Hezbollah Secretary General Nasrallah: "The game is over in Syria"

Full speech delivered by Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during the memorial anniversary of the Resistance Leader Martyrs held in Sayyed Ashuhada Compound on February 16, 2015.

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

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

First, I would like to welcome you all in this dear and solemn occasion - the anniversary of the Leader Martyrs.

However, allow me first to tackle a really grave incident. I find myself obliged to express our as well as your strong condemnation of the brutal and savage crime perpetrated by the Takfiri Daesh organization against the oppressed Egyptian workers in Libya. This crime cannot be tolerated or bore by the mind, heart, conscience, religion or humanity. In your name, we extend our condolences to their oppressed and deemed-weak families, the Egyptian people, the Egyptian government, and the Coptic Church. We also express our consolation and deep sorrow for this calamity which afflicted them. In fact, it afflicted us all - Islam and Christianity, Muslims and Christians, and every human being who has a mind, a conscience, and an intact nature. We will return to this topic again in the course of the speech.

First, I would like to talk about the occasion and the act of commemorating this occasion. Then, I will talk a little about the Lebanese affairs before making a general overview and a general stance on the situation of the region.

Every year, on this very day, together we mark the anniversary of the Leader Martyrs, the family of leaders, Martyr Sayyed Abbass Mussawi - our Secretary General, leader, master, beloved, and inspirer -, his well-educated, resisting wife Martyr Sayyeda Um Yasser, and his small child Hussein, the Sheikh of the Islamic Resistance Martyrs - His Eminence Martyr Sheikh Ragheb Harb, and the senior jihadi Leader Martyr Hajj Imad Moghniyeh who are the symbol of our steadfastness and victory. We mark their anniversary for our sake and our good and not theirs. We mark their anniversary to teach our children, grandchildren and future generations. We commemorate this occasion so that the near past which we lived and partook in making remains connected to the present and overlooking the future.

This period of time must remain in our minds - we who have lived this era -, and it must dwell in the minds of our children, grandchildren, and the generations to come.

This period of time extends from the establishment of the State of "Israel" in 1948, the wars which were staged later in 1967 and 1973, the events that took place in Lebanon, the resistance announced by the Palestinian people, the resistance announced later on by His Eminence Sayyed Mussa Sadre (May Allah return him back safe and sound along with both his companions), Camp David Agreement, the divine and historic victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran which took place in like these days under the leadership of His Eminence Imam Khomeini (May Allah sanctify his secret), the "Israeli" invasion in 1982, and the post-invasion era to our day including the wars, confrontations, events, and conspiracies.

This era is pregnant with events and development, and no one - neither we nor our children or the generations to come - can approach the present and the challenges of the day in a logical, objective, scientific, intact, and sound way apart from all of this past and the equations and achievements made: the facts and illusions, logic and lunacy, desperate bargains and sound options, waiting a mirage that did not and will never come true and waiting for victories made by the determination, sacrifices, tears, blood, aspirations, and pains of men and women. This time era with all what it comprises represents a great humanistic, fiducial, cultural, and jihadi school for our people and nation.

These leader martyrs were among its most prominent figures and leaderships and its martyred witnesses. Second, we always and all year long need to resort to them. We need to turn to Sayyed Abbass, Um Yasser, Sheikh Ragheb, and Hajj Imad as ideals to follow. We need to learn from them to abstain from this world when it ornaments to us its vanities: prestige, wealth, and luxury. We need to learn from them to be modest and even humble when we become strong. We need to learn from them to be strong when we confront quaking and hurricane-like calamities. We need to learn from them wisdom when we are fought with ordeals and seditions that disperse minds and insight. We take from them and are inspired by their ardor and zeal when tired, by their boldness when hesitating, and by their unlimited sacrifices when the position requires that. We learn from them to trust in Allah, our nation, our people, ourselves, and our resistance fighters when people feel frustrated as hardships, difficulties, and challenges target them from all sides. We take from them hope, confidence, and insight. As you heard a while ago, when "Israel" was occupying our land, Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb, and Hajj Imad first and later on expressed their vision that "Israel" would not only withdraw from our land but also will be eliminated from the world. That is at a time "Israel" was occupying our land, our men and women were in prison, and we were weak and "Israel" was strong. As such, we take from them a clear vision and intact insight, confidence and hope, and most importantly we learn from them to be faithful and loyal, to have tolerance, to be up to the level of the tough and difficult current challenges we are facing, and to be competent at shouldering the responsibility of making a decent, noble, and prideful future that befits our people, homeland, and nation. Thus we always take pains to talk about them, their biography, their morals, their conduct, their achievements, their jihad, and their sacrifices so that we as well our children, grandchildren, and the future generations come to know and learn.

This is what we must take pains to achieve when we broadcast the names, photos, biographies, and wills of all the martyrs every day and around the year. That's because they truly present an integrated, intellectual jihadi school which we must introduce and with which we must be acquainted. For 32 years by now, a generation of young men who were 18, 19, 20, 23, and 25 at most by that time and who were scholars and fighters whether men or women took the initiative and shouldered the responsibility. Some of them were martyred in the different stages of the path.

Many of our veteran cadres were mighty in the fields of jihad and enduring difficulties and wounds and then died of a long struggle with illness the last of whom was a dear leader of the pioneer Resistance leaders late Hajj Mustafa Shehadeh (May Allah have mercy on him). Some were detained and suffered from the cuffs of detention. Some were wounded and are still suffering from their injuries. Some are still moving in this path holding their blood on their palms. The slogan held by this first generation which included Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb, and Hajj Imad, and Hajjeh Um Yasser is {Among the Believers are men who have been true to their Covenant with Allah: othem some have completed their vow, and some atill wait: but they have never changed their determination in the least}.

Among the young men today are children of the first generation who in their turn pledged, lived up to their pledge, and adhered to their pledge, and many of them passed away as martyrs the last of whom were those who were killed in the "Israeli" aggression in Quneitra.

The children of the first generation were also senior partakers in making victory. The anniversary of the leader martyrs comes this year with evidence on what I am saying. The son of Leader Martyr Imad Moghniyeh - Jihad - stood on this podium to pledge his allegiance and willingly declare his affiliation, identity, and option. No one obliged him to do so. He could have continued his university education. He was a young gentle man. His life and his future were before him. The entire world was before him. However, the son of Hajj Imad carried Hajj Imad's spirit, soul, knowledge, and love. He abandoned all of that. Where did he go? He went to Golan and to Quneitra where his life was sealed in martyrdom. As such are the martyrs the sons of martyrs. The blood of martyr Jihad and his brethrens in Quneitra days ago forcefully revived the anniversary of the martyrdom of Hajj Imad Moghniyeh.

It brought him back to life again. At that moment we felt as if Hajj Imad was martyred anew. People had this emotional, spiritual, and moral feeling. The people sympathized with the incidents what brought this matchless, brilliant, and historic leader to the forefront of events again emphasizing that his memory and presence is still the most forceful and supreme in the conscience of the friend and foe who is still haunted by the blood of Imad Moghniyeh and will always be haunted by the blood of Imad Moghniyeh.

Brothers and sisters! On this great and dear day to us and in a show of loyalty to these leader martyrs and as responsible people, we tackle some issues that concern us in Lebanon and some issues that concern us also in the region.

First I will tackle some Lebanese affairs.

First: We are in the month of February in which many incidents took place especially on February 14th. On this occasion, I extend my condolences and consolation to the family of Martyr Premier Rafiq Hariri, his lovers, his party, and his supporters for the sorrowful event of his martyrdom that shook Lebanon and the region, and the repercussions of which are still taking place to our very day. I also extend my consolations to all the families and lovers of all the martyrs - whether men and women - who fell on that day in that painful, sorrowful, and very dangerous incident.

Second: Today and before the danger of terror that is threatening Lebanon and the region, we in Hizbullah support the call for devising a national anti-terror strategy. I believe that the Lebanese political forces and Lebanese leaderships may agree on an enemy that is terrorism. That may not be as difficult as agreeing on a defense strategy in face of "Israel" for, unfortunately, we disagree over another enemy, which is "Israel". Anyway, we support the call for devising a national strategy against terrorism. Now how are we to achieve that?

Now I received the result of whether there was shooting in the air or not as I started my speech. It is supposed that in the compound you haven't heard anything. I thank all our honorable people in Dahiyeh, Beirut, and all regions for abiding by our call and appeal. This is always expected from you, and you always live up to our expectations. We must always cooperate, and Inshallah we will come to an end with this phenomenon so that we don't find ourselves obliged to issue a statement for every ceremony and request from you not to shoot in the air.

We must cooperate as far as this issue is concerned. It is an old tradition in Lebanon to shoot in the air in funerals of martyrs, martyr processions, and in the various occasions, and we must cooperate on the media, cultural, and political levels to put an end to it Inshallah. Many thanks to all those who answered our call and adhered to our recommendations. I am very thankful to you all.

So we are with devising a national anti-terror strategy. Now who is to work on this? It is the government. The parliament presents an initiative. A national unity session may be held. This needs follow up. The mechanism needs discussion. Anyway, in principle, we call for that, and we support that.

The third point has to do with the security plan in Bekaa. We renew our ultimate support for the plan which we believe came late. The security plan must continue and must be activated. So it must not last for a week or two or a month or two. The Bekaa region has been suffering from thieves, criminals, corruptive people who kidnap people to receive ransoms, and outlaws who terrorize people.

We hope that this era had come to an end Inshallah. Between parentheses, I say that there were popular requests that we - Hizbullah, Amal Movement, and the political forces in Bekaa - assume this responsibility but this was not a right step. Here I am telling our people in Bekaa that this is not right and will not be right in the future.

What is right is that the state is the most able and the most competent side of assuming this responsibility which is its obligation in fact. All of us must support and back the army, the security forces, and the government in controlling the security situation. Thus the security plan needs follow up. It was said that the wanted fled. Well that is good. Now let the army and the security forces be aware and serious so that they do not come back. As long as they are away from the region, the region will be free of thieves, criminals, corruptive people, and killers. As such no such things will be tolerated in the future.

Alongside the security plan in Bekaa, two other things are needed. I will only mention topics so that I can cover all the points. The first point is the development plan in Bekaa. If the state wants to control that area, it is not enough to dispatch the army and the security forces. It must develop the area: a hospital, a school, roads, water, electricity, job opportunities and anything possible so that these honorable people live in dignity and stay and stick to their land. The north and especially Akkar needs development and not only security.

The second point is resolving the problem of tens of thousands of people who are wanted for trivial, minor or old offenses. This issue is still unresolved, and it must be addressed after all. It is not right that tens of thousands remain wanted and are arrested on check points for very trivial reasons.

There is a third point which is lurking and upcoming. I will not tackle it in details. I will leave it for another occasion. I will only mention it because we are talking about Bekaa. This will take place when the snow melts. Today on the other side of the eastern mountain range, and in the hills and mountains of Arsal, Daesh and al-Nusra are found. Daesh extends from Libya to all the regions it wishes to be found in until reaching the barren mountains of Arsal. Well, now the mountains are covered with snow. The windy weather and weather conditions have limited or prevented confrontations. However, when the snow melts, there is something waiting to take place there. The state as well as the Lebanese people must decide on how to deal with this threat and danger on the hills and mountains that intimidates the villages and everyone. Man must take a position. When we tackle the regional issues we will return to this topic again. These can easily be defeated but that requires a decision and a national will.

We are coming to that stage, and we must take a position accordingly. Now we are in the month of February. There are storms with many names, and it has become difficult for us to memorize the name of each storm. There is snow, and it is freezing cold. Our brave men are on the top of mountains of elevations between 2000 and 2500 meters. On this occasion, we must renew our tribute to the officers of the Lebanese Army and the security forces as well as to the Resistance men. Also on the other side there are the officers and soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army and the Resistance men. These men in that area are preventing terrorist attacks and preventing dispatching bomb-laden vehicles to the various Lebanese regions. On the Day of the Leader Martyrs, we give all our regards and high-esteem for their patience, determination, and steadfastness in face of storms and freezing snow.

