MESOP MIDEAST WATCH TEXT BY MEIR AMIT INTEL CENTER – ISRAEL

Published: 08/11/2023

Overview^[1]

• On November 3, 2023, Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah delivered a speech entitled “Martyrs who died on the way to Jerusalem.” it was Nasrallah’s first public appearance since the outbreak of Operation Iron Swords. The speech, which raised high expectations in the Arab world, claimed the war in Gaza was completely Palestinian. He threatened the United States and Israel and emphasized that “all options are open.”
• He claimed, straight-faced, that he had no advance knowledge of the Hamas attack, and that Hamas was winning, therefore by implication they did not need external aid. He noted Hezbollah’s contribution to the war effort through its operatives’ attacks on northern Israel and was proud they were forcing Israel to keep a significant portion of the IDF forces in the northern arena because Israel was concerned about having to fight on another front. As for further aid in the future, Nasrallah was ambiguous, apparently to keep Israel tense while claiming that all options were on the table.
• Reactions to the speech in the Arab world were diverse, as reflected in the media and social networks. Some supported the speech and its messages, while others criticized him for not fulfilling their high expectations. Some people felt that Nasrallah had abandoned the Palestinians, after having spent several months talking about the “unity of the arenas,” but that when put to the test he betrayed his partners and did not keep his promises. Reactions on social networks mainly expressed disdain and ridiculed Nasrallah for boasting but actually doing too little.
• Representatives of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations avoided directly criticizing the speech, and some publicly expressed public appreciation for the speech and his contribution to the war effort. The Iranians supported the messages, which they claimed reflected his willingness to fight for the Palestinians, while acting with “discretion” and preventing the entire region from being dragged into a war.

Nasrallah’s Main Points

• After considerable preparation and a build-up of expectations, on November 3, 2023, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah secretary general, gave a speech entitled, “Martyrs who died on the way to Jerusalem.” It was broadcast to large audiences, who watched it live in the squares of major cities in Lebanon. It was the first public speech he had given since the beginning of the war and as many had expected, he presented the organization’s position on the war in the Gaza Strip.
• Nasrallah’s key message(al-Manar, November 3, 2023):
  • Nasrallah claimed that he did not know about the attack and that it was a “100% Palestinian attack” which had been kept in absolute secrecy.Nasrallah distanced Hezbollah and Iran from the invasion and claimed they had no connection to or prior knowledge of the barbaric attack in the Gaza Strip.
  • Operation al-Aqsa Flood, he claimed, was a success and proved Israel was weak and could not stand on its own. He described the attack as a “watershed in the history of the ‘resistance’”^[2]that led to an ‘earthquake’ in Israel and exposed its weakness.” He added that the quick positioning of the United States at Israel’s side, and Israel’s request for financial aid, proved that Israel was weak and could not stand on its own.
  • He claimed Hamas was winning and its victory had regional importance: Hamas was winning, and therefore, by implication, did not need Hezbollah’s assistance. Its victory was important for Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and for all the Middle Eastern countries. He said two goals had to be achieved now: the cessation of attacks against Gaza and the victory of Hamas.
  • Hezbollah’s contribution to the fighting in Gaza: Nasrallah claimed that Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel on the northern border since October 8, 2023 were unprecedented, as Hezbollah had forced Israel to transfer forces to the north that would otherwise be operating in the Gaza Strip. According to Nasrallah, a third of the IDF’s forces, an important part of which were special forces, were deployed along the land border with Lebanon, half of Israel’s naval forces were deployed off the Lebanese and Haifa coasts, and half of the anti-rocket defense systems were also deployed towards Lebanon. Another achievement, according to Nasrallah, was that tens of thousands of Israelis had been displaced from their homes in the north and 58 cities, towns and villages had been evacuated near the Gaza Strip and the surrounding area. He noted that Hezbollah had casualties in the war, as did the “other organizations” operating in Lebanon [the Lebanese Resistance Companies and the military-terrorist wings Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Lebanon].
  • Words of praise for the Palestinians and Iran’s proxies: He praised Hamas and the Palestinian organizations in the Gaza Strip. He also praised the Palestinian residents for their firm stand in the Gaza Strip, and thanked the Shi’ite militias in Iraq and the Shi’ite Houthis in Yemen for “entering the heart of the campaign.”
  • The IDF was responsible for the October 7 massacre: He claimed that because Israel harmed civilians in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, the IDF was responsible for the massacre in the Gaza Strip, and claimed the investigations which would be conducted later would make that clear.
  • Israel’s threat to eliminate Hamas: He claimed that in the past Israel had threatened to bring down Hezbollah and Hamas, but could not because it was weak.
  • The threat of escalation: Nasrallah left the issue of escalation in the north vague, stating that “all options are open” along the Lebanese border, further escalation was possible in the north and Israel should take that into account. He added that escalation on the northern border depended on two things: the way events played out in the Gaza Strip, because Hezbollah supported Gaza; and Israel’s conduct towards Lebanon. He warned against further attacks on Lebanese citizens, since they could cause Hezbollah to return to the equation of “a [killed Israeli] citizen for a [killed Lebanese] citizen.” He emphasized that “the enemy will commit the biggest folly in its history if it attacks Lebanon.”
  • Die Vereinigten Staaten: Laut Nasrallah waren die Vereinigten Staatendirekt für das Töten im Gazastreifen verantwortlich und führten die Kämpfe dort. Er nannte die amerikanischen Drohungen gegen die Hisbollah “sinnlos”. Die Hisbollah habe keine Angst vor der amerikanischen Flotte im Mittelmeer und sei darauf vorbereitet. Die Lösung bestand nicht darin, die “Kombattanten” zu bedrohen, die israelische Aggression gegen den Gazastreifen zu stoppen, was im Rahmen der amerikanischen Möglichkeiten lag, denn “diejenigen, die einen regionalen Krieg verhindern wollen, müssen die Aggression gegen Gaza stoppen”.
  • Die Sache mit den Entführten: Nach Nasrallahs Einschätzung würden sie nur im Rahmen eines Tauschgeschäfts freigelassen.
  • Ein Aufruf an die Länder der Welt: Er rief zu internationalem und regionalem Engagement auf, um die Kämpfe der IDF im Gazastreifen zu beenden, Hilfe an die Palästinenser zu transferieren, die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen zu Israel zu beenden und Israel nicht mit Öl oder Nahrungsmitteln zu versorgen.

