Hassan Fadlallah: We Are ready and Prepared for a Confrontation
Date: 09-03-2008
Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Hassan Fadlallah at a political meeting organized by Hizbullah on the occasion of Teacher's Day in the village of Shakra in the South:
The resistance is concerned with defending, confronting and deterring any 'Israeli' aggression that targets Lebanon. This is a national responsibility for the resistance, the army, the state and the people. If some relinquish this responsibility, it doesn't mean that the resistance will do so one day.
We have been [living] next to an enemy that has been carrying out aggressions and waging wars since 1948. This enemy possesses the war decision, but it doesn't possess the peace decision, since it is based on the course of aggression. Our destiny is to remain watchful for what this enemy might carry out due to its implied aggressive intentions. This enemy has its calculations and goals, which it tries to achieve either by politics or military power, and it was defeated by the resistance in July 2006.
[This defeat] makes the enemy think a thousand times before launching another aggression on Lebanon. What concerns us and our people is to stay vigilant all the time and to be prepared to face any 'Israeli' aggression. But the war decision is not an easy one on Lebanon. Following the July War, the equation has changed, and it is not easy for any 'Israeli' government to decide to wage a war against Lebanon. This issue isn't that simple. The enemy won't have a picnic if it decides to wage a war. We are ready and prepared for a confrontation.
What we need is to protect ourselves by [our own means] to meet this 'Israeli' enemy. The resistance is not seeking wars; rather it is seeking all possible ways to protect its country and defend its people and land. It had previously managed to liberate these villages and land and to defeat this enemy. It will be able to face any 'Israeli' aggression on our land. We expect victory and a new achievement for the people and the land...
Many politicians are carrying out campaigns of intimidation and instigation, and a psychological and rumor-led war in order to reduce their responsibilities and achieve their wishes via a new 'Israeli' aggression on Lebanon, in order to pressure the spirits of the resistance's supporters. They will not succeed, and they will fail to fulfill their suspect goals, since these supporters have witnessed victory with their eyes, and since they trust the resistance and the wisdom and bravery of its leadership.
In Lebanon, we are witnessing a division at the level of political forces and the street. The international game, specifically the American game, has engaged itself in this division in order to achieve profits. This American game is responsible for nurturing this division in order to create havoc and stir up sedition among the Lebanese citizens in what feeds into its interest...
We have told them earlier that those who link their destiny with the American warships will depart on board those ships. Today we say: Those who link their destiny with American warships will drown, since these warships will flee without taking anyone. They will leave behind all those who linked their destinies to them to drown in the Lebanese sea...
A certain internal party is relying on foreign support, even if it threatens stability and [scores] a blow [against] sovereignty and independence. They think they can achieve their goals by being tools for the American game in Lebanon. This group aligns the Lebanese with tension and militarization. They militarize their group and turn it into a militia. They think that by become a militia and by militarizing their group, they will resolve the crisis in Lebanon. We in Hizbullah primarily, and in the Amal Movement and the opposition in general, believe that the solution to the deadlock will only be a political one. It can only be through agreement, consensus and national partnership. All other solutions considered by others will not resolve the crisis. In Lebanon, a party can never rule the country alone, no matter what it does, even if it is supported by all the warships in the world...
The opposition has dealt positively and openly with any initiative that might lead to an agreement. Thus we cooperated with the Arab initiative. However, the "policy of warships" used politically by some American statements following the arrival of these warships off the Lebanese coasts thwarted this initiative.
How might the ruling group respond to our questions about the warships? [Their answer is]: It is the mistake of those who want to make Lebanon a theatre of war to fight the Americans thus provoking the reaction of the Americans and compelling them to send their warships...
This is the same logic that justifies the murder of the children of Gaza by the 'Israelis'.
We have reached the end of our line. It doesn't appear that the other group is ready to abandon [its] Americans commitments. We said we can't acquiesce a partial solution since we do not trust that this group will stick to any agreement. Any agreement requires genuine guarantees and a side that secures these guarantees. This side should be primarily an Arab one; thus, we wanted the solution to come from the Arabs...
Electing a president on March 11 can be secured if the other camp opts for agreement and partnership through the comprehensive package solution. [If this occurs], we will elect a president on March 11 and form a government that would ratify a new electoral law and end the crisis. In simple terms, the crisis will end if the Americans lift their hands off Lebanon. The ruling group is responsible for the presidential vacuum since the Americans promised them to maintain the status-quo until the Americans make their decisions in mid-May.
The crisis will be prolonged as long as the ruling group obstructs the settlement. They attempt to employ the timing of the Arab Summit to exert pressure on Syria so that the latter will apply pressures on the opposition to yield to American conditions.
Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Hassan Fadlallah at a political meeting organized by Hizbullah on the occasion of Teacher's Day in the village of Shakra in the South:
The resistance is concerned with defending, confronting and deterring any 'Israeli' aggression that targets Lebanon. This is a national responsibility for the resistance, the army, the state and the people. If some relinquish this responsibility, it doesn't mean that the resistance will do so one day.
We have been [living] next to an enemy that has been carrying out aggressions and waging wars since 1948. This enemy possesses the war decision, but it doesn't possess the peace decision, since it is based on the course of aggression. Our destiny is to remain watchful for what this enemy might carry out due to its implied aggressive intentions. This enemy has its calculations and goals, which it tries to achieve either by politics or military power, and it was defeated by the resistance in July 2006.
[This defeat] makes the enemy think a thousand times before launching another aggression on Lebanon. What concerns us and our people is to stay vigilant all the time and to be prepared to face any 'Israeli' aggression. But the war decision is not an easy one on Lebanon. Following the July War, the equation has changed, and it is not easy for any 'Israeli' government to decide to wage a war against Lebanon. This issue isn't that simple. The enemy won't have a picnic if it decides to wage a war. We are ready and prepared for a confrontation.
What we need is to protect ourselves by [our own means] to meet this 'Israeli' enemy. The resistance is not seeking wars; rather it is seeking all possible ways to protect its country and defend its people and land. It had previously managed to liberate these villages and land and to defeat this enemy. It will be able to face any 'Israeli' aggression on our land. We expect victory and a new achievement for the people and the land...
Many politicians are carrying out campaigns of intimidation and instigation, and a psychological and rumor-led war in order to reduce their responsibilities and achieve their wishes via a new 'Israeli' aggression on Lebanon, in order to pressure the spirits of the resistance's supporters. They will not succeed, and they will fail to fulfill their suspect goals, since these supporters have witnessed victory with their eyes, and since they trust the resistance and the wisdom and bravery of its leadership.
In Lebanon, we are witnessing a division at the level of political forces and the street. The international game, specifically the American game, has engaged itself in this division in order to achieve profits. This American game is responsible for nurturing this division in order to create havoc and stir up sedition among the Lebanese citizens in what feeds into its interest...
We have told them earlier that those who link their destiny with the American warships will depart on board those ships. Today we say: Those who link their destiny with American warships will drown, since these warships will flee without taking anyone. They will leave behind all those who linked their destinies to them to drown in the Lebanese sea...
A certain internal party is relying on foreign support, even if it threatens stability and [scores] a blow [against] sovereignty and independence. They think they can achieve their goals by being tools for the American game in Lebanon. This group aligns the Lebanese with tension and militarization. They militarize their group and turn it into a militia. They think that by become a militia and by militarizing their group, they will resolve the crisis in Lebanon. We in Hizbullah primarily, and in the Amal Movement and the opposition in general, believe that the solution to the deadlock will only be a political one. It can only be through agreement, consensus and national partnership. All other solutions considered by others will not resolve the crisis. In Lebanon, a party can never rule the country alone, no matter what it does, even if it is supported by all the warships in the world...
The opposition has dealt positively and openly with any initiative that might lead to an agreement. Thus we cooperated with the Arab initiative. However, the "policy of warships" used politically by some American statements following the arrival of these warships off the Lebanese coasts thwarted this initiative.
How might the ruling group respond to our questions about the warships? [Their answer is]: It is the mistake of those who want to make Lebanon a theatre of war to fight the Americans thus provoking the reaction of the Americans and compelling them to send their warships...
This is the same logic that justifies the murder of the children of Gaza by the 'Israelis'.
We have reached the end of our line. It doesn't appear that the other group is ready to abandon [its] Americans commitments. We said we can't acquiesce a partial solution since we do not trust that this group will stick to any agreement. Any agreement requires genuine guarantees and a side that secures these guarantees. This side should be primarily an Arab one; thus, we wanted the solution to come from the Arabs...
Electing a president on March 11 can be secured if the other camp opts for agreement and partnership through the comprehensive package solution. [If this occurs], we will elect a president on March 11 and form a government that would ratify a new electoral law and end the crisis. In simple terms, the crisis will end if the Americans lift their hands off Lebanon. The ruling group is responsible for the presidential vacuum since the Americans promised them to maintain the status-quo until the Americans make their decisions in mid-May.
The crisis will be prolonged as long as the ruling group obstructs the settlement. They attempt to employ the timing of the Arab Summit to exert pressure on Syria so that the latter will apply pressures on the opposition to yield to American conditions.
