Sheikh Qassem’s Full Speech on the Memorial for Jihadi Leader Sayyed Haitham Al-Tabatabai and His Companions

Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations

The full speech of Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sheikh Naim Qassem at the memorial ceremony marking the martyrdom of the great jihadi leader, Sayyed Haytham Ali Al-Tabatabai [Sayyed Abu Ali] and his fellow martyrs on November 28, 2025.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.

All praise is due to God, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the noblest of creation—our master, beloved, and leader, Abu al-Qasim Muhammad—and upon his pure and immaculate household, his righteous and chosen companions, and all prophets and the pious until the Day of Judgment.

Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you all.

We gather today to honor our martyr, the great jihadi leader, Sayyed Abu Ali Al-Tabatabai—may God’s pleasure be upon him—together with a group of his brothers and loved ones from Hezbollah, from the Islamic Resistance. After this tribute, we will speak about the first anniversary of the ceasefire agreement in the confrontation with the “Israeli” enemy.

We begin with the great jihadi leader, Sayyed Abu Ali Al-Tabatabai—may God’s pleasure be upon him—Haitham, who left an important mark during a sensitive historical phase.

Allah the Almighty says:

“[Imagine] how many devotees fought along with their prophets and never faltered despite whatever [losses] they suffered in the cause of Allah, nor did they weaken or give in! Allah loves those who persevere.” (Ali Imran, 146)

The personality of the great jihadi leader, Sayyed Abu Ali, was distinguished by faith, ethics, devotion to jihad, piety, strong social ties, organizational discipline, precision, strategic thinking, and major practical achievements. He worked tirelessly on the battlefield of jihad and in preparing for the future of the confrontation and the struggle against the “Israeli” enemy. These are noble qualities that set martyr Sayyed Abu Ali apart.

Indeed, we find that the profiles of our martyred leaders share common foundations: courage, boldness, capability, planning, awareness, keen perception, and wise leadership at the heart of battle—as well as in preparing for what comes after. It is a recurring model, and an elevated one.

He joined the ranks of the Islamic Resistance in 1984, and from the very first moments, he threw himself into jihad. It is even recounted that in one of the battles, a group of brothers was selected to take part in the fight against the “Israeli” enemy. His brother was among those chosen, but the commander overseeing the operation refused to allow Sayyed Abu Ali to join them, believing that sending two brothers from the same family into the same battle would not be appropriate.

On that day, before the battle, he was in the mosque for prayer. Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi—may God’s pleasure be upon him—was leading the congregation and bidding the brothers farewell as they prepared to depart for the operation. Brother Abu Ali stood up and told the Sayyed: “I want to go, but the commander says two brothers from the same family cannot both participate.”

Sayyed Abbas responded with his famous words: “Jihad does not hasten one’s appointed time.”

Based on that, he went to the battle alongside his brother. And Sayyed Abu Ali would always recount, “I memorized that phrase and I always repeat it: Jihad does not hasten one’s appointed time.” Naturally, this is in harmony with the Almighty’s words:

“When their time arrives, they can neither delay it for a moment, nor could they advance it.” (Al-Araf, 34)

He confronted the “Israeli” aggression in 2006 in Khiyam, playing a prominent and important role. From 2008 to 2012—four full years—he oversaw the elite forces project. Then, from 2012 to 2015, he was appointed to lead operations countering the takfiri advance in Syria.

Sayyed Abu Ali was a son of the battlefield. He carried numerous responsibilities and fulfilled them all with excellence and success. That is why we saw him rise from one command to the next. And in every post he assumed, he never chose the position himself—he was always assigned and called upon, either by His Eminence the Secretary General or by his direct commander. He would go wherever he was asked. Even when he was asked to go to Yemen to assist with training and preparation, he did so—spending nine years, from 2015 to early 2024, working to support our brothers there. He left a significant mark, and today the people of Yemen hold deep affection for him, for they know this divine, steadfast, and courageous model of resistance—one committed to supporting Palestine and working for the liberation of land and the liberation of human beings.

He was entrusted with leading the battle—the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Baas Battle]—because after the martyrdom of His Eminence the Sayyed [Hassan Nasrallah] and martyr Hajj Abu Al-Fadl, there was no longer a direct commander. The last person who held that role was Hajj Abu Al-Fadl. Thus, Sayyed Abu Ali was tasked with serving as the jihadi link between the entire jihadi organization and the Resistance. And in truth, he excelled greatly. He was, in every sense, the master of the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Baas Battle]—from military command to precise organization, planning, programming the launch of rockets and drones, and coordinating fire. All of it was carried out by Sayyed Abu Ali with exceptional professionalism.

