Full Speech of Sheikh Qassem at the Memorial Ceremony for Cmdr. Hajj Ali Karaki

Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations

Speech of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, His Eminence Sheikh Naim Qassem, at the memorial service for the great jihadi leader Hajj Ali Karaki [Abu Al-Fadl] on Friday, July 18, 2025.

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And 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.

Peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon you.

We chose this day to commemorate the great jihadi leader, martyr Ali Abdul-Munem Karaki [Hajj Abu Al-Fadl] because he was martyred alongside the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah—may God’s mercy be upon him—on September 27 of last year. At the time, there was no opportunity to hold a special commemoration or ceremony for him. But he is owed that, for he was one of the key aides to His Eminence the Secretary General on the jihadi council. He was a prominent figure, and the people should come to know him.

I will begin by speaking about the martyr—may God’s mercy be upon him—and then in the second part, I will address the current political situation in Lebanon.

I begin with the noble verse:

“The [true] believers are only those who believe in Allah and His Messenger—never doubting—and strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause of Allah. They are the ones true in faith”. (Al-Hujurat, 15)

He was among the truthful—those who fulfilled their covenant, remained steadfast in their choice, and committed themselves to the path of true Muhammadan Islam.

He was born in May 1962. From a young age, he was devout and deeply devoted to the Prophet’s Household (peace be upon them). He held a university degree and joined the Islamic movement from the very beginning. We often refer to him as one of the first generation—one of the early pioneers, one of the founding generations.

He helped establish Islamic activism in West Beirut, founding the Mus’ab bin Umair Scout Troop and working to develop the Al-Ahed Sports Club. He joined the Amal Movement (the Movement of the Deprived) in 1974 and went on to become one of the key figures involved in laying the military foundation of Hezbollah later on.

He confronted the “Israeli” invasion in 1982 during the Khaldeh battle, where he sustained a serious injury. He was the one who, together with the great jihadi leader Hajj Imad Mughniyeh—may God’s mercy be upon him—planned the martyrdom operation carried out by Ahmad Kassir.

He established resistance formations in the occupied border strip after the “Israeli” withdrawal in 1985 and assumed military command of the south until 1996. He planned and led numerous jihadi operations up until the liberation in 2000. He played a key role in repelling “Israeli” aggression in 1993, 1996 and 2006.

After the 2000 liberation, he took charge of the Foundation for the Wounded for two years.

He led the Sayyed al-Shuhada Command Center, which oversaw the entire south—at the time, the south was managed under a single military administration by that name. He headed this command from 2006 until his martyrdom.

He took part in planning and overseeing battles in Qusayr, Zabadani, Qalamoun, Damascus, the Syrian Desert, Al-Bukamal and Aleppo—key fronts in Syria during the fight against the takfiris.

He also played a pivotal role in Al-Aqsa Flood Operation. He was among the earliest participants and actively involved while heading the Sayyed al-Shuhada Command Center in the south.

Despite multiple assassination attempts, he never left south Lebanon. Over the years, he held several senior leadership positions within Hezbollah. He served as Central Military Official for two years, was a member of Hezbollah’s Jihadi Council, and since 2008, had been a jihadi aide to His Eminence the Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan.

In his personal life, he embodied the qualities of a devout, faithful, and pure man. He was humble, close to the people, dignified, easy to be around—yet unwavering when it came to the truth. He was content, disliked extravagance, and was always grateful and thankful to God. He never complained of pain or fatigue.

In his worship, he memorized the Quran. During the holy month of Ramadan, he would complete a full recitation every three days and would perform spiritual retreat (I'tikaf) in the mosque. He was devoted to performing recommended acts of worship, fasted often, remained in a state of ablution, constantly remembered God, and had memorized most of the recommended supplications and litanies. He regularly performed the night prayer (Salat Al-Layl). In his final will, he advised reading Ziyarat Ashura and Du’a Alqama.

He was always keen to stay close to his family, choosing to live near mosques so he could take his children with him from a young age. He was attentive to his family’s needs and spiritual well-being. On Wednesday and Friday nights, he would gather with his family to recite supplications. He consistently urged them to pray on time, to recite the Qur’an, and to mark religious occasions.

