Elias Bejjani on Naim Qassem’s Speech: Insolence, Delusion, and Street-Level Vulgarity in Open Rebellion Against Lebanon and the World/With Text Of The Qaasem Speech
Elias Bejjani on Naim Qassem’s Speech: Insolence, Delusion, and Street-Level Vulgarity in Open Rebellion Against Lebanon and the World Elias Bejjani/January 19/2026
Sheikh Naïm Qassem’s latest speech was not a mere slip of the tongue or a momentary emotional outburst. It was a blatant declaration of total estrangement from Lebanon as a state, and a brazen rebellion against the Lebanese people—their institutions, their decisions, and their national dignity. It was a speech drawn from the gutter language of the street, not from the position of a political leader, deliberately confrontational, crude, and saturated with arrogance and coercion.
When Qassem declares that Hezbollah’s weapons will remain “by force, over the necks of the Lebanese,” he is not expressing a political stance; he is effectively signing a document of internal occupation. That statement alone is sufficient to strip away all the masks of “resistance,” “protection,” and “defense of the homeland,” revealing the naked truth: we are facing an armed organization that views the Lebanese as subjects, not citizens, and sees the state as an obstacle to be smashed, not an authority to which it is accountable.
Speech of Verbal Thuggery
What was labeled a “speech” was nothing more than a bundle of obscene, street-level insults and a reckless flight forward. Qassem did not debate, did not argue, did not reason. He insulted, threatened, and waved the specter of civil war, as if Lebanon were a private estate and Lebanese blood merely a bargaining chip.
He targeted the President of the Republic, attacked the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and appointed himself guardian over the government, ordering it either to submit, to silence itself, or to change course. This is not the language of leadership; it is the language of a militia in distress. It is not a sign of strength, but of weakness and fear. The tighter the noose grows around the party’s regional patron in Tehran, the louder the shouting becomes in Beirut’s southern suburbs, Hezbollah’s stronghold. And the closer Lebanon comes to a serious reckoning over placing weapons exclusively under state authority, the more Qassem emerges threatening that “not one stone will be left upon another.”
Weapons are Burdens and Threats
The most dangerous aspect of Qassem’s speech is not merely its vulgarity or its detachment from reality and actual capabilities, but its open contempt for everything Lebanese—national sovereignty, civil peace, and its servile submission to Iranian dictates. He trivialized and leapt over international resolutions, trampled the Armistice Agreement that binds Lebanon and prohibits any armed organization outside state legitimacy, mocked Arab and international consensus, ignored Israel’s military power, and insulted and derided the will of the vast majority of Lebanese who want a normal state—without rogue weapons and without militias that know nothing but stupidity, hatred, and the glorification and sanctification of suicidal death.
When Qassem challenges the state and declares his weapons beyond any discussion, he implicitly admits that these weapons no longer serve any national purpose. They serve only one function: protecting the party’s apparatus and its mini-state, even if that comes at the ruins of Lebanon itself.
Branding Sovereignty as Treason… to Cover Defeat
Qassem reverted to the easiest weapon of all: accusations of treason. Anyone who demands state sovereignty is a “traitor.” Anyone who works through diplomacy is a “tool.” Anyone who rejects his weapons is “inciting civil war.” But the truth is far too clear to be concealed by insults: the party’s project has reached a dead end. The illusions of “victory” can no longer feed a hungry people, rebuild a destroyed city, or rescue a collapsed economy.
What Comes After This Defiance?
After this speech, silence is no longer an option, and evasiveness is no longer acceptable. What Naïm Qassem said imposes firm and unequivocal steps on the Lebanese government—not vague, grey statements:
The immediate expulsion of Hezbollah and Amal Movement ministers from the government, because anyone who threatens the state cannot be a partner in governing it.
A clear and official declaration of the end of the state of war with Israel, and an end to its use as a pretext for retaining weapons.
The designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization at the national level, consistent with its threatening and insurrectionary behavior.
The arrest of Hezbollah leaders involved in threatening civil peace and their referral to the judiciary, rather than rewarding them with positions of power.
Conclusion
Naïm Qassem’s speech was not a defense of “resistance,” but a declaration of open hostility toward Lebanon. It was not a show of strength, but a fit of political panic. It was not directed at Israel or the outside world, but at the Lebanese themselves—as if to tell them: “The state is finished, and we are the alternative.”
Here lies the crux of the matter: Either a state, or Naïm Qassem. Either the rule of law, or the logic of “by force, over your necks.”History does not forgive the hesitant.
Text Of Sheikh Naiem Qassem:’s speech: Trump and Netanyahu failed in Iran Al-Manar/17 January 2026
Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem declared that US President Donald Trump “wants to interfere in all regions of the world to obstruct democratic life, with the aim of seizing global resources.” Speaking at a ceremony organized by the Holy Quran Association for Guidance and Instruction, commemorating the advent of the Prophet’s Mission, Al-Mabaz Al-Nabawai, he added that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “mobilized their agents in Iran to overthrow the government and control the Iranian resistance.” Regarding
Trump and Netanyahu’s failure in Iran
, Sheikh Qassem stated that Trump and Netanyahu “have failed in their latest project in Iran, as millions of Iranians have taken to the streets.”
