The Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament criticized the approach of the country's authorities, emphasizing that instead of relying on regional channels, they went to Washington to achieve a ceasefire, but instead of a ceasefire, they brought war with Hezbollah.
Publish dateThursday 16 April 2026 - 13:29
Story Code : 351342
Afghan Voice Agency (AVA): The Lebanese government has received leaked news about the possibility of declaring a ceasefire in Lebanon with great caution. While President Joseph Aoun's circles tried to insinuate that they had information about US pressure on Israel at Lebanon's request, which was related to the meeting two days ago in Washington between the Lebanese ambassador and the Israeli ambassador under US supervision, Western and Hebrew media revealed something else.
According to these media outlets, the US pressure is aimed at imposing a one-week ceasefire in Lebanon, without having a direct connection to the recent Israeli-Lebanese meeting in Washington, but rather it is related to the ongoing negotiations in the region.
Rejection of US request to include Lebanon in ceasefire
Although information released until last night indicated that Tel Aviv had rejected the US request to include Lebanon in the ceasefire agreed with Iran, this indicates the enemy’s desire to continue escalating military tension in Lebanon.
Confidential report from Lebanese ambassador to the US
A Lebanese newspaper published a report on this matter, writing that Lebanese ambassador to the US, Nedi Hamadeh Mouawad, sent a brief report to the Lebanese Prime Minister and Foreign Ministry on the details of the Washington meeting, while he dedicated a detailed report containing additional information to the Presidential Palace.
According to informed sources, Mouawad conveyed a clear position from the Israeli ambassador that a ceasefire will not be achieved until a qualitative change occurs on the Iranian front, and has repeatedly emphasized that the course of the war in Lebanon is still linked to what is happening between Washington and Tehran.
Another proof of this is the US request to Tel Aviv to include Lebanon in the ceasefire by next Wednesday, which has revealed that the discussion is complicated within Israel. Conditions attributed to the Israeli army have also been leaked, including not restricting its freedom of movement throughout Lebanese territory during any ceasefire and rejecting any withdrawal from the south before Lebanon begins disarming Hezbollah, which indicates a practical orientation towards prolonging the war.
Berri: They returned from America to fight Hezbollah
Meanwhile, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berri, does not hide his displeasure and dissatisfaction with the actions of the president and prime minister and their involvement in direct negotiations with the Israeli enemy.
In one of his meetings with Lebanese officials, he reiterated his firm opposition to any direct negotiations with Israel, stressing that the priority must remain the ceasefire, consolidating internal peace and preventing deviations towards internal sedition.
He points out that this position is not new, but has been expressed many times, most recently in the statement of the Amal Movement’s presidency a few days ago, and also in the statement of the movement’s executive committee the day before.
Reacting to the statement issued after the Lebanese ambassador met with the enemy Israeli ambassador in Washington, Berri expressed surprise in an interview with Al-Akhbar at the path taken by the Lebanese authorities, saying that “they went to America to bring about a ceasefire, but they returned to fight Hezbollah!”
He added that withdrawing from participating in a negotiation process within the framework of a broader regional process and engaging in individual negotiations without holding any power cards would weaken Lebanon’s position rather than strengthen it.
In such circumstances, the resistance also expanded the scope of its operations and demonstrated a pattern in which it targets enemy deployment points and prevents the enemy from gaining a foothold at any point on the border.
Barry reminded Al-Akhbar that before announcing the ceasefire between Iran and the United States, he had received assurances from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi that Tehran would not accept a ceasefire that did not include Lebanon.
He added that “after the disruption that occurred in Beirut on this route, I decided to proceed through other channels.”
In this context, Barry noted that the sending of his political advisor, Representative Ali Hassan Khalil, to Riyadh was at the request of the Saudis and within the framework of clear political efforts, and that “he did not go there for recreation or to perform Umrah.”
According to these media outlets, the US pressure is aimed at imposing a one-week ceasefire in Lebanon, without having a direct connection to the recent Israeli-Lebanese meeting in Washington, but rather it is related to the ongoing negotiations in the region.
Rejection of US request to include Lebanon in ceasefire
Although information released until last night indicated that Tel Aviv had rejected the US request to include Lebanon in the ceasefire agreed with Iran, this indicates the enemy’s desire to continue escalating military tension in Lebanon.
Confidential report from Lebanese ambassador to the US
A Lebanese newspaper published a report on this matter, writing that Lebanese ambassador to the US, Nedi Hamadeh Mouawad, sent a brief report to the Lebanese Prime Minister and Foreign Ministry on the details of the Washington meeting, while he dedicated a detailed report containing additional information to the Presidential Palace.
According to informed sources, Mouawad conveyed a clear position from the Israeli ambassador that a ceasefire will not be achieved until a qualitative change occurs on the Iranian front, and has repeatedly emphasized that the course of the war in Lebanon is still linked to what is happening between Washington and Tehran.
Another proof of this is the US request to Tel Aviv to include Lebanon in the ceasefire by next Wednesday, which has revealed that the discussion is complicated within Israel. Conditions attributed to the Israeli army have also been leaked, including not restricting its freedom of movement throughout Lebanese territory during any ceasefire and rejecting any withdrawal from the south before Lebanon begins disarming Hezbollah, which indicates a practical orientation towards prolonging the war.
Berri: They returned from America to fight Hezbollah
Meanwhile, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berri, does not hide his displeasure and dissatisfaction with the actions of the president and prime minister and their involvement in direct negotiations with the Israeli enemy.
In one of his meetings with Lebanese officials, he reiterated his firm opposition to any direct negotiations with Israel, stressing that the priority must remain the ceasefire, consolidating internal peace and preventing deviations towards internal sedition.
He points out that this position is not new, but has been expressed many times, most recently in the statement of the Amal Movement’s presidency a few days ago, and also in the statement of the movement’s executive committee the day before.
Reacting to the statement issued after the Lebanese ambassador met with the enemy Israeli ambassador in Washington, Berri expressed surprise in an interview with Al-Akhbar at the path taken by the Lebanese authorities, saying that “they went to America to bring about a ceasefire, but they returned to fight Hezbollah!”
He added that withdrawing from participating in a negotiation process within the framework of a broader regional process and engaging in individual negotiations without holding any power cards would weaken Lebanon’s position rather than strengthen it.
In such circumstances, the resistance also expanded the scope of its operations and demonstrated a pattern in which it targets enemy deployment points and prevents the enemy from gaining a foothold at any point on the border.
Barry reminded Al-Akhbar that before announcing the ceasefire between Iran and the United States, he had received assurances from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi that Tehran would not accept a ceasefire that did not include Lebanon.
He added that “after the disruption that occurred in Beirut on this route, I decided to proceed through other channels.”
In this context, Barry noted that the sending of his political advisor, Representative Ali Hassan Khalil, to Riyadh was at the request of the Saudis and within the framework of clear political efforts, and that “he did not go there for recreation or to perform Umrah.”
avapress.net/vdchkznxi23nmxd.01t2.html
Top hits
