## 24

## PRISONER EXCHANGE

January 29, 2004

> In what was widely described in the regional and international media as a public relations coup (and mostly derided within Israel as a massive capitulation), Hezbollah and the Israeli cabinet announced on January 24, 2004, via a German mediator, that a deal had been reached regarding a mutual prisoner exchange. In the first phase of the exchange, Israel released 400 Palestinians in exchange for retired Israeli Colonel Elhanan Tannenbaum1 and the bodies of the three IDF captured in Hezbollah’s October 2000 operation. Thirty-five Lebanese and other Arabs (but notably only 11 Hezbollah partisans) were then flown to Germany and on to Beirut, along with the bodies of 59 Hezbollah fighters and information concerning the fate of 24 others. They were met at the airport by a full state delegation, an honor guard, hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, and Nasrallah himself.

> The dramatic spectacle featured the return of Sheikh Abdelkarem Obeid, a Hezbollah member, and ex-head of Amal security Mustafa al-Dirani, captured by Israel in 1989 and 1994 respectively. Noticeably absent, as Nasrallah emphasizes in this speech in the Beirut suburb of Hay al-Abyad, were three remaining (and much disputed) Lebanese detainees in Israeli jails, including Samir Qintar, who headed a Palestinian unit that infiltrated the town of Nahariya in 1979, and who was allegedly responsible for the deaths of Israeli Danny Hanan, his two daughters, Einat, four, and Yael, two, as well as policeman Eliahu Shahar.

> According to subsequent published reports, it may well have been that Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, at the last minute, held back the remaining three prisoners openly demanded by Hezbollah (not to mention the maps of Israeli-planted landmines in Lebanon, which were reportedly a part of the deal) in order to maintain future negotiating cards. Indeed, Sharon had allegedly undertaken precisely the same maneuver in 2003, when a similar deal had almost been sealed. Accordingly, Nasrallah points to the “bleeding wounds” that Israel, he says, insisted on keeping open: “These fools do not learn from their past mistakes; when they withdrew from Lebanon, they stayed in the Shebaa Farms and kept our brothers in custody. Had they let them go when they left Lebanon, there would not be a ‘prisoner issue’ now between Lebanon and the enemy. They opened the door for us and were fools enough to keep Samir Qintar.”

> Despite Nasrallah’s proclamation that Hezbollah remains “Israel’s worst enemy”, he nevertheless asserts that “regardless of the reasons why the Zionists care about their prisoners, their dead, and the bodies of their dead, this is a matter worthy of our respect … I stand here today in respect of this enemy because of the way he cares about his prisoners and the bodies of his dead soldiers, and because he works for them day and night and declares, unabashed, his readiness to pay what is sometimes exorbitant price to recover them.”

> For some Israelis, the total price paid—which included the 400 Palestinian prisoners, five Syrians, three Moroccans, three Sudanese, one Libyan, and one German—was indeed exorbitant; a dangerous lesson, it was argued, that would only embolden Hezbollah to pursue additional capturing operations in the future.

In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate,

May prayer and peace be upon the most honorable of creatures, the dearest of messengers, our Master and Prophet Mohammad, and on His good and pure family and companions, and on all God’s prophets and messengers since Adam until the day of judgment.

May God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you all.

At moments like these our feelings are confused: we feel happiness and joy, sadness and yearning. Today, we are not the only people celebrating the return of our loved ones, for in the other world the holders of the trust, the prophets, and those who have passed on are also celebrating their loved ones’ return. We remember them here, and send our congratulations to the spirit of the great Imam Ruhollah al-Mussawi al-Khomeini (may God sanctify his soul); we congratulate the spirits of all the martyrs of this conflict and this resistance, especially those of our brothers in the Islamic Resistance. I wish to congratulate the spirit of the chief of all our martyrs, our leader the beloved Sayyed Abbas Mussawi, and the spirit of the sheikh of all our martyrs, our scholar and beloved friend His Eminence Sheikh Ragheb Harb.2 I address myself to all our dear ones who have departed this world, for be sure that they share with us tonight our great joy.

