Friends, these are excerpts of the translation of an interview with sheikh Hassan Nasrallah which took place about 10 days ago.

It is not a translation by the notorious Zionist lobby and it thus, accurately reflects what the man actually did say.

I heard the interview and for those interested in what is happening in Lebanon and in the Middle East, I recommend you read the entire text

My personal favorite quote from Sheikh Hassan:

"It is said that for every country there is an army, except in the case of Israel. It is an army for which a country was built."

I never thought of it... but how true indeed! Beautifully said!!

Cherifa

Interview on Al Manar satellite TV on January 19th, 2007

"We expected Halutz to resign and we expect Peretz to follow….; then Olmert…and whoever doesn't resign will eventually be removed.

Israeli ex-ministers and ex-prime ministers…, current deputies…, press, important Israeli political and military analysts in the press...they are the ones who spoke of an "earthquake"…, or a "volcano"…, of major changes and major crisis that Israel faces on the level of existence.

When the enemy's army and the Israeli entity find themselves facing a total defeat, it is completely logical that the Chief of Staff of the IDF, the military commander of the war… be fired.

Halutz speaks of a problem… a deep crisis within the Israeli military as well as the eroding of the public support for the Israeli army…

The entire Zionist Israeli entity is built around one factor, namely the Israeli army. The Israeli army can be considered as the main supporting column of a building. If the column falls, the building collapses.

This is why it is said that for every country there is an army, except in the case of Israel. It is an army for which a country was built.

Today, the problem in the Israeli army is very deep... the Israeli soldiers no longer trust the officers; the officers no longer trust the generals; the generals no longer trust the Chiefs of Staff. The higher levels of the echelon don't trust the lower levels because during the committee's investigation into the war, everybody tried to shift the blame on the other.

There is also another crisis within the army, a crisis of lack of trust in the political leadership of the country.

Today, after the July war, this image has been completely shattered. What the Israelis actually wanted to restore, has been instead obliterated according to Israel's very own interpretations.

The war proved the failure of the leadership of Kadima and its incapability to guide and lead the Zionist entity. The Kadima party was established on the political principal of unilateral withdrawal, namely the withdrawal from Lebanon, from Gaza and from parts of the West Bank.

So when Olmert stands up and says that unilateral withdrawal is a failed strategy whether in Lebanon or Gaza and declares the end of his own political plan, this means that the very basic principals upon which Kadima was founded have collapsed. Therefore, there no longer is any political justification for the existence of Kadima.

When the war started, what did Ms. Rice say? "We are watching the birth of the New Middle East" I ask people to contemplate this statement. What is the New Middle East that Ms. Rice is speaking about? Briefly, the New Middle East is to be comprised of a group of small divided states set up on sectarian, denominational and ethnical basis…, extending from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq, Iran Turkey to Afghanistan and Pakistan, even Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other Gulf countries… all the way to North Africa.

...whoever imagines that the New Middle East will provide them with a state of their own may be right, but they must know that they shall never be given a secure state because the very basis and foundation of the New Middle East depends on maintaining internal sectarian, ethnic and denominational strife between statelets.

Not one sect, denomination or ethnicity will be given secure country with secure borders or internal stability. Only statelets that are in a constant state of conflict and strife against each other will be established.

The American project in the region is facing a real crisis. All that the US proposes, turns against it. The US spoke of democracy in our region and the outcome was the arrival to power of patriotic and Islamic elements opposed to the United States.

What was unanimously agreed upon by the United States and Israel, is that their only chance to save the existence of the state of Israel and the US/Israeli role in the Middle East, is by re-dividing the map of the region into new statelets based on different ethnicities, denominations, sects and religions.

The bare minimum is that the displaced Lebanese from the South and Western Beka'a, would not have been allowed to go back to their towns and villages… and this is to say the least. This is the bare minimum....

Therefore, the South of Lebanon and the Western Beka'a and all the area contiguous with Israel would have been transformed into an area with a different "color" and I do not wish to enter into the details of this issue now....

This would have been the ground preparation for dividing Lebanon into statelets.

Had the Resistance been defeated during this past war, the war would have continued, but would have been redirected towards Syria, where work was already under way to overthrow the government there and create a state of chaos inside it with the ultimate aim of partitioning it as well as Iraq which in addition to all that is happening, is most unfortunately being readied for division too.

We were actually notified on the 13th of August that it was impossible to let the displaced citizens return yet and that we should therefore not yet work on returning them until a cease fire agreement had been signed. We were told that the displaced were not to come back now otherwise they would be in danger. This is what we were told by official authorities in the Lebanese government.

But at 8 o'clock on Monday morning, all those displaced citizens totally surprised the official authorities that were to handle them; they surprised America; they surprised Israel and they surprised everyone because they returned without asking permission from anyone and without being asked by anyone. Why do you think that at the time they only wanted a 'cessation of hostilities' on August 14th to be possibly extended… and not a cease fire?? Until now there is no cease-fire. Until now, a cease-fire has not been declared. There was a scheme.

The Israelis therefore not only failed to eliminate Hezbollah and to disarm it, to recover their captured soldiers or break any of Hezbollah's alliances with other local and national powers and with its very own people, but they also failed to carry out the strategic and historic role delegated to them which was namely to open Lebanon's "Western gate" allowing it to serve as a main strategic entrance to the entire region which would in itself bring about a new era in the Middle East. All these objectives were downed in Lebanon and this file was closed.

Now when something goes wrong in Iraq, in Bahrain or in Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah in Lebanon is held responsible… and Sayyed Hassan is held responsible. Thereupon the hangman is getting the gallows ready. This kind of media is deliberate and its target is very clearly related to the war but not to internal Lebanese matters.

On the political level, yes we are being targeted. The American-Zionist project in the region is a sedition project.