Fourth: On the anniversary of the understanding between Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement which also took place in February, the importance of this great achievement is manifested more and more day after day. Its consequences are also made clear on the political situations in Lebanon and even in the region. That's because one of the most important consequences of the understanding is the impact of the stance related to the Resistance which is a part of all the challenges, consequences, and victories of the region. We call for deepening and strengthening the relationship between Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic Movement. We also call for making similar understandings on the national level. At that time, we dreamed that the very understanding would widen to include the others. Well, some clauses may be sensitive or there might be some pro forma protocols. Let's keep such clauses aside. Any two or three sides or movement may reach an understanding similar to this national understanding in which all of us may join.

So it would not hold the name of Hizbullah or the Free Patriotic Movement. We would rather be among those partaking in making it and inking it. It would be a whole new agreement that includes everything that closes ranks, achieves accord, addresses the dilemmas of dialogue, and ensures great national interests.

Fifth, as for presidential elections, we call for exerting internal efforts in this perspective as there is not any such internal effort in fact. No side is making any move except for remote or insignificant steps. Thus we call for resuming internal national efforts, and it is well known where, how, and with whom. So there is no need to go more into details. The concerned persons are well known. Again I tell all those who care for putting an end to vacuum and for remaking institutions in Lebanon: Do not wait for the changes in the region and foreign changes. Do not wait for the Iranian nuclear file or the US-Iranian talks or the Saudi-Iranian talks. Do not wait for anything in the region. On the contrary, the region is moving towards more crises and confrontations. New fronts are being opened. I will tackle the regional affairs later in my speech.

Previously, we used to say that no one is free enough to be bothered with us. In the future too, no one will be free to be preoccupied with us. So let's not let this vacuum stay for long. If we are serious and independent, sovereign, and a decision-maker in his bloc and can vote for the person of his choice as everyone of us claims to be, let's resume this internal national effort to resolve the issue of presidential elections.

Sixth, regarding the government, we support it and back it in resuming its work. This is a national need. In fact, the Lebanese have no other choice. The alternative is vacuum and forfeiture. I believe that no one agrees on this alternative. There are problems facing the work of the government; we must cooperate to resolve these problems. As for the issue of the mechanism of taking a decision, we will deal positively with some of the presented solutions. Some of these solutions are logical and appropriate, and we call on the forces partaking in the government to deal positively with this issue to overcome this crisis so that the government convene anew, resume its work, and assume its responsibilities.

Seventh, Hizbullah will continue the dialogue with the Future Movement Inshallah as we see that this dialogue has so far led to good and positive results within the ceilings of expectations set at the very beginning. That means from the very beginning, they and we knew the magnitude of expectations. Well, let's not handle this issue on platforms. The expectations are clear. The agenda is agreed upon. It is clear too, and it is within the expectations. Within the agenda, the results are good, and with the seriousness characterizing both sides, we hope we will reach a good and positive result that would be to the interest of Lebanon and all the Lebanese Inshallah. We will move forward in this dialogue. Well some people may bother us; others may be annoyed by the dialogue; some people still talk inappropriately. Still we along with our masses must tolerate and endure all of that to the interest of the country.

The last point on the domestic level has to do with us renewing our encouragement and support to any form of dialogue between any Lebanese political forces no matter under what title it comes or what results it may yield. Even if the results are humble, dialogue remains the best option before us as Lebanese.

This is as far as Lebanon is concerned. Let's move now to the region though through a Lebanese prelude. There is a critical and crucial point which I hope we all would contemplate on. For decades by now and all through the stage we lived and passed through to our very day, there has always been a dispute in Lebanon. There are two logics which you hear in ceremonies and occasions.

The first logic says that we want Lebanon apart from the region and apart from the events taking place in the region. It is the policy of isolating it from what is taking place in the entire region. This policy is against interfering in the affairs of the region. This logic is nice regardless of whether those saying this are committing themselves to it or not. We are talking in theory. In theory, there is a logic that goes against interfering in what is taking place in the region whether on the political, media, or military level. This is the policy of staying apart. Lebanon cannot tolerate interfering. Lebanon's conditions are complicated and difficult. Thus Lebanon must remain away, and it must not be hurled in any of the axes. I reiterate that some sides - no matter who they may be - say so though in practice that may not be the case. That's because many sides in the country may or may not be parts of an axes. They may or may not be interfering in the affairs of the region. This is another field of study.

The other logic theoretically says that is impossible. The logic you are talking about is nice. This Arabic composition you are making is nice; however allow me to say that it is unrealistic. The true status quo, the land, the field, history, geography, demography, security, peace, and livelihood say against that. That is similar to natural phenomena. When a snowy storm is approaching you can't stand in its face and tell it: Cool down. We are Lebanese. We want to stay isolated from storms, snow, and rain. We have our own snow, our own rain, and our own climate. We are a piece from Heaven, and we have nothing to do with anyone else. Well how is this translated into action? Is such logic realistic or right?

Whether the Lebanese like it or not, Lebanon has always been effected by what takes place in the region: the establishment of the state of "Israel" and the usurp of Palestine have had great repercussions on Lebanon and the region. All what takes place in the region has its repercussions on Lebanon. No one can say: Hold on. We cannot tolerate. We do not want to be influenced by your repercussions. Here we have to say. Here one may be logical or illogical. What is the truth? What is the true situation? This is the truth. On the contrary, Lebanon today is under the impact of what is taking place in the region more than in any time in the past. Today the destiny of Lebanon is not made in Lebanon only. Now the fate of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen among other countries is made in the region as a region. No fate is made in one country alone. The region has been molded anew. The entire region was shocked and scattered. It is now being recreated from scratch. Whoever wants to decide the fate of Lebanon must partake in making the fate of the region, and whoever is absent in making the fate of the region is in fact telling others to make our fate as we cannot do anything. No, today the fate of the states in the region is made in the region. Even more, the fate of the world is now being made in the region.

In a while we will start talking about Daesh, Libya, Italy, and Europe. However now and in the light of this labor pain, the fate of entities will be determined. Some entities may continue or stop to exist. On light of this labor pain, some people will continue or stop to exist. Will things remain as such or will there be a kind of rejoining or disintegration, or are we heading to years and decades of destruction? What is the future? All of this is being made in the region? States and peoples in the region as well as the entire world are being influenced by that. No one can say I am Lebanese or whatever. That is unrealistic. The issue is not intellectual luxury or political luxury. The fate of our people and of our country is at stake. Our dignity and the future of our generations are at stake.

In this framework and as a joke I say that in the past, we faced the problem of convincing some Lebanese that we are part of the Arab region, the Levant, the Middle East, and the Arab-"Israeli" struggle when having discussions with them. They used to say that is not the case; Lebanon is an island in the Pacific Ocean. We live at ease, we are not influenced by anything, and we are not concerned with anything. Their stance today has taken a more negative course because we now have to convince them that Lebanon is part of Planet Earth, not of Mars. Today the Globe - the entire Globe - is influenced by what is taking place in the region. This logic has, in fact, always been a point of disagreement that used to cause further disagreements. Well, we approach this issue with such a mentality because we believe that the fate of Lebanon, the fate of the people of Lebanon, the future of Lebanon, the will of Lebanon, the security of Lebanon, the ability to live in Lebanon, and the economy of Lebanon cannot be isolated from the developments and events taking place in the region. When I talk about the region, I will talk in general and not in details.

However, still I have a brief comment which I find appropriate to say. To those who criticize our stance from what is taking place in Bahrain for example saying that such a stance harms the relation with a dear fraternal country called Bahrain I say:

Indeed, Bahrain is a dear fraternal country exactly like any other Arab country is for us. I accept that they criticize our stance, and they have the right to criticize our stance only if they abide by this policy - the policy that goes against interfering in the affairs of others. But that is not accepted from those who interfere in the affairs of another Arab country the relation of which with Lebanon is by far more important and more critical than Lebanon's relations with Bahrain. I mean Syria.

Security, economy, path, horizons, sea, water, people and families are common between Lebanon and Syria. Since the beginning of the events in Syria up till now, some have interfered and even been part of the battle on Syria and its government, regime, army, and the choice of a wide section of its people, and they were part of the media and political war against it. Arms were led in to Syria, and money was paid and is still. Those acting as such pertaining to Syria have no right to criticize our stance on Bahrain. After all, what did we do as far as Bahrain is concerned? We issued a political position. We did not send arms to Bahrain. We did not instigate violence in Bahrain. We did not call for toppling the regime in Bahrain. On the contrary, we always used to back the callers for the peaceful movement, to call for dialogue and reform in Bahrain, to reject violence, and to avoid violent reactions and suppression practiced by the regime.

The stance we took must be met by appreciation by the deaf and blind government of Bahrain. It must be appreciated by everyone who cares for any Arab country. That's because when a political side in any Arab country addresses another Arab country saying:

Your demands are rightful. Resort to peaceful means. Do not head to violence. Go towards dialogue. Accept any settlement.

Such a stance should be highly evaluated. However, because the government in Bahrain is afraid of any rightful word, it is frightened by any call believing {that every cry is against them}. As such it becomes tense and starts threatening you. By what? By expelling the Lebanese from Bahrain. This is the means resorted to by the weak and feeble authorities. Such authorities act as such. They threaten that they will expel the Lebanese in Bahrain if so and so carry on talking in such a way.

Anyway, we are now in the month of February which also witnesses the anniversary of the peaceful, civil, and civilized uprising of the people of Bahrain whom we salute and hail for their patience, steadfastness, awareness, and wisdom.

So whoever gives advice and preaches must first observe them himself. Then we can talk together if we are to observe them or not and whether what we are doing is right or wrong.

I will tackle the situation in the region besides the "Israeli" threat in a couple of words. We will talk about what is new as we do not want to reiterate what is old. The threat and danger represented by the Takfiri current with its most prominent form - Daesh - has been forcefully evident in new fields and domains.

Previously we have said that this is not a threat to some governments only but rather to all governments. It is not a threat to some regimes only but rather to all regimes, entities, peoples, and armies. It is not a threat to religious, or factional, or racial minorities. It is a threat to everyone.

We have said that very early. We also said that it is a threat to Islam as a religion and as a divine mission. Since that day to this day, all the events that took place assert this concept that we have talked about together very early.

Now, the entire world has admitted that yes the Takfiri current under the name of Daesh is posing a threat to the security of the region and to world security. Does anyone in this world argue this point? There is only "Israel" because it does not consider Daesh a threat or a danger. You have seen "Israeli" War Minister Yaalon making an inspection visit to Golan a couple of days ago and saying that Daesh does not pose a threat or danger. He also said that al-Nusra does not pose any threat or danger.

Well, "Israel" alone considers that Daesh and al-Nusra do not pose a threat. Still all world countries consider - even if apparently - that Daesh poses a threat and a danger to the security of the region and to world security. Later on we will talk about al-Nusra.

"Israel" has the right to say that Daesh does not form a threat because all what Daesh had made so far and is still making absolutely serves the interests of "Israel" whether Daesh is aware of that or not.

What is taking place now? New fronts are being opened. There are new forms of brutality and criminality they brought along from Hollywood or from other places. The way in which the Jordanian pilot Maaz Kassabah was burnt is catastrophic. The way in which the oppressed deemed-week Egyptian workers were slaughtered which we saw on TV screens is disgraceful and frightful. Hostages are being slaughtered in such a way. Even more, new fronts are being opened and new targets are being set.

Daesh has nothing to do in Palestine or in al-Quds.

That's why Yaalon says that Daesh forms no threat. In fact, the true and absolute target of Daesh is Mecca and Medina. I call on the brethrens in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to calm down a little. The absolute goal is Mecca and Medina. Today I watched that in the news. I am not very much sure whether new rulers were appointed today or whether they are talking about an old report. I am saying so to be precautious but what I heard today says that Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi - the Caliph of Daesh - appointed a prince on Mecca and ruler on Medina.

