Sayyed Nasrallah: Hizbullah´s New Political Manifesto.. We Want Lebanon Strong & United
Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah announced on Monday the Resistance party's new Political manifesto that was approved during the party's General Conference that lasted for months.
Sayyed Nasrallah held a press conference via giant screen to declare the new political document. Prominent Lebanese, Arab and international journalists as well as some Hizbullah leaders and various political figures-such as H.E. Sayyed Ibrahim Al Amine, head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc Haj Mohammad Raad attended the conference.
The following is the political manifesto of Hizbullah announced by His Eminence:
The manifesto, of 32 pages, includes an introduction, three chapters as well as a conclusion that deals with Hizbullah's vision towards the world, the US-Western hegemony and American project in the region. It also deals with the internal issues of Lebanon, its government and political system, resistance in the face of the enemy, the Lebanese-Palestinian relations, Arab-Islamic and International relations. Not to mention that it deals with the Hizbullah's vision concerning Palestine, the Zionist entity, Al Quds, Al Aqsa mosque, the Palestinian resistance and finally the reconciliation negotiations.
This political document aims at characterizing the political vision of the party and includes its visions, stands, and ambitions. It also comes as a result of the liability of sacrifice and action which we have well experienced.
At an outstanding time crowded with changes, it is no longer possible to address such transformations without noting the special stand our resistance has reached or the package of achievements that we have accomplished.
And it will be a necessity to address these transformations through two paths:
The first is the path of Resistance and its growth, that refuges to the military and political victories as well as spreading out the Resistance socially and politically in addition to refraining to positions and political stances, despite the massive targets and huge challenges, to the extent that it can affect the balance of power in the region for the benefit of the Resistance and its supporters.
The second is the path of the US-"Israeli" arrogance and supremacy in its different dimensions and extensions which is witnessing military defeats as well as political failures, that reflected a collapse in the US strategy and its plans one after the other, which affected the power to control the path of developments and events in our Arab and Islamic world, through a state of deterioration and inefficiency.
These data integrate in the comprehensive framework of a broader international scene which exposes the decline of U.S. "unipolar" hegemony.
And what deepens the international hegemony system impasse are the collapses in the financial markets and the entry of the US economy in a situation of disarray and deficiency which mirrors the profundity of the crisis.
Therefore, it's possible to say that we are amid historical transformations that predict the retreat of the US role as an omnipotent power, the break of the unipolar system and the historical immediate demise of the Zionist entity.
The resistance movements stand at the heart of international transformations and emanate as a strategic factor in the international scene after performing a central role in producing those transformations in our region.
The Resistance in Lebanon was the first to fight occupation, during more than two decades and a half.. It adopted this option at the time where U.S. era was at its peak, of where it was pictured as if it was the end of hitory, and at that time some considered the option of resistance amidst the balance of powers, at that time, as political tendency which is contrary to the obligations of rationality and realism.
Despite all of this, the resistance perceived through its struggling path, believing in its case and in its power to reach victory, through having faith in God the Almighty, belonging to the nation as a whole, and through being committed to Lebanese national benefits, having faith in its people and cherishing human values with respect to rights, justice, and freedom.
Through its long struggling path and its marked victories, starting from the withdrawal of the "Israeli" occupation from Beirut, the mountains, Saida, Tyre, and Nabatieh during the 1993 and April 1996 war, back to the May 2000 victory, and ending with the June 2006 war. The Resistance maintained its honesty and plans, before making victory and has developed from a liberation power to a balance and confrontation one, to a defense and deterrence one, in addition to its internal political role as an influencing foundation in building the just and capable state.
In this context, Hezbollah defines the main headlines that constitutes a political and intellectual framework of its vision and stances towards the challenges.
CHAPTER ONE - Domination and Hegemony
SECTION 1 - American-Western Hegemony and the world
Following World War II, the United States became the centre of polarization and hegemony in the world; as such a project witnessed tremendous development on the levels of domination and subjugation that is unprecedented in history, making use and taking advantage of the multifaceted achievements on the several levels of knowledge, culture, technology, economy as well as the military level- that are supported by an economic-political system that only views the world as markets that are to abide by the American view.
The most dangerous aspect in the western hegemony-the American one precisely- is that they consider themselves owners of the world and therefore, this expanding strategy along with the economic-capitalist project has become a "western expanding strategy" that turned to be an international scheme of limitless greed.
Savage capitalism forces- embodied mainly in international monopoly networks of companies that cross the nations and continents, networks of various international establishments especially the financial ones backed by superior military force have led to more contradictions and conflicts -of which not less important- are the conflicts of identities, cultures, civilizations, in addition to the conflicts of poverty and wealth.
These savage capitalism forces have turned into mechanisms of sowing dissension and destruction of identities as well as imposing the most dangerous type of cultural, national, economic as well as social theft.
Globalization has reached its most dangerous facet when it turned into a military one led by those following the Western scheme of domination- of which it was most reflected in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, where the latter's share was the July 2006 aggression by the "Israelis".
This plot found its peak with the neoconservative grip under the administration of George Bush since their project found its way to execution after he was sworn in. It was neither weird nor surprising that what the neoconservative platform focused on the most was rebuilding US capabilities; which reflected a strategic vision of US national security through building military strategies not only as a force of deterrence but also as a force of action and intervention.
Following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration found that the opportunity was appropriate to exercise the largest possible influence under the slogan of "universal war against terrorism". It has performed many attempts that were considered as successful in the beginning based on the following:
1- Militarizing relationships and foreign policies with other countries to the utmost.
2- Monopolizing decision-making, by taking strategic decisions, relying on coordination only at times of necessity and exclusively with allies that can be trusted.
3- Rapidly ending war in Afghanistan to have the maximum amount of time for the next step, consequently; taking over Iraq which is considered as the foundation of launching the New Middle East project in conformity with the world's demands post the 11 September incident.
The Bush administration was not hesitant about resorting to all means of deceive, mislead, and diversion as to justify its wars, particularly its war on Iraq, and against all those who fight and resist its colonialist scheme, whether entities, nations, or movements.
Furthermore, the Bush administration sought to establish conformity between "terrorism" and "Resistance", in order to strip off the latter's humanitarian and legal legitimacies and by that justify its wars against these movements, seeking to remove the fundamental right of the nations of defending their right to live with dignity and national sovereignty, and by removing their role in the human historical movement, culture not to mention civilization.
Terrorism has turned into an American pretext of hegemony through many tools such as pursuit, arbitrary detention, unjust trials witnessed in Guantanamo as well as through direct meddling in the sovereignty of other countries and states, in addition to imposing sanctions against complete nations, giving itself the right to launching destructive wars that know no difference between the guilty and the innocent and does not differentiate between the man, woman, elderly or child.
So far, not only these US wars have caused tremendous mass destruction, but also have cost millions of lives, and not only affected concrete but also societies and nations of where it was shattered. This hegemony has aimed at producing civil conflicts of various sect and religious dimensions, not to forget targeting the culture and civilization of these nations.
