No Script

Please Wait...

Al-Ahed Telegram

Sayyed Nasrallah: Resistance is Vigilant ~ Those Plotting to Stop the Resistance Will Fail

 Sayyed Nasrallah: Resistance is Vigilant ~ Those  Plotting to Stop the Resistance Will Fail
folder_openSpeeches-2008 access_time11 years ago
starAdd to favorites

Local Editor

The Islamic Resistance Support Association hosted its annual Iftar (fast break dinner) in the city of Baalbek, during which Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah gave a televised speech.

The following is the full speech:

"In Lebanon, in the faith and jihad movement, we are honored to be affiliated with in Hizbullah, we carry the culture of believing in God and the Last Day; we look to God and to what He has, we accordingly raise ourselves, our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, the people around us and those we talk to or influence, according to this meaning.

And that man's happiness resides in that abode in the afterlife, and just as keen as we are on preserving human dignity and pride in this world, observing that no one is hungry, deprived or tormented, in the world where the entirety of life is limited and impermanent, we first ought to care for people's eternal afterlife, that must be governed by happiness and contentment in the vicinity of God and the prophets of God Almighty.

Against this backdrop we also move.

When we take an action, or avoid one, when we take a stand or continue with a certain behavior, we are observant or claim to be observant that our actions carry with them God's satisfaction, and goodness and rightness for our afterlife, hence goodness and rightness reflect back to us in our lives in this world and in the lives of the people around us.

With this as the substratum, the resistance started in Lebanon. Hizbullah Resistance, the Islamic Resistance specifically and with it other resistance factions share this cultural and faith background.

Primarily this was the background of the launch. This was the faith background of the Commander Sayyed Moussa al-Sadr's announcement of the resistance movement in Lebanon in the beginning of the seventies.

In 1982, when the Zionist enemy invaded Lebanon and occupied a large part of our land, reaching the capital Beirut, Mount Lebanon, the Western Bekaa through to Rashaya and part of East Bekaa while the rest of Lebanon was within the Zionist threat circle...young people then rose up to fight the occupation.

What forced this position and stand?

Primarily religious duty; national and moral duty are added to that, but for truth I say, that religious duty was the stronger, more effective and more influential component.

That young people in the bloom of their youth, would embark on a path to fight, be killed, fall as martyrs, to leave their normal and natural lives and live in the mountains, valleys and caves, to endure hardships, is primarily because they consider themselves performing their duty before God Almighty.

This is a matter beyond dispute and beyond debate.

The consensus among Muslim reference authority figures on a clear Fatwa, found in jurisprudential books, and in what we (Shiaa Muslims) call in our literature 'Practical Religious Opinions' issued by religious reference authorities (religious opinion) that says the following: "If Muslim countries are invaded, it is permissible to fight the invader, and even mandatory."

So say the jurisprudence scholars, "...permissible to fight the enemy and even mandatory". And that does not require the Imam's permission, regardless of whether we are talking about an infallible Imam or the governor/ruler-the political power in Muslim lands.

No need for the Imam's permission or that of his deputy or attorney, to fight the invader no permission is needed from anyone.

When the land and the people are exposed to occupation and humiliation, the duty of the sons of the people is to bear arms, fight the occupation without need for permission from anyone, or authorization from anyone.

In this faith background, our resistance began, accordingly we can interpret how the many young people from Bekaa and Baalbek-Hermel went to fight, when their villages were not occupied, but fought to liberate Beirut, the mountains, Sidon, Tyre, Nabatiyeh, Rashaya, Mashgharah, Hasbaya, Marjayoun, the Taybeh, Bint Jbeil, Naqoura, and other areas.

This is because the motive here, the main factor, is the faith factor.

Thus, we understand why many from your area of jihad and resistance spent much of their young lives in resistance stations and gave a substantial number of martyrs... it is how we can understand how our leader and teacher Sayyed Abbas Musawi (may God be pleased with his soul) used to leave his religious high study institute (Howza), his city, his Friday prayers and his comfortable position in Bekaa to go to the south travelling by car from village to village, from post to post, and from garrison to garrison, until God concluded his life for him with martyrdom, the good end, the greatest thing the Exalted God's faithful followers aspire to, which is to be killed at the hands of the enemies of God Almighty.

Here we can understand why this region bore with the resistance and by the resistance all that it has suffered in all the recent years without hesitation, remorse or even lamentation, but to the contrary it considered it its duty, a duty it took pride in carrying, and continues to carry.

Against this background, dear brothers, the resistance lasted until today, enjoying dynamism, endogenous capacity and self-motivation, able to remain and continue. Thereby you will find this resistance does not tire or age, does not fatigue, decline or wane, because in spirit, it is linked to that eternal source.

And because it is linked through its background and intentions, its ambitions and hopes, to that which it seeks with the creator of this existence, of rewards, remuneration, stature and position, its youthfulness is therefore always renewed.

No ageing in a resistance that springs from faith and is connected with the pure source of this faith.

Hence, despondent are those conspiring against the resistance, unable to stop it, all their methods failed. They killed the leaders of the resistance, incited against it, besieged it, and made accusations against it, all of which was to no avail.

