Jumblatt puts the state in front of its responsibility: Negotiating, yes… but not at the expense of the South

The head of the Progressive Socialist Party, Representative Taymour Jumblatt, confirmed in a post on the “X” platform that the framework agreement clearly shows that it does not achieve a real and sustainable ceasefire, considering that it is a biased agreement that did not obligate Israel to stop its attacks and end its presence in Lebanese territory, nor does it require it to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Jumblatt believed that Israel was being strengthened by this agreement to evade its responsibility for everything it had committed, stressing that the Lebanese state, even if it was required to undertake negotiations on behalf of Lebanon alone, was in return required to manage this path well and benefit from all previous experiences.

He stressed that what is required is to seek an agreement that achieves immediate Israeli withdrawal, guarantees the return of all the people of the south to their towns and villages, and preserves Lebanon’s full rights in accordance with the Armistice Agreement, the Taif Agreement, and all international resolutions.

Jumblatt stressed the need for this to coincide with supporting the Lebanese army and providing it with all the required supplies, enabling it to extend state authority over its entire territory.

Jumblatt’s position comes in light of the escalation of the internal debate about the framework agreement, and whether it is able to stabilize the ceasefire and open the way for Israel’s withdrawal from the south, or whether it gives Israel additional room to maneuver and link the withdrawal to field and political conditions.

In the background of this position are the growing fears of the continuation of Israeli attacks, and of the failure to provide adequate guarantees for the return of displaced people to southern villages, especially in areas that suffered significant damage during the confrontations.

Jumblatt’s words also reflect his adherence to the role of the Lebanese state as the sole reference in negotiations, but with an emphasis that negotiation is not sufficient in itself if it is not based on protecting sovereignty, ensuring withdrawal, consolidating Lebanon’s rights, and fortifying the army as the institution concerned with extending state authority over the entire Lebanese territory.