Sheikh Qassem’s Full Speech Marking the 1st Martyrdom Anniv. of Sayyed Fouad Shokor
Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations
Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem marking the first martyrdom anniversary of the great jihadi leader Hajj Fouad Shokor [Sayyed Mohsen]. The ceremony took place at the Imam al-Mahdi High School in Hadath in the southern suburbs of Beirut om July 30, 2025.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. Peace and blessings be upon the noblest of creation—our Master, our Beloved, our Leader, Abu Al-Qasim Muhammad—and upon his pure and virtuous household, his chosen and righteous companions, and upon all the prophets and the righteous until the Day of Judgment.
May peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon you.
This gathering marks the first martyrdom anniversary of the great jihadi leader, Sayyed Fouad Shokor [or Sayyed Mohsen], may God Almighty have mercy on him.
On this occasion, I will speak about the Sayyed and toward the end, we’ll also touch on the broader political situation in our country, along with a few brief remarks throughout.
Sayyed Fuad was born in the town of Nabi Sheet in the Bekaa Valley in 1961. He spent many years living in the Ouzai area, where he led a group of ten brothers who called themselves the “Mithaq Group” or “The Covenant of Ten.”
Before 1982, they pledged to confront “Israel” and vowed that none of them would remain outside the battlefield—that they would all seek martyrdom in the path of God by being on the front lines, where one is most likely to fall.
Eight of the brothers were martyred early on. The ninth, Sheikh Asaad Berro, a self-sacrifice martyr, was martyred around 35 years ago. And so, for the past 35 years, Sayyed Mohsen had been awaiting his turn—steadily ascending the ranks of sacrifice and devotion on the battlefield.
This remarkable man was deeply loyal—an ardent lover of Prophet Muhammad and his family [peace and blessings be upon them all]. He was among those who believed in the blessed Islamic Revolution led by the Wali al-Faqih Imam Khomeini. He was profoundly devoted to him: to his ideas, his convictions, his mission, his struggle and his sacrifices.
After the passing of Imam Khomeini, leadership passed to Imam Khamenei, the Guardian of all of us, the Guardian of Muslims in this era and in these circumstances. Sayyed Fuad was also wholeheartedly devoted to this great leadership and believed in it with deep faith.
Sayyed Fuad was one of Hezbollah’s founding leaders—part of the first generation. When we say “first generation,” we mean those who were active even before 1982 and who, in that year, began contributing to the formation and establishment of Hezbollah.
He was indeed from that generation and became Hezbollah’s first military commander after 1982. That was when organizational structures began to take shape, leadership was established, a Shura council was formed, and we agreed on a framework for managing the resistance. He was appointed as the first military commander.
He always stood alongside the great senior commanders: Hajj Imad Mughniyeh—may God’s mercy be upon him, Sayyed Mustafa Badreddine—may God’s mercy be upon him, Hajj Ibrahim Aqil—may God’s mercy be upon him, and Hajj Ali Karaki—may God’s mercy be upon him.
They were a tightly knit team, nearly all from the same generation, the same school of thought, united by a shared vision and a common faith—under the leadership of the dear, noble, exalted, and greatest of them all: His Eminence, the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah [may God’s mercy be upon him].
He was their leader—he guided them, consulted with them, sat with them in the Jihadi Council, and provided the necessary direction and oversight.
God Almighty says in His noble book:
“There will certainly be no fear for the close allies of Allah, nor will they grieve. [They are] those who are faithful and are mindful [of Him]. For them is good news in this worldly life and the Hereafter. There is no change in the promise of Allah. That is [truly] the ultimate triumph.” [Yunus, 62–64]
These commanders, including the martyr Sayyed Fouad Shokor, are among the allies of God. They rose, gave everything they had, and ascended to the Highest Companion in pursuit of what they longed and prayed for. In truth, they were victorious. They attained what they sought—and triumphed.
The martyr Sayyed Mohsen led the confrontations in Kafra and Yater following the assassination of Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi [may God’s mercy be upon him]. He also led a group of fighters in 1992 when the party decided to send a contingent to Bosnia to support those standing for justice there.
