven’t spoken to anyone, with no political force, at least from what I know. There was no discussion, no interview, no debate, no solicitation of each other’s opinions (in order to form the government). To the point that subsequently, the President of the Republic was forced to summon heads or representatives of parliamentary groups to discuss it with them. Because (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) considered that (any consultation) was useless. And I’ll explain why. Even with the President of the Republic, who in reality does not represent a (particular) political force, but is, according to the Constitution, a partner in the formation of the government, his role not being limited only to accepting or rejecting (such or such government). He had the right, from the start, to discuss with the Head of Government the distribution of portfolios, the names of ministers, the nature of the government, etc. But it hasn’t happened once. Not even once. It’s like it was just a matter of forming a government and submitting it to President Aoun for approval or rejection, with no (possible discussion or) alternative route.

If he signs (his approval for such a government), it will mean a de facto government which will not have been discussed with him at all, neither at the level of its nature, nor at the level of the distribution of portfolios, nor at the level of the names of ministers, which amounts to remove the main remaining prerogative devolved to the President of the Republic after the Taif agreement, namely his participation in the formation of the government. And France must be aware of its (serious) mistake —I am now starting my denunciation. France was covering a political operation which would have led to the removal of the main remaining prerogative of the President of the Lebanese Republic. And if President Aoun refused to sign, the country would be turned upside down, the media & political opponents were ready (to go wild), as was French pressure, accusing President Aoun of obstruction (and sabotage). Of course, I don’t know if there were any negotiations with the Progressive Party or the Lebanese Forces (which are part of the March 14 minority alliance, opposed to Hezbollah), but I know that there have been no negotiations with the political components who are our friends & allies, and with whom we hold the majority in Parliament.

Certainly there were negotiations with us, that is true. Because naturally, for one reason or another, the force represented by Hezbollah and Amal could not be ignored [the Shiites are the main community in Lebanon, and the first political force, all their deputies being part of the Amal- Hezbollah alliance]. We therefore discussed with the representative of Mustapha Adib. The identity of the representative of Mustapha Adib or of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” posed no problem for us. But it turned out that the representative we spoke to was Saad Hariri (who represented both Adib and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”).

During the discussions, the points that we understood about the government during the first days, and about which there was dissension between us and Hariri, were as follows. Of course, the negotiations were cordial and respectful.

The first point of negotiation was that [Hariri demanded that] the government be formed of 14 ministers. The second point was the rotation of ministerial portfolios, implying that we abandon the Ministry of Finance. The third point is that all the ministers had to be appointed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” (who are Sunnis) for all faiths: Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Druze, they themselves wanted to appoint all the ministers. Fourth, they alone should decide on the distribution of ministerial portfolios among the various faiths. When we asked them how they were going to proceed, they did not answer, everything was left to their whim. In short, they were deciding everything, and we and the other forces in the country just had to take good note (of their unilateral decision): we had to take note that the government would have 14 ministers —of course that was the conclusion, but the discussion was calm and respectful—, we had to take note of the rotation of the portfolios, we had to take note of the distribution of the portfolios (between the different faiths) and we had to take note of the names of the ministers who would represent all the religious sects. That is all.

We have debated these points. Regarding the first point, we agreed that 30 ministers were too many, and even 24 ministers, but if we keep only 14 ministers, it is (so to speak) giving two ministries to each person. Even with a single ministry, it is already difficult to operate effectively and competently. This is one of the problems in our country: it is difficult to find competent ministers capable of leading their ministries, (and this problem would have been magnified). Why give two ministries to each minister? We could have agreed on 18 or 20 ministers, it was open to debate, but they insisted on 14 ministers, (refusing any concessions on this point) despite the fact that most of the political forces who were then consulted by the President of the Republic did not want 14 ministers, being in favor of the widest possible representation.

Likewise for the second point, we were opposed to portfolio rotation, and the issue of the Ministry of Finance is well known.

The third point is that of the appointment of ministers. The question is not only that of the Ministry of Finance. Even after establishing that such and such a ministry should be attributed to Christians, Sunnis, Shiites or Druze, they wanted to appoint the said ministers themselves, instead of the political forces or parliamentary groups that represent those faiths. Even leaving the parties aside, the parliamentary groups representing the confessions had to be involved, because they are the elected representatives of their communities: they are the elected representatives of the Lebanese people, and in particular of their faith. But (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) didn’t want to involve them in any way, just notify them (of their decision). Of course, this point was unacceptable to us, it was not negotiable. Not just for Shia ministers. That a single political force designates all ministers of all faiths is in our eyes a (great) danger for the country.

Let us take a step back and consider the Taif Accord, the constitutional prerogatives and traditions. Very good. From the Taif Agreement (1989) until 2005… It is not useful to refer to the way governments were formed before the Taif Agreement, because today there is the Taif Agreement. It is not useful to refer to the way in which the governments were formed from the Taif Agreement until 2005, because until 2005, we will be objected that this happened at the time of the Syrian tutelage and the Syrian administration. Very good. So let’s look at things from 2005 to this day: how were all the governments formed, in which you [March 14 Alliance] most often had the parliamentary majority, and were the main political force in the country, applying the Taif Agreement?

(Let’s look at things from) the first government formed after Syrian forces left the country, or during their departure, namely the government of Najib Miqati, to this day. There were always negotiations and agreement on the person of the Prime Minister, who then personally negotiated (with the political forces) to agree on the number of ministers and on the distribution of portfolios, then the ministers were appointed by deputies or parliamentary groups representing each faith, without even the Prime Minister negotiating the names proposed. The only deviation from this took place with the government of Hassan Diab, and we accepted it without problem, namely that the Prime Minister could reject a proposal from deputies or political parties and ask that another minister be suggested to him. We were open to this even before the government of Hassan Diab, and it is with him that we put it into practice. And we were and still are ready to do it this time around. In our view, this is a positive step which strengthens the prerogatives of the Head of Government. It doesn’t weaken him. This was the Prime Minister’s practice in force from 2005 to the present (for the formation of the government). When he came to an agreement with the parliamentary groups and political forces wishing to participate in the government, they would agree on the portfolios and their distribution, but each force appointed its own ministers, and the Prime Minister did not debate the names put forward to him. Today we say that the Prime Minister can debate and refuse the names that are suggested to him, and whoever is refused, we will put him aside and come up with other names. In truth, it is a reinforcement of the prerogatives of the Head of Government, different from all previous stages since the Taif Accord to this date. That is, anyone who wants to use sectarian language and claim that this weakens the status of the Prime Minister, in any case, it strengthens him more than ever! We agreed and considered it normal and logical.

But (this time, the way Ministers would be chosen) remained a point of dispute (between us and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”).

Regarding the distribution of portfolios (between the different faiths), same thing.

Even with regard to the names put forward (for the post of minister), we were ready to negotiate several ideas that were put forward to us, such as the appointment of ministers who do not belong to any party, or who did not participate in previous governments, or that the Prime Minister can refuse 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 names of ministers who will be proposed to him. We said we didn’t have a problem with that. All of this made things easier and did not obstruct the process! But they remained inflexible in their desire to appoint all the ministers themselves.

They remained inflexible on these four points until the 15th day, without even having taken the trouble to discuss and debate them with the President of the Republic: we had to accept (without discussion) 14 ministers, the rotation of portfolios, the appointment by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” of all the ministers, and the distribution of portfolios among the different faiths by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. It was unacceptable as far as we are concerned, and we reached a dead end.

Of course, we can discuss this process by comparing it to the way things were done since 2005 to the present day, because they talk about traditions, but governments have never been formed according to these ways. And we can even discuss it from a constitutional point of view, by referring to what the Constitution says about the formation of the government and the role of representatives of the faiths. Because when the Taif Agreement made government the main body of power, the decision-making force, that was something new; and it was established that all faiths should be represented in this government through the representatives of these faiths in the Parliament. I will not dwell on the exegesis of article 95 of the Constitution (affirming the need for the end of confessionalism, but stipulating that in the meantime, “The communities will be fairly represented in the formation of the Government.”), but I only want to say that we can debate the constitutionality (of the procedures of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”), by saying that this interpretation is possible, without imposing myself the interpretation of this article.

Either way, without getting into a constitutional dispute, these procedures are not those that were in effect from 2005 to the present day. Why do you want to impose new uses, suppress (the role of) parliamentary groups and the parliamentary majority, suppress the President of the Republic and suppress political forces, and monopolize the formation of the government in the interest of a single party, which represents only a part of the current parliamentary minority, although we respect it and respect its position? But this is a whole new way of doing things, which contradicts the traditions, the Constitution and the democracy that Mr. Macron demands of us!

It was at this point that France began to call everyone and put pressure on everyone, in the last days of the 15-day deadline, speaking to the Presidents (of the Chamber of Deputies, of the Council of Ministers and of the Republic ) and to the party leaders —of course, the contacts with us were different—, 30-minute, 45-minute calls from President Macron, the guy was making an effort, that’s good, but in which direction was he making his efforts? I am not going to speak of the debates which took place with the others, which do not concern me, but of those which took place with us. “Why aren’t you in, why are you obstructing things,” we were asked. “We want you to help and make things easier,” we were told. All this was said in diplomatic language but with pressure, threatening us with terrible sanctions, etc.

