## 27

## “YOU WILL TODAY DECIDE THE FATE OF
YOUR NATION AND COUNTRY”

March 8, 2005

> In the months leading up to the February 14, 2005 assassination of Lebanon’s ex-Premier Rafik Hariri, Hezbollah and its ally in Lebanon and the region, Syria, had found themselves under mounting political pressure—externally from the Americans and the French, and internally as a result of a growing (though still tentative) pre-parliamentary election alliance between Hariri’s mostly Sunni bloc and various Christian and Druze opposition groups. UN Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted on September 2, 2004, was a key instrument of this pressure, expressing the Council’s displeasure over Lebanese cabinet approval the day before of a three-year mandate extension for pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, and calling for a full withdrawal of all foreign (read Syrian) forces from Lebanon. In what became known as the US portion of the resolution, 1559 also called for the disarming of Hezbollah and other Palestinian groups in Lebanon—a stipulation that made the overall package politically untenable within the country, even for those in the opposition who, like Hariri, viewed Lahoud’s obstructionism and excessive Syrian control as having reached intolerable levels.

> When Hariri, a close confidant of French President Jacques Chirac and Saudi Crown Prince (soon to be King) Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, and a symbol of Lebanon’s apparent rebirth, was killed by a car bomb in downtown Beirut on Valentine’s Day, the full weight of 1559 seemed to bear down on Lebanon, and especially Syria and Hezbollah. Although the locally coined “Independence Intifada” took several weeks to gather steam, when Nasrallah spoke to some 800,000 demonstrators in Beirut adjacent to Hariri’s downtown gravesite at Martyrs’ Square on March 8, the pro-Syrian government of Omar Karami1 had already essentially fallen with his resignation, while the state’s security services had made it clear they would not crack down on the growing anti-government protests then sweeping parts of the country.

> Still, it was entirely unclear at this point whether Syria would be compelled to quit Lebanon anytime soon. Also unclear was whether the parliamentary polls would go forward in May, and whether there could be any kind of agreement on an interim government. Nasrallah’s speech accordingly attempts to strike precisely the kind of rhetorical balance that Hezbollah had long successfully managed amid political calamity and sustained uncertainty. Ever mindful of domestic considerations, Nasrallah avoids drawing a red line over Syria’s withdrawal, despite the obvious and immediate ramifications that such a withdrawal would have on the party’s strategic position, saying instead that “if the opposition agrees that the Syrian presence in or withdrawal from Lebanon should solely be based on the Taif Accords,2 then we have no problem agreeing with them.” To this he adds what had already become Hezbollah’s primary stipulation: if a Syrian withdrawal means implementing 1559, and thus disarming the resistance, then Hezbollah will reject such an effort wholeheartedly.

> On March 14, 2005, shortly after Nasrallah’s impassioned address, more than 1 million demonstrators converged on Beirut around Hariri’s gravesite to demand Syria’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Lebanon, it now seemed clear after a particularly tumultuous week, was neither in the midst of an unambiguously popular “Cedar Revolution”3 or, for that matter, a short-lived outpouring of anger following the death of one beloved leader.

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

(…) You, who have come here from all regions, sects, and groups in Lebanon, and have answered the call to assemble in this place, will today decide the fate of your nation and country. You, the multitudes gathered here, are today above all suspicion, and there is no place for talk about gaps, here or there, among you any more. Today, you will answer the world, which is watching you, and I will always be one of you. Let me ask our partners in this nation, and those who watch us from abroad: Are all these people gathered here in their hundreds of thousands mere puppets? Are they all agents of Syrian and Lebanese intelligence? It is shameful to speak about one’s compatriots in such accusatory, divisive, and humiliating language.

I call upon you all to avoid using any language, words or terms that offend any human being in this country; we live in a free and democratic country where anybody can express his opinion, but only within the limits of good morals and manners. Obscene words have been used at various venues, and I wish to say to those around the world who heard these words on television, and to Syria’s leadership and people, that we, the Lebanese people, are known for our good manners, loyalty, and courteous behavior; we apologize for every obscene word that was said.

