The Speech delivered by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during the 21st annual University Graduation Ceremony – Ridwan Class- held by Hezbollah educational branch in Sayyed Ashuhada (pbuh) Compound in Rweiss in Beirut's Southern Suburbs.
In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, The Lord of the world. Peace be on our Master and Prophet –The Seal of prophets – Abi Al Qassem Mohamad Bin Abdullah and on His Household. Brothers and sisters, peace be upon you all and Allah's mercy and blessing. In this blessed occasion and this specific time, titles and issues are many but in this very occasion and due to its nature, my speech will be definite.
I will handle some issues of great importance Monday night, Inshallah, on Al Manar screen on the occasion of the Nakbeh - the catastrophe which befell the nation when Palestine fell the victim of occupation and usurp. I will not handle today the Nakbeh, the Israeli maneuvers and our duty towards them, the Israeli networks in Lebanon and all the issues related to the Israeli affair. I will leave them until Monday as I promised. The nature of such speech that would handle the Nakbeh, the maneuvers and the networks is nearer to a televised address than to a speech delivered in a massive ceremony. I want to talk to you today not on the way of a televised address. Many watch the televised addresses and say the Sayyed is very calm but when I deliver a speech they say the Sayyed is angry. But in fact neither when I make a speech I would be angry nor when I give a televised address would I be very calm. In fact, every occasion has its courtesies. The nature of a televised address differs from that of a speech before a massive audience.
Today I want to talk about you- the Ridwan Class. I want to speak about the brothers, sisters and parents and about Lebanon and the Lebanese affairs as we are in a very important stage as concerning the elections. I will end my talk with an indispensable pause on May 17th and May 7th.
First I would like to congratulate all the brothers and sisters – the graduates we are honoring today. I felicitate them on their success and educational achievement which were the result of determination, will, intention, industrious and serious work and jihad. For in my Islamic religious intellect, achieving education is jihad in the path to Allah, Al Mighty. In my name and the name of my and your brethrens in Hezbollah, I announce our pride in you. I would like also to show my great estimation and appreciation to the honorable parents whether mothers and fathers – as in every graduation ceremony. These mothers and fathers have insisted and supported their sons and daughters carrying on their university educational achievement and they assumed the responsibility of such a decision. We know that the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese and the Lebanese families live in hardship and on the edge of poverty and many of them even live below the edge of poverty. Still we find that fathers and mothers spare no effort and bear great hardships to furnish their sons and daughters with a chance for education and specialization and a true chance for making the future. I bow with high esteem before such fathers and mothers who are true fighters in the path of Allah as well as, because whoever works hard for his children is like the fighter in the path of Allah. And working hard for one's children is not to fill their stomachs and spare them hunger but rather it's working hard to feed them and educate them to raise their degrees, to build their world and safeguard their Hereafter. This is the fighter in the path of Allah. I would like to address another group also which is usually overlooked. It's the spouses, for – praise be to Allah – there is a new clear phenomenon which might somehow explain why the number of sisters is larger than the number of brothers. The good phenomenon is that even after marriage many husbands allow their wives to pursue their education. Indeed when the wife pursues university education more burdens are laid on the husband and the household. Anyway – praise be to Allah – this phenomenon is spreading and mushrooming in our milieu and environment. It's a good phenomenon. Also there is the case of wives aiding their husbands in pursuing education despite the building of the marital house. This cooperation and mutual tolerance yield such good results. Thus my special thanks are for such spouses who have facilitated the way for their wives and husbands to pursue their education despite all the resulting consequences.
Brothers and sisters! Your class holds the name of Ridwan – the name of the beloved martyr leader Hajj Imad Moghniyah – may Allah bless his soul. Here I would like to mention a point unknown by many people. All through the process of jihad and leadership, Hajj Imad – Allah's mercy be on him – used always to encourage the brethren fighters – who used to work under him – not to quit education. This used to be one of his interests and I know that he used to seek to provide the financial aids and organizational facilitations so that a great number of our brothers and sisters pursue their university education. This wasn't a personal desire. It was rather built on a strategic foresight embodied by the resistance. True our resistance was, since its onset until this day, the resistance of belief, determination, will and sacrifice but it was also the resistance of education, knowledge, specialization and intelligent minds. This was acknowledged by our enemies in the battlefield and in more than one domain: confrontation, security and psychological war, military fighting, developing capabilities and enhancing tactics until reaching the foundation of a military fighting school – a special school which is neither eastern nor western but rather the school of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon which was formed by the fighters in Lebanon. Thus holding such a class name is a source of pride and honor to you as is Leader Ridwan proud of you in Heavens as you raise his name, carry on in his path and renew your oath to safeguard his pure blood and the blood of all the martyrs.
Brothers and sisters! This great number of graduates is at the heart of the believing and fighting procession. It gives to Lebanon and the whole world one of the true faces of this procession. It gives one of the bright faces which express the procession of resistance in Lebanon, its belief, humanitarian and patriotic affiliation, faithfulness and truthfulness, seriousness and hardworking, education, performance and great hope in seeking the future of believers. You are giving to the world today the image of the believer who is not desisted by poverty, need and deprivation from seeking education, success and advancement. You are giving the image of the believer who is not desisted by lack of abundance and supporters and the humbleness of equipment from fighting and resisting for the sake of dignity and freedom. You are giving the image of the believer whose utmost hope is achieving justice between all people, drawing a smile on the faces of all people and filling with joy the hearts of all people. This was the aim of all prophets all through history.
Today, you are also giving a powerful scene and a clear message for all those who question the ability of the Lebanese Opposition forces to run Lebanon in all domains and specialization fields and bargain for the failure of the Opposition to run the country. They say should the Opposition win the majority we do not want to share it. They are saying so not as a show of abstention and virtuousness but rather because they bargain for its failure. I tell you and all those bargainers: We like you to share us because we call for sharing, but if you don't want to share us if we won the majority, we will not beg you. But if you are bargaining for our failure and the flop of the Opposition, the only answer is this ceremony – which is but one of the ceremonies and one of the stages. There are 2883 graduates in all majors. I tell you: the minds, hearts, souls, wills and determinations that defeated the most powerful army and most powerful state in the region backed by the most powerful tyrant in this world is able to run a country hundred times as big as Lebanon. Some people accuse us of seeking to form an empire in the region; so will it be difficult for us run 10452 km2?
As we have been able – with Lebanese minds, hearts, wills and sacrifices - to liberate our land and captives and to safeguard our country, we are able Inshallah – and the more capable Inshallah – to build our country and nation and raise it high.
Today, I address you saying: Yes, we are concerned in a new era in which we must assume the whole responsibility not from afar or aside. It's the responsibility of building our country, our nation. We are to build a strong just state because strength without justice is destruction, dictatorship and a source of oppression. Likewise, justice without strength is fragile. We look forward for Lebanon as a nation for all its children and families – equal in all rights and obligations; a nation with one people and one state - one people which is the Lebanese people. We must get rid openly and covertly of talking about Lebanese peoples. We are one Lebanese people. We have no problem in talking about multiple cultures and civilizations. In the past, some elite men of intellect used to go through lengthy debates on whether we have multiplicity or diversity. There is no dispute over the terms. In fact, cultural, civilization, religious and intellectual multiplicity and diversity are but a bless and a mercy which we might change with our hands to the most important factor of power in our nation and in the world also starting from our nation. We are one people on one land. We talk one language and we have the same interests in security, stability, freedom, sovereignty, independence, social welfare, education, economy, finance and every daily affair as individuals, families, parties, factions, sects and regions. Our interests are the same in essence. We might differ in expressing these interests or in identifying these interests. We are one people. We must get rid of talking about numbers and classes. Today education is "trans-sects". So are poverty, dignity, honor as well as – unfortunately - collaboration and treason. We must get rid of talking about numbers and classes. We must see our people as one people. Should there be specific diversities and gaps we must work together to address these diversities and gaps.
We look forward for Lebanon as one country and one land. We talk about one people, one land and one state. Thus we in Hezbollah have always refused dividing Lebanon. We will resist any idea on dividing Lebanon which might cross one's mind today or in the future. Praise be to Allah, today after the flop of all dividing attempts and regional and international bargains, none is thinking of division. But I tell you frankly, a twin of division is tickling the minds of some political parties in Lebanon. I know these are not mere dreams but rather hopes tackled in some private and internal councils. There are also plans to reach it. I mean federalism. This is unquestionable in Lebanon. We want Lebanon as one nation, people, land, state and regime. Lebanon does not stand any form of federalism which we do not view but as a step towards division. It's ironic that some of those who accuse us of seeking a three-party rule work for federalism.
We also look forward to Lebanon as a Lebanese nation cum laude but without racism and racial superiority feelings that lack any rational, legal or moral bases towards our milieu in which we live more specifically towards the Arab milieu or towards each other so that some classify themselves more Lebanese than the others. We look forward to a Lebanon as a nation with Arab affiliations; an Arab nation but without any fanaticism because racism and ignorant fanaticism have no mind, religion, and humane characteristics whatsoever.
As for the state and the regime, there are many such titles. I don't think the Lebanese dispute over that but they might differ in applying and achieving that. As for the political regime, we have presented in our platform that we call – as mentioned in Taif Accord – to the formation of a Higher National Board to annul political sectarianism. We were precise in our electoral platform. We didn't say in our platform that we want to annul political sectarianism. There is something in the Taif Accord not approached by anyone yet which is forming a Higher National Board to annul political sectarianism. What we call for is forming this Higher Board which has to convene and see - despite the time that it might need and even if it took years – whether we want to carry on with the sectarian mode. If the result was to continue, then let's continue. Then there'll be some developing, advancing criteria and treatments which might be discussed and agreed on. But if the results reached by the Higher National Board to annul political sectarianism was that we must annul sectarianism from our regime, then we'd do a plan to annul sectarianism and organize the change which might be agreed on. On this point, we call for not making haste. We also call for not imposing the choices of some Lebanese on the others. So any essential modification in the regime must be based on the grounds of national dialogue, true and deep national discussion and serious national agreement because making haste and addressing the issue with the dominance of one will on the other wills in what concerns the essence of the regime might have more dangerous consequences and results from keeping the regime on its current form despite all the negative points.
The other point is we look forward to one state. I do not want to defend Hezbollah. I assert to you that since the establishment of Hezbollah, we've been backing the establishment of one state. So all through the past years, we didn't practice any authority on what is called "the power zones". Even after the liberation of the Boarder Line, I showed up in Bint Jbeil on a day which will be commemorated in the coming days and said we are not an alternative to the state and the authority. We haven't any judiciary authority and we don't want to try people even the collaborators who killed us, shed our blood, oppressed us, imprisoned us, whipped our backs and demolished our houses. We abandoned them so that the Lebanese state tries them. We never presented ourselves as a state or authority, whereas in the past three decades others who overbid us in talking about one state have practiced the state, the canton and the internal authority. We never did that. Now we aren't doing that – not even in any region despite the media distortion that extend to reach some regions especially the Southern Suburbs (Dahyieh).
We support one powerful state - a state with a strong government and strong parliament which is all the same proper and suitable and which expresses the wills of the Lebanese people. It's a state with a strong and independent judiciary authority, a strong army and strong security bodies. We don't differ with others on this point. There is one point of disagreement with others which is the resistance, the arms of the resistance and the defense strategy. There is much dispute and controversy over this point. We are still discussing this point with respect to all what is taking place around us. We say that there is no contradiction if Lebanon would have a strong resistance and a strong state. A strong state is what might lead Lebanon to a stage in which it tells the resistance that now there is a strong state which is able to defend its land, people, security and stability. Now you men of resistance go back to your universities, factories, fields and ordinary lives. That's the normal way.
In this framework, we look forward to a state which practices a true administrative reform and to a good active, fruitful administration which is far from corruption and bribery. We call for implementing decentralized administration as mentioned in the Taif Accord. We call for a modern electoral law which secures the best representation of the people. We are in heart and soul with a law which depends on relative representation. We call for a state which is able to address the social and living crisis and to give these crisis the true and serious priority and not as was witnessed in the past years. We call for a true state as concerning the balanced development which we believe its normal condition is reactivating the Ministry of Plotting which looks collectively at Lebanon's abilities, capabilities and needs and plots to put the executive mechanisms which take into consideration this qualitative and quantitative balance. Thus I tell our graduates: You are before market and job opportunities and competitions. So benefit from the degrees you acquired. We are before two paths: the personal and partial path which is when every one of us thinks of providing his son or daughter with a job through a society, institution or a leader or party. The other path is having a government in the near future which puts before its eyes the people's pains, hunger and poverty and the issue of unemployment. So let's not spend four or five years in political struggle on topics they know from the very beginning that if they invested all political, security, military and media means they will flop in achieving them.
We look forward to assisting in forming a serious, faithful and truthful government; a government from among the people living their hunger and deprivation so that it finds serious and truthful solutions to the development, social, financial and economic issues besides the labor issue. We also look forward to a judiciary authority which is free from the interference of politicians and all official and unofficial positions. What we have in Lebanon is not a judiciary authority even if the High Judicial Council said that. We don't have any judiciary authority at all. We have judges who include the fair and mannerly as well as the corrupt. They include the free and independent in their conscience and decision making as well as the dependent and subordinated. Or else tell me all over again what is the characteristic of a judiciary system that punished as it did Zionist agents who collaborated with Israel for decades and committed high treason against their country? What is this judiciary system like? How may we describe this judiciary system which detained agents for a month, six months or a year then sets them free so that some of them return to spying networks? What is this judiciary system like which hurls four senior officers in prison for three years and eight months without investigation and evidence? Is this an independent and fair judiciary system? This is but shameful: he who collaborates with Israel for long years is jailed for one or two or three months and then set free! From the very beginning, we vowed to hand these collaborators to the Lebanese judiciary and we didn't do like any resistance in history. All resistance movements in history held field courts and tried the collaborators and the traitors from among the sons of their nations except the Resistance in Lebanon. I then delivered a message to the French Ambassador after Jospin visited Occupied Palestine following what took place in Bir Zeit University and described Hezbollah as a terrorist party. Few months later liberation was achieved. I read before about the French resistance. I told the French Ambassador at that time: Extend my regards to your Premier and tell him that our Resistance in Lebanon is more civilized, humane and moral than the French Resistance because you held field courts and -without trial at times- killed tens of thousands of French agents for collaborating with the Nazi Army; whereas we haven't killed even a chicken in Antoine Lahd Army.
We trusted the state and the judiciary system. Here a member in March 14 Bloc might say this judiciary system was at the time of the Syrian rule and administration. But here the judiciary system under your rule is acting similarly. We handed the collaborators to the judiciary and we pledged to accept the judgment of the Lebanese judiciary and not to harm those collaborators. Many returned to their villages and homes. Here I tell you frankly that we made our pledge and thus no one is allowed to harm any of these agents unless his involvement is proved by the conventional means. We look forward to a true independent strong judicial authority which judges fairly and implements the law. This is what we hope for.
We call for sharing in the authority and the cooperation of the various representatives of the Lebanese people in running the country. Thus we call for a national unity government. This attempt is not a failure. They try to present it as a failing attempt. So either it is subject to their will or it is a failing government. This is the equation they're working on these days. In such a national unity government, if all the parties worked with conviction and faithfulness it will not be a failing government but it will be the best for Lebanon. That's because any government that might neglect essential factions among the Lebanese people pursuant to the saying that we won the majority with winning the half the council plus one deputy or two won't work in Lebanon neither if applied by the opposition nor by the Loyalists. We are all saying that Lebanon has a special characteristic and we must work according to this specialty. If Lebanon isn't special, then let's sit for discussion now. You want democracy; then let it be complete democracy. The best comprehensive democracy that might lead to a democratic rule in Lebanon is the emergence of a parliament from democratic elections on the basis of relative electoral grounds in which Lebanon is one electoral district.
We accept complete democracy. But if we are not to go towards complete democracy because it touches upon sectarian, factional and regional specialties, we have then to take these specialties into consideration while forming our authority through sharing and not annulling any party at all. As for the one-third veto power which they say it cripples the country, I say it does not cripple the country. I call especially on the brethrens in the Future Movement to reconsider the experience of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri. Let them ask all his close associates about his sufferings in forming the cabinets which he headed and about the reason for not heading the last government before his assassination. They will find the answer. I have discussed this issue with Premier Hariri in lengthy meetings months before his assassination. He used to say: "If I don't have and I don't name one third of the ministers in the government, I don't form a cabinet and head it. Let them form the government they want then." Thus, in the cabinets he headed, he always used to seek having one third of the ministers from the various factions. Now when he failed to achieve that in the last government, he stepped back from participation in his well-known statement and Premier Omar Karami was charged with forming the government.
The true reason behind Premier Rafiq Hariri not forming the last cabinet is that he couldn't name one-third of the ministers. They can ask his close associates and friends. This is something normal in this country for anyone who wants to be a true partner.