I challenge the whole world to bring forward one speech given by Hezbollah or any of its official representatives using sectarian or denominational language. Others resort to sectarian language. We do not. We are believers, we have our ideology and we are proud of that as are all people who believe in an ideology. We are however neither sectarian nor denominational.

Another way in which we are being targeted is through accusations that we are against a Sunni government or a Sunni Prime Minister. These are blatant lies.

First of all the idea that we are targeting the head of the government because it is Sunni is simply incorrect.

When we object to the Prime Minister, does anyone imagine that we intend to bring in a Prime Minister of a different sect? Absolutely not. This is incorrect. If this Sunni Prime Minister goes, another Sunni Prime Minister will come. The issue here is one concerning the political stance and the political performance. Let me note here that in spite of our objections, the opposition did not talk about isolating or dismissing Prime Minister Fouad el Siniora. We however spoke of modifying the present government into a government of national unity and expanding it while keeping the present Prime Minister in his post. Neither therefore the position nor the person was targeted by the opposition. Currently one team is monopolizing the decision making process in Lebanon and Lebanon is not to be run in that manner. All that the opposition was asking was for the fundamental political forces in Lebanon to share the political decision making process. If speaking about sharing the Lebanese political process implies 'targeting' the Sunnis… this is manipulative and incorrect. It is an attempt to tarnish the opposition.

We agreed to the principal of the International Tribunal and to the debate. The Lebanese government however didn't give debate or discussion any opportunity. We want a court that will uncover the perpetrators of the crime. We want a court that will bring the actual killers to trial. We don't want a court that is interested in settling political scores. We don't want a court that is to be used in order to promote changes in Lebanon or in the region that have nothing to do with the implementation of justice and the uncovering of truth. It is our right and the right of every Arab, Lebanese and Muslim human being to ask for this. Therefore it is not possible for us to sign blank drafts of a court that is being set up somewhere we are totally unaware of in the world. We have comments and we would have liked to discuss them. All we were asking for was a discussion.

Quite honesty, it seems that the other party simply doesn't want anybody to debate it on the issue of the draft of the tribunal because in our opinion this draft was prepared and confirmed in a manner that serves objectives that do not aim at revealing the truth or uncovering the perpetrators of the assassination or trying them.

As a result, many people in Lebanon and in the region have legitimate concerns… and we have legitimate concerns. Some of the statements made also by the 14 February forces also reinforced our concerns. If someone wants to form a tribunal without discussing the minimal guarantees of justice and non-politicization of the process, the first people among Lebanese to object should be the Sunnis. Sunnis should be the first to insist on a serious discussion of the court brief and on ensuring that the assassins are uncovered and tried in court.

This whole issue therefore is not a sectarian or a denominational issue and is neither targeting the Sunni community nor a Sunni leader. It is precisely because we want to know who killed Prime Minister Rafiq el Hariri and because we want the assassins of Prime Minister and martyr Rafiq el Hariri to be tried in court, that we would like a debate on the court briefing.

The war that was launched this summer was not only launched to eliminate the National Resistance, it was also launched to settle political scores and to instigate certain demographic changes in Lebanon. Who says that the International Tribunal was not going to be exploited in order to achieve what the war this summer failed to achieve? These are legitimate fears especially considering the statements of accusation that we have been hearing lately as well as the existing legal ambiguities. We as well as others in the opposition, have legitimate concerns.

The opposition in Lebanon is much stronger than the present Lebanese government… actually unconstitutional… and those around the world supporting it, imagine. Its strength comes from the very fact that it has drawn for itself lines which it refuses to cross and the opposition is to be respected for that. The opposition refuses for example to draw the country into a civil war or internal strife. The opposition refuses play on sectarian strife. The opposition has chosen to use civilized and democratic measures to achieve its objectives.

The concentration on Hezbollah is deliberate and targeted not only by the Lebanese government party but indeed foreign forces such as the United States. They know well however and chose to overlook main opposition leaders such as General Aoun, President Berri or PM Karami and others who have their own movements independent of Hezbollah.

As I stated on many occasions before, our position on this matter is very very clear and unchanged. Our weapons are for the Israeli enemy and not for the Lebanese.

The statement also clearly mentioned that the opposition started its move with a demand for a unity government, but should this demand not be met until the time of the various December festivities, the oppositions demand after the December holidays will change into a demand for early elections. Some people thought that this was political rhetoric, but they were incorrect. We were very serious in our requirements all along. Today the opposition is no longer content with the demand for a unity government. Today the opposition states that its priority is early elections.

We will accept a transitional government that will hold early elections. We will accept a unity government whose obligations shall be amongst other:

To approve an international tribunal.
To devise a new electoral law.
To hold early parliamentary elections.
And to hold presidential elections.
The request for early elections has become a basic requirement of the opposition which all mediating efforts should take into consideration.

I know that many forces within the opposition are being subjected to very heavy pressures. Most of the pressures are however focused on General Michel Aoun and the Free Patriotic Movement. There is flagrant American interference in order to weaken the opposition. Look at Condoleezza Rice's threats against President Emile Lahoud were he to think of dismissing the government. This is his constitutional right and the US administration has no right to interfere. Lahoud anyway was not going to resort to such a step, but why did our government need Ms. Rice to issue such warnings? This certifies that today's battle is a battle about sovereign Lebanese national decisions. The decisions of today's Lebanese government are the decisions of Condoleezza Rice, David Welsh and Feltman and I insist on labeling it the 'Feltman government'.

Read entire text of the translation, HERE

Posted in

• Hassan Nasrallah
• Hizbullah
• international tribunal
• interview
• Israel
• Lebanon
• war

• Cherifa Sirry's blog
• Login or register to post comments