On the 48th anniversary of the disappearance of Imam Moussa al-Sadr, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri invoked the principles of civil peace, national unity, state sovereignty and the Lebanese army. Yet his attack on Lebanon’s negotiations with Israel has raised questions about the extent to which his position reflects the legacy of the Shiite cleric he commemorated and whether pressure from Hezbollah has pushed him away from the negotiating track pursued by the Lebanese State.

Before Lebanon descended into civil war, Sadr warned against the use of weapons inside the country, saying that “bearing arms internally is treason” and that those seeking to protect their sect should instead work to build a just state because communities can only be protected through justice.

His message was clear: Lebanon could not be protected by weapons alone, and the security of any community could not be guaranteed by surrendering national decisions to an armed group. It depended on the state, justice and sovereignty.

Against that backdrop, Berri’s remarks on negotiations appeared to critics to represent a stark departure from that principle.

The speaker questioned the value of seven rounds of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, asking: “What was the result?”

He renewed his opposition to direct talks under continued Israeli strikes and rejected the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, saying that the Amal Movement and its parliamentary bloc had exercised their democratic right to oppose it and remained in the same position.

But critics argue that the central question is not whether negotiations have produced a final settlement. It is what alternative Lebanon has to negotiations.

The deeper problem, critics say, lies not in negotiations themselves but in attempts to use them to secure better conditions, or to obstruct their progress whenever the discussion turns to weapons and the authority to decide whether Lebanon goes to war.

A senior official source told Nidaa al-Watan that Berri’s latest remarks had effectively “undermined everything,” arguing that they appeared to have come in response to pressure from Hezbollah.

The source said Berri had attacked the framework agreement, the proposed pilot zones and the negotiating process being led by President Joseph Aoun, effectively distancing himself from the approach adopted by the Lebanese state.

The source also alleged that a joint Shiite “operations room” was working to increase political tensions and target Aoun. The criticism in Hezbollah-affiliated media of Aoun’s visit to Greece, including suggestions about the security agreement, was cited as evidence that Berri and Hezbollah had opted for a more confrontational approach.

The source further alleged that Iran had directed an escalation of pressure against the president, the Lebanese state and the negotiations.

Berri’s conflicting positions

The source pointed to what it described as a particularly clear contradiction in Berri’s position.

On one hand, Berri has criticized Lebanese negotiations with Israel because they are being conducted through the state. On the other, he has praised U.S.-Iranian negotiations and initiatives involving Pakistan.

That distinction, the source argued, is difficult to reconcile with Berri’s rejection of the Lebanese negotiating track. The United States has carried out strikes against Iran and killed senior Iranian leaders, yet neither Berri nor Hezbollah, according to the source, has publicly objected to Tehran continuing to negotiate under those circumstances.

The implication, the source said, is that the objection is not necessarily to negotiations themselves, but to negotiations when they involve decisions over Hezbollah’s weapons and the authority of the Lebanese state.

Berri, for his part, presented his position as a defense of Lebanon’s sovereignty and national unity.

In his speech marking the anniversary of Sadr’s disappearance, he said that “civil peace, national unity and the Lebanese Army are red lines that must not be crossed or undermined,” while reaffirming the army’s authority in southern Lebanon alongside UN peacekeepers.

He called for the army to receive the support it needs and rejected any attempt to diminish its role.

“The South is an integral part of Lebanon, and responsibility for protecting and defending it alongside its people, and for rebuilding what Israeli aggression has destroyed, rests with the state,” Berri said. “We will not accept buffer zones or security belts in the South.”

He also warned against attempts to cast doubt on the army’s role and insisted that the state must remain responsible for defending the south and rebuilding areas destroyed by Israeli attacks.

Rejection of the negotiating framework

Berri renewed his opposition to direct negotiations with Israel while fighting continues, arguing that previous rounds had produced no results.

“We warned against direct negotiations with Israel under fire, while the rounds of negotiations have yielded no results,” he said.

He likewise reiterated his rejection of the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel.

“We exercised our democratic right to reject the agreement, and we maintain that position,” he said.

Berri argued that the current circumstances, which he described as involving “existential risks” for southern Lebanon and the country as a whole, gave no one the right to make decisions on sovereign issues under any designation, including through a framework agreement or secret provisions.

He also opposed relinquishing Lebanon’s right to pursue legal action against Israel over what he described as “crimes of genocide” committed in southern Lebanon.

At the same time, Berri warned against allowing the conflict to become a source of internal division. He said the confrontation with Israel required a national approach free from regional, partisan, sectarian and confessional considerations.

“What Israel seeks is not Hezbollah, its weapons, the Amal Movement or the Shiite community. Israel wants strife,” he said, adding that “Lebanon represents the antithesis of Israel’s racism.”

He urged Lebanese political forces and citizens to avoid another internal conflict.

“Do not lose Lebanon to internal wars, divisions, or fatal political or security missteps,” Berri said.

Yet that appeal for national unity sits uneasily alongside his rejection of the negotiating process being conducted by the Lebanese state, critics argue.

At the heart of the dispute is therefore a fundamental question about who has the authority to make decisions of war and peace in Lebanon.

Sadr's prewar warning placed that authority firmly within the framework of the State and justice. Berri's latest remarks, critics say, risk reinforcing precisely the ambiguity that Lebanon has been struggling to overcome: a state seeking to negotiate on behalf of the country while an armed political movement retains the ability to influence — or obstruct — the decisions that determine whether Lebanon remains at war.