## 30

## AL QUDS DAY

October 28, 2005

> Originally instituted by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini as an annual reminder of the significance attributed by Islamists to the hoped-for liberation of Jerusalem, the 2005 commemoration of Al Quds (Jerusalem) day was instead employed by Nasrallah to publicly counter a number of challenges that appeared to be gathering force against both the party and its allies in Lebanon and the region. Indeed, only one week prior to this address in the Southern Suburb of Beirut, the first report of UN Special Investigator Detlev Mehlis had been released, strongly implicating Lebanese and Syrian intelligence in the assassination of ex-premier Hariri. Alongside this, another UN overseer, Terj Roed-Larsen,1 had released his periodic report on the implementation of Resolution 1559, finding serious gaps in the resolution’s implementation, especially insofar as the disarmament of Hezbollah was concerned.

> Nasrallah’s long and detailed critique of both of these investigations stands as a remarkable exercise in populist oratory—especially when one considers that his audience consisted mostly of poor and middle-class Shiite partisans presumably little acquainted with the intricacies and machinations of international law and theories of global power. At one point, Nasrallah submits that the international effort in Lebanon “imposes its will, classifies people, passes judgment, differentiates, decides on the details, and follows up on the smallest Lebanese issues.” Then he asks, “Is this what sovereignty means? Is this real independence? Is this freedom? Is this what the Lebanese seek and aspire to?” Answering his own question, Nasrallah claims that “total international tutelage is being imposed on Lebanon and … Larsen is the new high commissioner who carries the 1559 sword and uses it to chase after the Lebanese, the Palestinian, and the Syrian authorities.”

> Signaling what would soon become a major fault line for future conflict between the March 8 and March 14 camps (a reference to the earlier, dueling mass demonstrations shortly after Hariri’s assassination), Nasrallah also expresses a deepening sense of skepticism concerning the effort to investigate and try suspects in the Hariri case. “As far as America is concerned,” he explains, Syria and its allies in Lebanon “have already been convicted and must be punished without argument, despite the fact that the report says that the investigation is not yet over and requires months, maybe even years, to be completed.” He adds later, in an argument that harks back to past manipulation of supposedly international efforts in the region: “We fear that [an international tribunal] may be used as a lethal weapon in the big powers’ game to promote their own ends and interests at the expense of Lebanon and Syria, or to impose suspect deals at the expense of Lebanon, Syria, and the blood of the martyred prime minister.”

> In retrospect, Nasrallah’s speech seems to mark the beginning of a clear series of breaches in mutual trust between the various indigenous forces then vying to shape Lebanon’s post-Syrian future. Sadly, from this point forward, that breach would only grow more pronounced, despite periodic efforts to bring about some kind of national reconciliation able to save the country from what all sides—at least publicly—feared most: yet another civil war.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,

(…) This blessed month is favored by God; its best days and nights are the last ten, and best among them all is this Friday.2 That is why Imam Khomeini, may God sanctify his soul, chose the greatest, holiest, and noblest of days to be the day of the great, noble, and holy city of Jerusalem. The genius of Imam Khomeini, who was so knowledgeable of his time, led him to make this deeply intellectual, ideological, political, emotional, and popular connection between the most precious Islamic religious occasion and the most sacred and important of causes.

Ramadan is the month of worship and fasting; accepted prayers are those that forbid evil and wrongdoing, and man’s accepted reason for fasting is the kind of piety in his soul that prevents him from committing shameful and evil deeds (…)

Brothers and sisters; dear worshipping and fasting Muslim nation, during this month of Ramadan: What wrong or sin is worse than the nation of the billion Muslims remaining silent in the face of its holy sites’ occupation, and the violation of its sacred shrines in Jerusalem and Palestine by terrorist and bloodthirsty gangs whose entity was founded on massacre, usurpation, repression, and terrorism? O, fasting and worshipping nation of the billion Muslims: How can there be fasting, worshipping, and celebration of the Eid while the blood of your Palestinian kin in Jenin, Tulkarm,3 and the Gaza Strip is being spilled every day, while they are being bombed every night, and while they are being killed in every town square?