I don't say that Hezbollah wants one-third of the government. I am saying that the Opposition used to call for one-third of the government. It's the Opposition which is formed of various movements and parties and which used to represent half of the Lebanese people through the past years. That is normal. So it is not returning to the three-party governance. I will tell you what the three-party governance is all about. It is they who fabricated this idea. They laid this egg and hatched it. The chick that emerged became a rooster which crows on platforms. That's the three-party governance. No one in the Opposition talked or thought about three-party governance. In fact nobody knows what three-party governance – which they talk about- means. What does three-party, three-sect, three-faction or three-political alliances governance means? As a Lebanese citizen, if I was asked what you understand when they talk about three-party governance, I would say: By God I do not understand what they mean in particular. There are many assumptions? They aroused the issue of three-party governance just to put the Opposition in a defense position. I hope that the Opposition forces and the brethrens in Hezbollah also get out of this story. They want to put us on a defense position. So why do we in every speech say no and never for a three-party governance? They want to put us in a self-defense position but well we did not arouse this issue and that's the end of the story. That's baseless. Yes, I would tell you there is another goal from arousing the issue of three-party governance which is pointing at the Christians in the Opposition. That's because if we said for example there is a definite political force – let’s say the Shiite in the Opposition – which wants three-party governance, that would mean three-sect governance. So when Lebanon is ruled in two halves between Muslims and Christians, three-party governance would mean one-third for Shiites, one-third for Sunnites and one-third for Christians. (The Druze would be among the Muslims share one way or another). Well if you told the Shiites I want to change your share from a portion in the one half to one third of the political share in the country, they will not be grieved. Let's be transparent. That serves the Opposition on the Shiite level. If you came to the Sunnites and told them I want to change your share from a portion in the one half to one third of the whole, that will serve the Sunnites of the Opposition. They don't care much in targeting the Opposition on those two levels for many reasons. The main goal is targeting the Christians in the Opposition. It's an attempt to tell the Christians in Lebanon that General Aoun, Minister Franjiyeh, Minister Skaff and other personalities in the Opposition - but most specifically General Aoun and the National Free Party – made an agreement with Hezbollah and the Opposition and agreed on a three-part governance i.e. they want to lessen your share as Christians from one-half to one-third. This is indeed not the first and it won't be the last media, political and electoral oppression practiced against our alliances- namely the Christians in the Opposition. That's how they thought. Nobody talks and discusses this issue anymore. In Jizzine he did not accept two-thirds for one-third. Still they accuse him of three-party governance.
So we must not remain on the defense. We must be clear. Yes we call for participation and the presence of all parties, the implementation of Taif Accord, working calmly on developing our political regime based on forming the Higher National Board for aiding the political regime and discussing annulling political sectarianism.
We also look forward to a powerful state which is able to defend itself, its decision, its land, people and security without the need for UN forces which do not make any difference with all our respect to them because they are our guests in Southern Lebanon. We look forward to a state which does not need external security bodies. As Lebanese we have military and security capabilities that enable Lebanon of having competent forces in this domain. Here I pay tribute to the event to be commemorated after few days –May 17th. It's really very saddening and regrettable what have befell those who opposed May 17th Agreement. We as Lebanese are liable to forget events easily. It's not that we forget easily but rather that's pursuant to the great media input and the many troubles, worries and catastrophes that we forget or else people don't forget May 17th Agreement. It's the agreement signed by the Lebanese Regime then from the position of the weak, defeated and humiliated and which Lebanon got subject to due to Israeli security, military and political conditions. Who signed May 17th Agreement? Who wanted to make Lebanon annexed to Israel through May 17th Agreement? Which political leaderships and forces which were strong at that time that wanted to crown Lebanon as a country annexed forever to the Zionist project? Who stood in face of May 17th Agreement? It's the scholars, men and women especially in Bir Al Abed in that blessed Mosque of Imam Reda (pbuh)? Who shed his blood to announce the Lebanese people's refusal to May 17th Agreement? It's no one but martyr Mohamad Najde who offered his blood so that Lebanon be independent from Israel. On the other hand who signed with his pen the agreement of humiliation with Israel?
Today those who wanted to annex Lebanon to Israel forever are the symbols of independence, sovereignty and freedom whereas those who offered their chaste blood to liberate Lebanon are the symbols of dependency, collaboration and subordination to outside powers!!! Isn't this a historic oppression? How can we forget? Now they would show up and say the Sayyed is going back to the language of treason. Well, that's history. I am not issuing sentences. History must remain present so that we benefit from it in the future, not to avenge one another but rather not to be misled again, get lost again and our country be sold again in the international slave trade market. We want a strong noble able state which restores its territories with its will and not through begging and not through a favor by Netanyahu embodied by returning a piece of land during elections times. That's a partial trivial issue.
During the days we are commemorating, our people in Southern Lebanon – men and women before gun holders- used to break through checkpoints, barbwires and posts in villages and make the miracle of historic liberation. This is the Lebanon we look forward to. Here I reach the point I like to stress on. Yes, we want a cooperative and brotherly Lebanon which is far from disputes and struggles. Few days ago was the anniversary of May 7th events. As opposition, we avoided one way or another arousing this issue because arousing it might lead to more strife and we are in elections season. Unfortunately, the other party, before and after May 7th and until now, is arousing this issue in the mass media, platforms and speeches evoking a dust storm as if it considered our silence and non-comment policy on that event as a feeling of shame, weakness or embarrassment. In fact though we in Hezbollah have avoided going into debate, I found that it's my duty to comment on this issue as a show of faithfulness to the chaste blood of martyrs shed on May 7th and so that there'd be no ambiguity in Lebanon or in any other place. I also want to be fair with this event. Accordingly, I remind – in words that do not arouse tension or agitation – those who talk about May 7th to remember what they themselves did on May 5th. It's enough to get Vingrad Report and read what's mentioned in it. It said that such and such is among Hezbollah's points of strength. Among these points of strength which must be terminated and dismantled is the communication network which Hezbollah erected. Today does anyone have any doubt that Israel is tapping on the Mobile phone network, the fixed phone network and all communication means available? There's no doubt. The most developed US techniques in the whole world in this field are present in Israel. Indeed the most important weapon for the resistance – I recall that it is not one of the most important weapons but the most important weapon – during July War was the communication network because it's fortified to a very high degree against tapping and the intervention of the Israelis. That's my goal from reminding of this issue and I would like you to take that into consideration. The Lebanese government convened the night – or was it the day – of May 5th apart from its agenda and decided dismantling the communication network saying it's outlawed, plundering the public wealth and harming the sovereignty of the state. It took a decision to hand to justice anyone who is linked to this network. Put these two scenes before your eyes. I don't want to issue sentences or to judge. The former illegitimate government must be aware that May 5th was a day of shame on its front and a stigma in its history because it wanted to do something Israel had failed to do all through 33 days. That's one point.
The other point is in the past few days there were some media leakage for some video clips. Why did they bring about thousands of fighters from outside Beirut before May 5th? I want to ask the people of Beirut who are called upon to give their answer to May 7th in the ballot boxes. Anyway, this is the political choice and affiliation of a great portion of the people of Beirut whether there was or wasn't May 7th, and they will vote accordingly. There are diversified parties and people will vote accordingly but I like to address the people of Beirut saying: You might ask who turned Beirut to a city of militiamen jammed with armed centers under the title of security companies. You might ask who brought about thousands of fighters from outside Beirut and deployed them in Beirut neighborhoods, headquarters and apartments while a media campaign was being waged against Hezbollah and its communication network before the decision was taken on May 5th. Is this a legitimate question or not? Does anyone still doubt that thousands of fighters were brought about to the city of Beirut before the government took this decision? What was being planned for?
What was planned for on May 5th when the government took the decision? How might Hezbollah react? If Hezbollah did nothing and was content with a demonstration, sit-in or statement, they would have succeeded and that'll be a prelude – for he who confiscates communication means may later confiscate other weapons under similar titles. That was if Hezbollah allowed them to dismantle the network. But if Hezbollah didn't allow that from taking place that would mean confrontation with the army and that was what they sought. I tell you the scheme of those who claim they care for the Army and for a strong state all through the past years was working for causing a struggle between the Army and the Resistance. They failed because in Lebanon we have a national army, leadership, officers and soldiers. This was scrutinized by foreign parties. They put the Lebanese Army under the microscope and observed whether this army with its leadership, officers and soldiers is ready and psychologically liable to get engaged in a battle with the Resistance. They reached a conclusion that the army can't get involved in that. It is not ready to fight the Resistance whether on its psychological, convictional, intellectual or national level. Thus they deprived it of all aids because they considered it not a trustworthy army!
It's not trustworthy of what: the country, the elections or the political authority? No…
It's not trustworthy of fighting the Resistance and this is an honor to the army. This springs from the heart of peace, security and national guarantee represented by the Lebanese Army.
So if Hezbollah did not hush up and go to civil disobedience and confrontation in Beirut, thousands of fighters would be ready. I want to say something I didn't say then. There was a set plot. They had orders: what to do and which regions to occupy and which regions to disjoint. The plot was to wage a sectarian ordeal in Beirut that would last for weeks on basis of which they would summon forces from outside under the title that there is sectarian war in Lebanon. Come and help us to stop the war! This was what was planned for. Know then that May 5th was not a decision to be executed. Such a decision is not for execution. Why did you remain awake all night long until the morning? Why did you call from inside the ministerial council Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United States, France and others? This is not a secret anymore. You can ask the ministers who were with you in that government what do they say here and there. I am not disclosing a secret. The issue was not a decision to be executed. The former illegal amputated government took that decision to put Lebanon on the verge of a civil war in Lebanon between Shiites and Sunnites. Thus were the actions taken by the Opposition. It's not Hezbollah only. Anyway we are ready. You'd be taken by our full readiness.
I tell all the Lebanese but the Shiites and Sunnites in particular and more particularly our dear people in the city of Beirut. What took place in May was a quick end to a sectarian war they were plotting and preparing for. It was a quick end against setting Beirut on the fire of ordeal and civil war. It was a quick end to a great conspiracy which was prepared to this Resistance. May 7th prevented bloodshed, spared institutions, safeguarded homes and families in Beirut they wanted to destroy and set onto fire on May 5th. That's the 7th of May and the greatness of our martyrs' blood.
As for us, all through the past year I used to show deference and respect. But after what I heard in the past two weeks, I announce May 7th a day of glory for the Resistance in Lebanon. After all, it is May 7th that put Lebanon on the path for a solution. It's May 7th which set Lebanon out of the crisis they put it in. It's May 7th that imposed on them to return to the dialogue table which they refused. It's May 7th that let to the election of a president agreed on by all sides and to the formation of a national unity government. The relative stability enjoyed by Lebanon during the past year was among the blessings of May 7th and by virtue of the blood of martyrs shed on May 7th.
During the past two weeks, I heard slogans saying we won't forget May 7th. They made speeches and reiterated slogans. Great! You gave us good tidings. We want you not to forget May 7th. That's what is needed my dear brothers. It is demanded that we don't forget May so that nobody redo the stupidity of May 5th. As for the people you brought along from the various regions, I want to do them justice. It was said that days before that time thousands of fighters were brought along from Akkar and Bekaa. I want to do justice to these men. We know that the men of Akkar and Bekaa are brave and courageous and reliable. That's unquestionable. They aren't coward at all. They don't quit the battle field. But they brought the people of Akkar and Bekaa not to fight Israel. Try them in fighting Israel. You brought them to fight their people – the resistance which the people of Akkar and Bekaa consider as their pride, honor and dignity. You brought them to fight the resistance which every Arab –whatever his religion or sect is – considers as his pride in this era. Thus they didn't have the motive and the incentive to fight their people and brethrens in the resistance. They must know that so that no one dare say that the people of Akkar and Bekaa are coward by any means. But they were brought along to the wrong battlefield in which they never ever believed.
Brothers and sisters! Indeed we don't want to build on the basis of May 7th or May 17th. We read the past to take lessons for the future. Despite all what took place we call for cooperation, sharing, transcending the past, coupling efforts and putting hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder to build our country and take it out of the various crises entangling it. As I said when we emerged from July War victoriously – and they did not recognize our victory and don't until this very day; but that doesn't matter anyway- we must put hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder to build Lebanon. Now whatever was the outcome of the upcoming parliamentary elections, we indeed are in need of every kind of cooperation to build Lebanon together and to defend Lebanon together and to raise the name of Lebanon high worldwide together also.
Brothers and sisters again I felicitate the graduates for their achievements and success. Peace be upon you all and Allah's mercy and blessing.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Israel lobby commits major blunder in France: tries to silence a comedian
Amazing stuff is happening in France. It all began with a relatively well-known French-Cameroonian comedian, Dieudonné M'bala M'bala was invited to participate on a TV show on the channel France 3. The show also featured a Maghrebian artist and Dieudonne decided to impersonate an extremist Israeli settled infuriated by the presence of an Arab on a French show (for those of you who understand French, you can see an excerpt of his appearance that day here).
Dieudonne who, in the past, had always enjoyed ridiculing pretty much every segment of French society clearly had never expected the hysterical uproar that his humor would trigger that day: the huge constellation of French Zionists organizations lead by the notorious CRIF ("Representative Committee of Jewish organization in France" - the French version of AIPAC) immediately attacked Dieudonne, suing him for racists comments and suing him for "anti-Semitism" (a criminal offense in France). This was hardly the first time that the French Zionist mob had decided to crush an outspoken critic of its role in French politics or its unconditional support for the last racist state on the planet: Israel. But this time, the Ziomob miscalculated, badly.
Dieudonne began making the accusations of anti-Semitism made against him a central piece of his shows. Here is a sampling of the kind of the hilarious skits Dieudonne came up with:
Les racistes anonymes
Still, while in the past he had filled the biggest concert halls in France, Dieudonne was forced to perform his skits in a rented bus (you can see a report about this here). But Dieudo, has he is known, had one more thing up his sleeve.
His logic was simple: if I cannot use my freedom of speech as a comedian, why not use it as a politician?
Dieudo had already tried one to run for office a couple of times, but he never achieved any measure of success. This time, however, he came up with a stunning argument. Basically, Dieudo claims that the Left-Right chasm is an artificial and meaningless chasm in French politics and that the real issue which separates the parties in France is their attitude towards the Zionist ideology, the state of Israel, and the role of the Israel Lobby in France. Check out his press conference here:
Conference de presse de Dieudonne 1
Needless to say, the French political elites had a total hysterical breakdown at such inpudence. Doubleplusgoodthinking reporters and commentators declared that his political party had to be banned and that Dieudonne was probably mentally insane (the latter reminds me of the old trick invented by Yuri Andropov's KGB who used to declared that Soviet dissidents were "obviously" insane because how could any mentally sane person oppose the Soviet rule: QED).
Still, Dieudo did not back down and he has recently presented some of the members of his political movement "the Anti-Zionist Movement" running as candidates for the European Parliament. Here is the press conference of this event:
Conference de presse liste UE 1
Conference de presse liste UE 2
Conference de presse liste UE 3
Conference de presse liste UE 4
Candidats du Parti anti-sioniste: presentation
What is most interesting in this list is that its candidates come from every political movement imaginable. Unionists, nationalist conservatives, Roman-Catholics, Muslims, ex-Communists, Socialists, etc. Ethnically, everybody is also present. It appears that the Zionist threat is truly uniting many of those who until recently were virulently opposed to each other.
What is the potential of this political movement?
On one hand, the entire weight of the French political establishment is now coming crashing down on Dieudonne. Every politician, every newspaper, every commentator either completely ignores Dieudonne and his movement or, when they speak of him at all, it is with a vitriolic loathing which cannot be imagined. The French newspaper even calls him a "comedian" in quotation marks, showing that such a hideous figure as Dieudonne cannot be called a comedian or somebody who makes people laugh. The fury of the establishment is such that I find it very likely that Dieudonne's political movement will be simply banned and declared a criminal organization (in France, the membership in an organization declared illegal is considered a crime in itself). If not, Dieudonne might do very, very well.
The fact is that there are literally millions of French citizens from all parts of the society who are sick and tired of being ruled by a small group of mutually interchangeable elite (all of which is 100% loyal to anything Zionist or Israeli). The fact is that in the French "banlieue" (suburbs) there are hundred of thousands of Muslims who are outraged by the events in Gaza, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the constant threats against Iran. The fact is that the economic crisis had hit France - and the rest of the Eurozone - very badly and that more and more people are making the link between the Israeli-American model of globalization and the economic collapse of the world markets. In fact, I would say tha the potential of Dieudonne's movement is huge and that it represents a very real threat to the French and, beyond that, USraelien elites in the West.
The fact that Dieudonne himself is (half) Black, and that he succeeded in federating very different currents of the French society under his stance will make it impossible to simply ignore him. Can the French political establishment engage Dieudonne and prevail over him in an open political debate? Not in a million years. Banning Dieudonne's political party will, at best, be a stop-gap solution as we can be certain that Dieudo will sue the French courts in Brussels and that, if needed, he will simply re-compose his movement under another name.
Under the infulence of the recent immigrants to France, the French society is changing and it appears that while the "native" French did not have the wits and guts to take on the Ziomob in power, those who immigrated to France do have what it takes.
It is amazing to listen to these recent immigrants defending the secular and multi-ethnics nature of the French Republic and denoucing the ethnic and tribal nature of Jewish ortanizations in France. For example, Dieudo was once asked what he thought of the attemps made by such French Blacks to create an organization which woud speak for them. Dieudo rejected this approach, saying that the organization which should speak for them should be the French Parliament. Amazing idea, no?
Thanks to Dieudonne, Zionism is now finally being denounced as a tribal and racist, ideology and suport for Israel is now becoming as morally repugnant as support for Apartheid. The entire intellectual edifice which was carefully built by the Zionists in France for many decades is not coming crashing down because once these issues are out in the open, the Ziomob has already lost the key battle. In fact, Dieudo has said that he has already won the next election.
What will happen next? Dieudonne does not take his participation in the upcoming elections too seriously. As a typical comedian, he can sit there and say "I will bring you all to the light" with a serious face. When asked if he is really serious, her replies that nobody in French politics is serious and that the difference between him the the rest of the French politicians is that they are lousy comedians whereas he is a professional.