We replied: “O our dear ones, O our friends, did the French initiative provide for a government of 14 ministers?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for a Club made up of 4 former Prime Ministers to appoint all the ministers of the government for all faiths?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide that they would distribute the portfolios between faiths on their own?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for the rotation of portfolios, and that the Ministry of Finance would be removed from this faith in favor of another?” They said no, and said they just wanted a smaller government —14, 12, 10, 18 or 20 ministers, and it was up to us to come to an agreement on their appointment. Great. So how are we obstructing the French initiative? Because the debate is now between us and France. They have spoken publicly, to the media, so I do the same. What I am saying is true. The roadmap of the French initiative is accessible to the public, O Lebanese people, and does not mention any of this: no 14 ministers, no rotation of portfolios, no method of appointing ministers, no distribution of portfolios

In the end, France accepted our view that the Ministry of Finance should remain with the Shiites —I will make clear later the reason for the insistence on this issue and the importance of this point—, but asked that he be appointed by the Head of Government, that is to say by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But we replied that we are not simply looking for the minister to be Shiite and from Shiite parents (it is an issue of political allegiance, and not merely of faith). We are committed to this minister being Shia because of the decisions he will have to make, and on which we must have a say. The Head of Government is capable of finding a Shiite official who is 100% loyal and sincere to him. This is not what we are looking for. We want each denomination to appoint its ministers, even if the Head of Government can refuse names 10, 20 or 30 times, until one can be found that works for all. But this idea was categorically rejected by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”.

Finally, Saad Hariri declared that he exceptionally accepts that the Minister of Finance be Shiite, but that he must be appointed by the Prime Minister. But we had already rejected this idea 5 days before. He claimed he was drinking the poisoned chalice by accepting this, but there is no reason for you to swallow poison, O Saad Hariri, we wish you health, and God preserve it, and I hope that we will get along eventually, no problem. But what you are suggesting is not a solution, and cannot be the solution. Then the other 3 members of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”declared that they did not agree with what Saad Hariri had said. I don’t quite understand this story (a puerile attempt to fool us), but we’re not interested in its details anyway.

We reached a dead end: we did not agree on the form of government, on who would appoint ministers, on the rotation, or on the distribution of portfolios. Because of the dead end, the head of government resigned.

I want to make it clear that there was a desire among some to impose a de facto government. I won’t name them, but there was clearly the will to send everyone to hell by (unilaterally) forming a government, appointing ministers and submitting it to the President of the Republic for approval. If he signed, so much the better. If he didn’t sign, everything would be set up against him. But they felt that he would sign because of the difficult situation of Christians and the Free Patriotic Movement, his desire to see his mandate crowned with success, French pressure, etc. They thought he would have no choice, even if they were sorely mistaken about it, because they underestimate President Aoun.

Mustapha Adib, seeing that he would not achieve anything and wouldn’t gain broad support, and not wanting to go towards a confrontation, decided to resign, and it was a respectable choice. We wish he had waited a bit more, but whether he resigned on his own because he couldn’t stand the situation, or has been asked to step down, I don’t know, but it isn’t important anymore.

After the resignation of the Prime Minister —I am still narratiing the facts, I will soon come to our assessment— the media machine financed by the Americans (and their allies) unleashed against President Aoun, Hezbollah or the tandem Amal-Hezbollah, depending on the targets of each. We had been designated as responsible of the failure beforehand, even before the failure of Mustapha Adib. France got angry and announced a press conference of President Macron, and all Lebanese were waiting to see who they blamed. And we all heard his press conference, and the questions and answers from Lebanese (pro-Western) journalists that followed.

After summing up the facts, I would like to make the following comments and clarify for all the following points.

First, what has been proposed during the last month —after the first 15 days ended, 15 days have been added, which makes a month— is not a government to save Lebanon. What was proposed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” is that in the end, all the parliamentary groups of the country, all the Lebanese political forces, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Republic hand over the country to them, unconditionally, without discussion, without debate, and without asking any questions. What will be the nature of the government, who will be in it, how will the ministries be distributed, etc., none of these points was to be debated, and it was necessary to rely blindly on the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”and accept the government that they were preparing to form (unilaterally), otherwise the sanctions would fall, as would the French pressures which would make us bear the responsibility in the eyes of the Lebanese people and the international community, presenting us as saboteurs. This is the project that has been put forward for one month.

Of course, this was all founded on a wrong assumption. In this project, the most important thing was to see whether the Hezbollah-Amal duo accepted the plan or not. I am saying it frankly. That’s why they didn’t negotiate, discuss and argue with anyone else. They thought that if Hezbollah and Amal walked along, no one would be able to stop this project, because even if President Aoun wanted to exercise his constitutional prerogatives, he would find himself isolated, confronted and put under pressure. (I’m telling you) so that you understand our position. What has been proposed for a month now is not a rescue government, but a government appointed by a “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, made up of 14 ministers, a sort of Board of Directors, specialist civil servants whose political decision is entirely vested in a single group, which is part of the parliamentary minority in Lebanon and represents only one political color (that of March 14). They represent a large part of Sunnis, but they do not (even) represent all Sunnis. There are many elected Sunni MPs who are not part of this alliance (and are close to Hezbollah).

Such was the plan put forward, and we all had to walk along. But it was all based on a misreading, namely that the current situation was difficult, that people were afraid, were helpless, that the pressures were exerted (from all sides), that the (American) sanctions were coming, already having struck two (former) Hezbollah ministers, Ali Khalil and Yusuf Finyanus, with threats of (additional) sanctions against a list made up of 94 personalities, etc., etc., etc., in addition to French pressure… If they could use such (threatening) language with us, while they are very careful when addressing us, telling us to fear the worst if the project does not come to fruition, what have they told the other (less powerful) forces, what have they threatened them with, what kind of pressure did they put on them? So much for the first point.

In this regard, I want to say that this (paternalist) conduct and this way of doing things will never succeed in Lebanon, whatever the identity of those who exercise them and of those who support them. Whether it is the United States, France, Europe, the international community, the Arab League, the planet or even the whole universe, the language of threats will never work with us. This will never work in Lebanon, and whoever you are, you are wasting your time (trying to intimidate us).

President Macron accused us of terrorizing people, but those who accuse us of intimidating are those who have exercised a policy of intimidation during the past month, against the Presidents (of the Republic, of the Council of Ministers and of the Parliament), parliamentary groups, and political parties & forces in order to impose such a government. The threats, the sanctions, the dangers (mentioned), the idea that we’d be heading for the worst (namely war against Hezbollah), etc. You saw the language (used by Macron). All of this is now public. But it won’t work.

Second, if we have rejected this form of government, it is not because we would or would not want to be in the government. The fundamental question we are asking ourselves is that of the interests of Lebanon, of the Lebanese people, the recovery of the country… Because we can go from bad to better, and from bad to worse. The question is, in which direction are we going? To whom were we about to hand over the ark of our salvation? Who would have been at the helm of the saving ship? These 4 Prime Ministers were Prime Ministers from 2005 until just a few months ago. Isn’t it true? They have been heads of government for 15 years. They are not the only ones responsible for the current situation, of course. We all have some responsibility. But it is they who bear the greatest burden of responsibility. For they were the Heads of Government, and had ministers & officials in (all) (successive) governments. I blame responsibility on them, and I ask them to take responsibility and not to run away from (it). We must help each other, cooperate, work hand in hand. But to believe that we can save Lebanon by handing over the country to the political force that bears the greatest responsibility for the situation we have arrived at for 15 years is completely illogical and even absurd.

As far as Hezbollah is concerned, you know that before 2005, we didn’t want to participate in governments, (but then we changed our mind). Why? I talked about it a lot during the 2018 elections during the electoral rallies, and I explained why we had to be present in governments (after 2005). It’s not because we’re after honors, ministries, dignities or money. Glory to God who has provided us with His blessings, so much so that we have no need of this State’s wages, budget, or wealth. I had spoken of a clear reason, to which I will add a second reason today. The reason I mentioned was the need to protect the rear of the Resistance. I’ve explained it at length, and no need to repeat myself. Some of our friends say that Hezbollah does not need to participate in governments to protect itself. This is a respectable point of view, but we do not share it. Why? We have to be in government. Whether it is a partisan government or not, it is open to debate. But we (had explained that) must be present in the government to protect the rear of the Resistance, so that the experience of the government of May 5, 2008 is not repeated [the government of Fouad Siniora and Walid Joumblatt wanted to dismantle the underground communications network of Hezbollah, central element of its military force, and to push the army to fight the Resistance; this seditious plan was neutralized by force of arms, the only time where Hezbollah used its weapons on the domestic scene]. Who was this government made up of? From the very people who want to form the new government today. It is exactly the same as the government of May 5, 2008. The government of May 5, 2008 had taken a dangerous decision which was going to lead to a clash between the Lebanese Army and the Resistance, which is an American, Israeli and Saudi project. We were able to avoid it. Quite frankly, we have no fear of the military institution, the leadership of the military, or its officers and soldiers. Because it is a national and patriotic institution. But we have the right (and the duty) to be wary of political authorities and political decision-making. And we decided to be present in the government to protect the rear of the Resistance. This is the first point (which I mentioned in 2018).

And as for the second point that I will announce now, during all the past debates, Hezbollah was accused of being an armed Resistance, of having fought in Syria, Iraq, and whatnot, in Palestine, and of neglecting the economic, financial and social situation, etc. And a whole host of accusations and equations have been deployed (against us), like our weapons in exchange for (ending) corruption, (saving) the economy in exchange for Resistance, etc. I will not discuss this point, but I want to build on it, in order to explain why, quite frankly, it is impossible for us to be absent from the government. Quite frankly, we fear for what’s left of Lebanon, economically, financially, and in every way. We are afraid for Lebanon and for the Lebanese people. I have already said that we are not afraid for Hezbollah (which would survive and maintain its power even if Lebanon collapsed, because Iran will always be there), but for the country, for the people, for the future of this country. If a government had been formed (without us), how would we know that it wasn’t going to sign a blank check to the IMF and give in to all its demands without discussion? I’m not accusing anyone but it’s a possibility. I know each other’s beliefs (and the March 14 submission to the West). As a parliamentary group, are we going to give our confidence to a government knowing, or very strongly presuming, that it will blindly sign the IMF’s roadmap, without discussion? Whatever the conditions of the IMF, Lebanon would comply. Should we not be afraid that a government, using the pretext of our financial situation or any other pretext, sells national assets? It is already proposed in some projects to sell State property (massive privatization). Should liquidation of Lebanon’s assets be carried out on the pretext of the need to obtain money to pay off the debt, remedy the paralysis, etc., etc., etc.? Shouldn’t we be afraid of such a government, when, and I solemnly assert this to you, during previous governments, two-thirds or more of the ministers bitterly defended an increase in VAT? If the intended government had been formed by Mustapha Adib, the first decision he would have made was to increase VAT on everything. The tax policy would have hit the people, while we promised the Lebanese people that we would not allow it and would not accept it. Can our people endure an increase in VAT? Because of a proposed tax of a few cents on Whatsapp calls, people took to the streets on October 17 (2019). Shouldn’t we fear a government with which we do not know what will happen to the savings of the people in the banks? No our dear ones, we fear for our country, for our people, for national assets, for the savings of the inhabitants. We fear the IMF conditions and we fear to go from a bad situation to a much worse situation.

