The head of the "Free Patriotic Movement," MP Gebran Basil, stated, "I do not understand how the commitment to dialogue for electing a president is considered a rejection of dialogue; every subject has its conditions and circumstances for success." He added, "If we say that we must agree through dialogue on the broad outlines of the term of office to elect a president and ensure the success of the term, are we being considered as rejecting dialogue or as committed to ensuring the success of the term?!"
He continued, "If we say that party leaders should be involved in the dialogue so that there is actual dialogue and not just talk, do we consider that a rejection of dialogue? If we say we want a neutral administration rather than presidency from a major party involved in the conflict to achieve balance and reach a consensus, do we consider that rejecting dialogue or securing its success?!"
Basil emphasized, "If we say dialogue should not just take the form of a traditional roundtable but rather create conditions for bilateral, trilateral, multilateral, and collective discussions to have a real opportunity for rescue instead of standard talk at a single table that will not decide the name of the president, does stating the truth and reality mean rejecting dialogue or reinforcing it?"
He reiterated, "We are in favor of serious dialogue that succeeds, and those who do not want dialogue are the ones rejecting conditions for its success."
