LONDON - It is necessary to fill the mobilizational vacuum left by the martyred leaders of the resistance movement.

The speech of a firm believer focuses on educating others about core principles and objectives. This requires defining constants and variables in a language that people can easily adopt as a slogan and use as a clear benchmark for judgment.

Verbal appeasement must not be at the expense of principle. If used, they must be clearly framed as a tactic.

Preserving a party’s organizational structure is not an end in itself. Rather, preserving the message is the end goal. The value of a party’s institutional body lies in its service to principles and objectives. The spirit of martyrdom applies to the party as it applies to the individual. This is clear in the Karbala model, when the elite as a whole is martyred to preserve the principle. There should be no bargaining over principles, identity, or higher objectives.

The discourse within the resistance environment should boost revolutionary morale and link it to major objectives. It should call for patience and steadfastness, in addition to readiness for sacrifice.

The discourse directed toward the Ummah should champion its primary causes, with Al-Aqsa serving as the central compass. This messaging must be influential, opening new horizons for cooperation and mobilizing collective action through meaningful engagement.

The discourse to officials domestically and regionally should be based on identifying common ground, motivating action, and calling for taking the appropriate stance. It should articulate the vital role the party plays in upholding the dignity of the Ummah.

The Ummah must resist the enemies and decide its destiny with its own hands. There must be no contradiction between the different directions of the discourse.

Revolutionary discourse should be mobilizational, enthusiastic, programmed, and reassuring to the Ummah. In defining victory, will and steadfastness constitute victory, if it does not occur on the battlefield. Firmness should encompass the discourse, with slogans such as "the stance is a weapon", "handshake (with the enemy) is recognition", and “the honor of Jerusalem will only be liberated by the hands of the believers”. The compass must not be lost and the slogan “on the road to Jerusalem” is foundational.

"Clear red lines and boundaries must be established for every aspect of the resistance, even if enforcing them requires a deterrent confrontation.

State decisions should not bind the resistance, just as resistance decisions do not bind the state. Handing over weapons in one area raises the question: what is the difference between this area and another? This leads to demands to surrender weapons everywhere. Even partial compliance leads to more appeasement and it becomes a pattern. It should be noted that the resistance’s weapon fills a void that nothing else can do; its existence is an absolute necessity.

Political discourse should be principled, setting the compass. It should link events to principle and infuse the spirit of strength and action. It should be flexible, extending a hand to opponents classified as obligatory or possible to deal and cooperate with. The resistance fills a void without which the Lebanese entity would end. If the dangers threatening Lebanon disappear and the state becomes capable of protecting sovereignty, there would be no need for weapons to preserve sovereignty.

Contents of the discourse should include explaining reality and surrounding conditions, assigning and defining our responsibilities. The discourse is not complete merely by defining others’ responsibilities and what is demanded of them, while knowing in advance they will not do it because their orientation is different. Their overt efforts show they are tools in the hostile project. Expecting from them is like expecting a spark of fire from water, this is presented only to establish the argument.

The most important element remains: what is the resistance’s position, and what will it do? It should proceed on this path through work and action, asking nothing of anyone from the position of a spectator, as silence itself is proof of the invalidity of other options. What is meant is not excessive detail, but clarifying the approach by defining objectives and the certainty of achieving them, since the will exists and the means are being secured, whilst avoiding specifying operational details.

"If the enemy remains focused on uprooting the resistance as their primary goal, the situation must be shifted entirely. This can be achieved by undermining their objectives and nullifying their decisions with firm rhetoric—for example: 'We will strike the hand of anyone who reaches for this.' By establishing new strategic focal points, the enemy's aim of disarmament may become secondary when weighed against the threat of unexpected counter-actions.

The discourse should not be weak or apologetic. Appeasing discourse increases the onslaught. Rapprochement discourse must not be at the expense of principles. Concession leads to an endless chain that ends only in total besiegement. A discourse whose ceiling is the nation and does not go beyond it, loses credibility for the identity of the movement and loses the compass. National discourse is part of a comprehensive discourse, not an end in itself.