While the Australian government encourages us to view the late leader of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, as a terrorist, very many Australians who abhor terrorism would have the highest regard for him. Why? This interview may provide some answers.

Note, Julian Assange interviewed Hassan Nasrallah in 2012 when the war in Syria dominated the news. For his 12-part show ‘The World Tomorrow’, Assange also interviewed Moazzam Begg – a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who walked free from Belmarsh Prison after terrorism-related charges against him were dropped. The charges against Begg related to time he spent in Syria supporting the insurgency there.

INTERVIEW (abridged)

Julian Assange:

Today, we’re on a quest for revolutionary ideas that can change the world tomorrow.

I am joined by a guest from a secret location in Lebanon. He is one of the most extraordinary figures of the Middle East and has fought many armed battles with Israel and is now caught in the international struggle over Syria.

I want to know why he is called a freedom fighter by millions and at the same time a terrorist by millions of others.

This is his first interview in the West since the 2006 Israel Lebanon war.

His party, Hezbollah, is a member of the Lebanese parliament. He is its leader: Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Are you ready?

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah:

I’m ready.

What is your vision for the future of Israel and Palestine? What would Hezbollah consider a victory? If you had that victory, would you disarm?

The state of Israel is an illegal state. It is a state that was established on the basis of occupying the lands of others, of usurping the lands of others, of controlling by force the lands of others, of committing massacres against the Palestinians who were expelled – and these include Muslims and Christians, too.

So for this reason justice remains on the side, where even if ten years passes, the progress of time does not negate justice. If I go and occupy your house by force, it doesn’t become mine in 50 or 100 years just because I’m stronger than you and I’ve been able to occupy your house. That doesn’t legalise my ownership of your house. At least this is our ideological view and our legal view. And we believe that Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people.

But if we wanted to combine ideology and law and political realities on the ground, we should say that the only solution is that we don’t want to kill anyone and we don’t want to treat anyone unjustly. We want justice to be restored. And the only solution is the establishment of one state on the land of Palestine in which the Muslims, and the Jews and the Christians live in peace in a democratic state. Any other solution will simply not be viable and it will not be sustained.

Israel says that Hezbollah has fired rockets into Israel at civilian areas. Is that true?

Throughout the past years, even since 1948 when the state of Israel was created on the land of Palestine, Israeli forces have been shelling Lebanese civilians in Lebanese towns and Lebanese villages. In the resistance years, that’s between 1982 until 1992, after ten years of resistance we started reacting, but purely and only and strictly to stop Israel shelling our civilians. So in 1993, there was an understanding. It was indirect between the resistance and Israel, and that understanding was reaffirmed in 1996. And that understanding makes clear that both sides avoid shelling civilians. And we always used to say, ‘If you don’t shell our villages and towns, then we have nothing to do with your villages and your towns’.

So Hezbollah resorted to this method after long years of aggression against Lebanese civilians. And its aim is purely to make a kind of deterrent balance to prevent Israel from killing Lebanese civilians.

Why have you supported the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and other countries, but not in Syria?

For clear reasons. In principle, we don’t want to interfere in the affairs of Arab states. This has always been our policy. There have been developments in the Arab world that have been very serious and very important to an extent that no movement, no party can just not take a position regarding them.

In Syria, everybody knows that Bashar al-Assad’s regime has supported the resistance in Lebanon, has supported the resistance in Palestine. It has not backed down in the face of Israeli and American pressure, so it is a regime which serves the Palestinian cause very well.

What we call for in Syria is dialogue and reform and for the reforms to be carried out because the alternative to that – because of the diversity inside Syria, because of the sensitivity of the situation in Syria – the alternative is to push Syria into civil war and this is exactly what America and Israel want for Syria.

Sayyed, over the weekend, 100 people were killed in Homs, including a journalist I had dinner with a year ago – Marie Colvin. I can understand your logic in saying that we should not destroy a country for no purpose and it is much better to reform a country, if possible. But does Hezbollah have a red line? If there are 100,000 people killed, 1 million people killed, when will Hezbollah say that that is enough?

