Bassil to Al-Jadeed: Lebanon’s neutrality could be achieved under UN sponsorship or through a defense pact with the U.S. What is needed, he said, is a fair and lasting peace. He accused the government of seeking to cancel elections and warned that any hint from the banking lobby to sell Lebanon’s gold reserves would constitute a crime.
Interview on “Hallak Show”
In an Al-Jadeed interview with journalist George Salibi, Head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) MP Gebran Bassil discussed the possibility of war, saying:
“We live in a turbulent region with major scenarios ahead. One path is the comprehensive solution proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, ‘Peace 2025’ in the Middle East.”
He added that such a solution “requires a major deal centered on the U.S. and Israel on one side, and Iran, as the region’s key resistance power, on the other, with Saudi Arabia involved regarding the two-state solution.”
Peace and War
“In the mildest scenario, there would be a cold peace. In the best scenario, Lebanon would find relief and move toward genuine peace that restores its rights,” Bassil explained.
“A second scenario would be a temporary truce, with the sword of war still hanging over Lebanon, aimed at preventing Hezbollah from regaining strength, while the Israeli right remains under constant threat,” he added.
Bassil warned of a real risk of renewed war, noting that “the conflict practically never ended; it simply flares up or eases depending on Israel’s objectives.” He said it is clear the U.S. President is trying to impose limits on Israel and remind it of its growing international isolation, while still offering full support.
He explained that such a scenario could lead to internal turmoil in Lebanon, as each group feels compelled to defend its own existence. “When things reach that point,” he said, “people become ready to die for survival.”
Domestically, Hezbollah is strong but has no interest in sparking conflict. However, it has made clear, through its Secretary-General, that if targeted, it will defend itself—even hinting at the possibility of civil war.
Bassil stressed that the government’s decisions on exclusive state control over arms must be supported, but the key question is how and within what framework to implement them. To preserve sovereignty, the state must adopt a national defense strategy that incorporates Hezbollah and its weapons under state authority, ensuring that the state alone decides on defending sovereignty.
He emphasized that this must go hand in hand with strengthening the Lebanese Army and securing international guarantees under the principle of Lebanon’s neutrality. This could be achieved through a UN-backed framework, possibly via a joint defense agreement with the United States, provided there is internal consensus and acceptance from neighboring Syria and Israel, which must halt violations. In that case, Hezbollah’s weapons—seen as a means, not an end—would no longer be justified.
“Force-imposed solutions never last,” he said, “and lasting peace must restore rights.” If the U.S. pursues a genuine long-term settlement, it could secure Israel’s safety while guaranteeing Lebanon’s and Arab states’ rights, establishing peace rooted in prosperity and economic growth, shifting competition from nuclear weapons and military power to technology and development.
Commenting on the visit of U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus and Egyptian intelligence head Major General Hassan Rashad, and the threatening messages reaching Lebanon, Bassil said these messages must be taken seriously. Yet part of it, he noted, is pressure: “If Israel could have achieved the objectives of the war alone, it would have done so; Gaza is the best example. We do not want the country to be destroyed or the scenario to repeat itself. Israel did not succeed in entering, and Hezbollah cannot ignore the new military reality,” he added.
Government Handling & Hezbollah’s Weapons
Bassil criticized the authorities for not acting responsibly, noting that they make contradictory promises abroad compared with what they deliver at home. He observed that instead of initiating dialogue on a defense strategy, the government approved a paper it cannot implement.
He emphasized that the main reason the resistance exists is the Israeli occupation, pointing out that there are currently five occupied points that have provided Hezbollah with a pretext to maintain its weapons. He questioned whether the weapon is a means or an end in itself.
Commenting on Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s remark to Paris Match that Hezbollah should become a political party without a military wing, Bassil expressed support for the idea, though he noted that the military reality has shown that deterrence has collapsed.
He added that all Lebanese governments after the Taif Accord had granted Hezbollah legitimacy to carry arms, beginning with President Salim Hoss’s government in 1990. Seven of those governments included representation from the Forces and the Kataeb, creating a Lebanese consensus that Hezbollah’s weapons were meant for defense.
On the issue of handing over weapons, Bassil stressed that it is unacceptable to act in a submissive or defeatist way. He argued that Hezbollah made a strategic mistake by entering the support war and losing its deterrent power, which undermined its defensive legitimacy. He noted that the government’s decision has further weakened its own legitimacy, a situation that persists today.
He also pointed out that Israel remains an occupier, attacking Lebanon daily, and questioned whether the country should accept this reality or allow Israel to act freely. He criticized what he described as disguised external tutelage and emphasized that Lebanon still has the power to defend itself through diplomacy, a defense strategy, or other means.
Finally, he argued that Lebanon should approve its own defense strategy, particularly since Hezbollah is no longer in a position to resist. He suggested that rather than adopting an American plan, the government should develop a Lebanese strategy to equip the army with air and ground-defense capabilities, such as Kornet missiles.
