MP Hassan Fadlallah, a member of the "Loyalty to the Resistance" bloc, stated in a press conference at Parliament: "We had pledged throughout the past period not to enter into a polemic with the President of the Republic, but in the face of his repeated accusations against our people, and his insistence on turning into a political party that entrenches the existing division among the Lebanese, instead of being the president who is a symbol of national unity as the Constitution stipulates, and turning the Baabda Palace into a partisan platform for parties known in their history and orientations, the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc deems it important to affirm the following: - The election of the president by the national duo was based on an honorable commitment to preserve the right of resistance for the Lebanese, implement the November 27 agreement, and compel the Zionist enemy to this implementation starting with a complete cessation of hostilities, a full withdrawal from our Lebanese land beyond the international borders drawn between Lebanon and occupied Palestine, the return of our displaced people to their villages, the release of prisoners, and reconstruction, provided that the issue of the resistance's weapons is approached internally after the enemy's withdrawal in light of national consensuses. The president has repeatedly stated within the framework of his aforementioned commitment the phrase 'We will not disagree with you... We will not disagree with you.' The resistance did its part in facilitating the mission of our national army south of the Litani, and in return, the authority did not fulfill its commitments regarding defending Lebanon and protecting its people. Rather, our blood continued to bleed and our homes were destroyed for 15 months. In all meetings with the President of the Republic during this period, we heard nothing from him except one demand, which is handing over heavy missiles so he could negotiate with the United States of America, because what worries Israel is this type of weapon, while having no objection to the resistance keeping the rest of its weapons and no one will snatch them from its hand. - Despite our direct meetings or through the president's advisor and our tireless attempts to reach national approaches that reinforce the logic of the state, contribute to strengthening its role, stop the aggression, and protect our people, the government was taking unjust, void, and uncharter decisions against the resistance and its environment. At the same time, the First Presidency did not hesitate to send negative messages by targeting the fraternal and historical relationship between Lebanon and the Islamic Republic, starting with halting Iranian civil aviation—from which thousands of Lebanese visitors benefit—up to the devious and factional decision against the Iranian ambassador in a disgraceful precedent unprecedented in the diplomatic corps. During every review with the president, we hear from him that these are decisions taken under pressure and will have no practical executive effect, and that it is an attempt hopefully to be understood as a positive message to the US administration. - Following the Israeli aggression on March 2, the President of the Republic, aided by the Prime Minister, rushed to issue the criminal decision against the country and the South, criminalizing the resistant act against the Zionist occupiers. This decision served as a major service to the enemy as it practices its brutal aggression against our country, and it was intended to drag the country into internal clash. In response, we insisted on not being dragged into the authority's scheme to cause this clash out of our keenness on our country, and we worked to calm the anger of our people and the families of its martyrs—the people who are always present to defend their legitimate rights. - Our attempts with the President of the Republic through his advisor and others did not stop in order to curb the dangerous slide of the term so that it does not lose what remains of its inclusive national role. Every time there was a purposeful and serious meeting, he would abort it with escalatory and treason-accusing positions against our people and offending their immense sacrifices. We used to overlook these deliberate offenses out of concern for our country and the image of this term. The last attempts by us were a few days before the ominous agreement, and we showed utmost keenness on cooperation and positivity on the basis of preserving sovereignty and not squandering rights, to rescue the term and the country from the clutches of the evils of wrong bets on the outside, and so that Lebanon does not pay the price for the arrival of this authority to power in exchange for complete surrender before the enemy entity. However, all those meetings, dialogues, and positive messages were met with deliberate procrastination within the framework of buying time awaiting the poorly directed drama of an agreement that stunned the enemy with the free gains it obtained that it was unable to reap throughout its wars against Lebanon and the Arab countries." He said that "the opposition of the ominous agreement by the majority of the Lebanese is a national opposition outside the known political and sectarian alignments, and attempts to polish this agreement will not succeed as its texts are clear, ending Lebanon's existence as an independent state, legalizing the occupation and its criminal practices, replacing withdrawal with experimental zones, subjecting our national army to tests conducted by the enemy army, preventing the return of displaced persons and reconstruction, and making this authority a partner in every drop of blood it sheds or house it destroys. It is an unviable agreement, the Zionists will not be able to impose its implementation, and our people will defeat its effects on the ground." He stressed that "ignoring the national political and popular position rejecting the agreement, and mortgaging the fate of the term to American conditions, will lead to placing Lebanon under Israeli occupation and full American tutelage, undermining the state's sovereignty, and increasing the gap between the term and the majority of the Lebanese. Therefore, the opportunity is still available for this term to exit the dangerous path in which it has placed itself and the country, and to return to the logic of the state based on partnership, understanding, and commitment to the requirements of the Charter and the Constitution, in a manner that safeguards Lebanon's unity, territorial integrity, freedom, and independence."