Attempts to disrupt the Hezbollah-Berri relationship are futile, and “you will hear speeches from everyone around us.”

Representative Ali Fayyad, a member of the “Loyalty to the Resistance” bloc, confirmed that Lebanon is going through a critical and delicate stage that requires a lot of endurance, describing Hezbollah’s policy at the present time as “extremely rational.”

In a television interview on NBN, Fayyad indicated that there are efforts to destabilize the alliance between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, especially the relationship with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, stressing that this bet is “misplaced.”

He explained the party’s full commitment to the ceasefire and adherence to the implementation of Resolution 1701 north of the river, indicating that the vision of the resistance and defense is based on the consideration that this responsibility falls on all Lebanese, and is not limited to the resistance alone.

He added that the current stage requires patience and the ability to listen, saying: “Over the course of three days, you will hear speeches from anyone and everyone,” referring to the volume of political statements circulating.

Regarding internal affairs, Fayyad stressed the importance of holding the elections on their constitutional dates, stressing the party’s readiness for this entitlement, and that its interest lies in holding the elections on time without any postponement.

He called on the Lebanese state not to underestimate the capabilities of the Lebanese people in defending themselves, revealing the resumption of channels of communication with the Presidency of the Republic, and pointing to the positive role played by President Berri in bringing viewpoints closer together.

In the context of the weapons file, Fayyad stressed that “weapons are neither a hobby nor a passing matter,” noting that presenting martyrs on a daily basis is not an entertainment option, and stressing that the party is not a fan of wars and does not seek to cause the death of more young people or keep the country in a constant state of war.

He concluded by emphasizing that it is not possible to accept any direct negotiations with Israel, nor for these negotiations to take on a political or security nature.