There is no doubt that the American Terrorism is the origin of all terrorism in this world. The Bush administration has turned the United States into a threat menacing the whole world on all levels and dimensions, and if an international survey was to be made, the US would turn out to be the most hated in the world.
The failure of the US war on Iraq and the development of the resistance their, in addition to the regional and international abhorrence to the results of the war, and the failure of the so called " War on Terrorism" especially in Afghanistan, as well as the complete US failure in Lebanon and Palestine through "Israeli" tools, led to the wear away of American fear as well as a decline in the strategies and capabilities of the US to seek new adventures.
Yet this failure does not mean the US will easily stop interfering, but will make an effort to protect what it calls "strategic interests", that is because the US hegemonic policies are based on ideological considerations, and mind plans that are nourished by diversities allied with an industrial- military complex that has limitless greed and avariciousness.
SECTION 2 - Our region and the American Scheme
Indeed, if the whole world was suffering from the American hegemony, the Arab and Islamic nations seem to suffer even more for many considerations related to history, civilization, culture, as well as geographical site.
Since decades, the Arab and Islamic world has always been subject to endless wild and savage wars. However, this hegemony's most dangerous phase took place with the creation of the Zionist entity and its embedment in the region, which is part of the scheme to divide and detach nations of the region into entities in constant conflict under different titles. This colonial stage has reached the plot of the US colonial inheritance in the region.
The central goal of the American hegemony resides in dominating the nations politically, economically, culturally and through all aspects. It also resides in looting the treasures and resources of the region, topping these resources is fuel, as it is the base of controlling the world economy not to mention resorting to all merciless, inhumane and unethical means including the use of extreme military power whether directly or through a mediator.
To achieve this goal, Washington resorted to different general policies and work strategies, of which the most outstanding are:
1- Providing the Zionist entity with stability guarantees, in such a way that allows this entity to play the role of a cancerous gland that absorbs and sucks out all the energies and capabilities of the nation as to destruct its ambitions and aims.
2- Manacling the spiritual, civil and cultural capabilities of our people and aiming at weakening its morals through media and psychological wars in order to affect the image and symbols of the resistance and its struggle.
3- Supporting the systems of dictatorship and tyranny as well as subjection in the region.
4- Taking control of the geographical strategic points in the region whether land, air, or water and spreading military bases in its vital locations as to back up its wars in the region.
5- Disallowing any movement in the region from rising and possessing means of power and development as to play a major role in the world history.
6- Creating and embedding sedition and divisions of all types, especially sectarian ones among Muslims, to create limitless internal civil clashes.
It is very obvious that the only way to view any conflict in any region worldwide is through a strategic international dimension, as the American threat is not only local in this region, and does not affect one place without the other. Therefore; the front of confrontation with this American threat should be international as well.
There is no doubt this confrontation is delicate and difficult, it is a battle of a historical aspect, a battle of generations that requires benefiting every single assumed power and ability. Our experience in Lebanon had taught us that difficulty does not imply impossibility, rather means we are ready to utmost levels, people and authority for all possibilities, ready to achieve victories.
The American arrogance has left no choice to our nation and people but the choice of resistance, at least for a better life, and for a humanitarian future, a future governed by relations of brotherhood, solidarity and diversity at the same time in a world of peace and harmony, exactly as was drawn by our prophets and great leaders throughout history and is it in the expectations and admirations of the human soul.
SECTION 1 - The Homeland
Lebanon is our homeland and the homeland of our fathers and ancestors. It is also the homeland of our children, grandchildren, and the future generations. It is the country to which we have given our most precious sacrifices for its independence and pride, dignity and freedom.
We want a unified Lebanon for all Lebanese alike. We oppose any kind of partition or federalism, whether apparent or disguised. We want Lebanon to be sovereign, free, independent, strong and competent. We also want it to be powerful, active, and present in the geopolitics of the region. We want it also to be an influential provider in making the present and the future as it was always present in making the history.
One of the most important conditions for the establishment of a home of this type and its persistence is having a strong, capable and just state, in addition to a political system which truly represents the will of the people and their aspirations for justice and freedom, security and stability, well-being and dignity. This is what all the Lebanese people seek and work to achieve and we are a part of them.
SECTION 2 - The Resistance
"Israel" embodies an eternal threat to Lebanon - the State and the entity - and a real hazard to the country in terms of its historical cravings in land and water especially that Lebanon is considered to be a model of coexistence in a unique formula that opposes with the idea of the racist state which expresses itself in the Zionist entity. Moreover, Lebanon's location at the borders of occupied Palestine urged it to abide national and pan-Arab responsibilities.
The "Israeli" threat to this country started since the establishment of the Zionist entity in the land of Palestine, an entity that did not falter to divulge its aspirations to occupy some parts of Lebanon and to grasp its wealth, mainly its water. Thus, it sought to achieve these ambitions progressively.
This entity began its aggression on Lebanon since 1948 from the border to the depth of the country, from the Houla massacre in 1949 to the aggression on the Beirut International Airport in 1968, including long years of assaults on border areas, their land, population and wealth, as a preface to confiscate direct land through repeated invasions, leading to the March 1978 invasion and the occupation of the border area, making its people subject to its influence at all levels, as a prelude to suppress the whole country in the invasion of 1982.
All of this was taking place with a full back of the United States and ignorance until the level of collusion of the so-called international community and its institutions in the midst of a suspicious Arab official silence and an absence of the Lebanese authority at the time leaving the land and people subject to the "Israeli" occupation without assuming its responsibilities and national duties.
Under this immense national tragedy, the Lebanese, who are loyal to their homeland didn't have the choice but to use their right and persist from their national duty and moral and religious in the defense of their land. Thus, their choice was: the launch of an armed popular resistance to face the Zionist danger and permanent hostility.
In such difficult circumstances, the process of renovating the nation through armed resistance started, paving the way for liberating the land and the political choice from the hands of the "Israeli" occupation as a prelude to the restitution of the State and the building of its constitutional institutions.
The Resistance has coroneted all these dimensions together through achieving the Liberation in 2000 and the historic victory in July 2006, presenting to the whole world a true experience in defending the homeland, an experience that became a school from which nations and states benefit to protect their territory, defend their independent and preserve their sovereignty.
This national achievement was made real thanks to the support of a loyal nation and a national army, thus exasperating the enemy's aims and causing him a historic defeat, allowing the Resistance to celebrate along with its fighters and martyrs as well as all of Lebanon through its nation and army the great victory that opened a new chapter in the region entitled crucial role and function of the resistance to daunt the enemy and guarantee the protection of the country's independence, sovereignty and defend its people and carry out the liberation of the rest of the occupied territory.
