The media department of the Lebanese Forces party issued the following statement:
In these delicate, difficult and tragic circumstances, we had hoped to avoid engaging in political disputes and instead devote ourselves to pulling Lebanon out of the dark tunnel into which Hezbollah has plunged it, amid rampant death, unprecedented displacement, massive destruction, and economic paralysis. But what Sheikh Naim Qassem said in his appearance yesterday cannot be overlooked or brushed aside, because of the many falsehoods it contained, which it is unacceptable to remain silent about after all the wrongs committed by Sheikh Naim’s party against Lebanon and its people. Instead of apologizing to the Lebanese, he is once again clinging to rigid positions and stale approaches that time has passed by, and that bear no relation to either history or geography.
The facts speak for themselves. They are the strongest evidence, beyond interpretation, and need no explanation. It is enough simply to present them in order to show the truth:
First fact: It is enough to compare Lebanon’s financial, economic, tourism, urban and political reality between 1949 (the Armistice Agreement) and 1969 (the Cairo Agreement), with its condition after it was turned into an arena and after Hezbollah inherited that arena, drawing wars upon it from every direction. Before the war, Lebanon was the “Switzerland of the East”; the axis of resistance turned it into a field of death, killing and destruction.
Second fact: The claim that Hezbollah’s power is capable of deterrence and protection has collapsed on the ground. Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and it was the party itself that brought it back in, as a result of the wars it initiated, beginning in July 2006, then October 2023, and up to March 2026.
Third fact: Hezbollah did not stop at its coup against the Constitution through its insistence on retaining illegal weapons; it continued that coup against the presidential oath speech, the ministerial statement, and government decisions on August 5, August 7, and March 2.
Fourth fact: Hezbollah has turned into a foreign body in Lebanon. No major faction, as used to happen in the past, has come out to support its wars and adventures, and it no longer has any ally or friend, despite their previous cover for its coup-like role against the state and the Constitution.
Fifth fact: Hezbollah declared the “support for Gaza” war without referring back to the state or taking into account the Lebanese consensus, then declared the “support for Tehran” war in the same manner.
Sixth fact: Negotiations with Israel were not on the table before the “support for Gaza” and “support for Tehran” wars. Rather, Lebanon had tied its position to the Beirut Peace Initiative of 2002. It was Hezbollah’s futile wars that placed Lebanon at the negotiating table.
Seventh fact: The same party that did not implement the Lebanese Constitution, which stipulates the state’s monopoly over arms, is the same one that did not implement Resolution 1701, which affirms the state’s authority in this matter, and the same one that did not abide by the November 27 agreement, which clearly specifies the party authorized to bear arms.
Eighth fact: The demand to disarm Hezbollah is first and foremost a Lebanese demand, before it is the demand of any external party. Indeed, one of the main criticisms of the international community is that it did not support the implementation of the Taif Agreement when it was issued, thereby allowing these weapons to persist and dragging Lebanon into successive wars.
Ninth fact: Experience has proven the impossibility of building a stable and prosperous state under a duality of authority. Stability cannot be achieved while decisions of war are taken outside legitimate institutions. What we are witnessing today, especially in the south, in terms of destruction and displacement, is nothing but a direct result of this approach.
Tenth fact: Lebanon’s real strength was when the state was the sole authority. It was then a stable and prosperous country, with per capita income on par with advanced nations, and a destination for investment, tourism and media. But Hezbollah turned it into an isolated and faltering state, whose people emigrate instead of opportunities flowing toward it. Lebanon’s strength was never in weapons outside the state, but in the state of law and institutions, as was evident in the 1960s, when the economy was thriving and society enjoyed a high degree of stability.
This strength was something Israel could not wrest from Lebanon, but Hezbollah is the one that undermined it through its wars and the divisions it caused, until Lebanon reached one of its worst economic and social crises, with state institutions in decline and the living conditions of the Lebanese deteriorating in an unprecedented manner.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the forces gathered in “Maarab 3” were not mistaken when they called not only for Hezbollah’s disarmament, but also for holding accountable those responsible for dragging Lebanon into an unprecedented catastrophic path.
