Resistance Liberates Land: Why Did Lebanese Components Reject “Framework Agreement” with Israeli Enemy?
The “Framework Agreement” was not merely a signing between the Lebanese authority and the Zionist enemy, but an American deal passed at the expense of sovereignty. While the authority welcomed what it considered a “new page,” wide-ranging Lebanese components rejected the agreement, affirming that the resistance alone—not diplomatic statements—liberates the land.
A Nonexistent Agreement
At the forefront of the Lebanese components’ positions, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem considered the framework agreement a humiliation, a disgrace, and a concession of sovereignty.
He said in a statement: “This agreement is nonexistent, and the provisions of the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding must be applied.”
He added: “We will pursue all necessary means and international and Arab pressures to compel the Israeli enemy to comply with Article 1 of the memorandum and withdraw from Lebanon.”
Addressing the authority, he said: “We say to the Lebanese authority: It is time for you to retreat from your transgressions that are destroying Lebanon. This is a virtue that would be recorded in your favor after the sins. We are ready to cooperate and stand together for Lebanon’s sovereignty, the liberation of its land, the expulsion of the Israeli occupier, the return of prisoners, the return of residents, reconstruction, building the country, and reaching an understanding on a national security strategy.”
The Hezbollah Secretary-General affirmed that “the ceasefire would not have been achieved without the great sacrifices of the resistance fighters, their families, and the Lebanese people.”
He continued: “We will preserve the trust of the martyrs, the wounded, the prisoners, the sacrifices of the people of the land, the Lebanese army, and all the bodies and entities that have offered martyrs and wounded. We will continue as a resistance on the ground to defeat the occupation. We did not abandon the field in the most difficult circumstances, and we will not abandon it, for this is the good and the salvation.”
He questioned: “Where is the Lebanese authority’s trust and responsibility towards its people and the protection of Lebanon’s sovereignty? The American guardian did not give it a ceasefire, and when it came from the Pakistan talks between America and Iran in April 2026, it rejected it, which led the Israeli enemy to commit the Black Wednesday crime, in which it killed and wounded hundreds, terrorized people, and caused destruction with a hundred airstrikes across Lebanon, starting from the capital Beirut?”
Sovereignty Risks
Meanwhile, the Amal Movement considered the so-called “Framework Agreement” unbalanced, entrenching in most of its provisions facts that serve the enemy at the expense of the national interest, involving political and sovereignty risks, and unacceptable.
In a statement from its political bureau, the Movement affirmed that this agreement “does not constitute a basis for a just agreement that preserves Lebanon’s rights, protects its sovereignty, and safeguards its institutions.”
It said: “The political bureau of the Amal Movement, after reviewing the content of the agreement signed between the Israeli enemy and Lebanon, and while reaffirming the Movement’s rejection of direct negotiations with the enemy and its adherence to international legitimacy resolutions, sees that this agreement is unbalanced, entrenches in most of its provisions facts that serve the enemy at the expense of the national interest, involves political and sovereignty risks, and cannot be accepted because it does not constitute a basis for a just agreement that preserves Lebanon’s rights and protects its sovereignty and institutions.”
The Movement renewed its affirmation of its constants, namely: “obligating the Israeli enemy to a complete and comprehensive withdrawal from all Lebanese territories it has occupied up to the internationally recognized borders, the deployment of the Lebanese army, and the exercise of its full authority and role, to strengthen state authority and its reference.”
The Amal Movement held that “any agreement that does not proceed from these constants and does not ensure their full achievement remains a rejected agreement that does not achieve sovereignty, security, or stability.”
It called on all Lebanese to “the highest levels of awareness and national unity, and not to be dragged into what the enemy wants of internal strife projects, because Lebanese unity remains the impregnable dam against any dangers threatening the homeland.”
