“I had hoped, at this delicate juncture Lebanon is going through, not to engage in disputes with anyone. However, what Sheikh Naim Qassem said yesterday cannot simply be allowed to pass without comment.
Sheikh Naim accused the President of the Republic of violating the Constitution and the Taif Agreement, while it is you who have violated the Constitution and Taif for decades. There is no need to elaborate much on this point, as it is as clear as daylight, given your usurpation of the state’s decision-making authority and your use of it as you pleased, contrary to the interests of the Lebanese people and the Lebanese state, and in violation of the Constitution from its first line to its last.
Sheikh Naim also addressed those who advocate sovereignty, asking: ‘Why don’t you resist the aggression yourselves?’ Our response is: We were the first to resist, from the very first moment until this very day, but in the appropriate and sound manner, in a way that produced appropriate and sound results—not in your manner, whereby your resistance produced the opposite of what you claim, by drawing Israel into occupying the south while the entire world remained silent about that occupation because of your blatant role.
Sheikh Naim said: ‘If some accept surrender, we do not.’ To Sheikh Naim we say: We are the first to reject surrender. But rejecting surrender does not mean giving Israel, the world, and Lebanon’s friends every possible pretext for Israel to remain in Lebanon. Genuine resistance means rallying Lebanon’s friends around it and establishing an effective state that works to remove Israel from its territory.
As for your statement that ‘the problem is not the resistance but Israel,’ its purpose is to preserve your weapons. There is no need to recall that these weapons exist primarily for Iranian objectives and purposes more than for defending Lebanon against Israel. In any case, the party that is supposed to confront Israel—provided that you allow it to do so—is the Lebanese state. This state, through institutions elected by the majority of Lebanese, bears responsibility for addressing the Israeli issue. Yet it will be unable to do anything because you obstruct its course, undermine its role, and thwart efforts to recover the occupied territories. Those who actually assist the Israeli project are your military and security presence outside the framework of national consensus and the logic of the state, and outside Arab and international will.
Sheikh Naim considered that ‘any discussion of the weapons issue will not be possible before the land is liberated and the people and prisoners return.’ The answer is that the opposite is true: as all current political facts indicate, it will not be possible to liberate the land or enable people to return before Hezbollah’s military and security wings are dismantled and an effective state is established. This continuous linkage between the weapons and Israel over the past 36 years has cost Lebanon and the Lebanese people dearly in terms of human lives and destruction, and it can no longer be accepted.
At the very least, let us be objective. Lebanon alone will not be able to force Israel out, nor will it be able to rebuild. It needs its friends, foremost among them Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, European countries, and the United States. Those countries are not prepared to help Lebanon before it becomes a functioning state and strategic decision-making returns to the state.
In response to Sheikh Naim’s question, ‘Where is the government amid the deteriorating economic situation, the high cost of living, and the lack of any improvement in services? Where is the electricity, and where is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?’ The reason behind all of this, Sheikh Naim, is you, as a result of your seizure of the state’s decision-making authority across its various institutions for two decades. This ultimately led to the financial gap and the economic, financial, and living deterioration that we continue to suffer from to this day.
The electricity sector was under your control and then passed to your allies for two decades. What we are experiencing today is the result of your practices and those of your allies. But the situation will not remain this way. Cleaning up what you left behind requires some time, and that is what the current minister is doing, working to clear the heavy legacy you left of mismanagement, corruption, and disregard for people’s interests.
As for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we refer you to the testimony of the overwhelming majority of Lebanese, who acknowledge that this is the first time they feel Lebanon has a foreign ministry that speaks on behalf of the majority of Lebanese and Lebanese legitimacy, implementing Cabinet decisions, the Constitution, and Lebanese priorities.
The country witnessed some improvement following the election of President Joseph Aoun and the formation of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government. However, you once again brought destruction upon Lebanon through a war in support of Tehran at the expense of Lebanon and the Lebanese people, returning the country to square one in terms of financial and living deterioration.
Moreover, Lebanon is in dire need of assistance to address the conditions and crises you caused. These funds will only come through Lebanon’s friends, who will not pay a single penny because of you.
As for Sheikh Naim’s statement that ‘the people of Lebanon reach understandings among themselves,’ this is precisely what happened over the past two years. The people reached understandings through everything that took place in Parliament: the election of a president, the designation of a prime minister, and the formation of a government that won Parliament’s confidence for the third time approximately two weeks ago.
This government, which received Parliament’s confidence, adopted clear decisions on August 5 and 7 to disarm Hezbollah, and on March 2 to dissolve the party’s military and security organization. You are the only ones acting against the will of the people.
Anyone who knows history knows very well, Sheikh Naim, that everyone who tried to erase Lebanon’s meaning ultimately disappeared. Your statement that ‘Lebanon without resistance will cease to exist’ is correct if that resistance is for Lebanon—as our resistance movements have been for centuries—and not resistance for Iran at the expense of Lebanon’s very meaning.”