Sheikh Qassem’s Full Speech Tackling Lebanon’s Defense Strategy, Overall Situation

Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations

Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sheikh Naim Qassem tackles the defense strategy and the overall situation in Lebanon on April 18, 2025.

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. May prayers and salutations be upon the most deserving of creatures, our Master and beloved leader, Abu al-Qasim Muhammad, upon his pure and noble family, upon his chosen and pious companions, and upon all the prophets and righteous until the Day of Judgment.

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.

Our discussion today will focus on the topic of resistance and defensive strategy, along with addressing several other points related to this field and broader issues of general concern.

But I would like to begin by greeting the Christians of all denominations around the world, and especially in Lebanon, on the glorious occasion of Easter and in honor of the Prophet Isa [Jesus] (peace and blessings be upon him), our noble and great prophet, one of the resolute messengers. I ask God Almighty that humanity may benefit from our Prophet Isa (peace be upon him) and from all the prophets. May this holiday bring goodness and blessings to Muslims, Christians, the oppressed, and the entire world.

I will begin by addressing the topic of the defensive strategy and the resistance; however, it requires some introductory remarks.

First: Why the Resistance in Lebanon?

The Resistance is a response to the [“Israeli”] occupation that seized land, began acts of aggression and expansion, and is harming citizens as a prelude to asserting control over the situation and territory in Lebanon. This occupation is being confronted by the army, the people, and the Resistance, using all available means. The circumstances in Lebanon did not allow for the establishment of an army capable of fully defending the land, so the Resistance became necessary to support and assist the army and to serve as a foundation for mobilizing the public in confronting the “Israeli” occupation.

Thus, the resistance emerged as a response. And in the absence of the Lebanese state’s ability to independently defend its land and protect its people, Hezbollah upholds the principle of resistance based on two key considerations:

The first is a faith-based conviction: that it is our moral and religious duty to liberate occupied land—including the land that extends into Palestine—because this occupation is an act of aggression and injustice against us and our brothers. We are obligated to confront this aggression and work toward the liberation of that land.

The second is a national consideration: part of our land remains under occupation, and that occupied territory is inseparable from the broader “Israeli” occupation of Palestine. “Israel” is an expansionist entity—it is not content with occupying Palestine alone but seeks to extend its reach into Lebanon as well.

So, we are guided by two principles: one rooted in faith, the other in national responsibility. We share the national motivation with all Lebanese, and we are distinguished by the faith-based one. But in truth, as a resistance movement, both considerations stand at the core of our mission.

Typically, when we look at resistance movements around the world, what do we see? Over the course of their struggle, they tend to achieve modest, incremental gains. They may strike a target here, liberate a small piece of land there, only to lose it again. Progress is usually slow—small victories that accumulate over time—until they eventually reach full liberation.

What sets the Resistance in Lebanon apart is that it began with significant, impactful achievements:

•          In 1985, it pushed “Israel” back to the borders of the occupied strip.

•          In 2000, it forced “Israel” to withdraw from nearly all of Lebanese territory, with the exception of the Shebaa Farms and the Kfarchouba Hills.

•          And in 2006, it succeeded in preventing “Israel” from re-entering Lebanon or re-establishing any form of occupation.

In the face of the Uli al-Ba’as Battle, “Israel” was halted at the Lebanese border, only a very short distance in. It failed to reach the Litani River and Beirut and was unable to achieve any of the objectives it had set for itself.

These are truly remarkable achievements by the Resistance over the course of 40 years. They are promising milestones that reflect the immense contributions made by the Lebanese resistance in all its forms—Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, the various parties and factions that fought, alongside the Lebanese Army, and the noble, resilient, and self-sacrificing people, who stood up to the enemy in defiance with nothing but their bare bodies. Together, they achieved repeated liberation and succeeded in driving out the occupation—an occupation that would never have withdrawn without this resistance.

These are not minor accomplishments—they are profound and full of promise. One should not say to the Resistance: “You paid a high price, many buildings were destroyed, and you lost many martyrs.” Rather, the real question is: How did this Resistance—facing the full weight of “Israeli”, American, and global aggression, supported by the world’s most powerful forces—manage to stop the enemy at Lebanon’s southern border? Its young fighters hold their ground with legendary steadfastness. The Lebanese people rallied around them, supported by a deeply rooted and loyal community and the army, to prevent “Israel” from achieving its objectives. This is the true achievement.

