Full Speech of Sheikh Qassem Marking Forty Days on the Martyrdom of Cmdr. Mohammad Saeed Izadi
Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations
The full speech of Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sheikh Naim Qassem at the honorary ceremony marking forty days on the martyrdom of commander Mohammad Saeed Izadi [Hajj Ramadan] on Tuesday, 5 August 2025.
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
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.
We gather today to mark the 40th day memorial of the martyr and commander, the martyr of Palestine, Major General Mohammad Saeed Izadi [Hajj Ramadan], may God’s mercy be upon him. We are here to reflect on his life, his principles, his sacrifices, and his struggle. In the second part of the address, we will turn to the current political situation in Lebanon.
Let us begin with our great martyr, Major General Izadi, Hajj Ramadan, the Iranian martyr of Palestine, who came from the farthest corner of the earth to serve Palestine, to fight for the liberation of Palestine, its people, and its cause.
He was born in 1964 in Kermanshah Province. He joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guards [IRG] at its inception and took part in the imposed war on Iran from its very beginning. At the age of 19, he became deputy commander of the Nabi Al-Akram Mohammad Brigade, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. This speaks to his sharpness, capabilities, and potential, which earned him a leadership position at such a young and critical age.
In 1984, he came to Lebanon as the IRG commander in the Hermel region, before transitioning to work in the Palestine office, which was tasked with coordination and follow-up with Palestinian resistance factions in Lebanon.
In 1992, specifically on December 17, the “Israeli” enemy expelled 415 resistance fighters from within Palestine to Marj al-Zouhour in southern Lebanon. Hajj Ramadan spent 13 months with the deportees—eating, sleeping, drinking, and sitting with them—ensuring their needs and requirements were met. He provided everything necessary, in addition to offering training, care, and close attention. Among those deportees were leaders such as Dr. Abdul Aziz Al-Rantisi, Hajj Ismail Haniyeh, Imad Alami, and Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar, most of whom later became martyrs.
Hajj Ramadan remained in Lebanon until 1995, after which he returned to Iran. Following the liberation of south Lebanon in 2000 and with the early signs of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, he returned to Lebanon at the request of martyr Hajj Imad Mughniyeh and of Hajj Qassem Soleimani, who was then the commander of the Quds Force. His return was also approved by His Eminence, the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, may God’s mercy be upon him.
Hajj Mohammad Saeed Izadi, known as Hajj Ramadan, came to Lebanon to take charge of the Palestine file within the Quds Force of the blessed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He embodied the meaning of Allah’s words: “Those who have believed, emigrated, and strived in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah. It is they who will triumph.” [At-Tawbah, 20]
Hajj Ramadan, along with his brothers, closely followed the developments of the Intifada and supported the resistance in Palestine. He worked to transfer experience, weapons, and training to all Palestinian factions. After the liberation of the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hajj Ramadan alongside Hajj Imad Mughniyeh oversaw the defensive plan for Gaza and the development of its resistance.
Hajj Ramadan also had a special focus on advancing the resistance effort in Palestine. He was deeply involved in every aspect of Palestinian affairs—political, military, security, media, and social.
Hajj Ramadan believed deeply in Palestinian unity and was always in contact with leaders from across the Palestinian spectrum. Whenever he brought together Palestinian leaders in Lebanon, he would often call me and ask me to be present, ensuring that Hezbollah maintained direct engagement with the Palestinian leadership.
Likewise, when we traveled to Tehran, we would meet with them under the guidance and supervision of Hajj Ramadan, who personally coordinated the joint sessions between Hezbollah and the various Palestinian factions.
Today, what we are witnessing in Palestine is nothing short of crimes and genocide against this great people. No nation on earth could endure what the Palestinian people are enduring. So far, there are 61,000 martyrs, 150,000 wounded, and over 2.2 million displaced forced to move from one place to another, constantly exposed to daily killing and relentless starvation. They are even killed while trying to collect food or receive basic aid.
All of this is systematic, organized, and daily acts of brutality. It is the deliberate killing of children and women in tents, homes, and on the streets, even as they try to access essentials like food and humanitarian services.