From the beginning of the events in Syria, we’ve had constant contacts with the leadership and we’ve spoken to friends, giving each other advice about the importance of carrying out reforms. From the beginning, I personally found that President Assad was very willing to carry out radical and important reforms and this used to reassure us regarding the positions that we took. On more than one occasion, publicly, I used to give speeches and I would say this and say this exactly, and in my meetings with various Lebanese, and Arab and other political leaders, I used to tell them the same thing: I am confident that President Assad wants reform and he will carry out realistic, genuine reforms. But the opposition has to agree to dialogue. I’ll say more than this – and this is the first time I’ve said this. We contacted even elements of the opposition to encourage them and to facilitate the process of dialogue with the regime, but these parties rejected dialogue. And right from the beginning, we’ve had a regime that is willing to undergo reforms and has been prepared for dialogue. And on the other side, you have an opposition that is not prepared for dialogue and it is not prepared to accept any of the reforms. All it wants is to bring down the regime. So this is a problem.

Another thing that is happening in Syria is something we have to look at with two eyes, not just with one eye. The armed groups in Syria have killed very many civilians.

Where do you see the Syria situation going? What should we do to stop the killing in Syria? You have spoken about dialogue and dialogue is very easy to talk about. But are there practical measures to stop the bloodshed occurring in Syria?

In (response to) the previous question, there’s something I didn’t mention, but I’ll add it to this answer.

There are certainly states that provide money, that provide weapons, that encourage fighting in Syria, and some of these are Arab countries. And there are non-Arab countries, as well. This is from one side.

There’s a very serious issue as well, which is confirmed and we all heard Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri – the Al-Qaeda leader – when he called for fighting in Syria, for arms. So there are fighters from Al-Qaeda, who have arrived in Syria and others that are following them from various countries, and they are trying to turn Syria into a battleground. The countries that provide weapons and money would be able to get the opposition groups that they are supporting to sit down at the table and resolve things politically.

I said this a few days ago that certain Arab countries are prepared to go into a political dialogue with Israel for decades non-stop, despite everything that Israel did in the region, but they won’t give one year or two years, or even just a few months, to look for a political solution with Syria. And this just doesn’t make any sense, and it’s unfair.

Would you be willing to mediate between these opposition groups and the Assad regime? People trust that you are not an agent of the United States or Saudi Arabia or Israel, but will they trust that you are not an agent of the Assad regime? If they can be convinced, will you accept to broker the peace?

The experience of thirty years of Hezbollah’s life proves that it is a friend of Syria, not an agent of Syria. You know, there have been periods of Lebanon’s political life during which our relationship with Syria was not good. There were problems between us. And now, those who used to be benefit from the political influence of Syria in Lebanon, they are now the ones who are opposing us, whereas we used to be under pressure from Syria. Look, we are friends. We are not agents.

The various segments of the Syrian opposition know that and all the political forces in the region know that, as well.

We are friends. That’s the first point. Secondly, when I say we support a political solution, then most certainly, we will be willing to exert any effort or (make) any contribution to achieve that sort of political solution.

Previously I said to you, that we contacted some parties, but they refused to get into a dialogue with the regime. So any group that wants dialogue with the regime and would like us to go-betweens, we’ll be more than happy to mediate. But we are asking others to make their efforts to create a political solution.

I believe that these opposition groups would find Hezbollah’s role more credible if you said to the Syrian regime of Assad that we have a red line. Is the Syrian regime free to do what it wants as far as Hezbollah is concerned or are there some things that Hezbollah will not accept?

Yes, for sure. I think that President Bashar Assad has red lines and that our brothers in Syria have red lines and we reaffirm these red lines that we should all abide by. But the problem is that there is fighting going on and that, accordingly, when one side retreats, the other one advances. So long as the doors to a political solution are slammed closed, then this is going to continue because even if one party retreats, the other one will advance.

Tunisia has declared that it will not recognise the Syrian regime anymore. Why has Tunisia taken this strong move to disconnect itself from Syria?

I believe that the position that was taken in Tunis or elsewhere was based on either incomplete – I won’t say incorrect, I would say incomplete – evidence. Of course, there is even mistaken or incorrect information which was presented to Arab and western governments when they were told that the regime was going to fall just within a matter of weeks. So a lot of them wanted to be partners to this anticipated victory. I don’t conceal also my belief that perhaps the reason for some of these positions taken is because the young, new governments have got to face tough tests and they believe now is not the time to start getting into arguments with the US and the West, and things like that, and that it’s better to appease them and go along with them in a lot of these issues.