It is never asked of the victim of aggression, “Why were you attacked?” Do they ask us that when we are the ones under attack? The victim is asked: Did you stand firm or not? Did you surrender or not? Were you able to bear the responsibility or not? Yes, the Resistance rose to the occasion—it not only shouldered the responsibility but set a legendary example that the entire world, from East to West and North to South, is talking about.

Therefore, no one can come to us and simply point to the losses we’ve endured. We tell them: Look at the scale of the aggression and then look at the results. What are those results? “Israel” failed to occupy the land, it failed to achieve its goals, it couldn’t defeat the Resistance, and it couldn’t implement its plans for settlement or impose its will on Lebanon. Even though we have made many sacrifices, but we have also reaped the rewards by preventing “Israel” from achieving its objectives.

So, the ceasefire agreement reached between the Lebanese state and the “Israeli” entity, though indirect, is the result of the Resistance’s determination. Had the Resistance not stood firm, there would have been no agreement. Had the Resistance not held its ground, “Israel” would have continued its aggression to achieve its goals. It was this resilience that created the deterrence, ultimately leading to this outcome. This is the first point.

Secondly, “Israel” does not need a pretext to launch aggression. How many times have we said that “Israel” acts out of an expansionist agenda? Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that it once claimed a pretext—that Hezbollah was fighting it, or that Hezbollah possessed weapons, or that the Resistance in Lebanon in its various forms was causing fear among settlers.

Then, the Lebanese state entered into an agreement with the “Israeli” enemy. Isn’t such an agreement supposed to mark the end of aggression? That’s usually the purpose of these kinds of agreements. So, with that agreement in place, “Israel” should no longer have any excuse. And yet, for the five months since it was signed, “Israel” has continued its attacks—daily. To the extent that its violations have surpassed 2,700 acts of aggression: killings, injuries, bulldozing, destruction, uprooting of trees, drone flights, and breaches by land, sea, and air—all taking place before the eyes of the world.

Today, the entire world acknowledges that Hezbollah has honored the agreement, the Lebanese state has honored the agreement, but “Israel” has not. This is clear to the international community. Yet “Israel” claims that it is in fact abiding by the agreement and is merely responding to violations from the other side. But such talk is meaningless—empty of substance, of logic, and of consequence.

The reality is plain for all to see: Hezbollah fully upheld the agreement, and the Lebanese state can rightfully stand before the world and say, “We fully adhered to the agreement completely.” All factions of the resistance complied—yet it is “Israel” that has failed to do so. The aggression continues.

Let me put it to you plainly: If you think that “Israel” wants to aggress over a small piece of land, a minor gain, or to address the issue of weapons, you are mistaken. “Israel” seeks to occupy most of Lebanon, annex it to occupied Palestine, establish settlements on Lebanese land, and use Lebanon as a means to resettle Palestinians whom it expels from “Israel” and occupied Palestine. This is the “Israeli” agenda.

“Israel” tried this, my friends. In 1982, it reached Beirut and stayed for 18 years under occupation. What was the justification for this 18-year occupation? The PLO left in 1982, the Palestinians left—so why didn’t “Israel” leave? Because it wanted to implement its plan. It created the South Lebanon Army [Lahad] and set up projects to establish a zone in southern Lebanon, paving the way to annex it. Who stopped them? The Resistance stopped them. The cooperation between the Resistance, the army, and the people is what prevented “Israel”. “Israel” could not succeed.

But keep this in mind: “Israel” is expansionist—it wants Lebanon and seeks to control it. When “Israel” talks about disarming the Resistance, it’s because it wants to strip Lebanon of its strength. Once Lebanon is weakened and its sources of power are dismantled, “Israel” will be able to invade at will and occupy whatever it wants.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out. Despite the presence of the Lebanese state, the Lebanese army, and even international support, when Lebanon complains that “Israel” continues its aggression and refuses to uphold the agreement, what is the response? “Be patient.” They say “Israel” is anxious, “Israel” is afraid, “Israel” wants you to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon. “Israel” wants—and wants—and keeps demanding. It’s all a scare tactic to achieve its goals, backed by major world powers, while the Lebanese state remains unable to act.