We can say that he was the military right hand of His Eminence [Sayyed Nasrallah] during the 1993 and 1996 operations in response to the “Israeli” aggressions against Lebanon. He was the founder of Hezbollah’s naval unit and played a central role in overseeing and coordinating martyrdom operations, including those of Haitham Dbouq, Asaad Berro and others.
He headed Hezbollah’s general planning directorate and was responsible for strategizing how to confront the United States in the region, working within a political and cultural committee focused on that direction. He also oversaw the aerial operations program, including the development and deployment of drones.
He managed the prisoner exchange process during the capture-of-the-two-soldiers operation and led the effort to build and enhance Hezbollah’s special and strategic capabilities, significantly advancing them after the martyrdom of Hajj Imad Mughniyeh.
He was one of the key figures behind the July Victory and a central contributor to the liberation of southern Lebanon. His role during the July 2006 war was especially significant; he remained in the operations room for all 33 days without leaving it once, playing an essential role in managing the confrontation.
Since the start of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, he had been overseeing and directing daily operations. For the past ten months, he was in constant, direct communication with His Eminence, the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, as he was the chief military commander, essentially serving as Chief of Staff in facing this ongoing challenge, up until his martyrdom on July 30, 2024—last year.
We’ve reviewed just a portion of his distinguished military and leadership record, but there is an important point to keep in mind. These leaders—were it not for their deep faith, rich culture, strong sense of mission, and unwavering loyalty—could never have reached such heights in jihad and military achievement.
Sayyed Mohsen possessed both religious and political awareness. He had a broad religious knowledge, and especially in the last ten years, he made a deliberate effort to deepen his understanding of Qur’anic interpretation, study key texts, expand his cultural knowledge and engage with matters of belief and ethics.
He was known for delivering a wide range of lectures—political, cultural and analytical—across various platforms within the party. He also presented these concepts in academic settings, engaging with university students, professors, and engineers alike. This intellectual outreach was something he cared deeply about.
He was present among the people—attending Ashura commemorations at Sayyed Al-Shuhada Complex, joining in the chest-beating rituals, weeping with the mourners, standing in the Ashura courtyard. He would go to the mosque from time to time; he cherished being in these spiritual and devotional settings.
He was known for maintaining strong family ties, for his care and devotion to his parents, and he had a special bond with the families of the martyrs. He always spoke of death and martyrdom, never of worldly matters.
Sayyed was noble in spirit. His connection to Sayyida Fatima Zahraa [AS] and to Imam Hussein [AS] was deep and exceptional. He was steadfast, unwavering, strong, resolute, and bold. He never faltered, and he had a high morale that inspired those around him.
One of his most distinct traits was his strategic mind. He was rich in ideas and convictions, constantly offering suggestions. If you sat down to speak or debate with him, he would engage you for one, two, even three or four hours, sharing insights with clarity, structure, and logical, objective reasoning.
As His Eminence [Sayyed Nasrallah] said in his eulogy: “In the end, the martyr attained what he loved, but we disrupted the objective. This will not weaken our will, our determination, our choices, or our resolve to stay on this path.”
To our dear Sayyed—the one who earned this radiant title of martyrdom—I say: May God have mercy on you and elevate your rank among the martyrs and the saints, alongside the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and all those you loved.
I offer my condolences and congratulations to his family, his brothers, his companions, to Hezbollah, to the Guardian Jurist, and to all who knew him and believed in this path. To his soul and the souls of all the martyrs, we gift the reward of the blessed Surah al-Fatiha, preceded by salawat upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.
We must also remember the martyred commander and head of Hamas’ Political Bureau, Hajj Ismail Haniyeh, may God’s mercy be upon him, who was martyred on the same day. Sayyed Fouad was martyred in the evening, and martyr Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, shortly after midnight, around dawn.
This martyrdom, too, reflects the path of the great and pioneering Palestinian movement—one that has managed to transform the state of the ummah and elevate the Palestinian cause to the foremost global concern today.
To the soul of martyr Haniyeh as well, we gift the reward of the blessed Surah al-Fatiha, preceded by salawat upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.
And here, we must mention Gaza—Gaza of steadfastness, Gaza of dignity, Gaza of sacrifice and selflessness. What we are witnessing there is an unprecedented level of brutal, inhumane violence, unfolding before the eyes of the world—live and in real time.
