Member of Loyalty to Resistance Bloc, MP Hassan Fadlallah, stated that the Israeli enemy has left no room for the diplomacy the Lebanese authority bet on to reach a comprehensive ceasefire. Instead, the very first day of the alleged truce turned into a date for Israeli escalation against civilians, especially in the South and West Bekaa, he added.
He said the authority’s reneging even on its explicit pledge not to proceed with negotiations before a ceasefire is a dangerous belittling of people’s blood. He asked how it can accept sitting at one table with killers while they continue their crimes, to the point that the enemy now boasts that it is their ally in its destructive project against part of the homeland and the state, while it remains silent.
“What happened in the past two days of American-Zionist deception, promises of a ceasefire, and carelessness in handling a sensitive issue through leaks, ambiguity, and whispers, has led to the disappointment of those who bet on the U.S. administration and its false promises. This alone should be an incentive for this authority to look more closely, understand the nature of the conflict with the Israeli enemy, and grasp the reality of its ambitions. To preserve its dignity, it has nothing to do except refuse to return to these humiliating negotiations.”
In a press conference held in Parliament, Hezbollah lawmaker said, “The available option for our country is to continue the heroic resistance and adopt diplomacy based on Lebanon’s strength and the unity of its position through indirect negotiations. No political alternative has been offered to us that obliges the enemy to stop its war and withdraw from our land. What is being offered to Lebanon is complete surrender to Israeli conditions, which would lead to its subjugation, stripping it of its freedom, and losing the South. This would mean the end of Lebanon.”
“Therefore, the heavy price we pay through the sacrifices of our people’s blood, their steadfastness, and bearing the pain of displacement is far less than the price of surrender, which is not in the dictionary of this people. This people will not abandon its legitimate right to self-defense, and no one should imagine how far it can go in confrontation to liberate and protect the South.”
He stressed, “Any security or political commitments with the enemy that the authority offers at the expense of Lebanon’s sovereignty will have no effect on the ground and will not be able to impose them on our people. Any American-Zionist attempt to produce a new Antoine Lahad, under any uniform and under any name, we will confront, just as we confront the occupation and its agents. We will not stop at any internal or external consideration in this regard. Our people, who are making this level of sacrifice, will not accept any formula through which the enemy infiltrates our country.”
MP Fadlallah pointed out, “There is a national constant that no one has the right to concede: hostility to the Zionist entity is a national charter among Lebanese, enshrined in the Taif Agreement and Lebanese laws. The majority of the Lebanese people adhere to it through their position rejecting recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity, and rejecting so-called peace and normalization. Those promoting a breach of this national constant are a minority whose media voice is paid for and loud. This national rejection is not limited to the Shia Islamic sect but includes the majority of the people and its diverse sects.”
He said, “Our country faces serious challenges, and what increases them and warns of their repercussions on civil peace and internal unity is the behavior of some elements of the authority and their harnessing of state institutions for their external commitments.”
“Likewise, the authority’s policy in dealing with the displaced file, wasting aid money, and double standards in dealing with the villages of the South, increases internal divisions, as if this authority is detached from reality and has not learned from the experiences of previous authorities whose practices led to internal explosion. We warn against this confrontational path with a large part of the Lebanese, heedless of the country’s future and the dangerous consequences of its performance. The authority is sliding toward the same fate as those who defied Lebanon’s composition and did not respect its delicate balances.”
He added,” Our concern for civil peace and internal unity and our focus on confronting the enemy as a priority does not mean at all allowing a squandering of our sovereignty, the rights of our people, and our national partnership. For their sake, everything is easy for us to defend our existence and our land.”
MP Fadlallah called on the authority and all those keen on Lebanon to do the following:
First: Return to the language of national understanding and Lebanese unity to save their country. The nature of our political system is based on the concept of a participatory state among the components of society with its diverse sects. No party in the authority can monopolize fateful choices. Those who tried it before led the country to civil wars. The main bet should be on internal understanding and gathering the elements of strength, foremost among them the resistance, which is achieving great accomplishments through its qualitative operations and the losses it inflicts on the occupation army, preventing it from settling on our land. We should also benefit from Lebanon’s real external friendships, including the regional-international umbrella being formed in the Islamabad negotiations, and not mortgage the country’s fate to the interests of the American administration, offering free gifts to the U.S. president to please him at the expense of Lebanon’s interests. Reject meeting the conditions of that administration, which constitute a malicious recipe for civil war and collision among Lebanese. Relying on the American administration has proven a failure in previous experiences around the world; it quickly abandons those who bet on it. No principles govern its relations, and its only interest in our region is supporting the Zionist entity and dominating its countries and peoples.
Second: Unify the national position around the five principles: a comprehensive ceasefire as a first step, followed by the enemy’s withdrawal from our occupied land, the return of the displaced, the release of prisoners, and reconstruction, with the state extending its full authority south of the Litani up to the internationally recognized borders. We are fully prepared to cooperate with the Lebanese authority and all loyal people in the country so that the state’s position becomes unified, and we are part of it, to reach a national formula for dealing with the next stage in a way that achieves the interest of Lebanon and the Lebanese.
Third: Begin the immediate implementation of the Taif Agreement without selectivity, including the clauses related to the conflict with the enemy, such as: preparing the Lebanese Armed Forces to be able to confront Israeli aggression. We have a national army in Lebanon ready to play its role in this field, but it needs resources and a political decision. It is one of the main guarantees for civil peace. Also, implement the clause that calls for using all means to liberate the land, foremost among them the resistance. Implement political, financial, and administrative reforms, including passing an election law outside sectarian constraints as stipulated in Article 22 of the Constitution, and begin abolishing political sectarianism as stipulated in Article 95 of the Constitution.
In response to a question, he said the state is not a party or a faction in a country based on diversity, so it cannot act alone because it is based on the principle of partnership.
“As for the Resistance, it did not act alone, because it waited a long time before deciding to defend its people. When there is occupation, you do not need national consensus. Today there is aggression against the country, so what is required is to confront and repel it, and then we discuss other details. The priority is to repel the aggression.”
On the relationship with the President of the Republic, he said there is no rupture, and when there is a need for a direct meeting it can happen.
“We have communication with the presidents through the government. Lebanese who believe in dialogue are bound to meet among themselves. After the experience of direct negotiation, the authority needs to reconsider and learn from what happened.”
In response to another question, he said, “Our relationship with the Army is excellent and there will be no problem. It is keen on the country and will not accept being a tool for the enemy. But the American-Israeli talk about forming a collaborating armed force similar to the Free Lebanon Army in 1978 and the South Lebanon Army in 1984, we will confront it as we confront the enemy.”
On the claim that the war is for Iran’s sake and that it abandoned Hezbollah, MP Fadlallah said, “This is propaganda that obscures the truth. It is shameful to say that those who shed their blood and sacrifice in defense of their country are fighting a war for others. This war is for Lebanon. The resistance is in a state of defending its country after 15 months of giving diplomacy a chance. If the authority had succeeded in stopping the attacks then, there would be no war now. We did not ask anyone to fight alongside us, but we found the opportunity opportune at the timing we chose. As for Iran, it stands with us and rejects any agreement with the United States that does not include stopping the aggression on Lebanon.”
“The claim that the war is for others was used during President Hafez al-Assad’s rule when the resistance was accused of fighting to the rhythm of negotiations. Today they say it’s for Iran, because there is a faction in Lebanon that denies the enemy’s ambitions for our land and its aggression against our country. This division is not new in Lebanon.”
Source: Al-Manar English Website