Bassil to Al Jazeera: The Framework Agreement Is Unbalanced and Does Not Guarantee an End to Israeli Attacks or a Withdrawal… Al-Sharaa’s Position of Non-Interference in Lebanon Is Positive and Encouraging

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Free Patriotic Movement President and MP Gebran Bassil said that the Movement’s position on the proposed framework agreement is based on Lebanon’s national interest. "For this reason, we support negotiations with Israel, whether direct or indirect, because they are an alternative to war," he said.

He added: "What we want is to end the war. Therefore, we support ending the occupation while, at the same time, ensuring that the Lebanese state has the exclusive authority over national decision-making and the use of force on Lebanese territory. The Lebanese position should not align itself with either Iran or Israel, but should instead stand firmly with Lebanon’s national interest."

Bassil noted that “the current polarization between two camps in Lebanon should not create ambiguity for those who stand by the Lebanese national position. Therefore, we have no objection to the principle of negotiations. If such negotiations lead to ending the war, securing Israel’s withdrawal, ensuring the return of displaced and exiled Lebanese, rebuilding the country, ending Israeli attacks, and securing all of Lebanon’s rights ultimately leading to a just and genuine peace between Lebanon and Israel then we support that course.” He stressed: “We are not in favor of a surrender agreement; we are in favor of a peace agreement.”

Bassil continued: “Today there are two tracks. The first is the U.S.-Iran negotiations, which include Lebanon in terms of ending hostilities and attacks against it, leading to withdrawal. The second is the Lebanese Israeli track. In both cases, the United States is involved, so we do not have to choose between them. We support whichever track secures Lebanon’s rights, ends the occupation, and restores the state’s exclusive authority over decision-making and the use of force.”
He added: “We support certain provisions of the framework agreement that express the intention of extending the state’s full authority over its territory, ending the conflict, and achieving lasting stability and peace.”

He explained: “However, we have major objections to its implementation clauses. The key point is that the U.S.-Iran negotiations have resulted in a ceasefire agreement, and this should not be ignored but rather taken into account. No one should negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf. Lebanon must negotiate for itself in the bilateral track with Israel. We should build on the ceasefire achieved through the U.S.-Iran negotiations in order to secure greater gains for Lebanon.”

Bassil stressed that “our objection is that the agreement imposes numerous obligations on Lebanon while placing no corresponding obligations on Israel. Israel is bound only by declarations of intent,” he said.
“Lebanon would be signing an agreement with Israel, which is itself a party to the agreement. Therefore, Israel cannot act as both a party and the arbiter by deciding whether Lebanon has fulfilled its obligations and then determining whether or not to withdraw or redeploy.”

He also pointed out that “the reference to a possible redeployment comes without any U.S. guarantees or a clear timetable for withdrawal. Moreover, the agreement ignores fundamental issues between Lebanon and Israel, including the question of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and natural resources such as water, oil, and gas.”

Bassil said that “both sides may regard this framework as a basis for a future comprehensive agreement. However, this must not allow the Israeli prime minister, immediately after signing it, to claim that he has received authorization from the Lebanese state to remain in Lebanon and to carry out military operations whenever Israel considers there to be an attack, a threat of attack, or even the possibility of a threat to its security.”

He emphasized that “this framework agreement is unbalanced and does not guarantee Lebanon’s sovereign right to end Israeli attacks on its territory. Consequently, it contains serious flaws both in form and substance.”
Asked whether the agreement effectively legitimizes Israel’s continued occupation of the so-called “Yellow Zone” until Hezbollah is disarmed with the approval of the Lebanese state, Bassil replied:

“This is clearly stated in the text, and it is the agreement’s fundamental flaw. Israel seeks to drive a wedge between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah. It stipulates that the Lebanese Army should carry out this mission, effectively placing the army not only between Israel and Hezbollah but also in the position of carrying out that task on Israel’s behalf by disarming Hezbollah. It is well known where such a scenario would lead in Lebanon—namely, to internal conflict within the army and confrontation with Hezbollah.”

He stressed that “Hezbollah must not be allowed to use this as a justification for refusing to accept the principle of handing over its weapons to the Lebanese Army and the state.”

Bassil also argued that “before entering negotiations, the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister should have been equipped with a Lebanese strategy paper approved by the Cabinet, consistent with the presidential oath and the ministerial statement on the basis of which the government won Parliament’s confidence.”

He explained that “this Lebanese paper, which should constitute a national security strategy, ought to have addressed the issue of disarmament, in whole or in part, within a unified Lebanese position clearly outlining Lebanon’s demands and what it should obtain in return for security guarantees.”

He added: “The protection that Hezbollah and its weapons once provided to Lebanon no longer exists. The question now is: what is the alternative? International guarantees, including UN and diplomatic guarantees, must be included in the strategy paper. Only then would Hezbollah be compelled to recognize that there is now an alternative to the protection it once claimed to provide, as well as to the international pressure currently being exerted on Lebanon.”
Regarding the visit of Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shibani to Lebanon, which did not include a meeting with him, Bassil said:

“It is understandable that there was no meeting with us, as we were not among those who celebrated President Ahmad Al-Sharaa’s assumption of office. Nevertheless, our position is that we seek the best possible relations with Syria. The stance expressed by President Ahmad Al-Sharaa and his foreign minister toward Lebanon is positive and encouraging.”

He added: “What matters is not whether they meet with us, but that they engage with the Lebanese state on the basis of good neighborly relations and privileged relations founded on mutual respect for the sovereignty and independence of both countries and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.”

Bassil concluded by emphasizing that “President Al-Sharaa’s position of non-interference in Lebanon’s war is positive. We appreciate it and encourage the Syrian authorities to continue adhering to it. However, economic cooperation, border control, and all related issues must remain matters to be addressed between the Lebanese and Syrian states not between the Syrian state and Lebanese political parties.”