Friday, August 10, 2012

Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during the Iftar of the women's cadre in the Islamic Resistance Support Association

In The Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be upon our Master and Prophet – the Seal of prophets – Abi Al Qassem Mohammad and on his chaste and pure Household, his chosen companions and on all prophets and messengers.

Dear sisters and ladies! Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.

First, I would like to welcome you all in this annual ceremony – the annual iftar held by the women's activities section in the women's cadre of the Islamic Resistance Support Association.

I thank you for your attendance and continuing support today and all through the past days and years. Dear sisters! I welcome you and thank you for partaking in the Iftar with us here in Beirut, Tyr, Bekaa, Sidon, and Bint Jbeil, and I ask Allah Al Mighty to grant all of us success as supporters, backers and advocates and as true guards to the trust of this Resistance.

Moreover and first I would like to thank the dear sisters in the women's activities section in the women's cadre of the Islamic Resistance Support Association for their continuing efforts and jihad all through the past years and their incessant efforts at the service of this resistance and in communicating with its masses and people. That's because the support we are talking about is on the first level moral, ethical, and humanistic. On the second level comes financial support.

It goes without saying that in this ceremony which comes under the title of Resistance and supporting the Resistance that I talk about the Resistance and carry on what I started with during the previous iftar that was held for the men and the dear guests whom we were at their service few days ago on the table of the Islamic Resistance Support Association. However before ushering to my topic, I believe it is my obligation to tackle for a while the catastrophic incident that took place at the borders in Sinai and what afflicted the Egyptian officers and soldiers. Media outlets reported that 15 or 16 or more or less Egyptian officers and soldiers were martyred and others were wounded. The media reported that they were slaughtered at iftar.

Indeed this is a painful and sorrowful incident. It is our duty today to say this aggression is condemned no matter which side perpetrated it. What took place is an absolute crime. What is more grievous is that it is attributed to Islam, to religion, to jihad, to the resistance or under such slogans and titles.

Following this condemnation, I offer my consolations indeed to the Egyptian leadership, to the Egyptian Army – the leadership, officers, and soldiers – and to the families of the martyr officers and soldiers. I ask Allah to have mercy on them and to bless the wounded with recovery.

In my conviction, the greatest winner in this incident is Israel indeed. It's Israel which would reap the results and repercussions of this incident whether on the Egyptian level or on the Palestinian level. Thus, man – even if on preliminary considerations – may say that this incident is morally suspicious. Thus we must put it in the sphere of suspicion whether taking into consideration its motives, targets or details.
 
Unfortunately, Gaza Strip - which was expecting relief and a return for normal life with the new changes that took place in Egypt – came under siege again. Not only cross points were closed but also tunnels were closed until further notification. We don't in which direction things are moving. Egyptians also are paying the price. Some want to drag Egypt, its people, its army, its Muslims, its Christians, and its political forces to a sporadic ordeal.

I say again the primary and the first beneficiary is Israel.

Before this incident and as an Islamic – as they categorize us as Islamic and as an Islamic resistance in particular – I would like to stress to the audience and listeners that this kind of operations or incidents has nothing at all to do with Islam, religion, the Koran, the Islamic law, human values, Islamic morals, Islamic principles and any of the codes of prophets and divine missions. This in fact is what we used to warn against. This mind attributes to Islam a definite intellect or a definite stance while Islam is absolutely innocent of such attributes. Moreover all the prophets and messengers of Allah, divine religions, human mind, values, and nature do not tolerate this logic. This is the very intellect which adopts the strategy of slaughtering and killing only for differing with the other in ideology, religion and politics. Consequently, blood, money and honor are deemed lawful. This is what we are witnessing today in many countries in our Arab and Islamic world unfortunately. As I have mentioned before, this is considered today as one of the major threats to our peoples, societies and region.

I have said in the past and tonight I will say again: there are two main threats to the security, peace, stability, unity and tranquility in this region: First, Israel and second the mind of deeming others infidel and of killing and slaughtering which is being spread in our Arab and Islamic world and backed with governments and countries which are financing it with billions of dollars from the Arab oil profits which must be spent on the poor, the needy, the illiterate, the ill and the unemployed. However, they are being spent in that framework.

See for example the incident that took place in Yemen two days ago. I am not concerned whether the targeted person in southern Yemen is moral or immoral. In fact, I do not know him. However a couple of days ago, and to kill a Yemeni official, a suicide bomber related to such a group entered a consolation session massed with people and detonated himself killing 45 people from among the attendance while 50 others were killed. The targeted person was not killed. Indeed the suicide bomber was killed.

This is the mentality. Thus before this incident, we on one hand pose before the results and repercussions and on the other we must be aware because this mentality has made and will make the entire nation pay more and more at the expense of its values, religion, sanctities, peoples, blood, and dignity.

Indeed on these sorrowful and painful days, we add to this what is taking place around us in the entire region. In Syria, there is killing, bloodshed, demolition, victims, kidnapping of Lebanese and Iranian visitors, and families living in anxiety and danger. In Iraq, explosions are sporadic. In Bahrain, there are aggressions against peaceful people. This is beside what is taking place in Qateef and Burma. Unfortunately all what is taking place around us does not call for happiness and cheerfulness though these days are days of happiness for being in the hospitality of Allah Al Mighty. Indeed, the absence of governments, states and regimes is recorded. None of them are today preoccupied with curing these wounds. Unfortunately, all are involved in increasing these wounds and in pushing things towards more tension, crises and difficulties. I wanted first to point to these events which impose on us to take such a stance.

I go back to my main topic. I want to make use of this calm occasion, to tackle the argument taking place in the country.

It is natural that the cause of the Resistance is a cause with continuing interest whether on the local, regional, or international levels. This has been the case not only from now but for long years. However, noticeably following 2000, it has been having great interest because it is being targeted to a great degree. I would like to continue what I have started days ago – i.e. discussing topics related to the Resistance and the arguments taking place now in Lebanon in a calm way so that our speech be reasonable. Thus tonight, I will not give zealous speech or take stances in as much as I am to make an address and discussion as we are all responsible and partners in shouldering this responsibility.

Dear sisters! There is a status quo which can't be denied. This is as far as the Israelis are concerned, when they view the region they consider the Resistance in Lebanon as really posing the first threat to their interest, aggression, greed and project. This has been clear in the statements of the Israeli officials since 2000 until today. That means the archives of 12 years shows that no political official, military official, security official or expert in the enemy's entity talks contrary to this logic.

Recently, a report revealed by US strategic experts said that the number one threat and the number one dilemma to Israel in the region today is Hezbollah and the Resistance in Lebanon.

Where to does this lead us? This leads us to a truth which says that if Israel wants to stage an aggression against Lebanon, there's something which it fears, and this is very important.

In the past, the issue was not as such. This is in fact called a strategic turn. You know - as much has been said to this effect in the past – that when Arab-Israeli wars used to erupt, the Israelis used to send for example an army to the West Bank or an army to fight in the Gaza Strip or an army to fight in Egypt or in Jordan or in Syria. However when they used to talk about Lebanon, they would say there is no need for an army. We would dispatch a musical band. So there is no need for an army to be dispatched to Lebanon! To this extent they used to underestimate Lebanon.

Today things changed. The primary source of anxiety, danger and threat and the first consideration to be taken by Israel in the region is Lebanon thanks to the existence of the Resistance. This is a natural result. So this did not come as a result of media, psychological war or speeches. This result was a natural consequence to the sweeping defeat that inflicted Israel in 2000 and 2006. The Israeli enemy came to know that there is a serious, rational, executive, planning, armed, and able Resistance in Lebanon. It is a Resistance that knows how to confront, fight, carry on, and gain victory. This has created fear and anxiety to the Israelis. Dear sisters! This also explains to us why Israel did not make use of the events taking place in the region for a year or two up till now to attack Lebanon though its history goes in that direction. For example, in 1982, what was taking place? There was a grinding war between Iran and Iraq. A great development took place on the Iranian-Iraqi front where the Iranians could restore Khurmushahr and reach the borders. The entire region rocked. The entire world - the Americans and the international community – were preoccupied. Israel burst into Lebanon at a time no bullet was shoot on the borders. The borders were calm. It made use of the changes in the region and the preoccupation of the world and the region with the events and entered Lebanon to achieve its project for 1982. Why is Israel taking no action now though the events taking place in the region as a whole – whether in Syria, Egypt, or Iraq – allow Israel to stage a war against Lebanon without anyone questioning about Lebanon as all the Arabs are preoccupied with themselves and with each other? So no one would inquire about Lebanon, defend Lebanon or stage a demonstration in support of Lebanon or convene a meeting for foreign ministers for the sake of Lebanon. The main reason is that Israel fears to fail again. This is knowing that the motives for Israel to stage an aggression against Lebanon exists. They call that motives, reasons, or grounds. That's first because Israel's greed in Lebanon, Lebanon's land, Lebanon's waters, Lebanon's decisions still exist. That did not change. Second, it's because Israel has a settlement with Lebanon and the Resistance in Lebanon. So all the motives, reasons and grounds exist for Israel to stage an aggression against Lebanon. What is the obstacle? The only obstacle is its fear from failing. Why does it fear failing? That's because in Lebanon there is a true, strong, able Resistance which is embraced by a great section of the Lebanese people. Now some people may disagree, and others may be against this. Well, this has always been the case. Today for example, this idea is being stressed when some Arab countries fetch warplanes, air force, antiaircraft, warships and developed arms while Israel does no show concern or worry or oppose or cause any hindrances. Such deals exist especially in the gulf states. They fetch arms for 60 billion dollars or 100 billion dollars or 20 billion dollars. I would like to tell you that some Arab countries fetch arms without having anyone to use them! That takes place because it is required that US arms factories and companies go on working. Thus we find that the Israelis do not object on that. On the other hand, the Israelis make a big fuss in the media and all Israeli officials would talk and say: Watch out! That's if Syrian arms are to enter Lebanon as a result of the situation in Syria or if there is antiaircraft or any qualitative thing or anything that breaks the balance. Israel is ready to wage a war for that. This is the threat to Israel. Why? That's because if the Resistance in Lebanon has one or two or three rockets, that requires that Israel wage a war. However, air force, antiaircraft, tanks, and artilleries for billions of dollars for Arab armies do not require a word of objection by Israel! What's the reason? The reason is clear. Should we ask the young children in Lebanon, they know the reason. The reason is that Israel is absolutely assured as far as these "great armies" are concerned because the decision there is in the hands of the US administration which daily announces its absolute commitment to Israel and Israel's excellence. There is absolute assurance as far as the Arab regimes' commitment to Israel's intactness even if Israel attacked Lebanon in July and even if it attacked Gaza Strip and committed massacres. There is an Arab commitment: Israel is untouchable. Thus all the arms which are with most of the Arab armies do not make Israel worry. However, if arms – that breaks the balance as they call it – enter Lebanon, that would cause great anxiety, warning and threatening. They would say be cautious we would wage a war. All of that indicates this meaning. What does that mean? Today we want to discuss this for a while. What does that mean? That means that indeed in Lebanon, we own a deterrence power. Today Lebanon owns a true deterrence power called the Resistance. Whether some of the Lebanese accept that or not and whether that appeals to them or not, this is the result. That have nothing to do with whether I accept that or not or whether that appeals to me or not. This result exists in the Lebanese status quo as well as in the regional status quo. So Lebanon owns a deterrence power which makes Israel to think a thousand time and take a thousand thing into consideration before staging an aggression against Lebanon. So how are we to deal with this divine and national blessing?

