Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on the latest political developments, September 23, 2013.

(press on [cc] sign on the bottom right for English subtitles)

I take refuge in Allah from the stoned devil. In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be on the Seal of prophets, our Master and Prophet, Abi Al Qassem Mohammad and on his chaste and pure Household and on his chosen companions and on all messengers and prophets. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.

In the given time tonight I will tackle several security and political topics that preoccupy everybody's mind in this period of time. I will tackle them as briefly as possible. Indeed there are other preliminary and very important topics but there is not enough time to handle all topics.

The first issue has to do with the deployment of the common security forces which must Inshallah be completed as I am giving my word. So the common security forces which comprise the army, the internal security forces and the public security forces must have been handed all the cross points and the procedures that have been taken place in the southern suburbs (Dahiyeh) for weeks by now. As Hezbollah, we would like to welcome this step. We highly appreciate this decision which has been taken by officials in the state. We hope that the state and state officials would assume their legal and national responsibilities towards all cities, towns, regions, provinces, and districts in Lebanon. Perhaps Dahiyeh has a special characteristic because it was targeted twice and is still on target even according to the given and information available to the security forces. However, it is demanded that the state spread its control and power and assume its responsibilities over the entire regions. We also support and back all the voices and calls made in the city of Tripoli, and we hope that all the Lebanese towns and cities be protected and guarded by the state fence and forces. Tonight I would like to call on all residents of Dahiyeh and the passers-by to show the highest levels of cooperation, positivism, respect, and acceptance to the security measures and cross points of the military and security forces and to provide them with every assistance and support they need to perform their mission.

I call on everyone to deal with these forces with moral and national responsibility. These men now assume a solemn and serious responsibility towards security, stability, and integrity. They are performing a very great mission, and they must be thanked for that, and cooperation with them on this perspective is demanded.

Indeed, we expect and hope that these common security forces and the institutions they belong to and all the official security forces be fully responsible. That's because things do not end with the security forces present in the field. Rather efforts must be done on the various information, precautionary…levels, and the common security forces are part of the security and military efforts exerted to prevent any aggression or explosion which might be plotted to by whosoever plotters.

Since the disastrous explosion and the oppressive aggression took place on August 15th, we – especially Hezbollah – assumed this serious responsibility, and our brethrens had worked industriously day and night to prevent the entrance of any booby-trapped cars into Dahiyeh as well into other areas in Bekaa and in the south. Since the very first moment, statements that reject autonomous security were issued. As we have entered a turning point, allow me to wrap up this file. Some of these sides which talked about autonomous security were talking in principle. They did not take any stance from the temporary and emergency measures which were taken. So they were saying that autonomous security in principle is rejected. There must not be autonomous security in any area. The state and its legitimate forces must assume the security obligations. Well, we respect this stance which was issued by many religious and political presidents and authorities in the country. We respect and we support this stance which we are part of. We too refuse autonomous security. That is not part of our culture, and it was never in our practical and political agenda. Moreover, we never practiced autonomous security. Those who did so are known in the country. We did not do that. Even when we resorted to such measures in Dahiyeh or in Baalbeck or in Nabatiyeh, that was primary because of the existing vacuum. We were obliged to take these measures which are only erecting cross points and searching to avoid the entrance of booby-trapped cars. Any other security issue is the responsibility of the state, and we do not intervene in that. So we are with this stance in principle, and we back and respect it. However, others accused Hezbollah saying that this is Hezbollah's project and that Hezbollah was seeking autonomous security and was searching for a pretext to carry autonomous security and to finalize Hezbollah's "small state"…. It is the very well-known symphony. Well so as not to start an endless argument, the deployment took place today. In fact, this step refutes all of these accusations and claims of this group. If Hezbollah is finalizing its small state and is insisting on autonomous security, it would not have responded, cooperated and welcomed this step.