Would not these days be a divine signal to the nation of the billion Muslims who witness the greatest corruption and wrongdoing, and yet do not raise a finger, pursue good, forbid vice, utter a single word, or take action?

Brothers and sisters, we celebrate Jerusalem Day this year while great and ominous challenges face us. Throughout the past 25 years of conflict with the Zionist entity in this region, and ever since the Camp David Accords sidelined the biggest Arab country, Egypt, from the battle,4 the burden of this conflict has fallen directly on the shoulders of the Palestinian people, and on Lebanon and Syria. The Palestinian people in Lebanon and Syria have always enjoyed unequivocal support from Iran, following the victory of its Islamic Revolution, and from honorable people all over the Arab and Islamic worlds, and from the world at large. However, we waged—and are still waging—this struggle mostly in the midst of complete official Arab and international silence, or clear and unjust bias in favor of the enemy. Despite their harsh and difficult circumstances, the Palestinian people have managed to pursue their resistance, which culminated in the blessed al-Aqsa intifada, which so far has led to the liberation of the Gaza Strip.5

Lebanon, through its resistance, people, national forces, and unity—the unity of the state, army, and people—was able to accomplish a historic feat on May 25. Before that, it succeeded in foiling the American–Zionist scheme, abrogating the May 17 Agreement, and expelling the humiliated Zionists from our land in stages.6 During the past 25 years, Syria—its leadership, people, and army—has also managed to remain steadfast, refused to submit to American and Israeli conditions, and kept up its historic support for the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, on the path towards victory and liberation.

After that, several incidents took place, including the September 11 attacks, the Afghanistan war, the invasion of Iraq, and other ominous developments in our region that placed it squarely on the fault lines of global turmoil. Then came United Nations Resolution 1559, followed by the assassination of the martyr Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and his colleagues—a most tragic incident by any humanitarian and national standard. We are thus traversing a difficult, harsh, and bitter phase, though we sense that all that is currently taking place is aimed at this geographic triangle, and at those who support and stand behind it.

As far as the Arab and Islamic nations are concerned, offering financial and moral support to the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine has become, according to anti-terror laws, a punishable crime, incitement to commit terrorism, or a manifestation of anti-Semitism. And now we find the Islamic Republic of Iran facing a great deal of pressure as a result of its firm ideological stand in this conflict.

As for the situation in occupied Palestine, the Palestinian Authority is subjected to enormous pressure by the United States, Israel, and the international community to disarm the resistance groups, repress them on account of their terrorist credentials, and prevent them from exercising their most basic civil rights—even their right to participate in the parliamentary elections. The Palestinian Authority is required to do that while the Zionist occupation is still ongoing; the Gaza Strip is still under threat, attacked and besieged; Jerusalem is still usurped; and Palestinian refugees are still displaced throughout the diaspora.

Dear brothers and sisters, I tell you frankly that the international community does not seek to further the interests of the Palestinians, Lebanese, Arabs, or this entire region; rather, it is doing its utmost to advance the interests of the United States and Israel. The international community is fomenting civil strife among the Palestinians so that Israel can rest in peace, be safe, and impose once and for all its hegemony and conditions on this oppressed people.

The international community is blessing Israel’s aggression, savagery, and murder, and acquiescing to the displacement of people in occupied Palestine; or, at the very least, is remaining silent in this regard. It hastens to condemn any Palestinian who defends his people, and accuses him of terrorism.

As is the case in Palestine, the resistance in Lebanon, be it Lebanese or Palestinian, is also targeted. This time, however, it is being done through the international community, after Israel failed to defeat the Lebanese resistance and was compelled instead to retreat in the face of its brave men’s heroism, and after failing to crush the Palestinians in their camps and expel them from Lebanon.

