No Script

Please Wait...

Al-Ahed Telegram

Sayyed Nasrallah: Defeating ’’Israel’’ was the last nail the resistance put in Its Coffin

Sayyed Nasrallah: Defeating ’’Israel’’ was the last nail the resistance put in Its Coffin
folder_openSpeeches-2008 access_time11 years ago
starAdd to favorites

Local Editor

Hizbullah Secretary General, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah gave a televised speech at the fast-break dinner held by the Women's Activities in the Islamic Resistance Support Association in Lebanon.

The following are some of the highlights of the speech:

• The defeat the resistance in Lebanon dealt 'Israel' in 2000, formed the last nail in "Greater 'Israel's' coffin".

• During July 2006 war, "Greater 'Israel'" fell to become like the Arabs of bygone days, orating and making threats.

• Today, we are before a normal 'Israel'.

• At the end of July 2006 war and the developments that followed in Lebanon, leading up to May 7 events, the Doha agreement and the Unity Government, the resistance overcame all the trials... real threats are now something of the past."

This is the full text of that speech delivered by the Secretary General:

".. In yesteryears, people generally had better health and less concerns because there were no satellite channels and no means of communication, no one knew what is happening in the rest of the world. But today they have come up with daily News programs, no one escapes without pain in their heart.

On today's news, we see 4,700,000 people in Ethiopia alone threatened to die of starvation. Here we are talking about people, regardless of their religious affiliation, they include Muslims, many Christians and many non-religious people, and many follow other religions as well.

This total number includes women, children, infants and elderly.

Due to the famine, millions in Somalia, tens of millions in India, in Bangladesh, Burma and other places, and parts of the world, on a human level, are at risk of dying by famine and poverty and no one is taking any action against it.

This means that the world is dead in its humanity and morality.

Even if world leaders talk about humane and democratic values, or human rights, what kind of democratic humane world is it then, when tens of millions are dying of hunger?

In contrast there are huge hoards of large sums of money, Gold and silver. You may have noticed in the news, how a group of rich people, the circle of the rich is diminishing year after year, this means some are getting richer, while others are going bankrupt.

I want to give an example.

In this example, some might say 'the Sayyed is now attacking the Arab World', as if it is too sacred a world to be criticized.

A single Arab State, has three thousand billion dollars in U.S. banks, when the US itself has, as of now, started suffering a colossal financial crisis.

This information is one and a half years old, i.e. the 3000 billion dollars are stashed and that's before the rise in oil and other prices!

What are they doing with this money at the present time?

Look at Gaza, Iraq and Lebanon!

It is true that the Lebanese cover up for each other, but do we not see people scavenging at public garbage disposal bins, rummaging for clothes, food etc...

Does this not touch our humanness, values, and religious ethics?

How can those with amassed wealth accumulated in US banks bear to witness this, when a fraction of this wealth may heal a great deal of economic and social crisis, for the peoples of this region and the world.

Of course no one is asking for the full 3000 billion dollars to be spent on the hungry, thirsty, and the oppressed.

And this is the hunger example only.

Should we look at other aspects such as illiteracy, ignorance, unemployment and bachelorhood, we find that all such problems can be solved when finance is available.

As for our rich governments that accrue and amass money, yet deprive their own people and not other peoples, we find lack of sense of responsibility, a sense the prophet tried to bolster.

It is from this point I wish to highlight the most important element in the experience of the resistance, and the resistance movement in Lebanon as a whole, which is proud of your support, its sense of responsibility.

Many people in Lebanon, especially after the 1982 invasion, refused the occupation, knowing what humiliation and degradation means, what it means to have the land desecrated and their right to choose confiscated, knowing what it means to have thousands of young people arrested and jailed, what it means to have the land occupied and water resources and sovereignty controlled... it is because of their feeling of responsibility in the face of all this that they embarked on resisting.

Today, at the Resistance Support Association's fast-break dinner, I want say that the resistance, its presence, actions and breakthroughs are a natural outcome of the humanitarian sense and the sense of responsibility, possessed by a great number of men and women in Lebanon.