He noted that the marches in Iran “have shown the will and demands of the people.” He then asked, “Can millions of people be compared to a few dozen subversive agents?”Sheikh Qassem believes that the US “does not desire a free system or a self-governing people, but rather seeks to control nations and their decisions, and to support the Israeli occupation so that it can expand in the region.” “The resistance of the Iranian people, under their enlightened leadership, with their representatives, security forces, and the active participation of the people, has thwarted the US objective of overthrowing the system.”He emphasized that Hezbollah considers Iran “unbreakable and strong, and that it will continue to be the bastion of jihad, resistance, independence, freedom, and a source of inspiration for the oppressed,” stating that “they will not be able to defeat the millions of people who have joined its leadership and its decisions.”Regarding Venezuela, he stated that “the US committed a crime of the century in Venezuela by kidnapping the president within the country,” and called for “a global people’s movement to put an end to the unjustified arrogance of the US, which only seeks domination and tyranny, in order to preserve the rights of peoples.”
No National Sovereignty:
Regarding the situation in Lebanon, the Hezbollah leader emphasized that Lebanese sovereignty and liberation are the foundations and pillars of state-building and lamented the lack of concrete implementation of these principles.
According to him, the continued Israeli aggression plunges Lebanon into a situation of “no national sovereignty,” insisting on the need for the state to develop effective programs to regain its sovereignty. He clarified that the demand for an arms monopoly is an Israeli-American demand intended to contain the resistance, and not a Lebanese problem, but rather a problem for the Israeli entity, which seeks to usurp territories. Sheikh Qassem asserted that any concessions to the Israeli entity or any other compromise would only further weaken Lebanon, questioning why Lebanon is being asked to make concessions without receiving anything in return. He emphasized that the weapons held by the resistance serve for self-defense, the defense of the resistance, and the defense of the Lebanese people.
Disarmament will bring massacres.
According to him, if the Lebanese do not possess weapons to defend themselves, no one can guarantee that “Israel” will not violate every inch of Lebanese territory, citing numerous examples. He warned that surrendering weapons would lead to a resurgence of kidnappings and massacres throughout Lebanon.
He emphasized that disarmament is unacceptable, as it carries the risk of the murder of Lebanese citizens and attacks on entire populations. He insisted that the resistance will continue and that Lebanon will not be exempt from resistance.
Sheikh Qassem declared, “They will never succeed in disarming us so they can kill us and our people.”“ As long as they continue attacking, we will remain the resistance, and Lebanon will not be exempt from resistance.” He added, “If we have no weapons and do not defend ourselves, who can guarantee that Israel will not violate every corner of Lebanon?”
Lebanon is in a state of instability
. On this subject, Sheikh Qassem stated that stability has not been achieved in Lebanon since the war “due to the US-Israeli aggression and the ongoing occupation, not to mention the poison spread by certain forces through lies and media disinformation.”He added, “Whatever progress is made, without security stability, there will be no political or economic stability.”He emphasized that “in this new phase, after the initial difficulties, the Lebanese state has the responsibility to protect Lebanon and its people after decades of neglect.” He insisted that one of the conditions of this phase is “the implementation of the agreement,” noting that “Lebanon has fulfilled all its obligations, but Israel has not.”He clarified that “the ceasefire agreement in Lebanon is definitive, with no possibility of extension or a second phase,” emphasizing that the Lebanese state implemented it, while “the Israeli entity did nothing.”He added that “the Israeli entity has nothing to do with Resolution 1701, which is a purely Lebanese matter, as is the arms monopoly and the national security strategy, which is based on an agreement between the political forces.”Sheikh Qassem asserted that “the inability to build a state is due to US-Israeli aggression, the cartel of financial and political corruption, and the group subservient to US hegemony.”According to him, “this group, subservient to US hegemony, encourages Israeli aggression with its stances.” It sows discord between the army and the resistance, between the army and the people, and among the various entities within the state, hoping that the enemy will grant it influence on the political scene. Sheikh Qassem reacted to statements by
Foreign
Minister Youssef Rajji, asserting that “there is no Foreign Minister in the country, and his absence paralyzes the diplomacy that defends Lebanon.” He added that “Minister Rajji is acting against the policies of the government and the presidency, and is siding with Israel by allowing the enemy to attack Lebanon,” and asked, “What kind of patriot behaves like this?”
He warned that “Rajji is endangering civil peace by inciting sedition by calling on the Lebanese army to take decisive action against the people,” noting that “he wants to plunge Lebanon into civil war.”He stressed that the Lebanese government “has the responsibility to resolve the problem of the Foreign Minister, who is not acting in accordance with its directives,” insisting that the solution lies “in replacing him, silencing him, or forcing him to adhere to the Lebanese position.” He asserted that “one of the reasons for the government’s weakness is the absence of a Foreign Minister who expresses Lebanon’s national demands.”
Without resistance, Lebanon would collapse.
Sheikh Qassem explained that “Lebanon faces aggression, corruption, and subjugation,” considering that “all these scourges are opposed to the current administration, to state-building, to the people, to the army, and to the resistance.”
He warned that “the total collapse of all this will leave nothing standing, and no one will be saved,” emphasizing that “if this resistance, this environment, and this people are not protected, and if we are not all united, no one will survive.”
He asserted that “attacking Lebanon’s stability and the resistance, an essential component of it, will have repercussions for each and every one of us. Nothing will remain, and no one will be safe, as long as the resistance, this environment, and this people are not protected, and as long as we are not all united.”
