The president of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Gebran Bassil, emphasized during an interview on LBC’s “Jadal” program with journalist Mario Abboud that “the solution today to prevent the ceasefire from being poorly implemented or disregarded is to achieve an internal understanding on the defense strategy. This should be accompanied by the election of a president of the republic and the formation of a government whose leadership and composition are mutually agreed upon.”
He remarked, “Lebanon has lost the deterrence equation, but what remains clear is that Israel cannot roam freely in Lebanon as it did in 1982. This means there was neither a defeat nor a victory.” He added, “I support strengthening Lebanon, but strength is not solely derived from weapons. It also comes from the economy, diplomacy, and other elements that enable us to build.”
Bassil explained, “Neutralizing Lebanon gives us strength on the international stage, empowering us to defend ourselves. This neutrality must be complemented by equipping our army. Just as the ceasefire included guarantees, it should also come with international guarantees to ensure Lebanon’s neutrality and protect it from Israeli attacks.” He continued, “Neutrality requires an internal decision and international assurances. There is no reason for Hezbollah to oppose this. I am proposing this positively for the benefit of both Lebanon and Hezbollah.”
He further noted, “When Hezbollah extended its actions beyond Lebanon, we voiced our disagreement—and rightfully so. This approach evolved into a ‘unity of arenas,’ but it must shift back to focusing solely on Lebanon. If Lebanon becomes involved in a battle that is not in its favor, it weakens its position. However, this does not mean we abandon our support for the Palestinian cause or our pursuit of a just and comprehensive peace.”
“When Hezbollah’s weapons were confined within Lebanon’s borders, they were effective. However, when used beyond our borders, it became a mistake that exposed us,” he stated. “I can accept such actions if they are aimed at preventing Israeli attacks, but Lebanon weakens itself by engaging on foreign fronts. We must define a Lebanese line of action, stay within it, and support each other to protect it.”
Bassil underscored, “It is not about disarming Hezbollah but ensuring national unity as the ultimate source of protection. After the ceasefire, our call to draw lessons applies not only to Hezbollah but also to those proposing new political equations.” He added, “We want a unified state, even at the expense of the resistance, because Hezbollah is part of the state. Failing to build the state will only lead to further disintegration.”
He warned, “Israel’s military and technological superiority could lead to additional losses for Lebanon. However, Lebanon’s defense strategy has shown its effectiveness. We salute the resistance fighters who defended Lebanon, and we reject the notion that Lebanese Shiites are being displaced like Palestinians.”
Bassil emphasized, “We are back to the pre-July 2006 era. We face a persistent crisis with Israel that requires resolution. If the international community wants to address the issue of weapons, there is a ceasefire agreement in place, but it needs an internal consensus.” He called for Lebanon’s neutralization from conflicts and strengthening of the Lebanese army to confront Israel.
“We are neither defeated nor in the same position as in 2006. A solution must be found,” Bassil stated, stressing the importance of implementing agreements rather than merely signing them. “To believe that the conflict with Israel will end once Hezbollah disarms is a mistake,” he said, questioning, “Why is Lebanon still being prevented from extracting oil and gas?”
He affirmed, “Israel has managed to separate Lebanon from Gaza, isolate Hamas, and shift from a ‘unity of arenas’ strategy to opening a multi-front war. Lebanon, meanwhile, has ensured the return of its citizens to their hometowns.” Bassil called for wisdom in implementing agreements and accelerating state-building to support the resistance. He added, “The U.S. and France can play a role in providing international guarantees, including the restoration of Lebanon’s rights from Israel.”
Bassil stated, “Lebanon must focus on its interests and identity as a space for dialogue and stability. Neutralizing Lebanon provides this protection. The resistance cannot succeed outside the state.” He remarked, “Hezbollah understands that the current path cannot continue. The greatest victory is the embrace of the people.” He concluded, “To Hezbollah, I say this: We stand with you in defending Lebanon, but not in actions that expose and endanger it.”
He warned against “Netanyahu’s logic,” stating it will not bring peace. “We must hold onto our strengths and ensure that the agreement reached is supported by a functioning state that does not abandon its rights. Sovereignty is key to Lebanon’s interests,” he asserted.
Bassil acknowledged that “the war in the region is not over, and Lebanon must not prematurely discard its leverage. Permanent peace is our goal, but it must align with Lebanon’s rights, sovereignty, and the Arab Peace Initiative. Peace without justice and rights will inevitably fail.”