So the goal is Mecca and Medina and not al-Quds. It's because the caliphate of Daesh would not be completed without the Two Holy Shrines of
Mecca and Medina.

What did those who slaughtered the Egyptian Copts in Libya said? They said that their goal is Rome! Their options are very remote!

Mecca and Medina remain relatively nearer that Rome. They may say that we can go to Mecca and Medina, and from there we move through Jordan to Palestine. Still they want to go to Rome! What do they have to do in Rome?!

These are new wars and fronts. Whom are they serving? For whose interest are they fighting? Here and for the first time I dare to say: Consider the "Israeli" Mossad, the CIA, and the British intelligence. Previously, we did not pose the theory of a conspiracy. But now we say let's take that into consideration.

Everything that the Takfiri current and Daesh do serves "Israel", "Israel's" hegemony over the region, and the US hegemony over the region.

They are also provoking Europe. Imagine for example that a couple of days ago Italian Defense Minister said: We are ready to lead an international coalition against terrorism in Libya. Between parentheses we ask the Italian Defense minister: Why do you want to lead an international attack on terrorism in Libya?

Listen very well to the answer of the Italian Defense Minister. I hope that March 14 Bloc would hear the answer very well. It is because "terrorism is now only 350 kilometers away from the Italian border." She says only 350 kilometers.

The Defense Minister, Italy, and the European Union are civilized, and still they are thinking of staging a military action against Libya because terrorism is now 350 kilometers away. As for us, terrorism is on the barren mountains at the border, in al-Qseir and Qalamoun. Terrorism is on our hills and in bomb-laden cars. Still some parties are arguing whether I am right or wrong.

Before this status quo which is in fact not exaggerated, there is a truth called a true serious danger.

The threat was in Syria. Now it is in Syria and Iraq. It also reached Libya. Also in Sinaa they say that Ansar Beit Al Maqdes has pledged allegiance to Daesh or something of this sort. Similar things are taking place in other places too. Today in Tunisia, there is a state of full mobilization. In Yemen, a branch of al-Qaeda had pledged allegiance to Daesh Caliph and are proceeding and occupying camps in southern provinces in the country.

There is a true threat. They are slaughtering and killing. These are not films. They are producing true films. It is absolutely sure that their mind, spirit, and brutality come from Hollywood. This is the culture of Hollywood.

What is the culture of Hollywood? Is there anything other than killing and slaughtering? Is this from here, from the Orient, from Islam, from Christianity, from prophets, from the caliphs, from the companions of the Prophet, or from the Household of the Prophet (Peace be upon them)? God forbids. It is not from any of these.

The origin of what we are seeing now before our eyes on TV screens is clear. In face of this danger which is threatening everyone, we call on the peoples and the governments of the region to join efforts to confront this vast, dangerous, terrorist Takfiri threat.

I reiterate that we are all able to defeat this threat as well as to defeat those standing behind it whether the "Israeli" Mossad, the Americans or the English.

Brothers and sisters! The strategies followed by the international coalition and the international community are minor - that is if we thought good of them. If we thought bad of them, we wonder whether they really want to get rid of Daesh or not. Let's be serious. I will refer to this again in a separate clause. Thus the nation, the peoples of the nation, the governments, the scholars, the political parties, the resisting forces, and the armies are all concerned in confronting this threat which is the most dangerous threat except for the "Israeli" threat.

Thus I have a couple of clauses to say briefly.

Clause One: The intellectual, political, media, and field confrontation of this Takfiri current must be considered a kind of defense - a defense of Islam. It is not anymore a defense of a definite axis or regime or state or faction or sect or minority. They are threatening everyone. They are threatening Islam above all.

I hope that everyone understands very well what I am saying. Any conduct made by a Muslim who claims to be a Muslim that disagrees with human nature cannot be from Islam. It is impossible to be from Islam. Allah Al Mighty says {So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith (establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind; no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion}. This is the nature which does not change since Allah created man}.

From the very beginning to Doom's Day there is one and only one human nature. {That is the standard Religion}. The standard religion is the religion that agrees and is in harmony with human nature. Such deeds which sicken the minds, hearts, and spirits and which all humanity with its various and diversified doctrinal and political ideas, visions and directions loathes cannot be Islamic deeds or deeds pertaining to any religion.

So this battle is a battle in defense of Islam. And today, I will tell you with pride: As we form or consider ourselves part of this battle in face of this Takfiri current, we consider ourselves defending the Islam of Mohammad Bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his Household). We are not defending Shiites, Sunnites, this sect, or that sect.

Everyone knows that when the battle becomes a battle in defense of the religion of Allah Al Mighty and of the sanctities of Allah, then our sacrifices will have no limits, our patience will have no limits, our tolerance will have no limits, and our willingness to go to the end is with no limits as our Master Imam Abu Abdullah Al Hussein did in Karbala.

Here I am saying that we are doing so. I further call on everyone - on all Muslims - to defend their religion no matter if they are scholars, authorities, journalists, or authors. So arms are not a must. The worst deformation in human history for a divine religion is what Daesh is perpetrating now. No such thing ever took place in history.

Second: The entire world - or at least the states in our region which are living this threat and this danger - must tell some regional states which are still supporting Daesh with arms, money, facilities, and media that the game is over. Apparently such satellite channels may not seem to be defending Daesh. But if you listen carefully, you find that in fact they are defending Daesh. I am not going to explain this now. The game is over. The region, the peoples of the region, and the governments of the region will not be able to tolerate this level of criminality and brutality which is being perpetrated in the name of Islam against all the peoples of the region.

Third: This is a very important point. I will be frank and mention names. We must not fool ourselves or allow anyone to fool us by trying to differentiate between Daesh and al-Nusra Front. As we have always said in the past. I do not want to reiterate. They are one reality. They have the same essence, ideology, culture, spirit, goal, conduct, and goal. I hope that one of the Lebanese or the Arabs would explain to us the difference between al-Nusra and Daesh. How is Daesh a terrorist and al-Nusra Front rebels? I wish I can find someone especially in Lebanon who may explain this to us on the TV or when sitting with our brethrens.

We must not be fooled. They are the very current. Their dispute was organizational. It was over leadership. However, the outcome is one and the same. Thus today, there are calls to confront the Takfiri currents with no discrimination. That is true. This is a sound stance. As for Jordan, it cannot fight Daesh in Iraq and support al-Nusra Front in Syria. Some Gulf countries cannot partake in an international coalition to fight Daesh in Iraq while offering money, arms, capabilities, and facilities to al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra is, in fact, the other face of Daesh. The entire current which poses a real threat must be confronted.

Fourth: The governments in the region and the states in the region must limit and address the ongoing struggles. We must help, and we must take initiatives too. Some may say that I am exaggerating in my theories. However, after all, we must be responsible when talking about this stage. What can we do or what can others do? I do not know. Today there are two priorities: The priority to confront the Zionist scheme which is proceeding in Palestine in demolishing houses and building settlements and in threatening Gaza and the region. The second priority is the Takfiri scheme which is threatening us all. Well, this must be a priority too. This means that we must be realistic in the other files too.

Some Arab countries, especially Gulf countries, must approach the region's problems in a different manner, because they are in the circle of danger. So do not {be led by arrogance to perpetrate more crimes}. Do not get agitated and nurture anger and grudge. Cool down and sit and contemplate. After all, in Iraq for example, the Iraqi people, the Iraqi troops, the Kurd troops, the Shiite as well as the Sunnite tribes fought Daesh and rendered it inactive. In fact, they prevented Daesh from reaching Kuwait. They prevented Daesh from reaching Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, its eyes are not on Baghdad only. Its eyes are on Mecca and Medina as we said before. So approach Iraq from another perspective.

Today in Iraq there is a political operation. The Shiites, Sunnites, and Kurds met one way or another. At times, there are some flaws. At times, crimes take place. However, instead of instigating sectarian and factional ordeals in Iraq through your satellite channels, do play an active role in keeping the Iraqis united together that they would be able to prevent Daesh from expanding again and to be able to confront and crush Daesh. The Iraqis are defending you as well as your thrones and oil.

You have to approach Iraq in a different way. Enough with your Sunnite-Shiite-sectarian grudge.

You also failed to achieve your goals in Yemen. Search for the reasons behind your failure after you have spent billions of dollars. Power is not found on financial corruption through buying consciences....

Still, you can approach Yemen in a different way. Today, there is a true popular revolution which cannot be ignored. In fact, this revolution is standing in face of al-Qaeda and Daesh that are threatening all of you. All of these documents talk about al-Qaeda's original scheme which was to control Yemen and Syria and thereof move to Mecca and Medina. O rulers of the Gulf. If you do not want to read, don't you have people who may read for you? Why don't you read a little?

Approaching Yemen is not to the effect of pushing Yemen towards an internal explosion or to the effect of instigating the Yemenis against each other or to the effect of seeking help from the Security Council in face of the Yemeni people or a large section of the Yemeni people. The approach must be peaceful and quiet. Ansarullah and its leadership are brave, wise, aware, and responsible enough to lead dialogue and make agreements. As such the entire situation would be under control. As for agitation and wrath, that would lead Yemen to unfavorable results, and the Gulf countries will pay the price for that because they will turn Yemen to a neighboring volcano and they will widen the field where Al Qaeda and Daesh act.

As for Bahrain, go and talk with Al Khalifa Monarchy. Let them calm down a little and act reasonably. Let them stop acting with suppression and open the gate for dialogue. Let them set the detainees free. The people in Bahrain want a settlement and reforms. Indeed some people in Bahrain do not accept what I am saying. But the majority does.

Let's move to Syria now. The game is over in Syria. The continuation fighting in Syria is just a stubborn act to the effect that some said a word and they want their word to be done even if all of Syria was ruined and casualties increased.

Be realistic in viewing the status quo in Syria. Open the gate for a political solution. Allow the opposition to partake in a settlement. Here I do not mean the Takfiri opposition which is not allowed to partake in a settlement. The regime is ready to partake in a settlement. Let's see if it's possible for people to calm down a little, sit together and address the affairs of the region. So we can create a situation that helps all sides to confront the danger that is threatening everyone.

Even in Lebanon, lift the veto on the presidential issue and allow the Lebanese to sit down and negotiate to reach an agreement over a president and over the entire composition in the country. What is the problem in that? In another word as far as this clause is concerned, do us a favor and allow the people reorganize their priorities and act accordingly.

Fifth: The peoples of the region and the governments of the region must not wait for an international strategy or a NATO strategy or an American strategy or anything of this sort.

They must take the initiative as we did in Syria, in Lebanon, in Iraq, and as initiatives are being taken in more than one Arab country. We must take the initiative to confront this current, and we must not allow it to expand, gain power, and become deep-rooted and the like.

Saying that America wants to get rid of Daesh is disputable. Who says that America wants to get rid of Daesh? Have a look at the status quo and see how it is to the interest of America under the pretext of America defending the states of the region. This is a conspiracy of regimes. They lowered the price of oil and opened the fire on themselves and on all their friends and foes.

It is robbing the oil of the region and the wealth of the region. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being robbed under the pretext of the burden of war of the international coalition troops. Through Daesh only, America is robbing our oil and our wealth.

America is exhausting us as well as our armies, peoples, states, and nerves.

Through Daesh, America is planting grudges and enmities which might not end in decades. It is ruining the entire region for its interest and for the interest of keeping "Israel" powerful, prominent, and protected.

Why is America in a hurry? In best cases, if America finds out that it wants to get rid of Daesh, it can still do that slowly and later on when the American presidential elections approach. So why should it get rid of Daesh now? When the American presidential elections are due, they would make several moves and hit Daesh so that the Democratic Party wins. So the knife of Daesh must remain on our neck - we the Iraqis, the Syrians, the Lebanese whom Daesh is at their borders in Qalamoun, Irsal barren mountains, the Egyptians, the Libyans, the Tunisians, the Yemenis, and all the peoples of the region - until the American presidential elections approach to know whether the Americans want to make any move in this perspective.