Yet there is indeed also pain and sadness, for our joy will not be complete as long as some of our dear ones are still in jail. From the very beginning until now, and through the long hours of negotiations, they were with us; and now, though we are happy, there is still sadness in our heart. We have all become used to these mixed emotions on many occasions in this nation—joy and sadness, joy and pain—and are now at a point where we can transcend these tearing emotions to be able to make the right decisions, pursue the right path, and continue our work. We are a nation that will not be torn down by sadness, and our sadness does not lead to desperation and defeat. We are also a nation that could not be torn down, will not be torn apart, by joy and victory, for our joy does not come from pride, arrogance, and selfishness. We are a nation of faith—one that has intellect, culture, and equilibrium, and is therefore capable of facing up to these emotions and challenges.

On the night of the Prince of the Faithful’s [Hussein’s] martyrdom in Ramadan, at the breakfast hosted by the Council for the Support of the Islamic Resistance, we said that, just as our land had been returned to us with honor and dignity, and without owing anyone a favor, our prisoners will return to us with honor and dignity, and without owing favors to anyone. Here they are back among us, having returned with honor and dignity, and without anyone doing us any favors. Tonight, however, there are certain relevant issues that ought to be addressed.

First, this achievement and [this] victory, of which we are all proud, are due to our nation, culture, civilization, religion, and our faith-based and human values. We are a nation that believes in the dignity and status of the human being, and that God has created heaven and earth, and life and death, for the sake of this human being. God has also sent him 124 of his best prophets, and made his holy books available to him. As far as we are concerned, therefore, this human being has integrity while he is alive, and has integrity after death. Our Quran says, “He who gives life to someone, is like giving life to all.”3

We have not forgotten or ignored our brethren still in jail; nor shall we do so in the future. Human beings are our responsibility; so how is it, then, when this human being is the best, noblest, and most honest, self-giving and genuine that ever was? Our responsibilities towards him become double. This is why, when people ask about Hezbollah’s reasons for focusing on the prisoner issue to such an extent, I tell them: “This is what our culture and religion, our Prophet and his family, noble ancestors among his companions, and those who came after Him, tell us to do. If we do not shoulder this responsibility, then we do not belong to this nation but to another, and would be strangers to it.” We are not a foreign movement, and therefore this exchange of prisoners falls within this very context. Let me to tell you something about the enemy we face: there is a vicious war between him and us, and we speak openly about his savagery and barbarism; but even Islam requires us to acknowledge an enemy’s positive traits when he has them. Therefore, regardless of the reasons why the Zionists care about their prisoners, their dead, and the bodies of their dead, this is a matter worthy of our respect. We are Israel’s worst enemy, but I stand here today in respect of this enemy because of the way he cares about his prisoners and the bodies of his dead soldiers, and because he works for them day and night and declares, unabashed, his readiness to pay what is sometimes an exorbitant price to recover them.

Such are our values—though it is regrettable that, when prisoner exchanges do take place, we have only one, two or three prisoners to exchange from our side, while the Israelis have large numbers. This is due to a weakness not in our value system, but in the existing balance of power on the ground. Israel is a strong and mighty state that enjoys the support of the biggest hegemons in the world, and can arrest thousands of Lebanese and incarcerate thousands of Palestinians in prisons whenever it chooses. We, on the other hand, cannot do this on a regular basis and in such large numbers; but the reason [for this] has to do with an imbalance of power, rather than a lack of respect for our values.

Secondly, we have to correct a mistake, which we have all committed, including the media. When we speak about a prisoner exchange, the right wording for what has taken place is an exchange of prisoners in return for hostages. It is an exchange of [Israeli] prisoners kidnapped from occupied Lebanese territory in return for hostages taken from their homes. This is the right equation. While it is true that in some cases we did effect exchanges involving prisoners, in general we have exchanged prisoners for hostages. It is therefore the right of these hostages to demand anything they see fit from the international community, and if this entails any responsibility, the state, our brethren, and our dear people should shoulder it.