Reaktionen

• Über Nasrallahs Rede wurde in den Medien und sozialen Netzwerken im Libanon, in arabischen Ländern und unter den Palästinensern ausführlich berichtet. Die Reaktionen fielen gemischt aus: Einige unterstützten das, was er sagte, und stellten ihn als “verantwortungsbewussten Führer” dar, der nicht argumentierte und Entscheidungen traf und dabei eine Vielzahl von Erwägungen abwog. Andere wiesen darauf hin, dass er, obwohl er Gleichungen für den Konflikt zeichnete, in Bezug auf zukünftige Schritte zweideutig war und Israel ein Ultimatum stellte, um so den Libanon zu schützen und die Abschreckungskraft der Organisation zu verbessern. Auf der anderen Seite kritisierten andere seine Rede und behaupteten, sie habe ihren Erwartungen nicht entsprochen.

Libanon

• Mohammad Raed, ein Mitglied der Hisbollah im libanesischen Parlament, behauptete mit Genugtuung, dass Nasrallahs Worte alle Fragen außer denen Israels beantwortet hätten, und nun sei Israel verwirrt und zögerlich, wisse nicht, in welche Richtung es gehen solle oder was Nasrallah verberge (Libanese News Agency, 5. November 2023).
• Hussein al-Hajj Hassan, ein Mitglied der Hisbollah im libanesischen Parlament, behauptete, Nasrallahs Rede habe ihren Glauben, ihre Hoffnung und ihre Gewissheit gestärkt, dass der Sieg in Gaza den Palästinensern, der Hamas und allen “Widerstandsorganisationen” gegen die Aggression Israels und der Vereinigten Staaten zuteil werden würde. Er behauptete auch, dass die Rede die Verwirrung, die Besorgnis und die Spannungen in Israel erhöht habe (Libanese News Agency, 5. November 2023).
• Weaam Wahhab, Vorsitzender der Arabischen Vereinigungsparteiim libanesischen Parlament (und ehemaliger Umweltminister), ein Druse, der mit den von der Hisbollah und Amal angeführten Kräften des 8. März verbunden ist, griff die Kritiker von Nasrallahs Rede an. Er erklärte, dass die Kampagne gegen Nasrallah, für die einige Leute arbeiteten, von pro-israelischen Menschen finanziert wurde und dass jeder, der mit der Beteiligung der Hisbollah an den Kämpfen in Gaza unzufrieden sei, entweder dorthin gehen und kämpfen oder schweigen könne (Twitter-Account von Weaam Wahhab, 4. November 2023).
• Former Lebanese Parliament member Fares Souaidnoted that Nasrallah’s speech sought mainly to convey a message to the United States and the world that Iran and Hezbollah had not been involved in the attack on October 7, 2023. He added that Nasrallah had supported Gaza in words but not deeds, and clarified that the Iranian interest was preeminent (MTV, November 3, 2023). On the other hand, Nadim al-Jameil, a Phalanges Party member of the Lebanese Parliament, said the speech emphasized contradiction and embarrassment, and the Phalanges and the people of Lebanon refused to have Lebanon enter a destructive war whose consequences would be intolerable (Lebanese Phalanges Party Twitter account, November 4, 2023).
• Muneir al-Rabi’, author and commentator for al-Medan, wrote that Nasrallah’s speech walked a tightrope: he did not scare the Lebanese, but he also did not give Israel security, he left all options open in a “well-considered and balanced speech” (al-Medan, November 4, 2023). According to an article published in the Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese al-Akhbar, reactions to the speech were mixed and ranged from congratulating Nasrallah for having controlled his emotions despite the situation, to those who were disappointed because they expected stronger statements towards Israel (al-Akhbar, November 4, 2023).