There are still things to say in this perspective. In the very first days following the explosion in Bir Abed, we contacted the state and the state apparatuses and called on them to assume their responsibilities. However, they said they have a lack in number and capabilities, and they need some time to organize themselves. Well, we could understand that. I am not saying they are evading their responsibilities. These are true and factual problems. Still we always used to call on them to assume their responsibilities. Here between parentheses I say that it is not that we aren't able or that we can't or that we failed in our mission. No in fact, what we made was successful. As for some problems that take place here and there, well, such things take place with anyone. That takes place with the army, the security forces…. Such things also take place in any country. Who may assume a responsibility of such a magnitude as that which we assumed in Dahiyeh for weeks and in other places? The problems we faced are normal; they are in fact, the minimum expected problems. However, we used to insist on the state to assume its responsibility. That's because this issue is really problematic. How is it that we assume such a serious security responsibility while the state stands watching and does not assume any responsibility for whatever reason? Still some accuse you saying that you are making a small state and this is your project. Still some condemned these measures and the efforts which were made and also offended them by launching a broad media campaign to distort this faithful, national, human, and moral effort which comprised a high level of sacrifices offered by these men who were charged of the cross points.

Well, what do you want? You know that there is a true threat. No one can in fact argue over this threat except if he lives abroad or outside this world. Thus he may suppose that Dahiyeh or any other area is not threatened. Well, we called on the state to assume its responsibility. The state needs some time to be ready. Is it supposed that no one take any measure?

Allow me to say that I personally feel that these people are happy because people are being killed in Dahiyeh. They might also be happy because people are also being killed in Tripoli and in other place. Why are they happy? I do not want to reopen this wound. I will stop here. They feel sick when we do anything and we are successful in what we do. I read for some of these people in the past couple of days that Hezbollah will hand in the check points and will hold the state responsible for the security obligation and Hezbollah is waiting and hopes that a booby-trapped car would be detonated in Dahiyeh under the deployment of the security forces so as to prove its theory of autonomous security and the failure of the state. Such rhetoric reveals moral and intellectual deterioration. These Lebanese who talk as such are not humans in fact. They do not have any human values or feelings. It is unfortunate that the blind enmity some nurture has reached this far and this level of thinking. As far as this point is concerned, we assert our stance again today: The state solely is responsible everywhere. It is responsible and is called on to assume this responsibility. We will quit any place the state would be deployed in.

Today, Dahiyeh is the responsibility of the state. Tomorrow Baalbeck or any other region would be. Let the state assume its responsibility. It will find us cooperative and united. We call for these steps to be successful and we will be cooperative and we will assume all efforts possible in this perspective for the sake of the people, the country, security, and stability which we all look forward to all over Lebanon.

Here it is my obligation to thank all the brothers and sisters who exerted faithful and honest efforts over the past couple of months. I also thank all the families and people who were cooperative during the past weeks. Moreover, I also thank the army and the security apparatuses because they one way or another were also assuming part of the responsibility and were cooperative too.

Special thanks to the Palestinian factions and the residents of Burj Al Barajineh Refugee Camp especially the family of martyr Mohammad Samrawi as well as the families of the wounded for their noble stance and honest cooperation in addressing the repercussions of the painful incident that took place lately on one of the gates of Burj Al Barajineh Camp. I also thank the residents of the camps in Dahiyeh – whether in Burj Al Barajineh or in Sabra and Shatila - whom we consider as part of Dahiyeh and its people and residents. They too as the rest of the people of Dahiyeh are called for to show the utmost level of cooperation and responsiveness with the measures of the concerned security forces and army.

I wrap up this topic with an address to the state officials especially the military and security institutions and more precisely the common security forces in Dahiyeh now whether officers or military men: Today I tell you that you are in charge of Dahiyeh – all of Dahiyeh. You are in charge of its blood, souls, wealth, security, and integrity. You are competent for assuming this responsibility. Everyone is looking forward for this experience and this plan to work out because its blessing would be very magnificent on the national level. Anyway, this is the most important evidence of Hezbollah's conviction in the state, the project of the state, the choice of the state. When this threatened Dahiyeh and its people and political forces – Hezbollah, Amal Movement and all the forces that exist in Dahiyeh - charge the army and the security forces – meaning the state – of their blood, souls, wealth, security and integrity, this expresses this choice. This is what man might bet on. This is as far as the security deployment and autonomous security is concerned.

Now we move to the second topic. I would like to inform the public opinion that we have reached decisive results.

