Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah marking the anniversary of the Martyr Leaders on Saturday 16/2/2013

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

Allah Al Mighty said in His Glorious Book: { But those who are slain in the way of ALLAH, He will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will He guide them and improve their condition. And admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them. O ye who believe! If ye will aid ALLAH, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly} Allah, The Most High, The Most Mighty says the truth.

I welcome you all in this dear and precious anniversary – the anniversary of the Martyr Leaders. I salute you all. Special salutations to the families of martyrs and the families of the Martyr Leaders – the family of Martyr Leader Sayyed Abbass Mussawi (May Allah reward him in Heaven), the family of Martyr Leader Sheikh Ragheb Harb (May Allah reward him in Heaven), and the family of Martyr Leader Hajj Imad Moghniyeh (May Allah reward him in Heaven).

On the anniversary of the Martyr Leaders, we draw lessens and have inspirations and renew our oath and determination. We reserve the trust and remain the men who befit the position. These Martyr Leaders were and are still witnesses on all the stages of the Resistance until today. Martyr Sheikh Ragheb is the martyr who witnessed the stage of establishing, rising, arousing, launching, and definitely choosing the options that lead to the target. Martyr Sayyed Abbass is the martyr who witnessed the stage of steadfastness, consolidation, resoluteness, and deep-rooting the path of the resistance and its conduct. Martyr Leader Imad is the martyr who witnessed the stage of qualitative and quantitative development – humanistic, materialistically, technically – and on the stage of achievements and the victories which was paved for by the Martyr Leaders as well as all the martyrs. In the school of Martyr Leaders, the project was the resistance and not anything else. The absolute priority was the resistance. That's because the true specification – brothers and sisters – of the great danger which was and is still threatening Lebanon, Palestine, the region and the peoples of the region is Israel and the Zionist Project.

When we think from a national position or from an Islamic position, and when we think on the level of the region and the level of the nation, we reach this conclusion and this specification: The greatest danger is Israel and the Zionist project. When we think with a narrow mentality and about local struggles, the greatest danger would be something else. It might be this party, this organization, this faction, this sect and this side.

The only choice available before the peoples and the rational logical historic choice on which the biography of all the rational people all through history was based is the choice of popular resistance with all its forms and levels among which is armed resistance. Thus our Martyr Leaders believed in that. The founder of the resistance in Lebanon – Imam Sayyed Mussa Assader (May Allah restore him safe with his friends) had believed in the project of the resistance. They were loyal to this project and to this priority. They offered all their youths and all their lives and efforts for that. They lived for that. They worked industriously day and night, and they were martyred in this path. Our masters and leaders taught us to be loyal to this project and to work seriously to this priority. They entrusted us to that, and we preserved this will, and we will always preserve this will. After 30 years, the project of the resistance in Lebanon – more than any time in the past – stands on solid land and on a firm base of facts, events, equations, achievements, and victories and not only on mere dreams which are meant to become truth or slogans or emotions or speeches or acrobatics.

During 30 years, the resistance in Lebanon was one of the firmest and strongest facts and one of the clearest and most obvious events which toppled great projects and changed strategic equations and got deep-rooted through decades or centuries. The achievements of the resistance and its outcome are eyewitnesses. That does not need evidences or proofs. It starts with liberation with red blood to defending the country with vigilant and alert deterrence. Based on these achievements and events, we continue our long path and course which would lead to absolute victory Inshallah. We have no doubt in that at all.

Brothers and sisters! The slogan of the anniversary for this year is: "The Martyr Leaders on the path to Palestine". This slogan might appear strange at first consideration in this time. Instead of using this anniversary and the symbolism of the Martyr Leaders to address internal causes or to invest it internally, the party pushes the topic towards Palestine. I read and I will read tomorrow those who say: In which world are you living? You still talk about Palestine and think about Palestine.

Indeed, if we look at the situation in the region, that would be a natural question. Now when we view the region and the speeches, terminologies, interests, priorities and internal struggles, divisions, media campaigns, accusations, mutual accusations and abuses, sectarian and factional instigations, fighting and blood-shedding in every country, it becomes natural that there remains no place for Palestine. There are no more minds, hearts, and emotions for Palestine. That's because all emotions and feelings had gone to other places. There is neither concern nor speeches on Palestine apart from it being a priority.