Falsification of Facts and Concepts
Meanwhile, the head of the Loyalty to Resistance Bloc in the Lebanese Parliament, Mohammed Raad, stated that the text of the statement issued by the so-called “Tripartite Framework” reflected the Lebanese authority’s complete submission to the logic of American guardianship, and its complicity with the Zionist enemy against its authentic people who cling to their land, reject Israeli occupation, sacrifice, stand firm, and refuse submission and surrender.
Deputy Raad said in a press statement: “It appears from the text of the statement issued by the tripartite framework—as it named itself in Washington, which includes America, Israel, and Lebanon—that it relied on falsifying facts and concepts, especially regarding the legitimate resistance, its right, and its national role, and regarding who represents the actual and legal threat to Lebanese sovereignty. The text of the statement deliberately inverted realities, and adopted and committed forbidden acts and abominations with prior intent and determination.”
He considered the stance of the Lebanese authority, as expressed in the statement, as one that transcends shame and disgrace to squandering Lebanon’s sovereignty, the rights and interests of the Lebanese, their dignities, and their hopes, and to belittling them, deceiving them, and falsifying their free and honorable national will.
He continued: “The core and essence of this framework agreement lies in its malicious satanic role, intended to cover the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and to provide a murky way out through which the signatories of the statement imagine that it allows America to renege on its explicit commitment with Iran regarding its responsibility to pressure Israel to withdraw definitively from Lebanon and respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The preamble of this framework statement came to declare that Lebanon, under American sponsorship, agreed to what Israel set as conditions for withdrawal, and together they pledged to disarm the resistance as a prelude to Israeli redeployment, not full withdrawal.”
Retraction of Constitutional Violations
In this context, the Hezbollah Lawyers’ Association warned the Lebanese authorities against a serious and unprecedented constitutional violation, calling on them to cease direct negotiations with the Israeli enemy and immediately withdraw from the unconstitutional agreement concluded with it under American support.
The Association called in a statement on the Lebanese authorities to review all unconstitutional and non-charter-compliant decisions issued in this regard, under the penalty of responsibility for violating the constitution and high treason.
It stated that the current Lebanese authority has chosen to move forward with violating the constitution, breaching the national charter, contravening the law, and undermining the values of coexistence.
It noted that the state of hostility with the Zionist entity is firmly established and deeply rooted in the Lebanese legal system, from paragraph (b) of the preamble to the constitution, to the Taif Agreement, which adheres to the Armistice Agreement, and down to the legal framework that criminalizes communication with the Israeli enemy.
It affirmed that the right to resistance is a natural human right guaranteed by international charters and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as by the Taif Agreement and the Lebanese constitution.
The Cowardly Authority
Meanwhile, the Lebanese Resistance Current affirmed that “the cowardly authority and the cowardice of the authority are what forced the people to bear arms in the past, when they expelled the Zionist enemy from Beirut, leading to liberation, and overthrew the regime that drew strength from the enemy.”
The Current said in a statement: “Today we live under the same circumstances, facts, and Zionist dictates, and we also witness today the presence of the national stance from all components of the homeland, the presence of the resistance and the arms of the mujahideen, all in one position, one trench, and one oath, that the conspiracy that was and is being woven under an American umbrella will not pass and will not be given life, and that every grain of soil in the south is more precious than the soil of the earth and the entire world and your authority.”
It added: “On this day, when the enemy and the authority celebrate the Lebanese state and government’s relinquishment of a part of the land and people to the enemy, we call on the national ministers to withdraw from the government and all positions in the state, leading to change, and to produce a new national authority that nullifies the unfair power-sharing, based on competence, far from sectarian alignment, and fair to the homeland and the people.”
Clear Strife
For its part, the Beirut Scholars’ Association warned of the dangers of the alleged agreement with the enemy in Washington.
In a statement, the Association said: “What the current authority in Lebanon has done by concluding an agreement with the ‘Israeli’ enemy is a complete cancellation of the national partnership with a fundamental component of the country, a legitimization of more killing, destruction, and displacement, and an abandonment of the responsibility that the current authority claims it bears for securing security and protection—which have never been more than meaningless slogans.”