He was deeply devoted to earning the satisfaction of his parents—dutiful, loving, and regular in visiting them. He was a sociable man; he loved learning, work, and culture. He studied for two years in the holy city of Qom and was committed to participating in social, scouting and sports activities.

In sum, we are speaking of a man grounded in deep religious conviction, whose actions were fully aligned with the teachings of Islam. He was firmly committed to this great Islamic path, loyal to Imam Khomeini—may God sanctify his soul—and to our Leader, Imam Khamenei—may his shadow endure. He was profoundly attached to the Prophet’s Household [peace be upon them].

This is a man who had been present on the battlefield since his youth. He never left the field and was always at the forefront of the great jihadi resistance effort.

May God have mercy on you, Hajj Abu Al-Fadl Ali Abdul-Munem Karaki and your brothers. You joined the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs in martyrdom in the same place. You were truly his constant support and a symbol of the Resistance.

To your pure soul and to the souls of the righteous martyrs, we dedicate the reward of the blessed Surah Al-Fatiha, preceded by prayers upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.

Let us now turn to the political matter. Today, I will focus primarily on the situation in Lebanon, the state of the resistance, and the schemes being devised against the country. I will also address some fundamental questions:

What is the effectiveness of the resistance in Lebanon, and what ensures its continuity?

How should we respond to the international and “Israeli” demands that insist on disarming the Resistance?

And what must we confront in order to strengthen Lebanon, elevate its standing, rebuild it, and ensure its stability in a region fraught with danger and transgressions?

First of all, when some question the value or effectiveness of the resistance and the work it has accomplished, it seems they have forgotten that this resistance was founded by Imam Musa al-Sadr and Imam Khomeini—may his soul be sanctified—and was strengthened by the sacrifices of the martyrs, the righteous, and the leaders. At the forefront stood the former Secretary General, His Eminence Sayyed Abbas Al-Moussawi—may God’s mercy be upon him—followed by the great foundational work carried out by the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah—may God’s mercy be upon him—over 32 years, alongside his loyal companion, the noble Hashemite [Sayyed Hashem Safieddine]—may God’s mercy be upon him.

This resistance has delivered achievements over 42 years—from 1982 to 2024. It achieved the liberation of Lebanon in 2000. It prevented “Israel” from occupying the country again in 2006. It maintained Lebanon’s stability from 2006 to 2023, during which “Israel” was unable to launch any war on Lebanon for 17 straight years. These are some achievements.

More importantly, the resistance dismantled the “Israeli” settler entity that had been established in south Lebanon through Saad Haddad and later Antoine Lahad. When that statelet collapsed, liberation took its place.

This resistance, during the Battle of the Mighty [Uli al-Ba’as Battle], prevented “Israel” from reaching Beirut. It stopped 75,000 “Israeli” soldiers and officers from advancing beyond the southern border of Lebanon.

These are the achievements of the resistance. At their core, they are about liberation. At their core, they are about protecting Lebanon from occupation. They are about preventing “Israeli” settlement and about stopping the Zionist entity from seizing Lebanon’s resources and future. These are achievements—clear and undeniable.

Some say, “But there were heavy losses, and the resistance was unable to deter ‘Israel’ from continuing its aggression after the Battle of the Mighty [Uli al-Ba’as Battle]”.

To that we say: Yes, it’s true—we could not stop “Israel” from continuing its aggression. But we were able to halt it through the agreement reached between the Lebanese state and the “Israeli” entity. That agreement obligated “Israel” to withdraw from Lebanese territory and to cease its attacks.

This agreement fell under the responsibility and authority of the Lebanese state. In other words, we handed things over to the state at that point because it is ultimately responsible. The resistance only stepped in when the state was absent. Once the state declared its readiness, and the conditions on our side and theirs made that possible, it was the state that assumed this responsibility.

Hezbollah fully implemented the ceasefire agreement in the area south of the Litani River. The Lebanese state deployed the Lebanese army wherever it was able to in south Lebanon—though in some areas, “Israel” did not allow Lebanon or its army to advance.

So, we—as the Lebanese state, as Hezbollah, and the resistance, along with all fellow fighters—fulfilled every obligation on our part under the agreement. Meanwhile, “Israel” fulfilled nothing.