The Resistance role is a national necessity as long as the "Israeli" threats and aspirations persist. Therefore, and in the deficiency of strategic balance between the state and the enemy, the "Israeli" threat urges Lebanon to approve a defensive strategy that depends on a popular resistance participating in defending the country and an army that maintains the security of the country, in a complementarily process that proved to be triumphant through the preceding stage.
This formula, evolved from within the defensive strategy, composes an umbrella of protection for Lebanon, especially after the malfunction of other speculations on the umbrellas, whether international or Arab, or negotiating with the enemy. The adoption of the Resistance choice in Lebanon achieved its role in liberating the land, restoring the State institutions and defending the sovereignty. Afterwards, the Lebanese are concerned with safeguarding and maintaining this format because the "Israeli" danger terrorizes Lebanon in all its components, which requires the widest Lebanese participation in assuming responsibilities of defense.
Finally, the accomplishment of the Resistance experience in fighting the enemy and the failure of all plots and schemes to erase resistance movements or besieging them or even disarming them annexed to the extension of the "Israeli" threat in Lebanon obligates the Resistance to do its best to reinforce its abilities and join its strengths to assume its national responsibilities and liberate what remains under the "Israeli" occupation in the Shibaa farms and Kfarshouba hills and the Lebanese town of Ghajar as well as liberating the detainees and missing people and martyrs' bodies, and participating in the role of defending and protecting the land and people.
SECTION 3 - State and Political System
The major problem in the Lebanese political system, which thwarts its reform, development and regular updating, is political sectarianism.
The fact that the Lebanese political system was founded on a sectarian basis represents in itself a strong restriction to the achievement of true democracy where an elected majority can rule and an elected minority can oppose, opening the door for a proper exchange of power between the loyalty and the opposition or the various political coalitions. Thus, abrogating sectarianism is a basic condition for the execution of the majority-minority rule.
Yet, and until the Lebanese could achieve through their national dialogue this historic and sensitive accomplishment, which is the abrogation of political sectarianism, and since the political system in Lebanon is established on sectarian foundations, the homogenous democracy will linger the fundamental basis for governance in Lebanon, because it is the actual quintessence of the spirit of the constitution and the core of the Charter of the co-existence.
From here, any approach to the national issues according to the equation of the majority and minority anticipates the achievement of the historic and social conditions for the exercise of effectual democracy in which the citizen becomes a value in itself.
Meanwhile, the Lebanese will to live together in dignity and equal rights and duties needs a beneficial collaboration in order to merge the principle of true partnership, which constitutes the most suitable formula to protect the full diversity and stability after a period of instability caused by the different policies based on the affinity towards monopoly, deletion and exclusion.
The consensual democracy represents a proper political formula to assure true partnership and contributes in opening the doors for everyone to join the phase of building the reassuring state.
Our vision for the State that we should build together in Lebanon is embodied in the State that protects public freedoms, the State that is devoted to national unity, the State that protects its land, people, and sovereignty, the State that has a national, strong and prepared army, the State that is structured under the base of modern, effective and cooperative institutions.
It is the State that is dedicated to the application of laws on all its citizens without discrimination, the State that pledges a correct and right parliamentary representation based on a modern election law that permits the voters of choosing their representative away from pressures, the State that depends on capable people despite their religious beliefs and that identifies mechanisms to battle corruption in administration, the State that enjoys an independent and non-politicized Justice authority, the State that sets up its economy chiefly according to the producing sectors and works on uniting them especially the agriculture and industry ones, the State that pertains the principle of balanced development between all regions, the State that cares for its people and works to offer them with appropriate services, the State that takes care of the youth generation and help young people to build up their energies and talents, the State that works to fuse the role of women at all levels, the State that care for education and work to reinforce the official schools and universities alongside applying the principle of obligatory teaching, the State that adopts a decentralized system, the State that works hard to prevent emigration and the State that guards its people all over the world and protects them and benefits from their positions to dish up the national causes.
The establishment of a state based on these specifications and conditions is an objective to us just like it's the objective of every honest and sincere Lebanese. In Hizbullah, we will wield all possible efforts, in assistance with the popular and political forces, to attain this noble national objective.
SECTION 4 - Lebanese-Palestinian ties
One of the tragic consequences of the emergence of the Zionist entity on the land of Palestine and the displacement of its inhabitants is the problem of Palestinian refugees who moved to Lebanon to live temporarily in its land as guests to their fellow Lebanese until returning to their homes from where they were expelled.
The original and direct reason of the sufferance of Lebanese and Palestinians was actually the "Israeli" occupation of Palestine and all the resulting tragedies and calamities in the entire region.
Moreover, the suffering of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon was not limited to the pain of forced migration but also to the "Israeli" massacres and atrocities which destructed concrete and man, just like what happened in the Nabatiyeh camp that was fully destroyed. This suffering also includes the harsh living circumstances in the refugee camps that lack the basic necessities of a descent life, deprivation of civil and social rights as well as the negligence of the Lebanese government towards them as it did not fulfill its duties.
The Lebanese authorities are now-a-days called to assume their responsibilities and therefore build the Lebanese-Palestinian relations under right, solid and legal basis that respect the justice, rights and mutual interests' balances to both nations. It is very essential that the Lebanese-Palestinian relationship become free from being governed by the whims and moods, as well as political calculations, internal interactions, and international interventions.
We believe that succeeding in this mission requires:
- A Lebanese-Palestinian direct dialogue
- A permission for Palestinians in Lebanon to agree on a unified reference that represents them in dialogue.
- Providing Palestinian refugees with their social and civilian rights, in such a way that suits their humanity, preserves their identity and cause.
- Commitment to the Right of Return and rejecting settlement.
SECTION 5 - Lebanon and the Arab Ties
Lebanon of the Arab identity and belonging and that has a vital geographical dimension, enjoys strategic depth and policies of regional integrity and national interests, and is committed to the just and fair Arab causes, at the top of which comes the Palestinian cause as well as the conflict with the "Israeli" enemy.
Even more, there is a definite need for concerted efforts to overcome the conflicts that run through the Arab ranks.
The contradiction of strategies and the difference of alliances, despite their seriousness and intensity, do not justify the policies of targeting or engaging in external projects, based on the deepening discord and inciting sectarianism, leading to the exhaustion of the nation and therefore serving the Zionist enemy in the implementation of the purposes of America.
Indeed, developing the political practice aiming at restricting conflicts, organizing or even preventing them from happening in first place is a good option to be adopted in order to ripen a selective approach in dealing with national issues, not to mention searching for common factors that can also enhance these practices, provide chances of communication on the levels of the people and the governments in order to provide the broadest platform of solidarity to serve our causes and goals.
The Resistance choice constitutes once again a central need and an objective factor in strengthening the Arab stance and weakening the enemy, away from the determined nature of strategies or political stakes.
Therefore, the resistance finds no problem in providing the different Arab regions with the benefits of the resistance choice, as long as this pours into weakening
the enemy and strengthening as well as firming the Arab stand.