Brothers and sisters! Those who bet on the Americans are bargaining on a mirage. How do you bet on the very side which robs you, conspires against you, and had fabricated these and dispatched them to you? It is not allowed that we wait for the Americans or the international community. Act as the resistance acted.

The Resistance of Imam Sayyed Mussa Sadre, the resistance of the Lebanese, the Lebanese resistance, the national resistance, the Islamic resistance, the resistance of Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb, and Hajj Abbass, the resistance in Lebanon, the resistance in Gaza, and the resistance in Palestine did not wait for a united Arab strategy or a united international strategy and still the resistance made victory.

Why are we to wait for the Americans? We will not wait for the Americans or the NATO. In Iraq, they did not wait. In Iraq, the religious authority, scholars, the government, the army, the security forces, and popular masses that included Shiites, Sunnites, Kurds, and tribes held arms and fought. So far, the Americans haven't handed them the arms they paid for beforehand. The arms and the ammunition come from Iran and from other sources.

They did not wait for anyone. They defeated Daesh in Diala Province; they defeated it in most provinces - Salaheddine and Jarf Sakher; now they are defeating it in Anbar; and they will defeat it in Mosel. Why not?

In Syria too, this is taking place. It is taking place every day with the good Daesh and the bad Daesh because they are both Daesh whether in al-Qseir, Qalamoun, or Irsal barren mountains.

So it is not allowed to wait for anyone. We must take the initiative. We must assume the responsibility. Thus I have something to say. You will find what I will say strange. It is in fact the conclusion we draw from this look over the situation of the region. I tell those who call on us to withdraw from Syria: I in my turn call on you to join us in going to Syria.

I further call on you to go to Iraq too. We did not talk about Iraq previously though we are humbly present there now in this first and critical stage. Let's go together to Iraq too.

They may say that I am going too far but I will say it anyway. Let's go to any place to confront this threat that is threatening our nation and our region because as such we will be defending Lebanon and the people of Lebanon. This is the way major powers, decent states, and strong armies in the world act.

However, we will not take you to Ukraine!

On the light of the situation in the region, let's reconsider and discuss your logic as well as our logic and your evidence as well as our evidence. Let no one be afraid that in case things are settled in Syria, the Syrian rule will return. This is part of the past, and you know all the conditions that accompanied this past. You know it better than we do. There is no need to put such fears before true and serious dangers that threaten us all.

I call for coordination between the Lebanese Army and the Arab Syrian Army before the snow melts on the eastern mountain range borders. I call on the Lebanese government to coordinate with the Syrian government as per the refugees, the displaced, and security.

Today the danger is by far greater than any party, sectarian, or factional considerations. In this framework, we also call for a comprehensive view to this issue.

It is our fate to fight in defense of Lebanon and the nation since 1982. We were young men then. Our beards were not visible yet. However, we assumed this responsibility, and we proceeded. Some among us were martyred, and we continued in our path from 1982 to 2000 to 2006.

Today, on the path of our leader martyrs - the symbol of our steadfastness and victory - the caravans of martyrs move along to make victory with their blood. The Resistance has always been and will always be the answer. We will always assume the responsibility and make victories with our steadfastness, blood, and inspiration from our leader martyrs - Sayyed Abbass, Sheikh Ragheb, Hajj Imad, Um Yasser, and all the martyrs until {Allah commands; and He is the best to command}. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.

Putin's speech at the Valdai Club - full transcript

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

I hope that these changes in organisation and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain - this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realise that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.

We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.

Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyse today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.

So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.

Colleagues, friends,

I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘colour revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?

What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘colour revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Full speech delivered by Hezbullah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah on Friday August 15, 2014.

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

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

We meet today on this dear annual anniversary of the historic epic of steadfastness, resistance, heroism, and victory.

On this dear anniversary, we must renew our praise to Allah Al Mighty on pushing away calamities, strengthening our hearts, guiding our minds, and the great victory He bestowed on Lebanon, the Lebanese people, the Lebanese resistance, and the Lebanese Army, and in fact on the entire nation. This is a divine blessing bestowed on the entire nation in face of what was threatening it through that aggression as we will see in a while when we go back to this issue.
Praise be to Allah always for all His uncountable and unlimited kindnesses and blessings. {Should you list the blessings of Allah, you would not be able to count them}.

It is also our obligation tonight to thank and salute the souls of the martyrs who were killed and whose blood was shed so that we live with dignity and pride and who are still being martyred one after the other with all bravery and heroism. It is our obligation tonight to laud specially Martyr Leader Hajj Ibrahim Al Hajj who is known as brethren Abu Mohammad Selman who led the epic of steadfastness and confrontation in the borderline town of Aita Ashaab for 33 long days. Our salutations to all martyrs – the martyrs of all resistance movements, forces, and parties – the martyrs of the people, the Lebanese Army martyrs, the martyrs of the security forces, the martyrs of the civil defense, and the media outlets martyrs. We extend our salutations to every martyr who was raised to His Creator in that oppressive, aggressive war. We extend our regards to every loyal wounded, to every prideful steadfast person, to every tolerant displaced who was sure of his dignified return, and to all the honorable families – the families of the martyrs and the wounded, the families that remained steadfast, the families which were displaced, and the families which received the displaced and embraced them. We extend our regards to all presidents and leaders who assumed responsibility and partook in making victory. As for those who did not show any interest but on the contrary crippled making victory, let's keep them aside as we don't want to make any problem with anyone. On the other hand, we laud all those who assumed responsibility and partook in making victory whether presidents, leaders, forces, elites, and every one who showed solidarity and support whether states, governments, or peoples. We extend our sincere regards to all who did not refrain from offering any kind of support despite all dangers – I mean the Islamic Resistance in Iran and Syria. Still, I must thank dearly those who after Allah Al Mighty had all the virtue in making this historic epic. They are the heroic resistance fighters who remained steadfast in all their posts, fought with all bravery, took the enemy by surprise, intimidated him, and toppled all his schemes, tactics, and minds. They even transferred the battle to his side without showing any sense of boredom, hesitation, feebleness, melancholy, and weakness despite the cruelty of the aggression and the massacres of the enemy perpetrated against their families and dear ones in the villages, cities, and towns. After all, it was these resistance fighters who forced the enemy to shout and cry for his American masters to help and put an end to the war in the last days. Thus was the divine, historic victory in July War.

We must also recall with all awe and admiration all the leaders of the resistance especially the martyr leaders and more precisely the Master of the Islamic Resistance martyrs – Sayyed Abbass Mussawi – the Sheikh of the Islamic Resistance martyrs – Sheikh Ragheb Harb – and the Leader Martyr whose virtues and efforts were enormous and great in this war – Hajj Imad Moghniyeh or Hajj Ridwan as he is known - besides all those who established this resistance day after day and generation after generation. We must recall with much reverence the establisher of this heroic resistance in Lebanon – His Eminence leader Imam Sayyed Mussa Sader especially that we are days away from marking the painful incident of his kidnap.

Brothers and sisters! Much was said about July War. Speeches were delivered as well as lectures and lessons. Books were written and studies were put. Investigations were made and morals were drawn by friends and foes in the world and in the region as well as by us. Still this war, the events of this war, and the repercussions of this war on all levels and domains are the issue for research, investigation and discussion simply because it was not a small war or a trivial incident. Rather it was a true war with political moral, economic, and historic dimensions and targets that transcend Lebanon and Palestine to cover the entire region and even to influence the international equation. It is enough to recall what the former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said then on July Aggression to the effect that it was the labor pain for the birth of a Neo Middle East. So the war had regional targets and dimensions as well as international targets and dimensions. Much of this given was revealed during the war. However, following the war, all the given was revealed from the articles which were written, the journalistic interviews which were recorded, the investigations which were made, the studies which were carried, and the memoirs which were written by presidents, leaders of states, generals, and foreign ministers. All of that provided the required given and documents especially what the Israelis said and interpreted, what the Americans said and interpreted, and what one of the senior US men of intellect told me. In fact, this is not a secret. It was written in a number of articles.

Later on, it was revealed that July War – July Aggression – was a primary chain in a series of stages which had decisive targets. In 2006, it was required via the war on Lebanon first to put an end to the resistance in Lebanon and to crush the resistance in Lebanon and not only to disarm the resistance with the persistence of the structure and the persons or this entity which may get armed again later on. No, what was put forth was not disarming or disbanding the resistance. What was required was crushing the resistance and killing its leaders and cadres and hitting its joints and resistance men and arresting the greatest number of them. You can still remember that they were preparing a prison in one of the settlements in the north or in the middle of the Zionist entity to arrest 10000 persons. They wanted to achieve a structural change via this war which was a chain in a series which was to carry on with the end of the resistance in Lebanon. These are given and information. I am not making an analysis. Under the pretext that Syria backed the resistance and provided it with arms, rockets, and qualitative arms, the Israelis would then proceed and hit Syria what would lead to toppling the regime and the establishment of a friendly alternative which is allied with the USA.

I want to remind you that all of that took place in 2006 following the US occupation of Iraq and the major US military presence in the region. The third chain in the series was hitting the Palestinian resistance especially in Gaza Strip. Those who mentioned this said that all of that was supposed to be achieved in 2006 and before the end of 2006. That's because partial elections were to take place in the US Congress. George Bush and the Neo Conservatives wanted to reach the legislative elections having in their hands three heads dripping blood: the head of the resistance in Lebanon, the head of the resistance in Palestine, and the head of the regime in Syria. This is according to the terminology of the Americans themselves.

Thus if we were observing the US media prior to July War, we would have noticed great exaggeration especially for Hizbullah, Hamas, Jihad, and the regime in Syria and their role in so-called "terrorism".

All of that was a kind of psychological, media, and moral preparation so that if the three heads were cut off, George Bush would tell the Americans: I cut off for you three heads of international terrorism. Thus you have nothing but to vote for me as I can guarantee the interest and the future of the United States. Following his victory in the US Congress, the following step would be preparing for the war on Iran and toppling the regime in the Islamic Republic in 2007. I am not talking for history. I rather want to stop on the targets behind this track which are in fact two:

First: The firm compact US control over the oil, gas, and energy resources in the region. Well, Iraq is in their hands. They would lay their hands on the region here, hit the resistance movements, topple the regime in Iran, and put their hands on Iran. They are already in the Gulf. The main resources of energy in the world are in this area.

Second: The true targeting of the resistance movements, of Iran, and of Syria mounts in fact to putting an end to the Palestinian cause and imposing a settlement on the Palestinians and on the Arabs with US conditions. This was the target. This track was set to achieve this goal, and the elements of this track were the direct US occupation of Iraq and previously of Afghanistan which was occupied as a reaction to the events of September 11. Second comes the Israeli war as Israel was required to hit the resistance in Lebanon, topple the regime in Syria via the war, and put an end to the resistance in Palestine so as to achieve these goals.

How was this track crippled? Who crippled it? Why was it toppled?

Thanks for the resistance in Lebanon, the legendary Lebanese steadfastness, and all those whom I lauded in my prelude. The victory of the resistance in July War toppled this track or at least crippled it.

Why? It is because of the results in the battlefield. This is what I talked about on al Qods Day, and here I am reiterating this point as we address Gaza, the resistance in Gaza, the people of Gaza, and our Palestinian brethrens. The battlefield forced the Israelis to cry out when they reached a point in which they were not able to do anything. The air force was exhausted. The land force was exhausted. The sea force was canceled from the equation. Operations behind the borderlines came to be a very dangerous adventure due to the battlefield developments which took place. The Israelis reached a point where they were heading to a military catastrophe. Thus they called on the Americans to stop the war. All what was written in memoirs and all what we were told by Arab foreign ministers and leaders who partook in the talks in New York like on these days and nights assert this given.

Thus the steadfastness of Lebanon - the steadfastness of the resistance in the battlefield first, the popular steadfastness and incubation of the resistance second, and the political steadfastness third though we had a great political problem internally – forced the Americans, the Israelis, the Europeans, and the Security Council to make concessions concerning most of the conditions which they put in the first, second, and third weeks of the war to stop the aggression against Lebanon.