Humor as a weapon of liberation can be very powerful. The ridicule which Dieudonne is now heaping on the previously sacred cows of French Ziopropagnda, such as the "The Eternal Memory of the Shoah" (all in caps), and all the rest of the Zionist brainwashing toolkit might well prove to be a formidable weapon for which the Ziomob does not have a standard answer.
It will be very interesting to see what happens between now and June 7th - the next election.
In the meantime, here are some links to Dieudonne's non-political skits. Enjoy!
Dieudonne who, in the past, had always enjoyed ridiculing pretty much every segment of French society clearly had never expected the hysterical uproar that his humor would trigger that day: the huge constellation of French Zionists organizations lead by the notorious CRIF ("Representative Committee of Jewish organization in France" - the French version of AIPAC) immediately attacked Dieudonne, suing him for racists comments and suing him for "anti-Semitism" (a criminal offense in France). This was hardly the first time that the French Zionist mob had decided to crush an outspoken critic of its role in French politics or its unconditional support for the last racist state on the planet: Israel. But this time, the Ziomob miscalculated, badly.
Dieudonne began making the accusations of anti-Semitism made against him a central piece of his shows. Here is a sampling of the kind of the hilarious skits Dieudonne came up with:
Les racistes anonymes
Dieudonne et Faurisson au Zenith de Paris
This was not at all what the Ziomobsters in France had hoped to achieve when they attacked Dieudonne for his appearance on France 3. In response to his defiant stance, they then used their total control over the French political class to shut down his shows under the pretext that they would "threaten the public order". Dieudonne immediately replied that France is capable of providing the security needed for an event like the G8 summit, but not to let one comedian make his show.
Still, while in the past he had filled the biggest concert halls in France, Dieudonne was forced to perform his skits in a rented bus (you can see a report about this here). But Dieudo, has he is known, had one more thing up his sleeve.His logic was simple: if I cannot use my freedom of speech as a comedian, why not use it as a politician?
Dieudo had already tried one to run for office a couple of times, but he never achieved any measure of success. This time, however, he came up with a stunning argument. Basically, Dieudo claims that the Left-Right chasm is an artificial and meaningless chasm in French politics and that the real issue which separates the parties in France is their attitude towards the Zionist ideology, the state of Israel, and the role of the Israel Lobby in France. Check out his press conference here:
Conference de presse de Dieudonne 1
Conference de presse de Dieudonne 2
Conference de presse de Dieudonne 3
Conference de presse de Dieudonne 4
Needless to say, the French political elites had a total hysterical breakdown at such inpudence. Doubleplusgoodthinking reporters and commentators declared that his political party had to be banned and that Dieudonne was probably mentally insane (the latter reminds me of the old trick invented by Yuri Andropov's KGB who used to declared that Soviet dissidents were "obviously" insane because how could any mentally sane person oppose the Soviet rule: QED).
Still, Dieudo did not back down and he has recently presented some of the members of his political movement "the Anti-Zionist Movement" running as candidates for the European Parliament. Here is the press conference of this event:
Conference de presse liste UE 1
Conference de presse liste UE 2
Conference de presse liste UE 3
Conference de presse liste UE 4
Candidats du Parti anti-sioniste: presentation
What is most interesting in this list is that its candidates come from every political movement imaginable. Unionists, nationalist conservatives, Roman-Catholics, Muslims, ex-Communists, Socialists, etc. Ethnically, everybody is also present. It appears that the Zionist threat is truly uniting many of those who until recently were virulently opposed to each other.
What is the potential of this political movement?
On one hand, the entire weight of the French political establishment is now coming crashing down on Dieudonne. Every politician, every newspaper, every commentator either completely ignores Dieudonne and his movement or, when they speak of him at all, it is with a vitriolic loathing which cannot be imagined. The French newspaper even calls him a "comedian" in quotation marks, showing that such a hideous figure as Dieudonne cannot be called a comedian or somebody who makes people laugh. The fury of the establishment is such that I find it very likely that Dieudonne's political movement will be simply banned and declared a criminal organization (in France, the membership in an organization declared illegal is considered a crime in itself). If not, Dieudonne might do very, very well.
The fact is that there are literally millions of French citizens from all parts of the society who are sick and tired of being ruled by a small group of mutually interchangeable elite (all of which is 100% loyal to anything Zionist or Israeli). The fact is that in the French "banlieue" (suburbs) there are hundred of thousands of Muslims who are outraged by the events in Gaza, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the constant threats against Iran. The fact is that the economic crisis had hit France - and the rest of the Eurozone - very badly and that more and more people are making the link between the Israeli-American model of globalization and the economic collapse of the world markets. In fact, I would say tha the potential of Dieudonne's movement is huge and that it represents a very real threat to the French and, beyond that, USraelien elites in the West.
The fact that Dieudonne himself is (half) Black, and that he succeeded in federating very different currents of the French society under his stance will make it impossible to simply ignore him. Can the French political establishment engage Dieudonne and prevail over him in an open political debate? Not in a million years. Banning Dieudonne's political party will, at best, be a stop-gap solution as we can be certain that Dieudo will sue the French courts in Brussels and that, if needed, he will simply re-compose his movement under another name.
Under the infulence of the recent immigrants to France, the French society is changing and it appears that while the "native" French did not have the wits and guts to take on the Ziomob in power, those who immigrated to France do have what it takes.
It is amazing to listen to these recent immigrants defending the secular and multi-ethnics nature of the French Republic and denoucing the ethnic and tribal nature of Jewish ortanizations in France. For example, Dieudo was once asked what he thought of the attemps made by such French Blacks to create an organization which woud speak for them. Dieudo rejected this approach, saying that the organization which should speak for them should be the French Parliament. Amazing idea, no?
Thanks to Dieudonne, Zionism is now finally being denounced as a tribal and racist, ideology and suport for Israel is now becoming as morally repugnant as support for Apartheid. The entire intellectual edifice which was carefully built by the Zionists in France for many decades is not coming crashing down because once these issues are out in the open, the Ziomob has already lost the key battle. In fact, Dieudo has said that he has already won the next election.
What will happen next? Dieudonne does not take his participation in the upcoming elections too seriously. As a typical comedian, he can sit there and say "I will bring you all to the light" with a serious face. When asked if he is really serious, her replies that nobody in French politics is serious and that the difference between him the the rest of the French politicians is that they are lousy comedians whereas he is a professional.
Humor as a weapon of liberation can be very powerful. The ridicule which Dieudonne is now heaping on the previously sacred cows of French Ziopropagnda, such as the "The Eternal Memory of the Shoah" (all in caps), and all the rest of the Zionist brainwashing toolkit might well prove to be a formidable weapon for which the Ziomob does not have a standard answer.
It will be very interesting to see what happens between now and June 7th - the next election.
In the meantime, here are some links to Dieudonne's non-political skits. Enjoy!
Le journaliste premiere partie
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
NATO in Georgia: Fun and games
Yet another excellent commentary by Eric Walberg who has been consistently churning out well-informed and insightful analytical pieces for a long while now. Highly recommended.
Bringing the threat of war to Russia’s borders is having wide-ranging repercussions, argues Eric Walberg
As Russian troops marched to celebrate the victory over Nazi Germany 8 May, NATO troops — 1,300 of them from 10 member countries and six “partners” — were beginning their month-long Cooperative Longbow/Lancer war “games” on Russia’s southern border. In deference to Moscow, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Serbia decided not to participate in the NATO exercises, preferring to send their diplomats to Red Square in homage to the untold Russian sacrifice in pursuit of world peace. According to Russian MP Sergei Abeltsev, the NATO decision to hold the drills in Georgia during the WWII Victory Day celebrations was a “total revision of the history of the Great Patriotic War”.
The games were greeted by Georgian troops with a coup attempt against their beleaguered President Mikheil Saakashvili, though there is speculation that this was something dreamed up by the Georgian president himself (he has done stranger things, like declaring war on Russia ). This latest bizarre twist, the argument goes, gives him ammunition in his battle with protesters — they have been demanding his resignation for over a month and vow to keep protesting till he’s gone. Lucky for Saak, riot police are still loyal to him and broke up an anti-NATO rally by thousands converging on parliament on the eve of the games.
According to Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitri Rogozin, Saakashvili “has long been aiming to bring Georgia’s domestic conflict to the international level. It’s for this reason that he shot down our military — to draw us into the August war. It’s for this reason that he wanted American marines to come to Georgia, to draw Americans into that war. This man is dangerous for the world,” Rogozin said. In support of the US darling, Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Congressman David Dreier (note the bipartisan unity) are calling for a free trade agreement with Georgia.
NATO is busy as a bee these days. Apart from its centrepiece, Afghanistan, where deaths of both Afghans and occupiers are increasing daily, and practising for God-knows-what in Georgia, it was recently flexing its naval muscle in neighbouring Turkey, where delegates from 27 countries just wrapped up NATO’s annual Maritime Commanders Meeting (MARCOMET 2009). Its theme this year was “The Future Security Environment – Implications for Navies” and was focused on terrorism, piracy and conflicts deriving from energy and resources issues. No doubt it will be deploying forces on the Horn of Africa soon pursuing those pesky pirates.
Prague is also a hive of activity these days. It hosted a meeting of the Eastern Partnership (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova ) 7 May, followed by a summit dubbed “Southern Corridor — New Silk Road of European and Central Asian countries”, seeking a non-Russian route for gas imports from Central Asia. The summit participants included Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iraq and Turkey. The Czech EU official said that after years of wavering, Europe had no time to lose in securing alternatives to Russian gas.
If the intent in all this is to make Russia mad, it is working. On the first day of the Georgian military exercise, Russia expelled two NATO envoys. Rogozin stated that his country would not attend a NATO military meeting planned for this week. Russian lawmaker Sergei Abeltsev has floated the idea of a response to the NATO move that would entail Cuba and Venezuela taking part in “large-scale drills” in the Caribbean Sea on 2 July. Nicaragua intends to buy Russian aircraft and helicopters for its armed forces, and will be sure to join in.
The battleground between East and West these days thus includes not only Georgia, but the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltics. Not only is US President Barack Obama continuing Bush’s policy of provoking Russia in Georgia, but he made no indication in his first 100 days that he would reverse the planned Star Wars missile bases in the Czech Republic and Poland. Fortunately grassroots Czech opposition to the proposed base resulted in the defeat of the conservative government and it looks like the Czech base will not go ahead. Strong opposition in Poland has so far not managed to make a similar political inroad.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the US of using the Iran issue as a pretext to set up its missile shield in Russia ’s backyard. “The way it is designed has nothing to do with Iran ’s nuclear programme. It is aimed at Russian strategic forces, deployed in the European part of the Russian Federation ,” Lavrov told Euronews. “We are being very frank about this with our American colleagues and hope that our arguments are heard. Iran’s nuclear programme is a separate issue. We approach it according to a key principal — preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.”
As if the Czech government’s anti-Russian conferences and the war games aren’t enough, the Czech air force are now “protecting” the airspace of the three Baltic NATO members, the first time that the Czech military’s tactical air force has been deployed in a foreign operation since the end of WWII. The Czech aircraft will be ready to take action in case of a military threat to the Baltic countries and to provide them with help.
But what “threat” is there in the Baltics, other than one invented by trigger-happy NATO planners playing yet more war “games” with Russia ?
This scheming has not gone unnoticed by Moscow. “We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a new Cold War, but we don’t want one,” Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said recently. In The Grand Chessboard (1997) Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted that the only countries Russia could convince to join a defence pact might be Belarus and Tajikistan. But the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) founded in 2002 in reaction to NATO expansion eastward now includes not only Belarus and Tajikistan, but Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia.
It, along with the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), the Russia-Belarus Union State and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) are natural developments by countries concerned about what the US and NATO are really up to. Russian General Leonid Ivashov, vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Science, says there is a need “to neutralise the spread of NATO’s influence not only to Central Asia but also to East and Southeast Asia,” adding that this “won’t be of an aggressive or offensive nature; it will be a deterrent.”
Relations with the SCO are developing, and just a few months ago, it was reported that the CSTO will have its own Joint Rapid Reaction Force which could be used to protect its members from military aggression, defend critical infrastructure and fight terrorism and organised crime. Russia and Kazakhstan are the key movers in the CSTO and managed to obtain a 25 per cent growth in this year’s budget.
There are problems. First, the stand-off between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the latter inching towards NATO membership in reaction to Russian support for the former. And then there’s Uzbekistan. President Islam Karimov was initially very pro-US and anti-Russian, but after being spurned by the West over the brutal suppression of demonstrations in 2005, he quickly made up with Russia and even joined the CSTO in 2006. However, human rights have never interfered with US strategic thinking in the past, and there are signs that Karimov is flirting with the West once again. He has also signed a military cooperation agreement with Azerbaijan, and is withdrawing from EurAsEC, adding to the confusion.
What Moscow would really like is for Ukraine to join the CSTO. And why not? If such pacts are truly defensive, then this makes perfect sense. What conceivable role does NATO play so far from the Atlantic, except as a forward base for the US ? Ukraine in the CSTO would give it clout where it counts — with its big and vital neighbour. Ukraine in NATO can only be a serious cause of tension with Russia. As Egyptians say, “Your neighbour is closer than your mother.”
While things look grim these days from Moscow , the EU/NATO machinations are far from yielding results. Euro “partners” Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a state of war; Belarus and Moldova leaders have no illusions about Euro intentions and did not attend the EP fest in Prague, despite the 600 million euros being thrown around. And signs of reaction to NATO’s nosiness are setting in. In a poll by the US government funded International Republican Institute (IRI) only 63 per cent of Georgian respondents back NATO accession, down from the 87 per cent the IRI recorded last September. Keep in mind the bias of an organisation like the IRI and imagine likely statistics if such a poll were carried out by a real NGO like, say, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or StopNATO. What is telling in the IRI poll is the massive shift away from NATO membership in the past six months.
And then there’s Ukraine . The district council of its second largest city, Kharkov , has just called for a ban on all NATO-related organisations and activities pending a nationwide referendum on Kiev’s membership in the alliance. A statement circulated by the council last week denounced any violations of Ukraine’s bloc-free status. The protest by the deputies followed the opening in April this year of a Euro-Atlantic cooperation (read: NATO) centre at Economics and Law University in Kharkov .
Obama has yet to make any of the hard choices he faces. He caved in to the bankers, and his health plan is being vetted by the health insurance industry to prevent the single-payer system, by far the cheapest and most comprehensive. He appears to be letting the Bush torturers off the hook and continuing their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he can’t finesse Russia so easily. Russia will not cooperate on Afghanistan or arms treaties if he continues the foolish and dangerous meddling in Eastern Europe under the pretense of supporting “democracy and freedom”. The current games can only be interpreted by Moscow as a replay — hopefully farcical — of the Nazis in Georgia in WWII, which will strengthen their resolve to keep the enemy at bay.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002/
Bringing the threat of war to Russia’s borders is having wide-ranging repercussions, argues Eric Walberg
As Russian troops marched to celebrate the victory over Nazi Germany 8 May, NATO troops — 1,300 of them from 10 member countries and six “partners” — were beginning their month-long Cooperative Longbow/Lancer war “games” on Russia’s southern border. In deference to Moscow, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Serbia decided not to participate in the NATO exercises, preferring to send their diplomats to Red Square in homage to the untold Russian sacrifice in pursuit of world peace. According to Russian MP Sergei Abeltsev, the NATO decision to hold the drills in Georgia during the WWII Victory Day celebrations was a “total revision of the history of the Great Patriotic War”.
The games were greeted by Georgian troops with a coup attempt against their beleaguered President Mikheil Saakashvili, though there is speculation that this was something dreamed up by the Georgian president himself (he has done stranger things, like declaring war on Russia ). This latest bizarre twist, the argument goes, gives him ammunition in his battle with protesters — they have been demanding his resignation for over a month and vow to keep protesting till he’s gone. Lucky for Saak, riot police are still loyal to him and broke up an anti-NATO rally by thousands converging on parliament on the eve of the games.
According to Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitri Rogozin, Saakashvili “has long been aiming to bring Georgia’s domestic conflict to the international level. It’s for this reason that he shot down our military — to draw us into the August war. It’s for this reason that he wanted American marines to come to Georgia, to draw Americans into that war. This man is dangerous for the world,” Rogozin said. In support of the US darling, Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Congressman David Dreier (note the bipartisan unity) are calling for a free trade agreement with Georgia.
NATO is busy as a bee these days. Apart from its centrepiece, Afghanistan, where deaths of both Afghans and occupiers are increasing daily, and practising for God-knows-what in Georgia, it was recently flexing its naval muscle in neighbouring Turkey, where delegates from 27 countries just wrapped up NATO’s annual Maritime Commanders Meeting (MARCOMET 2009). Its theme this year was “The Future Security Environment – Implications for Navies” and was focused on terrorism, piracy and conflicts deriving from energy and resources issues. No doubt it will be deploying forces on the Horn of Africa soon pursuing those pesky pirates.
Prague is also a hive of activity these days. It hosted a meeting of the Eastern Partnership (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova ) 7 May, followed by a summit dubbed “Southern Corridor — New Silk Road of European and Central Asian countries”, seeking a non-Russian route for gas imports from Central Asia. The summit participants included Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iraq and Turkey. The Czech EU official said that after years of wavering, Europe had no time to lose in securing alternatives to Russian gas.
