3 excerpts fom the speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on January 19, 2018, on the occasion of the 40th day of the death of Haj Fayez Moghniyeh, father of martyrs Jihad, Fouad and Imad Moghniyeh
Response to Trump: There is no such thing as 'Islamic' Terror
[...] I also want (to raise) another point about this, (that is) the persistent conceit, morgue, arrogance, contempt and racism of the United States through the Trump administration and the statements that we have heard. As for Muslims and Islam, he has spared them no insult during the presidential campaign and after he won the elections. And his insistence on using the term "Islamic terror" is one of the most blatant evidence of his great hostility to Islam.
There is no such thing as "Islamic terror". For example, would it be acceptable on our side, that a Muslim proclaims that the use of atomic weapons in Japan by the United States, in Hiroshima and elsewhere constitutes "Christian terror"? All the killings in the past and up to now by the United States in many parts of the world, because they are Christians, can we say that it is "Christian terror"? We refuse to characterize the US terrorism as "Christian terror". We refuse it (categorically). [In another speech, Hassan Nasrallah said the same thing about Israel, reminding that Hezbollah always denunces "Zionist terror" and not "Jewish Terror"].
This is not excessive zeal to please the Christians. If we said that this was Christian terror, we would be unfair to Christians and the Christian religion. (I do not say that) to please the Christians. But Christians must also reject the term ("Islamic terror"), and I claim that Trump deliberately describes terrorism as "Islamic". He does not say, for example, the "takfiri terror" or "Wahhabi terror", because they are his agents, his allies. He does not say "terrorism x or y", he keeps saying (on purpose) "Islamic terror" to smear Islam, Muslims and the Prophet of Islam, describing them as (inherently) terrorists.
Well, today I say more regarding Muslims: in addition to the insult addressed at 1.4 billion Muslims and hundreds of millions of Christians with the issue of Al-Quds (Jerusalem, recognized capital of Israel), (Trump) starts insulting African countries and Haiti, with the degrading words he used against these peoples ["Shitholes countries"].
This is a continuation of the fatuity and morgue, of the arrogance of the United States, which some consider the (power) that solves problems in the world, that guarantees respect for law, justice and human rights... If the President of this country is a racist, hateful, arrogant man, contemptuous of the human kind, the children of Adam, because of their color, language, religion or geographical region, on whom do these pro-American rely? [...]
Trump uses ISIS to legitimize US Occupation of the Middle East
[...] As for regional issues, I'll be brief. What happened during the last days proves conclusively what we and others have said during the early events in the region (in 2011) about American objectives. Well, yesterday, the US Secretary of State, [Rex] Tillerson, announced - it is not a Tweet from Trump: Tillerson spoke after a well-planned meeting with his entourage, an assessment of the situation, etc., this is not a mere Tweet; Trump himself may indeed publish (inconsiderate) Tweets -, (Tillerson) announced that US forces would remain in Iraq, and that US forces would remain in Syria (indefinitely).
Well, why do you want to stay in Iraq and Syria? In fact, when you created the international coalition, and came to Iraq and Syria at the time, you said that you did not intend to stay - see the hypocrisy of the United States -, you said that you did not intend to stay, that you were only coming to push back ISIS. And the people who have contributed the least to push back and defeat ISIS are you, the Americans. Well, now, what does (Tillerson) say? He said that the US forces and bases will remain in Iraq and Syria to prevent the return of ISIS. Magnificent.
I want to remind what we said a few years ago - you can check the archives. When we said - not just us, many have said it in the region - that the USA have created ISIS to have a pretext and an excuse to return their armed forces in the region, and especially in Iraq, after the people, the government and the heroic resistance of Iraq kicked them out, and after Iraqis refused that the Americans keep military bases and their soldiers and officers receive diplomatic immunity, (so) Obama decided to retreat.
Well, how do the Americans want the return to Iraq? They need an excuse to return to Iraq. They created ISIS to return to Iraq. And today, on the pretext of ISIS, they want to stay (indefinitely) in Iraq. Similarly, under the pretext of ISIS, they came to Syria, and on the pretext of ISIS, they want to stay (indefinitely) in Syria. As the whole world knows, as Trump himself acknowledged, it's the United States that created ISIS.
Today I can say to the Americans, so that they do not mislead the public: you want ISIS not to come back? It is sufficient for you to not bring it back, and ISIS will not return. Do not ask your Gulf allies in the region to give ISIS money and weapons, and ISIS will not return. Do not ask countries around the world to provide all kinds of help to the takfiris to join ISIS, and ISIS will not return. Preventing ISIS to return to Iraq and Syria does not require US bases or US forces. Iraqis can take care of preventing ISIS to resurface. And the Syrians will take care to prevent ISIS to resurface. And the claims of the US Secretary of State are only lies, hypocrisy, deceit and deception against the peoples of the region, he fabricates spurious pretexts from thin air in order to maintain US forces and bases in the region, which is the real goal. Today, it is clear and obvious.
Of course, in Syria, the Syrian government announced its position, and it is clear that US forces did not coordinate with the Syrians. But in Iraq, it is unclear if the US government has an agreement with the Iraqi government to keep these bases. We have no information about it. Or is it that the Americans merely inform Irak and Iraqis that they will stay in their territory, without their consent or agreement, whether they like it or not? I consider it as one of the great challenges facing the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi leaders and political forces :the United States want to impose again, on their conditions, their bases to the Iraqis under the pretext of ISIS. [...]
Steven Spielberg's support for Israel and "normalization"
[...] The third point concerns the normalization (of relations) with the Israeli enemy. This is a point of dispute and debates in Lebanon, which were held (again) recently. I call that, in a particular place - such as the government, the Assembly -, calmly, with all departments, all people, all parliamentary groups concerned, is held a discussion that will lead to a position on what is to be considered as a sign of normalization with the Israeli enemy. The (rejection) of the principle of normalization (with Israel) is an official Lebanese position. Lebanon is determined not to normalize relations with the Israeli enemy, as long as there is no "just and comprehensive peace" as they call it. Well, where is the "just and comprehensive peace"? Lebanon must implement its commitment not to normalize relations with the Israeli enemy.
This issue must be addressed and resolved, so that there are no problems in the country. In the sense that tomorrow, on the pretext that this or that falls under the category of art, tourism or whatsoever... We will not go into religious or intellectual debates in this political question. For example, a Lebanese director [Ziad Doueiri] will go to Occupied Palestine, to the Israeli embassy, apply for a visa, goes back and forth, finally makes it (after obtaining the visa) and shoots a movie there, and it would not be normalization? If this is not normalization, you must explain me what normalization is.
O my brother, I'm Lebanese and I ask you to explain what normalization of relations with the Israeli enemy means. What is it ? That is why this issue is very sensitive, especially now, at this stage. After the latest developments in the Palestinian cause, there are many people in Lebanon - let nobody underestimate them, and we are part of them - who will never tolerate (perhaps on some other things we could be understanding and tolerate) normalization measures which occur under the eyes of the State, and sometimes with the agreement of officials in the Lebanese State.
Well, let us translate it, explain it. No one is opposed to art, nobody asks to close cinemas or not to go to cinemas, never. Nobody has even raised the matter. But that in the name of art, cinema or tourism, you normalize relations with Israel, it is opposed to the Lebanese State's commitments. Let no one say tomorrow "the Sayyed, as usual, takes decisions of war and peace by himself." O my brother, this is a decision of the Lebanese State. It is a decision of the Lebanese government. Therefore stand fast and hold on to your decisions, your strategy, your positions. Be true to your word. That's the position of principle.