Following Rweiss explosion, we have promised in the speech delivered on August 16th in Aita A Shaab that we would after all discover and know and reach a result. Praise be to Allah and with Allah's help and the efforts of the faithful, we reached decisive results. It is clear for us by now who stood behind the explosion in Rweiss – the group, where they reside, the elements this group made use of and the members which work for it. Some are Lebanese and others are Syrians. Indeed it is a Takfiri group which works in the framework of the Syrian Opposition and proceeds from within the Syrian territories where it resides.

I believe this is the very result was reached by the official security apparatuses.

In this conclusion tonight I will not mention names and places and individuals. However, all of these details either were compared or will be compared with the concerned official state sides. The Lebanese state is concerned and responsible of taking the necessary judicial and security measures especially towards the Lebanese who are involved in these explosions and who are present also on the Lebanese territories.

The third topic is the issue of transporting chemical weapons from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Instantly following the US-western announcement of their acceptance of Moscow's initiative on chemical weapons in Syria, US Defense Secretary said that they must do something to prevent the transfer of some of the chemical weapons in Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon. This was said directly after the aggression on Syria seemed to be postponed. Now you may analyze and I do not want to do that myself. On the following day, some personalities in the so-called Syrian National Opposition Coalition seated in Istanbul – until now the very statements are still being made – said that they have information that the Syrians and the regime in Syria had handed Hezbollah chemical weapons. One of these witty personalities said that Hezbollah received a ton of chemical weapons which was transferred to this town and that town in Bekaa.

Indeed, this is really a funny accusation. It is as if chemical weapons are like wheat or flour or ordinary artillery which we may receive a ton of and transfer to Lebanon and hide in Lebanon. Unfortunately, they played this symphony, and some people in Lebanon marketed this in the media. Some of them – when I say some people or some of them I always mean the other party – said they fear. So they did not say we had already received chemical weapons. They said they feared that chemical weapons are transferred from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

First, we understand the background and the goals of these serious accusations which have serious repercussions on Lebanon. Some Lebanese must be aware in approaching the media and politics. If they moved along in this symphony of the Syrian opposition they would be putting Lebanon at risk, and this has serious repercussions on the country and on all the people in Lebanon.

Second, I decisively and absolutely deny these accusations which are groundless in fact.

Third, we openly talk about the excellent and strategic relations between the regime in Syria and us. I have announced in various occasions and thanked the regime in Syrian for helping us and providing us with arms and qualitative arms. They have provided the Palestinian resistances with arms too directly or indirectly. However, the brethrens in Syria have never talked to us about chemical weapons or we asked for chemical weapons. This never took place. This never took place in the past or now or would take place in the future.

Fourth, I have previously said concerning chemical weapons that besides the risks of owning and using such arms, there is religious prohibition for that for us as Hezbollah or an Islamic resistance. So for us, this is decisive. When I once talked about chemical weapons years ago, some friends told me why I deny this issue; if the Israelis suppose Hezbollah owns such a weapon, let them suppose so. Why do you decisively deny that? This supposition serves in the psychological war. I told him that using this weapon even in psychological war is out of the question. So I hope that this issue is decisive and absolute. The Americans have a game which they want to play, and their tools in the region have a game which they wish to play as far as this issue is concerned. So I hope that at least the Lebanese or some political antagonists or some Lebanese media outlets be very watchful when approaching these accusations because they have serious repercussions on the country as a country and not only on us as a resistance or as a side.

I will tackle the fourth issue with utmost briefness and wrap up the security topics and start with the somehow broader political and regional topics. I will tackle this issue only as a show of respect to our people in the city of Zahle; otherwise, it is a topic that has to do with the party. It is a matter of detail for Hezbollah, and it was never among Hezbollah's project to install a wired telecommunication net inside the city of Zahle. This never was in the past, does not exist now, and won't exist in the future.

Well, everyone knows that in any battle with the Israeli enemy, and in any war which the Israeli enemy launches on Lebanon, Bekaa and Baalbeck-Al Hermel area would be a primary part in such a battle. Consequently, we need a wired communication network in the region of Baalbeck- Al Hermel as part of our readiness to confront any Israeli aggression.