When asked about electing a president in the January 9, 2025 session, Bassil said, “God willing, and this is necessary.” He emphasized the need for a representative president and described the process of reaching a consensus on candidates.
Bassil criticized flaws in the Taif Accord and called for reforms to address governmental paralysis and presidential vacancies. He reiterated his commitment to fostering consensus among Lebanon’s factions, avoiding the exclusion of any major political group.
Bassil explained: “We are able to reach an understanding about a candidate with the opposition and the reformist groups, but I am not in favor of excluding the Shiite duo. Similarly, while we could reach an understanding with the duo and exclude the opposition, I am not in favor of this either. My preference is to gather both teams. If that proves impossible with one of the two sides, it would free us to agree with the other.”
In response to a question, he said, “Communication between President Berri and the head of the Forces Party, Samir Geagea, has not been interrupted. As long as the goal is unity, we support it. However, if the goal is division, we are against it. ‘Whoever wants to work together, may God help him,’ and I look forward to building on this spirit of collaboration.”
On Geagea’s candidacy for the presidency, Bassil remarked: “When he raised the topic, we were not negative. It is his right to bring this up, as he represents a portion of the population. When Geagea supported General Michel Aoun, it was because Aoun had representative legitimacy. We worked to secure the approval of other parties, including the Socialist Party and the Future Movement. Today, Geagea must secure similar backing and strive to be a solution, not a source of trouble.” Bassil added, “If Geagea can change his approach, he may win support from the Shiites. My position on all candidates is based on the principle that I do not want to support a candidate who will fail. But if Geagea can present a proposal that garners wide support from the Lebanese, why not?”
He emphasized: “Anyone who can meet the conditions for consensus will be given a chance. However, with Geagea’s current proposals, I do not see an opportunity for solutions. That said, he has an episode tomorrow (Friday) and may present something new.”
On the candidacy of MP Ibrahim Kanaan for the presidency, Bassil said: “When he proposed his candidacy within our movement, we decided not to nominate me or anyone else from the movement. He insisted on his path, and if our meeting with him had occurred before his referral to the Council of Elders, I would have advised him to leave the movement respectfully. He could have remained in the bloc, and we would not have objected to supporting him, even if we didn’t officially nominate him—just as we do with MP Fred Bustani. However, Kanaan chose his own path.”
Regarding the candidacy of Marada Movement President Suleiman Franjieh, he stated, “I did what was necessary to preserve mutual respect and coexistence. The task now is how to bring everyone together and unify the country. President Berri has the right to stick to his candidate as long as there is no agreement on an alternative, just as we continue to back Jihad Azour if no consensus is reached on someone else.”
On internal issues and the Achrafieh incident on Wednesday, Bassil commented: “This proves that loose weapons lead to such incidents. We want the army to be the sole authority, as we are its children and the children of legitimacy. We rely only on the army and legitimacy.” He also stressed, “We will continue to pursue accountability for criminal audit files, Optimum, and other cases. We will not remain silent because these are crimes against the Lebanese people.”
On events in Syria, Bassil expressed concern about the potential partition of Syria, saying: “This would have severe repercussions for Lebanon. We support the unity of nation-states and are deeply concerned that partition, seen by some as a solution, would be a disaster for Lebanon.”
He added: “It’s alarming how quickly some groups transitioned to a civil discourse, which suggests there is a ‘dome of ducks’—a hidden agenda driven by internal and external forces. In Lebanon, we do not want an Islamic state on our borders.” Bassil elaborated, “Lebanon is not an Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or jurist state. My fear is a return to displacement and a repeat of the mistakes of 2011. I call on all political forces, the army, and public security services to secure our borders to preserve Lebanon’s security and ensure Syrians remain in their homeland.” He added, “When there is firm action, this goal can be achieved.”
He questioned, “Why do European countries have the right to take measures to protect their national security while Lebanon cannot do the same?” He added, “We do not want to return to hearing empty humanitarian slogans in this file!”
Bassil pointed out: “The region is witnessing a decline in Iranian influence. The Americans highlight three main issues with Iran: the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and arms. So far, Iran has chosen not to go to war and appears to seek an agreement. This is in Lebanon’s best interest, provided it comes at no cost to us. We must maintain a good relationship with Iran but refuse to fight its wars on our behalf.”
He stressed: “I have evidence that the sanctions imposed on me were aimed at targeting Hezbollah. Anyone curious about this matter can review my file in the U.S. Treasury.” Regarding Saudi Arabia, he emphasized, “What Saudi Arabia is doing internally and in the region aligns with Lebanon’s interests.”