Look at what is taking place today in Al Qods, what took place days ago near Al Boraq Wall, what is taking place with thousands of Palestinian captives in Israeli prisons, what is taking place on scores or hundreds of Palestinian prisoners who are carrying hunger strike – captive Issawi and his comrades. How does the Arab and Islamic world view all of that? Where is their place in the concerns of the governments and even the peoples and the media outlets? Where is the increase of settlement construction in Al Qods and even in the West Bank among all what is taking place as far as the Palestinian cause is concerned? In what place, in whose mind, in whose emotions and considerations, and in whose speeches are they mentioned?

The slogan is "The Martyr Leaders on the path to Palestine". In fact the resistance in Lebanon - the Lebanese resistance with all its factions including Hezbollah - with all its achievements formed a strong support to Palestine, the resistance of the Palestinian people, and the steadfastness of the Palestinian people. Was it destined for the Israeli-American occupation in 1982 to be accomplished, all hopes to restore one span of the land of Palestine would have been dispersed. However the resistance in Lebanon toppled the project of great Israel in 2000 and the project of Greater Israel in 2006. It revived all the expectations and founded the certitude to restore the land and the territories. There is unity of soul, unity of mind, unity of heart, unity of fate, unity of concern, and a unity of battle between the resistance in Lebanon and the resistance of Palestine.

The resistance in Lebanon supported and backed the Palestinian Intifada and the resistance factions of Palestine. It offered all what it can materialistically and morally and on all domains so that the Palestinian resistance becomes strong and able. We used to believe, and we still believe that the available, possible, and realistic strategy for Palestine, under the weakness of the Arab official regime, is supporting the Palestinian people so that they would be able through resistance to resist, fight, remain steadfast, confront, and be able to restore their land, sanctities, and rights. This experience worked. It worked in Lebanon when the Lebanese resisted, and support was offered to them. The Lebanese are those who resisted and were martyred. With their determination and will, they made victory in 2000. This experience worked in Palestine, in liberating Gaza Strip, and this experience is successful.

What is important is that the Palestinian people carry on and that we carry on our support to the Palestinian people in all possible ways.

In this framework, Martyr Leader Hajj Imad Moghniyeh had and still has roles away from the media. These roles might be revealed with days – conveyance, support, conveying experience, the common mind, and the effort between Lebanon, Palestine and the two resistances.

Yes, all those who support Palestine must carry on supporting Palestine. We thank all those who have always supported the resistance in Lebanon and we are grateful to them starting with Islamic Republic in Iran to Syria.

Here we must stand solemnly before the oppressed martyrdom of Martyr brethren Engineer Hussam Khoshnevis on his great efforts and considerable contribution through heading the Iranian Committee for Reconstruction of Lebanon. This is not the first sacrifice the Islamic Republic offers while supporting the resistance in Lebanon, liberating Lebanon and reconstructing Lebanon. We offer our condolences to the dear brethrens and officials in the Islamic Republic and to his honorable dear family.

Thus we consider that all the martyrs of the resistance in Lebanon on top of which are the Martyr leaders – Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb and Hajj Imad – who were martyred in the path to Palestine were related to Palestine, the People of Palestine and the sanctities of Palestine by a relation of faith, loyalty, love, emotion and great concern.

Still in this point and before moving to another point, I hope that our Arab world would be cured and would step out of their crises and sharp struggles so that they may be able to transcend this stage on which Israel is betting.

When all the Israeli research centers – especially this year – reevaluated the strategic environment, they made some modifications to what they wrote a couple of years ago. Two years ago, they were very worried and alarmed as a result to the changes that are taking or took place in the Arab world. Unfortunately, during the past few months, threats started to dwindle while chances mushroomed in Israeli studies. They clearly talked the struggle in Syria, the struggle in Egypt, and the struggles in the region as well as factional ordeals and the preoccupations of the peoples of the region with their internal struggles and affairs. They viewed that as an increase in the level of chances.

We are working and hope we would all be able to step out of this ordeal.

Here we must recall that these days mark the second anniversary for the launch of the Bahraini people upraise, Intifada, revolution and peaceful action. We laud the ability of this people to tolerate, stand steadfast and remain firm on their peaceful action and on the national trait of these demands. We hope that the national dialogue table which was formed in the past few days be able to make Bahrain, the people of Bahrain – this dear country and this dear people which has always been and will always be a supporter to Palestine and the resistance movements – cross and reach the required results which this people as well as all the martyrs who passed in this path look forward to.