You have made an international media network. The United States is blocking Al-Manar from broadcasting into the US. At the same time, the United States declares that it is a bastion of free speech. Why do you think the US government is so scared of Al-Manar?

They want to be able to tell people that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, it kills and it murders, but they won’t let people listen to us. For example, if there was a just trial, then at the very least, the defendant should have an opportunity to defend themselves. But we don’t even have that very basic right to defend ourselves and to present our arguments to the peoples of the world. So they are preventing this voice from reaching (the world).

As a leader in war, how did you manage to keep your people together under the face of enemy fire?

The main thing, as far as we’re concerned is that we had an objective. We specified our objective. This objective is a human, and a moral, and a faith-based and patriotic one. There is no debate about it. This objective is to liberate our land from occupation. This is the real reason why Hezbollah was established in the first place. And there is no dispute about this among Lebanese.

We did not want to get into government; we did not compete for political power. The first time we entered the Lebanese government was in 2005, and the aim then was not in order to have a share of power but to protect the back of the resistance, so that this government that was set up in 2000 wouldn’t make any mistakes against the resistance. We had fears of that kind.

And so, when you have an objective, a correct objective, and I make it my priority and I avoid all other rivalries for the sake of this objective, then I can keep everyone close together and cooperating to achieve this objective. And until this moment, we avoid getting involved in internal squabbles as far as we can. You can see there are many, many issues in Lebanon about which there are huge arguments and differences. We avoid sometimes even expressing our view or taking a position so as not to get in quarrels with people. Our priority is still the liberation of our land and the protection of Lebanon from the Israeli threat because we believe that Lebanon still faces a threat.

I want to go back to when you were a boy. You were the son of a greengrocer. What was your first memory as a boy, in this home in Lebanon, and did these early memories affect your political thought?

I was born into and lived in a neighbourhood for 15 years in east Beirut. That neighbourhood had certain characteristics, and naturally the environment leaves an impact on one’s personality. One of the characteristics of this neighbourhood was that it was a poor area. It used to have Shia and Sunni Muslims; there were Christians, Armenians; there were Kurds. And there were both Lebanese and Palestinians. So I was born and lived in this very mixed and varied environment. So naturally, this made me alert and concerned about Palestine and the injustice that the Palestinian people had been subjected to. So I had a very early awareness of that because the Palestinians who were in our neighbourhood had all been expelled from their towns, from Haifa, from Acre, from Jerusalem, from Ramallah. This was the environment that I was born in and brought up in.

I just have one very provocative question for you, but it’s not political. You have fought against a hegemony of the United States. Isn’t Allah, or the notion of a god, the ultimate superpower? And shouldn’t you as a freedom fighter also seek to liberate people from the totalitarian concept of a monotheistic god?

We believe that God Almighty is the creator of this existence and of human beings and of all creatures. When he created us, he gave us capabilities, he gave us these bodies; he gives us psychological and spiritual capabilities. We call it instinct. People in isolation from religious laws, just they have an instinct. But they have an instinct to tell the truth. Their instinct tells them that the truth is good and lying is bad, that justice is good and injustice is bad; that helping poor people and unjustly treated people and defending them is a good thing. But attacking others and shedding their blood, this is horrible.

The issues of resisting American hegemony or resisting occupation or resisting any attack against us or against our people, this is a moral issue and an instinctive one and a human one. Now God also wanted it like this.

So in this sense, moral and human principles are consistent with the law of the heavens because the Abrahamic religions did not come up with anything that contradicts the mind or the human instinct because the creator of the religion is the same as the creator of the humans and the two things are totally consistent.

In any country, even if in a house or in a country, if there are two leaders that’s a recipe for ruin. So how could the Universe last for billions of years in such beautiful harmony and have more than one god. If there was more than one god, it would have been torn to pieces. So we do have the evidence. We don’t fight to impose a religious belief on anybody.

