Translated by Al-Ahed News Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s Al-Mayadeen interview coinciding with the 40th anniversary of Hezbollah’s founding | 25-7-2022 *Ghassan bin Jiddo: Dear viewers, may God’s peace be upon you.
“Israel” was lost as it healed its wounds during its humiliating withdrawal in 2000.
It bristled and faltered until it surrendered.
Its bitterness was increased by what Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Liberation Day: “By God, ‘Israel’ is weaker than a spider web.” This has become a central slogan of the resistance’s nation.
It’s engraved in history and not just a marginal word.
The July war in 2006 was more than proof, and the Al-Quds Sword Battle in 2021 was more than a confirmation.
Hezbollah, the Resistance, emerged 40 years ago with low capabilities but plenty of faith.
It flourished through a young revolutionary generation and a persevering fighting spirit.
It thrived despite existing within a political minority and showcased maximum courage on the battlefield.
It strongly rejected the idea of treachery and low tolerance and focused on spirituality and the right mentality.
It confronted the occupation and its hypocrites without risking internal security but backed with the security provided to it by its loyal allies and what was available to it internally and externally.
‘Beyond, Beyond Haifa’ is an equation that entered history with its formulation, objectives, and time.
The ‘Beyond, Beyond Karish’ [equation] put Hezbollah in the system of Arab actors and regional deterrents.
As if this ‘Beyond, Beyond’ narrative will become a political, strategic, and perhaps even cultural literature – so we hope. After land victories that the resistance achieved come victories at sea.
When will air victories be? Unless this resistance has reached it already had not announced it.
At that time, “Israel” may suffer something called the ‘Beyond, Beyond’ phobia – on land, at sea, and in the air.
The resistance, beyond internal politics and its pitfalls and alongside field achievements, is today establishing an intellectual reality beyond victories by defeating terrorism and its theorists.
“Israel”, an ally of the regimes of normalization and the cover of the takfiris and their alienating sponsors, may suffer from hysteria of helplessness in front of the resistance in the battles between the wars as well as its systematic intimidation and media wars and psychological warfare that are generously funded by the strategically ignorant or unaware.
We’ve known Hezbollah, the resistance, for 40 years.
What are its priorities after 40 years? What are the strategies ‘Beyond, Beyond’ the 40 years? It is not astrology as His Eminence puts it, but rather a definition of goals that may concern existence, identity, the future, and legitimacy.
Hezbollah, the resistance, breathes Palestine and considers Al-Quds a doctrine before a responsibility.
What are the plans and what comes ‘Beyond, Beyond’ the joint operations rooms of the resistance in terms of options and strategies? Hezbollah, the resistance, gave its former allies the victory on the ground and practical confidence, so what challenges does it face with the allies after 40 years? What are the alliances ‘Beyond, Beyond’ the region and internationally? On the 40th anniversary, there are questions over the resistance and deterrence, Lebanon, politics, thought, and identity, Palestine and the factions, Syria and the Arabs, Iran, Russia, the region, and the world, as well as the organization of Hezbollah and its prospects.
Before it [Hezbollah] turned 30, its pure founder and former Secretary General, Sayyed Abbas Al-Musawi, was betrayed.
When it turned 30, they were perplexed with the model and symbol, the Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan [Nasrallah].
As for us, there is no confusion whatsoever, not when voting before and during the past 30 years, or after the 30th year and its stages, or after Hezbollah turned 30, with all the challenges that came.
In this interview which mark 40 years since Hezbollah’s founding, we will ask questions about prospects for ‘Beyond, Beyond’ its 40 years.
Your Eminence, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, thank you for your time, which is ‘Beyond, Beyond’ precious.
Good evening, dear Sayyed.
* Sayyed Nasrallah: Welcome, welcome. * Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, we will discuss five headlines: 1- The resistance and deterrence 2- Lebanon: thought, politics, identity and other things 3- Hezbollah, Palestine, Iran, and Syria 4- Hezbollah and the Arab world, the region, and the world 5- Sayyed Nasrallah, Hezbollah, the organization, and the future.
I hope we will have enough time.
I will start with deterrence right away because we are greatly concerned with your deterrence, or ‘Beyond, Beyond’ Karish. Hezbollah started off as an armed resistance movement with the invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
What is Hezbollah's concept of deterrence, and over the past decades, what are the most important junctures in which Hezbollah has proven effective deterrence to the occupation? * Sayyed Nasrallah: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
First of all, welcome, may you be well.
In the beginning, let's say from 1982 – I’ll talk about credibility and then the concept – there was nothing to deter the “Israeli” enemy from invading Lebanon.
Before the invasion, there was nothing to deter the “Israeli” enemy from carrying out repeated aggression against Lebanon.
From 1948 to 1982 – the great invasion – there is a history of “Israeli” attacks.
The “Israelis” used to enter the southern towns in the border region, kill, blow up houses, commit massacres – the massacres were from 1948 and 1949 – kidnap people, even men working in the Lebanese Internal Security Forces.
This went all the way until prior to1982 – the raids on Beirut, the capital, on buildings in the capital, anywhere in Lebanon.
Simply put, Lebanon’s air, sea, and land were violated, and the culmination of this violation was in 1982 when “Israel” launched the big invasion and wanted to bring Lebanon into the “Israeli” era as it was said at that time.
I think the deterrence began, since we are talking about deterrence, in 1984-1985 when the “Israeli” enemy was forced early to withdraw from many of the areas it occupied. If you remember up until 1985, the “Israelis” had withdrawn from the capital Beirut, the suburbs, Mount Lebanon, Sidon, Tyre, Nabatiyeh, the western Bekaa, and Rashaya.
Of course, this withdrawal took place as a result of a wide range of operations – qualitative and quantitative operations.
They were great operations.
The martyrdom operations were huge and were carried out by resistance fighters belonging to different and diverse parties and factions who agreed on the choice of resistance.
The “Israelis” retreated to the occupied border strip and hid behind the high mountains that dominate the entire region.
Of course, they hid.
The “Israelis” considered the border strip as a security belt to prevent Lebanese or Palestinian resistance fighters from entering occupied Palestine.
This is where deterrence began, when the “Israeli” enemy realized that it could not enter Lebanese territory and remain in it.
They removed the idea of occupation from their head.
This was the first result and the first deterrence.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: A joint deterrence – Hezbollah and the resistance. * Sayyed Nasrallah: This is, of course, an achievement made by all the resistance fighters, not just Hezbollah alone, all the resistance movements that carried out martyrdom operations, all the resistance movements.
Of course, Lebanese and Palestinians participated in that stage and carried out various operations throughout occupied places.
I will not delve into the names so I don’t mention some and forget others because, praise be to God, there was a good number of parties, organizations, and factions that participated, and among them was Hezbollah. The second stage of deterrence began after 1985 in response to the operations carried out by the resistance factions and when the “Israeli” enemy was attempting to advance to the villages and faced very violent confrontations with the resistance fighters. Here, the scene that I talked about in my last speech about the “Israeli” war minister changed – the time when you came to Tyre, Sidon, and Beirut is over.
You cannot even enter our border villages easily or simply.
The act of resistance and the will to resist were present in the border villages.
There are experiences that took place between 1985 and 2000.
The Meidoun experience is one example.
There was a very violent and harsh fighting between 20 resistance fighters – most of them were martyred in that battle – and two or three battalions of the “Israeli” elite forces.
Here, too, there is a deterrent searing deep into their consciousness – the possibility of the occupation advancing into any town and area on Lebanese territories is not an option.
We reach 1993.
This third move, in my opinion, was when the verbal understanding of July took place – the "gentleman".
This is because the “Israeli” enemy always responded to the resistance’s operations targeting its border posts or taking place deep in the occupied border strip by bombing villages and towns.
We still remember what the bombing of the border villages and even cities by the “Israelis”, Antoine Lahd's army, and the collaborators.
The cities of Sidon and Nabatiyeh have always been bombed.
Until now, I cannot erase the images of the children whose heads were cut off in the bombing of Antoine Lahd's people in Sidon and Nabatiyeh. In any case, we needed to prevent them from targeting villages, towns, and civilians.
They did this in response to operations targeting the military, not the settlements.
It began in 1992, as you mentioned in the episodes, during the funeral of the master of the martyrs of the Islamic Resistance, Sayyed Abbas al-Musawi, Mrs Umm Yasser, and their son Hussein.
We were at the funeral in Nabi Sheet, and a confrontation took place in Kafr Yatar.
It was very violent.
They bombed villages and towns as usual, and it was the first time that the Islamic Resistance shelled the settlements with Katyusha rockets in response to the targeting of Lebanese villages and towns. This matter developed from 1992 to July 1993 because it took its time.
during confrontations in 1993, we reached an understanding that says, in order for the settlements to be spared from Katyusha shelling, the enemy must stop shelling civilian targets in Lebanon.
We reached a good result.
From 1993 to 1996, there was high deterrence.
Some violations occurred. In 1996, because of the attack on civilians, there was a confrontation with what the enemy called the Grapes of Wrath.
We call it the April 1996 aggression, which ended in the April Understanding that confirmed the July Understanding in writing and established a monitoring committee to oversee it.
Until we reached 2000, I always say that the April 1996 Understanding laid the foundations for the victory of 2000.
So far so good.
We reached 2000 with several deterrents: 1- You cannot invade as you used to do in the past. 2- Yu cannot advance into the villages without confrontation and resistance.
This does not mean that they will not advance.
In the July war, they entered Maroun al-Ras, but after violent battles. 3- You cannot shell civilian targets in Lebanon without receiving a response on the settlements and similar targets in northern occupied Palestine.
This matter continued until the July War, and it is clear what happened in the July War.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Do you consider it a deterrent? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Of course, as a result of the July War, they realized that the confrontation with the resistance in Lebanon is a serious and major confrontation, and the capabilities of the resistance have gone beyond confrontation along the border strip or settlements at a depth of 20 or 40 kilometers.
Rather, it extend to the north and the center.
They fully understood the capabilities of the resistance when we talked about Haifa and beyond Haifa, i.e., the middle, and beyond, beyond Haifa, i.e., Tel Aviv and beyond.
This was the ‘beyond, beyond’ time.
The July War established an equation.
Therefore, from the July War until today, from 2006 to 2022.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Between 2006 and 2022, aren’t there new deterrence equations? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Effective deterrence.
No “Israeli” raids took place.
A single raid took place years ago on an ambiguous border point between Lebanon and Syria.
However, we responded to it in the Shebaa Farms because it was a military point.
If you remember, a while ago, they carried out two air raids on open areas.
However, we shelled the “Israeli” posts in the Shebaa Farms in response.
From 2006, the “Israeli” enemy has been paying close attention to any action it takes in Lebanon because it will have a response.
This means deterrence.
Therefore, it resorts to security actions that do not leave a fingerprint, i.e., evidence for Hezbollah to respond to.
The act will be questioned whether the “Israelis” did it or not.
Hence, this is the deterrence so far.
From 2006 until today, Lebanon is protected in the face of the “Israeli” aggression.
Hence, you can compare between the time prior to 2000 and today.
The July war is an exception.
From 2006, Lebanon has known safety and security.
The enemy does not dare to carry out any aggression, air raids, military targeting, etc.
What is their explanation? The enemy admits – we do not need the testimony of the spiteful and envious – the enemy admits that there is a balance of deterrence.
* Ghassan Ben Jiddo: But in 2007 and 2008, for the first time, you threatened that you will strike, if Lebanon was attacked, if Prime Minister Rafik Hariri Airport was attacked, you will strike Ben Gurion, and if buildings were attacked, you will strike buildings.
Isn't this an equation of deterrence? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Yes, this is an adoption of the July equation.
The July equation said that we have a deterrent capability and we respond, even if it was a war.
We will go into detail of what will happen afterwards, i.e., we will highlight some aspects of what serves this equation.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: But it is not a big equation? * Sayyed Nasrallah: It is.
For example, when we used to say that if you impose a blockade on the shores of Lebanon, we will strike the ships coming to the shores of occupied Palestine.
Here, we delve into the details of the great equation that the July War paved the way for.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, before I talk about Karish, “By God, ‘Israel’ is weaker than a spider web,” how did you come up with it? * Sayyed Nasrallah: It did not come in the spur of the moment.
I forget if I wrote it.
I usually prepare headnotes.
I always call on all the preachers to respect the people and to be prepared.
I consider that whoever speaks and says whatever comes to his mind when he is delivering an address is a person that does not respect people.
I usually prepare and write headnotes.
In some sensitive situations, I write a paragraph, i.e., three or four lines. I discussed the idea of ‘weaker than a spider web’ or mentioned it during some internal meetings within the framework of our discussion of the “Israeli” situation.
I used to tell them to take advantage of God's saying about the spider web.
{The weakest of homes is the home of the spider.} Here, “Israel” is the spider's home with one, two, and three evidence, with evidence that the whole world later saw.
But I did not say that in a speech before the Bint Jbeil speech.
In the Bint Jbeil speech, you are before a historic victory and a new reality, and an unexpected victory in the Arab world.
No one expected or believed that Barak would leave or fulfill his promise to withdraw in July. Of course, he was forced to withdraw in May It crossed my mind during the speech – that this is the appropriate time for this description – so I mentioned it, and I consider this to be the grace of God Almighty.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: There is no doubt, Your Eminence. Now about the Karish equation, beyond Karish, and beyond, beyond Karish. In your last speech, you confirmed that it is a serious equation and not psychological warfare. Excuse me, Your Eminence, if we want to elaborate more on it for us, the Lebanese people, the Arabs, and “Israel” to understand, what does beyond, beyond Karish mean? Where exactly can you reach?
What is being discussed now is Karish.
It is possible, and some of our friends in Lebanon said Karish for Qana. In the speech, I said that the issue is greater than that because there is a hypothesis – even though unlikely – that the “Israelis” and the Americans freeze the extraction of oil and gas from Karish, and that’s it.
Here, Lebanon would have achieved a moral victory and prevented the extraction of oil and gas from Karish, but what will we have achieved? Nothing, here we only achieved a moral victory.
The opportunity we are talking about now – I talked about part of it in the speech, and I will talk about the second part – is a historical and golden opportunity.
There is the Russia-Ukraine war.
There is a battle led by the United States of America and is being waged by the Europeans and the Ukrainians alike.
An essential part of the battle is securing an alternative to Russian oil and gas for Europe.
They have to prepare before winter, which comes early not like us.
Hence, they are in dire need of securing alternative oil and gas.
God willing, we will talk about this if one of your question is about [Joe] Biden’s visit.
Biden came to the region.
I said it in the speech, but I was being on the safe side. Of course, the Lebanese began to analyze, and the Arabs too – the Middle Eastern NATO, the Arab NATO, and the coalition against Iran.
however, we saw something entirely different.
This confirmed that many in our region were writing their wishes and not analyzing politics.
They did not have information and did not read political facts.