I will tackle now the last point concerning the Israeli status quo before moving to the local situation.

Concerning the Israeli status quo, under some accusations that took place lately or the developments that took place in the region, great intimidations on Lebanon and on the Lebanese and on you were made unfortunately by Lebanese and Arab political forces and media outlets to the effect that Israel is preparing to launch a war on Lebanon. There were expectations that Israel would stage a vast aggression on Lebanon within few days or weeks or in the near future. Unfortunately this intimidation was not Israeli in as much as it was Lebanese or Arab. That means that according to my follow up to what the Israelis say, I did not notice that they were talking about waging a war on Lebanon or staging an aggression against Lebanon. Some tackled plots of war against Lebanon to the effect that in case of war "we would do so and so".

However, those who were foretelling about an Israeli war and a great Israeli aggression on Lebanon unfortunately were Lebanese forces, Lebanese media outlets, and Arab forces and media outlets.

Today I do not want to approach the Bulgarian accusation. This is being followed up carefully and calmly. Later on, we will see how things will move.

However unfortunately, from the viewpoint of the bad investment of some parties to this accusation, I will tackle it for a while as a prelude to talking about the intimidations. That's why many people made haste to establish the accusation on Hezbollah and filed a case against us. They themselves – i.e. these Lebanese and Arabs - accomplished the stage of accusation. They tried us and judged us on behalf of the European Union and placed us on the Terrorism List and thus pushed Lebanon towards economic, security and political repercussions pursuant to their supposed dream of putting Lebanon on the Terrorist List. They supposed the government would be toppled, and they got ready to take the government. Why are you making haste? There is nothing taking place? How is this topic to be approached and addressed later on and what will be done are other points to be tackled later.

However the worst in all what was said is indeed talking about Israel getting ready to stage a war on the basis of this supposed accusation. This is what they are talking about, and I am sorry that in Lebanon there are people who nurture such expectations, dreams and bargains. This is unfortunate. However, I will comment on two points only:

The first comment is that when the Israelis want to stage an aggression against Lebanon, they don't need a pretext or an excuse. They can fabricate any accusation and stage an aggression instantly without waiting for any investigations.

Do you still remember that in 1982 the Israelis claimed or accused Palestinian sides of attempting to assassinate the Israeli Ambassador to London? The Ambassador did not die; the Israelis did not wait for a British accusation or investigation. They took the event as a pretext and staged an attack on Lebanon. So the story is not as such. When the Israelis want to make an aggression on Lebanon or stage a war on Lebanon, they may fabricate whatever pretext or accuse anytime.

The situation is different as far as the Bulgarian event is concerned and even before it took place. Since the first minutes – or let's say the first hours – following the incident, Netanyahu accused Hezbollah. What took place during these several months? Did he stage a war or an aggression?

Even before the incident in Bulgaria, in the past year or in the past couple of years, operations against Israeli targets in India, Georgia, and Thailand took place. The Israelis accused Hezbollah. What took place afterwards? Did a war take place? No war took place.

There is simplification. We - the Lebanese and the peoples of the region – have been living the so called Israeli nightmare for decades by now. There is too much simplification in saying that because of a definite incident, Israel will wage a war.

Israel is a state that has its own project. It has its own interests, considerations, circumstances, and situations. In any war, it looks forward to a decisive victory. It does not head to a war as a result to a simple – or whatever -incident or as a reaction.

A war has a project. A great aggression against any country has a project. Well, perhaps it may hit a definite target or stage a definite operation. As for going to war, that has its own considerations. We must step out of this simplification while dealing with the Israel as an enemy that is threatening Lebanon and the region.

The second point which we must remind all the Lebanese of is that there is a new fact following 2000 and especially following 2006 which is that when the Israelis think of a war on Lebanon, they take a thousand things into consideration. The proof for those who want a proof is the trials which assert that. Israelis do not make haste to wage a war on Lebanon following whatever incident.

Another proof is the Israeli declarations, arguments, studies, analyses, and research centers and institutes as well as lectures given by Israeli security and military leaders – especially former leaders. That's because when they leave office they would be more able to express their decisions and talk in a clearer way. They wouldn't have any legal problem. Moreover, the drills and training camps which are taking place on the level of air, land and sea force assert that they are getting ready to a real front and not a trip. So it is not a pleasure trip. It is rather a real front.