Thirdly, it goes without saying that all this would not have been possible had it not been for the resistance and for the mujahidin’s success in taking prisoner Israeli soldiers—both alive and dead—and using them in subsequent negotiations. These days, there are people who say that such exchanges are proof that peaceful methods can succeed and be productive. I say to these people, however, that the method that brought in three soldiers (an armed operation) and a reserve officer (a security operation) is the one successful and productive option. Peaceful methods that rely on weakness, submission, and kissing the threshold of the American embassy at Awkar,4 will not bring results.

They talk in the Arab world about options and choices. Let us be objective: there is no argument about the fact that resistance certainly and undoubtedly brings results, and helps us achieve our objectives. On the other hand, the validity of other options remains debatable. We are pursuing a sure path because we are people who like certainty; as such, we choose the guaranteed path of resistance, and reject the way of possibilities, doubts, and probabilities, lest we sow confusion in our people, our nation, and what we hold most sacred. The feat that the Islamic Resistance has accomplished today, through the hard work of its mujahidin, is not a victory for a single group, faction, party, or state; we want it to be a victory for an entire culture and an entire path. This choice, this culture, and this path are those of the resistance on a field in which the occupiers oppose an honorable people that rejects, fights, and resists this occupation. This victory is the triumph of this notion and this culture.

Fourthly, the international community has to inquire into who really started the cycle of kidnappings in Lebanon: Was it the Lebanese or the Israelis? Were we the ones who first kidnapped Israelis, or was it they who occupied our land, destroyed our homes, killed our women, men, and children, and built prisons in Ansar Camps 1 and 2, and in Khiam and Atlit?5 They should also look into who among our loved ones still languishes in these prisons. Our response was simply a reaction to all this. When Kofi Annan paid us a visit after the south was liberated,6 I told him that we could wait a few weeks or months, but that he had to secure the release of our remaining brethren in order that liberation could in certain respects be complete. If he did not, the international community would have to bear the responsibility. But since he did nothing, our response was simply a legitimate reaction, and we shall continue to act in this way as long as the enemy continues to commits acts of aggression and kidnap our people.

Fifthly, to put political analysts at ease, let me say that this exchange was a purely humanitarian operation as far as we were concerned. We recovered our dear brethren and the bodies of our martyrs, and we gave the enemy, through the mediator, what we had in our hands. At no point during the negotiations did we speak about political issues with the German intermediary—an intermediary whose honesty I attest to and wish to acknowledge once again here, and thank him and the German government that stands behind him—nor did he speak to us about politics.7 We did not place any political conditions on the exchange; neither would we have accepted our enemy doing so. This exchange had nothing to do with politics or field-related issues, and the proof is the targeting of the tractor.8 The Israelis said that they were negotiating, and that they would let the incident pass. On the ground, we will confront whoever attacks our country, and he will pay the price; but this is another matter.

Briefly, I would like to address those who wonder about Hezbollah, with all my respect for internal issues regardless of their importance, and those who speculate as to whether Hezbollah’s mission is now over, and whether the party will transform itself into a political party. In a word, let me say that the Hezbollah that is gathered in large numbers here and in the streets, and the Hezbollah that is in people’s hearts and homes, is exactly the same after the prisoner exchange as before it. If anything, it is even more determined, and its faith, awareness, and determination to pursue the path of resistance are stronger. The achievement we are celebrating only confirms the correctness of our path. Our land is still under occupation; there are still Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails; the enemy continues to attack us by land, sea, and air; and Lebanon is still under threat, with or without reason. We feel sad for those who still talk about removing the enemy’s reasons for its aggression—as if this enemy ever needed an excuse when it saw its interest [in attacking] Lebanon, Syria, or any other country. I say, therefore, that the resistance and Hezbollah will continue being a jihadi resistance movement, committed to the defense of its homeland and the nation, the holy sites, and people’s rights; it has not changed, and will not do so.