Without this sense of responsibility, resistance would not have occurred in Lebanon, and we would have succumbed to occupation, submission, humiliation, oppression and to the Zionist's grip over our land, wealth, waters, countries, and political choice, future of our children and grand children, and all coming generations.

This sense of responsibility prompted a many young people to resist the occupation, with all the given political, cultural, media, social, material, and moral means, spearheaded by military resistance, in which souls and blood are spent, exposing the enemy to huge losses and forcing them to leave, and withdraw in defeat.

This resistance in Lebanon is the fruit of this strong sense of responsibility, and because it is so, it has remained to this day; in other words, if this resistance was a group of mercenaries, working in the resistance just to earn a living, it would not have continued for 26 years, only because its young people earn salaries, when on daily level they are being targeted, killed, liquidated and faced with bloody confrontations.

What drives such young people like ours today, to leave schools and universities to live in the hills and valleys in south Lebanon?

It is because they feel a sense of responsibility to defend their country.

There is a slogan today that says 'the State protects everyone', but the right slogan should say 'the State must protect everyone'.

This is the right slogan, it is of the State's functions and duties to protect everyone, but in reality, does the State protect Lebanon now?

Is it really capable of defending Lebanon?

Not, the answer is no. No two people differ on this point.

Of course we should endeavour to make the state capable of defending Lebanon, not to succumb to this reality nor accept it.

They always wanted us to live in Lebanon under the slogan or under the theory that 'Lebanon's strength lies in its weakness.'

What is this 'strength'?

Is it strength of word that the Lebanese role is only to talk, make speeches, write, sing, write poetry?

Is this what they mean by Lebanon's 'strength'?

Such 'strength' does not protect anyone in this world, not Lebanon nor in any other country.
Lebanon ought to be strong, its state as well, in order to protect the homeland, the people and society.

At one of the stages, unfortunately, the state was not only weak, but lacked the will to confront, and more unfortunately so, in times such as the early eighties, it even cooperated with the enemy!

I will suffice with this amount and not delve into other stages as well!
When the 'Israelis' invaded the country, they used to find cooperation at times, on the other hand, on feeling the threat and danger to their country and people, these young men left their homes, families, schools and universities, to live in the mountains and valleys of the South; I think some of you (audience of women activists) have met some of these young men, who are not lacking on intelligence, intellect, personality or character.

So why this immigration to the hills and valleys to defend the homeland?

Because there is a sense of responsibility, based on humanitarian values present in the conscience of these young men that compel them to be in such positions, because they will stand to answer on Judgment Day, and because emotionally they cannot bear to see their people or their homeland humiliated or assaulted, or allow Lebanon become a land violated by the 'Israel' enemy, its army, its Mossad or its security agencies etc...

This is also the case with the families of these young men, their wives who bear this way of life, the mothers, fathers, relatives, sons and daughters who bear this way of living too.
This too is also a part of the sacrifice.

Because of the resistance has this sense of responsibility too, it has been able to, firstly, continue on and, secondly, achieve many victories and achievements.

We do not want to quote old testimonies, but only as recent as last Sunday, the enemy Cabinet Prime Minister, Olmert, who will be exiting politics a in a miserable and pitiful failure, usually opens the Ministerial session with a brief political discourse. What did he say this time to the 'Israelis'?
He told the 'Israelis', on the platform of their government, which has a certain particularity to it because he speaks at the place where the enemy government's session is to be opened, in the presence of military and political leaderships, the first thing he said is "thus is the complete full story of Greater 'Israel', it is an illusion, and no one can lie to the 'Israelis' and the people of 'Israel' any longer"...

The second thing Olmert told them is how the regional balance began to tilt towards imbalance, and our ('Israel's') path is to prevent this imbalance through agreements and settlement with the Palestinians, and the Syrians.
Therefore the military option is not there, as far as Olmert is concerned, to prevent this regional 'imbalance'.
The third point: "time is not in our favor unless we hurry to reach settlements. We will regret everyday that passes into the future."