So far there is a conflict and an argument among the Israelis: If we get engaged in a war in Lebanon or with Lebanon, will the results be guaranteed? Will we win the war? Are we able to bear another loss like that of 2006 or a greater or a more afflicting loss? Such arguments are taking place in Israel.

Dear brothers and sisters! I assert to you and I assert to that enemy today during the anniversary of the martyr leaders that Lebanon is not anymore a scapegoat. Lebanon is not anymore a place where Israel makes a trip for pleasure. Lebanon is not any more a country which may be duped or occupied by a musical band from the Israeli Army. These are not words to show off.

The proof is what took place in 1982, 2000, and 2006. The situation in Lebanon now is totally different. I do not need to remind of what I said in previous occasions. However, I would like to highlight a point so that neither the enemy nor those who always live on betting on what takes place abroad would make miscalculations.

I will talk frankly. Perhaps some might consider that Syria now is engaged in a bloody conflict, and consequently, Syria is outside the equation or outside any battle that might take place with the Israeli enemy. Syria which was a support in July War now is preoccupied in its internal struggle. Consequently, it can't support or back or be a bridge to the resistance in Lebanon. So this is the moment that might be exploited to catch Lebanon alone. Perhaps some might make wrong calculations and consider the resistance in Lebanon at this moment as weak or perplexed, and consequently, believe that it is favorable to stage an aggression…. Well this is not the case at all whether it is an aggression or an attack or a war. On the anniversary of Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb and Hajj Imad, I tell whoever thinks in such a way: You are totally mistaken.

I frankly tell him that today the resistance in Lebanon is fully-equipped. All what we need for is now here in Lebanon. We do not need to convey it from Syria or from Iran. I hope you understood this fully. All what we need for in any upcoming war – in case it takes place – is here in Lebanon and we guard it in Lebanon.

The resistance today is fully equipped. All what I talked about in the past is very well known by the Israelis. If I am to raise the level more, it might be understood that we need to raise the dose. Well, no. With utmost calmness we will turn the tables: I warn the Israelis and whoever stands behind them that the resistance in Lebanon will not remain silent on any aggression which might take place against Lebanon or on Lebanese territories.

They know that, but I will remind them of our threat to their airports, seaports, and power plants – as for our power plants they need to be changed anyway. I might have told you previously that they have a number of power plants. They need only a number of rockets and Israel will be drowned in darkness. There is a plant in the north of Israel and near the middle. Israelis say that in case this plant was hit, they need six months to repair it. Does Israel bear falling in darkness for six months? In Lebanon, we are accustomed to that. However, do Israel and the people of Israel bear that? Anyway, they know very well that whatever we have said and whatever we might say again – starting with Keryat to Eilat – is serious. So if we are working day and night, the reconnaissance planes and the attempts to violate us on the security level would be natural because they want to collect information. This is the real threat.

As far as this point is concerned, I will wrap up saying – so as to keep some time to tackle the local situation: By the chaste blood of Sayyed Abbass, the pure blood of Sheikh Ragheb and the dear blood of Hajj Imad – this is not a religious oath but rather a moral oath or a jihadi oath – the sons, pupils, and comrades of Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb and Hajj Imad are now more determined and resolute to confront any aggression and to preserve the trust. The contest is open, and it will remain open.

I have a couple of words to say on the internal situation. I will usher into the internal situation too from the gate of the resistance and the arms of the resistance. A day ago there was a dear memory. It is the anniversary of the martyrdom of Martyr PM Rafiq Hariri and his companions. Speeches were delivered on this occasion. I do not want to comment on what was said and repeated again. I do not want to make an argument or a commentary.

I only have a quotation from the speech of the Head of the Future Movement which I find myself obliged to tackle. I find it my moral obligation to comment on this quotation as I felt that in it there is an insult to Martyr PM Rafiq Hariri as well as to other leaders, allies and partners.

We can bear any insult made to us. However, we have to pose and tackle this quotation for another reason which is that this quotation or few words also give us the chance to usher into some argumentative local topics in Lebanon now. I do not want to make an argument. I only want to comment.

