Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech At Launch of Jabal Amel Forum-Part 2

Today, I want to assert that some of those who argue and argued the option of the resistance know while the others don’t know these facts. Still those who know ignore that in fact the resistance is not a definite organization, party, movement, trend, group, or sect. It is a culture. It is a political intellectual trend which can embrace diversified entities which can be doctrinally and ideologically contradicting. It may embrace emotions, sects, peoples, and nations. That’s because the bases of the resistance are innate in man and the goals of the resistance are a common interest on the domestic and national levels.

Some people don’t know that since 1948 there has been a resistance in Lebanon. They don’t know because they don’t know what the resistance means. Some say it goes back to the early 70s, or to 1978 or to 1982 or the following years. The resistance – the Lebanese resistance – in Lebanon exists since 1948 since the first moment of the existence of the occupation. It became legitimate from that very moment. It practiced its right from that very moment; however, with the available capacities. Those are unaware that since 1948, the South was being aggressed against.

They don’t know anything about the massacres which were perpetrated against many bordering villages. They don’t know what the residents of the bordering area suffered from regardless of their sects. Here I am not talking about the Shiites only. They don’t know anything about what the security forces stations at the bordering regions were subject to and the harm that was afflicted on the state’s institutions and security forces. They don’t know anything about the violation of air, land, and sea sovereignty.

One day, even on the dialogue table when we used to meet in the parliament, not only one but several of the attendees said: No, before the Palestinians came to Lebanon, there wasn’t any problem. In fact, there was not any problem with Israel. I am not accusing anyone falsely. All of this is recorded in the parliament. They said there wasn’t any problem. What the “Israelis” did in Lebanon in the late 60s and the early 70s is a reaction to the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian military action. How can a person say that he is a Lebanese politician and wants to take part in making the present and the future of the Lebanese while he does not know the history of a major region in Lebanon? He does not know the history of the past several years.

I still remember that one of the deputies was obliged to leave the session to bring along a documentary book which was published by Al Safir Newspaper as I still remember. He came back and told everyone that they must learn. He started with 1948. The faces of some were changed. Still they said that might be possible!!! Well, there are historic documents. What do you want us to do for you? Do you want us to take you to the cemeteries? Do you want us to bring for you the elderly who are still alive to bear witness before you? In the sense that we believe in, this resistance started since that moment with the available capabilities indeed. Some of the forms of the resistance of that area’s people were to remain in their land, and they remained in their land; to cultivate their land and they did; and to be killed under the ceilings of their houses and never to quit their land, and they were killed under the ceiling of their houses.

This was the resistance which was available at that time. It was the resistance in taking stances and in opposing. It was the resistance of Imam Sayyed Mussa Al Sader who prohibited our patient to buy a medicine from the so called “good wall”. It is the resistance which preferred dying sick than staying healthy while seeking medicine and a medical treatment from “Israel”. This resistance used to take place before any movement or party. It was the resistance of the people. The resistance is every house in these villages, bordering regions, and the entire South. It is every upright mosque and every populous church. It is every olive tree and tobacco plant – though tobacco plants are the specialty of Speaker Berri but we will borrow them from him for a while now.

It is every living being in the South which is still standing on its feet and every erect tomb. It is every poem, verse, tear, smile, wound, drop of blood, word, bullet, sigh, and strong fist. It is this patience, steadfastness, and determination. In Jabal Amel, the resistance is everything. It is the air, the water, the land, the sky, the hills, and the valleys. It is the people who did not leave it to be looted by the occupation and they never left it.

This is the resistance in Lebanon. It is everyone who believed in it, backed it, supported it, and was patient and offered blood to back it such as our people in Bekaa and in all the Lebanese regions. In fact, all the resisting factions and the resisting generations are a clear manifestation of this truth and this atmosphere.
Consequently, who is making a battle today? As you notice everyday there is a speech though the government was formed and we sit together and see each other and though the counsel is working again, thanks God.

The common parliamentary committees, the secondary committees, and the deputies see each other, joke together, laugh together, and talk with each other. Still, the media outlets, newspapers, TV stations, and speakers of the other bloc act as if we are still in the previous stage. They always stress on the issue of the resistance. If you have a problem with Hizbullah, talk with Hizbullah. If you have a problem with Amal Movement, talk with Amal Movement. If you have a problem with a definite organization, talk with that organization.

