## 29

## “WE WILL CONSIDER ANY HAND
THAT TRIES TO SEIZE OUR WEAPONS
AS AN ISRAELI HAND”

May 25, 2005

> Only days before the first post-Syrian Lebanese parliamentary elections were set to begin, Nasrallah spoke to a rally in the same southern town of Bint Jbeil where he had previously delivered his first Liberation Day speech five years earlier. The setting provided a dramatic backdrop for two claims which would grab international headlines: that Hezbollah’s arsenal contained “more than 12,000 rockets,” and that the party would “consider any hand that tries to seize our weapons as an Israeli hand and [we] will cut it off.”

> The second assertion was perhaps the most significant domestically, since it was widely assumed that the “Rafik Hariri Martyr List,” led by Rafik Hariri’s son Saad Hariri, would gain the premiership and control a governing majority coalition. Although Saad Hariri had rejected Resolution 1559’s disarmament clause and, in a few key districts, had even aligned his list with that of Hezbollah’s and Amal’s Resistance and Development List, Nasrallah clearly viewed the upcoming anti-Syrian, pro-Western government with great suspicion, especially when it came to the party’s primary concern: maintaining its arms and its ability to conduct operations against Israel.

> Immediately after the elections, however, that suspicion was largely sublimated, as Hezbollah chose to further protect its domestic embeddedness by joining the cabinet for the first time in its history. When the new premier, Fouad Siniora,1 took office in July, Hezbollah thus counted a total of 14 MPs (it held a total of 35 seats through its joint list), one minister—Mohammed Fniesh, minister of electricity and water—and two other cabinet members considered close to the party. All in all, it was an impressive showing for a movement that had originally rejected the terms of the Taif Accord, and whose core rationale had been so strongly challenged by events since the Israeli withdrawal of 2000.

Here we are again on the anniversary of our victory in the city of Bint Jbeil, the city of jurists, scholars, good people, authors, and poets, and the city of martyrs—the very same place we met five years ago to declare liberation and victory. We are here to celebrate, once again, one of God Almighty’s days on which he generously granted the mujahidin, the patient and steadfast people of this country, the victory and dignity they deserve. He gave victory to his servant, defeated the enemy, kept his promise, and cherished this country, its people, resistance, martyrs, and jihadists.

We meet to celebrate the anniversary of this historic victory, a victory fraught with dangerous repercussions and great omens for the region, the motherland, and the nation. We insist on celebrating this anniversary and on exerting every effort to reaffirm our joy in recalling the meaning of resistance and victory; we do this not to sing the praises of the past, patriotic songs or recite poetry, but to learn from the recent past all that might help us face the future with confidence, awareness, determination, and hope. Our enemies want us to erase from our memory all the glorious days of our lives and be left only with memories of catastrophes, setbacks, and the pain of defeat; they want us to forget the days of glory, dignity, joy, and victory. What we wish for ourselves, however, is to relive every year that same anniversary, and with it the spirit, culture, and deeds of the resistance, and its awareness and faith in its God, its people, its mujahidin, its weapons, and the families of its martyrs.

In this celebration, in the span of only one hour and in your blessed company, we will recall together a host of values, morals, and visions, and remember a host of martyrs, those who were wounded; the prisoners, and those who have been liberated; the resistance, and those who stand steadfast on the frontlines. We should make our enemy, and the world, understand that we in Lebanon are a strong, proud, and able people, and that what we have achieved on May 25, 2000, is something we can achieve again every day, God willing.

Neither in our lexicon nor among our options is there for us, people of this resistance, dignity and victory, a place for retreat, weakness, and shame. Are we not, after all, the followers of that same imam who was martyred with his sons and companions under the banner of “We know not what shame means?”2

It is normal for people to have different expectations and feelings regarding this anniversary and the memories it conjures up, depending on their connection to the event, to the incident itself, and to what led to it. For example, Eid al-Fitr is a feast for all the world’s Muslims, but those who enjoy it most are those who are fasting. Eid al-Adha is a feast for all the Muslims in the world, yet those who enjoy it most are the pilgrims in Mecca [who have just completed the Hajj].3 Those who commit more and suffer more enjoy the feast all the more; for them it holds a different meaning. The anniversary of the resistance and liberation is an official holiday, and a feast to be celebrated by all the Arabs, Muslims, and honorable people of this world. Yet it is only natural that those who enjoy it most are those who sacrificed, and the families of the martyrs. On May 25, the mothers, wives, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters of martyrs remember their relatives, and feel the pain of separation deep in their hearts; yet their faces are flushed with joy and pride for what their loved ones have accomplished.

