Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem slams the recent Israeli-Lebanese agreement as a submission to US-Israeli dictates and an erosion of sovereignty, while vowing continued resistance until liberation.
Jyn 27, 2026
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem has issued a forceful rejection of the new framework agreement signed by the Lebanese government and “Israel”, denouncing it as a political surrender that hands concessions to “Israel” under US sponsorship.
In a strongly worded statement, Sheikh Qassem blasted the deal as a direct threat to Lebanon’s sovereignty, insisting that it reflects “submission to the demands of aggression” and full alignment with American-Israeli dictates.
Political failure and the loss of sovereignty
Sheikh Naim opened his statement with a blistering critique of the Lebanese authorities, questioning their legitimacy in handling ceasefire negotiations and regional diplomacy.
He accused the government of abandoning national responsibility, asking where its “trustworthiness and responsibility toward its people” had gone, particularly after they rejected regional understandings such as the Islamabad talks, which ultimately resulted in the Israeli massacre of Black Wednesday, asserting that political missteps had led to widespread destruction and civilian casualties.
According to Sheikh Qassem, the authorities had effectively “stabbed the Resistance in the back,” stripping Lebanon of its ability to define friend and foe independently and serving “Israel’s” hostile project.
Direct talks are illegitimate, popularly rejected
A central point in Sheikh Qassem’s statement was his outright rejection of direct negotiations with “Israel”, which remain illegitimate, dangerous, and “pure, free concessions to Israel,” adding that they represent “meetings of submission to the demands of aggression.”
Such engagement, he said, is incompatible with Lebanon’s constitutional framework, where “Israel” is defined as an enemy entity and normalization or political contact is treated as a punishable breach of law.
He further stated that the government’s position is also challenged on political grounds as it continues to act in opposition to a large segment of public opinion and proceeding “in dispute and disagreement with more than half of the Lebanese people.”
On Iran-US MoU
He also referred to the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran, which includes provisions for a ceasefire on multiple fronts, including in Lebanon. Iran, which has consistently advocated for Lebanon, even blocking the Strait of Hormuz when “Israel” committed any escalation in Lebanon, had successfully compelled the occupation against any misstep in the country.
The framework, Sheikh Naim recalled, included the “immediate and permanent cessation of military operations,” alongside commitments preventing renewed military aggression or the use of force against Lebanon’s sovereignty.
He further asserted that a 60-day negotiation period toward a final settlement was included in the agreement, which the Lebanese authorities ultimately rejected in a strategic miscalculation, thereby losing a “card of strength” that could have secured the Israeli withdrawal.
“This is a gift of honor, dignity, and strength from steadfast and proud Iran to Lebanon, its people, and its Resistance,” he said, adding that the authorities had rejected this source of strength and the sacrifices of the Lebanese people, “and gave Israel, free of charge, what it wanted.”
A ‘disastrous downfall’ as ‘Israel’ dictates disarmament
The Hezbollah leader warned of “Israel’s” intentions to maintain control over Lebanon’s border areas under the pretext of so-called security arrangements, adding that Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently pushed for his regime’s continued presence in the security belt until the Resistance is “disarmed”.
“What is this disastrous downfall? What is this grave mistake of surrendering sovereignty to the Israeli enemy?” he asked, noting that “Israel” is allowing the Lebanese army to deploy its forces in two pilot zones, as it monitors the steps taken toward disarmament.
This, he said, is a condition that transformed withdrawal into a phased and conditional process with no clear timeline, and effectively requires Lebanon to obtain a “certificate of good conduct” from the Israeli regime itself before any transition to subsequent stages in a clear violation of the country’s sovereignty.
More strictly, Sheikh Naim stated that linking the Israeli withdrawal to internal Lebanese disarmament transforms the country into a “plaything” rather than an independent sovereign state.
“The authorities are legitimizing the continuation of the occupation for many years, and this could even lead to the annexation of these territories to the Zionist entity!” he warned.
He asserted that under this pretext, Lebanon is expected to disarm the Resistance, “yet the weapons will certainly not be surrendered, and no one has the right to deprive the Lebanese people of their right to defend themselves and their land against the occupier of our land and the killer of our people.”
The final rejection, and a vow of continued resistance
“The Framework Agreement in Washington is one of humiliation, disgrace, and surrender of sovereignty. This agreement is null and void,” Sheikh Naim said in firm rejection, adding that the Iran-US MoU must be implemented.
He vowed that the Resistance will, by any means necessary, enforce the first provision of the MoU and the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon’s sovereign lands.
He also directly addressed the Lebanese government: “It is time for you to reverse your grave mistakes that are destroying Lebanon,” he said, adding that the Resistance is ready to cooperate with the authorities to ensure sovereignty, liberation, the expulsion of the Israeli occupier, the return of the detainees and residents, reconstruction, rebuilding the country, and reaching an understanding on a national security strategy.
At the same time, he stressed that the ceasefire “would never have been achieved were it not for the great sacrifices of the Resistance fighters, their families, and the Lebanese people,” pledging that their trust would not be broken, and that the battle would continue until the Israeli enemy is expelled.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.