I am not claiming that we have quick fixes. We have put forward alternative solutions, such as the petroleum products of Iran (which can be acquired in Lebanese currency or against goods) which would save billions of dollars to the State Treasury, turning to the East, without renouncing the West if possible, namely towards Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, etc. France is afraid of these alternatives, and especially the United States. There are alternatives (to the West). We are not talking about replacement but about cooperation (with both East and West, to our advantage). But as far as we are concerned, we will never turn our backs and close our eyes to blindly hand over the country to any government that will run the economy and the finances of the country as it pleases. This is no longer an option. It is not just a question of participating in power or not.

Second, when you blamed all the political forces for the failure, Mr. Macron… I am not going to defend Hezbollah. On the contrary, I would have liked President Macron to say that it was Hezbollah that thwarted the initiative, no problem, and I wish he had spared the rest of the political forces. In reality, there are political forces in Lebanon that no one has spoken to, that have not been solicited, with whom no one has negotiated, and who do not even know what happened! If we ourselves, who were involved in the negotiations, did not know the names of the ministers, nor (the distribution of) portfolios, it means that other forces knew absolutely nothing (of what was going on). So how can you blame them like you do? You accused all the Presidents of the (Lebanese) institutions. All right, (let’s say that) the Speaker of the Parliament (Nabih Berri) is part of the (Amal-Hezbollah) tandem. But the President of the Republic, what is the mistake he made, what are the failings he is accused of? Why should he be held responsible? Because Macron put the responsibility on (absolutely) everyone: the Presidents (of the Parliament, of the Council of Ministers and of the Republic), the institutions and all the political forces. He even included the President of the Republic! What are the errors or inadequacies he is accused of? The issue didn’t even reach him! Nobody came to bring him a proposal for the distribution of portfolios and names of ministers!

Third, when we are blamed and accused of leading the country to the worst, I say it is quite the opposite! What we have done is prevent the country from going to the worst of the worst. We are still in a bad situation, but we hope that the (French) initiative will reconsider its approach and that the Lebanese will cooperate so that we can go from bad to good (and not from bad to worse).

Next point, what are the promises we made that we would not have kept? A roadmap has been put on the table. Our brother Hajj Mohammad Raad, God preserve him, leader of the parliamentary bloc of the Loyalty to Resistance, and true representative of Hezbollah at the (negotiating) table, frankly said that we agreed with 90% of the content of this roadmap. Macron asked him if he was sure, and he said yes, although he did not determine what 10% we disagreed with. But even assuming that we would have accepted 100% of this road map, it stipulates in no way the method that was implemented, nor this mode of government formation (by a single political color, minority and hostile to Hezbollah, to the detriment of all the others). O President Macron, what have we promised and how have we broken our word? How can you accuse us of breaking our commitments and being unworthy of respect? How can you accuse us of perjury? At first you talked about a government of national unity, and then you backtracked and gave up on the idea. We understood and didn’t object. Some have spoken of a translation error, others of American or Saudi pressure, whatever. All you talked about was forming a mission government with competent, independent ministers. Very well. But these independent ministers, who should name them? Who was to name them? It was not mentioned in the (French) initiative. No one agreed on how to appoint these ministers. If it had been agreed that political parties do not participate in their nomination, Saad Hariri is the leader of a party (and therefore should not have participated). Just as Najib Miqati heads a party, and Fouad Siniora is a member of a party. Why should one political color have the right to appoint all ministers, while all other forces do not have this right?

Mr. President, O Lebanese people, we have never made a commitment to accept any government at all, whatever be its formation and whatever be its composition. We have never made a commitment to hand the country over to any government at all, regardless of the way it’ll be formed and regardless of its composition. No one has agreed on how the government will be formed and how the ministers should be appointed. This was neither mentioned in the project nor in the (French) initiative. On the contrary, the initiative was instrumentalized to impose this project on the Lebanese political parties and forces. O French President, we are well-known, both to our friends and to our enemies, for keeping our promises and our commitments, and our (high) credibility with both friends and enemies is well established. Our way of doing things is well-known, and when we make promises it is well-known that we are willing to sacrifice anything to keep those promises. We go so far as to anger our friends and allies for keeping our promises. I don’t need to give examples, this is well-known (in Lebanon).

Among the points that I would like to mention is that no one has the right to use promises of financial aid to simply suppress the main political forces of the country, and wipe out the result of the elections (which gave the parliamentary majority to Hezbollah and its allies). President Macron tells Amal and Hezbollah, the Shiites, that they must choose between democracy and the worst. We have chosen democracy. What you are asking us is contrary to democracy. If democracy is not elections (and respect for their outcome), then what is democracy? The 2018 elections elected a parliamentary majority. And what you are asking, O President, is that the parliamentary majority withdraw and hand over the country and its own neck to the parliamentary minority, to a part of the parliamentary minority! We have chosen (to respect the result of) legislative and municipal elections, to respect the preeminence of the Parliament (main political body according to the Constitution), and to cooperate. We didn’t choose the worst.

We did not choose war. We didn’t attack anyone. It was the Zionists who attacked our country, forcing war on us and occupying our territory, seizing our choices and our resources. And it is they who threaten our country. We did not go to Syria to fight civilians. We went to Syria, with the agreement of the Syrian government, to fight the groups that you yourself designate as terrorists and takfiris [Nasrallah did not mention the well-known fact that France has armed, financed and supported these terrorist groups ]. And France is part of the international alliance (which claims to) fight them. And you yourselves are present in Syria (for this same reason), illegally, without the agreement of the Syrian government. We did not go to fight civilians in Syria, but to defend our country, Lebanon, as well as Syria and the region against the most dangerous project in the history of the region after the Zionist project, namely the terrorist and takfiri project.

We are not part of the corrupt class. We have never stole government money. Everyone knows where our money comes from, clearly (it comes from Iran). We have neither money nor financial oligarchies to defend, nor private (lucrative) projects to defend. We do not allow anyone to address us in this way or describe us in this way.

If we have to talk about who obstructed and who facilitated (the French initiative), I would remind you that we accepted the appointment of Mustapha Adib without prior agreement, without conditions or discussions. We have presumed good intentions (from everyone). But it was in the perspective of moving towards an agreement and facilitating (the joint formation of the government). As for giving up (everything) or surrendering the country blindly, that is quite another matter.

We are not playing the game of terrorism and intimidation against anyone in Lebanon. Macron has unfortunately thrown this accusation, aimed at questioning the result of the elections (which would have been obtained by the threat of weapons), but you only have to question your embassy and your intelligence services in Lebanon, who will tell you how many media, journalists, politicians, newspapers and social networks, in our small country, insult us day and night, vilify us day and night, denigrate us day and night, slander us deceitfully and unfairly day and night. And they live peacefully, not fearing for their lives. If they were afraid (of us), they wouldn’t open their mouths. While there are Arab countries that you protect and of which you are the friend and ally, and where nobody dares to publish even a Tweet to express a position against the normalization (of relations with Israel), or a criticism against such and such king, such prince or such regime. No, we don’t intimidate anyone. If anyone is afraid, that’s their problem, but we don’t intimidate anyone. And you just have to come and ask the locals.

The last point on the matter is that I hope that the French leaders will not (blindly) listen to certain Lebanese (sides), and that if they themselves hold this wrong view, they will amend it. We must not blame everything on Iran, which would have hampered the French initiative by asking for intransigence on the appointment of ministers, and asking the Amal-Hezbollah tandem not to let go of the Ministry of Finance. All of these accusations against Iran are meaningless and unfounded. Iran is not like that. Iran is not like you (France or the United States, countries who interfere, threaten, demand, impose, etc.). Iran does not interfere in Lebanese affairs. The decision in Lebanon is in our hands, it is we who determine what we want to do, what we accept or refuse. We in Hezbollah, in the Hezbollah-Amal tandem and with our allies, decide everything that concerns us in Lebanon. Iran does not interfere or impose. You know that for 20 years, and even for more than 20 years, because I speak of the period when I was the Hezbollah Secretary General, during which the link with Iran is made directly with me, since 1992, all those who were talking (about Lebanon) with Iran, Iran invited them to speak directly to us, because our decision is in our hands.

Hezbollah is accused of delaying matters pending the outcome of negotiations between Iran and the United States, while there are no negotiations between Iran and the United States. At least during this election period, it’s official, Iran has made it clear that there will be no dialogue (with the Trump administration). Some claim that Iran is pressuring France (in order to get a favorable vote) in the Security Council (regarding the proposed US embargo). But this is completely absurd. If this ignorance and wrong thinking persist, nothing will be achieved in Lebanon, for wrong assumptions will always lead to wrong results.

Mr. Macron, if you want to identify those outside Lebanon who thwarted your initiative, look towards the United States which threatened sanctions and imposed sanctions, and look towards the King of Saudi Arabia and his speech at the UN (where he violently attacked Iran and Hezbollah).

