Sheikh Qassem: Lebanon-Israel Framework Is "Humiliation and Disgrace," Resistance Will Not Leave the Battlefield
Sheikh Naim Qassem denounces the Washington framework as a surrender of Lebanon’s sovereignty, rejects linking Israeli withdrawal to disarmament, and vows the Resistance will remain on the battlefield
Lebanon, PUREWILAYAH.COM – Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem rejected the framework agreement signed between the Lebanese authorities and the Israeli occupation entity, declaring it “humiliation, disgrace, and a surrender of Lebanon’s sovereignty.”
In a comprehensive statement, Sheikh Naim Qassem described the agreement as a strategic mistake that hands Israel through political negotiations what it failed to obtain on the battlefield.
He called the framework “null and void,” urged Lebanon to implement the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding instead, and affirmed that Hizbullah “will not leave the battlefield” until the occupation ends.
Lebanese Authorities Abandoned Their Duty to Defend Sovereignty
Sheikh Naim Qassem opened his statement by questioning the conduct of the Lebanese authorities, saying they had failed in their responsibility to protect Lebanon’s sovereignty and its people.
“Where is the Lebanese authority’s trust and responsibility toward its people and toward protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty?” he asked.
He recalled that the American mediator failed to secure a ceasefire for Lebanon. Later, when a ceasefire proposal emerged from the U.S.-Iran talks held in Pakistan in April 2026, the Lebanese authorities rejected it.
According to the Hezbollah Chief, that decision was followed by what he called “Black Wednesday,” when the Israeli occupation launched around one hundred airstrikes across Lebanon, killing and wounding hundreds of people, terrorizing civilians, and leaving destruction from Beirut to southern Lebanon.
The sequence of events exposed a serious failure in the authorities’ handling of the crisis.
Instead of protecting Lebanon from further aggression, he said, they rejected an opportunity to stop the war and left the country exposed to another large-scale Israeli assault.
Direct Negotiations Amount to Unconditional Submission
Sheikh Naim Qassem said Hezbollah had warned the Lebanese authorities from the very beginning that direct negotiations with Israel would produce only one outcome.
“We told the authorities that direct negotiations are nothing but free concessions to Israel,” he said. “They are meetings of submission to the demands of Israeli aggression and American diktats.”
He argued that Lebanon entered those negotiations while possessing no meaningful leverage because the authorities had voluntarily abandoned the strength created by the Resistance and the Lebanese people.
The authorities also chose to confront more than half of the Lebanese population while acting against Lebanon’s Constitution and laws, which recognize Israel as an enemy and criminalize cooperation with it.
He said that the government “stabbing the Resistance in the back” after declaring it outside the law from the first day of the war through the government’s March 2 decision.
Sheikh Naim Qassem rejected attempts to justify the outcome through political language.
“Do not play with words or explain them differently,” he said. “The results are the real measure. This is a surrender of Lebanon’s sovereignty in the eyes of both friend and foe.”
The U.S.-Iran Memorandum Gave Lebanon a Historic Position of Strength
Contrasting the Washington framework with the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, the Hizbullah Secretary-General argued that Lebanon had already obtained a far stronger political and strategic position before its own authorities chose another path.
According to the statement, the memorandum placed ending the war on Lebanon as its first priority, committing the parties to “an immediate and permanent halt to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
It also guaranteed “the safety of Lebanon’s territory and its sovereignty,” while giving sixty days to negotiate a final agreement, including Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
The Resistance leader argued that Israel initially refused to abide by the memorandum. Iran, he said, responded by suspending the agreement and maintaining the closure of the Strait of Hormuz until the United States pressured Israel into accepting a ceasefire.
For him, those developments fundamentally changed Lebanon’s negotiating position.
“The memorandum guarantees Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty,” he said. “Sovereignty is achieved through the complete Israeli withdrawal to be agreed upon within sixty days.”
He described the memorandum as an unprecedented strategic advantage.
“This was a card of strength in Lebanon’s hands that it had never even dreamed of possessing.”
Instead of building on that position, however, the Lebanese authorities abandoned every source of leverage available to them.
They abandoned the guarantees contained in the memorandum, abandoned the strength created by the Resistance, ignored the sacrifices of the Lebanese people, and, in his words, “gave Israel, free of charge, everything it wanted.”
For the Hizbullah leader, this was not merely a political miscalculation but the voluntary surrender of Lebanon’s strongest negotiating position.
Framework Agreement Hands Israel What It Failed to Win in War
The strongest criticism in Sheikh Naim Qassem’s statement was directed at the substance of the Washington framework itself.
“What is this disastrous collapse? What is this grave mistake of surrendering Lebanon’s sovereignty to the Israeli enemy?” he asked.
He warned that the agreement effectively legalizes Israel’s continued occupation by allowing it to supervise the deployment of the Lebanese Army, monitor the implementation of disarmament measures, and determine whether Lebanon has fulfilled its obligations before any further Israeli withdrawal takes place.
He added that trial deployment zones could remain in place for months and that every subsequent stage would require what he described as “a certificate of good conduct from the Israeli enemy.”
Referring to remarks by Benjamin Netanyahu that Israeli forces would remain in the security belt until Hizbullah is disarmed, Sheikh Naim Qassem said the framework gives political legitimacy to a prolonged occupation and could even pave the way for the annexation of occupied Lebanese territory.
He firmly rejected linking Israel’s withdrawal to the disarmament of the Resistance.
“Linking Israel’s withdrawal to the disarmament of the Resistance throughout Lebanon is an extremely dangerous proposal that crosses every red line.”
He warned that under such a formula, Israel could always claim Lebanon had failed to comply as long as a single weapon remained anywhere in the country.
“No one has the right to deprive the Lebanese people of their legitimate right to defend themselves and defend their land against an occupier that continues to kill our people.”
The Hizbullah leader stressed that occupation must withdraw because it is the occupying power—not because Lebanon fulfills Israeli conditions.
“This agreement gives Israel through politics what it failed to achieve on the battlefield.”
The Resistance Will Not Leave the Battlefield
Concluding his statement, the Hizbullah Secretary-General declared the Washington framework to be without legitimacy.
“The Washington Framework Agreement is humiliation, disgrace, and a surrender of sovereignty.”
“This agreement is null and void. What must be implemented is the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding.”
Addressing the Lebanese authorities directly, he urged them to reverse what he described as disastrous decisions before they inflict further damage on the country.
“It is time for you to retreat from your mistakes that are destroying Lebanon.”
He called for united efforts to secure Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanese territory, liberate occupied land, return displaced residents to their homes, secure the release of prisoners, rebuild the country, and agree on a comprehensive national security strategy.
The Hizbullah leader stressed that the ceasefire did not result from political negotiations alone but from the sacrifices made by the Resistance, the Lebanese people, the Lebanese Army, and everyone who gave their lives defending the country.
He pledged that those sacrifices would not be abandoned.
“We will preserve the trust of the martyrs, the wounded, the prisoners, the people of this land, and everyone who sacrificed.”
“We did not leave the battlefield in the most difficult circumstances, and we will not leave it.”
He concluded by citing the Qur'an:
“Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah. That is better for you, if only you knew.” (Qur’an 9:41)
(PW)