Are you asking us to stand by helplessly and allow “Israel” to reach a point where it can overrun all of Lebanon? Absolutely not. That will never happen. Anyone who thinks we are weak or that we will simply accept what is being dictated to us is gravely mistaken.

Those who have stood up to “Israel” will stand up to anyone backing “Israel”—no matter who they are. The outcome, whatever it may be, doesn’t shake us. Because we are the rightful owners of this land. We speak the truth, and we have honored our word. We have acted with full transparency and integrity—whether it’s us, the Amal Movement, the resistance factions, the Lebanese state, or the Lebanese army.

But what has the other side done? If “Israel” believes it can achieve its goals, it is deeply deluded. As long as the Resistance exists—and it will continue to exist—alongside a national army that refuses occupation, a people who have sacrificed, sheltered, and stood firm in direct confrontation, and a resistance base that has fought with unwavering courage, and with a state leadership that now openly voices its rejection of occupation, “Israel” will not be able to achieve its objectives. Not with all its force, not now, not ever.

Today, we are in a phase of diplomacy, giving diplomacy a chance. But let me be clear—this opportunity is not open-ended. It was said that a foreign ambassador once asked our international relations official, “Is it true that you claim to have open options? Aren’t you afraid that ‘Israel’ will take major actions to intimidate you? Are you really on the same level as ‘Israel’?”

I will say this publicly, even though I know the answer our relations official would give: We have options, and we fear nothing. If you want to try, to continue testing us, go ahead. You will see, at the time of our choosing, how we respond.

We are no longer just a group, my friends—we are a people, we are a nation, we are the land, we are the soil, we are the blood, we are the wounded, the prisoners, and the martyrs. We stand with our heads held high. We are a true power that no one can ever defeat.

Those who can be defeated are those who don’t have the right. We, however, stand on the side of what is right, and therefore, it is we who will prevail.

If you think “Israel” is running rampant and doing whatever it pleases, with America backing it, how long do you think that can continue? How much longer can they keep acting this way? Who said we will simply endure it until they achieve even a fraction of their objectives?

Take note—“Israel” is just picking at us here and there, killing one person, bulldozing a village, carrying out small, limited actions. It could launch a massive offensive. Why doesn’t it? Because it’s calculating—don’t think that’s a minor detail.

Yes, we are exercising patience—wise, deliberate patience—because we understand timing. We know how to weigh losses against gains. But let me be clear: we don’t base our actions solely on profit and loss. We base them on principle. And that principle is resistance, liberation, and preventing “Israel” from achieving its goals. Whether that happens today, tomorrow, or later—it will happen. Because surrender is not an option. And there is absolutely no alternative.

Thirdly, let’s talk about Lebanon’s real problem today. I hear all kinds of statements—one person says, “Our issue is how to fix the structure of the state.” Another says, “Our problem is how to strengthen national unity.” And yet, some—unfortunately always from the same side, with a few outlier voices—insist that the core issue in Lebanon is the Resistance’s weapons.

We’ve heard it before: “The Resistance’s arms are hindering the state… preventing state-building.” But let’s ask—who’s actually been helping rebuild the state? Who’s cared about electing a president? Who’s contributed to forming a government? Who’s facilitating the implementation of agreements? It’s the very party they accuse of obstructing the state.

We are not the ones stalling progress. But once they saw that the Resistance had strength—real capabilities, victories, sacrifices—they changed the tune. Now they say, “We want to disarm the Resistance because the Taif Accord requires it.” So suddenly, the claim that weapons are stopping state-building has disappeared. Fine.

Yes, the constitution says arms should be exclusively in the hands of the state—and we agree. But which arms are we talking about? The weapons that maintain public order, the arms of internal security forces. As for the Resistance’s weapons, they are exclusively for confronting the “Israeli” enemy. They are not—and have never been—intended for use inside the country.

In any case, who is it that’s talking? The very one who ignited internal strife? The one who was at the heart of the civil war and bears direct responsibility for it? The one whose actions tore through the core of Lebanon in ways that are unbearable—unimaginable even—for people who must live side by side in this country?