As for the form (of your intervention), when you come to say that all the political forces, all the Presidents, all the constitutional institutions, etc., have committed a betrayal, by what right (do you say such a thing)? What are you basing yourself on? Who said they committed treason? First, we don’t accept that you accuse us (of anything) and say that we have committed treason. As far as we are concerned, we categorically reject it and condemn it (firmly). This condescending behavior with us and with all the Lebanese political forces is unacceptable. We do not accept this language or this process. We do not allow anyone to doubt our dignity and honor, or the fact that we keep our promises and respect others. We do not accept anyone accusing us of corruption. And if the French friends have corruption files on Hezbollah ministers, deputies or officials, indicating that we have taken State money, I accept that you hand them over to the Lebanese justice, and we’ll hand over anyone who is affected by such a corruption case. It is a very serious challenge, which I have put forward a hundred times and which I reaffirm. But just throwing gratuitous accusations like that, denouncing the entire political class and all the institutions as corrupt, is unacceptable.

When President Macron visited Lebanon, we welcomed the French initiative. But we have never accepted that he is the attorney general, investigator or judge, we have never accepted that he is the guardian, the ruler or the governor of Lebanon. No way. We welcomed President Macron as a friend of Lebanon, who loves and wants to help Lebanon, get it out of its crises, bring together divergent points of view: this is the way (genuine)friendship, benevolence, mediation, fraternity and love (are expressed). But in no case can there be for anyone, be it the French President or anyone else, the power to impose himself as guardian, governor, ruler or judge & executioner of Lebanon. To my knowledge, the Lebanese have never taken such a decision. This is why we hope that the conduct, style and substance will be completely revised.

To conclude on this point, we have welcomed the French initiative, and today, His Excellency the Lebanese President has extended (its implementation deadline). We always welcome the French initiative in a benevolent manner, and are ready for dialogue, cooperation, openness, discussion and debate with the French and with all the friends of Lebanon and all the political forces in Lebanon. But the procedures deployed during the past month, the arrogance that has been exercised, the trampling of truths and realities that has taken place must not be repeated, otherwise we will not achieve any results. We are ready (for dialogue) and want this initiative to succeed, we support its continuation, and we rely on it as others do, but I call for (a full) reconsideration of things at the level of its conduct, actions, understanding, analysis, conclusions, and even management and language used. Because there is nothing more important than respect. There is nothing more important than the dignity of people. What was violated two days ago (during Macron’s intervention) was national dignity. There are people who are angry with certain members of political factions, it is their right to be angry, but there is more important: whoever stands up and accuses everyone without distinction —institutions, parties, political forces, etc.—, in truth this undermines the national dignity and it is unacceptable. We know the French as well educated people, diplomats, who use a (tempered) language even if the content may be vehement, trying to wrap it with conciliatory words. I don’t understand what happened to them on Sunday night.

Regardless, for the sake of our country, we remain open (to dialogue). Currently, at this new stage, it is natural that after what has happened, the parliamentary groups must return to dialogue, consultation, meetings, and the French say that their initiative is still on the table, very well, now we have to see what are its new ideas, its new bases. I am not going to come up with ideas or solutions today, or state our terms and red lines, because it requires dialogue with our friends and allies, but we must not despair, we must cooperate. We are always committed to the cooperation of all, to mutual understanding of all, and to remain positive, to move from a bad situation to a good situation, and not from bad to worse. […]

Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.

“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” Hassan Nasrallah

شهر أيلول شهر التناقضات السياسية والميدانية الكبرى في الصراع العربي الصهيوني

د. ميادة إبراهيم رزوق

تتزاحم أحداث أيلول في الذاكرة العربية والفلسطينية الجمعية، من محطات سوداء قاتمة في مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا، واتفاقيات أوسلو، وصولاً إلى أيلول 2020 وتوقيع اتفاقيات تطبيع الأسرلة، إلى محطات مضيئة مشرقة بتأسيس جبهة المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية إلى انتفاضة الأقصى وانسحاب الكيان الصهيوني من قطاع غزة حتى أيلول 2020 الذي أسدل ستاره وكيان الاحتلال الصهيوني على اجر ونص، ورئيس حكومته بنيامين نتنياهو مع أجهزته الإعلامية والاستخبارية يتلقى صفعة جديدة من الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله وعلى الهواء مباشرة ليثبت كذبه ويبطل مفاعيل هدفه في المسرحية الهزلية التي استعرضها من على منبر الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة.

إنه شهر الانكسارات والمفاوضات والانتصارات وفي ما يلي أهمّ محطاته بتفصيل موجز:

أولاً– شهد العامان 1970 و1971 صراعاً وتوتراً في العلاقة بين السلطة الأردنية والفصائل الفلسطينية التي اضطرتها نكسة حزيران عام 1967 للتراجع إلى شرق نهر الأردن بانتظار فرصة استجماع الأنفاس العربية باستعادة فلسطين، فانتهت بنهر من الدماء العربية بلغت ذروتها في شهر أيلول عام 1970 «أيلول الأسود» حيث تحوّل الخلاف بين إخوة الدم إلى مواجهة مسلحة لخصها رئيس منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية الراحل ياسر عرفات بقوله «هذه مؤامرة، من كان وراءها وخطط لها ودفع إليها هو وكالة المخابرات المركزية الأميركية»، أو بصورة أدقّ، إنّ الرجل الذي لعب دوراً مركزياً في وضع الخطة الأميركية لتفجير الوضع في الأردن، هو مستشار الأمن القومي آنذاك الداهية هنري كيسنجر، بوصفة سحرية لضرب المقاومة الفلسطينية والجيش الأردني بحجر واحد، فتحوّل المشهد إلى نهر من الدماء العربية، وانتهت المواجهة بإخراج الفصائل الفلسطينية من الأردن وانتقالها إلى لبنان حيث تجدّدت الحروب ووقعت مجازر أخرى شهيرة في التاريخ الإنساني حملت توقيع جيش كيان العدو الصهيوني.

ثانياً– بعد اجتياح جيش الكيان الصهيوني بيروت عام 1982 بهدف حماية الحدود الشمالية لكيانه المحتلّ من هجمات الفدائيين الفلسطينيين واقتطاع شريط من الأراضي اللبنانية على طول الحدود مع فلسطين المحتلة بعمق يتراوح بين 10 و 30 كلم، والسيطرة على نهر الليطاني ومياهه، وإنهاء المقاومة الفلسطينية في لبنان، والقضاء على أكبر عدد من الشعب الفلسطيني، بدأت أحداث المجزرة الأليمة في مخيمي «صبرا وشاتيلا» قبل غروب يوم السادس عشر من أيلول عام 1982، عندما فرض جيش الاحتلال الصهيوني حصاراً مشدّداً على المخيمين، ليسهل عملية اقتحامهما من قبل ميليشيات لبنانية مسلحة موالية له، أودت بحياة أكثر من ثلاثة آلاف معظمهم فلسطينيون على مدار 48 ساعة بمشاهد مروعة – من الذبح وبقر البطون الحوامل واغتصاب النساء– لا تزال ماثلة كذكريات قاسية وقاحلة في الوجدان الجمعي العربي والفلسطيني، وبوصمة عار على جبين الإنسانية.

ثالثاً– تلا تلك المجزرة بعدة أيام عملية الويمبي في 24 أيلول عام 1982 قام بها البطل القومي خالد علوان والذي بلغ من العمر 19 عاماً، حيث وصل إلى مقهى الويمبي في شارع الحمراء أحد الأحياء الغربية لمدينة بيروت، وفتح النار على الضباط والجنود الصهاينة في الويمبي فقتل ضابطاً صهيونياً بمسدسه وأصاب جنديين صهيونيين يرافقان الضابط، فأصيب أحدهما في صدره والآخر في الرقبة، وأعلنت جبهة المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية مسؤوليتها عن العملية، التي تميّزت بأهمية رمزية قوية حيث مثلت بداية الأعمال المقاومة ضدّ قوات الاحتلال الصهيوني في بيروت، ودفعت بسكان المدينة الآخرين للمشاركة في المواجهات مع قوات الاحتلال الصهيوني، واستمرت هذه الأعمال حتى انسحاب القوات الصهيونية من العاصمة بيروت في 27 و28 أيلول عام 1982 تحت تأثير الضغوط السياسية الخارجية، وضربات المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية، التي أنزلت بها هي وقوات مشاة الأسطول الأميركي «المارينز» والقوات الفرنسية خسائر فادحة بعمليات استشهادية، فانقلبت الانتصارات الصهيونية مأزقاً، كان أول ضحاياه هم قادة الحرب في كيان العدو الصهيوني، إذ في أوائل عام 1984 اعتزل مناحيم بيغن بعد عدة أشهر من الاعتكاف، وذكر أنه أصيب بالإحباط بسبب فشل سياسته، وأجبر وزير الدفاع أرييل شارون على الاستقالة بعد أن أدانته لجنة قضائية «لجنة كاهان»، وعزل رئيس أركان العدو الصهيوني رفائيل ايتان، لينسحب جيش كيان العدو الصهيوني في نهاية عام 1985 من معظم الأراضي التي احتلها، وبقي الشريط الحدودي الذي تحرّر في عام 2000.