Years ago, a cable was installed in the outskirts of the city of Zahle. So there is not a cable in the city of Zahle. It is only a cable to connect the network no more. No one wishes to install a network in Zahle or anything new at all. What took place days ago is that the men were maintaining the cable no less and no more. This is the whole story. Thus I say that there are some people in Lebanon who like to create heroism and invent illusionary battles to build on them illusionary glory. Thus some of them threatened saying they would not allow so and so; but in fact there is not such a goal and we do not seek to install a wired network in the city of Zahle so that they make a battle of it.

As a show of respect to the residents of Zahle, I took some time to comment on this issue. In this framework, the head of one of the Lebanese factions in March 14 Bloc said that the wired network breaches the people's privacy and taps on them. I hope that he would ask one of the officers or technicians to explain for him what does the primitive, simple wired network means as it does not have any capability to tap on anyone. This is the whole story; so let no one magnify it.

As for the political topics, the first topic is national dialogue. We always used to call for dialogue and going back to the table of dialogue. We also used to call against imposing any conditions on the table of dialogue. This issue is crippled now. Speaker Berri launched an initiative. Many forces in the country as well as we backed this initiative.

However, we again heard calls that reject or boycott dialogue or put conditions on partaking in the dialogue table as usual. This is not anything new. I am talking quickly to make use of time.

Previously, the dialogue table was taking place. It was they who crippled it setting the resignation of PM Mikati as a condition to return to the dialogue table. Still when the government resigned, they did not return to the dialogue table. They said they would return to the dialogue table after a new government is formed. Dialogue was crippled again. Others put other conditions. Still others refuse to return to the dialogue table under various pretexts which I do not want to discuss now. Consequently, it is known who is crippling the dialogue table in Lebanon.

As for us, we are ready to partake apart from whoever would partake or not from the other group. Well, some people in Lebanon say we will not partake in the dialogue table if Hezbollah partakes in it. Well, cool down a little. If you like to partake, you are welcome. When His Excellency the President calls for the dialogue table, we will partake in dialogue whether you do or not. That's because there is national interest in dialogue. We consider that there is national interest in dialogue apart from the results which might be reached. This is our stance from dialogue and from the initiative of Speaker Nabih Berri.

Some said that Hezbollah has some reservations on some of the clauses of the initiative which has to do with discussing the issue of intervening and interfering in the Syrian internal affairs. On the contrary, here I am telling you that we want this issue to be discussed. Indeed, when Speaker Berri presented this initiative, I believe he did not consult anyone. Consequently, we did not demand this clause. It is the Speaker who put this clause. Well, great! We agree on it.

We like to go to the dialogue table so that people do not move in their war through the media. We would sit on the table and ask, talk, present facts, and discuss things with each other. Who started intervening in Syria? When did the intervention in Syria start? What are the forms of intervention in Syria? When did we intervene? Why did we intervene? What is the national interest behind this intervention? Let's talk on the table what is tackled in internal sessions as some have reservations on tackling them in the media. It is good to tackle these issues on the dialogue table. Why not? We also like to understand and ask what intervention in Syria means. I will give an example. Is not it considered an intervention when political leaderships and personalities and political forces in Lebanon call and even beg, appeal, make efforts, issue statements, write articles, and give speeches in the media to President Obama saying the only hope is in him? What do they want from him? They are urging President Obama to stage a military aggression on Syria which if it would take place it would have very serious repercussions on the region and even on the world. The first country to be effected by such an aggression is Lebanon. Isn't this serious intervention? Is this neutralism? Is this a shape of staying apart? Isn't this intervention in the Syrian affair? Which is more dangerous? Isn't this more dangerous than Hezbollah or any Lebanese side dispatching a number of its fighters no more and no less to fight in definite places in Syria and for definite goals and under definite titles? We would like to discuss on the dialogue table which is more dangerous. Is this an intervention or not? Consequently, it is demanded that this issue be discussed from a national perspective. We are ready to discuss that from a national perspective. Today we are ready for that more than any time in the past. The events taking place now in Syria and in the region assert our vision, logic, pretext and the magnitude of this threat and danger which is reaching everyone in the region including and above all Lebanon. I will tackle this point again after a while when tackling the following point.