This clearly shows that the United States and “Israel” are systematically working to annihilate the Palestinian people. They want the land for the usurping entity of “Israel”—they do not want the people to live or survive. But by God’s will, this people will endure. They have already withstood 77 years of struggle, carrying the banner of resistance and the sacred cause.
They have now held firm for nearly two years in the face of horrific crimes and brutal killings. Yet, they remain proud and unbroken, and God willing, they will prevail.
Hajj Ramadan once said about the Al-Aqsa Flood operation: “It is a miracle no other resistance movement in the world has ever achieved.” He also said: “Al-Quds elevates and honors those who support and serve it.”
This was his perspective—a view deeply shaped by the ideology of Imam Khomeini. Imam Khomeini used to describe the “Israeli” entity as a “cancerous Zionist tumor.” And as we know, cancer spreads in a malignant way, affecting everything around it, bringing destruction as it grows. The only solution to cancer is to uproot it completely.
This was Imam Khomeini’s vision from day one—supporting the Palestinian cause not just in words, but through concrete and practical action, through organized formations, the Quds Force, the 20-million army, the transformation of the “Israeli” embassy into a Palestinian embassy, and the declaration of International Quds Day.
All of this stemmed from his unwavering belief that supporting Palestine is not just a duty, but a top priority that surpasses all others.
And in the same spirit, Imam Khamenei [may his shadow endure] carried forward this path. He stated: “Outright defense of oppressed peoples, especially the Palestinian people, was one of the core priorities of Imam Khomeini’s approach”.
He also said: “Gaza is not about a piece of land, and the cause of Palestine is not just a matter of geography, it is a matter of humanity”.
This is the vision of the Wali al-Faqih, the vision of our leadership, which sees that Palestine is not merely a geographic issue, but one that encompasses humanity, morality, faith, education, and the global conscience. And it is this very understanding that places the responsibility on everyone to stand with and support Palestine.
Hajj Ramadan had an excellent relationship with Hezbollah and with His Eminence, the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. He was well-acquainted with all of Hezbollah’s leadership and also took part in the July 2006 war, in the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Ba’as Battle].
He returned to Lebanon just two days after the assassination of His Eminence, the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. He considered himself fully at the service of Hezbollah. He was passionately devoted to Hezbollah, to the resistance, to Sayyed Hassan, and to all those striving in the path of God Almighty.
Hajj Ramadan was distinguished by remarkable personal qualities. He was a man of deep faith and spiritual insight, a devoted lover of Imam Khomeini and of Imam Khamenei. He was both humble and firm, commanding respect with his dignified presence. He was generous in spirit, and the children of martyrs held a very special place in his heart and in his care.
He was martyred on June 21, 2025, in the holy city of Qom, Iran. The enemy’s Minister of War described the assassination by saying: “The killing of Mohammad Saeed Izadi is one of the most significant achievements in the war against Iran”.
May God have mercy on you, O martyred general, O inspiring commander, Hajj Ramadan, the martyr of Palestine. To his soul and the souls of all the martyrs, we dedicate the reward of the blessed Surah Al-Fatiha, preceded by prayers upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.
Before I address the political situation, I must pause at the great tragedy that occurred five years ago, on August 4th – the Beirut Port explosion. The catastrophe left behind victims, wounded, destruction, and deep pain. It shattered lives and livelihoods and inflicted a profound wound on Lebanon—its citizens and all those who love this country.
We call for the acceleration of the trials and investigations, away from politicization, which has delayed the outcome until now. We hope this current stage becomes one of swift and just resolution—free from political bias, sectarian influence, pre-packaged accusations, or foreign directives—so that people may know the truth, the guilty are held accountable, and the innocent are cleared. This case must reach a just and meaningful conclusion. We pray for God’s mercy upon the victims, healing for the wounded, and patience and comfort for the grieving families who lost their children and loved ones.
Now, turning to the political situation, I will address five key points.
First: What is the roadmap to building Lebanon and securing stability?
We believe there are three fundamental pillars necessary for rebuilding Lebanon:
1. Partnership and cooperation within a framework of national unity, so we may stand as one in the revival of Lebanon. This means genuine collaboration and shared responsibility.