رابعاً– تمّ توقيع اتفاقية أوسلو1 في 13 أيلول عام 1993، وهي أول اتفاقية مباشرة بين الكيان الصهيوني ممثلاً بوزير خارجيته آنذاك شمعون بيريز ومنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية ممثلة بأمين سر اللجنة التنفيذية محمود عباس، وقد التزمت منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية وعلى لسان رئيسها ياسر عرفات بـ «حق» الكيان الصهيوني بدولة (إسرائيل) على 78٪ من الأراضي الفلسطينية «أي كلّ فلسطين ما عدا الضفة الغربية وقطاع غزة» للعيش بـ» أمن وسلام والوصول إلى حلّ لكلّ القضايا الأساسية المتعلقة بالأوضاع الدائمة من خلال المفاوضات، وطبقاً لهذه الاتفاقية أدانت منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية استخدام الإرهاب وأعمال العنف وأخذت على عاتقها إلزام كلّ عناصر أفراد منظمة التحرير بها، ومنع انتهاك هذه الحالة وضبط المنتهكين، فأدانت حالة المقاومة المسلحة، وحذفت البنود التي تتعلق بها في ميثاقها الوطني كالعمل المسلح وتدمير (إسرائيل)، كما اعترف الكيان الصهيوني بمنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية بأنها الممثل الشرعي للشعب الفلسطيني، وبحق الفلسطينيين بإقامة حكم ذاتي «وليس دولة مستقلة ذات سيادة» على الأراضي التي ينسحب منها من الضفة الغربية وقطاع غزة على مراحل خلال خمس سنوات، مع التأكيد أنّ الكيان الصهيوني هو المسؤول عن أمن منطقة الحكم الذاتي من أيّ عدوان خارجي «لا يوجد جيش فلسطيني للسلطة الفلسطينية»، وبعد ثلاث سنوات تبدأ مفاوضات الوضع الدائم بشأن القدس «من يتحكم بالقدس الشرقية والغربية والأماكن المقدسة وساكنيها إلخ…»، واللاجئون «حق العودة وحق التعويض إلخ…» والمستوطنات في الضفة الغربية وقطاع غزة «هل تفكك أم تبقى أو تزيد زيادة طبيعية، ومن يحميها السلطة أم الجيش الصهيوني»، الترتيبات الأمنية «كمية القوات والأسلحة المسموح بها داخل أراضي الحكم الذاتي، والتعاون والتنسيق بين شرطة السلطة الفلسطينية والجيش الصهيوني، مما أدّى إلى انقسام وانشقاق بين الفصائل الفلسطينية، ففي الوقت الذي مثلت حركة فتح الفلسطينيين في المفاوضات وقبلت إعلان المبادئ، اعترضت عليها كلّ من حركة حماس والجهاد الإسلامي والجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين والجبهة الديمقراطية لتحرير فلسطين وجبهة التحرير الفلسطينية فاعتبروه اتفاقاً باطلاً ووصفوه بـ «المشؤوم» كونه أعطى الاحتلال الحق باغتصاب 78٪ من أرض فلسطين التاريخية.

خامساً– أما اتفاقية أوسلو2 بشأن الاتفاق الانتقالي للضفة الغربية وقطاع غزة أو اتفاقية طابا فقد تمّ التوقيع عليها في مدينة طابا المصرية في شبه جزيرة سيناء من قبل الكيان الصهيوني ومنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية في 24 أيلول عام 1995وبعد أربعة أيام في 28 أيلول تمّ التوقيع الرسمي على الاتفاقية في واشنطن من قبل رئيس وزراء حكومة العدو الصهيوني إسحاق رابين ورئيس منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية ياسر عرفات، ووضعت الاتفاقية تصوّراّ لتأسيس حكومة ذاتية انتقالية فلسطينية في الأراضي الفلسطينية، لكنها لم تتضمّن وعود بإقامة دولة فلسطينية مستقلة، بل أسست أوسلو2 المناطق «أ، ب، ج» في الضفة الغربية، ومنحت السلطة الفلسطينية بعض السلطات والمسؤوليات المحدودة في المنطقة «أ» و»ب» مع إمكانية عقد مفاوضات حول التسوية النهائية حسب قراري مجلس الأمن رقم «242 و 338»، ولم تتضمّن الاتفاقية ما يحدّ من استمرار عملية بناء المستوطنات في الضفة الغربية عامة وفي القدس بصفة خاصة، علماً أنه سبقت هذه الاتفاقية مجموعة أحداث دامية تركت أثرها عليها، منها مجزرة الحرم الإبراهيمي، وعدة عمليات فدائية هزت عمق المجتمع الصهيوني، وأعقبها اغتيال رئيس الوزراء الصهيوني إسحق رابين.

سادساً– بدءاً من نهاية عام 1999 ساد شعور بالإحباط لدى الفلسطينيين لانتهاء الفترة المقررة لتطبيق الحلّ النهائي بحسب اتفاقيات أوسلو، والمماطلة وجمود المفاوضات بين الطرفين الفلسطيني والصهيوني، واستمرار الصهاينة بسياسة الاغتيالات والاعتقالات والاجتياحات لمناطق السلطة الفلسطينية ورفض الأفراج عن الأسرى الفلسطينيين، بالإضافة إلى استمرار بناء المستوطنات واستبعاد عودة اللاجئين، واستبعاد الانسحاب لحدود حزيران 1967، مما جعل الفلسطينيين متيقنين بعدم جدوى عملية السلام للوصول إلى تحقيق الاستقلال الوطني، وفي ظلّ هذا الشعور العام بالإحباط والاحتقان السياسي، قام رئيس وزراء كيان الاحتلال السابق أرييل شارون باقتحام المسجد الأقصى وتجوّل في ساحاته مصرّحاً أنّ الحرم القدسي سيبقى منطقة (إسرائيلية)، مما أثار استفزاز المصلين الفلسطينيين، فاندلعت المواجهات بين المصلين وجنود الاحتلال في ساحات المسجد الأقصى، فارتقى سبعة شهداء وجرح المئات وأصيب 13 جندي صهيوني وكانت بداية أعمال الانتفاضة التي أدّت إلى تطوّر قدرات وإمكانيات الفصائل الفلسطينية وخاصة بصنع الصواريخ (صاروخ قسام، قدس4، صمود، أقصى 103، ناصر)، وبناء جدار الفصل العنصري الصهيوني، وتحطيم مقولة الجيش الذي لا يُقهر في معركة مخيم جنين الذي قتل فيه 58 جندي صهيوني وجرح 142، بالإضافة إلى ضرب السياحة واقتصاد المستوطنات الصهيونية، واغتيال وزير السياحة الصهيوني (زئيفي) على يد أعضاء من الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين.

سابعاً– تحت ضغط الواقع الأمني المتردّي والعجز في اخماد أعمال المقاومة المتصاعدة في قطاع غزة والضفة الغربية خاصة ما عرف بحرب الأنفاق ضدّ مواقع حصينة للجيش الصهيوني وارتفاع الكلفة الأمنية على حكومة الاحتلال، وخاصة بعد بناء جدار الفصل العنصري، قرر رئيس الوزراء الصهيوني آنذاك أرييل شارون في 11 أيلول عام 2005 الانسحاب من 25 مستوطنة في قطاع غزة والضفة الغربية ضمن عملية أطلق عليها فكّ الارتباط مع الفلسطينيين بعد احتلال للقطاع استمرّ لمدة 38 عاماً.

وأخيراً تتضارب أحداث أيلول 2020 بين اتفاقيات تطبيع الأسرلة أو تحالف الحرب العسكري الأمني الاستخباري بين الأنظمة العربية الرجعية المطبعة في الإمارات والبحرين، وكيان الاحتلال الصهيوني ضدّ إيران وبالتالي محور حلف المقاومة، وتنصل جامعة الدول العربية من مسؤولياتها تجاه القضية الفلسطينية، في وقت تتحد فيها كلمة الفصائل الفلسطينية على طريق تنامي مقاومة أو انتفاضة جديدة في الأراضي الفلسطينية، وليسدل أيلول 2020 الستار على مزيداً من فضائح رئيس حكومة العدو الصهيوني بنيامين نتنياهو المأزوم داخلياً وخارجياً هو وكيانه الغاصب الذي لا زال يقف على اجر ونص بعد فشله باستدراج حزب الله إلى عملية ردّ محدودة، أو تفجير الحاضنة الشعبية له في لبنان، وبالتالي تغيير قواعد الردع والاشتباك التي كرّسها وأرسى دعائمها محور حلف المقاومة.

صفعتا سيد المقاومة لكلّ من نتنياهو وماكرون…

حسن حردان

وجه أمين عام حزب الله المقاوم سماحة السيد حسن نصرالله، خلال كلمته أمس الأول، صفعتان لكلّ من رئيس وزراء العدو بنيامين نتنياهو والرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون… ومن خلالهما الى كلّ خدّامهما في لبنان والمنطقة، المراهنين على النيل من المقاومة وسلاحها… وكان لهاتين الصفعتين أثرهما المدوي إسرائيلياً وفرنسياً، لأنهما كشفتا عدم صدقيتهما في اتهاماتهما لحزب الله المقاوم…

الصفعة الأولى، عندما تصدّى سماحة السيد، نيابة عن اللبنانيين، للإهانات التي وجّهها ماكرون لهم… وأدان تصرّفه كوصيّ على لبنان، وكأنّ ماكرون يحلم انّ لبنان لا يزال خاضعاً لاحتلاله واستعماره.. ومن حقه التطاول على الكرامة الوطنية للبنانيين وتوجيه الاتهامات بالخيانة يميناً وشمالاً وشمول كلّ القوى والاحزاب وعموم الطبقة السياسية بالفساد من دون تمييز، منصّباً نفسه قاضياً ومدّعياً عاماً… في حين من المعروف انّ من رعى وشجع على الفساد واشترك مع الفاسدين في عقد الصفقات ونهب المال العام إنما هو الغرب من خلال تحالفه مع الفريق الموالي له في لبنان، والذي حكم البلاد منذ عام ١٩٩٣ ويتحمّل المسؤولية الأولى عن إشاعة الفساد ونهب المال العام من خلال شلّ دور هيئات الرقابة والمحاسبة والعمل على إجراء المناقصات بالتراضي وتكبير كلف المشاريع… كما وجه سماحة السيد صفعة قوية لماكرون عندما فنّد اتهاماته لحزب الله وحركة أمل ورئيس الجمهورية بالمسؤولية عن تعطيل تشكيل الحكومة وعدم الالتزام بما تعهّدوا به خلال اجتماع قصر الصنوبر في بيروت… وكشف أنّ بنود المبادرة الفرنسية لم تأت على أيّ ذكر للمداورة أو من يسمّي الوزراء ويوزع الحقائب في الحكومة، أو عدد الوزراء في الحكومة، وهو ما اعترف به الفرنسي في اللقاءات الثنائية مع ممثل حزب الله…