From November 7, 2024, until now, eight months have passed, and the aggression continues. Even during the sixty-day period following November 27—which was designated as the withdrawal phase—“Israel” did not adhere to the agreed terms. It failed to withdraw, remained in five positions, and the attacks continued.

The entire world acknowledges that “Israel” has committed 3,800 violations. Everyone recognizes that “Israel” has not abided by the agreement. Everyone also recognizes that Hezbollah upheld its commitment and that Lebanon upheld its part. This is widely acknowledged—everyone except, of course, the United States and “Israel”.

So, what has allowed “Israel’ to persist in its aggression? And why is the United States now working to broker a new agreement?

I will be transparent: they realized that the agreement, as it stood, served Lebanon’s interests and ensured the continuation of its resistance. That’s why they decided it had to be amended or changed. They turned to pressure on the ground, hoping it would lead to modifications. But despite all the military pressure and eight months of aggression, the outcome of the agreement has not changed. In fact, if “Israel” were to withdraw and stop its aggression now, it would clearly be a major gain for Lebanon.

Today, the United States is proposing a new agreement. But do you know what a new agreement really means? It means that all the violations, all the aggression, and “Israel’s” failure to implement the previous agreement over the past eight months—will be erased. Because once a new agreement is in place, they’ll say: “Why are you bringing up the past? We’ve moved on to a new framework”. No one will hold “Israel” accountable for what happened before because the new agreement will have replaced the old one.

In other words, the new agreement would absolve “Israel” of everything it did during the previous period of aggression.

The second issue with this proposed new agreement is the way the texts are written and the approach the US wants to impose. It essentially means we would be starting over—with renewed demands to disarm the resistance, in exchange for partial withdrawals, carried out at staggered intervals. In other words, we’re being asked to offer new concessions, while “Israel” gets to decide when—and if—it will offer anything in return.

In the revised draft that was sent, the second clause stated that there would be “consequences for violations.” But what are these so-called consequences for “Israel”? They said: a condemnation from the Security Council and reviews to resolve the military dispute. Who are you trying to fool?

The United States—with all its weight, and through Hochstein—was the guarantor of the agreement, as part of the Quintet Committee. And now, eight months later, they claim they never guaranteed it? Liars. You did guarantee the agreement. Otherwise, what was the US sponsoring? Why was the US heading the committee?

We were fully aware of all previous commitments. There was indeed a real guarantee. But it was never implemented on the ground because they realized the agreement didn’t serve their interests, nor did it fulfill the objectives they were aiming for.

So what’s the justification now for continuing the aggression and pushing for a new agreement? The only justification is the disarmament of Hezbollah across all of Lebanon.

The question is: Why do they want to disarm Hezbollah? They say it’s so that “Israel” can feel “reassured” because disarmament is an “Israeli” demand. So let it be clear: the disarmament of Hezbollah is an “Israeli” objective. The delays in “Israeli” actions and the continuation of its aggression are all because they are fixated on removing the very weapon that stopped them from entering Beirut, prevented them from occupying Lebanon, and blocked them from achieving their goals.

So, the current push for disarmament—in every proposal being floated—is entirely for “Israel’s” sake. Otherwise, how else would “Israel” agree to withdraw?

We believe that the agreement itself is what should compel “Israel” to withdraw. Some say, “Well, if the resistance isn’t disarmed, ‘Israel’ won’t pull out”. But let’s be clear: “Israel” is the aggressor here—it has no right to interfere in the first place!

Let me be frank with you: “Israel” used to claim its problem was with the settlements, that its security concerns were tied to that. Fine! Now, it’s been eight months, and the settlements are secure. Not a single shot has been fired in that time. In those eight months, there has been a full withdrawal from south of the Litani River, the Lebanese army has taken over, and control has been handed to the Lebanese state. So, the “Israeli” demand has already been met. Now it’s time for Lebanon’s rightful demand to be met: an end to the aggression and a full “Israeli” withdrawal.

Let me say this clearly: we do not see “Israel” as a force that simply launched an attack and will back down tomorrow if we take a certain step. No—“Israel” is a colonial expansionist entity. Even the normalization process it is pursuing with some Arab states—and has already secured with others—is part of a broader plan. Just wait. You’ll come to see that normalization is merely one step in a larger scheme to annex the region into “Israel’s” project.