Today as in the past, this resistance is seen, not only on the its perceptual physical existence level, but in terms of its influence and its ability to awaken and revitalize the street and the peoples of this nation, for the establishment of a clear distinct resistance culture in the Arab-'Israeli' conflict, one seen as a constant threat, and therefore it has always been held in the targets circle by 'Israel', the U.S., and all who succour the Americans and 'Israelis' in our region and our countries.

Failing to harm the resistance, attempts are always made to distort its image, and injure it with accusations; and I talked about the accusation of monopolisation in the recent speech last week.
They also tried hard to label the resistance as "Syrian resistance", or as "Iranian resistance".
Among the goals of targeting the resistance, the subject of my talk tonight, is the attempt to give this resistance a religious or sectarian characteristic, and thus set the ground to accuse the 'sectarian' resistance as targeting followers of other sects and communities.

This is not an old ploy; there have been such attempts in the sixties. If you can recall that from year 1990 until 2000, the resistance course growth chart showed an upward curve. There were circumstances, among them the Taif agreement, internal stability, end of the civil war, concentration of all efforts towards the resistance. There was a combination of factors that helped create an upward line on the line chart of the resistance movement and its operations, between 1990 and 2000.

In the nineties the resistance star began to shine in the Arab and Muslim worlds. People in Lebanon and in the Arab and Islamic worlds started following the news of the resistance fighters in south Lebanon, carrying out quality operations, martyrdom operations, shaming the Zionists, forcing them to evacuate military occupation zones and posts.

Naturally, this had tremendous moral, psychological and cultural influence in the Arab and Muslim worlds, this became the founding-phase for the position the Lebanese resistance it became know for at the level of both Arab and Muslim worlds.

In Lebanon such language was not used, because the Sunni Muslims in Lebanon did not have a problem with the resistance.

In the Arab world, some Arab media that serve the U.S. policies in the region, a large number of Arab satellite channels, (the end of the nineties saw a dramatic increase of satellite channels) and some Arab newspapers with wide circulation, when covering the Resistance operations in Lebanon, before year 2000 they did not refer to it as 'the Lebanese resistance' or 'the Islamic resistance in Lebanon' or 'the Lebanese Hizbullah fighters' carried out such and such resistance operation.

They used to specifically say: "Hizbullah the pro-Iranian Shiite party carried out such and such operation," one could return to the archives to see the literature that had been used at the time.
Such atmosphere did not reflect us much here in Lebanon, as long as the internal Lebanese situation, especially within the Shiaa - Sunni scope, where a reasonable sound situation prevailed between Shiaas and Sunnis and in the general atmosphere in Lebanon.

But why the insistence on omitting the mention of 'the resistance' or 'Hizbullah', back then?

Why skip saying 'Lebanese Hizbullah', to insist instead on saying "Hizbullah the pro-Iranian the Shiaa party"?

Because the aim was to put tow barriers between us and the Arab world:

• First a sectarian barrier- to tell the peoples of the Arab world, most of whom are in fact Muslim Sunnis, that "those are Shiaa (Muslims) you have nothing to do with", like a wedge between the tow

• Secondly, to say that they are "Persians' friends, when you are Arabs"
Thus using the two sectarian and nationalistic barriers, but this approach was ineffective at the time.

Upon reaching year 2000, when the resistance accomplished its brilliant historic victory, its impressive resonance echoed in both the Arab and Islamic worlds. The resistance entered the hearts of all Arabs and Muslims, who embraced its victory with honour and pride, and the resistance-Hizbullah demonstrated and proved in word and in deed, before, during and after the victory, that although we are an Islamic movement, a movement of faithful believers, fasting worshipers, who go on pilgrimage duty at the Holy Mecca, who also abide by the divine religious guidelines, and who are at the same time not sectarian or denominational...

Moreover, and from our bona fide religious and faithful commitment, we are first degree patriots and nationalists.

Till today, there are people in Lebanon who accuse Hizbullah of "carrying the nation's issues, and wanting to burden little Lebanon with them!" Again, a virtue used as an accusation by some of the Lebanese in Lebanon.

This accusation failed at the time, and on the contrary, the media began using the terms "the Lebanese Hizbullah", it was no longer appropriate to say 'the pro-Iran Shiaa Hizbullah.'
We overcame that stage and entered the post year 2000 phase.

This victory had significant and important repercussions, the most outstanding of which is the new major jihad uprising (Intifada) in occupied Palestine, and uprising we were involved in politically, in the media, psychologically, morally and materially, a matter known to friend and foe alike, a role we pride ourselves in and we will never renounce or forsake it in this world and in the afterlife.

We overcame all that stage, however, some people said at that time, that this victory is not a victory but a game, and that there is an 'Israeli'-American-Iranian-Syrian agreement with Hizbullah to grant Hizbullah an accomplishment.

I am talking about the victory of May 25, 2000.