In any case, he came for gas and oil.
Despite that, the additions that Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, or other countries can make cannot solve the problem of the European need for oil and gas.
Therefore, they asked the “Israelis” to hurry with Karish. A few weeks ago, an agreement was reached in Egypt between the “Israelis”, the Egyptians, and the Europeans to export “Israeli” gas.
So, the first point is the urgent need, an American, Western, “Israeli” need.
America wants oil and gas for Europe.
Europe needs oil and gas, and for “Israel”, this is its chance to sell in such a huge quantity.
I didn't talk about the second point last time.
in any case, it is just an estimation.
America’s and Biden’s priority now is confronting Russia in Ukraine.
They do not want another war in the region.
That is why he wants to extend the truce in Yemen.
He sold the Palestinians that he had intervened and stopped the Al-Quds Sword battle and forced Netanyahu to stop it.
Hence, there is an assessment that says that he does not want a war in the region now.
The rhetoric towards Iran during Biden's visit was not a language of war.
Anyway, here we have to analyze, and this is another research.
Therefore, there are two opportunities.
The American, European, and “Israeli” need to extract gas and oil and secure an alternative is one opportunity.
Secondly, they do not want another war that could lead to a major explosion in the region.
This is another point that we can benefit from for Lebanon to obtain its rights.
We call this opportunity and moment a historical moment or a golden opportunity.
It is possible that they can cause us to miss this opportunity – we stopped oil extraction in Karish.
We do not want to miss this opportunity.
That is why I said in the last speech that it is not a Karish for Qana issue.
The issue is concerns all the oil and gas fields plundered by “Israel” in Palestinian waters.
This is the right way to say it – all the oil and gas fields on the occupied Palestinian coasts in exchange for Lebanon's rights to delineate the borders and to extract oil and gas.
This is in exchange for that.
The issue is no longer Qana for Karish.
I want to emphasize on the opportunity? Since it became clear that there is gas and oil in the Mediterranean Sean and the talk about extracting them in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, etc., the Americans put Lebanon into a whirlpool of negotiations – we must delimitate the maritime boundaries, who can do the demarcation or be the mediator? The Americans came in as a mediator, and since then, Lebanon has been negotiating while Israel was exploring, excavating, and digging.
See, for example, some of the gaps we have in Lebanon, including some politicians and media figures I heard during that period.
There is a weakness [among people when it comes to] in information, and sometimes people do not make the effort to collect information and improve their knowledge.
Even now, there are people talking about the ship drilling and excavating, while they have finished a while back.
They’ve explored Karish, dug, and excavated.
They already have the number of wells there, and this ship came to extract, i.e., the final stage.
The “Israeli” enemy dug, excavated, and explored, and now are about to extract, and we are still negotiating where Lebanon's maritime borders are. America, “Israel” and the West prevented all companies that committed themselves to exploration, excavation, drilling, and extraction in Lebanon from taking any step before demarcating the maritime borders.
In other words, that will be in ten years and 20 years.
This, of course, was pressure on the Lebanese state to accept the Hof Line or the “Israeli” proposal to delineate the boundaries.
Today, we have an opportunity to get what the Lebanese state wants.
I repeat and confirm, it is not what Hezbollah wants because we have nothing to do with the demarcation of the maritime borders.
It is what the Lebanese state wants.
It has a historic opportunity to get it now and not tomorrow unless this opportunity is missed.
So, what equation are we talking about? These borders, the demarcation of the maritime borders and all of our blocks in Lebanon, the extraction of oil and gas, and the advent of prohibited and sanctioned companies to work in Lebanon in return for extracting oil from Karish, beyond Karish, and beyond, beyond Karish, i.e., all fields.
I did not mention names of all the fields because when I brought the list before the address, I found it to be a long list, but the names are common and well-known.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Are all “Israeli” fields under threat, Your Eminence? * Sayyed Nasrallah: All the fields are under threat, and the brothers conducted a classification.
Of course, we have all the exact coordinates, including the fields that are now being extracted and are selling. There are fields they are still digging and excavating, and there are frozen fields, which means they have priorities.
The brothers classified these fields into names and coordinates.
We have the ability.
This is not an exaggeration since it is not something new for people to say we are threatening now.
No, this is old. There is no “Israeli” target, whether at sea or on land, that the resistance’s precision missiles cannot reach.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Do I understand, Your Eminence, that all the fields without exception that are now extracted and frozen are all under threat from Hezbollah? * Sayyed Nasrallah: All of them are in our crosshairs.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Is it just a threat? Or would it transform into action? * Sayyed Nasrallah: No, this matter, whether it is related to Karish or beyond, now depends on the enemy’s decision.
How will the enemy act? The “Israelis” as well as the Americans because it is not “Israel’s” decision alone.
It is an America, “Israeli”, and European decision.
The matter concerns the Europeans, the Americans, and the “Israelis”.
How will they act? We are not talking now about liberating Palestinian waters, and we are not saying this is Palestinian oil and gas that they return it to the Palestinian people.
The Lebanese state is talking about delineating Lebanese boundaries with occupied Palestine, i.e., the maritime boundaries.
It is talking about Lebanon's right, not Hezbollah's right, to oil and gas and oil and gas extraction.
As it was said, yes, the Lebanese state, through what it recently requested from the US mediator – regardless of whether we adopt it or not, we do not interfere into this issue – made a major concession that is well known in the country.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Which is? * Sayyed Nasrallah: When they talked about Line 23.
This is known in the country.
Let us that Lebanon practically made an offer that neither the enemy nor the Americans should reject.
Lebanese officials are supposed to be waiting for an answer to this offer.
In light of the “Israeli” response at that time, the position will be decided.
But the issue now is that the ball is not in Lebanon's court.
Lebanon is being attacked.
Lebanon is prohibited from extracting oil and gas in the region, even in the region that is rightfully its, meaning that there is no discussion about it.
It is not disputed.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: If “Israel” and the United States of America accepted the line proposed by the Lebanese side, and in return the “Israelis” began extracting oil or gas from there, the oil of occupied Palestine, then you wouldn’t have a problem in this matter? They give you the borders, and they start extracting. * Sayyed Nasrallah: No, not only the borders, but the borders that the Lebanese state wants.
This means, whichever line they accept, it is none of our concern.
The boundaries that the Lebanese state asks for.
Secondly, lifting the veto, ban, and threat on companies, including the French company Total as well as Italian and Russian companies.
There is a consortium of companies.
They are prohibited from working here, and they must lift the ban.
When the Lebanese state says that these companies will come to work, that’s the time we will consider that the matter has been dealt with.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: This means we don't have zero hour. From here to that time, there is no zero hour for the “Israelis”?
The time is until September.
Why is it until September? I am not making guess.
For September because the “Israelis” said that they would start extracting oil and gas from Karish in September.
If the extraction of oil and gas from Karish began in September, and Lebanon had not taken its right yet, then we will have a problem.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: What will we do? * Sayyed Nasrallah: You’ll see then.
Should I say now what we are going to do? * Ghassan bin Jiddo: Basically, can “Israeli” platforms really be hit? * Sayyed Nasrallah: We set a goal, and whatever achieves this goal, we will resort to without any hesitation.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Let us assume, Your Eminence, without foretelling, that Lebanon was given that line and in return “Israel” started extracting, but the extraction was disrupted and delayed in Lebanon even if it was informed of the existence of companies, what will we do? * Sayyed Nasrallah: It will be clear.
This issue will remain within the framework of monitoring.
We will not accept the Lebanese to be deceived and exploited.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Who will supervise, Hezbollah or the government? You have the appreciation. * Sayyed Nasrallah: Our information will be official information, i.e., through officials in the state.
We will know if there is procrastination, seriousness, foul play.
This will all appears, and I think from the first weeks it will appear.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: What will you do then? * Sayyed Nasrallah: We will consider that the United States of America and “Israel” are deceiving Lebanon, and we are a country that will not accept to be deceived, and we will go back to claim our rights, threaten, and act.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Will Hezbollah take the initiative regardless of the government's position? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Talking about this issue brings us to the problem of the state’s decision.
If the state was able to make a decision, there would be no need for the resistance to replace it.
But according to the Lebanese structure, the Lebanese state is incapable based on all the evidence, from 1948 until today.
It is not only about the issue of 1975 and 1976 and civil war.
Since 1948, the Lebanese state has been incapable of taking the appropriate decision that protects Lebanon, the people of Lebanon, its sky, land, water, sea, resources, and wealth.
Therefore, the resistance is forced to make the decision.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Let me be precise. Your Eminence, what is your goal exactly? Is your goal for Lebanon to extract its oil and gas for the sake of the Lebanese people? Or is your primary and strategic goal to prevent “Israel” from extracting oil and gas?
The second one is to serve the first.
For example, if the Americans tomorrow agree with the Lebanese state’s demands or they negotiated with the Lebanese officials and accepted the demarcation of the borders, and Total and others were told to begin work.
Now, there is talk that European parties and companies have informed Lebanese officials that after demarcating the borders, there is no problem.
This is true because this was used to pressure Lebanon to make concessions in demarcating the maritime borders – we are preventing you from extracting oil and gas so that you accept the demarcation of the borders that the Americans and the “Israelis” want.
Our goal is not to create a problem in Lebanon and in the Arab world to some extent.
The Iranian nuclear file is always brought up – Hezbollah made this position to serve the Iranian nuclear file.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: No, it is more important now, Your Eminence, that you are part of the US-Russian-Ukrainian war. * Sayyed Nasrallah: We will get to this shortly, my brother.
We say our goal is for Lebanon to obtain an appropriate demarcation of the maritime borders and its right to extract oil and gas.
You say that Hezbollah is lying.
So, go after the liars, and let America and “Israel” accept the demarcation of the borders that the Lebanese state wants and lift the veto on the companies.
This will show whether we are telling the truth or lying.
Our goal is for Lebanon to extract oil and gas because it is the only way for Lebanon’s survival.
This is the end of the line.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: With all love and frankness, Your Eminence, your decision and great new equation that some consider dangerous, is it from your side in Hezbollah, or is it coordinated regionally and even internationally, i.e., with the Iranian ally and the Russian friend? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Never, it was not coordinated.
There are people who will not believe it.
It was not coordinated, not with the Syrian brothers, or with the Iranian brothers. I assure you that when I said this in the speech in content and form, none of the Iranian brothers knew about it.
This matter was discussed only among the leadership of Hezbollah.
Our allies and friends were not informed and consulted about it so that we do not involve them.
It is not because we do not trust them, but because we do not want to put them in a difficult situation and we take sole responsibility for this decision.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Not Syria or Iran or Russia. * Sayyed Nasrallah: Apart from Russia, not usually.
You can say that we usually and possibly consult with the Syrians and the Iranians.
After all, this has repercussions on the entire region.
However, in this matter, we had extreme clarity and seriousness and from the end of the line and the end of options.
Lebanon has no options but to follow this path.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Of course, with our respect to all companies, Total and other European, American, and other companies, even if they are commercial companies, but in the end, they remain companies governed by a political decision. To prove this, when they started somewhere here in Lebanon, they stopped because the decision was from there.
Could Hezbollah resort to or push towards friendly companies and not only European or Western, Iranian, Russian, Chinese? * Sayyed Nasrallah: The problem is not with us in this matter.
The problem is with the Lebanese government.
Of course, this is absurd.
Hezbollah controlling the Lebanese government and the decision of the Lebanese state is one of the most absurd political statements in Lebanon.
For example, a few days ago, Mr Gebran Bassil addressed me in a televised speech.
I would like to reply to him on television since I did not have the opportunity to answer him. He said that if Sayyed spoke to the Iranians, and we brought free fuel to the power plants in Lebanon, this will provide 10 hours of electricity, etc.
I tell him I am ready to bring free Iranian fuel for the Lebanese electric plants but let the Lebanese government say that it is ready to receive this fuel so it won’t remain off the Lebanese shores with the Lebanese government not daring to receive the donation.
To this extent they do not dare.
This is the government that we are accused of controlling.
As for diesel, all the Lebanese people know.
The ships carrying diesel were not allowed.
Some people in Lebanon threatened to resign – we cannot protect Iranian diesel that you brough.
It is true you did not bring it for free but to be sold less than the market value.
That is why we had to speak with the Syrian leadership.
We thank them for agreeing to take them to Banias and from Banias to Lebanon.
Certainly, we will not bring the fuel to Banias and then smuggle them into Lebanon because the fuel will eventually be taken by the Ministry of Energy.
The Lebanese people will not get any, and we will face the same problem.
Basically, the problem is not transportation.
Therefore, there may be Russian, Eastern, Iranian companies, etc., that are ready.
But I am telling you, unfortunately, there is no political courage in Lebanon on this matter as a result of the fear of US sanctions on individuals and families.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: But now, after your offer, Your Eminence, how can the government refuse? If Hezbollah, the Free Patriotic Movement, and the Ministry of Energy are under the tutelage of the Free Patriotic Movement – of course, he is a minister in the Lebanese government. Your allies are the Amal movement and other. If you form this and accept, who will reject from this government? If you are not the government, who are the government? The Prime Minister?
There are others as well.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: But they are the minority in the government, with my respect to them of course. If the President of the Republic, the Free Patriotic Movement, Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and the Marada Movement accept, who is left?
Let's not start a new problem now.
But have complete trust.
I am making a promise on live television – as soon as I am officially informed by the Lebanese state that they accept fuel from Iran as a gift and donation, we, Hezbollah, with our relationship and friendship with Iran are ready to go and bring the required amount of fuel as a gift to the Lebanese state.
Let them just accept.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: This is an opportunity for Gebran Bassil to take action in this regard. We return to the subject of your recent address.
Your Eminence, you said that the resistance sent the three drones to be shot down by “Israel”.
In fact, we were confused.
I am not a military expert, and I asked military experts.
Honestly, they told me we did not understand why Hezbollah would send drones only to be shot down by the “Israeli” enemy.
What was the goal? * Sayyed Nasrallah: We have a type of drone that can go and return without being shot down by the “Israeli” enemy.
I want to reveal, perhaps for the first time, that our drones have always entered the Galilee region and northern occupied Palestine and returned dozens of times during the past few years without being shot down.
A few days ago, the “Israelis” rejoiced that they had shot down one used for weddings.
Anyone can acquire one of these and fly them over the borders.
We are not talking about swimmer drones.
We are talking about drones that enter and return, takes photographs, bringing photographs, and so on.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Did the “Israelis” not discover them or did not want to shoot them down? * Sayyed Nasrallah: They did not discover them.
They could not shoot them down.
Of course, they want to shoot them down, for sure.
If they discovered them, they would shoot them down.
When we said that we would send drones, a discussion between me and the concerned brothers took place.
We said we have two types [of drones].
We can send drones that enter and return, or we can send drones that go and do not return.
The latter will show that the “Israelis” shot them down.