The issue of the resistance is more sublime, more grand, holier, broader, and deeper than any problem with a party or whatever problem. Indeed, some know where they are targeting, because, in depth, their problem is with the resistance and not with this party or that movement or that organization. Rather they are exploiting these issues to target it. The resistance is all of that. Thus any defamation or harmful attribute is a defamation and abuse to all who and what are resistance and not to a definite group. Indeed such an attribute has consequences which will be revealed in the coming few days.

Talking about the failure of the tripartite equation, some may draw conclusions. However, what is your evidence? Talk about facts. Where did the tripartite equation flop? Indeed, here we do not stick to definite terms and phrases. This is one of the positive points in the Arabic Language. The Arabic Language saved the Lebanese Government in its ministerial statement. That’s what we mean when we talk about the strength, soundness, and correlation of the Arabic Language. However, in depth and apart from the terms and expressions, where did the tripartite equation flop and where did it gain victory? Allow me to ask you where you succeeded. I am addressing you who talk about the failure of the tripartite equation.

The tripartite equation managed to liberate the land when the entire world – including diplomacy – failed to do so. The resisting state also managed to restore the detainees. The resistance along with the army and the people managed so far in protecting Lebanon, the South, the borders, and the front villages.

The tripartite equation imposed a strong Lebanon in the regional equation. When thinking about the region, no one can ignore Lebanon because in Lebanon there is gold before there being oil and gas. It’s because in Lebanon there is gold. This is a brilliant, definite achievement for the tripartite equation and to its strong elements which never were broken and will never be broken God-willing. These are the achievements of the tripartite equation. What are your achievements?
Where are your achievements? I will be content with this question.

Because at the end we will call for appeasement we will not make a problem now. However, when we talk about building the state, debts, and projects, let them talk about their achievements.

In this framework and through this occasion and before all what was evoked in the past weeks and recent months as far as the issue of the resistance and the “Israeli” issue and talking about a war, risks, and seizing opportunities and the like is concerned, I also would like to assert to you that this resistance will remain a firm resistance. It is now firm, and it will remain firm and towering. It will always defend its nation and people and safeguard all the previous achievements including the rules of engagement which were the result of April Agreement in 1996 and the achievements of July War. Thanks to our deterrence power, our villages will remain safe, our fields will always be cultivated, and our banners will always flutter. I assert to you that there is no reason to worry at all as far as this issue is concerned.

Now, some might be seeking to intimidate the country as a result of the fighting in Syria saying that some of the people in this axis are busy fighting in Syria and that might open the door and the horizons before the “Israelis” to settle an old score with Lebanon or to launch a war on Lebanon. These “Israeli” calculations are not true. When the “Israelis” decide to make a war, there are several points which they will take into consideration. All these considerations do not lead them to the option of war so far. One of the most important considerations is that the “Israelis” know very well that this resistance is strong and has become even stronger.

Most probably, some would tell us that martyrs fall for us here and there. This is exhausting!

This has always been the case of the resistance. The resistance has always been growing stronger with time, with sacrifices, and with offerings. This is not an element of weakness. In some of its aspects it is an element of strength.
Today from the town of Ainatha – from the liberated borderline which dear neighboring occupied Palestine – I want to announce and assert to you: Today the resistance is not only strong; compared to its state in July 2006, it is stronger and more able on all levels whether human, materialistic, military, the ability to confront, and willingness to make victory God-willing.

We do not want war. We do not seek war. As a resistance, our strategy is not an open war. This is well-known. However, if there is any worry on the fate of the country in any heart, mind, house, or village should any of these Zionists think of waging a war on Lebanon, I assert to you that is not the case. Unfortunately, the enemy knows more than the Lebanese the extent of the development, ability, and power of the resistance on more than one level, and the enemy takes this into consideration.

Asserting on this and before moving to the second topic and because I have not spoken for more than a month and a half, I want to tell you: Gold will remain gold. Yes, gold will remain gold.
If there is gold before you, and someone changes his mind and says this is tin, will gold turn to tin? If he says this is iron, will gold turn to iron? If he says this is wood, will gold turn to wood?