Did we really today – in August 2012 – as Lebanon, as a Lebanese people, as a nation, as a country, as people and as a state and in the light of what is taking place in the region reach a time in which we can dispense with the existence of the Resistance and the power of the Resistance?

This needs a calm answer. Let's put fanaticism, sectarianism, factionalism, and political division (March 8 and March 14 Blocs and others) aside. Let's think logically. As I at times say. Let's go to the top of the mountain. Let's get out of all the details, daily problems and tensions in universities, the government, the parliament, the media and the street. Let's stand on the top of the mountains. You know that our mountains in Lebanon are the highest in the region. Thus when we sit there, we see the entire region. Let's sit and see what is taking place and answer this question: Did we now reach the right moment in which we may dispense with the Resistance? Let's ask ourselves - as Resistance men - this question. I am not talking about those who want to disarm the Resistance. Is it that we go back to our work, school, and university and we will find a solution for the arms and thus the story will be over? What is the alternative deterrence power which is available in Lebanon and which makes us assured that Israel is afraid of staging an aggression against us? So let me put it correctly. The deterrence power does not absolutely prevent any aggression. No! However, it makes the other party think a thousand time before doing so. It makes it uneasy for the other side to underestimate an aggression or deem it easy. What is the alternative deterrence power? Is Israel's greed in our land, water, oil, and gas (as they say we have oil though it is still underwater and underground) over? Are we safe now? Today there is great Israeli concern even in oil and gas as there is concern in water.

Days ago, they wrote in newspapers that the market value of the enemy's gas and oil discovered so far in the water of Palestine is 250 billion dollars! Imagine that Israel which lives on foreign donations and which the US grants 3 or 4 billion dollars annually will possess 250 billion dollars. What would it do with the region and the peoples of the region? This is besides what they haven't discovered yet. Will it be satisfied with what it has?

Oil and gas might as well be among the points of conflict between Lebanon and the enemy especially in the areas with disputed delineations? What are Lebanon's guarantees to obtain its own gas and oil in the future? Indeed they say that the worth of our – as Lebanese - oil and gas is billions of dollars. This transfers Lebanon from one state to another on the economic, financial, social, living, security, and every other levels. Imagine that the incapable Lebanon that does not have any resources but from customs and taxes starts earning tens of billions of dollars! Where would this country be with the presence of people who have mind, intellect, smartness and are really genius? Well, what are the guarantees in the future that Lebanon and the Lebanese benefit really from the available capabilities and capacities at the level of gas and oil? These are serious questions. We have a vision which we always talk about. It is a vision furnished with logic, evidences, proofs and experience. There is logic, mind, evidences, human experience and our experience as Lebanese in this vision which we present. However, there are people who have no answer or evidence or any convincing point. They do not have but one refrain: "Hand in the arms and end up with this Resistance". Well answer the following questions: What is the alternative deterrence power? What are the guarantees to benefit from our waters in the future when Litany Project is executed? What are the guarantees to benefit from our oil? What are the guarantees that Israel does not attack Lebanon and how are we to deter it from attacking Lebanon? There is no answer. There is one answer: Arm the army. We agree on that. Let's arm the Army. However this army is not able to form a deterrence power. Its power must at least be equal to that of Israel. We must own the strongest air force in the region such as the Israeli air force, and we must have an army similar to the Israeli army. That would create a kind of balance and as such we would protect Lebanon and achieve a deterrence power in quality, quantity and capabilities. However, they only have theories and hollow words. Thus, on the ground, there is nothing tangible. As such the entire country would be in the windy side.

There is a true point which is a point of dispute and is now evoked on the Lebanese field. Some say there are fears from the Resistance and its arms. These arms cause fear on the national level especially that this weapon is owned by a definite side or a definite sect – the Shiites – and that means that the other sects are worried and feel afraid. Consequently, these arms must be eliminated. On another hand, all of Lebanon – not only the Shiites, the Sunnites, the Druze, or the Christians - is at risk. Lebanon as a country, as a land, as water, as wealth, as sovereignty, and as an entity is at risk caused by the Israeli project and Israel's greed. Thus we must confront these risks. At the mean time, the Resistance forms a state of deterrence. As a result of the existence of this Resistance, there are fears. The right conduct is to address the fears and not to annul the Resistance and expose the country as a whole to the risks caused by the Israelis.

Imagine someone says he doesn't want to take the medicine because it aches its stomach and disturbs his disposition. However, he exposes himself to the fatal poison. People call this person mindless or insane or does not understand? To treat sickness or poison, man may take medications which may have some side effects. I will take for granted and suppose that the existence of the Resistance causes a kind of fear. The solution for putting an end for these fears won't be through annulling the Resistance and consequently exposing Lebanon as a whole to all these Israeli risks that touch our very existence. The solution would rather be in this very Resistance, in strengthening it, supporting it, and backing it to push away Israeli risks. As for the fears, we – as Lebanese – would sit calmly and ask what these fears are and address them and find solutions and guarantees for them. The logical people care for their nation, the future of their children and grandchildren, the survival of their nation and guarding their people from being displaced. Entire peoples are now being displaced. There are demographic changes taking place now. If we want this Lebanon we must guard it and take pains to keep its people stay in it and not be displaced and that they remain united. We must fortify it in face of these risks and address these fears.

Some of the examples of these risks may be discussed, while others are not true. There are things which are valid and we are able to address them and find solutions for them. Let's give some examples.

For example, primarily March 14 Bloc says that the existence of arms impedes the way before elections in Lebanon. No elections must take place under arms. This is a broad slogan. However, in 2005, didn't elections in Lebanon take place and you won the majority and unfortunately we helped you to take the majority? Well, elections took place under arms. What was the influence of arms in 2005? Nothing. In 2009, elections took place while we were at discord. In 2005, we were in accord with each other. What was the role of arms in 2009? Nothing. They say: No elections under arms. Days ago, elections took place in Al Koura and they witnessed its integrity and greatness and they considered that the whole world will pattern after Al Koura elections. Is that true or not? Well that took place under arms. This is logical. The arms of the Resistance and the Resistance does not influence the elections whether negatively or positively. All through the elections that took place, no one recorded one incident in which the arms of the Resistance was used to impose a definite viewpoint or to advocate a list or to move in a definite electoral direction. On the contrary that was recorded for the arms of other political parties and movements in some regions as they bullied some sides to imposed an electoral choice. As for the Resistance, it did not do that.

Others are even funnier. Some would say: No relativity under arms. Would you please explain that to me? I am a Lebanese and may Allah help me. Now they are talking about elections. There is a majority system and a relativity system. The Lebanese know by now what the majority electoral system is and what the relativity electoral system is. There is no problem with elections following the majority system under arms while no elections according to the relativity system may take place under arms! Well explain to me what is the difference between the two cases. Does that mean arms would intervene in elections according to the relativity system while it won't intervene in elections according to the majority system? If it intervenes here, it intervenes there, and if it does not intervene here, it does not intervene there….

This is unacceptable and this is untrue. The attempt to put the Resistance in face of elections is always to be considered as falsehood, counterfeit and misguiding to the people as it is not based on logic. This is one example.

Here is another example. They say that arms chaos in Lebanon exists because of the Resistance and the arms of the Resistance. Now to address arms chaos in Lebanon we must dismantle the Resistance and confiscate its arms and hand them to the Army or throw them in the sea. This also was evoked. Now let's see if this is logical and true? Let's take into consideration the parties, militias, arms, artilleries, fighting and civil war before I was born and before Hezbollah was created and all the people in Hezbollah were born. There were in Lebanon arms, arms chaos, militias and civil wars. Well, it comes to be that we as well as the Resistance is responsible for something which took place before we were born! This is not true. First, arms are owned by all the Lebanese. All the Lebanese have arms. Arms that lead to conflicts, arms that kill, and arms that make ordeal are owned by all the Lebanese. However arms which form a deterrence power against Israel is with us only. No one owns Zilzal Rocket but we. By the way, this is not something to cheer up about. It is from one side a source of responsibility and risks for us and the Resistance men. However, that is necessary to deter the enemy.