Negotiations and Their Objectives
Bassil stated that Israel has stalled the negotiation process and emphasized that the form of negotiations is part of demonstrating the state’s firmness. He explained that he has no problem whether negotiations are direct or indirect, as long as the format supports the substance and upholds a firm stance.
He noted that this is not the first time negotiations have taken place through security or security-civilian committees. When meetings occur in Naqoura, both Lebanese and Israeli sides attend. In maritime border talks, he said, civilians were included despite Hassan Nasrallah’s request otherwise, because the issue is not purely military but also has an economic dimension.
He added that the Lebanese delegation included the Director-General of the Presidential Palace, a representative from the Oil Authority, and relevant specialists, whose presence he described as essential and not taboo.
Bassil recalled that he had spoken about peace in an interview with Al-Mayadeen, which caused an uproar. He noted that during events at St. Michael’s Church and a commemoration marking the FPM-Hezbollah understanding, in front of Hezbollah MPs, he had emphasized that Lebanon’s stance should not copy anyone while still asserting the country’s rights.
He argued that sustainable peace has conditions, questioning whether there is real peace between Egypt and Israel and suggesting that one day Lebanese citizens should be able to pray in Jerusalem.
He stressed that Lebanon must pursue a fair, long-term, and lasting peace, which entails reclaiming land, ending attacks, investing resources, and facilitating the return of Syrian and Palestinian refugees. Bassil also affirmed his support for Lebanon remaining within the Arab system, noting that Saudi Arabia continues to champion the two-state solution, and that Lebanon’s inclusion in this framework would have positive effects.
Risks of Division & Importance of Unity
Bassil expressed concern that Lebanon could be affected by the contagion of division, citing the experiences of Iraq and Syria. He stressed that Lebanese unity is crucial and warned that any alternative solution could drag the country into a draining internal conflict.
He emphasized the importance of avoiding divisive fantasies, noting that the Lebanese spirit of unity is essential and that division strikes at the heart of the nation. He questioned where internal strife could lead, recalling the civil war when communities lived in separate cantons.
Bassil rejected the notion that Lebanese cannot live together, highlighting the need for a unifying approach.
Regarding relations with Saudi Arabia, he observed that there is a new approach from the Kingdom toward Lebanon. He suggested that the country should benefit from these developments, noting that relations are improving and expressing the desire for a state-to-state relationship in which Lebanon is fully engaged.
Diaspora Voting
Bassil expressed concern that the diaspora’s voting rights might be canceled, effectively returning to the pre-2018 situation. He argued that what is happening is not a genuine settlement but rather a maneuver aimed at undermining the Lebanese diaspora and pushing the country backward.
He explained that one political party seeks to strip the diaspora of voting and candidacy rights abroad in order to shift the electoral balance in its favor. He noted that the Shia duo initially opposed diaspora voting but later accepted six MPs. Acknowledging both sides’ intentions, Bassil said he proposed allowing the diaspora to vote either for a deputy in their Lebanese district or for a deputy representing the diaspora.
He added that the law requires a joint decision by the Interior and Foreign Ministries to organize voting abroad, a procedure that was followed in 2022. He recalled that a 2023 joint committee report outlined the allocation of districts and sects globally, demonstrating a mechanism to implement the law.
Bassil criticized the current situation, arguing that the problem lies not with the law but with the government’s refusal to enforce it. He accused the government of violating the law to sabotage elections, emphasizing that an existing legal framework is already in place and should simply be applied.
Internal Political Relations
Regarding relations with political forces, Bassil stated that he has no objection to talking with anyone. He noted that, as for Hezbollah, MPs communicate with each other normally; while they disagree on some issues and agree on others, he expressed that the party wishes Hezbollah well and stands with it against attacks but does not want it to control Lebanese decision-making.
He added that the FPM has no issues with the Kataeb Party and that if anyone wishes to reach an understanding with them, that would be acceptable.
On the party’s popularity, Bassil remarked that, repeatedly, opponents have claimed the FPM was finished. He explained that elections among Christians always have a distinct character and that he did not accept Geagea’s logic in government, which sought to exclude other forces.
He emphasized his support for diversity but rejected fragmentation, noting that they cannot be split while others maintain large blocs.
Regarding his candidacy in Batroun, he indicated that it depends on circumstances, the electoral situation, and its impact. He added that if the party can achieve the same electoral results without his candidacy, he would not run. When asked about rumors of not running, Bassil dismissed them lightly, suggesting that people can “amuse themselves” with such speculation.
Opposition and Government Failures
Regarding relations with the President and the FPM’s role as opposition, Bassil described the party as a constructive and positive opposition. He explained that they gave the government a chance but witnessed repeated failures, stressing that their stance is not about personalities.
While they do not support all of the President’s positions, this does not reflect disrespect for the office; rather, the party aims to help. He noted that, for example, on the weapons file, they try not to worsen the situation, and he argued that it is unfair to place all responsibility on the President.