Even today – or yesterday – Turkish president Ghoul was talking about the danger of extremist groups in the north of Syria on Turkey. In fact, it took him much time to realize that.

What Mr. Ghoul said today was said to him, to Mr. Ardogan, to Mr. Dawood Oglo, and to the Turkish officials a couple of years ago by some regional friends. They told him a day will come when you in Turkey will be afflicted by what Pakistan is suffering from now. Pakistan today is suffering from the repercussions of the Afghani incidents that took place decades ago.

Well, today mosques are being exploded in Pakistan as well as gatherings, husseiniyas, and churches. This is condemned too. Days ago a church was subject to a double suicide bombing what let to the fall of tens of victims between oppressed martyrs and wounded. See all the martyrs who are being killed today whether in Shiite or Sunnite mosques or in Shiite or Sunnite regions or among Christians in churches and other places. Today Turkey started feeling this danger which it was informed of a couple of years ago. Well, let's discuss this danger now. Is there a risk or not? Is there a threat or not? What did the Lebanese, the Lebanese state, and the Lebanese political forces do to confront this threat and this risk? Again I reiterate this threatens all the Lebanese and not one sect, one minority, one faction, or one side. It rather threats all the Lebanese. It threats entire peoples, states, and governments.

Thus we wish and are ready for dialogue and for discussing any issue and not only the issue of intervening and interfering in Syria. We are ready for dialogue and you are welcome for dialogue. That's because if the Lebanese did not carry dialogue, what would they do?

Today there is an approach of isolation and elimination. However, when it comes to the national interest, there is no choice before the Lebanese other than talking with each other and discussing things with each other whether that would lead to a result or not. If anyone in the world or in history who wants to carry dialogue while guaranteeing that he would reach a result from the very beginning, dialogue would never have taken place in history.

The following topic is forming the government.

The Lebanese unanimously agree on the need to form a new government. However, despite their consensus, the government has not been formed yet. Is that for internal, foreign, or regional reasons? What is obstructing the formation of the government?

There is a boring public opinion battle in Lebanon. That means that since charging PM Salam on April 6, 2013 until today, some are trying to hold our political bloc – and Hezbollah in particular from within our political bloc – responsible. They say that Hezbollah is preventing the formation of the government and crippling the interests of the country – the salaries, wages, health insurance…. Well everything that may take place and whenever there is a problem in the country – if it rains and there appears to be some defects – Hezbollah is held responsible.

Well, since the moment in which PM Salam was charged, Future Movement and some of their allies said that they refuse that Hezbollah partakes in the government. Indeed PM Salam did not say that. He tried to approach the issue saying they do not want party members or personalities. However, they were frank. They said they refuse the participation of Hezbollah in the government. Well, for a month and another they remained saying they refuse the participation of Hezbollah in the government and they do not want the tripartite formula of the people, the arm and the resistance.

Afterwards they said they want a neutral government or a technocrat government. Practically that means that they refuse the participation of our entire political bloc in the government.

That lasted until a fortnight or a little less or more when they said they have no problem in the participation of Hezbollah in the government.

Well, you have crippled the country for more than a month. We did not say we refuse the participation of the Future movement or the Phalanx Party of the Lebanese Forces or whatever. We did not put a veto on any side in Lebanon.

We said everyone has the right to participate. Let the government be a broad government and a political government in which all sides partake. We did not put a veto on anyone. Who would be the side which is crippling the formation of the government? Is it you or we?

Well both of us are crippling and both are responsible for crippling. Let's say so. However, let no one oppressively and aggressively hold our political party solely responsible. It's as if they are the "honorable of Mecca". It is as if they care for the country, the economy of the country, the wealth of the country, and the budget of the country, and that they haven't set any condition for forming the government. That would be hypocrisy.

I hope we would be through with this issue. When they said they agree on the participation of Hezbollah – though we were not waiting for an acknowledgement or an approval from them – that was something which concerns His Eminence the president and the charged PM.

They said they accept the participation of Hezbollah under two conditions. The first condition is that there is not a guaranteeing one-third. The second condition is that there is not the tripartite formula. Well, who is setting conditions then? You are saying that we are setting conditions. Well, yes we put one overt and frank condition. I am not saying we did not put conditions. We are not saying we are with the formation of whatever government which comprises anyone. Never! We never claimed that we did not set conditions.