Hence, we emphasize the need to adhere to the distinguished relations between Lebanon and Syria as a common political, security, and economic need, dictated by the interests of the two countries and two peoples, by the imperatives of geopolitics and the requirements for Lebanese stability and facing common challenges. We also call for an end to all the negative sentiment that have marred bilateral ties in the past few years and urge these relations to return to their normal status as soon as possible.
In this context, Syria has recorded a distinctive attitude and supported the resistance movements in the region, and stood beside us in the most difficult circumstances, and sought to unify Arab efforts to secure the interests of the region and challenges.
SECTION 6 - Lebanon and Islamic Relations
The Arab and Islamic world is facing challenges that shouldn't be undermined. Indeed, the sectarian fabricated conflicts, especially between Sunnis and Shiites, the fabricated contradictory national facts between Arabs, Turks and Kurds as well as between Arabs and Iranians, the threatening of minorities, the constant draining of Christians in the Middle East particularly Palestine and Iraq not to mention Lebanon, all these threaten the cohesiveness of our societies, decreases levels of cohesion and increases barriers and impediments in the face of its development.
Therefore, and instead of being a source of wealth and social vitality, the sectarian diversities seem to be exploited as factors of division and incitement as well as a means of social destruction.
The situation resulting from this bad use seems to be the result of the intersection of Western deliberate policies, the US in particular, internal irresponsible practices and visions in addition to an unstable political environment.
Hizbullah emphasizes the necessity of cooperation between the Islamic states at the different levels, to gain strength in confronting hegemony schemes. Such cooperation also serves in facing the cultural invasion of the community and media, and encourages the Islamic states to take advantage of its resources in the exchange of the different benefits between these countries. It is very essential and necessary to take these facts into consideration, and should be one of the core interests of power agendas, political guidelines, including the Islamic movements that are responsible of facing these challenges and solving these problems.
In this context, Hizbullah considers Iran as a central state in the Muslim world, since it is the State that dropped through its revolution the Shah's regime and its American-"Israeli" projects, and it is also the state that supported the resistance movements in our region, and stood with courage and determination at the side of the Arab and Islamic causes and especially the Palestinian one.
The policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is clear and stable in supporting the central and main cause of the Arabs and Muslims- the Palestinian cause. Since the declaration of the victory of the Islamic Revolution under the leadership of Wali Al Faqih Imam Khomeini (May Allah honour his soul), and since the replacement of the "Israeli" embassy with a Palestinian one, this support has been ongoing in the different shapes and forms until our day under the leadership of Imam Khamenei (may he live long). This has lead to the achievement of outstanding victories for the very first time in the history of the struggle with the Zionist invaders.
The fabrication of some Arab parties of conflict with Iran represents self defamation, as well as a denouncement to the Arab causes and only serves "Israel" and the United States of America.
Iran has presented nothing but support for the main cause- the Palestinian cause and resentment towards "Israel". It has also confronted the American policies, and headed towards integrating with the Arab and Islamic environments. The response to such actions should be cooperation, brotherhood, and a centre of awakening and strategic weight as well as a model for independence and liberty that supports the Arab-Islamic project. It should be viewed as a power that boosts the strength and might of the people of our region.
The Islamic world gains strength with his allies and the cooperation of his countries. We assure the importance of benefiting from the elements of the political, humanitarian, and economic power available in each and every country of the Islamic world, on the basis of integration and non-subjection to the invaders.
We remind of the importance of unity among Muslims, as Allah the Almighty said in his holy book: "And hold fast, all together, by the rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves" (Sourat Al Imran-verse 103).
We also remind of the importance of cautiousness from sectarian sensitivities-especially between Sunnis and Shiites, as we wager on the conscience of the Muslims in facing the conspiracies and schemes on this level.
SECTION 7 - Lebanon and International Relations
According to Hizbullah's vision and approach, the criteria of divergence and conflict are based upon political-moral grounds, primarily between the arrogant and wretched, the oppressor and oppressed, the haughty occupier and a pursuer of freedom.
Hizbullah considers that the unilateral hegemony in the world overthrows the international balance and stability as well as the international peace and security.
The unlimited US support for "Israel" and its cover for the "Israeli" occupation of Arab lands annexed, in addition to the American domination of international institutions, the dualism in criteria of issuing and applying international policies, the American meddling in various states' affairs, the adoption of the principle of circulating wars worldwide, causing disturbance and instability all around the world puts the American administration in the position of the aggressor and holds it responsible in producing chaos in the international political system.
As for the European policies, they hang between being barely effective on one side and being a follower to the American policies on the other, and this actually leads to the hollowing out the moderate drift in Europe and pours in the service of the "Atlantic drift" of colonial backgrounds.
Following American policies- especially in its phase of historic failure- represents a strategic mistake that will only lead to more problems and complications in the European-Arab relations.
Europe holds responsibility for the damage it has caused due to the colonial "inheritance" it has left behind - of which our people still suffer from the consequences and results.
Since some European people have a history in resisting the occupier, Europe's ethical and humanitarian duty-before being a political duty- is to acknowledge the right of the people to resisting the occupier, on the bases of distinguishing between resistance and terrorism.
We think that the stability and cooperation in European- Arab relations require a European approach that is more independent, just, and objective. Building a common vital dimension would be unfeasible-politically speaking and security wise as well- without this transformation that should guarantee solving the sources of trouble that cause crisis and instability.
On the other hand, we look at the experience of independence and liberation that rejects hegemony in the countries of Latin America with a lot of respect, attention, and appreciation. We see vast intersection platforms between their project and the project of resistance movements in our region, which leads to constructing a more just and balanced international system.
Such an experience-that of Latin America- brings hope on the international level, in the light of a common humane identity, and a common political and moral background. In this context, the slogan "unity of the wretched" remains a major and basic pillar of our political intellect in building our relations, assents and comprehension towards international issues.
CHAPTER THREE - Palestine and Compromise negotiations
SECTION 1 - Palestine and the Zionist entity
The history of the Arab-"Israeli" conflict proves that armed struggle and military resistance is the best way of ending the occupation. The method of negotiations has proven that the Zionist entity becomes more boastful and more belligerent, and that it has no intention of reaching an accord. The resistance has managed to achieve a huge victory over the Zionist entity, provide the homeland with protection, and liberation of the remainder of its land.
This function is a lasting necessity before "Israel's" expansionist threats and ambitions as well as the lack of a strong government in Lebanon. The ongoing "Israeli" threat forces the resistance to continue to boost its capacity ... in order to fulfill its role in liberating occupied territory.
We categorically reject any compromise with Israel or recognizing its legitimacy, this position is definitive, even if everyone recognizes "Israel".
SECTION 2- Palestinian Resistance
The Palestinian while going through the battle of self defense and struggling to maintain his civil rights that are set in Palestine throughout its historical meaning and geographical reality is doing nothing but adopting a legitimate right that has been put by all religions, international laws, values and humanity.