Just look at what “Israel” has done in Syria. It has systematically destroyed Syria’s entire military capability—start to finish. It occupies 600 square kilometers in the Golan and Quneitra regions. In recent months, it has launched over 200 airstrikes on Damascus alone, under the false pretense of “protecting the Druze”. That’s a lie.

Why is “Israel” doing this in Syria now, when there is no immediate threat to it from Syria? Where is this so-called threat? They say: there might be a threat sometime in the next thousand years! And so, they demand that Syria be completely disarmed and brought under “Israeli” control. These latest strikes are “Israel’s” way of saying: “Do this, don’t do that”—in other words, “Israel” is trying to govern Syria.

Can we accept this kind of scenario in Lebanon? Have we not seen what’s happening in Gaza? A genocide—mass killing, a people being wiped out, a systematic extermination of Palestinians carried out under direct American supervision. And under what pretext? They say: it’s for “Israel’s” security.

Under the banner of “‘Israel’s’ security,” no living being in this region is allowed to lift their head. Under the banner of “‘Israel’s’ security,” every corner must be searched, and every place can be bombed. Under that same banner, no one is allowed to say “no” to “Israel”.

The West has reached a point where even a word of criticism against “Israel” is punished under the pretext of “antisemitism.” Just speaking out against “Israel” can get a person jailed, stripped of their citizenship, or worse. It’s not just about demanding that we disarm and neutralize threats, as they claim—they want to eliminate any capacity for movement, for speech, for even a breath to be taken in our region so that “Israel” can have full control and continue its expansion without resistance.

So, why was Iran targeted? The excuse was its peaceful nuclear program. They claimed it might one day become military and pose a threat to “Israel”. Yet all international inspectors have confirmed that Iran’s program is peaceful. Still, “Israel” uses that as a pretext, but the real goal is to strike Iran in order to weaken and bring down its capabilities.

Thanks be to God, Iran stood firm—from its leadership to its people, to the IRGC and security forces—and succeeded in halting the “Israeli” push that aimed to reach deep into its territory. I want to reaffirm my position clearly: “Israel” is an expansionist entity and a real, existential threat.

What did President Trump say about Palestine and Gaza? He described “Israel” as a small country in terms of land. And how does a small country expand its territory? By occupying, by taking what belongs to others. One of his first proposals was to turn Gaza into a “Riviera”. When “Israel” wages war, kills or launches strikes in Syria or Lebanon, you’ll always notice that their statements say: “in coordination with the United States,” or “with US Central Command.” This means the entire operation is under American management.

What they’re really after is “Greater ‘Israel’”. This whole region you see before you, they want to redraw its geography, break it up, and rewrite its map.

As for the US envoy, Barrack, who’s supposedly reasonable and measured in his words, said it all and revealed the core of their thinking. What did Barrack say? “Lebanon is on the verge of extinction if it doesn’t quickly join the path of change”.

First of all, what does that mean? That Lebanon has no right to be independent or hold its head high; otherwise, extinction awaits? Extinction for whom? In reality, extinction here means surrender to “Israel”.

Secondly, he says: “Lebanon risks falling into the grip of regional powers unless Beirut moves to resolve the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons. Lebanon needs to address this, or it may face an existential threat”.

An existential threat to Lebanon? That Lebanon itself will cease to exist? And who are these “regional powers”? He clarifies elsewhere, referencing what he calls a “phase,” saying: “The Syrians say Lebanon is our coastal resort, so we must act”. So what is he suggesting? That Lebanon should be annexed to Syria? That Lebanon is doomed to vanish? Is this your project?

Barrack also says: “The fear of disarming Hezbollah and the Lebanese government’s failure to do so could lead to a civil war.” This is blatant incitement. He is essentially telling the Lebanese army and the Lebanese state: “Go fight. Go disarm Hezbollah.” According to him, it’s not the act of trying to disarm the resistance that would spark civil war, but rather the fear of doing so.

This is clear provocation—inciting internal strife, threatening Lebanon with extinction, and proposing that it be absorbed by regional powers—at the very least, that it be temporarily merged with Damascus.