However, if we put the arms that deter the enemy aside, the rest is owned by all the Lebanese. With utmost simplicity, arms chaos may be put in order in Lebanon if there is a serious determination by the political forces and the state. Thus we would keep the Resistance organized, strong, and committed. This is the South and the bordering area. Tour the entire area in the South; do you find a gun or a rifle or an armed appearance or a platform or a cannon? There's nothing of this sort. Where is arms chaos then? It is in the areas which have nothing to do with the Resistance or with confronting the enemy. This chaos needs to be addressed and it is not addressed by collecting the arms of the Resistance and annulling the Resistance. This is not how we address arms chaos which has been present in Lebanon for decades before Hezbollah was being born.

There's a third problem which they talk about. They say that the Resistance arms prevent the establishment of a state. March 14 Bloc and the dear Lebanese want to build the state and the arms of the Resistance are preventing them! They daily talk saying that the arms of the Resistance are an obstacle before establishing the state. They do not get bored. It is just like the daily prayers to us. Everyday, one of them must sign in and talk about the arms of the Resistance which prevent and impede establishing the state…. Well before Hezbollah was established, was there a state or not? At least, since 1974 or 1975 until 1990, there wasn't a state. Was it we who prevented the establishment of the state? Who prevented the establishment of the state? This is first.

Second, why don't we speak frankly with the Lebanese people and tell them the true reasons that prevent establishing a true state in Lebanon? Why do we hide the true reasons and create illusionary reasons? The true reasons have to do with them and with others. Well, this is a lengthy field of research. However, I will mention only two reasons.

The first reason is sectarianism in Lebanon. Why do we hide behind our finger? Late Kamal Jumblat used to talk about the Lebanese 'peoples' in his books. He did not recognize a Lebanese people. He used to say that we are peoples. From a definite perspective, this may be liable to reflection. I am not quoting this text to criticize it; rather this kind of categorization exists today. Thus we hear some people tensed on the TV as they say: Well, yes, we are not one people. We are rather the Maronite people, the Shiite people, the Sunnite people, the Durzi people, the Orthodox people….

Well, in Lebanon, we are sects. When we come to establish a regime on the basis of sectarian portions, sectarian structure, sectarian polarization, sectarian struggles, and sectarian sensitivities, neither a regime nor a state is established whether there is Hezbollah or not and whether there are arms or not and whether there is Resistance or not.

There is an innate problem here. When we are to establish a national modern state on the basis of sectarian portions, influences and polarization, the state won't be established. The state would be as it is today. It might be a bit better. It might be made a little more competent. It may be somehow developed. However, a true state can't be established here because there is an innate problem. Here what are arms to do with this issue?

Thus, since the establishment of Lebanon, the Great, we have a crisis named the state crisis. How is this state to be established? Who has the authority and how is it to be managed? We have political sectarianism. Are we to annul political sectarianism? This is always a topic for discussion and argument in the country. This is one of the crises that obstructs establishing a state in Lebanon.

The second problem is corruption in Lebanon – political corruption, financial corruption, administrative corruption…. Under severe and critical corruption, how is the state to be managed? Some people change their political alliance and loyalty, and shift their rifles from one shoulder to another and their banner from one hand to another under the impact of money. Let's put this aside. Let's go into the state. Corruption is wide spread in the state's administrations. When it is said that the state's administrations need reform, they really need reform. No one talks about this. We delay reforms. That's true. However, what's the problem? This corruption was protected and is still protected. Most of the political forces which always win in the elections are always there. They are part of the corruption. They protect this corruption. At times, if you want to counter this corruption, you are threatened with civil war and sectarian war. Let me be transparent today. Perhaps some of our allies are more able to tackle the issue of reform. Because they do not have arms, they work at ease, take stances, raise the ceiling, criticize, attack politically and exert pressure.

My problem here is not that arms protect corruption. Not at all! My problem is the existence of the Resistance. When I say that I confront corruption and corruptors, that will make me involved in battles here and there, and this is a big problem in the country. So let's not say more to this effect. Corruption in which most politicians are partners is what impedes the establishment of the state and not the existence of the Resistance.

What is taking place today? Corruption is mushrooming and sectarianism is increasing. We were told in Taef Accord that post sectarianism has been annulled - except for the first rank post – on the basis of equality between Muslims and Christians. Great! That's a great development in the country. However, what is the situation on the ground?

That's not the case only now under the government of PM Mikati. No! The truth is that since long years, not only the first, second, third, and forth rank posts are named on sectarian grounds, even the ordinary employee, the soldier, and the gendarme are chosen on sectarian grounds. Is that true or not?

That means that the more we proceeded the deeper sectarianism penetrates into souls. Thus it becomes more difficult to eliminate it from texts. They talk about eliminating it from souls before eliminating it from texts. Well, where is it in souls? It is penetrating deeper into the recesses of souls. Why is it so? It is because of the performance of political forces. It's because some political forces are not able to be present in the political scene except on the basis of sectarian fanaticism, sectarian provocation, and factional provocation. Watch the speeches and you will know them.

Some leaderships can't be national leaderships. They can only be sectarian and factional leaderships to prompt the sectarian and factional spirit in the country. Unfortunately, we have reached a stage in which it has been necessary that we explain for the new generations – our children and grandchildren – what national feelings and national belonging mean. That's true believe me, and when you go back home reflect on this topic. They don't know that because this is the environment in which they have been living and in which they grew and were raised up in the past decades.

Let's take the Resistance as an example. The border line which was under occupation until 2000 have Lebanese from all sects. The cities and towns are from all sects. The cause of liberating the border line is a cause that concerns all the Lebanese regardless of their sects, factions and regions. As such, there would be national belonging and national feelings.

As a Resistance, if my goal is to liberate the entire border line because it is Lebanese land and because its people are Lebanese, I will be acting on national grounds. Whereas, if I fight to liberate Bint Jbeil while Jizine remains under occupation or to liberate khiam while Marjaoun and Hasbaya remain under occupation, I would be acting according to sectarian considerations and not on national grounds. When every grain of soil, drop of water, and drop of oil in Lebanon - regardless of being on the southern shores or the northern shores – mean to me, I would be a national person. However, when I am concerned with the South and the Shiites in the South only, I would be a sectarian person. I was not concerned only with the Shiite men and women in the enemy's detention centers in khiam, Ansar, Atleet and in occupied Palestine and was struggling to liberate them only. As such I would be a sectarian person. Whereas, when I think of liberating every Lebanese man or woman in detention and view them as my family, my father, my mother, my brother, my son and my daughter, I would be a national person.

Nationalism is not a claim or a slogan. Rather it is a practice. When I am in Bekaa and think of the security of the people on the southern border, I would be a national person. Whereas, if I think that as long as shelling is not over me, I would not be afraid no matter what is taking place in other places, I would be a sectarian and a regional person.

Dear ladies and sisters! He who wants to build a state must first work on prompting national belonging and national feelings so that to have a state that serves everyone. Power is for everyone; water is for everyone; posts are for everyone; job opportunities are for everyone; confronting poverty is by everyone. That's how we build a national state.

Here, what have the Resistance to do with preventing the establishment a true state. On the contrary, I will tell you even more than that. We ourselves want the establishment of a true state. I will even say more. We are the one who would benefit most from the establishment of a true state – that's if we took interests into consideration. Let's talk with our minds, faith, principles and values. We want a true actual state in Lebanon. As far as interests are concerned, we are the ones most interested in the establishment of a true state in Lebanon – a state in which there is no monopolization, neglect, deprivation, starvation, and displacement of the Lebanese from their country, land, and villages, a state that gathers all the Lebanese, a state the prevents sectarian and factional conflicts, a state that prevents sectarian and factional provocation, a state that prevents me from practicing sectarian and factional provocation and prevents any other person from practicing sectarian and factional provocation. Such a state is to our interest as it is to the interest of every Lebanese person.

On the contrary, I will even go further and say if there is a chance for the Lebanese to establish their state with security, peace, and self-decision and without foreign pressure or pressure from the enemy, this chance is made available due to the presence of the Resistance in Lebanon and not vice versa.

O dear Lebanese! Today you have a Resistance which tells the Israelis: These are your limits. It tells the Americans: These are your decisions. It tells everyone who wants to stage an aggression on Lebanon: These are your limits. Today, we as Lebanese are decision owners. We may meet on the dialogue table or in any other place. We may sit and discuss. We may move with what we agree on. We would find solutions. No one dares to attack us. No one thinks of attacking our country. Why is that so? That's because we have a deterrence power. We have the Army-People-Resistance Formula.

Another thing that they would say would be: We agree that you want a state. Well, we are afraid that these arms and this Resistance would dominate and control the state. Well let's talk on the ground and in simple words: O people! Arms have been in our possession for 30 years. We have military and security groups, and we fight Israel. Why did not we up till now take control over the state. For 30 years we have arms. If we want to control the state, when would we do that? Is it when we grow old or when we become weak and feeble?

The best local, regional and international conditions that might be available to a party which possesses military power to control a country were made available in the past years. Why didn't we do that? That's because we don't want to. They always discuss intentions. Here I am telling you: My brother! Let's keep intentions aside. Argue with me on my deeds. That's how March 14 Bloc thinks.

If any party from March 14 parties had the military power which we have, it would have controlled the country and the state since a long time. It would have imposed its will with arms on all the Lebanese. However, we did not do that. Here I am telling you: We do not do that, we did not do that, and we will not do that. That's not our mentality, conviction and faith.

First, we did not do that. On the contrary, the chance came in 2000. We – the Resistance -defeated Israel. We acknowledge the efforts of all the other factions. However, everyone takes it for granted that in the last 10 years we were the first and the primary Resistance faction. In fact, Israel does not see but us. We afflicted it with defeat. I stood in Bint Jbeil like every victorious resistance in the world does. I could have said: We were the ones who defeated Israel. We have arms. We have fighters…. If you do not hand the power to us and a definite number of ministerial portfolios and a definite number of administrations, we will demolish the country. This is our revolutionary historic right, and this is how all revolutionists around the world act. We did not do that, and we did not say that at all. We acted as all honorable people act. We said this victory is to all of Lebanon. Even the Lebanese who do not want victory we told them this victory is yours. This victory is for Lebanon. This victory is for all the Lebanese. We do not want anything. We do not want power. This is the border line. The state is welcomed to assume its responsibility there. We will not interfere in security, administration, justice or anything else. Wasn't that our stance in 2000? Are we really people who want to control over the state and over power?