2. Setting priorities—focusing on what truly shapes and supports Lebanon’s foundation, rather than being distracted by superficial matters or external demands.
3. Rejecting foreign guardianship, whether American or otherwise, because submission to foreign tutelage undermines our abilities and our achievements and leads us in the wrong direction.
In short, we believe that to build Lebanon, these three principles must be upheld: National partnership and cooperation, setting clear internal priorities, and refusing any form of foreign guardianship, be it international or regional.
The agreement reached on November 27, 2024, was an indirect agreement to halt the “Israeli” aggression and to outline the terms for ending the assault. It was concluded indirectly between the Lebanese state and the “Israeli” enemy.
This agreement showcased a close and exceptional level of cooperation between the resistance and the state. It represented one of the highest forms of coordination—where the resistance facilitated all the necessary measures required of the state under the agreement, without causing any friction, delay, complications or incidents.
On the contrary, for eight full months, Hezbollah—and the resistance in general—were fully committed to the measures of the Lebanese state. They coordinated with the government, the Lebanese army, the presidency, and all relevant authorities. There was not a single recorded violation—neither in confronting the “Israeli” enemy nor in responding to or cooperating with the Lebanese army and the state institutions.
This is a model of how the resistance can work hand in hand with the state—when there is mutual understanding, cooperation, shared conviction, and unity of purpose.
In contrast, “Israel” violated the agreement and failed to uphold its commitments, breaching it thousands of times. And let me be clear with you—what happened in Syria had a major impact on the steps “Israel” took.
They regretted formulating the agreement, believing it granted Lebanon—and Hezbollah—the capacity and means to maintain the existing strength in Lebanon. As a result, their thinking became: “No, let’s continue in Lebanon the way we’ve been operating in Syria”.
In other words, they want to change the agreement—one they never truly adhered to in the first place.
Lebanon’s interest lies in reclaiming its sovereignty, independence, and full liberation. “Israel’s” interest, on the other hand, is to weaken Lebanon in order to control its course.
Today, as officials, resistance, people, army, and all concerned parties, our goal is to prioritize Lebanon’s interests, not “Israel’s”.
The United States came forward, but not to propose a new agreement. Anyone who examines the proposal brought by [Amos] Hochstein on behalf of Barrack will see that it’s not truly an agreement—it’s a set of dictates. It aims to strip Hezbollah—and Lebanon as a whole—of its strength and capabilities. It seeks to dismantle the resistance, to weaken the people, and ultimately to leave Lebanon completely exposed and vulnerable before the “Israeli” entity.
What Barrack brought forward serves “Israel’s” interests entirely. I wanted to highlight a few sections from the third memorandum, which is even worse than the first and second.
Barrack’s memorandum to the Lebanese government states the following:
The second phase spans from day 15 to day 60—with the first 15 days supposedly falling under the pretext of “ending the aggression” and similar rhetoric. But in reality, it’s all just empty political rhetoric.
From days 15 to 60, the memorandum calls for disarmament. They even list specific examples to make things clear: mortars, rocket launchers, hand grenades, explosives, incendiary missile systems (air-to-ground and ground-to-ground), weapons that cause mass casualties, biological and chemical weapons, and drones—all of which must be dismantled across the entire country within 30 days.
That means by day 45, all these capabilities must have been dismantled and handed over to the Lebanese state.
However, these aren’t heavy weapons. They’re not even medium weapons. They’re demanding the handover of basic arms—like hand grenades and mortars. And mortars are considered simple, ordinary weapons; many tribes and groups own them as casually as one would own bread. While we might carry pistols, they carry RPGs, mortars and grenades—yet even these, the memorandum insists, must be dismantled within 30 days.
Better yet, put it in quotation marks, because someone might say, “Brother, it’s all too difficult to dismantle everything within 30 days”. Thank God, they are reasonable and understand. He said that what’s required is dismantling 50% of the infrastructure by day 30.