The result was:

First: The resistance in Lebanon remained. It was not crushed. Its structure was not hit. It was not disarmed. On the contrary, the resistance in Lebanon grew more and more whether in its structure, number, arms, and popularity, esteem, and confidence it enjoyed.

Second: The Israeli war did not reach Syria because it flopped in Lebanon. Should the Israelis have proceeded in Lebanon they would have been moving towards a catastrophe. Thus how were they to broaden the compass of the war?

Third: The war on Gaza did not take place in 2006 or it was postponed. Before the war in Lebanon, there were violent aerial operations against Gaza Strip. So at least the war against Gaza was postponed to the end of 2008. Moreover, the resistance operations against the US occupation in Iraq escalated, and consequently, the political steadfastness in Iraq, the resistance in Iraq, and the Iraqi national will led to the withdrawal of the US occupation without keeping any barracks or gaining any immunity for US soldiers and officers. Consequently, the Neo Conservatives lost the elections and a new administration came to power. Thus this track came to an absolute end.

That does not mean that the US goals were toppled. No! We must always keep in mind that there are always fixed US goals in the region.

To achieve these goals, the US administration follows definite tracks or put specific schemes and projects. When a track is toppled, it resorts to another, a third, a forth, and a fifth until an absolute end is put to the entire US-Israeli project in the region. Only then there will remain no project or target or track. However, as long as the US-Israeli scheme and these US targets – part of which are Israeli targets – exist, it will always search for tracks on the light of the existing capabilities, events, developments, and factors.

Well, this war flopped.

We said all of this first to usher into the main study which is the main part of tonight's speech.

Second, we want to remind of the magnitude of the political and historic victory with which July War was so that it would not be forgotten amid the current events and developments.

Lebanon, the Lebanese people, the Lebanese resistance, the state, the army, and everyone who had a true hand in this achievement and this historic victory made this great, historic, political, military, intellectual, cultural, moral, and humanistic achievement whose repercussions are still valid until our very day.

Third, we want to assert before the current and upcoming dangers and intimidations that we are all able to confront these dangers and we are able to topple any track conspiring against our region, country, countries, peoples, and sanctities. That's because in July War, when the Americans adopted this track they had all the elements of strength. I even claim that at that time the Americans were at the peak of their strength. In fact, not a power in history and in the world reached the peak the Americans reached following 2001 and 2002. The peak of the US military, security, political, information, and media power and the peak of US intimidation and ferocity was in that decade.

Second, the regional and international conditions were favorable. There were no Soviet Union, no socialist camp, and no Arab world. All of these collapsed before the USA. So the regional and international conditions were very favorable.

Those who were able to confront that track and topple it at that time are able to confront any other track and topple it. I am not talking about a specific side but rather about the sum of these sides in the region from Lebanon to Palestine to Syria to Iraq to Iran and the other sides in the region – every side according to its capacities, post, and capabilities. This is another goal from recalling all of the above.

In our viewpoint, the Israeli aggression and war taking place against Gaza Strip is part of a new track. We said that the first track was toppled. The region moved to other developments and events which we may differ in evaluating, reading, and specifying their reasons. However the entire Arab region entered a new status quo.

Well, on light on this new status quo, the Americans or the other antagonistic project drew a new track to achieve its goals which are still the same: controlling the region and the resources of oil in the region, achieving victory for the Israelis, liquidating the Palestinian cause, and imposing condition on the Palestinians and the Arabs with Israeli provisions. So they are the same targets. They did not change. From time to time, only the tracks and tactics change.

What is taking place in Gaza today is part of this new track which started before the launch of the war on Gaza. Now Gaza is a chain in a series or one of the stages of the new track which consists of two elements as in the previous decade. I said that in the previous decade there were two elements: the first element is the direct military action which led to the occupation of Iraq and the control over the Gulf region via this occupation. The second element is Israel, the Israeli army, and the Israeli war.

Following all what afflicted them and their withdrawal from Iraq and their crisis in Afghanistan, the Americans today are very much cautions of any military return to the region or at least of any military land return. Thus when they talk about US intervention in Iraq, Obama, the Secretary of State, the Secretary Defense, and the National Security officials daily say that they will not dispatch land troops or soldiers or infantry soldiers. This one way or another expresses this condition.

Well, today there are two factors exploited in this track. I will say things in their names. To all those who listen to me, please open your minds and hearts because we are all in Lebanon and the region in a stage of existential danger. Thus we will not talk about privileges, perfections, and better and more prosperous conditions. We are talking about the very existence.

Well, today there is a new track which I will talk about before going back to the two factors. The new track is more difficult and more dangerous than the previous one because it is not the track of toppling regimes and establishing alternative authorities. In such a track, when you topple a regime and bring along an alternative authority, the country remains as an entity; the state remains, the borders remain, the social structure remains or it might be harmed, and the army remains or might be harmed. The only thing that takes place is toppling an authority and bringing along an alternative authority.

The new track is not that of toppling regimes and establishing alternative regimes. It is rather the track we talked about in more than one occasion. It is the track of demolishing and ruining states, armies, peoples, and entities. We do not need evidence on what is taking place. We will go to that later. So it is the track of demolishing, disintegrating, crushing, and ruining everything.

The Americans are moving in this track along with all those who are with the Americans in the region including Israel too. They want to draw a new map for the region. However, on what is this new map to be drawn? New maps were drawn for the region following World War I and World War II. However, now on what they want to draw a new map for the region? They want to draw it on the disjoined limbs not only of individuals but also of states, peoples, societies, and ruins. So it is not that pillars and walls would remain and we would have only to repair them and rebuild the ceiling. The new map is to be drawn on baffled minds as a result of the events which are taking place and are plotted to take place in the region. Thus minds would become baffled: Where are we to go? What choices do we have? What are we to do? The new map is to be drawn also on terrified hearts. There is a very moving scene: a helicopter in Sinjar – I don't remember now whether it is an Iraqi helicopter or an American helicopter though I believe it is an Iraqi helicopter – carrying women and children from land. Just look at their faces and eyes and recall your women and children to know on what the new map of the region is to be drawn. It is to be drawn on disjoined limbs, ruins and wrecks, baffled minds, and terrified hearts. They want us all in the region to reach a catastrophe, and to end this catastrophe we would accept any dictations. Just put an end to this catastrophe. Save us from this calamity and you will have whatever you want in return. We are even ready to offer you our eyes. It would be a social, security, political, economic, intellectual, mental, and emotional catastrophe. Even worse, the main enemy would be the savior and the rescuer after all. This is where the region would be dragged to.

Well, what are the main factors of this track?

The first factor is the Israelis. This is what I talked about when talking about the demolition and ruining taking places in Gaza. As the Palestinian brethrens said, the true and factual target is hitting the resistance, disarming the resistance, putting an end to the structure of the resistance, and making the people in Gaza Strip frustrated from everything called resistance and that thus surrender. As such nothing would remain but ruin and wrecks.

The second factor is no less dangerous. It is the Takfiri current which the ISIL has become today the most prominent and evident manifestation of. ISIL is the greatest manifestation of this current.

Well, these are the factors of this new track. I will return later to this point when I talk about ISIL and the new track. However, now I want to usher to this study through this question which is the main idea in tonight's speech. Is it possible to gain victory over this new track and to defeat it? Yes! I tell the Lebanese, the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Palestinians, and all the peoples of the region: Yes, it is possible to defeat this new track as the previous track was defeated. However, this can't be achieved by wishes. This may be achieved with action supported with supplication. This requires conditions and elements and special efforts to be exerted.

There are two points which I want to stress on. Yes, we can reach a place in which we can defeat this new track.

The first title is that we comprehend and believe that there is a true existential threat confronting us. First, we must comprehend whether there is such a threat or not.

Second, we must comprehend whether there is a true serious threat or whether it is a joke or an absurd jest. What are the dimensions of this danger, the capabilities of this danger, and the capacities of this danger? We must understand, comprehend, and believe this first. So no one must say that there is nothing and that this is mere exaggeration. No one must say there is nothing in the region. There is no danger. This is an absurd jest. This is a transient incident. There is nothing. Well, this is wrong. Why? In fact, there must be a state between exaggeration and understatement.

That's because you in Lebanon may come face to face before this danger at a time you have not prepared anything. You have no strategy. You have no elements of strength. You did not get ready. You have no plan. Then you will feel remorse, but that would be of no good to you at a time you would have run out of time. That is wrong. Those who say there is nothing of this sort are insisting stubbornly against the real fact. You see all what is taking place and still you say there is no danger!

Second: you would be exaggerating if you present things in a magnitude greater than their true magnitude what might lead to a state of horror, fear, frustration, and despair. Thus the spirit of defeat and surrender would sneak to the souls. People might start thinking of how to gather their things and pack their bags and travel. This would prepare his passport. That would think of a place to hide in because things are over. Danger is proceeding and he has no power to confront it as what befell the region during the Mongol invasion for example.

So it is neither true to say that there is nothing and that this is a jest nor that there is no ability to confront and thus a state of despair and frustration and defeat might prevail. Both tracks are wrong. What's true is that we comprehend the danger, the magnitude of this danger, the capacities of this danger, and the capabilities of this danger and believe that there is a danger. This is the first point.

The second point is to search for the means to confront this threat, to topple it, to put an end to it, and to defeat it. The means must be true, factual, and serious. So we must not go to illusions and mirage options. We must not go for choices which were tried and proved to be fruitless. We must go for factual choices from the history of our region, from the history of our peoples, from the history of our nation, and from the history of the entire humanity while taking into consideration all the facts, data, and international, regional, and local equations. Then we would say there is such and such and so and so means. Then we would put a plan and say these are the elements of this plan and get ready to confront this threat. Through these two points it is possible to confront this threat taking into consideration July War, the current war on Gaza, the previous war on Gaza, the experiences of the resistance and what took place in the region, and the experiences of the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the peoples of the region, and even the entire Arab world, and the entire Islamic war over decades – meaning before 1948 to our present day. We had painful and sorrowful experiences and at times humiliating experiences. Some experiences were very hard on the peoples, the governments, the generations…. This is what we inherited. We inherited the experience of Israel, the Zionist project, the Zionist expansion…

First and only to make the idea clear with the beginning of the twentieth century, they started bringing along the Zionist families, peasants, craftsmen, and merchants to Palestine.

What was the number of the Arabs and what was the number of the Jews? What was the number of the Jews in Palestine? They were incomparable. If you would tell any Palestinian or any Arab that the Jews want to establish a state in Palestine via the Zionist project, he would answer you saying: You are kidding indeed. You are lying for sure.

They started getting the families along. There was no evaluation of the danger at first. Some people did not foresee the danger at first. Some people underestimated it. Others oversimplified it. Others classified it under the human dimension. They said: Poor they! They are homeless and scattered in the states. In WWII they were exposed to such and such. Of what harm it would be if some families were brought along and settled in our regions? The land of Palestine is wide, and the people of Palestine do not cover the entire Palestinian geography.

Since the very beginning, these families were distributed in settlements pursuant to military and security offices. From the very beginning, nothing took place by accident. However, the peoples, the elites, the governments, and many others did not comprehend this point. Not all of them though; some people comprehended what took place. Some people were conscious of what took place. Others have previous expectations and sounded the bell of alarm. However, the overwhelming majority did not comprehend this point.

In 1948, they said: "They want to take the land occupied since 1948 and establish a state. Well, the land of Palestine is vast, and the Arab land is vast". They did not deal with that as a danger and that Israel will extend with its eye on al Qods and other areas.

Also in 1967, some Arabs used to find excuses to Israel. They used to say: "Israel has expansionary goals! That's impossible. It does not want to seize the Bank. It does not put its eyes on west al Qods. It does not want to enter Jordan, Golan Heights, and definite regions in Lebanon. What Israel perpetrated in 1967 was a pre-emptive war because it had information that the Arab states and the Arab armies – especially both the Egyptian and the Syrian Arab armies – were preparing themselves for a final war with the Israelis besides the Palestinian resistance factions which existed then. Poor Israelis! They have waged a pre-emptive war. However, they do not want to expand. Wasn't this said in the Arab world?