To present 'Israel' as being defeated in the south to strengthen the position of Hizbullah, Syria and Iran in the region, is of course silly talk no sane person can accept, but only a hateful person can. Otherwise, it is like saying, that on 25 May 'Israel' accepted to exit Lebanon humiliated in defeat, abandoned its collaborators in the street, causing fissures within its entity, which lead to an uprising within, all simply to grant Hizbullah stature in Lebanon!

What kind of silly talk is this?

Anyway, we got to year 2005, the rhetoric was that this resistance liberated the country, when victorious it said to the Lebanese that that was not a victory made by a party, movement, religious denomination, or Muslims as opposed to Christians, or let us not mention Christians, but that this victory was made by the Lebanese people themselves, by the entire country, the nation and all the Arabs.

Moreover, following this victory the resistance did not demand anything at all.

Amid this atmosphere in 2005, came the earthquake incident of the assassination of President Martyr Rafik Hariri.

New atmosphere set in the country, the Syrians pulled out of Lebanon, some factions made the resistance their target theme, as though the resistance is now redundant, ignoring the fact that Shibaa Farms were under occupation still, and whether they are Lebanese territory or not, that there are detainees in 'Israeli' prisons, etc. ....but mainly, due to the quartet election alliance in 2005, this issue was not raised in the Lebanese Sunni and Druze spheres, but amidst the Lebanese Christian sphere, with some Christians leaders attempting to present the resistance weapons as a threat to the Christian presence in Lebanon.

They worked vigorously through the media and externally on this subject. Some have continued with that campaign until now.

Prior to 2005, we did not feel much pull that we must work and interrelate internally on the home front. There was no danger of that sort on the resistance.

But due to domestic and regional changes, we opened up to everyone, and initiated contacts towards the Christian arena, starting from the Patriarch of Bkirki, through to the rest of the religious and political positions, the political parties and currents, small and large ones.

We did not consider groups according to size of their support base; we are seekers of communication, national unity and coexistence, more so seekers of unity in living.

We opened up to everyone, including some Christian political forces we had been in an old dispute with, and with whom we formed an alliance, some way or another during the elections, which lead to their having Representatives in Parliament with our votes.

Yet we continued working despite the antagonism that arose due to certain reasons in 2005 with the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and General Aoun.

With the help of present Christian leaders with whom we share old relationships in different regions, we were able to continue.

We arrived at the understanding between Hizbullah and the FPM. Initial efforts brought closeness, which later produced an understanding.

That day we said, as I make a reminder today due to the sensitivity of the situation, that this understanding was not made against other sects, religions or other political forces.

When we signed the understanding with the FPM, we were in an electoral political alliance with the Future Movement, and Progressive Socialist Party, however, we were together Ministers in PM al-Saniora's Cabinet, and also had been working together within the framework of the government.

Hence, our opening up to a largely based Christian movement was not taking aim at other confessions or political powers at all, but the real goal was the realistic additional interconnectedness between the Lebanese, and among Lebanese groups and segments of Lebanese society.

Though the understanding was signed by Hizbullah and the FPM, its effects emanated through the ranks of our allies and friends, in the Amal Movement and other political and national forces, and subsequently within the opposition.

As General Aoun used to say, this understanding established peace between the citizens, the villagers and the people of different neighbourhoods, until we reached the stage of the war.

Of course in this atmosphere, when there are important Christian leaders and a variety of Christian political and religious figures, who through dialogue and communication discovered that the resistance in Lebanon and its weapons are not aimed at Christians, many elements of reassurance have been given. We've been proving our honesty and credibility till today, through what we promise, commit ourselves to and pledge.

This created an atmosphere of reassurance, and today the hollering of some Christian leaders in March 14 can not alter anything about the reality on the ground, or the stance at national level and at the internal Christian level, because this hollering is not for serving national interest, but for serving 'Israel's' goals.

By making this statement I do not accuse or incriminate anyone with treason; the issue is clear: 'Israel' says it wants to disarm the resistance, and here in this country there is someone demanding these weapons be taken away.

I say whether they know it or not, they are serving the declared 'Israeli' goal.

But I can claim that we have largely overcome the issue about the resistance targeting Christians. This had been proved through resistance before 2000, on liberating Jezzine area,
through field conduct and performance, and proved through the course of liberating the border zone, and the treatment of not only its own people there, but in how it treated even collaborators.

It did not abuse or target anyone, Christian or Muslim. It is but to a large degree a resistance movement, here to defend Muslims and Christians.

We are past this matter at national level now.

Now, the July War came, regardless of whether the cause behind it was the capture operation (capture of 2 ‘Israeli' soldiers), or not. This is a topic which we talked a great deal about, and I will not repeat it now, but before the operation by a few days, we had been sitting round the dialogue table, discussing with open minds.

Now, the July War came, regardless of whether the cause behind it was the capture operation (capture of 2 Israeli soldiers), or not. This is a topic we talked a great deal about, I will not repeat it now, but we had been sitting round the dialogue table a few days before the operation, holding discussions with open minds ...