This is a grave danger. Don’t you hear it? Don’t you see it? Those who say, “We have no ties to anyone”—have they been left alone? Does it even matter to them whether you have ties with “Israel” or not, with the US or not? What matters is what they want. And what do they want? They want Lebanon to be carved up—split between “Israel” and Syria—so a new map for the region can be drawn. “Israel” is an expansionist entity.

So this is not just about disarming the resistance. Disarmament is merely one step in a much larger “Israeli” expansion project. The weapon is an obstacle. This weapon is what allowed Lebanon to stand on its feet for 42 years, to resist “Israel” and prevent its domination.

And now I’m supposed to say that the very thing that protected us, the very thing that gave us strength and resilience, the very thing that ensured our survival, let’s just throw it away, and maybe then they’ll show us mercy? No. They won’t show mercy. That would mean handing them everything—for free.

Today, I speak to you clearly. We – as Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and the resistance – who stand on the side of sovereignty and Lebanon’s independence, who truly believe that Lebanon is the final and permanent homeland for all its citizens, who are fully committed to the Taif Accord and its provisions, who want our children to live in this country with dignity, honor, and their heads held high, feel that we are facing an existential threat.

It is a threat not only to the resistance and its environment, not only to those who support and believe in it, but also an existential threat to Lebanon itself, in all its sects and communities. All sects are under threat in this country.

Just look at what’s happening in Syria. Look at Palestine—even the Catholic Church was bombed, along with other churches in Gaza before it. Look at the identity-based slaughter carried out by rogue groups in Syria—by Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] and its ilk. Even if they wear new masks or operate under different names, the result is the same. These are not isolated incidents. These are not accidents.

Let me go even further and say this clearly. If a decision were made today, it wouldn’t take long at all for Daesh fighters from eastern Lebanon to cross over and launch unprecedented attacks. We are now facing a real and imminent threat—from “Israel” itself, and from the arms “Israel” can use in one form or another.

Lebanon is facing an existential threat. The resistance is facing an existential threat. And this is the greatest danger threatening Lebanon today.

What should we do in the face of this danger? First, we must recognize it for what it is. Then, we must stand firm against it and choose the right means and methods to confront and repel this threat.

We believe that confronting this danger lies in preserving the strength of the resistance, in maintaining unity between the state and the resistance, and in the cooperation of all Lebanese parties to get through this phase—by ensuring that “Israel” implements the agreement and by exerting pressure on the US, France, the United Nations, and the guarantors to compel “Israel” to withdraw from Lebanon and fulfill its obligations.

Someone might ask: What good is this power you have? It’s effective—if it had no value, why would they be so determined to take it away? Why do they focus on it so obsessively if it were meaningless? If it truly had no weight, they could simply ignore it. But they can’t because it does matter.

And we say it openly. As a resistance, our strength lies first and foremost in faith and conviction—the strength of our belief in the resistance and in the principled stance that has made resistance a true, unwavering choice, regardless of the difficulties, complexities, and sacrifices.

As for our military capabilities, they are a secondary part—a support to the strength of our position. We rely primarily on the power of conviction and secondarily on the military capacity that helps us defend ourselves.

Yes, if we defend ourselves, we expect to bear heavy losses, but we also hold onto hope that through resistance, we can shut the door in their face and open the path to a solution and to liberation. But if we surrender—as some suggest—then we would be giving up the very foundations of our strength for nothing and guaranteeing only one outcome – unchecked “Israeli” domination that would strip Lebanon of its future, its life, and the lives of its people.

Which path will we choose? If we have one option that offers even a chance of victory and another that guarantees defeat and destruction, would we knowingly walk toward defeat? Let me be clear with you. Lebanon today faces three real and imminent dangers:

First, the “Israeli” threat from the southern border—a threat to all of Lebanon and to its future.

Second, the Daesh threat from the eastern border—a danger we all remember from past experience.

Third, the oppressive grip of the United States—which seeks to control Lebanon, impose its guardianship, and ultimately strip Lebanon of its ability to act, to live, and to stand on its own feet.

They say the Americans are helping us. But how exactly has the US helped Lebanon? What have they actually given us? They offer lectures. They fund NGOs—for propaganda and media conditioning. They impose sanctions on individuals, institutions, and the banking system. All they give us is talk. Even the agreement they brokered? They backed out of it.