Brothers and sisters, we are gathered here today to endorse the goals we made public at the press conference, chief among them the need to offer our thanks to Assad’s Syria: the Syria of Hafez al-Assad, the Syria of Bashar al-Assad, and to the honorable and steadfast Syrian people. We would also like to offer our thanks to the resisting Syrian army, which stood at our side during all the years of defense and resistance.

We are gathered here today to remind the world, and our partners in this nation, that this square, in which we are gathered today, Martyrs’ Square, where you are gathered, has been destroyed by Israel and by civil war, but was unified, protected, and secured by Syria and the blood of its officers and soldiers. Sharon destroyed Beirut, and Hafez al-Assad protected it.4

We, the Lebanese people, are not ingrates; if anyone among us ever demonstrated a lack of gratitude, he has then behaved against the morality of the Lebanese people. We wish to say to Syria exactly what its own president, Bashar al-Assad, has said: your presence in Lebanon is not material or military; you are present in our hearts and souls, and in our past, present, and future. No one can expel Syria from Lebanon, or from the Lebanese people’s minds, hearts, and future.

Second, we are here to endorse all the decisions adopted by the Higher Syrian–Lebanese Council,5 which held its meeting yesterday, and want to assert that the decision as to whether Syria stays in or withdraws from Lebanon should be made solely according to the Taif Accords. We who are gathered here have come to tell the world that we reject Resolution 1559. If anyone in the opposition agrees that the Syrian presence in, or withdrawal from, Lebanon should be based solely on the Taif Accords, then we have no problem agreeing with them.6 But to those who insist on the implementation of Resolution 1559, we say that we sense in your insistence on this Resolution an intention to overturn the Taif Accords and their provisions. This is tantamount to a coup against national consensus in Lebanon, against the blood and testament of the martyred Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and a coup against the foundations on which Lebanon was rebuilt after the destructive civil war. I wish to stress, once again, that Syria’s military presence in Lebanon should be dependent only upon the Taif Accords, the decisions of the Syrian and Lebanese governments, and the interests of the two countries, and not on international pressures and dictates, or the need to reward Israel.

Third, we who are gathered here wish to reiterate our condemnation of the heinous crime that led to the martyrdom of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, his companions, and other citizens. We offer our deepest condolences to his family and relatives, and stress that we all want to know the truth, because once it is known, this truth will safeguard both Lebanon and Syria, eliminate the main factor of sedition in the country, and put everyone’s mind at ease.

Today, from this square, we call for the separation of the issue of Prime Minister al-Hariri’s martyrdom from the vicious circle of political polarization and exploitation; this incident is a national issue that concerns us all. We believe that martyr al-Hariri’s family and loved ones are no longer a separate family, group, or movement, but have with this sacrifice entered the hearts of all the Lebanese people—and we in particular know the value of blood sacrifice. Let us therefore extricate this family, this blood, and this issue from this vicious circle, because we all want to know the truth beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Fourth, I believe that the only way for us to overcome the political and internal predicaments that face us today is through the implementation of the following logical and reasoned steps: 1. As of tomorrow, we should embark with a sense of heightened responsibility on a series of parliamentary consultations, first to nominate and then to appoint one of the country’s prominent personalities at the head of a new government. We should ask this new prime minister, in the name of all Lebanese parties and forces, to form a government of national unity and accord. If the opposition refuses to accede to this, allow me then to tell you frankly that, given the circumstances, a neutral government would have no meaning whatsoever.

This country, which is passing through a very difficult period, is in crisis and needs at the helm an accountable government capable of attending to its political, security, economic, and daily requirements, as well as to supervise the next elections. We cannot afford a power vacuum; the country needs a responsible government able to follow up the issue of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s martyrdom with resolve and honesty.