I (Sayyed Nasrallah) am not inventing anything here. It's him, Olmert that is, who said such words at the Ministers Cabinet meeting of the enemy.
The evaluation of these three points is clear.

In conclusion Olmert, a member of the traditional political leadership in the enemy entity, though he did not last long as Premiere of the Cabinet because he was entangled in the July war, (Olmert) tells his Cabinet we are in a new situation in the region, and it is not in their favor, the internal domestic situation is not in their favor, the possibility of dealing with the situation through military means is not available, the road open to them is through settlements, and the dreams they used to have must be taken out of their heads... these illusions no longer have a place.

This is the conclusion.
So why does Olmert say such things now, when Netanyahu preceded him in saying that "the Zionist project is terminated" as a reaction to Barak's decision to withdraw from South Lebanon on May 25, 2000, in a humiliating defeat.

What is the reason?
Is it that there is a multi-polar world now?
No. There was a bi-polar world in the past and 'Israel' was getting stronger, haughtier, and more tyrannous, occupied more land and imposed humiliating conditions on the Arabs.
It is true that there are beginnings of true international transformations, but without clear horizons as now.

So is it because the Arabs were vulnerable and now are powerful?
On the contrary, regrettably, day after day the Arabs are absent from all the wider regional and international developments?

Where are the Arab countries?
Except for Syria, which is trying to be in the motion of things as its location demands it be at the heart of such activity, most of the Arab States unfortunately, are absent!
Today you will find Turkey, Iran, France, Europe, Latin America, but where are the Arab countries?!

Is there a new Arab situation that scares Olmert?
No, there is no new official Arab development to scare Olmert!
The principal development that occurred in the region since the year 2000 till today is the development, successes and accomplishments of the resistance movements of the region.
This shift started in year 2000, since 'Israel's' defeat in Lebanon.
This is the truth, nothing else.

Otherwise, should we take out this single factor called 'resistance movements', 'stability of resistance, 'steadfastness of the resistance' and 'resistance victory'. All the other remaining factors are, on the contrary, helpful to 'Israel', to increase its strength and arrogance, to impose its humiliating conditions on everyone.

Why has Greater 'Israel' ended?
There are three 'Israels':
1 - There is the Greater 'Israel'. It supposedly extends geographically from the Nile to the Euphrates, as signified by the two blue lines on the 'Israeli' flag, representing the two rivers.
2 -As for Great 'Israel', it waives its geographic aspirations to settle in historic Palestine, yet it insists to be the strong, powerful and capable State, able to impose its conditions on the entire region and dominates the whole region behind the borders of historic Palestine.
3- Ordinary 'Israel', with its incomprehensible unclear borders so far, and what will happen to it is yet to be known.

These are the three 'Israels'.
Due to a combination of factors related to the defiance of the Arab countries, the steadfastness of the Arab peoples and armies at some stages, the 73 war etc..., Greater 'Israel' is no more. But if I wanted to say who put the last nail in the coffin of Greater 'Israel', I would say, with all modesty, it was when the resistance in Lebanon inflicted ordinary 'Israel' with the in 2000 defeat, Greater 'Israel' ended there.

If this great 'Israeli' army is unable to remain, not in South Lebanon but just at the border strip, how can it occupy and control a wide geographical region that includes all land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River?!

Greater 'Israel' was done for and ended in 2000. Today, Olmert on his departure from office admitted it ended. This is the truth.

The year 2000 ended with the 'Israelis' concluding that making settlements and reconciliation is the path to follow. Debate began on Great 'Israel', but with receding borders to within historic Palestine, a once ambitious project of 'Israeli' parties. Their ambition had always included autonomous administrations in the West Bank and a similar one in Gaza. That's it!

But there were certain developments that occurred after year 2000, the most significant of which was the blessed Intifada uprising in Palestine and the resistance there, which eventually imposed a withdrawal from Gaza.