“Israel” and the United States are committing systematic crimes on a daily basis. They are killing children and women more than 17,000 children have been killed over the course of nearly two years. There is a deliberate and organized campaign of starvation: they lure people with the promise of food aid, only to kill them—people who have nothing, who are completely destitute. Where else in the world do we see crimes like this?
The murder of children, bombing of tents, killing of civilians in their homes, the slaughter of pregnant women, the starving of children—baby formula is banned. This is a massive criminal enterprise carried out by the “Israeli” enemy, with full support and backing from the United States, all in an attempt to force this people into surrender.
But this people will never surrender. This people will accept nothing less than honoring the blood that has been shed, the lives that have been lost and offered in devotion to God Almighty.
Where are the Arabs? Where is the world? What happened to human rights? Where are the countries that claim to uphold human rights?
What’s needed now is concrete action. Enough with the statements, enough with the words, enough with the claims of supporting the Palestinian cause. None of that is useful anymore. What’s needed now is for the world to take a unified stand against “Israel”—politically, economically, practically, and in our view, even militarily—to put an end to “Israel’s” tyranny, which reflects and impacts all of humanity.
In this context, we must also extend a special salute to the freed resistance fighter Georges Abdallah, who stood tall and defiant for 41 years, refusing to sign any paper renouncing his beliefs in exchange for gaining a few years of freedom. They kept him imprisoned because he refused to surrender—not even with words.
This great struggler is an integral part of the diverse resistance movement—a movement that brings together various parties, forces, sects, convictions, and ideologies, all united by one common goal: the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of land and dignity, which God willing, will be achieved with full strength and unwavering determination.
Welcome, Georges. You will, God willing, bring new light with your continued struggle on Lebanese soil and in this homeland.
Now, let’s turn to the internal political situation in Lebanon. A natural question arises: how do we approach state-building in Lebanon, and how do we address its issues? Because there are people proposing various methods of building the state, but sometimes, it’s hard to tell what they actually mean. You don’t know if they’re aiming to build the state or loot it! From the way they present their ideas, it’s unclear: are they trying to build the state or eliminate a component from within it? Are they working to build the state or to secure gains that allow them to dominate and control it? It’s genuinely unclear what they want. Today, I want to clarify our vision for state-building.
The election of the President, His Excellency General Joseph Aoun, came after years of severe institutional decay, especially beginning in 2019, when the collapse of state structures accelerated. For nearly six years, the state has been deteriorating.
Throughout this period, the resistance proved to be a fundamental pillar of state-building, through its responsible conduct and its role in facilitating the outcomes of the presidential and government formation processes and beyond.
As Hezbollah, we are working along two parallel tracks: one is the path of resistance to liberate the land. This path has its own tools, methods, capabilities, and frameworks—and it is directed solely at confronting “Israel”.
The second track is the path of political engagement for state-building through representing the people, addressing their concerns, and participating in political life so that this country can rise through its own citizens. And we are among those citizens.
We do not prioritize one track over the other. Each path has its own purpose, requirements, and goals. At times, one track may become more active than the other, depending on the prevailing circumstances. But for us, both tracks are essential, and we cannot frame them as an either/or choice.
Some say to us: “Come build the state and leave the resistance behind!” No, my friend—it’s not a trade-off. The resistance exists to confront “Israel”. State-building exists to serve the people.
When you say, “Abandon the resistance and join the state,” what you’re really saying is: “Let ‘Israel’ attack Lebanon and take whatever it wants!” That’s not our conviction, and we will never move in that direction.
How did the resistance emerge in Lebanon?
It arose as a response to “Israeli” occupation, filling a gap left by the army’s limited capacity at the time. It achieved a shining victory with the liberation of south Lebanon in 2000, and since then, it has continued to serve as a force of deterrence against “Israel” and protection for Lebanon, by the grace of this resistance.
We’ve said it time and again: the resistance does not stand alone. It is part of a triad alongside the army and the people. It does not seek to replace anyone’s role, contributions, or responsibilities.