So, which type will we send? We agreed to send the second type.
Why? The first type aims at information [gathering], and we have sufficient information.
We do not have a lack of information.
The second achieves the goal and gathers information, i.e., it can obtain information even before the “Israelis” strike it.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Did you get it? * Sayyed Nasrallah: This is a detail, but why do we want the “Israelis” to hit it? Because if we send it and it comes back, it will not have the desired effect; it will not appear that there is any seriousness.
Perhaps someone might say who said that you sent [a message] in the first place? There was a discussion in Lebanon that everything the resistance is saying is media hype.
Otherwise, the resistance will not do anything and will not dare to do anything, etc. The “Israelis” are betting on the same logic because the Americans and the “Israelis” have foolish advisers in Lebanon who lie to them and give the wrong assessments.
They are told that Hezbollah is in a corner and that the country is in a difficult situation, hence no one can take a step of this kind.
First, we want to tell them that we will take a step of this kind.
This is the first message.
The second message or the second goal is that we want shooting from the “Israelis”.
We could have fired shots or missiles in the sky.
We could have fired missiles at the sea far from the ships.
What we did was we made the “Israelis” fire from the air and from the sea.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Did they fall into the trap? * Sayyed Nasrallah: It is natural for them to fall into the trap.
Now, you are advising them that when we later send drones, they should not shoot them down so they do not fall into the trap.
They practically used the air force, F35, and F16 and shot down one [drone].
They could not shoot down the second.
So, they had to resort to naval power, and the surface-to-air Barak missiles were used to shoot down the second.
As for the third, let us reveal new things as well.
As for the third, they did not even shoot it down.
We sent a small one to fly until its kerosene runs out and falls into the sea.
They basically lost the third one and could not shoot it down.
That is why they are talking about shooting down two – one with the air force and another with surface-to-air missiles.
So, the target was this company.
Its front was Greek, but it turned out to be “Israeli” and its owners are “Israelis”.
Today, let us make this clear to the whole world.
This is not a Greek ship.
This ship is owned by “Israelis”.
It is an “Israeli” ship, but it uses a Greek company as a front.
Those who are there and all those who are in the region understood that they were in an unsafe place that may be exposed to any military action at any moment.
The proof is the drones, the Air Force, and the Barak missiles.
This is the message.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Please, Your Eminence, did you send drones before that to explore Karish? * Sayyed Nasrallah: We were not in need, nor are we now.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: So how do you know? Do you have all the coordinates? * Sayyed Nasrallah: We have means that enable us to know everything related to the field, everything related to the ship, and everything related to the movement of the naval force and the corvettes in the region. Of course, when you send a drone, you increase the chances of gathering more data and the ability to verify it more.
However, if we need, we will send [drones].
There is no problem with this issue.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: By the way, behind you, Your Eminence, is one of the wings of the missile that targeted the Sa’ar ship in 2006. This one among us.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: They will try to capture it, but this is a wing of the missile that targeted Sa'ar. Your Eminence, can it be considered that Hezbollah has become a serious military and naval force?
When regional power is discussed, I usually say that it has a regional influence, but I don't like exaggerations sometimes.
We have a naval capability.
We do not want to exaggerate This is a naval capability that is sufficient to achieve the required deterrence and desired goals.
That’s it.
Use your imagination.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Are all of them defensive? * Sayyed Nasrallah: No, offensive, defensive-offensive.
When you talk about deterring the achievement of goals, it means defense and offense, not just defense.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Does this mean you have a deterrent naval capability that defends and can attack all of occupied Palestine? * Sayyed Nasrallah: It is not a traditional or classical force.
After all, we are a resistance.
With all our capabilities, we do not adopt the classical form – so no one gets any ideas.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Of course, I am not talking about ships, but you have this ability. * Sayyed Nasrallah: Let me say this description.
Are we able to deter, push back the enemy, or strike targets in the sea of occupied Palestine, anywhere in this sea? Yes, we have this ability.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Where in the sea of occupied Palestine or beyond, beyond? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Today, you are commenting a lot on beyond, beyond.
In the end, the range that extends towards the shores of occupied Palestine.
If you take it to the west, it also extends to the same ranges.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, what is the secret that made Hezbollah as a resistance have all these capabilities in terms of land and sea deterrence? Do you have an air deterrence capability? * Sayyed Nasrallah: In the air, we will not reveal our cards.
There is something we resorted to after sending drones over the southern suburbs, the well-known incident.
We made a decision that within a certain level, we would start confronting the drones.
We already had the ability to confront the drones, but we did not use this ability.
We delayed it for a {Day when eyes will stare [in horror]} – when a war erupts.
However, it depends on the extent of the violation, which of course in Lebanon many people remain silent about – if you only go to the website of the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Lebanese Ministry of Defense, or official Lebanese authorities, the Lebanese army has a statistics of tens of thousands of violations of Resolution 1701.
Hence, there are air violations committed by the “Israeli” drones.
We considered the last operation a dangerous development because it was no longer about information gathering operations, but rather killing, bombing, destroying, and targeting operations.
Since then, we made a decision to use the ability available to us, some of the ability.
We will not talk about the other abilities – whether they exist or not is another research. We are able to confront the drones at a certain level.
We have already started that.
That is why today I am giving you examples from the Bekaa. Of course, we are working under very difficult circumstances.
Today, for example, you must hide the missile platform that targets drones from the enemy and from your friends.
You have to hide it even from within the party and the resistance.
We are basically moving under very difficult security conditions.
In the Bekaa, for example, drone were always hovering over – now three or four months have passed without drones.
Of course, they are looking for alternatives to gather information in the Bekaa.
Even the drones that come at very high altitudes come rarely, every three or four months.
They might come once.
In the south, the movement [of drones] have decreased a lot, and the residents of the south attest to this.
If they come, instead of coming from the north of occupied Palestine towards the south over the land, they now go to the sea, circle over the sea, and then come crosswise towards the target village or city in southern Lebanon. Even flights over Dahiyeh, Beirut, and these areas have decreased to a very large extent.
The “Israelis” know that there is a problem of using uncoordinated air defenses when flying over Beirut and the suburbs because of the airport and civil aircraft.
The “Israelis” know this, and I am not revealing a secret.
Hence, the lesson is mainly the south and the Bekaa because our hand is more open in the air.
This is how much we had to reveal.
More than that what? Let us leave it for later.
If it exists, it will appear.
If it does not exist, then it does not exist.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: I am sure that you will not answer us in detail, and this is understandable. But before the break, Your Eminence, when you raised in your last speech that you could eventually go to war, perhaps your environment, your supporters, those who love the resistance in general, whether they are in Lebanon or outside, trust Hezbollah and its capabilities. They trust you, love you, and respect you.
That side was not only worried because you are the one taking the initiative without returning to the government.
We are way passed that.
They are also worried that Hezbollah may enter into a war and not play the required role, and “Israel” will be violent and powerful, striking all of Lebanon.
Therefore, what reassurance do you provide to the Lebanese and others that when Hezbollah takes the initiative in this matter, it is indeed capable of striking the “Israeli” occupation and also protecting Lebanon? * Sayyed Nasrallah: In order not to go into details, it is enough for me to say to the Lebanese people that they must trust that they have through the resistance the human, military, and material strength and capabilities that will make “Israel” submit to the will of Lebanon.
Be confident, like all past experiences.
In the end, when we talk about war – if things head toward war, perhaps things, God willing, will be resolved.
No one loves.
If we talk about war – it is no one’s desire to go to war! We have always said we are not looking for war, we do not want war, but we are not afraid of it, and if it happens, we are up to it and will face it like champions.
Now, we say we will prevent the extraction of “Israeli” oil and gas unless Lebanon is allowed to extract Lebanese oil and gas, and if it leads – we are not going to wage war, we say that if that leads to going to war – then we will go to war.
Of course, the decision of war here is with “Israel” and not with us.
There is a misconception here.
We are not making a decision to go to war.
We will prevent it and what we will do depends on the performance of the “Israeli” enemy before and after it.
Therefore, if matters go to war, I tell the Lebanese that they must first have confidence in God and in this resistance that will be able to impose Lebanon's will on the enemy.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Is it possible to say that Lebanon or Hezbollah will be alone? * Sayyed Nasrallah: We did not discuss this issue with anyone, and we did not demand commitments from anyone or take commitments from anyone.
However, the situation – whether it concerns us or is related to what is happening inside occupied Palestine – is always open.
Let us suppose a war broke out between Lebanon and the “Israeli” enemy.
It is not known, at the very least, if the war will remain between these two sides.
Could it develop into a war at the regional level? Will other forces enter this battle? This is a very strong possibility.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Thank you, Your Eminence.
We finished the first headline, but it took too long because it is very important.
I think we got enough answers.
Thank you for your candor.
Dear viewers, please be kind enough to stay with us.
A commercial break, after which we will return to continue our discussion.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, in the second axis, I would like to talk about Lebanon: thought, politics, identity, and what is different. In this interview, we may not talk about everything , but I beg your pardon, I want to ask you a question.
With all honesty, and I am asking it embarrassedly, Your Eminence, what does Lebanon represent to you? You are accused of being, to some extent, belonging to the Iranian community.
It is true that you hold the Lebanese nationality, but neither your belief, nor your thought, nor your discourse, nor your clothes, nor your songs, nor your nashid, nor your movement, nor your flag, nor your culture indicate that you are Lebanese.
You speak the Lebanese colloquial language and hold the Lebanese nationality.
* Sayyed Nasrallah: They are saying that, not you.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: You do not resemble anyone; their culture does not resemble yours; we are facing something that is not like sects but something that is one of the most important things that can enrich Lebanon. But you are totally different. What do you say about this?
In the end, as I listen to Mrs Fairuz and to all of them, we listen to ‘Salam Ya Mahdi’.
Sayyed, convince us that you are Lebanese.
* Sayyed Nasrallah: In any case, it is good to comment on this debate in Lebanon.
Whenever this discussion was raised, my brothers and I used to ask in speeches that what are the criteria? After all, it is not a matter of mood.
Now, with the presence of social networking sites, each person has his own TV and a newspaper.
Everyone comes out and classifies people as Lebanese or not Lebanese.
They can classify people as they want.
When it comes to the mood, anyone can say whatever he wants.
Therefore, there is no logic for discussion and persuasion.
If something is based on logic, just tell us what the criteria you, the Lebanese, or the Lebanese state are relying on to say that this group, party, sect, or group of people are Lebanese.
Of course, this is in Lebanon, and no one discusses this, i.e., someone comes out and says the criterion of patriotism is one, two, three, and four, so that we apply the criteria and be scientific and objective.
If I talk to you about the issue of mood or political and media targeting and distortion, we will be talking until the morning.
It will not do us any good because the other side has already made a decision.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Excuse me, who is the other side? I like to call it ‘the different’. * Sayyed Nasrallah: I will continue.
Secondly, no, if the discussion is scientific and objective, we can talk scientifically and objectively – what are the standards adopted in the world and the globe on the human level, for example, when Lebanon (modern-day Lebanon) was founded? Greater Lebanon in 1920 became Mount Lebanon.
Jabal Amel was not called the South of Lebanon at that time.
The Bekaa and Tripoli were not called the North of Lebanon.
Tripoli, Akkar, Danniyeh, and so on all became Lebanon.
Hence, the criterion is that these people, their fathers, their grandfathers, their great-grandfathers, and their great great-grandfathers were the inhabitants of this region and lived in this region.
This criterion applies to us and the rest of the Lebanese.
Of course, unfortunately, there are people whose grandfathers came from Egypt, Europe, etc.
are accusing us of not being Lebanese. I am forced to speak clearly because the issue does not only talk about Hezbollah.
There are people who go so far as to talk about the Shiites in Lebanon.
The Shiites in Lebanon have been in there for 1400 years.
They are not Lebanese for ten years.
You did not give us the nationality.
They have been here for 1400 years.
The Shiites in Lebanon believe that the beginning of Shiism in Lebanon – after the whole region became Islamic – took place at the hands of Abu Dharr al-Ghafari during the time of the third caliph Othman bin Affan. If you calculate the time, it is 1400 years.
The fathers and grandfathers of these people have been in Lebanon for 1400 years.
Would you like us to bring every tribe, family, and human group and see how long ago they came to Lebanon – seniority of residence and residency? The Shiites in Lebanon say we were in Lebanon for more than 1400 years, when a tribe came from Yemen when the hands of Saba dispersed after the closure of Marib.
Therefore, we’ve lived in this country – my brother, I am just going to say – for 1400 years.
This is if we want to talk about the old historical expansion.
Secondly, when the country was formed, it was formed from these sects, from the inhabitants of these regions.
It became known as Lebanon. What is the criteria that will allow us to say that this person is more Lebanese than that? This is if we are talking about the historical depth.
We come to the issue of commitment to the interests of the country.
This is one of the criteria of patriotism.
Committing to the interests of the country – I talked about this before; we were at the dialogue table in 2006 when someone told us that ‘you serve Iran's interests’.
I repeated this in several speeches, and now I will repeat it and tell all the Lebanese – these television channels, newspapers, and social media are present – bring me one piece of evidence during the Forty Springs, i.e., 40 years [since Hezbollah’s founding] that prove Hezbollah carried out something in the service of Iran and not Lebanon.
Provide me with only one proof.
I do not want two but one.
Yet, they don't have one proof.
Therefore, the leaders were all present at the table, and the one who accused me was also there, and he could not present a single proof.
If the criterion of patriotism and being Lebanese is that you defend your country, protect it, offer blood and money for the sake of your country, and work hard for it, I don’t want to say that we did all this more than others. Let me be humble.
Even though there are people who do not like this humility from me.
But we defended, protected, and liberated our country.
Had it not been for these people whose Lebanese identity is being questioned, Lebanon would be in the “Israeli” era and swallowed by “Israel”.
I will be defensive since the atmosphere in the country cannot take more than this.
I tell him to slow down.
I would like to give you a testimony.
We should not talk like this.
It is fine to defend ourselves.
They talk about an imported culture.
Those who speak in this language are ignorant.
Of course, they are either people who are deliberately doing so because I told you they are adversaries and initiate wars, or they are ignorant people who do not know history.
Historically, 1400 years ago Muslims and Christians constituted Lebanon.
Our culture is an Islamic culture.
Is it an imported culture? There are Muslims who follow different sects.
We have been Shiites for 1400 years.
This is our culture.
These are our books, our scholars, our jurists, and our elders.
The books of our Ameli Lebanese scholars and jurists are taught today in the seminaries in Najaf, Qom, Mashhad, and all the seminaries in the world, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.
For the Lebanese to know, one of the books that students of religious sciences study is Al-Rawda Al-Bahia fi Sharh al-Lam’a al-Dimashqiyya.
Who authored al-Lam’a al-Dimashqiyya? Al-Shahid al-Awwal from Jezzine.