No, it will remain gold. The others’ attribute of things does not change the truth about these things. This is a fixed principle in existence and in philosophy.
Moreover and due to the economic situations in the world, it is strange that whoever has money is buying gold because gold is getting expensive day after day. The price of gold is increasing. This is the case of states too. Some days ago, one of the very rich countries – a state rich in gold, has a great surplus in strong currencies, and perhaps does not have debts and the like – fetched gold that worth billions of dollars.

If today someone needs to guarantee his money, neither the dollar nor the euro nor any other strong currency would supply the guarantee. Today the true guarantee is gold. In Lebanon, there is a kind of gold unmatched in the entire world.

How do some people in Lebanon permit themselves to waste this gold? As for wood, the Lebanese have made from it coffins to the occupation officers and soldiers who entered Lebanon on feet and left it on shoulders. This wood would remain there to make coffins for all invaders and occupiers of this holy and blessed land.

We do not have any problem with wood, but each has its worth, value, role, and utility.

Here we come to the last thing by which I would like to wrap my speech.
Indeed one way or another, this attribute will influence our stance from attending the dialogue table on Monday. I do not want to announce a final decisive stance. However, indeed this comprehension, this mentality, and this atmosphere will be very influential on the decision that will be taken by Hizbullah concerning partaking or refraining from attending the dialogue table. Our allies, friends, and dear ones are absolutely free to take the stance they find suitable. So no matter what our stance would be, it is not binding and it must not embarrass others. It is normal that at times stances over some issues vary pursuant to the discrepancy of positions and targets.

The last point which I want to mention and which I want to wrap my speech with is that today all the attack on the resistance in Lebanon is based on one essential point – partaking in the fight in Syria. Someone might say: “You went to Syria, and thus the national consensus was toppled – we clarified this point. You went to Syria and thus the function of the arms changed. It is not anymore a resisting weapon”. Well before this, was this weapon viewed as a resisting weapon?!
Anyway, all of this is now being said. Our going to Syria and our stance are the primary problem which is being continuously provoked. Since some time to our day, this problem is being provoked daily.

Because this issue is preoccupying all of the country and all of us, I would like to comment on this issue in the final section of my speech. Notice that from the very beginning the problem the other bloc in Lebanon, the Arab and Islamic governments and regimes, and the governments and regimes of the world have with us as far as the Syrian issue is concerned is our political stance and not our military intervention. Our military intervention came too late. As it is said, we intervened after all others intervened, came, and fought. We came very late. The problem was in our political stance.

Since the first day we said: We are not with this struggle in Syria. We are not with toppling the regime, and we are not with toppling the state. We are with reforms, with a political solution, with political dialogue, and with achieving the rightful demands of the people. However, we are not with anyone who wants to break, topple, destroy, and ruin Syria and anyone who wants to impose major strategic options on it. Here is the point. Before reforms and demands, the point is major strategic options.

We took this stance. Many people took another stance. We were required to take the other stance and to be a part of it. Because we did not become part of it, the war was launched on us too. So in depth, the issue has to do with the political stance first and not with the military intervention. A major thing is taking place in the region. They say: Do come and be part of this major thing or else get ready to be hanged.

This is the storm which was about to hit the region. It was required that we all prostrate to it, move with it or bow to it. The least thing expected was to bow to this storm.

We did not become a part of it. We were not in line with it because we considered that this storm mounts to major strategic and existing threats concerning Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and the entire region. We had explained this extensively in the past, and we will not repeat it now. Accordingly, we took a political stance.
With time our stance developed into action, and we went to the battlefield. All the Lebanese know that as we had talked about it in the media. Some criticized us sharply because of that. The first military intervention was limited.

Tens of Hizbullah members went to Western Gotha to the town of Sayyeda Zeinab (Peace be upon her). This took place some 18 months ago or a bit more. When the armed groups controlled most – not all – of the Western Gotha area, these armed troops were 200 meters away from the Shrine of Sayyeda Zeinab (Peace be upon her). We saw first that this shrine has a religious status for all Muslims, and second that destroying this shrine would stir a sectarian sedition in more than one place in the Islamic world. Well, we went there to give a hand. The Syrian Army, the National Defense, and the residents of the region were there, and they were defending the shrine. We dispatched scores of members to help in defending the shrine. That was the limit of our intervention. Still this stance was criticized.