If the intent in all this is to make Russia mad, it is working. On the first day of the Georgian military exercise, Russia expelled two NATO envoys. Rogozin stated that his country would not attend a NATO military meeting planned for this week. Russian lawmaker Sergei Abeltsev has floated the idea of a response to the NATO move that would entail Cuba and Venezuela taking part in “large-scale drills” in the Caribbean Sea on 2 July. Nicaragua intends to buy Russian aircraft and helicopters for its armed forces, and will be sure to join in.
The battleground between East and West these days thus includes not only Georgia, but the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltics. Not only is US President Barack Obama continuing Bush’s policy of provoking Russia in Georgia, but he made no indication in his first 100 days that he would reverse the planned Star Wars missile bases in the Czech Republic and Poland. Fortunately grassroots Czech opposition to the proposed base resulted in the defeat of the conservative government and it looks like the Czech base will not go ahead. Strong opposition in Poland has so far not managed to make a similar political inroad.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the US of using the Iran issue as a pretext to set up its missile shield in Russia ’s backyard. “The way it is designed has nothing to do with Iran ’s nuclear programme. It is aimed at Russian strategic forces, deployed in the European part of the Russian Federation ,” Lavrov told Euronews. “We are being very frank about this with our American colleagues and hope that our arguments are heard. Iran’s nuclear programme is a separate issue. We approach it according to a key principal — preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.”
As if the Czech government’s anti-Russian conferences and the war games aren’t enough, the Czech air force are now “protecting” the airspace of the three Baltic NATO members, the first time that the Czech military’s tactical air force has been deployed in a foreign operation since the end of WWII. The Czech aircraft will be ready to take action in case of a military threat to the Baltic countries and to provide them with help.
But what “threat” is there in the Baltics, other than one invented by trigger-happy NATO planners playing yet more war “games” with Russia ?
This scheming has not gone unnoticed by Moscow. “We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a new Cold War, but we don’t want one,” Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said recently. In The Grand Chessboard (1997) Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted that the only countries Russia could convince to join a defence pact might be Belarus and Tajikistan. But the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) founded in 2002 in reaction to NATO expansion eastward now includes not only Belarus and Tajikistan, but Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia.
It, along with the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), the Russia-Belarus Union State and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) are natural developments by countries concerned about what the US and NATO are really up to. Russian General Leonid Ivashov, vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Science, says there is a need “to neutralise the spread of NATO’s influence not only to Central Asia but also to East and Southeast Asia,” adding that this “won’t be of an aggressive or offensive nature; it will be a deterrent.”
Relations with the SCO are developing, and just a few months ago, it was reported that the CSTO will have its own Joint Rapid Reaction Force which could be used to protect its members from military aggression, defend critical infrastructure and fight terrorism and organised crime. Russia and Kazakhstan are the key movers in the CSTO and managed to obtain a 25 per cent growth in this year’s budget.
There are problems. First, the stand-off between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the latter inching towards NATO membership in reaction to Russian support for the former. And then there’s Uzbekistan. President Islam Karimov was initially very pro-US and anti-Russian, but after being spurned by the West over the brutal suppression of demonstrations in 2005, he quickly made up with Russia and even joined the CSTO in 2006. However, human rights have never interfered with US strategic thinking in the past, and there are signs that Karimov is flirting with the West once again. He has also signed a military cooperation agreement with Azerbaijan, and is withdrawing from EurAsEC, adding to the confusion.
What Moscow would really like is for Ukraine to join the CSTO. And why not? If such pacts are truly defensive, then this makes perfect sense. What conceivable role does NATO play so far from the Atlantic, except as a forward base for the US ? Ukraine in the CSTO would give it clout where it counts — with its big and vital neighbour. Ukraine in NATO can only be a serious cause of tension with Russia. As Egyptians say, “Your neighbour is closer than your mother.”
While things look grim these days from Moscow , the EU/NATO machinations are far from yielding results. Euro “partners” Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a state of war; Belarus and Moldova leaders have no illusions about Euro intentions and did not attend the EP fest in Prague, despite the 600 million euros being thrown around. And signs of reaction to NATO’s nosiness are setting in. In a poll by the US government funded International Republican Institute (IRI) only 63 per cent of Georgian respondents back NATO accession, down from the 87 per cent the IRI recorded last September. Keep in mind the bias of an organisation like the IRI and imagine likely statistics if such a poll were carried out by a real NGO like, say, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or StopNATO. What is telling in the IRI poll is the massive shift away from NATO membership in the past six months.
And then there’s Ukraine . The district council of its second largest city, Kharkov , has just called for a ban on all NATO-related organisations and activities pending a nationwide referendum on Kiev’s membership in the alliance. A statement circulated by the council last week denounced any violations of Ukraine’s bloc-free status. The protest by the deputies followed the opening in April this year of a Euro-Atlantic cooperation (read: NATO) centre at Economics and Law University in Kharkov .
Obama has yet to make any of the hard choices he faces. He caved in to the bankers, and his health plan is being vetted by the health insurance industry to prevent the single-payer system, by far the cheapest and most comprehensive. He appears to be letting the Bush torturers off the hook and continuing their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he can’t finesse Russia so easily. Russia will not cooperate on Afghanistan or arms treaties if he continues the foolish and dangerous meddling in Eastern Europe under the pretense of supporting “democracy and freedom”. The current games can only be interpreted by Moscow as a replay — hopefully farcical — of the Nazis in Georgia in WWII, which will strengthen their resolve to keep the enemy at bay.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002/
Saturday, May 9, 2009
US warns of 'military' response to hackers
When one might be forgiven for thinking that we have seen it all, now this:
Press TV reports: A top US commander has warned that Washington will consider using any option even a military one against threats to the army's computer networks.
Air Force General Kevin Chilton said cyber espionage and attacks from well-funded nations or terror groups are the biggest threats to the military's networks.
"Our job would be to present options. I don't think you take anything off the table when you provide options," in the wake of an attack, whether the weapon is a missile or a computer program, said the general.
Gen. Chilton, who heads US Strategic Command, added that the Pentagon is concerned about new ways for disabling or distorting battlefield communications.
The US military is planning to set up a new cyber command at Fort Meade near Washington that would report to the Strategic Command.
The decision is a response to concerns that offensive and defensive cyber operations are currently separate, and not as coordinated as they should be.
Gen. Chilton said 2,000-4,000 more staff were needed over the next five years to provide the expertise for both offensive and defensive cyber operations.
There have been no major attacks against the military's networks so far, only intrusions or efforts to steal data, he concluded.
-------
This is truly one of the most idiotic statement any US officer has ever made. Bombing hackers?! This really begs the questions whether the good general has any ideas of how computer networks work. Turns out that General Chilton is not only a highly qualified officer (check out his bio here) but even a former NASA astronaut. A person with this time of qualifications has to understand networks, rather well in fact. So Chilton is spewing this kind of nonsense not because he believes it, but because he is "selling" it to somebody - either his political bosses, or the American public. Either way, that kind of nonsensical talk is really bad news as it makes me wonder what the crazies in power in Washington are up to next.
Press TV reports: A top US commander has warned that Washington will consider using any option even a military one against threats to the army's computer networks.
Air Force General Kevin Chilton said cyber espionage and attacks from well-funded nations or terror groups are the biggest threats to the military's networks.
"Our job would be to present options. I don't think you take anything off the table when you provide options," in the wake of an attack, whether the weapon is a missile or a computer program, said the general.
Gen. Chilton, who heads US Strategic Command, added that the Pentagon is concerned about new ways for disabling or distorting battlefield communications.
The US military is planning to set up a new cyber command at Fort Meade near Washington that would report to the Strategic Command.
The decision is a response to concerns that offensive and defensive cyber operations are currently separate, and not as coordinated as they should be.
Gen. Chilton said 2,000-4,000 more staff were needed over the next five years to provide the expertise for both offensive and defensive cyber operations.
There have been no major attacks against the military's networks so far, only intrusions or efforts to steal data, he concluded.
-------
This is truly one of the most idiotic statement any US officer has ever made. Bombing hackers?! This really begs the questions whether the good general has any ideas of how computer networks work. Turns out that General Chilton is not only a highly qualified officer (check out his bio here) but even a former NASA astronaut. A person with this time of qualifications has to understand networks, rather well in fact. So Chilton is spewing this kind of nonsense not because he believes it, but because he is "selling" it to somebody - either his political bosses, or the American public. Either way, that kind of nonsensical talk is really bad news as it makes me wonder what the crazies in power in Washington are up to next.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah televised speech on Al Manar TV delivered on May 1, 2009
During this meeting and through this message – as was previously announced – I wanted to handle several topics: the current crisis with Egypt, the release of the four generals and the issue of the international investigation and the Special Tribunal foe Lebanon (STL), the Israeli military maneuvers and the developments in this domain. But later it became clear to me that time won't be enough to cover the three topics especially that the Israeli topic, the Israeli maneuvers, what was presented at the dialogue table, the comments issued on this topic and the seriousness of this issue need much time. So I will tackle it later in the coming few days since we have plenty of time to discuss this issue. Thus today's speech will focus on two topics: First, the crisis with Egypt and second, the issue of the four generals, the international investigation, the STL and the case of the assassination of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri. Still first I would like to address on this day – Labor Day – all the industrious workers in Lebanon and the world and congratulate them on their Day. I ask Allah Al Mighty that this day be a real holiday for the workers, their syndicates, labor unions, governments and political forces on which true and serious actions are taken to do justice to those laborers, solve their problems, crises, causes and listen to their rightful demands. These workers are in the eyes of Allah's prophets and messengers at equal footing with the fighters for the sake of Allah. They have the same degree as the fighters for Allah as the Tradition of Prophet Mohamad (pbuh) says: "Whoever works hard for his children is at the same level as fighter for the sake of Allah". So they have this degree and they deserve from us all this care.
Back to topics of the speech, the first topic is the crisis with the Egyptian regime. As you know, more than three weeks have passed on this crisis since the Egyptian General Prosecutor first made his accusations and allegations against one of our brethrens and another group of persons. Since then, a wide and broad political and media campaign was launched and is still ongoing to this very moment. The Egyptian regime took part in this campaign from the head of the regime, to the concerned ministries, concerned bodies, and media along others from the Arab world. Then I talked frankly and commented on the issue. From Hezbollah's side, we contented ourselves generally with what I said then, and we didn't get engaged in a media and political confrontation with the regime in Egypt. So we aren't part in the confrontation. What we have been witnessing during the past weeks and are still witnessing until now is a unilateral political-media war launched by the Egyptian regime. Commenting on this campaign, I would like to say that should the allegations which they are talking about be true and should there be a true case, they wouldn't have needed all this propaganda and media campaign. Should they have logic on which they would rely, they wouldn't have needed all these insults and low and improper terms to which, unfortunately, senior officials in the Egyptian regime, editors-in-chief and senior journalists in more than one place have resorted. Since the very beginning they said that the issue is judiciary. If it was really so, why did they need all this great media and political effort? At this very moment I wonder what did the Egyptian regime achieve from its incessant campaign on Hezbollah? In my opinion, it didn't gain anything. Yes, it gained one thing: it discharged its anguish. I see that this is what it achieved so far. Or else what are the political and media achievements it made so far? Has it achieved any of the sought, expected or assumed aims? Has the regime been able through its broad campaign to convince the Egyptian people in particular and the Arab people in general of the portrait it wanted to present Hezbollah and the resistance in Lebanon with? I say: no. I advise them to resort to unbiased parties which make opinion polls whether in Egypt or in the Arab world to discover this truth. I myself have gone through a number of such polls. They may ask through such polls whether they were convincing in the accusations they presented and the images they wanted to distort. They will find out that they didn't achieve anything and that they convinced neither the Egyptian nor the Arab peoples.
The other point is that did the Egyptian regime - after the arrest of brethren Sami Shihab and all this propaganda and media and political campaign – become certain that the toppling attempt which it accuses Hezbollah of being engaged in or of manipulating came to an end? Does it feel the regime is secure now? Has the Egyptian regime restored its regional and international position through this campaign? Indeed no. Has it been able to distort forever the image of Hezbollah? Again I say no. Has it been able to influence the Lebanese elections? (And this has been mentioned as one of the supposed aims to be achieved through embarrassing Hezbollah) In fact, Hezbollah was not embarrassed with these accusations. Neither were its allies. Here I assure you. So none of the supposed or expected aims of the campaign launched by the Egyptian regime against Hezbollah has been achieved so far. So if they wanted to carry on in this media campaign, that's their own business. We have said from the very beginning we are not engaged in any media or political confrontation.
During Gaza War, our stance was sound and normal. Some days before, I heard the Egyptian President in some of his speeches warning of Egypt's wrath. We hoped that we've witnessed some of Egypt's wrath when hundreds of women and children in Gaza were being killed and thousands of residences demolished while Gaza was standing alone in face of the Israel-American aggression against it. Anyway, we are not concerned in indulging in a confrontation and reiterating what I have said before. This is not something new. We didn't form an organization in Egypt and we are neither concerned nor willing to form an organization in Egypt. We didn't target Egypt, its security, systems or stability. We are not concerned in its internal affairs. We are working for a very clear cause: supporting our Palestinian brethrens. This is our accusation, crime and sin for which we are being punished.
Several Lebanese and Arab leaderships have called for addressing this crisis calmly and logically. That's true. This is what we've committed ourselves to since the very first day. We are following this issue with legal and judiciary means. We'll see where that will lead. Indeed there are sides which we trust in and respect and which are working to address this issue rationally and calmly. We hope these efforts will yield the desired results. Here I must thank and express my appreciation to all those who have bravely supported us allover the Arab and Islamic world and globally especially those who were harmed because they defended the resistance and more precisely those who backed us in Egypt. In fact they were defending Egypt as they were defending the Resistance in Lebanon because what happened is an abuse to Egypt and not to Hezbollah. I thank them all and appreciate their stand by our side. It was in fact a stand by the side of rightfulness, the resistance, the nation and the conscience of the nation and not a stand by the side of a definite party, political faction or group. It is a stand for all, history and a part of the true fight led by our nation for decades.
I tell the Egyptian officials: if you chose to carry on with your campaign, it's up to you but you will not gain anything. With time your business will be dull. I even tell you that through your campaign and accusation you made us a great favor which we thank you for. I will not discuss that now because it will be revealed with time.
Indeed the intervention of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was remarkable. He made several remarkable statements on the case of so called Hezbollah cell in Egypt. He even sent his special envoy Terej Roed Larsen to Cairo who in his turn made remarkable statements on the cause. Here I would like to pause with the text mentioned by Ban Ki-Moon. When he talks about Hezbollah, Egypt and the cell he says: "It's appalling to me." Notice the expression. It's appalling to me that Hezbollah admitted openly that it's providing support to the militias in Gaza through the Egyptian territories. (His Eminence comments saying that the UN Secretary General did not resort to such courtesies when Gaza was subject to massacre and holocaust before the eyes of the whole world.) More than 1300 martyrs -the majority of them were women and children were killed. It was a true massacre. Internationally banned weapons were used while the Palestinian people in Gaza were under total siege. Palestinian civilians were killed in UN centers. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon did not use such expressions. When talking about Lebanon, he handles Hezbollah and talks about condemnations and convictions. But when they talk about Israeli nets they say that they took record of the accusation brought by the Lebanese government on April 23rd against a retired Lebanese officer and three others charged of spying for Israel. Ban Ki-Moon said: If these allegations were verified that would be a violation of the Lebanese sovereignty by Israel. On the other hand, he dispatches Larsen to Cairo who in his turn shows up and makes lengthy statements about the seriousness of the issue coupled with conviction and the like. He didn't even use the term "should the accusation be verified". That's because the issue hasn't been wrapped up judicially yet. So far the accusation is still an accusation. Let's say it's the accusation made by the General Prosecutor or the security apparatus. He didn't say if the accusation is verified we (Hezbollah) would be such and such. He instantly took a position.
Anyway, we will talk about the UN Secretary General and the statements later. This is not the point of our talk for today. It is related to the communication network in Lebanon. Here notice how a year later he is reminding the Lebanese of the communication network which was about to lead Lebanon to a tremendous catastrophe due to the hasty decisions taken at that time, to frighten the Lebanese and to threaten security… Mr. Ban Ki-Moon is thrusting the United Nations into a confrontation with Hezbollah, the resistance movements in the region and the peoples and conscience of the region for free and for the interest of the Zionist entity and the Zionist project in the region. This is inappropriate for the United Nations and its position.
In the same framework, we are witnessing a wide campaign in more than one place around the world. This campaign was taking place before but here I tell you that it will mushroom with time. This is a natural consequence of our position and importance and the seriousness of the cause we adopt and work for. In this framework comes the report of the US State Department which wants to categorize Hezbollah as the most serious terrorist organization. Still more, Israel accuses Hezbollah of plunging it with drugs. A report is issued from a European state and another is American and has to do with Mexico. So we have a campaign from all sides with the aim of portraying Hezbollah as a terrorist group which has to do with drugs, killing, counterfeiting, mafias… Well this is not true at all because Hezbollah is a resistance group which is noble, truthful, clean, pure, patient, honest and faithful. The problem for them is that it's a serious and victorious resistance.