We put one condition which is that each political party be represented in the government according to the number of its deputies or parliamentary representation. This is our only condition. We have no other condition.

As for the ministerial statement, when the government is formed, the government would discuss the ministerial statement, the tripartite formula, Baabda announcement and what is the interest in having the ministerial statement comprise.

However, you came to set preconditions: We do not accept this size of representation. It is not allowed. This tripartite formula is not allowed in any ministerial statement.

So who is stalling? Who is complicating things? Who is making things more difficult?

Now we reach the 8-8-8 formula. As a show of respect to the sides who respect the 8-8-8 formula, especially from among the middle bloc, I will not categorize this formula. I have in mind a categorization for the 8-8-8 formula; however, as a show of respect, I will not say my categorization. However, I will say that this idea is incorrect and untrue.

That means that we form a government from eight ministers for March 8 Bloc and the National Free Movement - The Reform and Change Bloc - and eight ministers for March 14 Bloc and eight ministers for the President and the Premier and the Socialist progress Party. So each will have eight ministers. Well this idea is incorrect. Do you know why? That's because the true and factual formula would end up to be 8-10-6 and not 8-8-8. We are not talking about equality. So it is 8-8-8 and things will be alright in this way. No, that would not be the case. Well, so that no one would misinterpret me, I will frankly say that Premier Tammam Salam – whom we agree on charging and whom we backed and voted for – is part of March 14 Bloc and the minister who would be with him – because it is said that he will name one minister – would be committed to his political decision. That means that March 14 Bloc would have 10 ministers, while there is 6 for the President and the Socialist Progressive Party and 8 for our political bloc.

So the issue would not be 8-8-8. It is otherwise. Consequently, if we want to put an end to this argument, I recommend that a national unity government be formed according to the representation of the people in the parliament so as to stop crippling the interests of the people and the country. Let's stop betting on the regional and international developments.

You have noticed when they were talking seriously about a possible US aggression on Syria, even this argument over who accepts, who would participate and who wouldn't was withdrawn from circulation. That's because there was a generalization: Hold on! An aggression is to take place on Syria. They started making an agenda accordingly. They sewed hopes and expectations. However, that went in despair.

Anyway, I hope that the other bloc would stop their stalling because the interests of the people in Lebanon and of the country are in that. I also hope that a national unity government be formed according to the true national sizes. Then we would go to discussing the ministerial statement and the government's agendas and see how we would cooperate. This is to the interest of the country. I am not talking about the interest of the party.

I will tackle the third topic – also from a Lebanese perspective or from Hezbollah's perspective - for a while as a prelude to tackle the Syrian issue and the region. Some Gulf countries – especially Saudi Arabia – insist on accusing Hezbollah of occupying Syria. This appears in the statements made by some Saudi ministers and officials besides some Gulf officials in the media, newspapers, and articles.

Well what is the story? Is Syria occupied? Who is occupying Syria? Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are occupying Syria!

Accordingly what is taking place in Syria is not an internal struggle or a struggle between states, projects and nations. It is rather that there is an occupation and there is a resistance that is confronting this occupation. So it is the obligation of the Arab states to support the resistance in Syria to confront those who are occupying Syria, and they would be generous enough to do so and lauded for doing so.

Consequently, Saudi Arabia is with the resistance, and the resistance has the right to reject any occupation of Syria. They even go further calling on the world to intervene and to dispatch armies and warplanes to liberate Syria from the occupation it is being subject to. This is on one hand.

On the other hand, it accordingly is taking several – let's say – revengeful steps against Hezbollah on the media and political level. Everyone knows that the March 14 Bloc veto on Hezbollah's participation in the government is a Saudi veto.

In the media there are drafts and proposals made in the UN or in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that accuse Hezbollah of perpetrating war crimes or the like to hold Hezbollah responsible of occupying Syria. Here I want to tell you that this description is absolutely untrue and incorrect.

First, as for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Syria, their number does not exceed several tens – that is not to say 40 or 50 or 60. I say they are tens and they exist there since 1982. On the contrary, in 1982 until a couple of years ago their number was much more. Now the least number of Iranian brethrens exists in Syria since 1982. Do these occupy Syria?

