Voices rejecting the framework agreement signed between Lebanon's ambassador to Washington, Nada Hamadeh Mouawad, and Israeli Ambassador Yehiel Leiter are growing louder. The most prominent stance taken in the wake of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem's strongly worded statement came from Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, who, after describing the agreement as "sedition," deemed it "ten times worse than the May 17, 1983 agreement," adding, "Ten times worse than May 17, and this agreement is no better."
In an interview with Al-Akhbar newspaper, Speaker Berri spoke of a breakdown in communication between himself and President Joseph Aoun, describing the Washington agreement as "dictates," but stressed "the need to avoid any street protests or reactions that could be exploited to plunge the country into chaos and internal conflict."
He emphasized that "the most dangerous aspect of the agreement is not only its political content, but also the potential for it to incite internal divisions and draw the Lebanese into a confrontation among themselves, which serves the Israeli occupation more than any other party." He pointed out that "confronting this course of action must remain within constitutional, political, and national frameworks," revealing that "the ministers of the Amal Movement will not boycott any cabinet session in which the agreement is discussed; there, we will confront it and take our stand." He asserted that "this agreement will not stand, it will not be implemented... it will not be implemented on its own."
The Speaker of Parliament considered that "the only realistic opportunity available to Lebanon today to secure its rights and compel Israel to withdraw completely lies in the American-Iranian negotiation track," as it is the only framework capable of producing balances that will force the occupation to fulfill its obligations.
Hezbollah criticizes aligning with the enemy by demanding disarmament… and Jumblatt mocks the advisors of the Presidential Palace and the Grand Serail.
He was quoted as saying that “any attempt to separate the Lebanese issue from this process, or to engage in separate negotiations with Israel according to American and Israeli conditions, will only prolong the occupation and give the enemy time to impose new realities on the ground without any real guarantees for Lebanon.”
Commenting on the leaks suggesting that the President of the Republic intended to ask Army Commander General Rudolph Haykal to resign, Berri said, “No one should make such a joke, and no one should play with the army,” emphasizing that “the military institution is a red line and constitutes one of the pillars of national stability and the fundamental guarantee for protecting civil peace.”
Qamati: The agreement was stillborn
On the Hezbollah line, statements rejecting this framework agreement continued. After the deputy head of the political council in the party, Mahmoud Qamati, confirmed that “the Lebanese-Israeli agreement was stillborn and it is impossible for it to be implemented,” MP Hassan Ezzeddine pointed out that “the ruling authority in Lebanon, which affirmed in its presidential speech and in its ministerial statement its complete commitment to the constitution, reforming institutions, implementing the Taif Agreement, building a state of law, and protecting the judiciary and laws, is today the first to violate the law and break the constitution through the framework agreement that was signed in Washington recently, which acknowledges ending the state of hostility between us and the enemy.”
He said, “The President of the Republic, according to Article 52 of the Lebanese Constitution, has the right to negotiate with countries with which Lebanon maintains diplomatic relations, and not with the occupying Zionist entity. Any agreement or treaty requires the approval of the Council of Ministers and then the Parliament, because negotiating with the enemy, according to the Constitution and laws, which state that anyone who establishes a relationship with, communicates with, negotiates with, or strengthens the enemy against the interests of Lebanon is considered to be violating the law in his actions. This places him under accountability and the provisions of the law and penalties that reach the level of hard labor and execution, depending on the nature of each case or issue. Therefore, the framework of the agreement between Lebanon and the Zionist entity is a recognition by this political authority of the Zionist entity, and it considers it a normal legal state, and this is contrary to the Constitution and the applicable laws. In addition, the doctrine of the Lebanese National Army is that Israel is an enemy.”
Azz Eddine added: “Whoever works to end the state of hostility with him and grants him a certificate of innocence from his record full of positions of humiliation and shame, as in the Cabinet decisions on August 5 and after that in September of last year, and on March 2, bears full responsibility for all the repercussions and consequences that may result from this action,” warning “the political authority against falling into the trap of the security arrangements contained in this agreement, because the enemy stipulates for withdrawal or redeployment and withdrawal the disarmament of the resistance, the weapon of power and strength for Lebanon, which is the last thing that can be held onto in order to defend ourselves, our homeland, our independence and sovereignty and our people.”
He concluded, “Here, we must point out what Netanyahu said verbatim, that he thanks the Lebanese government for the courage it has shown. This statement from this criminal, whom we have seen what he has done in Palestine and Lebanon and what he will do in the future as well, because he will not stop at any limits, is enough for us to say to the authority: Congratulations on the badge of humiliation and shame marked by the enemy and by the criminal Netanyahu with the rank of betrayal of trust and national and moral responsibility for the blood of the martyrs of our national army mixed with the blood of the heroic martyrs of the resistance fighters, and the blood of innocent children, women, and elderly people from our people.”
