“Nasrallah:if you strike Hariri Airport, we will strike Ben Gurion Airport"“They made us see how a human being can be both strict and merciful, how he can stand in the face of the enemies of his country and people and crush them and how he can cry like a baby over the remains of the martyrs in the Qana massacre and elsewhere. Yes, they had many things in common... Since they were children, these men did not know the life of fun and luxury and never lived as they should have at their age. They were men since they were young, they remained men as they were growing up and they were martyred as men. Allah the Almighty chose a path for each of them so that he can perform his role.
"Sheikh Ragheb was the headline and symbol of the popular uprising and the headline of defiance and civilian steadfastness. He was the headline of the uprising of the women and children and of negative resistance, since he refused to shake hands with the enemy or even smile in his face, let alone accept its existence. Back then, his blood contributed to the victory of the resistance. As for Sayyed Abbas, he enjoyed his position in the establishment of the resistance, the organization and the Jihad, as well as his position in the general secretariat as the leader of the party of the resistance and the operations of the resistance, thus consecrating the path which was drawn up by the martyrs who had preceded him. Sheikh Imad was the arena leader and the field leader.
“He upheld the words of the faithful leaders and was loyal to the blood of the martyrs. He translated the hopes and dreams and suffering caused by the occupation and aggression on this country with every bullet, bomb, tactic, missile and combat plan. These brothers spent their youth in the resistance in its different positions and they were all martyred young... These martyred leaders want us to preserve their accomplishments for which they have paid with their lives, their pain and their efforts. Eventually, they left us the resistance, its spirit, ideology, choices, existence, strength and ability to assume the responsibilities, which brings us to the present and the numerous questions and choices we are facing.
"Let us address the current situation in light of the multitude of threats which were issued during the past months and revived the questions. Unfortunately, we in Lebanon return to square one very quickly and ask the same questions again. They were raised in 1982 and before 1982. I do not wish to open this debate but recall these questions and raise new rhetorical ones...: Can the American promises protect Lebanon? In other words, if Barack or Biden (now that we are done with Bush and Cheney) were to promise Lebanon they would protect it, are they truly doing it or will they truly do it? There is something affecting the credibility of Obama’s administration and is related to the settlement process after he was unable to stop the building of settlements!
“Another question is: Are the international resolutions protecting Lebanon and have they protected it throughout the last sixty years? Is the international community protecting Lebanon and has it protected it throughout the last sixty years? This international community which only cares about its interests and only respects the powerful, will it protect Lebanon with neutrality? In other words, will it be able to convince Israel not to have ambitions in our land and water? Will it convince it for example to return the Shaba’a Farms, the Kfar Shouba hills and the Palestinian refugees? Will neutrality secure that?…
"Today, as we are facing this flow of Israeli threats, I have two messages to address, one to the Lebanese domestic arena and one to the Israeli arena. At the level of the Lebanese domestic arena, I would firstly like to praise the official position of the president of the republic, of the parliament speaker, the prime minister, the army command and the majority of the political forces and parties in Lebanon, because they all expressed their rejection of the threats, their non-submission to them and the spirit of national solidarity in the face of any Israeli action... Secondly, also in regard to the domestic issue, there is talk about pretexts. We are saying we reject the Israeli threats, while demanding that no pretexts be given to the Israeli.
“We want to address this issue because it is not true and carries many negative aspects. This is not how we face the Israeli threats because when Israel wants to attack a country, it does not need excuses. From 1948 and until 1967, and in all its wars on Lebanon until the July war, the two detainees were never an excuse or a pretext. This war was prepared in advance and the Israeli admitted it... However, allow me to say that what is more dangerous in this context is this new talk we have started to hear a month ago, and this new rhetoric which has emerged in Lebanon in a very limited context. A lot was written about it with different words and expressions and many speeches, seminars and conferences addressed it.
"According to this idea, the very existence of the resistance, even if it did not do anything, neither on the border nor outside the border, is a sufficient justification for the Israeli enemy to wage war on Lebanon. Therefore, in order to prevent this war, we must annul the resistance and the arms. This is extremely dangerous on the national level, since it is justifying an Israeli attack even if the resistance did not provide the enemy with a pretext... Unfortunately, the Israelis themselves are not saying what some Lebanese are saying... I would like to ask the latter at this level: Is this a call for an Israeli war on Lebanon? Are we in the presence of the renewed 1982 circumstances? Do some believe that their dreams, ambitions and plans dissipated lately and can only be restored through a new Israeli war on Lebanon? That is the question...
