Loyalty to the Resistance bloc member MP Hassan Fadlallah affirmed that the authority in Lebanon has signed an agreement with the Israeli enemy in which there is not a single clause in Lebanon's interest, and this is by the consensus of everyone who reads it, and the Lebanese read Arabic and English well, and they read the clauses and all of them are in the interest of the enemy, because what is intended from this agreement is to achieve its objectives which it failed to achieve in the field, and it includes enshrining the occupation and establishing a buffer zone, and stopping any prosecution of the enemy before international bodies and courts or criminalizing it for what it has committed against us, and they have set a goal for this agreement which is to abolish the resistance, because what the authority wants is to use the persistence of the occupation on our land to exert pressure in order to abolish the resistance and the idea of its existence, and it has set an equation stating that the persistence of the occupation is in exchange for the resistance, which is the exact same goal that the Israeli enemy wants, and it has imposed it in the clauses of the agreement. MP Fadlallah said: There is a cross-sectarian national opposition to the agreement, and not only the National Duo opposes it, because anyone in Lebanon who possesses a national sense cannot agree to these clauses, and therefore this authority has lost its mind, and has begun thrashing about right and left in justifications, statements, and positions, as if we are listening to a political party among the existing parties that is hostile to a large segment of the Lebanese, meaning we no longer hear the discourse of a state and the discourse of institutions, as there is a political party named the authority with remnants of May 17 and a political and popular minority with this agreement, while the majority of the Lebanese reject it, and those who oppose are not only those who are with the resistance and its allies, but some of our political opponents, who could not bear this kind of gratuitous concession, and this national opposition is outside the known alignments in Lebanon, and therefore the authority is unable to convince anyone except those with it from the well-known group in the country. MP Fadlallah pointed out that the function of this agreement is to present Lebanon as a paper for Netanyahu to bargain with in the Iranian-American negotiations, because he was pressured by the insistence of the Islamic Republic of Iran that it will not go to any final agreement without the enemy's withdrawal from Lebanon, and Lebanon had in its hands an element of strength which is the Iranian pressure to withdraw the enemy through this memorandum, yet the authority presented Netanyahu with a free gift for Lebanon to be a bargaining chip in his hand at the negotiating table. MP Fadlallah said: We adhere to the sovereignty of our country, and that our decision stems from our national will, but those who claim that the agreement with the enemy is an expression of an independent national decision, and that Lebanon is negotiating on its own behalf and does not want to be a paper on the Iranian-American negotiating table, and that it is the owner of authority and the owner of the decision, are they convinced of what they say? For they know who the actual decision-maker is that manages the authority from outside the borders and sometimes via telephone, and who orders it and interferes in the minutest details even in some appointments, whereas in its negotiations with the enemy, the authority was not the owner of a decision but rather signed what was written for it, and did not make any effort to change a single letter of this agreement which was drawn up by the American administration with complete Israeli conditions, and there was no task for the Lebanese negotiating delegation except to accept and consent, and they did not even discuss or negotiate. He added: Iran has not presented itself as an alternative to the state, nor does it want to negotiate on its behalf, and all it did was enforce the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in the memorandum of understanding, and it called upon the Lebanese state to benefit from this matter, but instead of the authority benefiting from this Iranian support, it launched an incigatory and misleading discourse against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which extended a hand of help and assistance to our country. MP Fadlallah affirmed that this agreement is non-existent, and has no charter, constitutional, or legal value, and is unacceptable and rejected, and there is no possibility of implementing it, and we will not enable the enemy, which is the patron and owner of this unilateral agreement, to implement it in any way, shape, or form, and this authority will not be able, no matter what flimsy justifications it presents, to impose anything on our people, for we are the people of the land, the South, and the resistance, and no one will be able to impose anything on us that we do not accept, and this is settled as far as we are concerned. Consequently, all that is said in this field is nothing more than political and media talk that will neither advance nor delay the practical action that this authority can take, for it cannot do anything. On the contrary, it has lost the confidence of the majority of the Lebanese because it squandered sovereignty, and we do not trust it with our fate, our future, and our South, for our villages and towns are not a field for experiments, so let no one experiment on us, and we will not accept to be an experiment for anyone. If they want to surrender, let them surrender alone, while our people will not surrender and our resistance will not surrender, and therefore this matter is finished for us, and our resistance remains and continues, and our youth are in the field, and we possess internal national elements of strength that make us more steadfast and adherent to our rights. MP Fadlallah considered that the alternative choice for the authority and for Lebanon is to return to the constitution, the charter, partnership, reliance on elements of strength, adherence to legitimate national rights, and adherence to our legitimate right to defend ourselves, while someone emerges from within the state to say that the right to self-defense belongs to the two states, while they are the ones who made a decision to withdraw the Lebanese Army and do not want confrontation and do not want to recognize this right for the Lebanese people.