Sixth, I would like to emphasize, within the Lebanese context, three issues with regard to the Israeli enemy. The first is Samir Qintar; the second is Yahya Skaf—the Lebanese detainee whose presence in the occupying entity the enemy denies; and the third is our brother Nassim Niser.9 Nassim is a Lebanese citizen whose father is Lebanese, and whose Jewish mother converted to Islam after she got married. Nassim had obtained Israeli citizenship due to extraordinary circumstances—this issue should be pursued. The release of Samir and Niser should become a national issue, just like the release of our other brethren; the resistance and the state should work together in this direction. But some people take away the credit due to the state, for it has helped, protected, supported, and coordinated with us, and you have been given the relevant details as they occurred and in a timely fashion. Today, in the same way that the state, the resistance, most of the Lebanese people, and the political parties and forces have worked together during the negotiations to liberate the prisoners, so they should in the battle ahead, regardless of whether it will be political, military or jihadist in nature—something that should become clear in the next few weeks and months. If the enemy is denying the existence of Yahya Skaf, and Nassim has Israeli nationality, then Samir is Lebanese and does not hold Israeli nationality. Let me tell you, the Israelis were stupid and wrong, so much so that one of their analysts said that they were donkeys, and that Hezbollah was riding roughshod on their backs. I tell them that this is in fact true, and the proof is that they chose to keep Samir Qintar in custody. These fools do not learn from their past mistakes: when they withdrew from Lebanon, they continued to occupy the Shebaa Farms and kept our brothers in custody. Had they released them when they left Lebanon, there would not now be a “prisoner issue” between Lebanon and the enemy. They opened the door for us, but were fools enough to keep Samir Qintar; they should have released him, and he should now be sitting here with us, but their political analyst spoke the truth. Now they are making the same mistake again: they should have let Samir Qintar go, [but they] failed to, and they shall reap the consequences.

Allow me to talk further about Samir and other brethren in Israeli jails, and about our dear and honorable brothers, the prisoners of the Golan Heights, whom the enemy has treated unjustly in this exchange and whose Arab identity and commitment to their motherland, Syria, and to their Arab nation, is beyond doubt. Allow me to go back to the prisoners of 1948 Palestine, to all our Palestinian brothers sentenced to long prison terms, to those with difficult and intractable cases, to all the Arabs, and to our Jordanian brothers. We will wait with the latter to see what will happen between now and Eid al-Adha,10 and hope that their government will seriously pursue their case and not let this opportunity pass. Let me also go back to the families of the four missing diplomats in Lebanon—which, by the way, should be an issue of national responsibility, since they were guests in Lebanon. The group that kidnapped them has handed them over to Israel, and the latter should bear the responsibility for preserving their lives and uncovering their fate. To all of the above, to Samir who is now Hezbollah’s main concern, and to all our brothers who are in the same boat as Samir, I say that we will not abandon or forget any of them.

Some wonder about our available options; in fact, there are several. There is Ron Arad: we are determined to exert every effort to uncover, and as soon as possible, what happened to this Israeli pilot.11 We have completed our discussions on the issue, and will work on it for as long as it takes; but I do not want to link the prisoners’ fate to that of Arad. The second option is finding an original solution, and by that I mean both sides, but in particular the German intermediary. The third is the resistance option. I promise you, in the name of the mujahidin of the Islamic Resistance, that next time [the mujahidin] will give back [to the leadership] living soldiers—not dead ones, as in the past.

According to what we believe in, to our culture and our faith, Samir and our brothers in prison deserve our sacrifice, which we are ready for (…) After liberation, I said in Jibi Sheet,12 when it became clear that Annan would not be able to further the situation, that there were options available to us, and that we would act. And act we did: for here, thank God, are our dear ones sitting among us today. I also said that such action was a national responsibility; Lebanon, its state and people, should all bear this responsibility. It is not possible for me to enjoy freedom and spend the feast with my family when my brothers are still in jail; this notion is still valid, and I am reconfirming it again today.