“On the other hand, and on the Israeli level which is the most important part of my speech in light of the threats, the readings and the possibilities, we say that the strategic situation in Israel following the failure of the July attack on Lebanon and the war on Gaza can be summarized by the fact that Israel is unable to impose peace and unable to launch war. It cannot impose peace based on its terms, such as the non-return of the Golan, the Shaba’a Farms, the Kfar Shouba Hills and the occupied Palestinian territories..., and cannot wage war. Therefore, all the maneuvers and the training we have been seeing since the July war and the Gaza war are only natural, and are the result of the crushing defeat of the Israeli army...
"That was firstly. Secondly, whether these threats are part of a psychological war, have a preemptive purpose or are being issue in preparation for a serious war - a possibility which we do not believe is imminent - how can we face them? The resistance at this level is a model to be followed in terms of steadfastness, strength, courage and counter-threats and that is the only thing that works with Israel because if they see that the people are scared, they will not settle for threats and launch war. Countering threats with similar threats can prevent war, if not postpone it, and can render the enemy reluctant. This is especially true if the threat is serious and if the Israelis have information to confirm it. We saw the proof of that a few days ago when (Ehud) Barak delivered a speech threatening Syria with war, while its sentences were neither clear nor strong.
“It seemed at this level that the Syrian reaction was not only linked to Ehud Barak’s statements, as much as they were linked to the possible delivery of Israeli threat messages to Syria via foreign delegations. I believe that the Syrian response was not a response to a media statement, but rather to messages delivered to Syria... The person who responded to the Israeli threats was Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem and not the command of the armed forces or the president of the republic. Usually, the foreign ministry is the most diplomatic side and the most concerned about alleviating the tensions. I believe in this context that it was intentional for the response to come from the Foreign Ministry which is the softest side, to say to the Israelis that if you attack us, all your cities will face destruction. I am certain that the Israelis were surprised by the Syrian response, as I am certain that the Arab governments were as well. This response was not diplomatic and was completely transparent. So, what was the result? Two hours later, everyone in Israel from Benjamin Netanyahu to Barak to all the other figures, rejected what was said by Lieberman as Ehud Barak tried to fix these statements. The general climate in Israel shifted toward talk about the strategic goal being peace with Syria, just because the Syrian foreign minister responded to them.
“This is not a sixty-year old story whose veracity needs to be checked. It is a story we all saw on television and only a few days ago. In Lebanon, you all remember that Barak threatened with war and started talking about a decisive, swift and clear victory... That day, we responded by saying: If you come to our country, our villages, hills, valleys and mountains, the resistance will destroy your troops on our land with Allah’s will. The Israeli thus started recanting its statements and all the conferences we have recently seen in Israel stopped talking about a decisive, swift and clear victory. Moreover, the commander of the northern region said a few days ago: Let us set modest goal in any war we plan on waging, so that we can say that we have achieved the goals. In other words, there is now talk about modesty at the level of the goals...
"Now that this rhetoric retreated, what other rhetoric is there? They came up with a theory called the “Southern Suburb” theory, and you should know and especially the people of the Southern Suburb that the word “Dahieh” has become part of the military dictionaries and military strategies. What is this theory about? The destruction of everything in the Suburb...
“During the August 14 celebration we responded to them by saying: We told you that next time, if you hit the Suburb, we will hit Tel Aviv... Today, I tell them the following and they can check the veracity of the information because it means the presence of different capacities which I will not name for the time being. I say to the Israelis, not only if you hit the Suburb will we hit Tel Aviv, but also if you hit Martyr Rafik al-Hariri’s Airport in Beirut, we will hit the Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. If you hit our ports, we will hit yours. If you hit our oil refineries, we will hit yours. If you bomb our factories, we will bomb yours and if you bomb our power plants, we will bomb yours... What remains to be addressed on the anniversary of the martyred leaders my brothers and sisters, is the retaliation for [the assassination] of Hajj Imad Mughniyeh. I say it to you honestly, some Israelis were hoping that Hezbollah would do the bare minimum, would seek a modest goal which I will not define to keep them guessing, strike this goal, say that this was the retaliation for Hajj Imad Mughniyeh and that this would be the end of it. We do not act like that and I would like to assure you that during the last couple of years, we had many modest goals available and did not act because the person whose death we are avenging is Imad Mughniyeh...
"Our options our open and we have all the time we need. No one can pressure us or outbid us and let us leave the enemy concerned. Let it worry every day, in every location, on every square. We will chose the time, the place and the target.
“Today, on the yearly anniversary of Hajj Imad, I say to you, to his family, companions and loved ones: What we want is a retaliation that is up to the level of Imad Mughniyeh. That is what we are seeking. We do not want retaliation for the sake of retaliation, rather to protect all the leaders, cadres and the entire cause which was conveyed by Imad Mughniyeh...”” - Lebanese News Agency, Lebanon