What does the quotation say? It says: Hezbollah decisively refuses to acknowledge this status quo (concerning weapons) and adheres to the formula of all policies serve arms. Hezbollah is ready to make concessions and a ministerial bribery to the Premier at the expense of a portfolio for the party. (So first he is saying that PM Mikati was bribed) in exchange for forming a government that does not approach the topic of arms. Hezbollah is also willing to confirm with its ally Michel Aoun – while observing titles; however, I am saying what he said – on the election law of the Orthodox Gathering to guarantee that the parliament remain under the ceiling of arms. Hezbollah is also willing to pass funding the STL in the government and pretend to have forgotten the previous campaigns made by Walid Jumblat and his extreme stance from Assad's regime and Iran's role in suppressing the Syrian people in exchange for keeping arms away from circulation".

Well, this is the quotation. The speech has a continuation. Well the argument is quite clear. However, I want to pose on this point.

First, we start with bribing PM Mikati. First, I want to correct his information. The portfolio which was conceded wasn't the share of Hezbollah. It was rather the share of Amal Movement. The step took place upon an initiative made by Speaker Nabih Berri. We agreed on this blessed step. So first his information is incorrect.

This step meant to decrease the Shiite share for the interest of the Sunnite share. This step was meant to honor, esteem and show respect to a great national house and second to give this great national house a chance to partake in the current government. I mean by this house the family PM Omar Karami. This man and this family have always proved a high degree of morals, national feelings and sense of responsibility and loyalty. Some want to shut this house close.

PM Omar Karami proved noble manners again through his responsible and moral dealing with the events taking place in Tripoli and which were about to lead to the death of his son MP Faisal Karami. Was it not for the moral, national, and humanistic stance taken by PM Omar Karami, we all know what would have happened in Tripoli.

Allow me to say that if the Shiites decreased their share for the interest of the Sunnite share to have a minister from this house, would that be a shame or bribery? This is not true about PM Mikati.

Well, thirdly, I will carry on with the PM as far as the story of passing funding the STL is concerned. Well, is it a shame if Hezbollah came to understand the difficult circumstances in which PM Mikati is assuming responsibility – local and regional circumstances are hard nowadays – though we do not agree with him on some stances and decisions such as funding the STL? The fact is that we are totally confident that when we deal with this government, it is unthinkable that PM Mikati and the government of PM Mikati would connive against the resistance or stab the resistance in the back. This is the difference. Thus we might differ in one point pursuant to definite pressures or circumstances. Well PM Mikati does not work totally freely. We make arguments and carry discussions and reach somewhere. So he does not make us bear what we can't tolerate and vice versa. Anyway, we reach agreements.

Even all what was written in newspapers about disagreements or conflicts is groundless. That's not true. Well, we are accused of bribing PM Mikati to form a government. What is this expression? I am not talking about arms. I will come back to it later on when talking about MP Rafiq Hariri and the current Head of the Future Movement. We will return to it later on.

Let's move to the second section. Hezbollah is also willing to confirm with its ally Michel Aoun on the election law of the Orthodox Gathering to guarantee that the parliament remain under the ceiling of arms. Here too, we have two points to highlight. First, is it a shame if somebody confirms with his allies, takes them into consideration, listens to their fears, and observes their interests? This is something that somebody is praised for and not ashamed for.

One of the discrepancies between Hezbollah and the leadership of Future Movement – I am not talking about the party; I am rather talking about the leadership – is the issue of allies. Dealing with allies is not lately the talk of closed salons. No! In the past few weeks it has become in newspapers, magazines and on platforms. How does the leadership of this movement deal with its allies and how do we deal with our allies? We deal with them with the utmost tolerance while totally observing national interests and not at the expense of national interests.

Anyway, our allies know that on the moral level – I am talking about myself – I am one of the people who if able to give my allies my own eyebrows, I won't fail to do so. Is that a shame?

Second: We were convinced by the Orthodox Gathering Proposal. Indeed it's our priority that Lebanon be one district based on proportional representation, or proportional representation with Lebanon as one district or with broad districts as I have said in the previous time. However we accepted the Orthodox Gathering Proposal. The story is not that of dictation or of moving with my ally with closed eyes. No, I am convinced, and I see that there is interest in that. In the previous speech, I said that the Christians in Lebanon view this proposal as a chance to achieve true equality. So let's give them this chance. Why not?