I will give the events of May 7th – which they always give as an evidence – as an evidence on our true intention. A curtailed government aggressed against the Resistance. Then the events of May 7th took place. The country was crippled. Roads were closed. A delegation from the Arab League wanted to mediate. His Eminence brethren Sheikh Naim Qassem met with them. However the head of the delegation insisted on talking with me on the interphone – our private wired phone. We responded, and thus one of the Arab Ministers talked with me on the wired phone. He told me: Peace be upon you. I answered: Peace be upon you too. I told him do you know through what you are talking with me? He answered: Through the wired interphone. I told him that means that you are violating the Lebanese Law. You are violating the decision of the Lebanese government. You are now a criminal, and you must be arrested! I was joking with him. He told me: What do you want to solve the problem? He was expecting that I tell him: First we want the government to resign. We want so and so as premier. We want a government in which we have two thirds of the portfolios. We want such and such to be elected as a President of the Republic. We want so and so. This is what he was expecting because in the whole world that's how things take place. There were even political forces in Lebanon which were expecting that from us. However, what did I tell him? I told him we have two demands. The first demand is that the government retracts on the decision it took against the wired phone. Second, we want the return to the dialogue table so that the Lebanese sit together and discuss things and see how to solve their problems. He told me: Third what do you want? I told him there is no third. We have only these two demands. He told me: You are joking. I told him that I was serious, and that it's not time for joking. He told me: No! You are joking with me. You do not want to solve the problem. I told him: No, I want to solve the problem. We only have these two demands. He tried to convince me to have a third and a fourth demand. I told him: By God, this is all what we want. This was the reaction because the government took a decision to eliminate the signal weapon which is the most important and the most dangerous according to Israel. It wants to cause an ordeal between the Army and the Resistance and the security forces. So let it cancel these decisions, and let's go back to the dialogue table. "And Allah loves the well-doers".

O March 14 Bloc! We had the opportunity to rule the country and control over it on May 7th and we did not do that because we didn't want that and we don't want that and we will not want that. What is the reason? The reason is that we are realistic. What does our realism say? Our realism and our mind say that this country has several sects. We are through with the ruling sect. No sect in Lebanon may rule Lebanon all by itself while giving this sect a portion and that sect a portion. This is over.

Second, the time of a leading sect in Lebanon is over. What does a leading sect mean? It means that it’s the first sect which leads and the other sects are its allies. That comes beneath a ruling sect. The ruling sect is everything. It does not give portions. The leading sect recognizes the other sects and they are its allies; however, it is the leading sect. Let's talk with transparency tonight. This speech is to all sects and their political and religious leaders, their elites, their masses, their men and women, and their elderly and youth in Lebanon: Whoever still thinks with a ruling sect or a leading sect mentality wants to drag the country into more crises. Today, in this night of Ramadan, I announce on behalf of all the Shiite Sect in Lebanon that we do not want, we do not think, we do not dream, and we do not aspire to be a ruling sect or a leading sect. We rather believe that Lebanon is built with all its sects, with their cooperation, with their assistance, with their love, with their integration, and with mutual respect among them. No one works for another. Everyone has his own personality, heritage, history, civilization and culture. Once they used to talk about cultural diversity and not about cultural multiplicity. This is useless. There is cultural diversity and cultural multiplicity and cultural multiplicity…. Some people have Arab origin; others have Phoenician origin, others have Babylonian origin…. No matter what our origin is, this is sheer theories. However, on the ground, we are Lebanese of various sects. No sect - no matter how powerful it innately grew or no matter how powerful it grew with the support of foreign states - may rule Lebanon. This is over. Consequently, whoever thinks of civil peace in Lebanon, of establishing a state in Lebanon, of unity among Lebanese, of united existence and not only with coexistence must eliminate from his mind that if his sect is strong he may bully others, rule others or lead others. No! We as Lebanese are all equal. We have the same rights and obligations as is supposed by the Constitution. We are concerned in living together, carrying on together, building our country together, and protecting our country together. Here I say again that the way to that is dialogue. The problem in our country is that there is a political group which does not want serious dialogue. As far as the Resistance is concerned, they don't want a defense strategy. Didn't I give a speech few days ago? Still they said that the Sayyed is asserting that he does not want to hand the arms in. They are not ashamed of the goal. They have nothing such as how to protect the country and defend it. They don't think of these people who live on the border line in the South and those who are building their houses adjacent to the border line, those who are picnicking at Wazzani, those who are inaugurating hotels there, and those who plow their lands there. How are these to feel secure and have confidence? Nobody thinks of that. They only think of how to disarm the Resistance. Everyday, they talk with such logic and stress it. They don't want a defense strategy. They don't want to build a state. You would tell them let's hold a national dialogue conference to build the state, they would say you want to control over the state. You would call on them to hold an establishing conference, they would say this is dangerous. This would reconsider the bases of this country and shift them to Iran.

Let's cling to this regime then. We have the Taef. Well we have Taef and we believe in Taef. We have been with Taef since 1990. Today we are in 2012.

O brother! There are respectable people in Lebanon who say let's develop. Any person who has a car tries to enhance it. If he has a house, he renovates it. We have an entire political regime. Let's develop it. They would say this is blasphemy. This is forbidden.

We suggested on them a national unity government. They don't want. Do you know in simple words what they want? They want two things. O March 14 Bloc! Do not bother yourselves. We are going to the dialogue table to bother ourselves. There's no problem in that. We call for dialogue. In simple words they want two things: O Resistance! Hand in your arms! O government of PM Mikati and the political forces go home and give us government.

Well if we hand in the government for you, will you protect the country? How will you protect it? There is no answer. They can't supply the Lebanese Army with a rocket; how are they to protect the country then?

Well if we gave you the government, will you make reforms? How are they to make reforms when they are responsible of most of the corruption in the government and the state's administrations?

Will you pay back the loans? Now there are some people who are talking about achievements of the current government. Well, the issue may not be that of achievements. Today when the majority in the government tell PM Mikati we do not want taxes. We can't make the people bear more taxes. We do not want to increase the VAT. The man is logical and accepts that as he knows that the people in Lebanon are in hardships. By God, should the government resign and a government for March 14 Bloc be formed, on the following day the VAT would be 15%. Other things would follow this pattern too.

Their government is that of taxes. It is a government that does not see the poor. It's the government of some elites who must live a lofty life while the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese people would be under the poverty line. That does not concern them a lot.

At least this government in the most dangerous events which are taking place in the region – meaning the events in Syria – announced the policy of staying aside – that's apart from the argument in the government on this issue. However, if this government resigned and their government came to power, by God the North would be an upon front with Syria and Bekaa would be an open front with Syria. The Americans, the English, the French and the other Arabs – we will not call them by their names – would open camps in Bekaa and the North and things would go into chaos. In fact, if the Lebanese people did not benefit from the current government except by it not adding taxes as they do, by not getting the country involved in fighting on the level of regional events, and by preserving in this stage a degree of stability on the internal level, that would be a great blessing. That's because where to do the alternative (their government) want to take this country? Anyway, this is their milieu and their atmosphere. Thus I say as I wrap my word that there is no way other than sitting again and talking together. No one wants to annul the others, and no one want to eliminate the others. In fact, no one must think as such. We hope they are allowed to come back to the dialogue table. Here I will be precise. I hope no one will prevent dialogue in Lebanon.

Sisters! Today in Syria dialogue is forbidden. We have undertaken great efforts with sides in the Opposition. We said that the regime is ready for dialogue without any conditions. They did not accept. They do not accept unconditional dialogue. Iran presented a dialogue. They did not accept. Russia suggested a dialogue. They did not accept. That means that the various sides are offering dialogue with no conditions but it is they who are not accepting. Why? That's because the Americans and the West backed with Israel and some regional states are preventing even the Syrian Opposition from undertaking dialogue with no conditions. It can't take a decision because the stage we reached in Syria is a realization of the project of demolishing Syria.

What America wants is demolishing Syria. What the West and Israel want is demolishing Syria. Their heart is not aching for the army, for the armed groups, for the regime, for the opposition, and for this sect or that sect. They are trying to push the events in a sectarian direction.

Dialogue is forbidden in Syria knowing that what is taking place today – as we are in the nights of the Month of Ramadan- really aches the heart: victims, wounded, demolished houses, displaced people, refugees…. On the humanistic level and despite the political position, man can't but shed bloody tears for this scene. Where is Syria the strong, the prideful, the beautiful, the calm and the stable now? If you left things to be settled militarily, that means things are moving towards more killing, demolition and bloodshed. The solution is through halting fighting. People would go back to the dialogue table without preconditions. That's because whoever sets conditions won't be willing to make a dialogue. Dialogue is prevented. America is preventing dialogue. The world is preventing dialogue. We hope that people in Syria would calm down and think for a while. This is the solution. There is no other solution.

I wrap up with Lebanon. I hope Inshallah that we do not put conditions for dialogue, that doors remain open between the Lebanese, that the Lebanese remain able to talk with each other and that no international or regional obstacles would prevent them from talking with each other. That's because the alternative to dialogue is chaos which is meant to be spread all over the region.

Inshallah, with your incessant firm presence, with your support, love, and advocacy, the Resistance would carry on at the service of this nation and this dear and honorable people. It will defend this precious country, protect it and guard it against all risks, and as it made victories it will make more victories. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Speech delivered by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during the central Iftar held by the Islamic Resistance Support Association

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

I welcome all of you in the various meeting places – Dahiyeh, Baalbeck, Nabatiyeh, and Tyr – and I thank you for your attendance that always expresses your love, support and backing for this Resistance and its route and your true participation in its victories and achievements. Also first I renew my felicitation to you on the beginning of the Month of Allah and its great and blessed days and nights. It's the month of Allah's hospitality, the month of repentance, forgiveness, and mercy.