The Palestinians

• Apparently the Palestinians were supposed to have been disappointed by the speech because despite the support they received, he explicitly stated it was a Palestinian campaign and did not say what Hezbollah’s assistance would be beyond what they were currently receiving. Meanwhile, the Palestinians were careful not to publicly criticize the speech.
• Osama Hamdan, a senior Hamas figure who lives in Beirut, said Hamas appreciated Nasrallah’s speech and the role of “the brothers in Hezbollah and the resistance forces against Israel.” He claimed Nasrallah’s speech was clear: Hezbollah, along with Palestinian “resistance” forces, entered the conflict on October 8, 2023. Nasrallah had made it clear that all options were open, and emphasized that the main goals were to stop the “aggression” against the Strip and achieve victory for Hamas and the “resistance.” He said, “the effort is appreciated” (CampsPostPlus Facebook page, November 4, 2023; Hamas’ Judea and Samaria Telegram channel, November 4, 2023).
• Asked by an interviewer about Nasrallah’s speech, Zaher Jabarin, who holds the prisoner file in Hamas, evaded giving a direct answer and said that in general Hamas demanded all the resistance forces, led by Nasrallah, and the entire [Muslim] nation to fulfill their [jihad] obligation and help the Gaza Strip with all force and means at their disposal (al-Jazeera, November 5, 2023).
• Daoud Shehab, a senior PIJ figure, said Nasrallah’s speech gave the Palestinian people broad moral and political support and opened possibilities for the Palestinian “factions” and the “resistance.” He claimed the speech reflected the vision of the “axis of resistance”^[3]regarding the events in the Gaza Strip, and the “axis” was ready to pay any price to ensure a victory for Gaza (al-Mayadeen, November 3, 2023).
• Muneir al-Jaghoub, a senior Fatah figure, commented on the speech in a series of tweets, stating it reflected Nasrallah’s decision to prioritize Lebanon’s security over greater involvement in the campaign against Israel, and used that to attack Hamas for dragging the Palestinians into the “adventure” (Muneir al-Jaghoub’s Twitter account, November 3, 2023).
• Ibrahim al-Madhoun, a Hamas political commentator who lives in Turkey, noted that Hezbollah’s equations were “complex” and had Lebanese and regional considerations. He claimed Nasrallah’s speech was realistic and acceptable, given the current unusual and turbulent circumstances. He gave a fair description of the opposition and left the door open for the future (Ibrahim al-Madhoun’s Twitter account, November 3, 2023).
• Fayiz Abu Shamala, a Hamas-affiliated political commentator, wrote that by mentioning the gradual escalation with Israel, Hezbollah had calmed the atmosphere in order to create an element of surprise later on. He expressed trust in the capabilities of the “resistance” in Gaza and sent Lebanon the message that Hezbollah did not seek war, but instead “had fallen into it” (Fayiz Abu Shamala’s Twitter account, November 4, 2023).
• Nach Ansicht des palästinensischen Kommentators Hani al-Masrihat Nasrallahs Rede eine neue Etappe eröffnet. Obwohl Nasrallah nicht ankündigte, dass die Hisbollah in den Krieg eintreten würde, schloss er auch nicht die Tür zu ihr. Al-Masri glaubte, dass die Hisbollah derzeit nicht bereit sei, in einen umfassenden Krieg im Nahen Osten einzutreten (aljazeera.net, 5. November 2023).