This right includes the Resistance in all shapes, and ahead of it is the armed forces, and the use of all means that the Palestinian resistance can use, especially with the presence of impunity towards the Zionist enemy that is armed with the latest atrocious and destructive weapon.
Experience has proved -and has made clear, with no doubt throughout the struggle between our nation and the Zionist entity, since its occupation of Palestine and till now- the importance and significance of the choice of the Resistance and the armed forces facing the enemy, liberating the land, regaining the legitimate rights, maintaining neutral language, and the closure of the expanded strategy, through the equations that were forced by the resistance through its capabilities, will, and determination at the battle field.
The best witness and evidence on this is the achievements of victories of the Resistance in Lebanon, and what it has built from its moral and martial accomplishments throughout its battle experience, especially when forcing the Zionists to the Huge "Israeli" withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese lands at May 2000, and the complete failure of the "Israeli" army during July War year 2006, of where the Resistance achieved a divine, historical and strategic victory that changed the battle equation entirely, and defeated the "Israeli" enemy with high credibility, and crushed the legend of the army that can never be defeated.
Another evidence on that is what the Palestinian resistance has achieved from continuous accomplishments through the Palestinian Revolution experience, and the method of the armed struggle that has been taken, and through the first Intifada, and the second Al-Aqsa Intifada, reaching the brutal collapse of the "Israeli" army during the complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip year 2005, with no pre-conditions, negotiations, or agreements, and without any political, security, or geographical desires, making it the first victory of that kind, within the historical Palestinian borders, and the value of this victory holds tremendous strategic importance within the conflict between us and the Zionist entity .
In addition to that, the glorious perseverance of the Palestinians and its Resistance in Gaza while facing the Zionist occupier year 2008 is a lesson to the generations, and the occupiers.
If that was the motive of the Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, what was the motive of the choice of negotiations and settlements? What are the conclusions, profits and benefits that the negotiations achieved throughout all its stages and the deals that it made? Isn't it more of the Israeli" bigotry, intolerance and belligerency, and more of the "Israeli" benefits and conditions"?
We hereby assure our prop up to the Palestinians and the Palestinian Case, along with its historical, geographical and political stands, and we reassure our support to these people and the Palestinian Resistance, and their struggle against the "Israel".
SECTION 3- Compromise Negotiations
Our stance on the negotiations and compromises made by the Madrid Conference, the "Araba Valley retrospect" the "Oslo Accords", the "Camp David Accord" is a total refusal to any kind of compromise with the Zionist entity, which is based on admitting its legitimate presence, and giving in what it occupied from the Palestinian Arab and Islamic land.
This stance is predetermined and permanent and isn't set for any compromise, even if the whole world admits to "Israel".
Starting from here, and from our brotherhood and responsibility we call upon all Arabs to commit to the choice of there people by reconsidering the negotiations, and revising the accords signed with the Zionist enemy, and by completely canceling the illusion and unjust compromise that is so called "Peace Process", especially those who gave the U.S administration the role of being a decent, just mediator in this process, they have witnessed with no doubt that it has failed, pressured and blackmailed them, and fought their people, and stood by its strategic ally the Zionist entity.
As for the "Israeli" entity has showed through all the stages of negotiations, that peace isn't what it aims for, and that the negotiations are used to gain their conditions and accomplish their own needs, and breaking the belligerence of the Arabs towards them, by receiving a free and opened official normalization, and forcing others to see them as a reality in the region, and admitting their legitimacy, after we give in the Palestinian land that they've occupied.
We expect and hope that all Arabs and Muslims reclaim to Palestine and Jerusalem as a central case, of where they all unite and commit to liberating it from the cantankerous occupying Zionist, and to do what their religious and humane responsibility calls them to do towards their holy land of Palestine and towards its deprived people, and we call them to provide all needs of support so that the Palestinians maintain their perseverance and continue their struggle. We also call them to reject all normalization processes with the Zionist enemy, and refuse any kind of settlements, and immediately work on breaking the siege on the Palestinians, especially the complete siege on Gaza Strip, and adopting the case of more than 10000 detainees in the "Israeli" prisons, and setting plans and programs to set them free.
Questions & Answers
Question: To my surprise, I noted the absence of any mention or emphasis on Lebanon's Arab identity in the entire section on Lebanon. As a state or political entity, this was also evident in Hizbullah's political perception or perspective, the only mention appeared later in the second part.
In other words, workers, laborers, poor peasants and the middle class would be anticipating some kind of integrated political program? The second political observation I made falls in the same context, in that the manifesto lacks on socio-economic programs, an area one would assume many of Hizbullah's primary Lebanese audience and key sectors expect the party to be ahead and a pioneer in. The poor, the peasants, low-income earners and workers who hardly reach middle-income would assume Hizbullah to lead in a class struggle-sense, if we are to use modern terms, to right the injustices.
Answer: First, we do not have any problems in dubbing this insistence as a development and transformation, because people as well as the whole world transformed in the last twenty four years. The international and regional systems have changed, the situation within Lebanon has also changed and this is a normal process.
Regarding Lebanon's Arab identity, Mr. Talal (Salman) notes that under the heading of Lebanon we actually included all the points of state, resistance and Arab and Islamic relations. Therefore, I say when we addressed Arab relations in a later part, we did so considering it would be naturally seen as part of the section on Lebanon.
The third point is that today, rather than programs we offer a manifesto in which we express our vision, concepts, outlines and general positions. As for programs we only covered specifications on the election law but we did not go into detail, because while the manifesto takes into account outlines only, programs are independently announced in due course, as was our experience with the announcement of our electoral platform during the last election.
I believe even back then when there was enough space for a wide range of Hizbullah views and ideas to be included under the economic program section of the our electoral platform, under the State title we still only spoke about specifications and conditions, for programs we need to reach understandings with our partners in the country.
Question: The manifesto's reference to the civil rights of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in general seem like any political speech made by any Lebanese political force on Lebanese civil rights of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
Considering Hizbullah's seventeen years of experience in parliament and in government, of being one way or another inside the decision making circle, how can we imagine that the party will take a step to transform the motto of giving Palestinian refugees in Lebanon their civil rights into an actual process?
Answer: This subject was contained in the ministerial statement of the previous government, but unfortunately prevalent tension in the country at the time prevented anyone from achieving anything at this and most other levels. The priority was focused on finding an exit from the state of tension. The current government which reflects a national coalition, cooperation and unity government has this item explicitly mentioned, and I believe this subject is taken seriously by the prime minister as well as a number of political forces; we too will invest our efforts.
Ultimately, this issue depends on follow-up efforts spent in the context of State institutions, the government and certain aspects are also related to Parliament House work. God willing, we will spend the necessary efforts with the political forces with whom we meet on this objective, within the mentioned constraints to assure that which maintains their cause and identity. A forbiddance is always presented that giving civil and social rights to Palestinians may lead to their resettlement, and that such an action forms one of only two and no other options: offer civil rights as a lead up to naturalization or keep the Palestinian refugees in their current tragic living situation.
