Hezbollah Slams Lebanon-Israel Framework Agreement as Betrayal of Sovereignty
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, Hezbollah‘s Deputy Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, has issued a statement denouncing the framework agreement reached between Lebanese officials and the Israeli regime, characterizing it as a “shameful and sovereignty-eroding deal.”
In his statement, Sheikh Qassem questioned the honesty and responsibility of Lebanese officials in safeguarding the nation’s sovereignty, asserting that the US “guardian” had failed to grant them this protection. He recalled that an offer of a ceasefire following talks between the US and Iran was rejected, which he claimed enabled Israel to commit “Black Wednesday,” resulting in hundreds of casualties and widespread destruction across Lebanon, including the capital, Beirut.
Hezbollah’s deputy leader emphasized that direct negotiations would only lead to concessions to Israel, designed to compel surrender to its demands and those of the United States. He stated that officials entered these talks in opposition to over half of the Lebanese population and in violation of the constitution, which legally designates Israel as an enemy and mandates judicial prosecution for anyone interacting with it. Qassem argued that by voluntarily relinquishing the power of the resistance and the people, and by declaring resistance illegal in the midst of conflict through a “sinister government decision” on March 2, Lebanese officials had betrayed the resistance. He asserted that these actions serve Israel’s aggressive agenda, dismissing any semantic arguments as futile and declaring the outcome as the true measure.
Qassem referenced an understanding between Iran and the US that prioritized a ceasefire in Lebanon. When Israel reneved on this understanding, Iran suspended the agreement and maintained its stance on blocking the Strait of Hormuz until the US pressured Israel into a ceasefire. He quoted the understanding, which stipulated an “immediate and permanent cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” and pledged to avoid initiating any military action against each other, refrain from the threat or use of force, and guarantee Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. According to Article 3 of this understanding, a final agreement was to be completed within sixty days.
He claimed that Lebanese officials initially refused the understanding until they were enlightened by “wise individuals” who explained its benefits for Lebanon, particularly regarding a ceasefire and Israel’s withdrawal, which was to be exclusively negotiated by Lebanon. He described this as a “gift of honor, dignity, and power” from Iran to Lebanon, its people, and its resistance, guaranteeing Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty through a complete Israeli withdrawal within sixty days. He contrasted this with the framework agreement, accusing officials of abandoning the leverage of the understanding, the strength of the resistance, and the sacrifices of the Lebanese people, thereby granting Israel its desires for free.
Qassem decried the framework agreement as a “gross mistake” and a “great sin” for ceding sovereignty to Israel. He criticized the provision allowing the Lebanese army to operate in two experimental areas under Israeli supervision and monitoring of deployment and disarmament phases, dictated by a tripartite committee adhering to enemy demands. He warned that this experimental period could extend for months, contingent on Israel’s approval of Lebanon’s good conduct, and reiterated Netanyahu’s statement that Israel would remain in the security zone until Hezbollah was disarmed.
He accused Lebanese officials of legitimizing occupation for years to come, potentially leading to annexation by the Israeli regime, and depriving Lebanese citizens of their right to return to their land. Qassem questioned Israel’s interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs and insisted that any agreement should be confined to the area south of the Litani River, with no Israeli involvement in Lebanon’s internal matters regarding arms, security, or the nation’s future. He deemed the linkage of Israel’s withdrawal to the disarmament of the resistance across Lebanon as an extremely dangerous proposition that crosses all red lines and turns Lebanon into a pawn for the Israeli enemy.
Qassem warned that under the pretext of Lebanon’s commitment to disarmament for Israeli withdrawal, any weapon anywhere in Lebanon would be interpreted as a sign of non-compliance. He questioned the feasibility of such a scenario when weapons are not fully dismantled and stated that no one has the right to deprive Lebanese people of their right to defend themselves and their land against the occupier and murderer. He asserted that the enemy must withdraw as the aggressor and occupier, and any deviation would reward Israel after its project’s failure and disregard Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Hezbollah declared the framework agreement in Washington as “humiliating, shameful, and a squandering of sovereignty,” deeming it void and calling for the implementation of the Iran-US understanding. The group vowed to employ all necessary tools and exert international and Arab pressure to ensure Israel’s adherence to the first clause of the understanding and its withdrawal from Lebanon. Qassem urged Lebanese officials to acknowledge their mistake, stating it would be a virtue that would be recorded in their favor. He expressed readiness to cooperate for Lebanon’s sovereignty, liberation of its land, expulsion of the Israeli occupier, return of prisoners, repatriation of displaced persons, reconstruction, and the achievement of a national security strategy.
He concluded by stating that the ceasefire was made possible by the immense sacrifices of the resistance fighters, their families, and the Lebanese people. Hezbollah pledged to protect the legacy of martyrs, the wounded, prisoners, and the sacrifices of the nation, its army, and all organizations and institutions that have sustained losses. He affirmed that as a resistance force, they would continue to work on the ground to bring the occupiers to their knees, stating that they would not abandon the field under any circumstances, as it represents the path of goodness and salvation.