The prophet Abraham was always in favour of dialogue and showing evidence, and we are all followers of that prophet.

https://johnmenadue.com/julian-assanges-interview-with-sayyed-hassan-nasrallah/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

USA: elections in the midst of a dictatorship

    BY Eduardo VASCO

All major Western media outlets, controlled by Washington’s disinformation and propaganda apparatus, are providing extensive news coverage (or rather, “journalistic”) of the presidential elections in the United States.

The country is portrayed as a bastion of democracy and free choice for citizens. However, this paradise is being threatened by one of the candidates, who is said to be an aberration and an anomaly of the American system.

Therefore, the two assassination attempts against this candidate are justified by the tense climate and the polarization encouraged by him. At the same time, he – Donald Trump – has used these events as a propaganda weapon against his rivals, presenting himself as the victim of a regime controlled by the Democratic Party that has destroyed the American dream.

Both sides have used all the latest tools to gain the slightest advantage over their opponents. The most widely used is the spread of fake news. But Kamala Harris and the Democrats have been shielded from most of the accusations by the press that is linked to them.

In fact, Trump, despite being an absolute demagogue, is right when he says that the U.S. is living under a kind of dictatorial regime. However, this is not exactly due to the Democrats and it is not something new. The U.S. has always been a dictatorship, at least since it became a capitalist power.

On only two occasions has the bipartisan clique failed to secure a double in the final result of the presidential elections. And that was a long time ago. A very long time ago indeed: in 1860 and in 1912. As presented in another article, at least half of Americans would like to have a minimally competitive third party, because the others are merely a facade to cover up the clearly undemocratic two-party system.

The system basically works like this: the big bankers and industrialists meet to decide who should represent their interests in the Oval Office of the White House. Since the interests are not exactly the same – some want more money for their businesses than for others – and since it is necessary to pretend to a population of over 300 million people that these citizens also have some rights, two candidates are chosen to compete.

In recent years, Donald Trump – one of these big businessmen – has managed to garner support from a sector of the bourgeoisie to be one of these two candidates. Since he says some nonsense that many people like to hear (and that makes sense to many people who are broke in every sense), this bothers the most powerful businessmen.

The capitalist elite in the United States prefers Harris to Trump. The apparatus that controls American politics and the state is basically made up of the finance, arms industry and cutting-edge technology sectors. A look at the financing of both campaigns shows that the balance still weighs in favor of the Democratic candidate.

The money invested, both officially and behind the scenes, is what decides who will be elected. Voters just go with the flow. The monopoly of the major media outlets only reports on the Democratic and Republican candidates – how will voters know about the other candidates to vote for them? Social networks control the discussions and the content to be seen – Google is the largest financier of Harris’s campaign; Apple, Oracle, Amazon and Facebook also invest heavily in the Democrat, while Microsoft also deposits money in Trump.

There is no room for anything different.

The only space would be the streets. But there the dictatorship is even more brutal. Thousands of activists have been arrested in recent months for holding political protests. The main area of political activity of the United States, as a true global empire, is international politics. And much of the discussions between the two candidates have been about this. On the streets, people are also trying to join the discussions – since channels, pages and profiles of both individuals and organizations and even media outlets have been excluded from social media. But students from dozens of universities are being attacked and detained by the police for opposing the genocide that U.S. weapons and money are facilitating in Gaza. This repression on the streets – carried out during the Democrats’ term – is applauded by Trump and the Republicans. But Trump should be careful, because the two assassination attempts he suffered were carried out by people who do not like the candidate’s allegedly pacifist words regarding the war in Ukraine. In fact, those who do not support the U.S. and NATO war in Ukraine against Russia have been the preferred target of censorship in these elections. Several prominent political officials and commentators have been coerced by the police and the FBI because of their political positions, such as Scott Ritter, Dan Kovalik and Dimitri K. Simes. Or the Jewish historian Ilan Pappé, who was questioned upon arriving in the United States because of his critical opinion on Israel.

In these elections, imposing candidates, controlling public opinion and widespread repression of dissidents have been essential elements of the celebration of democracy in the United States.

This is the country that wants to teach the rest of the world a lesson in democracy.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/10/06/usa-elections-in-the-midst-of-a-dictatorship/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.