Immediately after the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Baas Battle], he was appointed as the military commander—the jihadi deputy and the official military leader tasked with overseeing the Resistance and managing all military jihadi operations.

What was the purpose of the assassination? Its aim was to strike morale. For when the most prominent frontline figure responsible for combat operations, rebuilding capability, and preparing for the confrontation with the “Israeli” enemy is killed, the “Israelis” assume this will create confusion. By hitting morale, they also hope to disrupt organization, management, and the distribution of responsibilities, especially since he was the top figure at the military level.

Let me tell you: yes, it is a great loss. But for him, it is also a great victory. Martyrdom is what he sought—to leave this world as a martyr, not in an ordinary, natural way. This is the gain he earned. But does this assassination break morale?

We are a resistance. We are a cohesive party. A party with foundations and deep roots. A party raised on the teachings of Imam Hussein [AS] and the teachings of the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan—may God’s pleasure be upon him. This party has given great leaders, and thousands upon thousands of martyrs, sacrifices, and contributions.

How do we view this? We see that in every era, the party renews itself, regains its strength, and is capable of replacing figures. Praise be to God—this is something firmly established, grounded in the capability with which God has blessed us.

So the objective of the assassination has not been achieved, and it will not be achieved. And I say to the “Israeli” enemy: we remain on this path; his brothers are many; and, God willing, all of this will continue to be followed up in a natural and steady course.

Regarding the assassination, some may say: “Be careful—there are breaches, there are problems.” Yes, of course. There is no parity in power with the “Israeli” enemy—neither militarily nor in intelligence, nor in controlling the skies under this constant surveillance. There are violations in the air and on the ground.

And if some hold us responsible, saying: “Well, there might be agents,” yes—there can be agents. The field is open; we are not in a sealed room. We operate in an open arena where people move freely and travelers come and go. And not long ago, the General Security arrested a network of agents. We also have our share of such cases, because the enemy works comfortably in this arena—benefiting from foreign nationals, from international cover, from coordination between American and “Israeli” intelligence, and even some Arab and international intelligence services. Unfortunately, all of them contribute to giving the “Israeli” enemy the information and data it seeks.

I am not saying this to absolve us of the mistakes that exist and must be addressed. We must always remain attentive, close the gaps, and draw lessons.

Sayyed Abu Ali used to say: “The Resistance is ever-giving.” It’s a beautiful expression—meaning that if some fall, others rise in their place; if some depart, others step forward. Praise be to God, we have a society, a community, and a truly great people who provide the Resistance with these capabilities.

He would also say there are two main factors that bring patience to moments of separation. First, the sense of joy that accompanies a brother who attains martyrdom—even though it is a painful moment, especially when the one lost is an exceptional leader who fell in the field. Second, calling to mind the spirit of these martyrs, for they are alive with their Lord, receiving their sustenance. This is the understanding, the awareness, the status, and the leadership.

Alongside Sayyed Abu Ali, four brothers were martyred. The first was Mustafa, son of martyr Asaad Berro, whose nom de guerre was Hajj Hassan. In fact, he had been the secretary of the Jihadi Council since early 2025, that is, after the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Baas Battle].

There is a small anecdote about Mustafa—Hajj Hassan. When I first agreed with him that he would become the secretary of the Jihadi Council, he made a request. I told him, “Go ahead, what is it?” He said: “When I write to you, may I sign my messages as ‘your son, Hassan’?” I told him, “This honors me, because you are a faithful, devout, sincere person. You may address me however you prefer.” And from that moment on, all his correspondence carried the signature: “your son, Hassan.” This, of course, reflects the spiritual upbringing of his father and the legacy left to him by martyr Asaad Berro. This is the true school.

The third martyr was brother Qassem Hussein Barjawi, known as Malak. A courageous brother always present on the battlefield, he also served as the director of the military commander’s office in 2025. He had a notable history in the Yemen file and assisted Sayyed Abu Ali. He also served in the Support and Logistics Department within the General Staff’s deputyship, carrying out numerous tasks. An exceptional, giving and brave figure, he had sustained several injuries over the years, and—thanks to God—attained the rank of martyr.

The fourth martyr is Ibrahim Ali Hussein, known as Amir, the secretary of the commander’s office—also among the dedicated and selfless. Let us not forget that the meeting took place on a Sunday, a day without general activity. The commander was organizing certain details so that starting Monday, some work could begin. One of those present was the secretary, who was prepared, and the fifth brother, Rifaat Ahmad Hussein, known as Abu Ali, who was on duty in the commander’s office.