The Security Council issued Resolution 1559, and appointed Larsen as overseer, supervisor, and official in charge of it.7 He was asked to submit a detailed six-monthly follow-up report regarding the implementation of this resolution. It behooves us here to ponder this a little, and make a few quick and relevant observations.

First, before we read Larsen’s report in the international press, and before it even reached Kofi Annan and the Security Council, we proudly learned the gist of his report from the Israeli press. It later turned out that everything the Israeli press had said regarding the contents of Larsen’s report was in fact correct.

Second, it is strange that when the Security Council adopted Resolution 1559 it found it necessary to appoint an overseer and supervisor, and put an official in charge of it. Why was that? It was because the Council had placed certain demands on Syria and Lebanon, and had asked this overseer to submit a follow-up report every six months. What is strange is that no overseer, observer or official was appointed for any Security Council resolution pertaining to Israel; no deadline was set for their implementation; there was no request for follow-up reports; and the Security Council has not asked Israel about them for decades. Likewise, and irrespective of our position visà-vis some of these international resolutions, no overseers were appointed to follow up on Resolutions 194, 242, 338 and 425.8 Why was that? It was because the Security Council is required to protect Israel, and because Israel needs to be strong; whereas Lebanon, Syria, and the Arabs must always pay the price, with the sword of the international community, the protector of Israel, suspended above their heads.

Third, it is clear from Larsen’s report and its details that an international tutelage is being imposed over Lebanon—a tutelage whose existence we in Lebanon deny, though it is clearly there for all to see. He spoke about everything in his report, not just about the provisions of Resolution 1559; he spoke about the need to hold parliamentary elections, and passed judgment on them. What does this have to do with Resolution 1559? He spoke about Hezbollah’s participation in the government; he spoke about the type of relations that should exist between Lebanon and Syria; he spoke about the type of relations that should exist between Lebanon and the Palestinians; he spoke about the appropriate election law, and said, in so many words, that he intends to establish a suitable legal and professional plan of action to ensure a fair and free election process in Lebanon.

What business does he have with the law of the upcoming elections? He spoke about political, economic, and financial reforms; he spoke about the appointment of directors, and about introducing changes at the employee level. What is even more ominous is that he spoke about changing the culture. Which culture does Larsen want the Lebanese to change? This is evidence that total international tutelage is being imposed on Lebanon, and that Larsen is the new high commissioner, who carries the 1559 sword and uses it to chase after the Lebanese, the Palestinian, and the Syrian authorities. In the meantime, we in Lebanon must stand to attention every six months to give Mr. Larsen the answers he seeks; and every six months our leaders, ministers, deputies, and parties must submit to an oral or written exam by Mr. Larsen, who will ask them, “How far along are you as far as the implementation of the international recommendations is concerned”?

Fourth, in a long report, in which Mr. Larsen graciously included only two lines about the Israelis—namely, their ongoing violation of Lebanese airspace—he wrote: “Israel says that it does this for security reasons.” He therefore mentions Israel’s pretext for its actions, but omits do so when he criticizes the resistance.

Brothers and sisters, this demonstrates the international community’s fairness in meting out justice. This is the international community on which we rely to regain our rights, and the same community to which Larsen wants the Lebanese government to turn in order to regain the rights that Israel has usurped from us. Look at some aspects of this justice; Larsen does all that and at the same time ignores Israeli shelling, the terrorizing of farmers in Shebaa and Kfar Chouba, and the kidnapping of the Lebanese shepherds who were later handed back to Lebanon by UNIFIL after it threatened Israel.9 He also ignores the Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails. Are Samir Qintar, Yahya Skaf, and Nasim Nisr,10 whom Larsen looks down on, not human beings with full human rights? As for the Shebaa Farms, he does not even recognize that they are Lebanese.

