Qassem Says "Israel Regrets Agreement," Stands Firm Against Timelines Under Attack
8/5/2025 6:27:05 PM
Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem affirmed that the Beirut Port explosion on August 4 left a deep wound in Lebanon, calling for the acceleration of trials and investigations away from the politicization that has delayed results until now.
Qassem stated that "the ceasefire agreement is an indirect one that highlighted close cooperation between the resistance and the state, and it represents one of the highest forms of coordination, as the resistance fully supported the implementation of the agreement without delay."
He added: "Israel regrets the ceasefire agreement and sees that it gives Hezbollah the ability to maintain its strength in Lebanon; therefore, it did not abide by the agreement."
He revealed that "Tom Barrack demanded disarmament within 30 days, including simple weapons like hand grenades and mortar shells. He also insisted that 50 percent of the capabilities be dismantled within a month. However, they don’t know the full extent of our capabilities to accurately determine what 50 percent means."
Qassem stressed: "We do not agree to any new agreement; the old agreement must be implemented, and we reject any proposed timeline for its execution that is framed within Israeli aggression."
He continued: "Even if we hand over our weapons, the aggression will not stop, and this is exactly what Israeli officials themselves are saying."
He warned: "Let Israel implement the agreement first, then we can talk about anything. But if it launches a broader war on Lebanon, missiles will rain down on it."
On the internal front, Qassem remarked: "The ministerial statement speaks of deterring aggressors, but where is the state that shields Lebanon from harm? Where is the defense of our borders? And if you say you are incapable, then let us at least preserve and strengthen our capabilities."
He emphasized that "resistance against Israel is a matter to be addressed through national consensus. The state should be developing plans to confront pressure and protect security and sovereignty, not stripping its citizens of their capabilities and giving up sources of strength."
He concluded: "We are keen on cooperation and understanding with the three presidents, and we should come together to discuss a national security strategy, not to draft a timetable for disarmament."
Qassem stated that "the ceasefire agreement is an indirect one that highlighted close cooperation between the resistance and the state, and it represents one of the highest forms of coordination, as the resistance fully supported the implementation of the agreement without delay."
He added: "Israel regrets the ceasefire agreement and sees that it gives Hezbollah the ability to maintain its strength in Lebanon; therefore, it did not abide by the agreement."
He revealed that "Tom Barrack demanded disarmament within 30 days, including simple weapons like hand grenades and mortar shells. He also insisted that 50 percent of the capabilities be dismantled within a month. However, they don’t know the full extent of our capabilities to accurately determine what 50 percent means."
Qassem stressed: "We do not agree to any new agreement; the old agreement must be implemented, and we reject any proposed timeline for its execution that is framed within Israeli aggression."
He continued: "Even if we hand over our weapons, the aggression will not stop, and this is exactly what Israeli officials themselves are saying."
He warned: "Let Israel implement the agreement first, then we can talk about anything. But if it launches a broader war on Lebanon, missiles will rain down on it."
On the internal front, Qassem remarked: "The ministerial statement speaks of deterring aggressors, but where is the state that shields Lebanon from harm? Where is the defense of our borders? And if you say you are incapable, then let us at least preserve and strengthen our capabilities."
He emphasized that "resistance against Israel is a matter to be addressed through national consensus. The state should be developing plans to confront pressure and protect security and sovereignty, not stripping its citizens of their capabilities and giving up sources of strength."
He concluded: "We are keen on cooperation and understanding with the three presidents, and we should come together to discuss a national security strategy, not to draft a timetable for disarmament."