Also first, I must thank the brothers and sisters in the Islamic Resistance Support Association as well as the board, officials, employees and volunteers for their solemn services, incessant efforts and support for the Resistance for decades and long years.

Moreover, on the anniversary of the first of August – the Army Day – the Day of the national guaranteeing institution, the army institution, I would like to address the Head of the Army and its officials and soldiers with felicitation on their day - the day of establishing and launching of the Army. We hope that Allah Al Mighty would bestow his blessings so that all the Lebanese cooperate to guard this institution and to support and guard the Army's unity and to enhance this institution so that it would be able to assume its responsibilities and the solemn national missions it shoulders.

Dear brothers and sisters! In the available time, I would like to tackle the Resistance from the perspective evoked lately. Indeed and as usual, I talk about Lebanon during the Resistance Support iftar and I about Palestine and the regional situation on Al Qods Day. Thus my speech today will be limited to the Resistance in Lebanon and thereof I will usher to the defense strategy, the dialogue table and the evoked ideas and sayings and finally we will specify our stance, and I will be as brief as possible Inshallah.

First, no one - but the arrogant – disagrees that Israel was defeated in 2000 and that Lebanon gained victory and made a historic and strategic achievement. Israel pulled out defeated and humiliated without achievements, guarantees and conditions. Any other speech would be that of lunatic and jealous people. This is the truth. Thus we are before a crystal clear historic victory.

Second, no one – but the arrogant – disagrees that this victory was made possible thanks first to Allah and to the Resistance which made this achievement with the blood of its martyrs, the sacrifices of its fighters and people and the rallying of the Lebanese who embraced it. This is also crystal clear. So it was not made through the international community, Resolution 425, the Arab League, or the Organization of the Islamic Conference. This also is not denied accept by the arrogant and the jealous.

Third, everyone knows that following the victory of 2000 what took place was contrary to the historic conduct. Usually when resistance movements win, they rule. This is what took place in France, Algeria, Vietnam among many of the world countries with the exception of Lebanon. That's because Lebanon is exceptional in everything.

This Resistance did not make a demand to rule. It did not seek authority. It did not demand a portion in the authority. It rather offered the victory to the Lebanese and asked the authority to assume its responsibilities on the liberated borderline. It said there are still great responsibilities on our shoulders and we must carry on working to achieve them.

Following the defeat of Israel in 2000, an Israeli-American demand came to light. Here also if anyone argues against that being an Israeli-American demand, there would be something wrong. This Israeli-American demand was put as a target. They made a program and set a plot for it. This demand is to put an end to the Resistance and the arms of the Resistance. They would say the story is over; Israel pulled out; so let's put an end to this issue. And as Hezbollah was considered the primary or the greatest faction in the Resistance in the latest years of the 90s, the issue was dubbed as disarming Hezbollah. In fact, it is disarming the Resistance. They do not want to disarm Hezbollah whose arms are beneficiary as a militia or in civil war. All the Lebanese possess arms of militias and civil war.

As for the arms that harm Israel, change the equation with Israel, protect the country and prevent Israel from imposing its conditions on Lebanon, "we want to get rid of it".

Since then and following 2000, there appeared in the region, in the country, in the world and in the Security Council a cause entitled disarming the Resistance or in another word disarming Hezbollah. Some political forces in Lebanon adopted this target. Now whether these forces are aware that this is an Israeli-American demand or not, I have nothing to do with intentions. However, in short it adopted this target.

Thus, this has become a cause, and we came to be before a new political battle. So it is not a military battle; it is a new political battle. It is also a media battle, a public opinion battle, a battle of negotiations, a battle of discussion and argument on the Lebanese internal level, and a battle of wills inside and outside Lebanon. The title of this cause is disarming the Resistance which is an Israeli-American demand.

Following 2000, bargains on arms were presented on us from American and western sides. I will not waste my time talking about these bargains. I have previously tackled them. These bargains have to do with authority, money, facilities and removing us from the terrorists list. We refused all of that because we still see in the Resistance a guarantee and a source of strength to Lebanon as well as a source of protection to our people who were abandoned by the whole world in 1982. Our people are still abandoned by the whole world to this very day.

Moreover, in 2004 and before Resolution 1559 was issued, a settlement to this effect was presented on Syria. Here I would like to point out to the Lebanese – especially March 14 Bloc – that at the time they used to go to America and France and bet on Bush and Chirac to assist you to pull the Syrians for you from Lebanon, negotiations were taking place under the table with the Syrians on your heads, at your expense and on your project too.

In 2004, An Arab ruler came to President Bashar Assad (I am not allowed to disclose his name. Perhaps one day the Syrians themselves would reveal the name) and presented the following on him. He told him that US-French-European pressure on Syria to pull out from Lebanon has clear began. The opposition movement to this effect was mushrooming in Lebanon. He told President Assad: Do you want to stay in Lebanon? You may stay for hundreds of years. You may also enter the Lebanese south beyond Al Awali though it was a red line. You may dispatch a squad or two from the Syrian Army to the south and spread out all over the south until the very borderlines.

President Assad told the Arab ruler: That's great! What is demanded in return or as a price. The Arab ruler answered: The price is disarming Hezbollah and disarming the Palestinians. So Syria and the Syrian army disarms Hezbollah and the Palestinians and Lebanon would be Syria's. Lebanon is yours. Take it. The international authorization in Lebanon is yours. It remains as it were in the past and even stronger and fiercer. Even more, the red lines for the Syrian troops spread will be removed and you may spread one squad or two in the south.

Then in 2004, a political opposition was calling for the withdrawal of the Syrian troops in Lebanon. This Arab ruler – who is from the American Arabs – presented this offer. Indeed, President Assad refused. He had his logic. Here I would like to answer some intellectuals who commented on my last speech when I said that Syria supplied us with arms in July War or prior to July War saying Syria is a charitable association. No Syria is not a charitable association. How mistaken are these intellectuals. It is not a charitable association. However, Syria has a vision to protect Syria and Lebanon against Israel. It has a strategic perspective. It has a vision on the Arab and Syrian national security. According to this vision, President Assad answered this Arab ruler saying: "Well, let's say I dispatched these couple of squads to the south, and then one day a conflict with the Israelis took place and the Israelis imposed conditions - or let's say a settlement - and we refused it. Should the Israelis take a decision to stage an aggression, in a couple of hours they would wipe the two squads from the south. There is no aerial cover. There is no air defense in Lebanon. Syria has air defense. However, the existence of the popular Resistance in Lebanon forms the true element of strength for Lebanon, Syria and the Arabs. He views the Resistance in Lebanon as well as the Resistance in Palestine as part of the Arab national security strategy. Thus he refused the settlement. Afterwards, Resolution 1559 was announced and international pressure on Lebanon and Syria started to execute this resolution.

I would like also to remind you that Sylvan Shalom – the Israeli enemy Foreign Minister in the previous governments – in 2004 said that the issuance of Resolution 1559 was the outcome of long and exhausting diplomatic efforts exerted by the Israeli foreign ministry. So it is as the saying goes: I am condemning you using your own words. Here I would like to say: using their own words I want today to condemn some Lebanese. So we are before an Israeli resolution. It goes without saying that we refused this resolution. However some Lebanese political forces adopted Resolution 1559 who also adopted the content of this Resolution. At that time, long meetings and sessions between me and martyr PM Rafiq Hariri started months before his martyrdom. We discussed everything as well as the arms of the Resistance. The result was that the Arms of the Resistance in Lebanon must remain until the day in which a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement is achieved. I remember that we differed over the terms. PM Hariri said until inking a fair Arab-Israeli peace. I said let's correct the term. I say a settlement. There is not any fair peace. We are talking about a settlement. So arms must be kept until a settlement is achieved i.e until Syria reconciles, Lebanon reconciles and everyone reconciles. Then we would agree on what to do about the arms of the Resistance. Accordingly we built a political alliance.

Then the man was martyred, and serious incidents took place on the Lebanese internal level, and wide gaps were formed. Until then, we used to refuse to share in any overt argument over the arms of the Resistance. We used to consider this point undisputable. However, because we wanted to assure the Lebanese and because we wanted to be open and reach an outcome on national public opinion, we in fact offered a concession. We agreed to discuss the arms of the Resistance one way or another. Otherwise, according to us the issue was indisputable. This was what took place with us in the agreement with the Free Patriotic Movement in February 2006. When we reached discussing this point the text in the agreement says: In the framework of guarding Lebanon against Israeli dangers and through a national dialogue which leads to forming a national defense strategy on which the Lebanese agree and in which they join through assuming its responsibilities and benefiting from its outcome.

Well, Speaker Nabih Berri had then called for national dialogue. The first session was held in March 2006. We partook without any reservations. Searching for a defense strategy was on the agenda of the national dialogue table. It was meant to discuss the arms of the Resistance. However there is a difference in saying we are discussing the arms of the Resistance on one hand and in saying we are here to respect each other and thus we would say we have a great national issue which is guarding Lebanon, Lebanon's entity, Lebanon's state, and Lebanon's people. We came to discuss this strategy which comprises discussing the Resistance among other topics. We headed to the national dialogue faithfully and seriously. In fact, we had great hope in the possibility of reaching a national agreement after reaching the agreement with the Free Patriotic Movement. In fact, there was a kind of covert agreement between PM Saad Hariri and us as the former had told me in the presence of witnesses that he would carry on with all what we had agreed on with his father. Well, this issue was among what we agreed on with his father – meaning that the Resistance and the arms of the Resistance would remain until a settlement is reached. When a settlement is reached in the region, we would see what to do. Thus, in fact, we went to the dialogue table to make a serious discussion. That's because we had a vision, logic, pretext, evidence and experience. It is the experience from 1982 to 2000. It is the experience of the Resistance in Lebanon and the defeat of Israel in Lebanon.