A week before that, I had presented the defense strategy from Hizbullah's standpoint. The other sides in the dialogue came a week later to discuss the strategy, and after the last session, that is before the war on the 6th or 7th or July, the head of the Future Movement, MP Saad Hariri, was here with us at the General Secretariat. We sat for hours together. We were communicating and coordinating together. The topic of that meeting was about the points we will be discussing at the next national dialogue session.

Because MP Saad Hariri promised me at that meeting to work with his allies on rounding some corners in the debate and to postpone the discussion, even if only for 3 months, to allow for a reasonable summer season.

Therefore, as far as we are concerned, we did not have a rupture in relations with the Future Movement, nor With Dar Al-Fatwa (House of Fatwa), and His Eminence the Mufti, nor with anyone of our Sunni brothers in Lebanon.

We shared broad ties, to the extent that they were called the Sunnis of the opposition. Regardless of the titles, whether scholars, movements, political parties, groups or affiliations, they were not a passing trend in the Lebanese Sunni heritage, but rather they came from known historic Parties, figures and personalities at Sunni and national levels.

Anyone here or there talking about Hizbullah penetrating the Sunni middle is not true, because we did not invent or create any presence within the Sunni scene.

There are known and long established Sunni groups, personalities, leaders, homes and movements known for their nationalist positions and stands, with many of whom we have shared relations over many long years.

We insisted on this openness across the board, we did with the arena Sunni what we did with the Christian arena.

Until 12 July, there was no negative atmosphere in a negative sense.

In truth tension began, or MP Walid Jumblatt began the tensions because of our position towards Syria. He openly admits that his dispute with us began because he wanted a public stand from us against the Syrian system.

We did not respond because there was no convincing evidence against Syria, not even unconvincing evidence. All we saw was accusations. Even the four officers who are still in prison, whom today I do not tell you to try them and if accused release them, I say set them free because for the duration of their detention awaiting trial, not a single shred of evidence or any of your suspicions against them was found.

The position was required of us, but we refused to enter this confusion and this battle, while witnessing regional and international activity aimed at systems in the region.

Yes tensions began with the PSP at the time, but there was no tension as yet with MP Saad Hariri, head of the Future Movement and the prime minister, to the contrary MP Saad Hariri rather played a key linking role, we met in the sidelines of the dialogue table meetings, and discussed the names of candidates for the republic's presidency, bilaterally between him and myself, or trilaterally with House Speaker Berri, until the days prior to the war... then the war happened.

Here political tension between us and the Future Movement began, I do not want to speak here about the rest of the March 14 forces, because they are not the subject of the discussion.

• So against which background did the tension begin?

• Did it begin against the a ‘Sunni-Shiaa' background?


• Were we demanding for Shiaa positions in the Lebanese government at the expense of Sunnis or at the expense of other sects in the government?


Tensions were not against a Sunni-Shiaa background, nor against Sunni-Shiaa allocations, nor Sunni-Shiaa leverage or Sunni-Shiaa struggle for power in Lebanon, but against a backdrop of how to deal with the July war imposed on Lebanon by 'Israel', how to face this war, and how to come out of it.

Yes there was a significant and deep and fundamental difference between us, whose background was our position on the war whose course and results meant what they mean for Lebanon, Palestine and the entire Arab region. This does not concern the Shiaas alone; it concerned the Shiaas in every region, the Druze in every region and the Christians in every region, which means the peoples and governments of the region.

Thus our difference was on political and not sectarian basis, it just so happened that we are Shiaas and they are Sunnis.

These days, unfortunately, I see some religious sheikhs on some television stations talk about the difference between the Movement and Hizbullah, they take us back to the time of the Prophet (pbuh&hh), and what happened after the death of the Prophet, and the first decades of the Islamic era.

• What does this have to do with that?

With this do they mean we were in agreement before the war, but disagreed after it, because we suddenly remembered 9what happened) 1400 years ago? This is disinformation, pulling wool over the eyes.

Not for a moment was our dispute sectarian-based with the Future Movement. Later followed by Dar-al-Fatwa entered this dispute, then certain other sides in the Sunni arena.

They had their own vision of how to deal with the July war and we had ours, they had a stand on the ongoing negotiations, the conditions and ceiling limits, and we had ours. But my aim at this point is to say that the subject of the dispute during the July war is one of politics. Yet still we maintained contact.

Our Ministers in the government continued their attendance in the Cabinet. Our brothers the political officials kept in constant contact with MP Saad Hariri and his advisors, until after the war as well.

But, I want to remind you: during 33 days of war, here I speak about Hizbullah, we were being bombarded, our homes demolished, our people displace, our youth getting killed, our women and children butchered, in a war for existence, in a battle aimed at our eradication. On the other hand, internally, a relentless media campaign, citing mistrust and accusations that we destroyed the country for the sake of the Iranian nuclear file!

Frankly speaking I do not understand!

• Suppose we launch a war and succeed, how can this influence the Iranian nuclear file?

• Would the US leave Iran alone as a result?

This last war you branded our war an "adventure"... Who is it we are fighting here?
We are fighting 'Israel', which possesses what it has in power, in addition to the support it gets from this world...

Brothers, I like to tell you that if Iran today handed Hizbullah to America on a silver platter, along with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian and Iraqi resistance, 'Jerusalem' (occupied al-Quds), Holy Karbala and Najaf, in return for the Nuclear file, Americans will not let accept...

To know this, one has to have a certain minimum level of understanding.

'Israel' and America see Iran as the primary threat in the world. 'Israel' considers Iran as a strategic threat to its existence and the U.S. sees Iran a strategic threat to its interests. These two will not tolerate the Iranian nuclear file, as nothing can be bought and sold when it comes to the Iranian nuclear file.

Iran's Guarantee comes from its strength, its unity, solidity of the people and the courage of its leadership.

Then they claim our fight in the war was "to defend the System in Syria!'

Had we been vanquished in the July war 'adventure', the war would have threatened the Syrian system, as it would supposedly have continued on towards Damascus.

We remained quiet when they said what they said. Accusations were thrown at us, we were called traitorous, etc....

I ask: during 33 days of war, did any of us utter a word, or respond in kind, not only at leadership level, but also at ordinary people. Never! We were all one voice. Our battle was our priority. We endured all that we heard. Even after the war, we remained focused on rebuilding rather than political quarrelling....

After the war, they continued, and issued the famous statement from the Bristol Hotel which opened the doors to political tension.

The only crime we committed after the war was to demand a National Unity Government.
With this demand, did we ask for increasing the Shiaa allocation in the Government, or to increase Hizbullah's share in the government?

What happened was that we asked for a Government of National Unity because the country needs everyone's participation and presence.

Regrettably, we found ourselves in a position of being confronted face to face by the prime minister, who just so happens that he is a Sunni, according to the political structure in Lebanon, and a partisan of the Future Movement, which also happens to be a Sunni movement, while we happen to be Shiaa...

So after the war I reiterated what I had said before, that the conflict was politically based and not sectarian.

I was hesitant as to whether I would say what I am about to say or not, but unfortunately I will, since it is found on many Internet sites that belong to takfiri (accuse others of apostasy) sides.

It was also spoken in some mosques in certain corners of the Arab world, and written in some of the Arab press. Furthermore, it unfortunately continues to be said until now, two years after the war.

Again, as in year 2000, with a slightly broader coverage this time, it was said that the July war
occurred because of an 'Israeli'-Hizbullah deal aimed at promoting the Shiaa status in the Arab world after what happened in Iraq...

...meaning that after what happened in Iraq, as a result of surrounding circumstances, certain ambiguities and accusations leveled against the Shiaas, in one form or another, for some Shiaa parties, and to lift their place in the Arab world, an agreement was reached between 'Israel' and Hizbullah, another words a play, a theatrical war, whose results would be to raise the status of the Shiaas in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Such talk is more ridiculous than what was originally said before, but unfortunately this has been talked and written about.

Imagine that we can be such madmen, or have reached such degree of insanity, to the extent that we destroy our families, our youths, lives and children. Forget about us and just look at the 'Israeli' side instead, where Haifa was bombed for the first time, the 'Israeli' interior was shelled for the first time, and for the first 'Israel' faces such a fierce and humiliating war, and for what reason?

All this, to raise the Shiaa status in the Arab world again!!?

Regrettably, no sane person can accept such reasoning, and only a hateful person would think such thoughts, at a time when the results of the war benefited every resistance project in the region, whether in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq or any regional resilience project.

This war, God willing, was a big nail in the coffin of the existence of this usurping entity in 'Jerusalem' (occupied al-Quds) and Palestine.

After this great historic victory, again they took tried the Shiaa-Sunni sectarian channel... and again they failed.

You saw that after the war, the resistance's position, thought, culture and respect throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds were increasing, thanks to the Exalted God.

The Arab and Islamic peoples do not turn their ears to such assessments and words that are logically, ethically and morally baseless, inhumane and lack evidence.

Because the truth is clear, frank and obvious, the resistance project with its jihad, objectives and targets in Lebanon are clear and transparent to all.

After the war, we entered a new phase. The new theme became that the resistance and Hizbullah now constituted a threat and a danger to the Sunnis in Lebanon!

...That this weapon (resistance weapon) targets the Sunnis in Lebanon.

We entered a phase of such new literature, being disseminated by religious figures, newspapers and media channels, as well as Sunni and other political powers, keen to escalate tensions.

Arab satellite channels, newspapers and centers supported this direction.

Today, morning and evening, as in the past, the resistance is asked to provide guarantees that it is not targeting the Sunnis nor is it their enemy.

This did not come at random; this was all planned for (...).

After all the failed attempts both internally and through UN resolutions, a wager was placed on 'Israel' to come to Lebanon and wipe out Hizbullah. This was talked about in salons, houses and gatherings.

Then the July war came and 'Israel' went to the extreme in what it could do. 'Israel' did all it could. And now when Barak threatened us with his regrouped army, a high ranking 'Israeli' officer of the northern region responded telling him that all the drills, maneuvers and training exercises are wrong, and will not solve the problems, that their ('Israeli') internal frontline is not ready for war.

In any case, this card fell, and God willing there won't be a war, by those who failed in July 2006 war. Trust (exists) in the Exalted God, in the resistance fighters, your people and families, that they will thwart this enemy in any future war, prevent it from achieving any of its objectives, and more so, the tables may turn!

What remained was to take Hizbullah into sectarian sedition and sectarian war.

The Christian aspect was fortified, and here lies the reason behind the annoyance with General Aoun.

Unfortunately, we were just watching television, "What civilized political speech" we just witnessed. Is this how political opponents or competitors deal with each other?

Does every word General Aoun utter, have to be attacked by the Christians and non-Christians in 'March 14'?

Their problem is that he was capable of accomplishing a significant level of peace among citizens and assisted in preserving an important element of strength in Lebanon.

Regarding the helicopter incident, General Aoun took a stand similar to many political leaders in Lebanon, but he was the only one attacked the way he was, which explains the picture ...

On the Shiaa-Sunni, a special push was started on this topic. Since 1990 sectarian or denominational speech was never part of our rhetoric and conduct, because Hizbullah had matured and started having a secretary general with its organizational cohesion.

Maybe between 1982 and 1990, we were still attempting to merge as groups with each other, to construct our organisation, like any other young movement in its beginnings.

But since 1990 until today, can anyone find a single speech of Hizbullah's that is sectarian or denominationalist, that speaks about the Shiaas in isolation from the rest of the Lebanese people and the peoples of our nation.

Today, who is it that has a sectarian or denomination speech?


Who classifies cities as Shiaa, Sunni, Christian or Druze?

Who, us?

When have we ever given such classifications?

When did we ever use such denominationalist sectarian speech of this kind?

Never... We never behaved in this manner, nor were our rhetoric, conduct, relations or stances based on sect or denomination when we ally, make friends or take opponents. But the criteria and standards, are constantly nationally related to the conflict with the 'Israeli' enemy.

Before 7th May, all discourse was focused on taking us into Shiaa-Sunni emphasis, which the other side has greater responsibility in.

You saw the language used, such language, or anything resembling such level of language, was never ever used by any of us.

The language employed by some religious sheikhs, political personalities and media, very inciting and obscurantist, a kind that stirs the street.

Can anyone imagine civil peace, calm and reconciliation occurring while media, speeches and political platforms are in a complete mayhem?

Delusional is he who does one thing and its opposite at the same time... this is not possible.
Anyone who wants to bring tranquility to the streets needs to calm the media down.

Anyone who wants such tranquility needs to calm political speech as well.

I challenge anyone to find a single speech we made last year involving sectarian or religious incitement (...).

May 7th came after much tension and pressure to place the government opposite the resistance through the dark and ill fated decisions it took on that ill fated night. Coincidence was that the PM is Sunni, had he been Christian, Shiaa or Druze, and taken those same two decisions, we would have dealt with him in the same manner.

At the time, it was required to push the incompetent government to take such decisions to force it into confrontation and to lure the confrontation. Shiaa-Sunni sedition had been planned that day to start fighting street to street, city to city and between neighborhoods.

Before 2005, when people had personal light weapons in their homes, there was no problem there.

After that time, who is it now, who came to Beirut and opened armed offices in Beirut's neighbourhoods under the title of 'Security Companies'!? ... Offices, fully armed, at well know locations in numerous neighbourhoods in Beirut!

Today there is talk about rejecting Beirut becoming a city of alleyway allegiances. the aim and goal was to drag us all into daily ongoing confrontations lasting a week, two, or three weeks at a time or even more.

A large number of fighters were brought in from outside Beirut.

Of course we differ in the assessment of what happened on the 7th of May, yes.

On the 7th of May, instead of establishing for Shiaa-Sunni sedition or pave the ground for civil war, the Shiaa-Sunni sedition was buried alive, thus the way to civil war and sedition was cut off.

Now after all that happened, we sent to Doha, and agreed to put an end to media campaigns, and we made good on our undertaking, but the others did not, in particular the Future Movement media, their personalities and MPs.

Of course I am do not launching an attack on the Future Movement but I merely describe the situation, and in the end our goal has to be solving any issues between us.

Attacks and accusations persisted, regardless if there was an occasion or not.

Even when we differed on the Ministerial Statement (MS) for 15 consecutive sessions, and here lays the question: is the dispute a Shiaa-Sunni dispute?

No, not at all, we are not in disagreement over positions or allocations but on a MS text in relation to the right to resistance, a resistance which is neither Shiaa nor Sunni, with the fates of Lebanon and the region connected to it, endowing all us with its blessings and benefits.

We disagreed over the scripting in the MS, not over Shiaa-Sunni sectarian jurisprudential or doctrinal matters.

It was a political matter, in truth it is more related to the Sunnis' fate than it is to the Shiaas'.
Besides that, we found that during the debate over the MS in Parliament and outside the Parliament, they tried to implicate and attack Hizbullah for every little thing.

They told lies, we ended up having radars in Sannin Mountains. I wish that was the case, because if it was true, I would not be upset by such news.

The last thing I heard today, is the Hizbullah is in Akar area. Trouble is brewing in Tripoli, everyone knows how these problems occurred.

Somehow, Hizbullah is accused of instigating sedition in Tripoli, accused of arming both sides in the armed conflict there!

Hizbullah, which believes in the afterlife and the Last Day, "The Day that (all) things secret will be tested," {Holy Quran 86:9}, what makes it easy for people to withstand such lies, is their belief that there is a Last Day, when it will be seen that Hizbullah is one of the sides that are most active in efforts spent to bury sedition in Tripoli, working behind the scene, away from the media, through contacts, friendships, words, and all means possible.

Only because we consider what is happening in Tripoli to be dangerous.

Today I support, confirm and announce that we support all efforts to bury sedition in Tripoli, and it is not important who sponsors the conciliation, whether the PM, or MP Saad Hariri, the Republic's President, the Mufti (Sheikh Malek) al-Sha'ar, or the Mufti (Sheikh Mhamad Rashid) Qabbani... regardless of who the sponsor is, so long as bloodshed is spared, and barriers are removed between the Lebanese in Tripoli... because what was being set up in Tripoli was a despised and dangerous sectarian and denominationalist sedition, that threatens the country and the region.

Some were advocating this sedition, knowing full well the results and potential repercussions in advance.

That is why, today on behalf of Hizbullah, I declare my support for all reconciliatory efforts, in Tripoli in particular and the North in General.

Thanks to God no one placed conditions on anyone else in Tripoli.

No one asked for anyone's apology, nor for preconditions.

People forgive each other, keeping in mind that what happened in Tripoli in human loss and destruction of homes and shops, victims and martyrs, is much higher than what happened on the 7th of May in Beirut.

But because people have taken the decision of reconciliation, they did not place conditions on one another, because all those concerned started sensing the real and imminent dangers confronting everyone in Tripoli and the North.

Today, when we come to the Sunni domain, we say: "No brothers the resistance, Hizbullah in particular, does not target any Sunni, Shiaa, Druze or Christian Lebanese. It does not target any political team, religious denomination or sect.

Nor does Hizbullah compete against others for authority, you all saw when we had 3 Ministers in the Cabinet, (not out of reminding our allies of a favour), but out of performing our duty and coming true on our promise.

This is our allies' natural right to be with us in Cabinet.

Has anyone in Lebanon's history taken such a step before?

One who accepted less than his rightful quota of Ministers for his allies' favor?

We are not seeking authority or leadership. We certainly consider the resistance preserves Lebanon along with its strength and immunity.

We have deep intimate understanding of the Zionist project and 'Israel's' ambitions in the region, therefore, we hold fast to this resistance, defend Lebanon, its honour and dignity, along with the honor of the entire Arab and Islamic nations, with our children, sons, daughters, women, houses, fortune, lives, fervor of youth, and we do not want appreciation or thanks from anyone.

As I said in July War to the Arabs, we do not want anything from you other than to 'just leave us alone'. Internally we do not want anything from anyone other than to 'leave us alone'. And from all that which people compete for, we do not compete against anyone over anything at all.

We did say we are open and prepared, and of course I am not the party to determine who represents the Sunnis in Lebanon. This is how the country is built today. In the end, we have relations with leaderships and powers, frontlines, political parties, groups and distinguished Sunni personalities, with broad based support in the Sunni street, no one can surpass or ignore.

When dialogue began between us and some Salafi personalities, the objective was not to penetrate the Sunni arena. To the contrary, we are coming from two positions that stand wide apart, as is the case between us and the FPM, with whom we were far apart, and we differed during the elections, and were even in dispute.

The understanding happened in stages, as it takes place between two remotely separate parties, which begins to draw the parties nearer together, then communication helps reach understanding between the two, finally accomplishing a document of understanding.

Then, and all of a sudden, everyone goes up in arms over it, why?

It was said, because Hizbullah is penetrating the Sunni domain!

What is there for me in the Sunni arena to want to penetrate it?

I have numerous broad relations and friendships within the Sunni community in Lebanon, and broader, larger and more important relations in the Arab World.

We are not working on penetrating any religious denomination. On the contrary, we support any conciliatory efforts, within any religion, and our friends know this. We support all conciliatory efforts within individual religions and across the spectrum of different religious confessions, because this is the make up of Lebanon.

We believe that the country's unity is among the most important factors of strength in the resistance, the opposite is also true, where dispersion and internal conflict weakens the resistance one way or another.

Therefore, when the other side in the signed Understanding was confronted with an uproar, we contacted the other side, our co-signatory, issued a statement and said to them: "we can freeze, cancel, or take any procedure you wish. We do not want to drag you into conflict with your people, friends and brethren. What we want to achieve through this step is to bring everyone in the arena together and not to penetrate the arena."

In all cases, a new National Unity Government was formed, and we are facing an opportunity to gather the situation together.

Today what I call for is this:

Some thought, that when they blocked the Document of Understanding between us and some Salafi forces-we saw that in some of the political discourses-they directed a message to Hizbullah, saying that the Future Movement or Dar-al-Fatwa represent the Sunnis in Lebanon.