Unfortunately, we need to be clear: the primary issue in Lebanon is not the weapons of the Resistance. The real issue is ending the “Israeli” occupation. Show us your statements, your positions—where do you stand on expelling the “Israeli” occupier? Align yourselves with the Lebanese state, with the President, with the government, and with all officials who are calling for an end to the occupation. Stand with the people, with the Resistance, with the citizens of this country who demand “Israel’s” withdrawal.

But we hear nothing from you. Could it be that you’ve grown comfortable with the “Israeli” occupation? If so, that doesn’t reflect well on you. It won’t serve you in the future. Don’t think for a moment that such a stance earns you credibility or goodwill—it does the opposite.

Those who stand up today and say “no” to the “Israeli” occupation—these are the most honorable, the most noble, the most courageous among us. History will remember them. Their names will be written into the nation’s proudest, most honorable chapters.

We stand firm—armed with the strength of our convictions, with national unity, with the building of a just state, with the power of our army, and with the readiness of the Resistance. With all of this, we confront the occupation, and we will continue. We do not surrender, and we will never surrender.

Let no one mistake our patience for weakness—never. We have chosen not to respond to the hateful fabrications and the poisonous rhetoric that serve the “Israeli” agenda and emerge from certain corners within Lebanon. Nor are we intimidated by threats from the United States, from “Israel”, or from their allies. We are the people of confrontation, the people of dignity—defenders of this land and its people.

God Almighty says in His book, the Holy Qur’an: {When the believers saw the enemy alliance, they said, “This is what Allah and His Messenger had promised us. The promise of Allah and His Messenger has come true.”}

We were promised that those people would stand against us. {And this only increased them in faith and submission.}

And elsewhere: {Do not falter or grieve, for you will have the upper hand, if you are [true] believers.}

These people do not understand what these verses mean. They do not grasp how deeply they move us. They do not comprehend the strength of our connection with God, nor the true source of our power.

Fourth, there is a deliberate political and media campaign to make the Resistance’s weapons the central issue—and this narrative serves none other than “Israel”. Some have gone so far as to say that the Resistance’s arms are an obstacle to state-building, and that the state should forcibly disarm the Resistance if it refuses to hand over its weapons.

But do you understand what it truly means to call for the disarmament of the Resistance by force?

-           First of all, you’re offering “Israel” a free service. “Israel” brought in its entire army, mobilized all its capabilities, rallied the full support of the United States and Europe—and still, it could not seize even a single piece of our weapons, let alone disarm the Resistance. And now, you are calling for disarmament by force? That is nothing less than a service to the “Israeli” enemy.

-           Second, this is nothing short of sedition. What you’re really pushing for is strife between the Resistance and the army. When you demand that the state “disarm the Resistance,” what are you actually saying? You’re telling the army: “Go fight the party, go kill Hezbollah.” But we are aligned with the army. We cooperate with the army. We and the army stand in the same trench, united against “Israel”. You want to split us into two opposing sides, push us into internal conflict, and then claim you’re doing it in the name of building the state and preserving the nation? This is a sedition that will not be allowed to happen.

-           Third, this approach reveals their belief that they can take control of the state under the umbrella of American tutelage. Why? Because their goal is to eliminate the powerful actors who stand in their way—so they can reshape the state as they see fit. This same group couldn’t even tolerate the so-called “Forces of Change” who tried to chart an independent course. Now, they attack them under different pretexts within the internal political arena. If they couldn’t handle the modest strength of those reformers, how could they possibly accept the significant influence of the Shiite duo, the Resistance, their allies, and other key political forces across the country? They won’t. That’s why they believe the Resistance must be removed from their path—so that American influence can tighten its grip and govern the country without resistance.

So, the goal behind disarming the Resistance is clear—it serves those three objectives. But let me be blunt: that’s a long shot for you. You will not succeed in offering this service to “Israel”. And mark my words: one day, even “Israel” will turn on you and say, “It seems you’re a failure—nothing came out of your efforts.”

You won’t be able to spark a conflict between us and the Lebanese Army—those soldiers are our sons, our brothers, and they share the same cause.

And you certainly won’t be able to take control of the state, no matter how loud you shout, threaten, rise or fall—because your size is known, your capabilities are limited, and your agenda is anything but national.