Fifth, when the issue concerns the Lebanese, Palestinians, and Syrians, Larsen says things as they are; but when it concerns Israel, Larsen omits to mention the perpetrator; this is the international report’s sense of justice. He says that the heavy exchange of fire between Hezbollah and Israel on June 29 resulted in the death of a UNIFIL soldier and the wounding of four others, in reference to the French officer.11 Because it was Israel who had killed the French officer and wounded the four other UNIFIL soldiers, because Israel was the perpetrator, Larsen does not mention the killer’s identity; he just says that they were killed or wounded in a clash between Hezbollah and Israel.

Sixth, Larsen says that, to begin with, the resistance has no rights to Shebaa Farms. He never recognized the legitimacy of the resistance, anyway. I declare from this platform that I never said that the Shebaa Farms were Lebanese; Hezbollah did not say that they were Lebanese either. It was the government of the late martyr Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and those that preceded it and followed it, the current government, and the National Assembly, who said so. On the eve of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, we in the resistance announced that we are committed to the liberation of any territory that the Lebanese state considers Lebanese, with our blood, our guns, and our lives. We never waited for Mr. Larsen, or any other, to bestow legitimacy on us.

Seventh, brothers and sisters—this is my last comment regarding Larsen before we move to another important and serious issue—the most ominous part of Larsen’s report is that which incites and sows the poisonous seeds of sedition between the Lebanese people and the Palestinians, the Lebanese people and the Syrians, among the Lebanese themselves, and between the resistance and the government. Why do I say this? I say it based on his claim that the Lebanese prime minister, or government, had given him certain assurances.

When Mr. Larsen speaks about this and puts it in his report, he places us in a face-to-face confrontation. He wants us to doubt one another as Lebanese, and seeks to foment sedition among us, because what Mr. Larsen says in his report is different from what we say to each other in our private meetings, and different from the ministerial statements issued by the governments of Prime Ministers Mikati and [Fouad] Siniora.12

For example—and so that you can be sure that the international community is not only unjust, but an intriguer as well—in Article 49 Larsen says: “The government of Lebanon has assured me that it remains committed to the implementation of all provisions of Resolution 1559, but that it requires time.” It means that the Lebanese government has assured him of the fact, but that it simply needs more time. I would like here to ask Mr. Larsen, which Lebanese government gave him this assurance—Prime Minister Mikati’s or Siniora’s? There was nothing of the sort in the two ministerial statements, so which government gave this assurance and made this undertaking?13

With these words, Mr. Larsen wants to tell us in Hezbollah, and tell the Palestinians, that we have been made fun of and that our time has been wasted—we who agreed to hold an internal Lebanese dialogue, agreed to protect Lebanon and the weapons of the resistance, and to hold a Lebanese–Palestinian dialogue regarding Palestinian weapons outside the camps and, the control of those weapons inside the camps. He incites us against the government, incites the Palestinians against the government, and betrays government officials by claiming that they told him one thing and told us another. The position adopted by the Council of Ministers yesterday, or what was reported concerning positions taken at the Council of Ministers, to a large extent stops such incitement and fomentation dead in their tracks.

When Mr. Larsen says that he was promised that an internal dialogue would be held regarding the final outcome of Resolution 1559, what good will participating in such a dialogue do for us in the resistance? Why should we hold a dialogue at all? And why should the Palestinians hold a dialogue if it will only lead to one conclusion—that of disarming them? Some may say to us, Why hold a dialogue at all if the result is to maintain the weapons of the resistance? We never put forward such a proposition; we simply say, let us hold a dialogue on how to protect Lebanon. Does the resistance have a specific role to play and a task to perform, or not? We will decide what to do with the weapons on this basis.