الصفعة الثانية، فقد تجسّدت في نجاح قائد المقاومة سماحة السيد حسن نصرالله مرة جديدة في توجيه ضربة قوية إلى رئيس وزراء العدو بنيامين نتنياهو واستطراداً إلى أجهزة الأمن الصهيونية، تماثل الصفعة التي وجهت للقوة الصهيونية عندما ضربت المقاومة الطراد الصهيوني «ساعر» بصاروخ أصابه إصابة مباشرة أمام ساحل بيروت أثناء حرب تموز 2006. حيث كان السيد نصرالله يلقى كلمة على الهواء مباشرة وقال خلالها انظروا إليها تحترق… في إشارة إلى لحظة ضرب «ساعر»…

على أنّ الصفعة الجديدة كانت إعلامية ونفسية وسياسية ومعنوية في آن، وتمّت عندما نجح سيد المقاومة في ضبط نتنياهو متلبّساً بالكذب من أعلى منبر أممي وهو يدّعي، عبر خريطة، أنً هناك مخزناً لصواريخ حزب الله في منطقة الجناج في بيروت قرب محطة لتعبئة الغاز وسط حي سكني يهدّد بحصول انفجار جديد على غرار انفجار مرفأ بيروت، حيث أعطى السيد توجيهاته عاجلة لمكتب العلاقات الإعلامية في حزب الله لدعوة وسائل الإعلام اللبناني والعربي والأجنبي إلى زيارة سريعة للمكان الذي تحدث عنه نتنياهو للتأكد من حقيقة ما يدّعيه، وكشف كذبه أمام العالم والرأي العام اللبناني، وهو ما حصل فكانت الصفعة التي تلقاها نتنياهو مدوية جداً وتشكل سقوطا له، ولأهداف الحرب الناعمة الصهيونية التي تشنّ ضدّ المقاومة منذ انتصارها التاريخي عام ألفين، بهدف الإساءة إلى صورتها وسمعتها، وإجهاض انتصارها والالتفاف اللبناني والعربي والإسلامي من حولها، وذلك عبر محاولة تصوير سلاح المقاومة بأنه بات يشكل خطراً على اللبنانيين ويستخدم لفرض سيطرة حزب الله على السلطة…

إنّ سقوط أهداف هذه الحملة الصهيونية يشكل أيضاً ضربة موجعة للحملة التي تشنّها كلّ من واشنطن وباريس ضدّ سلاح المقاومة تحت ذات الهدف الصهيوني… كما يشكل أيضاً ضربة موجعة جديدة لأجهزة الاستخبارات الصهيونية التي زوّدت نتنياهو بهذه المعلومات التي اتضح أنها كاذبة، فيما اضطرت وسائل الإعلام الإسرائيلية إلى ابتلاع ألسنتها، والتزام الصمت لا تعرف ماذا تقول إزاء هذه الفضيحة التي ضبط فيها نتنياهو متلبّساً، في حين ارتدّ خنجر نتنياهو المسموم الذي أراد توجيه إلى المقاومة، إلى صدره… وبالتالي فشل في تصدير أزمته، ومحاولة تسجيل هدف قاتل في مرمى المقاومة يندرج في سياق الحرب المسمومة الصهيونية للنيل من صورة وسمعة المقاومة الناصعة، ومن سلاحها، عبر الزعم بأنه خطر على اللبنانيين ويشكل رعباً لهم وأنّ هذا السلاح يخزّن بين الأحياء السكنية ويهدّد بانفجار ثان على غرار انفجار مرفأ بيروت، في محاولة خبيثة تلتقي مع أعداء المقاومة في الداخل اللبناني الذين يراهنون في ان تؤدّي حملة التحريض. والافتراء ضدّ المقاومة إلى تأليب اللبنانيين ضدّها… لكن انكشاف الكذبة كان صدمة قوية لكلّ أعداء المقاومة الذين ارتبكوا بعدما أوقعهم نتنياهو في الفخّ الذي حاول نصبه للمقاومة لإيقاعها فيه.. لكن الرياح جاءت بغير ما تشتهي سفن نتنياهو، لأنه لا يعرف ماهية المقاومة وطبيعة قيادتها التي هي أحرص ما يكون على شعبها، وهي التي حرّرت الأرض وحمت ولا تزال تحمي لبنان واللبنانيين من العدوانية والأطماع الصهيونية من خلال فرض وتكريس معادلات الردع في الصراع مع العدو، فتحوّل سلاحها الرادع إلى سلاح يرعب ويقلق قادة العدو وجيشهم المحتلّ ويشلّ قدرتهم على العدوان، كما حمت المقاومة اللبنانيين من الإرهابيين التكفيريين وقدمت ولا تزال الشهداء على هذا الطريق.. ولذلك كلّ من يحاول الإيقاع بالمقاومة من الناحية الأخلاقية سرعان ما يقع في شرور أعماله..

Sayyed Nasrallah to Macron: You’re Not Lebanon’s Ruler, Hezbollah Open to the French Initiative… US behind Failure

Sayyed Nasrallah to Macron: You’re Not Lebanon’s Ruler, Hezbollah Open to the French Initiative… US behind Failure

Zeinab Essa

Beirut-Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Tuesday a televised speech in which he tackled various internal and regional issues.

At the beginning of his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah offered condolences to Kuwait and its people over the demise of Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah. “The late Kuwaiti leader played a personal and major role in ending Lebanon’s civil war. The Lebanese people neither forget the role of the late Emir in ending the civil war, nor the Kuwaiti role during the July 2006 war, supporting Lebanon and reconstructing it” he said, noting that “Kuwait still maintains its honorable stance towards Al-Quds and Palestine, unlike the train of normalization.”

Meanwhile, His Eminence praised the coherent stance of Kuwait under its late Emir against pressures on Gulf nations to join normalization with the Zionist entity.

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the efforts and sacrifices of the Lebanese army and forces that had recently confronted the armed terrorist groups in Northern Lebanon. “The armed groups in north Lebanon were plotting major military action against the country.”

He further offered condolences to the Lebanese army and the families of the martyrs that have fallen in the battle. “We have previously warned against the attempts to revive Daesh [Arabic Acronym for the terrorist ‘ISIS’/’ISIL’ group] again in Iraq and Syria, and it is natural that preparations began in Lebanon to justify the American forces’ presence in the region,” His Eminence added, pointing out that “After the assassination of martyrs [Qasim] Soleimani and [Abu Mahdi] al-Muhandis, Washington started reviving Daesh.”

In parallel, the Resistance Leader declared Hezbollah appreciates the popular position in the north and the people’s rallying around the army and security forces.

According to His Eminence, “Washington is trying to justify its continuous presence in the region under the pretext of the international coalition to fight Daesh, which it seeks to revive in the region.”

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that “The “Israeli” enemy’s army is still at the highest level of alert and is still hiding, and this is the longest period that the occupation army lives in this way without having its soldiers moving [from their places].”

Reiterating that Hezbollah still intends to retaliate to the martyrdom of one of its fighters in Syria, the Resistance Leader responded to “Israeli” PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims that Hezbollah is storing missiles near a gas station.

On this level, Sayyed Nasrallah announced that Hezbollah Media Relations is to invite local media outlets to the site at 22:00, to let the world discover his lies.

“We’re not obliged to invite journalists to any site mentioned by Netanyahu, but we are doing this now due to the sensitivity of the situation after the August 4 explosion,” he stressed, noting that c.”

According to His Eminence, “Our measure is to make the Lebanese people aware amid the battle of consciousness, and to let them know that we don’t put our missile between residential houses.”

On the political front, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted that “The French initiative was published and we all agreed on it. We said we support it. The first step was to name a PM.”

“The work has started and the parliamentary blocs started to consult to agree on naming Hariri or whomever he names. Meanwhile, the club of the four former PMs was formed. We did not put any conditions when Mustafa Adib was nominated and did not make any prior agreement to show our intention to facilitate the process,” he recalled.

His Eminence went on to say, “There are those who said that the designated PM would hold negotiations, but the parliamentary blocs and the president of the republic have not been contacted.”

Moreover, Hezbollah Secretary General disclosed that “Adib did not consult with the President of the Republic, a prepared file was handed to him, and the most important authority for the President- i.e. to participate in forming the government- would have been dropped out.”

“The French must know where they erred, especially as to eliminating the President’s most important remaining power, which is participation in the formation of governments,” he added, noting that “The one who negotiated with us over the government wasn’t Adib, but PM Saad Hariri.”

Sayyed Nasrallah also mentioned that “The naming of ministers for all sects in Lebanon by a single person is dangerous for the country. The Ex-PMs club wanted to distribute portfolios and name the ministers alone.”

“Some wanted to eliminate the parliamentary blocs and the President’s powers and they sought to introduce new norms,” he stated, pointing out that “When we asked whether the French initiative included what was proposed by the club of ex-PMs, we were answered by ‘NO’.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah confirmed that “We rejected what was presented to us because it forms a threat to the country and is not a subject of discussion. The French initiative neither mentions the number of ministers nor the rotation of portfolios.”

His Eminence underlined that “At one point there was an attempt to form a de-facto government. The way things were tackled with regard to the government is unacceptable in Lebanon, regardless of its sponsor or supporter.”

“We have always said that the reason for our presence in the government is to protect the back of the resistance,” he added, warning that “The coercion method does not work in Lebanon, regardless of its advocates and sponsors, be them the US, France or Europe.”