We will not allow anyone to disarm Hezbollah or the Resistance because Hezbollah and the Resistance are one and the same. The very notion of disarmament must be removed from our vocabulary. We will not let anyone strip the Resistance of its weapons—these arms are the backbone of the Resistance. They are what gave life and freedom to our people, what liberated our homeland and safeguarded its sovereignty. These weapons are sanctified by the blood of martyrs, the wounds of the injured, and the sacrifices of the detainees. They fought so that this nation could remain dignified and free. We will confront anyone who attacks the Resistance or works to disarm it—regardless of whether they are “Israel”, America, or their collaborators—just as we confronted “Israel”.

Let’s be clear—this phase must be focused on confronting “Israel”. No one should try to play games with us. Thankfully, I believe the internal Lebanese atmosphere is generally positive—at the level of the state, the army, and most political forces. In fact, no one is seriously talking about disarming the Resistance, except for that one faction and a few discordant voices trying to stir up sedition within the country.

We are the sons of Imam Musa al-Sadr—may God return him safely. And what did Imam al-Sadr say? “Possessing weapons in the case of self-defense is not only permissible—it is a duty.” We walk in the path of the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah—may God’s mercy be upon him. What did he say?

“To all those detached from reality, to all who deny the daily truths—let the children of Gaza cry out in your ears, let the women of Gaza, the torn limbs of children and women across Gaza, and in Rafah just days ago, cry out to you. Let them stain your faces with blood, let them speak to you through severed heads, shattered and scattered remains, and tell you: your only protection is your strength, your unity, your weapons, your resistance, your men, your fists, the blood of your martyrs, your sacrifices, your courage.”

O Sayyed Hassan, we remain loyal to the pledge. We will be nothing but what you knew and what you spoke of in front of everyone. We remain loyal to the pledge —true to the blood of the martyrs, the wounded, the prisoners, and the most honorable people. Whoever has the most honorable among them fears no one in this world. Whoever walks with the honorable stands tall—while the cowards run when it matters most. We must keep saying it, now and always: why didn’t these voices—these theorists of division—ever resist? Sadly, it is their presence that weighs us down.

Fifth, Hezbollah has abided by the ceasefire agreement in coordination with the Lebanese state. The ceasefire agreement specifically applies to the area south of the Litani River—it’s mentioned five times in the agreement. We fulfilled all our obligations, and the Lebanese state did as well and continues to do so. But it’s “Israel” that has failed to meet its obligations. Before anything else, let’s see “Israel” uphold its part. Anyone who brings up UN Resolution 1701 should understand that it includes commitments from both Lebanon and “Israel”—not just Lebanon. We can’t be expected to fully meet all our obligations while “Israel” does nothing. That’s essentially giving “Israel” a free pass to achieve its goals without being held accountable.

According to the agreement, which is part of Resolution 1701 and represents its first phase, “Israel” is required to withdraw from all Lebanese territory. “Israel” must also cease its violations—by air, land, and sea—and stop infringing on Lebanese sovereignty in all its forms. Only after “Israel” fulfills its obligations under this initial phase can Lebanon begin to discuss the next steps related to the other provisions of 1701. And that discussion must take place within the framework of Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, with the Lebanese government and state choosing how best to protect the country and implement the resolution—not based on American or “Israeli” interpretations and dictates.

The only way we can contribute to implementing Resolution 1701—after the agreement has been fulfilled—is through dialog and consensus, based on firm national principles. There are three core principles that must guide any dialogue or outcome:

1-         Protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty, liberating its occupied land, and ending all forms of “Israeli” aggression.

2-         Harnessing the strength and weapons of the resistance within a defensive strategy that achieves both liberation and protection.

3-         Rejecting any step that weakens Lebanon or leads to its submission to the “Israeli” enemy.

These three principles must be the foundation of any discussion on a national defense strategy—when the time comes to have that discussion.

Sixth and finally on this first point: His Excellency President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, is the primary party responsible for defining the mechanism and timing for initiating dialog. And when the time is right, we are ready to take part in that process.

What did the President say in his inaugural speech? “My pledge is to call for a comprehensive political and defensive discussion as part of a national security strategy at the diplomatic, economic, and military levels.” This is the President’s commitment, and we are in favor of fulfilling it.

