Latest news with #Resolution425
Al Manar
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Manar
Hezbollah's Sheikh Qassem Marks Resistance and Liberation Day: Israeli 2000 Withdrawal Was a Turning Point for Lebanon
Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem affirmed that the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon marked a pivotal transformation in the region's political, cultural, and ideological landscape. Delivering a keynote address on the occasion of Lebanon's 25th Resistance and Liberation Day via Al-Manar TV, His Eminence underscored that the resistance was the decisive force behind what he described as Lebanon's renewed independence. He called on the Israeli occupation forces to fully withdraw and meet all obligations, stressing that 'after that, every matter will be addressed accordingly.' Sheikh Qassem described the birth of the resistance as a natural evolution of an honorable people refusing occupation and humiliation. He traced its roots to the 1960s and 70s, crediting Imam Mousa Sadr as a foundational figure with the creation of the Movement of the Deprived (Amal Movement). His Eminence recalled the events of 1978, when UN Security Council Resolution 425 called for Israeli withdrawal, followed by the establishment of the so-called 'Free Lebanon State' under Israeli patronage. This, he said, was a first attempt to annex parts of Lebanon and establish settlements. 'By 1999, Zionist prime ministers competed to exit Lebanon, seeking deals with Beirut and Damascus—none of which succeeded. Ultimately, the Israeli enemy withdrew under pressure, unannounced, and under the cover of darkness,' Sheikh Qassem explained. Sheikh Qassem described May 25, 2000, as 'a monumental victory' for both the resistance and the people, achieved without negotiations or conditions. Liberation Day, he said, reshaped Lebanon's identity, making resistance a core national pillar in the face of an enduring threat. 'This was no ordinary event. It marked a spiritual and strategic shift, proving that a few can defeat many with divine support.' His Eminence expressed special gratitude to Army Commander General Haikal for a statement reflecting national unity and acknowledged past leaders, including President Emile Lahoud and the late Prime Minister Salim Al-Hoss. Sheikh Qassem reiterated that the triumph was due first to God and then to resistance leaders like Imam Sadr, Sheikh Ragheb Harb, Sayyed Abbas Al-Moussawi, and Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah. 'Resistance was not a luxury. It was a necessity when no other path was viable. It moved Lebanon from weakness to strength.' He also reminded them that the Israeli withdrawal occurred without major internal strife. 'Not a single slap was exchanged. Those accused of collaboration were handed to the state, and families were reassured—there was no sectarian revenge.' His Eminence highlighted. Resistance Lives On Sheikh Qassem reaffirmed that the resistance remains firmly rooted as a national choice—one grounded in the will of the people and a categorical rejection of occupation and surrender. 'Resistance is a principle, a people, and an unbreakable will. It endures with dignity, sacrifice, and the blood of martyrs, prisoners, and the steadfast families who raise their children to defend the homeland.' His Eminence emphasized that resistance is not about perpetual warfare but a strategic doctrine applied as needed, asserting that 'it may take the form of armed confrontation, deterrence, or steadfast endurance—but it is always a measured response, guided by necessity and national interest.' Sheikh Qassem added that resistance is not merely the use of arms, but 'a framework of values and direction.' On the current situation, Qassem noted that Lebanon had entered into an indirect ceasefire agreement with Israel, which both the state and Hezbollah have respected in full—despite Israel committing more than 3,300 violations. His Eminence called these breaches 'ongoing acts of aggression' and reiterated demands for a full Israeli withdrawal, the release of remaining prisoners, and the fulfillment of all terms of the ceasefire before any new negotiations can begin. Sheikh Qassem reinforced the triad of 'army, people, and resistance' as the backbone of Lebanon's future security. He insisted that the resistance remain a popular, voluntary force—an embodiment of national will and dignity. His Eminence criticized American involvement, accusing Washington of backing Israeli aggression in both Lebanon and Gaza. 'The US bears responsibility for the ongoing attacks,' he said, urging the Lebanese state to take a more proactive stance. 'The state is accountable. If it fails, alternative paths exist.' Sheikh Qassem also referenced Yemen, saying US pressure failed there too: 'The wonderful Yemeni model forced the US to retreat as it stood by Gaza and Palestine.' He described the ongoing Israeli offensive as brutal and inhumane, especially in Gaza. Despite massive destruction, he said, Israel has failed to achieve its goals. 'Israel is heading toward collapse. Let it be clear: we are the children of Imam Hussein (A.S.). We don't retreat. We either win or achieve martyrdom.' Sheikh Qassem warned that Lebanon's national stability cannot be selective, stating that 'Either the entire country is stable, or it is not.' He stressed that achieving lasting stability requires the collective will of all Lebanese components. His Eminence said that the United States is overstepping Lebanon's sovereignty by pressuring officials to meet Israeli demands and warned that such interference would fail. 