On the same level, Sayyed Nasrallah reminded that Hezbollah “must be in the government to protect the back of the resistance so that May 5, 2008 will not be repeated in Lebanon,” noting that “The second reason behind our participation in the government is fearing for what has remained from Lebanon economically, nationally and on all other levels.”

“What if a government accepts the conditions of the IMF without any discussions? Do we agree on a government that increases taxes on citizens? What if a new government decides to sell the state’s assets,” he asked, statin, “We fear for the state property and people’s money.”

Meanwhile, His Eminence addressed the French President Emanuel Macron by saying: “Did the French initiative say that the ex-PMs form the government and name ministers? Hajj Mohammad Raad told Macron that we agree to 90% of the French initiative, and here we ask, what is it that we agreed upon and did not respect? What you are asking from us contradicts with democracy. You are asking the parliamentary majority to bow and cede power to the parliamentary minority.”

To Macron, Sayyed Nasrallah sent a clear message: “Look for the party that wanted to control the country and eliminate the political forces under your cover. President Macron, who accused us of intimidation, is the one who practiced the intimidation policy against the heads of parties in order to pass the government.”

He also emphasized that Hezbollah “prevented the country from moving towards the worse, and we hope that the Lebanese will cooperate so that the country doesn’t move into the worst.”

Explaining that Hezbollah has not committed to hand over the country to any kind of government, he told the French President: “We know how we adhere to our promises, fulfill it and sacrifice in order to abide by it. Our enemies and friends know that we honor our pledges. We upset our friends to fulfill our promises.”

Once again, he repeated that Hezbollah “did not go to Syria to fight civilians. We went there at the invitation of the Syrian government to fight the groups that you named as terrorists.”

“It was not us who chose war, the Zionists rather occupied our land and attacked us,” he told Macron, stressing that “We do not accept that anyone speaks to us in this language. A settlement is different than surrender. We do not practice the game of terrorism and intimidation against anyone in Lebanon. We do not practice intimidation, but Arab countries that you protect and are friendly to you, doesn’t allow a tweet that criticizes the king to be written.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah said: ‘Iran doesn’t interfere in Lebanon, and we in Hezbollah and Amal Movement decide what to do.”

He further sent the French President a clear advice: “If you want to search for those who thwarted your initiative, look for the Americans who imposed sanctions and complicated the situation.”

In a sounding message, His Eminence stated: “We do not accept the arrogant behavior and that you accuse us and other Lebanese with committing treason. We welcomed the role of President Macron and the French initiative to help Lebanon but not to be an Attorney General, inspector, judge, guardian or governor of Lebanon. There isn’t any mandate neither for the French president nor for others to be guardian or ruler of Lebanon.”

However, Sayyed Nasrallah kept the door open for discussion: “We still support the French initiative, but the language must be reconsidered because what was attacked the last two days ago is the national dignity,” he said, noting that “We are still open to the French initiative for the benefit of our country, and we insist on cooperation to pass from bad to good.”

On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the stance of the Bahraini people despite oppression and risks, particularly the Bahraini scholars’ rejection of Al-Khalifa regime’s normalization with the “Israeli” enemy.

“The stance of the Bahraini people is honorable and [truly] represents the people of Bahrain. The authority in Bahrain doesn’t own its decision, it rather operates as a Saudi-affiliated state,” he said, pointing out that “The people of Bahrain, despite their wounds, and despite the presence of many of their leaders and symbols behind bars, have said their resounding word of truth in the era of silence, subservience and submission.”

He also warned of Sudan’s move towards normalization.

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed the official and popular stances of Tunisia and Algeria against the normalizations, and urged the Sudanese people not to accept being part of the normalization under the pretext of lifting its name from the “terror list”.

“We’re not worried about all what is happening in the region as long as the Palestinian people keep adhering to their rights,” he assured.

سيّد الكرامة وروح المسؤوليّة

ناصر قنديل

لم يكن ممكناً أن يمرّ كلام الرئيس الفرنسي أمانويل ماكرون، بما فيه من رواية لوقائع مفاوضات تأليف الحكومة التي تولاها علناً الرئيس المكلّف مصطفى أديب، وقادها فعلياً نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين كحزب حاكم جديد، من دون أن تقدّم المقاومة وحزب الله رواية موازية من موقع الشريك الكامل في صناعة الوقائع، والشاهد عن كثب وقرب لهذه الوقائع، ومن طالته سهام الاتهام وفقاً لرواية ماكرون. كما لم يكن ممكناً كلام ماكرون ألا يلقى تعليقاً وتفنيداً وتحليلاً من جانب حزب الله، طالما أن المعلوم للقاصي والداني، أنه كما كانت الأزمة التي تعصف بلبنان في شق رئيسيّ منها ثمرة قرار أميركي بإسقاط لبنان أملاً بأن يسقط حزب الله، وفقاً لكلام حرفي قاله ماكرون، فإن المبادرة الفرنسية التي قادها ماكرون تتركّز بنسبة كبيرة منها على فتح الطريق لمقاربة مختلفة للعلاقة مع حزب الله، وبالتالي يحتل حزب الله موقعاً موازياً لموقع ماكرون في الوقوف على طرفي ثنائية تمسك بخيوط المشهد، ما يعني أن مسار المقاربة للعلاقة الفرنسية بحزب الله يشكل المحور الحاكم لمسار المبادرة الفرنسيّة. وبعد سماع كلام ماكرون، لا بد من أن يخرج صوت حزب الله، لتكتمل صورة الثنائية وتتركز عناصر المعادلة.

بالتوازي مع هذا الاعتبار السياسي يحضر بقوة اعتبار أخلاقي ومعنوي وقيمي، ربما تزيد قيمته عن قيمة الاعتبار السياسي، فالحزب الذي يمثل المقاومة بكل قيمها وروح التضحية التي تمثلها، لن يصمت وقد تركزت عليه سهام ماكرون بصفته واحداً من أحزاب السلطة، ومن المتربّحين من المال العام، والمتعيّشين على المصالح الطائفية، والذين يفضلون مصالحهم على حساب مصالح شعبهم، وصولاً للدفع بحزب الله الأبعد بين أقرانه عن السلطة ومغانمها ومكاسبها وفسادها، لتصدُّر واجهة المستهدفين بالتهم السوداء، خصوصاً عندما يكون الاتهام بهذه اللغة الرعناء، وهذا التعالي المفعم بروح المستعمر، وعقل الوصاية، وما بين السطور من أستذة تدعو المقاومة للاختيار بين ما أسماه ماكرون بالخيار الأسوأ، وبين الديمقراطية، لمقاومة نال حزبها الرئيسي ديمقراطياً أعلى نسبة تصويت بين الأحزاب اللبنانية.

إطلالة الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله التي جاءت في سياق ممارسة هذا الحق وهذا الواجب، تضمنت من حيث الشكل تحجيماً لكلام ماكرون، حيث توزع كلام السيد نصرالله على ملفات عدة، من تعزية الكويت برحيل أميرها، إلى تنامي خطر داعش منذ جريمة داعش الإرهابية في بلدة كفتون، وصولاً للتوقف بلغة التحدي أمام مزاعم رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو حول وجود مستودعات صواريخ في منطقة الجناح قرب منشآت الغاز، فكانت دعوة فورية لوسائل الإعلام للملاقاة في المكان، إسقاطاً لمشروع تشويش على الإطلالة أراده نتنياهو قبل دقائق من موعدها، ليأتي الردّ على طريق يوم ساعر، انظروا إليها إنها في البحر تحترق، ليصل بهدوء إلى الملف الحكومي وفي قلبه كلام ماكرون، وبدا أنه يتعمّد عدم منح كلام ماكرون مكانة الصدارة من خلال الدخول الى كلامه من سردية تفصيلية لمسار العملية الحكومية والتعامل مع المبادرة الفرنسية من جميع الأطراف ومن ضمنها حزب الله، وثنائي حزب الله وحركة أمل، كاشفاً بالتفاصيل كيف تحوّلت الحكومة من مشروع إنقاذ قائم على تشارك الجميع خارج قضايا الخلاف الى مشروع انقلاب واستفراد بالحكم من خراج الدستور والأعراف لصالح جهة ذات لون واحد سياسي وطائفي، بقوة التهديد بالعقوبات والعصا الفرنسية، وبتغطية فرنسيّة تحت شعار السعي لإنجاح المبادرة، بلغة التهديد بالعواقب الوخيمة، وصولاً لحكومة تستعيد مسار حكومة 5 أيار 2008، والتآمر على المقاومة، لتصير الحكومة حكومة مهمة حدّدها الملك سلمان بنزع سلاح حزب الله، وليست حكومة المهمة التي تحدّث عنها ماكرون ووافق عليها الجميع. وهذا ما لا يمكن التساهل مع تكراره مرة أخرى، فلن تقبل حكومة الانقلاب ولن تقبل حكومة توقِّع من دون نقاش على شروط مجحفة لصندوق النقد الدولي، أو حكومة تبيع اصول الدولة، وحكومة تفرض ضرائب مرهقة على اللبنانيين، وكل ذلك كان يجري بشراكة فرنسا وتحت عباءة تهديداتها، متسائلاً هنا من الذي لجأ للتهديد والترويع، فرنسا ماكرون أم حزب الله؟

بكل هدوء، انتقل السيد إلى مناقشة كلام الرئيس الفرنسي، طارحاً السؤال المفتاح، هل القضايا التي سقطت عندها الحكومة كانت من ضمن المبادرة الفرنسية، أم هي قضايا وعناوين ابتدعها نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين وحدهم، مورداً جواباً رسمياً فرنسياً يؤكد أن ما طرحه نادي الرباعي جاء من خارج المبادرة، ليسأل إذا كيف يكون الجميع مسؤولاً؟ والسؤال الأهم، ما هي عهود المقاومة التي تنكّرتْ لها، أليس ما قام به حزب الله وحلفاؤه ورئيس الجمهورية هو عين التسهيل المطلوب، وهو عين الوفاء بالوعود والعهود، وللمقاومة سجل حافل بمصداقية الوفاء بالوعود والعهود؟ أما الدعوة للاختيار بين ما أسماه ماكرون بالخيار الأسوأ والديمقراطية، فجوابها واضح بالتمسك بحقوق الغالبية النيابية بمنع انقلاب بعض الأقلية النيابية لوضع اليد على البلد في ظلال المبادرة الفرنسية عكس المسار الديمقراطي، والمقاومة عنوان خاطئ لكل توصيفات ماكرون حول الفساد والمصالح، وعنوان خاطئ حول السلاح وتوظيفه في السياسة، والمقاومة لم تشهر سلاحها إلا رداً لعدوان أو مواجهة لاحتلال، أو تصدياً لإرهاب.

