In an interview with Al-Hadath, Head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) MP Gebran Bassil affirmed that the FPM is no longer allied with Hezbollah. According to him, this alliance would have persisted if both parties had taken similar stances on key issues. However, they disagreed on matters such as State-building, national partnership in presidential elections and government formation, and Hezbollah’s support for Gaza under the “unity of fronts,” which has drawn Lebanon into a war that lacks any Lebanese cause or objective. Bassil emphasized that the FPM opposes this unity of fronts because it serves non-Lebanese interests, thereby aligning with external agendas.

Bassil asserted that Israel does not need any pretext to attack Lebanon, having done so even before Hezbollah's existence. He recalled historical events in 1967, 1972, and 1982, when Israel occupied and aggressed Lebanon, stating that Lebanon's defense was justified by the right to self-defense.
He maintained that Hezbollah should not be disarmed yet, as they currently defend Lebanon, but added that disarmament could occur once Israel withdraws to its borders and a State-led defense strategy is established by national consensus. "We must not gift Israel the opportunity to occupy Lebanese soil—that would be treason,” he stated.
“I served as Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs for six years and learned to handle situations with Lebanon’s interests in mind,” Bassil explained. He believes that unity and solidarity are vital during the existential threat facing Lebanon, and now is not the time for internal alignments amid the ongoing war and attempts to occupy the country.
Bassil emphasized the need to defend Lebanon and preserve its sovereignty and independence. Only after securing these goals should internal disagreements over defense strategy be addressed. "We don’t have the luxury now to debate this matter because the risk of internal sedition looms," he added.
Reflecting on Lebanon’s democracy, Bassil highlighted the value of differences, diversity, and various political orientations, stressing the importance of unity in the face of threats to freedom and existence. He recalled how Christians united to elect a President despite opposition from others.
Regarding the possibility of supporting Samir Geagea, leader of the Lebanese Forces, for the presidency, Bassil acknowledged Geagea’s right to pursue the office but stated he could not support Geagea's broader projects, particularly if they conflicted with the interests of all Lebanese. Bassil also emphasized the need for clearer positions from Geagea on Lebanon’s future, warning against the potential division of the country, as seen in Syria and Iraq.
Bassil advocated for expanded administrative decentralization, viewing it as a means of regional development rather than division or federalism. While he sees no inherent problem with federalism, he fears that in Lebanon, it would be approached from an ethnic rather than a geographic perspective. He cautioned that division would threaten not just Lebanon but the entire Arab region, aligning with Israel’s objectives. "Do we want division? Have we forgotten the War of the Mountains and Eastern Saida? Or what Israel has done?" he questioned.
Touching on Lebanon’s economic crisis and the Syrian refugee issue, Bassil expressed the FPM's lack of a presidential candidate but revealed that a list of nominees has been submitted to parliamentary blocs for their input. When asked about Gulf States’ involvement in naming a candidate apart from Army Commander Joseph Aoun, Bassil explained that no specific names were suggested but that some candidates were approved, others rejected, and further names might be reviewed.
Bassil explained his opposition to Army Commander Joseph Aoun’s candidacy for two main reasons: he had formed a prior opinion on Aoun, believing he lacked a project for Lebanon, and feared Aoun’s election could exacerbate internal divisions. “The Army Commander does not unite the Lebanese people. Lebanon is in great danger, and Israel seeks to weaken Lebanese unity,” he stressed.
Reflecting on the economic collapse that followed the October 17 protests, Bassil criticized the failure of the Lebanese Armed Forces to maintain order, which led to road closures, economic instability, and the collapse of the national currency. He argued that some of the economic crisis could have been mitigated if the roads had remained open and measures against money smuggling had been taken.
On the implementation of international resolutions like 1701 and 1559, Bassil supported their application to both Lebanon and Israel, recalling Resolution 242, which calls for the return of occupied territories and the repatriation of Palestinian refugees. He underscored his commitment to just peace in the region, including Lebanon’s restoration of its rights to land, oil, and gas, and the return of displaced Syrians and Palestinian refugees.
Addressing claims that Israel faces an "armed militia" rather than the Lebanese Armed Forces, Bassil called for international support to properly arm the Lebanese Army, in accordance with Resolution 1701. He emphasized that resistance should be temporary and only persist until Lebanon’s rights are fully restored through a State-led defense strategy.
Bassil warned that Lebanon risks becoming a battleground for Iranian-Israeli conflicts, which would involve fighters from various nationalities and destabilize the country. He reiterated that Lebanon should remain a land of freedom, democracy, and prosperity, not one of permanent conflict.
The 1701 Resolution addresses security arrangements in South Litani and mandates Israel to cease its aggression against Lebanon in order to implement international resolutions, including those related to Shebaa Farms. Therefore, the Resolution must be upheld by both parties. This Resolution does not preclude Lebanon from developing its own defense strategy. “My priority is how to defend Lebanon from Israel. Israel does not want Lebanon to exist as it does today; it opposes Lebanon’s diversity and prosperity because these values contradict its own. Why should we need weapons when there are international resolutions and guarantees to liberate the land? For me, what is sacred is Lebanon’s land, sovereignty, and my country, not Hezbollah’s weapons,” Bassil stated.