Well, we went to the dialogue table which you know until we reached the last point. Speaker Nabih kept this point to the last because he knew that there is a great conflict over this point. Thus we reached this point. Speaker Berri called on them to talk in that session. It was known before hand that on that day we want to discuss the defense strategy. He called on them to talk but no one wanted to discuss. I asked the Speaker to talk and I presented a defense strategy – Hezbollah's vision for a national defense strategy. I presented a strategy which is not in my hands now. I talked in utmost brevity on the enemy, who is this enemy, what's the nature of this enemy, the greed of this enemy, the enemy's capacities, the forms of aggressions that might be staged by this enemy against Lebanon, the enemy's points of strength, and the enemy's points of weakness. I presented all of this. Indeed we did not discuss these points.

Then I presented Lebanon the aggressed against and the threatened, Lebanon's points of strength, and Lebanon's points of weakness. Some might wonder whether Lebanon really has points of strength. I tell them that Lebanon has points of strength. Lebanon's people is one of Lebanon's points of strength. Human being is one of Lebanon's points of strength – the men, women, the seniors and the juniors whom we have been seeing for decades. Their will, faith, nationalism, bravery, patience, determination, tolerance, and steadfastness are among Lebanon's points of strength. Lebanon's geography – the mountains, valleys, hills, the complicated roads and even the drillings (which are points of weakness from one perspective may be among the points of strength from another) – are among the points of strength. So in Lebanon there are points of strength as well as points of weakness. We also presented these points of strength and weakness until reaching the option available before us. We are in need of a comprehensive defense strategy – whether on the military, security, diplomatic, political, economic, media, educational, and infrastructure levels. This is the text of what I said. The discussion was not only as far as arms and military are concerned. Lebanon's national security and defending Lebanon in face of an enemy with such a magnitude needs a national defense strategy which takes into consideration all of these topics.

As far as the military level is concerned, we said there are two pillars: a strong army and a strong popular Resistance, and cooperation and integration between the army and the Resistance in the framework of a united national strategy. I said that there is a successful experience before our eyes. This experience is there before our eyes. It is the Grapes of Wrath in 1996. What did the Resistance do? What did the army do? What did the Lebanese diplomacy do? The Israelis were not able to achieve their goals. We achieved April's Agreement which has established for the victory of the Resistance in 2000. This was the outcome of a joint military-field-popular-media-diplomatic effort. I wrapped up my presentation with a quotation for PM Salim Al –Hoss (May Allah prolong his life span). I brought along with me his quotation to the session. He says that the cause is defending the country, and the Resistance is an urgent strategic necessity for defending the country. The problem is that the arms of the Resistance is confined in the hands of one group from one sect. This is the problem. How are we to reconcile between the cause and the problem? This is what we are to find a solution to. We have an army. We want a strong army; we want a resistance; we want a coordination between the Army and the Resistance which reaches the highest level without developing to the level of control. That means we do not put the Resistance under the control of the Army or the control of the state. If coordination develops to the level of control, the Army will be over. That means should the Resistance be under the control of the Army, the latter would be hit in any confrontation with Israel. PM Al Hoss is saying so. He is a man of state. He is not an official in Hezbollah. He is not an adherent to arms or anything of this sort. He saw the whole balance and lived all the experiences. He witnessed the victory of 2000 along with His Eminence President Emile Lahoud. He is telling us we want a strong army, a resistance and coordination between the Army and the Resistance which reaches the highest level without developing to the level of control. If coordination develops to the level of control, the Army will be over. Should the margin between the Army and the Resistance be lost, the state would have to assume the repercussions.

One of the points of strength I presented on the dialogue table is this margin which we - the Lebanese - may move within as a state and as a Resistance in face of Israel and in face of the International Community. This formula could defend the country since 2000 until the time we were sitting and talking and consequently presenting this issue. I wrapped up my word then. You my say the Sayyed is narrating a story. No, we want to reach a conclusion. That's because some people up till now say that Hezbollah did not present a defense strategy. This is a weird country. This is the country of lying that mounts to impudence. That means the person lies while laughing. Hezbollah was the first to present a defense strategy on the dialogue table. You did not present any strategy. This story is over. The Speaker called on them to talk. The session was taking place early so we still had three or four hours. One of the attendees – I will not mention names – said: This is an important word which needs meditation and close examination. I suggest the adjournment of the session and we would carry on later. MP Walid Jumblat said what the Sayyed said is very important. There are technical perspectives of which we are acquainted. There are political sides over which we have questions and which we can't evoke now. We need time to think. The session was adjourned. Then July War took place. Before moving to July war let me settle one point once and for all. That is that we expressed our vision over the national defense strategy clearly and in a scientific, firm, and precise way on the dialogue table. You may listen to the record, as it was recorded. Even more, everyone was listening and everyone was writing in absolute silence. The following day some of what I said was leaked to the media. However that was curtailed. The opening session for a conference on the culture of the Resistance was held at that time. I showed up and told the Lebanese people openly all what I said on the dialogue table. So Hezbollah presented its vision on national defense strategy on the dialogue table and to the Lebanese people altogether live and openly. This is final. So all what is said to the effect that we did not present a strategy or that we are running away from discussing because we do not want to do so is impudence and not only lying. This is impudence and falsehood. Then July War took place and ended as it did, and all what we said in presenting the defense strategy took place at war. Thus the strategy was implemented at war. We do not have plenty of time now to provide you with the evidences. However all the brothers may go back to the text which was published in newspapers and may be published again. Then I told them: "The Israeli air force may destroy a classical army which does not have an air force within hours. However, the Israeli air force can't destroy the Resistance or decisively end a war with the Resistance." Following 33 days of war, the Israelis said that the air force couldn't put a final end to the war with the Resistance. I told them on the dialogue table before the war: "In any territorial confrontation, the Resistance may defeat the enemy's army. The enemy's army would find difficulty in occupying geography. However, the enemy's army can't stay there." This was what took place in July War. When I was tackling the points of weakness, I told them when Israel would have to bring down two million refugees to shelters, the settlements, Haifa, the industries in Haifa, and tourism in the north until reaching the middle area would cause pressure on the Israeli cabinet and make it halt its aggression. This took place in July War. The war led to what it led to – a clear Israeli acknowledgement of defeat and a denial of the defeat by those who bet on war and lost their bet.

Events which have to do with the STL, the government, the resignation and demonstrations also took place on the internal level. Then Doha Summit took place and a call was made for electing another president. His Eminence President Michel Suleiman called for holding a dialogue table with the only topic of the defense strategy. There wasn't any other topic. We responded to this call unconditionally. Here is the point I wanted to stress. I made all of this presentation to reach this point. So far, several sessions for the dialogue table have been held in Baabda Palace. Papers were submitted. What I wanted to tell you – dear audience and all the Lebanese who are listening to me - is that until this very moment Hezbollah's paper on the defense strategy has not been discussed yet. Here I am telling you: No one discussed it. It's not that they want to discuss it and no one is discussing it. No one sat on the table and said: So and so in such and such a session talked about the enemy, the forms of the enemy's aggressions, and we do not agree on that according to such and such an evidence. The enemy threats Lebanon and has greed in Lebanon. We do not agree because of such and such. So and so said the enemy has such and such points of strength and points of weakness. We do not agree. The true evaluation is as such. As far as Lebanon is concerned, so and so said there are these points of strength and points of weakness. This is not true. The options as far as the army is concerned are such and such… So no discussion is taking place up to this very moment! Brothers! This paper has been presented since 2006 – days before July War. So far nobody discussed this paper on the dialogue table or in any other place.

Here I am telling you why they did not discuss it and they would not discuss it on the dialogue table or in any other place. That's because this discussion is not required. One thing only is required. You all know that. Since 2000 it has been required and would remain required as long as there is a commitment with America and the west – I will not say with Israel. One thing is required. There is a definite goal which is disarming the Resistance. So you talk logic saying a classical army is such and such and the resistance is so and so. These are the points of strength and these are the points of weakness. These are the experiences of the peoples. See Algeria, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. See what has taken place here…. They only say: We comprehend but little of what you are saying. What would be the good of any scientific word or logic or talk about schools and human experiences? There is no place for that. By God we were wasting our time. Why? That's because the other party took a final decision: Give in you arms and let's put an end to this long story. There is no other reason. Never did the discussion on the dialogue table mean to defend Lebanon.

Today in the very Month of Ramadan, I say and assume the responsibility of what I am saying in this world and in the hereafter. The aim was never guarding Lebanon. March 14 Bloc are not sitting on the table seriously seeking to see how to guard Lebanon, how to protect the people of the south – all the people of the south – Hasbaya, Jizine, Marjoun, Bint Jbeil, Sidon, Tyr, Nabatiyeh – how to protect the residents of West Bekaa and Rashaya, how to defend Lebanon as a whole starting with Bekaa to the North, to the capital and Mount Liban and the infrastructure. Never! There is only one topic. The Americans want the arms. Hand in the arms. It is as simple as this. Papers were handed by some March 14 Bloc forces. Read them. They were published in the media. First, they do not discuss our paper. Second they do not depend on experiences. Third they have one aim: Hand in your arms to the Army and that will be the end of the story. This is the defense strategy to the March 14 Bloc forces. I want to stress to you that this is the true aim.

Days ago, one of the great leaders in March 14 bloc said: Do not bother yourselves with the dialogue table and the defense strategy. Listen well to what I am saying. Your Eminence the President of the Republic! This person is telling you – and not me – so. Do not bother with discussion and the defense strategy. Soon the regime of Bashar Assad would collapse and Hezbollah would be obliged to hand in its arms." That's it. So the aim is handing in arms. He did not say: "Soon the regime of Bashar Assad would collapse (Indeed these are his convictions) and consequently, we will have to guard Lebanon and the people of southern Lebanon and the people of Bekaa, the people in northern Lebanon and the infrastructure in Lebanon in such and such a way." This is the last thing he thinks of. No this is not precise. He does not think of that at all in fact. This does not interest him. What he cares for is arms. They want to address the Americans saying: We have done what we were required to do. Allow us then to have a grip on the country and control over it. This is one evidence. I have another evidence. One leader of March 14 Bloc says the dialogue on the defense strategy is similar to the dialogue among the deaf! That's true. He knows himself. That's because they do not listen. They do not want to listen. They are not ready to listen. That's because they – and not we - are deaf as far as this issue is concerned. On the contrary, we are very much concerned to reach a strategy that would truly defend the country. The hands of all the Lebanese are in fire. However, the hands of those sitting on the border are most in fire. They are the most people concerned that their country, government, state and political forces providing them with a national defense strategy and providing them with national protection.