Until now, there has been an exchange of messages between us and the President of the Republic regarding the implementation of the agreement south of the Litani River. The messages have been positive and will remain so, as well as the continuous and important communication with the Lebanese army. Yesterday, the army commander, General Haykal, presented an important memorandum in which he proved that the cooperation with Hezbollah and with the resistance in all its forms is excellent and of the highest priority. Therefore, the issue lies with the “Israeli” entity. We consider that “Israel” is responsible, and it must fulfill its obligations.

When called to dialog, we will be ready, but not under the pressure of occupation and its aggression. “Israel” must withdraw and stop its aggression, and the Lebanese state must begin to commit to the process of reconstruction.

In other words, let me put it in clear and simple Arabic: Is it reasonable to discuss a defense strategy while planes are flying over our heads, the occupation is in the south, and America is putting pressure to have the discussion under duress and based on its dictates? This isn’t a discussion, this is surrender. Let “Israel” withdraw first and stop its attacks, including its airstrikes. This would be an important step before we can engage in a discussion on the defense strategy.

As we mentioned, the defense strategy is not about disarming or withdrawing weapons. As the President said, it is about discussing the diplomatic, economic, and military levels within an integrated defense policy. At that point, we will see what role the Resistance plays in the defense strategy, what is required from it, and how we can strengthen Lebanon’s power. Will we propose actions or measures that help make Lebanon stronger? How can we strengthen the Lebanese army? How do we benefit from the Resistance and its weapons? This is Lebanon’s defense strategy and its strength. Under any kind of pressure or extortion, we will not accept tying the reconstruction to these matters.

Let me tell you something: Reconstruction is not a favor or a gift from anyone. When we say that the state is responsible for reconstruction, it’s because the state has committed to it, and we agreed to it based on its commitments and its institutions.

Listen to what President Joseph Aoun said in his inaugural speech: “My pledge is to rebuild what the “Israeli” aggression has destroyed in the South, Beqaa, the Southern Suburbs, and all over Lebanon with transparency.” This is a pledge that exists. In the ministerial statement, the second paragraph highlights an important point: “The government will commit to speeding up the reconstruction of what was destroyed by the “Israeli” enemy and removing the damages.” The government will commit. So why, until now, haven’t we heard about steps being taken for reconstruction? I call on the Lebanese government to put this issue on its agenda as soon as possible and to devise a plan for reconstruction, fulfilling its commitments and its duty to rebuild for the citizens who were harmed by the “Israeli” aggression on Lebanon.

No one accepts that the Lebanese state wants everything but doesn’t give anything. No, life is about give and take. The Lebanese state has responsibilities and obligations; it has rights and duties. It is its right to manage, lead, and work to protect the country, but its duty is to ensure that citizens live in peace, feeling protected, with their needs met in terms of services and other detailed matters.

I will bring up a topic, and I hope everyone understands it well. We will not discuss the details of the defense strategy in the media, nor will we preemptively set its full framework, which we will agree upon when we sit down at the dialog table. We will not set a time frame for it. These matters will unfold gradually through the dialog. Thank God, the President is understanding, and he wants to engage in a successful dialog, which requires certain prerequisites.

Anyone who has an opinion about the defense strategy is free to express it in the media. That’s their right; everyone has the right to speak. However, Hezbollah does not discuss the defense strategy in the media. We discuss the details when the table is set. But when will the table be set? Hezbollah has fully completed its part of the agreement. Now, “Israel” needs to fulfill its obligations, and the state needs to fulfill its obligations. Can the Lebanese state claim that it has fulfilled its part? No, it has not. Its responsibility is to implement the agreement. It cannot say, “I am unable.” Unable? You claim that through diplomacy, you can achieve your goals. Go ahead and put pressure on the Americans, and tell them, “This cannot go on this way. Stand firm.” Don’t just say “Yes, sir” every time the Americans say something, or act out of fear. Stand your ground; your people are with you.

Now, if the Lebanese state decides that it wants to expel “Israel” by force and open a battle, the Resistance will fight alongside the Lebanese army on the border, no matter the cost. Believe me, try it, and you will see that “Israel” will leave, and America and “Israel” will be forced to follow. But we are not the ones making this decision. This decision is up to you. But also, you cannot tell us, “Give us more.” We have given you everything; we have fully implemented the agreement. What more can we give? Should we move to the second phase? First, complete the first phase and fulfill your duties. Tell those pressuring you, “We cannot move to the second phase before completing the first one, which includes ‘Israel’s’ commitment and withdrawal, halting ‘Israel’s’ aggression, and beginning real and serious reconstruction.”