Hajj Hassan: Seeking help from a foreigner
MP Hussein Hajj Hassan asserted that "the authorities pledged in the framework agreement not to allow the return of displaced persons to their villages, failed to compel the Israelis to withdraw, and aligned themselves with the enemy's demand to link withdrawal and reconstruction to the disarmament of the resistance. The Lebanese delegation was merely a listener to American and Israeli dictates, and a conspirator against its own people."
At a ceremony in Baalbek held in support of Iran, Hajj Hassan stated, "One of the agreement's clauses stipulates the use of foreign forces. So, gentlemen of sovereignty, you who swore to protect the constitution and the homeland, you are threatening the Lebanese people with foreign forces and internal strife." He added, "Our political mandate—we refrain from using the term 'legal mandate,' while emphasizing that the legal mandate is a matter of honor, for it is what shaped our devout Muslim and Christian identity—our political, national, and sovereign duty is to reject all the provisions of this ill-fated framework agreement."
He concluded, "For months you have been repeating that Lebanon wants to negotiate on its own behalf, and in the end, your achievement is this agreement, which will never see the light of day. What achievement are you talking about?!" What a wretched time this is that has brought the likes of you to subservient and submissive power.Jumblatt... in harmony with Berri
Former Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt appeared to be in harmony with his ally, President Berri, as he renewed his criticism of the omission of the Armistice Agreement in the framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel. He mocked the advisors at Baabda Palace and the Government Palace, writing on the “X” platform: “As a reminder, the Armistice Agreement is fundamental to the relations between the Lebanese state and Israel, as it is an integral part of the Taif Agreement. It was mentioned in the oath speech and emphasized in the ministerial statement. However, the senior negotiators, along with the elite advisors at Baabda and the group of specialists at the Government Palace, decided to omit it, if not delete it.”
Gulf support
In contrast, this agreement received Gulf support, expressed by the Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Jassem Mohammed Al-Budaiwi, who welcomed "the contents of the framework agreement and the Lebanese and American efforts aimed at restoring Lebanon's sovereignty and Israel's withdrawal from its territory."
He affirmed "the GCC's support for the Republic of Lebanon in restoring its full rights and extending its sovereignty over all its territory, which contributes to confining the decision of war and peace to the legitimate state institutions and enables the brotherly Lebanese people to live in security, stability, and prosperity." The Secretary-General also noted that "the GCC states support dialogue and peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve all disputes," praising "the role of the United States of America in the framework agreement process and the negotiations and agreements it sponsors."
Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji received a phone call from Cypriot Foreign Minister Constantinos Koumbos, who congratulated him on Lebanon signing the framework agreement with Israel under US auspices, expressing his hope that “this agreement will be the beginning of a path that restores stability and security to the Lebanese people and consolidates the state’s sovereignty over its territory and decisions,” stressing that “Cyprus and the European Union countries stand by Lebanon at this critical stage.”
The Gulf Cooperation Council supports Lebanon in limiting the decision on war and peace… and criticizes the Lebanese Forces' bets on the “duo”
As for Raji, he expressed his gratitude to his Cypriot counterpart for Nicosia's supportive stance, emphasizing that "the Lebanese government's priority remains ensuring a complete Israeli withdrawal, the deployment of the Lebanese army, and thecompletion of the plan to confine weapons to the state."
Regarding domestic positions, former President Michel Suleiman stated: "The logic that attempts to stop the war and end the occupation in a way that serves Lebanon's interests require national consensus and the agreement of all parties is unacceptable, while decisions to wage destructive wars and invite occupation onto our land can be made unilaterally, serving foreign interests."
Hasbani: The bets of the "duo"
MP Ghassan Hasbani, a member of the Strong Republic bloc, wrote on the “X” platform: “It is not surprising that Speaker Berri prefers a return to the May 17th agreement, while Sheikh Naim Qassem clings to the November 27th agreement. I have long warned that any postponement of restricting weapons to the state, whether based on the situation on the ground or on another country using war as a bargaining chip, will lead Lebanon to pay an even higher price.”
He added, “Yesterday it was October 27th, today it’s a framework agreement… what about tomorrow? The continued presence of weapons and successive wars has not improved Lebanon’s negotiating position; on the contrary, it has weakened it further. Reality contradicts the bets of the ‘political duo,’ and I am not referring here to the Shiite community, which has paid and continues to pay the price for these bets along with the rest of the Lebanese people.”
Meanwhile, the “Lady of the Mountain Gathering,” headed by former MP Fares Saeed, congratulated “the Lebanese people, that their Lebanese Republic has decided, for the first time in a long time, to be a state in every sense of the word, bearing its responsibility for the safety of the people and the return of all occupied land to the embrace of state sovereignty.”