The people in areas under enemy fire, and those who withstood the pressure and pain and made the necessary sacrifices to safeguard the resistance, are those who are now most joyful. Outside Lebanon, the happiest are naturally those who supported and stood by the resistance and were, as a result, the focus of international pressures and American and Israeli threats. We should mention in particular here Assad’s Syria, its people, army, and armed forces. Some people in Lebanon might take issue with Syria’s deeds and methods, but we would be ingrates if we ignored the fact that Syria has stood by the resistance, whose victory we are celebrating today. With respect to all the Arab countries, Syria has withstood more than any of them. Undoubtedly, therefore, the leadership, army, and people of Syria share our joy today, because they are our partners in victory.

By the same token, the leadership and people of the Islamic Republic of Iran have also stood by the resistance, and endured a great deal of pressure as a result. Today, as I remember the honorable stand made by these two countries, I would like to ask all the doubters in Lebanon: Was the resistance not truly a national Lebanese movement that benefited from Syria’s and Iran’s support for Lebanon’s struggle to regain its freedom, dignity, self-esteem, and strength? Those who point an accusing finger at the resistance still say it is a Syrian or Iranian tool. Five years ago, I stood right here and told you that we have to be humble in victory; today, however, I wish to say that if anyone has the right to issue patriotic certificates, it is the resistance. Those who, throughout our Arab and Islamic worlds, took part in our resistance are now our partners in victory, and I look forward to the day when May 25, the anniversary of resistance and liberation, becomes a real national occasion and a celebration for the whole nation.

Brothers and sisters, let us move on to today’s concerns and the challenges of the current phase, even though there is not enough time to review the entire history and accomplishments of the resistance. To sum up, the resistance has managed to regain the large majority of Lebanon’s occupied territories, release the greatest number of prisoners from Israeli jails, and establish a balance of deterrence that ensures the security of Lebanon, its people, and infrastructure. It has done this by confronting aggression politically—in other words, by enabling Lebanon to withstand new Israeli and American pressure aiming at subjugating Lebanon and submitting it to their dictates. It is the resistance as a factor of power for Lebanon that will be targeted in the phase that will immediately follow the upcoming elections—whether by America, by the West as a whole, or by Israel—and we should be ready to face the onslaught.

Some speak about the resistance’s weapons as being separate from the resistance itself; [but] weapons without the resistance have no value. The real value of the resistance and its religious and national duty is its humanity, the human being, and above all you, the people; the weapons come after all this. It is the right of Sharon, Shalom, and Israel to be proud of their success in placing the international community in a confrontation with those who have defeated it in Lebanon. Israel has been able to place the international community face to face with the resistance through Resolution 1559.4 Look at this paradox, brothers and sisters: in 1978 the Israeli army invaded parts of south Lebanon, and the Security Council of the United Nations issued Resolution 425.5 Yet the international community did nothing to implement this resolution. It did not threaten Israel with placing the resolutions under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which allows the Security Council to launch military action against a given country, and it took no measures whatsoever against it. It adopted Resolution 425, then put it in the drawer; 22 years have since passed, and this resolution has yet to be implemented. Nothing whatsoever was done to implement it. Neither the international community, international willpower, nor Israel’s moral principles and remorse finally forced Israel to leave Lebanon. It was you, the resistance, and the people’s blood and sacrifice, that removed Israel from Lebanon. Then the international community attempts to convince us that Israel has implemented Resolution 425, and that the issue is now closed.6

On the other hand, six or seven months ago, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1559, and international pressure immediately began to mount against Syria and Lebanon to force them to implement its provisions in less than seven months. They pressured and threatened Syria under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, threatened it with war and, with all my respect to domestic factors, placed it in front of a difficult choice, in the face of which it opted to withdraw.7

The most important provision of Resolution 1559 was implemented in less than seven months, but nothing has been done for 22 years to implement Resolution 425. Why is this? Because Resolution 425 targets Israel, and Resolution 1559 is to its advantage and serves its interests.