This withdrawal from Gaza signaled the beginning of retreat even further back behind the borders of historic Palestine.
The Intifada imposed the building of a separation wall on 'Israel'. The lands now fall outside the wall, hence they are to be relinquished or negotiated over. In other words it has come out of the land of historic Palestine, this is from a geographical perspective.

Within this geographic context I can say Great 'Israel' in historic Palestine suffered two defeats, one is marked by the withdrawal from Gaza, the other by the building of the separation wall.
But Great 'Israel', the able, strong, dominant, the mighty and the frightening, I can humbly say, this Great 'Israel' fell in July 2006 war in Lebanon.

Great 'Israel' no longer exists.
Today 'Israel' has become like the Arabs of bygone days, plenty of speeches and threats, talking night and day, but unable to do anything; this is the reality today.
When has 'Israel' ever made this many speeches and threats before going to war?!

All 'Israel's' wars were surprise wars, but now they need to make that many speeches and threats, as a kind of pep talk to compensate for the weakness, fatigue and incompetence, and for the morale vacuum in their army, among their officers and people.

Today, we face a 'normal'-'ordinary' 'Israel'.
This ordinary 'Israel', whose prime and constant concern and focus, had once been the Arab nations, governments and peoples, today is fully pre-occupied with a handful of resistance fighters in Lebanon and in Palestine.

Keeping itself busy with them day and night, it recognizes that they are maintaining a balance...'Israel' fears the disruption of this balance should the Lebanese or Palestinian resistance procure this or that weapon.

Hence today we are at a very advanced and historic stage in this conflict.
Today, at this moment in time, through these events and this reading of the entire experience, we are all concerned with protecting, fortifying and defending our country. These matters need to be approached with a nationalistic sense and manner.

It is from this point that I will enter into addressing the last remaining points of this discourse. But before doing so, I wish to share the good news outcome which I believe in with you.

At the end of July 2006 war and the developments that followed in Lebanon, leading up to the May 7 events, the Doha agreement and the formation of the current National Unity Government, I can tell you that this resistance, which has long been exposed to attempts of liquidation and eradication has overcome all these tests, and greatly surpassed the real dangers that threaten its existence.

From year 2000 through 2006, until today, the 'Israelis' along with the Americans, and all those who back and support them in this world, are working on eliminating this emerging element of strength that is the resistance.

They want this resistance terminated, through any means possible. So far many ways have been used: assassinations, the assassination of martyr commander hajj Imad Moghnieh (May God have mercy on his soul) was not the first assassination, before him were many, Sayyed Abbas, Sayyed Abbas' wife and a daughter, Sheikh Ragheb, many resistance leaders as you know were killed. However, the resistance was not shaken. It gained strength, imperviousness and enthusiasm, became more deeply ingrained in the conscience of its community, and its faith deepened in the correctness of its path.

On the Security level, over the past 25 years they could not harm the resistance and I tell you they will not be able to undermine the resistance.

Now, they are competing in the elections for leading Kadima, in light of this competition they asked Livni "if you get a phone call at 3 am from the Mossad ('Israeli' Secret Intelligence) Chief saying 'there is a rare opportunity to kill the Secretary General of Hizbullah', would you issue the decision to kill him?"

(Answer) yes she would give this decision to kill;
And Mofaz?
Yes he would too, without hesitation.
I thank them; there is no problem in this regard.

As far as any brother is concerned, when he obtains that moment, the moment of martyrdom, he will have concluded his life with the most precious of his aspirations, these were the feelings of all our past martyrs, and the sentiments of those still alive.

But what I like to say to them that the resistance since `82, until this moment and into the future, does not stop at any individual, no matter how important or fundamental a person is view to be by the people, in their good opinion. The resistance in Lebanon exceeded the stage of being dependent on a political or military leader, commander Field or a group of leaders etc..., it is a true popular state, with the capacity to produce leaders at all levels, leaders it does not bring from theoretic posts, but from the heart of suffering, the heart of experience, and the heart of the field of work, blood and tears.