This pure and noble group gathered that day to prepare for the upcoming work. May God have mercy on the martyrs—we consider them a great source of pride for us. But of course, the question that everyone is waiting to hear the answer to is this: What will you do after this major criminal act?

I wrote the statement I am about to say so that no one can add a single word to it or interpret any part of it. And today I ask all our brothers who speak in the media: do not explain this statement. Leave it exactly as it is. Repeat it exactly as it is. Let the “Israeli” enemy and those with it understand it however they wish.

The statement and the position I declare in response to the martyrdom of martyr Sayyed Abu Ali and his brothers is this:

This is a blatant aggression and a fully defined crime, and we have the right to respond. We will determine the timing for that.

I repeat: This is a blatant aggression and a fully defined crime, and we have the right to respond. We will determine the timing for that.

Condolences and congratulations to the families of the five martyrs and to all the families of the martyrs. And our thanks to all who offered us condolences, who attended, or who sent messages. I want to tell you that we received many messages, including from various political, social, and media figures. We will not be able to respond individually to all these messages, so I ask that this expression of gratitude be considered a reply to everyone who reached out to us—whether from Lebanon or from other countries.

I especially mention the Islamic Republic of Iran, headed by the Leader of the Revolution, Imam Khamenei—may his shadow be prolonged—who offered us his condolences, as did the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, all the officials of the Islamic Republic, and the popular bodies that expressed their sympathy and solidarity.

And also Yemen—and what can be said about Yemen? From the leader, Sayyed Al-Houthi, to Ansarullah, to the Yemeni army, to all the armed forces who announced their direct support for us in any step we may take. Our thanks also extend to the Palestinian leadership, to all factions, to all who attended, sent messages, or issued statements—because in truth, they are the ones immediately concerned with this grief. This is the path of Palestine, for indeed the path of Lebanon is the path of Palestine, the path of the free, and there is absolutely no difference between these paths.

We also thank the people of Iraq—the religious authority, the Popular Mobilization Forces, the officials, and all who expressed their condolences. And I apologize to all other countries whose civic groups or institutions sent messages of sympathy and congratulations.

Here, before I move to speak about the first anniversary of the [ceasefire] agreement, I want to welcome the Pope’s visit to Lebanon. We have tasked brothers from the Political Council to visit the Papal Embassy and deliver a document containing a message from Hezbollah to the Pope. This message will also be published in the media. We welcome this visit at this pivotal moment, and we hope that His Holiness will contribute to spreading peace in Lebanon—by supporting its liberation, halting the aggression, and standing by Lebanon as he has always done, and standing by the oppressed.

I now turn to the first anniversary of the 2024 ceasefire agreement, reached on November 27 of last year. I will address several points:

First: The ceasefire is a day of victory for the Resistance, for Hezbollah, for the people, and for Lebanon. The reason is simple: we succeeded in preventing the enemy from achieving its objectives—above all, its goal of ending the Resistance and eliminating it completely. This objective was not achieved, and the “Israelis” were forced to agree to a ceasefire. In that sense, it is a victory.

The agreement itself marks a new phase—one in which the state took on the responsibility of pushing “Israel” out and deploying the Lebanese Army south of the Litani River. We have therefore entered a new stage.

There are always some people who insist on dragging you ten or twenty years backward, debating old details and confusing the public. But, my brother, there is a new phase called “the agreement.” The state now bears responsibility for expelling the occupation and deploying the army. This means there must be an “Israeli” withdrawal, an end to the aggression, and the release of prisoners.

The agreement came about because we stood firm—because we confronted. We witnessed legendary performance on the frontlines by honorable, self-sacrificing fighters at every position. We also had with us political allies and various organizations, our brothers in the Amal Movement, and our noble, pure, courageous, and generous people—whether they remained in their villages, were displaced, or returned—whose support never stopped for a moment. Add to this the performance of the Lebanese Army and its alignment with this direction.

So yes, the agreement happened because we stood firm. The agreement happened because we are strong: strong through our project, our faith, our will, and our people; strong through our patriotism, the blood of our martyrs and wounded, and the suffering of our prisoners; strong through the honorable and self-sacrificing families; strong through our attachment to our land.

They killed our leaders—foremost among them the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan, the Hashemi Sayyed, and many other commanders. They also killed civilians and fighters, destroyed homes, caused immense devastation, and inflicted heavy damage on our capabilities, all to eliminate the Resistance. But they did not succeed, praise be to God.

The Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Baas Battle] was a confrontation led by a modest force that could not be compared to the enemy’s power. But it was a force endowed with honor, willpower, courage, faith in God, and confidence in victory. Facing an “Israeli”-American international machine of tyranny and brutality, the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Baas Battle] achieved this major outcome.

We hold our heads high for what was achieved, because “Israel’s” project was broken at the threshold of the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Baas Battle]. This is the first point.

Second: The “Israeli” aggression is an aggression against all of Lebanon, not just the Resistance — even if we, as the resistance, are the ones most heavily targeted. And what proves that this aggression is against Lebanon as a whole? “Israel’s” objectives concern Lebanon’s land, Lebanon’s future, the project of besieging Lebanon, stripping Lebanon of its decision-making power, controlling Lebanon’s political direction, and seizing Lebanon’s economy, resources, and capabilities. All of this makes it clear: the aggression is against Lebanon.

Look: isn’t there aggression against the President of the Republic simply because he acts with wisdom? Isn’t there aggression against the army and its leadership for taking steps to maintain internal security and attempt to liberate the land? Isn’t there aggression against the economy through US sanctions, Treasury measures, and everything that accompanies them? They openly say they will pursue the social, cultural, and educational capacities of a segment of the Lebanese—something that affects all Lebanese. In fact, one major reason Lebanon cannot move forward economically is the burden of what the Americans have imposed and done. Isn’t that an aggression against Lebanon?

Do they not attack people in their villages, knowing that not everyone shares the same political views, yet they are all children of this land? And they do not only attack the south, but the south, the Beqaa, the North, the southern suburbs [Dahiyeh], Beirut—everywhere. Do you not see the drones flying over the presidential palace, the Grand Serail, even during official meetings? I can say it plainly: today, Lebanon is under “Israeli” aerial occupation. This is, by every measure, an occupation.

Does the occupation not strike Shebaa, Iqlim Al-Kharroub, Sidon, the massacre at Ain Al-Hilweh camp, the North—in addition to the South, the Bekaa, the southern suburbs, Mount Lebanon, Beirut, and all regions? We are facing an aggression against Lebanon. Forget the narrative that this aggression targets only the resistance. Yes, it targets the resistance primarily—but it targets all of Lebanon.

And here, all of Lebanon bears the responsibility of defense, with the government at the forefront, for it is the one that endorsed the agreement, declared its intention to deploy the Lebanese Army, and assumed responsibility for security in Lebanon and for protecting Lebanon’s borders.

And I say to the government: you cannot claim your rights while failing to perform your most essential duty—protecting the citizens. The government cannot demand its rights while neglecting its responsibilities. The most important responsibility is to protect the people. Is it doing that? Can it do that?

Let the government show us how it intends to deter the enemy. What is the duty of the state? The state has an army. The state has sovereign political authority. Most importantly, the state must deter the enemy.

Now, before assigning responsibility, let me explain what “deterrence” actually means. Deterrence takes three forms:

1.         Deterrence through liberation:

If you liberate your land, you deter the enemy and force it out. This is extremely important—the highest form of deterrence.

2.         Deterrence through protection:

By deploying the army and using the state’s capabilities, you prevent the enemy from approaching. And if it approaches, you are ready to confront it so it does not dare. That is deterrence through protection.

3.         Deterrence by denying the enemy stability on occupied land:

If it occupies a village or an area, you keep him under pressure, resistance, confrontation, and disruption until it withdraws.

These three forms of confrontation are what we call deterrence against the “Israeli” enemy. And the first party responsible for deterrence is the state. Before anyone tells us, “You are not deterring the enemy” or “You are deterring the enemy,” we say: the first responsibility for deterrence lies with the state. And the state, through its army and its people, can practice deterrence. Why the people as well? Because if the army lacks sufficient capability, it turns to its people—all of whom share responsibility for confronting aggressors.

So tell me now: what has this state accomplished from these three forms of deterrence?

The state has neither liberated nor protected. What remains is for it to prevent “Israel” from settling—and the state has chosen to do this through political means. This path can indeed prevent the enemy from settling through political contacts, political pressure, a firm political stance against occupation, and internal unity that empowers the state because everyone stands behind it in the confrontation. So, at this stage, the state is capable of carrying out the third form of deterrence: preventing the enemy from establishing stability.

What has the resistance done in terms of deterrence? First: In the year 2000, it expelled “Israel” from Lebanon after 22 years of occupation. This is what we call deterrence through liberation.

