## 20

## “ARABS ARE NOT RED INDIANS”1

October 22, 2002

> Nasrallah’s speech to the Islamic Institution for Culture and Education in Beirut has for years provided a key piece of evidence for critics who charge that Hezbollah is anti-Jewish, rather than anti-Zionist, and that the party seeks the destruction of Jews worldwide. The particular line at issue, published by the English-language Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star, read: “If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” That particular translation, however, provided by reporter Badih Chayban, was subsequently disavowed by the Star’s managing editor; but more to the point, the line does not appear in the excerpted version actually printed in Arabic the following day by An-Nahar—whose transcription serves as the original for this translation. There is, though, a break at the point where Nasrallah could have made the remark, leaving open the possibility that he may in fact have delivered the comment subsequently translated by The Star, reported and then circulated. However, given An-Nahar’s generally critical stance towards Hezbollah over the years, sometimes even despite Lebanese government (and Syrian) efforts at media censorship, such an omission would appear unlikely.

> Apart from this, Nasrallah strikes an especially defiant and indeed triumphant tone, following the general softening of rhetoric by Israel in regard to Lebanon’s stated—and on October 16, fully realized—aim of diverting more water from the Wazzani river, a coveted source for the River Jordan, which, like the Hasbani river, also in the south, sprang from Lebanese lands. In September, Sharon had stated flatly that such a diversion would be a casus belli—a reminder of Sharon’s long list of threats made and actions taken against Lebanon.

> Nasrallah makes clear that, although Hezbollah’s forces had not carried out any operations during the crisis, “any aggression against Lebanon will not be met by weakness, retreat or submission; responsibility is responsibility and a decision is a decision.” Although a standard element in Nasrallah’s rhetoric, his assertion held added significance, since Hezbollah had significantly stepped up its operations over the previous eight months,2 including occasionally outside the disputed Shebaa Farms, and quite despite Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi’s public statement in April in Beirut that the party should act with greater restraint. Iran’s reformist-leaning government, Nasrallah had suggested at the time, could offer its insight, but ultimately it could not affect party decisions when it came to basic issues of territorial sovereignty. This particular stance, which aimed to liberate territory that Hezbollah and some other Lebanese considered as occupied, would prove ever more controversial in the coming months and years, as the specter of large-scale Israeli occupation faded, and as Lebanon’s need for international assistance grew ever greater.

We will speak today in a language of hope, open horizons, and prosperous futures, so that no one will fall victim to the psychological warfare that the American administration is waging against the world, and especially against Muslim and Islamic movements. No one should be fearful or scared, for nothing that Sharon says, or does, should ever scare anyone. Israel no doubt has a high level of experience in waging psychological warfare, but even in such wars they make deadly mistakes, and inadvertently render us a great service without our saying or doing anything to earn it.

For example, a few days ago, Sharon returned from the United States and declared, “Hezbollah has missiles that can travel 300km, and this means that not a single populated area in Israel is safe from Hezbollah’s missiles.” Sharon wanted to use this statement to his benefit, and to the detriment of Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. All he managed to do, however, was to scare his own people to death. If the resistance used only Katyusha rockets, it could cause the displacement of 2 million Jews, and these would have to look for somewhere else to live, probably in the center of Israel. How would it be, then, if Hezbollah’s missiles, as Sharon says, could reach every single populated area in Israel? If these were launched, where would all the Israelis go? Would they run to where the intifada is raging in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank?

And he continues [as published]: The United States, which is coming to impose its direct control over the region, knows very well that even if it brought all its military forces to Iraq, or elsewhere in the region, it would not be able to stay for long. The American and Israeli administrations have to understand that Arab and Muslim populations, and the people of this area as a whole, are not the Red Indians, whom they can annihilate or isolate in the desert or on mountains. The people of this area are alive, and their ancestry goes back to the first human beings that walked on this land, which they call ‘the Old World’.

The onset of widespread American–Israeli barbarism in our region also marks the end of the United States’ hegemony over the world, because it will unleash an open and unbalanced confrontation against it. The people on the other side of this confrontation are the leaders, officers, and soldiers, not a state that can be threatened, or a regime that can be dismantled and its financial resources dried up.

As we said a few days ago, what took place, and is still happening in Wazzani, was a great victory. The fact that Lebanon could do what it did, and that Israel keeps quiet about it, is in itself a great accomplishment. Israel could make a sales pitch for its silence to the Americans, the United Nations, France, and the European Union, but the fact remains that the whole world knows that its silence, and its political sales pitch, is insincere. They all know that, if Israel had been able to respond one way or another, before or after the opening of the Summit, it would have done so. Now we hear people say once again that, since the Francophone Summit is over,3 Sharon may respond by launching an operation. I believe that it is a gross oversimplification to assume that Sharon did not bomb Lebanese installations before or after the opening of the Francophone Summit because it was being held in Lebanon. What he took into account when making this decision prior to the Francophone Summit, he will take again into account after the Summit is over.

It is wrong for the Lebanese to assume that their great accomplishment was all thanks to the Francophone Summit. This accomplishment came as a result of their unity, their state, their resistance, their people, and their solidarity with Syria—in addition to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s support, which endorses all Lebanon’s endeavors to regain its usurped territorial, water, and other rights. All these things existed before the Francophone Summit, and will be there when it ends. We will reiterate everything we have said previously: any aggression against Lebanon will not be met by weakness, retreat or submission; responsibility is responsibility, and a decision is a decision. Today, any weakness or lack of resolve in our words, our logic, or our performance does not mean that the other side will respect us, appreciate our circumstances, or cooperate with us; rather, it will lead to more arrogance, more tyranny, and more aggression against Lebanon and the region.