The reason behind all this propaganda and distorting media campaigns is our position which refuses the Zionist project, refuses recognizing Israel but as a usurper entity which occupies the lands of others and the nation's sanctities and refuses the US hegemony on Lebanon and the region. This is our crime. Now if we sought to contact the Americans and tell them that we are not concerned with the so called Arab-Israeli conflict, we are not concerned with the cause of the nation which is the cause of Palestine, we are not concerned with defending even Lebanon whether the Lebanese authority defended Lebanon or not and our weapon will not be pointed towards Lebanon's enemies namely Israel. Then there won't be any problem. We will be removed from the terrorist lists. There won't be any accusations. They would rather find excuses for us for whatever we might do or whatever we are accused of. On the contrary, they won't oppose if we kept our weapon for internal usage. They have no problem if we pointed our weapon inward. The problem of the Americans as well as the Israelis with our weapon is that its true aim is confronting the Israeli occupation and aggression. This is the true reason. There is no other reason. Should we rid ourselves of our skin and change it and move our arms from one shoulder to another in the Lebanese fashion, we would become a civilized democratic model which American and western media takes pride in and boasts of.
Thus I address the people of the resistance in Lebanon along with our Arab and Islamic world. Do not feel sorry or sad for all the accusations and abuses you and the resistance fighters in Lebanon, in Palestine or in any other place are charged of. That's normal. It goes with the struggle and confrontation. That's normal for a people who stand to defend their rights, dignity and honor. It's part of the battle that they be accused, abused and cursed as they might be killed, captured, made homeless, displaced or have their homes demolished.
The last point in this topic: I tell the campaign wagers in the Egyptian regime and also in more than one place in the Arab world or around the globe: You are wasting your money and efforts in vain. If you believe that the campaign of abuses, curses, falsehoods and accusations might harm us, our will, determination and faith, you are totally mistaken. Let July War be your lesson. For 33 days we were under continuous shelling. The whole world was condemning us: the Security Council, the G8, the decision-making capitals and several Arab countries. Harsh and very fierce legal opinions were taken against us. Accusations and sweeping campaigns were waged from here and there. We were killed and bombarded. Our families, fathers, wives, mothers and children were displaced in Lebanon, Syria and other countries. Still all through that historic battle, our will did not wane, our determination did not fade and our faith was not shaken. We are the people of faith in Allah and the Day of Judgment. We believe in the rightfulness of our cause and the integrity of our path. Consequently don't imagine that all of that might shake any of the pillars of our will, determination and faith.
I want to take advantage of this occasion to make a new approach or review of both the case of the assassination of martyr Rafiq Hariri, the investigation, the STL and the truth in a way that serves this case. First, I want to congratulate the generals, their families and fans for their release and return to freedom. On this occasion, I would like to talk responsibly and cautiously without any zeal, emotion or excitement. That's because we are handling a very sensitive issue, and we are talking about the most crucial stage in Lebanon's modern history. In fact we are still living this crucial stage.
After the assassination of martyr Rafiq Hariri in February 2005, the Lebanese agreed unanimously on condemning the assassination. So that was not a point of disagreement among the Lebanese. The Lebanese also unanimously agreed on the necessity of carrying a continuous serious judiciary investigation to reveal the truth. The Lebanese unanimously agreed on the necessity of punishing the killers whoever they may be. All these points were agreed upon among the Lebanese before the demonstration staged on March 8, within March 8 demonstration and within March 14 demonstration and after them. These points were not points of disagreement among the Lebanese so that some claim them for themselves and deny them on others. These points of agreement were to form the strongest support and guarantee to the cause of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri were we able at that stage to reserve this consensus and act accordingly. I think as such we would have offered the greatest service to the cause of the martyr Premier. Yet the Lebanese disagreed on the political accusation in the cause. The disagreement in the political accusation led to the disagreement on the party which is to carry the investigation. From the first moment of the martyrdom of Premier Rafiq Hariri - when they were still taking his body to the hospital - a political party in Lebanon rushed and finger-pointed at Syria, Syria's allies, the Lebanese authority and the Lebanese government and accused them of assassinating him. It didn't stop there. They judged them politically, publicly and by the media. They condemned and punished them as well. In their punishment they called on the kind Lebanese people to punish the killers of Premier Rafiq Hariri in the ballot boxes during Elections 2005 speeches. They built all their political project, political movement, relations, alliances, enmities and friendships on the basis of this accusation. This also was applied on us. We were a party on the Quartet. The beginning of the problem was with this very point. They made this political accusation and they wanted us to follow them. When we did not keep up with them, the attack began on us, the resistance and the weapon of the resistance using the attributes you know.
This hasty, fierce, severe, violent and ongoing political accusation might have led to civil and sectarian war in Lebanon. But the wise and the rational prevented reaching that far. It might have led to regional war also and the bringing about of western and American armies to Syria and Lebanon. But this was evaded through the decision taken by President Bashar Assad to pull the Syrian forces from Lebanon. On the other hand, another political party was saying we must keep open to all possibilities and assumptions of the party behind the assassination. We must wait for the results of the investigation and we mustn't politically accuse any party. That's because any political accusation would be the basis for definite political, public and emotional situations and for spite and hostility which nobody knows where it will lead the country. The political party which then called for investigation and refused to make political accusations was accused of defending and covering the killers. It was confronted with a media, political, psychological, sectarian and factional terrorizing campaign unfortunately. Indeed we were among this other political party which was calling for waiting for the investigation and for not accusing politically. I said more than once on the TV screen and I told MP Saed Hariri should the investigation reveal that Syria is behind the assassination, we in Hezbollah will be by your side (I won't say before you because that'll be overbidding). But let's first wait for the investigation. All the terrorizing campaigns then could not force us and convince us by any means to join the band of political accusation.
Political accusation and political investment of the assassination led to disagreement on the party which was to carry on the investigation. Which party is supposed to handle the assassination of Premier Rafic Hariri and carry on the investigation? Which party must judge? Which judicial party is entitled for judging? First, we called for a Lebanese investigation and judiciary. Those who started defending Lebanese judiciary two days ago said then that the Lebanese judiciary is weak and feeble. We can't entrust it to a cause as serious as the assassination of Premier Rafiq Hariri. They refused a Lebanese investigation and judiciary to sentence whoever is accused or is involved in the assassination.
That ended there. We called for a common Lebanese-Saudi investigation. To be just, the family of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri accepted. Syria accepted. The Lebanese government had no problem in that. Saudi Arabia then refused and it had its considerations. We called for an Arab investigation. They refused. They then said that would be a precedent in which the Arabs can't get engaged. They called for an international investigation. First we showed reservation. That's true and we expressed our fear from politicization, investment and unfairness of the international investigation. But to respect the other party and the will of the other party and especially the feelings of the family of Premier martyr Rafiq Hariri and the broad party represented by this martyr we accepted and unanimously agreed on that during the national dialogue conference. More than once we participated in the Lebanese government and voted for the extension for the international investigation committee. Still we were cautious. Caution and doubt were never abolished. The international investigation committee was formed and its first head was Mehlis. After a brief period, the international investigation committee under Judge Mehlis ordered the detention of the four generals and Abdulaal brothers and others. Actually they were arrested. I confess then we kept silent despite our conviction that such an assassination might not have been in fact executed by a group of four senior generals in the country. They talked also about a group of Syrian generals. None of them executes such an assassination operation. Still we waited to see what the international investigation committee based its decision on. After a brief period, it was revealed that the international investigation committee relied on the testimony of so-called Mohammad Zuheir Assideeq and other similar witnesses. After few weeks, I met several senior officials in the current authority in various posts in the other bloc. They frankly told me that it was clear that Mohamad Zuheir Assideeq – the so-called king witness – is fabricated, a fake witness and a liar. Few days later that was known and circulated in the media. The king witness disappeared. Here comes the question: if the international investigation committee was really acting in a legal and professional way away from politicization and intrusions of some members of March 14 group and the countries supporting this group, the four generals and the rest of the arrested must have been released on that very day and not about four years after the lying of the liar was revealed and it was verified that he is fake. The whole investigation was demolished. Nothing condemns the four generals anymore. Were there fairness and justice then, Mehlis and whoever followed must have said nothing was proved against the four generals and we -as an investigation committee - will release them and if anything else was one day proved we will summon them again. This might have been fair and impartial but not keeping the generals and the other captives arrested all through this long period of time without investigation and without interrogating witnesses and with the fall of the fake witnesses. Here I tell you, they were not set free at that early time because their release would have had great and severe political, psychological and moral consequences on the other project and on all what was taking place in the region. That's way they were kept in custody. They were absolutely political reasons. Around the world and in more than one place, there were those who were covering and safeguarding the continuity of the political arrest. Who assumes responsibility of this political arrest? We will move now to this decision and our understanding of it. We want to classify it and go from it to the next stage and try to cooperate and put it on the right track. All through these three years and eight months – all through the custody period of the generals - the leaders in March 14 bloc made many statements. Even on Wednesday most of them said and were trying to defend the Lebanese judiciary saying the arrest decision was taken by the international investigation committee and the continuity of the arrest in the jails was taken by the international investigation committee. Great! They are saying that the Lebanese judiciary doesn't assume responsibility. This speech needs scrutiny but I will carry on with it. For conformity, I will mention the text of what Dr. Samir Jaejae said yesterday in a press conference: "Who took the decision to arrest the four generals wasn't Amin Jmail or Samir Jaejae or Saed Hariri or Walid Jumblat but rather the German Investigator Detlev Mehlis." In another place he says: "Some are trying to make use of this event to attack the government and the Lebanese authority. He recalled that the decision of arresting the four generals was taken by Detlev Mehlis and those who followed him: Dolyoun Bremers and Daniel Bellemars, and they haven't issued a recommendation to free the four generals. This is a clear text. Whoever wants to review it, it is present on the website of the Lebanese Forces. Here we pose this question. Let's keep the Lebanese judiciary aside. The subject has continuity and other considerations. But I will carry on evaluating, analyzing and reviewing the position as Dr. Jaejae said and the leaders in March 14 bloc say: i.e. that the decision of arrest was taken by the international committee and they stayed imprisoned for three years and eight months pursuant to a decision taken by the international investigation committee. That means that the release decision which was issued two days ago by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was based on the proposal or approval of the General Prosecutor Bellemars after three years and eight months. In our opinion – and we do not force anyone to adopt our opinion but at least consider discussing it – this is a definite proof that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon all through its activities through the previous stage was politicized, unfair and biased and didn't confirm with legal, professional and judiciary norms at all. As a proof for that nothing took place. So why three years and eight months?
The considerations which prevented the release of the four generals during the three years and eight months were absolutely political. This is condemned in my viewpoint. They say that this decision is a proof for the impartiality and fairness of the international investigation and the STL. Let's evaluate this point together. At the same time, it's a proof that the STL all through the path it pursued during these four years was wrong in detaining the generals and the other captives for political considerations only? Does the decision issued by the judge prove the impartiality and the fairness of the STL? To answer this question we must say something. After the whole period of detention, we are trying to understand why they were released after this long period. Three years and eight months is a long period of precautionary detention. It's a long period for detention of the accused without evidences. It's a long period in all norms especially after the fall of fake testimonies, the disappearance of the king witness and the withdrawal of the other witnesses who confessed that they were fabricated and instructed how to act and what to say. The issue became more than a judicial and political scandal. So there wasn't any possibility of keeping the generals arrested. It was a scandal. True what took place few days ago was at least a correction of the mistake and at most putting an end to a judicial and political scandal. Here I tell you: was the court not formed and the issue remained in the framework or an investigation committee, this mockery might have lasted for a longer period despite all the efforts exerted. But it goes without saying that when a court is formed it must have the final word on the fate of the detainees or else it will be convicted from the first day of its formation. Well this is not for the interest of the STL especially that it found itself before a void fabricated case. Nothing can be built on it at all. Indeed there is something which we might take into consideration and which has played part in showing that the issue has become a political and judiciary scandal. It's the great efforts to display this arbitrary detention exerted by the officers especially General Jamil Assayed, the lawyers, the families and the political, legal, media and civil forces in Lebanon and abroad. Anyway, the judge had no other choice except at least correcting what's wrong or putting an end to the scandal – the scandal fabricated by the international investigation committee which must be held responsible despite our evaluation of the responsibility of the Lebanese judiciary. Here I reach the second stage. As for the first head of committee, he is convicted. So is the second because they kept the generals in custody all this period without any truthful evidence. As for General Prosecutor Bellemars - who used to head the investigation committee and then became a general prosecutor, there are three Bellemars. The first is the head of the international investigation committee who is an accomplice with those who preceded him in the unjust treatment of the four generals and the cause of Premier Hariri. The second Bellemars is the general prosecutor who recommended or did not object on – according to the texts - the release of the generals. This is a good and sound position. There is a third Bellemars whom we don't know anything about. After Wednesday, will the third Bellemars be the first or the second Bellemars? This in fact is a legitimate question. Consequently we want to ask: in the coming stage how will the general prosecutor and the international investigators act? What courses will they follow? How will they behave with the witnesses, testimonies and given presented to them? Will they act in a professional and scientific way? Will the same mistakes committed during these four years in the international investigation be committed again? Will accusations be made against other persons without evidences or based on false witnesses to be released later after four years and thus another four years will be wasted from the age of the case of the martyr Premier? Or will there be scrutiny coupled with evidences, proofs and witnesses in a scientific and objective way away from readymade and pre-set accusations? Here's another question: will the ears of the international investigators and the judges of the STL listen again to those who fabricated Mohammad Zuheir Assideeq and wrote scenarios and presented fake witnesses – one after the other- or will the doors and ears be closed before them besides holding them responsible for misleading the investigation all through these four years?
This is a serious question because whoever misled the investigation for four years might mislead it for a hundred years. He possesses the same background, the same motives and the same capabilities. The information available for us from various sides unfortunately asserts that the ears and doors are still open before this kind of people some of whom dwell currently in Holland and are exclusively occupied with this mission. These questions are not for conviction or confusion or prejudging. They are rather natural and legitimate questions.
Since the first day – since Detlev Mehlis – they called on us to agree without questioning the decisions of the international investigation committee because it's impartial. They wrote poetry on the impartiality of Mehlis and his skillfulness and the great work of the international committee. When Bremers came, they wrote even better and greater poetry on him. The same applies to Bellemars. But four years later, the truth was revealed: falsification and politicization of the international investigation committee pursuant to a decision taken by the judge of the STL and not a decision taken by the Lebanese or any other judiciary.
Today we hope that no one will call on us to accept before hand any decision that might be taken by the general prosecutor or by the international investigation or the court's judges because a truthful decision was taken two days ago. We must see on what evidence or proof that new accusation is based. We will not accept today what we approved of during the first days or weeks of the arrest of the four officers. People are accused and arrested while we remain waiting. No one is allowed to open his mouth because he will be accused of crippling the investigation and covering the culprits. No one can deal with ease with this great oppression which befell the officers and the captives and the very cause of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri. I believe the decision taken by Francine ended a black stage. We are now before a new stage which we will not prejudge positively or negatively. This is fair. We are before a new stage. The general prosecutor, the international investigation and the court's judges must prove through their new performance starting now onwards that they are scientific, professional, fair, impartial and far from politicization. They are able to prove that. The days will prove that or the opposite.
Now there are persons who are trying to give reviews saying there are political backgrounds for the release of the officers linked to the changes taking place around the world. I do not want to make haste in this domain. Rather I will put it aside. After what took place and the release of the officers, Vincent showed up to say: We don't have any accused currently. So we are back to the starting point. My sincere advice now to all the Lebanese and to the family of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri and his party, to the Lebanese people and all those who are saying that they sympathize and feel sorry for Lebanon: Let's make an approach and a review and consequently see how we can cooperate to reach the truth and reveal it. Let's not waste again the time we wasted in the past four years. Let's repeat the national consensus we agreed on the first days after the martyrdom of Premier Rafiq Hariri. If we want to work correctly and re-track the case, I believe there are several points which we must take into consideration.
First, we must hold the fake witnesses accountable even if the international investigation committee does not consider itself concerned anymore. I don't know what does it consider? Does it consider that Mohamad Zuheir Assideeq and his fellows must be arrested and held accountable because they misled the international investigation? If it doesn't consider this its responsibility, we as Lebanese must call on the Lebanese judiciary to summon, arrest, interrogate and punish these persons to close the door before new fake witnesses in the upcoming course of the investigation. Consequently these fake witnesses must be punished along with whoever made, financed, protected, supported and covered them and along with whoever misled the investigation all through these four years in whatever position they be whether political, media, security or judiciary. That's not for elimination but rather because the Qoran says: "In the Law of Equality there is Life to you, O ye men of understanding". So that it needed so that no one dares again to fabricate new fake witnesses and mislead the investigation and waste more years in this framework. This must be taken seriously.
The second point: O Lebanese! O brothers! O leaders of political factions and parties. Four years have passed through which the country went through hard labors as a result of a political accusation. Let's relax for a while – at least for a year – and put political accusation and political condemnation aside. Political accusation and condemnation were about to set Lebanon and the whole region on fire. Let's put political accusation and political condemnation aside and call - all of us as Lebanese – again for a serious, scientific, technical, professional and objective investigation to reach the truth.