We suggest there is a compromise, whereby they can be given civil and social rights that do not lead to naturalization and resettlement, one which preserves their identity and cause. This issue will certainly need following up and effort but definitely more action than talk.
Question: On the difference between consensual democracy and a true democracy based on the abolition of political sectarianism, what in your opinion is the way to abolishing political sectarianism without stirring any problems in Lebanon, seeing that the sectarian principal is deeply rooted and infested among a large number of our Lebanese society, a principal they are accustomed to? How can this issue not cause problems again in Lebanon?
Answer: Let's be realistic, the abolition of political sectarianism in Lebanon is one of the most difficult issues. Unfortunately, many of those who call for and advocate the abolition of political sectarianism are not serious about the issue. They only use it as a political slogan to present themselves as civil, open-minded and civilized, as opposed to the ancient tribal sectarian system that is backing to old centuries.
As a matter of fact, this is a difficult subject and it is like skating on thin ice. That is why no one can tell you in a few words how political sectarianism can be abolished without risking conflict. In any case, the invitation Speaker Nabih Berri made to form a national body for abolishing political sectarianism provoked some, when this some needs not be provoked, because when we call for forming a national body for the abolition of political sectarianism, it means exactly that, the formation of a national committee not the elimination of sectarianism.
This committee or body may continue its dialogue for five, ten, twenty or even thirty years God knows, because ultimately, no one can just simply describe a method of how to abolish political sectarianism, but we must sit down together and openly share our fears and concerns, assurances and guarantees and then discuss how to implement this abolition.
Possibly, after a long debate among representatives of the different Lebanese sects and confessions, the popular political and other diverse forces, additional to representatives from civil society and the like, we may reach the conclusion that realism necessitates that we accept sectarianism and that any efforts to the contrary would be a complete waste of time; that abolishing political sectarianism in this country is impossible. Upon reaching a conclusion on the issue, the media can then rest easy, political stands and debates on that point would end too and so would the misemployment of useless slogans.
We may reach a decision that this item in the Taif Accord can not be achieved, since political sectarianism cannot be abolished, hence attempt to fix, modify, develop or modernize the existing sectarian system instead, so as not to remain where we are.
I think that a natural next step toward this goal would be the formation of a higher national dialogue committee that sits down to calmly discuss this topic without pressure and without haste. This is a basic and vital issue.
Question: Ongoing talk about the Lebanese resistance, its role, its support and adopting it as a strategic choice is offset by internal dispute among some Lebanese sides, disputes which prevent the resistance from performing the expected active role described in the political manifesto. How do you find a way out of this?
Answer: It is true, there is a point of contention and we understand this point of difference, regardless of its motives and the truth behind these motives. We do not claim nor have we ever claimed that the resistance in Lebanon receives wide national consensus. On contrary, I have on some occasions made the claim that throughout history no resistance has ever received unanimous national backing. In history, there was contention round the resistance theme. People stood with it, some against, others neutral or indifferent, but throughout the history of occupations there were always people who resisted. Some who cooperated with the occupation, others just sat on the fence watching.
Even among those who refused the occupation there are people who resisted politically, while others took up arms in their resistance. This is a natural process, but why do we in Lebanon find it odd that there is contention round this point, when right through history this has been a point of disagreement, and remains so. As long as we understand each other and communicate with each other there is no problem.
Second, I frankly say to you that a national consensus on the resistance is a condition for reaching a perfect situation behind the resistance but not for its existence. Throughout history, peoples had disputes over the issue of resistance. If a segment of the people took the option to fight the occupiers, they did so without acquiring consensus. Of course, the consensus makes the resistance stronger, better and faster at achieving victory. This is the least confusing of national dilemmas. Howeverm we are not unwilling to get national consensus on the resistance. On the contrary, we are always keen on making efforts to acquire national consensus, because it is a precondition to an absolute resistance situation as I said.
I believe that in the meetings, the dialogue, among the Committee in charge of the ministerial statement, tomorrow when we work together in Cabinet, at the dialogue table, during debates, and in cooperating between the different political forces - we have no enemy in the internal Lebanese arena - we are ready to cooperate with everyone for this government's success and the achievement of its priorities, in isolation from the reservations expressed by some on the resistance item.
This does not necessarily mean we revert back to political lineups and monopolization; hence this is a point we differ over, but there are many points we are in agreement on. So, let us cooperate in what we agree upon and continue dialogue on the differences.
Question: By specifying the centrality of the resistance role, function and its defense strategy foundations, have you in a sense already reached a resolve on the defense strategy and therefore there is no point of having the dialogue table? Also, does this mean that the decisions of war and peace remain exclusively in the hands of the resistance?
Answer: There is nothing new in what I said today on the issue of resistance. The issue of seeking to find a form of cooperation between the national army and the popular Lebanese resistance... Now this form of cooperation requires confirmation, elaboration and discussion and I have already raised this matter at the dialogue table in the last two sessions before the July war. It is our known vision and in saying so. We are not disclosing a secret; and today the various political forces are putting their visions of a defense strategy at the dialogue table in order to come to a conclusion, which will then be drafted.
Of course, the rest asked us to submit our vision in writing after I made a verbal submission of our idea of a defense strategy. We have no problem doing that after we give everyone the chance to share and discuss their own ideas of a defense strategy. Furthermore, the discussions of all the proposed ideas may further develop our position and ideas. But until now experience has been one of cooperation between the resistance and the army governed by a good set of controls. An experience that has proved successful, so much so that we are able to say we can benefit from this experience in order to protect the country and to formulate a defensive strategy; this requires discussion and more details.
Regarding the subject of the state having exclusivity to the decisions of peace and war, we have already acknowledged that the state is responsible for the political decision-making in all public affairs. To us this is not a topic of debate. Some say they need to hear us say it, and I am prepared to testify this in front of witnesses (and the whole world can be my witness), we have no problem with that.
The problem lies in the absence of the State and its duty. It is not enough to put this responsibility and privilege on the state when it is absent. I ask the State to be present, strong and capable to take the decision, and to the contrary, I am ready to go further than this - if you remember my speech on September 22 after the July war, we were clear that once we have a strong, capable, fair State that is able to protect the country and liberate the land, we would not even need to discuss a defense strategy, because then, it is the state that would be protecting the country... the reason why popular resistance came into existence in the first place.
Here we say that we concede and acknowledge, even if I consider it a purely theoretical debate, because the decision of war and peace in the region is in the hands of "Israel", not in the Lebanese state, or in the hands of the resistance, nor in the hands in the hands of the Arabs or Muslims unfortunately, the ones who take the decisions of war and peace in the region are only America and "Israel."