Who explained al-Lam’a al-Dimashqiyya? Al-Shahid al-Thani from Jbaa.
Al-Shahid al-Awwal, of course, lived during 800 Hijri and Al-Shahid al-Thani during 900 Hijri.
The books of Ameli Lebanese scholars are taught in the most important seminaries in the world.
This is our culture.
We have exported this culture to many places in the world.
Then, they tell us that we brought this culture from Iran.
His Eminence, the Leader, Imam Khamenei, once visited Ahwaz and said that the two most important places in the world that have had an impact on the culture that came to Iran hundreds of years ago were Ahwaz and Jabal Amel.
Who said this? The leader of the Islamic Revolution and the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But they accuse us of importing culture.
We come to the issue of Imam Al-Mahdi.
The Shiites of Lebanon believe in this for 1400 years.
So, does this mean that we brought the issue of Imam Al-Mahdi from Iran, Iraq, or another place? Despite all the explanations that I gave you, these people remain ignorant.
Someone even say that the hijab is Lebanese.
One hundred years ago, people wore clothes and covered themselves from heads to toe? These people were not only in Lebanon, but in the whole region and the whole world.
A few days ago, I watched a documentary about London and Paris, [women] wore veils from head to toe.
Why do I call them ignorant? Because they are ignorant.
So, for us this is unacceptable.
When you discuss my culture with me, we say this country is culturally diverse, ideologically diverse, religiously diverse. This is what characterized Lebanon, which was a haven for the fearful.
Let us talk about history a little.
It was a sanctuary for those who feared for their beliefs, religion, thought, culture, and traditions.
Lebanon brought us all together, and we became one country, one people, and one homeland.
We built ourselves from the beginning based on respect.
We respected each other's beliefs, traditions, culture, and customs.
Why is this issue now being denied? This is on the one hand.
That is why we do not accept at all.
I wanted to answer this because this issue must be addressed.
Let us say from a defensive position, I do not accept at all that someone puts us in a position and question our Lebaneseness and patriotism and accuse our culture of being imported.
No, our culture is authentic.
We worked on spreading our culture in the world.
Among the injustice that befell Lebanon is that many of the Lebanese people do not know these great and influential thinkers and jurists.
If you go to Pakistan, India, Africa, and Azerbaijan, you’ll hear about them.
However, you don't hear about them in Lebanon, why? Because they are not in our official history books.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: But why did you consider that the target is the Shiite sect and not Hezbollah supporters? * Sayyed Nasrallah: This is from the language.
Look, for example, when the objection was to ‘Salam Ya Mahdi’, what was there? We are addressing Imam Mahdi, who we’ve believed in for 1400 years.
What is new in this matter? Why am I telling you that there is targeting? Let’s take Ashura for example.
During the days of Muharram, all Lebanese know that all the Shiites of Lebanon wear black, perform mourning ceremonies, and cry for ten days.
No one objected to us, and no one protested against us, even through discussions, knowing that this has been going on for decades.
Why now? Because there is targeting going on.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: A targeting of who? The Shiites or Hezbollah? * Sayyed Nasrallah: The targeting extends beyond Hezbollah.
There is targeting of everyone who supports the resistance, but the Shiites are the primary target because they are the direct environment of the resistance.
For example, take a look at some of the websites of some Lebanese parties.
Because we are threatening to bring oil and gas to all the Lebanese people and to the entire Lebanese state, they are addressing residents of Dahiyeh and the south, telling them that they will pay the price of defending all of Lebanon for the sake of oil and gas.
This is an incitement to our direct environment.
There is no discussion that this direct environment is the incubator for this resistance, and there is a general environment embracing it made up from the rest of the sects.
This is certain.
For example, during the July war, where did the bombing take place? I spoke with you during the July war.
Here in the southern suburbs the bombing was very strong; there was no water and electricity; there was destruction, danger, etc.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Are we now in Dahiyeh? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Of course, we are in Dahiyeh.
If you cross the road, [Beirut] Sports City Road, and you’ll be in a different world.
The east and the west [of Beirut] were different worlds during the July war.
Also, the south and the Bekaa were another world.
Hence, this direct environment is the one embracing this resistance and is the one paying blood and the prices and making sacrifices with it. They want to confront and fragment it, put pressure on it by distorting its image, hardship in life and livelihood, the financial situation, the economic situation, and target all the Lebanese people. This is part of the issue, but there is a second part. Let me tell you why ‘Salam Ya Mahdi’ provoked them.
I spoke about this issue in an internal meeting.
Usually, things leak out from internal meetings that are not accurate because some media build on them completely.
‘Salam Ya Mahdi’ [song] and the presence of the youth, girls and boys, and people is a very important message.
It is similar to the message sent during the elections by the crowds that came out to show support for the resistance despite the siege and starvation and no matter how much the lira drops or how difficult the economic and living situation became.
We are with the resistance.
This is the message we are betting with the upcoming generations.
Mr Ghassan, there is a big bet in Iran, in Lebanon, in Palestine, and in the whole region on our generation and our children’s generation, for example. No matter what you do, they believe in the thought of resistance and liberation, pride and dignity, and ‘never to humiliation’.
They cannot the bear the existence of “Israel” and the “Israeli” danger, etc. However, they opened social media and are using these means of communication to destroy societies, the family, and the home.
Soon, we will have generations that do not care about a cause, a future, faith, culture, or sanctities.
Al-Quds, Al-Aqsa Mosque, or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre will mean nothing to them.
this is what they are betting on and working on.
In one moment in time, this generation surprised them.
These young people, Mr Ghassan, that they saw for seven minutes on television came from faraway villages.
They stood under the sun for four hours.
No one left, and they stayed until the end.
The whole world saw them chant, cry, and interact. This was not a play where they brought children and lined them up on stage.
They came and spoke from their heart.
Is this generation scary? Yes, it scares “Israel”.
That is why the “Israelis” commented on this issue because they look deeply.
They are not like some silly people who take the crust.
Those who look deeply have the right to worry.
In Iran, ‘Salam Ya Mahdi’ is called ‘Salam Farmandeh’.
Let us take an example.
If a Lebanese person speaks half English and half French, it is fine. However, if someone from Hezbollah, a Shiite in Lebanon, or one of Iran's allies uses a Persian word, you hear accusations of dependence and cultural import.
When they produced ‘Salam Farmandeh’, all Persian satellite channels broadcast it to the Iranian people.
Satellite channels waged a long battle.
Why? Because this generation caused despair in them.
They were betting that after 20 years, a generation that does not care about Imam Mahdi, Imam Khomeini, Islam, the revolution, the Islamic Republic, or the oppressed would come.
The same thing happened in our region.
That is why the message of ‘Salam Ya Mahdi’ is a very beautiful and very powerful message.
Why at this time? By the way, Mr Ghassan, it is not the first time that songs for Imam Al-Mahdi are made.
It is also not the first time that the scouts meet and address Imam Al-Mahdi with these songs, or the party.
But Glory be to God this song during this time with this content and this music sent this message.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: It spread globally; we even saw it in Africa. * Sayyed Nasrallah: I would like to add something.
In the past three years, several individuals talk about similarities – they look like us or not.
You might ask me who am I what is culture and civilization? What do you belong to? Let's see if others look like you or not.
Those who say they look like us or not, when they talk about each other, they don't look like each other.
So, agree on an image so we can see if we look like you or not. * Ghassan bin Jiddo: There is an Arab culture that is open and also influenced by the West – a moderate and open Arab culture that is influenced by the open civilized West. * Sayyed Nasrallah: Mr Ghassan, the second fallacy is that someone says I am what Lebanon should look like, I am the image of Lebanon and says to others that they may or may not resemble him based on how the image of Lebanon. Who told you that you are the image of Lebanon? let us read history and present.
This is pointless logic. I took some time to answer this because it is being raised in the country.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: It is true. On the contrary, this talk is good, but frankly there is a third matter, Your Eminence, that we heard from Western diplomatic circles saying that what you did was not only for the cultural and social aspects (perhaps even part of it was joy, even though people were crying with emotion, but there was also joy despite the atmosphere of pressure in the country).
I heard talk that is worth discussing.
As you said a while ago, you have nearly one hundred thousand fighters.
Now, you are preparing us for two hundred thousand new fighters.
* Sayyed Nasrallah: Their problem is not with 100,000 fighters.
Their problem is with this culture, the culture of resistance.
What is required in the region? A culture of normalization versus a culture of resistance.
There are two cultures, either normalization or resistance, or standing in the sidelines.
The Americans, the “Israelis”, and others are working to spread a culture of normalization.
Of course, God willing, they will not succeed.
If you see the latest opinion poll conducted by the Americans, any American institution, on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain – despite the fact that there are many media outlets and electronic armies and the destruction of all sanctities and all red lines in discourse inside Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Bahrain – how much is the percentage of those who support normalization and how much is the percentage of those who reject normalization? * Ghassan bin Jiddo: Yes, more than two-thirds. * Sayyed Nasrallah: This is a very important issue.
Therefore, in my opinion, the problem in this issue is a problem with the culture of the resistance and not that these people will be soldiers.
Perhaps they will not be soldiers; perhaps they will be doctors, engineers, and university professors as we have, God willing.
But this culture of not giving up our sanctities, our land, and our dignity and not accepting the occupation, of course, will provoke them.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: By the way, between brackets, although I am not in a religious session, Your Eminence, and I am with a great scholar, but even for the Sunnah, the Imam Mahdi is present, the expected Imam Mahdi for all Muslims, but the dispute is about… * Sayyed Nasrallah: The idea of Imam Mahdi is a comprehensive Islamic idea.
Yes, the disagreement between some schools of thought is that there are those who say that he was born, and he is al-Hujja, the son of al-Hasan, al-Mahdi, the son of Imam al-Hasan al-Askari (PBUT).
Then, there are those who say that he will be born 30 or 40 years before his appearance.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Exactly, but all Muslims believe in the idea of Imam Mahdi. * Sayyed Nasrallah: In the Shiite and Sunni Islamic cultures, when they talk about Imam Mahdi – we are mentioning this for the sake of the Christians – they talk about Imam Mahdi and Christ together.
They say that Christ will return to this world and that the Mahdi will appear in this world and together they will establish justice and fill the earth with justice, peace, mercy, and love after being filled with injustice, oppression, tyranny, violence, and so on.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: It is a universal conviction for all Muslims in this matter. I do not want to merge the two topics, and not because you mentioned the term normalization, I do not mean this, but there is also a campaign against you now in recent days related to Archbishop Musa Al-Hajj.
He brought with him about half a million dollars or a little less.
The military judiciary and public security dealt with him.
However, we are now witnessing an uproar against Hezbollah, other than Judge Akiki.
So far, we do not understand Hezbollah's position.
You are now being accused in the Dimane, for example.
During the sermon, a slogan was raised against Hezbollah.
Today, one of the former prime ministers who has nothing to do with Sheikh Saad Hariri is also criticizing Hezbollah.
Other parties are criticizing Hezbollah.
Your Eminence, what is your position? Are you behind the arrest of Archbishop Musa Al-Hajj, the confiscation of his money, and this campaign being waged against him or what? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Firstly, all of this is based on a wrong basis, rather on an unjust basis.
When someone comes and assumes that the Lebanese security services are working under the command of Hezbollah – which is not true – this is a lie, slander, accusation, and injustice to us and all security services, be it the intelligence, the general security, the information branch, or the state security.
Imagine the Lebanese army operating under the command of Hezbollah, for example! Today in Lebanon, there is a law and a position on anything related to collaboration with “Israel” or the possibility of collaboration.
You find the security apparatus act.
Therefore, a while ago the Information Branch and the army’s intelligence arrested a very large number of people over suspicion of their involvement with “Israel”.
Does this mean that the Director General of the Internal Security or the head of the Information Branch took a directive, a decision, or an order from Hezbollah? We didn't know.
We found out from the media.
We found out later.
They don't believe.
If I say I don't know, what should I do? So, we remained silent.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Did you really not know, Your Eminence? * Sayyed Nasrallah: The General Security is doing its regular job.
It is present at all border crossings.
The Director General of the General Security is our friend, and it is well known that there is friendship and trust, just as many of the security agencies have friendship, relationship, trust, and so on.
But he does his job, and this is an institution in a state.
It gets a judicial signal and acts in the light of this signal.
In any case, he clarified the whole incident and said that we received a signal.
There is no need for me to repeat what he said.
He said, “We received a judicial signal.
The archbishop came carrying 20 bags, and we have to search.
The search of the bags took a couple of hours, which they considered that they held him for six to seven hours and with a signal from the judiciary.” What does Hezbollah have to do with this matter? Let someone just explain to the people.
Shouting and yelling is not the solution.
We must be rational.
What does Hezbollah have to do with this? Why are you accusing it? Let me tell you that I and all of Hezbollah found out like the rest of the Lebanese – that there is problem involving a certain archbishop.
He was stopped at the border and bags were searched.
There was a judicial signal, etc.
This is first. It is not there is a campaign [against Hezbollah] I am saying we don't know.
If I knew, I will say I know.
If we have something to do with the incident, I will say we had something to do with it without being afraid of anyone.
I am not afraid of anyone at all except God Almighty.
An hour ago, we spent it talking about “Israel” and the war, and I know that some Lebanese will get angry, insult, and accuse us.
We have no problem because we are talking about the interest of our country.
First, I would like to say to all the Lebanese people, especially the Christians, who are being stirred up, irritated, and incited, be certain that Hezbollah has no close or remote relationship with this matter.
It is not aware of or has made a decision, order, or anything at all concerning this matter.
There is a Lebanese General Security.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: You did not interfere later, and you will not. * Sayyed Nasrallah: We did not interfere, and we will not interfere in this matter.
There is a Lebanese General Security and a Lebanese judiciary.
They acted the way all the security and judicial agencies act.
This is first.
Yes, this incident today is being used for incitement and to cause sectarian militancy.
Why am I telling you targeting? It is targeting when they are accusing you of something you have nothing to do with, not from near or from afar, holding you responsible for it, and attacking you day and night.
A demonstration in Bkerki takes place calling Hezbollah a terrorist.
When I saw them, I laughed.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Why did you not protest, Your Eminence? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Why would I protest? Understandably, there are people who have already made a decision.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: I am not talking about those who raised slogans but those who did not object to raising slogans in a religious edifice. * Sayyed Nasrallah: This is their business, whether they protest or not.
So, this issue first has nothing to do with us.
Secondly, the security services are doing their job.
The judiciary is doing its job.
Thirdly, we will comment since the incident was mentioned.
On the subject of the investigation at the port, I said there are ambiguities regarding this investigation, and the investigation is being politicized.
The families of the martyrs are not being informed of the technical investigations.
There should either be a serious investigation or the judge should be replaced.
There was an uproar, interference in the judiciary, attacking the judiciary, and threatening the judiciary.
Poor judge Fadi Akiki.
They accused him of treason.