Now Lebanon has entered into the vicious circle of foreign interference in general, and American interference in particular, and I do not believe that anyone in Lebanon needs further proof as to the level, depth, and detailed nature of this interference by foreign embassies in our country. Whether they are loyalists or from the opposition, this is what most political leaders in Lebanon are currently talking about: they talk about interference in elections, fixing electoral lists, and imposing timeframes and priorities. We have entered into a cycle of foreign control and interference.

What are today the priorities and objectives of these foreigners—particularly the Americans—who seek to interfere in our country? This is what we need to know in order to be able to confront them. Today, the Americans want to speed up the elections, regardless of the election law’s nature, and want to establish a new state authority in Lebanon. Why is that? Because once this authority is in place, they will make demands on it that serve the interests of Israel.

Yesterday, a senior official from the US State Department said [that] after the elections, Hezbollah must disarm. If it does not, it should be aware that once the elections are over, internal pressure against it will mount. This US official is threatening us with mounting domestic pressure; this means that the US wants to pit the Lebanese people against one another for the sake of Israel. But in what climate would we be facing this challenge to the resistance and its arms? Why this American insistence? And how should we confront it? The current climate does not allow for a settlement in Palestine or the region, regardless of our principled position on such a settlement.

Yesterday in Washington, Sharon restated his “No’s” and said: Jerusalem will remain the eternal, eternal, eternal capital of Israel. What kind of settlement is this? He said that there will be no return to the 1967 borders, and no return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and country. In what kind of climate do the Americans ask Lebanon to hand over the weapons of the resistance? In what climate do the Americans want Hezbollah’s resistance to lay down its arms? In a climate that allows Sharon to stand before the entire world—and I hope the political and religious leadership in Lebanon will carefully peruse his words—and say: all the treaties and agreements we have signed with the Arab states are not worth the paper they are written on.

What Sharon really wants to say is that military power, nuclear weapons, and supremacy over all people and states in the region are what really protects Israel, not treaties and agreements. While Sharon is saying this, the US comes to us in Lebanon and says, you must disarm the resistance (…). We tell them in return: all your guarantees and pledges are not worth the paper they are written on. Sharon possesses 200 nuclear warheads and the largest air force in the Middle East, and Israel is one of the strongest military powers in the world; and yet it is not reassured by the treaties and agreements it signed, because it has not given up yet its ambitions in the region.

But the UN Security Council, the whole world, and the international community want us, who own a modest arsenal of defensive yet effective weapons, to disarm the resistance in Lebanon, and [they] threaten Syria, Iran, and Lebanon for that same purpose. This is the sort of climate they want.

Under such circumstances, our region is doomed to weakness and disintegration; but then, who will protect whom? Who cares about whom? And who will seek help from whom? The Arab peoples and states will end up in a situation where each is preoccupied, tending to his own situation, his own problems and his own war, created by the Americans under the banner of democracy and so on. This is the climate under which the Americans will proceed, immediately after the elections, to disarm the resistance.

The question that once again poses itself here is: Why this American insistence? Is it for the sake of Lebanon’s Christians, Lebanon’s Muslims, or Lebanon’s stability and security? No—it is all for Israel’s sake. Sharon goes [to Washington] and says that the Palestinian refugees will not return home; and Bush tells Lebanon: you must either settle the Palestinians in your country or deport them to a distant place other than occupied Palestine.

The Israelis admit—although some Lebanese do not—that the resistance has imposed a balance of fear and deterrence; this is a fact, and this balance protects Lebanon and protects all of us here. Some were uneasy about my coming to this place today, but I told them, you should really be concerned about a booby-trapped vehicle placed on the road leading to this place, and about the fact that my killer would be unknown. On the other hand, when I stand here in Bint Jbeil among our own people, our own men, women, and resistance fighters, I challenge Israel to dare commit such a folly. There is a resistance in Lebanon that pledged itself to its God and its people not to remain silent in the face of this enemy’s crimes. At a time when the resistance is imposing this balance of deterrence, Bush puts pressure on Lebanon, on the National Assembly, and on the new government, to disarm the resistance; all this is for the benefit of Israel, not Lebanon.

Forgive me if I am taking too much of your time—but how do we confront this? First of all, as Lebanese, we do so by being fully aware of the situation. The most dangerous thing we face today, as Lebanese, is this foreign interference in all our political and domestic affairs. We should be aware of the existence of such interference—that it serves the interests of the foreigner himself, not the Lebanese people; and that the first stage of this unfortunate situation is the issue of the elections.

I would like to address those leaders who objected to holding the upcoming elections according to the law of 2000, some of whom—namely the so-called Quadripartite Alliance—placed the responsibility for adopting this law on the speaker of parliament,8 and accused him of impeding the enactment of a new elections law. I want to tell them the truth, which they perhaps already know. If they want to cause an uproar, they should do so elsewhere. I am not ashamed to say that we in Hezbollah have asked, with insight and pride, that the elections be postponed for three months. Does anyone really think that we asked this because we were afraid of the results? No, not at all. Does anyone really think that an electoral law could harm us? I have said on previous occasions that, if we want to think along party lines, then my reaction would be: do whatever you want. You want the district to become an electoral constituency? We have no problem. You want five governorates to become constituencies? No problem. You want nine governorates, ten governorates to become constituencies, or the central regions? No problem. You want a majority or a proportional system, or Lebanon as a single constituency? We have no problem with that, either. We will have no problem with any election law that you enact for Lebanon; Hezbollah will always land on its feet.

We did not ask for a three-month postponement of the elections because we are afraid of losing our popularity, or because we want to amend an election law to fit our needs. Our logic is as follows: we cannot enact an entire, new, and detailed law in a matter of hours or in a day, and also vote on it; this is an important law of existential proportions. The second reason why we asked for a postponement has to do with the atmosphere prevailing in the country in the aftermath of two major events—namely the martyrdom of Rafik Hariri and his companions, and the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon. Because these two incidents occurred in the span of just a few months, no one has had enough time to prepare for the elections. However, we discussed the issue with other major political forces in the country, and found that the elections could not be postponed because Lebanon is under threat from the United States, France, Kofi Annan, Terje Roed-Larsen,9 and others who tell us: if you do not hold elections on May 29, you should bear the consequences. This is the truth of the matter. Therefore, because Lebanon is under threat, some of us thought we should proceed with the 2000 law, since it is ready and waiting. This is the whole story.

Therefore, I say in all frankness to those who criticize the 2000 law—and we also believe that it is a bad law—Hezbollah as a party prefers that the law be based on districts as the [electoral] constituency, but we know that such a law is not the right one for the nation as a whole. We wanted a law based on the district system, but we are all under the umbrella of the Taif Agreement, which proposed a governorate-based system.10

In any case, the fact is that we are witnessing the beginning of an interference cycle, in spite of all the song and dance, anger and frustration, protests and objections. There is no conspiracy by the so-called Quadripartite Alliance, but there is at this stage foreign interference, imposing its will on the Lebanese people; and this is only the start of it. What I want to emphasize is that we must first be aware that this foreign interference actually exists, and that—regardless of where it occurs in the region—it will not foster genuine democracy, state institutions, reforms, or development. Wherever this interference happens, it only fosters chaos and dictatorship, albeit in a new guise and under new banners.

I wish to tell those Lebanese who today gamble on American support: do not tire yourselves out; those among us in Lebanon who wagered on Israel’s support were abandoned in the middle of the road. America uses its agents and friends, and then throws them to the dogs or into the garbage cans of history. Israel and America are made of the same stuff, and are linked by their mutual interests, which they place before our own. We do not need any more wrong experiments; our collective interests, as Lebanese, are stronger and more genuine than any interests an individual Lebanese community may have with Israel or with the United States. We must bank on our unity, our internal harmony, and our mutual support to be able to confront this challenge.

Second, as Lebanese, we must work on achieving our priorities, and preventing the Americans from imposing their agenda and priorities on us. Those who gathered in Riad al-Solh and Martyrs’ Square11 were unanimous that our priorities for the next phase are the serious implementation of the Taif Agreement; political, financial, and administrative reforms; combating corruption; tackling the mounting debt problem caused by exorbitant interest rates; and dealing with the stifling economic and living conditions the Lebanese people are experiencing. Most important of all, the responsibilities of the new government should include, among others, the re-establishment of unity among the Lebanese people, the healing of their wounds, a genuine reconciliation among various groups. Also high on the new government’s agenda should be ordering, rectifying, and restoring equilibrium in Lebanon’s relations with Syria. I would like to point out that forging a special relationship with Syria would be in Lebanon’s national, security, economic, social, and political interests.

We should not allow certain extremists to transform Lebanon into a country hostile towards its only Arab neighbor, Syria. We Lebanese should quickly start implementing these priorities; for once the new government is formed, the Americans will undoubtedly try to push Lebanon towards meeting Israel’s demands. They will ask, Where are the Palestinians’ weapons? What did you do with the refugee camps? What did you do with the resistance and with Resolution 1559? At this point, awareness and consensus will not be enough. Allow me to say that it is also not enough for us to have unanimity. For instance, concerning the resolution of the refugee issue, we are all unanimous in rejecting the settlement of the Palestinians in Lebanon; the Palestinians themselves even reject this notion. We do have awareness and consensus, but if we lose our willpower we might have to meet tomorrow and say: the international community is pressuring and forcing us to settle the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon; we have no choice but to accept; what else can we do? If we start down this road, the Americans will lead this country into ruin, as they have done in Iraq. We must be wary and alert, and have the presence of mind, knowledge, necessary plans, and willpower—namely, the willpower to confront. What we want to accomplish at this stage is to garner as much political protection and assurances as possible for the resistance’s weapons and role. The government has issued a clear, though nominal, declaration about the resistance and its weapons.12

I would now like to talk about the elections. The electoral alliances we forge are primarily political alliances that are then transformed into electoral ones. In the south, for example, the alliance between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement is primarily a political alliance that aims at protecting the resistance, to which both parties belong, and which has a single imam—namely, Sayyed Musa al-Sadr;13 and at protecting its weapons, role, and duties. However, although this political alliance includes other politically friendly groups in the south, whenever people discuss or criticize it, they refer to it simply as the alliance between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. Yes, we can differ at the level of municipal elections over purely developmental issues; yet the Lebanese people will portray these as political issues, when they are not. Municipal elections revolve around developmental issues, while parliamentary elections are above all political, as is this alliance.14

When we go to Beirut, Hezbollah’s candidate will be on the martyr Rafik Hariri’s electoral list, because we have forged a political alliance with Hariri’s Future Movement; this fits in the same pattern and follows the same idea.

Today, on this Resistance Day and in view of the impending threat to the resistance, I would like to tell you something I’ve never before told you. I have said in recent weeks that I used to meet on a weekly basis with the martyred prime minister to discuss various issues. What I will tell you today, Sheikh Saad al-Hariri, the martyr’s family, and witnesses who are still alive already know very well. One week before his martyrdom, we were discussing the upcoming phase, its challenges, and Resolution 1559, when Rafik Hariri said to me, “After all the experiences I went through, I want to forge an alliance with you, because you are an essential political force in Lebanon, and I want [the alliance] to be based on clear political principles.” So we went ahead and delineated these principles: the Taif Agreement, relations with Syria, the [Palestinian] resettlement issue, and a number of other topics. When we reached the issue of the resistance, I said to the martyr, “I want a clear statement from you regarding your position on the resistance, and the disarmament of the resistance, mentioned in Resolution 1559.” He told me the following: “If you want, we can bring pen and paper and I will write it down for you and sign it.” I told him, “Forgive me, please; I do not want you to do that; I will accept your word. Just say it and it will be enough.”

He then said to me, word-for-word, “After a careful examination of the resistance’s experience, performance, wisdom, equilibrium, and efficiency, I came to believe in it. I can also tell you that if I become prime minister again, I will not implement that paragraph in Resolution 1559.15 I agree with you that the resistance and its weapons must stay until a comprehensive settlement is reached in the region.” What he actually said meant that the resistance must continue, not only until the Shebaa Farms are liberated or the prisoners released, but until there is a comprehensive settlement in the region.

The late Hariri then said, “The day that there is a settlement, I will sit down with you and tell you that the resistance and its weapons are no longer needed. If we agree, all will be fine; if we do not, I swear to God and by my son, Husam,16 that I will not fight the resistance or allow Lebanon to become another Algeria. I will simply resign and leave the country.”

Today, I tell all those who loved the martyr Rafik Hariri and are loyal to him that this was his position, his testament, and his pledge to us; and this pledge was reconfirmed in principle by Sheikh Saadeddin [Saad Hariri] when he told CNN that Hezbollah was not an armed militia but an armed resistance movement for Lebanon. This is the kind of beginning we seek.

Other alliances will be forged in other areas of Lebanon, including constituencies in Mount Lebanon and some other places. What concerns us most regarding these alliances is not our winning or losing a seat here or there, but rather the position of the political force with which we are allied. Regarding the resistance and its weapons, because this is the most serious challenge that it will be facing in the next phase: We should accept, brothers and sisters, that we must settle all domestic issues through mutual understanding, dialogue, and agreement. There is nothing shameful in talking about an internal settlement, or in the Lebanese sitting together to seek solutions and make compromises with one another.

There will be no fear for the future of Lebanon from domestic issues if we are all ready and willing to make concessions and settle our internal disagreements; the real danger lies in targeting the resistance. And what would that mean? It would mean that Lebanon will become fair game for Sharon, for if the resistance is disarmed, the country will become the target of aggression. We will not be able then to drink the waters of the al-Wazzani River, or make decisions regarding our own affairs. The Israelis would soon start interfering in our election laws and electoral lists, vetoing the appointment of the army’s commander-in-chief and the head of this or that service. We do not want to arrive at, or return to, the day when Lebanon becomes an easy target for the Zionists. We should therefore fortify ourselves through electoral alliances, which are in effect political alliances.

I want to be very clear and decisive, on this Resistance and Liberation Day, so that no one is deceived: I want to share with you what I have said in the closed sessions of the past few months. With regard to the resistance, we are ready for an internal dialogue among Lebanese over issues of concern to some people, such as the weapons of the resistance. What we want is to preserve the effectiveness of the resistance; the way we do this, however, is as open to debate as any other topic. You want to expand the scope of the resistance? We are ready to do that; but let no one put forward silly proposals that would thwart its effectiveness, such as mothballing its weapons and only dusting them off if there is an attack. This would be taking the people for a ride. The importance of the resistance does not come from the fact that it owns weapons stashed away in storerooms, but from its being right there now, where the artillery, rockets, and weapons are. The weapons we shall stack in storerooms, under international supervision, will be there so that Israel will come and bomb them a few days later.

Another proposal suggests that we keep individual light and medium weapons, like Kalashnikovs, M-16s, rocket-propelled grenades, but not long-range artillery and rockets, such as the Katyushas. The proposal says, surrender the heavy weapons and there will be no problem with your keeping light and medium ones. A foreign ambassador made this proposal, and it is scandalous, because it shows that their aim is not to dissolve the militias per se, but to maintain Israel’s security, since heavy weapons terrorize Israel.

I would like—not in a boastful manner, but in the hope that some of them will actually believe in our abilities—to tell those who qualitatively and quantitatively underestimate our rockets that at least all of northern Palestine, including its settlements, fields, ports, factories, and farms, is within reach of, and under the feet of, your sons in the Islamic Resistance. They want to take this force away from Lebanon, but the power of Lebanon’s rockets is not in their numbers. They say the real number of our rockets is 12,000; but I say, with the commanders’ permission, that we have more than 12,000 rockets. The real value and power of these rockets comes from the fact that they are in our hands, and that the Zionists know neither their number nor where they are deployed. They are fighting a hidden and an unseen enemy that could surprise them on any given day with this large number of rockets. These missiles are hidden for defensive reasons.

We have said on more than one occasion that we do not want to drag the region into a war, and that it is not our policy to provoke a regional confrontation. We want to protect our country, not destroy it; and we want to keep our weapons specifically for that reason. I have said in this context that we are ready for any internal discussion, and for any guarantees and solutions that would safeguard the effectiveness and ability of the resistance to deter and protect, and that the relevant details are open for discussion. We want to respond to this positive, clear, rational, and calm attitude with a clear, decisive, and transparent position, so that people will know where they stand. There is talk of the need to open up this issue for discussion, and we accept this—but there is also talk of withdrawing the weapons of the resistance; any serious thought about disarming the resistance would be pure madness.

We are the most eager to have peace, stability, and national unity in Lebanon; we do not wish to attack anyone, and never have, and will also not allow anyone else to attack Lebanon. But if anyone—listen to me—if anyone tries to disarm the resistance, we will fight him the way the martyrs fought in Karbala,17 because we know that any action of this kind would be an Israeli action, an Israeli decision, and a move to further Israel’s interests. We will consider any hand that tries to seize our weapons as an Israeli hand, and will cut it off. Apart from that, we are open to suggestions, because this is a Lebanese issue: it has to do with Lebanon’s fate, and therefore concerns us all. Let us therefore sit together and discuss things; we are as open as can be in this regard, because we care about what is best for Lebanon.

As to what concerns Israel’s interests, the world knows us well; we people do not speak to, or want to have a dialogue with, Israel. Israel is the one that started the cycle of killings, massacres, and destruction, and the dispossessed and oppressed people on the receiving end think the following: “Those against whom war is made, they have been wronged, and verily, Allah is most powerful and will grant them victory.”18 This issue has been decisively settled.

Brothers and sisters, the current phase requires us to take an active part in the upcoming parliamentary elections in all constituencies. There are some respectable friends and personalities who decided not to run in the elections because of their personal circumstances, and we respect and understand that. There are also certain parties who, for political and electoral reasons, called for a boycott of the elections, and we also understand and respect their reasons. However, when elections are held and there is no reason why we should not take part, then we must be present, and we must vote; because, as I said a short while ago, it is one of the ways we can strengthen our political situation. We must take into consideration, however, the fact that there are friends and supporters of the resistance whose names appear on other candidate’s lists, or are running as independent candidates, because, for one reason or another, they could not be included on lists we support. It is important for us to preserve these people’s friendship and affection, and to endure their criticism.

Brothers and sisters, I call upon you to vote for the entire lists on which our candidates are running, and for the lists that have our support, because we have committed ourselves to this electoral political alliance based on accurately diagnosed and well defined major interests. One of our brothers or sisters here or there might have a remark to make about the details, but because this is above all a political battle, I urge you again, based on these major political interests, to adhere to our lists as a whole. We must continually follow the situation as it unfolds in the country over the next few months, because this is a critical and sensitive phase.

Today our al-Aqsa Mosque is threatened with destruction, and our Holy Quran is being desecrated by the Americans in Guantánamo Bay.19 America is intent on attacking the region in order to dismember it, and trigger civil and sectarian wars. America is determined to confront the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, and we should be ready for that. Within this context, we might soon ask certain things of you that might, of course, involve your presence in town squares and on the street—though I do not know, as yet, how far things will go. I have known you now for 22 years as a hardworking, patient, believing, and truthful people; I also know you as a people armed with faith and blood, a people who will never abandon those town squares. Let the world hear us, and in particular the Israelis, in whose proximity we stand: al-Aqsa Mosque is under threat, and when the need to confront this threat arises, it will call upon every Muslim, Christian, patriot, and honorable Arab in this world to come to its rescue.

We must be ready to respond to al-Aqsa’s call at any level, and by any means at our disposal; we should be able to raise our voices and say, “Here we are at your service, O al-Aqsa.” Our Holy Quran has been desecrated, and on Friday there will be public sit-ins in various areas. All our brothers and sisters are invited to participate and raise their voices in the face of this American who is desecrating our Quran, and say, “We are at your service, O Holy Quran.” The confrontation with which the Americans are threatening us—oh, how I wish that they will be the ones to come and take our weapons away from us, rather than inciting some of our own people in Lebanon to do their and Israel’s bidding. Let the whole world hear you: “We are at your service, O resistance.”