The magnitude of threat started to mushroom until we reached a place in which Israel became a state having the most powerful army in the world. It became the most powerful state in the world which threatens, bombards, displaces, kills, perpetrates massacres, goes to the negotiations table, and imposes conditions. How did we reach this result? Here we go back to the first title as there was debate over whether the Zionists who came from all around the world posed a threat or not. In case they posed a threat, what is the magnitude of this threat? What are the capacities and elements of strength of this threat? This is first.

Here we come to the second title. They bet on wrong choices. Only few did not. I will discuss the choices of these few later.

Some bet on the international community, international institutions, and the Arab relations with their allies. Some believed the English; others believed the French; others believed the Americans. Others bet on international intervention and then on the Arab League and on waiting for a united Arab strategy. That took place in Lebanon, in Palestine, and in several states in all the confrontations with the Zionist project. Others bet on the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the unity of the Arab and Islamic world. What is this? We remained waiting for ten years followed by another ten years and followed also by another ten years. By today, we have been waiting for 70 years and even more if we started counting from the previous century.

They resorted to choices such as going to negotiations, turning to the world, to the international community, to the Arab conscience, to the Human Rights Chart, and to Geneva Agreement for help. That did not lead to the true road. Experiences show that that did not lead anywhere, and the evidence is what befell the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the peoples of the region over all of these decades. Whoever has another logic let him present it.

However, the only thing which was true from the very beginning was going to so called armed struggle, so called war of liberation, and so called military choice as there were terrorist gangs supported by some foreign states which occupied the Palestinian territories in 1948, displaced the Palestinian people and turned them to refugees in their own land and outside Palestine. It was also required that the nation be awakened, that armies be prepared, that the resistance factions get ready, and that everyone work to achieve this goal and to expel these invaders. This is the right path. There was no other right path.

However, this path was adopted partially. The Palestinian resistance factions with all its popular forms emerged from the very beginning – before 1948 and after 1948. All of this was recorded as a history, and lessens must be drawn from it as a history.

Then came the confrontation with Egypt, confronting the tripartite aggression by the end of the 50s, and preparing following 1967 to the war with Israel which took place in 1973 in which the Egyptian and the Syrian armies waged heroic battles ending in what it ended in.

Because of the resistance movements in Lebanon and in Palestine, achievements took place and victories were made. These are the right kind of choices and not the miserable choices which either we laugh on ourselves with or we laugh on our peoples with or we amuse ourselves with.

For example, one of the theories which remained for tens of years is that the solution is establishing an Arab lobby as there is a Zionist lobby. As such equilibrium would be made between us and the Zionist lobby, and thus we would pressure the American administration and reach a solution in the Middle East. What is this? This talk is for amusement. This is a kind of lying on the people. This is a legend and not only a theory.

This is the experience that took place in the Israeli file. Now the bet is on Gaza, on the people of Gaza, on its fighting and struggling factions, on its peoples, its will, its resistance because it depends on this choice and does not want to surrender to the Israeli enemy. They do not want to bow despite all the sacrifices. They are not losses but rather sacrifices: martyrs, wounded, demolition, and everything. There is no other choice.

Now let any Palestinian brother or sister who lives in Gaza Strip or in any place recall all the modern history – we are not talking about things that took place 200 years ago or a 1000 years ago. Thus we conclude that this path is the right path and this for sure would lead to a result and in many places would lead to results.

This is the implementation of the two titles on a file which is still valid, alive, vital, and dangerous - meaning confronting the Zionist project.

We come now to the second sample which exists now. I want to talk a little now. I want to say: "O brothers and sisters! I am addressing the Lebanese and all the peoples of the region who are listening to me. Based on all what previously was mentioned and apart from all what took place in the past three weeks and the discrepancies on the viewpoints, the evaluation, the reasons, and assuming responsibilities and saying we are right and blaming the other, let's put all of this aside because all of that is of no use. Why? Because there is a true danger on your entities, sanctities, states, and on your foreign existence, houses, mosques, churches, women, and children. Consequently, today it's no time for reconsideration. Are we to make reconsiderations now? Well, we want to make that later on. However, today the entire region and the peoples of the entire region are before a new, great, and true danger.

Today, let's see what is called ISIL and what is taking place today? Let's talk about facts.

Today, there is a regime which has become a state which is occupying and controlling a very vast geographic area – a part of Syria, and a part of the Iraqi territories. In fact, this area is much larger than some of the states in the region and the world. If we talk about the geographic area, they are controlling the sources of energy, oil, gas, and others. They control major rivers, major water dams. They have enormous quantities of arms and artilleries. They sell oil, and there are those who buy from them and trade with them and facilitate this operation. This is questionable. There are countries which have thousand problems in selling an oil carrier. How is ISIL able to sell and be financed before the eyes of the international community and regional countries for example? This organization has a great number of fighters too. The overwhelming majority of the main fighters are not Syrian or Iraqi fighters. They are rather fighters who were brought along from abroad. Their travel and their crossing the border were facilitated. This is also questionable. This organization which has this presence and has a special doctrine, view, understanding, and conduct which we noticed from Syria to Iraq started perpetrating massacres. It is not that they were engaged in a war. Rather they committed massacres, killed prisoners and captives, and killed innocent people. They started with their fellow tribesman – the followers of the same organization, the same intellect, the same pillar, and the same pledge. They are the al-Nusra. Then they started killing and are still killing the rest of their allies who are naturally their allies – meaning the Syrian armed forces. Battles are taking place now in the northern reef in Aleppo between ISIL and the rest of the factions. In fact, in some places al-Nusra kept themselves aside. The battles are taking place in Reef Idlib and north Idlib. Major battles took place in Deir Al-Zour. In Iraq and in Syria they fight, kill, and even slaughter everyone who differs with them in their viewpoints. So notice that they choose the means that depends on terrorizing. Well, if you concluded that you are allowed to kill those people, open fire on them and kill them. But no, they do not kill them except by slaughtering them before the camera. They even put it on the you-tube and broadcast it on satellite outlets so that the scene is seen worldwide. This is part of the psychological war that aims at spreading fear, terror, and horror among the peoples of the region, the governments, and the armies of the region. I would like to tell you that the massacres which were perpetrated are in the first place against Sunnis. You can review the numbers. Who killed the Sunnis? Who killed the Sunni scholars who are not with the regimes but rather against the regimes? See the people who were killed by ISIL. That's because the Sunnis whom we know as Sunnis are according to ISIL considered as unbelievers. That's because according to their doctrinal, intellectual, and jurisprudential categorizations, the unbelievers are so and so and so. This also applies to the Ash'aris, and most of the Sunnis in the world are Ash'aris in the doctrinal and intellectual sense of the word. However, if they were not Ash'aris but they differ with them politically or over the pledge, they would kill them. Didn't this take place?

What about the recent war waged by the ISIL? Well are the Kurds Christians or Shiah? Their majority are Sunnis. In this battle, over a million and a half million were displaced because of the ISIL war in Iraq. They are Sunnis. They are neither Shiah, nor Christians, nor Oyazdians. Well, in Iraq, ISIL did not spare anyone of whatever religion: Muslims, Christians, and Oyazdians. They did not spare anyone of whatever sect: Sunnis and Shiah. They did not spare anyone even if talking about races and nationalities: Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen. They did not spare anyone. Also in the battle in Syria, the same thing took place. They spared neither Arabs nor Kurds.

The ISIL ruined sanctities, sacred shrines, mosques, and churches. They want to forcefully impose a definite life-style with the force of arms and terrorizing people – all people and not only Christians but rather Muslims and Christians alike. This life-style does not have anything to do with Islam, with Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), or with the Holy Quran. This is something else. Go and meet scholars. Ask all sects.

Well, does this scene exist or not? Is it a joke? They are announcing their goals. They put their map which they want to draw and they threat and bombard. What is even more dangerous from all of that is that they have a popular ground. Why should we hide behind our finger? They have a popular ground in several Arab states. It is not a Sunni background. No! Their background is the followers of this intellect which labels as an unbeliever everyone other than themselves. They declare killing everyone other than themselves permissible. They take as prisoners everyone's women except their women. They brag saying we came to slaughter you. That does not belong to any divine religion. No religion revealed by Allah Al Mighty says "we came to slaughter you". Attributing that to Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is very dangerous and fake. After opening Mecca, Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) stood confronting Abu Sufyan and so and so… who fought him, displaced him, killed his companions, killed his uncle, devoured his uncle's liver, confiscated houses, and harmed him severely until he said: "No prophet was harmed as I was harmed." They fought him until they were frustrated. They became his prisoners and still they remained polytheists. Not all of them became Muslims. Some pretended to be Muslims, and some remained polytheists and ran away and hid themselves. However, what did the Prophet tell them?

Go you are free. He did not behead them. He did not slaughter them. He did not say "we came to slaughter you". When did he say "we came to slaughter you"? This is the slogan of ISIL. This is the slogan of this current.

So there is a true scene. Whoever says this does not exist lives in another world. In fact, such a person is not allowed to assume responsibility. He is not entitled even to assume the responsibility of his family and not the responsibility of a current or a group or a society or a country. He is not entitled to assume the responsibility of his wife and children. He is not entitled to assume responsibility. This is a clear scene.

As for those who stand behind ISIL, the stories of the Syrian intelligence, the Iraqi intelligence, the Iranian intelligence, and even of Hizbullah fabricating ISIL and running it are absurd. This does not deserve to be commented on. Well, yes there are regional countries which sponsored and are sponsoring ISIL and led it to this place. The Americans may have a hand pursuant to the word Hilary Clinton was quoted as saying. I do not want to be responsible of saying this as I do not know whether this is right or wrong. However, all I know is that the Americans kept a blind eye on that, offered facilitations, and opened the gates to exploit this phenomenon in the track I talked about before. Indeed they are penetrated. Indeed, there is US influence, and whether they know or not, they are serving the US and the Israeli target in this new track.

Well we reached where we reached. Here I want to ask a question before moving to the last part of my speech. I call on every Lebanese, every Palestinian, every Syrian, every Iraqi, and every man in the Gulf to sit alone and make reflections. Allah Al Mighty says: {Do stand before Allah in pairs and singly}.

So put fanaticism aside whether party, sectarian, factional, regional or national fanaticism. Let's keep personal, party, and political calls aside. Really let's keep such calls aside this time and sit and think and make reflections. This poses a danger on everyone. Does that pose danger on Hizbullah only? Is there Hizbullah in Deir Al-Zour or in Riqqa or in Mussel? Was Hizbullah fighting ISIL so that the latter invaded Mussel? Does that pose danger on the Shiah only? On Christians only? On the Oyazdians only? On the Alawis only? On the Ishmaels? On the Ibadis who are still far away? Or on Druze only? This poses a threat on everyone and on the Sunnis above all.

Thus we wholeheartedly hope that no one present the battle in the region as a sectarian battle. It is not an Islamic-Christian war. It is not a factional war. It is not a Shiah-Sunni war. It is a war of another kind. It is the war of ISIL which has this annihilative, eliminative, Takfiri, brutal, slaughtering intellect against anyone against them. Their intellect is not based on Islam or on what took place at the time of the Prophet or at the time of the first Muslim Caliphs, or on the map that was previously drawn for the region, or on religious minorities. All of this is deleted. The sects, factions, minorities, churches, mosques, and shrines they are demolishing are 1400 years old. The overwhelming majority of the holy sites they are downing were under Sunni government. However, the ISIL have nothing to do with this history, this intellect, or even this culture. They want to wipe everything. They pose a threat to everyone.

Anyway, first we must know that this poses a danger.