From 2000 to 2023, we had another form of deterrence: deterrence through protection. “Israel” did not dare approach. And when it launched the 2006 aggression, it withdrew and remained deterred. Lebanon was protected between 2006 and 2023.

So, the resistance practiced and achieved the first two forms of deterrence at a time when the state was absent—without capability and without the means.

And from 2023 until now, we have been confronting “Israel” by preventing it from establishing stability. “Israel” cannot settle. We confronted it in the Battle of the Mighty [Uli Al-Baas Battle], and today we confront it by refusing the continuation of occupation.

So we are still practicing the third form of deterrence. “Israel” knows that with the Resistance present, it cannot settle.

Today, the Resistance and the state share this third form of deterrence: preventing “Israel” from settling. The state says it is preventing this politically; we say: we support you, and you now bear the responsibility. And we tell them: if you need anything from us, we are ready. But our readiness—our deterrent capability—is precisely preventing the enemy from establishing stability. It is a form of deterrence.

Therefore, the government must work to invest the capabilities of its people and its army so that, during this phase, it can succeed in preventing stability, which will allow us to eventually expel the “Israeli” entity.

Third: No one in Lebanon is authorized to concede Lebanon’s strength, Lebanon’s land or Lebanon’s dignity. Officials are only mandated to restore sovereignty, land, prisoners and dignity.

And the will of our people is evident in the fact that they returned to life in the frontline villages, under “Israeli” pressure and threat, with pride and strength. Use this will, invest in it, and benefit from it.

The call that came from the Hamra March—on Hamra Street—on Independence Day, issued by journalists, cultural figures, and political elites from diverse backgrounds, sects, and viewpoints, who gathered under one banner: expel “Israel” and achieve independence. This means there are forces inside the country that do not want “Israel”, do not accept “Israel’s” project, and are ready to confront it. This must be invested in.

No one is saying that the matter is tied only to the resistance or to one sect. No—all sects, all political forces, all the people, all the elites—the overwhelming majority in this country do not want “Israel”.

There is an American tutelage that is part of the aggression. We must be alert to this tutelage, which promotes “Israel” and uses “Israeli” pressure—politically, in the media, in the economy, and financially—in every way. All of this must be clear so we know whom we are confronting, who stands with us, and who stands against us.

As for “Israel’s” servants in Lebanon, I see them as a small minority. But despite being few, they cause great harm to Lebanon because, together with America and “Israel”, they obstruct the country’s stability, growth, and liberation. They play a role that serves “Israel” and America—not Lebanon.

You say the weapons are the problem? No, they are not. These weapons are what liberated the country after 44 years. They played a major role within Lebanon, and they produced the various forms of deterrence we mentioned.

You say the weapons disrupt internal politics; fine, that is a political opinion. We are ready to discuss this political opinion, to hold meetings within the framework of a national defense strategy and debate it. But not under “Israeli” and American pressure, not under attempts to cancel the existing agreement, and not on the basis that we must first decide how to give up our strength so that others can then impose what they want. None of this is acceptable.

The weapons are a problem only for “Israel’s” project. Whoever wants to remove them in the way “Israel” demands is serving “Israel”. O servants of “Israel”—fear God and stand with your own people to achieve our national goals.

Fourth: The priority now is sovereignty and liberation. They say: the Resistance has weakened; it can no longer act. Fine! If the resistance is weak, let me ask you: why don’t you tell “Israel”, “If the resistance is so weak, what do you even want from it? The matter is over—go ahead and do whatever you wish.”

The very fact that they don’t dare say this is proof that the resistance is present and capable. We possess a strength of faith and will, a strength rooted in belonging to our land, and a strength of loyalty to the blood of the martyrs—strength that makes us stand like mountains against the fiercest storms.

They keep threatening a wider war. Why? They say it’s to force us into surrender. All these threats are simply another form of political pressure. They escalated their threats recently because they realized that a full year of low-level threats did not work. They saw that American political pressure did not work. They tried to ignite strife between the army, the Resistance and the people—it failed. They tried to stir certain groups internally to cause confusion—it failed.

When they saw that an entire year of maximum pressure produced nothing, they began speaking of war scenarios—through “Israeli” media and those who echo it. I tell you clearly: these threats have not changed anything, and will not change anything. Are they real? No—so far, they are not real.

Do we expect a war later? It is possible, yes. And the possibility of no war also exists. “Israel” is studying its options, and so is the United States. And they both know that with this people, with this resistance, with this spirit—they cannot achieve what they want.