As for Hezbollah, I would like to talk facts. First, let's compare the area of Lebanon to the area of Syria, and the Lebanese population to the Syrian population. What is the number of Hezbollah members and how many fighters did Hezbollah dispatch to Syria? Does any rational man in Lebanon, in Syria, in the Arab world, and in the entire world believe that Hezbollah has the power to occupy Syria? So it is clear that the basis of their accusation is feeble and week.

The true background is their failure. That means that they want to run away from their failure in Syria. An international-regional axis has been fighting in Syria for two years and a half and is still fighting in Syria. They are fighting with military, arms, security, media, money, psychological war, the Security Council, the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and international institutions. They fought and bet on controlling Syria and toppling it in two, three, or five months and failed to do so. This war has been going on for more than two years and a half, and failure is still pursuing this axis. What excuse they will give for their failure? They give a very week excuse which is that a party in Lebanon has occupied Syria. For this reason you failed! Why do you ignore the political and the field events in the internal struggle taking place in Syria? Why do you ignore that there is a regime, a government, an army, and a leadership that enjoy vast popular support? There is an internal Syrian line which is confronting this challenge. If there is any contribution or backing or help from here or there, that is in fact a very humble participation compared to what the Arab Syrian Army is offering. They are really humble participations. Thus you are trying to run away from your failure under this pretext. You are talking about Hezbollah's occupation of Syria. Well, what about the tens of thousands of foreign fighters whom you brought along from all around the world or were set out of prisons to fight in Syria in exchange for financial guarantees? Aren't these fighting Syria? Today, isn't the so-called Syrian National Opposition or the Syrian National Coalition crying out? Aren't they accusing these of controlling Syrian territories and regions and imposing their will on the Syrians? Isn't this an occupation? Why don't you talk about that? Why don't you talk about those who stand behind that? Who is financing them? Who supported them and dispatched them? Those who talk about occupying Syria do not call on the world to dispatch soldiers to occupy Syria and control Syria as what took place in other places in the world.

I am not engaged in clarifying, defending or attacking. I am rather engaged in making a faithful and honest call in the light of the political and field events in Syria, in the region and in the world as well as in the light of the latest experience which the region passed through during the past weeks and the bets which were made including those which were dispersed and those which weren't. I have an honest call first to Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey as well as to the other Arab and Islamic states which still have a stance. I do not want to talk about the US and the west. I am calling on these states to reconsider their stance.

This stage has started taking very dangerous aspects. See the new developments in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Kenya, Somalia, Bahrain, Egypt, and all the other places. Betting on a successful, decisive, military action is a failing bet. It is a destructive bet which will not lead anywhere. I am calling on you to put your grudges aside. It is known in the Arab world and in the Orient that emotions, grudges, love, and hatred might at times over dominate and precede some major national interests. Put these grudges aside and think logically about the interests, and the interests of the peoples of the nation and the interests of this region.

There are facts in politics and in the field. The salvation of Syria – all of Syria – and the peoples of the region and the states in the region and blocking the way before ordeals and wars the bases of which are being set in the region is through political solution and political dialogue. Unreasonableness will not lead anywhere. Carrying on in fighting and betting on military options and foreign intervention will not lead to the goals you are looking forward to. I call on reconsidering and approving political dialogue and political solutions. I call on backing and supporting political initiatives and political solutions which some of you are still blocking and stalling as they still bet on destructive military solutions in Syria or elsewhere.

Today our address, our speech, our hope is that everyone extends his hand. Syria is showing its readiness to go to Geneva II unconditionally. Iran is talking about friendship, fraternity, and readiness for dialogue. The global atmosphere, the Arab, Islamic, and world public opinion, the major Islamic organizations and the Major Christian churches do not want war, fighting, and the continuity of this human tragedy that is moving from one country to another in our region. Then what is the solution? The solution is that we go for dialogue and political solutions. Those who object political solutions and addresses and crippling and complicating things are the ones liable for every drop of blood which is being shed in the days, weeks, and months to come.