Mr. Larsen, however, says that he was assured about the full implementation of all provisions of Resolution 1559, but that the matter would be settled through internal dialogue. Mr. Larsen also says, “The Prime Minister has informed me that he will also, as a first step, seek to establish order and control over such armed Palestinian groups inside the camps,” meaning the control of weapons inside the camps. If this is the first step, what will be the second? Larsen also raises the issue of the demarcation of the Lebanese–Syrian borders; this is what he wants, and he insists on this demand in spite of the current tension between Lebanon and Syria. Why does he do that?14

What does it mean when Larsen praises the deployment of Lebanese troops along the borders with Syria? What does it means when he praises the besieging of Palestinian positions outside the camps? Larsen and his masters’ ultimate aim is the disarming of the resistance and the Palestinians in Lebanon—the camps’ modest weapons that help protect the Palestinians in their camps and protect their honor after [their] having gone through so much pain and suffering. Even if we disregard the issue of the Shebaa Farms, the weapons of the resistance will still be justified by the ongoing Israeli threat to Lebanon. This is unacceptable to the United Nations.

Brothers and sisters, look at the yardstick that the international community uses. Hezbollah, Lebanon, and the Palestinians in Palestine are forbidden to have modest weapons to defend themselves, their country, and their homeland. This is deemed a violation of laws and sovereignty, and should therefore be eliminated, in spite of their having said that our land, country, security, and sovereignty are threatened. At the same time, they are tight-lipped about Israel’s 200 nuclear warheads, under the pretext that it is under threat. If Israel is threatened, it is alright for it to have nuclear weapons in violation of all international laws and conventions; it is alright for it to join the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it is alright if does not sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty regarding weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because Israel is threatened. But the Palestinians, who are being slaughtered in Palestine every day, are not threatened; the Lebanese, whose land Israel has invaded and might invade again one of these days, are not threatened, and have no right to own weapons.

He who does not respect the will of the Lebanese people when they say that Hezbollah is a resistance movement and not a militia; he who deals with them arrogantly, and objects to their point of view regarding the Lebanese identity of Shebaa Farms and the legitimacy of the resistance; and he who considers the presence of Hezbollah’s resistance a violation of international resolutions, is on Mr. Larsen’s side and in favor of the international tutelage which is as clear as the sun, and cannot be denied. It imposes its will, classifies people, passes judgment, differentiates, decides on the details, and follows up on the smallest Lebanese issues. Is this what sovereignty means? Is this real independence? Is this freedom? Is this what the Lebanese seek and aspire to?

Let us now turn to another important, ominous, and sensitive issue—that of the assassination of the martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the Mehlis report, and positions for or against Syria. When I addressed you during the March 8 demonstration—which the Mehlis report said was attended by 1 million people, and therefore was not a demonstration by one party, one faction or one sect—I was speaking on behalf of all the forces that participated in that demonstration.

We said at the time that we all condemn this assassination, and call for a serious and genuine judicial investigation. We all want the truth to be revealed and the culprits to be punished, regardless of who they are; the Lebanese were unanimous behind these demands, and there was no disagreement among them there. I also said, out of respect for the truth, for the blood of the martyred prime minister, and for Lebanon, that we must not allow the crime or the investigation to be exploited for political purposes. Some misunderstood what I said, and thought that we wanted to protect or defend someone; all we wanted was the truth, because politicization would squander the truth, while a serious technical investigation would lead us to it.

To avoid politicizing the issue, we called for the formation of a Lebanese–Saudi joint investigation committee and, after that, for an Arab investigation committee within the framework of the Arab League. Instead, an international investigation committee was proposed. We expressed reservations, and said candidly that we feared politicization, squandering of the truth, and opening of the door for the United States and others to conclude deals or impose conditions that serve their own purpose, at the expense of martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s blood. The committee was formed and started its work; we kept silent out of respect for the will of some Lebanese—not a small number of them—and the feelings and wishes of martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s family. We all waited for Judge Mehlis’s report on October 21.

Something akin to a state of emergency was declared in Lebanon, as if another earthquake was expected. We were told that the October 21 report would reveal the whole truth to the world, supported by concrete, irrefutable, and tangible evidence. In Lebanon, Syria, and the entire Arab and Islamic world, the people waited with bated breath. We were, however, surprised when the Israeli media started talking about the contents of Mr. Mehlis’s report even before it reached Mr. Kofi Annan, the Lebanese government, or members of Security Council. Unfortunately, all the information disclosed by the Israeli media regarding the contents of the Mehlis report turned out to be correct. The big question, however, is: How is it possible that information about such a sensitive, important, and serious report and its contents reaches the Israelis before it does the United Nations and the Lebanese government?