Some demanded the death penalty for him.
People demanded he be expelled.
Why? Because he gave a signal to the General Security to search the archbishop's suitcases.
Why does this apply to you and not to us? We did not threaten anyone.
We did not ask for the judge to be executed, and we did not want to kill anyone.
We only asked the judge to conduct a transparent investigation without any political bias or that the judge be replaced.
We are not asking for the negotiations to be disrupted.
Today, who destroyed the security services and the judiciary? Whoever is objecting to us and criticizing us on some issues.
What happened these past two days, will not leave the state, Mr Ghassan.
There will be no judiciary, no security services, no judge, or a security official that dares to do anything.
Later on, people will be able to enter occupied Palestine and leave it and bring money in and out, and nobody is allowed to tell them anything. This is very dangerous.
Despite that, we do not want to get involved in all this battle and debate.
I say to all those involved in this file, from the top figure – who is well-known – to the bottom of the pyramid, this way and path is dangerous and incorrect.
This does not serve the interest of the country at all.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: What is his fate? How long will this incitement last? Are we talking about division? For 20 years, you have said that Lebanon will not be divided, it will not be federalized, and whoever is requesting a divorce can go to Canada. * Sayyed Nasrallah: These are the same words; Lebanon cannot be divided nor federalized.
There is no possibility.
Look, there is something called susceptibility.
In philosophy, it is said that it moves from force to action.
This means that in order for something to become actual, it must be susceptible.
Tell me now, if someone wanted to divide Lebanon, how will he divide it? On what basis will he divide it? What remains of Lebanon if it is divided? Talking about division is talking about eliminating a people, land, landscape, and the future.
All of this is for pressure.
This does not lead to division, federalism, or anything else.
This is to put pressure on political calculations whose ceiling is all known because the presidential elections are coming up and people want to improve their positions and weaken the positions of others.
There is the formation of a new government and people want to improve their positions.
In my opinion, people should not be so afraid, and this is not the first time that has happened.
Many such incidents have taken place, and we’ve seen uproar for days, sometimes weeks.
Then, they’d end.
This is the Lebanese way.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, regarding the presidency and the government. First, will the government come after the election of the Lebanese president or before? Second, do you have specifications?
Transferring funds from occupied Palestine to Lebanon is contrary to the law and to the official decision.
There is no difference between transferring money for humanitarian or non-humanitarian purposes.
I want to remind the Lebanese people of the Imam Sayyed Musa al-Sadr, may God bring him back safely.
Once, the “Israelis” built something called the Good Wall on the border in order to normalize the relationship with the Lebanese.
At that time, the people of the south were very poor – praise be to God, the situation has improved in the past decades.
They were very poor, so it was possible for us to take medicine, money, and bread [from that wall].
Imam al-Sadr at that time issued a clear decision that it was forbidden to take medicine or bread [from that wall] even if that meant enabling me to live and not starve.
It was forbidden.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Basically, a fatwa? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Of course, it is true that he was not a marja [religious reference].
He did not present himself as a marja, but when he spoke, he said the religious position that is consistent with the religious fatwa.
Today on the issue of “Israel”, we must cooperate and have an understanding with each other.
We cannot be tolerant when it comes to this matter.
With all due respect to the patriarchate, bishops, clergy, sheikhs, muftis, people of eminence, virtue, and holiness, the issue of “Israel”, the relationship with “Israel”, and money from within the occupied entity goes against laws and the Lebanese interest.
Hence, we have nothing to do with this matter.
We have nothing to do with the arrest that took place, but our position is clear.
Even the exception given to the archbishop – that there is a parish inside and he wants to take care of this parish.
Something I have read does not make sense; why is this exception given? Why open the borders between Lebanon and occupied Palestine in the first place, even for one case, if you consider “Israel” an enemy? Some people – I am not saying all those who worked on this – hypocritically tell you that “Israel” is an enemy, but their conviction is completely different.
To them, “Israel” is a friend, an ally, and the future.
We must let go of this hypocrisy.
This matter must be resolved.
If there is a parish that you want to take care of, His Eminence, the Archbishop can leave Beirut to Amman, and from Amman, he can go wherever he wants and enter occupied Palestine.
It does not mean that I agree that he enters.
However, the issue of the Lebanese borders being the best way must be resolved.
The solution is not by changing the law, breaking the judiciary and the general security, and dragging the country into sectarian incitement so that the archbishop can come and go and bring 20 suitcases with him that are said to be for humanitarian reasons.
In any case, someone posted comments regarding the Iranian diesel stating that this violates sovereignty, but 20 suitcases full of money coming illegally from occupied Palestine does not violate sovereignty! This issue must be dealt with.
In any case, this much is enough.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, I asked you if the government will be formed before or after the presidential elections? And what are your criteria for the next president so that we don't talk about names? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Regarding the government, it is not clear.
With the existing debate, matters are not clear.
Of course, we have our position and demand for a government, even if it is one, two, or three months old, let alone if it is older than that.
This comes later in the presidential elections.
With regard to the presidency, there are several approaches.
There is an approach to this issue that says let's agree on the qualities [of the president] and then look for that credible person.
Another approach says to talk about each one of the serious credible persons that are suggested. The first approach is a waste of time, with all due respect.
Even those who are following this approach know.
Mr Ghassan, how do things go in Lebanon? I have a certain person in mind, so I put the qualities that apply on this person.
The scientific method is that there should be no one in my mind, and I put specifications that are in the interest of Lebanon.
Then, the person who has these qualities will be the president of the republic, and later I look for credibility.
This does not exist.
Basically, when someone puts a set of qualities, he is telling certain people that you are out.
This is practically how it goes.
As for us, we do not see the benefit of talking about qualities.
We consider it a waste of time.
There are names that are proposed.
There is something in Lebanon that you don’t find anywhere else.
We live in a country of wonders and exceptions.
There is something called a natural candidate being proposed in Lebanon.
As the Arab world and the Arab peoples know, perhaps some of them are not aware of this issue, the president of the republic in Lebanon must be a Maronite Christian.
This means that a Muslim cannot be a president.
An Orthodox Christian or a Catholic Christian cannot be a president as well.
The president can only be a Maronite Christian.
Among the Maronite Christian political figures, it is said that so-and-so is a natural candidate.
Hence, the logic is that people will be talking about the natural candidates, or even if there are candidates who are not natural candidates, because some people… * Ghassan bin Jiddo: Do you have a natural candidate? * Sayyed Nasrallah: As for us tonight, I will not discuss the names with, natural or not.
As for Hezbollah, we have not yet started this discussion.
We have some time. During the next few days, we will have entered and are very close to the presidential elections because the Speaker of Parliament said that from the beginning of September, he will start calling for sessions.
This means that August is the month of discussions, dialogues, and negotiations between the various political forces.
We will hold discussions on several levels – discussions with our allies and friends, especially with whom we can both vote for.
Certainly, we will mainly hold discussions with the Free Patriotic Movement and the Marada Movement.
We will hold discussions with the rest of our allies and friends, then we will hold internal discussions within Hezbollah about what option we will adopt, work with, or work for.
Of course, it is useful for me to clarify some things from now.
First, Hezbollah sources: It is issued in the media that Hezbollah sources say that the party is favoring so-and-so, nominating so-and-so, supporting so-and-so, then vetoing so-and-so.
This is all irresponsible talk.
There is no such thing as Hezbollah sources.
When we make an official decision, Hezbollah issues a statement, or I or one of the responsible brothers in Hezbollah will be responsible for stating our position and our decision.
This is first.
Secondly, there are many rumors going around on this subject.
For example, when a meeting took place between me and Minister Gebran Bassil and Minister Franjieh.
To this day, hearsay is written –he said to me, I told them, they told me.
All of this is incorrect; most of what was written is incorrect, but nothing related to the presidency and the election of the president was discussed neither in the session nor before it nor after it.
The purpose of the meeting, albeit outdated, is to break down barriers, reconciliation, and to bring people back together before the parliamentary elections.
As for the presidency, no final discussions were made. As for us, we will study our affairs well and quietly.
Of course, some will try to use the method of burning the candidates – we want to burn so-and-so, so we say this is Hezbollah’s candidate.
This will act as a provocation or sensitivity among some regional countries or some global powers and put a veto on this candidate.
This is unfair.
So far, there is no candidate.
Basically, the expression is inaccurate.
Hezbollah will not have a presidential candidate.
When the natural and not natural candidates become clear, Hezbollah will decide which candidate to support.
This means that we are in a position to support a presidential candidate.
We are not in a position to nominate a presidential candidate, to be precise.
Therefore, we have some time, and in the light of that, we will see what the contacts and discussions bear.
Accordingly, we will make the appropriate decision.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: I wish we could continue talking about this subject. I know that you will not talk about it mainly, but in any case, we understand now that you are talking mainly about the Free Patriotic Movement, i.e., Mr Gebran Bassil, the Marada Movement, i.e., Mr Suleiman Franjieh, and those with them. But they are the main poles in the Christian arena that you will deal with.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Do you have a veto on anyone? * Sayyed Nasrallah: We will talk later, God willing.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, I think that this is the last meeting with your Eminence during the term of President Aoun, so I would like to talk about President Aoun in this matter. We are not evaluating his term, but the last years of President Aoun’s term went through many pitfalls.
Some things were accomplished, but his term also suffered from some pitfalls.
How do you see President Michel Aoun, whom you supported greatly? My other question is if you may, Your Eminence, do you consider that you have fulfilled your duty towards President Aoun and his term? * Sayyed Nasrallah: I would like to talk about this subject a little for the next stage.
Sometimes in the country when some try to evaluate and present negative assessments of the term of His Excellency President Michel Aoun, they hold him responsible for harsh consequences.
There is confusion.
Where does it occur? This confusion, which must be addressed and not repeated, is that the president in Lebanon is not a ruler.
In other words, he has specific powers after the Taif Agreement – limited and specific.
The executive authority is with the Council of Ministers collectively.
This is what the Taif did.
Before the Taif, the president was the head of the executive authority, and he was assisted by the prime minister and the other ministers. Today, after Taif, the executive power rests with the government as a whole.
There is no doubt that after Taif, the influence of the prime minister became very great.
The Lebanese president has specific powers, and whoever wants to evaluate His Excellency the President must evaluate his performance in the light of his limited and specific powers.
Let us give simple examples.
Can the president release a detainee from prison? He cannot.
Back in the day, the president was able to release all prisoners.
nowadays, he cannot unless he is issuing a special pardon.
This is another discussion, and there should be certain conditions. Can the president alone dismiss a minister or a director general? We understand the position of the President toward the Governor of Lebanon’s central bank.
However, he cannot do anything.
These are the powers of the Lebanese president.
Therefore, the president is the one who determines the general, economic, media and educational policies.
Let’s hold him accountable for the economic, financial, and monetary results in the country! These are not his responsibilities but that of the government.
Therefore, questions, accusations, or rulings sometimes go to the wrong place.
If we want to say who is first and foremost responsible, there is a system in place and it is the current system.
There are institutions, and there are powers distributed between institutions.
The president has a share in this system; you can hold him accountable based on the size of his share given to him.
Otherwise, the party that is mainly responsible in the Lebanese state [is the Lebanese government].
Today, for example, anything related to the judiciary, you ask the Supreme Judicial Council, that is, the Lebanese judiciary – why did they do this, act this way, not open these files, close the files? There is a judiciary. If you’re asking who is behind the judiciary, then that is another discussion, and we are talking outside the system.
The Lebanese government, from the beginning of the Taif Agreement until today, is responsible for the economic, financial, and social policies.
Whoever was in it and is in it now as well as the Parliament as a legislative authority bear the responsibility.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, with all due respect and do not mind me asking, even though this is a good clarification, but you are accused of disrupting the country for the sake of President Michel Aoun whose powers are limited. * Sayyed Nasrallah: The importance of the president is that he constitutes a guarantee.
What I’m saying does not mean that you turn your back on the issue of the presidency and that its powers are limited.
There is no problem with whoever becomes president. On the contrary, a president can ruin the country, disrupt it, stir up a thousand problems in the country, i.e., he can play a very negative role.
However, for the president to play a positive role, his powers are usually limited.
We are more afraid.
The negative role that can be…
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: It is really strange. Basically, the president of the Republic can destroy but not participate in the construction. He does not participate, but he cannot build with absolute powers.
He told them an engineer.
They told him: “So, you build buildings?” He told them: “No, I demolish buildings.” To build a building, Mr Ghassan, you need engineers, money, concrete, iron, water, and time, while to demolish a building, you only need one person to demolish it.
Vandalism does not require much effort.
It is construction that usually needs a great effort.
In any case, I would like to talk about this observation.
Here, I am talking about what happened.
This is, of course, where our friends and allies in the Free Patriotic Movement may have fallen into this confusion.
When they built, they gave hopes.
The strong covenant [President Michel Aoun], the covenant will do so and so.
However, for the president to fulfill their promise, he must have powers.
Therefore, I repeat and say that if an individual wants to be fair and logical when talking about the term of His Excellency President Michel Aoun, he must take these powers into consideration. In the light of these powers, he can talk about the accomplishments during the term of His Excellency the President, what he could’ve done with these powers, and he did not do.
Therefore, also with regard to the next stage, there is a misconception that exists in the country.
Before the parliamentary elections, all political forces talk about the solution, the treatment, and the way out of the crisis.
The parliamentary elections get underway, but the country is still in a deadlock.
So, what do they say? The solution begins with electing a president.
This is an incorrect expectation.
If we elect a president, does that mean the country is on the path to a solution? No, the solution begins with the formation of a serious and responsible government that elects a president.
In other words, if we want a real solution, it lies in the formation of a government and not to wait for the presidential elections.
But the election of a president is not enough if the government is not formed.
No one should promise people and present them with rosy dreams.
The solution is to form a responsible government.
After the parliamentary elections, this person does not want it, and that person does not want it.
Most of the political forces announced that they do not want to take part in the government.
What is this asceticism? Is this asceticism? This is not asceticism because a heavy-duty and a responsible government that makes difficult decisions is required.
They do not want to shoulder any responsibility and want to escape from difficult decisions.
They do not want to carry burdens in order to save their people.
They are in the government when there is money to be plundered.
They are in the government when there are no burdens. They want the grace, pleasure, and paradise of power, and for this reason, many people say that they do not want to be in power now and do not want to participate in the government.
Why? Because regardless of whatever government comes, the country is heading towards a difficult situation.
The solution, if we want to talk at the level of the system, is to form a real, serious government.
Regarding the presidential issue, yes, the time will come and we will elect a president.
Everything we can do to be on the side of His Excellency President Michel Aoun, we have done.
I want to remind you that in October 2019, there was a very massive campaign that primarily targeted His Excellency the President and demanded his resignation and the overthrow of the government and parliament.
But the primary target on the list was His Excellency the President.
Many people were afraid and remained silent.