Seventh, in the presence of these good people, the smiles of the prisoners’ families, and the tears of those whose sons are still in prison, at this celebration in honor of the mujahidin and resistance fighters, we should remember the imam of all the mujahidin and resistance fighters, and the founder of this movement, His Eminence the absentee Imam Sayyed Musa al-Sadr, and his two companions, Sheikh Mohammad Yaacoub and master Abbas Badreddin.13 This occasion has deep bonds with this leader and imam, and with those brethren; this occasion is all about resistance, prisoners, detainees, and hostages; it is an occasion of freedom. I would like to seize this opportunity to address myself, calmly and courteously, to Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, and tell him the following: you are today dealing with several pending issues. I do not want to evaluate your actions, but you have to accept responsibility for the disappearance in Libya of Imam Musa al-Sadr and his two companions. You should take the initiative to uncover their fate, and return them to their families, their nation, and their resistance. I would like to tell Colonel Gaddafi with the utmost calm: you should have courage and reveal the whole truth about the al-Sadr issue, which you know in detail, and put an end, once and for all, to this painful and sad episode, no matter what the consequences. I would also like to tell the Arab world, its people, and governments, that we shall not abandon or forget the issue of Arab, Lebanese, Palestinian, or any other prisoners in Israeli jails; we have not forgotten them in the past, we do not forget them now, and will not do so in the future.

We do not ask for a reward from the Arab world, and our resistance has never asked anyone for such a reward; we are performing our duty, and no one owes us anything. All we want is to be able to stand before God on judgment day and answer his questions about our actions. We do, however, ask for their support, their compassion towards the resistance, and their cooperation in returning the imam of that resistance, Musa al-Sadr, back to Lebanon. We are not making this request because he is a Shiite imam, but because he is the imam of the resistance, the imam who focused his efforts on how best to serve the Palestinian cause. When some misguided Palestinians fired on his car, he announced from his platform: I will protect the Palestinian resistance with my turban and from this platform. We, who stand in front of you, are his sons and his students, and have been schooled right here, and have followed in his footsteps and his path. And for those who thank us, I say, we do not seek gratitude or praise from the Arab world; all we want is your help on this one issue.

Eighth, if May 25 is the day and feast of liberation, we should declare [today] January 29 the day and feast of freedom. This is a feast for all of us, the feast of all the heroes of the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and throughout the Arab world. It is the feast of our brothers, members of Lebanese and Islamic national parties, who offered up many martyrs and took grave risks in the confrontation with the occupation before and after 1982. This is everyone’s big feast.

I wish to congratulate His Eminence the Supreme Leader, Imam Ayatollah Sayyed Ali al-Khameini; His Excellency the steadfast leader in this unfortunate Arab day and age, Doctor Bashar al-Assad; the leadership, army, and people of Assad’s Syria; Lebanon and His Excellency the President, General Emile Lahoud; and all state personalities who supported, helped, and stood by us. I also wish to congratulate our brethren in the Palestinian movements and factions, and the people of our dear and honorable Arab nation. I wish to tell them all that this is not our first victory, and will not be our last.

Tomorrow we have an appointment with the martyrs who embody national unity for the mere fact of belonging to several parties and movements. They are also the embodiment of the common struggle, because they are both Lebanese and Palestinian. Tomorrow, we have an appointment with the cortège of martyrs from Naqoura to Beirut; on Saturday we will lay the martyrs to rest; on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday we will celebrate the feast; and after that, we shall meet to honor the prisoners and the martyrs, and to clarify the path and the responsibilities ahead of us. We hope to have cause to celebrate again—this time with Samir Qintar, Nassim Niser and Yahya Skaf, here in Lebanon and in similar weddings throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds. May you celebrate many such occasions in good health. Happy anniversary, and may God’s peace and blessings be upon you.