Al-Hajj Hassan pointed out that the American President “Donald Trump” was clear during his election campaign when he described “the land of Israel” as small and in need of expansion. He also pointed to the explicit statements of “Benjamin Netanyahu” about “Greater Israel,” explaining that the two men share roles to achieve the same goal. He mentioned that the talk about “the Trump economic zone” in southern Lebanon did not face any denial from the American or Israeli sides. He added that the Israelis today, on the tongue of “Katz,” confirm that they “will not withdraw from the five points,” which was confirmed by the American envoy “Barak” previously.
He addressed the recent Israeli attacks, especially the construction of the wall that exceeded the borders and annexed Lebanese lands, which prompted the President of the Republic to demand the Minister of Foreign Affairs to submit an urgent complaint to the Security Council. He stressed that the issue goes beyond the matter of Lebanon’s strength and the resistance’s weapon to reach Israeli expansionist projects that require confrontation from all Lebanese, stressing that sovereignty is indivisible, and that “every grain of soil, every drop of water, and every inch of Lebanese sky is sovereignty that must be defended.”
In a related context, he pointed out that the last attacks of the enemy targeted UNIFIL forces, and the Israeli side justified firing at them with “weather conditions,” considering that this comes within a clear American collusion that starts from Washington itself. He explained that the November 27 agreement stipulated the withdrawal of Israel within a period of 60 days, i.e., on January 26, 2025, but “the American issued a statement a few days before the end of the deadline and extended it until the end of February, and therefore the first violation of the agreement was not Israeli but American.”
Al-Hajj Hassan stressed that the United States “is leading the war on Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and even on countries allied with it.”
He touched on the situation in Syria, noting that Syria during the era of President “Al-Sharaa” was an ally of Washington, and the Americans moved freely in it, yet it is subjected to continuous Israeli bombardment. He asked: “Why did Israel target the Syrian army bases? And why did it announce that it will not withdraw from Mount Sheikh and the areas it claims are secure inside Syria?” He added that Syria entered into the international coalition to fight the militants, and there is no longer a resistance weapon in it, yet Israel continues to occupy the land and bomb the sites, which proves that the Israeli project is expansionist in nature and does not need pretexts.
He explained that the talk about resistance stems from facing this project, and asked the Lebanese: “Can anyone accept the deduction of a part of his land under the name of economic land? And if there is anyone who accepts, let him announce it. And do the Lebanese accept that their airspace be violated or that Israel determines for the Lebanese army the type of weapons it is entitled to possess?”
He considered that this path is what he tried to embody in his open book to Lebanese officials: “Beware of the American before the Israeli, for entering into a tunnel of negotiations will lead to successive concessions without a bottom.” He stressed that there is no justification for opening the talk about a new agreement in light of the existence of an existing agreement that Lebanon has adhered to in all its terms with the recognition of the United Nations, while Israel has not adhered to any of them. He considered that the American wants to strip Lebanon of its strength and push it towards gradual concessions, and then later justify its inability to obligate Israel.
He addressed the government’s decisions on August 5 and 7, considering that they are not in accordance with the charter because the Shiite ministers did not participate in the vote, and said that “the two decisions were submitted to the Americans and then transferred to the Israelis, who then escalated and rejected any understanding.”
He pointed to the danger of slipping into a new negotiating track, pointing out that the existing mechanism committee for a year has not made any progress despite changing its American president three times, and the presence of representatives from France, the United Nations, Lebanon, and the Israeli entity. He asked: “What has this committee achieved until it is pushed towards a new agreement while the existing agreement has not been respected?”
He pointed out that the Americans are exerting pressure at various levels, and they are joined in this by a part of the Arab and Islamic countries and a part of the Europeans and some Lebanese.
He pointed out that one of the party officials called on the Lebanese officials to have the courage of “Avichay Adraee,” considering that a dangerous statement, while others called on Israel to bomb buildings randomly, while some deputies and ministers justify the Israeli attacks. He said that any party has the right to criticize Hezbollah, but no one has the right to justify the aggression or refrain from condemning it.
He concluded by affirming what President “Nabih Berri” said about Lebanon’s need for national unity, considering that any division will make the results of the Israeli targeting affect everyone, and that weakening Lebanon economically, politically, financially, or security-wise does not reflect on one group without another, as wrong decisions that impose a siege affect the entire Lebanese economy.
He asked those who talk about the “cash” economy whether they have completed banking sector reforms, stressing that rapid submission to American dictates harms Lebanon with all its components, because the country is interconnected, and if a group, region, or community is weakened, everyone will be affected.