One of the military leaders, we were talking like this, said: “I asked them, ‘Who knows what 50% actually means?’” — and he himself doesn’t even know what 100% is. So, this is a trap. Tomorrow, they’ll tell you, “No, what you’ve withdrawn hasn’t even reached 50%.” Even if you keep withdrawing until you reach 99%, they’ll still say, “You haven’t reached 50%.” We know the “Israelis” and how they operate.
He said: If they do all of this, where does that leave us? Day 45? That’s when “Israel” begins to withdraw from the five points — begins. It will facilitate withdrawal from three of those points. The success of the third phase depends on this.
He said: Since there are five points, “Israel” will withdraw from all five — but only as a start. Meaning, at the very least, it is required to withdraw from three points in order for the third phase — which spans from Day 60 to Day 90 — to begin. And only then would talks about the release of prisoners start.
What is this called? This is called stripping Lebanon of its military capability — by stripping its resistance and by not allowing the Lebanese army to possess weapons beyond what serves an internal function, with no impact on “Israel” whatsoever — neither directly nor indirectly.
This is what is being demanded for implementation. And even if, for the sake of argument, we assumed that this memorandum proceeds — what if “Israel” doesn’t even implement this meaningless arrangement?
He said, “There are consequences for violations,” meaning if “‘Israel’” or Lebanon breaches the agreement. So, what are the consequences of an “Israeli” violation? He said: “A condemnation from the UN Security Council and reviews of the non-engagement protocols.” [And as the saying goes:] “They told the liar, swear—he said, ‘I swear to God, here it is!’”— in other words, the lie is so blatant it’s laughable.
Are we now betting on the honesty of the Americans and the “Israelis”? And if we say to them, “Swear on it,” will that make it binding? Can you offer guarantees?
In any case, the Americans are already saying: “There are no guarantees.” So, what are we supposed to do if “Israel” crosses the line? File a complaint at the UN Security Council? Be our guest. In the end, what you’re saying is that “Israel” has a free hand—even when we offer all these concessions! And what happens to Lebanon if, hypothetically, it fails to comply? They say: “We will freeze conditional military aid and impose economic sanctions!” But you’ve already devastated Lebanon with economic sanctions and withheld military aid since 2019. You haven’t given a thing. The US has completely disavowed any responsibility when it comes to the “Israeli” entity. What assistance is America providing? What support is coming from the Arab states or others? Is anyone actually offering anything?
So, the goal of this memorandum is to strip Lebanon of its strength in exchange for a partial and uncertain withdrawal, while negotiating under a severely imbalanced power dynamic. The path we had agreed to in the first agreement—where did that go? It’s clear the first agreement has been nullified. “Israel” has been absolved of all its violations, and now we’re being dragged into a new tunnel called a “new agreement.” But we reject any new agreement that isn’t the existing one between the Lebanese state and the “Israeli” entity.
Let them implement the existing agreement first. Then, they can talk about whatever else they want.
Second, any timeline that has nothing to do with Lebanon and is proposed under the shadow of “Israeli” aggression is completely unacceptable. A timeline means committing to certain steps while the aggression is still ongoing. How can you set deadlines and demand compliance when “Israel” hasn’t done a single thing yet?
Are we being called to negotiate or simply to hand over our weapons without any national security dialog or defensive strategy? This is wrong. We cannot accept that Lebanon be made to gradually relinquish its strength, while all the elements of power remain in the hands of the “Israeli” enemy.
Second, what are they telling us today? They say: “We’re compelled to remove the pretexts.” Why? Because, they claim, there’s external pressure—no funding unless we comply, and the threat of sanctions. But did they ever provide us with anything in the first place? And what use is funding if it comes at the cost of our sovereignty, if our decisions are stripped away, if our land remains occupied, and we are left with no options? What good is this funding if, in exchange, we lose everything that matters?
There’s no use in that because we would become lackeys, followers, and slaves. And we will never accept to be slaves to anyone—not to America, not to certain Arab states, and not to any being on the face of this earth.
What are you saying? External pressure? Will they withhold funding? Let them! They’ve been withholding it anyway. Has there ever been real funding? Have they ever truly given us anything? Every time, they say: “After you comply, we’ll give you.” This is not something anyone should submit to. Let them threaten all they want.
