In a high-profile political stance, the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, Muhammad Raad, launched a direct attack on the ongoing negotiation process between Lebanon and Israel, considering that the Lebanese authority “practically adopted Israel’s narrative against the resistance,” and that it is on a “dangerous downward path” based on bartering national sovereignty with the implementation of the “weapon exclusivity” project in exchange for American satisfaction and Western support.
Raad saw that what is happening in the political and negotiating scenes is no longer limited to discussing a ceasefire or stabilizing the south, but has gone beyond that to an attempt to impose internal political realities entitled ending the resistance and disarming it, considering that the Lebanese authority is dealing with this option as a “rescue path” for the country, even if it comes “at the expense of sovereignty and national dignity.”
He pointed out that the resistance is based on a completely different logic, which is based on rejecting the Israeli occupation of any part of Lebanese territory, and emphasizing that Lebanon is still in a state of hostility with Israel since the 1949 armistice, and that previous experiences have proven, as he put it, that “the resistance alone” succeeded in imposing Israeli withdrawal, while international pressures and mediations failed to restore Lebanese rights.
He considered that any submission to Israeli conditions would lead to more “invasion,” pressure, and attacks, pointing out that Israel only backs down when it faces “stubborn and prolonged resistance,” while any weakness or internal settlements encourages it to persist and impose its political and security conditions.
Speaking about the ceasefire agreement announced on November 27, 2024, Raad confirmed that the resistance fully adhered to the agreement, and handed over to the Lebanese state the responsibility of following up on the implementation of its provisions, whether in terms of stopping the Israeli attacks, recovering the prisoners, returning the people to their villages, or launching the reconstruction workshop.
However, he considered that Israel took advantage of the authority’s decision regarding the implementation of “arms exclusivity” to expand its pressures and conditions on the Lebanese state, saying that things had entered a “downward path” since then, leading to the recent direct negotiation, which he described as taking place “without a charter or constitutional mandate.”
Raad warned that the country was facing a “dangerous crossroads” that could lead to “major disasters,” holding the authority responsible for what might result from this path, and considering that “strengthening the authority by occupying to disarm the resistance” constitutes “a terrible crime against the nation and the citizens.”
He also stressed that the resistance considers itself in a position to defend Lebanon, its sovereignty and its existence, stressing that it continues to bear “blood, wounds and displacement” in defense of the country, and indicating that any external support for the resistance, whether Iranian, Arab or foreign, does not take precedence over the interests of Lebanon and its people.
Raad’s position comes at a very sensitive political and security moment, with the escalation of internal debate over the future of Hezbollah’s weapons, and the continuing international and regional pressure on Lebanon after the recent war and the understandings related to the ceasefire. It also coincides with increasing discussions within Lebanese political circles about the nature of indirect negotiations with Israel, and the role of the United States in managing this path, amid a sharp internal division between those who consider that the priority is to stabilize stability and prevent collapse, and those who believe that any concession in the arms or sovereignty file will lead to a radical change in Lebanon’s position and its political and security equations.
In recent months, conflicting positions have escalated between Lebanese political forces regarding the concept of “weapon exclusivity,” especially after the expansion of confrontations on the southern front and the continuation of Israeli attacks despite the declaration of a ceasefire. This was accompanied by increasing American and Western pressure pushing towards strengthening the Lebanese state’s security and military role, in exchange for Hezbollah’s adherence to the option of resistance as it is, according to its literature, the basic guarantee to deter Israel and prevent the imposition of its conditions on Lebanon.
