The head of the Marada Movement in Lebanon, Suleiman Frangieh, affirmed that the Resistance is a result of occupation, and what is happening today in the South — the “yellow line” and other matters — gives it full legitimacy to continue. Frangieh added during an interview with Al-Mayadeen channel that “incitement against the Resistance comes with an Israeli background,” adding that “history will speak of the patriotism of the Shiites who have offered sacrifices and martyrs.”
On field developments, Frangieh pointed out that the prevailing belief among the majority of Lebanese is that “Israel” would have advanced toward the Litani River regardless of rockets being fired at it, and this is Netanyahu’s plan, which he repeatedly shows on the map. Frangieh stressed that the Resistance in Lebanon “has proven that it stood firm and held its ground, and ‘Israel’ was unable to enter Bint Jbeil and Khiam, so ‘the rules of the game have changed.’”
He added that “the Shiites are partners, patriots, and fundamental to this country, and they shed blood daily for it, and we must benefit from the achievements being made today in the South,” addressing them by saying: “You are defending my children and their future and the future of the children of this country.”
He continued: “No one can bear this amount of oppression, and despite the number of martyrs, the pain, the suffering, and amid the spread of an atmosphere rejecting them, the patriotism of the people of the Resistance is striking,” stressing “the need to respect their achievements and benefit from them.”
To those who say “the Americans betrayed us,” Frangieh asked: “Does the American even see you?” adding that “we must take decisions befitting our people and our future,” stressing that the United States acts pragmatically according to its interests, citing the experiences of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Syria, where “it abandons its allies when interests change,” warning against relying on its guarantees.
Frangieh criticized Lebanon’s official reliance on the United States, noting that it is “Israel’s” primary ally, adding: “We go to a negotiator we know wants the other party’s interest, not ours,” affirming that “Washington always works for its own interest.” Frangieh saw that U.S. President Donald Trump is clear in his support for “Israel,” and had “ignited a war in the region for the sake of the Israeli occupation’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
In this context, Frangieh said he does not see where the wisdom lies in relying on “Israel’s” primary ally in Lebanon, which cannot be an “honest broker,” asking: “Why the rush for direct negotiations when we can continue with indirect negotiations?” Frangieh affirmed that Washington’s habit is to sell others out, saying: “Don’t say ‘if the American sells us out,’ but you should say ‘when he sells us out,’ and that is a big difference.”
Frangieh said that the objection to linking the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to a ceasefire in Lebanon was a card in the American’s hand to say “the Lebanese do not want this linkage, so why are you proposing it?” Regarding the ongoing negotiations between official Lebanon and the occupation, Frangieh said no one can “reject peace in principle,” but the problem lies in “the nature of this peace and its conditions,” asking: “What peace are we talking about?”
Frangieh stressed that the fundamental problem at the current stage is the rush to go into direct negotiations, considering this step lacks national consensus. He said: “Direct negotiations are a major risk that requires national consensus, national dialogue, and national solidarity.” He pointed out that more than half of the Lebanese people are not satisfied with this path, noting clear rejection from the Shiite community and Druze solidarity with it, while the Sunni community’s position remains undecided but tends toward not supporting these negotiations. He added: “I do not want to say that half of the Christians are not satisfied with direct negotiations and I consider it a major risk.”
Addressing the President of the Republic, he said: “I love him and he knows that, but the problem is the rush,” calling on him “not to rush into taking a step that everyone will disavow.” Frangieh saw that direct negotiations need comprehensive national cover, dialogue, and internal solidarity, warning that continuing on this path without consensus could lead to “catastrophe.”
In a related context, he warned that the current pressures place Lebanon before two dangerous options: either war with “Israel” or internal strife, questioning the benefit of this path, noting that the Lebanese rush in seeking peace has not been met with similar urgency from the American and Israeli sides.
Regarding the previous presidential entitlement, Frangieh said: “They told us, ‘elect a president and aid will come,’ but they gave us nothing,” adding: “Today they say, ‘strike the Resistance and aid will come,’ and I say we will fall out with the Resistance and Lebanon will be destroyed and nothing will reach us.”
Frangieh recalled a historical experience, saying that in the time of Bashir Gemayel, when “Israel” was in Beirut and the United States was present with its naval forces, they were unable to impose this kind of “peace,” which reflects the difficulty of achieving it today.
He affirmed that “no one can be sovereign and Zionist at the same time, as Zionism does not recognize Lebanon’s existence to begin with,” placing blame on the state because in two years it did not meet and conduct a serious national dialogue to “fortify our internal unity,” saying that “the project we are going to now leads to internal strife and it is to satisfy the Israeli and the American.”
He added that “Israel” does not want good for Lebanon, and it “considers Lebanon a competitor to it,” therefore it “does not want this country to rise.” Frangieh called for an inclusive internal dialogue, saying: “This is our state and these are our people, so let us sit together and take positions befitting Lebanon’s future,” warning that insistence on the current negotiation path is now based on “stubbornness.”
He pointed out that political balances shift with the change in the balance of power on the ground, stressing that the priority must be “preventing internal strife,” considering that “the currently proposed project could lead to dangerous internal division.”
He affirmed that “whoever wants to confine the Resistance’s weapons must answer: will he strike it or reassure it?” stressing “the need to reassure the Resistance and secure protection for Lebanese citizens.”
Frangieh stressed that “the steadfastness of the Iranian people and their unity are what make Iran victorious,” adding that “the security of the Gulf states lies in good relations between them and Iran, and these countries are not in enmity with Iran.” Frangieh said that “there is an atmosphere marketed to create an enemy, which is Iran, but neither is the Gulf an enemy of Iran nor is Iran an enemy of the Gulf,” and that “the American bases are what caused the danger,” adding: “We want the region to go toward a settlement, but we must be part of it.”
To the resistance fighters, Frangieh said: “I, the Maronite Christian Lebanese, take pride in them, and if history is fair, it will write about their sacrifices and that they are defending the future of our children and the future of this country.”
Source: Al-Manar English Website