If the opposition refuses to join a government of national unity, then let us change direction and go to the negotiating table. How long should we remain mired in the Bristol Hotel, Ain al-Tineh, the Third Force, and political parties?7 How long should we continue discussing this dialogue before it actually takes place? Why do we, and the representatives of all these movements in Lebanon, not sit together around a table? When will they sit down and talk?

Let me ask everyone, in the aftermath of President Assad’s speech,8 and with this massive gathering in mind, to be sensible, reconsider their tactics and strategies, and agree to sit around the negotiating table. If you join a government of national unity, then discussions can take place there; if you do not join, then let us all sit together around the table, and deal with all impending problems and issues.

One of the most important issues that we should discuss at this stage, and in light of the outcome of the Higher Syrian–Lebanese Council’s meetings, is the serious intent with which we should implement the remaining provisions of the Taif Accords.9 We should be careful not to drop or postpone any of its provisions; to this end, we have to form committees to look into each of these provisions and formulate mechanisms for their implementation.

Dear brothers and sisters, if we succeed in discussing and deliberating matters among ourselves, I assure you that Syria will endorse everything that we will agree upon, and will back our unanimous decisions. Syria has always wanted what is good for Lebanon, and still does. Dear brothers and sisters—let me say it again—we are here to reject Resolution 1559 and defend the resistance, the option of resistance, and the duty and weapons of the resistance. We are here to reject the settlement policy [of nationalizing Palestinians in Lebanon]—not for racist reasons, God forbid, for our Palestinian brothers, who are residents and refugees in Lebanon, are our kin and loved ones, and will always be in our hearts and minds. We reject the settlement policy because we favor the alternative; in other words, the return of the Palestinians to their own towns, homes, and fields. The settlement option is nothing but a service and a reward to Israel. We are all here to safeguard our state-building project, the establishment of civil calm, and to prevent chaos. I tell you, some have wagered on chaos and atypical behavior on our part, but let us appeal again for security, peace, and stability in Lebanon, which are our joint responsibility, our joint interest, and a red line that no one should cross.

Let me seize the opportunity to address a few quick words to our partners in this country: come and join us in a dialogue. To those inside and outside Lebanon, I say, Lebanon is a unique experience, it is not Somalia; and if you are thinking about intervening militarily, let me remind you that Lebanon is not the Ukraine or Georgia. Lebanon is Lebanon, a unique experience in the world. If some people imagine that they can put the state of Lebanon, its regime, security, stability, and strategic option in disarray, or thwart its relationships and positions through street demonstrations, banners, slogans, or the media, they are simply deluding themselves.

Lebanon is a country that can be built only through the cooperation of its citizens, and through their mutual agreement, dialogue, and a meeting of minds. No one in this country can impose his own preferences on the others, neither by words nor even weapons. If this country loses its ability to hold meetings, engage in dialogue, or conclude agreements, everyone in it will be lost.

Allow me to address a few words to France, and to President Jacques Chirac: you love Lebanon, and you defend it; over the past years you have paid several visits to it, and we know that you have a personal interest in the country. Therefore, Mr. President, if you really care about the freedom of the Lebanese people and about democracy in Lebanon, you should view the situation from the right perspective. Are these people assembled here not part of the Lebanese population whom you love? The Lebanese people, whom you say you love, are telling you that they want to safeguard our historic and special ties with Syria. They are also telling you that they are committed to the resistance option and to the return of the Palestinian refugees to their country, and that they reject Resolution 1559. Based on the rules of the democratic tradition, the people here urge you, through this peaceful show of force, to renounce your support for Resolution 1559, which is neither supported by the people of Lebanon nor endorsed by a majority of them. Is this not the spirit of genuine Western democracy?

If democracy is synonymous with majority opinion, then the majority here rejects Resolution 1559; in the same vein, if Lebanese democracy is synonymous with agreement among its citizens, then where is the agreement over Resolution 1559? I therefore call upon France, and upon President Jacques Chirac to reconsider [their] position out of love for Lebanon.