They say: “They’re using fear of war and an expanded aggression as pressure.” Let me ask you: Why is “Israel” currently relying on limited attacks and US political pressure instead of launching a full-scale war? Because it’s not in “Israel’s” interest to wage such a full-scale war.
If such a war breaks out, the resistance will defend, the army will defend, and the people will defend. This defense will lead to rockets falling inside “Israeli” territory, and all the security they’ve built over the past eight months will collapse within an hour. How long would it take them to rebuild that?
So, it’s in their interest to avoid a full-scale war so they don’t have to face the resistance’s response. That’s how they’re thinking. So don’t let anyone intimidate you too much — yes, they could launch an aggression at any moment. But if you surrender everything to them, will the aggression stop? No, it won’t because they hold all the cards.
On the contrary, if we’re left with nothing, the chances of aggression and criminal acts against us will be greater than ever before. If we are stripped of everything, then who will protect Lebanon and its people?
Haven’t you heard the “Israeli” Finance Minister, Smotrich? He is a key figure in the “Israeli” government. He said: “The ‘Israeli’ army will not withdraw from the five positions in southern Lebanon, and the villages destroyed by the ‘Israeli’ army in southern Lebanon will not be rebuilt.”
He’s saying it to you clearly and directly. And yet we still have some among us saying, “No, that’s not what he meant; it’s just talk…” How can this be dismissed as mere talk? Everything they said, they did. And everything they didn’t say, they are doing.
Therefore, if a stable Lebanon is what the outside world wants, and they truly want Lebanon to be stable, then rest assured they will yield once Lebanon stands firm. But if Lebanon’s stability means nothing to them, then no matter what we offer, it will not make a difference. So, no one should place their bets on the idea that this is about what we give.
Today, they provide minimal support to the Lebanese army. Why? Because they see that limited support as serving only internal purposes. As for anything related to “Israel”—no, that is not considered support.
In 2019, protests erupted, and change began in Lebanon. From 2019 until today, what have they been telling us? “Implement first, and then we’ll give you.” “Do your part, and then we’ll reward you.”
The United States, together with certain Arab countries, has worn Lebanon down with the repeated promise: “Implement first, and then we will provide.”
Today, we have a president, a government, institutions being built, and internal stability. The main crisis we face now stems from the “Israeli” aggression. Here, I return to the ministerial statement because we constantly hear: “Let’s refer back to the ministerial statement,” as if the resistance is demanding positions beyond those of the state. But what does the ministerial statement actually say?
The third paragraph reads: “The foremost goal before the government and the highest duty it will strive to accomplish is to establish a state governed by the rule of law in all its aspects, to reform its institutions, and to safeguard its sovereignty.” Tell us, O government, where is your effort to safeguard sovereignty?
Tell us, what practical steps have actually strengthened Lebanon’s sovereignty? Is giving up our weapons a form of safeguarding sovereignty? Is surrendering to “Israel” a way to protect our sovereignty? Is handing over our weapons to “Israel”—at the request of the US and some Arab countries—what’s really needed at this stage to secure Lebanon’s independence?”
In the fourth paragraph, it states: “The state we seek is one that fully assumes responsibility for the security of the country and the defense of its borders and entry points—a state that deters aggressors, protects its citizens, and fortifies its independence”.
Where is the deterrence against “Israel”? Where is the state that shields Lebanon from harm? Where is the responsibility to ensure security in the face of the Israeli enemy? Where is the defense of the borders and entry points?
You tell us you are powerless; if that’s the case, then at least don’t further weaken yourselves. You say you’re unable; we say, then take your time and let’s work to build the necessary capability. Let’s develop a military plan that would equip the army with the means—both in manpower and weaponry—to confront the “Israeli” enemy if it attacks or continues its occupation.
Now, in your ministerial statement, you say in paragraph four that you aim to protect the borders and entry points, and that this state will deter any aggressor. Then show me your plan to deter the aggressor. Give me a timeline. Present concrete steps to achieve deterrence. Where are they? It’s been eight months, and there has been no deterrence.
In paragraph five, the Prime Minister has often taken pride in quoting it—and rightly so, because it’s a very important paragraph. We, too, take pride in it just as he does. This paragraph is taken from the Taif Constitution. And what does the Taif say?