The army is responsible, and will remain so—we salute it for its service. The people are responsible, and will remain so—we salute their great support, which has given this resistance its strength. And the resistance is responsible because it is a conscious choice—and those who have chosen it must fulfill their duty within it.
We all share in this responsibility. We’re not just talking about a slogan or a formal “army–people–resistance” equation; we’re talking about real, lived responsibility. And we believe that the stronger and more cooperative these three pillars are, the greater the achievements they can realize. And this is exactly what we’ve seen in our lived experience.
Then came the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Ba’as Battle], where we confronted the “Israeli” aggression. Afterward, an agreement was reached. And I insist: this agreement was requested by “Israel” when it realized, at a certain point, that the balance of power required it to pursue a deal.
From “Israel’s” perspective, just getting Hezbollah to withdraw south of the Litani River was a gain. Having the Lebanese army deploy in that area was also a gain they wanted.
From Hezbollah’s perspective, the moment the state said, “We are now taking responsibility for defending the nation,” that was a gain for us. When the state said, “We will uphold the ceasefire agreement and protect the people—all citizens and residents,” we, too, saw that as a gain.
In other words, the agreement offered gains both for us and for the “Israeli” enemy—and that’s natural. No agreement is reached unless all parties involved see something in it for themselves. The Lebanese state approved the agreement, and we assisted the state in its decision to implement it. But “Israel” did not implement it.
This agreement applies exclusively to the area south of the Litani River. So, for anyone trying to link the issue of arms to this agreement, I say: the matter of arms is an internal Lebanese issue; it has absolutely nothing to do with the “Israeli” enemy, directly or indirectly. It is purely a domestic matter.
After the Uli Al-Ba’as Battle, “Israeli” aggression continued, but at a lower intensity—designed to pressure us and pressure Lebanon. They began circulating the idea that Hezbollah had grown weak, claiming it wasn’t responding to these violations.
But we made it very clear: once the state declared itself responsible and committed to following through, we were no longer solely responsible for confronting “Israeli” aggression on behalf of everyone. The entire state is now responsible—meaning the entire people are responsible and all political forces are responsible. It’s no longer just on us alone.
This marks a new phase. They assumed Hezbollah had weakened, but they were surprised—surprised by Hezbollah’s political presence in the structure of the state and by its popular support, both in south Lebanon and in the massive, majestic funeral procession held for the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan and Sayyed Hashem [Safieddine]. It was a magnificent, million-strong funeral.
They were also surprised by the municipal elections—by the strong presence of Hezbollah and Amal, meaning the resistance, in both participation and results.
What we’ve seen throughout this period clearly demonstrates the strength, resilience, and active presence of the resistance—across all dimensions: political, social, cultural, medical, humanitarian and in terms of shelter and relief. Whether it was helping displaced people return to their homes or standing by them with support, all these efforts were a testament to the resistance’s power.
“Israel” violated the agreement and issued repeated threats. In our view, the full responsibility for this lies with both “Israel” and the United States because they are complicit with one another.
All the recent demands for “Israel” to implement the agreement have exposed both “Israel” and the United States—because what can they possibly say in response?
When they’re told: “Respect the agreement, respect the ceasefire,” they respond with vague talk about mechanisms and procedures, asking “Can we? Can’t we?” In the end, they admit: “The American envoy says there are no guarantees.”
And yet, Amos Hochstein had explicitly guaranteed that the US would ensure the “Israeli” side followed through with the agreement.
The US came to Lebanon, sending an envoy. And what was the role of this envoy? It became clear: the American envoy’s job was to create problems for Lebanon and distort the truth. America is not helping us—America is destroying our country to help “Israel”. Instead of pointing to “Israel” as the source of the problem, they try to frame Hezbollah, the resistance, and Lebanon as the problem.
And yet, the real demand is clear: stop the aggression and implement the agreement. But instead, they’re trying to stir up internal trouble for us in Lebanon.
Barrack arrived with threats and intimidation—talking about annexing Lebanon to Syria, warning that Lebanon would be wiped off the map, that it would no longer matter to the world—all while hinting at further aggression and a potential expansion of the war.
He was surprised to find that the official Lebanese position—patriotic, resistant, and protective of Lebanon’s national interest—was united in its stance: “End the aggression first, and only then can any discussions take place.”