To the United States, to President Bush, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, and to the American field commander in Lebanon, Mr. [David] Satterfield,10 I would like to say: your plans for Lebanon are suspect; your plans for Lebanon are wrong. Lebanon is immune to partitioning, immune to sedition, and immune to defeat. Let me also tell you: this Lebanon is immune to death; it will never change its name, history, identity, or garb; it will neither change its skin nor throw its heart for your soldiers’ dogs to eat. Lebanon will always be Lebanon, a homeland for its people, for Arabism, for the resistance, and for the entire nation.

I would like to ask all of you present here—and would like your answer to reach the ears of the Commander of US forces in the region, and of the man of Lebanese origin, John Abizaid:11 Are you, Lebanese people, afraid of the United States of America’s awesome military fleet? This same navy has come here before, and was defeated; and here it comes again and shall be defeated once more. Let me tell the Americans: do not interfere in our internal affairs; let us be. Tell your ambassador to take a rest at his embassy in Awkar,12 and leave us Lebanese alone. We, the people of Lebanon, care more than anyone else about our homeland, and about protecting it, building our state, maintaining our unity, coexisting, and preserving civil calm. Keep away, and take your seditious hands off our country.

My next message is to Israel, to Sharon, Mofaz, and Shalom:13 forget whatever hopes and dreams you harbor about Lebanon; you have no place here among us in Lebanon. In 1982 you were at the peak of your power, and we were just emerging from destruction; yet we fought and resisted you; we held fast, offered up many martyrs, and defeated you. Today, we Lebanese, thanks to our unity, willpower, army, and resistance, are stronger than ever before, while you, the Israelis, are being defeated by the bare fists of our Palestinian brothers and sisters. I swear to you, Zionists of Israel, that what you failed to achieve through war, by God, you will never be able to achieve through political means.

My last words are to you people, and to all those who support you in Lebanon and throughout the world. We have come to this place from all areas, sects, ethnic groups, and parties in the country, to restate our attitude, vision, and position. I would like you to repeat after me, as we usually do at the end of every speech I deliver to such a large demonstration. We, who reject partitioning, refuse to allow Lebanon to die, and want it to remain strong, united, and cohesive, say together at the tops of our lungs: Long live the one and united Lebanon!

To Syria—to which the will of God, history, geography, kinship, and the common fate has bound us—we reiterate today our gratitude and solidarity, and wish for it a life of dignity and pride, and a head held high. We want Syria to remain the den of lions14 it always was, and want to proclaim: Long live al-Assad’s Syria! The den of lions in Damascus will always be a den for all the lions in Lebanon!

To the enemy that occupies our land and imprisons our brothers—from Samir Qintar, Yahya Skaf, and Nassim Niser,15 to the Syrian, Jordanian, and Palestinian detainees—to the enemy lurking across the border, we will say and keep on saying: you have no place among us; death to Israel!

Brothers and sisters, we now come to the end of today’s meeting. Our movement does not end here, however, but rather starts from here. We do not plan to hold fixed or semi-mobile gatherings, or bring together prearranged groups of people to preoccupy the world with our stories every single day. What we want is to hold a popular gathering, every two or three days, in one of Lebanon’s cities. I am not saying that people from the south should trek up to the north; these gatherings will take place in different areas and, in order to prevent overcrowding and avoid obstructing people’s means of livelihood, each will only cater to a particular area’s citizens. The next gathering will take place on Friday, in Tripoli,16 the city of generosity; and the one after that will take place on Sunday, in Nabatieh, the city of martyrs.17 The committee, set up for this purpose by the union of Lebanese parties and forces, will announce the dates of other upcoming gatherings.

Thank you again, dear faithful ones, you good people of sacrifice. May you live long! Long live Lebanon! Long live the resistance! Long live Syria! May God’s peace and blessings be upon you.