Thirdly, I will tackle the section that has to do with General Aoun and not with the rest of the allies. That's because he talked about General Aoun. Since 2006, General Aoun decisively made his choices when he stood next to the resistance. Then some leaders in March 14 Bloc said that the war would end and General Aoun would be searched for in one of the insane asylums in Paris. They were living dreams and illusions of the defeat the resistance would be afflicted with. Then General Aoun did not take a position and wait for political awards by the Orthodox Proposal or others because it was not known who would stay and who would quite to be.

July War was a war of existence or annulment. In July War the world, the international community, most of the Arab states and the local forces lined together to crush Hezbollah. General Aoun took a decision. At the stage in which crushing Hezbollah was required, was he waiting to be awarded or thinking that a day would come in which we would agree on the Orthodox Gathering?

Thus I have preciously said that I categorize his stance as well as the stance of all our allies, leaderships, heads, forces and all those who took a decision in July War as a moral, national, humanistic stance and not a political stance or a stance based on profit or loss considerations. That's because then we were one band and the world wanted to crush us. Were we crushed, we would have been crushed altogether. However, because we remained, we remained altogether; because we gained victory, we gained victory altogether; because we towered, we towered altogether.

Even when we differ over local affairs and at times misunderstandings occur, media outlets might make haste. However, General Aoun would show up and say that the resistance is above any disagreement.

Now we come to MP Walid Jumblat. What does the head of the Future Movement want in particular? He says: "…pretend to have forgotten the previous campaigns made by Walid Jumblat and his extreme stance from Assad's regime and Iran's role".

You good people, political elites, scholars, religious and political leaderships, what do you understand from this speech except instigation?

Do you feel sad because we are not conflicting with Walid Jumblat – while observing titles? Do you want us to quarrel? Do you want Hezbollah to quarrel with the Progressive Socialist Party on the basis of the stance from Syria? We are not as such. There are political and religious forces in Lebanon who differ with us in the stance from Syria. They are not partners with us in the government. They do not meet with us. They do not sit with us. On the contrary, they daily curse us, abuse us, accuse us, provoke us, and block roads. What did we do to these forces? Nothing! We remained silent. Why?

Since 2008, MP Walid Jumblat took a clear position from the resistance and the arms of the resistance. He announces this daily. He even announced that at the eve of leaving to Saudi Arabia. This was before the events started in Syria. Does the person who cares for the country and for the civil state and for the Lebanese not to fight or quarrel talk in such a language which instigates political forces against each other?

There are two points to be highlighted. The first is staying apart – that means that the government stays apart. The second point which is more important than staying apart is that the Lebanese do not thrust the conflict taking place in Syria into Lebanon. This differs from the government staying apart.

We confess that we differ over the stance from Syria. If we differ over the stance from Syria, are we to ruin our country and set it on fire? If there is a war in Syria, are we to transfer it to Lebanon or to open fire on each other? What logic is this?

We are with keeping Lebanon apart from the struggle taking place in Syria. I back whatever position that suits me, and you back whatever position that suits you. You take the stance that you want, and I take the stance I want. However, anything that leads to the transfer of struggle to the Lebanese internal square or among the Lebanese is wrong and not to the interest of Lebanon at all. This is what we are seeking. Is that right or wrong? Is that a demerit or a shame?

In the same framework, we move to talk about PM Rafiq Hariri. Previously I have talked openly on TV screens on several occasions. I want to recall that to show that – according to the quotation of the Head of the Future Movement - they might be understood that we have bribed the Martyred Premier and that he was bribed.

Some witnesses are still alive. We sat with each other before February 14th. We had discussions and agreed on some points. There remained points to be discussed: the viewpoint on Lebanon, on the region, on authority, on Taif Accord, on elections, on the upcoming government, and on the resistance. The man asked what we wanted. We told the Premier that to us the resistance has the utmost priority. Other points are discussable – the administrative topic, the economic topic, the financial topic, the topic of election laws, forming the government, and the authority are not a priority. They are discussable. The resistance to us is the priority because we think that Lebanon is still in the sphere of danger. Israeli greed is still valid. If the resistance does not assume the responsibility, there is no one else to assume the responsibility. He told us: I am with you. There was no bribe offered. He said: I am with you. He even said more than that. He said: I am with the persistence of the resistance and the arms of the resistance not until the withdrawal from Shebaa Farms and Kafar Shouba Hills, not until the return of captives from Israeli prisons, but even more. I tell you frankly, I am with the persistence of the resistance and the arms of the resistance until a comprehensive and fair peace is inked. Here I interrupted him just to point at the terms we use. I told him you say a comprehensive and fair peace; I say a settlement. I do not say comprehensive and fair peace. A comprehensive and fair peace which I believe in and which Hezbollah believes in is achieved by the return of Palestine from the sea to the river to the Palestinian people. This is the comprehensive and fair peace. As for what you mean, it is a settlement. So he said: Well call it settlement. We will not argue over that.