This caught him off guard. He assumed that pressuring Lebanon’s leaders would create division, stir strife, and pit Lebanese factions against each other. But what he failed to understand is that these leaders are well aware of Lebanon’s unique makeup—its sensitivities and internal balance. They came to rebuild a country, and you can’t rebuild a country while it’s under attack, nor can you rebuild it if someone is demanding that you hand over its strength and capabilities. And you certainly can’t rebuild a country while the Americans are trying to impose a guardianship that would strip Lebanon of its power and capacity.
Those who truly want to help Lebanon should invest in its reconstruction, pass supportive legislation, boost its economy, and provide real financial aid. But the American envoy came only to take from Lebanon—for the benefit of “Israel”. That is simply unacceptable.
Today, Lebanon’s implementation of the agreement has actually secured the northern front—northern occupied Palestine. So, if the “Israelis” claim they have a security problem in the north, well, security has already been established. It’s been eight months now. Let them secure our side in Lebanon, so we can assess: has enough time passed to show that “Israel” has no ambitions in Lebanon? Clearly not—because the aggression is still ongoing. It hasn’t stopped.
And I’ll go further. Do you really think the “Israelis” are holding their position at those five points just to pressure Lebanon into concessions? No. They are staying at those five points so that the Americans can help them pressure Lebanon—so they can disarm it, as they claim, and leave Lebanon defenseless.
Their plan is to expand beyond those five points—gradually encroaching upon nearby villages, eventually settling in them and turning them into new settlements. From there, they aim to interfere in Lebanon’s political system to impose their will.
This is the “Israeli” plan. Don’t be fooled into thinking they’re simply sticking to five points for security reasons, as the Prime Minister has claimed. It doesn’t matter if they remain in five positions or not—they already move throughout Lebanon, assassinate at will, and operate freely.
So I tell you: Why are they staying? They’re staying because these five points are a launchpad for expansion—not for negotiation and not for compromise.
We have the example of Syria—just look at what the Americans did there. They devastated Syria. And what are they doing now? They’ve given the “Israelis” free rein to do as they please—to kill, bomb, and operate at will—in order to redraw the borders and reshape the map.
Of course, they encouraged the killings and assassinations, they fueled the massacres in Suweyda, they incited violence against Alawites, and supported every disgraceful act that has taken place, in one way or another.
But what eventually became clear? It became clear that “Israel” is the one redrawing the borders—not just the geographical boundaries, but now also the political ones. It has started shaping Syria’s future. And if that future doesn’t suit them, they simply change course.
Now, they’re saying: “Let’s give this regime a chance,” just because the Americans think it might stabilize. But in truth, they don’t consider it stable, nor do they believe it will last. Their real view is that Syria must be divided. They want to introduce alternative visions—and in any case, they claim to know the region better than anyone, as Barrack once told Trump.
Today, Lebanon is facing an existential threat. And if you think that threat concerns only the resistance, you’re mistaken. This is a threat to all of Lebanon—to all sects, all communities, and every citizen. The danger comes from “Israel”, from Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] and from the Americans, who are pushing for Lebanon to become a submissive tool integrated into their vision of a “New Middle East.”
We are facing this threat head-on, and make no mistake, it is not a minor issue. Some people debate and ask: “Well, what’s the problem if the weapons are taken away?” But this isn’t about disarmament—this is about a threat to Lebanon’s very existence, to its land and sovereignty. Just look at what they’re doing.
I understand that ongoing aggression may sometimes be part of a tactical effort to extract more concessions. Fine. But what does it mean when the bulldozing continues? What does it mean when the killing doesn’t stop? When homes keep being destroyed? When residents are blocked from reaching the frontline areas they call home?
These aren’t security measures—they’re signs of expansion. All of this points to a project of colonization, not to the so-called “Israeli” security they keep invoking.
Let me put it plainly so there’s no need for over-analysis or confusion. We will never accept Lebanon being turned into an annex of “Israel”. Even if the entire world united against us, even if we were all martyred and none of us remained, “Israel” will never defeat us. “Israel” will never take Lebanon hostage, as long as there is a single breath left in us, as long as we declare “La ilaha illa Allah” [There is no god but Allah], as long as we believe that the truth must be defended, and that the blood of the martyrs must be honored and protected.