Let me tell you plainly: they must despair. They may threaten, they may mobilize the whole world against us, they may try every tool they have—this is a people that cannot be defeated, a people that does not surrender. We will not be defeated, and we will not surrender. Far from us is disgrace!

They want to argue with us: “Surrender is the solution because you cannot withstand the aggression.” We answer them: No. What you are demanding is stripping Lebanon of its strength, of its means of defense. You have no problem letting “Israel” continue occupying the land and killing our people—as long as you get to live comfortably.

They say: “Let us be, give us a chance, we just want to live.” How do you want to live? Do you think the “Israelis” will stop the killing and occupation? The “Israelis” seek eradication—they say it openly. “Greater ‘Israel’.” Katz said he wants to redraw the maritime borders, and he said he will not give up the five points, the seven points, nor the people living in them.

What do all these signs indicate? And you still claim the problem is capabilities? No—the problem is the “Israeli” project, and it must be confronted. Instead of condemning aggression, they condemn those who are defending themselves and their land. Truly astonishing.

My friend, when there is an “Israeli” attack on your land, does anyone respond by attacking their own people, poking at them, and putting obstacles in front of the strength of their own people, their army, and their president—supposedly to give “Israel” comfort and reassurance? This is misguided thinking.

For those whose intentions may be innocent—those who say “we just want this to end because we are helpless”—we say: lives are in God’s hands, but the decision of dignity or humiliation is in our hands. Be courageous, choose the path of dignity, and be certain: you will be granted victory.

If we defend ourselves, we open the horizon of honor. If we surrender, we destroy our children’s dreams for the future. And honor belongs to God, His Messenger, and the believers.

Our steadfastness for an entire year—despite every form of pressure—is proof of our strength and dignity. Our presence among the people, in politics, in municipalities, in parliament, and what the world witnesses—this is proof of our strength and dignity. Our criterion is independence and freedom; the criterion of those who surrender is a life of servitude and humiliation. We will be free on our land, and we will not accept servitude or disgrace.

I conclude: we will not allow “Israel” to decide the boundaries of our lives or the shape of our future. The “Israeli” enemy wants Lebanon as its backyard, controlling its every nerve. But we—along with our allies, the honorable people of this nation, and our army—will not be subservient to America or “Israel”. Someone may ask, after all this: “So what is the solution?” The solution is that the aggression must stop.

It is unacceptable for one side to attack, and then the side being attacked is told: “The solution is in your hands—give the aggressor what he wants.” No. There is aggression, and it must end. What is the solution? The aggression must stop.

Well then, if the aggression continues, the government, which has now declared its position, must set a plan for confrontation and make full use of its army and its people, with all the capabilities available. The government must stand firm and say it will reconsider the army’s deployment in the south. The government must say clearly that this mechanism needs to be reevaluated because it has turned into a judicial arm for “Israel”. It has many measures it can take: it can issue warnings, halt certain actions, silence those calling for stripping Lebanon of its strength, postpone contentious matters, and present a united front.

Go look. The solution is confrontation—political confrontation, cultural confrontation, media confrontation, through unity, through every available means, even militarily. Some will say: “And if all of that doesn’t work, then what?” It’s simple: we stand firm and we defend.

What does it mean when someone asks, “What should we do?” It means they are really saying, “surrender.” That is not an option. My friend, we stand firm—and we defend.

The blood of our martyrs will not be wasted, and it is best for our people to stand united. Then, the foreigners will submit to our will, Lebanon will reap the benefits, and we can reach understanding among ourselves. Draw lessons from Syria—Syria is before you; they left nothing there, they took everything from Syria. Then, Katz says, “We do not trust Al-Sharaa”—this is an old jihadist mindset. What does he mean by this? It means they do not know when a decision might be made to kill him, or when they might decide to intervene further, because they consider any security or political agreement with Syria meaningless. They take everything for free, and no one confronts them.

Yes, the operation that took place in Beit Jinn shows that the Syrian people are in a different position—they will not accept surrendering to “Israel”. This is a positive and correct indicator. Concessions only make the enemy greedier, so say to him: “No.” It, too, has its calculations; in the end, it is not free to act entirely on its own, and it will not achieve its goals as long as we remain steadfast. It will not harm us without it suffering as well. However, the difference is reflected in Allah’s word:

“Do not falter in pursuit of the enemy—if you are suffering, they too are suffering. But you can hope to receive from Allah what they can never hope for. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (An-Nisa, 104).