Therefore, 'Israel's' security option is futile. No matter what they do in the future this option will not bring results.


The Military option
Before 2000 the 'Israelis' tried everything, July 2006 war was the peak within the military option and they failed.
What options do they have remaining?

Isolate popular resistance? With the large public presence the resistance enjoys, they also failed.
Here lies the importance of popular Lebanese public embrace for the resistance from all sects and various political currents in Lebanon. Here is the importance of the State embracing the resistance, not to confiscate, confine, and disrupt the effectiveness of the resistance, or freeze its components of the strength...Embracing the resistance is important, because the 'Israeli' enemy wanted its isolation.

This too we have overcome.
The last and serious part is always the attempt to drag the resistance to internal fighting and dissension, through various titles, whether under opposition, or sectarian and denominational titles.

This is what happened, when they killed the martyr of the opposition sit-in, and also killed other opposition martyrs, the intention was to drag the resistance into internal fighting.
In any case, we overcame this matter even in 'May 7' events.

I come back and say, of course we Lebanese have a different reading of May 7. I say there are those who pushed the former government (I will not go into defining that government), regional and international States, regional and international sides, pushed it to take those decisions that targeted the resistance, designed to drag the resistance to a war of attrition.

I will repeat.
That time, it was required to drag the security forces and the army into a war with the resistance, which could have lead to civil war, the disintegration of the army and security forces and subsequently to the collapse of the State in Lebanon.

But what was done by some opposition forces, not the entire opposition forces, some opposition forces on May 7 buried sedition, cut off the road to civil war, and preserved the continuity of the State and the army.

This is what happened and this is what some people try to describe as the worst thing that ever happened to Beirut...No, what happened on May 7 saved Lebanon, the State of Lebanon, the Lebanese Army and the people of Lebanon from the worst of conspiracies and seditions that were being plotted against it.

Now of course, there is insistence by the same parties that had prompted the Lebanese to collide with each other, now insist on clashes, confrontation and internal fighting.
What is our responsibility at the present moment?

Here I will quickly highlight some points.
1. To address our issues and differences through dialogue. Here, in front of you today, I welcome again the National Dialogue Conference.
Though it is difficult for me to be absent from it; I love to be there, but we and the 'Israelis' have a serious state of affairs, not play.

They are surveilling us, while they are cautious from us, one day they dragged their businessmen back from the world, another day they prevented their Ministers from travelling, the other day they withdrew all their tourists from Sinai... this is good and if you have noticed we have not commented, we neither 'confirm' nor 'deny'. Why should we reassure the 'Israelis'? Let them stay in a state of apprehension. Those who kill Hajj Imad Moghnieh must remain concerned and apprehensive. They have to remain so throughout the entire world...

Therefore I have not gone to Baabda Presidential Palace, which would be an honour to be alongside the rest of the Lebanese political leaderships in an effort to remedy the situation in Lebanon.

2. I would like to commend the speech made by His Excellency President Michel Suleiman, a thoughtful, accurate, responsible and nationalistic, speech which reflects a unifying spirit and will, highly spirited in dealing with files that are sensitive and fateful in the country.

I also like to commend the closing statement, which in fact is the beginning, issued by the National Dialogue Table.

There is a point in the final statement I wish to stress; the subject of media campaigns, media escalation, the role of political leaders and the media in dealing with the situation.

In the Doha agreement, there is an item that talks about stopping the media escalation and incitement.

I can say that in the opposition we have stood by the agreement. This is while some parties from the other side have also remained committed, others have not, and while some local parties have remained committed other regional Arab parties have not.

When some local parties have remained committed to a media calm, we still have some Arab media exercising the ugliest sectarian incitation the Arab media witnessed since its foundation...

While some local parties remained committed to a media calm, some Arab media exercise the ugliest sectarian incitement ever witnessed since its foundation; open sectarian and confessional incitement, blatant and direct, exploiting small and simple incidents to build incitement and intimidation on, to push the Lebanese to resort to arms and internal fighting.

