Hizbullah: Larsen installed himself a guardian of the interpretation of al-Taef Accord and its implementation, His talk

Source: Hizbulla`s Media Relations Center, 27-3-2007
Hizbullah issued a statement regarding announcements made by the UN Secretary-General envoy Terje-Rod Larsen, before his departure from Lebanon, it said the following:
Mr. Larsen`s noticeable verbal and formal praise of the current national dialogue and the stemming decisions and results, of which is the consensus reached on the Lebanese identity of Shibaa Farms; this was followed by his practically emptying the decisions reached of their substance, by refusing to recognize the effects of this consensus and by his persistent denial of the Shibaa Farms Lebanese identity. Thus calling into question reached achievements and any future decisions the National Dialogue may bring about, hence contradicting the initial praise.
A man representing an organization that fosters international peace, security and non aggression is expected to call on the aggressor to evacuate territory he occupied by force in contravention of international resolutions. Here we are referring to the Lebanese Shibaa Farms, even if Larsen himself and according to his maps classified it as "Syrian", the causes behind this problem are still the same, the Israeli aggression and occupation.
Instead, he closed his eyes to the rights and pushed the problem onto the borders of two brother nations, Lebanon and Syria, in a scenario that can only look like an attempt to remove the spotlights away from the occupation and its continuous acts of aggression, the true reason behind the problem.
It was at this point that the Lebanese especially families of the prisoners and detainees in Israeli jails, awaited a stance expressing the conscience of the international community and not an arrogance one, or at least one of solidarity and a call to the enemy for their release.
Instead Mr. Larsen again distanced himself from this just Lebanese demand as he did on previous occasions with other rightful and stuck cases, by quickly rushing for an acquittal for the occupation through generating international stands, that declare the enemy having fully implemented international resolution 425; a decision made at the expense of Lebanese people and their demands and rights to land, still under occupation in more than one area, to the release of detainees and to sovereignty, protected from recurring land, sea and air violations.
Mr. Larsen on more than one occasion went too far by offending the Lebanese and their feelings of national sovereignty and dignity; that came through clearly in two points:
The first: his attempt to deceive public opinion regarding the international borders between Lebanon and Occupied Palestine, by considering the blue line, named after Larsen, identical to the international borders, a fact that could not be further from the truth in all aspects realistically, legally and politically.
According to correspondence between Lebanon and the United Nations, especially that which took place year 2000, the blue line only represents a line of confirmation of the Israeli withdrawal and not an international border, thus raising a question on the reasons behind forcing Lebanon to abandon Lebanese territory not returned to Lebanese sovereignty by the blue line.
Second: in his description of their resistance as a militia, he challenged the general national feeling of a Lebanese nation proud of its resistance and its achievements, he violated the general will of the Lebanese country in its highest symbols and authorities who refuse to give it this attribute, and who had pledged to protect and consider the resistance a real expression of the Lebanese nation`s hopes; as endorsed by the constitutional organizations atop of which is the Lebanese parliament.
Additional offense was also caused by Mr. Larsen to the sovereignty and dignity through his unjustified intervention in internal Lebanese affairs, Lebanon`s special relations with his Arab surroundings and brother nations. By imposing himself as a guardian of the interpretation of Al-Taef Accord, its implementation and giver of directions to the Lebanese based on his new guardianship, such as interventions of his previously witnessed on election matters and the presidency...
We conclude by saying: may God protect Lebanon and the Lebanese from such these visits and statements, and may he protect the National Dialogue from this international envoy`s directions and repeated offenses.