The third point is that the Lebanese judiciary and Lebanese security apparatuses must work in this framework and not be content that this is the responsibility of the international investigation committee. In fact they were working in this domain before but they must deal with it with new spirituality which we also demand from General Prosecutor Bellemars and the international investigation. This is in fact what we were calling for from the very beginning four years ago. Be open to all possibilities and options. For four years the investigation was moving in one direction and not allowed to move otherwise. It was Syria and Syria's allies in Lebanon. Put whatever suppositions and possibilities you want and work accordingly. Here I again call for taking seriously the Israeli possibility in the course of the investigation. I tackled this issue, a year, two years and three years ago but it only was met with deaf ears. Why? That's because there is a prejudgment and a fabricated investigation that insists on moving in one direction. On Wednesday, MP Saed Hariri said a true word which I agree on: the assassination operation might not have been staged by one person or a group of persons. That's true. Every rational person accepts this deduction. But when talking about the Israeli possibility, I pose this question: Does Israel possess the capabilities to execute such an operation? This question is for all March 14 bloc and for all the Lebanese. Let's dispense with the play of recording more points on each other. Can Israel execute such an operation or not? This is indisputable. Indeed it is able to do that. Does Israel have the motive? Indeed yes. Does Israel have interest in that? Yes indeed. Israel had an interest that a sectarian war erupt in Lebanon in which the resistance be a part so as to revenge for the victory of May 2000 and to rid itself of what it considers a threat. Israel had the interest that a new regional war takes place and that US troops do not deploy in Baghdad only but also in Damascus and Beirut and that the whole region fall in the hand of America and consequently in the hand of Israel. The assassination of Premier Hariri was a gateway that might lead to a sectarian war in Lebanon and to a regional war via the political accusations that were fabricated. Whoever says that Israel does not possess the motive or the interest to kill Premier Hariri is killing Premier Hariri again. And so far and though it's not the first time I pose this question, I haven't ever heard one answer from any of March 14 group who says whether Israel has the motive or interest for that or not. Rather Israel is absolutely outside the accusation cycle. It's not even 0% in the accusation cycle according to them. This is illogical, nonscientific and not objective. Put spite, considerations and competences aside. Logically, scientifically and objectively, isn't there a 1% or 10% probability? Have you worked on this possibility? No you didn't. Now if we worked on this path – and I am not saying end the investigation course which supposes Syria and its allies. Carry on in this course but also open the Israeli course and work on it. Few weeks ago, the intelligence branch in the Internal Security Forces arrested a number of Israeli spying nets. That's good but should the intelligence branch in the Internal Security Forces for four years have exerted the effort it is exerting on Israeli spying nets it might have reached somewhere in the cause of the martyr Premier, shouldn't it? It might have reached somewhere! There is a possibility, taking into consideration that the working on Israeli nets needs much effort and the cooperation of the Lebanese people and all the security apparatuses. All people must help in that: the wife, the father, the mother, the son, the neighbor…. All must cooperate with the security apparatuses in this context. But detaining one, two or three nets doesn't end the story with the Israelis. That's because the Israelis are in Lebanon. That's well known in the country. True, it is not organized because one person is linked to one Israeli officer or two persons are linked to another Israeli officer. The groups are not open to each others. Consequently a large-scale operation must be staged because it's clear from the nets which were arrested that the Israeli security presence is very wide. As I said before it is not true that Hezbollah has the information and security capabilities to disclose all these nets as some assume. Here I say again that's not true. It's not a shame when someone admits the limitations of his capabilities. What the security apparatuses disclosed wasn't discovered by us. There are many nets which neither we nor the security apparatuses know about. We must all cooperate and work in this field to disclose it. Here again I raise this question. An Israeli agent has admitted his collaboration. He is convicted in the investigation in the Lebanese judiciary. His name is Mahmoud Rafea. In his confessions, Mahmoud Rafea, who was arrested having communication and filming apparatuses in his possession - admits that he used to receive large cases or black sacs of explosives which he used to put in a definite place in Mount Lebanon. After a period of time when he would come to put other sacs, he wouldn't find the former ones. I will evoke this question again which I have asked before but no one did answer it: Where did these explosives sacs go? Can't Israel deliver 2000 kg of TNT to kill Premier Hariri and to execute the other operations in which one, two, ten, fifteen or twenty-five kg have been used? Mahmoud Rafea might not – even if you skin him – know who came and took the cases and black sacs, and I would believe him because this is the Israeli technique. The Israelis disjoint the members and nets apart. But that must not make us refrain from searching for those unknown phantoms who took the cases and black sacs. Why wasn't it allowed – during the past four years – to ask what have they done with these explosives all through this duration?
Let's cooperate. We want an investigation moving in the true and normal path. They say they haven't found anything all through the past four years. That's true because you haven't taken the right path. You put the investigation on one track and you reached nowhere. Let the investigation move in other directions and see if the Israeli path would lead anywhere especially that security apparatuses are revealing that the technological Israeli capacities are very high and greater than what we have imagined. It seems there are new developments in this perspective which neither we nor the security apparatuses apprehend. We need time and effort to apprehend them whether in the communication world, the world of electronics, or the technical, execution or intelligence domain. I don't want to scare people but there's something serious we are facing which we mustn't run away from and resort again to political accusation.
Finally, I respect all the conflicting sentiments experienced by the various Lebanese groups on Wednesday. All people have feelings which we respect. On one hand, it was a duty to welcome the officers and their families because they were greatly oppressed and on their oppression and arrest was based what might have rushed the country to unwelcome consequences. That was still existing. In fact, I may comprehend the release of the officers at that moment. It's a serious stage faced in Lebanon by the Lebanese people, the state and the region, and this stage was ended. That's why they deserved salutation. But on the other hand, we like to address the other sentiments saying: O brothers and dear ones! We do not want to use this event to glee on the others' grief or for liquidation or to invest it for elections. We all know in Lebanon that should the whole world be demolished and build again that will not affect on the elections on June 7. The talk about influencing the elections is exaggerated. There might be a simple or modest influence because the elections are final due to the present aligning. The unclear square or the altering current that might be influenced by internal, regional or international events and thus might shift from one side to another are but a few. I don't want to minimize the political electoral influence of the release – and we've read in newspapers that there were attempts to delay their release until after the elections – but let's put this issue aside. Let's return to our national consensus and re-track the course. Let's not waste another four years in our quest for the truth and reaching it. Should we reach the truth, Lebanon will be before abundant welfare and this is what we all hope for and look forward too.
Back to topics of the speech, the first topic is the crisis with the Egyptian regime. As you know, more than three weeks have passed on this crisis since the Egyptian General Prosecutor first made his accusations and allegations against one of our brethrens and another group of persons. Since then, a wide and broad political and media campaign was launched and is still ongoing to this very moment. The Egyptian regime took part in this campaign from the head of the regime, to the concerned ministries, concerned bodies, and media along others from the Arab world. Then I talked frankly and commented on the issue. From Hezbollah's side, we contented ourselves generally with what I said then, and we didn't get engaged in a media and political confrontation with the regime in Egypt. So we aren't part in the confrontation. What we have been witnessing during the past weeks and are still witnessing until now is a unilateral political-media war launched by the Egyptian regime. Commenting on this campaign, I would like to say that should the allegations which they are talking about be true and should there be a true case, they wouldn't have needed all this propaganda and media campaign. Should they have logic on which they would rely, they wouldn't have needed all these insults and low and improper terms to which, unfortunately, senior officials in the Egyptian regime, editors-in-chief and senior journalists in more than one place have resorted. Since the very beginning they said that the issue is judiciary. If it was really so, why did they need all this great media and political effort? At this very moment I wonder what did the Egyptian regime achieve from its incessant campaign on Hezbollah? In my opinion, it didn't gain anything. Yes, it gained one thing: it discharged its anguish. I see that this is what it achieved so far. Or else what are the political and media achievements it made so far? Has it achieved any of the sought, expected or assumed aims? Has the regime been able through its broad campaign to convince the Egyptian people in particular and the Arab people in general of the portrait it wanted to present Hezbollah and the resistance in Lebanon with? I say: no. I advise them to resort to unbiased parties which make opinion polls whether in Egypt or in the Arab world to discover this truth. I myself have gone through a number of such polls. They may ask through such polls whether they were convincing in the accusations they presented and the images they wanted to distort. They will find out that they didn't achieve anything and that they convinced neither the Egyptian nor the Arab peoples.
The other point is that did the Egyptian regime - after the arrest of brethren Sami Shihab and all this propaganda and media and political campaign – become certain that the toppling attempt which it accuses Hezbollah of being engaged in or of manipulating came to an end? Does it feel the regime is secure now? Has the Egyptian regime restored its regional and international position through this campaign? Indeed no. Has it been able to distort forever the image of Hezbollah? Again I say no. Has it been able to influence the Lebanese elections? (And this has been mentioned as one of the supposed aims to be achieved through embarrassing Hezbollah) In fact, Hezbollah was not embarrassed with these accusations. Neither were its allies. Here I assure you. So none of the supposed or expected aims of the campaign launched by the Egyptian regime against Hezbollah has been achieved so far. So if they wanted to carry on in this media campaign, that's their own business. We have said from the very beginning we are not engaged in any media or political confrontation.
During Gaza War, our stance was sound and normal. Some days before, I heard the Egyptian President in some of his speeches warning of Egypt's wrath. We hoped that we've witnessed some of Egypt's wrath when hundreds of women and children in Gaza were being killed and thousands of residences demolished while Gaza was standing alone in face of the Israel-American aggression against it. Anyway, we are not concerned in indulging in a confrontation and reiterating what I have said before. This is not something new. We didn't form an organization in Egypt and we are neither concerned nor willing to form an organization in Egypt. We didn't target Egypt, its security, systems or stability. We are not concerned in its internal affairs. We are working for a very clear cause: supporting our Palestinian brethrens. This is our accusation, crime and sin for which we are being punished.
Several Lebanese and Arab leaderships have called for addressing this crisis calmly and logically. That's true. This is what we've committed ourselves to since the very first day. We are following this issue with legal and judiciary means. We'll see where that will lead. Indeed there are sides which we trust in and respect and which are working to address this issue rationally and calmly. We hope these efforts will yield the desired results. Here I must thank and express my appreciation to all those who have bravely supported us allover the Arab and Islamic world and globally especially those who were harmed because they defended the resistance and more precisely those who backed us in Egypt. In fact they were defending Egypt as they were defending the Resistance in Lebanon because what happened is an abuse to Egypt and not to Hezbollah. I thank them all and appreciate their stand by our side. It was in fact a stand by the side of rightfulness, the resistance, the nation and the conscience of the nation and not a stand by the side of a definite party, political faction or group. It is a stand for all, history and a part of the true fight led by our nation for decades.
I tell the Egyptian officials: if you chose to carry on with your campaign, it's up to you but you will not gain anything. With time your business will be dull. I even tell you that through your campaign and accusation you made us a great favor which we thank you for. I will not discuss that now because it will be revealed with time.
Indeed the intervention of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was remarkable. He made several remarkable statements on the case of so called Hezbollah cell in Egypt. He even sent his special envoy Terej Roed Larsen to Cairo who in his turn made remarkable statements on the cause. Here I would like to pause with the text mentioned by Ban Ki-Moon. When he talks about Hezbollah, Egypt and the cell he says: "It's appalling to me." Notice the expression. It's appalling to me that Hezbollah admitted openly that it's providing support to the militias in Gaza through the Egyptian territories. (His Eminence comments saying that the UN Secretary General did not resort to such courtesies when Gaza was subject to massacre and holocaust before the eyes of the whole world.) More than 1300 martyrs -the majority of them were women and children were killed. It was a true massacre. Internationally banned weapons were used while the Palestinian people in Gaza were under total siege. Palestinian civilians were killed in UN centers. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon did not use such expressions. When talking about Lebanon, he handles Hezbollah and talks about condemnations and convictions. But when they talk about Israeli nets they say that they took record of the accusation brought by the Lebanese government on April 23rd against a retired Lebanese officer and three others charged of spying for Israel. Ban Ki-Moon said: If these allegations were verified that would be a violation of the Lebanese sovereignty by Israel. On the other hand, he dispatches Larsen to Cairo who in his turn shows up and makes lengthy statements about the seriousness of the issue coupled with conviction and the like. He didn't even use the term "should the accusation be verified". That's because the issue hasn't been wrapped up judicially yet. So far the accusation is still an accusation. Let's say it's the accusation made by the General Prosecutor or the security apparatus. He didn't say if the accusation is verified we (Hezbollah) would be such and such. He instantly took a position.
Anyway, we will talk about the UN Secretary General and the statements later. This is not the point of our talk for today. It is related to the communication network in Lebanon. Here notice how a year later he is reminding the Lebanese of the communication network which was about to lead Lebanon to a tremendous catastrophe due to the hasty decisions taken at that time, to frighten the Lebanese and to threaten security… Mr. Ban Ki-Moon is thrusting the United Nations into a confrontation with Hezbollah, the resistance movements in the region and the peoples and conscience of the region for free and for the interest of the Zionist entity and the Zionist project in the region. This is inappropriate for the United Nations and its position.
In the same framework, we are witnessing a wide campaign in more than one place around the world. This campaign was taking place before but here I tell you that it will mushroom with time. This is a natural consequence of our position and importance and the seriousness of the cause we adopt and work for. In this framework comes the report of the US State Department which wants to categorize Hezbollah as the most serious terrorist organization. Still more, Israel accuses Hezbollah of plunging it with drugs. A report is issued from a European state and another is American and has to do with Mexico. So we have a campaign from all sides with the aim of portraying Hezbollah as a terrorist group which has to do with drugs, killing, counterfeiting, mafias… Well this is not true at all because Hezbollah is a resistance group which is noble, truthful, clean, pure, patient, honest and faithful. The problem for them is that it's a serious and victorious resistance.
The reason behind all this propaganda and distorting media campaigns is our position which refuses the Zionist project, refuses recognizing Israel but as a usurper entity which occupies the lands of others and the nation's sanctities and refuses the US hegemony on Lebanon and the region. This is our crime. Now if we sought to contact the Americans and tell them that we are not concerned with the so called Arab-Israeli conflict, we are not concerned with the cause of the nation which is the cause of Palestine, we are not concerned with defending even Lebanon whether the Lebanese authority defended Lebanon or not and our weapon will not be pointed towards Lebanon's enemies namely Israel. Then there won't be any problem. We will be removed from the terrorist lists. There won't be any accusations. They would rather find excuses for us for whatever we might do or whatever we are accused of. On the contrary, they won't oppose if we kept our weapon for internal usage. They have no problem if we pointed our weapon inward. The problem of the Americans as well as the Israelis with our weapon is that its true aim is confronting the Israeli occupation and aggression. This is the true reason. There is no other reason. Should we rid ourselves of our skin and change it and move our arms from one shoulder to another in the Lebanese fashion, we would become a civilized democratic model which American and western media takes pride in and boasts of.
Thus I address the people of the resistance in Lebanon along with our Arab and Islamic world. Do not feel sorry or sad for all the accusations and abuses you and the resistance fighters in Lebanon, in Palestine or in any other place are charged of. That's normal. It goes with the struggle and confrontation. That's normal for a people who stand to defend their rights, dignity and honor. It's part of the battle that they be accused, abused and cursed as they might be killed, captured, made homeless, displaced or have their homes demolished.
The last point in this topic: I tell the campaign wagers in the Egyptian regime and also in more than one place in the Arab world or around the globe: You are wasting your money and efforts in vain. If you believe that the campaign of abuses, curses, falsehoods and accusations might harm us, our will, determination and faith, you are totally mistaken. Let July War be your lesson. For 33 days we were under continuous shelling. The whole world was condemning us: the Security Council, the G8, the decision-making capitals and several Arab countries. Harsh and very fierce legal opinions were taken against us. Accusations and sweeping campaigns were waged from here and there. We were killed and bombarded. Our families, fathers, wives, mothers and children were displaced in Lebanon, Syria and other countries. Still all through that historic battle, our will did not wane, our determination did not fade and our faith was not shaken. We are the people of faith in Allah and the Day of Judgment. We believe in the rightfulness of our cause and the integrity of our path. Consequently don't imagine that all of that might shake any of the pillars of our will, determination and faith.
I want to take advantage of this occasion to make a new approach or review of both the case of the assassination of martyr Rafiq Hariri, the investigation, the STL and the truth in a way that serves this case. First, I want to congratulate the generals, their families and fans for their release and return to freedom. On this occasion, I would like to talk responsibly and cautiously without any zeal, emotion or excitement. That's because we are handling a very sensitive issue, and we are talking about the most crucial stage in Lebanon's modern history. In fact we are still living this crucial stage.
After the assassination of martyr Rafiq Hariri in February 2005, the Lebanese agreed unanimously on condemning the assassination. So that was not a point of disagreement among the Lebanese. The Lebanese also unanimously agreed on the necessity of carrying a continuous serious judiciary investigation to reveal the truth. The Lebanese unanimously agreed on the necessity of punishing the killers whoever they may be. All these points were agreed upon among the Lebanese before the demonstration staged on March 8, within March 8 demonstration and within March 14 demonstration and after them. These points were not points of disagreement among the Lebanese so that some claim them for themselves and deny them on others. These points of agreement were to form the strongest support and guarantee to the cause of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri were we able at that stage to reserve this consensus and act accordingly. I think as such we would have offered the greatest service to the cause of the martyr Premier. Yet the Lebanese disagreed on the political accusation in the cause. The disagreement in the political accusation led to the disagreement on the party which is to carry the investigation. From the first moment of the martyrdom of Premier Rafiq Hariri - when they were still taking his body to the hospital - a political party in Lebanon rushed and finger-pointed at Syria, Syria's allies, the Lebanese authority and the Lebanese government and accused them of assassinating him. It didn't stop there. They judged them politically, publicly and by the media. They condemned and punished them as well. In their punishment they called on the kind Lebanese people to punish the killers of Premier Rafiq Hariri in the ballot boxes during Elections 2005 speeches. They built all their political project, political movement, relations, alliances, enmities and friendships on the basis of this accusation. This also was applied on us. We were a party on the Quartet. The beginning of the problem was with this very point. They made this political accusation and they wanted us to follow them. When we did not keep up with them, the attack began on us, the resistance and the weapon of the resistance using the attributes you know.