The most important item of that agreement is urgent now; all of us Lebanese must abide by the item on stopping the incitement. Even if we go to reconciliations, we have to stop incitement.

Regarding the Tripoli events, problems occurred at times between pro-government and opposition groups. If we review the media and ask the question, who described what was happening in Tripoli as Sunni-Alawi fighting?

Who took the subject toward sectarianism and confessional tension?

The opposition or some of those from the other camp?

A high degree of sectarian and religious incitement goes on being manufactured, and when that volcano reaches a point of explosion, we are meant to douse its flames in brief moments!

This makes the situation difficult and complicated.

The most important thing is to stop incitement. Once incitement is ceased, the smallest and biggest issues in the country take their natural size.

To give an example, just like what happened in the last two days in Lassa, a village in Jubail's mountainous region.

An old dispute occurred over a location, an age old dispute, its roots go back to at time before there were pro-government and opposition camps, before Hizbullah or the Free Patriotic Movement and before all those involved came to exist, a dispute dating back decades at the least.

In this dispute two parties are involved over a location, and it can be remedied either through the judicial system or through a negotiated settlement, and we are working to solve the issue.
This is the size of the entire issue.

But what are we to do, when there are people who want to work on their parliamentary election campaigns in Jubail?

The problem now is that of a coming election!

Now, how do some parties get votes in elections...through sectarian and religious incitement!

Today, a small location in Lassa turns into a threat to Islamic-Christian co-existence, according to some politicians from the other camp, and places the Shiaa Muslims and Christians at the doors of sedition!

Not true. Utter lies that could not be further from the truth. This is to inflate an issue and intimidate people.

The other day, when General Aoun talked about a newspaper which said "Martyr pilot Samer Hanna was killed in cold blood!", he asked for the paper to be prosecuted, igniting an uproar.

In the beginning we dealt with the situation from the base point that what that particular newspaper wrote is no different to many other papers.

For example the Kuwaiti Al-Siasah newspaper wrote the other day with great innovation (sarcastically speaking) that those who placed the bomb to assassinate martyr Sheikh Saleh Aridi are from al-Dahiya southern suburb!

They (Al-Siasah personnel) came to this peace of information, while sitting quietly in Kuwait.

The reason why Al-Siyasah Newspaper can be so innovative, is naturally because it is part of the 'Israeli'-American subversive and destructive media kitchen, which works on disseminating great number of lies and rumours...a paper we have long decided not to respond to, nor its claims deny, because to deny, we have to set up a full time team specially catered to denying its lies on daily basis, as it is a paper founded on lies.

In the face of such newspapers, we did not want to respond or deny, but recently I became convinced that we have to initiate legal proceedings against the particular newspaper accusing us of killing in cold blood, then those who want to hold a sit-in can do so against a paper whose claims are slanderous, unjust and utter lies.

These days when a small incident occurs, it gets blown out of proportion, like what happened today and yesterday in the Talbaya and Saadnayel villages.

In a period of tension two passing young men had a fight. One day some people from one of the disputing villages kill a person, on another day others from the other village hit back by killing one.

This is the size of the dispute.

But in this case, someone turns the situation to a huge issue...why? Because of the political climate and media hype!

If we manage to reach an agreement on ceasing incitement and on a media calm God willing, and since everyone at the national dialogue table is honest, then I would bring the good news to the
Lebanese that we are all capable of handling all occurring issues and events.

Such events have two interpretations.

One is that some of these issues are caused by incitement and the incitement climate.

Other issues are not caused by incitement, but due by those who slip into the scene and actively work on creating sedition.

I like to ask, who carried those hand grenades to throw them on Corniche Mazraa?


No Lebanese or human being with the smallest amount of morality and honour would go at midnight to throw grenades among people, just like that!

It is these same sides that come to kill Sheikh Saleh Al-Aridi, because Sheikh Saleh Al-Aridi's primary role and position is clear; many people do not want the Druze communicating with each other, nor do they want the Lebanese Democratic Party communicating with the Progressive Socialist Party, or Hizbullah communicating with the Progressive Socialist Party or with its surroundings. Maybe the goal of this killing is to drag these parties to fight against each other, hence drag the resistance to fighting as well, through the distribution of accusations.