PM Rafiq Hariri was very flexible and in many of the topics he used to trim ends. So there was not a problem should I say a settlement and you say comprehensive and fair peace. There is no problem. He even said – though I did not tell him to make this addition – more than that. He said that in case a comprehensive and fair peace was achieved, and I was the Premier, I would come to you and tell you: The Arabs inked an agreement; Syria reconciled; Lebanon reconciled, the Palestinians reconciled; all the Arabs agreed. There is no need for this resistance and for the arms of the resistance anymore. Let's find a solution for the arms. Either you hand arms to the state, or you sell them, or you return them to their sources. Do whatever appeals to you. If a day comes when you – O Sayyed – tell me: "No, I do not want to hand in my arms", I will resign and leave Lebanon as I am not willing to get engaged in a battle with the resistance.

This is your father.

Did Rafiq Hariri ever take bribe? The man was martyred. His son came to power. We sat together. What was said was repeated in his presence. He said I am committed to all what my father was committed to. Did you at that time when the quartet was formed take a bribe?

At that time we formed the quartet. We do not feel remorse for that. However, some of our allies were annoyed from us. We do not feel remorse. We then formed a quartet, and I will remind you why. That's because we wanted to reserve Lebanon and guard civil peace. We wanted to put an end for a sectarian ordeal between Shiites and Sunnites. That's because if we – the Shiites (Hezbollah and Amal Movement) were in one side and the Future Movement in another during the elections of 2005, the country would have been ruined. That's because the language which was used during the elections and particularly in the North where it was forcefully used mounted to calling those who vote for the rivaling list as voting for the killers of Rafiq Hariri. We would have gone to a Shiite-Sunnite conflict. In 2005, we made concessions. We agreed to make alliance via the quartet. We accepted to share in a government with no guarantees and without the guaranteeing one-third share. There were promises only. It was a verbal commitment. The Martyr PM used to tell me: I am ready to write down what I am saying. {If I had knowledge of the unseen I should have multiplied all good} If we knew the unknown, we would have told him to write that down. However, we told him: "O, no! Your Eminence! Your word is enough. Your word suffices.

Even in previous governments, on what bases the ministerial statement used to mention the equation of the Army, the People and the Resistance? Then his allies were annoyed. Was he bribed here too or what?

I end this argument in a word with him: When the problem took place and the former government was toppled, and an argument took place in the country on naming the new PM, the Qatari-Turkish Initiative was made. It made a discussion to address the topic. Then the Qatari minister and the Turkish FM – previously I have tackled this topic – met and wrote a draft on which the Head of the Future Movement agreed. They came to us. It was only required that we accept so that in the morning, the various sides ink the agreement and a great meeting would be held in Paris attended by countries which would sponsor this agreement.

Here I am somehow hesitant. Am I allowed to say for example that on that day we were bribed and we did not accept to be bribed? Or what is the correct term to be used?

Previously, I have told you that in that text there were things that have to do with the STL, withdrawing the Lebanese judges, and blocking funds. We said that before. I do not want to repeat. I will come to the topic of arms. As for arms the text which was presented to us had three conditions on arms. The Qatari minister was reading on me: Putting an end to the phenomenon of arms spread and security zones all over the Lebanese territories - Between parentheses there was written: "Hezbollah arms are not meant in that". I told him: Your Eminence! Are you aware of what you wrote? He explained to me that what is required is putting an end to the phenomenon of arms spread in all regions except for the arms of Hezbollah. I told him to be sure of what he wrote. It was I who was highlighting what he wrote. I told him that had he written the arms of the resistance that would have been narrower than the arms of the party. I told him that he may ask me whether the existence of arms in a definite geography is arms of the resistance or political arms. He told me there is no problem in that. We agree on this text and we accept it.