I am not the party to accept or reject. This matter is the concern of our Sunni brothers in Lebanon. They are the ones to decide who represents them.

But I do not deny the real representation of Dar-al-Fatwa and that of the Future Movement.
That is why we said and I personally said we are ready for any meeting, ready for any dialogue, and will for cooperation to deliver our arena from this state of tension.

Today I renew the invitation, let us sit together without preconditions... reconciliation is called for in Tripoli, reconciliation is wanted in Beirut, reconciliation thank God has occurred in Taalbaya and Saadnayel but still requires consolidation.

Believe me we are the party with the most to lose from any internal clashes, we are the ones to lose the most from internal conflict.

When we are dragged into internal conflict, either by imposition, or we are dragged into an area, because we feel something more important is at risk-the resistance.

The resistance is the one that is not a sectarian project, nor denominationalist, or a private venture but a defense and a force for Lebanon and the Arabs.

Concerning my meeting with Saad Hariri-With the blessings of Ramadan month, let us meet.
Since I have already declared my openness to sitting with him, now the discussion is not about the principal but about location.

He had suggested a location that was easy for me to get to, but very difficult to return from, and while we are in the middle of treating one issue, I do not think anyone wants to end up falling into a bigger one.

In another word, a security breach might happen. And you know quite well that the problem between us and the 'Israeli' is serious and not at all a game, they are serious and so are we.

If a direct personal contact does not take place as a result of my and Saad Hariri's security circumstances, it does not mean that meetings cannot take place on other levels between Hizbullah and the Future Movement.

We are open in our relations to the Future Movement, the Darr al-Fatwa and all Sunni political forces, religious or secular, religious figures and posts, different Sunni Muslim stems, Salafi and other. We do not stop at these considerations.

Recounting painful events carries pain, in the treatment of sickness or wounds it is natural that pain is felt.

Today my speech and plea on this eve of the blessed month of Ramadan, from the Islamic Resistance Association's platform, and from the City of Baalbak, which embraces its Shiaas, Sunnis and Christians, all bonded through established historic relations.

From Baalbak City which never joined the disputes, hardships or sedition. Its religious scholars, leaderships, community and people, who are keen to see the country's trials surpassed.

Should an individual problem occur, like what happened on some occasions in al-Ayn, Labwa or other areas- I state this as God's witness - everyone quickly moves on behalf of scholars, prominent figures and the area's political forces, to treat the incident and place it within its real narrow personal context that it is, to prevent any conflict from escalating into realms of sectarianism or denominationalism.

This is an example to go by, duplicate and spread through the Lebanese arena, from this City of the Sun, whose sun I hope shines over all Lebanon and the region.

It has already risen and shone by the resistance and its Lord of Martyrs, Sayyed Abbas Musawi, and the resistance's past martyrs; hence I reiterate in Hizbullah we refuse to enter into sectarian or denominational conflicts with any of the Lebanese confessions or sects.

If we had a dispute with a movement, group, political party, or leadership, or personality, political or religious position from the other confessions or sects, it is a political dispute and not a sectarian or denominational conflict.

We are prepared to turn a new page on the past, we are ready to treat all wounds and are all open to dialogue and I renew the invitation to all discussions.

We are not afraid of dialogue and as I said last time, some say Hizbullah wants to avoid the National Dialogue Table. Never. Let us go as soon as tomorrow and we are ready, because I always say we have logic, thought, guidance and experience too.

This is not mere theories, but practical theories, should anyone have different logic we are open to debate with him.

I hope the blessed month of Ramadan is the month of reconciliation for Tripoli, North Lebanon, the Shiaa-Sunni, and the overall Lebanese reconciliation.

All of us ought to cease this opportunity, regardless of the different assessment views of all the events that took place.

We are taking initiatives, and we will further initiatives and others ought to take initiatives as well, but my speech to the good people, the ordinary people of the Shiaa, Sunnis, Druze, Muslims and Christians, do not become fuel for conflict or clashes. Examine closely what you hear, do not lend your ears freely, nor allow yourselves to be controlled by your fanaticism.

To the Shiaas I say do not accept everything from us without scrutiny. Examine if what we say is right, then accept it from us, and reject it if not. Tell us so. We want that as well.

I have said about the Shiaa, because the country is built thus, we accept this logic within the larger circle as well.

What I call for is for the Lebanese people and families, in their different religions and political directions, to stay away from fanaticism and bigotry for persons, party, side, region, religion, or a locality, to be seekers of rightness, and not to allow sedition or bloodshed, to reject every strung speech given, regardless of who calls for sedition.

Let what I mentioned be the standard, regardless of who is giving the speech young or old.
Dear Lebanese,

Reject anyone that invites you to sedition; banish anyone inciting you against each other, abandon him; seek all who unite.

This is the blessed month of Ramadan, the month of compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, understanding, affection, brotherhood, togetherness and kinship.

Let us cease God's special opportunity, and offering, and heal our wounds and pains, unite our ranks anew, for what is good for this life and the hereafter.