Who was the first to publicly stand up in the face of popular anger – we had a concept, but for many people, it was a misconception – and said we do not allow the overthrow of the President? Was it not Hezbollah? Was it not the first political force in Lebanon to stand up and say this? Along the way, yes, what we can do, we did.
For example, you go through circumstances similar to the present.
There was a situation between Prime Minister Saad Hariri and His Excellency the President to form the government.
The President says that you are able to persuade Prime Minister Saad Hariri but you don’t, so they admonish us.
Then, Prime Minister Saad Hariri says or believes that we can persuade His Excellency the President to facilitate the formation, and he admonishes us.
But the fact of the matter is that we cannot persuade anyone; we talk, mediate, and hold discussions.
If we reach an understanding, then we did.
If we don’t, we stop.
This is the case.
Therefore, in summary, what we believe we were able to do and what we are still able to do to support the President – because there is still time, and may God prolong the life of His Excellency the President – we did and will do.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: We do not want to evaluate the term, but can we give a description to President Michel Aoun at the end of his term, as a president? Your objective opinion. * Sayyed Nasrallah: The conditions under which His Excellency the President became the head of the state were difficult – the “decade of fire” transformations (in the region) as you call them. The beginning of the difficult economic situation was emerging on the surface, as well as the developments that took place in the country, his targeting as well – there were fronts targeting His Excellency the President and was well known in the country.
Ghassan bin Jiddo: Is he a strong president? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Yes, he is a strong person who did not weaken.
In 2019, perhaps another person would have left Baabda Palace.
In our Lebanese expression, leave me alone.
There were decisions that no one would have made except President Michel Aoun, such as resolving the battle in the outskirts.
It was clear that the Lebanese army were being attacked – its officers were killed, the soldiers and the bodies of martyrs were held captive. There was no official decision by the Internal Security Forces for even a military action.
There was an American veto on military action.
General Michel Aoun bypassed the American veto and made this decision.
The region was going through the most difficult circumstances, including a war.
There was stable security in Lebanon.
Who is this thanks to? To the covenant [the president], the government, and the state – in the end, we come back to the powers.
When we talk about achievements, there are a group of important achievements.
Yes, he is a strong man – his personality.
He possesses vision and ideas.
He has presence. I think that if any another person was subjected to what General Michel Aoun was subjected to – his movement was supposed to be in the parliamentary elections – would’ve collapsed.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: The minimal loss that surprised everyone without exception. Your Eminence, we have an hour left. We still have some issues, but I will boil them down, God willing.
We’re going to take a short break, and we will continue with the dialogue.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Welcome back dear viewers. Your Eminence, before the break, we learned that there was “Israeli” interest in what you mentioned about Karish, beyond Karish, and the gas fields. It seems that the message has arrived, but it arrived quickly. Great interest, including fear.
According to logic, historical norms, divine norms, the laws governing societies, this entity has no future.
In any case, what we used to say 10, 20, or 30 years ago, or what Imam Khomeini raised in 1979 and 1980 about the eradication of “Israel” from existence today, senior “Israeli” leaders are talking about it now.
For example, the outgoing Prime Minister Bennett – before taking over the premiership, did not change his mind – in his recent speeches was talking about existential threats.
Today in “Israel”, political officials, security officials, military generals, senior university professors have written books.
I watched a television interview discussing a book.
The whole idea is that “Israel” is unviable.
It has no viability.
For example, the former head of the Mossad says that they activated the self-destruct devices.
Of course, they are talking about internal reasons in the first place, but historically, when he takes historical analogies, he says internal disputes and conflicts, then external action comes and sweeps away this entity.
This is what will happen.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Do you see it on the near future? * Sayyed Nasrallah: I see it very soon.
In any case, these same senior leaders, analysts, and other “Israelis” are debating whether the state will reach 80 years of age or not, i.e., a couple of years.
This is them talking, not us.
We believe that there are a group of factors.
First, as they say, the internal factors are correct.
This is something from their culture, their upbringing, their environment, and their composition.
Things are heading in this direction – for the worse, and the upcoming parliamentary elections are nearing.
The internal causes, including economic, cultural, educational, and religious, are intertwined.
Second, the adherence of the Palestinian people.
Today, the spirit of resistance of the Palestinian people, the will to be steadfast and resist, and faith in the resistance is higher than ever, despite all the difficult circumstances they’ve been through for more than 70 years.
Third, the strength of the axis of resistance that believes in this cause.
Fourth, the international situation.
We all know who preserved this entity.
In other words, someone came and planted an entity in the heart of the Arab world, in the heart of the Islamic world, and imposed it on hundreds of millions.
Now, they are imposing it on one billion and 500 million.
This is a great external power in the world.
International transformations will also be very influential.
A time will come for “Israel” when the Europeans will be preoccupied with themselves.
This has already begun.
The international system is turning into a multipolar system.
Where is the horizon of the Russian-American war in Ukraine? China and America? America itself? Two days ago, I read an opinion poll conducted by a study center in America.
More than 51% believe that during the next few years, the United States will witness a civil war.
If there is no America, there is no “Israel”.
For me, the sight of people packing their bags and going to the airports, ports, and border crossings with Egypt and Jordan.
Having this scene in my mind implies that this entity has no future.
You’re talking to me about the past 40 years or the next 40 years.
I tell you no less than 40 springs.
We don't need another 40 springs to witness this result.
Here, we are not talking about unseen events, predictions, dreams, or revelations.
No, one plus one equals two.
These are facts and internal data.
These are the data from the region and the world.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: The Jordanian and Egyptian people, Your Eminence, will not let them take their bags. They are two peoples who strongly reject normalization.
Today, for example, what confirms this issue is the existing data.
For example, how many “Israelis” have a second nationality? How many “Israelis” say that if there is an upcoming war, they are ready to leave? They do not want to even wait for the outcome of the war.
As soon as the war begins, they will leave.
What does all this mean? People were brought into a land and a cause was fabricated for them.
They do not have a cause.
The proof is that Uganda, Argentina, and Ukraine were among the options.
The British brought them to Palestine and not the Torah.
They know this lie.
Therefore, they have no willingness to make sacrifices to stay in this land and defend it because to them it is an occupied land that they have absolutely no connection with. Therefore, all the elements for them to remain recede and subside, and the elements of leaving and going extinct are strengthened day after day.
For me, there is great clarity in this matter.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, you spoke a short while ago about the axis of resistance, which can be said to have expanded to become the Quds alliance. The was launched after the uprising of Al-Quds last year and Al-Quds Sword.
In this context, Your Eminence, last year and this year Mr Yahya Sinwar clearly indicated the existence of what he called a joint operations room, in which Hezbollah participated.
He also talked about the Revolutionary Guards, who are the Palestinian factions.
We know Hezbollah's policy – secrecy about these matters.
As for Mr Yahya Sinwar, he spoke about this issue.
Unfortunately, there are still those who question Hezbollah's role in this matter.
In the Forty dialogue, what can you tell us about Al-Quds Sword? * Sayyed Nasrallah: This operations room actually existed.
When it was first reported in the media after the end of the war, there was a remark from some of the brothers in Hezbollah that this matter might bother Hamas or the brothers in Gaza.
However, it became clear later that it did not bother them because they talked about it publicly and explicitly, whether military leaders or political leaders.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Was Hamas in the joint operations room? * Sayyed Nasrallah: There was direct coordination with Hamas and direct coordination with the Islamic Jihad.
There was an operations room, and we kept track around the clock during all the days of the war. Of course, the matter depended on two factors.
The first was related to information.
All the information available to us we gave it to the brothers and it was very useful to them.
This is what they relied on, and it thwarted a great ordeal.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Can you give me an example? * Sayyed Nasrallah: They did not talk about it.
There was a specific trap.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Was it from Hezbollah? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Yes, the brothers presented it as data and they built on it and acted on this basis, and the trap was lost.
This was the main issue.
First, with regard to the information.
Any information and support we could get and provide, we did.
Our brothers had excellent methods of keeping track.
Second, presenting suggestions, ideas, or exchanging views, given our experience in the July war.
These were the two basic issues.
There was no direct fighting.
They were the ones who were fighting.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Can these joint operations rooms expand within the Quds alliance? We are not only about talking Lebanon and Palestine in the Quds alliance. There are other parties.
But when you go to the broader circle, this communication exists between the forces of the axis of resistance – constant consultations, constant communication, constant meetings.
In general, everyone is reading from the same book and everyone is moving within their position.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Were the Revolutionary Guards Corps part of the Al-Quds alliance? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Yes, the brothers in Hamas announced that.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: I know, but I am speaking to His Eminence. * Sayyed Nasrallah: Correct.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: The latest developments regarding Hamas since we are talking about Hamas – its unanimous announcement to return to Damascus. So far, we have not heard Damascus’ opinion.
But from what they said publicly and what is being said now in the debates is that in the end, Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic resistance movement whose first cause is Palestine, the liberation of Al-Quds, and saving the Palestinian people from all the scourges they are living in, including occupation and siege.
Hence, its priority is this, within the framework of this priority and in service of this cause.
When any Palestinian resistance movement finds friends and allies, it must hold on to them.
If some day, a flaw, a problem, or a misunderstanding in the relationship occurs, it must be dealt with as soon as possible.
Logic says this.
Otherwise, it is not logic.
Logic says that there is a Palestinian people fighting a battle for existence, a battle for the future, a battle for dignity, battle of life.
Today, for example, people differ.
Many people say that Gaza has been besieged for 15 years.
This does not mean anything to them.
Thousands of Palestinian youth are in prisons.
Some are in for 30 years, 40 years, and 50 years.
One prison is sentenced for 400 years.
There are mothers, wives, and children who do not see their fathers and their loved ones for many years, perhaps.
This does not mean anything to many in the world.
But in the heart of the Palestinian people, this is a constant wound and pain.
We feel it because we’ve lived through a similar situation as well. For example, there is a battle in Nablus or in Jenin, but the world is going by its daily life.
But there are those who are fighting and being martyred.
Women and children are being terrified.
Who is the most stressed about this cause? The Palestinian people and the Palestinian resistance movements.
When the Palestinian resistance factions and the Palestinian people look, they find that all the Arab regimes are going elsewhere.
Supporting the Palestinian cause does not necessarily mean sending them weapons, for example. We all know, Mr Ghassan, that in the Arab world today you can collect money [for the Palestinians].
In some Arab countries today, if you collect money for Palestinian orphans, you will be thrown into prison under the pretext of supporting terrorism.
Only God knows if you will be released or not.
This exists today.
Most Arab regimes do not even recognize the jihad and resistance of this people.
They ignore them, while they normalize with the “Israelis”.
They do not provide them with any assistance, prevent anyone from providing them with assistance, and besiege them.
In the end, they look around and see who is with them, who was with them, and who is still with them.
for example, today in Gaza, political and military officials of the resistance, and even ordinary people, thank the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Why? This has nothing to do with Shi'ism and Sunnism.
It has nothing to do with anything else.
This is a human and ethical issue.
There is a country in the world that is still standing by and supporting this people – politically, diplomatically, media wise, financially, militarily, technically – without any reservations.
The Palestinian people look around and see no one standing with me except the Islamic Republic, Syria, and perhaps one other country.
Naturally, they will thank them and be grateful to them.
Some may see it as political.
However, if someone tells you that I am building strategic relations with “Israel” and normalizing ties with “Israel” in service of the Palestinian people! Can they insult the intelligence of the Arab and Islamic peoples more than this? In any case, our brothers in Hamas, as all our Palestinian brothers, reached a conviction that Syria is an essential part of the axis of resistance.
If you want to continue your struggle with the “Israeli” enemy, you cannot keep turning your back on Syria, regardless of the situation, confusion, observation, background, or reading of the topic. Our brothers in Hamas, I think – this is my analysis and what I understood while they were talking about it – reached this conclusion.
So far, I found out that many parties abroad are discussing with them, and this is a difficult decision.
There are people who will not understand them.
I told them during internal discussions that they have to prepare themselves to face flogging throughout the Arab and Islamic world, but the brothers said we are mujahideen for a cause.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Unanimously? * Sayyed Nasrallah: According to what I was informed of, yes, unanimously.
They say this [publicly] not in a private meeting.
So, they have reached this conclusion.
Perhaps an official statement or something like that will come out at some point because they still have to prepare the bases – even though they’re already prepared – and engage in dialogues with their friends and allies across the Arab and Islamic world not to persuade them to accept their decision but to understand them.
This is normal.
This is on Hamas.
Of course, we always had this discussions with our brothers in Hamas – in the end, this axis must gather itself.
People must return and cooperate.
We also used to cite something, and this question was usually asked.
The brothers in Hamas in the internal meetings – before the conflict and even after the conflict with Syria, do not hide this when people sat with them.
Some people might not like this, but they [Hamas] are fair. They say that no Arab regime has offered what Syria offered.
In other words, what the regime in Syria offered to Hamas and the Palestinian resistance movements, no one did.
In any case, this is a double-edged sword.
We have always said that this issue must be addressed.
Now, our brothers in Hamas are ready.
In Syria, I am personally concerned with this issue.
Hezbollah is of course concerned with it.
We are probably the most capable party to talk to everyone in the axis, and we are keen to talk with everyone to gather our ranks because it is clear where the region and the conflict are heading towards.
As I told you a while ago, we believe that things are going well, God willing.
This means that we are not the ones that are besieged, fearful, and anxious.
We have a very optimistic vision for the future and the near future.
That is why gathering ranks is a very important process.
Of course, in previous years, Hamas was not ready and circumstances were not helping, nor was the Syrian leadership ready for an option of this kind.
It was clear that things needed time.
Now, Syria, even regarding to restoring Arab relations, Arab countries, Arab regimes, and other parties in the world, is now open.
It wants to restore many of these relations.
After all, perhaps people will later sit and admonish each other over what happened, the past, and the present, but what is important is looking to the future.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Are you still going on with this matter? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Of course, I think that the issues are well accepted and need some discussion, for some time, and we will reach a good conclusion, God willing.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: After Hamas announced this matter, did you speak to the Syrian leadership? * Sayyed Nasrallah: We are always talking, and things are looking good, God willing.
Things need some effort, but the path is a positive one.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Since we are talking about your role and your mediations in the Arab region, Your Eminence, there are those who informed us from some circles that one of the problems the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has with you is not that you are dominant here as you imagine. But it greatly hopes that Hezbollah and Your Eminence, in particular, play a major role with Sayyed Abdul-Malik Al-Houthi, Ansarullah, and Sana’a in general.
Did this happen and is Hezbollah and Your Eminence ready to play this role, especially since now things have begun to open up? God willing, things will open up between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
A political meeting will soon take place.
This heralds the return of good relations and an easing of tensions in the region.
* Sayyed Nasrallah: First of all, nothing of this kind has been officially requested from Hezbollah.
This is the answer to the first part of the question.