The weapons we possess are for resisting “Israel”—they have nothing to do with Lebanon’s internal affairs. These weapons are a source of strength for Lebanon, not a threat to it. And we say clearly: we are open to discussing how these weapons can become an integral part of Lebanon’s national strength. But let it be known: we will never accept handing over our weapons to “Israel”.
Today, anyone calling for disarmament is—in practice—calling for our weapons to be surrendered to “Israel”. The United States says: “Remove the missiles. Take down the drones. Hand over everything—even the medium and light arms over time.” Why, Mr. Barrack? He says: “Because these weapons frighten ‘Israel’. ‘Israel’ wants to feel secure.”
So let me be perfectly clear. This man wants to strip us of our weapons for “Israel’s” benefit—not for the sake of Lebanon’s internal security.
Praise be to God, the security situation in Lebanon is fully under control and in excellent condition. Thank God, our weapons are not visible to anyone, and therefore they are not available to be used against anyone—nor will they ever be used internally.
The Lebanese state is fulfilling its responsibilities: it has internal security forces, general security, an army, and active institutions. No one is competing with the state over the monopoly of arms when it comes to internal security. And even in confronting “Israel”, let it be clear: we do not owe anyone recognition, nor reconciliation, nor surrender.
We are among the honorable in Lebanon—those to whom people once said, “Those who were warned, ‘Your enemies have mobilized their forces against you, so fear them,’ the warning only made them grow stronger in faith and they replied, ‘Allah [alone] is sufficient [as an aid] for us and [He] is the best Protector.’ So, they returned with Allah’s favors and grace, suffering no harm. For they sought to please Allah. And surely Allah is [the] Lord of infinite bounty. That [warning] was only [from] Satan, trying to prompt you to fear his followers. So do not fear them; fear Me if you are [true] believers. [Ali ‘Imran, 173-175]
We are a people who gave our very lives to God to uphold honor and dignity. We demand our right to our land—to liberate our land, to expel the occupier. We live on our land, and we die on our land. We will never hand it over in humiliation, nor will we submit like slaves. We were raised in the school of Imam Hussein [AS], who said and repeated: “Far from us is disgrace”.
Then some come out and say: “Fine, but what do you really have? You seem so strong, always threatening and escalating.” No, we are not threatening. We are in a defensive position, and we’re simply saying that our defense knows no limits, even if it leads to martyrdom. Because for us, it’s one of the two noble outcomes: victory or martyrdom.
Even if the path leads to martyrdom—no matter the cost—we remain assured. It’s not as if we head toward martyrdom and see a dead end. Not at all. Don’t assume we’re all going and none of us will return. No, some of us will fall, and others will remain.
Deviation won’t last. Occupation won’t last. Foreign domination won’t last. These things will pass, but we will remain.
You ask: “What do we have?” We have faith in God Almighty—and that is a tremendous source of strength. We have the will and determination to resist. We have the right to live on our land, and we will defend it with whatever strength we possess. That is our choice. And we will not change that choice, even if others fail to recognize or acknowledge us.
Know this: we remain because we stand for what is right. And really, if a person won’t defend their right, then what will they defend? Let me say this clearly: The imminent threat is the “Israeli” aggression. So don’t waste time debating what weapons we have or don’t have. Focus on the aggression. That’s what needs to stop.
Every political discussion in this country should be centered on ending the aggression, not on handing over our weapons to “Israel”. Let me make it even clearer. At this moment, any call to disarm while the aggression continues is effectively a call to hand “Israel” the very power that protects Lebanon.
No one should try to play this game with us because we will never be the ones who hand over our weapons to “Israel”. And let me ask you this: Is the issue of weapons even the priority right now? No. The priority is reconstruction. The priority is ending the aggression.
Now allow me to share a thought—one that some may find uncomfortable. The state has rights, but it also has duties. We have already given the state all its rights. Everything that could strengthen the state we offered. Even the weapons we hold as a resistance, we hold for the strength of the state, not to weaken it.
