The Strong Republic Bloc representing the Lebanese Forces (LF) Party in Parliament considers that “any call for dialogue on core issues and any response to such a call is a clear disavowal of the institutions and their roles, specifically Parliament, which is responsible for electing the President. Such calls are tantamount to a rejection of the National Accord Document (Taif Agreement). The solutions to disputed issues agreed upon by all Lebanese, including disarmament and sovereign decision-making, are clearly stipulated in the Taif Agreement.”
This position was issued following the periodic meeting of the Strong Republic Bloc held via Zoom in Maarab, led by LF Leader Samir Geagea. The discussion focused on repeated calls for dialogue.
During the meeting, the participants emphasized that using dialogue as a pretext to address major divisive issues and reach shared solutions is a clear deceptive approach. They considered that the dialogue between the Lebanese on major issues, including security, has already taken place and resulted in the formulation of the National Accord Document in the city of Taif after the war. The culmination of this dialogue, according to the bloc, is exemplified by the “Taif Agreement.”
The participants further stated that “dialogue regarding detailed and daily matters, be it conducted within a general body, parliamentary committees, or any other platform, should strictly abide by constitutional frameworks, just like the executive matters that should be presented in the Cabinet.”
The bloc said that “the type of dialogue sought by the Moumanaa (obstructionist axis) aims only to overthrow the Taif Agreement and undermine the Lebanese constitution, thereby contradicting the system and general order, including attempts to consolidate veto power within a specific group, the third signature, and seizing the strategic decision-making of the state, which contradicts the essence and provisions of the Taif Agreement.”
The participants also declared the LF commitment to the National Accord Document and constitutional institutions. While they do not reject dialogue as a principle and always resort to it through side discussions and within constitutional institutional frameworks, they clarified that confronting obstruction and finding solutions to crises should not occur through unconstitutional sessions under the name of “dialogue,” but rather through constitutional institutions and legal mechanisms, particularly through open election cycles that ultimately lead to the election of the future president.
