Beirut, David Ramal – In a delicate political moment marked by internal calculations, regional pressures, and the repercussions of war, the issue of cross-confessional understandings has returned to the forefront of Lebanese debate, acting as a dynamic force reshaping alliances and stirring public opinion.
In this context, the recent stance of the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Gebran Bassil, has gained significance. It wasn’t a spontaneous reaction to an urgent event requiring a political position, but rather a political declaration reflecting a comprehensive review of a past course and its consequences.
A parliamentary source told “Al-Anbaa” that “Bassil’s words reflect the culmination of an accumulated assessment of the experience of the understanding document (between the Current and Hezbollah, signed in the Church of Mar Mikhail, Shiakh, in February 2006). This document initially aimed to ‘Lebanonize’ Hezbollah’s options and weapons through partnership, state-building, and the defense of Lebanon, ensuring that these choices were integrated into a comprehensive national framework rather than separate paths. Consequently, Bassil pinpointed the moment of collapse when the foundations of this path fell apart, explicitly stating that the collapse of these ‘pillars’ practically eliminated the justification for continuing the understanding.”
The source points out that “the most prominent criticism in Bassil’s position concerns the concepts of ‘unity of arenas’ and ‘support war,’ which he held responsible for the destruction of both the party and Lebanon, and most dangerously, for undermining the deterrent function of the weapon. This assessment doesn’t stem from an immediate political dispute, but from a reading of practical results that have proven that involvement in open conflicts outside the logic of internal fortification led to widespread destruction instead of providing protection, making a repetition of the same scenario today appear as ‘new involvement’ in ruin that could have been avoided.”
The source further states that “the importance of this position lies not only in its content but also in its timing and internal context, as it comes at a time when the general mood, especially among the Christian community, tends to attribute the cost of successive collapses – security, economic, and sovereign – to previous policies. Therefore, Bassil’s decision to distance himself from Hezbollah will not remain within the realm of political elites, but will have clear and very positive popular repercussions among Christian public opinion, which seeks a discourse that restores the logic of the state and sets limits to any security or military adventure outside its institutions.”
The source affirmed that “this shift opens the door to redrawing the political positioning of the Free Patriotic Movement and reshuffles the cards at the level of alliances, especially if translated into practical choices in parliament and government. The coming stage will show whether this position will remain within the framework of political diagnosis or will turn into a firm path reflecting a serious attempt to restore public trust and build a comprehensive sovereign discourse, at a moment when the street is more sensitive to the cost of any option that exposes Lebanon to further isolation or destruction.”