We were then surprised to find out that there were two different versions of the report: one was leaked by the British mission, and contained names, and the other was officially announced by UN secretary-general Kofi Annan.15 This caused some embarrassment for Mehlis the next day, when he fumbled his answers in front of the press, making him appear confused, imprecise, and lacking in credibility. Anyway, the report was published in the media; we all read it, scrutinized it, and bided our time.

The next day, October 22, our brother Sheikh Saad Hariri gave a televised address in which he said, “The results which the international investigation commission has arrived at will not be the object of internal or external bargaining, because the blood of the Lebanese and of Rafik Hariri and his colleagues, as of today, is not subject to bargaining, nor will it become the object of political bartering.” He added, “We will not allow this blood to become the tool of political or non-political revenge in other arenas.”

Brothers and sisters, I am not simply being courteous when I say that these are responsible, rational, and carefully chosen words. However, regardless of our evaluation of the report, let us look at what has taken place since October 21. How did the American administration and others, including Israel, deal with it, and how did they use the outcome of this still unfinished investigation for their own political purposes? Gentlemen, has the American, Israeli, and international political punishment not already started, in more than one arena, specifically on Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians? The American administration—from Bush to Rice, and others—raised hell, and said that the report proved that Syria was involved in the assassination, and that the Security Council must immediately hold Syria to account and impose sanctions on it.

Brothers and sisters, for the Americans the investigation has reached its conclusion; there is therefore neither need to wait until December 15, nor for the Lebanese government to reopen the investigation after December 15.16 The Americans consider the investigation over and done with, and have already apportioned blame; they acted as both prosecutors and judges. They have already convicted Syria, those detained in Lebanon, and all the other suspects,17 and all that the UN Security Council needs to do now is to pass sentences on them. Had it not been for a number of rational international and Arab positions—and I believe that the family of the martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and many among the March 14 forces reject this interpretation and this political punishment—had it not been for all these positions, the United States would have gone to the Security Council to declare war on Syria and its friends and allies, because, according to it, there was irrefutable and iron-clad evidence that [Syria] had committed this heinous crime.

The Americans did all that although the Mehlis report concludes with the following three lines: “The Commission is of course of the view that all people, including those charged with serious crimes, should be considered innocent until proven guilty following a fair trial.”

As far as America is concerned, they have already been convicted, and must be punished without argument, despite the fact that the report says that the investigation is not yet over and requires months, maybe even years, to be completed. The report also uses words like “supposedly,” “assumes” or “does not assume,” “it may be” and “probably,” and avoids the use of final, decisive, and definitive language; it also does not offer tangible, clear or direct evidence to support some of its conclusions. In fact, all that the report was able to put forward were suspicions that could be used as a starting point in the investigation. Though these suspicions might stand or fall in a serious and genuine investigation, the US administration behaves as though the truth has already been revealed, the issue clarified, [as though] it is time to specify the punishment that should be meted out to Syria, and [as though] it should be implemented forthwith.

Brothers and sisters, today is Jerusalem Day, the day of the truth; in this month and on this day no free person, rational believer, or fasting and praying Muslim could ask for justice to be delivered through unfair and erroneous means. A report that seeks justice is the result of a serious and professional investigation that avoids politicization and seeks the truth; an investigation that rejects bargaining, deal-making, and exploitation for political ends. Indeed, this is the road to justice. We all support the martyred prime minister’s family in its search for the truth, and stand with it in its search for justice. However, we must all reject the drive that the United States and Israel are leading to punish politically the Syrian leadership, people, state, and nation. This is what both justice and the truth require us to do.