The last topic is also to be tackled from the perspective of accusing Hezbollah. However, I want to renew our stance. We do not find strange the Bahraini stance primarily in categorizing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and for this they want to put a list of terrorism in the Gulf Cooperation Council and might as well take it to the Arab League.

That's good. Let's see if they will categorize Israel as a terrorist state and thus pull out the Arab peace initiative which is still on the table and remember that there is still Palestine, Palestinian people, and sanctities in Palestine, as well as Beit Al Maqdes and Al Aqsa Mosque, and Al Haram al Ibrahimi which are still threatened…. Let's hope that will take place.

However see this new and definite insistence the Bahraini government has on criminalizing any contact with Hezbollah. That means that anyone from Bahrain who contacts anyone from Hezbollah whether it is a political, media, or social contact including families of martyrs or families of the wounded or relatives or friends or acquaintances would be perpetrating a crime and would be punished and referred to the court in Bahrain.

Indeed this is not a juristic or a legal issue. It is a political stance which we do not find strange. That is because when the overwhelming majority of the people in Bahrain staged a peaceful popular movement and called for very normal and rightful demands they met some political and media support from some forces in the world including us. Indeed, only few forces supported them. Many of the states in the world whether Arab, Islamic, or foreign are silent over what is taking place in Bahrain though no gun was held and no suicide attack was staged. No one resorted to the military option. They still insist on peaceful demonstrations and on peaceful means to call for their rights. Still most countries are silent. Even more, some popular movements and organization which used to say that they have no choice other than standing with the peoples are still silent. Well, this is a people; why aren't you standing by its side? They did not stand by its side. On the contrary, the government of Bahrain is being supported and covered for its deeds.

Anyway, we were with the people. We at least issued a political, media, and moral stance that supports this rightful, peaceful, popular movement in Bahrain. Since then, the Bahraini government expelled the Lebanese residents in Bahrain who have nothing to do with our political stance, called for blacklisting Hezbollah, halt the airlines between Manama and Beirut, and pushed for definite directions in the GCC, and made several threats.

Anyway, this shows the weakness and feebleness of the Bahraini government. That's because whoever is afraid from a statement which was made in the media or a political speech or a political word and deals with it with such an extraordinary reaction is for sure weak and feeble. This is understood.

As for us we tell the government of Bahrain and the minister of justice who talked yesterday in somehow a tough way that this is our religious, moral, national, human, and political stance. We also call on the world to take this stance. No one interferes in those who support the Bahraini people – neither Iran nor any other country. You know that. International reports and investigations proved that, and this annoyed them. The decision in Bahrain is local, national and true in the whole sense of the word. It is an independent decision in the whole sense of the word. It is not following any state or any side or any axis. It's you who are the people of weakness and feebleness who will bring along foreign intervention and had brought along foreign military intervention to back you in suppressing your people.

I call on all Muslim scholars and on all Arab and Islamic peoples, governments, and states to take an action and take a position and say at least one word in this perspective. The suppressive escalation taking place now in Bahrain is very dangerous. Senior Bahraini scholars are being stripped of their nationalities and expelled from the country while other scholars are being threatened. Scholar organizations are being disbanded and considered illegitimate. Mosques are being demolished. Leading personalities were hurled into jails for more than two years by now. Now more political and religious leaderships are being imprisoned. Scholars are being imprisoned, and women are being imprisoned and subject to the worst scenes of dishonor. All of this is taking place, and you are Arabs and you talk about honor.

The track of the Bahraini government is clear. It is an escalating track. The Bahraini government can't imagine that it can go on in oppressing and suppressing it people while the world outside is to remain silent and at least does not say a word or a stance. This is unaccepted. As for Hezbollah, our stance is fixed, and we will not abandon it or retreat. We are betting on the Bahraini people and their will and determination. They have remained patient over the past two years and a half. They tolerated and did not resort to any reaction as is taking place in any other country in the Arab world. On the contrary, I am one of the people who stand amazed and astonished before the patience of this people and their tolerance and determination though their honor, sanctity, scholars, and mosques are being attacked and assaulted. They are being oppressed, and no one in the world is listening to them. We bet that this popular, national, peaceful movement will carry on. As for these feeble dwarfs, their escalating suppression will not meet but disappointment because this time is another different time.

Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.