Question: in 1985, you spoke about a single wise leadership, the Supreme Leader or (Wali al Fakih) Guardian of Islamic Jurist, today you are speaking about a transformation in the party, how will you harmonize between state-building and your commitment to this leadership, and has Hizbullah become a full Lebanese party?
You also talked about building state institutions; does this mean Hizbullah has abandoned recourse to arms and the theory of arms to defend the resistance weapons in any circumstance?
Answer: First: here we have provided a political document but have not dealt with aspects of belief, ideology, or intellectual culture. I like to be clear that our position on the question of Wali al Fakih is an intellectual, ideological and religious one and not a political position subject to review.
Second: To ask the question, how do we combine the two, our allegiance to the Fakih and engagement in political life of Lebanon and the building of State institutions, the answer to that is simple, proof of the possibility of something occurring is its occurrence.
We have been engaged in Parliament through an effective parliamentary bloc, we have participated in parliamentary elections in years 1992 - 1996 -2000 - 2005 and also the recent elections. We participated in successive governments through ministers who were present and active, we also joined the 2005 Lebanese government but political conditions and tensions in the country prevented us and the entire Cabinet of any real achievements.
Having said that, proves in our opinion that there is no contradiction between our understanding of our commitment to the Jurisconsult and our sense of engagement in political life and participation as a Lebanese society segment, of some weight I might add, in the building of State institutions as presented earlier.
On the second part of the question, you are actually restarting a dispute all over again. Anyway, in the negotiations sidelines on forming a national unity government, this subject was well covered in debates with a number of political forces, Prime Minister Sheikh Saad Hariri at their forefront, and everyone feels the results are reassuring enough that there is no need to raise issues or questions of this nature.
Question: After Hizbullah acted as protector of Lebanon through creating a deterrent force against "Israel," and since you did not mention that Hizbullah's weapons will be used to help the Palestinians Liberate Palestine, can you say that the armed resistance or defense formula has dropped down to secondary position behind the project of building a re-assured State?
Answer: In this context, particularly regarding the strengthening and support of the Lebanese army, we see President Suleiman make several visits to the U.S. for the purpose of rallying support for the Lebanese Armed Forces.
Are there any blocs within the new Cabinet that encourages aid from countries other than the U.S. including the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially since we heard this mentioned by several leaders particularly Minister Walid Jumblatt?
Answer: No, the document is clear that the resistance remains the essential task, and I do not think we pushed it down to second place, it remains a first level priority and still exists within us, but we can say we have raised the subject of contribution in the national project of State-building to first level as well.
Because the most important conditions of state-building is institution building, founded on a bedrock of peace, stability and security, which come from having secure, strong and immune homeland capable of facing constant "Israeli" threats. This is why I believe the real and effective presence of the resistance is one of the most important conditions to enable the Lebanese build the state of their choice.
On arming the LAF, we consider any attempt to arm the LAF a good endeavor, and have no "Vetoes" or problems in this regard.
As a result of the U.S. Administration's conduct and performance our position towards it is clear in that we do not have enmity against the U.S. as such, but we do have a purely topical animosity in this regard. We do not have problems with the U.S. if it decides to arm the LAF to a level making it capable of providing defense for the country. Yet I believe the U.S. and its allies in the world have not and will not arm the LAF to defend Lebanon. But that should not deter efforts in that regard.
We have no objection if the government tries asking other countries to arm the LAF, and we offer assistance in this regard before during the elections. The Islamic Republic of Iran is open to offering such assistance and so are Syria and some other Arab countries.
Arming the LAF does not require miracles, only investments mainly on the intellectual level, and the level of will, determination, military doctrine and military fighting school according to the Lebanese defense strategy we adopt. Thus arming the Lebanese army and rendering it able to defend the homeland becomes possible in my opinion so long as we do not insist on our enemy to equip and strengthen our armed forces, which they will never do.
Question: A new Lebanese Cabinet will win a confidence vote in about a week made up of both pro-government and opposition camps, which up until now the opposition within the government has not been Hizbullah and its allies, but a basic team of March 14 Christians, i.e. pro-government!
Is there a coup or a change in roles? Will the Lebanese arena witness new political alliances in the future?
Answer: I think it is too early to say for certain that things are going in this direction, in any case, we in the allied political forces in the opposition are now represented in government through our Ministers, and we have declared that our presence in government would not be on the basis of opposition and pro-government, but rather our ministers will be in their ministries serving all the Lebanese people.
We have also declared our keenness to be over and done with barricades, to work as one team instead and we insist on this approach. I imagine coalitions and political lineups may continue outside the Cabinet, which is natural, but inside it we may witness different opinions, varying ideas and stands. We may see members from opposition and pro-government share similar views and vote orientations, while members of the same camps may differ on certain topics or issues.
This allows for subjectivity in handling different files within the Cabinet, which helps serve higher national interests rather than give priority to the interests of our own political alliances, parties or religious sects.
I believe this is the logic of the coming period.
1-Question: It was said you expressed satisfaction with PM Hariri's position, but how do you view the statements made by some members of his parliamentary bloc against the resistance, and that having the resistance listed in the Ministerial Statement actually contravenes Resolution 1701?
2-Where is Hizbullah heading in its relationship with the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) and the Future Movement?
Another point is you did mention national consensus, yet we hear talk of the party having lost popular legitimacy after the recent parliamentary elections despite it being listed in the Ministerial Statement. The question is what do you say to those who claim the resistance lost its popular legitimacy?
Answer: Regarding statements made by some brothers in the Future parliamentary bloc, well they have the right to express their views and we respect these opinion whether we agree with them or not, but we consider the stand of their bloc's official head - PM Hariri himself to represent the bloc's official stand, seeing his government will receive a vote of confidence based on this Ministerial Statement. That is why I think such talk does not form a problem. Of course one would expect a unified stand and voice among their different bloc members, this is an issue they have and God willing they will resolve it.
There are no limits to where Hizbullah's relationship with PSP and Future Movement goes. We are keen for having no limits on our relations with all Lebanese political forces, as long as they serve national cohesion, stability and peaceful coexistence, not only shared living but unified living, to serve the goals set forth in the manifesto, most of which receive Lebanese unanimity. And as long as we are meeting, communicating and discussing common goals we have no red lines to any internal relationship.
Regarding talk about the resistance having lost its popular legitimacy, such talk is completely baseless. If reference is being made here to the election results, everyone in Lebanon and outside it knows they are subject to a sectarian confessional electoral law, and that parliamentary majority does not necessarily express popular majority as it may or may not reflect it. I believe relationships develop over time, we may differ with some sides, but what unifies us now is what separated us in the past, and since the cause of our separation expired, there are no more reasons not to meet on whatever serves higher national interests.
Higher share of total votes favored the opposition during the last elections, although I believe that large segments which voted pro-government actually also supported the resistance, and therefore, I do not believe we can judge the popularity of the resistance based on parliamentary election results driven by current laws and the circumstances at the time.
