President Joseph Aoun reaffirmed the Lebanese state’s adherence to the option of calm, as it is the basic entry point for any negotiating path, rejecting the accusations made against this approach, and stressing that the goal is to end the war in a way that preserves national dignity. While receiving a delegation from Hasbaya and Arqoub, Aoun explained that Lebanon informed the American side from the beginning that the ceasefire is an indispensable first step before entering into any negotiations, pointing out that this position was confirmed during the two meetings held at the ambassadorial level on April 14 and 23. He pointed out that this approach was explicitly stated in the statement of the US State Department, especially with regard to the emphasis on Israel’s refraining from carrying out any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, whether civilian, military, or state-affiliated, on land, sea, or air. Aoun stressed that this position expresses the official orientation of the Lebanese state, whether internally or within the ongoing negotiations in Washington, considering that any different proposal does not have an official status and does not reflect the state’s position. In response to the criticism, he raised questions about the issue of national consensus, saying that the parties that previously fought the option of war did not wait for national consensus, criticizing the haste in launching accusations of treason before the results of the negotiations were clarified, and calling for evaluating the path based on its results, not on intentions. He also pointed out the ongoing cost borne by southern Lebanon, wondering how long its people will continue to pay the price for conflicts that do not serve the national interest, referring to what he described as wars fought on behalf of external parties. He stressed that the state's approach cannot be considered betrayal, but rather the real danger lies in dragging Lebanon into confrontations that serve non-Lebanese agendas, stressing that it bears responsibility for its decisions and seeks to get the country out of its crisis within clear constants. He concluded by emphasizing that the ultimate goal is to end the state of war with Israel, similar to the armistice agreement, asking whether that armistice had ever constituted a violation of dignity, reiterating his rejection of any agreement that would harm Lebanon’s sovereignty or dignity.