'Lebanon faces two paths—victory or martyrdom,' he declared, affirming the resistance's unwavering stance against any threats or surrender. Framing resistance as deeply embedded in Lebanon's identity, Sheikh Qassem said it is 'rooted in the land and in the blood of martyrs' and cannot be dislodged. Quoting the Qur'an, he underscored the importance of patience and perseverance in the face of aggression. He also addressed former US President Donald Trump, urging him to seize a 'historic opportunity' to break free from Israeli influence, warning that continued US support for Israel obstructs both Lebanese and regional stability. On reconstruction, Qassem called it 'the foundation of national stability' and urged the Lebanese government to launch a national reconstruction fund, noting that countries such as Iraq and Iran had expressed willingness to assist—if Lebanon takes the first step. His Eminence asserted that Hezbollah remains a central force behind all positive developments in the country, from elections to cabinet formation, and rejected any attempts to paralyze state institutions. 'A strong, stable Lebanon benefits not just its people, but the entire region,' he said, adding that no party should be allowed to blackmail the country's sovereignty. Turning to domestic affairs, Sheikh Qassem emphasized the importance of municipal elections amid ongoing conflict. He praised the strong turnout, particularly in Hezbollah and Amal strongholds, describing the results as a 'resounding and exceptional victory.' He applauded voters, candidates, and electoral staff for their role, noting that consensus exceeded 50% in some areas. He also thanked those who opposed Hezbollah-aligned lists, saying their participation contributed to the democratic process. Sheikh Qassem framed the elections as vital to national governance, describing them as a model of social balance and national unity. He stressed Hezbollah's inclusive approach, citing electoral alliances that included Christians and independents across various regions. He lauded the people of Beirut, Mount Lebanon, and the north for their engagement, saying the vote was conducted with a spirit of unity and development. 'We're not trying to eliminate anyone,' he said. 'We opened the door to cooperation with all parties.' In conclusion, Sheikh Qassem described the Hezbollah-Amal alliance as a powerful, strategic partnership that continues to advance despite discomfort among some critics. 'We are Lebanon's social safety valve,' he said. Hezbollah's Secretary General closed his address with a message to the Lebanese people: 'Congratulations on Resistance and Liberation Day. May all our days be victories. Israel will be defeated, and together we will rebuild our villages and our nation.'
Al Binaa
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Al Binaa
The Fall of Resolutions 425 and 1701
• The Israelis despise international resolutions to the core. Since the inception of their entity, they have never implemented a single UN resolution. This rejection stems from two fundamental reasons. First, the very foundation of their entity rests on the violation of international law. Accepting UN resolutions would inevitably lead them to confront calls for enforcing Resolution 181, which mandates the establishment of a Palestinian state on half of the territories occupied in 1948 and all of those occupied in 1967. It would also necessitate adherence to Resolution 194, which upholds the right of return and compensation for Palestinian refugees, restoring them to their lands, livelihoods, and homes. Acceptance of these resolutions was, in fact, a condition for the entity's membership in the United Nations. • The second reason behind their rejection of international resolutions is the conviction of their leaders that negotiating outside the framework of international law and UN decisions grants them leverage. It allows them to exploit hidden sources of power – political, security-related, and financial – that Washington deploys on their behalf in negotiations. This strategy enables them to secure gains that would be unattainable under the constraints of international law. • On every battlefield and in every negotiation, Israel has sought to sideline international resolutions. It negotiated with Egypt outside the framework of Resolutions 242 and 338, both of which mandate withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967, managing to retain control over Gaza with Egyptian approval. It did the same with Jordan, disregarding the West Bank and East Jerusalem, restricting negotiations to defining Egypt's and Jordan's official borders in defiance of UN directives. With Syria, it attempted a similar approach, and when it failed, it sabotaged the negotiations entirely. As for Lebanon, Resolution 425 explicitly requires a full withdrawal beyond internationally recognised borders. Yet, Israel refused to comply, instead imposing negotiations over an agreement outside the resolution's framework – something that prominent legal scholars, foremost among them the late Dr. Mohammad Al-Majdhoub, regarded as a historic mistake for Lebanon, as it subjected an established legal right to negotiation. • Resolution 1701 mirrors Resolutions 242 and 338 in that it envisions withdrawal to an arbitrary line rather than to internationally recognised borders. To prevent the perpetuation of occupation, it calls for the separation of areas occupied by the Israeli entity's army during the July War – territories that lie within the Blue Line, demanding an immediate withdrawal since their status was resolved in 2000, making further negotiation unnecessary. Meanwhile, areas contested since 2000 remain under the purview of Resolution 425, which mandates withdrawal beyond internationally recognised borders, as these borders are definitive. Resolution 1701 does not call for negotiations over these lands; rather, it instructs the UN Secretary-General to propose solutions to disputes regarding them. Therefore, it must be stated unequivocally: Lebanon's acceptance of merging the fate of occupied territories both within and beyond the Blue Line nullifies Resolution 1701. Furthermore, agreeing to subject both matters to negotiation effectively also nullifies Resolution 425.