“The government commits, in accordance with the National Accord Document agreed upon in Taif”—and this is written in the ministerial statement—“to take all necessary measures to liberate all Lebanese territory from ‘Israeli’ occupation and to extend the authority of the state over all its land”.
The first thing you must do is take all necessary measures to liberate Lebanese land. What does “all necessary measures” mean? It means the army, the people, the resistance, and the political parties. When the country is under threat, all forces are responsible for defending and confronting that threat. So, at the very heart of the Taif Accord and in the heart of the National Charter—which you yourselves included in the ministerial statement that we all approved—you say: “To take all necessary measures to liberate all Lebanese territory from ‘Israeli’ occupation”.
Show us: where are these measures being taken? Where are the actions that demonstrate our capacity to confront the “Israeli” enemy?
The state must develop plans to confront pressure and threats and ensure protection—not strip its citizens of their strength and capabilities, nor strip its resistance of its power—only to lose the very sources of strength that would enable it to negotiate, stand firm, confront the enemy, and liberate occupied land, thereby establishing true sovereignty for Lebanon.
This is the duty of the state. We should be going to the Council of Ministers and putting forth an agenda item: How do we confront “Israeli” aggression and protect our sovereignty? What are the practical steps? What is the timeline for achieving this? What sources of strength can we utilize? How can we involve the parties, the political forces, the sects, the people, and all those concerned in the process of defending Lebanon? How do we stand united to expel “Israel”? How do we increase pressure on the “Israeli” enemy through its complicit backers—or by any other means?
This is what must be done: we need to put forth a program on this issue, with a timeline. This is the priority—not rushing to disarm for the sake of “Israel”, and not disarming simply because the Americans or one of the Arab states is pushing hard to make that their priority.
What do you want with “Israel”? Even if it remains, where is the sovereignty? Are you working for Lebanon or for someone else? If you are working for Lebanon and claim to support Lebanon, then you should be with us in halting the aggression, expelling the “Israeli” occupation, starting reconstruction, and securing the release of prisoners. After that, come and speak to us about whatever you want—we are ready.
Let me say this clearly: the resistance is part of the Taif constitution. It is explicitly stated among the measures that must be taken—by all means—to protect Lebanon. A constitutional matter cannot be decided by a vote. Constitutional matters require consensus and the participation of all segments of society to reach common understanding on shared national issues.
Just as the abolition of political sectarianism requires broad consensus and just as rejecting the idea of a mere numerical majority in favor of a sectarian distribution that reassures all communities is a national pact matter—so too is the resistance to confront “Israel” a matter of national consensus, and it must be discussed accordingly.
Let us come together to discuss a national security strategy and a defense strategy. National security goes beyond the issue of weapons; it takes into account Lebanon’s strength, the accumulation and consolidation of power, the ability to defend, and the confrontation of the “Israeli” enemy.
A strategy is not a timeline for disarming. We had hoped to one day sit with the relevant authorities, as the resistance, to discuss the nature of a national security strategy. But it seems they’ve set that aside, reducing the matter to simply: “Give us the weapons,” without any talk of national security. How can that be? We reject this because we consider ourselves a fundamental pillar of Lebanon. Therefore, the entire approach must be reconsidered.
Third, we are committed to maintaining cooperation with the three leaders. We value dialog, understanding, and collaboration. No one should pressure the other. And no one should act under pressure by turning that pressure inward against us. That’s not how it works. In the end, everyone knows that Lebanon is the foundation, so we must ask: What benefits Lebanon? That’s what we should do. But it’s unacceptable to come under external pressure and then impose that pressure on us to make us relinquish our rights and sovereignty. That is simply wrong.
We, along with you, must stand together. Tell the West, tell the Americans, tell all those applying pressure: we have our own foundations here in Lebanon, and we want to come to an understanding among ourselves. You cannot impose your will on us.
We must also be wary of those who incite internal strife, of those whose hands are stained with blood, and of those who serve the “Israeli” project—both at home and abroad.
