Nasrallah: Sunken Military Option and Third Destruction Likely Should the Occupation Insist “He Who Failed in Rafah Has Been Threatening for the Past 2 Months With Invading Lebanon…i.e. One-Hundredfold the Area of Rafah.” “Hamas Negotiates in Entirety for Al Mukawama’s Axis, and We Accept What She accepts, and Will Cease Fire at Her Timing.”

Albinaa’ Newspaper Headlines July 11, 2024.

Hezbollah’s Secretary General Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah devoted his speech in commemoration of Al Mukawama’s Commander “Abu Nimah” to three focal areas, the first being the bleak horizon confronting the occupation’s military option. He reviewed the situation on the fronts, especially in Gaza, highlighting the futility of any achievement by the occupation’s army to allow talk of gaining control and ending the war having achieved stated objectives, and conviction of the West and all the entity’s allies, the occupation’s generals, and its current and former high-ranking officers that continuation of the war poses an existential risk which could bring about what they refer to as the destruction of the Third Temple.
In the second focus of his speech, Al Sayyed Nasrallah discussed the Southern front, revealing talk about having Al Mukawama fall back for a number of kilometers and how the distance shifted each time Al Mukawama brought to the open a weapon with longer range and similar precision, from Kornet 3-5 km, to Kornet 8 km, to Almas missiles. He mocked the occupation’s military minds showing how Al Mukawama toyed with them through actualities on the battle field controlling their speech and its modifications, and confirmed with certainty
Al Mukawama’s field superiority and its control of the war’s cadence.
He enumerated the outcomes of such superiority, whether it be in the displacement of settlers and its impact on the entity’s political and social fabric, or in freezing and attrition of a large part of the occupation’s army, or in economic drain, or in erosion of the deterrence image and the collapse in morale among soldiers, officers, and public opinion. Discussing the threats made by some leaders in the occupation, he pointed out the degree of confusion imposed on them by Al Mukawama, and the change in their terms and expressions in talking about the war. He bid a comparison between Rafah, which the occupation prefaced as the absolute victory war, amassing for it full mobilization capabilities, thrusting elite squads, platoons, and companies to resolve it, and more than 2 months of fruitless combat, daily deepening in dilemma, further failure, and more losses. He pointed the arming depth, and capability differential between
Al Mukawama in Lebanon and in Gaza, asking how could the failing and defeated in Rafah,
27 kms in surface area, dare talk about victory in Southern Lebanon which is a hundredfold Rafah’s area?
In the third focus of his speech, he confirmed that Lebanon’s front is a front of support for Gaza, that Al Mukawama in Lebanon is part of Al Aqsa Deluge, and that the only party negotiating ceasefire on all the fronts is Al Mukawama in Gaza, represented through consensus from all factions of Al Mukawama, by Hamas. He stated: “We do not interfere with what is accepted, refused, or modified by Hamas. We informed them that we accept what they accept, and that they negotiate for the entirety of Al Mukawama’s Axis, and that when they declare a ceasefire, we will cease fire at their timing. Following that, if the occupation wants to continue the war, we, naturally and certainly, will defend our country just like we supported Gaza, and more.”