## 18

## “HOW CAN YOU AFFORD THAT?”

February 16, 2002

> In this speech, delivered on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Abbas Mussawi in the former secretary-general’s birthplace of Nabi Sheet in the Bekaa,1 Nasrallah focuses not so much on the aims and activities of the resistance, but rather on local concerns over economic well-being. His remarks, excerpted in the Lebanese daily An-Nahar, thus focus squarely on the populist theme of corruption as a primary agent for the inequality and underdevelopment afflicting many parts of Lebanon.

> Nasrallah’s emphasis on this theme in the relatively impoverished Bekaa region was not just an expression of long-standing Hezbollah policy and rhetoric; one could argue that it also signified the party’s growing recognition that it needed to renew efforts to emphasize and address socioeconomic concerns following the Israeli withdrawal—especially in an area where, several years before, the former secretary-general of Hezbollah, Sheikh Subhi Tufeili, had led an intra-Shia protest against Hezbollah and the Lebanese government’s alleged lack of concern for the Bekaa, known as the “Revolution of the Famished.”2 According to one International Crisis Group report in late 2002, despite Hezbollah’s growing network of social services and organizations, Tufeili’s actions had served as a “wake-up call to the Party leadership, which has since devoted greater attention to social demands.”3

(…) The problem with those waiting in the political wings is that they only think about themselves, and about securing their needs, thrones, and interests; they belittle and debase themselves, plead their own cause, and do not hesitate to abandon the nation to its fate. Sayyed al-Mussawi, for his part, was a real example and a real inspiration.

(…) People are feeling the weight of economic hardship, especially in the underprivileged areas like Baalbek-al-Hermel. God knows that the country’s debt exceeds $30 to $35 billion, and the problem is growing and accumulating at a frightful pace. Successive governments have tried to deal with the issue by imposing new taxes, limiting expenses, securing loans, and seeking financial assistance. The only way to solve this essential and intractable economic problem is by tackling the issue of administrative and financial corruption in a genuine and fundamental manner.

Do not focus only on the newly rich who took advantage of the war, but also on those who took advantage of the peace to line their pockets. Your money, my dear Lebanese people, is in banks and company shares abroad, and should be brought back home. I would like to ask, however, how do we do that? In the past they used to ask the newly rich, “How can you afford that?” You should now ask those who are no longer in the state administration “How can you afford that?”, “How much money do you have?”, and “Did you open special files for those who came after you?” I do not want to point the finger of blame at anyone, but there are poor people who secretly became rich as the result of corruption. How did they position themselves in a way that would enable them to steal money from various projects?

The state should confront this problem, and if it fails to deal with state corruption fairly and squarely, there will be no gains to reap. Although a number of prominent middlemen and thieves could potentially benefit from that, the main winners would be the Lebanese people and their future. If this does not happen, additional economic and social collapse will inevitably ensue, and, in the worst-case scenario, crime will spread to every household in the country. How long can we afford to keep this problem without a solution?

If the government tackles the issue of corruption, people will be willing to pay taxes; the government, however, should recover all stolen funds, as President Emile Lahoud has said in his inaugural speech.4 If it is not up to the task, it should at least stop the theft.

(…) When Sharon came to power a year ago,5 we told those who feared the consequences that, in spite of his belligerent stance, he would not be able to stop the intifada. Sure enough, he has been trying to do just that for 100 days now, but has failed to grow larger than the size of a toad. Here we are, one year later, and Israel is in the grips of an unprecedented level of anxiety, while the largest number of Israelis was killed under the watch of Ariel Sharon, who possesses warplanes and tanks, and can bomb and destroy at will. Neither Sharon nor anyone else can do anything whatsoever as long as the Palestinian people, who live under occupation, have the will to resist, confront, challenge, and embrace the culture of martyrdom.

Lebanon is being replayed all over again in Palestine, complete with similar horizons and a similar impasse. The only thing that can change this equation is the will of the resistance and the people of Palestine, in spite of the difficult local, regional, and international situation. The intifada is closer to victory today than ever before, because the Israelis have exhausted all their options; neither securing the protection of Zionism, declaring self-martyrdom a sin, assassinating leaders and children, or targeting the [Palestinian] infrastructure have done any good. The snowball will continue to grow bigger and bigger as long as someone is rolling it down the hill—and both the intifada and the Lebanese resistance are well able to do that.

The Israeli army is confronting a resistance force, not a regular army, tanks or military formations: we are waging guerrilla warfare because a typical army with its weapons is not able to pursue individuals and kill them. What we are saying here is that those who want to protect Lebanon should endorse the resistance’s presence in the south, and those who want to sacrifice the army should send it to the south.

(…) Today, the resistance is in good shape, and doing better than ever before. When George Bush speaks about an “Eastern alliance,” and the important countries that are part of it, then moves on to [speak about] our region, and brackets Hezbollah and Hamas together, it is actually a testament to the ability of these two groups to influence the situation in the region. The fact that America wants to engage in an open confrontation with the resistance is proof that this resistance is able to confront and confound the situation, and impose its own conditions. All its threats, accusations, and scaremongering do not scare us—and should not scare you, either, for we have gone through all sorts of situations in our lives. We should put our trust in God, prove our presence on the battlefield, never retreat, and be able to defeat any enemy who invades and occupies our land, no matter who he is.