Despite this conviction, here I am telling you we are not thinking by any means of boycotting the dialogue table which was called for anew by His Eminence the President. We do not want to ruin this table contrary to what some are saying. This is not true by any means. Any other analysis is baseless. However – brothers – with utmost clarity and frankness we refuse that the participation of the other bloc in the dialogue table turn to a subject for blackmailing the President of the Republic, the government, the state, the political forces or to a subject for blackmailing to achieve or to impose conditions which have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, whether the data or any other thing. What is taking place now is blackmailing, and some want to submit to this blackmailing while we refuse that. Do you know what would that open way to? It would lead to submitting to blackmailing and submitting to the conditions of any side partaking in the dialogue table. That would lead to similar conduct by other forces. For example, we might believe that there are some demands which have not been achieved yet and which have to do with some services or which have to do with security causes or with appointments let's say. Are we to say: To be assured and to return to the dialogue table we want such and such to be fulfilled. O President! We want this to be fulfilled now. If they are not fulfilled, we will not participate!!

Here I will be very precise. If the goal of dialogue is serious and truthful in leading to a national strategy to defend Lebanon and the people of Lebanon, this goal would be more sacred and precious than any other cause and it must not be crippled for the interest of any other security, political, developmental, service or administrative cause. However, here I am telling you: This has never been the goal and would never be the goal.

Today the state is being blackmailed to partake in the dialogue table and the goal is the return to the dialogue table to topple the government and not to guard the government. They said that our group takes pain to keep the dialogue table to guard the government and to save the government. This is wrong. First the dialogue table does not save the government. What keeps the government or topples it is a political will. If any of the current majority components resigns, the government would be toppled. So no dialogue table would save the government. This is comprehended by those who know politics. In fact, your goal from the dialogue table is to topple the government and to evoke the issue of a national rescue government and a neutral government and the like. We did not demand from His Eminence the President a call for dialogue table. Go and see who called for that. Indeed the man has sufficient national motives and national interests to call for dialogue table. However still there are helping factors. See who demanded from His Eminence the President to renew the call for dialogue table and insisted on you to partake when you did not want to participate. It's not we or our political party who made the demand.

I would like to wrap up this topic saying the following: Should the dialogue table convene any time and despite our conviction we will not boycott it and we will go and partake in it. If it does not convene what are we to do? The persistence of this government or not has nothing to do with the convention of the dialogue table.

Now I move to a sensitive topic which is a point of dispute. This is not a new point. It has been evoked for years. However, today it was brought along to the dialogue table and we were asked to address it. Some also make theories on this idea in the media. They include some of our partners in the current majority. Some say there are two solutions: All of us agree on that we want a strong army. This is the true challenge before the political regime and not before the government of PM Najeeb Mikati. Does the political regime have the courage and bravery to take a decision to equip the Army from the side which is ready to equip it? I mean Iran which is willing to equip the Army as it equipped the Resistance?

Are the political regime and the dialogue table ready to take such a decision or are they afraid of America? That's how things move. We have a political regime which is afraid of the Americans and not only as far as equipping the army is concerned but also concerning power plants from Iran and even any help that might be offered. All of you remember that when the huge Iranian ministerial delegation headed by the Iranian vice president came, it was preceded 24 hours ahead by an urgent visit by Feltman. Feltman's message was that cooperation with the Iranians is forbidden. They are not allowed to provide us with power, to equip our army, to pave our roads or build tunnels to address traffic jam as they offer because they have wide experience and are ready to bring along investments for billions of dollars to Lebanon. O people of Lebanon! Iran which you want to label as an enemy is ready to offer services and is ready to make vast investments in Lebanon. That is forbidden. The political regime in Lebanon does not have the courage to take such a decision because there is an American veto. The Americans said that is forbidden and if you cooperate with Iran we will cripple the Lebanese banking regime under the title of violating the sanctions with Iran.

Some would say: Let's hand the arms of the Resistance to the Army. Then we will have a strong army and the story would be over. It is as simple as this. The cause does not need dialogue table and discussion.

Here I will ask a question. If we handed the arms of the Resistance to the Army, and the Army came to have the Resistance anti aircraft and rockets such as Zilzal, Raad, khaibar and the other names we usually use, where would the Army place them and erect them. Will they remain hidden from the Israelis or would they come to know their places? The army which does not have air force and anti aircraft because it is an official, classical, regular army would naturally be an exposed army which is unable to hide like the Resistance and the young men of villages. Such an army would be wiped in a couple of hours. Is this how we would protect Lebanon with my respect to the Army? If we were a regular army we would be wiped away in an hour and the army would be wiped in a couple of hours! This is the truth. However talks about handing the arms of the Resistance to the Army mean losing the Resistance and the Army alike. Some in fact do not believe in the Resistance as well as in the Army.

Second do you really want a strong Lebanon? We are ready to go to Iran and fetch arms similar to those of the Resistance and hand them to the Lebanese Army. Thus we would have a strong army and a strong resistance. As such we would protect our country. Thus this suggestion asserts to you anew what started taking place in 2000 which says that handing in the arms of the Resistance to the Army does not aim to protect Lebanon but rather its aim is to get rid of the arms of the Resistance.

Desperate from having the Resistance hand in its arms, they thought: What are we to do? During July War and after July War, we evoked the whole world against them, abused them and accused them of treason.

They accused us of being sectarian, authoritative and seeking to take grip of the country and that we want to occupy the country. They started saying you want to do so and so.

Anyway, I am trying to simplify things for the public opinion. Well, O Hezbollah and the Resistance! Keep your arms with you but put it under the control of the state. This is nice and kind rhetoric. This is possible. If the issue would be solved as such there won't be any problem in the country. Well is it a matter of a problem or of defending the country? We say let there be a scientific discussion. The topic is on the dialogue table, and there are questions and these questions in fact aim to reach this point.

A while ago, I read on you the word said by PM Al Hoss to this effect. When we put the Resistance under the control of the Army or the state, the first thing to be lost is the margin. Second and what is most important is that what protects Lebanon today is the deterrence balance with Israel and the Fear balance with Israel. I will say only this remark and in case discussion on the dialogue table takes place, Inshallah our brethren Hajj Abu Hassan would discuss and make other remarks.

So as Lebanon is afraid of Israel because it possesses the strongest air force in the Middle East and because it is able to destroy, likewise, Israel today is afraid of Lebanon. Indeed Lebanon's cause today may not be anymore addressed by a musical band and a drum. Some people are occupied by the drum while others are stocking rockets. Israel is watching these who are stocking rockets and is afraid from them. Today it is very clear that the Israelis see a threat in Lebanon. If they hit Lebanon, the infrastructure in Lebanon, the airport, the seaport, the power plants or a village and kill people and perpetrate massacres, there are people who would respond and are able to respond. The Israelis confirmed all what I said in previous speeches. Indeed I do not seek their confirmation. However their confirmation is important as it means that the message has been conveyed and I want the message to be conveyed. We want to enjoy our wealth and we want to protect the country. When the Israelis say it is true that if we hit Beirut Airport the Resistance would strike Tel Aviv Airport and is able to. Should we besiege Lebanon, they could hit the incoming ships and that would ruin our economy. If we hit Dahiyeh or other cities, their strikes could reach any city in occupied Palestine. So they are convinced in that. This is the deterrence balance.

What provides this balance? It is not only arms. It is also Israel's fear from those who own the arms. The Israelis say that if we hit Beirut Airport, Hezbollah would within half an hour strike Ben-Gurion Airport. If we strike the seaport, they would hit the airport. If we strike the power plant, they may hit the power plant instantly and they have the courage to do so. This Resistance have the courage and bravery to respond to the enemy.

How are we to put the arms under the control of the state which is unable to address the crisis of day laborers, which is unable to dismantle a sit-in, which is unable to solve the most trivial problem in the country no matter whether our government or any other government was in power. This is the state of things as they are in Lebanon.

I read a book to one of the intellectuals on the history of Lebanon in which he says: I was surprised to know that in the past, governments used to fall because they used to differ over the evaluation of a piece of land. They differed in the government over the pricing of a piece of land. For example they would suggested the price of 100 L.L.. the land owner would say he wants 150L.L.. They would refuse and say we would give you 100L.L. Thus the government would fall. The government of men of state and senior figures would fall. This is the structure in our country.

This country which has a sectarian regime is much weaker than taking a decision on such a level and even on the level of defense. We claim that the moment the arms become under the control of the state it loses its capability to defend and cause fear. The Israelis would then feel much assured because they know that the Americans would make a call and tell the Lebanese state; The Israelis would strike. Well it is not allowed that you respond. Should you strike back we would impose sanctions on your banking system. The Lebanese response would be: O please spare us that! This has been the Lebanese state always. That has nothing to do with the figures in the state. Let no one misunderstand me. I am not underestimating anyone or defaming anyone. This is our political regime. Our political regime is weak. Our presidents and ministers may have the courage. Their courage may vary. However, the mechanism of decision taking in the regime is out of order. They are disabled mechanisms. Consequently, there would not be deterrence balance and fear balance with the Israelis. The Israelis would violate us. That's beside the other repercussions which may take place or be realized. In the deterrence balance, the enemy must remain worried and afraid. The enemy must not feel assured for one moment. The enemy must keep in mind that if he wants to stage an aggression he must take thousands of points into consideration. If things are not as such, there wouldn't be any deterrence balance even if you own arms. This is our view point. This is our opinion which we presented on the dialogue table. We see that the true strategy which goes with the current conditions and in the presence of such a state, such a structure in Lebanon, and such a situation in the region is the existence of a strong army and a strong resistance, and coordination and integration among them. We fully adopt the quotation by PM Salim Al Hoss.