This hasty, fierce, severe, violent and ongoing political accusation might have led to civil and sectarian war in Lebanon. But the wise and the rational prevented reaching that far. It might have led to regional war also and the bringing about of western and American armies to Syria and Lebanon. But this was evaded through the decision taken by President Bashar Assad to pull the Syrian forces from Lebanon. On the other hand, another political party was saying we must keep open to all possibilities and assumptions of the party behind the assassination. We must wait for the results of the investigation and we mustn't politically accuse any party. That's because any political accusation would be the basis for definite political, public and emotional situations and for spite and hostility which nobody knows where it will lead the country. The political party which then called for investigation and refused to make political accusations was accused of defending and covering the killers. It was confronted with a media, political, psychological, sectarian and factional terrorizing campaign unfortunately. Indeed we were among this other political party which was calling for waiting for the investigation and for not accusing politically. I said more than once on the TV screen and I told MP Saed Hariri should the investigation reveal that Syria is behind the assassination, we in Hezbollah will be by your side (I won't say before you because that'll be overbidding). But let's first wait for the investigation. All the terrorizing campaigns then could not force us and convince us by any means to join the band of political accusation.
Political accusation and political investment of the assassination led to disagreement on the party which was to carry on the investigation. Which party is supposed to handle the assassination of Premier Rafic Hariri and carry on the investigation? Which party must judge? Which judicial party is entitled for judging? First, we called for a Lebanese investigation and judiciary. Those who started defending Lebanese judiciary two days ago said then that the Lebanese judiciary is weak and feeble. We can't entrust it to a cause as serious as the assassination of Premier Rafiq Hariri. They refused a Lebanese investigation and judiciary to sentence whoever is accused or is involved in the assassination.
That ended there. We called for a common Lebanese-Saudi investigation. To be just, the family of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri accepted. Syria accepted. The Lebanese government had no problem in that. Saudi Arabia then refused and it had its considerations. We called for an Arab investigation. They refused. They then said that would be a precedent in which the Arabs can't get engaged. They called for an international investigation. First we showed reservation. That's true and we expressed our fear from politicization, investment and unfairness of the international investigation. But to respect the other party and the will of the other party and especially the feelings of the family of Premier martyr Rafiq Hariri and the broad party represented by this martyr we accepted and unanimously agreed on that during the national dialogue conference. More than once we participated in the Lebanese government and voted for the extension for the international investigation committee. Still we were cautious. Caution and doubt were never abolished. The international investigation committee was formed and its first head was Mehlis. After a brief period, the international investigation committee under Judge Mehlis ordered the detention of the four generals and Abdulaal brothers and others. Actually they were arrested. I confess then we kept silent despite our conviction that such an assassination might not have been in fact executed by a group of four senior generals in the country. They talked also about a group of Syrian generals. None of them executes such an assassination operation. Still we waited to see what the international investigation committee based its decision on. After a brief period, it was revealed that the international investigation committee relied on the testimony of so-called Mohammad Zuheir Assideeq and other similar witnesses. After few weeks, I met several senior officials in the current authority in various posts in the other bloc. They frankly told me that it was clear that Mohamad Zuheir Assideeq – the so-called king witness – is fabricated, a fake witness and a liar. Few days later that was known and circulated in the media. The king witness disappeared. Here comes the question: if the international investigation committee was really acting in a legal and professional way away from politicization and intrusions of some members of March 14 group and the countries supporting this group, the four generals and the rest of the arrested must have been released on that very day and not about four years after the lying of the liar was revealed and it was verified that he is fake. The whole investigation was demolished. Nothing condemns the four generals anymore. Were there fairness and justice then, Mehlis and whoever followed must have said nothing was proved against the four generals and we -as an investigation committee - will release them and if anything else was one day proved we will summon them again. This might have been fair and impartial but not keeping the generals and the other captives arrested all through this long period of time without investigation and without interrogating witnesses and with the fall of the fake witnesses. Here I tell you, they were not set free at that early time because their release would have had great and severe political, psychological and moral consequences on the other project and on all what was taking place in the region. That's way they were kept in custody. They were absolutely political reasons. Around the world and in more than one place, there were those who were covering and safeguarding the continuity of the political arrest. Who assumes responsibility of this political arrest? We will move now to this decision and our understanding of it. We want to classify it and go from it to the next stage and try to cooperate and put it on the right track. All through these three years and eight months – all through the custody period of the generals - the leaders in March 14 bloc made many statements. Even on Wednesday most of them said and were trying to defend the Lebanese judiciary saying the arrest decision was taken by the international investigation committee and the continuity of the arrest in the jails was taken by the international investigation committee. Great! They are saying that the Lebanese judiciary doesn't assume responsibility. This speech needs scrutiny but I will carry on with it. For conformity, I will mention the text of what Dr. Samir Jaejae said yesterday in a press conference: "Who took the decision to arrest the four generals wasn't Amin Jmail or Samir Jaejae or Saed Hariri or Walid Jumblat but rather the German Investigator Detlev Mehlis." In another place he says: "Some are trying to make use of this event to attack the government and the Lebanese authority. He recalled that the decision of arresting the four generals was taken by Detlev Mehlis and those who followed him: Dolyoun Bremers and Daniel Bellemars, and they haven't issued a recommendation to free the four generals. This is a clear text. Whoever wants to review it, it is present on the website of the Lebanese Forces. Here we pose this question. Let's keep the Lebanese judiciary aside. The subject has continuity and other considerations. But I will carry on evaluating, analyzing and reviewing the position as Dr. Jaejae said and the leaders in March 14 bloc say: i.e. that the decision of arrest was taken by the international committee and they stayed imprisoned for three years and eight months pursuant to a decision taken by the international investigation committee. That means that the release decision which was issued two days ago by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was based on the proposal or approval of the General Prosecutor Bellemars after three years and eight months. In our opinion – and we do not force anyone to adopt our opinion but at least consider discussing it – this is a definite proof that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon all through its activities through the previous stage was politicized, unfair and biased and didn't confirm with legal, professional and judiciary norms at all. As a proof for that nothing took place. So why three years and eight months?
The considerations which prevented the release of the four generals during the three years and eight months were absolutely political. This is condemned in my viewpoint. They say that this decision is a proof for the impartiality and fairness of the international investigation and the STL. Let's evaluate this point together. At the same time, it's a proof that the STL all through the path it pursued during these four years was wrong in detaining the generals and the other captives for political considerations only? Does the decision issued by the judge prove the impartiality and the fairness of the STL? To answer this question we must say something. After the whole period of detention, we are trying to understand why they were released after this long period. Three years and eight months is a long period of precautionary detention. It's a long period for detention of the accused without evidences. It's a long period in all norms especially after the fall of fake testimonies, the disappearance of the king witness and the withdrawal of the other witnesses who confessed that they were fabricated and instructed how to act and what to say. The issue became more than a judicial and political scandal. So there wasn't any possibility of keeping the generals arrested. It was a scandal. True what took place few days ago was at least a correction of the mistake and at most putting an end to a judicial and political scandal. Here I tell you: was the court not formed and the issue remained in the framework or an investigation committee, this mockery might have lasted for a longer period despite all the efforts exerted. But it goes without saying that when a court is formed it must have the final word on the fate of the detainees or else it will be convicted from the first day of its formation. Well this is not for the interest of the STL especially that it found itself before a void fabricated case. Nothing can be built on it at all. Indeed there is something which we might take into consideration and which has played part in showing that the issue has become a political and judiciary scandal. It's the great efforts to display this arbitrary detention exerted by the officers especially General Jamil Assayed, the lawyers, the families and the political, legal, media and civil forces in Lebanon and abroad. Anyway, the judge had no other choice except at least correcting what's wrong or putting an end to the scandal – the scandal fabricated by the international investigation committee which must be held responsible despite our evaluation of the responsibility of the Lebanese judiciary. Here I reach the second stage. As for the first head of committee, he is convicted. So is the second because they kept the generals in custody all this period without any truthful evidence. As for General Prosecutor Bellemars - who used to head the investigation committee and then became a general prosecutor, there are three Bellemars. The first is the head of the international investigation committee who is an accomplice with those who preceded him in the unjust treatment of the four generals and the cause of Premier Hariri. The second Bellemars is the general prosecutor who recommended or did not object on – according to the texts - the release of the generals. This is a good and sound position. There is a third Bellemars whom we don't know anything about. After Wednesday, will the third Bellemars be the first or the second Bellemars? This in fact is a legitimate question. Consequently we want to ask: in the coming stage how will the general prosecutor and the international investigators act? What courses will they follow? How will they behave with the witnesses, testimonies and given presented to them? Will they act in a professional and scientific way? Will the same mistakes committed during these four years in the international investigation be committed again? Will accusations be made against other persons without evidences or based on false witnesses to be released later after four years and thus another four years will be wasted from the age of the case of the martyr Premier? Or will there be scrutiny coupled with evidences, proofs and witnesses in a scientific and objective way away from readymade and pre-set accusations? Here's another question: will the ears of the international investigators and the judges of the STL listen again to those who fabricated Mohammad Zuheir Assideeq and wrote scenarios and presented fake witnesses – one after the other- or will the doors and ears be closed before them besides holding them responsible for misleading the investigation all through these four years?
This is a serious question because whoever misled the investigation for four years might mislead it for a hundred years. He possesses the same background, the same motives and the same capabilities. The information available for us from various sides unfortunately asserts that the ears and doors are still open before this kind of people some of whom dwell currently in Holland and are exclusively occupied with this mission. These questions are not for conviction or confusion or prejudging. They are rather natural and legitimate questions.
Since the first day – since Detlev Mehlis – they called on us to agree without questioning the decisions of the international investigation committee because it's impartial. They wrote poetry on the impartiality of Mehlis and his skillfulness and the great work of the international committee. When Bremers came, they wrote even better and greater poetry on him. The same applies to Bellemars. But four years later, the truth was revealed: falsification and politicization of the international investigation committee pursuant to a decision taken by the judge of the STL and not a decision taken by the Lebanese or any other judiciary.
Today we hope that no one will call on us to accept before hand any decision that might be taken by the general prosecutor or by the international investigation or the court's judges because a truthful decision was taken two days ago. We must see on what evidence or proof that new accusation is based. We will not accept today what we approved of during the first days or weeks of the arrest of the four officers. People are accused and arrested while we remain waiting. No one is allowed to open his mouth because he will be accused of crippling the investigation and covering the culprits. No one can deal with ease with this great oppression which befell the officers and the captives and the very cause of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri. I believe the decision taken by Francine ended a black stage. We are now before a new stage which we will not prejudge positively or negatively. This is fair. We are before a new stage. The general prosecutor, the international investigation and the court's judges must prove through their new performance starting now onwards that they are scientific, professional, fair, impartial and far from politicization. They are able to prove that. The days will prove that or the opposite.
Now there are persons who are trying to give reviews saying there are political backgrounds for the release of the officers linked to the changes taking place around the world. I do not want to make haste in this domain. Rather I will put it aside. After what took place and the release of the officers, Vincent showed up to say: We don't have any accused currently. So we are back to the starting point. My sincere advice now to all the Lebanese and to the family of martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri and his party, to the Lebanese people and all those who are saying that they sympathize and feel sorry for Lebanon: Let's make an approach and a review and consequently see how we can cooperate to reach the truth and reveal it. Let's not waste again the time we wasted in the past four years. Let's repeat the national consensus we agreed on the first days after the martyrdom of Premier Rafiq Hariri. If we want to work correctly and re-track the case, I believe there are several points which we must take into consideration.
First, we must hold the fake witnesses accountable even if the international investigation committee does not consider itself concerned anymore. I don't know what does it consider? Does it consider that Mohamad Zuheir Assideeq and his fellows must be arrested and held accountable because they misled the international investigation? If it doesn't consider this its responsibility, we as Lebanese must call on the Lebanese judiciary to summon, arrest, interrogate and punish these persons to close the door before new fake witnesses in the upcoming course of the investigation. Consequently these fake witnesses must be punished along with whoever made, financed, protected, supported and covered them and along with whoever misled the investigation all through these four years in whatever position they be whether political, media, security or judiciary. That's not for elimination but rather because the Qoran says: "In the Law of Equality there is Life to you, O ye men of understanding". So that it needed so that no one dares again to fabricate new fake witnesses and mislead the investigation and waste more years in this framework. This must be taken seriously.
The second point: O Lebanese! O brothers! O leaders of political factions and parties. Four years have passed through which the country went through hard labors as a result of a political accusation. Let's relax for a while – at least for a year – and put political accusation and political condemnation aside. Political accusation and condemnation were about to set Lebanon and the whole region on fire. Let's put political accusation and political condemnation aside and call - all of us as Lebanese – again for a serious, scientific, technical, professional and objective investigation to reach the truth.
The third point is that the Lebanese judiciary and Lebanese security apparatuses must work in this framework and not be content that this is the responsibility of the international investigation committee. In fact they were working in this domain before but they must deal with it with new spirituality which we also demand from General Prosecutor Bellemars and the international investigation. This is in fact what we were calling for from the very beginning four years ago. Be open to all possibilities and options. For four years the investigation was moving in one direction and not allowed to move otherwise. It was Syria and Syria's allies in Lebanon. Put whatever suppositions and possibilities you want and work accordingly. Here I again call for taking seriously the Israeli possibility in the course of the investigation. I tackled this issue, a year, two years and three years ago but it only was met with deaf ears. Why? That's because there is a prejudgment and a fabricated investigation that insists on moving in one direction. On Wednesday, MP Saed Hariri said a true word which I agree on: the assassination operation might not have been staged by one person or a group of persons. That's true. Every rational person accepts this deduction. But when talking about the Israeli possibility, I pose this question: Does Israel possess the capabilities to execute such an operation? This question is for all March 14 bloc and for all the Lebanese. Let's dispense with the play of recording more points on each other. Can Israel execute such an operation or not? This is indisputable. Indeed it is able to do that. Does Israel have the motive? Indeed yes. Does Israel have interest in that? Yes indeed. Israel had an interest that a sectarian war erupt in Lebanon in which the resistance be a part so as to revenge for the victory of May 2000 and to rid itself of what it considers a threat. Israel had the interest that a new regional war takes place and that US troops do not deploy in Baghdad only but also in Damascus and Beirut and that the whole region fall in the hand of America and consequently in the hand of Israel. The assassination of Premier Hariri was a gateway that might lead to a sectarian war in Lebanon and to a regional war via the political accusations that were fabricated. Whoever says that Israel does not possess the motive or the interest to kill Premier Hariri is killing Premier Hariri again. And so far and though it's not the first time I pose this question, I haven't ever heard one answer from any of March 14 group who says whether Israel has the motive or interest for that or not. Rather Israel is absolutely outside the accusation cycle. It's not even 0% in the accusation cycle according to them. This is illogical, nonscientific and not objective. Put spite, considerations and competences aside. Logically, scientifically and objectively, isn't there a 1% or 10% probability? Have you worked on this possibility? No you didn't. Now if we worked on this path – and I am not saying end the investigation course which supposes Syria and its allies. Carry on in this course but also open the Israeli course and work on it. Few weeks ago, the intelligence branch in the Internal Security Forces arrested a number of Israeli spying nets. That's good but should the intelligence branch in the Internal Security Forces for four years have exerted the effort it is exerting on Israeli spying nets it might have reached somewhere in the cause of the martyr Premier, shouldn't it? It might have reached somewhere! There is a possibility, taking into consideration that the working on Israeli nets needs much effort and the cooperation of the Lebanese people and all the security apparatuses. All people must help in that: the wife, the father, the mother, the son, the neighbor…. All must cooperate with the security apparatuses in this context. But detaining one, two or three nets doesn't end the story with the Israelis. That's because the Israelis are in Lebanon. That's well known in the country. True, it is not organized because one person is linked to one Israeli officer or two persons are linked to another Israeli officer. The groups are not open to each others. Consequently a large-scale operation must be staged because it's clear from the nets which were arrested that the Israeli security presence is very wide. As I said before it is not true that Hezbollah has the information and security capabilities to disclose all these nets as some assume. Here I say again that's not true. It's not a shame when someone admits the limitations of his capabilities. What the security apparatuses disclosed wasn't discovered by us. There are many nets which neither we nor the security apparatuses know about. We must all cooperate and work in this field to disclose it. Here again I raise this question. An Israeli agent has admitted his collaboration. He is convicted in the investigation in the Lebanese judiciary. His name is Mahmoud Rafea. In his confessions, Mahmoud Rafea, who was arrested having communication and filming apparatuses in his possession - admits that he used to receive large cases or black sacs of explosives which he used to put in a definite place in Mount Lebanon. After a period of time when he would come to put other sacs, he wouldn't find the former ones. I will evoke this question again which I have asked before but no one did answer it: Where did these explosives sacs go? Can't Israel deliver 2000 kg of TNT to kill Premier Hariri and to execute the other operations in which one, two, ten, fifteen or twenty-five kg have been used? Mahmoud Rafea might not – even if you skin him – know who came and took the cases and black sacs, and I would believe him because this is the Israeli technique. The Israelis disjoint the members and nets apart. But that must not make us refrain from searching for those unknown phantoms who took the cases and black sacs. Why wasn't it allowed – during the past four years – to ask what have they done with these explosives all through this duration?