Bassil added that the FPM alone constitutes the opposition and bears the political cost, while others are in government. He emphasized that being in the cabinet does not automatically make one “one of them.”
He noted that the government did not attempt to implement the measures mentioned in its ministerial statement, prompting the FPM to submit questions. For instance, they raised four questions about education and additional inquiries in sectors such as displacement, forensic auditing, and the Optimum file.
When the government answered only six questions, the party converted the remaining issues into parliamentary inquiries. He further criticized the government for returning 44 ambassadors to Lebanon while leaving others who were not entitled to stay abroad.
On reconstruction, Bassil recalled that they had asked the government for a detailed plan when it requested $250 million. He argued that the government should have outlined priorities and costs to justify assistance from institutions such as the World Bank. He criticized the lack of planning, noting that the government presented maps and costs without providing a comprehensive state plan, stressing that Lebanon is a state, not a shop, and cannot sustain a constant drain of resources.
Regarding Block 8 and maritime delimitation with Cyprus, Bassil recalled sending six letters in 2010 and 2011, warning that delays were due to certain interests. He pointed out that 15 years later, little had been done and argued that it is unfair to criticize the government over 5,000 km².
He described two major problems: first, a company arrived to conduct surveys without state funding, and Total threatened to withdraw from Block 8 if the company bore the cost. The government eventually yielded, granting Total the block under unacceptable conditions that reduced state profit and extended drilling rights from three to six years, effectively mortgaging the block.
Second, Total was given Block 8 without prior assurances regarding Block 9, reflecting a lack of seriousness. Bassil explained that when companies invested in data collection, the Mikati government halted the decrees, deterring companies due to war risks and border disputes. He added that today the issue has been resolved, noting that Lebanon is no longer constrained by a lack of options and that there is no indication that gas is absent.
Finally, he emphasized a tendency among some to submit to external guardianship. In all his proposals for Lebanon, he highlighted gas investment and the existence of viable solutions.
Relations with Syria & Refugee File
Regarding relations with Syria and the return of refugees, Bassil stated that Lebanon seeks stability in Syria. He emphasized that the priority is not detainees or those responsible for killing members of the Lebanese army, but the safe return of displaced populations.
He noted that he had presented a position regarding detained Islamists and argued that those demanding information on detainees should demonstrate their competence.
He stressed that the government must show seriousness on the refugee issue and develop a concrete plan rather than issuing meaningless papers filled with empty promises. He criticized the government for allowing Syrian students to register without documentation, questioning where the advocates for refugees were.
Bassil recalled that the FPM had proposed six laws on the issue and insisted that return should be mandatory. He observed that the U.S. and Germany are repatriating refugees and argued that Syrians should not remain in Lebanon if the government fails to enforce their return. He added that Syria is now entirely safe, noting that the UN itself reports only about 400 returns per week.
On detainees, Bassil explained that some have been convicted of crimes, and their return is warranted given prison overcrowding. Others, convicted in politically charged cases, could be eligible for special pardons. However, he emphasized that armed individuals responsible for killing Lebanese soldiers must not be released.
He argued that the Lebanese state must set clear priorities, with the refugee issue taking precedence, and stressed that Syrians have no excuse to refuse return. He also questioned how parliamentary blocs could remain silent regarding the registration of Syrian students without proper documentation.
Reform Files
On reform files, Bassil stated that the FPM had proposed measures to recover stolen funds, implement capital controls, and track money transferred abroad. He affirmed that 85% of depositors’ issues could be resolved by a state decision using the $40 billion transferred abroad, adding that the state also has assets exceeding $11 billion in Banque du Liban.
Bassil stressed that any suggestion from the banking lobby to sell gold would constitute a crime, though he noted that investing gold is possible if necessary—but responsibility rests with the government.
He argued that solutions exist and that the government must take the initiative by distributing losses fairly to repay depositors, while ensuring that those who benefited from illicit deposits bear responsibility.
He further criticized the government’s lack of concrete plans, observing that although it enjoys global support, it had been embarrassed by the IMF. He concluded that while the FPM maintains a positive stance, it sees no seriousness or clear strategy from the authorities.
Appointments & Political Retaliation
On appointments, Bassil criticized the government for claiming arbitrariness while excelling in violating the law. He noted that at least ten appointments were politically retaliatory and emphasized that the FPM did not reach out to anyone due to political considerations.
He added that these appointments lacked a proper mechanism, arguing that the government’s decisions were driven by political revenge. He stressed that in diplomatic, judicial, and military careers, hierarchical procedures must not be bypassed.
Bassil also highlighted the importance of maintaining balance in the country, noting that those representing Christians must respect their representation and protect administrative rights. He recalled that the FPM has worked to build Christians’ trust in the state and insisted that this should not be undermined by political spite.
He concluded by asserting that the election law must not be amended just months before the vote and confirmed that the FPM would attend the upcoming Tuesday session.