WANA (Jun 02) – Following the rapid developments of last night, Monday night, in Lebanon, Hezbollah once again emphasized through the words of its representatives, as well as in an official statement, that it remains committed to its full conditions for a ceasefire—the most important of which are a complete cessation of the war by the Israeli regime and the withdrawal of the occupiers from Lebanese soil—and will not accept any form of partial ceasefire.

 

The US Has a Direct Role in the Israeli Aggressions Against Lebanon

In this context, Hassan Ezzeddine, a prominent representative of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc in the Lebanese Parliament, stated during an interview that the “Zionist” aggressors continuously and brutally targeted civilians, infrastructure, homes, and health and service institutions in Lebanon, violating all international legal and humanitarian norms.

 

He added that the role of the United States could not be separated from the escalation of aggression and brutality by the “Zionist” regime against Lebanon. He explained that Washington not only provided political cover to Israel to continue its aggressions against Lebanon, but also participated in shaping the policies to expand the war in Lebanon and the region.

 

Any Agreement Must Include a Full Ceasefire

The Hezbollah representative emphasized that any formula that did not include a complete and comprehensive cessation of “Zionist” aggressions against Lebanon would be unacceptable from their perspective.

 

He further noted that, in their view, the concept of a ceasefire was not limited to stopping the exchange of fire, but had to include the cessation of all military actions, including airstrikes, operations to demolish homes, aggression, and occupation. Additionally, he stressed that a clear mechanism had to be determined for the withdrawal of “Zionists” from the occupied areas in Lebanon.

 

There Must Be a Real Guarantee to Force Israel to Implement the Ceasefire

He stated that the Resistance was in a position of defending Lebanese soil, and therefore, the continuation of any “Zionist” military presence in Lebanon meant that Hezbollah had sufficient and valid justification and argument to continue its operations.

 

Regarding the prospects for de-escalation, Ezzeddine recalled the experience of previous ceasefire understandings and expressed that Israel had not remained committed to the agreements reached in recent years.

 

The Lebanese Member of Parliament noted that Lebanon had remained committed to the provisions of previous understandings for a long time, but the “Zionists” had continued to violate the ceasefire, and their aggressions against Lebanon had not stopped.

 

He reasoned that this situation made any talk about new arrangements primarily contingent upon the existence of real guarantees to force Israel to implement any agreement reached.

 

He said that, from Hezbollah’s perspective, the core of the crisis was not in the declaration of a ceasefire itself, but in the ability of the relevant parties, and primarily the United States, to force the “Zionist” regime to adhere to it.

 

Iran Has Always Been a Supporter of Lebanon

Regarding Iran’s stance on the developments in Lebanon and its inclusion in any agreement with the United States, the Hezbollah representative stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran, in line with its stance, had always been a supporter of Lebanon, provided political support to Lebanon, and sought to help stop Israeli attacks through political and diplomatic pressure.

 

However, he clarified that Tehran had never sought, and did not seek, to interfere in Lebanon’s affairs, replace the Lebanese government, or negotiate on its behalf.

 

He emphasized that Tehran had declared on more than one occasion that the Lebanese arena was an inseparable part of any agreement that might be discussed with the United States.

 

The US Is a Supporter and Partner in Israel’s Aggressions, Not a Mediator

Regarding direct negotiations between the Lebanese government and the “Zionist” enemy, Hassan Ezzeddine rejected such talks and said that it was clear that direct negotiations held under US supervision would have no effect on stopping the enemy’s aggressions against Lebanon.

 

He stated that everyone knew Washington’s positions had always been aligned with favoring the “Zionists”, and that this very bias destroyed the chances of reaching balanced agreements that benefited Lebanon.

 

He concluded by stating that, specifically, any negotiation process needed real leverage on the table, because the military and political pressures exerted on Lebanon did not enable the negotiations to achieve tangible results, unless the political path was accompanied by a clear Israeli commitment to stop military operations.