Let's cooperate. We want an investigation moving in the true and normal path. They say they haven't found anything all through the past four years. That's true because you haven't taken the right path. You put the investigation on one track and you reached nowhere. Let the investigation move in other directions and see if the Israeli path would lead anywhere especially that security apparatuses are revealing that the technological Israeli capacities are very high and greater than what we have imagined. It seems there are new developments in this perspective which neither we nor the security apparatuses apprehend. We need time and effort to apprehend them whether in the communication world, the world of electronics, or the technical, execution or intelligence domain. I don't want to scare people but there's something serious we are facing which we mustn't run away from and resort again to political accusation.
Finally, I respect all the conflicting sentiments experienced by the various Lebanese groups on Wednesday. All people have feelings which we respect. On one hand, it was a duty to welcome the officers and their families because they were greatly oppressed and on their oppression and arrest was based what might have rushed the country to unwelcome consequences. That was still existing. In fact, I may comprehend the release of the officers at that moment. It's a serious stage faced in Lebanon by the Lebanese people, the state and the region, and this stage was ended. That's why they deserved salutation. But on the other hand, we like to address the other sentiments saying: O brothers and dear ones! We do not want to use this event to glee on the others' grief or for liquidation or to invest it for elections. We all know in Lebanon that should the whole world be demolished and build again that will not affect on the elections on June 7. The talk about influencing the elections is exaggerated. There might be a simple or modest influence because the elections are final due to the present aligning. The unclear square or the altering current that might be influenced by internal, regional or international events and thus might shift from one side to another are but a few. I don't want to minimize the political electoral influence of the release – and we've read in newspapers that there were attempts to delay their release until after the elections – but let's put this issue aside. Let's return to our national consensus and re-track the course. Let's not waste another four years in our quest for the truth and reaching it. Should we reach the truth, Lebanon will be before abundant welfare and this is what we all hope for and look forward too.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Sadly, Israel is no longer democratic (assuming it ever was!)
by Shulamit Aloni for Ha'aretz:
Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin and philosopher Asa Kasher, two respected men around here, published an article entitled: "A just war of a democratic state," (Haaretz, April 24, Hebrew).
A remark about the first part: There are wars that are necessary for self-defense or to fight injustice and evil. But the expression "just" is problematic when speaking of war itself - which involves killing and destruction and leaves women, children and old people homeless, and sometimes even kills them.
Our sages have said: "Don't be overly righteous." And there is absolutely no question that dropping cluster bombs in an area populated by civilians, as we did in the Second Lebanon War, does not testify to great righteousness. The same thing can be said of using phosphorus bombs against a civilian population.
Apparently, according to the Yadlin and Kasher definition of justice, in order to eliminate terrorists it is just to destroy, kill, expel and starve a civilian population that has no connection to the acts of terror and no responsibility for them. Perhaps had they adopted a more decent and less arrogant approach they would have tried to explain the reasons for the fury and intensity that brought about the shocking killing and destruction, and even apologized for the fact that these exceeded any reasonable necessity.
But after all, we are always right; moreover, these things were done by "the most moral army in the world," sent by the "democratic" Jewish state - and here is the meeting point of the two concepts in the title of Yadlin and Kasher's article.
As for the army's morality, it would have been better had they remained silent and thereby been considered wise. This is because the statistics on the destruction and harm to civilians in the Gaza Strip are familiar to everyone, and not divorced from the oh-so-moral behavior of our army in the occupied territories. In the context of this behavior, for example, the army operates with great efficiency against farmers who demonstrate against the theft of their lands, even when the demonstrations are not violent.
The long-term evidence of abuse by soldiers against civilians at the checkpoints - including repeated instances of expectant mothers who are forced to give birth in the middle of the road, surrounded by armed soldiers who laugh wickedly - is no secret either. Day after day, year after year, the most moral army in the world helps to steal lands, uproot trees, steal water, close roads - in the service of the righteous "Jewish and democratic" state and with its support. It's heartbreaking, but the State of Israel is no longer democratic. We are living in an ethnocracy under "Jewish and democratic" rule.
In 1970 it was decided that in Israel religion and nationality are one and the same (that is why we are not listed in the Population Registry as Israelis, but as Jews). In 1992 it was determined in the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty that Israel is a "Jewish state." There is no mention in this law of the promise that appears in the state's formative document, the Declaration of Independence, to the effect that "The State of Israel will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex." The Knesset ratified the law nonetheless.
And so there is a "Jewish state" and no "equality of rights." Therefore some observers emphasize that the Jewish state is not "a state of all its citizens." Is there really a democracy that is not a state of all its citizens? After all, Jews living today in democratic countries enjoy the full rights of citizenship.
Democracy exists in the State of Israel today only in the formal sense: There are parties and elections and a good judicial system. But there is also an omnipotent army that ignores legal decisions that restrict the theft of land owned and held by people who have been living under occupation for the past 42 years. And since 1992, as we mentioned, we also have the definition "Jewish state," which means an ethnocracy - the rule of an ethnic religious community that strictly determines the ethnic origin of its citizens according to maternal lineage. And as far as other religions are concerned, disrespect for them is already a tradition, since we have learned: "Only you are considered human beings, whereas the gentiles are like donkeys."
From here it is clear that we and our moral army are exempt from concerns for the Palestinians living in Israel, and this is even more true of those living under occupation. On the other hand, it is perfectly all right to steal their land because these are "state lands" that belong to the State of Israel and its Jews.
That is the case even though we have not annexed the West Bank and have not granted citizenship to its inhabitants, who under Jordanian rule were Jordanian citizens. The State of Israel has penned them in, which makes it easy to confiscate their land for the benefit of its settlers.
And important and respected rabbis, who are educating an entire generation, have ruled that the whole country is ours and the Palestinians should share the fate of Amalek, the ancient tribe the Israelites were commanded to eradicate. At a time when a "just war" is taking place, racism is rife and robbery is called "return of property."
We are currently celebrating the 61st anniversary of the State of Israel. We fought in the War of Independence out of a great hope that we would build a "model society" here, that we would make peace with our neighbors, work the land and develop the Jewish genius for the benefit of science, culture and the value of man - every man. But when a major general and a philosopher justify - out of a sense of moral superiority - our acts of injustice toward the other in such a way, they cast a very heavy shadow on all those hopes.
Shulamit Aloni is an Isareli politician from the Meretz Party who has held the positions of Minister without Portfolio, Minister of Education and Culture, Minister of Communications, Minister of Science and Technology, and Minister of Science and the Arts in various Israeli governments. Aloni is a recipient of the Israel Prize. In 1998 she was awarded the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin and philosopher Asa Kasher, two respected men around here, published an article entitled: "A just war of a democratic state," (Haaretz, April 24, Hebrew).
A remark about the first part: There are wars that are necessary for self-defense or to fight injustice and evil. But the expression "just" is problematic when speaking of war itself - which involves killing and destruction and leaves women, children and old people homeless, and sometimes even kills them.
Our sages have said: "Don't be overly righteous." And there is absolutely no question that dropping cluster bombs in an area populated by civilians, as we did in the Second Lebanon War, does not testify to great righteousness. The same thing can be said of using phosphorus bombs against a civilian population.
Apparently, according to the Yadlin and Kasher definition of justice, in order to eliminate terrorists it is just to destroy, kill, expel and starve a civilian population that has no connection to the acts of terror and no responsibility for them. Perhaps had they adopted a more decent and less arrogant approach they would have tried to explain the reasons for the fury and intensity that brought about the shocking killing and destruction, and even apologized for the fact that these exceeded any reasonable necessity.
But after all, we are always right; moreover, these things were done by "the most moral army in the world," sent by the "democratic" Jewish state - and here is the meeting point of the two concepts in the title of Yadlin and Kasher's article.
As for the army's morality, it would have been better had they remained silent and thereby been considered wise. This is because the statistics on the destruction and harm to civilians in the Gaza Strip are familiar to everyone, and not divorced from the oh-so-moral behavior of our army in the occupied territories. In the context of this behavior, for example, the army operates with great efficiency against farmers who demonstrate against the theft of their lands, even when the demonstrations are not violent.
The long-term evidence of abuse by soldiers against civilians at the checkpoints - including repeated instances of expectant mothers who are forced to give birth in the middle of the road, surrounded by armed soldiers who laugh wickedly - is no secret either. Day after day, year after year, the most moral army in the world helps to steal lands, uproot trees, steal water, close roads - in the service of the righteous "Jewish and democratic" state and with its support. It's heartbreaking, but the State of Israel is no longer democratic. We are living in an ethnocracy under "Jewish and democratic" rule.In 1970 it was decided that in Israel religion and nationality are one and the same (that is why we are not listed in the Population Registry as Israelis, but as Jews). In 1992 it was determined in the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty that Israel is a "Jewish state." There is no mention in this law of the promise that appears in the state's formative document, the Declaration of Independence, to the effect that "The State of Israel will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex." The Knesset ratified the law nonetheless.
And so there is a "Jewish state" and no "equality of rights." Therefore some observers emphasize that the Jewish state is not "a state of all its citizens." Is there really a democracy that is not a state of all its citizens? After all, Jews living today in democratic countries enjoy the full rights of citizenship.
Democracy exists in the State of Israel today only in the formal sense: There are parties and elections and a good judicial system. But there is also an omnipotent army that ignores legal decisions that restrict the theft of land owned and held by people who have been living under occupation for the past 42 years. And since 1992, as we mentioned, we also have the definition "Jewish state," which means an ethnocracy - the rule of an ethnic religious community that strictly determines the ethnic origin of its citizens according to maternal lineage. And as far as other religions are concerned, disrespect for them is already a tradition, since we have learned: "Only you are considered human beings, whereas the gentiles are like donkeys."
From here it is clear that we and our moral army are exempt from concerns for the Palestinians living in Israel, and this is even more true of those living under occupation. On the other hand, it is perfectly all right to steal their land because these are "state lands" that belong to the State of Israel and its Jews.
That is the case even though we have not annexed the West Bank and have not granted citizenship to its inhabitants, who under Jordanian rule were Jordanian citizens. The State of Israel has penned them in, which makes it easy to confiscate their land for the benefit of its settlers.
And important and respected rabbis, who are educating an entire generation, have ruled that the whole country is ours and the Palestinians should share the fate of Amalek, the ancient tribe the Israelites were commanded to eradicate. At a time when a "just war" is taking place, racism is rife and robbery is called "return of property."
We are currently celebrating the 61st anniversary of the State of Israel. We fought in the War of Independence out of a great hope that we would build a "model society" here, that we would make peace with our neighbors, work the land and develop the Jewish genius for the benefit of science, culture and the value of man - every man. But when a major general and a philosopher justify - out of a sense of moral superiority - our acts of injustice toward the other in such a way, they cast a very heavy shadow on all those hopes.
Shulamit Aloni is an Isareli politician from the Meretz Party who has held the positions of Minister without Portfolio, Minister of Education and Culture, Minister of Communications, Minister of Science and Technology, and Minister of Science and the Arts in various Israeli governments. Aloni is a recipient of the Israel Prize. In 1998 she was awarded the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
American kids are the most brainwashed kids on the planet
Check this out:
Poor kids really. Filling their bodies (sodas) and minds with garbage. And then giving money to Ronald McDonald House.
Clearly - Holocaust-worship has become a mainstream cult in the ZOG controlled USA. Scary, really.
Poor kids really. Filling their bodies (sodas) and minds with garbage. And then giving money to Ronald McDonald House.
Clearly - Holocaust-worship has become a mainstream cult in the ZOG controlled USA. Scary, really.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Feds drop charges against AIPAC spies
If there was any doubt at all that the USA is an Israeli colony, here is the proof:
(AP via Yahoo): ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Federal prosecutors moved Friday to dismiss espionage-related charges against two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of disclosing classified U.S. defense information, ending a tortuous inside-the-Beltway legal battle rife with national security intrigue.
Critics of the prosecution of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee accused the federal government of trying to criminalize the sort of back-channel discussions between government officials, lobbyists and reporters that are commonplace in the nation's capital. AIPAC is an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.
Acting U.S. Attorney Dana Boente said the government moved to dismiss the charges in the drawn-out case after concluding that pretrial rulings would make it too difficult for the government to prove its case.
Boente also said he was worried that classified information would be disclosed at trial.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III had made several legal rulings that prosecutors worried would make it almost impossible to obtain a guilty verdict. Among them was a requirement that the government would have to prove that Rosen and Weissman knew they were harming the United States by trading in sensitive national defense information.
The defense had also been prepared to put on a strong case that the information obtained by Rosen and Weissman, while technically classified, was not truly secret and that its disclosure was irrelevant to the nation's security.
The federal government's former arbiter of classification, J. William Leonard, was prepared to testify for the defense that the government overuses classification and applies the label to information that by any practical measure does not need to be secret. The government had sought to bar Leonard's testimony.
The trial had been scheduled to start June 2 in a case first brought in 2005.
Rosen and Weissman had not been charged with actual espionage, although the charges did fall under provisions of the 1917 Espionage Act, a rarely used World War I-era law that had never before been applied to lobbyists.
Weissman's lawyer, Baruch Weiss, called the dismissal a "huge victory for the First Amendment." Had Rosen and Weissman been convicted, he said it would have set a precedent for prosecuting reporters any time they obtained information from government officials that was later deemed too sensitive to be disclosed.
While Weissman was overjoyed to learn the charges will be dismissed, Weiss said that the four-year prosecution "has been a tremendous hardship for both Rosen and Weissman," who have been unable to work while the charges have hung over their head and they faced the prospect of a lengthy jail term.
A former Defense Department official, Lawrence A. Franklin, previously pleaded guilty to providing Rosen and Weissman classified defense information and was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.
Had the case gone to trial, Rosen and Weissman had won the right to subpoena former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top Bush administration officials. The defense believed their testimony would support the claim that the United States regularly uses AIPAC to send back-channel communications to Israel. Prosecutors had sought unsuccessfully to quash the subpoenas.
The indictment had alleged that Rosen and Weissman conspired to obtain and then disclosed classified information on U.S. policy toward Iran, as well as information on the al-Qaida terror network and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel.
It will be up to Ellis to formally dismiss the charges, but it would be highly unlikely that he would refuse the government's request for dismissal.
AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton said the organization is "pleased that the Justice Department has dismissed the charges. This is a great day for Steve Rosen, Keith Weissman and their families."
AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman in April 2005, when they were under investigation but had not yet been charged. Dorton declined to comment on whether AIPAC still thinks Rosen and Weissman acted improperly.
The government's decision also won praise from the American Jewish Committee.
"The Department of Justice has now reaffirmed that the law of the United States protects citizens who engage in the everyday and essential work of political advocacy," said AJC Executive Director David Harris.
(AP via Yahoo): ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Federal prosecutors moved Friday to dismiss espionage-related charges against two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of disclosing classified U.S. defense information, ending a tortuous inside-the-Beltway legal battle rife with national security intrigue.
Critics of the prosecution of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee accused the federal government of trying to criminalize the sort of back-channel discussions between government officials, lobbyists and reporters that are commonplace in the nation's capital. AIPAC is an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.
Acting U.S. Attorney Dana Boente said the government moved to dismiss the charges in the drawn-out case after concluding that pretrial rulings would make it too difficult for the government to prove its case.
Boente also said he was worried that classified information would be disclosed at trial.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III had made several legal rulings that prosecutors worried would make it almost impossible to obtain a guilty verdict. Among them was a requirement that the government would have to prove that Rosen and Weissman knew they were harming the United States by trading in sensitive national defense information.
The defense had also been prepared to put on a strong case that the information obtained by Rosen and Weissman, while technically classified, was not truly secret and that its disclosure was irrelevant to the nation's security.
The federal government's former arbiter of classification, J. William Leonard, was prepared to testify for the defense that the government overuses classification and applies the label to information that by any practical measure does not need to be secret. The government had sought to bar Leonard's testimony.
The trial had been scheduled to start June 2 in a case first brought in 2005.
Rosen and Weissman had not been charged with actual espionage, although the charges did fall under provisions of the 1917 Espionage Act, a rarely used World War I-era law that had never before been applied to lobbyists.
Weissman's lawyer, Baruch Weiss, called the dismissal a "huge victory for the First Amendment." Had Rosen and Weissman been convicted, he said it would have set a precedent for prosecuting reporters any time they obtained information from government officials that was later deemed too sensitive to be disclosed.
While Weissman was overjoyed to learn the charges will be dismissed, Weiss said that the four-year prosecution "has been a tremendous hardship for both Rosen and Weissman," who have been unable to work while the charges have hung over their head and they faced the prospect of a lengthy jail term.
A former Defense Department official, Lawrence A. Franklin, previously pleaded guilty to providing Rosen and Weissman classified defense information and was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.
Had the case gone to trial, Rosen and Weissman had won the right to subpoena former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top Bush administration officials. The defense believed their testimony would support the claim that the United States regularly uses AIPAC to send back-channel communications to Israel. Prosecutors had sought unsuccessfully to quash the subpoenas.
The indictment had alleged that Rosen and Weissman conspired to obtain and then disclosed classified information on U.S. policy toward Iran, as well as information on the al-Qaida terror network and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel.
It will be up to Ellis to formally dismiss the charges, but it would be highly unlikely that he would refuse the government's request for dismissal.
AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton said the organization is "pleased that the Justice Department has dismissed the charges. This is a great day for Steve Rosen, Keith Weissman and their families."
AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman in April 2005, when they were under investigation but had not yet been charged. Dorton declined to comment on whether AIPAC still thinks Rosen and Weissman acted improperly.
The government's decision also won praise from the American Jewish Committee.
"The Department of Justice has now reaffirmed that the law of the United States protects citizens who engage in the everyday and essential work of political advocacy," said AJC Executive Director David Harris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