I would like to hint to the words said by some March 14 Bloc members. Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) says: "Whenever man hides anything, it is exposed in the slips of his tongue and the features of his face".

One of these members said: Should we fail to disarm Hezbollah, we would make these arms rust in their stocks.

We are not saying let the Resistance make war. We are talking about cooperation, coordination and integration between the Resistance and the Army in the framework of a national unity strategy.

The last point I want to tackle is the liberation strategy. As such we would have wrapped up this research. There remains a part of the search which has to do with the crisis of the arms, the sect, the definite sect, the faction, and investing sectarian sedition so as to reach a definite outcome which is 'Let's annul the arms of the Resistance". I will keep this to another occasion because this is also from the serious points which exists now against us.

Talking about the liberation strategy is not new. Years ago we have said that we want a defense strategy as well as a liberation strategy. Here I will say again. Yes we need a defense strategy as well as a liberation strategy altogether. We need a defense strategy because Lebanon is threatened and there is Israeli greed and Israel daily violates our air sovereignty and transgresses and enters our territories…. Thus Lebanon needs a defense strategy. Lebanon also needs a liberation strategy. Shebaa Farms are under occupation. Kafar Shouba Hills are under occupation. There is the Lebanese section of Al Ghajjar town under occupation. These territories are to be liberated. However, nobody talks about that. If the story is that of sovereignty, what is the difference between the enemy occupying 1000 meters or a million meters or 10 thousand kilometers. If the issue is that of sovereignty, don't they say that sovereignty can't be disintegrated. I would like to know where do the Lebanese territories which are still under occupation lie in their minds, hearts, culture, terminology, political speech and political agenda. Their answer is that this issue is not primarily in their minds. In fact, when the border line was occupied – and not only some mountains, hills and half of a town – and there were people from all the sects under occupation and when the rest of the south which comprises people from the various sects used to be attacked, these political forces were unconcerned. The occupied borderline was not in their minds, hearts, emotions, speeches, terminologies, and political agenda. How come they would be interested in talking about hills, valleys and half of a town? They may underestimate this issue in such a way. However if we talk in the logic of sovereignty, there is no width or length. There is occupied Lebanese land. They may say that we agreed an d that we need to delineate the borders in Shebaa Farms and Kafar Shuba Hills. Well Al Ghajjar does not need delineation. The story is final there. Yes we need a liberation strategy and we demand such a strategy. We call on the dialogue table to set a liberation strategy as well as a defense strategy. We insist on this. If the state does not want to set a liberation strategy and wants to abandon its responsibilities, then I will be clear. I will be clear in the other message in this speech. It is the right of the Lebanese people, the people of the Ourquob, the people of the south, and any one in Lebanon to say there are occupied Lebanese territories and the state is not showing concern. No one is showing concern, and this is a national, religious, legitimate and moral right. We want to assume this right. This is their right. Well, am I to call for this or not. Let's keep it for another time. However, if the state abandons setting a liberation strategy that means it is charging the people again with this mission. As the Resistance was launched in 1982 and because there was not a state ready to liberate the land, the people made a resistance. If there is still land under occupation and the state does not want to assume the responsibility of liberating it, people will liberate it also. This is an important affair.

I will go back to the same point to wrap up my speech. Do you know why they do not want to discuss a liberation strategy though we have been calling for this for years? It's because the liberation strategy would lead to consolidate the Resistance whereas the defense strategy aims at annulling the Resistance. This is not our concern. Our issue is national, moral and humanistic.

Today in this iftar ceremony, you meet to support the Resistance, the culture of the Resistance and the track of the Resistance and not a faction. You are supporting the culture, intellect and track of the resistance. We are one of the Resistance factions. However, the Resistance today has become to represent the whole history, heritage, intellect and the great sacrifices of our people and Resistance with its various factions and parties whether Islamic or national as well as the Lebanese Army and all the Lebanese people. Consequently, we launched this Resistance. We are not the worshippers of arms. We are not the worshippers of land. We are not the worshippers of entities. We are not the worshippers of nations. We are the worshippers of Allah Al Mighty. However, when Allah Al Mighty – the God of the Month of Ramadan – created us , He created us as human beings having the natural disposition of dignity, pride, honor and honesty. Allah Al Mighty also created us by nature having the disposition of refusing to live with humiliation or to accept that anyone occupy our land or that anyone subjugate our people or that anyone hurl our young men and women in prisons. By nature, by creation and by legislation, we were ordered to fight the occupiers even if there is no power balance because that is a battle of defense. As far as we are concerned, the issue is existential, natural, moral, legislative, religious and cultural before it being the issue of several spans of land, drops of blood or pieces of arms.

That's how we approach this issue. Thus we refuse that this issue be approached from the perspective of arms and disarming the Resistance. We accept, cooperate, discuss and take pains to reach a conclusion. When the various sides of the discussion and dialogue really want to defend Lebanon and the people of Lebanon and the dignity of Lebanon and the sovereignty of Lebanon, the blood of the Lebanese, the money of the Lebanese, the honor of the Lebanese, and the dignity of the Lebanese, indeed we will be ready for more than discussion and agreement. We are ready to be soldiers in the first front and to be the first to offer sacrifice as in the past. This is our Resistance. That's how it was and how it will always be.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Saker holiday diary: folks I met this afternoon

click on image for full size

Sanctions: Diplomacy's Weapon of Mass Murder

Note: While I am taking a couple of weeks off, others are working hard and resisting the Empire with every ounce of energy. Today, my friend Soraya has sent me this excellent piece of the real WMD of our times: sanctions. I am most grateful to her for allowing me to publish it and for all her excellent work.

The Saker

Sanctions: Diplomacy’s Weapon of Mass Murder

In 1945, the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagaski immediately killing 120,000 civilians. The final death toll of the horrendous bombings has been conservatively estimated at well over 200,000 men, women, and children. To this day, the world continues to be shocked and horrified by the visual images that captured the death and destruction caused by the bombs. The negative impact prompted America to devise a different weapon of mass murder – sanctions.

Unlike the shock and horror which accompanied the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, there were no images of the 500,000 Iraqi children whose lives were cut short by sanctions to jolt the world into reality. Not only has America taken pride in the mass killing of innocent children, but encouraged by silence and the surrender to its weapon of choice, it has turned diplomacy’s weapon of mass murder on another country – Iran.

There has been little resistance to sanctions in the false belief that sanctions are a tool of diplomacy and preferable to war. Enforcement of this belief has been a major victory for American public diplomacy. The reality is otherwise. Sanctions kill indiscriminately – they are far deadlier than “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” – the two atomic bombs that took the lives of over 200,000 people. In the case of Iraq, the United Nations estimated 1,700,000 million Iraqi civilians died as a result of sanctions. 1.5 million more victims than the horrific atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Diplomacy’s finest hour.

Even though Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and many other top officials resigned from their posts in protest to the sanctions saying: "The policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and as terrifying as that", the murders continued. In 1999, seventy members of Congress appealed to President Clinton to lift the sanctions and end what they termed "infanticide masquerading as policy." But America continued its lead with its diplomatic death dance.

America, a morally bankrupt nation and the self-appointed global morality police, obeying the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby groups, has for years now pointed its deadly weapon of mass murder at Iran -- sanctions disguised as diplomacy. The misinformed and misguided global community indulges itself in the false belief that war has been avoided, without thought to suffering and death.

In fact, the notion that economic sanctions are always morally preferable to the use of military force has been challenged by Albert C. Pierce, Ethics and National Security professor at the National Defense University. His analysis showed that economic sanctions inflict great pain, suffering, and physical harm on the innocent civilians--so much so that small-scale military operations were sometimes preferable (Ethics and International Affairs,1996).

But America prefers not to engage in battle. Not only would military confrontation bring global condemnation, but history has shown us that while America can win battles, it cannot win wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…..). It therefore resorts to sanctions- a coward’s ruthless “diplomacy” tool in order to disguise its role as the enemy with the purpose of depriving the target nation of self-defense against such horrendous aggression. Sanctions, the warfare by an enemy unidentified by a military uniform is intended to eliminate resistance, to attack women and children, the weak and the old, to being about regime change, without fear of retaliation or censure by the ‘peace-loving’ community.

In this election year, as in the past, appeasement of the pro-Israel lobbies takes precedent to humanity, to the well-being of Americans, and to the security of the global community.

A 2005 report developed by economists Dean DeRosa and Gary Hufbauer demonstrates that if the United States lifted sanctions on Iran the world price of oil could fall by 10 percent translating into an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States alone. The current global recession would dwarf the figures cited.

At war even with itself to please the lobbies, House passed H.R. 1905 - Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act. Putting aside the oxymoron of sanctions and human rights for now, America is demanding that the world community not only partake in deadly sanctions, but to do so in direct opposition to the national interests of each and every sovereign nation. This is a sharp departure from the arguments presented by AIPAC in 1977 in response to the Arab league boycott.

AIPAC successfully defined the Arab League boycott as " harassment and blackmailing of America, an interference with normal business activities ... that the boycott activities were contrary to the principles of free trade that the United States has espoused for many years … and the Arab interference in the business relations of American firms with other countries is in effect an interference with the sovereignty of the United States." i

However, the United States has successfully blackmailed other nations to be its accomplice in suffering and mass murder - diplomacy’s weapon of choice. To believe that Iran (or Syria) is the only target of these sanctions is as naïve as believing that sanctions are diplomacy put in place to avoid war. The global impact of the lethal weapon – sanctions -- is simply cushioned in diplomacy ; A brilliantly and ruthlessly executed diplomatic coup.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.

i H. Alikhani, Sanctioning Iran, Anatomy of a Failed Policy, New York, 2000, p.321