At a dinner organized by the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) in Chouf, Head of the FPM and MP Gebran Bassil declared:
“Chouf strengthens our bond with the Lebanon we love — Greater Lebanon. Our message from here is simple: Chouf must remain united, its people living together in harmony. This is the Lebanon we believe in. Just as Chouf cannot be divided, Lebanon too cannot and will not be divided, no matter how deep the disagreements among its people. The role of the Free Patriotic Movement is to remain the bridge that keeps both Chouf and Lebanon together.”
The Government and the Arms File
The ministerial statement spoke of a national defense strategy. Then, unexpectedly, an American paper appeared for the government to endorse. When it did, the excuse was that it hadn’t endorsed the paper itself, only its goals — and that nothing would be final until a response came from the other concerned party.
In Parliament, the point was clear: you celebrate the government you claim to have formed exactly as you wanted — then prove it. Did you also appoint the Shiite ministers yourselves? When the moment of truth comes, we will see whether you truly chose them, or whether they were chosen elsewhere. By now, the answer should be clear.
No one appoints Shiite ministers on their behalf. Yet when it comes to us, others feel entitled to choose ours. This exposes the contradictions surrounding the arms issue — where the principle is simple: weapons must be under the exclusive authority of the state. What Lebanon needs is a wise national policy that protects the country and preserves its sovereignty — a state that safeguards all citizens, not one that provokes some while sheltering others.
Instead, every other path has been tried — and that is why the government stumbles day after day. Exclusive control of arms cannot be handled in secrecy. It must be shared openly with the people, without deception, if it is ever to be resolved properly.
Even from outside government, the consequences of strife fall on us all. The responsibility is to prevent it. Yet what we see is leadership dragging Lebanon into crises, unable to manage them responsibly, lacking transparency, clarity, and honesty. One story is told abroad — commitment, implementation, even by force. Another is told at home — that these promises are made under pressure, with no intent to carry them out. This contradiction leaves the country trapped in a lie.
There is only one solution: adopt a defensive or national security strategy. The government must set a clear policy, as pledged in its ministerial statement, and take responsibility for carrying it out. Instead, what we face today is a gray scene — confusion, irresponsibility, and a government lost in its own contradictions.
Hezbollah’s Political Cover and Ministerial Statements
According to Bassil, some claim that Hezbollah became powerful because the FPM provided it with political cover. However, since 1990, ministerial statements — long before the FPM entered government — have given Hezbollah political cover.
• In 1991, under Prime Minister Omar Karami, while General Michel Aoun was still in exile, the statement explicitly affirmed the Lebanese people’s right to resist.
• In 2005, when Christian leaders returned and formed the quadripartite alliance, all of them — including the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb — joined the government, while the FPM stayed outside. Yet in its statement, Fouad Siniora’s cabinet declared that resistance was a natural and legitimate expression of the Lebanese people’s right to liberate their land and defend their dignity.
• In 2008, the national unity government led by Siniora, which included all parties, recognized Lebanon’s right — through its people, army, and resistance — to liberate Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shouba Hills, and the Lebanese section of Ghajar, while committing to a comprehensive national defense strategy. The statement repeated the same language in 2009 under Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
• In 2014, under Prime Minister Tammam Salam, the statement again upheld the right of citizens to resist Israeli occupation. During President Michel Aoun’s term, even in cabinets that included the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb, the same principle was maintained.
• In 2019, under Hariri, the government reaffirmed Lebanon’s right to resist Israeli occupation.
From 1990 to today, seven ministerial statements — in governments that included the Lebanese Forces — have affirmed the right to resistance. If that is not political cover, then what is? Claims that the FPM provided Hezbollah with political cover are unfounded; others did far more. What we did was prevent Lebanon from being divided. Today, our position is firm: exclusive state control of arms, rejection of partition, and rejection of civil war.
Syria and Sharaa’s Remarks
On Lebanese-Syrian relations, Bassil noted that Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa had claimed to have risen above the wounds caused by some Lebanese and was ready to move on. He criticized the fact that no Lebanese official — whether dealing with Damascus openly, secretly, or still waiting for an appointment — had acknowledged the wounds Syria inflicted through the killing and slaughter of Lebanese soldiers by ISIS, al-Nusra Front, and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.
He questioned whether Lebanon had nothing to regret or demand, and whether it was expected to accept Syria’s demands for prisoners from Lebanese jails — the very people who had killed Lebanese soldiers — without making any demands in return, as if the country had once again become subservient.
Bassil stressed that there are still free Lebanese who defend the dignity and rights of the people and who will never forget the blood of the army martyrs who gave their lives for Lebanon.
Judicial Independence and Banking Restructuring
On judicial independence, Bassil said:
“President Joseph Aoun announced that he would return the judicial independence law. We had planned to challenge it, but now we cannot, since the president returned it. This is further proof of the government’s inability to pass a valid law on judicial independence.”
On banking, he added:
“Today we filed a challenge against the bank restructuring law, which we consider unjust. It legitimizes deposit haircuts without providing solutions and ties them to another law that hasn’t even been passed. In practice, it tells depositors their money will be taken without clarity on losses — while much of the money has already been smuggled abroad.”
The Bisri Dam
On the Bisri Dam, Bassil explained that some MPs from Chouf had deprived the people of the project, boasting that they would stop it without proposing any alternative. He noted that the dam was intended to supply water to the Chouf coast, Jezzine, Sidon, Aley, Baabda, and Greater Beirut, and that the population had been denied 120 million cubic meters from Bisri and 40 million cubic meters from the Awali River.
He added that work on the project had been halted for more than six years, with no substitute plan proposed. According to him, the only solution was the scientific, national water strategy his team had initiated — beginning with Bisri and Awali and extending to the Jannah Dam — to secure water until 2050.
Bassil emphasized that anyone serious about state-building must plan fifty years ahead. He said that the FPM’s so-called “fault” was responsible planning, while others boasted about depriving Lebanon of water. He concluded that anyone claiming there is no water should look to the MPs who proudly halted the dam — and, with it, the flow of water.