They are threatening us! They are linking reconstruction to the weapons! No, we link the weapons to reconstruction. Go ahead and complete the reconstruction first, then come back and discuss the defense strategy with us.

There are three or four points that I would also like to address on this occasion:

- First, we completely reject American hegemony over Lebanon. We know that America extends its hand and uses the groups here that are associated with its embassy, supporting in various ways, intimidating in different manners, and intervening in both small and large matters. However, let them be aware: Lebanon cannot be governed under American tutelage. For us, America is the Great Satan and sponsors “Israel”, the cancerous tumor that must be uprooted—not just from Lebanon, but from the entire region. Imam Khomeini, may God have mercy on him, referred to America as “the Great Satan” and “Israel” as “the cancerous tumor.” Indeed, we see the misfortunes of the world stem from America and “Israel”. “Israel” is the entity that must be eradicated, and America must respect the will of the Lebanese people for independence and not overstep its bounds.

- Second, we’re enthusiastic about the upcoming municipal elections and fully intend to participate. If you’ve noticed, we always support and encourage anything that contributes to building the country. Thankfully, we will enter the municipal elections with full coordination and understanding between Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, the families and clans in the villages, as well as the various parties and political forces. If we’re able to reach a consensus or an uncontested outcome in any village, that’s great—it helps reduce tensions among people. There’s no need to stir up conflict; it’s all about serving the public, God willing. Some people criticize the idea of reaching uncontested agreements. But what do they really want? Conflict or people working together in harmony? That’s why we’re continuing on this path, and thankfully things are on the right track. We want the elections to take place on schedule.

- Third, the Higher Islamic Shiite Council is a symbol of honor and dignity in the country. It was founded by Imam Musa al-Sadr—may he return safely. Today, His Eminence Sheikh Ali Al-Khatib, the Council’s Vice President, plays a major national role. He stands firmly for national unity and speaks about the concerns of the Shiite community as an integral part of the nation’s concerns. He is also a strong supporter of the Resistance and its strategic mission that serves Lebanon.

These discordant voices that have emerged—falsely and aggressively accusing the Vice President or the Shiite Council and undermining its role—must be held accountable. The Lebanese state should take legal action, and they should be brought before the judiciary. These are people of division, people who don’t want to see Lebanon built. To His Eminence Sheikh Ali, we say: we are all with you, we stand by your side, and we are one. All honorable people in this country are united—Muslims and Christians, Shiites, Sunnis, Druze, and members of all sects. That is our belief. For that reason, we call on the Lebanese judiciary to prosecute and hold accountable those spreading falsehoods.

- Fourth, Palestine will always remain our compass. Today, the crimes of starvation and killing in Gaza are a condemnation of the entire world—Arab, Islamic, and international. How is it possible that “Israel” continues to act with complete impunity, and no one stops it? Do something! Speak up, shout, apply pressure—through the economy, politics, whatever means! It is unfortunate… You abandon the people—but what about the holy sites? Al-Aqsa is being violated daily by the “Israelis”. Where is the Arab and Islamic response? What are you afraid of? Are you scared of America? America is not some monster—when you raise your voice, it backs off. But this is a shame. In any case, remember: history will record everything. We must stand with the Palestinian people.

- Fifth, regarding the Iranian-American talks—we hope they reach a positive outcome. But as Imam Khamenei said: “The negotiations may succeed, or they may fail. We’re not overly optimistic, and we’re not overly pessimistic either.” He has even instructed everyone involved to run the country based on the idea that negotiations are one thing, and the country’s path is another. In other words, they might succeed, or they might not. Of course, we hope they do—for everyone’s benefit.

- I conclude with a heartfelt salute to blessed Yemen—to this generous, noble, and self-sacrificing people. What kind of country is Yemen that stands up directly to America and “Israel” on behalf of the entire world? Truly, I salute the great Yemeni people, the honorable leader Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, and all those dignified individuals who continue to give. You are, in every sense, one of the shining lights of the Resistance and honor—and honor will always prevail, and resistance will always triumph.

May peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon you all.