Kataeb MP Salim Sayegh said Lebanon’s direct negotiation track with Israel and the creation of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon face practical challenges on the ground, but argued that the framework agreement remains the best option for restoring state authority and ending years of conflict.

Speaking on Al Jadeed TV, Sayegh said the upcoming Rome talks were encountering obstacles because the Lebanese army wanted guarantees that areas it enters after an Israeli withdrawal would be free of armed groups and military infrastructure.

“There are realities on the ground that cannot be ignored,” Sayegh said. “Military operations are still taking place south of the Litani River and in villages where Israeli forces are present. What is happening on the ground matters more than political assumptions.”

He said Lebanon had already taken a political decision to pursue the process, adding that Washington was seeking the success of the pilot zones in southern Lebanon.

“The political decision has been made, and the Americans want these pilot zones to succeed,” he said. “The Rome discussions are about assessing what is actually happening on the ground, because not everything agreed upon politically can automatically be implemented in reality.”

Sayegh expressed confidence in Lebanon’s negotiating team and said he was reassured by the broader direction of the process, particularly efforts to establish state control over areas from which Israeli forces withdraw.

Sayegh said the Nov. 27, 2024, ceasefire agreement included timelines for disarmament that had not faced domestic opposition, arguing that Lebanon itself was not responsible for the conflict with Israel.

“Lebanon is not a party to the war with Israel,” he said. “The party involved was Hezbollah, and behind it was the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”

He said the Lebanese government accepted the 2024 ceasefire agreement because it wanted to limit the damage caused by the conflict and bring an end to war and destruction.

“The Lebanese negotiator does not need a mandate from anyone to negotiate or commit on behalf of Lebanon,” Sayegh said. “President Joseph Aoun already has both a popular and constitutional mandate to negotiate in the name of the country.”

He also criticized Hezbollah’s reliance on Iranian support, saying the group would have collapsed after the assassination of its former leader Hassan Nasrallah and the killing of senior commanders, as well as the pager explosions operation, had it not been backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

Sayegh stressed that the framework agreement should not be viewed as a final peace treaty but rather as a structure for negotiations.

“The framework agreement is a framework, not a treaty,” he said. “There are many obstacles in the negotiating process, and everyone knows that. But this is what negotiations are about.”

He added that Israel’s strategic approach was currently facing a turning point.

“The Israeli strategic mindset is at a crossroads today,” he said.

Addressing Druze leader Walid Jumblatt’s concerns over the agreement, Sayegh said they reflected broader existential fears among Lebanon’s communities.

However, he warned against relying on sectarian arrangements to address national concerns.

“We cannot move toward bilateral understandings simply to reassure one community or another,” he said. “It is the government that should provide reassurance. Bilateral arrangements have never brought stability to Lebanon; on the contrary, they have created anxiety among others.”

Sayegh rejected accusations that the framework agreement would allow Israel to dictate orders to the Lebanese army.

He said the 2024 agreement had created a monitoring mechanism that helped guide the Lebanese military by providing information about weapons storage sites and tunnels.

According to Sayegh, the mechanism has since changed from a five-party format into a three-party arrangement following the departure of France and the United Nations peacekeeping force UNIFIL, leaving the United States as the guarantor of the framework agreement.

“This matters greatly to us, and we should not underestimate it,” he said. “The previous wars are over. The United States is not leaving us alone with Israel; it is actively working on the ground. Therefore, I am not worried about the independence of the Lebanese army.”

Sayegh said Lebanon needed to have a serious discussion about ending the conflict, while criticizing accusations of treason directed at those supporting negotiations.

“How can we talk seriously about ending the war when some accuse us of betrayal and collaboration?” he said. “We have the right to live in peace with our neighbors.”

Sayegh argued that previous agreements following conflicts with Israel had all been based on the 1949 Armistice Agreement, which he said had not been respected.

“The Arab world is moving ahead of us toward peace and is offering us advice, while we must focus on achieving Lebanon’s own interests,” he said.

Questioning opponents of the framework agreement, Sayegh challenged their argument that the pilot zones would undermine Lebanon’s national principles.

“If Israel withdraws from southern Lebanon at the district level rather than village by village, as some are demanding, would that mean we have abandoned our national principles or violated the Taif Agreement?” he asked.

Sayegh also said recent developments had shown that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri does not control Hezbollah’s decisions.

“It has become clear that President Nabih Berri does not have influence over Hezbollah,” he said. “We meet Hezbollah lawmakers in parliamentary committees, discuss issues with them and reach agreements on matters affecting people’s daily lives. But everyone knows that their political decisions are not made in Lebanon.”

Hezbollah and its allies, Sayegh said, believed that diplomatic efforts linked to Islamabad had produced positive results by helping secure a ceasefire in Lebanon.

“But everyone saw that political statements were not translated into reality on the ground,” he said.

He accused Iran of staying out of the fighting for two months while Israel occupied parts of southern Lebanon and destroyed villages, saying Tehran only intervened diplomatically later in an attempt to link regional fronts in accordance with its own interests.

“Iran’s intervention was driven by purely Iranian calculations and interests,” he said.

Sayegh said the framework agreement remained a safeguard for Lebanon should diplomatic arrangements with Iran fail.

“Israel has the strongest military machine in the Middle East, and the alternative to this agreement is an expansion of the occupation,” he said.

For Lebanon, he argued, the alternative was to maintain reliance on U.S. engagement and international partnerships.

“It is also important that the United States does not lose faith in Lebanon,” he said.

Sayegh said his position was based on a desire to permanently end decades of conflict.

“I am Lebanese. I want to end these wars once and for all,” he said. “I want to get out of this cycle of destruction and eventually reach peace.”

He criticized those demanding a return to the 1949 Armistice Agreement, accusing them of having previously undermined it by allowing Lebanon to become a base for armed operations against Israel before later rejecting the 1983 May 17 Agreement.

He also questioned critics of the framework agreement, comparing it with previous arrangements, including U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and the 2024 ceasefire deal.

“What is the difference between Resolution 1701, which required the disarmament of all weapons in Lebanon but was later undermined after Hezbollah supported Gaza, the 2024 ceasefire agreement that was undermined after Hezbollah supported Iran, and today’s framework agreement?” he asked.

“The difference is that Israel has now occupied and destroyed southern Lebanon in a way it never did before, while we continue to deny reality and live in illusions,” he said.

Sayegh argued that the 1949 armistice had become outdated and could no longer address the current situation.

“The Armistice Agreement has become like the burned land of southern Lebanon,” he said. “Holding on to it is no longer enough to deal with today’s occupation.”

He warned that if the framework agreement collapsed, its critics would eventually regret opposing it.

“If the framework agreement falls today, those who criticize it will later look back on it with regret, just as they now look back on the Armistice Agreement, the May 17 Agreement and the 2024 ceasefire agreement,” he said.

Sayegh concluded by saying Lebanon’s goal was to recover lost territory and restore the full deployment of its army, despite having limited leverage.

“Today, we are fighting for our rights and want to restore our lost lands and deploy our army,” he said. “We do not possess any source of strength except the power of legitimacy and the justice of our cause.”

“Our strongest weapon is a future-oriented vision that can take us out of this crisis and end the war,” he added. “That is what the framework agreement represents.”