We are seeing today the Mehlis report being used as a pretext to chastise Syria for a crime in which it has not so far been implicated, and as a means of punishing it for the political and strategic choices it has made. We in Lebanon reject this international, mainly American, incitement of the Lebanese people against Syria; we reject the slogans that replace “Israel, the enemy of God” with “Syria, the enemy of God,” regardless of any emotional considerations. We also reject Lebanon’s enmity towards Syria, and reject turning the latter into an enemy of Lebanon, while the Zionists count the blessings that have descended upon them from heaven these days, and hold celebrations with the expectation of major changes in Lebanon. They hope that Lebanon will enter into an era of Israeli domination, and replace its existing land borders with Syria, its gateway to the Arab world, with its borders with Palestine, as major Israeli analysts and officials have said. We reject, in principle, passing judgments on anyone in Lebanon or Syria, or on the Palestinians, without evidence and without a fair trial.

Brothers and sisters, dear Lebanese people, on this Jerusalem Day we voice our very grave concern that this sensitive and serious issue might slip out of the hands of those who seek justice for the spilled blood of their loved ones. We fear that it may be used as a lethal weapon in the big powers’ game to promote their own ends and interests at the expense of Lebanon and Syria, or to impose suspect deals at the expense of Lebanon, Syria, and the blood of the martyred prime minister.

We sense here—from more than one international stance and from more than one international report—a flagrant drive towards incitement that aims at spoiling inter-Lebanese relations, Lebanese–Palestinian relations, and Lebanese–Syrian relations. For instance, why should the Mehlis report mention certain political leaders and figures by name, and present partial accounts of their testimonies, while the names of other figures and witnesses are kept secret? Why? Was it their intention to corner some of the political figures who testified ostensibly in an investigation that pretends to be professional, secret, and serious, and then present their incomplete testimonies to the world and to the Lebanese people to foment trouble, hatred, and conflict? What was the reason for that? Why were the names of political figures and parties included without any logic in the report, even though they are not directly involved in the investigation?

The report says that it found recordings of telephone conversations, and that they reveal the extent of the Syrian Intelligence services’ involvement in the affairs of Lebanon. But the question is: Why choose from all these tapes only one tape or conversation with “Mr. X,” whom some media later volunteered to identify as a well-known and central Shiite figure within Lebanon’s political circles?18 Do we need new groups to foment trouble between the Sunni and the Shia in Lebanon? And when something related to Mr. X is mentioned in the text, and it is then finalized and distributed, the Sunnis will be told, “Look what the Shia Mr. X has said”? Haven’t they found anything besides this one conversation, regardless of whether it is true or not, and regardless of whether Mr. X is who they said he is or not? Why this intentional move? Is it a coincidence? Is it an attempt to foment trouble between Shia and Sunni in Lebanon, or to add names to the list of targets?

Frankly speaking, and in the name of those I represent, I consider what was mentioned in the Mehlis report about Mr. X to be a great national insult, and an attempt at sectarian incitement par excellence.

Then, in a paragraph introduced into it separately, the Mehlis report moves on to the Palestinians, and speaks about the involvement of a certain Palestinian party in the assassination, and says that it lent the effort logistical support. A day or two later—perhaps hours later—Mr. Mehlis himself said in New York that this Palestinian party was not a suspect.

Yes, dear brothers and sisters, we support the continuation of the investigation, we support the demand for evidence [rather than] suppositions, hypotheses, and possibilities. But it is necessary to question and criticize this report, or any other investigation, in order first to arrive at the truth, and second to see justice done. It is unacceptable that any Lebanese who criticizes the Mehlis report becomes the target of intellectual, media, and political terrorism, as though Mehlis were a prophet and his report a sacred book. It is in the interest of revealing the truth about Prime Minister Hariri’s assassination that we refute and criticize the report; we need to refute and criticize in order to arrive at the truth, so that no innocent person, regardless of who he is, is charged with crimes he has not committed. We neither accuse nor defend anyone; all we want is for this serious issue to take its natural legal course, without being exploited by the major players.