I have read something about this in some media outlets and heard in some gatherings a desire of this kind, but I was not officially notified of anything of this sort.
This is first.
Secondly, we are not a mediator; we are a party, I am not a mediator with Sayyed Abdul-Malik Al-Houthi, the Yemeni people, and Ansarullah. If a mediator is required, they should look for a mediator who can play the role of mediation.
In this matter, I believe that Hezbollah is not qualified to mediate.
One of the reasons is that a mediator must exert pressure and demand concessions in order to reach a specific settlement.
This is mediation.
There is nothing you can ask Sayyed Abdul-Malik, Ansarullah, and the Yemeni people to give up in the first place.
What are they asking? This is where the problem lies, and it is the problem of any mediator.
His Eminence says we want a cease-fire, that is, halting the war and lifting the siege.
When the war and fighting are over, we as Yemenis hold an internal dialogue and reach a political solution.
If you had to be a mediator and needed to ask Sayyed Abdul-Malik to make concessions, what will he concede? Basically, accepting a cease-fire without lifting the siege is death.
That is why he and the brothers there reject it.
This is what Saudi Arabia is proposing.
It introduces a cease-fire and leaves the siege in place, and the Yemenis engage in an internal dialogue.
This means dialogue amid a siege, starvation, disease, pandemics, and livelihood pressures.
There is a trap here.
The brothers in Yemen are aware of this.
You know, when the front is operating, people pay from their money to the front. But when the front stops and a cease-fire takes place, there is no war and fighting.
People will want to return to their homes and will as for money instead of paying money from their own pocket.
Demands, pains, and wounds will come out.
That is how the interior front is broken.
No one in that position accepts with this mechanism.
So, what is proposed as the beginning of a solution is a cease-fire, lifting the siege, going to political dialogue.
None of these are subject to concession.
That is why they tried to involve the Iranians in this issue.
The Iranians gave them a clear answer in the Baghdad negotiations.
What will talk about with the Yemenis? The Yemeni are telling you one, two, and three.
This is logic, and what is less than that? They also went to the Omanis, the United Nations, and others.
Therefore, I would like to say that a mediator puts pressure on two parties or one of the parties to make concessions.
In this case, there are no concessions to be made.
To him, this mechanism is an existential mechanism, not a mechanism of privileges or high conditions.
In this regard, we cannot be a mediator.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, do you have a fundamental problem with Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Do you have an ideological problem? You refuse any communication or relationship. * Sayyed Nasrallah: No, our relations are not based on ideology, or religion.
They are political relations linked to strategic and political factors, the interest of our country, the interest of our resistance, etc.
We do not build our negative or positive position on an ideological, religious, or ideological background.
Let me give you an example.
We had good relations with Saudi Arabia. Before 2005, the Saudi ambassador would come and meet our brothers.
They would go to the Saudi embassy, and I met with the Saudi ambassadors.
All of this was before Yemen.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: But not publicly? * Sayyed Nasrallah: No, publicly.
It is present in the media, in the archives, etc.
The meetings were sometimes long and nice with joking until Yemen happened.
I remember the first ambassador.
I was still in the early days of being the secretary general – the first year or two.
The Saudi ambassador asked to meet me, and he was old and was serve the last years of his tenor.
I forgot his name.
Even though it was the first meeting between me and a Saudi ambassador, it was a nice meeting.
Jokes were made.
While we were talking – this was before the collapse of the Soviet Union – I said, there are two superpowers in the world, America and the Soviet Union.
He told me, “No, Your Eminence.” I told him to tell me.
He said, “there is a third superpower.” I thought he was being serious, but it turned out that he was joking.
I told him seriously, is there a third superpower that I don't know about? He told me, “Yes, Qatar.” This was during the first meeting.
He could not remain silent about Qatar.
He was friendly and joking.
The facilities were there.
Since a long time, we have had an opinion about the performance of the regime in Saudi Arabia towards the Saudi people, especially towards the people of the eastern region.
Sometimes, we used to take advantage of this relationship to solve some problems or some confusions.
Our main problem began when the war on Yemen began.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Will it remain linked to Yemen? * Sayyed Nasrallah: It is unavoidably linked to Yemen.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Even if relations with Iran improve? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Yes, even if relations improve.
There is confusion here.
Some people assume that if Iran has established a good relationship with a certain state, then Hezbollah is bound by it.
It is not bound by it.
Our friendships, enmities, rivalries, as well as our closeness and distance from someone are related to a set of principles and interests that we take into account.
Iran is a country that has diplomatic relations and perhaps economic and commercial exchange.
While we keep our enmity and rivalry with Saudi Arabia because of Yemen and other things.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: But this rivalry stops at the limits of the situation and is not something else. * Sayyed Nasrallah: No, not more than this.
Even the brothers in Yemen, the oppressed, despite what befell them, what do they say? They say stop your war and aggression against us, and let the Yemeni people reconcile.
We want good neighborliness.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: The same thing with the UAE, Your Eminence? * Sayyed Nasrallah: With all the Arab countries.
We do not make an ideological or religious position.
The issue is related to politics.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Since we are talking about this atmosphere in which there can be some optimism * Sayyed Nasrallah: For example, with the Emirates, we have a political position on normalization.
Whichever Arab country will normalize with “Israel”.
But what wrong did Hezbollah do to the Emirates? Now, in the war on Yemen, we are with the Yemeni people.
You attacked the Yemeni people, so we are against you.
But we, Hezbollah, what did we do to the Emirates? Nothing, so why are these arrests taking place in the UAE? These arrests need to be addressed.
Of course, there is good mediation for addressing them.
Frankly, this is to put pressure on Hezbollah.
Otherwise, all those who were arrested in the UAE and are now being arrested in the UAE have nothing to do with Hezbollah or the formation of Hezbollah.
They have been living there for years.
Their money and property were confiscated, and they were expelled in a harmful and humiliating way.
On what basis? That is why the Lebanese state and our friends have to address this.
In conclusion, I would like to lay out a principle.
We do not base our hostility towards someone on the grounds that we differ from them at the sectarian, ideological or religious level.
No, our calculations are strategic and political.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: In this atmosphere, Your Eminence, there is now talk about the possibility of a settlement, some reconciliation, mediation between Syria and Erdogan's Turkey. Do your information and data seriously indicate that Erdogan is open to some settlement with President Assad and Damascus? Or is he just maneuvering to gain time, especially since, perhaps as he is being accused of, has greed for Syrian lands and even demographic change in northern Syria? It seems that Tehran is playing a role of bringing Damascus and Ankara closer.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Does this mean that Erdogan is moving forward with his old policies – according to your information, he was not convinced that Damascus and President Assad won? * Sayyed Nasrallah: He is different.
It does not mean that he is continuing with his old policies, but it does not mean that he is ready for a settlement.
He is in between.
He knows that the old policies will not lead to a result, but he is still betting on a number of things.
If the time comes for a settlement at some point, he will be in a better position in this settlement.
He knows.
After all, it is not just Turkey, Mr Ghassan, but all participants in the global campaign against Syria have reached a clear conviction.
This is the end of the line.
They did all they can during the past years at the military and political levels.
They cannot do more than that anymore.
Basically, when the whole world was with them, hundreds of thousands of fighters were being brought from all over the world to help them, hundreds of billions of dollars were spent, and they had media support, yet they did not reach a conclusion. This is what I believe and based on my analysis.
He [Erdogan] knows that he cannot take Aleppo or advance in Syria.
Overthrowing Damascus and praying on Friday in the Umayyad Mosque are all pipe dreams.
It's over.
He wants to preserve the area where the militants that Turkey is sponsoring and protecting are positioned.
It is possible that he is thinking about this topic.
It seems that this issue is not over yet – Tall Rifat, Manbij, parts of the east of the Euphrates – where he can expand and control within certain borders.
This comes later on the negotiating table.
What is still pending in Syria? One of the sticking points is the north.
Whoever wants to resolve the issue concerning part of the north in Syria, must talk to Erdogan.
Erdogan must improve his negotiating position.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: To negotiate over what? What does he want in Syria if he does not have a desire to occupy a land or carve out a demographic change in the north? * Sayyed Nasrallah: This is a matter of discussion, and it is not known that he has no desire.
I am not denying the existence of the desire, but I cannot confirm it 100%.
It is possible that he has a desire to control a land and stay in it and not leave it, especially since there is an atmosphere in Turkey not only within the Justice and Development Party.
Even the other opposition parties are talking about the issue of 2023 and going back to 1923 and that they have claims on the Syrian lands and Iraqi lands.
The issue is more complicated than that, it is not clear.
We have to wait to see if we can deny that there is no greed for controlling lands or greed for demographic change.
I cannot deny it, but if a person wants to be logical, he says the horizon later.
A horizon of a settlement is better him.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: We are committed to the time, God willing, tonight, Your Eminence. I want to conclude with Hezbollah from the inside but also talk about the Arab region.
Your Eminence, I have two questions before talking about Hezbollah.
The first question is related to Iraq.
I was in Iraq recently and heard something that caught my attention, so I wanted to ask you about it to your Eminence.
Someone told me: Can you explain to me the duplicity of Hezbollah in dealing with us in Iraq? On the one hand, it is a resistance party and talks about the axis of resistance and the Al-Quds alliance.
There are factions in Iraq that declare themselves resistance factions.
On the other hand, Hezbollah is one of the most supported parties by any prime minister, including Mr Al-Kazemi.
They are confused.
* Sayyed Nasrallah: This is an inaccurate description.
We are talking about good relations with everyone.
It is not related to whom you support and so on.
It is none of our business, for example, who comes as prime minister.
How does that concern us? It is none of our business who they nominate.
Even if some brothers spoke to us and asked for advice.
Believe me, especially in this last stage, we are outside the circle of even offering advice due to the complexity of the situation.
There are disagreements.
If I wanted to sum up the whole situation in Iraq, I’d say, we do not have a special project in Iraq as a party.
After all, we are a resistance movement against the occupation and a Lebanese party.
We have friendships in Iraq.
We do not have a special project in Iraq.
We do not have a certain party that we want to adopt at the expense of the rest of the parties in Iraq.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Including the resistance factions? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Including the resistance factions.
Our relations with them are good and excellent, but this does not mean that we neglect or not establish relations with other parties because they have reservations or a problem with them.
We want a relationship with everyone, and we have established political and social relations with all political forces, among the Shiites and the Sunnis.
We even have relations with the Kurds at various levels.
The role that Hezbollah was keen to play over the past years was bringing points of view together in the interest of the Iraqis.
But we do not have a special person, a special project, or a vision for the Iraqi situation.
Therefore, when they see our positive relationship with everyone, some say that their relationship here is positive at the expense of others.
No, we did not establish a positive relationship at the expense of anyone.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: This is my last question about the region before talking about Hezbollah, Your Eminence. It may be a surprising question.
It still supports this.
What is the goal? Is the goal to have more influence in the region via the Palestinian gateway or what? * Sayyed Nasrallah: If Iran wanted to have greater influence in the region, it can reconcile with the Americans and abandon Palestine and the Palestinian people.
The Americans wish for this matter, and it will simply become the Gulf police once again.
The Americans are wishing for this matter.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: As it is, meaning the system of the Islamic Republic, the Wilayat al-Faqih [Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist]. * Sayyed Nasrallah: As it is.
What do the Americans want? Their problem with is not whether you pray, fast, go to Hajj or not.
They want “Israel” and oil.
Give them “Israel” and oil, and you’ll have influence in the region.
You can go and do whatever you want.
This is the truth.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Does the independence of the regime in Iran and its independent decision not bother them? * Sayyed Nasrallah: In any case, when Iran abandons the Palestinian people, Palestine, and oil, it means it is abandoning its religion, its religious commitment, and its independence.
Therefore, this cannot happen.
This is a controversial hypothesis.
In any case, there are people in the region who still do not understand Iran, and they seriously cannot comprehend.
The correct answer is that after 40 years, the Islamic Republic’s position on the issue of Palestine, the Palestinian people, Al-Quds, and the holy sites is a religious ideological position.
It is not a political position or a strategic position.
This means that His Eminence Imam Khomeini, who established this system and this position, His Eminence Imam Khamenei, all officials in Iran, and the Iranian people consider this issue in this way – on the Day of Resurrection, when we stand before God Almighty, and He asks us about Palestine, Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the Palestinian people, what do we answer Him? There are people who do not understand politics in this way.
Is it possible for a country and the leaders of a country to think in this way? Yes, this is the quality of the authentic and correct Islamic system.
Iran's position on the issue of Palestine is a religious ideological position.
It does not want anyone to praise it or thank it – no reward or thanks.
It does not demand anything from anyone, even from the Palestinian people or from the Arab and Islamic people.
This position is not in order for it to have influence in the region.
On the contrary, this position and this commitment is causing it to have very big problems, confusions, and conflicts in the region, even in the issue of Lebanon.
Perhaps this issue also applies to Hezbollah.
When you ask if Hezbollah really makes its own decision.
It really makes its own decision, but no one believes.
In 2006, during the dialogue table when I told them to give me one example that we did something in the interest of Iran, in my 30 years, at the very least, of being the Secretary General of Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic has never asked me to do anything in Lebanon or the region that is in the interest of Iran.
Yes, I tell you, Hajj Qassem came and told me that Daesh will take over Iraq and the Iraqi people will be massacred.
We need young people to help us, not for Iran.
He asked me for Iraq.
No one understands this.
Because some people are accustomed to a relationship with embassies, and the ambassador commands and forbids.
We do not have an ambassador, a president, or a minister who commands and forbids.
Therefore, this is Iran's position.
As for the issue of influence in the region and its vision for the region, they are clear.
They say, we want good and normal relations, good neighborliness, and cooperation with all the countries of the region.
They say this and repeat it every day.
Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran, has it waged war against an Arab or Islamic country or against any country? Tell me.
The war was waged against it, and all of these countries participated in the war and funded this war.
However, after the end of the war, Iran said that we want a good neighborly relationship with everyone.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Allow me, Your Eminence, if its position on the Palestinian issue was ideological, as you kindly mentioned, and it is, what’s its business in Iraq? What’s its business in Syria? What’s its business in Lebanon? * Sayyed Nasrallah: What is it doing in Iraq and Syria? Iran's crime is that Hajj Qassem Soleimani, the [Revolutionary] Guards, and the brothers in Iran came to Iraq and helped the Iraqis to prevent the expansion of Daesh.
Otherwise, Daesh was a few kilometers away from Baghdad, and many people were already in Basra.
There was a massive project to destroy the area, control it, and bring about massive changes in it.
They came and helped their friends and allies.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: What about in Syria? 90% of the Arab regimes were against Syria and Damascus. Yet Iran entered and deviated from the Arab official desire.
For Iran to stand by its friends and allies to defend them is what is required in the first place.
If it did not do that, it should be asked about it.
But when it defends them, it does not control them, command them, or occupy them.
