October 12, 2026
The head of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Gebran Bassil, renewed his categorical rejection of Lebanon’s involvement in disputes related to foreign conflicts, stressing that his party’s alliance with Hezbollah is subject to the criterion of national interest alone.
In an interview with Radio Monte Carlo International, Bassil clarified the nature of the relationship with the party by saying: “When they do something in which we see a Lebanese interest, we support it, and when they do something that Lebanon has no interest in but rather implements another agenda on its territory, we do not support it,” stressing that Lebanon has no interest in fighting “others’ wars” due to its disastrous repercussions on the economy, sovereignty, and various components of the Lebanese people, stressing that other countries must exchange support with Lebanon instead of the opposite.
Regarding the nuclear and border issue, Bassil announced that his movement does not reject the principle of negotiation at all, pointing to the pursuit of peace, but according to its conditions. On the other hand, he expressed a decisive rejection of the contents of the framework agreement in its current form, considering that it detracts from Lebanon’s rights and sovereignty, and deprives it of its right to sue Israel before international law, in addition to being devoid of any timetable for Israeli withdrawal or clear obligations, and Tel Aviv grants it the right to carry out security operations inside Lebanese territory under the pretext of the presence of dangers.
Regarding internal and defense matters, Bassil affirmed his absolute support for the exclusivity of weapons in the hands of the state, considering that establishing security is a sovereign responsibility that may not be waived or scheduled under external coercions. He stated in this context that the February 6 agreement concluded with Hezbollah explicitly stipulated the adoption of a “defensive, not offensive policy,” stressing by saying: “When the party violated this agreement with regard to Israel, we disagreed with it.”
Bassil touched on previous presidential milestones, considering that the arrival of former President Michel Aoun to the presidency was the result of “his populism and full legitimacy as he was the most favored of popular support,” pointing out that this entitlement was delayed due to arrogance and failure to acknowledge this reality.
In conclusion, Bassil stressed his categorical rejection of any internal party being alone in deciding the war outside the framework of the national understanding and constitutional concepts, or undertaking negotiations in the name of the state without an official authorization, stressing that the dispute over this sovereign principle extends to “Hezbollah” and to any other party linked to foreign policies and foreign agendas.