I urge you not to waste time getting swept up in the storms stirred by foreign dictates. Today, the entire country is unsettled—no one is at ease. Barrack came here and threw down one card after another. So where do you stand? What’s really going on? Every time someone speaks, or an Arab official visits and tells our leaders, “Do this… or else…”—what does “or else” even mean? “Or else there’ll be no money?” Well then, may the money never come. Who are you to think you can buy us off?
What do you say? This is a country—a country built on sacrifices and bloodshed. What concerns Lebanon must be discussed by us, the Lebanese, within Lebanon. No one has the right to impose dictates on us. We don’t want to make agreements with outsiders; we want to reach agreements among ourselves to preserve our sovereignty and independence.
As Lebanese, we arrange our internal affairs through cooperation and understanding. Let everyone know: there will be no solution without consensus. This is a strategic and fundamental matter. Let them implement the agreement, and we will pursue our interests in Lebanon through consensus among ourselves, through the institutions and the army. The resistance is an inseparable part of this fabric.
I tell you: today the Lebanese state is capable of standing strong and assuring the international community that it is responsible for the southern and eastern borders. Let them hold the Lebanese state accountable—if anything happens on the eastern or southern borders. This is based on eight months of experience with the Lebanese state’s control. Nothing has happened on the southern border, and the state has maintained order on the eastern border, preventing massacres, problems, and complications in those villages. The Lebanese state continues to fully carry out its duties internally.
Tell the world: if the goal is for Lebanon not to influence anyone, then it is the Lebanese state that guarantees the protection of its borders and sovereignty and takes responsibility for what happens within its territory. From inside Lebanon, it can stand before the world and before you as a proven example. Let the international community hold Lebanon accountable if it fails—but it should not intervene by demanding Lebanon achieve “Israel’s” objectives that it failed to reach in war.
No one can strip Lebanon of its strength to protect its sovereignty, independence, and capabilities. No one can prevent Lebanon from being dignified—keep this idea firmly in your minds and let it be the foundation.
We are a community that has given and sacrificed—Lebanese people, the army, and the entire nation have made great sacrifices. No one can come and tell us they are compensating us for our safety—those days are gone.
Fourthly, those who have sacrificed and liberated the land are more patriotic than those who have corrupted the country and killed its citizens. No one should claim to be pure and innocent or act as if they are without fault. Everyone’s history is known—ours included—through the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, may God bless his soul, who passed away as a great, courageous, and heroic martyr. His contributions were to all humanity—not just Palestine, nor Lebanon alone—but what many others have failed to give.
We carry this sacrifice. We have the Hashemite Sayyed [Sayyed Hashem Safieddine], our martyred commanders, five thousand martyrs in the battles of the Al-Aqsa Flood and the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Ba’as Battle], thirteen thousand wounded from these battles, destruction, displacement—all of this was given to stop the aggression, and we succeeded in stopping it.
They asked us: What did you achieve? We stopped the aggression. That aggression was heading for Beirut— it was going to take everything. It aimed to reshape Lebanon’s identity, presence, geography, strategy, and future. It was the resistance, the army, and the people who stood in its way and, through great sacrifice, stopped the Israeli enemy from achieving its goals.
Some say these sacrifices have made things harder for us. No, absolutely not. The resistance is doing well—strong, dignified, full of faith and willpower. It is determined to remain sovereign in its homeland and for Lebanon to remain sovereign, independent, and dignified. The resistance’s supporters are steadfast, patient, and united. Its fighters are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifices—and everyone knows it.
As for the greatest crown and the highest banner: just yesterday, on Monday, I was watching an episode on Al-Manar about the wounded from the “Israeli” pagers attack. Are these people merely wounded? No, they are heroes. They are dignified, living martyrs standing as witnesses against all those who abandoned the cause. The victims of “Israel’s” exploding pagers and all the wounded are people of insight and resolve.
I heard their words. Can you imagine a young woman—blind in her eyes—yet seeing with her heart, mind, faith, and courage? She says she wants to specialize in artificial intelligence, and she graduates from high school with a “very good” grade. What remarkable determination and selflessness!
Or a young man who also graduated with a “very good” grade and says, “I want to study psychology so I can serve people.” Each one of them carries a different banner, but what unites them is their resolve, their faith, their resilience.