Brothers and sisters, Lebanon and Syria are facing a great and serious crisis, and an existential challenge, as a result of recent ominous developments; there are those who want to push matters towards the worst possible outcome. It is in the interest of us all in Lebanon and Syria to think, consult, and take initiatives together to prevent the United States and Israel from using the situation to their advantage—and at the same time, provide the right climate for a serious investigation that will reveal the entire truth. This will serve two purposes: to prevent the exploitation of this issue, and to allow us to cooperate in finding a suitable and genuine opportunity for a serious investigation that will lead us to the truth.

We call upon the Arab League to intervene forthwith, before it is too late—as [was the case] in Iraq—and launch a serious Arab initiative to address all pending issues in relation to the investigation, and [in relation] to bilateral ties between Syria and Lebanon. Major Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, should shoulder big responsibilities in this domain; they cannot stand idly by and abandon Lebanon and the region into the hands of the American masters. What would be the result of an eventual hegemony by the American overlord in our region? It would be anarchy, infighting, destruction, ruin, disputes, sedition, division, and the realization of Israel’s interests. Lebanon cannot be left to the whim of the international community, which will exploit its troubles and tragedies to achieve aims that that have nothing to do with the country’s interests.

Brothers and sisters, in conclusion, in all sincerity and courage, and with a sense of responsibility, we wish to stress the following. We reject any attempt at pitting the Lebanese people against each other; we are committed to national unity, cooperation, brotherhood, and the extended hand. We reject any attempt to incite the Lebanese against the Palestinians, and vice versa; we insist on dialogue, and denounce any measures that could cause them harm. We reject any attempt at inciting the Lebanese against the Syrians, and vice versa, because, whether we like it or not, we share a common fate in this region, and because the ultimate aim is to foment internal strife to benefit Israeli interests.

We call for the solution of our problems—as Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, and Arabs—through dialogue, cooperation, and constructive initiatives, and by avoiding the use of force or the undertaking of negative actions. We emphasize our demand for, and desire to see, the truth revealed. We also emphasize our demand for justice, and our unanimous resolve to see it done.

We stress, with utmost clarity, our solidarity with Syria’s leadership and people against American–Zionist intentions, and their attempts to punish it politically. Syria is being punished because it stands by Lebanon and its resistance, because it refuses to conclude a separate peace agreement, and because it stood with the Palestinians. Our loyalty to it demands that we stand by its side and not leave it a prey to American and Zionist ill will.

We stress our commitment at all levels to our Palestinian brethren in Lebanon—be it security, humanitarian or political—and reiterate our resolve to help them return to their homeland. We stress our determination to free every inch of our occupied land and, on this Jerusalem Day, reiterate our determination to liberate every prisoner in Israeli jails. We renew our pledge to Samir Qintar, Yahya Skaf, Nasim Niser, and all the martyrs, the missing, the prisoners, and the detainees in the jails of the occupation; God willing, we shall honor our pledge to them.

We confirm our stand with the state, the army, and all honorable Lebanese forces in the defense and protection of our country against any aggression or threat. Finally, we underline our belief that Jerusalem will return, free, proud, chaste, and purged from Zionist impurities. Our nation has offered hundreds of thousands of martyrs for Jerusalem, and great men have died on the road leading to it: Izz-al-Din al-Qassam, Fathi al-Shiqaqi, [Sheikh] Ahmad Yassin, Abd-al-Aziz al-Rantisi, Abu-Ali Mustafa, Abu Jihad al-Wazir, Abbas al-Mussawi, and Ragheb Harb.19 Brothers, Jerusalem will not be lost as long as our nation boasts leaders such as these martyrs, and as long as the nation has men, women, children, and generations like those who have resisted and are still resisting in Lebanon, Palestine, and all over our Arab world.

On Jerusalem Day, we renew our pledge to Jerusalem, to its people, and to the cause and Imam of Jerusalem; their city will forever remain in our souls, and will continue to be our cause, our battle, and our ultimate objective.

May the peace and blessings of God be upon you.