Bomb packages that kill are placed by some, while others are ready with their media package on satellite channels, newspapers and platforms, to complement the role of the deadly explosive packages.

This is the structure we face, that exists today.

The doorway to remedying these issues is through the cessation of incitement.

If incitement is stopped, we can secure the reconciliation in the north, we can consolidate the Talbaya-Saadnayel reconciliation in the Bekaa, we can also secure the reconciliation that took place yesterday between Hizbullah and the Progressive Socialist Party under the patronage of Prince Talal Arslan and complete the reconciliations.

Reconciliations will not stop at this point, they will continue to Beirut and beyond to other Lebanese parts, because there is supposed to be a climate of reconciliation in Lebanon.

Reconciliation does not mean switching alliances. Each party or side can remain in their respective political positions, through reconciliation we would be saying let us not shoot each other, let us not conspire against one another.

... Not kill one another, nor charge the social climate with tension to the extent that people shoot each other, the democratic political process remains the only governing mean between us. There are elections, dialogue, people, supporters, and we respect the public will.

This is the goal of reconciliation, to create this climate, a climate of a secure civil peace, of security and stability, a calm atmosphere that leads to reasonable parliamentary elections.

There are people who seem to need a civil war to profit in the parliamentary elections, to become MPs. This is the biggest act of treason committed by anyone in this country.

Any reconciliation we achieve or work on does not target anyone nor is it aimed at isolating anyone. Like we said in the press conference the day the memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed between Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM)... we said that this MOU is not aimed at a sect, religion or political movement, particularly since there are items that concern the country, its future and its fate.

Incidentally, the closing statement today reaffirmed all the decisions of the national dialogue, and I invite you all to compare the decisions of the national dialogue, and the items of the MOU between Hizbullah and the FPM, and you will find that they are the same.

Had the other camp agreed with us back then, huge efforts and considerable concern for the Lebanese would have been spared.

Today, when Hizbullah reconciles with the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), or with the Future Movement, or between Hizbullah and any other side, this is not aimed at isolating anyone or at breaking existing alliances because we have our own alliances, relationships and posts which we value and are keen to preserve.

We are serious in this dialogue and as I said sometime ago, again we renew the call to expand
the participation at the dialogue table, due to the necessity to hear the legitimate demands of some Lebanese political forces, because these forces ought to be heard through their representation at the dialogue table. This is what Hizbullah's representative at the dialogue table said today.

We demand and insist on this expansion of the dialogue table to include the representation of key political forces and sides.

Some might ask the question why?

Is this insistence by Hizbullah to foil the dialogue?

I say no, we want to make it succeed.

What we are saying is expand the circle of attendees. Here I am not discussing the presence of some of the representatives at the dialogue table, the way some are trying to put it.

We respect those present, and do not call for canceling or exempting anyone effectively present, such point has not been put forward...

The dialogue table must be expanded to include key political forces and sides. We do not want to foil the dialogue but make it successful.

Consequently the following question is raised: 'Why did you (Hizbullah) accept discussing the defensive strategy before the July war, without demanding an expansion at the time?

Why demand an expansion now?'

'You (Hizbullah) therefore do not want the dialogue. Rather, you want to complicate it.'
We had agreed with those present in the debate before the July war, yes, but there is a difference now after the war, and this difference is obvious; the difference between the last session prior to the war two years ago and now is the July War.

The July war changed the country, the region, and in all modesty, changed the world, as I will explain how at the end of this discourse.

It changed many military schools in the world...hence, no; of course there is a fundamental difference before the war and after it, to us the main subject is loyalty and ethics.

Since we are moving into new political climate, I would put it mildly and say that there are political sides in Lebanon, whose roles and conduct during the war were at minimum incomprehensible'.

I will not say more there.

