Context: The statements made by MP Hassan Fadlallah (Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc) came in rejection of the signs of an agreement between the Lebanese authority and the Israeli enemy. He considered it an attempt to achieve political gains for the occupation and isolate the resistance by exploiting the continued presence of Israeli forces on Lebanese soil.
Complete Unilateral Concessions: The agreement lacks any benefit for Lebanon and entrenches the occupation through the establishment of a buffer zone, while granting the enemy immunity from international prosecution.
Broad National Opposition: The agreement faces cross-sectarian opposition representing the majority of Lebanese, while its support is confined to a political minority reviving the approach of the May 17 Agreement.
Geopolitical Exploitation: This agreement was weaponized as a pressure card offered by a party within the authority to Netanyahu, to be used as leverage in the Iranian-American negotiations.
The Iranian Role and Sovereignty: Iran does not present itself as an alternative to the Lebanese state; its role was limited to enforcing the Israeli withdrawal clause in the memorandum of understanding.
The Alternative Option: The alternative lies in returning to the constitution, the National Pact, and genuine partnership, while upholding the elements of strength and the legitimate right to self-defense.