Iran

• Über die Rede wurde ausführlich berichtet und sie von iranischen Rednern und Medien positiv aufgenommen. Mohsen Razai, ehemaliger Kommandeur der iranischen Revolutionsgarden (IRGC),twitterte, Nasrallahs Rede sei der Beginn einer neuen Strategie der “Widerstandsfront” in der Region gegen Israel und die Vereinigten Staaten. Er erklärte, dass von nun an keine der “Widerstands”-Gruppen von der Seitenlinie aus zuschauen werde und die “Widerstandsfront” geschlossen handeln werde, bis sie den Sieg des palästinensischen “Widerstands” errungen habe (Twitter-Account von Mohsen Razai, 3. November 2023).
• In einem Meinungsartikel, der in der IRGC-nahen Zeitung Tasnim erschien, hieß es, Nasrallahs Rede habe möglicherweise diejenigen nicht überzeugt, die die regionalen Entwicklungen aus Hollywood-Sicht beobachteten und etwas Großes und noch nie Dagewesenes erwarteten. Nasrallah bewies jedoch, dass die Hisbollah ihre Entscheidungen auf der Grundlage einer nüchternen Analyse traf, die regionale und internationale Erwägungen berücksichtigte. Nasrallah, so Tasnim, habe in seiner Rede mehrere wichtige Ziele erreicht, darunter die Vereinigung der “Widerstandsfront” und der Menschen der Region gegen die “Verbrechen der Vereinigten Staaten und Israels” im Gazastreifen, die Stärkung der Solidarität zwischen den Elementen der “Widerstandsfront” und die Darstellung der Vereinigten Staaten als Hauptverantwortlicher für die Kriegsführung. Darüber hinaus bewahrte er Unklarheiten über die zukünftigen Schritte der Hisbollah und verbesserte die Abschreckung der Organisation angesichts eines möglichen Angriffs Israels. Laut Tasnim könnte eine Reaktion der Hisbollah, während die IDF und die Regierungen in den Vereinigten Staaten und Israel in höchster Alarmbereitschaft sind, nicht die gewünschten Ergebnisse bringen, und besondere Ereignisse treten immer dann auf, wenn niemand sie erwartet (Tasnim, 4. November 2023).
• Die mit dem Iran verbundene Website Asr-e Iran lobte Nasrallah dafür, dass er alle Optionen offen gelassen habe, Unklarheiten bewahrt und davon abgesehen habe, Israel ein Ultimatum bezüglich eines Waffenstillstands zu stellen. Ein solches Ultimatum hätte zu einem israelischen Präventivschlag gegen den Libanon führen können, der den Interessen der Hisbollah und des Iran nicht gedient hätte. Die Rede bewies, dass Nasrallah “ein weiser und ausgewogener Staatsmann” war, der Israel gut kannte. Nach Ansicht des obersten Führers des Iran sollte von der Hisbollah nicht erwartet werden, dass sie die gesamte muslimische und arabische Welt auf ihren Schultern trägt, auch wenn die Organisation in der Vergangenheit ihre Bereitschaft gezeigt hat, notfalls in den Krieg zu ziehen (Website von Asr-e Iran, 3. November 2023).
• Eine ungewöhnliche Antwort veröffentlichte der reformorientierte Journalist und Regimekritiker Ahmad Zeidabadi, der behauptete, es wäre besser gewesen, wenn Nasrallah geschwiegen hätte. Er sagte, Nasrallah habe bei seinen Anhängern Erwartungen geweckt und versucht, seine Unfähigkeit, den Kriegseintritt der Hisbollah zu erklären, mit einem militanten Tonfall zu übertünchen. Er machte jedoch keinen Hehl daraus, dass er nicht bereit und praktisch nicht in der Lage war, in den Krieg einzutreten (Telegram-Account von Ahmad Zeidabadi, 3.
• .