This is Syria.
Contrary to everything that is said on some communication sites, Iran does not interfere in Syria's affairs, not in the constitution, the law, the formation of the government, the parliament, the political life.
Iran is committed to helping Syria stand and survive.
Bring me a country in the world that helps another country or other people and does not want anything in return.
This is Iran in Syria and in Iraq.
What is Iran doing in Iraq? It tries to bring points of view closer all the time, but it does not impose its choices in Syria, in Iraq, or in Palestine.
You can ask the Palestinian brothers.
They’ve enjoyed 30 to 40 years of close relations with Iran and Iranian support.
Has Iran ever asked them for a position? Has it ever ordered them to make a position or a decision? There is nothing of this sort.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, on the 40th anniversary, does Hezbollah have a vision for the future? I realize that perhaps my question may be unrealistic. After all, Hezbollah is struggling. It is struggling with social, economic, political, and security conditions, and national security is all important and it is concerned about. However, you prepared a document in 1985, a political document in 2009. Do you have a vision for the future? My question is precisely, with love and respect for all leaders without exception, is there a perception of rejuvenation within Hezbollah – allowing the young and middle-aged cadres?
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: With pleasure, of course, I do not mean your Eminence. * Sayyed Nasrallah: My brothers are still young.
Do you dare to tell them that you are getting old? With regard to the first part of the question, with regard to the future, even the near future, we have a vision regarding the status of the region.
I told you that we see things going towards a major change, God willing, in the interest of the Palestinian people, the countries of the region, and the peoples of the region.
Of course, we are not talking about the “Israeli” issue now for a year, two years, or three years.
We are talking about the short and medium term, even not in the long term.
At the international level, of course, there are major changes that will take place in the next few years.
All of this assumes that the margin of movement in front of the independent forces, the real sovereign forces, and the axis of resistance will broaden.
Opportunities will grow and threats will diminish.
Therefore, our presence in the axis of resistance and alongside the Palestinian resistance factions and the Palestinian people in the next stage will be strengthened.
This is at the regional level.
What’s new that we have regarding Lebanon appeared in the parliamentary elections.
Our vision of the internal situation, our perception, how things are going, and our true participation has become clearer over the past years because we have delved into the depth and details.
In the next stage, our vision is to be more active, more present, and more serious about the Lebanese internal issue, including the state.
During the elections, we raised the idea of a just and capable state, and we have a detailed description of it.
This is not a Platonic slogan, i.e., a virtuous state or city.
No, it is about the details of how it can be a just state.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Will you get more involved in internal affairs? * Sayyed Nasrallah: More than ever before because this is a responsibility that we can no longer ignore or mitigate from due to the difficult conditions that exist inside Lebanon.
We will do this regardless of the size of Hezbollah’s real representation.
It has nothing to do with the number of deputies because it does not reflect the true popular representation of Hezbollah or the hopes and expectations required of it.
Therefore, in the next stage in the region, our vision is to strengthen the axis of resistance and strengthen the relationship with the Palestinian brothers in a way that serves that project.
In Lebanon, there will be more presence in the internal issue, more openness, and more internal cooperation.
We do not want to engage in internal conflicts or alignments because we have always said that we do not want to rule Lebanon or control it and uphold the decision of the Lebanese state.
If that was given to us, we would reject it.
All of this is serious talk, not maneuvers.
We believe that the only way to manage and preserve Lebanon, address its problems, develop it, and fortify it in the future is through understanding and cooperation between the basic components of the Lebanese people.
This is the truth.
This is the structure of our country.
We have to try to play a positive role as much as possible with everyone in Lebanon except for some parties that are hostile to us politically, in the media, and on the field.
This is the exception.
But you see, for example, in many situations, events, and issues, we are attacked harshly, assaulted, unjustly treated.
We are able to issue media and political reactions or launch a larger demonstration.
We are not weak – not at the popular, military, media, or political level.
Our certainty, vision, and faith are not week either.
There is a lot that is happening in the country, and we are being targeted.
However, we do not react because we are keen that things do not develop negatively.
We want to keep things open for understanding, cooperation, to restore bridges if they were broken or severed, etc.
This is with regard to the next stage.
As for Hezbollah, at the beginning, I joked.
The majority of our brothers, i.e., the elderly officials are in their 60s and 50s.
Therefore, there are those who tell you, “Here comes the elderly.” On the contrary, the party will not grow old, for now it is in the splendor of its youth.
God willing, when I deliver a speech to mark the Forty Springs [40th anniversary of the launching of Hezbollah], I will talk about this subject.
On the contrary, on its 40th anniversary, Hezbollah is really young with full potential.
But we are always open to bringing fresh blood to most positions.
We did not have a problem with this because we were a small party and there was a line of officials, 10 to 20 officials.
But when we began to expand – vertically and horizontally – the segment responsible for leading the first and second ranks became very large.
Who filled these positions? Young people filled them.
This means that we do not have a crisis of this kind, that there are no young people applying.
Now, the overwhelming majority of the key, effective, and influential positions in Hezbollah are occupied by young people.
Yes, in the first row, we still see old faces.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: You are all young, Your Eminence, but I am talking about faces that can change. Perhaps the brothers will be upset with me. For example, when it came to ministers, you added news faces. In Parliament, you did not. Perhaps next time? I do not want to get involved in the details.
In Parliament, there is a bloc.
After four years, if you change the whole bloc, then that means there is a big problem.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence is 30 years old. I know that you do not like to talk about yourself, and we are not talking about your person. But at the age of 30, what are the most important achievements that you remember and the most prominent difficulties that you faced?
* Sayyed Nasrallah: First, you understand me very well.
I do not attribute any achievement to myself.
I believe that all of Hezbollah's achievements are first thanks to God Almighty and His grace, support, and guidance.
Secondly, it is thanks to the sum of efforts.
Even within the party, we cannot give credit to a certain individual.
I always tell the brothers and sisters that the sum of their efforts in anything is what gives these results.
Even in the world, we cannot make percentages.
Only God Almighty on the Day of Resurrection makes percentages and tells you that your share is this amount.
Hence, the achievement is Hezbollah’s, and when I say Hezbollah, I do not mean the organization, I mean the supporters because without them, the party alone could not have made any achievements.
This is first.
Secondly, in order not to credit Hezbollah with some of the achievements, such as the 2000 liberation, we said that all the people who participated in the resistance and carried out operations and offered martyrs and wounded and were arrested and captured are partners in this achievement.
We are not attributing this achievement only to ourselves.
When it comes to achievements, I believe that this is a blessed march.
Of course, at the top of the great and historical achievements comes the liberation in 2000, in which we have a significant share, a large share, so that we do not go to percentages.
We are partners in it, but we were also essential in this achievement.
Ensuring security and safety for our people, especially in the south, and for all of Lebanon, was also a very great achievement.
Us standing by the Palestinian resistance, especially the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Intifada, which was established, is an ongoing achievement.
You know, before 2000, there was not going to be a Palestine from 1993 onwards.
But Lebanon's victory in 2000 and what happened after took things in a different direction.
The 2006 war is an achievement.
The liberation of the prisoners without any favor from anyone is also a very great moral and humanitarian achievement.
Recently, in the Decade of Fire, in the face of this global attack, we were also partners in this major confrontation.
Had this global attack succeeded, the region would have been different at all levels – politically, demographically, and security wise.
It would have been a different scene in the region.
We were part of the solid dam that stood in the way of this project.
Of course, this is a great achievement, and we are talking about Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and the region.
At home, we consider that we are one of the parties that greatly contribute to the consolidation of civil peace and the prevention of a civil war.
This is a continuous and ongoing achievement.
Otherwise, a lot of work was done to bring back the civil war, even recently.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Was there really a desire for civil war? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Yes, when Prime Minister Saad Hariri was detained in Saudi Arabia and the work that some political parties in Lebanon were engaged in was pushing towards a civil war in Lebanon.
This is known and not new.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: It is new. * Sayyed Nasrallah: No, it is not new.
It is known.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: No, we knew that Sheikh Saad Hariri was detained, but making a civil war! How? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Those who were managing this file in Saudi Arabia with Lebanese political forces were pushing matters towards a civil war in Lebanon.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Between whom and whom? * Sayyed Nasrallah: Between forces known for their loyalty and relations with the resistance.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Because of Sheikh Saad Hariri? * Sayyed Nasrallah: No, the arrest of Sheikh Saad was part of the plan that was being worked on at the time.
I am surprised that this is new to you.
This is nothing new; it’s been talked about in.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Yes, it was mentioned in the press, but for the Secretary General of Hezbollah to really says that there was a desire to start a civil war! * Sayyed Nasrallah: Of course, there is a lot of evidence on this issue and confirmed information, etc.
There are people who responded and others who did not.
But thank God we thwarted this issue, and we consider it an achievement.
Our electoral presence, our municipal presence, our service to the people, who are our people, is our duty.
I consider this an achievement.
Preserving Hezbollah that was subjected to many tribulations during the past 40 years.
What was the project in the July war? To crush Hezbollah.
You get out of being crushed and turning into a regional power, as they say, I consider it a regional influence and not a regional power.
In any case, this is a group of achievements.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: Your Eminence, who do you miss internally from the past 30 and 40 years? * Sayyed Nasrallah: I miss many people if we talk about 40 years, but naturally, at the forefront I miss the martyr brothers, the martyr leaders, in particular, and especially the brothers we used to work with.
We were basically comrades on the path; we were young men.
We’ve known each other since we were 18 and 19 years old; we grew up together and lived this life, which is different from the lives of many young people, together.
Many people lead normal lives, but we did not.
In other words, they had social lives and went places, leisure, etc.
On the other hand, these young men carried responsibility on their shoulders from an early age.
They faced great challenges in their country, especially when the 1982 invasion began. Of course, Sayyed Abbas is always in my mind.
Brother Hajj Qassem Soleimani recently after his martyrdom, brother Hajj Imad Mughniyeh, Sayyed Mustafa Badr al-Din, Hajj Hassan al-Laqis, a large group, I miss them yes, a number of our brothers and our leaders.
There is love and affection between me and the brothers.
At the emotional level as well, I miss them, and not only on the practical level.
There are well-known brothers.
I am afraid to mention some names and forget others.
People will admonish me.
For example, there was a well-known Hajj called Abu Muhammad al-Iqlim.
He was one of our best brothers, for example.
Some of the brothers who passed away, such as Hajj Abu Ali Farhat, was among the great leaders of the resistance, among our cadres, among our brothers, among our scholars. They are always present in the mind and in the heart.
However, God Almighty helps us and gives us patience.
We still have the rest of our good, righteous, striving, steadfast brothers, sisters, scholars, and leaders who keep us company us on this path.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: These mighty minds are still continuing to carry the message. Finally, Your Eminence, at the age of 30 and 40, to whom would you like to direct your message?
After thanking God Almighty, because all of this is from the grace of God Almighty. God willing, if the opportunity presents itself, I would like to give a lecture or make an appearance on television to only talk about the cultural, emotional, sentimental, and cognitive aspects of the past 40 years.
I believe that our experience confirms all the meanings that have to do with trust in God Almighty.
I have much evidence on how God helped us, how one plus one equals a thousand with God Almighty.
Our victories are not subject to these rules.
In logic, it is said that a conclusion follows the two premises.
There are two premises and a conclusion.
It does not exceed the premises; it is either equal to the premises or less than the premises.
However, our results were much more than the premises, and this has to do with God Almighty.
This is an extensive research.
In addition to thanking God Almighty, I address the people.
We are not flattering them when we say that they are the most honorable people, the most generous people, and the purest people.
In fact, these people are from 1982 – let's talk from 1982 and not before – their embrace, their loyalty, their protection, their care, their shouldering the responsibility are the resistance.
They are the resistance not because they protected the resistance, but because they carried the burdens for the past 40 years.
These burdens got heavier with time, but their sacrifices also grew with time.
They were always loyal; they did not let us down; they did not leave us; they did not stab us in the back.
You know, after several days, Muharram is coming.
We hold majlis for Imam Hussein and commemorate Karbala.
In Karbala, there were a group of 72 men in addition to some women and children who were besieged.
Imam Hussein told them, “Consider this night, which has come to you as a mounting camel, and save yourselves.” The 72 did not leave him. Our environment in Lebanon, these people whom we are addressing did not leave us during the day or at night.
They persevered, made sacrifices, stood firm, sacrificed the lives of their children, and endured the hardships of living.
What is the goal of what has been happening over the past three years, including the economic pressure? Its main goal was for the people to tell the resistance that they’ve had enough and heed to the American demands – including recognizing “Israel”, normalization with “Israel”, the resettlement of the Palestinians (The Palestinians do not want to settle.
The settlement of the Palestinians is a project that serves “Israel”.), and stabilizing the displaced Syrians in Lebanon. We are ready to do whatever you want.
Let us just eat bread.
But these people reject humiliation; they refuse to submit and surrender; they are ready to make sacrifices.
Look, Mr Ghassan, several days ago when I said we want to defend the right of Lebanon and we are going to a confrontation even if it leads to war, one cannot speak like this if I did not trust God, first and foremost, and these people, this environment, and our supporters. As you asked a short while ago, it is normal for people to worry, even in the supporters of the resistance.
After all, people have homes, families, life, security, and stability to worry about.
But when it comes to right and dignity and the future of the country, they do not back down and surrender.
They cannot be defeated.
First of all, I would like to thank these people.
I am not talking about the people who belong to a particular sect.
I thank all the people in Lebanon and the region who were loyal, honest, and steadfast, made sacrifices, and are still in the same position.
They still have great hopes and bets.
I tell them thank you.
We are your children, your brothers, are part of you.
We will remain together carrying these hopes, expectations, and dreams that are not rosy dreams but real matters.
Everything that has been said in the past 40 years about us being insane, illogical, and unreasonable, turns out to be the logical and the reasonable one.
We were able to reach it.
Alongside these loyal, honorable, truthful, and sincere people and with this advanced resistance that trusts God Almighty, I believe that the future of Lebanon and our future in the region will be very important, great, good, strong, and solid.
It is contrary to the discouragement that exists in our country. We will get out of all these difficult circumstances only if we set goals before us and announce them sincerely day and night and put our trust in God Almighty.
Our people and the people in our region do not lack anything – not minds or human and material capabilities.
We need faith, determination, will, honesty, sincerity, trust in the people, and first and foremost trust in God Almighty.
We can create the future that this honest and loyal people deserve.
* Ghassan bin Jiddo: What a good conclusion, Your Eminence. You said that you would like to summarize Hezbollah’s march in one phrase – strategic stability. After what you’ve said, we also say that you have a rare thing, which is moral stability. It is rare and you are blessed for it.
May God grant me life so that I can sit with you on the 50th [anniversary], and perhaps it will be in Al-Quds, God willing.
Dear viewers, thank you for watching the 40th dialogue.
Farewell