It added: “We, in the Beirut Scholars’ Association, warn of the seriousness of this sin—the clear strife—at the expense of Lebanon’s interests, and even of offering more free gifts to the enemy, which considered it a great achievement for itself, and a blow to Iran, which is trying to impose our withdrawal by force from southern Lebanon!” It asked: “Is this not clear complicity?”
The Association stated that “an authority that abandoned its duty to defend the land and the people, and squandered sovereignty, jumped over the law and the constitution, dishonored the blood of the martyrs, and belittled the bitter sacrifices made by the people of the resistance, who are the people of the land who have endured the brutality of the enemy for decades.”
It said: “An authority that practiced humiliation went without authorization to negotiate directly with the enemy, ending the state of hostility with it, and deliberately antagonized its own people, creating a large rift and a sharp political division, monopolizing a fateful decision, heedless of the repercussions of this choice, and refused—with claimed excess sovereignty—a ‘full withdrawal’ from the south, which had been imposed by the Swiss outcomes of the Iran-US memorandum of understanding, which it worked shamelessly to circumvent, aiming to isolate Lebanon and remove it from the regional umbrella to enable it and its allies to single out the resistance.”
Our Destiny Is to Remain Revolutionaries
Meanwhile, member of the Loyalty to Resistance Bloc in the Lebanese Parliament, Deputy Hassan Fadlallah, said: “Our destiny as a community and environment is to remain revolutionaries and resistors against occupation and injustice, for this is our history full of sacrifices for the sake of living with dignity, honor, and freedom. We were forced to bear arms in defense of our existence and the liberation of our land, because we did not have a state that assumed its responsibilities or fulfilled its duties. Sometimes it was even on the side of the occupation, as happened in 1982.”
He added: “Today, we do not have a state in the true sense that reassures and protects its people. Rather, there are individuals in authority who have prioritized their external loyalties over the interests of their people, and signed a surrender document that overrides the concept of a state with national sovereignty. The authority had no problem selling the south and its people, and absolving the occupation of the crimes it has committed and will commit in the future. It is an authority that undermined the foundations of the state when it turned its back on the constitution, the national charter, and violated the laws, practicing political hypocrisy, lying, and falsifying facts and minutes. It thinks that with American support, it can strike national balances, obliterate an entire sect, manipulate the fate of the south, offer it as a free gift to ‘Netanyahu,’ and grant him legitimacy to shed our blood, occupy our land, and promised him the disarmament of our weapons.”
He said: “This is like Satan’s dream of paradise, because these people can only sign what is dictated to them by the enemy. If ‘Netanyahu’ had wanted to write this agreement, he could not have written it in a better form than what those in authority wrote with the American side. In return, this authority obtained only Israeli praise and applause from the normalization advocates.”
According to Al-Manar TV’s website on Sunday, Deputy Fadlallah’s remarks came during the commemorative ceremony organized by Hezbollah for the martyr Al-Sa’id Ali Reda Haider Faqih at the Sayyeda Zahra Hall in Ain al-Dilbah in Beirut’s southern suburbs, attended by a number of scholars, figures, personalities, families of martyrs, and a gathering of residents.
Deputy Fadlallah considered that, in the face of crimes against patriotism committed by the authority, it is confirmed today more than ever before that “our weapons are what protect us, liberate our land, and defend our existence. What the authority has done will be an additional incentive for us to possess all means of strength. Those who do not have weapons will buy them. Indeed, generations of youth today are seeking to train with weapons to defend their people’s rights and existence, because as a result of what they see from the occupation and the practices of the authority, they have lost hope in the possibility of building a state capable of protecting its people.”
He believed that what the authority has done is “strife aimed at pushing the country into chaos and shifting the conflict from being with the enemy to an internal conflict—and this is the ugliest function of a ruling authority. We will remain the most protective of our country and our national army. Those in authority are merely individuals whose mandate has expired and will leave. But the resistance, its weapons, and its men remain to liberate the land and protect the people.”