It was you who proposed on us keeping arms aside, reserving arms and guarding arms in exchange of agreeing that you become the Premier again, and we did not agree. The reason simply has to do with national interests. It has nothing to do with personal or party refrain. Then an argument took place with us. I do not go for presenting the argument on air. Well, the national unity government which was headed by him had gained the highest level of votes in the history of Lebanon ever. As they say things were made fully ready for him. Still what did that government do?

We want a Premier who resides in Lebanon. I told them we want a Lebanese Premier. We want a Premier who has time to sit with the ministers, listen to them, gather the ministerial committees and address causes. We want a Premier who has enough tolerance to follow-up. Here I am talking frankly. Any person can stand for an hour and make abuses. Well, these are facts.

Thus on that day we told them that we can't accept to keep our arms aside as well as the STL in return for handing this country for this person or that. As such I will be violating national interests for the sake of the interests of the party. Who would have bribed the other? Who would have taken a bribe from the other?

Here I would like others to be careful. Well, our policy requires offering concessions for allies, friends and partners for the sake of reserving the arms here. No! It is for the sake of reserving the resistance. Was these arms not for resisting Israel, it would have meant nothing at all to us. It does not deserve that we offer sacrifices for it.

Well, a resistance or a party might offer concessions in authority, in administration, in election laws…. It might offer concessions here and there. A party might tolerate and have patience on accusations, abuses, and daily insults for the sake of the resistance that protects the country and the resistance that is on its way to Palestine, the resistance which is a source of pride to Lebanon. Is that a merit or a shame?

Well, why do they say one thing and its opposite? Don't they daily say that the aim of arms is to gain power? Well, here you are acknowledging that we are conceding authority for the sake of reserving arms. Isn't that so? Well, you are reading a written text. You are acknowledging that we are conceding a Shiite portfolio in the government; we are confirming an election law; we are remaining silent here and there; we let funding the STL pass for the sake of reserving arms. Well, if the target of arms is to reach power, how is it that we are offering concessions in power to reserve arms? How am I to understand that?

Brothers and sisters! It is not now that justice has been revealed. Justice has been revealed for a long time. Justice is clear and evident. I would like to tell you: In this country, we believe in forming a state; we believe in Taif Accord; and we believe in developing this regime.

Indeed, if anyone tries to approach making amendments in Taif Accord he would be labeled a political infidel even if he was a Sunnite but not from Future Movement. Only one side is allowed to talk about amending Taif Accord without being labeled an infidel. It is the Future movement. However, if any other person from any other political track, or sect, or faction approaches the Taif Agreement, he would become a political infidel.

We are with Taif Accord. We are with developing Taif Accord. We believe in true partnership. We believe in true equity. Because the Orthodox Gathering is one of the choices that lead to true equity, we agreed on it, and if it is proposed at the parliament, we will vote for it.

We believe that in Lebanon – with its composition - there is no ability or possibility that a party or a movement, or a faction or a sect rule the country. Let no one confer a benefit upon others. Let's put good intentions aside. Whoever thinks in such a way would be putting Lebanon and himself at stake. Thus we say: Our project was never to rule Lebanon or gain authority in Lebanon.

Yes, we are with real partnership. We are with true national partnership because this country with its characteristics and human and political composition has this option available only. So if we want a secure, stable country that addresses its social crises, develop and guard its unity, the only way is partnership and not monopolization.

They say that we are a group who seeks monopoly. Never! When PM Najeeb Mikati was named, he stayed for a month waiting so that you agree to partake in a national unity government. You did not agree. On the contrary, you met and called on the entire world to boycott this government. You instigated the entire world against this government.

Now, in the past and in the future, we are with national unity, with national agreement, and with making concessions to each other. We have no problem in making concessions. Never! However, that must be under this title.

We look forward to reach an understanding in Lebanon and to live together in Lebanon with dignity. We look forward to a strong Lebanon that is able to protect itself away from any bargain whether on the international community, the Arab League, the Organization of Arab Cooperation, or anyone else in the world. We only trust in Allah and bargain on the hands of Lebanon's sons, resistance men, and honorable people – and they are numerous in Lebanon. We look forward to a Lebanon which is able to benefit from the blessings and wealth which Allah endowed in it – in its mountains, fields, waters, and seas – without any grudge from anyone or fear from anyone.

This is what we look forward to. These were the dreams of our martyr leaders, and we have the same dreams. We have the same expectations and targets, and we will carry on moving on their path with determination while being certain of the upcoming victory. Peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings.