• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Lebanese Hezbollah Leader Nasrallah Reiterates Support for "Resistance"

Posted on: Sunday, 23 October 2005, 18:00 CDT

At 1555 gmt on 20 October Al-Manar TV interrupted its programmes to carry live a speech by Hezbollah Secretary-General Al-Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah at "the annual Ramadan banquet organized by the Palestinian Resistance Support Association" at an unspecified location.

Nasrallah begins his speech by thanking those present for participating "in this celebration", considering them "a support, backing and pillar of the resistance, which is our people's natural right in defending their sovereignty and dignity and restoring their territory." He congratulates everyone on the "blessed month of Ramadan".

Nasrallah then begins to discuss current events, describing current "moments" as "sensitive and critical". He says: "I stand here and I recognize the difficult developments, ranging from the Terje Roed-Larsen report and his Paris speech to the investigator Detlev Mehlis report, which everyone is waiting to read, as well as our difficult domestic conditions."

On the Roed-Larsen report and the "efforts by the UN Security Council and the international community to implement the remaining points in Resolution 1559", Nasrallah says the claim that the Lebanese resistance is not necessary was repeated throughout the 1990s, noting that all the "decision-making capitals in the world" said that there were no justifications for the resistance, considering it "illogical, unjustified and uncalled-for" when "our land was occupied, a large number of our prisoners were in Israeli jails, and when Israel was shelling our land and villages on a daily basis". He says Hezbollah is not surprised that the same talk is being repeated today.

Nasrallah says: "We in the resistance do not want to defy the international community or enter into a struggle with it. However, this does not at all mean that we must submit to every resolution that the UN Security Council and the international community issues." He says that the UN Security Council issued many unjust resolutions, such as the "recognition of the State of Israel and the partitioning of Palestine". He says that Resolution 1559 "is not in harmony with our interests as Lebanese" and that "at the very least, its provisions, which have not been implemented so far, would serve the interest of the Israeli enemy".

Nasrallah says: "It is logical for the Lebanese government, state, and officials to avoid a clash with the international community but we do not submit to this resolution, which does not serve our national interests but those of our enemy. How can we do this? This is contingent on good management, good leadership, a good follow-up and approach, and our presenting an appropriate logic, and I believe we in Lebanon have a very strong logic to avoid this pressure." He says that Lebanon now is facing less pressure than it faced in the past and "we can present an acceptable and solid logic on which there is a consensus".

Nasrallah adds: "We continue to believe that there are reasons for the resistance. Come and deal with these reasons. If these reasons are mere pretexts for us, then come and remove these pretexts, remove these justifications and we will accept such action." He says that the reasons for the resistance are now well known; namely, "restoring the territory, liberating the prisoners in Israel, and protecting Lebanon in the face of any possible Israeli aggression or any present Israeli threat".

The issues of Shab'a Farms and Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails

Nasrallah says: "There are major attempts today based on the argument that the Shab'a Farms issue must be tackled now in order to drop one of the pretexts for the resistance. All right, we have no objection. This is very simple. If the Security Council is so interested in Lebanon and if the US administration - which does not even need a Security Council - is interested in this, they can ask Israel to leave the Shab'a Farms. It may be argued that we need border demarcation at the Shab'a Farms. Can we do this on occupied territory?" He asks how the international community can demand border demarcation on occupied territory, from which the Security Council resolutions have called on Israel to withdraw. He notes that "we must demand the withdrawal from the Shab'a Farms and then we carry out this border demarcation by giving Lebanon what is Lebanon's and Syria what is Syria's," adding that "this is logical, otherwise we would be recognizing the occupation of an Arab territory, whether it is Lebanese or Syrian".

On the prisoners issue, Nasrallah says neither Roed-Larsen nor Annan recognize that there is an issue represented by the presence of Lebanese prisoners in Israel jails. He says that Hezbollah has exchanged prisoners with Israel many times and adds: "Now I assure all the families that responded to Roed-Larsen's speech in Paris yesterday that their reliance on the resistance is correct and I repeat: We swear by our blood and our lives that we will absolutely not leave our prisoners in Israeli jails." He says that since the world is very interested in Lebanon, then "let it ask Mr Bush, the US administration, and the international community to free our prisoners and the bodies of our martyrs and it can thus solve this issue".

Nasrallah also says: "If you solve the issue of the farms and the issue of the prisoners, we will be left with the following problem: Lebanon, which is part of a region in which there is an Arab- Israeli struggle, is being threatened. Then as Lebanese we will enter into a discussion on how to protect our country. Do we protect it with the army alone or with the army and the resistance? Are there other ideas, other frameworks? These issues can be discussed."

Hezbollah weapons

On Hezbollah weapons, he says: "I believe that the awareness of the Lebanese people and leaders of all political trends, resulted in the postponement - and I do not say the prevention - of a great pressure from being applied on Lebanon connected with the issue of the resistance, which we continue to insist that it is a national interest. We said that this can be dealt with through domestic dialogue. We are prepared for this dialogue and I announce tonight - and we already said in the past - that we are prepared for this dialogue, for discussing the mechanism and principles of this dialogue.

"However I would like in principle to draw attention to two basic points to begin this dialogue - I do not mean that there are no other points but it is because of the urgency of this matter - and I believe this is very obvious. The first point is: Do we consider Israel an enemy or not? Do we consider Lebanon to be within the circle of Israeli threats or not? If we consider that Israel is not an enemy, that Lebanon is not in the circle of threats, then there is no need to discuss all these things; there is no need for the resistance and the arms of the resistance because the issue would then be very simple and could easily be over and done with. However, this issue is a keynote issue, as the expression goes. It means that it opens up the discussion."

Continuing his argument, Nasrallah says that if Lebanon is considered to be within the circle of threats, then "it would be appropriate to ask: Do we believe that Lebanon should be strong enough to confront any threat or not?" He says these two questions must be the basic points to begin discussion on "the resistance, the arms of the resistance, and the role and job of the resistance, and we are prepared to discuss all questions and all legitimate apprehensions because of the concern that is being voiced on these arms or issues concerning the sovereignty of the state".

Nasrallah calls for discussion of this issue "behind closed doors". He adds: "Thus we will be discussing the national defence strategies, which are issues that concern our points of strength and weakness and our fate, and we cannot reveal all our issues to the media in order that we might convince one another."

Disarming Palestinian refugees in Lebanon

On the issue of the Palestinian weapons in Lebanon, Nasrallah says that any talk about disarming the Palestinian refugee camps is covered by Resolution 1559 and adds: "Concerning the disarmament of the refugee camps, taking into consideration the actual conditions in Lebanon, Palestine and the region, we, as a Lebanese party, as ministers in the Lebanese government, and as a Lebanese resistance, strongly oppose disarming the Palestinian camps. You are aware that their arms are personal, simple and modest. I believe that this point was set straight at the Council of Ministers. The talk about controlling arms in the camps, in understanding with the Palestinian themselves, is the right and natural thing to do. Indeed, this is the demand of the Palestinians as well as the Lebanese. Therefore, organizing and controlling these arms is a right demand, no question about that. But we cannot disarm the camps just like that only because there is an international resolution and pressures, because this is not in harmony with the Palestinian or Lebanese interests.

"What do we mean by not in harmony? I just want to ask: What will Lebanon get in exchange for disarming the camps? Can we carry out and implement all the measures that would be the consequences of disarming the resistance? This means that the Lebanese government should commit itself to preserving the security of the Palestinians. I do not mean to protect them against the Israeli bombing because it cannot ensure the protection of the Lebanese themselves against the Israeli bombing, much less the Palestinians. This means that the government must prevent any possible infiltration of the camp by any Israeli network to kill or kidnap anybody. I am speaking about the personal safety of the Palestinian brothers. Can we address the consequences of disarming the camps? What price will Lebanon be paid in exchange for disarming the camps? So far there is no clear price. To receive some money is a very dangerous and appalling thing.

"We and the Palestinians unanimously reject the settlement of the refugees in Lebanon. The price that we might obtain from the international community is so far unclear. The price that we might give the Palestinians in exchange for their arms - and this is being proposed in this country - will be their civil rights. This is also an immoral offer. It is the natural right of the Palestinians in the camps to acquire their civil rights, as Palestinian brothers, as Arabs, as human beings who live on our territory and who were expelled to our country; people who were uprooted from their land and who were wronged and have suffered gravely. This is their right, whether they have weapons or not. They must be given their civil rights and there should be no negotiations with the Palestinian to substitute civil rights for their arms.

"I believe that the only acceptable price for disarming the Palestinian camps, the solution that satisfies the Palestinians and the Lebanese and which is in harmony with the joint interests of everyone, is to implement UN Resolution 194 and help the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to return to their homes, their fields, and their land. [Applause] Any talk about disarming the Palestinian camps in Lebanon outside the framework of the right of return will be a suspicious talk. It will serve the Israelis and is a manifestation of the submission of the international community to Israel, attaining the Israeli interests and ignoring the interests of Lebanon."

Disarming Palestinian factions in Lebanon

Speaking about the weapons of Palestinian factions "outside the camps", he says that this issue was raised in Lebanon and Hezbollah was involved "because we were allies in the elections, partners in the government, and have very strong relations with the Palestinian factions. Therefore we might play a certain role, away from the media, concerning the weapons outside the camps." He adds: "This sounds a big issue but there are perhaps only two, three or four military positions located outside the camps and they are almost completely isolated. We were told to find a remedy for this issue. We said all right. As long as the general trend is to treat this issue with wisdom, calm and dialogue, then we can approach our brothers in the Palestinian factions concerned to see if they are open to discussion or not, and, if they are open to discussion, what will be required from us to help, and to see if these arms play any role outside the camps or not. If they think that the arms play a role, can we discuss this role with them? If we discuss this issue, what will the Palestinian brothers need in order to make them satisfied and not feel insulted if we impose a certain choice on them? The factions said, all right, go ahead.

"In fact, I myself and a number of other brothers began our contacts with the leaders of these factions. Tonight, and God is my witness, I say that these leaders were very positive and expressed their readiness for dialogue. They said: We are prepared to discuss the matter and, after all, we will not insist on any stance and we are concerned with the Lebanese and Palestinian interests. We do not worship this mountain, this site, or this military barracks. They said this is neither the beginning nor the end of liberation, that the battles cannot be fought over here or there, and that the issue is subject to debate. We told them: Good, then take your time - because we felt that there was still time. Take your time, think and we will also think and make consultations.

"Then as a result of difficult security developments in the country, we were surprised when the security forces besieged these Palestinian military positions and the issue of the Palestinian arms in Lebanon rose to the surface in a harsh and violent manner. You know that our media turn everything that is non-violent into a violent development. The problem got worse, and we entered a phase when this issue became a challenge. In my opinion that was a big mistake. By besieging the sites and raising this issue in the media in such a way, we placed the leaders of these factions in a very embarrassing position, especially on the political, moral and psychological levels, after they had been prepared to discuss this issue and deal with it."

Nasrallah says that it would now be more difficult to deal with this issue. He says it needs to be discussed with the Palestinian faction leaders and the government has started a discussion with them. He notes that this issue should be dealt with without any "negative steps, much less the use of force". He says that neither the Lebanese nor the Palestinians should take any negative steps.

Internal situation in Lebanon

Nasrallah then begins to discuss internal conditions in Lebanon. He stresses the need for a strong state, which means a state of institutions. He says Hezbollah has given the government a vote of confidence and if it asks the government a question the government should not consider this a way of casting doubt upon it.

He says after the assassination of Al-Hariri and the international pressures on Lebanon, Hezbollah joined the government because "there were new responsibilities" in Lebanon. He says: "We are in the government to work together, especially on big political issues". He also says: "The Palestinian issue, Palestinian arms, Palestinian civil rights and the Palestinian representation in Lebanon are very big, sensitive and complicated issues." He says such big issues, as well as the border demarcation, must be discussed at the Council of Ministers with decisions backed by the various political forces.

On Hezbollah's participation in the government, he says: "Frankly speaking, if we feel that the Council of Ministers will not be an institution, that our presence in the Council of Ministers will make us only false witnesses in dealing with serious and sensitive issues, then we will reconsider our position and will adopt another stance." Nasrallah renews "confidence" in the government and appreciates "Sa'd al-Hariri's efforts to tackle this issue" but calls for a genuine government of institutions.

The final point in Nasrallah's speech is the Mehlis report. He says: "We must all wait. How long are we to wait? Ten hours, 12 hours, 15 or 24 hours. [Laughter] I am aware that these are very long hours for the Lebanese, the Syrians, the peoples in the region, and the friends of Lebanon." He says the Lebanese wanted the truth and they have "denounced this crime." He adds: "We all demand that the killers are punished no matter who they are but we must look for them. Sometimes - and this issue has been raised recently - it is natural and legitimate to have apprehensions about politicizing this issue because when you see these international moves, you fear politicization. [Condoleezza] Rice goes to Paris and then pays an announced visit to Kofi Annan. You become apprehensive. Right? It is natural for any of us to fear the politicization of this issue."

He adds: "Therefore, we hope to have a report with clear conclusions based on clear evidence. When the evidence is irrefutable, nobody will have any reason to have a different stance. The important thing is not to politicize this issue."

Concluding, Nasrallah says that Hezbollah will continue to support the people in shouldering the serious and great responsibilities at this "sensitive stage". He demands steps by the government to investigate the fate of Lebanese Shi'i Imam Musa al- Sadr and his companions, who disappeared in Libya in 1978.

Source: BBC Monitoring Middle East

More News in this Category