Let’s be honest: the Americans are not working for Lebanon’s interests—not at all. Everything “Israel” is doing, in truth, also serves American objectives.

I want to speak to our fellow citizens—all our partners in this homeland, without exception. To those who support us, and especially to those who don’t. To those who don’t support us, I say:

Be patient when it comes to the issue of exclusive weapons possession—according to your understanding of what that means. You have your view of state monopoly on arms; we have ours. But be patient, and take a closer look: this resistance and its weapons have not obstructed the country’s progress in any way. If Lebanon is struggling to move forward, it’s not because of the resistance—it’s because of poor governance, foreign interference, and those who refuse to help Lebanon when it needs it most.

Today, we face a threat called Israel and the United States, and alongside it, a domestic debate over the issue of weapons. When you are confronted with both a danger and a dispute, you deal with the danger first, then the dispute. You don’t focus on the internal disagreement while the storm is crashing down on all of us. The aggression—and how to confront it—is Lebanon’s most urgent issue.

So let us speak with one voice. Let us prioritize what matters. And rest assured: once this danger is behind us, and once our goals are secured, we are ready to sit together and discuss a national security strategy, a defensive strategy, and outcomes that truly serve the strength and continuity of Lebanon. I urge you. Don’t offer “Israel” a free favor. Let us stand united, for together, we are stronger. And in unity, America will fail to achieve its goals.

Now, if you refuse, what can I do for you? If someone chooses humiliation and submission, that’s their decision. But we will never accept humiliation. We have sacrificed so much for this path—for Lebanon’s independence, for our dignity within Lebanon. And it is our strength that brought us this far—our faith that sustained us through every challenge.

We will not abandon our faith, nor will we abandon our strength. No matter how difficult things get, we will not retreat. We are fully prepared for confrontation—on the basis of one of two noble outcomes: Victory or martyrdom.

Surrender is not in our vocabulary. Submission to “Israel” is not an option. “Israel” will never receive our weapons. We are open to any initiative that leads to Lebanese understanding, to real Lebanese strength, and to preserving Lebanon’s dignity and position. However, for the sake of “Israel” and the United States, we will not give that up—no matter what threats are made. No one should even consider going down that path.

Now some say: “If you surrender, things will be better.” We say to them: No. We are not among those who surrender. As the Qur’an says:

“O believers! Fight the disbelievers around you and let them find firmness in you. And know that Allah is with those mindful [of Him].” (At-Tawbah, 123)

We know that confrontation comes at a high cost, but surrender would cost us everything. It would leave us with nothing. Wake up—look around you! Take a hard look at what’s happening across the region, in Palestine, and around the world. Take the lessons.

In any case, we are moving forward. We are ready—fully prepared—for defensive confrontation. Some mockingly say: “Oh, you’re ready? Then go shoot at them, go kill, go confront!”

Let’s not reduce this to childish provocation or crowd-pleasing theatrics. We say it clearly: We are ready to defend—if and when “Israel” launches an aggression that demands a response. And in that defense, we are prepared for either victory or martyrdom. But one thing we are not prepared for is surrender.

And I urge you—do not place your bets on a so-called Shia–Shia divide. There is a true, strategic partnership between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. This is a unified resistance community—cohesive, cooperative, and unwavering from top to bottom. A community built on martyrdom, sacrifice, dedication, and steadfastness on this land.

This is the very community led by Imam Musa al-Sadr—may God return him safely along with his two companions—and by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, may God’s mercy be upon him. This community will never betray their principles, and it will never retreat from the path they laid down.

Do not bet on there being any internal division—not among us, and not among the parties aligned with us. And don’t wager on any rift with the three leaders (the President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker of Parliament). These leaders possess the wisdom, awareness, and understanding of the dangers and realities we face, as well as the spirit of cooperation needed to guide the country out of its crises in the right way.

So let no one try to stir sedition or spread the illusion that we’re turning people against one another—just so “Israel” can achieve its goals.

As long as we are alive, as long as we draw breath, “Israel” will not achieve its goals—and that, we can guarantee. Why? Because we stand on the shoulders of an extraordinary people—a community unmatched in history, ready to sacrifice for dignity, honor, and the independence of Lebanon.

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