Question: The Lebanese constitution considers Lebanon a finite homeland for all its citizens, with regard to the manifesto you just read, you refuse any division of Lebanon or its federalization but you do not clearly express Hizbullah's doctrinal or cultural stand in relation to joining or merging Lebanon with its Arab or Islamic surroundings, bearing in mind that this has been a concern among many of the Lebanese parties since Lebanon's independence.
Does the party have a clear stand on this point?
The second question relates to the defense strategy. You did mention in the manifesto that the strategy must stand on a combination between the popular resistance and an army that protects Lebanon.
Is this not a retreat from the previous party position that the resistance is staying until the rise of a strong, capable and fair State?
This stand hints that the resistance will stay regardless if we have a strong army capable of defending Lebanon or not?
The last question relates to your previous talk on drug dealers.
In the past, the party called on the government to review cases and arrest warrants against drug dealers, traffickers and the like, to take into account a compounding humanitarian situation in specific areas of Lebanon, yet recently you portrayed a tougher stand by which the party called for tough sentences against traffickers! Why this change of position on this matter?
Answer: We have been clear that we consider Lebanon our country. On the debate about whether Lebanon is a finite country or not, I would like to say that this country is a blessing in light of its variety and geography and the many great historic accomplishments it has made. As for having to announce it as a finite homeland, His Eminence Sayyed Moussa Sadr was very clear on the subject and he used to speak on behalf of this entire path, when he considered Lebanon a finite homeland.
But anyone may say it is finite only to abandon this view at a later moment, hence such slogans do not offer reassurance to the people as much as our unanimity, accord and consensus does in matters that govern our country.
Incidentally, all national, pan-Arab and Islamic movements have their own visions of the Arab or Islamic nation, and the subject of "Sikes-Peko" division plan of the Arab and Islamic world into smaller entities. We believe an Arab union of these smaller entities under an agreement which preserves the independence of all countries and respects each nation's thoughts and ideologies, can bring about an added group strength, this way individuals not only can continue to dream up and talk of an Arab or Islamic nation, but even see global earth as one nation home.
If we are to take events and facts into account we find this to be the ideal formula. Naturally there are other Islamic movements with their own strict views on the subject, but there is no problem with having differences.
As for pairing between the Resistance and the LAF, I did say that as long as there is an imbalance in strength and an absence of the strong capable state, this pairing would be essential, but if the strong and capable state is established, such a formula would become redundant and no longer necessary, because then the State would assume the full responsibility of defending the country.
On the arrest warrants I mentioned during the electoral elections, I spoke about the general situation of the arrest warrants in the Bekaa area, and not only pertaining to drugs.
I want to bring to attention that there are thirty thousand arrest warrants against people in the Bekaa, a part of them are related to building without permit, infringements, errors in land divisions etc...
During election times we did not ask for amnesty or a pardon but we asked for forming a legal, parliamentary, ministerial or justice and rights committee, to meet and look into these warrants some of which date back 20 or 30 years. The 30,000 warrants are not all for drugs, drug cultivation and trafficking.
Some citizens have been reformed and have not committed any violations for 30 years yet there are arrest warrants still out against them.
Reconsideration of arrest warrants for matters that may be disregarded for being trivial or because the issue has lingered, however major cases such as murder should not be disregarded. Drug cases are sensitive and we consider drug trafficking as murder since drugs kill the mental state and stability of our youth.
I call for being firm with drug dealers as they are killing a whole society's culture, spirit and morals, its security and integrity of spiritual, psychological, mental, and therefore its peace and stability, therefore I go back and reiterate the call to continue to be tough with all the pushers and drug dealers.
Question: The manifesto's section connected with inter-Arab, Lebanese-Arab or resistance-Arab relations, how can benefit be derived from the resistance status of approvability among certain sides and countries, in resolving some inter-Arab or internal Arab conflicts?
Here I ask what happened to the appeal you made to the Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh regarding their internal war. Did your efforts give any results? What are your view of the Saudi intervention in the Yemen war and its targeting of civilians?
Answer: As I said in the manifesto we have no objection and we are keen to see the Arab nation, governments and peoples, the other resistance and political forces benefit from the resistance accomplishments and triumphs.
On the Yemen subject, we had a position and sent out appeals on more than one occasion, but in fact we did not offer mediation, because of the complexity of the situation in Yemen and our estimation that our mediation may be counterproductive, as was the case with certain other political currents, such as the Sadrist movement under the leadership of His Eminence Sayyed Muqtada Sadr. Among the advantages is that the resistance began to enjoy a status which we employ wherever it can bring unity and uniformity, sometimes we do so away from media spotlights to avoid causing official, political and media embarrassment to others.
They contacted the Yemeni embassy and offered a delegation from the Sadrist movement to act as mediators between the disputing sides in Yemen, but President Ali Abdallah Saleh described the offer to mediation as evidence that the Sadrist movement is linked to the Houthis, even though it does not form any evidence.
Here, I am describing things as they are... at a time when we read in some papers especially Arabic ones, that Hizbullah finances, trains and arms the Houthis, other papers went as far as saying Hizbullah is even fighting in Yemen and leading battles there... I read a report in one Arabic newspaper a few days ago that calls for a complete laugh, which in brief claims "Hizbullah lost 50 martyrs in Yemen and that Hizbullah is trying to find a way to hide this fact and is having difficulty burying its dead!"
How can we hide burying our dead?! When we may be one of the very few resistance movements in the world that announces its martyrs and is proud to announce its martyrs, the one resistance movement that is transparent on the subject one that is concerned with providing detailed reports to the families of the martyrs about the place of their son's martyrdom, because this human being has a certain sanctity to him.
When we get to this level of being accused of supporting, backing, arming, training and leadership of operations to the extent of participation and the fall of martyrs from the party, do you expect me to go and introduce mediation in Yemen after such accusations by those!
There are people who do not have any evidence but still want to plunge Hizbullah in this conflict, so they come and tell us that the Huthi fighters are benefitting from Hizbullah fighting tactics.
It is not our fault that the resistance in Lebanon has come up with a military fighting school others can benefit from in Yemen, in Latin America, even the "Israelis" may learn and benefit from, this is not a condemnation to us, but a condemnation to all those who do not benefit from our fighting school to liberate their land and restore the holy places, for example.
In the manifesto we talked about the school that will reduce conflict, increase communication and encircle disputes, we are not advocates of conflict-widening but advocates of hostility-cessation, both within Yemen, between Yemen and Saudi Arabia or Houthis in Yemen; we call on everyone to cooperate and make every effort to stop this bleeding in which everyone looses. And let no one fuel the fire. We called for fighting to be stopped in Yemen and now I renew this call.
This is our position, however I would still like to announce and say: If anyone believes we can do something in Yemen, we would consider it our obligation and would take action on whatever level that would be, but the given premises, data and circumstances of the matter and its complexity have not brought us as Hizbullah to reach such conclusion.
Source: Hizbullah Media Relations, translated by moqawama.org team