Second, we must discuss what we must do? We are all in the sphere of danger. What must we do? Must we – for example – benefit from the experience of our struggle with the Israeli threat which is still valid today? Shall we – for example – bet on the international community saying we can't do anything so let's go and talk with the Americans or the French or the English (as now Russia is preoccupied in Ukraine)? Let's see what we might do. There is no solution other than resorting to the international community to intervene. What international community would intervene? Where would the international community intervene? Whose side it will take? See what took place in Iraq. I am not calling for an American intervention. However, I just have a question. When ISIL invaded Mussel, Nineveh, and a large section of Salaheddine province, and broke into Diala and perpetrated massacres what forced people to run away in the desert (and all of these massacres are documented and we watched them on the TV), why did not the international community intervene? Why wasn't Obama's humanity and the American administration moved? Also when hundreds of thousands of Christians were attacked, they were not moved? In fact, they do not care for the Christians in Mussel or in Iraq or in Syria or in Lebanon. I would like to tell the Christians in Lebanon: Deluded is he among you who believe that the Christians in Lebanon mean anything to America or the west. Before any danger they will tell you what France told the Christians of Iraq: You are welcomed as refugees and we will grant you citizenships too. This is the project some seniors among you heard from the former French president. Does the west really care for the Christians in the region? Do you still seek help from the Americans, French, English, the international community, and the International Security Council after all what took place and is taking place? They do not care for Sunnis, Shiah, Christians, Oyazdians, and even Kurds. They did not care for the Kurds who were killed in Mussel, at the edges of Karkuk, in Zumar and Sinjar. They did not care for the Turkmen or the Arabs. Well, yes when ISIL came close to Erbil, they intervened because Kurdistan means what it means politically, security, and economically to the US administration and to the west. They intervened to tell ISIL that they are not allowed to come close to that area. These are your borders and limits. It is permitted that you slaughter Sunnis. It is permitted that you slaughter Shiah. It is allowed that you slaughter Christians and demolish their churches and imprison their women. It is permitted that you perpetrate genocides against Oyazdians, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, and Turks alike. As for Erbil and Kurdistan, they have a different position on the map. Do you want us to bet on these Americans and on the international community? O Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Palestinians, and peoples of the region! What are you waiting for? Will the Arab League protect you? Are you waiting for an Arab consensus or a united Arab strategy? I want to be very clear and precise. In any country around the world, when anyone feels that his existence is in the sphere of threat, elimination, and annihilation, does he wait for a national consensus? Has such a thing ever happened in history? No! Never!

So the big question is: If we agree that there is a danger threatening us, the question would be: How are we to confront this danger? Where shall we go? What are the capabilities? What are the means? What are the tools? There are major and big responsibilities to be shouldered by the Iraqis, the Syrians, the Palestinians, and the peoples of the region. I want to address the Lebanese and my logic can be applied on all the other peoples and countries because Praise be to Allah there are authorities, leaderships, scholars, parties, and movements which are perfect and great and fit to assume responsibility.

Allow me to go into details concerning the Lebanese application. Well, as Lebanese, do we agree that this danger exists and that it is a lurking danger and not a postponed danger that would come in 2 or 3 or 5 years? This was true before the events of Iraq and the event of Mussel. In fact, the country was in one situation and overnight it became in another situation. Anything may take place overnight in any country because ISIL today is a serious threat to Syria and Iraq. In logic, they say potential and actual. ISIL is an actual threat to Iraq and Syria and a potential threat to the rest of the countries: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries. The Turks even must reconsider their stance. There is a threat against all countries. Well, what is it possible that we as Lebanese do? What we must go to?

There are even questions which are posing themselves seriously nowadays. I even say that we in Hizbullah must make discussions. It's our obligation to make discussions with the rest of the Lebanese. The rest of the Lebanese must undergo dialogue among themselves. Indeed, I am not calling for a national dialogue conference for this issue because we will not reach anywhere as far as this issue is concerned. What we need is what I said a while ago: Stand before Allah in pairs and singly. Let every party and every group make their own discussions. Then they may communicate together and make bilateral or threefold talks. Let's as men of intellect, politicians, and elites talk with each other and see what we may do. There is a serious question which is always evoked. It is not an issue of making internal and political settlements among ourselves: Is the solution in the withdrawal of Hizbullah from Syria?

Hizbullah's main presence is in Qalamoun and Qusair – meaning the bordering area. It is presented that Hizbullah's withdraw from Qalamoun and Qusair is the solution!

I ask the Lebanese and especially the residents of Bekaa. I ask all the Lebanese Muslims and Christians alike. I am really serious. Put all quarrels aside. To make quarrels everything may be said. Is it true that if Hizbullah withdraws from Syria, the danger will be gone from Lebanon? Will ISIL then leave Lebanon alone? Does the ISIL really have no aspirations in Lebanon? Is it that some Lebanese officials would go to Mussel and meet Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi and tell him to eliminate Lebanon's 10452 km2 (in addition to some blocks) from the map he broadcasted on TV outlets because we talked with Hizbullah which will withdraw from Syria? Is that a fact or a simplification of things? Will withdrawing from Qusair and Qalamoun protect Lebanon?

Apart from our presence there, and apart from debating whether this is the reason or not as that will be of no use because everyone has his logic and everyone may provide his events, let's start from the very end. At the time being, the whole region is in danger. There is no time for intellectual luxury as what took place on the first day of July War 2006. Buildings were downed, infrastructure was being bombarded, people were being slaughtered…. Still some people were debating whom to hold responsible. Hizbullah is to be accused because they kidnapped the prisoners.

Well there is a crisis in the country. Let's address it and then we would debate whom to hold responsible. Now the national responsibility says: Let's face the war. Now the national responsibility says: Let's do something to protect the country. Let's protect our state, our Lebanon, our people, our society, and our region. I am asking you a serious question. Let's discuss this issue together. Does really our withdrawal from Syria protect Lebanon or does staying in Syria protect Lebanon? Among the other ideas proposed today is expanding the implementation of Resolution 1701 which is applied on the Lebanese southern borders. Well, let's expand it to cover the rest of the Lebanese borders with Syria. Others said only the Bekai borders. I have another serious question. The situation in the south is perfect. In fact, following July War, the situation changed as far as the Israeli issue is concerned. In the past, Israel used to act with utmost freedom in Lebanon. It used to kidnap and break in and move freely. Now it is not able to carry security operations as it has to take thousands of issues into consideration to do so. Well, some say the south is secure now. Thanks to Resolution 1701 it is secure! Thanks to the presence of the UNIFIL and the international forces. Is this really the case? Do you really say so and believe what you say? Whom are you laughing at? Well, go and ask the residents of the south. Ask the people in Lebanon. What is the validity of this idea?

Does Israel really observe international resolutions? Does Resolution 1701 protect Lebanon? Whom are you laughing at? Are you laughing on a people who had suffered for 60 or 70 years with Israel and now you want this people to believe that Resolution 1701 is protecting Lebanon?

Poor UNIFIL! They are protecting Lebanon! The UNIFIL need protection themselves. Was there no incubating environment, was there no state, and was there no army, the UNIFIL wouldn't have been able to protect themselves. It is the Army-People-Resistance equation which protected and is protecting Lebanon and the south. The resistance rocket power which they know very well, the capacities of the resistance, the resistance men, and the national doctrine of the Lebanese Army (as the Lebanese Army has no considerable military capabilities) are what protect Lebanon. These elements form the deterrence power and not the international umbrella of Resolution 1701 or the international forces or the UNIFIL. Let no one laugh at the Lebanese and cheat them saying he would protect Irsal, Labweh, Qaa, Ras Baalbeck, Zahle, Mount Lebanon, and Akkar through deploying the UNIFIL there. Is the Lebanese Army able to cover all the borders? Where from are you to get UNIFIL and spread them all over this area? What international umbrella are you talking about? Here I say that there is an international project. There is a track sponsored by the USA to destroy, crush, and ruin everything. Go and ask your allies who are afraid on their states and entities from this international connivance. When we say so about Resolution 1701, we would be wasting our time. Still I say that we must sit together and carry on discussions.

Well over the past few years, the previous government which we were part of and the current government practiced the policy of staying aside. Well does the policy of staying aside protect Lebanon? Well suppose we have followed this policy in the past and currently, and suppose that ISIL controlled Syria and came to be at the borders – God forbids. May this never take place. Suppose ISIL came to be at the borders of Rashaya, Hasbaya, Shebaa, Baalbeck, Bekaa, and the north. Shall we still say there is no danger in that? What are the guarantees? Would the country be protected?

Does the policy of staying aside protect the country? Is it true that we have nothing to do with what is taking place in Syria? Let ISIL, Al Qaeda, or whatever come, we have nothing to do with that. Is this approach realistic? Here I am not talking from the logic of the resistance or from the perspective of our loyalty to Syria. I am talking as a national Lebanese. Let's say that I am a fanatic Lebanese. Is this policy – the policy of staying aside – which indeed we did not adopt and others did not adopt so far the right policy to be followed? Is it right to reach a point in which the Lebanese National Army is being conspired against, its soldiers are being kidnapped and its soldiers and officers are being slaughtered and still it is not allowed to contact Syria because of the policy of staying aside. Is this logical?

Anyway, these are questions. Let's talk together. Hizbullah's presence in Syria: Does staying there or withdrawing from there protect Lebanon? Let's discuss this. Lebanon is in danger. We have a real problem with whoever says it is not in danger or among the Lebanese. Second, does Resolution 1701 protect the country? Does the policy of staying aside protect the country? Let's see what is the problem? Let's carry a quick revision for all of these choices to see together what the problem is.

I will wrap up my speech with our proposition. Between my hands is the last page that contains the head notes. Anyway, what does the logic, the mind, the religion, the Law of Islam and human experience say?

All of these say: When an entity, a state, or a society is before an existential danger, the absolute priority before this existential danger would be to make reorganizations in a way that meets this existential danger. Whoever does not act accordingly would not be acting according to the mind, religion, morals, and humanity. He would be exposing his people to the danger of annihilation while he is sitting and wasting his time with issues he sees as fateful and of priority. Well, such issues may be important but they are not fateful.

The first thing I present to the Lebanese now is the following:

I call on all the Lebanese to comprehend that our country, our entity, and our society is before an existential danger in an exceptional and very dangerous way. I am not exaggerating and whoever does not want to believe let him believe later. In face of this existential danger, we must define our priorities. This in the first place needs loyalty. It requires putting factional, sectarian, party, and personal considerations aside. This confrontation requires loyalty, seriousness, and sacrifices. It is not shameful to reconsider one's stance. It is not shameful to change one's speech if that serves the battle of existence. On the contrary, that is required. The mind, religion, and humanity say that is required. We must search for and gather the elements of strength and confront the danger.

The first title is the Lebanese Army and the official security forces. The army and the security forces must be the sides responsible for protecting the country, the people, the villages, and the borders. It is not Hizbullah or any other party. This is the main responsibility. The state must act accordingly and it must be fit to act accordingly.

In debate, some might say we are preventing that. No, we are not. Did we prevent anyone from providing the army with weapons? Did we prevent anyone from providing the army with tanks? Did we prevent anyone from donating aids to the army? On the contrary, we welcome all kinds of donations. What is important is that the army be furnished with arms, and not only with Rios, trucks, and troop carriers that do not stand before B7 or BKC or average arms. No! It is required that the army be provided with true arms. The army and the security forces are responsible of protecting the people, the state, and everyone.

So first, at this stage, there was a project for politicians to deliver some words to support the army. This project was in the hands of journalists, and I don't know what became of it. However, I like to say what I intended to say then as every person was supposed to talk for three minutes. What is required is true, popular, and official support to the army and not only materialistic support. What do I mean with true support? Today the army has a definite number of soldiers and such and such capacities and artillery. However, in the first place what about its morals, spirits, fighting doctrine, dignity, and pride? This is the responsibility of the state as well as the people.

Today, the primary and main support to be given to the army is that the state stands with the Lebanese Army to restore the captive soldiers and army and security forces officers who were kidnapped and imprisoned. Let no one interpret what I am saying as a kind of instigation. We always talk as such. Every hour and every moment pass while these dear ones are imprisoned is a moment of humiliation to Lebanon and not only to the army. It is a moment of humiliation to the state and to every Lebanese person. We always used to feel offended when there used to be any resistance man in Israeli prisons even if this man did not belong to Hizbullah. It is enough that this prisoner is left in prison.