He pointed out that Netanyahu would take as much from Lebanon as possible and would not stop the war. Bassil recalled warning Hezbollah from the outset that this war was unlike the one in July 2006. He believed that Netanyahu could only be stopped by a balance of power on the ground, which Lebanon currently lacks, though some degree of this balance is maintained by defending the land. Alternatively, a larger geopolitical arrangement could force a compromise, but Bassil noted that the present circumstances, particularly with the impending U.S. elections and transition to a new administration, make such an outcome unlikely.
Bassil emphasized that Lebanon’s state institutions are being dismantled, largely due to the absence of both a President and a functioning government. He believes that Lebanon’s balance of power can be restored when all Lebanese people share authority and decision-making power.
“We need a State represented by a President of the Republic and a National Salvation Government led by the Prime Minister. Both must work together, with the full support of the Lebanese people. A President must be elected before a ceasefire is reached,” he stated, stressing that the Prime Minister represents the primary Sunni political position in the country and must be empowered. Bassil also noted that Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, representing the legislative power, was keen to stop the war and fully understood its dangers. However, Bassil argued that Berri should not bear the burden alone; it must be shared by all.
Bassil opposed reaching a ceasefire before electing a President, asserting that the Shiite political duo had erred in preventing the 2022 presidential election by banking on regional developments that never materialized. “We do not want foreign countries to impose candidates on us. Instead, they should help us, as Lebanese, to reach an agreement with each other, rather than imposing barriers, vetoes, or prioritizing some candidates over others. The only way to protect ourselves is to ensure that Lebanese issues are decided by Lebanese people,” he emphasized.
Regarding Iran’s Foreign Minister's recent statement linking Lebanon’s ceasefire terms to Gaza, Bassil disagreed, stressing that the minister should speak for himself and not for Lebanon.
Bassil firmly rejected turning Lebanon into a battleground for Iranian-Israeli conflict. He pointed out that the Iranian Constitution refers to supporting the Palestinian people or “the oppressed” but not to fighting on their behalf. “The political adviser to the Iranian President, Mohammad Javad Zarif, clearly stated that this is our responsibility. We, as Lebanese, should have understood long ago that if Iran chooses to fight, it’s not our responsibility to liberate Palestine—it’s the responsibility of the Palestinians. They are fighting for their freedom, and we support them in that,” he stated.
Bassil stressed that Iran’s primary concern is its own national security and interests. He urged the Lebanese people to recognize this and to understand that neither Iran nor any other foreign country should interfere with Lebanon’s sovereign and national decisions. If Iran wants to fight Israel, it has its own capabilities and territory from which to do so, without involving Lebanon.
When asked about the possibility of a political deal to elect the Army Commander as president in exchange for lifting sanctions on himself, Bassil confirmed such a deal had been proposed. He stated that if he wanted to accept it, he would have done so, but his decision was based on his freedom of conscience and the interests of both the FPM and Lebanon. Bassil explained that he was sanctioned for refusing to immediately sever ties with Hezbollah, as doing so would have caused significant problems in the country. He claimed that the plan now aims to isolate the Shia community by undermining and targeting them, an outcome he accepted sanctions to prevent.
“My stances are intended to prevent internal strife. Therefore, I won’t accept any offer to lift sanctions, as they were unfair and politically motivated. The Americans only contacted me to sever ties with Hezbollah, and I won’t accept the lifting of sanctions in exchange for any such request,” he explained.
Bassil also asserted that he would not put forward his candidacy for the Presidency under the current circumstances. He clarified that it would only be his duty to do so if it served Lebanon’s interests. If an internal consensus were reached and external conditions favored the country, he would consider it, drawing from his experience with President Michel Aoun.
“Despite my significant disagreements with Hezbollah, it is our duty to confront Israel. This is why I said that disarmament should occur during the battle, not before, and that now is not the time to push for the implementation of the 1559 Resolution. I am talking about Lebanon’s sovereignty and its protection once this battle is over,” he remarked.
Responding to claims that his differences with Hezbollah are only strategic maneuvers to strengthen the Christian position, Bassil dismissed such notions as “wild imagination.” He added that the economic crisis stems from mismanagement and corruption, challenging the world to present evidence of corruption against him, an accusation he believes is used to undermine his patriotism.
“Lebanese institutions are collapsing, and the country is in the midst of a major war. This is not the time for petty political games or fantasies. Now is the time for bold actions to save the country. I call for embracing the agreement reached between Iran and Saudi Arabia as an example of a rational path forward. We should approach the situation positively, ensuring the resilience of our people through economic means. This is how we combat Israel. I oppose violence and extremism. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia presents a model in this regard, and I envision Lebanon and the Levant in such a harmony, where each nation addresses its internal affairs and engages with its surroundings on humanitarian and economic levels,” he concluded.