There are key forces as well in Lebanon who stood by the resistance during the war, who supported it and made sacrifices alongside it, they bound their fates with that of the resistance, in such a way, that a defeated resistance would have definitely placed their existence in danger.

Loyalty to forces that stood by the resistance during the July war, calls on us to resolutely demand their inclusion at the head of the dialogue table, not even at its tail end, at the head of a table convening to discuss Lebanon's defense and protection because these forces took part in defending and protecting Lebanon.

Yes, the July War is the main difference.

We will follow up this request in earnest and during this present interval between the last and next meeting; I know that intensive consultations with different political forces will be held to achieve this goal, God willing.

Therefore, with everyone attending, serious and responsible discussions can be open to wider consensus.

Of course we call for this expansion not because we want to strengthen ourselves, no, not at all. Those currently representing and defending the resistance are equal to millions; it is not an issue of numbers. Rather the subject at hand is one of fate, strategy and ethics all combined in one.

Ethics and nationalist values deem necessary the presence of representation, at the national dialogue table, of those who stood by the resistance and Lebanon, who preserved, defended, honored and helped Lebanon win the July war.

Within this context, we reach the conclusion I am about to share with you and I invite everyone to benefit from the experience that occurred here in Lebanon.

Two or three days ago, a respected specialized 'Israeli' Internet site relayed the following "...a high military source in the United States Army", you remember the subject of Georgia and Russia, the Georgian army was being trained and equipped, by American and 'Israeli' experts.
Even Georgia's Minister of Defense holds an 'Israeli' citizenship; which means he holds two citizenships; he is an 'Israeli' who was in 'Israel', who then went to Georgia and became defense minister.

There is no doubt the Americans pushed the Georgians to wage war, but they did not anticipate such harsh response from Russia.

Hence, Georgia's army incurred defeat.

Now in light of this experience, the Americans are re-evaluating the situation, to work out how to re-build the Georgian army.

This high level source says, quoting the Chief of Staff in the United States armies and not only a commander of a Central Command region or the like, no, the Chief of Staff of the United States Armies says: "we must build the Georgian army in the likeness of Hizbullah!"

He goes on to explain saying: "Georgia is like Lebanon..."

Anyway, the Chief of Staff says, or a high level officer quoting the Chief of Staff as saying: "Because Hizbullah introduced a new model, where a small force was capable of inflicting defeat against a large army, because Hizbullah was able to incorporate the use of modern weapons, the deployment of infantry forces together with organizing guerrilla warfare."

For your information and you can ask soldiers and generals, that the military model presented by the resistance in Lebanon, here I am not talking about ethics, politics and morale, but about a military model born from Lebanese ingenuity unparalleled in the history of human wars.

We have benefited from all past experiences and inventions of the young Lebanese brothers at their forefront martyr Imad Moghnieh (God bless his soul).

Today the American is saying: "I want to take this experience and form a Hizbullah-style Georgian army, teach them to fight using Hizbullah methods and tactics, especially since Georgia (the person relaying the news continues) also has mountains, valleys, villages and cities like Lebanon, it then would be possible to clone the Hizbullah experience of Lebanon in Georgia." (To defeat not the 'Israeli' army but the Russian army, because this is the extent to which the Americans are convinced by this experience and model)

He then adds: "that Chief of Staff of the armies of America said: We in the armies of America also need to benefit from Hizbullah's tactics and methods in fighting."

Tonight with you! ... I direct an appeal to political and military leaders in Lebanon and say, when officers, generals and Chiefs of staff from all over the world go to study theories, experiences and fighting schools from all over the world, today they find the Lebanese provided a new school in fighting. Today we have an experience that is neither Western nor Oriental, not from the Americans nor the Soviets... An experience manufactured for the first time here in Lebanon.

Those who claim concern for sovereignty, especially who overstate this concern, must be more extreme and uncompromising to the benefit of all that which is made in Lebanon, such as the resistance-experience!

Best of wishes for the season and May peace, God's mercy and blessings be with you.