The Free Patriotic Movement issued the following statement in response to new statements by Mr. Nawaf Al-Moussawi: It seems that Mr. Nawaf Al-Moussawi, in his disgusting and provocative speech, insists on increasing divisions among the Lebanese with his inflammatory style, which has led to the Lebanese alienating him and insulting the party he represents. On the other hand, the Free Patriotic Movement insists on adopting a position and discourse that preserves national unity without increasing divisions out of its concern for civil peace, and it has made sacrifices in its understanding with the “party” and its understanding of it at the expense of its own interests. However, we cannot remain silent about the fabrication and distortion of the facts reported by Mr. Al-Moussawi, so that they do not appear to be the truth in the mind of those who hear them. Without stopping at the details, we completely deny the lies and fabrications he mentioned and confirm the following: 1- It is clear that Al-Sayyid Al-Moussawi is a professional at lying and imagining details of facts to suggest that he is in the decision-making circle. On the other hand, he does not understand the dialogues that were taking place between Al-Sayyid and the head of the “current,” and Al-Sayyid himself’s testimony about him in the media and his dismissal from his parliamentary position are evidence of that. We are currently content with citing one incident to confirm what we say. The head of the movement “did not approach anyone, neither in Hezbollah nor outside it, specifically Mr. Nasrallah, about his candidacy for the presidency of the republic. Indeed, he always stressed that the matter was out of the question, and this is confirmed by the records as well as by those who attended the meeting with Mr. It is true that the last meeting did not reach an understanding, but it lasted more than 7 hours and ended with an agreement to continue consultation and communication, which was completed directly and indirectly, without a break, and this simple detail is sufficient to clarify now. 2- Mr. Al-Moussawi adopts a concept of the nature of the relationship between “the movement” and “the party,” which says that “the movement” must command the “party,” and that the head of the “current” must implement what the master wishes. Therefore, it is clear that he does not understand the nature of the relationship neither between “Al-Sayyid” and Bassil nor between “the party” and “the movement.” It is clear how far he is from it because he was never among it, bearing in mind that many files and issues were not agreed upon by the “current” and the “party” since the beginning of the understanding. However, if it is considered that the “current” must submit obedience due to the fact that the party has advantages over it, then the “current” has the right to consider that it has many advantages over the “party,” but the relationship has never been a relationship of subordination or favours, but rather aimed at partnership, preserving civil peace, and not dragging the country into the situation we are in now. We have succeeded in this because of the wisdom that characterized both parties, and of course not because of the recklessness shown by Moussawi. If it had been left to him to lead the "party", Lebanon would have slid into civil war a long time ago because of his style and way of thinking. 3- What Mr. Musawi reported indicates the independence of the “current” and the freedom of its decision and its rejection of many things that were asked of it or were wished upon it due to its lack of conviction in them. This is the nature of the “current” and its leader, by always preferring Lebanon’s interests over any other considerations, and the inability of any internal or external force to impose anything on it. As for his malicious attempt to distinguish between the founder of the “current,” its leadership, and its base in its position on Hezbollah, this also indicates his ignorance of the completely identical positions of President Michel Aoun and the head of the “current,” which were communicated to the party’s leadership, before and after the war to support Gaza. Finally, the “Movement” still hopes that Hezbollah will stop allowing similar positions to be issued by this movement, which was previously relieved of its responsibilities, and which harms the memory of the Grand Master and the image of Hezbollah and the nature of its relationship with the Lebanese and the “Movement,” at a time when it is most in need of some Lebanese people, including the “Movement,” understanding some of its positions, instead of alienating all the Lebanese from all of its positions.