Speech by MP Gebran Bassil Following the Meeting of the Political Body on Tuesday, October 12, 2024
I. Basic Principles
Today’s speech serves a single purpose: to demonstrate how the 1701 International Resolution and Lebanon’s defense strategy are aligned and complementary. The 1701 Resolution involves Lebanon, Israel, and the international community on a global scale, while the defense strategy concerns the Lebanese people on a domestic level. Thus, ending the war requires the implementation of the 1701 Resolution, beginning with a cessation of hostilities, followed by a full ceasefire and a lasting solution based on:
1. The enforcement of international resolutions.
2. Adherence to the armistice agreement.
3. The application of the Taif Agreement.
These principles are outlined within the 1701 Resolution.
The defense strategy, meanwhile, must arise from a national consensus within Lebanon. This consensus should address the issue of arms in a way that safeguards national unity, restores Lebanon’s rights, and empowers the country to defend itself under a strong, capable, and fair Lebanese state. This should avoid a national conflict over disarmament by force, which would otherwise risk losing our unity, rights, and capacity for self-defense amid an ineffective State, while fostering chaos, disputes, and division.
Is there truly a choice to be made? Any reasonable patriot would support the 1701 Resolution and the defense strategy. For those questioning the feasibility of this solution, it must be noted that such issues are not easily resolved and have come at the cost of thousands of lives, extensive destruction worth billions, and the displacement of our people. We ask: Is there any alternative?
Some may be drawn to reckless gambles and doomed pursuits that lead only to division, war, and the further weakening of our State, as seen in the wars of 1975-1990. After such a toll, a national resolution may emerge, yet without clarity or control over its cost. Thus, while the 1701 Resolution and a defense strategy are crucial, they alone are insufficient. These are the foundations for a full and final ceasefire and the cessation of war. A lasting solution, however, requires both international and national agreement to arm the Lebanese army so it can defend Lebanon and steer clear of conflicts that do not serve our interests. This must be paired with international assurances to restrain Israel, preventing aggression against Lebanon and restoring our rightful lands.
Permanent peace, however, is another matter. It entails the restoration of Lebanon’s lands and resources, the return of refugees and displaced people, and the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict through the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative in Beirut.
II. Detailed Explanation
This is the core message. Regarding the details, the Lebanese people must understand that in the initial stages of the 1701 Resolution, Hezbollah ceased fire, halting all combat operations and visible armed presence. However, Israel did not cease its aggression, continuing to violate Lebanese sovereignty by land, sea, and air, committing infractions along the borders, and partially occupying the Lebanese part of the village of Ghajar. Israel has therefore not fully observed the first phase of the resolution, thereby hindering progress to a permanent solution.
In the second phase, Lebanon is responsible for maintaining an area free of arms and armed personnel between the Blue Line and the Litani River, preventing the entry of weapons into the country, and upholding the exclusive authority of the Lebanese State as per international resolutions and the Taif Agreement. Israel, in turn, must withdraw from all occupied Lebanese lands, cease its violations, and fulfill all related international obligations. Internally, the defense strategy mirrors the 1701 Resolution, devising a national mechanism to implement it by consensus. Thus, Lebanon’s arms would not be squandered but instead become a cornerstone of national strength and security under a state-led defense strategy. This approach aligns with the Taif Agreement, involving state-centric defense, empowering the Lebanese army, and making strategic decisions in accordance with the Constitution. It also prioritizes national policies that mitigate risk by distancing Lebanon from external conflicts.
This strategy, grounded in the armistice, international resolutions, and the Taif Agreement, relies primarily on national unity around the necessity of building a robust State—one that acts as protector, enforcer of law, and champion of freedom, justice, and equality among the Lebanese people.
III. Explanations and Statements
We opposed Hezbollah’s strategy of unity with certain fronts, believing it harmed Lebanon’s interests and posed a national threat. Despite its architect’s ambitions, the strategy lacked both the legitimacy of international law for external support and internal legitimacy through respect for national cooperation. This absence allowed Israel to exploit the situation, establishing a new adverse balance of power that contrasted the deterrent balance previously in Lebanon’s favor. This has severely damaged both Lebanon and the Resistance, a situation that could have been avoided by adhering to the 1701 Resolution. While we reserve the right to criticize this detrimental approach, we equally reject using it to justify Israel’s war on Lebanon. Weakening the Resistance without a viable alternative to defend Lebanon only strengthens our enemy’s ability to impose its expansionist agenda on our homeland and identity.
Lebanon faces a destructive scheme aimed at subjugating it, stripping it of sovereignty and resources, depopulating its citizens, and altering its democratic and societal fabric—all while its official and public stance calls for implementing the 1701 Resolution. Why? Because the 1701 Resolution remains a viable framework for resolving the crisis, with no amendments necessary. It has not been fully implemented due to Israel’s non-compliance, as we can prove through documented evidence and a timeline of events.
1. The 1701 Resolution builds upon prior international resolutions, anchoring it within an international consensus.
2. It was adopted under Chapter VI, identifying the situation in Lebanon as a threat to global peace and security.
3. It distributes obligations for both parties across two stages: a cessation of hostilities (paragraphs 1–7) and a permanent ceasefire and long-term solution (paragraphs 8–18). Lebanon has met its responsibilities in the first phase by deploying its army and halting Hezbollah’s operations beyond the Blue Line. The country must still commit to the second phase pertaining to weapons, international resolutions, and the Taif agreement. However, Israel has yet to complete its obligations, notably refraining from further violations of Lebanese sovereignty. With over 37,000 documented violations (occupying the village of Ghajar); Israel has prevented progression to the second phase.
4. The required withdrawals in the first phase apply to undisputed territories, such as the Lebanese portion of Ghajar and areas Israel occupied in the 2006 War. The threat posed by occupation is inherently tied to obligations concerning the Resistance’s arms. Thus, the absence of armed groups aside from UNIFIL and the Lebanese army fulfills the first phase’s intent. Ending any armed presence other than that of the Lebanese State, as per international resolutions, is at the heart of achieving a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution, as is the case for resolving the dispute over the border and over the Shebaa Farms, which are left to phase two.
5. The second phase consists of four elements: United Nations proposals within 30 days, the creation of a weapon-free zone between the Blue Line and Litani River, the enforcement of the Taif Agreement and Resolutions 1559 and 1680, and coordination between UNIFIL and the Lebanese army to prevent the entry of arms.
In conclusion, although the 1701 Resolution has fostered calm along the border for 17 years, it has not achieved a long-term solution due to Israel’s violations. This situation led former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to suggest granting UNIFIL sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms until the 242 Resolution, invoked by Israel, is implemented. Lebanon agreed, but Israel refused.
Thus, Lebanon’s official stance supports the full implementation of the 1701 Resolution, stressing that only the presence of a President dedicated to protecting Lebanon, the Constitution, and its sovereignty can steer us through current challenges. We honor the brave fighters and martyrs who have defended Lebanon, urging the Resistance to join the national consensus on a ceasefire and implementation of the 1701 Resolution, irrespective of events in Gaza and the region.
We call on the Resistance to engage in a national dialogue led by the President to craft a defense strategy that resolves disputes over their arms, fortifies the Lebanese army, and prioritizes Lebanon’s defense. This will ensure Lebanon remains committed to international legitimacy and is solely under the State’s authority, protecting national unity and civil peace.
Finally, we reaffirm our commitment to welcoming all guests, caring for them as we care for ourselves, and call on security forces to uphold their responsibilities, emphasizing the sole authority of the State.