So does the state have the right to say, “I cannot defend you. ‘Israel’ is savage and ruthless. Yes, you’ve given me everything, but I don’t want to be strong. Hand me your weapons so I can throw them into ‘Israel’s’ fire.”?
No, that is unacceptable. That is not how a state should be run. The state has rights and responsibilities. We gave it its rights. Now, it must fulfill its responsibilities. And the state has two major, fundamental duties:
First: The aggression must be stopped by all means: diplomatically, militarily, whatever it takes. Let them draw up a plan, make a decision, position the army to confront “Israel”—alongside the resistance. Whatever strategy they choose, that’s up to them. But in the end, they are responsible for protecting the people.
You cannot say to citizens: “We can’t protect you, so disarm yourselves and leave yourselves exposed to ‘Israeli’ killing, attacks, and expansion.” No one has the right to say that. What kind of world do we think we’re living in? So, the first responsibility is to stop the aggression.
The second is reconstruction. Rebuilding is the responsibility of the state. Yes, America is pressuring us and preventing Arab, Islamic, and other countries from helping us, but the state must find a way, even if it has to come from the national budget because this is its duty.
Rebuilding seven or eight thousand housing units would cost around $40 million. Can’t the state afford that? Yes, it can. It can also afford much more, and it can take necessary measures. Do you know what happens when you invest in reconstruction? Don’t think of it as spending money you’re going to lose. No, when you spend money, workers are employed, the poor can eat, the economic cycle is revived, shops reopen, merchants thrive, and people go back to work.
Reconstruction is not a loss, it’s a gain, even economically. And beyond that, you have a social obligation to care for the people. You owe it to the citizens to do your part.
We do not accept blackmail. They try to pressure us, saying: “We won’t give you anything unless…” Unless what, exactly? “Unless you hand over your weapons to ‘Israel’!” Well, we will never hand them over to “Israel”.
Let me be even clearer. Anyone—whether inside Lebanon, abroad, Arab, or international—who is calling today for us to surrender our weapons is serving the “Israeli” project. No matter their name, their title, their position, or their claims, they are advancing “Israel’s” agenda. Just look at the facts; we’re laying them out for you.
If you truly want a solution, then start by stopping the aggression. Some have said, “Hezbollah doesn’t want the aggression to end because then they’ll have no purpose.” No, my friend, we have plenty to do. You go ahead and stop the aggression. Stop the airstrikes. Release the prisoners. Let “Israel” withdraw from the land it has occupied. Then, let’s see if things begin to stabilize. After that, you’ll get the most constructive discussion from us, and the most genuine engagement.
But don’t come to us now saying, “We want to understand you better.” No, my dear. I can’t offer you everything now because what you’re really trying to take is the last bit of dignity we still have left. And that, we simply cannot allow.
Today, there are two choices in Lebanon: one is sovereignty, which means protecting the homeland; independence, meaning no guardianship or external control; and liberation, meaning the rejection of occupation. This is the true choice: sovereignty, independence, and liberation.
The other choice is guardianship, which now takes the form of an American influence with an Arab flavor—servitude in place of independence and occupation instead of liberation. So, we have another choice called: guardianship, servitude, and occupation.
Between the two choices, we stand firmly with sovereignty, independence, and liberation, and we will work to achieve this outcome. We call on the state to be more decisive in confronting “Israeli” aggression and in the process of reconstruction.
Hezbollah is determined to build the state, empower its institutions, strengthen the army, and ensure that the state fulfills its responsibilities in both war and peace, by developing a national security and defense strategy. We also call on the state and all honorable people to work to curb the hands of those who incite sedition and serve the “Israeli” project.
Let everyone know, loudly and clearly: Lebanon is the final homeland for all its people, and we are part of its people. Lebanon will never belong to one group at the expense of another, and we will never accept anyone planning to make Lebanon an extension of “Israel”.
Let us raise this slogan: Together, we will drive “Israel” out by our unity and rebuild our country through our cooperation. If we can achieve this, then we have truly succeeded.
And let us say to the Arabs and foreigners: You are welcome as supporters in driving out “Israel” and rebuilding the country. In doing so, you serve your interests as well as Lebanon’s. But those who seek to serve “Israel” and its project are not welcome.
Peace and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you.
Comments
