Member of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, MP Hasan Fadlallah, affirmed that over the past period the bloc made a commitment to itself not to engage in polemics with the President of the Republic. However, what he described as “repeated accusations against our people and the insistence on turning into a political party that entrenches division among the Lebanese” compelled the bloc to clarify its position.
In a statement from the Parliament, MP Fadlallah said that the President of the Republic is supposed to be a symbol of national unity in accordance with the Constitution. He considered that turning Baabda Palace into a partisan platform for political forces known for their orientations “is something that entrenches division.”
He noted that the election of the President of the Republic by the “National Duo”, as he put it, came on the basis of a pledge of honor to preserve the Lebanese people’s right to resistance, to implement the November 27 Agreement, and to compel the Israeli enemy to completely cease hostilities, withdraw from Lebanese territory beyond the international borders, secure the return of the displaced to their villages, release prisoners, and carry out reconstruction.
MP Fadlallah added that the approach to the issue of the resistance’s weapons, according to the agreement he referred to, would be dealt with internally after the enemy’s withdrawal and in light of national understandings. He pointed out that during meetings the President of the Republic used to repeat the phrase “We will not disagree with you.”
He said that the Resistance, as he put it, fulfilled its part by facilitating the mission of the Lebanese Army south of the Litani River, while the authority failed to meet its obligations regarding defending Lebanon and protecting its people. He considered that “our blood continued to be shed and our homes continued to be destroyed for 15 months.”
MP Fadlallah noted that in all meetings with the President of the Republic during this period, he did not hear anything except the demand to “hand over the heavy missiles,” considering that this type of weapon is a source of concern for ‘Israel’. He stressed that “no one will take the rest of the Resistance’s weapons from its hands.”
MP Fadlallah explained that despite direct meetings or meetings through the President’s advisor, and the continued attempts to reach national approaches that would strengthen the logic of the state, enhance its role, stop the aggression and protect the people, the government was taking “unjust, invalid and non-consensual” decisions against the Resistance and its environment.
He accused the presidency of taking negative steps toward the relationship between Lebanon and the Islamic Republic of Iran, starting with the halting of Iranian civilian flights, from which thousands of Lebanese visitors benefit, up to the decision regarding the Iranian ambassador, which he considered an unprecedented precedent in diplomatic practice.
He added that when these decisions were raised, the response was, according to him, that they were taken under pressure and would have no practical or executive effect, considering them an attempt to send positive messages to the American administration.
Regarding the Israeli aggression, Fadlallah said that the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister rushed, following the aggression on March 2, to issue a decision he described as “a crime against the homeland and the South” by criminalizing the act of resistance against the occupation. He considered that the goal was to drag the country into internal confrontation.
He affirmed that the Resistance, in contrast, was keen not to be dragged into this plan and worked to calm the anger of its people and the families of the martyrs, stressing that this people is always present to defend its legitimate rights.
Source: Al-Manar English Website