If “Israel” thinks our wounded have fallen out of the fight—no. Our wounded are ablaze. Our wounded are giving. Our wounded are advancing. By God, these are truly remarkable examples.
Today, I want to say to you—the victims of the explosive pagers and all the wounded—I hope you’ll accept me as a companion on this path, walking it side by side with you. There is no path forward without you. This journey shines because of you. You are the living martyrs. You are the givers. And when people hear you speak, they realize: here are thinkers, philosophers, lovers of God Almighty, people with exceptional clarity and insight, with deep love for the guardianship (wilayah), and devotion to Prophet Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon them all. This model—your model—cannot be defeated. It cannot lose.
To those willing to listen, I say: What do we have? We have these wounded heroes who succeeded in their exams. And here, I want to congratulate all those who passed—across all sects, denominations, and regions. But in truth, the high achievements—graduating with “good” and “very good” marks—by the wounded from the pager attacks is something truly remarkable.
We also have with us the honorable, patriotic people of Lebanon. Don’t think that the resistance is limited to Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. No, it includes political parties, individuals from all sects, various political movements, and ideologies: secular, religious, communist, and more. All of them consider themselves part of the resistance. This is our strength—our vast and diverse base. No one should think our support is small. And know this: our enemy is not free to do whatever it wants. It has not yet achieved its goals—it has not. Don’t let it succeed by surrendering. Don’t give in. We are not defeated. Who told you to speak in our name? Who told you to stand trembling in fear of others? Be strong.
In any case, when someone pressures you, just tell them: “Go speak with the resistance,” and then we’ll see together what needs to be done.
“O believers! Patiently endure, persevere, stand on guard,1 and be mindful of Allah, so you may be successful.” [Ali ‘Imran, 200]
The message here is this: We are steadfast, and we will overcome this phase, God willing. We will continue to hold our heads high. And know this: this resistance movement—Amal, Hezbollah, and all honorable fighters—alongside the Lebanese army and the Lebanese people, will remain on the ground. They will prevail. These are the people of “Far from us is humiliation.”
I conclude with the fifth point:
Lebanon finds stability through all its people—not by favoring one group over another or privileging some factions at the expense of others. In a stable, unified Lebanon, the state—with all its components, including the resistance—is one. There is no such thing as a “state camp” versus a “resistance camp.” No. We are part of the state’s structure. The resistance is part of the state’s structure.
Let it be known that we stand united in agreement and cooperation. Today, some are betting on a supposed rift between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. No, no, no—there is no rift. On the contrary, we are like cream and honey—united—and we weigh heavy on your hearts. And to those who don’t like it: go bang your head against the wall.
Let no one believe they can intimidate us. Those who possess honor and carry the banner of resistance embody dignity and pride. They will remain steadfast in their strength and committed to protecting their people.
Know that today’s battle is one that Lebanon must win as a whole—or lose as a whole. No one wins while another loses. It’s either we all win together, or we all lose together. We are convinced that we can and will win together. But when the agents of division and defeatists begin stirring up troubles, complicating matters, and turning Lebanon into a tool for foreign interests, those are the ones who truly lose Lebanon.
And if some prioritize their own interests aligned with the “Israeli” agenda, they are responsible for any harm that befalls Lebanon. The problem is the aggression, not the weapons. Resolve the issue of aggression first, then we can discuss the weapons. The solution lies in retaining the sources of strength—not abandoning them—and relying on God and the honorable, not on the oppressive American wolf and its henchmen. We must be lions to overcome this stage, not weaken ourselves to become lambs that are devoured with no trace left.
“O believers! When you face an enemy, stand firm and remember Allah often so you may triumph. Obey Allah and His Messenger and do not dispute with one another, or you would be discouraged and weakened. Persevere! Surely Allah is with those who persevere.” [Al-Anfal, 45-46]
We will face foreign tutelage, American-Arab bullying, and internal intimidation. Certainly, this is a critical stage in Lebanon’s independence, but we are stronger in independence through the trio of the army, the people, and the resistance, and through national unity. This is what we will strive for.
Peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.
Comments