As for the soldiers and the Lebanese Army and security forces officers who are detained by the armed forces, it is the responsibility of the state to seek to free them. This cause must be addressed in a way that saves the dignity of the army, the security forces and the dignity of this attire and these institutions.

First, the army must not be accused, and second any accusation to the army must be rejected. Every now and then, someone would say the army is cruciferous! What does that mean? The army is Safawi. It is a tool in the hands of Hizbullah. No it is not a tool in the hands of Hizbullah. There is no problem between the army and Hizbullah. On the contrary, this is required on the national level. The army takes pain to have no problem with any political force in the country. What if this political force is a primary faction in the resistance? Is fighting between Hizbullah and the army required? Does this serve the national interest? Indeed not!

All politicians know that the army is not a tool in the hand of Hizbullah at all. All of these accusations must not be made, and they must be rejected if they were made. This is our national army. This is the army of all the Lebanese. It needs this support and this backing on all levels. The same logic applies to the security forces. We must all achieve this so as to have a strong army, soldiers, artillery, spirits, morals, dignity, and confidence to change the equation. This makes a very remarkable change in the equation. Thus at any moment of danger, we would all be by its side shouldering it.

Second comes preserving the current government. We must not allow the dissolve of the current government whatever the discrepancies are because now it is one way or another the only active institution apart from the magnitude of the work it assumes. Everyone can see that the parliament is crippled. We do not have a president apart from allotting responsibilities.

We only have this government. The government is among the elements of power which we must guard until a president is elected and a new government is formed.

The third point is putting an end to party, sectarian, and factional instigation. All forms of instigations must be stopped. Where does instigation lead to? Let's take for example the cause of Irsal. Today, I will not say anything though there is much to be said. However, we are part of the people who preferred in this very sensitive moment as far as the political issue, the security issue, the national issue, the issue of the army, the issue of the structure of the country to remain silent though there is much to be said. However, you have seen that if they talk about the armed forces once, they attack Hizbullah 20 times. However is what I am saying of any good? Should I say what I am saying a thousand times, it will make no difference. It will only increase the state of congestion.

Today, I read a piece of news, and I do not know the truth about it. I read that the security forces arrested the person who stands behind the Al Ahrar Al Sunna Brigade website. Does this person really stand behind this website? Who is he? What is his relation with this brigade? With whom is his relation? No matter what the result is, must he be tried in the same way as any other person who is stirring sectarian and factional instigations in Lebanon is tried? That's because some media sides started drawing conclusions based on this arrest. I hope that this would be the beginning in Lebanon, and I hope the trial would cover the politicians too. Let no one say that would harm freedom. In fact, instigation is similar to a booby trapped car. This is not freedom. Sectarian and factional instigation is not freedom. It is rather similar to a booby trapped car. Be responsible as far as this issue is concerned, and an end would be put to instigation.

Fourth come regional reconciliations. Later we would see whether reconciliations would be made concerning the vast political situation or not. However, at least approaches and initiatives must be made among the residents of regions. I will talk in a transparent way. Let's take for example the region of Irsal Baalbeck Al Hermel and its future. O people of Irsal! O dear brothers! The future of Irsal is Baalbeck Al Hermel. Its future is north Bekaa. Its future is not al-Nusra or ISIL and what is taking place behind the borders. That is not your future. Take the experience of Irsal as an example, before the events, during the events, and after the events. Let the people of Irsal talk about what happened with them. I will not talk about that. I am only saying that someone must go and take initiatives for reconciliations there in Irsal, Labweh, Al Ain, Nabi Othman, Qaa, and Ras Baalbeck. The residents of that entire region must reunite and reconcile. This protects against danger or else the danger will invade us all. The first to pay the price and the first to have paid the price are the people of Irsal. Let's go to other regions. The social structure might have been become upset due to the recent events. Something must be done between Jabal Mohsen and Bab Attebanah. Something must be done between Dahiyeh and Chweifat as well as in west Beirut, Sidon, Shebaa, the neighborhood of Shebaa, Rashaya, and Hasbaya. This is a clear topic, and things must be done to address it. Indeed this is a responsibility to be shouldered by everyone and not by the state alone. Leaderships, authorities, parties, and political forces are all concerned as far as this issue is concerned.

Some people do not want to tolerate what I am saying but they must tolerate it. A kind of cooperation with Syria is required as far as the issue of the displaced is concerned at least. It is not true that Syria wants to keep the displaced in Lebanon. It is not also true that we can't find a solution between Lebanon and Syria. However a party can't do that. This must be assumed by both governments and states. We all agree that this is a serious and important file. It is a dangerous file from all perspectives, and I do not want to go into details. Well what is the solution? Is it in delivering speeches? Is the solution in waiting for the fall of the regime in Syria? Is the solution in waiting for the arrival of ISIL? If ISIL takes over, will the displaced return home or will their number increase in Lebanon? What are we waiting for? What are we – all the Lebanese – waiting for as far as this issue is concerned?

There is no need to insist stubbornly. Official talks between Lebanon and Syria are indispensable. They must all sit on the table. The Lebanese must tell the Syrians that there are a million or a million and a half million or whatever Syrian displaced in Lebanon. Well there are secure regions in Syria where people may live and work in a normal way. How are these people to return? Well if there are places where there are crises how can these crises be addressed? We are ready to help as far as this issue is concerned. We must not be satisfied with holding conferences, delivering speeches, and investing the issue of the displaced in political speeches and political conflicts. That does not solve the problem. What puts an end to the dangers we are talking about whether security danger, political danger, or demographic danger as some Christian leaderships say?

To be serious, we have only a very normal condition. These are Syrian displaced, and our borders are the sea, Occupied Palestine and Syria. How do we address this crisis? Shall we send them to Australia for example? Indeed no! We address it by sitting with the Syrians whether you like them or not and whether they agree with your classification of the regime or not. Classify the regime as it appeals to you. However, this is the truth. After all, do all the states that sit together and talk to each other consider each other legitimate and democratic? Now is this the basis for international relations?

We must talk with the Syrians and cooperate with them as far as the file of the displaced is concerned and later on whether we liked it or not as Lebanese and as a Lebanese government as far as the borders set pursuant to Resolution 1701 is concerned. The UNIFIL is not able to do anything neither is the Lebanese Army alone even if all its soldiers were deployed. There are hundreds of kilometers and not only 60 or 70 kilometers. Well, there are some points which you want to convince us of. Well let's find a way to agree with you. There are points which we want to convince you of. So why don't you find a way to agree with us?

The issue is not anymore a source of danger to the Shiah in Lebanon, or the Sunnis in Lebanon, or on the so and so party or the such and such movement, or on Christians or on Druze. The danger is facing us all.

So we must sit together and discuss everything including the presidential entitlement. Indeed if ours became a state with a president and an active parliament and a new government and dynamic institutions, Lebanon's ability to confront this danger would increase.

On my own transparent and clear way, I have to tell you one more thing. Perhaps I took much or your time tonight, but the presidential election is a topic that deserves our attention. Stop moving to and fro to no avail. As far as the presidential election is concerned, you know with whom you must talk. Do not talk with mediators. None of us in March 8 Bloc is a mediator. We are a bloc that supports a definite candidate. Whoever has anything to say knows with whom to talk. So don't waste time. Wasting time is not to the interest of Lebanon. If anyone has anything logical to say let him carry direct dialogue or else what would you be waiting for? Are you waiting for regional changes? Are you waiting for international changes? Nothing has anything to do with the regional or international issue. The side which takes the primary decision as far as the presidential entitlement is concerned is the Lebanese themselves. Let no one wait for a decision from abroad as far as the presidential entitlement is concerned. Let's be clear and precise.

It is also required to give the urgent files a kind of priority. This is required on the humanistic and moral level. Such files include the wages series, the crisis of day workers, the Lebanese University, the water crisis, the electric power crisis… Addressing these crises provide a kind of fortification. That does not mean let's work to confront the existential danger at a time people in villages have no water. Man may stay without electric power but not without water.

Indeed if we cooperate to address these files we would be fortifying our country. We would decrease the chances of tension and the dangers facing the country. This is a group of primary ideas. I do not claim that I set a plot tonight. I am evoking ideas which are debatable. We must altogether sit and see how to discuss these issues. I stress again that talks might be bilateral, threefold, fourfold, or fivefold. However, they must not be a dialogue table to be broadcast on TV outlets and to be watched by the audience and that would be the end of the story. As such we would not be holding serious, responsible, and faithful discussions. As for us, we are a group which is ready to partake in such talks and ready to make sacrifices. We are a group which is ready to offer sacrifices. We offer martyrs daily. We have wounded daily in this battle. We never refrained from offering sacrifices to our people, our country, our sanctities, and our nation.

See the families of the honorable martyrs. The family which has a lonely son would write you saying: "Why are you preventing my son from partaking in the battle. It is a battle of honor. It is a battle of dignity. It is a battle of existence. As for us, we are ready to offer sacrifices. I even have more to tell you. As for waiting for the results of discussions, had the Lebanese waited for reaching a national consensus over the resistance, Israel would have been today in Beirut and in Tripoli. Had the Lebanese, the Syrians, the Egyptians, and the Palestinians waited for an Arab consensus over the issue of the resistance, Israel would have been today controlling the area between the Nile and the Euphrates.

I will wrap up my speech in two clear brief words.

The first word I would like to address all the Lebanese with and all the peoples of the region with is that ISIL and those behind them may be defeated with utmost ease. It is not an incredible mission at all. Well, the battle with Israel is much more difficult than the battle with ISIL. Part of the battle with ISIL is psychological, meaningless collapses, and being penetrated. I really do not wish to go into details.

Is it possible to confront this danger? Is it possible to topple this track? Yes, this track has no future in the region. However, we can't say this track has no future in the region while we spend our time making pleasure trips. This track would have no future in the region if the Iraqis unite and assume responsibility, the Syrians unite and assume responsibility, and the Lebanese unite and assume responsibility. This issue is similar to the Israeli issue in face of which every Arab country must assume its responsibility. In all of my speech I was telling you that it is easy to defeat this project if we were responsible. However, this project might gain victory if we buried our heads in the sand. This project may invade and control states if the opposing side was frustrated, desperate, frightened, and horrified.

We must not fall into this state. Thus on the anniversary of July War, I call for a responsible national Arab stance on the Lebanese level, on the level of the government, on the level of the army, on the level of constitutional entitlements, on the popular level, and on the media and political level. Well, yes we are fit and able to guard our country and to defend our country so that our country remains proud, strong, noble, and honorable, and so that its components are guarded, and so that its mosques, churches, and sects are preserved. All of that might remain and might not be harmed. This is possible and not incredible no matter who stands behind ISIL.

The second thing I would like to say and be clear in saying is that if anyone abandoned his responsibility we will not abandon our responsibility. We will not migrate to any other place in the world. We will not hold any other nationality. We will not leave this land at all. We will remain here. We will remain here raising our heads high. Here we will live, and if fighting is imposed on us, here we will fight. Here we will be martyred and here we will be buried. This is our choice. As for the other Lebanese who would have this choice, we are ready to overlook all the past and all the conflicts between us.

Today, our country, the components of our people, our state, and our existence is in danger. We must assume this responsibility. As such we may guard our blood and the blood of all those who were martyred in like these days. As such we may guard the sufferings and the aspirations of all those who suffered and nurtured aspirations in like these days. As a Lebanese people, we are all fit to our country. We are all fit to defend our country. We are all fit to gain victory. So let's make victory. We will not bury our heads in the sand. We will not be defeated. We will not run away. Let no one pack his bag and tell us he wants to migrate. Let's stay here so that this country persists to be. Let's change the path of the region as July War changed the path of the region. This small Lebanon will change the path of the region.

Felicitations anew on this day of victory! Inshallah we will be moving towards more victories with the blessings of seriousness, faithfulness, and readiness to offer sacrifices. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.