تفوق السيد نصرالله على ماكرون بالقيمة المضافة لا بفائض القوة، بقوة الحق لا بحق القوة، بالوقائع والحقائق ودقة التدقيق لا بالمزاعم والتوهّمات والتلفيق. تفوّق السيد نصرالله بحفظ الكرامة من دون حرب، وخاض ماكرون حرباً فقد فيها كرامته، فرض السيد نصاً تفسيرياً لمبادرة خانها صاحبها، ووضع آلية لإنقاذها من تخاذل كان يصاحبها. ورسم السيد سياق الصداقة خارج نفاق المواربة خشية ترهيب أو طلباً لترغيب، وخسر ماكرون فرصة صداقة لأنه تحت ترهيب حليف وترغيب مغانم حليف آخر، لكن رغم كل ذلك مد السيد يده لكلمة سواء، وأغلق باب الهدم وفتح مجدداً باباً واسعاً لخيار البناء، فانتصر السيد بكلام في قمة المسؤولية من موقع خارج المسؤولية الرسمية على كلام بعيد عن المسؤولية من أعلى مواقع المسؤولية الرسمية، ورمى الكرة في ملعب ماكرون قائلاً، لمن قالوا إن كلمة ماكرون تعادل كش ملك لحزب الله، إن اللعبة مفتوحة ولم تنته، والرمية التالية لرئيس فرنسا فإن أحسن لاقيناه وإن أساء فليلاقينا.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Sayyed Nasrallah to Macron: You’re Welcome as a Friend, Not as a Guardian

September 30, 2020

Marwa Haidar

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on Tuesday firmly rejected accusations of betrayal by French President Emmanuel Macron, noting meanwhile that the Resistance party is still committed to the French initiative “but based on respect”.

In a televised speech via Al-Manar, Sayyed Nasrallah clarified fallacies made regarding the formation of the new government in Lebanon and Paris’ initiative regarding the current crisis.

He stressed, in this context, that Macron is welcome in Lebanon “as a friend and ally, not as a guardian of our country.”

His eminence also stressed that Hezbollah has been well known for his credibility and sincerity, calling on the French president to “ask the friend and the enemy” about this issue.

Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed, meanwhile, that excluding Hezbollah from taking part in the new government is “out of question”.

Elsewhere in his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah hit back at Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu who claimed that Hezbollah allegedly has a missile factory near a gas station south of the capital, Beirut.

The Hezbollah S.G. said the party’s Media Relation Office would hold a tour for media outlets’ reporters to head to the area Netayahu had spoken about in a bid to refute lies of the Israeli PM.

Sayyed Nasrallah, meanwhile, hailed the Lebanese Army for foiling attacks by terrorists in the country’s north, warning that the terrorists have been preparing for a major military action in Lebanon.

Emir of Kuwait Demise

Sayyed Nasrallah started his speech by offering condolences over the demise of Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.

His eminence praised Kuwait monarch for his role in stopping the civil war in Lebanon, noting that he also stood by Lebanon and contributed to reconstruction of Lebanese towns following the Israeli war on Lebanon in July 2006.

“Emir of Kuwait also adopted an honored stance on Palestine and Al-Quds,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, praising Sheikh Al-Sabah for not striking a deal with the Zionist entity echoing other Arab states.

North Lebanon Confrontations and ISIL Revive

Tackling the latest confrontations between the Lebanese Army and Takfiri terrorists in the country’s north, Sayyed Nasrallah described the Lebanese soldiers as heroes, hailing the Lebanese people for standing by the Lebanese Army.

His eminence warned that Lebanon is facing a threat of major military action by ISIL terrorist group.

“We appreciate the popular stance in the northern villages where people voiced support to the army and security forces.”

In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah said that since the assassination of Iranian Major-General Qassem Suleimani, head of the elite Quds Force and Deputy Commander of Iraq’s Hashd Shaabi paramilitary force, US has been working hard to revive ISI in the region.

He called for caution and awareness regarding this threat, urging the Lebanese people to rally behind the Lebanese Army and security forces.

Sayyed Nasrallah Hits back at Netanyahu

His eminence then hit back at Netanyahu claims that a facility south of Beirut allegedly contains Hezbollah missiles, calling on media outlets to tour the area.

“Lebanese media outlets are called upon to tour in the area at 22:00 today in a bid to refute Netanyahu’s lies.”

“We position our missiles neither in Beirut Port nor near a gas station, we know very well where can we preserve our rockets,” Sayyed Nasrallah stated, referring to similar claims by Israeli media shortly after the deadly explosion at Beirut Port on August 4.

Tackling the state of alert on the Lebanese-Palestinian border, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated an earlier threat to retaliate to the martyrdom of Hezbollah fighter Ali Mohsen in Damascus earlier in July.

“Israeli occupation army has been on alert at the border with Lebanon for more than two months in the longest period of mobilization since 1948.”

Ex-PMs Setting Conditions on Gov’t Formation

Turning to the government issue, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that Hezbollah has been facilitating the formation of the new government following the resignation of caretaker PM Hassan Diab’s government earlier last month.

He said that four ex-PMs Saad Hariri, Fuad Siniora, Najib Mikati and Tammam Salam formed a club in which they were setting conditions on Hezbollah and his allies, noting that they were leading the negotiations in this regard instead of the PM-designate Mustapha Adib, who recused himself from his mission last Saturday.

His eminence mentioned some of the conditions set by the ex-PMs: number of ministers in the government will be limited to 14, portfolios will be rotated and the ministers will be named by them.

In addition to taking the role of the PM-designate, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the four ex-PMs were also going beyond the authority of President Michel Aoun who has the right to take part in the formation process.

In this regard, Sayyed Nasrallah said that Hezbollah repeatedly asked the ex-PMs if such conditions were stipulated by the French initiative, noting that the answer was no.

Excluding Hezbollah from the Gov’t ‘Out of Question’

Sayyed Nasrallah noted that Hezbollah did not agree on the process of naming the ministers, stressing that the Resistance party did not commit to follow a random government and to hand over the country to it.

In this issue his eminence said that Macron was asking the parliamentary majority in Lebanon to hand over the power to the minority, noting that this contradicts the principle of democracy.

Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed here that Hezbollah won’t accept to be excluded from the government, noting that this behavior aimed at defending the back of the resistance in the country and at preventing further collapse of Lebanon on the economic and financial levels.

Betrayal Accusations ‘Rejected’

Hezbollah S.G. hit back at Macron, rejecting his latest remarks when he accused the Lebanese parties of ‘betrayal and blamed Hezbollah and Amal movement of foiling the French initiative.

Sayyed Nasrallah then addressed Macron by saying: “We did not attack any one, we defended our land against the Israeli occupier. We went to Syria upon the request of the government there to fight those militants whom your state consider terrorists.”

“What are the promises which we did not keep? Our credibility and sincerity is well known to our enemies and our friends. Betrayal accusations are unacceptable and condemned.”

“If you want to know who foiled your initiative look for the US which imposed sanctions, and look for Saudi King Salman and his speech at the United Nations General Assembly,” Sayyed Nasrallah said addressing the French president.

In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that Hezbollah stance since the beginning of the French initiative was to welcome and to facilitate such efforts, but stressed that Macron’s rhetoric of superiority is not accepted.

“You are welcome as a friend and an ally, not as a guardian and prosecutor who defends the interest of certain Lebanese camp,” the Hezbollah S.G. said.

He concluded this part of his speech by maintaining that Hezbollah is still committed to the French initiative, voicing readiness to hold discussions in this regard “but on base of respect.”

Bahraini People and Deals with ‘Israel’

Sayyed Nasrallah then praised the Bahraini people who took to streets to protest against the Manama regime’s decision to hold so-called peace deal with the Zionist entity.

“We appreciate the moves of the Bahraini people who despite oppression by the regime took to streets and voiced opposition to any deal with the Israeli enemy.”

Hi eminence also said that Hezbollah relies on the stance of the people of the Arab countries and their popular will to oppose their regimes and refuse deals with the Israeli enemy.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related Videos

Related Articles

Hezbollah Invites Media Outlets to Inspect Site Falsely Claimed by Netanyahu as Missile Depot

Hezbollah flag

Hezbollah Media Relations Department issued a statement in which it invited the media outlets to inspect the Beirut site falsely claimed by the Zionist PM Benjamin Netanyahu as a missile Depot.

The statement added that the inspection visit, aimed at refuting Netanyhu’s claims, will be tonight at 22:00 (Local Time).

Netanyahu had alleged that Hezbollah stores missiles at a depot in a residential area in Jinah, adding that it lies near a gas facility and that its explosion will be similar to that of Beirut port.

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced the invitation during his televised speech, highlighting that it would be shortly after Netanyahu’s remarks so that the inspection will be very credible.

Video for Inspections will follow

Source: Hezbollah Media Relations (Translated by Al-Manar English Website)

%d bloggers like this: